San Gabriel planning commission approves 80‑unit Olsson condominium project with four very‑low‑income for‑sale homes

The San Gabriel Planning Commission approved a tentative tract map and density‑bonus package for an 80‑unit condominium development at 824 South Glattis Avenue on Monday, May 11.

City staff recommended and the commission adopted a resolution approving planning case T‑MAP 25‑00005, which allows the consolidation and subdivision necessary to sell individual condominium units and implements a density bonus under state housing law. The project applicant is listed in the record as Olsson Urban Housing LLC. The commission approved the measure with the four present members in favor and one commissioner opposed; Commissioner Tang was absent.

Developer Brian G., identified as a vice president with Olsson, said the company would deliver a gated, primarily three‑story townhome community and that the proposal uses state density‑bonus provisions to add five bonus units over the site’s base capacity. "We're proposing 80 homes using the state density bonus law," he said, and described four units designated as very‑low‑income ownership homes with an expected sales price "probably around $20,000." He said those very‑low‑income units are one‑bedroom ownership units integrated into the buildings rather than being segregated.

The applicant requested a set of waivers and one financial concession tied to the density bonus. According to the presentation, the requests include a 3‑foot height increase above the 35‑foot limit, reduced front setbacks in places to about 6.5 feet, side yards down to 7 feet and rear yards to 8 feet, a reduced building‑to‑building separation to about 11 feet 8 inches, smaller minimum unit sizes for the affordable one‑bedroom units (reduced in the application from 880 square feet to about 491 square feet), a lower open‑space calculation, and flexibility on some garage dimensions. The concession described by the applicant would allow existing Edison distribution facilities to remain in place while new on‑site distribution and services would be undergrounded.

Commissioners pressed the team on several points. Several members questioned whether one‑bedroom very‑low‑income ownership units of the proposed size would meet local needs. "I do wonder that the difference in scale is quite different," Commissioner Sean said, asking whether some affordable units could be two bedrooms to serve families. John Rickston of the Olsson team responded that producing for‑sale very‑low‑income units is rare and that the financial structure makes larger affordable for‑sale units difficult to provide at the proposed sales price; he added that the developer intentionally integrated affordable units into market‑rate buildings and placed them at interior corners to reduce apparent differences in scale.

On parking, the applicant said the city municipal code would require 187 spaces for a development of this type, while state density‑bonus minimums could allow as few as 123; the project proposes 165 spaces. The project team also presented a traffic study and said the study found no signal warrant and no change in level of service that would require a traffic signal.

Staff reported two written public comments submitted in advance: one from a resident identified by initials (SM) opposing the project and a letter from the California Housing Defense Fund in support. During deliberations, the applicant agreed to additional outreach to neighboring Mission Walk residents and to discuss in good faith with staff whether HOME or CDBG funds could be available to alter affordability or unit mix.

The motion to approve the tentative tract map and associated resolutions carried with a recorded negative vote by Commissioner Lee; the record shows the remaining voting members approved the project. The resolution and conditions approved by the commission remain the official action; the applicant and staff indicated they will conduct additional outreach as pledged on the record.