10/24/2022
Item 16
because "giving" the developer all the benefits of a Planned Development should require community benefits such as this one: Canopy Shade Trees as a significant Landscape feature planted in the ground through Tree Wells and other methods, and not in pots and planters.
3 EIR Certification: The Project Description is Inadequate.
The EIR Project Description includes two alternative development scenarios for Building A. This "choice" of different development scenarios is explained in the Draft EIR as providing flexibility to exchange uses in Building A to enable the Project to respond to economic needs and demands at the time of Project implementation.
Applicable CEQA law requires an unambiguous, accurate, stable and "finite" Project Description. The EIR is legally Inadequate because it includes a Project Description that is neither stable nor finite, and, in fact, is ambiguous. The Project Description enables a choice of different development "scenarios" for a major portion of the Project, Building A. The choice is referred to in the EIR as the "flexibility" to exchange the uses in Building A from medical office and ground floor commercial to 197 Dwelling Units, a small amount of commercial, and up to 650 new subterranean parking spaces.
The EIR indicates that this flexibility: "would enable the Project to respond to the economic needs and demands of the City at the time of Project implementation." See page 2-6 of the Draft EIR. This is a classic "slippery slope" approach to a "finite" Project Description, and clearly violates CEQA, It is not even clear who or what is determining such economic needs and demands of the City as opposed to the economic needs and demands of the Project applicant in order to maximize profits. Further, the argument that the on-site Project is the same whether one Project scenario or another is selected fails because the housing flexible use will result (1) in a very large increase in underground parking for the Project, and, (2) the housing use is more likely than not to trigger the State Density Bonus Law thus significantly increasing height and mass, thereby leading to an entirely different Project which the EIR does not fully disclose to the public.
A leading CEQA case law opinion in this area is Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v.
City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-20 [251 Cal.Rptr.Sd 296, 307-310, 39 Cal.App.Sth 1, 16-20], As stated by the court in its opinion:
The requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description as the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR has been reiterated in a number of cases s/nce County of Inyo. (See, e.g., Treasure Island, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1052, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ["This court is among the many which have recognized that
a project description that gives conflicting signals to decision makers and the public about the nature and scope of the project is fundamentally inadequate and misleading"]; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010)184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85-89, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 478 [EIR failed as an informal document because the project description was inconsistent and obscure as to the true purpose and scope of the project]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced {2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 653, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 [an EIR^i^^iclude detailsufficient to enable those who did not participate in its prepark'aSrrt6 understand and to consider issues raised by the proposed project].)
The Project EIR cannot be Certified so long as the Project Description is legally inadequate because it is not accurate, stable, and finite. The developer should be required to choose the Building A use NOW, prior to entitlement approval and EIR Certification.
4. Variance For Historic Resources.
The Project proposes construction of two new buildings with maximum building heights that range from 93 feet 6 inches (Building A) to 90 feet 6 inches (Building B), when measured to the top of the parapet. These building heights are proposed in excess of applicable maximums (50' and 65' with height averaging) for the purpose of accommodating onsite "historic resources". The Staff Report indicates that the additional height would allow the Project to reestablish developable floor area, from one area of the site to another, while preserving the existing historic resources.
Planning Commission/Citv Council Jurisdiction. A basic question: did the Planning Commission have jurisdiction to recommend granting of an Historic Resources Variance, and does the Council now have jurisdiction to grant the Variance? The controlling Zoning Code provision, which is Zoning Code Section 17.61.080.H.3 (Variances - Variances for Historic Resources - Findings and decision), provides that the Hearing Officer shall be the applicable review authority for Variances for Historic Resources. How can the Council decide on the Variance without prior action by the Hearing Officer?
Proposed Condition of Approval No. 12, The applicable Zoning Code Section providing for a Variance for Historic Resources referred to above provides: The Variance . . . only applies if the property has a historic designation or is required, as a condition of approval of the Variance, to submit an application for historic designation prior to completion of the proposed project or establishment of the proposed use.
Project proposed Condition of Approval No. 12 provides: The applicant or successor in interest shall submit an application to designate 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway as Landmarks. Landmark Designation shall be required prior to issuance of any building or grading permits (emphasis added).
It should be obvious: the two "historic resources" on the Project site, 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway, are considered currently as "Eligible" resources, but actual designation is significantly deferred until well after Project approvals are, possibly, obtained - a major policy and arguably CEQA issue. Further, apparently, and as stated in the Staff Report, both of these buildings are Eligible for local listing as opposed to listing on the California or National Register. Eligibility is only one step, a beginning step, on the road to actual listing such that the Variance is available, and, in fact, at this point, neither of these buildings currently is a qualifying designated resource.
