Agenda packet — South Pasadena City Council, May 30, 2023 (part 10 of 12)

The following questions and input were received from the Planning Commission:
 Will objective design standards be part of the near-term ADU ordinance update?  Are the projected ADU numbers changing?
 Some ADU updates should be made now and maybe some later – before or after Housing Element adoption. The items to do later would be the more aggressive measures.  Address parking problem related to ADUs
 Okay with duplex, deed-restriction ADU idea
 All were supportive of amnesty program.
o One commissioner asked: Why does it need to be limited to non-historic properties? 3 - 1498
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-27  Yes, City should streamline planning and building review process  Yes, supportive of homeowner assistance – guide to ADU development process  Supports fee reductions for affordable ADUs
 Okay with ADU monitoring, but some concerns about staff time resources  Okay with education and promotion around ADUs. Supportive of proactive/targeted outreach to certain neighborhoods and areas with larger lots
 Supportive of allowing two detached ADUs as long as there is enough room on the parcel for open space
 Concerned about streamlining impacts on staff workload. Should have as many standard ADU building types as possible. One-stop shop is a good idea.  If City allowed two detached ADUs on a parcel could they require parking?  Should include pre-fab ADU units – important for education program  Should include costs and sources for loans in education and promotion program o City of Pasadena is offering two types of loans to encourage ADUs  Careful who gets included on the list of resources (builders, etc.). Don’t want to unfairly support or not support someone.
 Could tie education and promotion to streamlined approval o Homeowners could provide case study materials about the process, costs, how it went for them
 Could have objective criteria for which builders/others get included on the resources list December 15, 2020
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on December 15, 2020. The presentation focused on additional design and economic analysis PlaceWorks prepared for certain sites to understand what types of housing projects would be feasible and acceptable on those sites and how changes to the City’s General Plan and zoning related to density would relate to what is allowed under State Density Bonus law. The additional focused most on the Vons site.

January 26, 2021
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on January 26, 2021.

The meeting focused on the proposed Inclusionary Housing Regulations. Supporting information was presented regarding analysis of height and density on certain sites, following up on earlier meetings, in particular, the December 15, 2020, meeting.

May 26, 2021
City staff and PlaceWorks presented an update on the Housing Element process to the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 26, 2021. No public comments were made during the meeting.

The following summarizes the input and questions from the Planning Commission:
 Was the City concerned by HCD’s preliminary review of some of the Housing Element sections?
 Asked about thresholds for sites analysis.
 Asked about the overlay described in Table VI-4 and details of the proposed zoning column. 3 - 1499
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-28 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  Mentioned public comment from Josh Albrektson from the previous Planning Commission meeting, not to forget it.
 What happened at the EIR scoping meeting?
 Thinks the City is being too optimistic about the analysis of the sites. Should remove small and steep single-family sites. In general, overly optimistic in all categories including ADUs, vacant and non-vacant sites.
 Multiple commissioners agreed yes, density increases are needed.  Should ask other cities for ideas of how to meet the RHNA, need some magical solutions.  Do City-owned sites included in the Housing Element have to be surplus?  Does not want to include the ballfield or stables as Housing Element sites.  Can the affordable housing production program be strengthened?  Generally concur with strategies that were in the preliminary draft programs submitted to HCD.  Would like another chance to review sites at the time of the public draft.  Could there be some sort of “pre-permit program” for ADUs as a way to gauge interest in ADUs?
 Would it be possible for the planning commissioners to do a driving tour some of the sites?  Interested in the church sites strategy.
 Likes the idea of redoing the City Hall site.
 Could the parcels by war memorial building on Fair Oaks possibly be added to the inventory?  Can existing units be rehabilitated and counted towards the RHNA?  Multiple commissioners said yes to the affordable housing overlay.  Don’t rule out all historic sites.
 Should increase densities in Ostrich Farm and Downtown.  Should put increasing the citywide height limit back on the table and continue the community conversation.
 Will minimum densities be put into place?
 Raising height limits on certain properties should be considered.  Multiple commissioners felt the sites to receive the affordable housing overlay will be competing with state density bonus in terms of incentivizing actual development. The overlay should be calibrated to produce results.
 In favor of affordable housing overlay but not as spot zoning.  Feels the City doesn’t have enough staff capacity to implement all of the proposed Housing Element programs. There is a long wait time for processing applications for ADUs. Need dedicated housing staff.
 Maybe strategy for projecting ADUs can be to project numbers annually – make more specific – year 2, year 3, etc.
 Can the parcel assemblage program work in conjunction with overlay zoning?  They have done lot consolidation on hillside sites. There was an example of this from the previous Planning Commission meeting.
 Should spend time justifying the ADU projection number. 3 - 1500
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-29  Have demolitions of affordable units been an issue in South Pasadena?  What the EIR is evaluating is a moving target, can’t really finish the analysis yet.  Please post the PowerPoint for this meeting.
 Need to get the word out to the public that the comment period is coming.  History and context information in the Housing Element will be very helpful.  There should be more aggressive publicity about the ADU amnesty program.  Supportive housing for those with disabilities is needed.

October 12, 2021
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the Planning Commission on the Public Review Draft Housing Element at their meeting on October 12, 2021. The meeting focused on the release of the 2021-2029 public review Draft General Plan Housing Element. Public comments included:
 95% realistic capacity because of density bonus?
 No analysis of inclusionary housing regulations?
 ADU projection numbers are too high
The following summarizes the input and questions from the Planning Commission:
 Which programs are state mandates, which are continuing from previous Housing Element? Please present this at the Oct 21st community workshop.  Asked for clarification on state requirements regarding Senate Bill 9  Asked for more context for regarding the level of input sought from the community at this point in the process.
 Need to explain RHNA and why the number is high.
 The Planning Commission requested an informational update at their Nov 9th meeting, including HCD comments if possible.

November 9, 2021
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the Planning Commission on the Public Review Draft Housing Element at their meeting on November 9, 2021. Four members of the public commented. These comments included:
 The City should have a requirement to hire local skilled workforce – both for reducing environmental/AQ/VMT impacts and for local jobs. The City of Hayward recently put this type of policy/requirement in place.
 Is the City applying for any state funding programs mentioned in the Housing Element programs?
 The ADU projection numbers are wildly optimistic.

The following summarizes the input and questions from the Planning Commission:
 Projected ADUs are only 20% of City's RHNA
 Is more than 50% of lower income RHNA being accommodated on non-vacant sites? 3 - 1501
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-30 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  Are there regional or nearby examples of projects - could any of that analysis or examples be strengthened/added to?
 The majority of the Planning Commission expressed concerns over the public’s potential reaction to the rezoning and density changes included in the Draft, as well as the potential confusion about what the City is doing.
 Suggested strengthening the information in the water quality section of the Assessment of Fair Housing
 Asked for clarification about ADU track record information in the draft  Could a program be added to close the gap between planning approvals and building permits?  Could a program be added to work with prospective ADU applicants – ombudsman/mentor/technical assistance?
 Staffing and staff retention are critical to implementing the Housing Element programs  Understand based on analysis presented earlier in the Housing Element project that the densities/units assumed in the HE will lead to bulkier buildings with smaller units if there is no density bonus/height increase for the project
 For rezoning, would be helpful to know what percent of the City will require rezoning?  Agrees with public comment re: local skilled workforce and VMT reduction. Would be good for South Pasadena to have a local workforce requirement.  Suggested more public outreach, with an emphasis on going to the people, and enhancing the site maps.
 What about the Caltrans housing?
 Some cities are fighting the RHNA
 Many of the regulations from the state in the Housing Element are impossible to meet  Are many SCAG jurisdictions going to be in compliance?  Sites maps could be better, add a legend/key. Note whether a site is vacant or non-vacant.  Thinks the City has been doing a good job of getting the word out to the public about the project November 17, 2021
City staff presented to the City Council on the public draft Housing Element at their meeting on November 17, 2021. No public comments were made during the meeting. The following summarizes the input and questions from the City Council:
 Does the Monterey Road site (Site #3 in Appendix A) have an approved project?  Ostrich Farm sites – what input has been received from property owners.  Asked about the Carrow’s site.
 Can the densities proposed in the draft fit within the 45 foot height limit?  When will the aggressive ADU amnesty program happen?
 Is the City considering objective design standards to implement SB 9?  Could SB 10 apply to only one parcel?
 Impressed with staff and the outreach that has been done to property owners. Thinks they’ve gone a long way toward addressing any controversy in the community. 3 - 1502
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-31  Amazing that there was no public comment at this meeting.  The RHNA formula was unfair to South Pasadena.
 The Executive Director of Move LA was concerned about the RHNA approach related to High Quality Transit Corridors (HQTCs). Communities don’t want HQTCs identified in the future because they will receive higher RHNA numbers because of them.  Staff and consultants – good job addressing this complex topic.

May 10, 2022
City staff presented to the Planning Commission on the 2nd Public Review Draft and discussed the revisions made to the new draft (in person/virtual hybrid format).

July 20, 2022
City staff presented to the City Council on the HCD review letter for the 2nd Draft Housing Element.

July 26, 2022
City staff presented at the Planning Commission on the HCD review letter for the 2nd Draft Housing Element.

November 9, 2022
The City’s Housing Element consultant presented at a Joint City Council and Planning Commission.

The presentation included an overview of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s response letter regarding the Third Draft Housing Element, discussed anticipated responses to address the comments in the letter, and received feedback from the community, Planning Commission, and City Council on the comments and proposed responses.

February 1, 2023
The City’s Housing Element consultant provided a summary of HCD’s review letter regarding the 4th Draft Housing Element to the City Council and presented options for addressing remaining comments, including missing middle housing, identification of additional city-owned sites for lower income homes, increased zoning capacity along arterial corridors, and tenant protections.

February 9, 2023
This meeting was intended to be a community meeting focused on the Housing Element, but a majority of the City Council wanted to attended so was noticed as a City Council meeting. The meeting was conducted as a workshop to further discuss revisions to the Housing Element and collect resident feedback.

February 15, 2023
City staff and the City’s Housing Element consultant presented refined ideas for addressing remaining comments based on feedback received from the Council and community over the preceding two meetings. Staff rreceived direction from City Council and Planning Commission on how to revise the Housing Element.
3 - 1503
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-32 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Written Public Comments
Received Prior to Public Draft
The City received the following written public comments prior to the release of the Public Draft Housing Element.

Mr. Matthew Gelfand on behalf of Californians for Homeownership (August 9, 2020) expressed concern over staff report indication that City does not currently allow ADUs within the Mission Street Specific Plan area. Mr. Gelfand noted that such a policy is unlawful, citing State code, GC 65852.2.

Mr. Matthew Gelfand on behalf of Californians for Homeownership (August 13, 2020) expressed satisfaction with the recent Planning Commission meeting where the City Attorney confirmed that the City is required to allow ADUs in the Mission Street Specific Plan’s Districts that allow residential uses.

Mr. Gelfand stated that during a Planning Commission meeting, staff suggested the definition of 'public transit', under the state ADU law, is limited to major transit stops. Mr. Gelfand states that this is not true and provided a citation for ADU state law, Gov Code 65852.2(j)(10). Mr. Gelfand states that the City does not have a parking problem, it has a “driving problem”. Mr. Gelfand believes that reducing parking will actually alleviate traffic. Mr. Gelfand states that parking is meaningless in consideration of citywide. high access to transit. Mr. Gelfand states that the City’s proposal to count 1,000 ADU units toward its RHNA allocation is preposterous; however, the City’s plan to incentivize ADU development is taken seriously. They feel it will result in a modest increase in ADU production.

Leonora Camner, Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA, and Anthony Dedousis, Director of Policy and Research of Abundant Housing LA, regarding Preliminary Sites Analysis from the July 21, 2020 Planning Commission Agenda Report (September 4, 2020). Ms. Camner and Mr. Dedousis identified major issues in the Preliminary Sites Analysis, including:

1. The report appears to treat new housing capacity (i.e. the potential for new housing) as equivalent to realistic housing production (i.e. actual new housing). This is incorrect; they are not the same thing.

2. The report contains extremely optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are extremely unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, based on recent development trends.

3. The Preliminary Sites Analysis for lower-income housing is unlikely to meet California’s standards for affirmatively further fair housing.

4. By accommodating insufficient housing growth to meet the RHNA targets at each income level, the Preliminary Sites Analysis is likely to fall afoul of the No Net Loss requirement.

They conclude their letter noting that Abundant Housing LA (AHLA) published a detailed memo, "Requirements and Best Practices for Housing Element Updates: The Site Inventory", explaining the key legal requirements and AHLA’s recommended best practices for housing element updates. They offer availability to discuss our concerns further, and offer recommendations for additional policies to incorporate into South Pasadena’s Housing Element Update.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (via email to HCD, February 25, 2021) informed HCD that they would receive a letter from Abundant Housing LA, YIMBY Law, and others regarding South Pasadena’s current Housing Elements plans. Dr. Albrektson claims the City is not following any of the rules in the HCD’s 3 - 1504
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-33 June 10th memo. Dr. Albrektson states the City is going to HCD for a review soon, so Dr. Albrektson wanted to give HCD some local knowledge. Dr. Albrektson states that the City is passing an ADU ordinance that will make it harder to build ADUs. Dr. Albrektson states that in the fire zone, they will require all ADUs to be within 150 ft of the front property line, have sprinklers, and for all garage and structure conversions the parking lot must be replaced.

Dr Josh Albrektson (March 8, 2021) provides a list of six issues he identified as “illegal” in the preliminary draft Housing Element sections, referencing a Housing Element Memo he states the City does not comply with. Theses issues are:

1. Claiming a projection of 1,000 ADUs in the Housing Element.

2. Objective design standards versus subjective design guidelines for ADUs and what really qualifies as an objective standard.

3. It is illegal to backdate an ordinance or apply it to projects that have completed a pre-application checklist. This comment related to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance and the definition of “deemed complete.”

4. Inclusionary units and density bonus cannot be used to count for RHNA units in the Housing Element. The analysis MUST use the base zoning.

5. The inclusionary housing ordinance will cause a significant drop in realistic development capacity.

6. AB 1505, regarding rental inclusionary housing, commenter provided a link to an HCD 2019 memo about this law.

Dr. Albrektson concludes with stating that South Pasadena will not produce a compliant Housing Element due to not following HCD’s guidelines. Dr. Albrektson states that there are more reasons other than what he listed for which he predicts HCD will reject the City’s draft element.

Abundant Housing LA (March 10, 2021) references a past 2020 letter the organization sent to the Mayor and identifies five concerns, some of which are carried forward from the 2020 letter, about the City’s preliminary draft Housing Element sections. The five major concerns are:

1. Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity fails to account for parcels’ likelihood of development, and its map of best candidate sites appears to include many sites where redevelopment is extremely unlikely.

2. Planning continues to make overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies.

3. Planning misinterprets a SCAG analysis of regional ADU affordability to suggest that a significant share of future ADUs in South Pasadena will be affordable to lower-income households, which is unlikely based on local rent data.

4. Planning indicates that the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will help the City achieve its lower-income RHNA targets without a clear assurance that this ordinance will be accompanied by adequate zoning densities.
3 - 1505
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-34 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

5. Planning fails to affirmatively further fair housing and break existing patterns of residential segregation in their site selection and their general approach to the housing element update, despite the City Council’s recent adoption of a resolution to acknowledge “past practices of institutionalized racism” and a commitment to being an inclusive community in the present.

The organization provides recommendations for each identified concern for the City to consider.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (via email to HCD, April 12, 2021) introduced himself and summarized past public comments he has provided to the City about the Housing Element. Dr Albrektson indicates when he believed the City's actions were in conflict with State housing law and/or other guidance from HCD.

The time frame of his comments range from July 2020 to April 2021.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (via email to HCD, April 13, 2021) presenting items he would like HCD to tell South Pasadena regarding its preliminary draft Housing Element sections. The list of points is below:

1. ADU estimates must be realistic.

2. A 10% Low and 10% VLI inclusionary housing requirement is a significant governmental constraint to housing and that must be accounted for in the realistic development capacity calculations.

3. Realistic development calculations must include factors like topography [and existing uses meaning that]...realistic development potential for these sites ...should be much less than 50%.

4. All sites included must be realistic. Sites that are currently leasing or have no owner affirmation or city sites that require replacements cannot be included in the sites inventory.

5. All sites included in vacant land list must actually be realistically able to be developed.

6. All sites must include a realistic number of possible affordable units.

7. Provided link to own sites inventory sheet
Dr. Albrektson provides additional information in the email that generally appeared to support his initial points above and offered some new ideas, listed below:
 Development limitations, including the City's height limits and inclusionary housing ordinance are impeding development.
 Market trends indicate multifamily development interest is low  The City offers "representative project" examples that are dated (from 2005/2017) and would not comply with current laws and are therefore not representative.  Using inclusionary units and state density bonus is not a substitute for appropriate zoning and is specifically outlawed. What this will actually do is make it so that almost all buildings can no longer be financially viable and nothing will get built in South Pasadena.

Andrew Jarnagin (April 28, 2021) describes what he identifies are three key issues with the City's 5th Cycle Housing Element that should be addressed in the 6th Cycle. These three issues are:

1. Encourage transit-oriented development in the downtown area

2. Remove barriers to affordable housing
3 - 1506
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-35

3. Provide data to support policy and projections
Mr. Jarnagin offered additional comments for the City’s Planning and Building Department. Mr.

Jarnagin concludes with questions for the City related to its capacity to support meeting RHNA targets.

Dylan Casey, Executive Director of California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, (May 5, 2021) commented on the City’s ADU ordinance. Mr. Casey states that the ordinance as currently proposed presents numerous conflicts with state ADU standards. Mr. Casey claims that if the Council fails to amend the ordinance to resolve these conflicts, South Pasadena would lose the ability to apply any development standards to ADU permits, and be forced to apply only the state minimum standards.

Mr. Casey states that the proposed ordinance is in violation of Gov. Code Section 65852.2, as it would be more restrictive than is permitted under state law. Mr. Casey believes that the City should embrace ADU development and consider its benefits.

Anthony Dedousis, Director of Policy and Research at Abundant Housing LA, (via email to HCD, May 5, 2021), referenced two past letters (September 2020 and March 2021) submitted to City Planning. Mr.

Dedousis notes that they have not received a response from City staff and City councilmembers.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (via email to HCD, May 20, 2021) sent information about inclusionary housing ordinance affordability levels recently passed by four different cities to provide a comparison demonstrating that South Pasadena’s should be lower. The comparison cities were Pomona, Alhambra, Pasadena, and San Francisco.

Andrew Jarnagin (July 26, 2021) notes that he attended the May 26th, 2021 South Pasadena Planning Commission meeting and reported that HCD's review of the preliminary draft Housing Element sections was discussed in a positive light, which oversimplified the significant changes expected of the Housing Element in order to be in compliance. Mr. Jarnagin provided comments about HCD’s informal review of the City’s ADU projection and sites inventory. Mr. Jarnagin states that the South Pasadena community should be prepared for a non-compliant Housing Element from HCD. He believes that elected officials and residents must be presented realistic options for RHNA numbers to assess different approaches and determine policies that best align with local desires.

The Steering Committee Members of Our Future LA (September 14, 2021) provided feedback broken down into six focus areas. The focus areas are listed below along with the major topics within each focus area:

1. Protections – tenant protections including just cause eviction protections and enforcement, rent stabilization, tenants’ right to counsel, strengthen permanent tenant education, and tenant antiharassment protections.

2. Preservation – prioritize rezoning in high resource neighborhoods, don’t include rent stabilized units in the sites inventory, implement no net loss laws, institute local programs and funding sources to preserve existing affordable housing.

3. Prioritization of Affordable Housing – value capture, create affordable housing on public land, 100% affordable housing overlays including for areas zoned R1.

4. Site Capacity Assessment – likelihood uses will discontinue, realistic capacity, report on progress towards 5th cycle RHNA, include a 15-30% buffer of sites. 3 - 1507
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-36 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

5. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing – increase concentration of lower income households in areas where concentrations are currently low, reduce concentrations of lower income households in areas of noise or pollution, reduce noise and pollution, invest in historically disinvested areas including place-based strategies, analyze patterns of segregation and discrimination, prioritize site identification in high opportunity census tracts, identify funding and programs to ensure affordable units are built, solicit input on the housing element from all socioeconomic groups.

6. Forecasts of ADU Development – should use safe harbor methodology, provide for mid-cycle adjustments, use city-specific data to forecast affordability.

Our Future LA requested the opportunity to meet with the City to address their concerns in greater detail.

Comments Received on Public Draft
Dr. Josh Albrektson (October 20, 2021) informs the City that he will send in many public comments.

Dr. Albrektson states that the Housing Element claims that the inclusionary housing ordinance provides streamlined process and provides benefits above the state density bonus. He believes that neither is true since the density bonus is the minimum required by state and there are no actual incentives or "streamlining." Dr. Albrektson is asking for clarification for the incentives and streamlining stipulated in the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (October 30, 2021) claims they have gone through every moderate and moderate plus site in the Housing Element. Dr. Albrektson informed the City that he created a spreadsheet listing every site that has a "significant problem." He provided a link to the list of sites he has comments on.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 2, 2021) stated that the inclusionary housing ordinance is a significant developmental constraint and listed his issues with the ordinance. Dr. Albrektson stated that the there was no feasibility study done and that the City was using it to fulfill their RHNA allocation. Dr.

Albrektson compared the inclusionary housing ordinance to other jurisdictions in the State. Dr.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 2, 2021) stated how the City's projection of 297 ADUs in the next 8 years is unfounded and lacks the data to support the claim. He discussed flaws in the Housing Element’s calculations of ADUs because they used building permit data from 2019 and 2020 prior to the adoption of two ADU ordinances, which are expected to make ADUs more difficult and expensive to build. He states this will result in only a small fraction of homes in South Pasadena that can build ADUs. Dr.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 2, 2021) provided comments on the draft Housing Element programs in Chapter 6.8 of the Public Review Draft Housing Element. 3 - 1508
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-37  Program 1.d Assisted Housing Unit Preservation – The City doesn’t have any deed restricted affordable housing so how can the City monitor and why are there quantified objectives included to preserve this type of unit?
 Program 2.a Provide Technical Assistance for Projects with Affordable Housing – More actual commitments are needed in this program. Suggest adding streamlining with specific timeframes and automatic approvals. Current city average is more than 2 years from initiation to building permit approval for multifamily projects.
 Program 2.b Affordable Housing Production – No affordable housing projects have been submitted or considered through SGVRHT and the city has been a member for multiple years.  Program 2.c CalHome Program – There is no such thing as a poor South Pasadena homeowner.  Program 2.d Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for Rental Assistance – He thinks the City should commit to more than just posting information on their website. Dr. Albrektson doubts that there are any Section 8 vouchers in use in South Pasadena.  Program 2.e Facilitate Density Bonus for Projects with On-site Affordable Housing – Dr.

Albrektson thinks the timeline for this program should be much sooner. He says projects that have been approved in the City have been delayed and he believes the city could process this type of approval more effectively.
 Program 2.j General Plan Affordable Housing Overlay – Dr. Albrektson said that allowing 30 units per acre via the proposed overlay in areas that already allow 24 units per acre isn’t sufficient incentive for applicants to include affordable units in their projects. He stated that in order for this overlay to work as an incentive it must give the applicant more height or density. He mentioned the City of Berkeley’s affordable housing overlay as an example.  Program 2.l Facilitate Affordable Housing on City-Owned Property – Dr. Albrektson referenced comments he made on this program in another comment he submitted.  Program 3.d Enable Parcel Assemblage – Dr. Albrektson thinks more incentives need to be included with this program.
 Program 3.f Allow and Facilitate ADUs – Dr. Albrektson stated that the city currently takes over 4 months to process ADU applications. He also said that it is difficult to find the ADU brochure on the City website. He commented that the recent changes to the City ADU ordinance make it impossible to use prefabricated ADUs on historic properties which make up 60 percent of all single-family homes in South Pasadena. In addition, he thinks that the terrain in the Monterey Hills wouldn’t allow for use of pre-fabricated ADUs. He also noted that he doesn’t believe this program or the other programs related to ADUs will increase ADU production.
 Program 3.j ADU Amnesty Program – Dr. Albrektson states that no one will make an ADU deed-restricted for affordable households in exchange for the waiver of $160 in city fees.  Program 3.l Increase and Maintain Planning and Housing Staff Resources – Dr. Albrektson states the things called for in this program should be a basic function of a city. He states that the City’s planning staff works too much and should be compensated more and turnover is high.

He requests that this program commit to increasing salaries for the city staff positions mentioned in this program.
 Program 3.m Implement SB 9 and SB 10 – Dr. Albrektson thinks the program should be rewritten related to SB 10 with a better understanding of the law. He states that the City Council has spoken out against SB 9 and SB 10 and they will never be enacted in South Pasadena. Related to the parcels in the moderate and above-moderate sites inventory with 2 units assigned to them 3 - 1509
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-38 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE due to SB 9, he states that the City should include a requirement to eliminate single-family zoning on non-historic properties with a specific deadline if the city wants to claim these units in case SB 9 is overturned.
 Program 4.c Flexible Zoning Regulations – Dr. Albrektson states that the city’s zoning regulations are not flexible.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (via email to HCD, November 4, 2021) stated that City staff planner Liz Bar-El (in an email she sent to HCD) compared the inclusionary housing ordinances of South Pasadena and Pasadena and said that they were the same because both jurisdictions have a 20% inclusionary requirement. Dr. Albrektson claims that South Pasadena has a much deeper affordability than Pasadena, which is significantly different because rental costs contrast for a moderate and very low income homes.

Additionally, the commenter said that Pasadena has much less significant developmental limitations than the City of South Pasadena.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 8, 2021) provides an in-depth personal analysis of the Draft Housing Element. His analysis is over 100 pages and provides a detailed examination of each section under the scope of Dr. Albrektson’s critique. Throughout this analysis, Dr. Albrektson references emails he’s sent in the past.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 12, 2021) stated that the City is implementing a new HVAC and VOiP Phone system into City Hall in 2022 and 2025 at a cost of $360,000 and $480,000, respectively. Dr.

