AR 11 SUPP CORR PART 2 CORRESPONDENCE — Pasadena City Council, May 18, 2026

McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Judy Mak <[email protected]>
Thursday, May 14, 2026 4:49 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable hlousing at 600 N Rosemead
[A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing in support of approving the affordabie housing development at 600 NORTH ROSEMEAD BLVD which will bring a total of 133 affordable housing units to east Pasadena.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are stiil experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annuai Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Almost all affordable housing is in the western part of the city. This proposal will bring 133 units of affordable housing to an area that has not had it. The history of housing in the U.S., including Pasadena, has been one of racial and economic segregation. Segregation by class and race has made us a weak and divided society. We need to structure our city in a way that integrates our population and he!ps us to become a strong and united community.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

Many of the opponents of this development are saying that the residents will park in the Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood. However, many of the iow income people who choose to live in this building will likely not own cars. Furi:hermore, to park on the street will require the residents to get overnight parking permits from the city. These permits will require them to park within 500 feet of the building. The Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood is more than 500 feet away and there is plenty of parking along Rosemead Blvd.

We need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Beco_ming_a_ 05/ 72026
Item 11
city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.

Judy Mak
Pasadena, Caiifornia 91101
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robin Snyder <[email protected]>
Thursday, May 14, 2026 5:04 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
TA ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing in support of approving the affordable housing development at 600 NORTH ROSEMEAD BLVD which will bring a total of 133 affordable housing units to east Pasadena.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point in Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annua! Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing hosnelessness for the first time.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Almost all affordable housing is in the western part of the city. This proposal will bring 1 33 units of affordable housing to an area that has not had it. The history of housing in the U.S., including Pasadena, has been one of racial and economic segregation. Segregation by class and race has made us a weak and divided society. We need to structure our city in a way that integrates our population and helps us to become a strong and united community.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inciusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of She city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

We need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a 05/18/2026
Item 11
city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.

Robin Snyder
Pasadena, California 91104
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maggie C . ^, _
Thursday, May 14, 2026 5:44 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
YES to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead Blvd
Some people who received this message don't often get email from. Learn why this is important [ I ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Dear City Council Members,
I'm writing to urge you to deny the appeal and approve the affordable housing project at 600 N Rosemead Blvd.

I have lived my entire life in Southern California and currently reside in East Pasadena, approximately five minutes from this proposed development. As someone who loves this community, it pains me to see opposition to making affordable housing a reality in Pasadena.

I dream of becoming a homeowner here, but the harsh reality is that median home prices exceed $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for me and countless others. Median rent is over $2,300, meaning residents need a salary of $93,000 just to spend 30% of their income on rent. For many of us, this means renting indefinitely or being priced out entirely.

I moved here three years ago and have fallen in love with Pasadena's green spaces, diversity, public transit access, incredible restaurants, and the Rose Bowl. This project would allowother residents of various racial and socioeconomic backgrounds to enjoy these same benefits. Local communities and neighborhoods thrive when people have safe, stable housing. Families stay together, and children remain in the same schools.

We know that hard work doesn't guarantee housing security. Many people work multiple jobs yet spend upwards of 80% of their income on rent. Pasadena has an opportunity to address this crisis meaningfully.

Please approve this affordable housing project. We have a chance to make our city more inclusive and sustainable for everyone.

Thankyouforyour consideration.

Sincerely,
Maggie chen(91107)
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Evan Rosenman <[email protected]>
Thursday, May 14, 2026 7:05 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
[ l ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Almost all affordable housing is in the western part of the city. This proposal will bring 1 33 units of affordable housing to an area that has not had it. The history of housing in the U.S., including Pasadena, has been one of racial and economic segregation. Segregation by class and race has made us a weak and divided society. We need to structure our city in a way that integrates our population and helps us to become a strong and united community.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

Many of the opponents of this development are saying that the residents will park in the Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood. However, many of the low income people who choose to live in this building will likely not own cars. Furthermore, to park on the street will require the residents to get overnight parking permits from the city. These permits will require them to park within 500 feet of the building. The Lower blastings Ranch neighborhood is more than 500 feet away and there is plenty of parking along Rosemead Blvd. 05/18/2026
Item 11
We need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.

Best,
Evan
Evan Rosenman
Pasadena, California 91105
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Henry Rosen •
Thursday, May 14, 2026 8:06 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Comment on divestment and affordable housing
[ I ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

To the City Council:

I am a resident of District 7 in Pasadena, and I wish to express my support for the recent amendment to the City's investment policy excluding investments in fossil fuel industry and weapons manufacturing. I believe Pasadena can be a modelfor other municipalities in demonstrating an ethical and sustainable approach to public finances. The drawdown of the City's carbon emissions should be a top priority for the Council, and setting an investment policy aligned with that priority is a step in the right direction. hlousing is another crucial concern for the City. I ask that the Council deny the appeal to stop development of the affordable housing project at 600 N Rosemead Boulevard. Instead, the City should move decisively and aggressively to increase the supply of affordable housing in Pasadena.

Respectfully,
Henry Rosen
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Leah Mendelson <[email protected]>
Thursday, May 14, 2026 8:45 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
[ ,j.] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair hlousing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

Many of the opponents of this development are saying that the residents will park in the Lower hlastings Ranch neighborhood. However, many of the low income people who choose to live in this building will likely not own cars. Furthermore, to park on the street will require the residents to get overnight parking permits from the city. These permits will require them to park within 500 feet of the building. The Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood is more than 500 feet away and there is plenty of parking along Rosemead Blvd.

Leah Mendelson
Pasadena, California 91101
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daniel Macedo <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 12:48 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
|[ .1,] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnoiv the content is safe. Report iphish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair hlousing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

Daniel Macedo
PASADENA, California 91101
IVIcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kevin Yang
Friday, May 15, 2026 8:13 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
URGENT: Support of Appeal Regarding 600 N. Rosemead Blvd Project Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important [ d ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Hi,
Asa resident of the neighborhood directly impacted by the proposed development at 600 N. Rosemead Blvd (Rosemead Family Apartments), I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to this project in its current form and to urge you to uphold the residents' appeal.

While I recognize the broader regional discussions around housing, this specific proposal represents a severe overreach that threatens public safety, violates the established character of our community, and relies on stretched interpretations of state law. My opposition is based on the following critical concerns:

1. Severe Public Safety and Evacuation Risks This area is deeply vulnerable to wildfires, as evidenced by the recent Eaton Fire. Injecting a high-density development of 133 units into this specific corridor creates a dangerous bottleneck. In the event of a rapid evacuation, the increased population density combined with heavily congested street parking will severely impede emergency vehicles and trap fleeing residents. The city has a primary obligation to protect the safety of its current residents, and this project recklessly compromises our emergency preparedness.

2. Drastic Parking Deficiencies and Traffic Congestion Providing only 55 on-site parking spaces for a 133-unit complex—which includes 2- and 3-bedroom family apartments—is entirely unrealistic. It is a statistical certainty that this will result in massive parking spillover onto the adjacent streets of Lower Hastings Ranch and surrounding neighborhoods. This will block driveways, reduce street visibility, hinderwaste management services, and drastically increase traffic congestion on Rosemead Blvd, a corridor that is already heavily impacted.

3. Inappropriate Scale and Abuse of Zoning Laws A 68-foot, five-story building is fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding one- and two-story residential neighborhoods. The developer is utilizingthe State Density Bonus Law to bypass Pasadena's carefully considered local zoning laws (which cap heights at 3 stories/38 feet in this area). Allowing a project of this massive scale sets a dangerous precedent that nullifies the city's General Plan and destroys the architectural and historical character of East Pasadena.

4. Questionable "Major Transit Stop" Justification The developer's justification for slashing parking requirements relies on the claim that the site is near a "major transit stop." However, the reality of the bus service frequency and the actual transit habits of families in this specific area do not align with the intent of this state Law exemption. Relying on this loophole to under-park a massive facility is an administrative mischaracterization that the Council must challenge.

5. Infrastructure Strain and Environmental Impact Our local infrastructure—including water supply, sewage capacity, and grid power—was not designed to absorb a sudden, massive spike in ultra-ri_pi.n?p_hnn<;ind nn a Item 11
single commercial lot. Furthermore, the demolition of the existing parking structure and the extensive construction required for a five-story building will subject neighbors to years of noise, dust, and compromised air quality. The project demands much more rigorous environmental and infrastructural review (CEQA) before any approvals are finalized.

Pasadena should not be forced to accept a poorly planned, overwhelmingly dense, and unsafe project simply because a developer is aggressively leveraging state density bonuses.

I strongly urge the City Council to uphold the appeal, prioritize the safety and well-being of Pasadena residents, and reject the 600 N. Rosemead Blvd project.

Thank you for your time, your service to our city, and your careful consideration of this urgent matter.

Sincerely,
KaiwenYang
Resident of Lower Hastings Ranch
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

RachelS " "-
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:03 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Public comment on 600 N Rosemead Boulevard Appeal for May 18th Council Members Some people who received this message don't often get email frorrLearn why this is important [ it ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Dear Council members,
I'm writing to you as a resident of Pasadena. Please deny the appeal for 600 N Rosemead Boulevard. We have a housing crisis in the city and developing transit-oriented, affordable housing directly addresses the city's housing shortage.

This project has a high number of 3 bedroom units for families and priorities those who were displaced by the ALtadena fires. Pasadena is a wonderful city and we should give folks the opportunity to raise their families here without being pushed out by high rents.

Please reject the appeal.

Sincerely,
Rachel Stanik
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Miguel Cen <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:40 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable hlousing at 600 N Rosemead
[ d. ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Almost all affordable housing is in the western part of the city. This proposal will bring 1 33 units of affordable housing to an area that has not had it. The history of housing in the U.S., including Pasadena, has been one of racial and economic segregation. Segregation by class and race has made us a weak and divided society. We need to structure our city in a way that integrates our population and helps us to become a strong and united community.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

Many of the opponents of this development are saying that the residents will park in the Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood, hlowever, many of the low income people who choose to live in this building will likely not own cars. Furthermore, to park on the street will require the residents to get overnight parking permits from the city. These permits will require them to park within 500 feet of the building. The Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood is more than 500 feet away and there is plenty of parking along Rosemead Blvd.

Miguel Cen
Pasadena, California 91107
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:
pat)
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:59 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
[email protected]; Scott Shimamoto; Laura Ellersieck; PAT LUANGEAKTRAKUL May 18 City Council Meeting: I SUPPORT LOWER HASTINGS RANCH APPEAL Some people who received this message don't often get email fromirn why this is important [ ..I ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Good morning Pasadena Council,
I live in the East Eaton Canyon Wash neighborhood, and I support the Lower Hastings Ranch Appeal (LHRA's).

Please record my support prior to the blearing on May 18 City Council Meeting.

Thank you!
Pat Luangeaktrakul
Pasadena 91107
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMilIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

The Real Bev
Friday, May 15, 2026 10:15 AM
Masuda, Gene; Gordo, Victor; PublicComment-AutoResponse AGAINST 600 N. Rosemead Development
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from' https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
rn why this is important at
[ JL ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

For obvious reasons I stand with the Lower Hastings Ranch Association against the subject development. It will increase traffic and crowding, already annoying, as well as encouraging on-street parking in residential and commercial neighborhoods by the supposedly earless residents. It is disingenuous bordering on criminal stupidity to believe that people living there will use public transportation for their daily needs.

BeverlyAshley
Pasadena 91107
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rob Muthiah <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 4:33 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please support the affordable housing initiative at 600 N Rosemead [ d.] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Pasadena City Council,
I'm writing to ask for your continued support of the affordable housing development at 600 N.

Rosemead Ave. You have approved this, and now need to approve the acceptance of federal funding. Those who oppose this initiative are making baseless or debunked claims. We as a city need to move forward out of care for our low income residents, as well as to be in compliance with state mandates. Please take the next step and vote to make this happen.

Sincerely,
Rob Muthiah
Rob Muthiah
Pasadena, California 91103
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Andrea kraybill <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 4:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
[ ,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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As a long time pasadena student, former renter and current employee, I am deeply invested in the welfare of the entire Pasadena community.

I am writing in support of approving the affordable housing development at 600 NORTH ROSEMEAD BLVD which will bring a total of 133 affordable housing units to east Pasadena.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.
05/18/2026
Item 11
Many of the opponents of this development are saying that the residents will park in the Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood, hlowever, many of the low income people who choose to live in this building will likely not own cars.

Furthermore, to park on the street will require the residents to get overnight parking permits from the city. These permits will require them to park within 500 feet of the building. The Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood is more than 500 feet away and there is plenty of parking along Rosemead Blvd.

We need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.

