Iraheta, Alba
From: Jeff C
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 6:01 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Cc:
Gordo, Victor; Hampton, Tyron; Williams, Felicia; Kennedy, John J.; Masuda, Gene; Rivas, Jessica; Madison, Steve; Wilson, Andy
Subject:
2/28/22 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 1 (East Colorado Specific Plan) CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
My name is Jeff Cyrulewski, and I'm a Pasadena resident. I'd like to start off by complimenting staff for the work they've done in the East Colorado Specific Plan process. Their incorporating of paseos into the plan to break up large developments is a fantastic one, incorporating in stepbacks is a good idea, they have a number of suggestions for sidewalk improvements (especially in Mid-City) and ways to activate streets like Wilson and others that are really exciting. And considering they've done so much of this work during the pandemic, shifting on-the-fly to doing things virtually and collecting information in a completely different way than they planned - they've done an incredible job and deserve a ton of credit.
I do have a lot of concerns about the densities, FAR's, and heights throughout the plan, especially in the Gateway and Eastern Corridor areas, including definitely the area between Grand Oaks and Roosevelt where the height limit jumps considerably (to match what's being proposed on the west side of the Lamanda Park plan). (I'd like to see the densities and FAR's in the entire plan adjusted, and the heights adjusted so that they're closer to what exists in the corridor now.) My concerns are for a couple of reasons, partly because of what developers may get with a density bonus, but also because of what Colorado is like in the whole specific plan area (and beyond). I love how as you go east of South Lake, Colorado goes from a world of hustle and bustle to something simple, breathable, with a feeling of openness that doesn't exist in the more city-like areas of Pasadena. That all means something to the people who have chosen to make their lives there. I'm concerned (and I know I'm not the only one) that in a desire to create something new, that we're losing what makes this part of Pasadena unique in the first place. I think by honing the heights, densities and FAR's, we can account for any density bonuses, still incorporate change into the area, and still also embrace the past and present and help the area keep it's uniqueness.
Thank you,
Jeff Cyrulewski
1 02/28/2022
Item 1
Iraheta, Alba
From: Betsy Nathane
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 9:18 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: East Colorado Specific Plan item #1
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
East Colorado Specific Plan
Agenda Item #1 February 28, 2021
This project raises Urban Forestry issues that have concerned me for some time.
This Specific Plan, and all of the Specific Plans, need to go to UFAC for review before going to the Council for final adoption. What happens if UFAC, with its knowledge of Pasadena's public Urban Forest, does not agree with the proposals in the Plan? Why have a Specific Plan where the public Tree Guidelines may not be implemented when Street Trees are such a vital part, a good part, of the Draft Plan?
Private Trees and Private Development: This Specific Plan and all the others should include detailed provisions encouraging the inclusion and survival of private native Canopy Shade Trees including requiring room for roots such as Tree Wells and/or requiring room between underground parking and Property lines and watering systems.
Thank you,
Betsy Nathane
02/28/2022
Item 1
Iraheta, Alba
From: Nina Chomsky
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:00 AM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: City Council Meeting 2/28/2022; Agenda Item 1. East Colorado Specific Plan CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...
Nina Chomsky
Pasadena, CA
Re: City Council Meeting 2/28/2022; Agenda Item 1. East Colorado Specific Plan Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I am writing in my individual capacity in support generally of the proposed East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), but with the following comments.
It is not clear to me why all the Draft Specific Plan, including this one, are not being reviewed in advance of Council consideration by the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (UFAC) and, maybe, also the Design Commission, when each Plan, including the ECSP, includes detailed public and private realm proposals for improvements to the management and administration of the Urban Forest. The Council should not make any final decisions on adopting the ECSP until UFAC and also the Design Commission review and make recommendations on the Urban Forestry ECSP provisions.