Anthony Dedousis, Director of Policy and Research of Abundant Housing LA (November 14, 2021) states that their letter is a joint response from Abundant Housing LA and YIMBY LA. They claim they submitted a comment letter in April 2021 and highlighted inconsistencies in that original email. They stated that the new draft does not meaningfully address their previous comments. They believe that the new draft of the Housing Element is not consistent with HCD's instruction, does not comply with AFFH requirements under AB 686, and does not include programs with concrete actions to facilitate housing production. They state that there are 6 issues that remain unaddressed in this Housing Element, including:

2. Planning has counted many vacant sites towards the moderate and above-moderate income RHNA targets, despite their unsuitability for housing production.

3. Planning has made an overly optimistic forecast of future ADU production which is unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies.

5. Planning’s proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is unlikely to achieve a significant portion of the lower-income RHNA targets, due to the economic infeasibility of redevelopment where high set-aside percentages apply.
3 - 1510
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-39

Both organizations have three additional concerns with the Draft, including the forecast of future ADU Production, No Net Loss Buffer, and Fair Housing Issues and AFFH Compliance.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (December 14, 2021) claims it has taken too long for a multifamily housing project to be approved. Dr. Albrektson states that it takes about two and a half years from the day it was presented to the planning department to the first chance at approval. Dr. Albrektson claims there have also been requests for redesigns, as well as delays from the City.

Sonja Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY LAW and California YIMBY (February 28, 2022) provided their policy recommendations for 6th Cycle Housing Elements. They noted that the policies and programs section of the city’s Housing Element must respond to data, analysis and findings presented in the Housing Needs section. They made specific policy recommendations in 5 categories that are summarized below:

1. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
a. Prioritize rezoning in high resource, historically exclusionary neighborhoods. b. Establish a strong tenant protection ordinance so that new housing benefits everyone. c. Support homeownership opportunities for historically excluded groups. The housing element should identify opportunities to create a variety of for-sale housing types and create programs to facilitate property ownership among excluded groups.

2. Site Capacity
a. Adequately plan for density. Ensure that a site’s density will accommodate the number of homes that are projected to be built. In addition, make sure height limits, setback requirements, FAR, and other controls allow for adequate density and the ability to achieve a site’s realistic capacity.
b. Provide sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate all income levels, including a minimum No Net Loss buffer of 30%.
c. Use data from the 5th Cycle to calculate the likelihood of development for your 6th Cycle site inventory.

3. Accessory Dwelling Units
a. Commit to an automatic mid-cycle adjustment if ADU permitting activity is lower than estimated in the housing element.
b. Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate or lowerincome households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers.

4. Zoning
a. Allow residential to be built in areas that are zoned for commercial use. b. Allow flexibility in inclusionary zoning.

5. Better entitlement process and reducing barriers to development a. Ensure that the city has a ministerial process for housing permitting, especially multifamily housing, and remove impact fees for deed-restricted housing. b. Reduce parking standards and eliminate parking minimums. c. Cap fees on all new housing.
3 - 1511
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-40 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE d. Provide local funding. There are three new revenue streams that should be considered:
1) Transfer tax, a one-time payment levied by a jurisdiction on the sale of a home, may be utilized to raise much needed revenue to fund affordable homes; 2) Vacancy tax may be collected on vacant land to convince landowners to sell their underutilized properties and be used to fund the construction of affordable homes; 3) Commercial linkage fees should be adopted or revisited for increases on new commercial developments.

Anne Bagasao/John Srebalus (May 2 2022)
Our comments are primarily focused on 6.4 Fair Housing Assessment. 1) 6.4.1 Outreach
We question the validity of the data collected in community meetings during the Spring and Fall of 2020.

At this time, South Pasadena Tenants Union was hyper focused on keeping South Pasadena tenants in their homes with little or no help from the city’s contracted agency Housing Resource Center. The City planning department and City Manager’s instead of trying to help tenants, were busy scheduling important data collection surveys and meetings that would impact the future of South Pasadenans for decades to come. This was extremely poor planning on behalf of the City as many of us were scrambling to find the capacity to shift mental gears away from how to avoid getting sick to addressing the complexities of RHNA numbers and development in our city. We are not satisfied that City outreach to residents was adequate and therefore not accurate. As evidenced in the poor response to these surveys and attendance at meetings that were exclusively available to those with internet access in their homes, computers or mobile devices, we submit that your assessment data is insufficient and therefore your assessment is flawed.

It is stated that outreach was done online and through emails however both John and I were either excluded from participation or were not kept in the loop. We recall that in September 2020, an email was sent to Planning Director Joanna Hankamer with a copy to all members of the Council, Margaret Lin and Arpy Kasparian. Concurrently, similar community meetings were being conducted by the City regarding the Climate Action Plan. I remarked in my email dated 9/30/2020 that I was impressed with the content and frequency of the email contact from the City regarding the Climate Action Plan meetings. The majority of South Pasadenans ,who would be able to provide the most valuable input with regard to affordable housing needs, were managing unemployment issues, homeschooling and health issues. The City is well aware of the advocacy and work that South Pasadena Tenants Union, CareFirst and CalTrans Tenants United invest voluntarily and passionately into housing issues in our town. It is inexcusable, that the City did not ensure that we were at every meeting and could have easily emailed us directly as everyone in Planning and on the Council has our contact information on hand.

In the Outreach Summary section of 6.4.1 the document states that “feedback was received from members of the public, stakeholders, elected officials and others.” South Pasadena Tenants Union and CareFirst are the viable stakeholders in issues of affordable housing, the homeless and low income households. The Housing Element document fails to identify these “stakeholders” referenced in 6.4.1.

If the purpose of this plan, which I understand has cost us tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds 3 - 1512
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-41 of hours of staff time, was to produce the best possible housing element, why did the City not go out of its way to make sure that we were at 100% participation? In my email addressed to Joanna Hankamer, et al. on 9/30/2020 I mentioned that real estate development interest group Abundant Housing LA was actively recruiting non-South Pasadenans to attend the meetings to push the pro-development anti-affordable housing agenda. While SPTU was not in attendance because we were busy keeping South Pasadenans housed and the homeless cared for, Abundant Housing LA mouthpieces were at the table affecting housing policy in South Pasadena.

In July 2020, Mayor Khubesrian called a private meeting with four residents to discuss the housing element. Two were from CareFirst and only one member of South Pasadena Tenants Union was invited.

Conclusion:

When you come to the public and ask for our help but then don’t make a good effort to provide us with the resources to participate, we question the commitment of the City in seeking community input. We should not have to chase down City staff to be able to participate. The City should make public participation as accessible as possible by ensuring that every resident is informed, and informed again, and that all stakeholders are at the table before moving forward with assessments and data and reports that claim to represent public interest.

Josh Albrektson (May 2, 2022)
This Housing Element doesn't address the main problems HCD had with the October Housing Element. For everything related to the 2017 laws and the 6/10/2020 HCD memo there is no significant difference between this draft and the October draft. It doesn't show how 65 to 70 DU/Acre is achievable under the base zoning of South Pasadena, it doesn't show how the highest inclusionary housing element in the state affects feasibility, and it doesn't address the timeline and how it takes multiple years to approve multifamily homes.

It also is unchanged in the Above Mod/Mod category even though there are multiple claimed units on hillsides and backyard tennis courts that due to environmental constraints homes can never be built. 3 - 1513
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-42 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE It includes the three grocery stores and business park that SoPas was told to remove. And it goes from assuming 297 ADUs to 318 ADUs even though HCD told South Pasadena it should be around 10 ADUs per year. There also was none of the outreach performed that HCD told South Pasadena they were required to do and none of the public comments was address in the Housing Element. This Housing Element completely ignored all of the problems that HCD had with the October Housing Element and will be rejected just like that one was. Of note, I sent an e-mail on March 18th that was much more extensive regarding the October Housing Element. Everything in that e-mail still applies to this new Housing Element draft --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
Delaine W. Shane (May 2, 2022)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject document; however, a frank discussion of what really is at stake beyond this documentation is even more important. South Pasadena cannot simply stand by and do whatever the State dictates on housing, while not equally judging the truly complex intricacies, relationships, and outcomes of water supply/drought, climate change, unequal economic/social justice issues, misguided actions that harm historic preservation, and minimizing fiduciary responsibility regarding the sale of Caltrans properties.

I fully understand the constraints that this subject document must adhere to as based on recent legal state mandates, and yet we cannot divorce ourselves from other planning and environmental areas that clearly interact with the proposed draft Housing Element. All documentation should be discussed in unison instead of separating the Housing Element from the General Plan Update, the Specific Plan Update, Zoning modifications, Environmental Impact Report, and even the already approved Climate Action Plan. It is a complex undertaking to plan the City’s future when there are so many aspects to consider. All sides of this debate on housing must be heard; these plans are so vital to the City’s development for the next 20 to 30 years in the long-term and even more so in the short-term within the next eight years.

My comments are divided into two sections: general perspective for your consideration and specific comments on the subject document for the planning consultants. Yes, the State long ago forcefully told our community that we residents must prepare for a freeway to be built through South Pasadena. We stopped that transportation fiasco and now we must stop the outrageous and exaggerated RHNA mandate and the related state housing legislation that will shred the character of our city. We need to control our own destiny. That is true democracy.

South Pasadena needs more affordable housing—without question. Housing should not be about pleasing the State or the for-profit developers who focus on luxury units. South Pasadena housing should be planned and accommodated in a sustainable manner for our residents and for those yet to come at truly affordable prices. This planning needs to be within the context of a small city that is merely

3.5 square miles and that will be able to operate with sustainable infrastructure, environmentally supportive practices, and financially sound protocols for our residents (homeowners and tenants, rich and poor, and the entire spectrum of diverse ethnicities, religions, etc.). That planning effort is very difficult to do today with the State’s stranglehold on local jurisdictions, yet we must strive to try together. 3 - 1514
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-43 We cannot follow blindly in step with the State. As of this moment, only nine out of 197 jurisdictions have approved housing elements for the State’s planning cycle (In South Pasadena Review. 2022. By Haley Sawyer, “Progress on Housing Element Plods Ahead,” April 29th, page 13). We are not alone in this quagmire of overzealous and misplaced mandates, along with highly restrictive instructions/- requirements on what constitutes a compliant housing element.

A coalition (Mission – Livable California) is currently collecting signatures and asking for support to have a State Constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 2024 to return land use and zoning directives back to the cities and counties. Council Member Evelyn Zneimer is the only elected representative from South Pasadena that openly supports this measure. Why doesn’t the whole Council

Page 2 ends

support this as well? Or, if not, why doesn’t the Council push back more with the State and build its own coalition to fight the onerous RHNA mandate? Just because of one appeal that was destined to fail anyway does not mean that South Pasadena should surrender its rights to develop a more reasonable and accommodating expansion. South Pasadena, the fighter, stops after just one loss in a huge battle for control of its destiny? That’s not the South Pasadena way that I recognize.

It is time to collaborate with other jurisdictions and join coalitions to bring sense and true planning back to local control with respect to land use and zoning, and especially in all matters regarding housing in South Pasadena.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Delaine Shane
Delaine W. Shane
2003 Meridian Avenue
3 - 1515
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-44 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

GENERAL COMMENTS
This generic document does little to validate the excessive development scenario proposed for our small

3.5-square-mile community. Clearly the draft Housing Element is not dealing with today’s reality. It is light on specific details concerning critical and defining zoning and planning standards and criteria. It simply notes that this critical information will be determined after the adoption of the Housing Element.

Conducting public outreach and participation by the city staff and consultants should not be done this way. This strategy is top-down planning and prevents honest discourse between different views during the genesis of the Housing Element.

The Housing Element should be presented with all other related plans/zoning/design requirements together, so that the full portfolio of planning tools, strategies, and options can be understood and considered in the context of South Pasadena and its position on accommodating future growth.

Notice my statement in the previous paragraph as “in the context of South Pasadena and its position on accommodating future growth.” It’s about what WE want and not the State. That is a huge difference and an important distinction being made. For example, other than building new housing units, I do not have a real sense from the Housing Element what the City policy and priority is in retrofitting old office buildings for apartments or the real seriousness for educating property owners on developing Junior ADUs. Adaptive reuse of existing buildings and junior ADUs are mentioned in the Housing Element but just that and not much more. Modifying existing buildings can generate less carbon and greenhouse gas emissions over new construction and can also preserve the historic nature/character of the neighborhood where the buildings stand.

Briefly, I will state very obvious facts that cannot be ignored by the City or by the State, and especially not in the Housing Element.

Water Supply and Drought
No matter how we conserve, adding 2,067 housing units will have a significant impact on our current ability to supply water to all South Pasadena residents. Water shortages and rationing are now a reality.

We will have less water and more costs by the various water districts that will ultimately be passed onto us residents.

California Department of Water Resources
Survey Finds Little Snow as Statewide Snowpack Drops to 38 Percent Following Record Dry Months (ca.gov)
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (click on weblinks for full details) Metropolitan Cuts Outdoor Watering To One Day A Week For Six Million Southern Californians (mwdh2o.com)
Metropolitan Adopts Two-Year Budget To Address Drought, Climate Change While Mitigating Impacts of Rising Costs, Lower Sales (mwdh2o.com)
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Drought – Upper District
3 - 1516
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-45 Climate Change
With water shortages/droughts, climate change will impact reservoirs as well. As the levels in our state and federal reservoirs continue to drop to historic lows, there will also be losses in energy levels related to generating hydroelectric power. Apparently, if you subscribe to Clean Power Alliance-SCE, for 100% Green Power, the power source does not rely on hydroelectric processes. However, if you don’t subscribe to this service, you may find yourself having more black and brown outages in the future.

Refer to: Power Sources - Clean Power Alliance.

Lawns, trees, and other vegetation will have to be watered under key restrictions and quite possibly lawns may be prohibited in the future if we fall within a persistent, severe drought. This will have to be balanced with the need for open space, parks, habitat preservation, as well as considering shading alternatives if more trees die out. It is worth a discussion and evaluation in weighing the growth patterns of the City amid increased impacts to these biological resources.

Social/Economic Justice
How will building so many luxury condos (while adhering to the state’s mandate of density bonuses/inclusionary incentives) benefit or balance the social/economic injustices we have in South Pasadena? There are discussions on “housing mobility opportunities” in the Housing Element for those residents who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck. Except for getting out of substandard rental units, I am not clear as to what difference it makes where individuals with extremely low/very low live, so long as it is in South Pasadena. Repairing the units and allowing people to remain in them at affordable rents (with voucher assistance) and not uprooting them seems the better approach and less draconian. Conversely, is it possible that the Housing Element as it now appears could impact persons of color who qualify for such “housing mobility opportunities” but fail to remain due to gentrification.

No one should be paying up to 50% of their income for rent, yet some of our residents do.

Historic Preservation
I have absolutely no idea as to how historic preservation will survive in this housing planning cycle.

Overlays, zoning, development criteria, and design are for another day depriving us of thoughtful discussions about historic preservation, new construction, and possible alternatives. This is simply not transparent and is wrong to have this information withheld or not completed until after the Housing Element is approved or close to being approved. Though this is not the CEQA process, it really shuts down any initial opportunity to set draft policies within our community through collaboration and cooperation. We have a precious historic treasure trove of buildings, and we have a responsibility to be good stewards in maintaining this historic fabric and character of South Pasadena. That doesn’t mean everything will be frozen in time. No, we must develop the downtown further, but in a manner that complies with federal standards and our vision of what direction South Pasadena will take: Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines—Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service (nps.gov).

Fiduciary Responsibility/Caltrans Properties
The City and its third-party vendor must stay out of the property management business with the remaining Caltrans properties. Seriously.

Where is the funding source for the City to make such purchases? Where are the checks and balances to ensure things will be operated and maintained properly? 3 - 1517
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-46 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE My neighbors and I are completely against SB381. We live adjacent to or within a few doors down of many Caltrans properties. The views of the Caltrans tenants have also not been heard and are not reflected in the Housing Element. No decision, such as making the properties permanent rental, should be made without the full public participation and discussion with our neighbors, including Caltrans tenants. We support the recommendations made by the South Pasadena Preservation Foundation and want to see existing or previous tenants have success in buying their homes.

Conclusion
South Pasadena doesn’t need a boiler-plated, word padded State template to guide our City for the next eight years in housing development. Instead, South Pasadena needs to be a leader and examine its own resources, listen to its residents (especially renters who don’t have a renter on the City Council and yet comprise some 50 to 55% of the population) on what is sustainable growth. South Pasadena also needs to collaborate with other jurisdictions and coalitions to fight the State on these RHNA numbers. If you haven’t seen the Los Angeles Times today, one of its leading stories states: “California’s population fell, again. But an inland boom could be turning things around.” “Population growth remains strong in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire.” This article requires a paid subscription, so I am including just a snippet. I am not suggesting that South Pasadena have no affordable housing units. It must. Just what can be determined as truly sustainable and not what SCAG or HCD wants.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Comments on Table VI-2 (Summary of Housing Programs for the 2021-2029 Housing Element)

1. Page 5, Program 1.a.—Energy Efficiency. “The City will also continue to encourage retrofitting existing housing units with innovative energy conservation techniques, such as active and passive solar systems, insulation, orientation, and project layout in an endeavor to further reduce dependence on outside energy sources.” Why should solar systems continue to be encouraged by our City? While I am in favor of promoting renewable energy systems, more discussion on this one is needed. As noted on page 173 of the Housing Element: “In 2021, 95% of residents subscribed to the 100% Green Power option.” That is in reference to the City’s success in getting most of its residents to accept the Clean Power Alliance-100% Green Power. So, how does having an individual solar system on one’s home improve that goal on energy efficiency from the City’s standpoint? It is my understanding that the California Public Utilities Commission may be considering added charges on metering that may make it less cost effective for owners of these systems to get reimbursed when they sell their excess energy.

Furthermore, manufacturing of solar panels is not carbon neutral, and there are environmental issues with disposal of older panels. From a financial standpoint, it may not make sense for some property owners to invest in this type of system, especially if they don’t intend to stay in South Pasadena for a long time. Financing this type of system with some private installers may result in liens being placed on the properties that can be problematic during subsequent sales. Wouldn’t it be more productive for City staff’s time and efforts to focus on the other conservation techniques than on the solar systems? Perhaps, it is time to review the hastily approved 2020 Climate Action Plan and revise it so that it can also be properly interwoven into what is now being discussed in this element and the General Plan Update?
3 - 1518
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-47

Page 5 ends

properties after the existing tenants.” My neighbors and I continue to object to this proposed action by the City via Senate Bill 381. This legislative piece was never thoroughly vetted by the residents, especially the Caltrans residents. The City has no ability or resources to take on the responsibility of purchasing many if not all the Caltrans properties within South Pasadena. We still wait for the two vacant former Caltrans properties to be converted into pocket parks. The whole process has been plagued with delays, neglect, and empty promises. The real intent we believe is to use these Caltrans properties with existing housing for permanent rentals with oversight from a third-party management firm. That is NOT what our neighborhood wants. We want existing tenants to OWN these properties. The City’s policy should be to help the residents navigate and provide/seek funding if there are short falls in financing and not let the residents fail to secure their homes. That is why our community supports the South Pasadena Preservation Foundation’s recommendations. These recommendations should be part of this section of the housing element. Managing rental properties by the City or more likely its contractor is not doable.

The daily administrative duties and operations, the collections of rent and processing of vouchers, the complaints under an array of situations, the continual maintenance issues, the liability of injuries, etc. will be beyond the capabilities of the City to accomplish this monumental task without additional staffing and costs. A third party will minimize all these issues, like Caltrans did, to get the most out of the renters’ money (and taxpayers too) and our neighbors who live next door to these houses and apartment buildings will be directly impacted through the neglect as what is the current situation. The City should act as a facilitator and “hand holder” for the tenants to get them approved by mortgage lenders and to be a point of contact for further advice, if needed. Program 1.b is simply a tremendous undertaking that the City lacks in being able to carry out and could be a financial disaster for us as a community. At the very least, the City should identify in this element, the projected costs of purchasing, maintaining, and operating these properties by the City (or a third-party designee) versus assisting the tenants to buy their homes and then helping them seek grants and loans to fix the housing units. The tragedy is that these were once quaint, working-class homes for hard working people. Caltrans took on the mantel of slum lord and we see the results of their cruel management.

Page 6 ends

Pages 6 and 7, Program 1.d.—Assisted Housing Unit Preservation. “The City will maintain and monitor a list of all low-income housing units in South Pasadena that are subsidized by government funding or developed through local or state regulations or incentives.” …. “If conversion of units is likely, work with local service providers as appropriate to seek funding to subsidize the at-risk units in a way that mirrors the HUD Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. Funding sources may include state or local funding sources.” This program is therefore to show compliance with the RHNA numbers for those residents that are earning extremely low/very low income (1,155 housing units). This program 3 - 1519
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-48 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE will undoubtedly require the work of two or more FTEs (full time equivalent individuals, either employees or contractors). This program should not be funded by the General Fund, but by the State given such high numbers. If this must go through the General Fund, then the Housing Element should indicate the approximate cost to the taxpayers to implement this State mandate. How will this program be structured so that it can be meaningful to those who truly need such services rather than it de-evolve to just list some numbers (with or without verification) and then hand out fact sheets rather than be proactive and collaborative? After all, there are a lot of programs proposed by the City and not all can be carried out and monitored with a small staff. We cannot pay an endless amount to outside contractors. On Page 7, the last paragraph in the program explains what happens if owners sell their properties before the 55-year (for owner occupied units) and 45-year (for rental units) requirements that ensure such properties remain affordable for their set periods of time. Two questions come to mind.

First, if a developer is relying on Program 3.d (Enable Parcel Assemblage) to build multi-housing units and one or more of the small properties are under Program 1.d (Assisted Housing Unit Preservation), does the owner/seller of the existing property still have to pay any money beyond the affordable sell price to the City? Several sad situations exist for why owners of affordable housing may have to sell, such as the death of the primary wage earner, the aging out of the owner, divorce, etc. but under the scenario I have presented here, it appears that only the City and developer would reap the monetary rewards and not the property owner. Second, does the placement of a “roll-over” restriction for another 45-55 years to protect at-risk units where the property owner sells the units prior to the first-time frame legally sound? I am all for ensuring affordable housing, but is there a legal precedent for this “roll over” restriction that essentially restarts the entire period again or just maintain the remaining affordable years left by the previous owner. It just sounds particularly onerous and not a true legal nexus. Could this “roll over” restriction place the City in legal jeopardy?

Page 7 ends

Page 8 ends

paragraph should become the first paragraph in this discussion and the number one priority of this program with these edits: “The City will reach out proactively to developers of 100% affordable housing to identify and vigorously pursue opportunities to the maximum extent feasible on an annual basis. The City periodically updates applications and materials, and provides application forms and materials online at the Virtual Planning Desk to better assist housing project applicants and for implementation consistency.” Still on Page 8 of this program contained within the column entitled eight-year objective with this edit: “Expand housing mobility opportunities through affordable housing in locations distributed throughout the City and encourage affordable development in high resource areas by facilitating timely review of development proposals….” This edit reflects more accurately and explicitly Goal 2.0. Last comment for this program within the same column: “The City’s objective is to assist with 100 applications across all income levels during the 2021-2029 planning period. Update materials by June 2023.” Clarification of this statement is needed. Does the City’s objective for the 100 applications mean just in receipt of or does it seriously mean processing them and seeing these through completion as built units? What if no applications are received at the extremely low/very low income levels? What then? And if high numbers of applications are submitted within a short timeframe, which income level(s) applications will be given the highest priority?

Page 10 ends

objective is to approve at least 600 affordable units during the planning period through density bonuses 3 - 1520
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-49 to facilitate mixed-income projects, and support expanded housing mobility opportunities for lowerincome households.” Of course, streamlining approvals means excluding CEQA discretionary action and making it ministerial. This separation rather than complete discussion of the Housing Element, the General Plan Update, Specific Plan Update, Zoning Modifications, Design Requirements, and Climate Action Plan combined is extremely problematic. It is precisely at this ambiguity juncture where we are concerned that with the loss of CEQA input, our voice in how the development is proposed, designed, and pushed through will be lost.

Page 10 ends

housing be distributed throughout the City. Once such buildings are erected, what will be the mechanism to ensure that the operators of said housing will be good stewards and good neighbors?

Page 12 ends

Housing Overlay Zone. These overlays should be made available now for public review. One will be adopted by the General Plan approval date and the other no later than October 15, 2024. That does not allow for much public discussion or flexibility in revising such overlays, as needed.

Page 12 ends

with a review of assets to create a City-owned site affordable housing inventory (will include list of surplus properties) by June 30, 2023.” Shouldn’t the public know what the City’s assets are that could be considered for public housing first before this Housing Element is adopted? We have very little open space/parks in several parts of our City. Some of these assets also need to be utilized for that purpose.

Page 13 ends

than promoting refill parcels or redevelopment parcels-still a controversial approach for generating more affordable housing. If a property owner wishes to voluntarily participate, then it is not an issue.

This program should not be a planning tool in which the City decides which properties are not at their highest and best use. Nor should eminent domain be employed for this program.

Still on Page 13 under this same program: “The types of standards and processes that will or may need revising include height limits, open space standards, parking requirements and findings for design review. The rezoning of the vacant parcels must be completed within one year of the beginning of the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period, which is October 15, 2022. Sites that are planned to receive the Affordable Housing Overlays (see Programs 2.j and 2.k) in the General Plan and Zoning Code are also addressed by this program.” These statements should be discussed publicly now and not near the end of the General Plan Update/rezoning identified as being October 15, 2022. These other documents that the consultants have been writing about will be hundreds if not thousands of pages long collectively.

Page 14 ends

on the zoning changes at this point. We need to see how the zoning within the City will change to support the Housing Element.
3 - 1521
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-50 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

Page 14 ends

demolition proposals based on maintaining an inventory of affordable units and require replacement housing in compliance with State law to reduce displacement that occurs as a result of demolition and enable residents to remain in their community.” This needs clarity to ensure protection for the residents.