Andrea kraybill
La Crescenta-Montrose, California 91214
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
• <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 4:36 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
[ d ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I have attended church in Pasadena for 19 years and am writing in support of approving the affordable housing development at 600 NORTH ROSEMEAD BLVD which will bring a total of 133 affordable housing units to east Pasadena.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Almost all affordable housing is in the western part of the city. This proposal will bring 1 33 units of affordable housing to an area that has not had it. The history of housing in the U.S., including Pasadena, has been one of racial and economic segregation. Segregation by class and race has made us a weak and divided society. We need to structure our city in a way that integrates our population and helps us to become a strong and united community.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Cassandra Beale <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 5:06 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
|[ J-] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report iphish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Almost all affordable housing is in the western part of the city. This proposal will bring 1 33 units of affordable housing to an area that has not had it. The history of housing in the U.S., including Pasadena, has been one of racial and economic segregation. Segregation by class and race has made us a weak and divided society. We need to structure our city in a way that integrates our population and helps us to become a strong and united community.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

Cassandra Beale
Pasadena, California 91104
McMiIlan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Susanna Hostetter <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 5:14 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to Affordable Housing at 600 N Rosemead
[ ii ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

We desperately need this affordable housing because we are still experiencing an affordable housing crisis. More than 45% of Pasadena renters are considered cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing. The city's median home price exceeds $1 million, making homeownership unattainable for many residents. The Point In Time homeless count continues to show over 500 unhoused individuals in Pasadena, while the Annual Count shows over 1,000 individuals to be experiencing homelessness, with about a quarter of them experiencing homelessness for the first time.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Almost all affordable housing is in the western part of the city. This proposal will bring 1 33 units of affordable housing to an area that has not had it. The history of housing in the U.S., including Pasadena, has been one of racial and economic segregation. Segregation by class and race has made us a weak and divided society. We need to structure our city in a way that integrates our population and helps us to become a strong and united community.

Furthermore, the state Policy of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligates the city to take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.

Denying affordable housing in an area of the city that has had virtually no affordable housing would almost certainly be viewed by the courts as an action that is inconsistent with this obligation.

Susanna hlostetter
Los angeles , California 90041
McMiIlan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Baer <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 6:38 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ ,4,] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
My name is David Baer and I work for Villa Esperanza as a Skills Instructor and I attend Pasadena Mennonite Church. I am planning on moving to Pasadena in the very near future. I am writing to support the approval of the funding for the affordable housing development at 600 North Rosemead Blvd. which would bring 133 affordable homes to an area of the city that has had very little affordable housing.

East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Most of the city's affordable units are concentrated in the western part of the city. This imbalance reflects a broader history of racial and economic segregation in Pasadena and across the United States. Segregation by income and race has weakened our sense of community. We should plan our city in a way that brings people together and builds a stronger, more united Pasadena.

In addition, the state's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy requires the city to take meaningful steps to address segregation and promote inclusive communities. Rejecting affordable housing in an area that has had almost none could very likely be seen by the courts as inconsistent with that obligation.

David Baer
San Fernanda, California 91340
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Nathan Freemyer <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 6:40 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ j ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a long time Pasadena Resident and small business owner, writing to support the approval of the funding for the affordable housing development at 600 North Rosemead Blvd. which would bring 133 affordable homes to an area of the city that has had very little affordable housing.

East Pasadena lacks affordable housing. Most of the city's affordable units are concentrated in the western part of the city. This imbalance reflects a broader history of racial and economic segregation in Pasadena and across the United States. Segregation by income and race has weakened our sense of community. We should plan our city in a way that brings people together and builds a stronger, more united Pasadena.

Thank you for listening to your constituents,
Nathan
Nathan Freemyer
Pasadena, California 91104
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kimberly Medendorp <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 7:05 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [.] ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As a home owner and tax payer in Pasadena, I am writing to support the approval of the funding for the affordable housing development at 600 North Rosemead Blvd. which would bring 133 affordable homes to an area of the city that has had very little affordable housing.

In addition, the state's Affirmatively Furthering Fair hlousing policy requires the city to take meaningful steps to address segregation and promote inclusive communities. Rejecting affordable housing in an area that has had almost none could very likely be seen by the courts as inconsistent with that obligation.

Kimberly Medendorp
Pasadena , California 91101
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

P.A. Brown <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 7:21 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ .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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to support the approval of the funding for the affordable housing development at 600 North Rosemead Blvd. which would bring 133 affordable homes to an area of the city that has had very little affordable housing.

Pasadena has a sad history of past redlining and measures to segregate low income and people of color. Today's Pasadena can continue to correct that legacy of discrimination.

P.A. Brown
Pasadena, California 91101
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
denise <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 7:42 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ ,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. For nnore information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Lena ALSarraf <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 7:46 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ 4 ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Lena ALSarraf
Pasadena , California 91107
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elizabeth Sadlon <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 8:32 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ l ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a 25-year member of Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church in Pasadena and a long-time consultant to social justice nonprofits, including affordable housing developers.

I am writing to support the approval of the funding for the affordable housing development at 600 North Rosemead Blvd. which would bring 133 affordable homes to an area of the city that has had very little affordable housing.

Elizabeth Sadlon
Glendale, California 91208
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rachel Ryan <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 8:56 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ .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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a homeowner and parent in Pasadena.I am an active member ofThroop UU Church. I drive past dozens of unhoused people on North Lake every day as I leave my home. I am writing to support the approval of the funding for the affordable housing development at 600 North Rosemead Blvd. which would bring 133 affordable homes to an area of the city that has had very little affordable housing.

Thank you,
Rachel Ryan
Rachel Ryan
Pasadena, California 91104
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kari Vargas <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:07 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ j.] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

As a 32 year resident of Pasadena, I have watched it become more and more unaffordable.

This proposal takes a small step in fixing that problem.

Kari Vargas
L
Pasadena, California 91104
05/18/2026
Item 11
MlcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Joanne Long <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:1 OPM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ j ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Joanne Long
Pasadena, California 91107
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Silvia Hivner <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:1 OPM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena [ A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report Iphish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Silvia Hivner
Pasadena, California 91104
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMilIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Una Jost <[email protected]>
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:31 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Yes to 133 Affordable Homes at 600 N Rosemead in East Pasadena |[ <l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the content is safe. Report iphish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a longtime Pasadena resident, PUSD parent, and constituent of Council member Gene Masuda in District 4.

Approval of funding for such affordance housing development would be consistent with the California State PTA's position statement on "Fair Housing" which states:
"California State PTA believes:

All families need to have access to safe and affordable housing; There is necessity for enactment and enforcement of laws to end discrimination in the marketing, sale and/or rental of housing;
Encouragement should be given to the formation of broadly based community action groups to promote citizen understanding of housing issues and involvement in advocating programs that will meet the housing needs in their communities; and Encouragement should be given to the development of rental and individually owned homes for low- and moderate-income families and that such housing should not be isolated within local communities.
"PTAs should encourage city councils, county boards of supervisors, and city and county housing authorities to
Adopt and implement balanced community policies that stipulate a mix of housing types as well as provisions for the development of housing for low- and moderate-income families; Develop and implement programs utilizing all available funding sources to provide rental and 05/18/2026
Item 11
individually owned single- and multi-family housing for low- and moderate-income families." (https://toolkit.capta.org/advocacy/position-statements/fair-housing) East Pasadena has almost no affordable housing. Most of the city's affordable units are concentrated in the western part of the city. This imbalance reflects a broader history of racial and economic segregation in Pasadena and across the United States. Segregation by income and race has weakened our sense of community. We should plan our city in a way that brings people together and builds a stronger, more united Pasadena.

Thank you for your support of PUSD students and families.

Sincerely,
~ Una Lee Jost, Pasadena resident in District 4
Una Jost
Pasadena, California 91107
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kendall Grant •
Friday, May 15, 2026 9:36 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
600 N Rosemead Project
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromi. Learn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fenow the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally express my support for the Lower hlastings Ranch appeal regarding the Design Commission's approval of the 600 N. Rosemead project.

Regards,
KendaLL Grant
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Alex Dobbs
Saturday, May 16, 2026 12:53 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Re: Approve TEFRA Funding for 600 N Rosemead Blvd Affordable Housing Development FHC Support Letter_600 N Rosemead Pasadena Project_May 2026.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important [ I ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Dear Pasadena City Council,
On behalf of the Faith and Housing Coalition, I submit a formal Letter in support of the proposed affordable housing project at 600 N Rosemead Blvd, urging the city council to approve the TEFRAhearingfunding. Please see the letter attached and upload it into the formal written public comment record for agenda Item #12 for the Pasadena City Council meeting on Monday, May 18th, 2026. Thankyou.

With Joy,
ALex Dobbs
Lead Organizer
Faith & Housing Coalition
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Elisa Paster •
Saturday, May 16, 2026 2:26 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Mikaelian, Jason; Johnson, Kevin; Duong, Rathar
600 Rosemead Applicant Response to Appeal (Item 11)
2026.05.15 Applicant Response to Appeal.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromirn why this is important rf ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you taowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Please see attached applicant response to the appeal. Will you please confirm receipt of this letter, send it to the Mayor and City Councilmembers and add it to the administrative record for the file? Thankyou.

Best,
ELisa
Elisa Paster
Managing Partner
|ii||!|l|
R A ND] PASTER I NELSON
Phone:
05/18/2026
Item 11
Ill

RAN D I PASTER) NELSON
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
May 15, 2026
Elisa Paster
213.557.7223
[email protected]

VIA EMAIL
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Pasadena
[email protected]
Re:Applicant Response to Appeal - 600 N. Rosemead Blvd
Dear Mayor Gordo and City Council Members:

We represent Elysian Housing, LLC ("Applicant") with respect to a proposed 100 percent affordable housing project consisting of 133 dwelling units ("Project") at 600 N. Rosemead Blvd ("Site") in the City of Pasadena ("City"). On April 14, 2026, the City's Design Commission approved a Consolidated Design Review for the Project. Lower Hasting Ranch Association ("Appellant") has filed an appeal of the Design Commission's approval ("Appeal") and the City Council is scheduled to consider the Appeal at a hearing on May 18, 2026. This letter provides a response to the Appeal and explains why the approval of the Project should be upheld.

I. Response to Appeal
We have reviewed the Appeal and provide responses to each of its claims below. Notably, the Appeal does not make any claims that the design of the Project-the subject of the Design Commission's approval - is deficient in any way. In summary, the Appeal fails to state any legal grounds for overturning the Design Commission's approval. For the reasons stated herein, we request that the City Council deny the Appeal and uphold the Design Commission's approval of the Project.

A. Appeal Claim No. 1 - The Project Violates the General Plan Statement from Appeal: "The project violates the General Plan, Land Use Element, Goal

33.1."
Policy 33.1 of the Land Use Element - specifically applicable to East Pasadena - states: "Places and Urban Form. Concentrate development adjoining the Sierra Madre Villa Metro Gold Line station, reducing densities outward as transitions for the protection of adjoining residential neighborhoods." As California courts have explained, "State law does not require perfect conformity between a proposed project and the applicable general plan.'71 "[G]eneral... plans attempt to balance a range of 1 Holden v. City of San Diego, 43 Cal. App. 5th 404, 412 (2019), quoting Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 817 (2007).

City of Pasadena
May 15,2026

Page 2 ends

competing interests. It follows that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan.... It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan."2
Here, the Project ]s compatible with Policy 33.1, as well as all other applicable General Plan policies. Approving this Project does not prohibit a gradual decrease in the density of projects as one moves outward from Sierra Madre Villa Metro Gold Line station. The Project proposes a density of 62 units per acre. The area immediately adjacent to the Sierra Madre Villa Metro Gold Line station is designated in the Land Use Element as "High Mixed Use," which allows a density up to 87 units per acre.

This could be increased to 174 units per acre by a project using State Density Bonus Law.3 The areas to the east and west of the "High Mixed Use" are designated as "Med Mixed Use," which allows the same density as "High Mixed Use." North of the station, and directly across from the single family homes on the west side of Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, the area is designated as "Low-Med Mixed Use," which allows a base density of 48 units per acre, and would allow up to 96 units per acre with the use of State Density Bonus Law.4 Northeast of the station, the area is designated as "Low Mixed Use," which permits a base density of 32 units per acre, and would allow up to 64 units per acre with the use of State Density Bonus Law. In summary, starting from the Sierra Madre Villa Metro Gold Line station and working outward to the Project site, every mixed-use zone permits a project with a higher density than the density of the Project. Moreover, in light of the fact that 96-unit-per-acre projects are permitted by the General Plan directly across from the single family homes to the west of Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, it cannot reasonably be argued that the General Plan does not permit high-density residential development near the residential neighborhoods adjoining the East Pasadena district. Finally, approving the Project would have no impact on the eventual concentration of development adjoining the Sierra Madre Villa Metro Gold Line station, which will ultimately be determined by market demand, the land use policies applicable to those sites, and other economic factors.

Additionally, the General Plan is more than just the Land Use Element. The Housing Element is also an equally important element of the General Plan and includes several policies directly supported and furthered by this Project. For example. Program #6, Housing Sites, lists the following Implementation Objective:

To affirmatively further fair housing choice, continue to target housing construction of affordable units within high opportunity areas, such as East Pasadena and portions of the Central District. Aim to establish at least 20 percent of the moderate- and lower income RHNA units in these high resource areas.