The ECSP indicates that the Public Works Department will "maintain" the Street Trees covered by the ECSP. This assertion is misleading. While the ECSP includes a number of good improvements to the administration of Street Trees, it overlooks the most important aspect of maintenance: watering. After only a few years, all the Street Trees in the ECSP area and everywhere in the City are on their own and dependent on adjacent private property owners who are "obligated" to water them drought or no drought. Most private property owners, whether commercial or residential, ignore this through the Department of Public Works to water all the City's Street Trees regularly. obligation if they even know about it. The ECSP, and, in fact, all the updated Specific Plans, should obligate the City The ECSP includes various requirements that will improve both the public and private Urban Forest, including making the pedestrian experience much better. But, the Plan overlooks some additional improvements in connection with private development that would assist in encouraging Canopy Shade Trees in the private realm as part of private development. In addition to better parkways and improved conditions for Street Trees, and, in addition to wider sidewalks and deeper setbacks, the ECSP should include specific provisions requiring sufficient "space" in private developments for the growth and health of Canopy Shade Trees and their root systems, including Tree Wells and/or a required set back between underground parking structures and private property lines. The ECSP and all the others should NOT enable private development Landscape Plans to avoid the benefits of mature Canopy Shade Trees by enabling minimal landscaping in pots and raised planters that does not allow for adequate root growth and protection, and, in effect, blocks the growth and ultimate benefits of mature Canopy Shade Trees within private development.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Nina Chomsky
02/28/2022
Item 1
Mable Pastin RECEIVED
2022 FEB 28 AMIO: 37
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PASADENA
February 28, 2022
Pasadena City Council
c/o Mark Jomsky
City Clerk
100 North Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: Survey of Historic Resources/East Colorado Specific Plan Dear Mayor Gordo and City Council Members:
We have read the proposed East Colorado Specific Plan. We would like to express our support for the city-wide survey of historic resources, but we have serious concerns about the lack of substantial green spaces being required under the draft plan.
We fully support a city-wide survey of historic resources. We believe that this is a critical first step to take when considering planning throughout our city. Our historic properties are an important part of Pasadena and showcase our unique history. We urge the City Council to request this survey and to allocate any necessary funds.
We believe, however, that our historic resources should be identified before rezoning is historietend the Specie an are are red. A blanket rearing ill make are to pree., listoric resources once develc For example, historic Route 66 is in the area covered by the East Colorado Specific Plan. It is important that historically important buildings along this route are protected and are not overshadowed and dwarfed by new development. Future developments and planning should consider our historic resources first, not last. We think it would be helpful for the community to see an overlay of densities and heights, available open spaces and parks, along with the historic resources identified so that planning can be made with a full picture of all elements in place.
Zoning is where we can shape the way Pasadena grows. It is also where we can further develop what is so special and unique about Pasadena - historic buildings, trees, and open spaces.
Our city should be examined as a whole, with the historic resources identified, so that the new development can be weaved into our historic fabric. This is what makes a vibrant, interesting city.
We need to ask ourselves - what do we want Pasadena to look like in 50 years? While we applaud the increase in the open space requirement per unit and the focus on the quality of life for residents living in the housing developments, we are disappointed that the city is taking such a limited view for the green spaces required in the East Colorado Specific Plan. First, the trees specified for those open spaces are not required to be in-ground plantings. As a result, we will see more trees in pots like we have seen with many of our new developments. This is a lost 02/28/2022
Item 1
unble Parading
opportunity. The city should be requiring in ground, shade providing trees with adequate space for their roots so the trees can grow and mature. Our urban canopy is being taken from us, and it is important that we preserve, protect, and actively build back what we have lost. Tiny trees in planters can be a nice addition to a garden, but they won't provide the type of shade canopy that improves quality of life. Small, boxed trees will not decrease the heat index or provide shade for people to gather under.
Secondly, we need to do more to evaluate where parks can be created and how far residents will have to walk to be able to enjoy green open spaces. We ask the City Council to request a park map in conjunction with these higher density buildings. We believe a park be must be considered for the area to ensure that kids and their families can easily access a place to kick a ball and sit under a tree. Does the city own any properties within the area that can be considered for a new park? Parks provide space for the community to gather and for kids to have space to run and play.
We believe that everyone should have ready access to trees and to open space. We shouldn't have to go and stand by the street edge to have a shady spot to rest. The proposed green space/tree requirement here falls far short of what Pasadena deserves.