Does this mean that before existing affordable housing is demolished, the current tenants will be guaranteed replacement housing before demolition commences? If so, who is responsible for their temporary housing costs (which might last for a year or so)? If not, how can you make a statement that residents will be able to remain in the community if they are amongst the first “casualties” of demolition? Vacancy rates in South Pasadena are low even for rental units that moderate income individuals can afford. What about the extremely low/very low income population? Pages 14-15, Program 3.d.—Enable Parcel Assemblage. What if an adjacent property owner does not wish to sell their home to the developer? Will the City then proceed to take the property through eminent domain to ensure that the RHNA numbers are being met? With all the incentives the City is proposing to give to the developer, such as more height, additional stories, waive lot merger fees, and perhaps a lessening of parking requirements in areas that are already built out, absolutely no consideration is given to the residents. There is no acknowledgment from what I can tell from the Housing Element on how much our neighborhoods already suffer and that with new development will be compounded such as deteriorated streets and limited to no parking. The developers cannot fix our current problems. Does the City expect that the character of our small City will remain unchanged with this over-the-top densification? How will the City prioritize the historic homes on the inventory list throughout the City? Many homes have been modified over the years. So, will the City follow the tactic of Caltrans and deem that these historic homes can therefore be demolished? And again, what can other neighbors say about it, when it has become a ministerial action with no CEQA involvement because it fits with an ambiguous housing element with no zoning modifications presented to us at this time to discuss and consider? Pages 15-19 for Programs related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). I could not find anything about short-term rentals (e.g., AirBnB). Such housing stock is detrimental to achieving affordable housing goals and objectives. One or more of these programs need to explicitly state the policy of either no such rentals permitted or a set limit with specific restrictions in a policy/ordinance. I am certain there are already residents that have this type of operation in service, so it is important to have a dialogue to see what is most reasonable and fair.

Page 19 ends

Page 20 ends

unable to find the definition in the Housing Element. Location of such shelters are important and the zoning of them should be discussed now and not one year after the Housing Element is approved.

Page 20 ends

Navigation Centers. This is a euphemism for half-way homes. The City is planning to revise the Municipal Code so that these homes can be placed without discretionary CEQA review in areas zoned for mixed use and non-residential zones permitting multifamily uses within two years after the adoption of the Housing Element. I know this is also a controversial topic, but it needs to be discussed now. All the “pieces” of the planning jigsaw must be available for people to understand, discuss, and voice their opinions.
3 - 1522
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-51

Page 21 ends

program also include those centers (i.e., half-way homes) in Program 4.b?

Page 21 ends

projects per the cited California Government Code needs to be available for us now to review and not by the end of the year when the Housing Element is already adopted.

Davis White (May 31, 2022)
To whom it may concern,
The California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) recently published a letter in response to Temple City’s implementation of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) which has sweeping implications for other jurisdictions in this process. The letter focuses on the city’s ill-founded attempt to reduce the intensity of land use for SB 9 projects without any attempt to concurrently increase intensity elsewhere, as required by the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA). Any change in intensity of units or size without counterbalancing affects feasibility. HCD has found this violates state law. Temple City’s SB 9 ordinance—and HCD’s response—also contains a laundry list of don'ts which may affect a jurisdiction’s Housing Element compliance. Specifically, the letter called out Temple City’s use of square footage restrictions, height and story restrictions, courtyard requirements, parking limitations, LEED standards, underground requirements, and even affordability deed restrictions. All told, such requirements for SB 9-related projects which go beyond standards for other projects may be construed as governmental constraints.

Jurisdictions will have to identify and justify such constraints in their Housing Elements. Lastly, the letter stresses that a jurisdiction’s implementation of SB 9 is covered by state laws other than the HCA and State Housing Element Law. This includes, but is not exclusive to, State ADU Law, AFFH, and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law. How a city implements SB 9 has wide-reaching considerations. Jurisdictions should be fully aware that SB 9-related projects are not separate nor exempt from their ordinary zoning laws
and instead should be included within existing codes. The point of SB 9 is to give homeowners the means to increase the density of their properties. It is not a dead-end in state law.

Attached to this email is HCD's letter to Temple City for reference.

Sincerely,
Davis White
--
Davis White he/him
yimbylaw.org
(415) 298-0788
Josh Albrektson (June 20, 2022) (Twitter Post)
South Pasadena is required to show they have enough zoning to allow 2,067 homes will be built over the next 7 years. They just released a Housing Element that shows where they claim the “Future homes” will be built. Me and @taxingainteasy are gonna take you so see them. ⧎⧏⧐⧑⧒⧓ 3 - 1523
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-52 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE To start with, South Pasadena claims that this entire mountainside will be redeveloped with homes.

They have no plans to actually do it and never actually would, but they still make the claim. (Blue dot is where I am standing for video)
In fact, in the Housing Element they even specifically state that it will always be open space at the same time they claim housing will be built on it. They had these same sites in October and were told to remove them by HCD, but they are still there.

You really don’t get a sense of how steep this mountain is until you actually go up there. This will be the first and last time I go up there. [He describes location of and road in relation to estimated "45 degree" slope and presents questions regarding feasibility of housing development on the hillside.

Implies 65 homes are going in this area (25+40)]
This is another place where they claim that homes will be built on a mountainside with a 60 degree incline road. Blue marks where I am standing for the video. [He describes location of housing sites in relation to estimated "70 degree" slope and presents questions regarding feasibility of housing development on the hillside. Implies 11 homes are going in this area (7+4)] Here is the video for reference.

SoPas claims that every major grocery store will be turned into low income housing. This Ralphs which serves most of San Marino and Alhambra and is the only grocery store around will be 133 homes, even though the owner never responded to any e-mails from SoPas. (Sound on) Video says: "Does this Ralphs look like it's about to go out of business? Looks pretty busy to me" This SilverLake Ramen is actually about to open and at the last City Council meeting the mayor talked about how responsive the staff was to get the permits approved when it hit a snag. But According to South Pasadena this will be torn down in 7 years and turned into 263 homes.

Not only that, but this entire complex is planning to do massive renovations this year. In order to be included as a low income site you have to show that the current use is likely to be discontinued in the next 7 years. You don’t spend millions on buildings to tear them down.

Speaking of grocery stores undergoing renovations, SoPas was told to remove this Pavilions from the list. SoPas is claiming they talked to the owner and he now wants to tear it down and build housing.

SoPas will not give me any evidence of that conversation.

Here is HCD telling SoPas in December that these sites should be removed, but they are still there.

This was also featured in an amazing article by @RegJeffCollins with follow up articles by @publiceditor
On a related note, SoPas makes all kinds of claims in their Housing Element for communications with owners, but they don’t publish them and have repeatedly refused to show them when asked. I have even put in PRAS and 210 days later I have yet to get a response from SoPas See these power lines??? They are the main power lines that got from a power plant and supply most of the power to SoPas, San Marino, and Alhambra. South Pasadena claims that 15 homes will be built under these high voltage power lines.
3 - 1524
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-53 But not only that, they also claim that they will move their Public Works yard here and build 34 units at that site. I am sure Edison is totally cool with storing heavy duty trucks under high voltage power lines.

We will just shut down power for a year when it is built.

This is the parking lot for Rite Aid and other stores in a shopping complex. South Pasadena claims that the parking lot is not used for businesses. They would be shocked to learn there is a tunnel going strait from the parking lot to the businesses.

Rite Aid would also probably disagree with the assessment that the parking lot is not used for their business.

See this McDonalds??? It is one of the nicest McDonalds I have ever been to. No response from the owner, but South Pasadena claims that they will be turned into 47 new homes.

You might recognize a lot of these sites because they are almost unchanged from the sites that South Pasadena submitted over a year ago. They were told at the time most were not eligible, but they are still there.

Now, let's go to some of the little sites that SoPas claims will be housing. It is obvious that they just pulled these from a random computer program and never even looked to see if they were valid. This is my thread from the first draft they had.

They have lots that claim a driveway will be built on a 6 foot strip of land up into the hills.

Does this look like a future driveway up into the hills??? Random street next to high school is apparently going to be a home.

Street demonstration by @taxingainteasy
This home (red) and this persons backyard (blue) will be torn down and turned into homes.

I bet this home doesn’t know it is going to be torn down. 15 foot wide strips of land are apparently potential future homes.

Some dudes tennis court(red) and the main walkway connecting Monterey Hills and the High School (blue, called the snake trail) are both supposed to be housing.

This lot has approved plans for a pocket park that is supposed to be built this year. SoPas also claims it will be a home.

This thin strip of land is supposed to be a home.

Sometimes you have random strips on land in the middle of the mountain.

Not Kobe!!!!! This building is half a block from the train station. SoPas claims it will be torn down and replaced with apartments at 70 DU/Acre. The only problem is there is a 25 foot height limit and one parking spot per bedroom minimum parking requirement.

Finally, Krispy Kreme. This is not being torn down, we are just happy it is here. 3 - 1525
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-54 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE This list is just some of the worst examples from the Housing Element. I don’t include how South Pasadena enacted the highest inclusionary housing ordinance in the state to make sure no buildings will be financially feasible, in part because you cannot take a picture of that.

BTW, if you are looking for who to blame for the Housing Crisis, @GVelasquez72 is in charge of @California_HCD. Under his leadership countless examples like the ones above have been approved. Like Vista being allowed to claim their 10 year old city hall.

You also have @Jason_Elliott and @CaHousingGuy who have yet to refer a single city for prosecution for a lack of compliant Housing Element, even ones that are openly defiant. Jason claimed that Newsom was going to hold cities accountable.

ADDITIONAL NOTES
Outreach to low income housing providers: Need to add reference to City outreach to Hollywood Community Housing Corporation to explore possibilities of partnerships and to understand the needs of LI housing providers.

Angelica Frausto-Lupo (March 14, 2022)
From: Josh Albrektson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Margaret Lin <[email protected]>; Angelica Frausto-Lupo <[email protected]>
Subject: Can I get some information
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. With the Housing 3 - 1526
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-55 Element release coming up I was wondering if I can get some information. I'm asking for it by e-mail because it would be much easier for you guys than more extensive PRAs. All of this information should be easy to obtain. 1. How many ADU building permits were issued in 2020 and 2021?? 2. Can you give me a list of projects that have turned in applications that the IHO would apply to since it was implemented?? I don't need anything extensive, just the address and number of proposed units in each project. 3. The evidence for each low income site in the Housing Element that you are using to claim as substantial evidence that the current use will be discontinued?? Margaret knows what I am talking about for this stuff. Thanks.

Josh Albrektson (June 30, 2022))
South Pasadena just e-mailed a comment letter to residents 8 days before the HCD letter is due. It is an incomplete document and even being somebody who knows housing law it is hard to fully comprehend.

This is not real community outreach. Because I am off this week I should be able to provide a comment on some of the things in that letter that is misleading/false by the end of the week. I will include one thing here. " Proposed revisions in the section under Historic Land Development Patterns (approximately page 94) ahead of the sentences about the height limit initiative: The City does not have any growth control or management policies in place, and has not historically," This is just flat out wrong.

They enacted the 45 foot height limit in 1983 and also enacted a slow growth policy placing a cap on 60 new housing units a year. They did this in part because Asian people were moving to South Pasadena.

They also banned minorities from owning homes until 1965. Here are articles from the LA Times in the 1980's describing South Pasadenas growth restrictions. I have pulled out the relevant paragraphs and italicized them. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-10-25-ga-16043-story.html Minorities, Growth Like other cities in the western San Gabriel Valley, South Pasadena, which covers less than 3 1/2 square miles, has experienced both a significant influx of minority residents and a drive to build. Almost a quarter of the city’s 24,400 residents are Asians, according to city officials. Fearing that South Pasadena is losing its character as a typical American small town of single-family homes, residents have battled plans for condominiums and major commercial projects. In 1983, voters rejected a proposed twin-tower office building that had been unanimously supported by the City Council. Then, after Simmons and Getchell petitioned for a ballot measure, voters imposed a 45-foot height limit on new construction. Now Simmons is leading a similar initiative drive to restrict minimall construction in the city. Cap on New Housing Last year, the council, under pressure from citizens’ petitions, voted to place a cap of 60 new housing units a year in the city. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988- 11-28-me-363-story.html But city leaders say South Pasadena and its old-fashioned way of life are protected by a community-nurtured resistance to change. South Pasadena was one of the first cities in the region to adopt a slow-growth policy. In 1986, faced with a proliferation of condominium complexes and apartment buildings in the southern part of the city, as well as a voters’ revolt, the City Council imposed a 60-unit annual limit on new multifamily developments. “We’ve protected ourselves pretty well,” Woollacott said. Static Population The city’s reluctance to build is reflected in population statistics.

The population in neighboring cities has ballooned, mostly with new arrivals from Asia, but South Pasadena’s has increased by an average of only 84 people a year since 1970. While the city was keeping a lid on new apartment buildings, slowgrowth activists turned down a string of proposed commercial developments, using intense political pressure or the initiative process. For example, in 1983, when a local merchant proposed to erect two multistory office buildings, angry residents petitioned for a ballot measure limiting the height of new construction. The measure won, and the so-called “twin towers” died a sudden and unlamented death. In recent months, two major projects have also succumbed to slow-growth sentiment. First, developer Thomas Stagen withdrew a plan for a 150-suite hotel on Fair Oaks Avenue, citing the community’s “virulent opposition” to the project. Then, the City Council, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, scuttled a move to declare 74 acres of prime commercial area in the city a redevelopment area, after rebellious local merchants displayed signs 3 - 1527
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-56 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE portraying the council as a big octopus, seeking to control the city. In 1989 led by a local NIMBY Group SPRIG South Pasadena began implementation for a new general plan that downzoned the city from having a capacity of 60,000 to 25,000. LA Times article at the start:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-08-27-ga-1552-story.html General Plan update that includes a excerpt from the Task Force from 1990:(page
13) https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/220/636721709083330000 As the new decade begins, however, South Pasadena is faced with the twin threats of burgeoning multiresidential growth and continued deterioration of its commercial areas and business tax base. South Pasadena did not allow minorities to own houses. In 1964, a latino USC professor was allowed to buy a home because they mistakenly thought he was Native American. There is a TON more racist things in this article that South Pasadena did such as banning black children from the community pool and blocking off a street that connected them to the Latino El Sereno, but those were not housing related. https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/when-south-pasadena-was-a-sundown-town/ Housing In 1964, Manuel Servin, a Mexican-American professor at USC, managed to buy a house in South Pasadena, even though Mexican Americans were specifically restricted from doing so. Native Americans had no restrictions placed on them and City officials mistakenly approved his purchase in South Pasadena.

Shortly thereafter, in the mid-sixties the Federal government provided funding for affordable housing with the Altos de Monterey development which brought more racial diversity to the area. Many communities adjacent to South Pasadena did not share the same racist past. El Sereno, Highland Park and Alhambra were far more multi-racial. This created the basis of still more examples of racially divisive attitudes in residents and more law suits against the City of South Pasadena. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
Josh Albrektson (June 30, 2022)
I'm gonna send my comments as I write them because SoPas dropped this letter 8 days before the deadline for HCD to make their findings.

Page one contains a list of all sites by APN which should be removed. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CZFzZM41DcAmVWgOUaFgaAU77Lrww9cSRwQ7GV JfWg/ edit?usp=sharing
3 - 1528
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-57 You all have seen the videos but you can see how unrealistic it is to claim a road will be built down this hill.
https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538986717599830016?s=20&t=vn8iBXZzAb-xOVD-RgHHQ 1C. More than 50% of RiteAids business comes from people who park in the parking lot. You cannot just claim “This will be resolved.” And the parking lot was not for sale, the whole site including the Rite Aid building was sold about 8 years ago. It was not just the parking lot.

See how many people are using the tunnel to get to the parking lot:
https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538992058236407808?s=20&t=vn8iBXZzAb-xOVD-RgHHQ 2A. IHO makes every building economically infeasible so they will not be built and SoPas cannot claim it will help spread affordable housing through the city. 2B. The City talks about the single family homes in the South West of the City and how ADUs would help increase housing on those sites. South Pasadena enacted a ADU ordinance that made that area a high fire zone and instituted many restrictions so that ADUs cannot be built in that area. There is a email from Reid Miller of the HCD ADU team to Liz Bar-El talking about and this included in the 5/21/21 e-mail sent out by Paul to the City. (see attached email) 3A. Sent out different e-mail quoting the LA Times articles from the 1980’s about how “South Pasadena was one of the first cities in the region to adopt a slow-growth policy.” And banned minorities from buying homes until 1965.
3B. “The City will continue to include projects in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that develop infrastructure which supports housing for lower-income residents, and provides transportation facilities for those without access to vehicles.”
On May 23rd South Pasadena decided against implementing bike lanes in the city and instead used the money to expand a one lane road of Orange Grove to a two lane road at a cost of $500k in order to make it easier for people to get on the freeway. As part of the Housing Element South Pasadena should commit to implementing the adopted 2011 master bike plan by 2025.

Link to them rejecting the bike plan for the road widening:
https://twitter.com/ActiveSGV/status/1528818927588937728 Adopted but not implemented 2011 Bike Plan.
https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1793/636721709083330000 3C. Regarding Program 2.e and the IHO increasing the supply of affordable housing. IHO makes every building economically infeasible so they will not be built and SoPas cannot claim it will help spread affordable housing through the city.

Josh Albrektson (July 1, 2022)
3 - 1529
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-58 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 5A. Site 18 cannot be developed without destroying the McDonalds drive through in site 17. 5B. Please ask to see the last contacts of the City with sites 3 and 6. What I have received from my PRAs implies both sites are not viable, with site 3 specifically telling the city that the IHO means his project can no longer work.
5C. Almost all sites are in locations where commercial projects can also be built and the probability of that happening is not taken into account at all. In the case of Vons and Pavilions, sites 20 and 21, that is actually happening with both undergoing extensive renovations in 2022. (Pavilions now and Vons planned)
5D. South Pasadena limited SB 9 so that all units can be a maximum size of 850 st ft. That guarantees a single family home is more likely to be built since they can build to 0.35 far. San Francisco did a feasibility study on SB 9 and determined that there was almost no sites in San Fran that a SB 9 project would be more feasible than a single family home, and that is without the 850 sq ft maximum SoPas does.
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/citywide/SB9_Summary_FinancialFeasibilityA nalysis.pdf
6A. I think the numbers “consolidation on sites 10, 15, 19, 21 and 25” on the HCD letter is wrong.

There is no site 25.
6B. Sites 10, 20, and 23 have the same owner. Sites 13 and 14 do not have the same owner. Site 14 the city met with an affordable housing developer and instead of developing decided to extend the lease of the playhouse located on the site.
7A. Paul told the city in May that the power lines are not a feasible site for anything. The Public works yard (site 9) should be removed from a list of viable sites. South Pasadena also counted the power lines sites for 15 moderate income sites on Table VI-44, line 6. This should also be removed. 7B. See comments 1A and 1B above. There has been no new roads built in the Los Altos (SouthWest SoPas) since 1965 and the only lots that have been developed since that time had access to a road. All sites without road access, the planned pocket park, the guys backyard tennis court, the snake trail, and sites that don’t exist should be removed.

Every site on page one of this spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CZFzZM41DcAmVWgOUaFgaAU77Lrww9cSRwQ7GV JfWg/edit?usp=sharing
8A. They should only be allowed to claim the average ADU building permits for the last 36 months of whenever they get an approved housing Element. Other cities such as Los Angeles show there is a bump for two years due to pent up demand but then there is a drop in applications over time. 8B. SoPas does not address the fact it is one of the richest cities in the Los Angeles II category of the scag survey and that it is unlikely that any ADU will be affordable to a low income family or individual unless it is given to family. Also they do not factor in that about half of all ADU applications will not be used for new housing but is instead an expansion of the current living space. 3 - 1530
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-59 9A. They should never be allowed to have an “eight year objective” because that means it will never happen.
10A. Program 3.a is just a program that says sometime in the future they will study what kind of zoning is required to allow the density claims made in the Housing Element to be feasible. That kind of information should be done in the Housing Element itself. 10B. The city forced 815 Mission to do a feasibility study for its density bonus. This feasibility study showed that the only way a 10% VLI housing project is feasible is if 57 feet is allowed, significant FAR increase, and almost every single open space and other requirement was waived. I would imagine a 10% VLI and 10% LI would require a much higher height and FAR limits than South Pasadenas base zoning has. You can find the feasibility study on page 104 and the concessions granted on page 120. https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29308/637855358954070000 11B. No mention of the Pre-Application or the times to get through Building. Mission Bell started the permitting process in August 2017. It received planning commission approval in Feb 2020. It still does not have building permits, almost 5 years since the first contact with the South Pasadena planning department.
https://southpasadenan.com/mission-bell-project-approved-planning-commission-tweaksconditionsauthorizes-venture/ 12A. I told the city as they were implementing the IHO that it was the highest in the state. I have repeated this statement about 15 times over the past year so the city cannot claim they did not know it.

I provided them with examples of every local city IHO. I did math problems showing how it was nonviable.

They are not examining if the IHO is feasible under the base zoning standards. On page 121 of the recent agenda packet the South Pasadena states “Building on the pro forma analysis completed in Task 2 and the understanding that the IHO will automatically trigger the State Density Bonus” https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29512/637879719642900000 Automatically trigger the state density bonus means that South Pasadena knows it makes any project under the base zoning infeasible. They also applied it to buildings under 10 units which are much more likely to be infeasible with the added costs.

Since it was enacted in April of 2021, there has been only one project submitted. That was site 11 where the developer purchased the site not knowing the IHO was going to be implemented. And if the 19 Moderate and 89 above moderate numbers are true, it means South Pasadena is not applying the IHO to this project.
3 - 1531
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-60 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE We are one year into the cycle and South Pasadena has intentionally killed all housing projects with this IHO.

Because of this South Pasadena should have to provide excess zoning and programs to catch up from them shutting down all projects.
12C. There were contacts with developers when the IHO was being implemented. You will find comments from the developers of sites 8 and 3 on page 29 and 41, respectively, on the agenda packet when South Pasadena was considering the ordinance. You will see them stating that their projects are no longer viable. Victor Tang even did the feasibility analysis and showed that the IHO would cost the developer $933,000. For site 3 there has not been any contact with Victor Tang according to my PRA requests since this letter.
https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=25699 13B. See Comment 11B. There has not been a single recent project that has received building permits.

Ask the city for the dates between planning commission approval and building permits for Mission Bell, the Senior center on Fremont, and Seven Patios. All of these projects have taken over 2 years to get building permits and as of recently none of them have building permits per year. 18A. What the city describes as “Public outreach” is a combination of trying to talk to people who could give them more cover to claim that non-viable sites are actually viable. There were no meetings from November 17th until after this draft of the housing element was submitted. There was no effort to reach any residents, let alone renters or low income residents. 19A. Appendix B explains why the city doesn’t think the comments are valid or applicable. It does not integrate any of the comments into the Housing Element.

Matthew Gelfand (July 5, 2022)
Dear Mr. McDougall:

Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. Our organization is monitoring local compliance with Housing Element law.

We are writing to comment on the revised draft Housing Element submitted to HCD by the City of South Pasadena on May 11, 2022, as modified by the City’s June 29, 2022 responses to HCD’s anticipated comments.

At the outset, we note that other commenters have extensively detailed the inadequacies in the City’s sites inventory, both in the context of the City’s first draft housing element and the revised draft that HCD is reviewing now. Our comments are intended to highlight some of the most egregious problems with the inventory. We encourage you to review the comments made by others, including the extensive documentation provided on Twitter by Josh Albrektson.
[https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538985994602459136?cxt=HHwWgMClqfbmydsqAAAA] We also note that although the City provided some information about planned changes to its housing element in its June 29, 2022 responses to HCD’s anticipated comments, the City did not provide specific information about which sites it intended to remove from its sites inventory.

Our comments here are based on the limited information provided by the City. 3 - 1532
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-61 Non-Vacant Sites
The sites inventory in the City’s draft Housing Element does not meet the requirements in Government Code Section 65583.2(g). The inventory does not adequately account for the impediment created by the existing uses on the listed nonvacant sites, including the possibility that a site will be maintained in its current use rather than redeveloped during the planning period.

What’s more, the City’s draft housing element appears to rely on nonvacant sites to satisfy over 50% of the City’s lower income RHNA. But the inventory does not identify evidence that the existing uses on each of these sites will be discontinued during the planning period. For example:

HCD’s prior letter pointed to three specific examples of sites with existing uses to be further evaluated or removed. For two of the sites (the Pavilions site and YMCA site), the revised draft Housing Element adds only vague statements about owner interest and does not adequately address the impediment of existing use. No additional information is provided for the other singled-out site (the Vons site), which is purportedly able to accommodate the largest number of units of any site with 157 lower-income and 263 total units. The City should be required to remove these sites from its inventory.

More generally, the inventory lists three of the five area grocery stores. Each existing grocery store is a vital existing use that is exceedingly unlikely to be discontinued within the planning period. But it is even more unlikely that more than one of these stores will be closed, as the remaining stores will be forced to shoulder the burden of additional demand once one store closes. Although in one case the City is treating the store’s parking lot as the area for development, the parcel includes the store itself and state law requires the City to show that the existing use (the store) will be discontinued in order to avoid the presumption that it will impede development; this makes good sense, as there is no way to develop on the parking lot parcel without discontinuing use of the store for at least several years in the absence of parking. The City should be permitted to list no more than one existing major grocery store on its inventory.

APN 5318-015-017 (900 Fair Oaks Ave.), purportedly able to accommodate 18 lower-income and 29 total units: This parking lot is leased to the Rite-Aid corporation through December 2035.2 [https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/900-Fair-Oaks-Ave-South-Pasadena-CA/14380777/] The draft Housing Element states that there is no interest from developers or the property owner. The fact that the property is not subject to a covenant with the adjoining property does not help the fact that it is encumbered by a lease until 2035 and cannot be developed within the planning period. The housing element notes that the site has been listed for sale, but conspicuously fails to reveal that it was listed as a parking lot to be used for income property through 2035, not as a development property.