The Housing Element also relies on the East Pasadena Specific Plan Area to accommodate 777 lower- income units as part of the City's strategy to accommodate its RHNA obligations.5 2 Holden, 43 Cal. App. 5th at 412, quoting Sierra Club v. County ofNapa, 121 Cal.App.4th 1490,1510-1511 (2004). 3 The City is required to approve up to a 100% density bonus for a project that complies with Government Code Section 65915(v). Page 9 of the City's Land Use Elements acknowledges that "Affordable housing density bonuses defined by State law and the Housing Element may exceed the maximum densities." 4/d.
5 Housing Element, p. F-65.

City of Pasadena
May 15, 2026

Page 3 ends

This Project would bring 131 affordable housing units to East Pasadena, which is directly consistent with the General Plan's strategy for accommodating the region's housing needs.

B. Appeal Claim No. 2 - The Project Is Not Within Vi Mile of a Major Transit Stop Statement from Appeal: "Density Bonuses were granted without adequate evidence that the project is within one-half mile of a major transit stop as defined by GC § 65915(o)(5) and PRC § 21155(b)."
The Project Site is located within one-half mile of two different major transit stops, as that term is defined in State Density Bonus Law: one at the corner of Foothill Blvd and Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, and another at the corner of Foothill Blvd and Rosemead Blvd. This fact is supported by substantial evidence in our letter provided to the City on April 14, 2026, and attached to this letter as Attachment A for reference.

As discussed in more detail in that letter, SDBL specifies that the measurement is taken as the crow flies, not based on the route that a pedestrian or car would take between the two points. SDBL states:
"(B) For purposes of this subdivision, 'unobstructed access to the major transit stop' means a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments. For purposes of this subparagraph, "natural or constructed impediments" includes, but is not limited to, freeways, rivers, mountains, and bodies of water, but does not include residential structures, shopping centers, parking lots, or rails used for transit." There are no natural impediments such as freeways, rivers, mountains or bodies of water between the Site and either of the two qualifying major transit stops.

Furthermore, Hahn and Associates, Inc., a licensed land surveyor, has confirmed that the Site is within one-half mile of both of the transit stops referenced above. (See Attachment B.) C. Appeal Claim No. 3 - Building B Exceeds the Maximum Height Limit • Statement from Appeal: "The height proposed for Building B will exceed the maximum height permitted by the Zoning Code for this location." The proposed height of Building B is 71 feet. The Project is zoned EPSP-d2-CO-D-2, which allows a height of 38 feet prior to any additional height permitted by state law. The Project is a 100% affordable housing project meeting the requirements in Government Code Section 65915(b)(l)(G)7 and, as discussed in Section B of this letter, is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

Consequently, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(2)(D), the Project is automatically 6Gov.Code§65915(p)(2)(B).
7 "One hundred percent of all units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager's unit or units, are for lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that up to 20 percent of the units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.For purposes of this subparagraph, "development" includes a shared housing building development." City of Pasadena
May 15, 2026

Page 4 ends

entitled by law to receive a height increase of up to 33 feet. Thus, in total, the Project is entitled to a height of 71 feet (38 + 33) and therefore does not exceed the maximum height limit.

D. Appeal Claim No. 4 - The Noise and Vibration Technical Report Was Incomplete and/or Inaccurate
Statement from Appeal: "The Noise and Vibration Technical Report used to grant a CEQA Class 32 Exemption was incomplete and /or inaccurate, in that it did not state or explain the aggregate noise levels caused by the proposed 150 HVAC outdoor condenser units and the impact on sensitive receptor sites."
The City's environmental consultant has updated the Noise and Vibration Technical Report to explain the aggregate noise levels cause by the proposed 150 HVAC outdoor condenser units and the impact on sensitive receptor sites, as noted in the City's staff report. This updated report continues to conclude that the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise.

However, more fundamentally, the Project is not subject to CEQA review at all because the City's design review process does not provide the City sufficient authority to consider environmental impacts or to mitigate those impacts. In McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena ("McCorkle")3 the City of St. Helena issued a Class 32 exemption under CEQA for a multifamily dwelling project for which the only entitlement was design review. In other words, the project did not require a use permit based on the particular zoning district. Although the city emphasized throughout the administrative process that its discretionary authority was limited to design review, to be conservative, the city analyzed and found the project fit squarely within the Class 32 exemption for infill projects.

When the city's decision was challenged, the court concluded that the city properly found its design review process was ministerial, given the city's lack of discretion to address potential environmental effects and ultimately the lack of authority to decide "whether or how the project should be carried out, "which isa defining characteristic of discretionary actions. The court held that a Class 32 exemption therefore was unnecessary.9 The court in McCorkle explained its decision as follows:
"[T]he purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To serve this goal the act requires assessment of environmental consequences where government has the power through its regulatory powers to eliminate or mitigate one or more adverse environmental consequences a study could reveal. [D] Thus, the touchstone is whether the approval process involved allows the government to shape the project in any way which could respond to any of the concerns which might be identified in an environmental impact report. [Citations omitted.] And when is government foreclosed from influencing the shape of the project? Only when a private party can legally compel approval without any changes in the design of its project which might alleviate adverse environmental consequences
vlO
831Cal.App.5th80(2019).
9 McCorkle,supra, 31 Cal.App.Sth at 94. This holding was also quoted in one of the handful of subsequent cases to reference the McCorkle decision (see Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus (2020) 10 Cal.Sth 479, 494 [stating "the agency's power to conduct an aesthetic design review did not make a project discretionary because the agency 'lack[ed] ... any discretion to address environmental effects.'"].) 10 McCorkle, supra, 31 Cal.App.Sth at 90 (citing Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 City of Pasadena
May 15, 2026
Page5
The McCorkle decision clarifies that CEQA is not triggered unless a discretionary action gives a local agency authority to mitigate the project's environmental consequences. The City of St. Helena in McCorkle was prevented from disapproving the project at issue for any non-design related matters given the extremely limited scope of the design review process. As such, CEQA review was not required.12 Moreover, because of the limited scope of the review in question, the City did not need to undertake the process of identifying an applicable categorical exemption (such as a Class 32 exemption for Infill Development) and making the requisite impact findings for the Project.13 Furthermore, the City's review of the Project's requests under State Density Bonus Law ("SDBL") are ministerial and therefore also exempt from CEQA review independent of the Class 32 exemption.

SDBL states that density bonuses and other modifications of applicable development standards granted under its provisions, in and of themselves, do not require discretionary approvals.14 Similarly, the City's municipal code states that density bonuses do not require discretionary approvals. Consequently, the City does not need to claim any specific exemption for the SDBL approvals because CEQA provide a statutory exemption for ministerial projects.16
In short, the Project is exempt from CEQA under the Class 32 exemption, but is also exempt from CEQA under the holding in McCorkle and under the exemption for ministerial projects.

E. Appeal Claim No. 5 - The Application Was Incomplete
Statement from Appeal: "The application was incomplete, in that it lacked required and/or satisfactory information causing the Design Commission to add 39 Conditions of Approval related to Design and Historic Preservation, and additional Conditions of Approval related to other City departments."
On October 23, 2025, the Applicant filed an application for both Preliminary Consultation and Preliminary Plan Review ("PPR") to the City of Pasadena's Community Development Department. All required items detailed in the City's Submittal Checklists for both the Preliminary Consultation and PPR were provided at the time of submittal. On October 30, 2025, the Applicant received a PPR Intake Letter from the assigned Case Manager, Rathar Duong, stating that the project application was circulated to City departments for comments. On November 17, 2025, the Applicant received a Notice of Complete Application for the Preliminary Consultation, stating that staff had reviewed the application and based on the materials submitted the application was deemed complete for processing with a tentatively scheduled public hearingfor January 27, 2026 with the Design Commission.

On March 9, 2026, the Applicant submitted an application for Consolidated Design Review. In response to this submission, the City requested additional application materials, and the Applicant submitted additional application materials on March 18, March 26, and April 8. The Applicant did not Cal.App.3d 259, 267) (emphasis added).
n McCorkle. supra, 31 Cal.App.Sth at 94.
"Id.
13 A Class 32 exemption for Infill Development requires that the project not result in any air quality, traffic and noise related impacts, among other criteria.
14 Government Code § 65915(f)(5), (j)(l).
15 PMC § 17.43.040.
16 Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(l).

City of Pasadena
May 15,2026

Page 6 ends

receive any notice of additional incomplete items from the City after the April 8 submittal. The Design Commission then considered the Project on April 14.

The City is required to provide a written determination to the Applicant regarding whether an application is complete or incomplete within 30 days of the application submission. (GOV. Code Section 65943(a).) In this case, the City had until April 8, 2026, to provide a complete list of any incomplete items that required additional submissions by the Applicant. Any items that are not determined to be missing or incomplete by the City within the 30-day review period are effectively waived under state law, which requires that subsequent incomplete letters may only require an applicant to submit incomplete items that were noted in writing during the first 30-day review period. (GOV. Code Section 65943(b).) In short, the Applicant submitted all application materials that City staff requested, and any additional items that were not requested during the 30-day review period are deemed waived by state law.

Furthermore, the imposition of Conditions of Approval is a standard procedure and is not evidence of any deficiency in the Project application.

Finally, the Appellant has not specified any information or document that was missing from the Application and has not made any argument as to why any allegedly missing information or document would provide a legal basis for overturning the approval of the Project. This in itself should be sufficient grounds for denying this claim in the Appeal.

II. The Project Is Eligible for the Requested Concessions Under State Density Bonus Law As discussed in Section I.C, above, the Project is a 100% affordable housing project meeting the requirements in Government Code Section 65915(b)(l)(G). Consequently, the Project is entitled to the approval of fiye concessions under State Density Bonus Law ("SDBL") (GOV. Code Section 65915).17 Concessions are defined in SDBL (in pertinent part) as follows:18 A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part

2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). "Development standard" includes:19
[A] site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, a minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential 17 Government Code § 65915(d)(2)(D).
18 Government Code § 65915(k)(l).
19 Government Code § 65915(o)(2).

City of Pasadena
May 15,2026

Page 7 ends

development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation that is adopted by the local government or that is enacted by the local government's electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the local government.

The granting of a concession does not require a discretionary approval.20 Instead, the City "shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city ... makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:21 (A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for... rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.

Here, the Applicant has requested five concessions, each of which would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions for the Project, as discussed below.

Concession 1 - Request to reduce the front yard setback by 10 feet, resulting in a 10-foot front yard setback instead of the 20-foot front yard setback required by PMC Section 17.22.070.B.

The Project is requesting a concession for a 10-foot reduction of the front yard setback, as required by setback requirements for multi-family projects in the EPSP-d2-CO-D-2 Zone utilizing the RM- 48 District setback standards, in lieu of the required 20-foot setback. In the absence of this concession, the front 10 feet of the buildings would need to be cut off to make space for the full 20-foot setback.

This would result in either a complete loss of the units on the street side of the buildings, or a reduction in the number of bedrooms that each unit could contain, both of which would significantly reduce the total rent revenue of the Project, which would in turn result in higher costs-per-unit to construct the project. Granting this concession will allow the Project to avoid these additional costs-per-unit and to avoid a loss in revenue, and will therefore result in identifiable and actual costs reductions.

Concession 2 - Request to permit a 140-foot increase in the length of the street facade in lieu of the 60-foot maximum allowed, pursuant to PMC Section 17.22.070.F.1. 20 Government Code § 65915(j)(l): "The granting of a concession or incentive shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, study,or other discretionary approval."
21 Government Code § 65915(d)(l).

City of Pasadena
May 15, 2026

Page 8 ends

The Project is requesting a concession for a 140-foot increase in the maximum length of the street facade for Building B22 along North Rosemead Boulevard, as required for multi-family projects in the EPSP-d2-CO-D-2 Zone utilizing the RM-48 District fagade length standards, in lieu of the required 60- foot maximum. The increase of the street facade length will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for the affordable housing units. A facade break greater than 15 feet in length and 10 feet in depth has been provided at the main entry (27 feet in length, extending through to the main courtyard), but cannot be extended open to sky without a loss of affordable units. However, the break is repeated at levels 1, 2, and 5, providing a visual break between two sides of the building mass. The facade length increase allows a building design that makes the provision of affordable units feasible.

In the absence of this request, the Project would be required to have a minimum of four (4) building breaks, which would result in the removal of approximately 20 affordable units. Furthermore, as this project has been awarded Tax Credits as a large family project, it is required to provide a minimum 25% of its units as 3-bedroom units, and the reduction in units could have a further impact on the unit mix, thus further reducing the number of affordable units on site up to an additional 8-10 more units for a total potential loss of units up to 30. This means that there would be fewer units over which to spread the fixed costs, thereby increasing the costs-per-unit to construct the Project. Consequently, granting the concession would allow the Project to avoid these increased costs.

