We love Pasadena
We support affordable housing
Why are we appealing?
Lack of transparency: Intended use of Building A (51 units) was concealed
Flawed evaluation: Design was not evaluated for intended use Incomplete application that is not up to standard
Oversized building and excess density (Building B)
Set -asides for homeless and chronically homeless
◦ Developer’ s state application for tax credits and bonds includes a binding commitment to set aside 50 units (Building A ) ex clusively for homeless and chronically homeless individuals, via L A County’ s Coordinated Entry System, in partnership with T he People Concern, using a Housing First model (CT CA C project CA-25-799)
T herefore, the Design Commission must evaluate the physical design and operational suitability of the project for its inte nde d use as supportive housing for the homeless and chronically homeless
T his intended use has direct implications for traffic and parking patterns, supporti v e serv i ces acti v i ty , on-site staffing, unit configuration, common areas, s e c urity, vis ibility, c irc ulation, outdoor s pa c e, tra ns itiona l a re a s, nois e management, long -term neighborhood integration, etc. —factors central to the De s ign Commis s ion’s re quire d findings on proje c t c ompatibility.
T hi s ev aluati on should hav e been conducted duri ng the publi c rev i ew process — not after maj or approv als are already i n place.
Staff reports and City documents make no mention of the homeless set -a s ide s, and there is no indication that any discussions took place about design of supportive housing for the homeless.
T his omission of the homeless unit commitment from the City’ s materials created an incomplete and potentially misleading record, depriving the Commission and the public of an honest open hearing and informed participation. Cali f orni a law demands f ai r process i n quasi-judic ia l la nd-use deci si ons such as this (Clark v . City of Hermosa Beach, 1996)
86 conditions of approval
◦ How are these conditions enforced?
◦ Once granted, what mechanism is there to claw back an entitlement if conditions are not met?
Mis s ing de live ra ble s
◦ Sample of gate material, lighting plan, complete roof diagram Commission approved the project “reluctantly” and raised serious concerns about the process
◦ Subcommittee to monitor project “to make up for this lack of completion” ◦ Pressure to approv e prematurely to av oi d “burni ng the meeti ngs”
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?
HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?
Compatibility is a longstanding city policy
and a community priority
Excessive density has unintended
consequences for tenants and neighbors
Our goal is a project that works for everyone
3 additional stories if located within ½ mile of
a “Major Transit Stop”
What is a Major Transit Stop (MTS)?
Density Bonus Law GC§65915(o)(5) says:
MTS has the same meaning as PRC§21155(b)
PRC§21155(b): “… A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.”
Foothill west of Rosemead
Foothill and Sierra Madre Villa
◦ SCAG Regional Transit Plan for year 2050
◦ Future stop planned here?
◦ Metro and Foothill Transit have NO PLANS to place a
stop at this intersection
Sierra Madre Villa south of Foothill
SCAG RTP 2050
MTS definition
includes
PRC§21155(b)
Straight Line vs. Path of a Pedestrian
City uses state guidance for AB2097 (minimum
parking requirements) to justify straight line
State guidance also says:
◦ Other statutes may measure distance from transit
differently from AB2097
◦ Straight line measurement of distance does not
apply when statutes mention walking distance
“‘…Unobstructed access to the major transit
stop’ means a resident is able to access the
major transit stop without encountering natural
or constructed impediments.”
GC § 65915(p)(2)(B)
“…located within one-half mile of a major
transit stop and there is unobstructed access to
the major transit stop from the development.”
GC § 65915(p)(2)(A)
“walkability access to transit services”
GC § 65915(p)(7)
All of the project
area and
residential units
are farther than
one-half mile from
the bus stop on
Foothill west of
Rosemead for
pedestrians.
0.55 miles to
nearest edge
Loss of view and privacy
◦ Municipal Code protects views
◦ Plans do not show sightlines accurately
◦ Rooftop at 68 feet plus 12 feet of mechanical equipment, structures, fall protection
◦ At same altitude as neighbors’ backyards
◦ Hillsides will have no view but building mass
Noise
◦ The Noise and Vibration Report did not address the aggregate noise level from 150 rooftop HVAC units at the same altitude as the homes ◦ Amended Report reveals an increase in ambient noise is expected ◦ Where were sensors for ambient noise readings at 605 and 625 properties?
Odors
◦ Trash chute vents at rooftop level
Noise and odors are carried by frequent
onshore winds
Slope stability
◦ Excavation and removal of mature and protected trees threaten slope integrity
◦ Replacement trees
may not survive
will not help slope for many years
Fire risk
◦ Hillside vegetation fire
◦ Careless or accidental sources of ignition
◦ Risky behavior and non-compliance with rules
◦ Require fire-resistant and drought-tolerant plants
◦ Require security barrier to protect hillside
Compatibility is a longstanding city policy
and a community priority
Excessive density has unintended
consequences for tenants and neighbors
City Council can lower the density bonus
GC§65915(n)
Our goal is a project that works for everyone
Housing must be compatible with the neighborhood
Council can reduce the density bonus
Transparency is lacking
We’ve done this before, successfully
Don’t be rushed…get this right