APNs 5318-004-012, 5318-004-019, and 5318-004-023 (716 Fair Oaks Ave.), purportedly able to accommodate 17 lower-income and 29 total units: Commercial property with an existing use as a relatively new McDonald’s restaurant. The draft housing element states that there is no interest from developers or the property owner.
3 - 1533
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-62 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APN 5311-004-010 (143-161 Pasadena Ave.), purportedly able to accommodate 50 lower-income and 83 total units: Commercial property with new tenants. Although the draft housing element suggests prior interest in development, it indicates that the current status (presumably since the new tenants) is unknown.

Undevelopable Vacant Sites
The sites inventory lists as sites for housing a large number of vacant parcels on mountainous terrain, not served by paved roads and with no access to utilities. Most of these sites have zero likelihood of being developed and they are either publicly owned with no plans for sale or privately owned and considered undevelopable by the owners. In some cases, themaps included with the City’s housing element include references to roads that do not actually exist, such as “Harriman Avenue.” “Harriman Avenue,” as depicted in housing element (left) and the entrance to “Harriman Avenue” from the ground (right). In addition to having little or no likelihood of development, the City has not met the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(5)(B) for these parcels.

Because these parcels are generally not served by a paved road, they should be addressed by requiring the City to remove all vacant parcels not served by an existing paved public roadway.

Density Assumptions
The highest-density project identified in the City’s table of representative projects is a 50 unit/acre project that used 98% of the available FAR. Nevertheless, the City has used for some parcels an unrealistic assumption of 70 units/acre—a density that stands no chance of being achieved due to the City’s voter-mandated 45-foot height limit and its restrictive development standards for FAR, setbacks, open space, parking, etc.

To justify this assumption, the City has cited two projects from other cities with very different development standards. The first project, in Hercules, is above the South Pasadena’s height limit, so South Pasadena appears to have taken the absurd approach of simply omitting the unit count for the project’s top floor in calculating the project’s density without accounting for the feasibility and economies-of-scale differences between developing a four- versus three-story project. The second project is a smaller project in the City of Santa Monica. Both projects appear to be built up to the property line (indeed, the Hercules project appears to extend over the sidewalk) and have no visible parking. Nothing resembling these projects could be built in the City of South Pasadena.

The City should not be permitted to use a density assumption above 50 units/acre for any site on its inventory. In the alternative, the City could commit (in its rezoning program) to abandon its height limit or its FAR, setback, open space, and parking requirements on the 70-unit/acre parcels.

Thank you for considering these comments as you review the City’s draft housing element.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
Ross Silverman (July 18, 2022)
To all involved;
I believe it is imperative that the upzoning include all CG, M, and even R zones adjacent to commercial corridors in South Pasadena.
3 - 1534
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-63 Thank you
Ross Silverman
1008 Mound Ave.

South Pasadena, CA 91030
Josh Albrektson (Jul 18, 2022)
17 months ago South Pasadena enacted the highest IHO in the state. It was done to make sure that no housing could be built in South Pasadena and it succeeded. It killed every project except one. That is the schoolyard project where they purchased the land not knowing the IHO was about to be enacted.

In case the recent Housing Element letter wasn't clear, HCD actually wants housing to be built and doesn't care for bullshit fake "owner interest" and "Legal R1 lots" that housing will never get built. Here is one line:
"analysis on how given land use constraints such as height limits and the inclusionary zoning requirements may make development infeasible on sites"
After listening to the City Council meeting again I am certain that staff and Placeworks still don't know what the Housing Element law is in relation to the IHO. Amy Senheimer quoted the wrong law in the meeting and staff kept claiming this study proved the IHO to be feasible.

As I have said many times in public comment, you cannot use a density bonus to make anything possible for the Housing Element. It is at the bottom of page 14 of the June 10th 2020 HCD memo on Housing Elements.
" The analysis of “appropriate zoning” should not include residential buildout projections resulting from the implementation of a jurisdiction’s inclusionary program or potential increase in density due to a density bonus, because these tools are not a substitute for addressing whether the underlining (base) zoning densities are appropriate to accommodate the RHNA for lower income households.

Additionally, inclusionary housing ordinances applied to rental housing must include options for the developer to meet the inclusionary requirements other than exclusively requiring building affordable units on site. While an inclusionary requirement may be a development criterion, it is not a substitute for zoning. The availability of density bonuses is also not a substitute for an analysis, since they are not a development requirement, but are development options over the existing density, and generally require waivers or concessions in development standards to achieve densities and financial feasibility." Not only that, the city has to show that the IHO is not only barely feasible, but you have to show that it is LIKELY that the buildings will still happen with the IHO AT THE BASE DENSITY.

And this data shows that a 15% low income IHO is not feasible in South Pasadena with the current conditions at the base density (or even with significant upzoning). This would be very easy for me to prove to HCD using the data provided. It would also be obvious to anybody who has experience developing buildings or providing loans for buildings. It takes about $5 per sq ft rent to be feasible. 3 - 1535
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-64 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE I want an IHO that actually means the buildings actually get built. For 17 months you had one that made sure that no buildings could get built despite my objections and proof it was the highest IHO in the state.

So if you want my support on this IHO this is what I propose:

1. 5% Very Low OR 10% Low OR 25% Moderate IHO

2. Buildings under 10 units fully exempted

3. In Lieu fee for fractions as described in the April Report. Builders can fully pay the In Lieu fee to opt out. (This is required by law)

4. If South Pasadena produces less than 200 units a year starting with the 2024 APR, then the IHO is eliminated.

Or you can enact a 15% Low Income IHO and wait for it to be rejected when I show HCD that it is not feasible using the data in today's report.

There is no developer or bank that would consider a 15% IHO feasible based on the data provided. I will also point out HCD told the City to reach out to developers in part so that the developers would tell them that the 15% is non-viable.
"Other Local Ordinances: While the element now describes the inclusionary housing requirement and local height initiative, it generally does not analyze the impacts on housing cost, supply and ability to achieve maximum densities, including densities proposed as part of this housing element. For example, the analysis of the inclusionary requirement should, among other items, address the 20 percent requirement and cost impacts, 10 unit threshold, in lieu fees and cost of a comparable unit and how the inclusionary relates to State Density Bonus Law. The City should engage the development community as part of this analysis. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information." --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
Josh Albrektson (July 22, 2022)
The agenda packet has been published and I have read through it. Your staff still doesn't know the law/requirements of an inclusionary housing ordinance as it relates to the Housing Element, no matter how many times I have posted the paragraph at the bottom of page 14 of the June 10th, 2020 HCD memo.

All proposals guarantees a rejection of the Housing Element, so this entire meeting will be a waste of time.

Alan Ehrlich (August 11, 2022)
Hi Angelica,
3 - 1536
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-65 A ''draft' ordinance originating from CHC was brought to my attention yesterday but I haven't been able to determine if it was in fact enacted. While the draft does not appear to outright ban demolition of older buildings, if it does exist, it might be seen as a constraint on developement.

To the extent Josh A (or HCD) has not mentioned anything about this, either he (they) is (are) not aware of it or, as it appears, is a lesser issue of concern. Could you please confirm is this draft, or something similar, was actually adopted and on the city's books.
thank you,
Alan
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."
- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
-"Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy." International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21 v. Superior Court California Supreme Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (2007)
See #3 on Page 20. This is from 2017.

Josh Albrektson (September 1, 2022)
These are the programs I would like to see South Pasadena adopt.

1. The Mission Street Slow Street program is made permanent. (Bottom of page 9 of 6/29 letter).

3. Monterey Road in Los Angeles has bike lanes. These lanes end at the South Pasadena border.

The bike lanes should be extended to the junction of Monterey Road and Pasadena Ave. This should be done by the end of 2024.

4. South Pasadena schools are known as one of the best schools and there is no safe route for kids to bike to the 2 elementary schools on flat land. As mentioned about just last month 3 people were killed on Marengo Street.
4A. Class one Bike lanes should be done on Marengo Ave from Garfield Park to the City of Alhambra. These would be two way bike lanes on the east side of the street where Morango elementary school is. Going from west to east, it would be Parking south, Traffic lane South, Traffic lane north, Parking north, Bollards, Bike lane south, Bike lane North. This should be done by the end of 2024.
4B. Class one Bike lanes should be done on the South Side of El Centro extending from Orange Grove to Pasadena Ave where Arroyo Vista Elementary school is. Going from North to South it would be Bike lane going east, Bike lane going west, bollards, Parking going east, traffic going east, traffic going west, parking going west. This should be done by the end of 2024.
4C. The El Centro bike lanes should be extended from Orange Grove east to the train station.

Timeline: For the last 4 multifamily projects South Pasadena has not had a single project get building permits, even though the earliest project was initiated in 2018. Extensive changes need to be made in the manner that South Pasadena processes housing. These are just some of the changes that should be implemented.

5. A total of 5 planner equivalents are required to be employed at all times. This could be 4 full time employees with 2 part time. This should be implemented immediately.

7. The Community Development Director has her Salary immediately changed to the Average salary of the directors of the Pasadena, San Marino, Alhambra, and San Gabriel.

8. The pre-application is eliminated, effective immediately.

9. The program where a project has to pay for a planner that does the work of the city is immediately ended. South Pasadena can pay for this consultant if it chooses to.

10. All multifamily housing projects 10 units or greater are automatically moved to the front of the line and heard immediately.
3 - 1538
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-67

11. All multifamily projects between 2 and 9 units are moved to the front of the line after 2 months.

12. Removal of CUP for all projects under 50 units.

16. All commission hearings are completed within 90 calendars of the first commission hearing for all multifamily housing projects. If not done within 90 days, the application is deemed complete. This includes all chair reviews.

There are extensive charges and requirements for all multifamily housing that make it infeasible.

Of note, South Pasadena produced a feasibility study that showed that nothing is viable.

The following changes should be made immediately to make multifamily housing viable in South Pasadena.

17. The FAR requirements as stated in SB 478 are implemented immediately.

18. Multiple Story exception of a 45 degree from the front to posterior is eliminated. (Page 114 of 2nd Housing Element)

19. Private open space required for all projects changed to 75 sq ft per unit

20. Common Open Space required cut in half for all projects.

21. Removal of all requirements for how the private open space is accessed from the apartment.

22. Removal of all dimension requirements for the common open space.

23. Elimination of all open space requirements of elevation

24. Removal of all uncovered area requirements

25. Open Space, either common or private, can be on the roof of the building.

26. Removal of all parking requirements within half a mile of a transit stop for multifamily projects.
3 - 1539
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-68 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

27. Removal of all commercial parking requirements within the downtown specific zone.

29. Single family parking requirements lowered to one spot.

30. Signage made by the city for all public parking lots. This should be done by 2025.

32. The city is proposing that there be a ballot initiative in 2024 to remove some of the height limit. This is COMPLETELY unacceptable. The height limit was identified as a significant constraint in the 12/21/21 HCD letter and the staff chose to not do anything about it. This should be required to be done in March 2023 and the Housing Element should not be deemed compliant until the height limit is officially repealed.

34. Removal of the Public Art Fee

35. Water connection and Sewer connection should be at cost.

36. Removal of all fees for ADUs.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
Comments Received during the 7-day Review Period (September 15, 2022) Yvonne LaRose (September 9, 2022)
The Housing Element considerations that are to be finalized by September 15, have a number of issues that are of concern and need to be addressed. Affordability is one of those issues. Some of the very indirect impacts of that issue are addressed in some research I did in April of this year. The research was related to the bills signed by Gov. Newsom regarding restrictive covenants, to wit:

Governor Newsom Signs Bill Requiring Redaction of Unlawful Restrictive Covenants - California Land Title Association
3 - 1540
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-69 A quote from the below article subtly reminds one of South Pasadena's Sundown standards and how the residual effects of that era still exist in many tenuous ways and are accepted as the community standard.
“We need to provide wealth, building opportunities for those individuals and those families who were left out,” Flores said. “We need to provide those wealth building opportunities in communities where the land has a higher value, not because it’s fair, but because of laws in the past that made it so and continue to make it so.” We are challenged with creating more housing for a projected drastic increase in population that does not parallel our neighboring cities of similar size and constituency. The issue of how to create that housing goal with a limited amount of space is definitely a challenge, yet using San Gabriel as an example, the challenge appears to be reachable. The next question is how the vision can be attained while also making inclusion and equity part of the actualization.

The conclusion of the article provides food for thought as we strive to create a strategic housing plan that makes our city legitimately and in reality one of inclusiveness.

Because whether people choose to remove racially restrictive covenants, like Beatty and Zak, or keep them as evidence, like Dew, the goal seems to be the same — to remember the past in order to build a more equitable future.

Let us not use zoning laws to substitute for enactment of a thinly veiled practice of indirectly defaulting to what should be part of our dark history in the form of restrictive covenants couched under some new terminology.

Viva
Yvonne LaRose
Organization Development Consultant: Diversity/Title VII, Harassment, Ethics Cell: 626-606-4677
Governor Newsom signed AB 1466 in September 2021 which mandates that racially restrictive covenants contained in any real estate deeds be removed. https://www.clta.org/news/581830/Governor-Newsom-Signs-Bill-Requiring-Redaction-ofUnlawful-Restrictive-Covenants.htm#.YlhKDflKY2I.gmail Find out when (the date) this action is to be completed.

Also see
https://www.kcra.com/article/newsom-signs-bill-remove-racist-language-housing-deeds/37790221# A more detailed narrative is given in the KPBS article
https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2021/11/18/keep-remove-racially-restrictive-covenant-attachedyourhome A significant quote in that articles appears:

When faced with racism, Dew said his grandparents didn’t dwell on it or share it openly with their kids because they had to survive and find ways to thrive, “to be stronger than what society makes of you.”
3 - 1541
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-70 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE He understands why his elders felt that way, but he also knows that when we avoid the hard truths of history, they are often erased.
as well as here
“You see it a lot in NIMBYism,” said Nancy Kwak, a University of California, San Diego historian. “People are pushing back against changes that would make a neighborhood more accessible, so a really simple example is more affordable housing.”
Kwak says when San Diegans talk about property values and things like “I earned this house” or “this is something that I deserve,” she hears the same logic that was used in the past to defend segregation.

Although such statements aren’t overtly racist, many homeowners’ perceived right to control who can and can’t live near them helps maintain the inequities embedded in the current housing system, say Kwak and others.
“Make no mistakes about it, yes the covenants are gone, but the zoning took its place and it’s been wildly effective,” said Ricardo Flores, executive director of LISC San Diego, a local nonprofit committed to affordable housing in the region.

With more than half of San Diego’s residential areas zoned for single-family homes, Flores wants to see higher density housing built in these areas.
“We need to provide wealth, building opportunities for those individuals and those families who were left out,” Flores said. “We need to provide those wealth building opportunities in communities where the land has a higher value, not because it’s fair, but because of laws in the past that made it so and continue to make it so.”
As well as this pivotal language that brings us back to the argument about "affordable housing" initiatives:

The same mindset that gave rise to racial covenants a century ago was on display during the 2020 presidential election when former President Donald Trump made “protecting the suburbs” for white people a key plank in his campaign.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters in Midland, Texas in July 2020, Trump drove the message home.
“People fight all their lives to get into the suburbs and have a beautiful home,” he said. “There will be no more affordable housing forced into the suburbs.” A month later, he and Ben Carson, then Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “We’ll Protect America’s Suburbs.”
The tagline read: “We reject the ultraliberal view that the federal bureaucracy should dictate where and how people live.”
The hidden history of racism in San Diego deeds
Buried in the deeds of homes and subdivisions across San Diego County are racially restrictive covenants that serve as stark reminders of the region’s racist past. 3 - 1542
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-71

READ FULL SERIES
Without mentioning race, Trump clearly painted a picture of an imagined white-suburb under attack from “outside” forces that would change the neighborhood and perhaps even the value of one’s home.

Across the country and in San Diego suburbs have become increasingly diverse, but in this case, many viewed the use of the word “suburb” as a euphemism for "white." While racism is just one of a number of reasons why California remains mired in an affordable housing crisis, experts argue it’s important that the history of housing discrimination remain frontand-center in our present-day debates.

Victor Tang (September 10, 2022)
Hi,
This is Victor Tang, developer for site 3. We have already submitted plans to build 8 market rate units on three parcels. Per 6th Housing Elements, my site will be zoned Affordable Housing Overlay Zone.

There is conflicting information regarding the rezoning date:

1. On page 14 under “Program 2.k”, it says “Amend zoning to include overlay by Oct 15, 2024.”

For Table VI-41 on page 144, Tree Removal Application is missing. If a lot for development has native trees, there will be a public hearing by Natural Resources and Environmental Commission. It uses subjective standard and will stall the development for several months. For my past projects, the planning commission asked my architect to redesign so that one oak tree could be preserved. We had to spend a few months to have an alternative design to prove to the planning commission that alternative design to preserve the tree was not feasible.

I hope city attorney can review the Permit Processing carefully from page 141 to page 144 to make sure that the city has satisfied the requirements of SB330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019). Summary of SB330 can be found here:
https://www.smwlaw.com/2022/01/13/applying-sb-330-in-real-life/ Here are some keys points of interests:

1. Permit Streamlining Act provision requiring completeness determination within 30 days

2. Local agencies must notify an applicant of any inconsistencies with objective standards within 30 days of the full application being determined to be complete if the project has 150 or fewer units, or within 60 days, if the project has 3 - 1543
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-72 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE more than 150 units. The local agency must include all inconsistencies in this notification; any inconsistency that is not noted in a timely way cannot be used as the basis for denying a project.

3. A single residence can count as a “housing development project.”

4. Only projects with two or more residences are “housing development projects” for purposes of Government Code section 65589.5, which prohibits cities and counties from denying or making infeasible “housing development projects” that comply with objective development standards, unless specific findings are made Based on item 4 above, the city needs to stop using discretionary review on multifamily development immediately instead of waiting for “the updates to the General Plan and zoning are complete and the Downtown Specific Plan is adopted’ (page 141). City can offer developers incentives to subject their projects to discretionary review voluntarily.
30-day deadline for item 1 and 30/60-day deadline for item 2 are critical. For example, a developer can submit a project with 60-ft height. If the city doesn’t notify the developer that 60-ft is not allowed by the zoning code before the deadline, city can’t deny the project height later.

I talked to other developers and architects. Many are frustrated with the long entitlement process time.

As the planning department is short on staff, many developers are willing to pay external planners to expediate the review process.

I have another project in Alto de Monterey Overlay District. The zoning code requests 15ft first floor setback and 35ft second floor setback. Even second floor ADU requests 35ft setback. I hope the city can update zoning code and ADU Ordinance in this district to make development feasible.

Best,
Victor Tang
Josh Albrektson (September 10, 2022)
You guys performed a feasibility study that showed that all buildings are not feasible under your current IHO.

This feasibility study did not include carrying costs or the costs to tear down the structure that is on the property.

This feasibility study also used prototypes that are not allowed to be built in South Pasadena.

This feasibility study used a return on cost of 5% and without the carrying and demolition costs claimed that ther prototypes that cannot be legally built in South Pasadena are feasible at 5.2% Yield on cost.

West Hollywood uses a 12% yield on cost for viability. San Francisco says 15-24% is marginal and 25% is feasible.
3 - 1544
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-73 Using your numbers, a fully market rate project with no inclusionary units would have a 6.8% Yield on cost, again using a prototype that cannot be built in South Pasadena and without carrying or demolition costs.

How exactly can you guys say any inclusionary housing ordinance doesn't affect feasibility when 100% market rate projects (Like Mission Bell) do not pencil out today? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
John C. (September 11, 2022)
I believe we can raise height the limit in a way were more than 50 percent of the residents voters would have no problem with it. The way to do that is making a bipartisan deal with the residents of South Pasadena. I will use an example. Example, South Pasadena City height limit is 45 feet what if we say we raise the height limit by 5 feet. Will the residents of South Pasadena make a big deal out of this? In my opinion, no, I do not next South Pasadena resident would have issue. Also, if you put that on the ballot in election it would pass easily because the majority of residents thinking logically will not being making a big fuss over it. I know there will be the minority of the few resident will definitely make an issue out of raising the height limit by 5 feet, but remember not everyone is going to agree with this and also those resident are the minority. But, if you go the other way by saying you want to raise to 110 feet than the majority of residents will say no. I read in the 3rd housing element draft from a previous person comment that the height limit will have be raised by 12 feet. I believe most resident will have no problem with that or even if you ask to raise by 15 feet they still will have no problem. For this to happen the residents need to know how high the city need to raise the height limit and that question has not been answer.

From, John
Sent from Mail for Windows
Elizabeth Anne Bagasao, South Pasadena Tenants Union (September 14, 2022) To Whom It May Concern:

South Pasadena Tenants is attaching our comments on the Third Draft Housing Element that was released for public review on September 8, 2022. It is our understanding that the deadline for the city to submit the third draft to HCD is September 15 however after review of the draft we feel strongly comment is warranted.

We thank you for your consideration of our comments and would welcome any discussion of our response to the Third Draft Housing Element.

Best regards,
Anne Bagasao on behalf of SPTU
SPTU Third Draft Housing Element Comments:
3 - 1545
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-74 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE In the July 8 HCD encouraged “the City to revise the element as described…, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.”
After comparison of the HCD letters from December 2021 and the most recent of July 2022, we are concerned that the City has not sufficiently responded to the HCD’s comments enough to satisfy compliance.

The July 8, 2022, letter states the following:

Local Data and Knowledge: While the element now includes some discussion of historical development patterns and racial exclusion for significant portion of the 20th century, it should include additional discussion of land use practices including zoning, growth controls, height initiatives and any other practices that affect housing choices since the latter half of the 20th century. This information should complement the discussion of the socio-economic patterns within the City and the City relative to the region and based on a complete analysis, the element should formulate appropriate policies and programs to combat past patterns and impacts on inclusive communities.

The third draft fails to demonstrate strategies to combat past patterns of impacts on inclusive communities.

We assert that building ordinances, based in preservationist practices, create exclusivity and deter inclusion of very low- and low-income individuals, the disabled, and people of color. As stated in Section

6.4.6 on page 101, South Pasadena admits to adopting zoning and housing policies as recently as the 1998 General Plan with intent of limiting inclusivity if not keeping people out. This attitude continues to influence building and zoning ordinances in South Pasadena. A sampling of statements that reflect these attitudes are found in the comments from the Second Draft Housing Element are found within the Third Draft Housing Element
South Pasadena Tenants Union believes that those commenters are in the loud minority and do not represent the many who aspire to achieve a racially, culturally and economically diverse South Pasadena.

A History of Exclusion
In Section 6.4.6, the Housing Element describes decades of planned exclusion. As per the text referencing the 1963 General Plan,
“The first three objectives of the Land Use Plan were stated as:
• To protect the amenities of single family areas from encroachment of inharmonious uses, including higher density residential, where stability and exclusiveness are desired” Three and a half decades later, South Pasadena doubles down on its protectionist land use policies.

From The Vision Statement for the 1998 General Plan the influencers pull back the drapes of their goal of maintaining a community of historic exclusivity.
“ In order to preserve our small-town feeling and to flourish in the 1990’s and beyond, South Pasadena must be committed to the goals of revitalizing its commercial areas and preserving its single-family residential character… We 3 - 1546
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-75 are committed to maintaining a balance between our existing single and multi-family housing units which honors our traditional values and evolving cultural diversity. (emphasis added) We see phrases in the above passage, that we also hear today in public forum and on social media:
“preserve our small-town feeling”, “preserve its single-family residential character”, “honors our traditional values”. This rhetoric, which is elitist, remains the impetus for all things related to building, transit, and most recently wildlife in South Pasadena.

The problem with the fetishization of the past in the form of “cultural heritage preservation”, is that it perpetuates systemic bias.

We refer the City to this excerpt from an article written by preservationists, Franklin Vagnone and Samantha Smith and posted a blog to Twisted Preservation, A Cultural Assets Consulting Group. If you can recognize how the existing building code, zoning laws and cultural heritage ordinance reflect the list below, then it is incumbent upon City to do more than what is stated in response to the HCD comment at the top of this discussion.

1. Preservation is essentially an elitist, class and racially divisive activity whose result is a form of economic bias and segregation.

2. History sites can perpetuate a divisive form of nostalgia that supports and validates racism and exclusion.

3. Preservation can limit inclusion and perpetuate racial & social bias by regulating cultural narratives to simple themes.

4. Historical regulations, district codes, and Preservation restrictions can be latently economically restrictive and culturally exclusionary, benefiting only those individuals who can afford the added costs, thus ensuring a form of aesthetically gated communities that reflect the dominant culture.

5. Historic districting and preservation code requirements can be a contemporary form of “redlining” which excludes a diverse economic group of people from land ownership.

6. Preservation is susceptible to the harshest form of capitalism in that only those historic sites that are targeted with money actually get preserved. Preservation choices are a matter of economics, not just history. The most revealing, unglamorous sites have rarely survived, nor have they been preserved.

7. As Preservation has become more professionalized and can require a four-year degree, college has become more expensive and thus constricts the possibility of a racially, culturally, and economically equitable pool of professional practitioners. As a result, professional practices are sometimes biased.

8. Preservationist, right now today, need to stop fetishizing the built environment and begin considering how preservation itself is part of the problem.

9. Look at the money in Preservation. A budget reflects our priorities. Money goes where it is told. There is nothing natural about the market economy or what gets preserved. Wealth Preserves Wealth.
3 - 1547
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-76 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

10. Language as a tool of bias in Preservation with a weak notion of the appearance of diversity rather than full systemic representation. *
We will direct you to the City webpage for the Cultural Heritage Ordinance. This is the very first paragraph:
“South Pasadena prides itself on the quality and historic character of its neighborhoods and its small-town ambiance.