It is not obvious that both buildings easily will achieve local listing as Landmarks or otherwise. Probably, the building at 523 South Arroyo Parkway, the former Lewis Iron Building designed by Marston and Van Pelt, which has support in the community, will be able to achieve local listing status. As to the building at 501 South Arroyo Parkway, its fate is not so clear, particularly since preserving this building in the name of historic preservation appears primarily for the purpose of "transferring" enormous height entitlements to the proposed new Project buildings - see discussion below on proposed heights. Approving the Variance for the building at 501 South Arroyo Parkway involves balancing competing policy and entitlement perspectives, and the Commission should consider denying the Variance for the building at 501 South Arroyo Parkway in order to reduce the height or heights of the new proposed buildings.
Required Findings for Variance. It is not clear that the Commission can make required Findings 2, 3, 4 and 5 for approval of the Variance. Approval of the Variance for both buildings, in fact, will result in two new Project buildings of enormous height that will adversely impact adjacent neighborhoods, and, granting the Variance as to both buildings will NOT be in conformance with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and the purpose and intent of the Central District Specific Plan. See. below. And, it is not clear if the Variance is consistent with the purposed and intent of the Planned Development Zoning scheme.
5 CEQA Certification: Variance for Historic Resources.
Deferral of approval of the required listing of 501 and 523 South Arroyo Parkway until significantly after final approval of the PD and related Entitlements violates CEQA.
Such deferral constitutes impermissible deferred Mitigation as well as impermissible
deferred analysis. The EIR cannot be Certified unless and until both buildings in question are listed, and any other procedure renders the EIR legally Inadequate.
Improper Alternatives Analysis. The EIR is legally Inadequate in that the Alternatives analysis fails to consider and analyze an Alternative in which the building at 523 South Arroyo Parkway, the Lewis Iron Building, is the sole historic resource subject to the granting of the Variance and excluding consideration of the 501 South Arroyo Parkway building.
.6. ^LR Certification: The EIR Analysis of Project Water Supply is Inadeauate.
The EIR analysis of Project Water Supply is inadequate even though the EIR is fairly recent. New information and changed circumstances both render the analysis out-of- date, incomplete, illogical, and misleading to the public. Since preparation and circulation of the EIR, California's drought emergency has significantly worsened over the last several months and on a day-by-day basis, and is now unprecedented, leading, in part, to Pasadena taking steps to address the situation as of September 1, 2022, including mandating one-day a week outdoor watering and mandating additional water conservation measures. As a result, the EIR and all supporting studies and documents, such as the state Water Supply Assessment (WSA), must be updated to meet the present, current situation, and the EIR Supplemented including circulation of all supplemental EIR Project water supply documentation and analysis. Matters which should inform the updated analysis include, but are not limited to, the precise current drought conditions including MWD Colorado River impacts and mitigations that should be imposed considering significant Pasadena and Project water supply impacts, the Cumulative impacts of concurrent large development projects in Pasadena, and appropriate Project Alternatives given the water supply situation.
The current EIR Project water supply analysis, which we believe must be updated, is quoted, and summarized below. Note the following definitions: Adopted 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Pasadena, and State required WSA:
water supply assessment (WSA)
Project CEQA Initial Study dated August, 2021; Page 2-60:
"The Project would increase demand for potable water. The PWP has concluded the Project does not meet the thresholds to require a Water Supply Assessment pursuant to SB 610 (Sections 10910 et. seq. of the California Water Code) (Dion 2020). However, potential impacts related to the sufficiency of water supplies for the Project will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR." Note: a WSA was prepared for the Draft EIR.
Project Water Supply: Draft EIR. Dated January 2022: Paqe 3.11 etseq.
Threshold 3.11b: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
"Project Water Supply Sufficiency
As stated previously, the 2020 UWMP aligns with Pasadena's population and land use and is consistent with SCAG population and employment projections; and thereby includes potential water demands that would be generated by land use changes and new commercial and residential developments like the Project. Additionally, PWP staff reviewed the WSA for the Project and concluded that the WSA meets the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 and concurs that PWP would have sufficient water supplies to meet existing demands combined with the Project's estimated demands of 76 afy and cumulative demands anticipated in the 2020 UWMP(PWP 2022). Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. There would be a less than significant impact related to water supplies, and no mitigation is required (emphasis added)."
Project Water Supply: Final EIR dated May, 2022; Page 21 . "Response 105.2. As discussed, beginning on page 3.11-1 of the Draft EIR, a water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Project. As stated on page 3.11-1:
"It is noted that the Project and Project with Building A Residential/Commercial do not qualify as a "project" under Senate Bill (SB) 610, which requires preparation ofaWSA (Section 10912[a] of the Water Code). Nonetheless, based on comments received on the Notice of Preparation of this Draft EIR and given that all of California's 58 counties are under a drought emergency proclamation as of the preparation of this EIR (California 2021), a WSA was prepared for the Project and Project with Building A Residential/CommerciaI to inform the environmental analysis." (Emphasis added.)
