•^
^^
<> s' '»>
RECEIVED
2023 OCT 13 PH f:33
CF,Y CLEHK
CETYOF F.A3ADENA
October 14, 2023
City CouncilCity of Pasadena100 North Garfield Ave
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: Central District Specific Plan
We are writing to provide comments to the proposed Central District Specific Plan. We applaud the setbacks, the increased sidewalk widths, and the increased attention to trees.Overall, however, we believe that the plan does not go far enough in repairing the loss to our green canopy and community open green spaces. Additionally, we are concerned about theincreasing traffic throughout the Central District and the potential changes to overnight parkingregulations and the impact that will have in the neighborhoods and streets throughoutPasadena.
More street trees should be planted in the ground and more green spaces should be planned throughout the Central District, particularly given the increasingly large and densehousing projects planned. Recently the city has been approving project after project that doesnot have in ground trees, but that rather only have trees in pots or planters. Even thearchitects for the project at 141 South Lake Avenue said, at a recent Design Commission hearingon August 22, 2023,that they only put trees in the ground when the project is a lower densityproject with one level of parking and that in ground trees "makes no sense at all" for largerprojects. No one on the Design Commission questioned this statement. Seriously? Whatdoesn't make sense is when you have projects with denser housing and more residents, and those residents don't get shade giving trees in the ground. Only residents that live in singlefamily homes or less dense housing get full grown trees? It seems to us that the denser the project the greater the need for in ground trees.
We wonder whether the city has looked at these developments to see whether trees in pots or planters thrive or whether they provide any meaningful shade. Has there been any follow up to see whether this works for Pasadena? There is a development on the corner ofAlien and Walnut where the trees in the pots already have died and are having to be replanted.
Has anyone looked to see if these projects provide any real "green space" for the children livingin these housing developments? Where are the parks for the residents (and children) living in these treeless apartments? Larger planters, while nice, are not a substitute for in ground trees. 10/16/2023
Item ll
If the city continues to approve larger developments, we must either ensure that they are near open green space or reduce the size of the development so that trees can be plantedin the ground, or possibly increase the set-back to allow for bigger street trees. To us, it seems that these are the only options when considering how to keep our city green and livable. We need to take seriously our responsibility to keep our city green. The city should be looking throughout the Central District (and Pasadena generally) for where we can repair and enhanceour tree canopy, should be putting in place more parks for residents, and should consistently require developers to put trees in the ground with sufficient support for their root systems in allhousing developments. The specific plan for this district is an important opportunity to make that happen and we ask City Council to put this into action in the Specific Plan. The planning forthe green spaces should come in while we are planning our zoning and the future of the Central District - not as an afterthought.
Traffic throughout Pasadena continues to worsen. Huge development projects continue to be approved around town without examining the impact each of these projects has in concert on the community. We can't be examining these projects in isolation or withoutserious consideration of EIR thresholds being surpassed. Our new and updated methods ofmeasuring traffic impacts will be useful in examining future proposed projects. But moreimportantly, our city must examine traffic EIR impacts more closely and fairly. If we are toachieve the goals set out in the Central District Specific Plan (easy circulation through the city, walkable streets, and a vibrant community) we need to look at the overall picture when approving projects. This highlights the importance of EIRs when the traffic threshold is surpassed. The developers must be required to help build Pasadena in both street infrastructure and public services. It is through the EIR that we see what our needs are. We feel this has been ignored.
Finally, in looking at the proposed Central District Specific Plan, we are aware that, for some time now, the city has been weighing removing overnight parking restrictions throughout Pasadena. We strongly believe that our overnight parking restrictions must remain in place -particularly with the scale of coming development and the trend of providing less parking spaces for each project. The neighborhood streets should not be the parking plan fordevelopers. If developments are held to lower parking requirements, then the developer andthe city need to ensure that the residents in those buildings aren't required to have cars or that sufficient parking is provided at an off-site location other than our city streets. Lower parking requirements should mean less cars with residents relying on public transportation - not carsbeing moved from the housing developments to the streets and nearby neighborhoods.Residents should not have to underwrite the inadequate parking allowed by the state andprovided by the developers.