Maintaining these qualities is considered key for retaining residents…” The ordinance was re-established in 2017 and contains a section that reads:
“To stabilize and enhance neighborhoods and property values…” It appears that this ordinance, in its entirety, consciously serves to maintain and increase the upper income level status quo. This ordinance, by its own admission, is counter to any inclusive housing growth in South Pasadena.

We ask that the City state within the Housing Element a commitment to analyze the Cultural Heritage Ordinance for any and all language, policies and requirements that impede affordable housing development and promote exclusivity. It is not enough to condemn past practices. You must correct them.

Many of these caveats in the Cultural Heritage Ordinance impede the development of new housing.

Without amending the ordinance, the City will run into a plethora of issues when actually trying to achieve the goals set forth in the Housing Element.

Example: Ordinance #2315 effective August 18, 2017, 2.6.5 E.3 states that property owners wishing to demolish any property built “at least 45 years prior to application” will have to undergo an approval process by the Cultural Heritage Commission. The procedure requires the property owner to contract incur expense related to the following:
“The determination as to whether a property is a Cultural Resource shall require a deposit by the applicant to cover City costs associated with hiring a historic consultant and/or an Architectural Historian; and/or a deposit to cover the costs associated with the preparation of an Initial Study, Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration.”
The ordinance goes on to describe a multitude of hoops through which the for the property owner will need to jump. The Cultural Heritage Commission is a volunteer body that meets once a month. How long does the process to receive sign off form the CHC to demolish a building built in 1978 take? How much investment of time and money is that costing any properties owner who may want to develop more efficient housing on their property?
This one rule alone is a tremendous impediment to the very work you propose in the Housing Element.

A “45 year” rolling benchmark would mean that the multiunit complex at 1700 and 1720 Mission Street would have to undergo CHC scrutiny for redevelopment. How does the City justify 1978 construction requiring historical review?
SB 381
We encourage the City to follow the guidelines of SB 381. Opponents of SB381 argue that the conversion of the CalTrans houses to private ownership would create affordable home ownership. 3 - 1548
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-77 However, the investment that will be needed to rehabilitate the homes to the standards required by preservation guidelines (there is that word again) would not qualify these homes as “affordable”.

We ask that the City act on SB381 , and that any surplus houses be converted to affordable rentals.

Those structures deemed to be beyond repair should be demolished and the land utilized by the City in partnership with affordable housing developers to build 100% affordable housing as per Program 2.1.

Further regarding the CalTrans properties, we request that the City cease its efforts in blocking the transfer of 626 Prospect to Friendship Pasadena Baptist Church. Not only is that property not ours to control, this legal wrangling looks like a taxpayer funded effort to keep certain people out of our city.

Tenant Protections,Homeless Prevention and Preserving Existing Affordable Housing The Housing Element Third Draft in its effort to demonstrate an understanding of how best to obtain certification has included a couple of programs that, while seeming practical, are incomplete. There is not one mention in the Housing Element regarding programs meant to protect existing very low, low income and moderate income South Pasadena tenants from displacement.

We reference Program 1.c and Program 3.c.

Program 1.c would trigger substantial renovation evictions of which we currently have one ordinance on the books that minimally protects tenants from renovictions. Without protections in place that would allow tenants to be able to stay in the units during construction or to return to units after construction is complete, at the same rate of rent they had been paying when enforcement was issued, the City puts tenants at displacement risk. Renters are the root of our community and to relocate them outside of South Pasadena, where their children go to school, where they may work, congregate, worship and obtain community services such as recreational classes or senior meals, is 100% irresponsible. They are not the peacocks.

We propose that the City adopt an ordinance that would require landlords to accommodate their tenants during required updates and repairs either by allowing them to remain in the units or paying their rent to live in a comparable or market rate unit still within South Pasadena. Once the property is up to code, the tenant would be able to move back in at the same rate of rent they were paying. The same ordinance should include language to protect tenants from actions by landlords that would trigger evictions or prevent the landlords from concocting ways of getting more money out of tenants such as imposing amenity fees.

SPTU is seeing incidents of landlords now tacking on “amenity fees”. While rent can only be increased by 8% under AB1482, landlords are now charging arbitrary fees that are to cover “amenities” such as use of the laundry facilities, landscaping, etc. These fees are uncontrolled so not considered part of the rent, much like the resort fees at hotels. One tenant reports that her rent was increased this year by 8% and her amenity fee was increased by 100% put her monthly payment to the landlord well over the allowable amount under AB1482.

Program 3.c similarly displaces tenants without the benefit of local protections. Again, keeping existing tenants housed in South Pasadena should be our goal not relocating them to other communities. 3 - 1549
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-78 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Additionally, any properties that the City might expedite for demolition, that are currently occupied, are most likely affordable. Therefore, in pursuit of acquiring 10 new units of affordable housing we could potentially be losing 20 and in the process displacing the very South Pasadenans who need them most.

We request that South Pasadena include in its Housing Element proactive and concrete actions to adopt tenant protections that would ensure that tenants displaced as a result of Program 3.c are given the best fighting chance of remaining in South Pasadena. This would include, but not be limited to, a local ordinance for relocation fees required for any no cause evictions. We refer the City to that of the City of Pasadena and Los Angeles as models for such an ordinance. As a reminder the City now defers to AB 1482 which requires that landlords only provide one month’s rent as moveout fee to tenants who are evicted without cause. That is not helpful in the very least. It’s actually insulting.

In the aforementioned program sections, we don’t see much about enforcement particularly of the use of ADU’s as short-term rentals. It is common knowledge that the housing crisis in Southern California can be partially a result of the proliferation of commercially managed full time AirBnb properties. As far back as 2015, the community of Venice lost upwards of 10,000 units of affordable housing to Airbnb operators.

Lastly, we see that the City references expanding the contract with Housing Resource Center for provision of services to tenants and those seeking information and assistance with housing programs, outreach and education. Since HRC has had the contract with South Pasadena, (2016) we have yet to see outcomes of said contract.

HRC proposed that their programs services would achieve the following:
“…will improve and expand affordable housing options, improve services to the homeless or specials groups, and increase access to resources for low to moderate -income residents in a variety of ways” As two volunteer organizations, SPTU and CareFirst who work closely with tenants in crisis and the homeless population of South Pasadena, are not aware of any indication that HRC successfully achieved 3 - 1550
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-79 this goal. For example in 2020, HRC poorly advised tenants who had received no cause evictions during the LA County Eviction Moratorium telling them that their evictions were legal. This caused at least one family to self-evict from an affordable unit. HRC only responded when contacted by then Councilmember Rick Schneider. It was with the assistance of Code Enforcement and the City Attorney that SPTU was able to prevent the renovictions from going forward and stop the evictions. This action led to the Renoviction ordinance that was adopted later that year.

Additionally, the contract states that HRC will provide educational workshops within the City of South Pasadena. To our knowledge, there has not been such a workshop since 2020.

Lastly, we would like to point out that the General Plan Draft action items that provide for affordable housing incentives for “creatives” may not align with fair housing practice and is counter to the goals of the State to increase housing opportunities for all people. Frankly, it’s just another legal attempt to keep some people out while encouraging others to come in. We look forward to the public review and comment period for the General Plan and hope that its congruent with the Housing Element, housing equity and inclusion
We thank you for your consideration of these comments and look forward to the implementation of a Housing Element that reflects our values of inclusion, diversity, compassion and equity. We, as South Pasadenans, want to see our City contribute a housing crisis solution by being good Californians and generally decent people.

Sincerely,
Anne Bagasao on behalf of South Pasadena Tenants Union
Elizabeth Anne Bagasao (September 14, 2022)
SPTU would like to add that the Third Draft Housing Element does not go far enough to support and assist low income and moderate income residents who live in South Pasadena today. The City has an opportunity to do more for these residents especially tenants with the Housing Element. Please take the opportunity to protect existing tenants and keep this individuals and families stable in our community.

Sincerely ,
Anne Bagasao
Sent from my iPhone
3 - 1551
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-80 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Revisions in Response to Comments on the Public Draft Housing Element Comment: Dr. Josh Albrektson (October 20, 2021) informs the City that he will send in many public comments. Dr. Albrektson states that the Housing Element claims that the inclusionary housing ordinance provides streamlined process and provides benefits above the state density bonus. He believes that neither is true since the density bonus is the minimum required by state and there are no actual incentives or "streamlining." Dr. Albrektson is asking for clarification for the incentives and streamlining stipulated in the inclusionary housing ordinance.
 How addressed: The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is mandatory for projects of a certain size, unlike the option to take advantage of state density bonus law. In addition, certain incentives are provided under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance if applicants comply with objective design standards.

Problems are specified as sites with no street access, already have homes on them, community parks, and on steep mountainsides. Sites not on the list are appropriate to include by the Dr. Albrektson’s standards.
 How addressed: The City evaluated all sites on the sites list individually and confirmed that they were suitable to include in the inventory.

Albrektson compared the inclusionary housing ordinance to other jurisdictions in the State. Dr.

Albrektson states that the Housing Element cannot be considered compliant as long as the inclusionary housing ordinance is in place. He states that it needs to be repealed and replaced with a researched feasibility study and warns that as long as the inclusionary housing ordinance is in place, nothing will be built in South Pasadena.
 How addressed: Additional information about the Inclusionary in-lieu fee study that the City has been conducting has been included in this draft in Section 6.4. Program 2.i in Section 6.8 commits the City monitoring the effectiveness of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance annually and revising the ordinance if needed to improve its effectiveness at producing affordable housing units.

Albrektson stated that future ADU development will be limited (due to the ordinances) and that the Housing Element's ADU projections are incorrect. He claims that the 2020 and 2021 increase in ADUs is more a matter of demand from the effective ban rather than a sustained trend.  How addressed: ADU building permit approvals in the City continue to increase and permit processing times have decreased. No revisions have been made in response to this comment. 3 - 1552
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-81 Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 2, 2021) provided comments on the draft Housing Element programs in Chapter 6.8 of the Public Review Draft Housing Element.  Program 1.d Assisted Housing Unit Preservation – The City doesn’t have any deed restricted affordable housing so how can the City monitor and why are there quantified objectives included to preserve this type of unit?
o How addressed: This type of program is required by the state for inclusion in the Housing Element. If any deed-restricted affordable housing is created during the planning period, the City will implement this program related to those units.  Program 2.a Provide Technical Assistance for Projects with Affordable Housing – More actual commitments are needed in this program. Suggest adding streamlining with specific timeframes and automatic approvals. Current city average is more than 2 years from initiation to building permit approval for multifamily projects.
o How addressed: Revisions have been made to Program 2.a to provide more certain timing for program actions.
 Program 2.b Affordable Housing Production – No affordable housing projects have been submitted or considered through SGVRHT and the city has been a member for multiple years. o How addressed: No revisions have been made in response to this comment.  Program 2.c CalHome Program – There is no such thing as a poor South Pasadena homeowner. o How addressed: Comment noted.
 Program 2.d Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for Rental Assistance – He thinks the City should commit to more than just posting information on their website. Dr. Albrektson doubts that there are any Section 8 vouchers in use in South Pasadena. o How addressed: According to LACDA, there were 10 vouchers in use in South Pasadena in 2021. Revisions were made to Program 2.d to increase outreach to encourage use of vouchers in South Pasadena.
 Program 2.e Facilitate Density Bonus for Projects with On-site Affordable Housing – Dr.

Albrektson thinks the timeline for this program should be much sooner. He says projects that have been approved in the City have been delayed and he believes the city could process this type of approval more effectively.
o How addressed: No revisions have been made in response to this comment.  Program 2.j General Plan Affordable Housing Overlay – Dr. Albrektson said that allowing 30 units per acre via the proposed overlay in areas that already allow 24 units per acre isn’t sufficient incentive for applicants to include affordable units in their projects. He stated that in order for this overlay to work as an incentive it must give the applicant more height or density. He mentioned the City of Berkeley’s affordable housing overlay as an example. o How addressed: Most of the sites included in the Housing Element that are proposed to received the Affordable Housing Overlay only allow lower densities currently. No revisions have been made in response to this comment.
 Program 2.l Facilitate Affordable Housing on City-Owned Property – Dr. Albrektson referenced comments he made on this program in another comment he submitted. o How addressed: Program 2.l has been substantially revised since the last draft of the Housing Element.
 Program 3.d Enable Parcel Assemblage – Dr. Albrektson thinks more incentives need to be included with this program.
o How addressed: An additional incentive has been added to Program 3.d along with more detail about program timing and implementation.
3 - 1553
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-82 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  Program 3.f Allow and Facilitate ADUs – Dr. Albrektson stated that the city currently takes over 4 months to process ADU applications. He also said that it is difficult to find the ADU brochure on the City website. He commented that the recent changes to the City ADU ordinance make it impossible to use prefabricated ADUs on historic properties which make up 60 percent of all single-family homes in South Pasadena. In addition, he thinks that the terrain in the Monterey Hills wouldn’t allow for use of pre-fabricated ADUs. He also noted that he doesn’t believe this program or the other programs related to ADUs will increase ADU production.
o How addressed: The City processing time for ADUs has decreased in recent months.

The applications received and building permits approved for ADUs has continued to increase substantially during 2021 and early 2022.
 Program 3.j ADU Amnesty Program – Dr. Albrektson states that no one will make an ADU deed-restricted for affordable households in exchange for the waiver of $160 in city fees. o How addressed: Comment noted.
 Program 3.l Increase and Maintain Planning and Housing Staff Resources – Dr. Albrektson states the things called for in this program should be a basic function of a city. He states that the City’s planning staff works too much and should be compensated more and turnover is high.

He requests that this program commit to increasing salaries for the city staff positions mentioned in this program.
o How addressed: Comment noted. The City has already made progress implementing Program 3.l which is noted via revisions to the program in this draft.  Program 3.m Implement SB 9 and SB 10 – Dr. Albrektson thinks the program should be rewritten related to SB 10 with a better understanding of the law. He states that the City Council has spoken out against SB 9 and SB 10 and they will never be enacted in South Pasadena. Related to the parcels in the moderate and above-moderate sites inventory with 2 units assigned to them due to SB 9, he states that the City should include a requirement to eliminate single-family zoning on non-historic properties with a specific deadline if the city wants to claim these units in case SB 9 is overturned.
o How addressed: The City took action by urgency ordinance to establish objective standards for SB 9 in December 2021, and will adopt a permanent ordinance, with updates based on more recent State guidance by mid-2022. Revisions have been made to Program 3.m with this updated information.
 Program 4.c Flexible Zoning Regulations – Dr. Albrektson states that the city’s zoning regulations are not flexible.
o How addressed: No revisions have been made in response to this comment.

Additionally, the commenter said that Pasadena has much less significant developmental limitations than the City of South Pasadena.
 How addressed: Refer to earlier response related to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 8, 2021) provides an in-depth personal analysis of the Draft Housing Element. His analysis is over 100 pages and provides a detailed examination of each section under the 3 - 1554
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-83 scope of Dr. Albrektson’s critique. Throughout this analysis, Dr. Albrektson references emails he’s sent in the past.
 How addressed: See earlier responses.

Dr. Josh Albrektson (November 12, 2021) stated that the City is implementing a new HVAC and VOiP Phone system into City Hall in 2022 and 2025 at a cost of $360,000 and $480,000, respectively. Dr.

Albrektson stated that the City is also spending over $200,000 for security enhancement. He claims that this is strong evidence that there are no plans to have the current use of city hall end in the 6th cycle.  How addressed: The City Hall site has been removed from the sites inventory in this draft.

1. Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity fails to account for parcels’ likelihood of development, and its draft site inventory includes many parcels where housing development is extremely unlikely.
o How addressed: The City has continued to reach out to property owners about interest in development of sites in the inventory. Additional information has been added to Appendix A as applicable.

2. Planning has counted many vacant sites towards the moderate and above-moderate income RHNA targets, despite their unsuitability for housing production. o How addressed: The City evaluated all sites on the sites list individually and confirmed that they were suitable to include in the inventory.

3. Planning has made an overly optimistic forecast of future ADU production which is unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies.
o How addressed: See earlier responses regarding ADU production.

4. Planning misinterprets a SCAG analysis of regional ADU affordability to suggest that a significant share of future ADUs in South Pasadena will be affordable to lower-income households, which is unlikely based on local rent data. o How addressed: Revisions have been made to Section 6.6 and Appendix E, however the City continues to rely on the SCAG affordability analysis as it is the best data available.

5. Planning’s proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is unlikely to achieve a significant portion of the lower-income RHNA targets, due to the economic infeasibility of redevelopment where high set-aside percentages apply.
3 - 1555
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-84 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE o How addressed: See earlier response regarding monitoring of the effectiveness of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

6. Planning fails to affirmatively further fair housing and break existing patterns of residential segregation in their site selection and their general approach to the housing element update, despite the City Council’s recent adoption of a resolution to acknowledge “past practices of institutionalized racism” and a commitment to being an inclusive community in the present. o How addressed: Section 6.4 Fair Housing Assessment has been substantially revised since the last draft to address comments received and to address a new state law AB 1304 that went into effect since the previous draft was released.

Both organizations have three additional concerns with the Draft, including the forecast of future ADU Production, No Net Loss Buffer, and Fair Housing Issues and AFFH Compliance.

1. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
a. Prioritize rezoning in high resource, historically exclusionary neighborhoods.  How addressed: Historic exclusionary practices occurred throughout South Pasadena. Rezoning to address housing needs will address all income categories and will take place in areas of the City that are high resource. b. Establish a strong tenant protection ordinance so that new housing benefits everyone.  How addressed: No revisions have been made in response to this comment.

However, revisions have been made to Programs 1.c to address the need for tenant protection in addition to Program 1.d which was already included in the draft Housing Element.
c. Support homeownership opportunities for historically excluded groups. The housing element should identify opportunities to create a variety of for-sale housing types and create programs to facilitate property ownership among excluded groups.  How addressed: The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was adopted in 2021. Part of its intent is to create more homeownership opportunities for lower income residents or those who would like to become residents of South Pasadena who have historically been excluded. In addition, Program 5.c has been added to this draft to support inclusion and to remove racially restrictive covenants from property deeds citywide.

2. Site Capacity
a. Adequately plan for density. Ensure that a site’s density will accommodate the number of homes that are projected to be built. In addition, make sure height limits, setback 3 - 1556
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-85 requirements, FAR, and other controls allow for adequate density and the ability to achieve a site’s realistic capacity.
 How addressed: Zoning work called for in Program 3.a addresses this comment. Revisions have been made to that program and to Section 6.4 to address constraints associated with existing development standards. b. Provide sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate all income levels, including a minimum No Net Loss buffer of 30%.
 How addressed: The City is committed to complying with state no net loss statute and has included as many suitable sites as possible that can be analyzed to be adequate. The number of sites included in this draft exceeds the City’s RHNA. Residential development will be allowed on a substantially larger number of sites once the General Plan, DTSP and associated zoning changes are complete.
c. Use data from the 5th Cycle to calculate the likelihood of development for your 6th Cycle site inventory.
 How addressed: Housing regulations statewide and locally in South Pasadena have changed significantly in the last two years including related to ADUs and with the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Basing likelihood of development for the 6th cycle on the 5th cycle housing unit development doesn’t make sense in light of these changes.

3. Accessory Dwelling Units
a. Commit to an automatic mid-cycle adjustment if ADU permitting activity is lower than estimated in the housing element.
 How addressed: Programs 3.g and 3.h address this comment. b. Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate or lowerincome households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers.  How addressed: Programs 3.g, 3.i, and 3.k address this comment.

4. Zoning
a. Allow residential to be built in areas that are zoned for commercial use.  How addressed: Sites currently zoned for commercial use are proposed to receive the Affordable Housing Overlay or to have their base General Plan land use and zoning changed in order to address the City’s RHNA. b. Allow flexibility in inclusionary zoning.
 How addressed: The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows a variety of options depending on the project type and whether an applicant chooses to comply with the objective design standards in the ordinance.

5. Better entitlement process and reducing barriers to development a. Ensure that the city has a ministerial process for housing permitting, especially multifamily housing, and remove impact fees for deed-restricted housing.  How addressed: The sites rezoned to address the lower-income RHNA as called for in Program 3.a of this Housing Element will allow projects with 20 percent affordable units ministerially. Other projects are eligible for ministerial review under state law.
b. Reduce parking standards and eliminate parking minimums.  How addressed: Program 3.a calls for the city to evaluate parking requirements as part of the DTSP and zoning amendments to implement the Housing Element.
c. Cap fees on all new housing.
 How addressed: No revisions have been made in response to this comment. 3 - 1557
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-86 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE d. Provide local funding. There are three new revenue streams that should be considered:
1) Transfer tax, a one-time payment levied by a jurisdiction on the sale of a home, may be utilized to raise much needed revenue to fund affordable homes; 2) Vacancy tax may be collected on vacant land to convince landowners to sell their underutilized properties and be used to fund the construction of affordable homes; 3) Commercial linkage fees should be adopted or revisited for increases on new commercial developments.  How addressed: No revisions have been made in response to this comment.

Anne Bagasao/John Srebalus ((May 2 2022)
Our comments are primarily focused on 6.4 Fair Housing Assessment. 1) 6.4.1 Outreach
We question the validity of the data collected in community meetings during the Spring and Fall of 2020.

South Pasadena residents and city staff were in the throes of a global pandemic. After delaying this process for two years, the City, in all it’s wisdom, determined that the best time to ask for public participation on the Housing Element was two months into an internationally unprecedented health and economic crisis.
 How addressed: The City held the following meetings to gain additional input on the draft Housing Element. #1 Public Workshop on October 21, 2021. #2 Developer Forum on August 15, 2022. #3 Community Outreach at South Pasadena Farmer Market on August 18, 2022. #4 Community Forum and Informational Workshop on August 20, 2020. Comments received at this meeting have been included in Appendix B.

This created new situations with which the City had to contend with, and at the same time address the housing element preparation in a challenging new work environment. We apologize for any impact that posed on SPTU and other participants. The immediacy of the health issues became a priority, but the State did not authorize any extensions of the housing element timeframe, and a small staff struggled to attend to both efforts. As the City pivoted to virtual meetings and events, outreach efforts persisted. The web page contains an opt-in mailing list link, and both respondents have taken advantage of that opportunity and have been receiving emails from housingelement@ on a regular basis informing about related events, meeting or milestones. City staff has always been open to suggestions for participation but is not aware of any offer to provide information from the respondents.
3 - 1558
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-87 It is stated that outreach was done online and through emails however both John and I were either excluded from participation or were not kept in the loop. We recall that in September 2020, an email was sent to Planning Director Joanna Hankamer with a copy to all members of the Council, Margaret Lin and Arpy Kasparian. Concurrently, similar community meetings were being conducted by the City regarding the Climate Action Plan. I remarked in my email dated 9/30/2020 that I was impressed with the content and frequency of the email contact from the City regarding the Climate Action Plan meetings. The majority of South Pasadenans ,who would be able to provide the most valuable input with regard to affordable housing needs, were managing unemployment issues, homeschooling and health issues. The City is well aware of the advocacy and work that South Pasadena Tenants Union, CareFirst and CalTrans Tenants United invest voluntarily and passionately into housing issues in our town. It is inexcusable, that the City did not ensure that we were at every meeting and could have easily emailed us directly as everyone in Planning and on the Council has our contact information on hand.  How addressed: The comment appears to reference issues that occurred two years ago, with significant communications, outreach meetings, public meetings, and plan amendments since.

Both respondents are included in the email list that regularly receives information. As the CDD employees referenced in this comment (Joanna Hankamer and Margaret Lin) are no longer at the City, current staff is not aware of the 9/30/2020 email and how it was followed up at that time. We disagree that ensuring that SPTU was at every meeting is without excuse or the responsibility of the City. As respondents were included on the mailing list and staff had communications with SPTU, significant efforts were made along the way to include the commentor.

If the purpose of this plan, which I understand has cost us tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of staff time, was to produce the best possible housing element, why did the City not go out of its way to make sure that we were at 100% participation?  How addressed: The City held 7 public workshop, a developer forum and conducted an online community survey in addition to regular updates at the Planning Commission and City Council to keep the community engaged and updated on the Housing Element update process.

In my email addressed to Joanna Hankamer, et al. on 9/30/2020 I mentioned that real estate development interest group Abundant Housing LA was actively recruiting non-South Pasadenans to attend the meetings to push the pro-development anti-affordable housing agenda. While SPTU was not in attendance because we were busy keeping South Pasadenans housed and the homeless cared for, Abundant Housing LA mouthpieces were at the table affecting housing policy in South Pasadena.

Abundant Housing LA went so far as to take out sponsored social media ads to encourage their members from Los Angeles to infiltrate our community meetings. Of the attendees at the Fall workshop, to which you are using data to support your assessments, 10% were identified as Abundant LA members.
 How addressed: The commentor appears to clarify that 10% of the members at the Fall workshop were members of Abundant LA. This cannot be verified, and is not a group affiliated with the City. When a meeting is open to the general community, the City cannot control its participation. All are invited to attend. Ultimately the proposed housing element policies are developed based on a number of factors, including State law, HCD guidance, planning principles 3 - 1559
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-88 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE and public comment. The housing element team did its best to use the input received from all, whether in large or small numbers.

In July 2020, Mayor Khubesrian called a private meeting with four residents to discuss the housing element. Two were from CareFirst and only one member of South Pasadena Tenants Union was invited.

The fourth was Josh Albrekston. The discussions in these meetings were not made public. Does the City or any of the consultants know if content from discussions in that meeting were used to form the Housing Element documents in any of its forms? If so, it should be disregarded because it was no part of public record. To my knowledge, City Manager Stephanie De Wolfe and Joanna Hankamer were in attendance but no other members of the Council.
 How addressed: Consultation with individuals outside of public fora is not prohibited and remains a valuable way to understand community concerns. Current staff is unaware of this meeting and its contents. The parties the commentor references have continued to provide comments during the evolution of the housing element drafts, and remain engaged in public dialogue.

On March 3, 2021 the City was to have posted the revised Housing Element for public review before closing for the weekend starting on March 5th. I received a message from Joanna Hankamer at 11:09 on March 5th that the agenda was delayed.
 How addressed: All agendas for public meetings were posted in compliance with the Brown Act. The dates and times stated would comply with the Brown Act. As Ms. Hankamer is no longer with the City, we have no further information about this event.