The results of the WSA were summarized in Section 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR and provided as Appendix I. As discussed on page 3.11-23:
Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
There would be a less than significant impact related to water supplies..." (Emphasis added.) Note: This is one typical Final EIR Response to Water Comments.
7. Required Findinas for PD and Related Entitlements.
All required Findings for approval of the PD and related Entitlements cannot be made, particularly the following proposed Findings: 1,2,4 and 5. Proposed Approvals 2, 3 and 4 should not be adopted by the City Council.
This proposed PD is enormous including two massive new buildings proposed at 90 plus feet in height, almost double what would be permitted in the usual course - even for a PD. In fact, this proposed Project is out of scale, out of character, adversely impacts adjacent neighborhoods, is detrimental to the public interest and general welfare of the City and does not conform to the General Plan or the Central District Specific Plan. This proposed commercial Project overwhelms not only its surroundings, but also the vision and intent, goals and objectives of all applicable Planning documents and regulations.
In considering whether or not all the required Findings for the PD and related Entitlements can be made, the Commission should also consider the following Design Commission Preliminary Consultation comment made to the applicant and attached to the Staff Report: The proposed buildings are substantially higher than existing surrounding development and also exceed the height limit for new development along Arroyo Parkway.
8. CEQA Certification: Land Use and Planning. The proposed Project, a massive PD, is not adequately analyzed in the EIR in terms of project-specific Land Use and Planning significant impacts, and, in terms of cumulative impacts. This proposed PD is inconsistent with applicable land use plans. CEQA Guidelines section 15125, subdivision (d) requires an EIR to disclose any inconsistencies between a project and applicable land use plans. On this basis alone, the Commission should not Certify the EIR.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns.
Sincerely,
Linda Vista-Annandale Association
/'&/ NUu^CKcmt&ky
Nina Chomsky, President
ec: LVAA Board of Directors
pasadena
Senior.
center
y
2022 OCT 24 PK 1:42
Board of Directors
President
David G. Covell, Jr.
Vice President
Lynn Mehl, Ph.D.
Secretary
Loretta Mockler
Treasurer
Stephen Ralph
Board Members
Renee D. Benjamin, Esq.
Martha M. Denzel
Sandra Burton Greenstein
Angela Hawekotte, Esq.
Angie O'Brien
Lucy W. Pliskin, Esq.
Linda Polwrek
Theresa M. Pranata, Esq.
Abel Ramirez
Dma Shrivastava
Rande S. Sotomayor, Esq.
Kris Stevens, Ph.D.
Carol Thomson
Maureen Tyra, MSW
Executive Director
Akila Gibbs
Advisory Council
Becky Thyne, Esq., Chair
William Bogaard
Gene A. Buchanan
Katherine Enney, Ph.D.
Margie Gregg Grossman
Alice S. Huang, Ph. D.
Laura Mosqueda, M.D.
October 24, 2022
Jason Van Patten
Senior Planner
Planning & Community Development
City of Pasadena
Dear Jason,
I am the Executive Director of the Pasadena Senior Center. I am writing in support of the Affinity Project at 465-577 S. Arroyo Parkway.
Pasadena has a large population of older adults who are living alone and want/need to transition to assisted living and memory care facilities.
Many are on a waiting list that includes 80 people in waiting. Many wait so long they are forced to move out of area, even when they love living in Pasadena.
The Affinity Project will offer much needed senior housing and memory care. The project will be located in the middle of the town near family, friends, health care and public transportation, making it very convenient.
I truly believe the Affinity Project will have a significant impact on the quality of life for older adults and their families, which is why I support the project.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (626) 685- 6703.
Sincerely,
Akila Gibbs
Executive Director
85 EAST HOI-]^- STREET PASABRNA, CA i)1103
rsONi-ROh rr i.n. tt95-2085393
s'wis'.pasadenase iitorrenlcr.org
phww: (636) 795-433)
fax: (6..6) 577-.1235
10/24/2022
Item 16
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Diane Smith
Monday, October 24, 2022 2:53 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Gordo, Victor; Wilson, Andy; Hampton, Tyron; Jones, Jason; Williams, Felicia; Rivas, Jessica; Masuda, Gene; Madison, Steve; Jomsky, Mark
Support for Affinity Project - PD#39 on Arroyo Parkway
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromi. Learn why this is important 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 Pasadena City Council Members,
The Affinity Project is a perfect example of the kind of development we need in Pasadena. It meets two critical needs.
This project will provide much-needed housing while also supporting the growing healthcare industry in our city.
We're all very aware of the housing shortage, however, we don't often hear about the need for new housing for seniors.
The Affinity's mixed-use development will provide both assisted and independent housing options for seniors. That will allow Pasadena's older residents to stay in the neighborhood and maintain relationships with local friends and family.