Concession 3 - Request to permit an exemption from the RM-48 District Garden Requirements for a multi-family project in the EPSP-d2-CO-D-2 Zone, pursuant to PMC Section 17.22.080.

The Project is requesting a concession for an exemption from the RM-48 District Garden Requirements for a multi-family residential use in the EPSP-d2-CO-D-2 Zone. The Main Garden requirements, location, area, enclosure requirements, planting and paving standards, and additional open space requirements substantially inhibit the ability to accommodate 82 affordable dwelling units in a new construction building, and would not allow a building configuration that makes the provision of affordable units feasible. An exemption from these requirements is necessary to maximize the number of affordable units provided in the Project, and to maximize the available building footprint on the Project Site for affordable units. In the absence of this request, the additional area required to be utilized to accommodate the Main Garden requirements would remove affordable units, since the Project is currently maximizing the building envelope with the adaptive reuse of the office building (Building A). Thus, the exemption from the RM-48 Garden Requirements is necessary to allow the maximum number of affordable units (51 units for Building A and 82 units for Building B), to be provided within the Project's building envelope and result in cost reductions for the developer.

Concession 4 - Request to permit the use of the Adaptive Reuse open space development standard of 150 square feet per dwelling unit in lieu of the required RM-48 District Garden standards for o multi-family project, pursuant to PMC Section 17.50.030.F.

The Project is requesting a concession to utilize the Adaptive Reuse open space development standard of 150 square feet per dwelling unit in lieu of the required RM-48 District Garden standards for multi-family projects. Because the project is requesting an exemption from the base open space garden standards, the Project is requesting the Adaptive Reuse open space development standard to apply, as the standard is the most applicable to the scope of the Project and would allow for a building 22 As an adaptive reuse project, Building "A" is exempt from compliance with current code standards, and permitted to be legally non-conforming with regard to this frontage provision.

City of Pasadena
May 15, 2026

Page 9 ends

configuration that makes the provision of affordable units feasible. The ability to utilize the 150 square feet per dwelling unit standard per the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance is necessary to maximize the number of affordable units provided the Project, and to maximize the building footprint on the Project Site. In the absence of this request, the additional area required to be utilized to accommodate the Main Garden requirements would substantially reduce the number of on-site affordable units and thus increase fixed costs per dwelling unit. Thus, the ability to utilize the Adaptive Reuse open space standard is necessary to allow the maximum number of affordable units (51 units for Building A and 82 units for Building B), while providing sufficient common and private open space for residents pursuant to a City standard to be provided within the Project's building envelope and result in cost reductions for the developer.

Concession 5 - Request for the parking structure to not be located within the 40% rear of the site in lieu of the parking location requirement for podium buildings, pursuant to PMC Section 17.46.020.K.4.

The Project is requesting a concession to provide on-site parking that is not located within the 40% rear of the site in lieu of the parking location requirement for podium buildings. The current configuration and design of the adaptively reused building (Building A) and the proposed new construction (Building B) maximizes the number of affordable units provided without significant cost burdens to the project resulting from excessive site grading. Due to the steep slope, with a 19.9% average slope running North to South along the property line, and existing structures on the Project Site, granting the request for a deviation from this requirement for the podium building (Building B) will allow for a building envelope that provides for the provision of the greatest number of affordable units (81 units). Additionally, there is a significant slope in the rear of the property, that would require substantial excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a parking area in the rear of the property. Thus, the concession to deviate from the parking location results in substantial cost reductions to the developer, and thus enables the maximum number of affordable units possible within the building envelope.

In summary, each of these concessions would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for the affordable units in the Project. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the granting of these concessions would result in a specific, adverse impact or would be contrary to state or federal law.

Consequently, state law requires the City to grant each of these concession requests. * * *
As demonstrated in this letter, the Appeal fails to state any legal ground for overturning the Design Commission's approval. Furthermore, the City is required to approval each of the Project's five concession requests. For the reasons stated herein, we request that the City Council deny the Appeal and uphold the Design Commission's approval of the Project.

City of Pasadena
May 15, 2026

Page 10 ends

Sincerely,
Bti^P<Wtw,
Elisa Paster
Managing Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
ec: Jason Mikaetian, AICP, Acting Director of Community Development Kevin Johnson, Principal Planner
Rathar Duong, Senior Planner
Attachment A
Letter to the City Regarding Site's Proximity to Major Transit Stops R A ND| PASTER I NELSON
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Elisa Paster
213.557.7223
[email protected]
April 14, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Kevin Johnson
Principal Planner
Planning & Community Development Department
City of Pasadena
[email protected]
Re: 600 N. Rosemead Blvd. (DHP2026-00073) - Major Transit Stop Qualification Dear Mr. Johnson:

Rand Paster Nelson ("RPN") represents Elysian Housing, LLC ("Applicant") with respect to a proposed 100 percent affordable housing project consisting of 133 dwelling units ("Project"), two of which will be reserved as manager's units, at 600 Rosemead Blvd. in Pasadena ("Site"). The Applicant is proud to bring these affordable housing units to the City, in close proximity to the destruction wrought by the Altadena fires and to contribute to the City's satisfaction of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

We understand that the City has received comments from members of the public regarding the proximity of the Site to a major transit stop. As a preliminary matter, on April 14, 2026, the Design Review Board ("DRB") is only considering the Project's compliance with the objective design review standards. Proximity to the major transit stop is not within the purview of the DRB and only relates to the City's ministerial approval of the density bonus request.

With respect to the density bonus request, as discussed in detail herein, the Project is within Vi mile (2,640 feet) of two major transit stops: at Foothill Blvd. and Rosemead Blvd. and at Foothill Blvd. and Sierra Madre Blvd. Therefore, the Site qualifies for unlimited density, a height increase of 3 stories or 33 feet, and no minimum parking requirements pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (GOV. Code § 65915, "SDBL").

Applicable Law Regarding Major Transit Stops and State Density Bonus Law For one-hundred percent affordable housing projects, SDBL prohibits the City from imposing "any maximum controls on density" or any minimum parking requirements if a site is located within /z mile of a major transit stop.1 The law also grants five incentives and a height increase of up to three ' GOV.Code § 65915 (d)(2)(D), (f)(3)(D)(ii).

April 14, 2026

Page 2 ends

additional stories or 33 feet to affordable housing projects within Vi mile of a major transit stop. The SDBL states that "major transit stop" has the same meaning as defined in Pub. Res. Code § 21155.2 The relevant language in Pub. Res. Code §21155 states:
"A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan." (Emphasis added.)
Pub. Res. Code § 21064.3 states that a major transit stop:
"means a site containing any of the following:
(c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods." In other words, a project using SDBL can satisfy the requirement to be within % mile of a major transit stop so long as the transit stop e/t'/?er meets the criteria of Pub.Res. Code § 21064.3 or if the transit stop is identified in a regional transportation plan.

The SDBL contains specific language about how to measure whether a site is within Vi mile of a major transit stop:
"(3) "Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop" means that any point on a proposed development, for which an applicant seeks a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, or a vehicular parking ratio pursuant to this section, is within one-halfmile of any point on the property on which a major transit stop is located, including any parking lot owned by the transit authority or other local agency operating the major transit stop."3 (Emphasis added.)
This means that, so long as any point on the Site is located within % mile of a major transit stop, the Project is eligible for the benefits under the SDBL. One commenter suggested that the Project did not qualify for the benefits of the SDBL based on language in Pub. Res. Code § 21155(b) that states, "A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit scope of high qualify transit corridor if all parcels within the project have not more than 25 of their area farther than one-halfmile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units of 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor." That language is superseded by the SDBL which specifically states that the distance should be measured from "any point on a proposed development" to "any point of the property on which a major transit stop is located..."4 The SDBL specifies how the measurement should be taken for housing project, which overcomes the more general language in the Public Resources Code definition.5 Moreover, such interpretation is 2Gov.Code§65915(o)(5).
3Gov.Code§65915(o)(3).
4 GOV. Code §65915(o)(3).
5 Code Civ. Pro. § 1856 ("In the construction of a statute the intention of the Legislature, and in the construction of the instrument the intention of the parties, is to be pursued, if possible; and when a April 14, 2026

Page 3 ends

consistent with the SDBL's mandate to interpret the law "liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units." If the City were to interpret the Site's proximity to both major transit stops as suggested by the commenter, it would stymie the production of housing and violate state law.

Similarly, SB 2097 prohibits the City from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit." AB 2097 defines "public transit" to mean a major transit stop as defined in Pub. Res. Code Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.

SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan Identifies a Major Transit Stop at Foothill Blvd. and Sierra Madre Ave.

On April 4, 2024, SCAG adopted the Regional Transportation Plan, SoCal2024.6 The intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Sierra Madre Ave. is identified as a major transit stop in that plan, as memorialized in SCAG's map of major transit stops in the SCAG Region for plan year 2050.7 Major Transit Stops in the 5CAG
Region for plan year 2050
Private Member ®
Private Organization 0
Summary
This datasel represents the major transit
stops in the SC^G Region for pian year 2050.

It was originaify developed for SCAC's
Connect SoCal 2024. the Re^iona!
Transportation Plan/Susiainable
Communities Strategy (?iTP/SCS), and
subsequently updated to reflect the AB
2553 definition of a major transit stop,
Download
Details
Dataset
eFeature Layer
March 17,2026 at T2.-00:00 AM POTMai
info Updated
^-N April 9,2026 at 1051;09 AM PDT
s^/ Data Updated
BOctober 24,2024 at 55837 PM PDT
Published Date
Records 1330
Vle-vV data table
records; 1^30
t
T,rRnA $•;•„,, ,!•:;"''•," -,,g
-g i;
.3
M*:!A .^^"
a
feif!
w
s •
a
^
a
E]
Ill Bffl
sii
—
s
•f
p
•a
Q. fiOONSosemeadB?,'... | x
T
B
1^
0 •a
e
3 I;
£•
Major Transit Stop5 in the SCAG Regten
for plan year 2050
—
general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.). See also Stone Street Capital, LLC v. Co/.

State Lottery Comm'n (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109.
6 https://sc a g. c a ,gpv/co nnect-socal.
7 https://www.arcgis,com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?panel=gallerv&lavers=8bfbed890c91423cabe9ccc 20369cdca&catalog=f88b9465c7ec4c33b6a473b4a8f593b4 [November 17, 2023 HCD Technical Letter to the City of San Clemente].

April 14, 2026

Page 4 ends

SCAG specifically states that its map identifies the major transit stops in the SCAG Region for plan year 2050. "This dataset represents the major transit stops in the SCAG Region for plan year 2050. It was originally developed for SCAG's Connect SoCal 2024, the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and subsequently updated to reflect the AB 2553 definition of a major transit stop." In other words, the map reflects "major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan" in accordance with Pub. Res. Code §21155.

Pub. Res. Code § 21155's inclusion of "it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan" is important. The Legislature intended to include stops within the applicable regional transportation plan within the definition of a MTS, regardless of whether the headways meet the 20-minute service level. This interpretation has been confirmed by the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). In 2025, it issued guidance regarding AB 2097 that states:
"13. What if a location is a "major transit stop" in the current RTP, but does not meet any criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3 as a "major transit stop"? A major transit stop that is included in the applicable [regional transportation plan] RTP qualifies nearby sites for the purposes of AB 2097. The statute does not distinguish between existing and planned major transit stops, nor future changes or improvements. A site that qualifies based on its proximity to a major transit stop that is included in the RTP does not need to meet any criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3. (Emphasis added.)

14. What if the current RTP identifies a major transit stop that no longer meets any criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3?
The RTP remains in effect and binding for AB 2097 eligibility during its applicable time period, including if a major transit stop no longer meets the criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3." (Emphasis added.)8
The Site is located within 1/2 mile of the Foothill Blvd. and Rosemead stop. 8 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ab-2097-ta.pdf [TECHNICAL ADVISORY On the Implementation of AB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022).

April 14, 2026
PageS
Layers
GetstaUed
'fci.i =iin f..<fik~-rs3 maps, ;add Siw*r&, sni^ mo'ti
fKgii'ny in Tb savs y<'-i^r wort, sy tnbefo'<;i
yuyi'-iiip.

K
tKcut
easng ^
.__l....-."'
^.M:

E^ot C.tnycn
%«COW»
:ii
wisi:;.-SB
I,.

Ma^or Transit Stops in the 5CAG
R<!Sion for plan yea?- 2:050ssii as
•81W
^
£•
•s
^
m.