Conclusion:

We will not legitimize the Housing Element with our further analysis and feedback and demand more public input. We do not accept your findings as a true representation of housing needs in South Pasadena. Also, much of the data is over two years old. Much has changed. Much has changed.  How addressed: The City attempted to keep the public informed of processes and to provide opportunities for input given the resources available to it. While more potentially could have been done in the past to encourage more involvement, we are unaware of any noticing that did not meet applicable codes. Due to extremely high staff turnover during part of 2021 direct outreach to certain groups was unable to be completed. It appears that those groups are now well engaged and able to participate in the remainder of the process. Their comments on the content of the element are well taken.

Josh Albrektson (May 2, 2022)
This Housing Element doesn't address the main problems HCD had with the October Housing Element. For everything related to the 2017 laws and the 6/10/2020 HCD memo there is no significant 3 - 1560
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-89 difference between this draft and the October draft. It doesn't show how 65 to 70 DU/Acre is achievable under the base zoning of South Pasadena, it doesn't show how the highest inclusionary housing element in the state affects feasibility, and it doesn't address the timeline and how it takes multiple years to approve multifamily homes.

It also is unchanged in the Above Mod/Mod category even though there are multiple claimed units on hillsides and backyard tennis courts that due to environmental constraints homes can never be built.

It includes the three grocery stores and business park that SoPas was told to remove. And it goes from assuming 297 ADUs to 318 ADUs even though HCD told South Pasadena it should be around 10 ADUs per year. There also was none of the outreach performed that HCD told South Pasadena they were required to do and none of the public comments was address in the Housing Element. This Housing Element completely ignored all of the problems that HCD had with the October Housing Element and will be rejected just like that one was. Of note, I sent an e-mail on March 18th that was much more extensive regarding the October Housing Element. Everything in that e-mail still applies to this new Housing Element draft --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: Program 3.f, Allow and Facilitate ADUs, Program 3.g, Monitor ADU Production and Program, Program 3.h, Back up to Address Shortfall in Anticipated ADUs and Program 3.i, ADU Amensty Program have all been updated to address HCD comments and provides a realistic path for the incentivizing the production of ADUs to meet the City's RHNA.

Delaine W. Shane (May 2, 2022)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

My comments are divided into two sections: general perspective for your consideration and specific comments on the subject document for the planning consultants. Yes, the State long ago forcefully told our community that we residents must prepare for a freeway to be built through South Pasadena. We 3 - 1561
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-90 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE stopped that transportation fiasco and now we must stop the outrageous and exaggerated RHNA mandate and the related state housing legislation that will shred the character of our city. We need to control our own destiny. That is true democracy.

We cannot follow blindly in step with the State. As of this moment, only nine out of 197 jurisdictions have approved housing elements for the State’s planning cycle (In South Pasadena Review. 2022. By Haley Sawyer, “Progress on Housing Element Plods Ahead,” April 29th, page 13). We are not alone in this quagmire of overzealous and misplaced mandates, along with highly restrictive instructions/- requirements on what constitutes a compliant housing element.

Page 2 ends

Here is the list of the jurisdictions and their representatives across the State that do support this proposed voter measure: Endorse - Our Neighborhood Voices. This coalition’s principles dovetail perfectly with South Pasadena:
• Support housing as a basic right.
• Fight for truly affordable housing.
• Assure self-determination of local government.
• Preserve quality of life in our communities.
• Achieve smart and balanced growth.
• Respect lifestyle choices.
• Protect home ownership.
• Value the American dream.
3 - 1562
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-91 It is time to collaborate with other jurisdictions and join coalitions to bring sense and true planning back to local control with respect to land use and zoning, and especially in all matters regarding housing in South Pasadena.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Delaine Shane
Delaine W. Shane
2003 Meridian Avenue
 How addressed: The commentor’s frustration with the state mandated system is noted, and in receiving a RHNA that is challenging in the context of South Pasadena's small area and builtout character. The City explored all options in appealing the allocation when that opportunity was offered, but recent court decisions have made it clear that further legal action on the allocation is not available. Some jurisdictions have posed challenging the statewide basis of the RHNA allocations, but the City has not chosen to proceed in that manner. The City has been actively working toward complying with the complex web of new requirements and the RHNA allocation in order to adopt a compliant housing element as is required under the law.

GENERAL COMMENTS
This generic document does little to validate the excessive development scenario proposed for our small

Briefly, I will state very obvious facts that cannot be ignored by the City or by the State, and especially not in the Housing Element.
 How addressed: Thank you for your comment.
3 - 1563
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-92 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Water Supply and Drought
No matter how we conserve, adding 2,067 housing units will have a significant impact on our current ability to supply water to all South Pasadena residents. Water shortages and rationing are now a reality.

We will have less water and more costs by the various water districts that will ultimately be passed onto us residents.

California Department of Water Resources
Survey Finds Little Snow as Statewide Snowpack Drops to 38 Percent Following Record Dry Months (ca.gov)
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (click on weblinks for full details) Metropolitan Cuts Outdoor Watering To One Day A Week For Six Million Southern Californians (mwdh2o.com)
Metropolitan Adopts Two-Year Budget To Address Drought, Climate Change While Mitigating Impacts of Rising Costs, Lower Sales (mwdh2o.com)
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Drought – Upper District
 How addressed: Program i.e. - Environmental Health is an integral component of supporting healthy living conditions and preventing fair housing issues that can result from concentrations of contamination. To encourage place-based revitalization through improved environmental conditions, the City will meet annually with water providers to identify funding opportunities to continue to implement mitigation measures at City water sources in San Gabriel and San Marino.

Climate Change
With water shortages/droughts, climate change will impact reservoirs as well. As the levels in our state and federal reservoirs continue to drop to historic lows, there will also be losses in energy levels related to generating hydroelectric power. Apparently, if you subscribe to Clean Power Alliance-SCE, for 100% Green Power, the power source does not rely on hydroelectric processes. However, if you don’t subscribe to this service, you may find yourself having more black and brown outages in the future.

Refer to: Power Sources - Clean Power Alliance.

Social/Economic Justice
3 - 1564
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-93 How will building so many luxury condos (while adhering to the state’s mandate of density bonuses/inclusionary incentives) benefit or balance the social/economic injustices we have in South Pasadena? There are discussions on “housing mobility opportunities” in the Housing Element for those residents who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck. Except for getting out of substandard rental units, I am not clear as to what difference it makes where individuals with extremely low/very low live, so long as it is in South Pasadena. Repairing the units and allowing people to remain in them at affordable rents (with voucher assistance) and not uprooting them seems the better approach and less draconian. Conversely, is it possible that the Housing Element as it now appears could impact persons of color who qualify for such “housing mobility opportunities” but fail to remain due to gentrification.

No one should be paying up to 50% of their income for rent, yet some of our residents do.  How addressed: Program 2.b Affordable Housing Production identifies that the City will establish a Housing Divisions to help fund and build affordable units on sites in higher-income neighborhoods to facilitate housing mobility.

Historic Preservation
I have absolutely no idea as to how historic preservation will survive in this housing planning cycle.

Fiduciary Responsibility/Caltrans Properties
The City and its third-party vendor must stay out of the property management business with the remaining Caltrans properties. Seriously.

Where is the funding source for the City to make such purchases? Where are the checks and balances to ensure things will be operated and maintained properly? My neighbors and I are completely against SB381. We live adjacent to or within a few doors down of many Caltrans properties. The views of the Caltrans tenants have also not been heard and are not reflected in the Housing Element. No decision, such as making the properties permanent rental, should be made without the full public participation and discussion with our neighbors, including Caltrans tenants. We support the recommendations made by the South Pasadena Preservation Foundation and want to see existing or previous tenants have success in buying their homes.  How addressed: SB381 provides a way for housing currently owned by the state to be put into use again. It allows the City to be part of the process to ensure that such housing is made available. The City has chosen to move forward with evaluation with each eligible property on 3 - 1565
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-94 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE a parcel-by-parcel basis. The housing element does not mandate that any one parcel be accepted by the City, let alone that all do. The housing element does not, nor can it, amend the provisions of the state law created by SB 381. The housing element creates a program to proceed under the SB 381 process. The housing element recognizes that these parcels are an important part of how the city will address its housing needs. However, it does not mandate and outcome on any specific property at this time.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Comments on Table VI-2 (Summary of Housing Programs for the 2021-2029 Housing Element)

Furthermore, manufacturing of solar panels is not carbon neutral, and there are environmental issues with disposal of older panels. From a financial standpoint, it may not make sense for some property owners to invest in this type of system, especially if they don’t intend to stay in South Pasadena for a long time. Financing this type of system with some private installers may result in liens being placed on the properties that can be problematic during subsequent sales. Wouldn’t it be more productive for City staff’s time and efforts to focus on the other conservation techniques than on the solar systems? Perhaps, it is time to review the hastily approved 2020 Climate Action Plan and revise it so that it can also be properly interwoven into what is now being discussed in this element and the General Plan Update?
 How addressed: Thank you for your comment.
3 - 1566
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-95

Page 5 ends

Page 6 ends

complaints regarding housing conditions and will proactively pursue abatement of substandard housing conditions identified in the 2022 survey (Table VI-26) or as subsequently identified to reduce displacement risk of tenants living in currently substandard housing.” I completely agree with this statement. No one should live in substandard housing; however, I see no text in this housing element that protects the tenant when they make a complaint. This section needs to state how the tenant will not be evicted while the landlord makes good on complying with code enforcement’s correction/abatement orders. Will the landlord pay for the tenant to be in a motel until they can move back in upon approval of code enforcement if substantial corrections are required? How will potential retaliation be prevented? Can the landlord use this as an excuse to “remodel” the unit and then increase the rent prior to the tenant moving back in? I believe that renters comprise well over 50-55% of South Pasadena residents. There needs to be more specificity in this section to ensure that existing tenants who have the ongoing misfortune to occupy substandard housing units will not be evicted or retaliated against when they register a complaint with code enforcement.  How addressed: The commentor appears to be addressing concerns about retaliatory actions by landlords against tenants who complain about substandard living conditions. Such retaliatory behavior by landlords is illegal under state law. The city supports challenging such unlawful behavior with referrals to the Housing Rights Center (HRC). These efforts are addressed through Program 5.a.
3 - 1567
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-96 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Pages 6 and 7, Program 1.d.—Assisted Housing Unit Preservation. “The City will maintain and monitor a list of all low-income housing units in South Pasadena that are subsidized by government funding or developed through local or state regulations or incentives.” …. “If conversion of units is likely, work with local service providers as appropriate to seek funding to subsidize the at-risk units in a way that mirrors the HUD Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. Funding sources may include state or local funding sources.” This program is therefore to show compliance with the RHNA numbers for those residents that are earning extremely low/very low income (1,155 housing units). This program will undoubtedly require the work of two or more FTEs (full time equivalent individuals, either employees or contractors). This program should not be funded by the General Fund, but by the State given such high numbers. If this must go through the General Fund, then the Housing Element should indicate the approximate cost to the taxpayers to implement this State mandate. How will this program be structured so that it can be meaningful to those who truly need such services rather than it de-evolve to just list some numbers (with or without verification) and then hand out fact sheets rather than be proactive and collaborative? After all, there are a lot of programs proposed by the City and not all can be carried out and monitored with a small staff. We cannot pay an endless amount to outside contractors. On Page 7, the last paragraph in the program explains what happens if owners sell their properties before the 55-year (for owner occupied units) and 45-year (for rental units) requirements that ensure such properties remain affordable for their set periods of time. Two questions come to mind.

Page 7 ends

soil contamination testing and mitigation on properties (especially those with existing structures) to undergo rigorous evaluation before constructing new housing units. I still go on record that the evaluation of buried soil contamination at the Seven Patios Project site was unsatisfactory and should have had more rigorous testing.
 How addressed: The commentor’s position regarding a past project is noted. The data evaluated from CalEnviroscreen 4.0 showed that South Pasadena had cumulative scores for air pollutants below the thresholds for further action. Parcel level site analysis is done at the time of individual project evaluation, not at the housing element level. The analysis performed did show a threshold for further analysis for water contamination. Program 1.e was included to address the water contamination issues. The city has already begun to address the water contamination issues through remediation activities, seeking reimbursement through legal action against responsible parties, and continued monitoring of water quality. These are addressed through Program 1.e.
3 - 1568
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-97

Page 8 ends

Page 10 ends

objective is to approve at least 600 affordable units during the planning period through density bonuses to facilitate mixed-income projects, and support expanded housing mobility opportunities for lowerincome households.” Of course, streamlining approvals means excluding CEQA discretionary action and making it ministerial. This separation rather than complete discussion of the Housing Element, the General Plan Update, Specific Plan Update, Zoning Modifications, Design Requirements, and Climate Action Plan combined is extremely problematic. It is precisely at this ambiguity juncture where we are concerned that with the loss of CEQA input, our voice in how the development is proposed, designed, and pushed through will be lost.
 How addressed: Program 2.e has been updated to address HCD comments.

Page 10 ends

housing be distributed throughout the City. Once such buildings are erected, what will be the mechanism to ensure that the operators of said housing will be good stewards and good neighbors?  How addressed: Program 2.h has been updated to address HCD comments.

Page 12 ends

with a review of assets to create a City-owned site affordable housing inventory (will include list of surplus properties) by June 30, 2023.” Shouldn’t the public know what the City’s assets are that could be considered for public housing first before this Housing Element is adopted? We have very little open 3 - 1569
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-98 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE space/parks in several parts of our City. Some of these assets also need to be utilized for that purpose.

As a side note, it is difficult to hear that the City doesn’t even know to the full extent what properties it owns outright, rents, or has easement rights over. And yet, the City expects to deal with all the bureaucracy, financial peril, and personal involvement that will entail encouraging development and managing Caltrans properties. Simply unbelievable.
 How addressed: Implementation of a City-owned affordable housing sites inventory will occur after adoption of the Housing Element. Please check back with the City after Housing Element adoption for status updates of this program.

Page 13 ends

This program should not be a planning tool in which the City decides which properties are not at their highest and best use. Nor should eminent domain be employed for this program.

Again, it is the State driving this deadline and that is why the City needs to push back. Height limits, open space, and parking are very critical issues to our neighbors and our community. And we are asked to sign off on this Housing Element without understanding what the City will define as its new standards. Ultimately, we will lose our recourse to remedy mistakes because CEQA will no longer come into play. This is wrong and not democratic.
 How addressed: This program is required due to the RHNA allocation to the City. It is being revised, and will demonstrate compliance with State law, including efforts to move toward objective standards and non-discretionary processes for housing.

Page 14 ends

on the zoning changes at this point. We need to see how the zoning within the City will change to support the Housing Element.
 How addressed: Parcel level zoning detail is not required for approval of a Housing Element.

The zoning for particular parcels follow the policy level determinations under the Housing Element. Pursuant to Government Code section 65754(b), City’s zoning code is required to be completed within 120 days after the Housing Element has been amended by the City Council.

Page 14 ends

Pages 14-15, Program 3.d.—Enable Parcel Assemblage. What if an adjacent property owner does not wish to sell their home to the developer? Will the City then proceed to take the property through eminent domain to ensure that the RHNA numbers are being met? With all the incentives the City is proposing to give to the developer, such as more height, additional stories, waive lot merger fees, and perhaps a lessening of parking requirements in areas that are already built out, absolutely no consideration is given to the residents. There is no acknowledgment from what I can tell from the Housing Element on how much our neighborhoods already suffer and that with new development will be compounded such as deteriorated streets and limited to no parking. The developers cannot fix our current problems. Does the City expect that the character of our small City will remain unchanged with this over-the-top densification? How will the City prioritize the historic homes on the inventory list throughout the City? Many homes have been modified over the years. So, will the City follow the tactic of Caltrans and deem that these historic homes can therefore be demolished? And again, what can other neighbors say about it, when it has become a ministerial action with no CEQA involvement because it fits with an ambiguous housing element with no zoning modifications presented to us at this time to discuss and consider?  How addressed: Program 3.d has been updated to address HCD comments.

Pages 15-19 for Programs related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). I could not find anything about short-term rentals (e.g., AirBnB). Such housing stock is detrimental to achieving affordable housing goals and objectives. One or more of these programs need to explicitly state the policy of either no such rentals permitted or a set limit with specific restrictions in a policy/ordinance. I am certain there are already residents that have this type of operation in service, so it is important to have a dialogue to see what is most reasonable and fair.
 How addressed: Short-term rental analysis will be included in the City's General Plan update.

Page 19 ends

indicates that SB 10 zoning amendments would be considered by December 2024. Why the delay? All these pieces need to be examined now. Is the City piecemealing this planning effort? The Housing Element needs to focus more on potential adaptive re-uses of existing commercial buildings and junior ADUs. They are mentioned but their actual potential is not really examined or prioritized.  How addressed: Jurisdictions are not required to adopt or evaluate SB 10. The timeframe stated for examining SB 10 is to allow sufficient time for analysis and community outreach should the City decide that its provisions would be beneficial for housing production.

Page 20 ends

unable to find the definition in the Housing Element. Location of such shelters are important and the zoning of them should be discussed now and not one year after the Housing Element is approved.  How addressed: BP refers to Business Park Zone.

Page 20 ends

Navigation Centers. This is a euphemism for half-way homes. The City is planning to revise the 3 - 1571
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-100 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Municipal Code so that these homes can be placed without discretionary CEQA review in areas zoned for mixed use and non-residential zones permitting multifamily uses within two years after the adoption of the Housing Element. I know this is also a controversial topic, but it needs to be discussed now. All the “pieces” of the planning jigsaw must be available for people to understand, discuss, and voice their opinions.
 How addressed: Program 4.a includes a program to update the zoning designations for emergency and transitional housing. These amendments will occur after the Housing Element is adopted.

Page 21 ends

program also include those centers (i.e., half-way homes) in Program 4.b?  How addressed: Program 4.b includes a program to update the zoning designations for emergency and transitional housing. These amendments will occur after the Housing Element is adopted.

Page 21 ends

projects per the cited California Government Code needs to be available for us now to review and not by the end of the year when the Housing Element is already adopted.  How addressed: California Senate Bill 35 (SB-35) was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on September 29, 2017 and was effective January 1, 2018. SB-35 applies in cities that are not meeting their Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) goal for construction of abovemoderate income housing and/or housing for households below 80% area median income (AMI). SB-35 amends Government Code Section 65913.4 to require local entities to streamline the approval of certain housing projects by providing a ministerial approval process. Please refer to the Government Code Section 65913.4 for more information.

Jurisdictions will have to identify and justify such constraints in their Housing Elements. Lastly, the letter stresses that a jurisdiction’s implementation of SB 9 is covered by state laws other than the HCA and State Housing Element Law. This includes, but is not exclusive to, 3 - 1572
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-101 State ADU Law, AFFH, and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law. How a city implements SB 9 has wide-reaching considerations. Jurisdictions should be fully aware that SB 9-related projects are not separate nor exempt from their ordinary zoning laws and instead should be included within existing codes. The point of SB 9 is to give homeowners the means to increase the density of their properties.

It is not a dead-end in state law.

Attached to this email is HCD's letter to Temple City for reference.

Sincerely,
Davis White
--
Davis White he/him
yimbylaw.org
(415) 298-0788
 How addressed: The City plans to review the SB9 urgency ordinance adopted in December 2021. Such review will allow for review of the standards noted and an implementation process to be addressed. Although this process has been delayed due to other department priorities, a revised ordinance will be developed in consideration of more recently issued comments and interpretation of SB9's provisions.

Josh Albrektson (June 20, 2022) (Twitter Post)
South Pasadena is required to show they have enough zoning to allow 2,067 homes will be built over the next 7 years. They just released a Housing Element that shows where they claim the “Future homes” will be built. Me and @taxingainteasy are gonna take you so see them. ⧎⧏⧐⧑⧒⧓  How addressed: Sites included in the Housing Element must allow for and be suitable for residential development. Inclusion in the Housing Element is not a guarantee of residential units being built on a site.

To start with, South Pasadena claims that this entire mountainside will be redeveloped with homes.

Implies 65 homes are going in this area (25+40)]
This is another place where they claim that homes will be built on a mountainside with a 60 degree incline road. Blue marks where I am standing for the video. [He describes location of housing sites in 3 - 1573
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-102 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE relation to estimated "70 degree" slope and presents questions regarding feasibility of housing development on the hillside. Implies 11 homes are going in this area (7+4)] Here is the video for reference.
 How addressed: All APNs ending in 900, 901, 904, and 905 have been removed. APN 5308032902 has also been removed. 5312016015, 5312016014, 5301028036, 5301028035, 5301028034, 5301028054, 5301028053, 5301028052, 5301028051, 5301028050, 5301028049, 5301028055, 5306006024, 5306006025, 5306006053, 5306006048 have also been removed because they would have to have the road developed.

SoPas claims that every major grocery store will be turned into low income housing. This Ralphs which serves most of San Marino and Alhambra and is the only grocery store around will be 133 homes, even though the owner never responded to any e-mails from SoPas. (Sound on) Video says: "Does this Ralphs look like it's about to go out of business? Looks pretty busy to me"  How addressed: Ralphs and Vons have been removed from the inventory and Pavillions remains included and is counting the parking lot and not the whole building.

This SilverLake Ramen is actually about to open and at the last City Council meeting the mayor talked about how responsive the staff was to get the permits approved when it hit a snag. But According to South Pasadena this will be torn down in 7 years and turned into 263 homes.

SoPas will not give me any evidence of that conversation.  How addressed: Only the parking lot portion of Pavillions is being included in the land inventory. Development would include ground floor parking and residential above.

Here is HCD telling SoPas in December that these sites should be removed, but they are still there.

But not only that, they also claim that they will move their Public Works yard here and build 34 units at that site. I am sure Edison is totally cool with storing heavy duty trucks under high voltage power lines.

We will just shut down power for a year when it is built. 3 - 1574
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-103  How addressed: This parcel is 2.73 acres and owned by the City. The southern portion of the parcel is not underneath the overhead lines. The 15 units assumed for this site were anticipated to be able to be developed on this southern portion of the site.

Rite Aid would also probably disagree with the assessment that the parking lot is not used for their business.
 How addressed: This site was removed from the inventory. Appendix A says the parking lot doesn't provide required parking for the commercial uses to the west meaning that parking doesn't address parking spaces required to be provided by the City.

See this McDonalds??? It is one of the nicest McDonalds I have ever been to. No response from the owner, but South Pasadena claims that they will be turned into 47 new homes.  How addressed: This site was removed from the inventory.

They have lots that claim a driveway will be built on a 6 foot strip of land up into the hills.

Does this look like a future driveway up into the hills??? Random street next to high school is apparently going to be a home.

Street demonstration by @taxingainteasy
This home (red) and this persons backyard (blue) will be torn down and turned into homes.

I bet this home doesn’t know it is going to be torn down. 15 foot wide strips of land are apparently potential future homes.

Some dudes tennis court(red) and the main walkway connecting Monterey Hills and the High School (blue, called the snake trail) are both supposed to be housing.

This lot has approved plans for a pocket park that is supposed to be built this year. SoPas also claims it will be a home.

This thin strip of land is supposed to be a home.

Sometimes you have random strips on land in the middle of the mountain. 3 - 1575
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-104 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Not Kobe!!!!! This building is half a block from the train station. SoPas claims it will be torn down and replaced with apartments at 70 DU/Acre. The only problem is there is a 25 foot height limit and one parking spot per bedroom minimum parking requirement.
 How addressed: From Appendix A: "Existing use is retail commercial buildings and parking lots behind. All four parcels have the same owner. The owner is interested in consolidating the four parcels, adaptive reuse of historic storefront, and developing residential uses on this site.

There is potential for redevelopment of the site based on underutilized surface parking, recent project trends and active economic reinvestment in the area. This site is centrally located near transit and services."
Finally, Krispy Kreme. This is not being torn down, we are just happy it is here.

This list is just some of the worst examples from the Housing Element. I don’t include how South Pasadena enacted the highest inclusionary housing ordinance in the state to make sure no buildings will be financially feasible, in part because you cannot take a picture of that.

Site 9 - (Yards): The site identified has been further examined and seems not to be feasible. Change on the notes to say that the current CIP includes a comprehensive assessment of City-owned facilities that may be suitable for relocation of the Yard, in order to vacate the property for an affordable housing project.
 How addressed: This site is a city owned site and the current CIP includes a comprehensive assessment of City-owned facilities that are be suitable for relocation of the public works yard, in order to vacate the property for an affordable housing project. The City will remediate any environmental constraints on this site prior to development for residential.

Josh Albrektson (June 21, 2022))
There are a lot of amazing claims made for the low income sites in this new Housing Element. In March before it was published I asked Angelica if she could share anything that will be used to claim a site is suitable and Angelica refused to send anything over (See below) The day after the new Draft Housing Element was published I asked Angelica for specific things related to the claims made in the Housing Element. She refused to send them over. I filed specific PRAS on May 11th for communications with the single family homeowners that they claim will develop in sites 14 and 15, any contact with Edison over the moving of the Public Works yard beneath the power lines for Site 9, the new communications 3 - 1576
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-105 with Vons and Pavilions about owner interest in developing housing (sites 20 and 21), and communication with this YMCA board member for site 23. These were not broad PRAs and should have returned 1-3 documents each, documents that Angelica should have easy access to. South Pasadena has not filled a single one of these PRAs despite multiple requests. South Pasadena is making claims in their housing element about low income sites and deliberately making sure the public cannot examine the validity of these claims.
 How addressed: The commentor’s statements regarding the request to produce documents are disputed by the City. The City endeavors to comply with all PRAs through a process monitored by the Office of City Clerk. The city is unaware of any outstanding requests from the timeframe noted, and has provided all non-exempt, responsive documents to the respondent in this context in the city’s possession. Since this comment, the city has responded to several other PRA request from the commentor.