Some proposals have been to allow neighborhoods to decide for themselves whether they would like to keep the overnight parking restrictions. We feel that this hodge-podge approach would be confusing and would result in some neighborhoods unfairly bearing the burden of less available parking in the housing developments. Moreover, when a residentneeds to park on the street overnight, there already are overnight parking permits readily available from the city. A blanket removal of overnight parking restrictions in Pasadena would lead to camping on our streets, would make our streets and city less safe, and would make it more difficult to keep the city streets clean.
We believe that a more reasonable approach to alleviating parking issues for residents would be to extend the already available overnight parking permits for longer periods of time,such as a monthly or yearly pass, and to restrict them so as not to apply to oversized vehicles and to require the vehicle parked on the street to be parked near the residence the permit is tied to. At a minimum - any consideration for removing overnight parking restrictions must bethoroughly studied and made only after a thoughtful deliberation of all the intended and unintended consequences.
Thank you,
Megan Foker
On behalf of Livable Pasadena
HERITAGE
PRESERVATION ] ADVOCACY | EDUCATION
October I 3, 2023
RECEIVED
160 NORTH OAKLAND AVENUE
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-1714
P 626.441,6333
i rf«(V>WPftSApWAHi yuv"rucrT3""BT^:"
CiTY CLERK /-•>!-
CITY OF PASADENA
Pasadena City Council
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 9110Re: Central District Specific PlanDear Mayor Gordo and Members of the City Council,Pasadena Heritage looks forward to the City Council's thoughts on the updated Central District Specific Plan. Containing five separate National Register Historic Districts, one Landmark District, and dozens of individual resources, the Central District is Pasadena's most historic specific plan area.Since our founding as an organization 45 years ago we have asked that zoning beresponsive to existing building stock, with densities and heights compatible with historic neighborhoods. We are pleased that heights are tailored in Old Pasadena and the Civic Center to presen/e their sense of place. Throughout the Central District, design standards should continue to require contextual and compatible design to preserve the integrity of the historic core of Pasadena and foster new design that fits into existing contexts.We also maintain that the greatest densities and heights should be located away from historic neighborhoods and towards transit. Thus we fully support changes that to allow residential uses on North Lake Ave. This is one of Pasadena s most important arterials, but it is currently a struggling commercial corridor. After office hours, it is desolate with no active street life, which does not encourage walkability or safety for pedestrians, including those going to and from the Gold Line. Adding some residential uses would help bolster and stabilize the neighborhood, and could allow the adaptive reuse of the existing office buildings or merely make them more attractive offices.
The Planning Commission recommended hiring a citywide or districtwide "Chief of Placemaking." This is an interesting idea and, we believe, is worth exploring. While this might fall out of the pun/iew of this Specific Plan, it is something we hope will beconsidered by the City Council in the future. Pasadena hosts so many guests who stay atour hotels, attend conferences, or pursue education, but frequently the areas around theseplaces do not provide the quality of experience that Old Pasadena or the Playhouse Villageoffer. The new position could coordinate with stakeholders to provide a better experience,not just in the BID areas but citywide.
PRESERVATION | ADVOCACY EDUCATION
10/16/2023
Item 11
PASADENA
H E T A G E
PRESERVATION | ADVOCACY | EDUCATION
1(0 NORTH OAKLAND AVENUE
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 91101-1714
P 626.441.6333
WWW.PASADENAHERITAGE.ORG
Pasadena Heritage is supportive of Staffs version of this Specific Plan, and we are thankful that much of our feedback to protect and celebrate historic resources is included in the plan that is now before you for review.Sincerely,
Vj^^^^s^
Susan N. Nossman
Executive Director
Andrew Salimian
Preservation Director
PRESERVATION | ADVOCACY | EDUCATION
RECEIVED
?0230CT{6 fiH 8^5 7
Alien Matkins Alien Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP • r-r-,,. Attorneys at Law ' - r- n r\ 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 CiTY OF PASADENA TelePh°ne: 213.622.55551 Facsimile: 213.620.8816 www.allenmatkins.com
Eoin McCarronE-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 2139555618 File Number: 390524.00003/4861-0737-4982.1 Via Electronic Mail
October 16,2023Office of the Mayor and City Council
c/o City Clerk
100 N.Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CAP 1101
Re: Public Comment on Draft Central District Specific Plan Mayor Gordo and Members of the City Council:
Alien Matkins is counsel for Harbert South Bay ("South Bay"), a developer and operator of independent living, assisted living, and memory care communities in California and across the country. This letter is submitted on behalf of South Bay in support of the Draft Central District Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan") scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on October 16, 2023. South Bay is in the process of redeveloping the property located at the north-west intersection of N. Lake Avenue and E. Walnut Street (the "Property") with a state-licensed residential care facility. The Specific Plan, as proposed, provides for development of the project at the site and, more broadly, supports a vibrant, mixed-use vision for the Mid-Lake subarea where the Property is located. We are excited to be one of the first projects to implement this new vision for N.