B^t:(eww)
ymwta'y'
St)wo!
cut,.,, nd
Unil
I M-lesi
Dj&taw:^

0.48 mi
»
AMe
!
}' w,:*f,'vvc
wI K:-!..^'""•"h
M
<;!*W)t)i:(^OrjiF^jt <i*u»«
i
I.'
0 a
syt^f'l Wood it
sr
,-f ^:-M:jf<»w,»<^^^
f
£
IH'>»if:,^. s^
tw^-n »d frWfl «d
f
^ityf:).r ss
&*i(fi:Wi>y
If.V»yf»li-&f
"'••
y ^ ,•«0
Is •ftH Is ri
f
*,
r
I?^'^sf-1
"'•^sssrsszSfesaa ' as•"" iss i
Note, the above measurement is generously measured from the center of the Site, despite the SDBL being clear that it is measured from "any point on a proposed development." Because the Project is located within 1/z mile of this stop, it qualifies for the benefits of the SDBL.

SDBL specifies that the measurement is taken as the crow flies, not based on the route that a pedestrian or car would take between the two points. SDBL states:
"(B) For purposes of this subdivision, 'unobstructed access to the major transit stop' means a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments. For purposes of this subparagraph, "natural or constructed impediments" includes, but is not limited to, freeways, rivers, mountains, and bodies of water, but does not include residential structures, shopping centers, parking lots, or rails used for transit."9 There are no natural impediments such as freeways, rivers, mountains or bodies of water between the Site and either of the two qualifying major transit stops. Instead, as shown below, the area is a typical urban area with single and multi-family residential and commercial structures. 9Gov.Code§65915(p)(2)(B).

April 14, 2026

Page 6 ends

•gjEEnK-pat
Si Pha ft Restaursnts |( iaiS]@ Transit |[ P Parking teisTtiidodesATM ngs .B3. »fc •?-i».WRT»^.CT?-?*? f: Pi\
^»K¥S y Iw-
mfii" ^S-P tVw;x "s'.-
m ^ »SV sS
vt'^. 'ss. 1^i .e-1B ef,
»1y? ^ 3t
%a''Mi K5r^£3S.s. B£S •>:^. m ^g^se.ari
its<<
$Si^ <••£»» ya?«,i^ <wl.-
^ '!K®^ i^Si^*-*\.« ^ ,Eaw I^ rt:?w<f; !5um »eiin
i^s??-®
'^
:{ m% t-s
^ *SKaSS•i%^ yA3tf!
^®
•^sSSSi s
"•',t -isQE.5s-: fv. a JFerefi vtt.^t. -ylAS^*«B» ^•fiS'-f m^
<» 3
•?» s»tj•Kit '«? •f.,-i
SB^FA'-i^f
ms
•M sutiSd
^
</ I!s s •e.ff'.I ws @ % p^".;<v:.^l..-:-fc^,r?'^^•^\^te<- r-a^ ^Q^ SL'r •*,'•^I
^'
!-!•*
!2S £.£.-r's •SE^ as-•••;•
.'^a,I •If,
r,* asfasi-S
I o;ea
!K '•>. •(•
i II1 •s 'i mi*
^BS
IP3; "^
i^FNr:ll
IS
KlMwww
va
^M •a^.
'.s?s IK
'•I.^sw^•*='l-i^».im5 B-
SS^.Sa-.nini^^ ^W®PP—
Note, while GOV. Code § 65915(p)(2)(B) specifically applies to parking provisions under SDBL, it is consistent with HCD guidance on how to measure distance to a major transit stop more generally." As noted by HCD in its guidance letter to the City of San Clemente", the straight line measurement is in keeping with the "ordinary meaning" of how required distances are typically measured in state housing laws absent specific statutory instructions to the contrary. SDBL does not contain any language that indicates that the one-half mile distance should be measured based on walking distance. Further, the definitions of a major stop in Pub. Res. Code §§ 21155 and 21064.3 do not reference walking distance.

Had the Legislature intended for the one-half mile distance to be based on walking distance, it could have included language to that effect as seen in other state housing laws such as the accessory dwelling unit law (GOV. Code, § 65852.2 (c), (d)) and SB 9 (GOV. Code, § 65852.21(c)(l)(A)l).) Based on the Site proximity to the major transit stop at Foothill Blvd. and Sierra Madre Ave., the Project may take advantage of SDBL with respect to unlimited density, no minimum parking requirements, and an additional 3 stories or 33 feet in height. 10 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ab-2097-ta.pdf [TECHNICAL ADVISORY On the Implementation of AB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022).
n https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-clemente-ta- ab2097-hau459-111723.pdf
April 14, 2026
Page?
The Site is Located Within Vz Mile of the Major Transit Stop at Rosemead Blvd. and Foothill Blvd.

Although the Site already qualifies as discussed above, the Site is also within Yi mile of a second major transit stop at Foothill Blvd. and Rosemead Blvd." @ b»
SVG High Quality Transit Corridors
litIsm13 V3\©Nls%;>•£•-a.
im5 %II'
••ast-W-'sT-KrTet'
t%» s^**;
!,Pr' ^'•SSW£
m:y*•* ,g- •:'^x '.t a Cirf.KL.'i'. F'^i-v^s< MBB•ai BB n5f:
/K &.«'.
i*? •3
&»^'£1 •s <•ia ^f-
»'0.50 mi
fim ^s
r!SK
mK ».
li ^'{,
!m
m x<

R H B (
J 1-5S
's.
» mi
Ml
^ ^sm »^l^'ofes i £1 ^.\»,mms-.t sas.
•S^:i-»B;-,'"-i;,I<<- telM ,%^ri
That stop qualifies because it constitutes an "intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods." Again, HCD has issued valuable guidance about how to determine whether two buses meet the 20 minute service intervals:
"HCD recommends averaging bus service intervals across the combined morning and afternoon peak periods for the purposes of maximizing housing production potential and to account for peak-directional service (e.g., more frequent inbound morning service). The average frequency must be 20 minutes or less across both peak periods. In other words, two or more bus routes must- st-op at a given location at least 21 times in a seven-hour period to qualify for AB 2097 prohibition on minimum parking requirements. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies a statutory threshold of "two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less" during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods but does not provide a methodology for calculating peak frequency." (Emphasis added.)13
12 httDS://hub.scag.ca.gov/datasets/776f50814f044el399fa7e4db81caa78 0/explore?location=34.093 860%2C-118.276831°/o2C9.
13 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/ab-2097-ta.pdf [TECHNICAL ADVISORY On the Implementation ofAB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022).

April 14, 2026
PageS
Metro Bus 266 and Foothill Transit Line 187 intersect at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Rosemead Blvd. 14 As shown below, the two buses stop more than 21 times at the intersection (Metro Bus 266 stops 28 times and Foothill Line 187 stops 22 times). The full transit schedules are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein.

Sierra Madre Villa StationRosemead Blvd & Colorado Blvd NorthboundSouthboundWestboundEastbound
6:41 AM
7:01 AM
^
7:24 AM
7:44 AM
8:04 AM
3:18 PM
3:38 PM
3:57 PM
4:17 PM
4:37 PM
4:57 PM
5:17 PM
5:37 PM
5:57 PM
6:00 AM
6:20 AM
6:38 AM
6:55 AM
7:14 AM
7:32 AM
7:51 AM
8:11 AM
8:30 AM
3:37 PM
3:57 PM
4:40 PM
5:00 PM
7:50 AM
8:10 AM
3:28 PM
3:43 PM
3:59 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:02 PM
5:19 PM
5:35 PM
5:50 PM
6:54 AM
7:13 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:17 AM
8:32 AM
8:47 AM
3:09 PM
3:25 PM
3:41 PM
3:56 PM
4:12PM
4:27 PM
4:42 PM
4:57 PM
5:12 PM
5:27 PM
5:43 PM
5:59 PM
14 times14 times12 times20 times
Thus, even if the Site was not within 1/2 mile of the major transit stop at Foothill Blvd. and Sierra MadreeAve., it still qualifies for the benefits of the SDBL based on its proximity and the bus frequency at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Rosemead Blvd.

We appreciate the City's stated interpretation that the Project is within Vz mile of both aforementioned transit stops. We respectfully request that you place this letter in the administrative record for the Project. Do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. 14Seehttps://cdn.beta.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/03103233/26- 0888 online system map 47x47.5 DCR.pdf [Metro Bus and Rail System Map.

April 14, 2026

Page 9 ends

Best regards,
Elisa Paster
Managing Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
EP
Attachment
April 14, 2026

Page 10 ends

Exhibit A
Transit Schedules
Monday thcBugh Friday
Northbound A; WorteiAppr.
0—tof^^0 •^ia,:
a- iss" SSS-& is"'
I
;;ss
?:35
»:5<
10:13
10;33
io:sn
11:10
lit
~i3T
Ill
9;oa
9:2B
9:47
10;06
10;25
|:!|p
1i2f
;;g
I!!l;
?:i0
?:S)
10:1T
10:38
ill'
T?T
9:29
ill
1i3TT
11 ,|i|
!!;i;
11:17
11:37
11:57
1;:17P
12:37
1^:57
1:17
1:37
1;S7
.o—^o---*o——»e—--+®
KS> Ites?" |s:5;M" |E=" liiEsag;
-1i!T "IT
II
,1
I
11:30
:sa
:10P
: 30
!:07
2:27
liS
4:2i
5:1 B
5:30
5:50 [
3 i I ;;;!
;3S
I l"i
!!:;s
illi:;:;;
i
IS
Ill
t;l;
!SS;
III;is
I
S!Ill
3:OB
3:;8
3:iB
!
g
is
I
:;i:
»:53
10:38
BtBntlaythnugh'Fnaay':
";
);4B
) 0:08
10; ZB
W'M
11:08
11:27
i|3J
!3
IllIs;
I!
.Ill
10;DD
10:45
i;K
8 I
10:5Z
I
I
!!S
12:<7
1:D7
1:27
K
,110:17
!!;!; | !;;S
266
Southbound/If Sur
o:—*o—
&•" ISS?"
Q-0
SS !Ke"iiS- tSstSi;..

I!!"litIfi"l;lf
i;:s;s;s! i!S!;;!!:;;
!;!;:!!
:31
; 52
)0:A<
lip II
;:s ::;;;:;;!:;; !:g;:;i;:S!
::;;;!lss!!:S!
";;s !l!l!p!j;l:!:2 !;2;;;liI;;:i i;;S
lsii II;i;a
!;i;;i! i;'sill: CthE!! !!!sI:;!E£ ES
IIEil
;!^ sIlls ;;!Ii;:S
;:1;;:;i::;!!;£:s,:!s ,::;;!!;5!!:!;
Saturday, Sunday and Holiday SchedulesHorarios de sabado. domingo y di'as feriados lay and Holiday Schedule in effect on New Year's Horanos de sabado, dominga, y dias feriados en vigor para Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving New Years Day, Memorial Dayjndependwce Day. LaborDay.

Thanksgiving Day y Christmas Day.

Saturday. Sunday and Holiday Schedule in effect on New Year' Day. Memorial
Day and Christmas Day.

Lose something;
Learn more about Metro's
Lost S. Found service.

Visit 1'netro.net/tostandfound
or call 323.937.8920.
eS.Mfc<^)
^•_sij]_n
C.Ixw &U
©
I
j
?
•s;
m
I
ili
•I i •IS
K
fD
c
Q)
-0
-£](D
10 ^fO
— Q-
rofO
<J ^~0 0ro
u
CD
(U <
c
Q)
fD
Q)3
.E Q
ro
10 fD
3 u
N 0
<
L4
ii
£B
s
c
<
i
(0
LO
%
s
0 SlLO
<u
f0
0 2:

I
•o
0 I"
w
ja
Q
g§ !
^ I1^ s
+• fD
v>
0 c S0
c
I z
">
I ai
"K ~R
£ ^Su
II III Ia. DL 3E
Xt
c
®
I5
1^1
!§1
lsi
I i" I
!^1
m|
1§1
11 Ills\
2 s III
(/)
IllIll
-iKl
II
sl
c
iZ
II
II
II
0 u>
2 Xl
0)
s
s
3 w
0 *>
I
I
s
Ill
Irf
co
IlllsiII
R
r^
s|
CM
Ill
lsi
IllIllIll
Ill
5 II
s
(U
1\
11 co
r
Ill
s

1.31 lsi
u
Ill
s
W
II
II!
Ill
^
Q
s\
il
m
^
n
I
£
^
Q
I
II
I
^
I
Ts.
a
I
u
Q.