Thank you,
Megan Foker,
On behalf of Livable Pasadena
CARNEGIE RECEIVED Benjamin J. Aderson
General Counsel, Carnegie Institution for Science
202.939.1118
SCIEN S022FEB 28 AMI1: 54 [email protected]
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PASADENA
February 28, 2022
Mayor Gordo and Members of the Pasadena City Council
Pasadena City Hall
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: Item #1 on the February 28, 2022 Agenda
Dear Mayor Gordo and Council Members,
Carnegie Institution for Science has been part of Pasadena's rich history for more than 100 years. With the future in mind, we are working to expand Carnegie Science's research activities beyond our current location on Santa Barbara Street and have worked with City staff to consider opportunities. As part of that effort, we have tracked the City's work to prepare specific plans and updated zoning. We support the staff recommendation to approve the East Colorado Specific Plan and encourage the city to advance efforts which provide growth for scientific research. Specific allowances that provide flexibility for research and laboratory space will be helpful.
Sincerely,
Berjamin д. toleran
Benjamin J. Aderson
5241 Broad Branch Road, NW | Washington, DC 20015 | 202.387.6400 02/28/2022
Item 1
ERIKA FOY RECEIVED
PROTECTING PASADENA
2022 FEB 28 PM 1: 44
February 28, 2022 CITY CLERK
CITY OF PASADENA
Pasadena City Council
% Mark Jomsky
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: East Colorado Specific Plan
The citizens of Pasadena should be alarmed by the city's current plans for development as outlined in the East Colorado Specific Plan. This plan is designed well beyond city infrastructure capacities, does not enhance or encourage a small-town feel, is not of an appropriate scale for the neighborhood, and will have a devastating cumulative impact on traffic in adjacent neighborhoods. Adding insult to injury, the plan intends to add an incredible amount of mixed-use development, creating a massive burden on our already limited city streets, parks, and resources (including police and fire).
I am personally shocked to see that the entirety of Colorado Blvd. within the plan has been zoned as mixed-use from Wilson to Roosevelt (Map 4.2-1). The intersection of E.
Walnut St. and N. Hudson Ave. is a perfect example of the effects of this type of zoning:
streets are uncomfortable to walk along, with massive empty storefronts and dense housing built on top. These buildings have zero setback, leaving no room for green plantings or extra in- ground trees. (This issue alone defies logic because any additional vegetation would help with lowering our very concerning place on the urban heat island index.) This area of Walnut feels like an urban concrete jungle-something Pasadena was never meant to be. To think you want to continue this approach along historic Route 66 is confounding and heartbreaking.
Additionally, we have many historic resources along Route 66 which are not mapped out on the ECSP document. I would think the council would want to see exactly where these properties sit within the plan before rezoning a large portion of the route. Creating a massive street of mixed-use buildings within the context of historic resources might result in a very disjointed looking area where tall buildings sit next to small, historic ones. Is it possible there are enough potential historic resources that we should look at landmarking significant blocks? I suspect residents will have strong opinions regarding an onslaught of these massive buildings looming over historic motor motels and commercial buildings.
02/28/2022
Item 1
Overall, the buildings in the ECSP are too tall, too dense, and lacking the proper setbacks that make a neighborhood feel inviting. All of these flaws will only be compounded once developers take advantage of density bonuses, adding even more units and height to proposed developments, likely resulting in blocked mountain views for residents just south of Colorado Blvd and lowered real estate values. What I find most troubling though is the lack of walkable and accessible park space in the area. How many families will go without easy access to have grass under their feet or a beautiful shade tree to sit under when we have hot summer days? I find it hard to believe we have a plan for massive housing without an accessible park map to guide this council in creating a healthy and gracious living for all. I would be grateful if the council could ask the following questions-
1) How many units in total (including density bonus) will be available to be built? 2) Will the park fees from these units be used to develop a park within the area so new residents can walk to open space?
3) Does the city own property within the area that could potentially be used for open space?
In light of all we are learning now about the risks of high-density living, long-term exposure to poor air quality, and the relationship between building to the urban edge and the urban heat island index, I believe the citizens of Pasadena should be alarmed by the city's current plans for development without a plan to create more open space and insist on in-ground tree plantings in what little open space is being required. I urge everyone to take the time to ask hard questions about the true risks and benefits of the high-growth, pro-housing model the city has put in place with the East Colorado Specific Plan without looking at the entire "livable" picture of what residents need for healthy living.