Lake Avenue and commend Planning staffs hard work on the Specific Plan over the past several years. We look forward to working collaboratively with staff in the coming months to develop muchneeded senior housing in the Specific Plan area and we reiterate our strong support for the Specific Plan. We hope that the City Council shares our sentiment and supports this exciting and important step toward the redevelopment and improvement of the Central District.
Very truly yours,
(ff~^ 7^. 'Wc^^iAA^^
Eoin McCarron
EM
ec: Jennifer Paige, AICP
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego [ Century City | San Francisco [ New York 10/16/2023 Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
cityclerkMonday, October 16, 2023 10:49 AM
Flores, Valerie; Iraheta, Alba; Jomsky, Mark; Robles, Sandra; Sabha, Tamer; Stevenson, Garrett; McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
FW: Common sense plans
From: David
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 10:48:21 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Gordo, Victor <[email protected]>; cityclerk <[email protected]>; Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Marquez, Miguel <[email protected]> Subject: Common sense plans
I Some people who received this message don't often get email from rn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you toowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Please see my note below regarding my concerns as a 23 year Pasadena resident. These are the kind of things that make folks like me worry about our City. These are self inflicted dangers... I agree with all of the concerns and positions listed below.
10/16/2023
Item 11
•-:-*•* ST;
'l$;^tsl
1 ;.-\
Pasadena City Council
Re: October 16, 2023 Central District Specific Plan (CDSP) Add to the public record.This letter expresses support for concerns raised by Keep Pasadena Moving, Livable Pasadena, and Pasadena Voices regarding the proposed Central District Specific Plan in Pasadena. The key points 1/we agree with and emphasize include:
1. Renewed Emphasis on Green Spaces: We advocate for the planting of more street trees and the creation of parks and green spaces for the benefit of Pasadena residents. We stress the importance o1 protecting existing green spaces and replacing what has been lost. 2 Overnight Parking Restrictions: l1/e express alarm at the idea of eliminating overnight parking restrictions throughout Pasadena. We argue that this could lead to camping on the streets, decrease safety, and make it harder to maintain clean streets. We oppose the idea that residentsshould be responsible for developers' parking needs, under the guise to encourage public transportation and reduce housing development costs at the cost of the tax payor and misuse and abuse of property taxes.
3. Alternative Parking Solutions: We suggest that if the city believes there is insufficient parking, the City should provide residents with alternative parking solutions, such as the installation of parkinggarages, where residents could purchase monthly or annual parking passes. We argue that placingcars in neighborhoods is not a reasonable or responsible approach to city planning.
4. Comprehensive Traffic Assessment: We share the concern that traffic in Pasadena is becoming increasingly burdensome. We call for a holistic approach to assessing traffic impacts by consideringprojects in conjunction with their surrounding streets. We emphasize the need to adhere to new trafficmetrics and to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for projects that exceedbaselines, holding the city council and developers accountable for responsible city growth.
This letter represents the many supporters of Keep Pasadena Moving, Livable Pasadena, and PasadenaVoices and reflects concerns about the proposed Central District Specific Plan and addressing parking andtraffic challenges, while commitment to preserving green spaces, and finding balanced solutions for the residents of Pasadena.
2