I
I
^
%
I
I
(/)
s
a>
&
"\
z Q.h-Azusa Ave
!:^!
SanGabriel Ave ^0 ^
ifi K
(D
VI
3 LO
N
< „£
Todd Ave
i I
Irwindale Ave^
»
^
(fc\
Oilill?1
s
ai u>
s-3 s/ %< •B- s
gg
ffi
0 ffi ?t^ <us s "-0
% t:^s: — +1s -s 0
£ S ? (0m•s :s2 Highland
Ave
s sss s.a; E " €.roc Q£ 3z ^ E s2
m
0 Sg0^ 's ^ Bueria ^t
Vista St
s ss ^u •o2 TOs<
^ 2 Mountain Ave^ss^ ^ 5^ 3s /(D.£ — Q.
s s ^-I t; ^ - I 84^^2' £ e!^s.sCt ZL £ Myrtle
Ave2"/^s •§s ^ -^ £.?•3 s ma &u
£ r^.
£<•s ^ m•'s o8 V,0 £s-^
0}•s s% s°£ ss s ^ Q £1zs
§GO 0z: a.h-
?2nd
Ave
»M
WIES^VmSWWIttSSlSW^SSB^^fS
Santa Anita Ave ,| I II
\ ^ sre\
s *- c
Baldwin s
Ave
•o IB<s 'S.S<0 ?Q
y ££ m5, h-U)Q< s.
-0
@ § 1Michilinda Ave
Rosem 2:
£zMadre
St
Q
ic(0 co
?Marengo
Ave
/-;i5? "^.z® .'
^ 0 m mS-o •ai
^ TO %Q•IK Altadena Dr
w
s2 s°&
£•^ gro
^ 2s-^^. "10K
I
K~V, Lake-Aves1 7~7§s sis. c c 0$"^
3u i, ® Los Robles Ave
C -03AV s>|eo -i!ej 3:s
0 Fair Oaks Ave
5»^aQOL--»••
V.

Line-Lfnea
>;<
<z
o<^2
Ul
<n
^
a
h-
z
IS!
.1
ij
illil>£
4:35
5:05
5:35
6:05
6:24
6:45
7:05
7:25
7:45
8:05
8:20
8:35
8:50
9:05
9:20
9:35
9:50
10:05
10:20
10:35
10:50
11:05
11:21
11:37
11:55
12:15
12:35
12:55
1:15
1:35
1:55
2:10
2:25
2:40
2:55
3:11
3:27
3:43
3:58
4:15
4:32
4:48
5:03
5:18
5:33
5:48
6:03
WESTBOUND/EN DIRECCfON OESTE

AZUSA TO PASADENA

AZUSA HACIA PASADENA
ol
uII
.0)
4:46
5:17
5:47
6:17
6:36
6:57
7:19
7:39
7:59
8:20
8:35
8:50
9:05
9:20
9:35
9:50
10:05
10:20
10:35
10:50
11:05
11:20
11:36
11:52
12:10
12:30
12:50
1:10
1:30
1:50
2:09
2:24
2:39
2:54
3:09
3:25
3:41
3:57
4:12
4:29
4:46
5:02
5:17
5:32
5:47
6:02
6:17
ll
s
2'E
-r: <o
l-t/1
5:01
5:32
6:02
6:34
6:53
ll
^
II
I6
c2o8
5:09
5:40
6:11
6:43
7:03
^
m ai
II
^
Oo3
5:24
5:55
6:28
7:00
7:23
7:16
7:38
7:58
8:19
8:40
•^TTSS
7:50
8:10
8:52
7:48
8:10
8:30
8:51
9:12
8:55
9:10
9:25
9:40
9:55
9:07
9:22
9:37
9:52
10:06
9:27
9:42
9:57
10:13
10:27
10:11
10:27
10:42
10:57
11:12
10:21
10:37
10:52
11:07
11:22
10:42
10:58
11:13
11:28
11:43
11:27
11:42
11:58
12:15
12:33
11:37
11:52
12:09
12:26
12:44
11:58
12:13
12:30
12:47
1:05
12:53
1:13
1:33
1:53
2:13
1:04
1:24
1:44
2:04
2:24
1:25
1:45
2:05
2:26
2:46
2:32
2:47
3:02
3:17
3:32
3:48
4:04
4:19
4:34
4:51
5:08
5:24
5:39
5:54
6:09
2:43
2:58
3:28
3:43
3:59
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:02
5:19
5:35
5:50
3:05
3:20
3:35
3:50
4LQ5^
4:20
4:36
4:51
5:06
5:23
6:19
5:40
5:56
6:10
6:25
6:39
6:23
6:38
6:33
6:48
6:53
7:07
^...^x
11 fi
5:31
6:02
6:35
7:08
7:31
7:56
8:19
8:39
9:00
9:21
9:36
9:51
10:07
10:23
10:37
10:52
11:08
11:23
11:38
11:53
12:08
12:23
12:40
12:57
1:15
1:35
1:55
2:15
2:36
2:56
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:46
5:01
5:16
5:33
5:50
6:06
6:20
6:35
6:49
7:03
7:17
Continued
LIGHT TYPE = AM
BOLD TfPE = PMfoothilltransit.org 800.RIDE.INFO (743.3463) Line-Lfnea
>-< <2 Q< ^2
UJ
w
^Ul
oi
z
Continued
i
li
sli
Ill
6:18
6:33
6:50
7:10
7:30
7:50
8:10
8:30
8:50
9:11
9:35
10:05
10:35
11:05
WESTBOUND/EN DIRECCfON OESTE

CONTINUED AZUSA TO PASADENA

AZUSA HACIA PASADENA
.1
BIt
6:32
6:47
7:04
7:23
7:43
8:03
8:22
8:42
9:02
9:23
9:47
10:16
10:46
11:16
il
in 5
S'E
f ro
t-w
6:53
7:07
7:23
7:42
8:02
^1II
^
li
>~0
8U
<2.oQ
7:03
7:16
7:32
7:51
8:10
8:22
8:41
9:01
9:20
9:41
8:30
8:49
9:09
9:28
9:49
10:04
10:32
11:02
11:31
10:12
10:40
11:10
11:39
1 m gi
^
2^
^
Oo8
7:21
7:34
7:50
8:09
8:28
8:48
9:06
9:25
9:44
10:04
10:26
10:54
11:24
11:53
§.:^
IIg
Ko8
7:31
7:44
8:00
8:19
8:38
8:58
9:16
9:35
9:54
10:13
10:35
11:03
11:33
12:02
>;<
§1
^2
^s!UJ
z
Ul
a
^...^.K
III
Qio8
EASTBOUND/EN DIRECCfON ESTE

PASADENA TO AZUSA

PASADENA HACIA AZUSA
I...

CD
IIw
Oos
^1
1111II
8U
c£o8
h
<^s
wt
^s
iriQ-^
g-0
|i>
Io8
1^
ill11,2
3:55
4:25
4:55
5:25
5:55
4:02
4:32
5:02
5:33
6:03
4:14
4:44
5:14
5:46
6:16
4:22
4:52
5:22
5:54
6:25
4:38
5:08
5:38
6:10
6:44
4:52
5:22
5:52
6:25
7:00
6:15
6:32
6:49
7:04
7:19
6:23
6:40
6:57
7:14
7:29
'6:54
713
7:30
745
8:00
8:17
8:32
8:47
6:48
7:05
7:24
7:41
7:56
7:07
7:25
7:44
8:01
8:17
7:23
7:41
8:00
8:17
8:33
7:34
7:49
8:04
8:19
8:34
7:44
7:59
8:14
8:29
8:44
8:11
8:28
8:43
8:58
9:13
8:32
8:49
9:04
9:19
9:34
8:48
9:05
9:20
9:35
9:50
8:49
9:04
9:19
9:34
9:49
8:59
9:14
9:29
9:44
9:59
9:17
9:32
9:47
10:02
10:18
9:28
9:43
9:58
10:15
10:31
9:49
10:04
10:20
10:37
10:53
10:06
10:22
10:38
10:55
11:11
Continued
LIGHT Tl'PE= AM
BOLD TfPE = PMfoothilltransit.org 800.RIDE.INFO (743.3463) Line-Lfnea
>;<
<z
Q<^
UJ
in
^
oi
Continued
z
^.:^.K
I?
0-c
icS5s
10:04
10:19
10:38
10:57
11:17
11:37
11:56
12:14
12:31
12:48
1:05
1:20
1:35
1:50
2:05
^w
2:35
2:51
3:07
3:22
3:37
3:52
4:07
4:22
4:37
4:52
5:08
5:24
5:39
5:54
-6:09~
6:24
6:39
6:54
7:09
7:30
7:50
8:10
8:30
8:50
9:10
9:35
10:05
10:35
EASTBOUND/EN DIRECCfON ESTE

CONTINUED PASADENA TO AZUSA

PASADENA HACIA AZUSA
t:
co
-§^1^
1:3
Uo8
10:16
10:31
10:50
11:09
n:29_
-51
II
S2
E-S
lt3
£2o8
10:35
10:50
11:09
11:28
_11,:48_
il
s
^1
h-UI
10:48
11:03
11:22
11:41
J2:01
11:49
12:08
12:26
12:43
1:00
12:08
12:28
12:46
1:03
1:20
12:22
12:42
1:00
1:17
1:35
1:17
1:32
1:47
2:02
2:17
1:38
1:53
2:08
2:24
2:39
1:53
2:08
2:23
2:39
2:54
^3T
2:47
3:03
3:19
3:34
//~^2T5r~
f 3:09
Y 3:25
^ 3:41
( 3:56
^09^
3:24
3:40
3:56
4:10
3:49
4:04
4:19
4:34
4:49
5:04
5:20
5:36
5:51
6:06
4:12
4:27
4:42
4:57
5:12
5:27
5:43
5:59
4:26
4:41
4:56
5:11
5:26
6:26
5:41
5:57
6:13
6:26
6:40
~6:2T
6:36
6:51
7:05
7:19
~6:41~
6:56
7:09
7:22
7:36
-6:55-
7:10
7:23
7:36
7:50
7:40
8:00
8:20
8:40
9:00
7:57
8:15
8:35
8:55
9:15
8:09
8:27
8:47
9:06
9:25
9:20
9:45
10:14
10:44
9:35
10:00
10:29
10:59
9:45
10:10
10:39
11:09
^sQ^
|¥
Io8
11:10
11:25
11:44
12:03
12:24
12:45
1:05
1:23
1:42
2:00
2:19
2:34
2:49
3:05
3:20
^3T
3:50
4:06
4:22
4:36
4:52
5:07
5:22
5:37
5:52
6:07
6:24
6:40
6:53
7:06
^:T8~
7:32
7:45
7:58
8:12
8:31
8:49
9:09
9:27
9:46
10:06
10:30
10:59
11:29
J1^
sli
3 11^
11:28
11:43
12:02
12:21
12:42
1:03
1:23
1:41
2:00
2:18
2:37
2:52
3:07
3:23
3:38
^5T
4:09
4:26
4:42
4:56
5:12
5:27
5:42
5:57
6:13
6:28
6:45
7:01
7:11
7:23
^:35~
7:49
8:02
8:14
8:28
8:47
9:05
9:24
9:42
10:01
10:20
10:44
11:13
11:43
LIGHT T('PE= AM
BOLD TYPE = PM foothilltransit.org800.RIDE.INFO (743.3463) Attachment
Transit Stop Survey
U1,
N
§g s
•feg5 &i"
1^1
ms
?S5fe I..
1§. >^il II (DH§
£
-h. :••
^SgxsIINic 3
C^)
Q-
0 c^
^ 0)»?^ c
co^l5??
I-CT-p:
ll^
a\-
§ s:st
alsj
s g
N
•IS aV31S-IVH0
^ a^13 ^^•o; ^z§s b-^.^f.•ci •^
M£2
5§1
'^ mv\3SWHWtias g
^OR^^:^ ^% ^ ^'^~•-^
^£.
gC3
m $s& § % %^^ ^^sg ^^g teg §
g i7i
1^fn
y
^ te s
1§!J
cn
z1 y§ss 5 2^-CN S Kg SI
aj2
Illl^e&
5s §3 ?88 I i^'i& -Igg"
CL3 |82R-V 5 §-1^
I Ill
Q
I? U)
5 II 21Isg
•Sri -Sm u0)
•5&^i§0 a 3
§§
s£
ggui 1^5 ^&§3. s£s.Sa. g
s^
Iss
>,
!
s
-a :^^*«Mw
^m
^s a
i^
m•^ ESfiwsfi»^"
IIS Jt.'-s
m
•s"s.'a »-^%I
i21I
IP^S <«iltl*i:l fS..
.<•f'a ^^AR %StiS» »;fS 9» ImI.'.a.I ^:^ ^, ^^
"t^l
Mm \&a^ 4J1£i
fi
;?i3^
1^ "n ^^
^
^
•';
g1
ftSfc
sfi'»u K6sM SiS1 %:'I*:<Sf ae
II 1%<B»w
•^ I® •s'
s.r"3^_ tt •^» J .sKylfe^ 3B
I s'Sti:^
^i
j.
"c
m
.$
,?-m itkli-
m
It
~*sSKI ^'"^»,
M^ s »• y.
mfWI
^ fc^ •g "•
'<"£.^
^^ r/, ^
w\\£ i iS;?•t t
-•^t-Svs"-. iy.(W-fc ^••It ft>s :ii"V,
R'aw •fw ?»s;,'-•.;••:
\^ »,•
s i
9U»
I
*.i
^
•m
•eitowa. I *'•'* ??
^Stgg -
Mi
.1^1
•rl^s.
m isBl ^'^^^^1'•*•% iFttT-
%.-• 33" 11
••d
Iaj I?;
^Uim i
'sf'.^ 3^^ ",**t:.w <mws r^'**i •cm '"
.£ ••X:tfn.t SISi
¥
?f iafH i^' •s^.
^ ,-
im
Bi•;!Sas
(Ii
jKB^A
i
life^; ss »•
&^1@1 :A1.>1 mm
^^
•a
II
.s »'^ I•t
s
K§s t-h
sg
m
r'•sf^,
a•I I ^*tes'••t vs s?'fts.!^
yssysiws^ I?" 1 ^!«fsy •9%M
m
4»ttt. ;.-
m »#
^^»• :*svr »t»."<c»
m
?»'. ^y"s-•%• sw~S.^i.