Thank you,
Erika Foy
Where is the accessible green space for children who will be future residents of these units? There is a tremendous gap in the area poised to have some of the highest densities in the city. We need to take this time to plan for green space in conjunction with density so we don't end up with kids playing only in courtyards or not playing at all.
Coffee Roasters Y Locust St
's Jack in the Box
W:Historic: Rte: 66-
Tennis Courts E Green St
@ Grant Park Ave
Community resource
for sports & play Eaton Blanche Par
areas & picnic spots
Millicent Way
5 Santa Anita Oneida St Oneida St
onte Vistal
CVS Plumosa Dr Oneida Dr
ove Homes
San Pasqual St San Pasqual St
en San Pasqual San Pasqual St
Homet Rd Homet Rd
E California Bivd
Lombardy Rd
_M.
RECEIVED
2022 FEB 28 PM 1: 44
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PASADENA
February 28, 2022
Pasadena City Council
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: East Colorado Specific Plan
Protect Pasadena Trees is an organization which works to maintain and encourage a healthy tree canopy within Pasadena boundaries. It is imperative we ensure that the city we pass down to our children isn't made of just parking lots and concrete developments as we grow to provide more housing. The DRAFT East Colorado Specific Plan is very concerning to our organization because there are areas within the plan where setbacks are set at zero to three feet along Colorado Blvd. which does not allow for in-ground tree planting anywhere around the periphery of the development.
Our new specific plan must adopt more stringent policies on tree planting and protection both on public and private property, including the following
- We should not allow subterranean garages from going lot line to lot line, destroying all trees on the property;
We must require planting of large trees between building lot lines to create an urban canopy within dense urban areas;
- Street setbacks in Map 6.1-4 need to be changed to encourage the integration of trees into new development plans and the city must show demonstrated effort in encouraging the developer to design with trees in mind. It is concerning areas adjacent to single family homes south of Colorado would be directly abutting such drastic concrete canyons of developments.
It is up to city staff and council to protect us from development that contradicts this fundamental imperative. While our city does have some tree ideals in place, it is clear they are not enough and especially in the East Colorado Specific Plan. The city needs to take a stronger stance on creating the ideal of having mature trees in our urban center. We must create a city that has strong urban forestry efforts with dense vegetation and a beautiful urban canopy. We need to ban together and insist on stronger and more stringent views towards our urban canopy. 02/28/2022
Item 1
Aside from diminishing the beauty of the city's streetscape by requiring zero setbacks, maintaining mature trees has the practical effect of reducing the heat island effect, which occurs in cities with an excess of concrete and a shortage of vegetation. Many communities are now taking steps to reduce urban heat islands through policy initiatives which include stronger tree and landscape ordinances, comprehensive plans and design guidelines protecting trees, and zoning codes which provide enough perimeter around new buildings to plant trees in order to create canopies. If we don't follow suit, we are putting at risk the trees that provide the evaporative cooling needed to keep our urban heat island index low. We have all experienced the high temperature and pollution of those hot summer days in our city, and the removal of trees has been a major contributor. The current solution adopted by developers, potted plants on concrete, will never provide protection from growing urban heat islands the way a mature canopy of trees will.
Pasadena has been purposefully developing a tree canopy since 1855, when trees were first planted along city streets. Since the city is in the midst of revising all of the Specific Plans, we as citizens need to question this policy of urban edge development as it relates to our tree canopy. We have an opportunity to voice our concerns and shape the guidelines that will affect our city for decades. All future big development coming to our city must take our tree canopy into consideration. It is the city's duty to protect its current residents from development that might hinder the livability of our city which includes a healthy environment.
Thank you,
Frances Morrison on behalf of Protect Pasadena Trees
Jomsky, Mark
From: Jeanette Mann
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 12:51 PM
To: Jomsky, Mark
Cc: Gordo, Victor; Williams, Felicia; jkennedy@cityof pasadena.net; [email protected]; Rivas, Jose; Madison, Steve; Hampton, Tyron; Wilson, Andy
Subject:
Survey of Historic Resources/East Colorado Specific Plan CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear Mayor Gordo and City Council Members:
I am writing in support of the request from Liveable Pasadena that you delay approving the East Colorado Specific plan until the issues raised about the preservation of historical resources and the availability of parks are adequately addressed.