Angelica Frausto-Lupo (March 14, 2022)
From: Josh Albrektson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Margaret Lin <[email protected]>; Angelica Frausto-Lupo <[email protected]>
Subject: Can I get some information
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. With the Housing Element release coming up I was wondering if I can get some information. I'm asking for it by e-mail because it would be much easier for you guys than more extensive PRAs. All of this information should be easy to obtain. 1. How many ADU building permits were issued in 2020 and 2021?? 2. Can you give me a list of projects that have turned in applications that the IHO would apply to since it was implemented?? I don't need anything extensive, just the address and number of proposed units in each project. 3. The evidence for each low income site in the Housing Element that you are using to claim as substantial evidence that the current use will be discontinued?? Margaret knows what I am talking about for this stuff. Thanks.
 How addressed: The City is following AB 215 requirements for releasing draft versions of the Housing Element for public comments.

They also banned minorities from owning homes until 1965. Here are articles from the LA Times in the 1980's describing South Pasadenas growth restrictions. I have pulled out the relevant paragraphs and 3 - 1577
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-106 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE italicized them. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-10-25-ga-16043-story.html Minorities, Growth Like other cities in the western San Gabriel Valley, South Pasadena, which covers less than 3 1/2 square miles, has experienced both a significant influx of minority residents and a drive to build. Almost a quarter of the city’s 24,400 residents are Asians, according to city officials. Fearing that South Pasadena is losing its character as a typical American small town of single-family homes, residents have battled plans for condominiums and major commercial projects. In 1983, voters rejected a proposed twin-tower office building that had been unanimously supported by the City Council. Then, after Simmons and Getchell petitioned for a ballot measure, voters imposed a 45-foot height limit on new construction. Now Simmons is leading a similar initiative drive to restrict minimall construction in the city. Cap on New Housing Last year, the council, under pressure from citizens’ petitions, voted to place a cap of 60 new housing units a year in the city. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988- 11-28-me-363-story.html But city leaders say South Pasadena and its old-fashioned way of life are protected by a community-nurtured resistance to change. South Pasadena was one of the first cities in the region to adopt a slow-growth policy. In 1986, faced with a proliferation of condominium complexes and apartment buildings in the southern part of the city, as well as a voters’ revolt, the City Council imposed a 60-unit annual limit on new multifamily developments. “We’ve protected ourselves pretty well,” Woollacott said. Static Population The city’s reluctance to build is reflected in population statistics.

The population in neighboring cities has ballooned, mostly with new arrivals from Asia, but South Pasadena’s has increased by an average of only 84 people a year since 1970. While the city was keeping a lid on new apartment buildings, slowgrowth activists turned down a string of proposed commercial developments, using intense political pressure or the initiative process. For example, in 1983, when a local merchant proposed to erect two multistory office buildings, angry residents petitioned for a ballot measure limiting the height of new construction. The measure won, and the so-called “twin towers” died a sudden and unlamented death. In recent months, two major projects have also succumbed to slow-growth sentiment. First, developer Thomas Stagen withdrew a plan for a 150-suite hotel on Fair Oaks Avenue, citing the community’s “virulent opposition” to the project. Then, the City Council, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, scuttled a move to declare 74 acres of prime commercial area in the city a redevelopment area, after rebellious local merchants displayed signs portraying the council as a big octopus, seeking to control the city. In 1989 led by a local NIMBY Group SPRIG South Pasadena began implementation for a new general plan that downzoned the city from having a capacity of 60,000 to 25,000. LA Times article at the start:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-08-27-ga-1552-story.html General Plan update that includes a excerpt from the Task Force from 1990:(page 13) https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/220/636721709083330000 As the new decade begins, however, South Pasadena is faced with the twin threats of burgeoning multiresidential growth and continued deterioration of its commercial areas and business tax base. South Pasadena did not allow minorities to own houses. In 1964, a latino USC professor was allowed to buy a home because they mistakenly thought he was Native American. There is a TON more racist things in this article that South Pasadena did such as banning black children from the community pool and blocking off a street that connected them to the Latino El Sereno, but those were not housing related. https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/when-south-pasadena-was-a-sundown-town/ Housing In 1964, Manuel Servin, a Mexican-American professor at USC, managed to buy a house in South Pasadena, even though Mexican Americans were specifically restricted from doing so. Native Americans had no restrictions placed on them and City officials mistakenly approved his purchase in South Pasadena.

Shortly thereafter, in the mid-sixties the Federal government provided funding for affordable housing with the Altos de Monterey development which brought more racial diversity to the area. Many communities adjacent to South Pasadena did not share the same racist past. El Sereno, Highland Park and Alhambra were far more multi-racial. This created the basis of still more examples of racially divisive attitudes in residents and more law suits against the City of South Pasadena. 3 - 1578
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-107 --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The City is following AB 215 requirements for releasing draft versions of the Housing Element for public comments.

Josh Albrektson (June 30, 2022)
I'm gonna send my comments as I write them because SoPas dropped this letter 8 days before the deadline for HCD to make their findings.

Comments on Responses to HCD Preliminary comments.
1A. City needs to remove all sites from Table VI-44 that have backyard tennis courts, current homes, plans to be a pocket park, sites that do not exist on the APN map, and ones that are trails that are used to get to the high school.
 How addressed: The sites included in Table VI-44 that are on slopes are all on slopes less than 20 percent and are developable in accordance with the City's hillside ordinance. Additional detail about projects approved on slopes in included on Page 168 in blue highlighting. 1B. The Los Altos housing development covering SouthWest South Pasadena was done in 1965. Since that time there has not been a single new road built in the mountains of South Pasadena. There have been lots developed, but all of these lots are on existing roads. All lots that do not have road access should be removed, regardless of the slopes.

Page one contains a list of all sites by APN which should be removed. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CZFzZM41DcAmVWgOUaFgaAU77Lrww9cSRwQ7GV JfWg/ edit?usp=sharing
You all have seen the videos but you can see how unrealistic it is to claim a road will be built down this hill.
https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538986717599830016?s=20&t=vn8iBXZzAb-xOVD-RgHHQ  How addressed: This site was removed from the inventory. 1C. More than 50% of RiteAids business comes from people who park in the parking lot. You cannot just claim “This will be resolved.” And the parking lot was not for sale, the whole site including the Rite Aid building was sold about 8 years ago. It was not just the parking lot.

See how many people are using the tunnel to get to the parking lot:
https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538992058236407808?s=20&t=vn8iBXZzAb-xOVD-RgHHQ 3 - 1579
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-108 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: The Rite Aid sites has been removed from the inventory. 2A. IHO makes every building economically infeasible so they will not be built and SoPas cannot claim it will help spread affordable housing through the city.  How addressed: Program 2.e has been updated to address HCD comments. 2B. The City talks about the single family homes in the South West of the City and how ADUs would help increase housing on those sites. South Pasadena enacted a ADU ordinance that made that area a high fire zone and instituted many restrictions so that ADUs cannot be built in that area. There is a email from Reid Miller of the HCD ADU team to Liz Bar-El talking about and this included in the 5/21/21 e-mail sent out by Paul to the City. (see attached email)  How addressed: The City will comply with state ADU regulations and coordinate with. local fire and safety requirements for allowing future ADUs.
3A. Sent out different e-mail quoting the LA Times articles from the 1980’s about how “South Pasadena was one of the first cities in the region to adopt a slow-growth policy.” And banned minorities from buying homes until 1965.
 How addressed: Thank you for your comment.
3B. “The City will continue to include projects in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that develop infrastructure which supports housing for lower-income residents, and provides transportation facilities for those without access to vehicles.”
 How addressed: The ongoing evaluation of CIP needs and the action taken on May 23, 2022 does not negate the program in 3B to pursue transportation facilities for people without vehicles.

On May 23rd South Pasadena decided against implementing bike lanes in the city and instead used the money to expand a one lane road of Orange Grove to a two lane road at a cost of $500k in order to make it easier for people to get on the freeway. As part of the Housing Element South Pasadena should commit to implementing the adopted 2011 master bike plan by 2025.

Link to them rejecting the bike plan for the road widening:
https://twitter.com/ActiveSGV/status/1528818927588937728 Adopted but not implemented 2011 Bike Plan.
https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1793/636721709083330000  How addressed: The particular project made reference to on May 23, 2022 has a long history associated with it and the Council used their independent judgment as to that location, not as to bike lanes in general as the comment would suggest.

The bike plan is a more accurate reflections of the city’s commitment to multimodal transportation, and is properly referenced in other elements of the General Plan, rather than the housing element. It is included in the draft GP due to be released soon. 3 - 1580
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-109 3C. Regarding Program 2.e and the IHO increasing the supply of affordable housing. IHO makes every building economically infeasible so they will not be built and SoPas cannot claim it will help spread affordable housing through the city.
 How addressed: Program 2.e has been updated to address HCD comments.

Josh Albrektson (July 1, 2022)
5A. Site 18 cannot be developed without destroying the McDonalds drive through in site 17.  How addressed: This site was removed from the inventory. 5B. Please ask to see the last contacts of the City with sites 3 and 6. What I have received from my PRAs implies both sites are not viable, with site 3 specifically telling the city that the IHO means his project can no longer work.
 How addressed: Owner is interested in the development of high-density residential housing and has submitted an application for a total of 8 market-rate units on the three parcels. 5C. Almost all sites are in locations where commercial projects can also be built and the probability of that happening is not taken into account at all. In the case of Vons and Pavilions, sites 20 and 21, that is actually happening with both undergoing extensive renovations in 2022. (Pavilions now and Vons planned)
 How addressed: Site 21 was removed from the sites inventory. Site 20 remains included due to the current renovations being minor in nature and would not preclude redevelopment of the sites. In addition, the only portion of Site 20 being counted is the parking lot and redevelopment of the parking lot would include ground floor parking with residential above. It was also stated by participants at the Developer Forum on August 15, 2022 that the City has sufficient parking and should reduce parking requirements where feasible.
5D. South Pasadena limited SB 9 so that all units can be a maximum size of 850 st ft. That guarantees a single family home is more likely to be built since they can build to 0.35 far. San Francisco did a feasibility study on SB 9 and determined that there was almost no sites in San Fran that a SB 9 project would be more feasible than a single family home, and that is without the 850 sq ft maximum SoPas does.
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/citywide/SB9_Summary_FinancialFeasibilityA nalysis.pdf
 How addressed: Program 3.m requires the City to develop guideless for SB 9 units by December 2022. There are no SB 9 units being counted towards meeting the City's RHNA. 6A. I think the numbers “consolidation on sites 10, 15, 19, 21 and 25” on the HCD letter is wrong.

There is no site 25.
 How addressed: That is correct.
3 - 1581
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-110 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 6B. Sites 10, 20, and 23 have the same owner. Sites 13 and 14 do not have the same owner. Site 14 the city met with an affordable housing developer and instead of developing decided to extend the lease of the playhouse located on the site.
 How addressed: In March 2022, the City Council modified its lease with the South Pasadena Theatre Workshop so that it would be a month to month lease to allow for the future development of the City-owned Site 14 without the constraint of a long-term lease. 7A. Paul told the city in May that the power lines are not a feasible site for anything. The Public works yard (site 9) should be removed from a list of viable sites. South Pasadena also counted the power lines sites for 15 moderate income sites on Table VI-44, line 6. This should also be removed.  How addressed: Site 9 is owned by the City and the unit assumptions were updated to address HCD comments.
7B. See comments 1A and 1B above. There has been no new roads built in the Los Altos (SouthWest SoPas) since 1965 and the only lots that have been developed since that time had access to a road. All sites without road access, the planned pocket park, the guys backyard tennis court, the snake trail, and sites that don’t exist should be removed.

Every site on page one of this spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CZFzZM41DcAmVWgOUaFgaAU77Lrww9cSRwQ7GV JfWg/edit?usp=sharing
 How addressed: These sites inventory has been updated to reflect realistic capacity. 8A. They should only be allowed to claim the average ADU building permits for the last 36 months of whenever they get an approved housing Element. Other cities such as Los Angeles show there is a bump for two years due to pent up demand but then there is a drop in applications over time.  How addressed: ADU assumptions have been updated to address HCD comments in Table VI-46.
8B. SoPas does not address the fact it is one of the richest cities in the Los Angeles II category of the scag survey and that it is unlikely that any ADU will be affordable to a low income family or individual unless it is given to family. Also they do not factor in that about half of all ADU applications will not be used for new housing but is instead an expansion of the current living space.  How addressed: ADU affordability analysis has been updated on Page 231 with additional survey of ADU costs.
9A. They should never be allowed to have an “eight year objective” because that means it will never happen.
 How addressed: Thank you for your comment.
0A. Program 3.a is just a program that says sometime in the future they will study what kind of zoning is required to allow the density claims made in the Housing Element to be feasible. That kind of information should be done in the Housing Element itself. 3 - 1582
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-111  How addressed: Program 3.a requires the City to rezone to meet the City's RHNA requirement. 10B. The city forced 815 Mission to do a feasibility study for its density bonus. This feasibility study showed that the only way a 10% VLI housing project is feasible is if 57 feet is allowed, significant FAR increase, and almost every single open space and other requirement was waived. I would imagine a 10% VLI and 10% LI would require a much higher height and FAR limits than South Pasadenas base zoning has. You can find the feasibility study on page 104 and the concessions granted on page 120. https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29308/637855358954070000  How addressed: The City has included Program 3.n – Zoning Changes, the City will review and revise development standards or updates to processes and procedures to address constraints identified in this Housing Element and facilitate increased densities in the updated General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) currently undergoing public review prior to adoption hearings. In addition, comparable Zoning Code revisions outside of the DTSP area will implement this program. The types of standards and processes that will need revising include height limits, open space standards, parking requirements including variances and findings for design review.
11B. No mention of the Pre-Application or the times to get through Building. Mission Bell started the permitting process in August 2017. It received planning commission approval in Feb 2020. It still does not have building permits, almost 5 years since the first contact with the South Pasadena planning department.
https://southpasadenan.com/mission-bell-project-approved-planning-commission-tweaksconditionsauthorizes-venture/  How addressed: The City is unaware of delays in this project attributable to the City, its staff, or its codified processes. The Mission Bell project has been moving through B&S, with many rounds of corrections to the developer-provided plans needed to get the plans to comply with building code. There is also delay related to their electrical connection (Edison), again as a result of developer design issues regarding compliance with state codes rather than the City code or staff related issues.

Published comments from various news sources often do not have the full picture of what has transpired. The ability to address that record here is appreciated. 12A. I told the city as they were implementing the IHO that it was the highest in the state. I have repeated this statement about 15 times over the past year so the city cannot claim they did not know it.

I provided them with examples of every local city IHO. I did math problems showing how it was nonviable.

They did a recent economic study this April that I sent in a different e-mail that showed that the IHO raised the prices by 11%. They implemented it with the purpose of shutting down development, as demonstrated by trying to backdate it illegally to apply to 815 Fremont. I sent in a report to HCD and Melinda Coy told South Pasadena this was illegal under SB 330 and they eliminated the backdating.  How addressed: "Program 2.m – Update Inclusionary Housing Regulations. 3 - 1583
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-112 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Following results of the financial feasibility analysis of the existing Inclusionary Regulations, the City will update the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to reduce the required percentage of inclusionary units from 20 to 15 percent. The City will also analyze the following parts of the regulations and will update them as needed to address constraints:
 10 unit threshold
 In-lieu fees and cost of a comparable unit
 How the inclusionary regulations relate to state Density Bonus law" 12B. The economic report that they are doing is to show how feasible a density bonus project would be.

We are one year into the cycle and South Pasadena has intentionally killed all housing projects with this IHO.

Because of this South Pasadena should have to provide excess zoning and programs to catch up from them shutting down all projects.
 How addressed: The City will update the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as described in Program 2.m above.
12C. There were contacts with developers when the IHO was being implemented. You will find comments from the developers of sites 8 and 3 on page 29 and 41, respectively, on the agenda packet when South Pasadena was considering the ordinance. You will see them stating that their projects are no longer viable. Victor Tang even did the feasibility analysis and showed that the IHO would cost the developer $933,000. For site 3 there has not been any contact with Victor Tang according to my PRA requests since this letter.
https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=25699  How addressed: The City held a forum with local developers on August 15, 2022 to discuss development constraints, including the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. In attendance were numerous developers that have a history of working in South Pasadena or who are currently processing projects in the city, including Victor Tang. The Inclusionary Housing 3 - 1584
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-113 Ordinance was not identified by the developers in attendance as a general constraint, but was identified as a constraint for projects less than five units.

Program 2.m, Update Inclusionary Housing Regulations requires that the City revise its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure that it is not a constraint for future development. 13B. See Comment 11B. There has not been a single recent project that has received building permits.

Ask the city for the dates between planning commission approval and building permits for Mission Bell, the Senior center on Fremont, and Seven Patios. All of these projects have taken over 2 years to get building permits and as of recently none of them have building permits per year.  How addressed: See above response.
18A. What the city describes as “Public outreach” is a combination of trying to talk to people who could give them more cover to claim that non-viable sites are actually viable. There were no meetings from November 17th until after this draft of the housing element was submitted. There was no effort to reach any residents, let alone renters or low income residents.  How addressed: The commentor’s position and opinion is noted. There is a record of the outreach efforts that were made over the past two years. As noted in Appendix B, prior to the release of the previous public review draft of the Housing Element, the City held public workshops on:
 May 30, 2020;
 June 2, 2020;
 September 23, 2020; and
 October 21, 2021.

In addition, the City held the public hearings on:
 July 21, 2020 at Planning Commission;
 August 5, 2020 at City Council;
 August 11, 2020 at Planning Commission;
 September 8, 2020 at Planning Commission;
 December 15, 2020 at Planning Commission;
 January 26, 2021 at Planning Commission;
 May 25, 2021 at Planning Commission;
 October 12, 2021 at Planning Commission;
 November 9, 2021 at Planning Commission; and
 November 17, 2021 at City Council.

During this time period, the City was operating under and emergency declaration due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented most of the meetings from being held in person and required them to occur online.
19A. Appendix B explains why the city doesn’t think the comments are valid or applicable. It does not integrate any of the comments into the Housing Element. 3 - 1585
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-114 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: Appendix B has been updated to include public comments received on the draft Housing Element and responses to comments in the draft Housing Element.

Matthew Gelfand (July 5, 2022)
Dear Mr. McDougall:

Our comments here are based on the limited information provided by the City.

Non-Vacant Sites
The sites inventory in the City’s draft Housing Element does not meet the requirements in Government Code Section 65583.2(g). The inventory does not adequately account for the impediment created by the existing uses on the listed nonvacant sites, including the possibility that a site will be maintained in its current use rather than redeveloped during the planning period.

More generally, the inventory lists three of the five area grocery stores. Each existing grocery store is a vital existing use that is exceedingly unlikely to be discontinued within the planning period. But it is even more unlikely that more than one of these stores will be closed, as the remaining stores will be forced to shoulder the burden of additional demand once one store closes. Although in one case the City is treating the store’s parking lot as the area for development, the parcel includes the store itself and state law requires the City to show that the existing use (the store) will be discontinued in order to avoid the presumption that it will impede development; this makes good sense, as there is no way to 3 - 1586
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-115 develop on the parking lot parcel without discontinuing use of the store for at least several years in the absence of parking. The City should be permitted to list no more than one existing major grocery store on its inventory.

The inventory includes a number of other sites containing existing uses for which the City acknowledges there is no evidence of developer or owner interest in redevelopment, and the City should be required to remove all of these sites from the inventory:
 How addressed: Vons and Ralph's grocery stores were removed from the inventory. Pavillions remains on the inventory and only the parking lot is being included in the inventory and any future development would include ground floor parking and residential above.

APN 5311-012-019 (301 Monterey Rd.), purportedly able to accommodate 19 lower-income and 31 total units: Commercial building with an existing use as a liquor store. The draft Housing Element states that there is no interest from developers or the property owner.  How addressed: Owner is interested in the development of high-density residential housing and has submitted an application for a total of 8 market-rate units on the three parcels. The sites inventory has been updated to reflect this information.

APN 5311-004-010 (143-161 Pasadena Ave.), purportedly able to accommodate 50 lower-income and 83 total units: Commercial property with new tenants. Although the draft housing element suggests prior interest in development, it indicates that the current status (presumably since the new tenants) is unknown.
 How addressed: The City made contact with the property owner and they support rezoning for future multi-family development.

Undevelopable Vacant Sites
The sites inventory lists as sites for housing a large number of vacant parcels on mountainous terrain, not served by paved roads and with no access to utilities. Most of these sites have zero likelihood of 3 - 1587
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-116 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE being developed and they are either publicly owned with no plans for sale or privately owned and considered undevelopable by the owners. In some cases, themaps included with the City’s housing element include references to roads that do not actually exist, such as “Harriman Avenue.” “Harriman Avenue,” as depicted in housing element (left) and the entrance to “Harriman Avenue” from the ground (right). In addition to having little or no likelihood of development, the City has not met the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(5)(B) for these parcels.

Because these parcels are generally not served by a paved road, they should be addressed by requiring the City to remove all vacant parcels not served by an existing paved public roadway.  How addressed: Sites previously listed on Harriman Ave have been removed from the inventory.

Thank you for considering these comments as you review the City’s draft housing element.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
 How addressed: The City has included Program 2.n Citywide Height Limit Ballot Imitative to facilitate destines above 50 dwelling units/acre on sites in the Housing Element.

Ross Silverman (July 18, 2022)
To all involved;
I believe it is imperative that the upzoning include all CG, M, and even R zones adjacent to commercial corridors in South Pasadena.

Thank you
3 - 1588
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-117 Ross Silverman
1008 Mound Ave.

South Pasadena, CA 91030
How addressed: The analysis done as part of the housing element update process indicates that upzoning all CG, M and R zones adjacent to commercial corridors in South Pasadena is not necessary to meeting the City’s RHNA. However, upzoning is necessary in certain areas of the city, as shown in Program 3.a - Rezone and Redesignate Sites to Meet RHNA, The City will redesignating and rezoning the parcels listed in Table VI-50 and in the sites exhibits in Appendix A to address the shortfall of suitably-zoned sites to address the lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) once their General Plan land use and zoning is amended.

Josh Albrektson (Jul 18, 2022)
17 months ago South Pasadena enacted the highest IHO in the state. It was done to make sure that no housing could be built in South Pasadena and it succeeded. It killed every project except one. That is the schoolyard project where they purchased the land not knowing the IHO was about to be enacted.

As I am writing this on Thursday I believe that SoPas will propose a 15% Low Income IHO. A 15% Low income IHO was not analyzed by EPS, but EPS did produce some great data that can be used to analyze IHOs in South Pasadena.
3 - 1589
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-118 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE And this data shows that a 15% low income IHO is not feasible in South Pasadena with the current conditions at the base density (or even with significant upzoning). This would be very easy for me to prove to HCD using the data provided. It would also be obvious to anybody who has experience developing buildings or providing loans for buildings. It takes about $5 per sq ft rent to be feasible.

I want an IHO that actually means the buildings actually get built. For 17 months you had one that made sure that no buildings could get built despite my objections and proof it was the highest IHO in the state.

So if you want my support on this IHO this is what I propose:

1. 5% Very Low OR 10% Low OR 25% Moderate IHO

2. Buildings under 10 units fully exempted

3. In Lieu fee for fractions as described in the April Report. Builders can fully pay the In Lieu fee to opt out. (This is required by law)

4. If South Pasadena produces less than 200 units a year starting with the 2024 APR, then the IHO is eliminated.

Or you can enact a 15% Low Income IHO and wait for it to be rejected when I show HCD that it is not feasible using the data in today's report.

There is no developer or bank that would consider a 15% IHO feasible based on the data provided. I will also point out HCD told the City to reach out to developers in part so that the developers would tell them that the 15% is non-viable.
"Other Local Ordinances: While the element now describes the inclusionary housing requirement and local height initiative, it generally does not analyze the impacts on housing cost, supply and ability to achieve maximum densities, including densities proposed as part of this housing element. For example, the analysis of the inclusionary requirement should, among other items, address the 20 percent requirement and cost impacts, 10 unit threshold, in lieu fees and cost of a comparable unit and how the inclusionary relates to State Density Bonus Law. The City should engage the development community as part of this analysis. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information." --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: "The City has included Program 2.m – Update Inclusionary Housing Regulations.

Following results of the financial feasibility analysis of the existing Inclusionary Regulations, the City will update the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to reduce the required percentage of inclusionary units from 20 to 15 percent. The City will also analyze the following parts of the regulations and will update them as needed to address constraints:
 10 unit threshold
3 - 1590
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-119  In-lieu fees and cost of a comparable unit
 How the inclusionary regulations relate to state Density Bonus law" Josh Albrektson (July 22, 2022)
The agenda packet has been published and I have read through it. Your staff still doesn't know the law/requirements of an inclusionary housing ordinance as it relates to the Housing Element, no matter how many times I have posted the paragraph at the bottom of page 14 of the June 10th, 2020 HCD memo.

All proposals guarantees a rejection of the Housing Element, so this entire meeting will be a waste of time.
 How addressed: "The City has included Program 2.m – Update Inclusionary Housing Regulations.

Following results of the financial feasibility analysis of the existing Inclusionary Regulations, the City will update the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to reduce the required percentage of inclusionary units from 20 to 15 percent. The City will also analyze the following parts of the regulations and will update them as needed to address constraints:
 10 unit threshold
 In-lieu fees and cost of a comparable unit
 How the inclusionary regulations relate to state Density Bonus law" Alan Ehrlich (August 11, 2022)
Hi Angelica,
A ''draft' ordinance originating from CHC was brought to my attention yesterday but I haven't been able to determine if it was in fact enacted. While the draft does not appear to outright ban demolition of older buildings, if it does exist, it might be seen as a constraint on developement.

ORDINANCE NO (southpasadenaca.gov)
If this process is removed to allow for the development of affordable multi unit housing we could get more sites. There is nothing culturally or historically significant about most the buildings on Huntington or even those fourplexes on Brent and Park.
 How addressed: Thank you for your comment, the City will continue to explore all options to provide more housing in the City of South Pasadena.