Sit
,1,'3sg »i•iit .'.s-^ •ai-F ,^w
II
~»«rJI
tg'd-
Its^ •!«>
I ^m sB ^
^1:ae %
i«
llKK •I.811
"^
ia-BIs^ ^^w •,-,t
3LI
'i't •»Ute
IS@saas 1
"t
iS:y (»•,s :<'w%AIV^1.V s;¥.ti a %:i m L-S3| m
,'§
»»cKl :a<ii;1^ w.»»*^^ :.-1.•» *•<.
^^•r•as ii.i 1»a 1-1 iw.,:'?<
^-.-• *;*"
^w s.•uif;
^ & a
\£ £ISTillA a%•s
^
^IES S9C
I
&!^-i0 ^^ ^^
Y<
:B •.•ff-,-I
3-
m ,s
K ?j ^..'.
ms«
ff,^^".1 :&
It St<gfr:
•f
1fefc
^
A <»a
t3^
ws:

Sk' —:.-»*•r' ••
^ »*fe. w"ffl-
I^ ^
'"
m
•(
e^
.•*»
•^••• %
a^ •Sft^s» riSIi^as; *KK .te -Wi1w Rmfx^-
!ffS-8
,s»
y •^,1
..f^f
us
•*'
i- m.-^ ;•»
1 ^ -i &'.~».

Qtl^^ -^. t»^;® ,-*jrv~-!
^ '•*
$?^as
'^
£^(/. "* it
•la
L^ jy("
's»i; 4"•^
l|?i; ss^l ^^ ilM^^
8i
x
¥s .-•
lfe ^s'
•fK-
,»<3f
^
•Vs »? m
rs
^ Ifc:i^ii mS»»,i| i3,te-I ^
.'€
nil ::£ ^1'xgs "fay!!•-,;-
•1»w mM 9e-d •^15 ^ m •tl^^ "?1i^ !.
? sft ;.' .",.ca sst
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Nielsen
Saturday, May 16, 2026 4:50 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
600 N Rosemead project
Z3- • •
Some people who received this message don't often get email from brjam why this is important [ j ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Please enter into the public record that I am opposed to the Design Commission having signed off on the proposed 600 N Rosemead project. It circumvents the city's own zoning codes by allowing the building of a six- story "100% affordable" housing project at 600 N Rosemead WITH INADEQUATE PARKING. My question is "why?" Why disregard our own zoning codes for a project that doesn't even meet the exemption criteria laid down by the State whereby a resident shall walk no farther than one-half mile from THEIR APARTMENT to the major transit stop? ALL of the residential units at 600 N Rosemead are farther than one-half mile from the major transit stop when distance is measured using the PATH OF A PEDESTRIAN-keeping in mind that "straight-Line measurement of distance does NOT apply when statutes mention walking distance." Once again I ask why is this six-story structure even being considered when: (1) it defies our zoning codes, and (2) it doesn't even meet the criteria set by the State Density Bonus Law? Even if one disregards the "walking distance" issue there is the glaring inadequate parking issue that will plague the neighborhood ad infinitum? Why subject the neighborhood to that when a three-story building could be built instead? As someone who taught American Government for over 30 years because I believe government is truly there to serve the people, and because I wanted to instill that same belief in my students, if I were still teaching I would certainly ask students to assess if this measure is in the best interest of the people's neighborhood or in the interest of a developer? In this day and age when people don't hold government officials in very high esteem, I urge you to do the right thing and only allow the building of a three-story structure at 600 N Rosemead.

Sincerely,
Carol Lee Nielsen
Pasadena.CA 91107
Lower Hastings Ranch resident
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

MarilynneWilander <r
Sunday, May 17, 2026 7:30 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please vote YES on the Rosemead Apartments
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important [ I ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

It is important that the Pasadena City Council vote to provide supportive housing for families. The Rosemead Apartments project would do this. It benefits a city when those who provide vital services can afford to Live in Pasadena. When those who work in Pasadena know that the City values their work by approving quality supportive housing, it helps to build loyalty and commitment not just from 9-5, but helps to make it easier for them to become valued members of the community.

Pasadena has been my community for most of my life. I continue to own property near the Rose Bowl and am active in the Pasadena community and support PUSD.

I hope that you see supporting Pasadena employees by making suportive housing for families a priority as a benefit to the City of Pasaadena.

Sincerely,
Marilynne Kennedy Wilander
property owner
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Andreas Kose •
Sunday, May 17, 2026 3:41 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Public Comment in support of the appeal of the Design Commission approval for 600 N.

Rosemead Boulevard
i^ -
co' Ti
< £
Si
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromearn why this is important [ i.] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

This letter is regarding agenda items 11 & 12 of the May 18 2026 City Council meeting Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am writing to request that the City Council grant the, set aside or remand the approval, and decline to move forward with TEFRA/CMFA financing approval unless and until the record is corrected.

This letter is not a statement against affordable housing in Pasadena. Affordable housing is needed. The issue before the Council is whether this specific approval should stand when the record does not adequately address the project's transit eligibility, parking demand, street parking capacity, site planning, and operational impacts.

The City's own staff report shows why the appeal should be granted. The project proposes 133 total residential units, consisting of 131 affordable units and two manager units. The unit mix includes 8 studios, 57 one-bedroom units, 34 two- bedroom units, and 34 three-bedroom units. The project provides only 55 parking spaces. The same staff report identifies the City's ordinary zoning-code parking baseline as 215 spaces. The report also states that, because the project is being treated as a 100 percent affordable housing project within one-half mile of a major transit stop, it receives unlimited density, additional height, and no minimum parking requirement under state density-bonus law.

The applicant's own legal submission asserts that the project is within one-half mile of two alleged major transit stops:

Foothill/Rosemead and Foothill/Sierra Madre. It also states that proximity to a major transit stop was not within the Design Review Board's purview and related instead to the City's ministerial density-bonus approval. That distinction matters. If the Design Commission did not decide the transit eligibility issue, the Council should not treat the approval as though that issue has been fully resolved.

The parking issue is equally serious. A legal parking exemption does not eliminate real parking demand. The City should not infer from "no minimum parking required" that residents, visitors, caregivers, service providers, delivery vehicles, rideshare vehicles, moving trucks, and guests will have no impact. The 160-space difference between the City's ordinary zoning baseline and the proposed 55-space supply requires a practical answer: where will the vehicles go? The answer should not be unsupported reliance on Rosemead Boulevard. Residents familiar with the corridor know that legal and usable curb parking is limited by driveways, curb restrictions, bus stops, commercial frontage, visibility concerns, and practical access constraints. Before the Council upholds the approval, the record should include a curb-by-curb inventory of legal parking spaces within the relevant radius, evening and overnight occupancy counts, weekend counts, existing commercial demand, loading analysis, and an enforceable parking and curb-management plan.

The City's own parking rules further demonstrate why street parking should not be treated as an easy solution. Pasadena's permit materials state that overnight parking generally requires a permit between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.; permits may be denied if parking is available on-site or within 600 feet; no more than two nighttime and two daytime permits may be issued to one residence; and permitted vehicles must park within 500 feet of the permittee's residence and not in prohibited or painted-curb zones or in front of nonresidential frontage. These restrictions do not create parking capacity. They make it more innportant for the City to prove capacity before relying on street parking.

The approval record also should not assume that affordable-housing residents will be car-free. That assumption is not fair, accurate, or respectful of future residents. This project includes 34 two-bedroom units and 34 three-bedroom units, making it foreseeable that many residents will be working families. Pasadena's own 2025 income limits show that a three-person household can qualify as low income at $109,050, and a four-person household can qualify at $121,150. These are working households, and many working households in Southern California need cars because their jobs, schools, childcare, medical appointments, and family obligations are not always accessible by transit.

The design and site-planning issues also support remand. The staff report acknowledges that the Design Commission asked for further study of massing and the east fagade relationship to the single-family residences behind the project. The report states that stepped upper floors were not included because they could reduce unit count and size. The report also notes that an alternative location for the children's and teen's play area could not be achieved other than the proposed location underneath the building due to site constraints and project scope. These are not minor details; they show that the site is being pushed to accommodate a program that has not been adequately reconciled with parking, access, open space, and neighborhood interface.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Grant the appeal of the Design Commission approval for 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard.

2. Set aside or remand the approval for corrected findings and further review.

3. Require an independent City determination of the project's claimed major-transit-stop eligibility, including the exact stop, measurement method, route-frequency basis, and legal authority.

4. Require a real parking study, including curb-by-curb legal parking inventory, overnight and weekend occupancy counts, visitor/loading needs, and enforcement feasibility.

5. Require an enforceable parking, loading, delivery, rideshare, visitor, construction, and curb-management plan.

6. Require revised findings addressing realistic car ownership for working families and residents of two- and three- bedroom units.

7. Deny or continue the TEFRA/CMFA financing resolution until the appeal issues are resolved and the record is complete.

The City can support affordable housing and still require accurate findings, lawful entitlement determinations, and responsible site planning. This approval should not be upheld on assumptions.

Please include this letter in the administrative record for the appeal and the TEFRA hearing.

Respectfully,
Andreas Koese
. F^osemead Blvd
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Tina Andersen-Wahlberg ^
Sunday, May 17, 2026 7:53 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support for LHRA Appeal 5/18/26 re: 600 N. Rosemead Project - City Council Meeting Some people who received this message don't often get email from iearn why this is important [ ,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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Dear City Council Members,
I live in Lower Hastings Ranch. I am writing to express my strong support for the Lower Hastings Ranch Association's appeal to demand needed modifications to the 600 N. Rosemead Project.

Sincerely,
Tina Andersen-Wahlberg
Pasadena, CA
Tina Andersen-Wahlberg
RETIRED Director, Disabled Student Programs & Services
Glendale Community College
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMiIlan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Larry Campbell <[email protected]>
Sunday, May 17, 2026 8:03 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Vote YES to Affordable Homes in East Pasadena
|[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report iphish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of affordable housing at 600 N.

Rosemead Blvd.

While some oppose such density of affordable housing, I believe that dense affordable housing leads to improved quality of life for everyone for the following reasons:
*
Studies show that every $1 invested in affordable housing generates up to $3 in local economic activity, benefiting both residents and the broader community. * A study by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found that building 1 00 affordable rental homes generates approximately $11.7 million in local income, $2.2 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 161 local jobs in the first year alone. * After examining over 150 major metro areas across the United States and additional internal metro areas, A USC study found that regions making substantial public investments in housing experienced significantly lower rates of unsheltered homelessness. This research confirms public housing as a vital tool in addressing homelessness and ensuring housing security.
* Studies show that dense affordable housing neighborhoods experience 20% - 50% lower rates of chronic diseases, attributed to greater walkability and access to healthy food options.

Regarding the last point, we need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, 05/18/2026
Item 11
healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.

Larry Campbell
Pasadena, California 91104
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Thomas Tai
Sunday, May 17, 2026 8:41 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Comment supporting 600 N Rosemead Project item 11 5/18 meeting [ l ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

To the Mayorand Members of the Pasadena City Council:

I write to wholeheartedly support the project at 600 N Rosemead. I respectfully ask you to deny this appeal.

Pasadena is facing a housing crisis, with nearly half of families being rent burdened in the face of a worsening economy. This project is a vital step in fighting this crisis and a commitment to helping our homeless neighbors.

The various arguments advanced by the opposition do not hold water. If we want Less homelessness, we need to house the homeless. Furthermore, the worries about parking are baseless. I have ran and driven by this area before and there is plenty of street parking nearby. Furthermore, given the income of the residents of this new project, many may either share a car or not have one at all.

I urge you to stand strong for affordability and housing and compassion and reject this appeal and allow this project to be built.

Sincerely,
Thomas Tai
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMlilIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rick Jackson
Sunday, May 17, 2026 9:31 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Agenda items 11 & 12
>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from..earn why this is imoortant [ I ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Advance letter to Council
Subject: Please Grant the Appeal and Contmue or Deny TEFRA Approval for 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am writing to request that the City Council grant the appeal of the Design Commission approval for 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard, set aside or remand the approval, and decline to move forward with TEFRA/CMFA financing approval unless and until the record is corrected.