Another component of the project is a state-of-the-art medical building in the growing medical and technology corridor near Huntington Memorial Hospital. It's critical that we have the infrastructure in place to support this industry and that is exactly what Affinity's new medical office facility will provide. Class A medical office space will help attract top physicians and researchers to the Huntington Hospital Corridor.
The Affinity Project is an ideal combination of housing and medical space. Seniors can retire and remain in the community, and have close access to healthcare professionals. That means that seniors can maintain their relationships with doctors and other service providers.
I think this project will be a welcome addition to the area and I strongly encourage your support.
Sincerely,
Diane Smith
110/24/2022
Item 16
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Denise Quan
Monday, October 24, 2022 4:54 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Wilson, Andy
Affinity Project (Planned Development #39)
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] , Learn why this is
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>.
Dear Honorable Mayor Gordo and the Pasadena City Council:
As a resident of Madison Heights, which is adjacent to the proposed Affinity Project (Planned Development #39), I hope that you will consider these important points while reviewing this project:
1. TREES: The developer should be required to plant trees in the ground with sufficient root space for full maturity, rather than in raised planters on the ground level. This can even be done over parking garages, by eliminating just a couple of spaces. Despite their claims, planting in the ground will vastly reduce required water use over time, while helping ensure greater size and success for the trees. Both are very important considerations to our city.
2. HEIGHT: The height of the new buildings should be below 75' where they front Arroyo Parkway and California Blvd, and then step up. We do not want the southern entrance to our city to become a stark, uninviting canyon — particularly so close to residential neighborhoods and several Landmark Districts (including the soon-to-be-finalized Madison Heights Landmark District).
3. SIDEWALKS: For all the new construction in this development, sidewalks should be 15 feet, plus 0-3' setbacks. This is consistent with the updated Specific Plan that will likely soon be approved for this area, and it will make the area safer and much more pedestrian-friendly. This is especially important as we add so much new housing and office space in this area, while trying to encourage multi-modal transportation.
4. NO HISTORIC RESOURCES VARIANCE: This project should not be granted an additional height Variance for Historic Resources. That law was not intended for this sort of project. This variance cannot be used if a hardship is of the developer's own making, yet that is exactly what this developer did, by choosing to classify it as a "Planned Development" project.
5. CITY HAS WIDE LEEWAY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS: Because this is being proposed as a Planned Development, the City has wide leeway to impose conditions of approval as seen fit. All of these requirements can — and should — be made.
Thankyou very much.
Denise Quan
Pasadena, CA 91106
1 10/24/2022
Item 16
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
•> Andi Ceragioli <
Monday, October 24, 2022 4:1 1 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Gordo, Victor; Hampton, Tyron; Jones, Jason; Williams, Felicia; Rivas, Jessica; Masuda, Gene; Madison, Steve; Wilson, Andy; Jomsky, Mark
The Affinity Project - OCT. 24 CIT/ COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM 16 The Affinity Project - September 2022 support letters.pdf ISome people who received this message don't often get email fronr,. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /(-now the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
I am writing on behalf of The Affinity Project which is scheduled to be on the agenda for the October 24,2022, City Council meeting. Attached are support letters the project has received.
If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks.
ANDI CERAGIOLI
[2131254-2442 | ' ' ', www.advocacy.la
2450 Mission Street, Suite 21 | San Marino, CA 91108
GOVEF^NiViENT & COMMUNiTY RELATIONS
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
LAND USE ENT'TLEMENTS
110/24/2022
Item 16
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jomsky, Mark
Monday, October 24, 2022 5:32 PM
Official Records - City Clerk
Fwd: Affinity Project
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: emina
Date: October 24, 2022 at 4:49:32 PM PDT
To: "Jomsky, Mark" <[email protected]>
Subject: Affinity Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /rnowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear Mayor Gordo and members of the Council,
I urge you to require the Developer of the Affinity Project to plant trees in the ground, through tree wells, and NOT in planters no matter how big the planters are.
Large planters with trees maybe fine around hotel swimming pools but not here. The public deserves to have mature shade trees planted in the ground to help combat climate change. Trees are the answer to many of our problems but we have to plant more of them, do it right, and take proper care of them.
Trees do much better in the ground where their roots are allowed to spread and develop without any restraints so that they can grow into full size mature and healthy ones.
For years I have watched tortured magnolia trees that were planted in very large planters where Bank of America used to be on Marengo across from the Convention Center. They produced very tittle shade if any, and looked like they were bonsai ones. I really felt bad for those trees.
In my opinion, the benefit of having trees in the ground more than outweigh losing a few parking spaces.
Please do the right thing by saying "NO to trees in planters" Thank you.
Emina Darakjy
Tree Program Chair, Pasadena Beautiful Foundation
President, California Urban Forests Council
1 10/24/2022
Item 16