Jeanette Mann
1 02/28/2022
Item 1
Iraheta, Alba
From: Gary Bond <
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 2:06 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: Support item#1 Central District Specific Plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more... ‹https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
We the residents Greenwood Village H OA. Hold hardly support this measure. This will impact 13 Units. Who live right behind the vacant property that use to be Cameron seafood. Any kind of drive-thru restaurant will make, especially impact Greenwood & Berkeley. Streets.they're heavenly congested. Both streets are narrow. Parking is a problem now!! Please consider this item. Thank you. Gary Bond President, GWVHOA.
Sent from my iPhone
02/28/2022
1 Item 1
Iraheta, Alba
From: Frances Morrison
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:58 PM
To: Jomsky, Mark; PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: East Colorado Specific Plan
Attachments: Protect Pasadena Trees East Colorado Plan.pdf CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more... .https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Mr Jomsky,
Please consider changing the East Colorado specific plan to include more requirements for in-ground trees and permeable ground around them. We need to stop the precedent of large developments with no trees, or else the face of Pasadena will continue to change for the worse permanently. Please consider the attached letter from Protect Pasadena Thank you,
Frances Morrison
02/28/2022
Item 1
1 PROTECT
PASADENA
TREES
...
February 28, 2022
Pasadena City Council
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: East Colorado Specific Plan
Protect Pasadena Trees is an organization which works to maintain and encourage a healthy tree canopy within Pasadena boundaries. It is imperative we ensure that the city we pass down to our children isn't made of just parking lots and concrete developments as we grow to provide more housing. The DRAPT East Colorado Specific Plan is very concerning to our organization because there are areas within the plan where setbacks are set at zero to three feet along Colorado Blvd. which does not allow for in-ground tree planting anywhere around the periphery of the development.
Our new specific plan must adopt more stringent policies on tree planting and protection both on public and private property, including the following:
• We should not allow subterranean garages from going lot line to lot line, destroying all trees on the property;
We must require planting of large trees between building lot lines to create an urban canopy within dense urban areas;
- Street setbacks in Map 6.1-4 need to be changed to encourage the integration of trees into new development plans and the city must show demonstrated effort in encouraging the developer to design with trees in mind. It is concerning areas adjacent to single family homes south of Colorado would be directly abutting such drastic concrete canyons of developments.
It is up to city staff and council to protect us from development that contradicts this fundamental imperative. While our city does have some tree ideals in place, it is clear they are not enough and especially in the East Colorado Specific Plan. The city needs to take a stronger stance on creating the ideal of having mature trees in our urban center. We must create a city that has strong urban forestry efforts with dense vegetation and a beautiful urban canopy. We need to band together and insist on stronger and more stringent views towards our urban canopy.
Aside from diminishing the beauty of the city's streetscape by requiring zero setbacks, maintaining mature trees has the practical effect of reducing the heat island effect, which occurs in cities with an excess of concrete and a shortage of vegetation. Many communities are now taking steps to reduce urban heat islands through policy initiatives which include stronger tree and landscape ordinances, comprehensive plans and design guidelines protecting trees, and zoning codes which provide enough perimeter around new buildings to plant trees in order to create canopies. In New York City, developments require a sidewalk tree every 25 feet. If we don't follow suit, we are putting at risk the trees that provide the evaporative cooling needed to keep our urban heat island index low. We have all experienced the high temperature and pollution of those hot summer days in our city, and the removal of trees has been a major contributor. The current solution adopted by developers, potted plants on concrete, will never provide protection from growing urban heat islands the way a mature canopy of trees will.
Pasadena has been purposefully developing a tree canopy since 1855, when trees were first planted along city streets. Since the city is in the midst of revising all of the Specific Plans, we as citizens need to question this policy of urban edge development as it relates to our tree canopy. We have an opportunity to voice our concerns and shape the guidelines that will affect our city for decades. All future big development coming to our city must take our tree canopy into consideration. It is the city's duty to protect its current residents from development that might hinder the livability of our city which includes a healthy environment.