The City's own staff report shows why the appeal should be granted. The project proposes 133 total residential units, consisting of 131 affordable units and two manager units. The unit mix includes 8 studios, 57 one-bedroom units, 34 two-bedroom units, and 34 three-bedroom units. The project provides only 55 parking spaces. The same staff report identifies the City's ordinary zoning-code parking baseline as 215 spaces. The report also states that, because the project is being treated as a 100 percent affordable housing project within one-halfmile of a major transit stop, it receives unlimited density, additional height, and no minimum parking requirement under state density-bonus law.

Those facts make the transit and parking issues central to the appeal. The Council should not uphold an approval that depends on major-transit-stop eligibility unless the City has made a clear, independent, publicly reviewable determination identifying the exact qualifying transit stop, the legal measurement method, the current route or regional-plan basis, and the applicable statutory authority. HCD's AB 2097 guidance confirms that major-transit-stop determinations involve specific criteria, includmg rail or bus rapid transit stations, qualifying intersections of two or more major bus routes with 20-minute-or-less peak service intervals, and regional transportation plan issues. (CalJHCD) The applicant's own legal submission asserts that the project is within one-halfmile of two alleged major transit stops: Foothill/Rosemead and Foothill/Sierra Madre. It also states that proximity to a major transit stop was not within the Design Review Board's purview and related instead to the City's ministerial density-bonus approval. That distinction matters. If the Design Commission did not decide the transit eligibility issue, the Council should not treat the approval as though that issue has been fully resolved.

The parking issue is equally serious. A legal parking exemption does not eliminate real parking demand.

The City should not infer from "no mmimum parking required" that residents, visitors, caregivers, service and guests will have no imDact. The 160-
05/18/2026
Item 11
space difference between the City's ordinary zoning baseline and the proposed 55-space supply requires a practical answer: where will the vehicles go?
The answer should not be unsupported reliance on Rosemead Boulevard. Residents familiar with the corridor know that legal and usable curb parking is limited by driveways, curb restrictions, bus stops, commercial frontage, visibility concerns, and practical access constraints. Before the Council upholds the approval, the record should include a curb-by-curb mventory of legal parking spaces within the relevant radius, evening and overnight occupancy counts, weekend counts, existing commercial demand, loading analysis, and an enforceable parking and curb-management plan.

The City's own parking rules further demonstrate why street parking should not be treated as an easy solution. Pasadena's permit materials state that overnight parking generally requires a permit between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.; permits may be denied if parking is available on-site or within 600 feet; no more than two nighttime and two daytime permits may be issued to one residence; and permitted vehicles must park within 500 feet of the permittee's residence and not in prohibited or painted-curb zones or m front of nonresidential frontage. These restrictions do not create parking capacity. They make it more important for the City to prove capacity before relying on street parking.

Pasadena's own 2025 income limits show that a three-person household can qualify as low income at $109,050, and a four-person household can qualify at $121,150. (City of Pasadena) These are working households, and many working households in Southern California need cars because their jobs, schools, childcare, medical appointments, and family obligations are not always accessible by transit.

The design and site-planning issues also support remand. The staff report acknowledges that the Design Commission asked for further study of massing and the east facade relationship to the single-family residences behind the project. The report states that stepped upper floors were not included because they could reduce unit count and size. The report also notes that an alternative location for the children's and teen's play area could not be achieved other than the proposed location underneath the building due to site constraints and project scope. These are not minor details; they show that the site is being pushed to accommodate a program that has not been adequately reconciled with parking, access, open space, and neighborhood interface.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Grant the appeal of the Design Commission approval for 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard.

2. Set aside or remand the approval for corrected fmdings and further review.

3. Require an independent City determination of the project's claimed major-ti-ansit-stop eligibility, including the exact stop, measurement method, route-frequency basis, and legal authority.

4. Requu'e a real parking study, including curb-by-curb legal parking inventory, overnight and weekend occupancy counts, visitor/loading needs, and enforcement feasibility.

5. Require an enforceable parking, loading, delivery, rideshare, visitor, construction, and curb- management plan.

6. Require revised findings addressing realistic car ownership for working families and residents of two- and three-bedroom units.

7. Deny or continue the TEFRA/CMFA financing resolution until the appeal issues are resolved and the record is complete.

The City can support affordable housing and still require accurate findings, lawful entitlement determinations, and responsible site planning. This approval should not be upheld on assumptions.

Please include this letter in the administrative record for the appeal and the TEFRA hearing.

Respectfully,
Ricky and Vickie Jackson
Pasadena, Ca 91107
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Laura Ellersieck
Monday, May 18, 2026 3:36 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Masuda, Gene; Gordo, Victor; Hampton, Tyron; Cole, Rick; [email protected],· Rivas, Jessica; Madison, Steve; Lyon, Jason
5/18 Council agenda item 11. Appeal of 600 N Rosemead
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
am why this is important at
[ J ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Re: Appeal of the approval of the project at 600 N. Rosemead It seems that Staff is saying that under the State laws, Staff alone makes the determination of eligibility for all the bonuses and no parking required, it happens early in the process, with no notice or public transparency, and once the decision has been made, there is nothing the public or Council can do about it. You're being told your hands are tied. Not just for this project, but all the others coming down the pipe.

Is this really true?
Is there really no other interpretation of all the sometimes conflicting language in all the different statutes? I'd really like to see more push back, more questioning, more attention and effort put to ameliorating the damage the State is inflicting on our local quality of life and our local governance.

Maybe you can't find a way to grant this appeal, or to deal with this growing issue in this meeting. But what are you going to do to prepare for the possibilities of what is coming? Are these projects going to bring in enough new taxes and fees to support the needed extra services and infrastructure? One here and there, now and then, gets "less than significant impact", and can be absorbed. But an accumulation, especially in a relatively few years, will certainly be significant.

Starting July 1, most of my single family residential neighborhood is also at risk of massive overbuilding due to SB79 taking effect.

Because Chihuahuita was next to the railroad tracks, it got smacked by the freeway, and now is threatened with destruction of the little that is left. So are other single family areas in Pasadena, especially around Alien station. Nice neighborhoods that aren't labeled "historic" for being built by special people or architects, or in the hills where mostly wealthier people built and live, are apparently just doomed to losing their quality of life.

I continue to wonder whether the City is required to provide overnight parking permits for the residents of these new developments built with too little parking. Can City policy be changed, or does State law require the public to provide the street parking the developers won't provide? My understanding is that people with disabled plates/placards can already park overnight without a City permit, so not providing overnight permits would allow disabled people to park closer to their destination.

What is going to happen with street sweeping?
The notion that many people won't have cars just because they live within a half air mile of public transit is fantasy. Even if some were to use transit for some trips, most households are likely to have at least one vehicle to get to all the places not readily accessible by transit. If they are instead using a ride service, that is even more added traffic since what would have been a one- 05/18/2026
Item 11
way trip out or back becomes a two-way trip. And the people who provide ride and delivery services with their own vehicles also have to park somewhere when they aren't working.

The "mobility study" does not touch on the parking issue, or how that could affect traffic flow as people search for a place to park and pull in and out. It does not touch on where delivery drivers of people and stuff will be able to toad and unload. If they double park or use the center turn lane, that raises real safety issues as well as with traffic flow. I've seen both tactics used many times.

This side of Pasadena has relatively little police, traffic, or parking enforcement presence. Because historically it was relatively quiet with plenty of free parking. As these oversized "affordable" developments come in, will enough additional tax money be coming in to cover the cost of increasing these services? Thank you for your consideration,
Laura Ellersieck
East Eaton Wash Neighborhood
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elizabeth Slocum •
Monday, May 18, 2026 5:42 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
In support the Lower Hastings Ranch Association's appeal [Some people who received this message don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
aarn why this is important at
[ >.!. ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

To the Pasadena City Council,.

We live in District 4. While not residents of the Hastings Ranch area, we are writing to express support for LHRA's appeal of the building development proposal at 600 No. Rosemead Blvd. All of us who are concerned reject reckless development and waivers of environmental considersations. What we wish for is responsible development, including transparency when it comes to design and approval processes which integrate new projects into their appropriate local conrext, with full consideration of environmental impacts.

We also feel that the approval of tax-exempt federal bonds for the financing of this project are not in the public interest or of benefit to the public and request that the City Council does not approve them.

We are concerned about future repercussions should this oversized development be approved.

We are out of town and unable to attend tonight's public hearing; otherwise we would go.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

John and Elizabeth Slocum
Pasadena, CA 91107
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Wesley Reutimann <[email protected]>
Monday, May 18, 2026 6:30 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please Vote YES to Affordable Homes in East Pasadena
[ l ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As a Pasadena resident concerned by the lack of affordable housing in our community, I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of new housing at 600 N. Rosemead Blvd.

Pasadena continues to lose working families and older adults due to a severe shortage of housing at different price points. Affordable units remain scarce, something the proposed project would help address in the short-term.

Located adjacent to commercial businesses, including affordable grocery stores such as Trader Joes, as well as jobs and public transit, the project site is uniquely well-suited to accommodate new housing. Future residents would easily be able to walk to essential services, as well as access bus and rail transit. This is especially important as many low- income households do not own a motor vehicle, and rely on walking, public transit, and forms of active transportation to get around.

As you consider the tradeoffs with this project, I hope you will continue to prioritize the development of housing for those in need.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Wesley Reutimann
Pasadena, California 91103
05/18/2026
Item 11
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rick Jackson
Sunday, May 17, 2026 9:31 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Agenda items 11 & 12
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromearn why this is imDortant "3
§^.T-!^ r-i
< £
Si
[ I ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Advance letter to Council
Subject: Please Grant the Appeal and Contmue or Deny TEFRA Approval for 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

This letter is not a statement against affordable housing in Pasadena. Affordable housmg is needed. The issue before the Council is whether this specific approval should stand when the record does not adequately address the project's transit eligibility, parking demand, street parking capacity, site planning, and operational impacts.

The City's own staff report shows why the appeal should be granted. The project proposes 133 total residential units, consisting of 131 affordable units and two manager units. The unit mix mcludes 8 studios, 57 one-bedroom units, 34 two-bedroom units, and 34 three-bedroom units. The project provides only 55 parking spaces. The same staff report identifies the City's ordinary zoning-code parking baseline as 215 spaces. The report also states that, because the project is being treated as a 100 percent affordable housing project within one-halfmile of a major transit stop, it receives unlimited density, additional height, and no minimum parkmg requirement under state density-bonus law.

Those facts make the transit and parking issues central to the appeal. The Council should not uphold an approval that depends on major-transit-stop eligibility unless the City has made a clear, independent, publicly reviewable determination identifying the exact qualifying transit stop, the legal measurement method, the current route or regional-plan basis, and the applicable statutory authority. HCD's AB 2097 guidance confirms that major-transit-stop determinations involve specific criteria, including rail or bus rapid transit stations, qualifying intersections of two or more major bus routes with 20-minute-or-less peak service intervals, and regional transportation plan issues. (Cal HCD) The applicant's own legal submission asserts that the project is within one-halfmile of two alleged major transit stops: Foothill/Rosemead and Foothill/Sierra Madre. It also states that proximity to a major transit stop was not within the Design Review Board's purview and related instead to the City's ministerial density-bonus approval. That distinction matters. If the Design Commission did not decide the transit eligibility issue, the Council should not treat the approval as though that issue has been fully resolved.

The parking issue is equally serious. A legal parking exemption does not eliminate real parking demand.

The City should not infer from "no minimum parking required" that residents, visitors, caregivers, service providers, delivery vehicles, rideshare vehicles, movmg trucks, and guests will have no unpact. The 160- space difference between the City's ordinary zoning baselme and the proposed 55-space supply requires a practical answer: where will the vehicles go?
The answer should not be unsupported reliance on Rosemead Boulevard. Residents familiar with the corridor know that legal and usable curb parking is limited by driveways, curb restrictions, bus stops, commercial frontage, visibility concerns, and practical access constraints. Before the Council upholds the approval, the record should include a curb-by-curb inventory of legal parking spaces within the relevant radius, evening and overnight occupancy counts, weekend counts, existing commercial demand, loading analysis, and an enforceable parking and curb-management plan.

The City's own parking rules further demonstrate why street parking should not be treated as an easy solution. Pasadena's permit materials state that overnight parking generally requu'es a permit between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.; permits may be denied if parking is available on-site or within 600 feet; no more than two nighttime and two daytime pennits may be issued to one residence; and permitted vehicles must park within 500 feet of the permittee's residence and not in prohibited or painted-curb zones or in front of nonresidential frontage. These restrictions do not create parking capacity. They make it more important for the City to prove capacity before relying on street parking.

Pasadena's own 2025 income limits show that a three-person household can qualify as low income at $109,050, and a four-person household can qualify at $121,150. (City of Pasadena) These are workmg households, and many working households in Southern California need cars because their jobs, schools, childcare, medical appointments, and family obligations are not always accessible by transit.