Thank you,
James Morin
Frances Morrison on behalf of Protect Pasadena Trees
Iraheta, Alba
From: cityclerk
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:33 PM
To: Flores, Valerie; Iraheta, Alba; Jomsky, Mark; Martinez, Ruben; Novelo, Lilia; Reese, Latasha; Robles, Sandra
Subject: FW: East Colorado Specific Plan
From: Chuck Livingstone •
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:32:59 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: cityclerk < [email protected]>; Wilson, Andy <[email protected]>; Erika Foy <[email protected]>; Megan Foker <[email protected]> Subject: Re: East Colorado Specific Plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Mark Jomsky
I just came to know that the meeting is at 4:00PM today. My apologies for being late in my response to the revised specific plan for East Colorado.
As a past President of Madison Heights Neighborhood Association, I am aware of the increased traffic concerns/issues relative to increased development.
Also, I am past President of Pasadena Beautiful Foundation and am fully aware of the significance of a healthy tree population in our environment, not only our parks and recreation areas, but private trees as well.
Another issue not mentioned in the Specific Plan revision, what about water. With increase building, population we should be aware of our future water reserved and have enough for our own current population but for the future consideration as well. I think about the number of increase toilets, dishwashers, and washing machines affecting our water table. We are in a climate change and we need to more cognizant of our water issues and our tree population.
Also, can we consider the front lawn area of PCC to become part of a park area to accommodate the incoming residents?
Chuck Livingstone
02/28/2022
1 Item 1
Iraheta, Alba
From: Amer Hanna
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:34 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse
Subject: East Colorado specific plan.
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more..<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Mayor Gordo, Vice Mayor Wilson, and all respectful Council Members, In regard to the new Colorado Blvd. specific plan, there should definitely not be any more drive-through restaurants on Colorado Blvd.
The new proposed plan should either eliminate the right for drive-through restaurant, or at least increase the distance between existing regulations for drive-through restaurants on Colorado to 1,000 feet instead of 500 feet.
Allowing a drive-through restaurant on Colorado Blvd. between Parkwood and Grand Oaks would open the door for the In-N-out company, which is eagerly and constantly seeking to open another restaurant on Colorado.
Having another In-N-out on Colorado will not solve the problem of the existing In-N-Out on Foothill.
Pasadena will have another problem to solve instead of one. People are willing to drive 10 miles to go to In-N-Out.
Pasadena will have traffic Jam on Colorado adjacent to residential streets like the Foothill Blvd traffic jam because of In- N Out if not worse. It is time to learn from the problem Pasadena, as well as other cities like South Pasadena, Rosemead, Arcadia, and Glendale suffer from the jam In-N-Out creates. In-N-Out will force other businesses to close down. Take a look at the traffic problem Chick-fil-A created on Bonnie and Colorado by the college. 1 encourage you to vote against it. I think more studies need to be done.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my comments.
Best Regards,
Amer Hanna
02/28/2022
Item 1
February 28, 2022 RECEIVED
2022 FEB 28 PM 4: 35
Pasadena City Council
CITY CLERK
c/o Mark Jomsky CITY OF ROADENA
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Ave
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: East Colorado Specific Plan & Survey of Historic Resources Dear Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of requests by Erika Foy; Livable Pasadena; Jeff Cyrulewski; Jeannette Mann; and Pasadena Heritage on issues regarding the proposed excessive mixed-use development and zoning, high-risk densities, FARs and heights throughout the plan, risk to vulnerable historic buildings and resources (and a sensible call for landmark district significant blocks), and therefore delay approving the ECSP until these issues can be addressed.
I have lived in NE Pasadena for 43 years. I am alarmed and sickened by the building on Walnut and the Central District and don't want to see a continuation in NE Pasadena. I am especially concerned about the proposal for more mixed-use development when there are already so many vacancies in commercial and residential buildings throughout Pasadena.
I ask that the City Council listen to what I am sure would be the majority of residents' opinions on these proposals for EPSP and reconsider approving this measure.
Thank you
Lee Allen
02/28/2022
Item 1