Josh Albrektson (September 1, 2022)
These are the programs I would like to see South Pasadena adopt.

In the June 29th letter to HCD the City made a commitment to increase the transportation options to lower income residents without cars (Page 10). I know this was probably a bullshit throwaway line so that you could pretend to be doing something without actually planning to do anything. Here are the bike programs that need to be firm commitments with deadlines and not just some bullshit “We will look into it sometime in 7 years.” Of note, just last month 3 people were killed by a car on Marengo St, something that possibly would have been prevented if these changes were implemented.  How addressed: The Housing Element has been revised to include documentation of transportation network improvement, including Fremont/Huntington Mobility Active Transportation Project, North-South Corridor (Fair Oaks) Intelligent Transportation System Deployment, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at three locations in the City’s lower-income residential area, and the Mission Street Slow Street Pilot Program. Additional transportation network updates will be addressed in the forthcoming revision to the City’s General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan.

1. The Mission Street Slow Street program is made permanent. (Bottom of page 9 of 6/29 letter).

Bike lanes and no more than one lane of car traffic in each direction would be implemented and remain implemented. Right now there are bike lanes on Mission Street East of Fair Oaks and Bike lanes on Marengo. This would allow the entire eastern half of the city to have a safe route to bike to the train station. This should be done by the end of 2023.  How addressed: The City’s Slow Streets Program is intended to provide space for residents to safely walk and ride, and to support local businesses’ use of outdoor space for dining or other purposes. The next step in this program is the installation of temporary program equipment purchased with grant funding for short-term installation, such as temporary striping, curb extensions using reflective delineators, and bicycle lanes using short-term paint/tape and signs.

Other placemaking elements are also incorporated like furniture, plants, art pieces, and parklet structures outside of businesses, to create usable street space. The temporary installation is planned for Spring 2023 and is expected to be in place for 6-months, after which an assessment of the design’s observable performance, and an evaluation of the community’s experience, will be conducted – this should inform the future consideration of potential permanent changes to Mission Street.
3 - 1592
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-121

2. The Bike lanes and one vehicle lane is extended west of the train station to Pasadena Street where there are bike lanes that extend to the Los Angeles border. This would allow the west part of the city to safely travel to the train station. This should be done by the end of 2023.  How addressed: Bicycle lanes along Mission Street and Pasadena Avenue are included in the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan. Temporary bicycle lanes are expected to be implemented along Mission Street in 2023 within the Slow Streets Program, and the incorporation of bicycle lanes at the intersection of Pasadena Avenue and Mission Street are being evaluated in the current street resurfacing project, which is in the mid-design phase.

3. Monterey Road in Los Angeles has bike lanes. These lanes end at the South Pasadena border.

The bike lanes should be extended to the junction of Monterey Road and Pasadena Ave. This should be done by the end of 2024.
 How addressed: A Class 2 bicycle lane is proposed for this location in the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan.

4. South Pasadena schools are known as one of the best schools and there is no safe route for kids to bike to the 2 elementary schools on flat land. As mentioned about just last month 3 people were killed on Marengo Street.
 How addressed: City Council has directed staff to focus the next round of Metro Measure M Multi-Year Sub-Regional Program funding requests on bicycle facilities and pedestrian crossing improvements. Staff plan to focus this funding request evaluation on neighborhoods containing schools.
4A. Class one Bike lanes should be done on Marengo Ave from Garfield Park to the City of Alhambra. These would be two way bike lanes on the east side of the street where Morango elementary school is. Going from west to east, it would be Parking south, Traffic lane South, Traffic lane north, Parking north, Bollards, Bike lane south, Bike lane North. This should be done by the end of 2024.
 How addressed: A Class 1 bicycle lane is not proposed to replace the existing Class 2 bicycle lane along Marengo Avenue in the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan, however, a Class 1 bicycle path is proposed parallel and adjacent to Marengo along the Southern California Easement from Garfield Park to the City of Alhambra.
4B. Class one Bike lanes should be done on the South Side of El Centro extending from Orange Grove to Pasadena Ave where Arroyo Vista Elementary school is. Going from North to South it would be Bike lane going east, Bike lane going west, bollards, Parking going east, traffic going east, traffic going west, parking going west. This should be done by the end of 2024.  How addressed: A Class 2 bicycle lane is proposed for this location in the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan.
4C. The El Centro bike lanes should be extended from Orange Grove east to the train station.

The South Parking lanes would be removed. Of note EVERY home on the south side of El Centro in this stretch has a garage and driveways that could fit at least 4 cars. From south to north it would be Bike lane going east, Bike lane going west, bollards, traffic going east, traffic going west, parking going west. This should be done by the end of 2025. Timeline: For the 3 - 1593
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-122 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE last 4 multifamily projects South Pasadena has not had a single project get building permits, even though the earliest project was initiated in 2018. Extensive changes need to be made in the manner that South Pasadena processes housing. These are just some of the changes that should be implemented.
 How addressed: A Class 3 bicycle lane is proposed for this location in the City’s adopted Bicycle Master Plan.

5. A total of 5 planner equivalents are required to be employed at all times. This could be 4 full time employees with 2 part time. This should be implemented immediately.  How addressed: The City currently has 1 planning manager, 3 associate planners, 1 assistant planner and 1 planning counter technician FTE positions funded this fiscal year. The assistant planner began employment on Sept. 6 and the city is currently recruiting for the Planning Counter Technician position. In the meantime, a part-time planning management intern assisting until the Counter Technician position is filled.

6. The pay for entry level planners, both currently hired and for all job postings, should be the average of Pasadena and Los Angeles plus 2% and benefits. This should occur immediately. For the last 7 years there has been EXTENSIVE turnover with the average person lasting 1 year in South Pasadena. There is currently only 1 part time planner who was employed by South Pasadena who was present a year ago.
 How addressed: The city recently completed a compensation study and in the coming months will begin a classification study. The compensation study used comparable cities to South Pasadena in terms of overall organizational structure, size, and budget.

7. The Community Development Director has her Salary immediately changed to the Average salary of the directors of the Pasadena, San Marino, Alhambra, and San Gabriel.  How addressed: The city recently completed a compensation study and in the coming months will begin a classification study. The compensation study used comparable cities to South Pasadena in terms of overall organizational structure, size, and budget.

8. The pre-application is eliminated, effective immediately.  How addressed: The pre-application is intended to be a tool for developers and it is optional.

The Pre-Application process helps streamline the overall entitlement process by helping the applicant and staff identify and resolve critical issues very early in the process.

9. The program where a project has to pay for a planner that does the work of the city is immediately ended. South Pasadena can pay for this consultant if it chooses to.  How addressed: The City remains committed to allowing project planners to be hired by applicants willing to expedite their projects. Such process does not affect the remining projects in the queue as no staff members are used to review such projects to the detriment of non-expedited projects.
3 - 1594
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-123 To ensure that no delay occurs due to this project opportunity, the City will facilitate special meetings of the planning commission and city council (as applicable) to ensure sufficient time for projects to be considered without delay.

10. All multifamily housing projects 10 units or greater are automatically moved to the front of the line and heard immediately.
 How addressed: City is unaware of the ability and feasibility to create such automatic advancement of projects through the planning process. City will adopt a process of placing such housing projects at the beginning of each meeting on which such item is considered to ensure that the widest exposure to public comment is gathered and that the project is not unduly delayed.

11. All multifamily projects between 2 and 9 units are moved to the front of the line after 2 months.
 How addressed: City is unaware of the ability and feasibility to create such automatic advancement of projects through the planning process. City will adopt a process of placing such housing projects at the beginning of each meeting on which such item is considered to ensure that the widest exposure to public comment is gathered and that the project is not unduly delayed.

12. Removal of CUP for all projects under 50 units.
 How addressed: The requirement for a CUP has not been identified previously as a constraint on development and has not been included as one of the specific policies in the Housing Element. However, this comment will be considered when developing the Downtown Specific Plan’s requirements for residential development.

13. All multifamily projects that are under 50 units and in the downtown specific plan, Ostrich Farm, or an identified Moderate or Low income site are not required to perform a Transportation study, Noise Analysis, or Climate Change and Energy analysis. These would be deemed acceptable and would automatically qualify for a class 32 exemption. If required, South Pasadena could perform a citywide analysis of Traffic, Noise, and Climate Change for all sites as described above at 30% over the claimed units in the Housing Element.  How addressed: Developments in these areas of the city will need to comply with CEQA, including analysis for transportation, noise, climate, and utility impacts. Developments will be considered for categorical exemptions if they are eligible.

14. All housing applications are posted online once a week and updated when their status weekly so that it could be determined when the application was deemed complete, when the CEQA analysis was done, and that every part of the Permit Streamlining, SB 330, and AB 2234 act are being followed.
 How addressed: Such requirement is a undue burden on the City and staff, and would cause delays in other aspects of duties by the planning division, while providing only marginal benefit towards the production of additional housing opportunities. City will continue to monitor ways other agencies are updating such information and evaluate if new technologies can be employed to address this issue.
3 - 1595
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-124 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

15. It is required that the first planning commission, Design Review, or Cultural Historical committee happen within 6 months of the application being deemed complete for all multfiamily housing projects.
 How addressed: The City is required to follow the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act with respect to public hearing dates once a complete application has been filed.

There are extensive charges and requirements for all multifamily housing that make it infeasible.

Of note, South Pasadena produced a feasibility study that showed that nothing is viable.

The following changes should be made immediately to make multifamily housing viable in South Pasadena.
 How addressed: The City is required to follow the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act with respect to public hearing dates once a complete application has been filed.

17. The FAR requirements as stated in SB 478 are implemented immediately.  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a.

18. Multiple Story exception of a 45 degree from the front to posterior is eliminated. (Page 114 of 2nd Housing Element)
 How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan. This will be considered as part of that amendment.

19. Private open space required for all projects changed to 75 sq ft per unit  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

20. Common Open Space required cut in half for all projects.  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

21. Removal of all requirements for how the private open space is accessed from the apartment.  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

22. Removal of all dimension requirements for the common open space.  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan. 3 - 1596
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-125

23. Elimination of all open space requirements of elevation  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

24. Removal of all uncovered area requirements
 How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

25. Open Space, either common or private, can be on the roof of the building.  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

26. Removal of all parking requirements within half a mile of a transit stop for multifamily projects.
 How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

27. Removal of all commercial parking requirements within the downtown specific zone.  How addressed: New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

28. The city cannot require a development to provide public parking. (There are multiple previous housing projects where this was required and the parking lots are empty. The Mission Meridian parking garage across the street from the train station is at 41% capacity on a weekday and 18% on a weekend. It is the lowest % of any parking lot on the Metro Gold Line.  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan.

29. Single family parking requirements lowered to one spot.  How addressed: The City’s zoning ordinance will be amended as part of Program 3.a. New development standards will be included as part of the Downtown Specific Plan. This will be considered as part of this amendment.

30. Signage made by the city for all public parking lots. This should be done by 2025.  How addressed: This comment does not relate to the Housing Element. It will be addressed in other parts of the General Plan.

31. Immediate removal of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The city knows the current IHO makes every project infeasible and both the planning commission and City Council directed the staff to change the IHO. The Staff decided to make it as a program for removal meaning that extensive time will pass with no housing being financially viable. 3 - 1597
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-126 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: Changes to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will be made as part of Program 2.m.

33. Removal of the following fees for multifamily housing: Tentative Parcel Map, Tentative Tract Map, Lot line adjustment, CHC Appropriateness, Environmental impact report, Zoning text and map amendments, Specific plan application, Specific plan amendment, Development agreement review, Planned development, Technology Surcharge, General Maintenance fee.  How addressed: At this time the City is unable to commit to such project. The City will create a program to annually reevaluate alternative funding sources for such project requirements for multifamily housing projects.

34. Removal of the Public Art Fee
 How addressed: At this time the City is unable to commit to such project. The City will create a program to annually reevaluate for multifamily housing projects.

35. Water connection and Sewer connection should be at cost.  How addressed: At this time the City is unable to commit to such project. The City will create a program to annually reevaluate for multifamily housing projects.

36. Removal of all fees for ADUs.
 How addressed: At this time the City is unable to commit to such project. The City will create a program to annually reevaluate.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
Yvonne LaRose (September 9, 2022)
The Housing Element considerations that are to be finalized by September 15, have a number of issues that are of concern and need to be addressed. Affordability is one of those issues. Some of the very indirect impacts of that issue are addressed in some research I did in April of this year. The research was related to the bills signed by Gov. Newsom regarding restrictive covenants, to wit:

Governor Newsom Signs Bill Requiring Redaction of Unlawful Restrictive Covenants - California Land Title Association
3 - 1598
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-127 A quote from the below article subtly reminds one of South Pasadena's Sundown standards and how the residual effects of that era still exist in many tenuous ways and are accepted as the community standard.
“We need to provide wealth, building opportunities for those individuals and those families who were left out,” Flores said. “We need to provide those wealth building opportunities in communities where the land has a higher value, not because it’s fair, but because of laws in the past that made it so and continue to make it so.” We are challenged with creating more housing for a projected drastic increase in population that does not parallel our neighboring cities of similar size and constituency. The issue of how to create that housing goal with a limited amount of space is definitely a challenge, yet using San Gabriel as an example, the challenge appears to be reachable. The next question is how the vision can be attained while also making inclusion and equity part of the actualization.

The conclusion of the article provides food for thought as we strive to create a strategic housing plan that makes our city legitimately and in reality one of inclusiveness.

Viva
Yvonne LaRose
Organization Development Consultant: Diversity/Title VII, Harassment, Ethics Cell: 626-606-4677
 How addressed: The Housing Element has been updated to more fully address the City’s history of using land use controls as a way to make South Pasadena an exclusive community.

The goals and programs throughout the Housing Element are intended to open South Pasadena up and expand the housing opportunities throughout the City.

There is conflicting information regarding the rezoning date:

1. On page 14 under “Program 2.k”, it says “Amend zoning to include overlay by Oct 15, 2024.”

2. On page 17, under “Program 3.a”, it says “The rezoning of the vacant parcels must be completed within one year of the beginning of the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period, which is October 15, 2022. Sites that are planned to receive the Affordable Housing Overlays in the General Plan and Zoning Code are also addressed by this program.” 3 - 1599
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-128 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE If the rezoning date is Oct. 15, 2022, does it mean I can submit another plan with 50+ units right after Oct. 15, 2022? Do you have the zoning code and development standard of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone for me to do a feasibility study? If it is the Oct 15, 2024 date, we have no interests in waiting.
 How addressed: These two dates are for different programs. Site 3 is not a vacant site, and is therefore addressed as part of Program 2.k. The Housing Element currently anticipates the construction of 8 above moderate income units on the site, which is consistent with the application the developer has submitted to the City for this site.

1. Permit Streamlining Act provision requiring completeness determination within 30 days

2. Local agencies must notify an applicant of any inconsistencies with objective standards within 30 days of the full application being determined to be complete if the project has 150 or fewer units, or within 60 days, if the project has more than 150 units. The local agency must include all inconsistencies in this notification; any inconsistency that is not noted in a timely way cannot be used as the basis for denying a project.

3. A single residence can count as a “housing development project.”

I talked to other developers and architects. Many are frustrated with the long entitlement process time.

I was told there were 60-80 projects in the pipeline and I am not sure how many are qualified “housing development project”. As the planning department is short on staff and it may not be aware of the significance of the deadlines in item 1 and 2 above, deadline for notifications may have been missed for many projects. Therefore the city has very limited basis to deny these projects. The city needs to give these projects entitlement quickly to clear the backlog and avoid possible lawsuits. 3 - 1600
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-129 As the planning department is short on staff, many developers are willing to pay external planners to expediate the review process.
 How addressed: Program 3.b requires that the City adopt objective development standards for mixed-use and adaptive re-use projects within 120 days of the adoption of the Housing Element. Additionally, Program 3.e requires that the City develop an electronic permitting system to help streamline the approval process and address many of the issues raised by this comment.

Best,
Victor Tang
 How addressed: Program 3.f requires that the City to review its ADU ordinance within six months of receipt of comments from HCD regarding the ordinance.

Josh Albrektson (September 10, 2022)
You guys performed a feasibility study that showed that all buildings are not feasible under your current IHO.

This feasibility study did not include carrying costs or the costs to tear down the structure that is on the property.

This feasibility study also used prototypes that are not allowed to be built in South Pasadena.

West Hollywood uses a 12% yield on cost for viability. San Francisco says 15-24% is marginal and 25% is feasible.

Using your numbers, a fully market rate project with no inclusionary units would have a 6.8% Yield on cost, again using a prototype that cannot be built in South Pasadena and without carrying or demolition costs.

How exactly can you guys say any inclusionary housing ordinance doesn't affect feasibility when 100% market rate projects (Like Mission Bell) do not pencil out today? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: Program 2.m requires that the City update its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within six months of adoption of the Housing Element. Program 2.i requires that 3 - 1601
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-130 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE the City monitor the effectiveness of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and to make changes by the end of 2023, then annually thereafter as revisions are needed.

John C. (September 11, 2022)
I believe we can raise height the limit in a way were more than 50 percent of the residents voters would have no problem with it. The way to do that is making a bipartisan deal with the residents of South Pasadena. I will use an example. Example, South Pasadena City height limit is 45 feet what if we say we raise the height limit by 5 feet. Will the residents of South Pasadena make a big deal out of this? In my opinion, no, I do not next South Pasadena resident would have issue. Also, if you put that on the ballot in election it would pass easily because the majority of residents thinking logically will not being making a big fuss over it. I know there will be the minority of the few resident will definitely make an issue out of raising the height limit by 5 feet, but remember not everyone is going to agree with this and also those resident are the minority. But, if you go the other way by saying you want to raise to 110 feet than the majority of residents will say no. I read in the 3rd housing element draft from a previous person comment that the height limit will have be raised by 12 feet. I believe most resident will have no problem with that or even if you ask to raise by 15 feet they still will have no problem. For this to happen the residents need to know how high the city need to raise the height limit and that question has not been answer.

From, John
Sent from Mail for Windows
 How addressed: Program 2.n and the court order require that the City place a measure on the ballot by December 31, 2024 to remove or amend the height limit to allow for the densities necessary to meet the City’s RHNA requirements under this Housing Element. As part of this ballot measure, the City will work with developers and community members to determine an appropriate height limit and to build support for the ballot measure.

Elizabeth Anne Bagasao, South Pasadena Tenants Union (September 14, 2022) To Whom It May Concern:

We thank you for your consideration of our comments and would welcome any discussion of our response to the Third Draft Housing Element.

Best regards,
Anne Bagasao on behalf of SPTU
SPTU Third Draft Housing Element Comments:

In the July 8 HCD encouraged “the City to revise the element as described…, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.”
3 - 1602
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-131 After comparison of the HCD letters from December 2021 and the most recent of July 2022, we are concerned that the City has not sufficiently responded to the HCD’s comments enough to satisfy compliance.

The July 8, 2022, letter states the following:

The third draft fails to demonstrate strategies to combat past patterns of impacts on inclusive communities.

During the WISPPA presentation on 9/12, comments like “protect our neighborhoods” and “we are afraid” were responded to by City staff, not with a can-do attitude of encouraging enthusiastic cooperation with the State but a mood that supported the culture of exclusivity indicative of NIMBY culture.
 How addressed: The draft housing element acknowledges past exclusionary practices and states commitment through policies to ensure that there are housing opportunities for all current and prospective residents, regardless of income. (pages 76-77).

From The Vision Statement for the 1998 General Plan the influencers pull back the drapes of their goal of maintaining a community of historic exclusivity.
3 - 1603
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-132 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE “ In order to preserve our small-town feeling and to flourish in the 1990’s and beyond, South Pasadena must be committed to the goals of revitalizing its commercial areas and preserving its single-family residential character… We are committed to maintaining a balance between our existing single and multi-family housing units which honors our traditional values and evolving cultural diversity. (emphasis added) We see phrases in the above passage, that we also hear today in public forum and on social media:
“preserve our small-town feeling”, “preserve its single-family residential character”, “honors our traditional values”. This rhetoric, which is elitist, remains the impetus for all things related to building, transit, and most recently wildlife in South Pasadena.

The problem with the fetishization of the past in the form of “cultural heritage preservation”, is that it perpetuates systemic bias.

1. Preservation is essentially an elitist, class and racially divisive activity whose result is a form of economic bias and segregation.

2. History sites can perpetuate a divisive form of nostalgia that supports and validates racism and exclusion.

3. Preservation can limit inclusion and perpetuate racial & social bias by regulating cultural narratives to simple themes.

5. Historic districting and preservation code requirements can be a contemporary form of “redlining” which excludes a diverse economic group of people from land ownership.

8. Preservationist, right now today, need to stop fetishizing the built environment and begin considering how preservation itself is part of the problem. 3 - 1604
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-133

9. Look at the money in Preservation. A budget reflects our priorities. Money goes where it is told. There is nothing natural about the market economy or what gets preserved. Wealth Preserves Wealth.

Many of these caveats in the Cultural Heritage Ordinance impede the development of new housing.

Without amending the ordinance, the City will run into a plethora of issues when actually trying to achieve the goals set forth in the Housing Element.

A “45 year” rolling benchmark would mean that the multiunit complex at 1700 and 1720 Mission Street would have to undergo CHC scrutiny for redevelopment. How does the City justify 1978 construction requiring historical review?
3 - 1605
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-134 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: The recent reorganization of the Community Development Department includes creation of a housing division and additional Planning staff (Programs 2.b, 3.l), with a senior analyst to focus on housing program implementation. City staff will work with the SPTU to review the CHO to address any barriers to affordable housing that could be removed through updates to the CHO.

SB 381
We encourage the City to follow the guidelines of SB 381. Opponents of SB381 argue that the conversion of the CalTrans houses to private ownership would create affordable home ownership.

However, the investment that will be needed to rehabilitate the homes to the standards required by preservation guidelines (there is that word again) would not qualify these homes as “affordable”.

We ask that the City act on SB381 , and that any surplus houses be converted to affordable rentals.

Friendship Pasadena Baptist Church is the oldest African American congregation in the area, established in 1893. One would say “an historic black church”. The city, bending to the will of a small group of residents, has resulted in two legal attempts to block the transfer to Friendship Baptist Church that would provide housing to low-income families. The bad optics of this story should be of more concern to the City of South Pasadena then it currently is.
 How addressed: As detailed in Program 1.b, existing state law (SB 381) requires that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) sell the surplus residential property it owns in South Pasadena for use as affordable housing. The law requires that Caltrans offer the unoccupied surplus residential properties to the City of South Pasadena first, and then to the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) and then to housing related entities. The City of South Pasadena has expressed interest to Caltrans to purchase all of the unoccupied surplus properties in the city, and is currently analyzing the feasibility of purchasing the properties for use as affordable housing. Whether the City or another entity purchases the surplus properties, any entity purchasing the properties will be required to maintain them as deed restricted affordable properties.

Tenant Protections, Homeless Prevention and Preserving Existing Affordable Housing The Housing Element Third Draft in its effort to demonstrate an understanding of how best to obtain certification has included a couple of programs that, while seeming practical, are incomplete. There is not one mention in the Housing Element regarding programs meant to protect existing very low, low income and moderate income South Pasadena tenants from displacement.

We reference Program 1.c and Program 3.c.

Program 1.c would trigger substantial renovation evictions of which we currently have one ordinance on the books that minimally protects tenants from renovictions. Without protections in place that would allow tenants to be able to stay in the units during construction or to return to units after construction is complete, at the same rate of rent they had been paying when enforcement was issued, the City puts 3 - 1606
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-135 tenants at displacement risk. Renters are the root of our community and to relocate them outside of South Pasadena, where their children go to school, where they may work, congregate, worship and obtain community services such as recreational classes or senior meals, is 100% irresponsible. They are not the peacocks.

Program 3.c similarly displaces tenants without the benefit of local protections. Again, keeping existing tenants housed in South Pasadena should be our goal not relocating them to other communities.

Additionally, any properties that the City might expedite for demolition, that are currently occupied, are most likely affordable. Therefore, in pursuit of acquiring 10 new units of affordable housing we could potentially be losing 20 and in the process displacing the very South Pasadenans who need them most.

Program 1.c states the intent "to reduce displacement risk of tenants living in currently substandard housing." When implementing a proactive program based on the survey conducted (Table VI-26), those units that have substantial violations or are dilapidated will be prioritized. It should be noted that these units are all single-family properties, and do not include multi-unit rental properties. The protection of any tenants will be included as part of this program. Program 3.c confirms replacement of lower-income housing units when new construction is proposed, in addition to the creation of new affordable housing units through the inclusionary housing program.

Maintaining Affordable Housing Inventory
Program 3.f-3.k regarding ADUs, it’s our understanding that the ordinance was revised to be in compliance with state law to increase the availability of long term housing, some of which could be affordable rentals.
3 - 1607
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-136 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE In the aforementioned program sections, we don’t see much about enforcement particularly of the use of ADU’s as short-term rentals. It is common knowledge that the housing crisis in Southern California can be partially a result of the proliferation of commercially managed full time AirBnb properties. As far back as 2015, the community of Venice lost upwards of 10,000 units of affordable housing to Airbnb operators.

Without a local short term rental ordinance there is no way to monitor the use of all these new ADU’s or to prevent them from being utilize as money makers for already high-income households as opposed to housing for family members or as affordable rentals. We therefore request that the Housing Element include a short-term rental ordinance.
 How addressed: SPMC Section 36.350.200.K (ADUs) currently prohibits renting out ADUs for a period of less than 30 days. The City has the option to require a deed restriction to enforce this regulation.

Homelessness
Program 2.f shows no change to what South Pasadena is currently offering as homeless services under the County Measure H funding. We expected that an increase in services would be more responsive to the HCD comments especially since South Pasadena lost its only direct homeless service provider earlier this year. Shower of Hope, which was formerly serving unhoused individuals with mobile shower facilities in District 3 at Holy Family Church was also a site where homeless case managers from Union Station could regularly locate and identify individuals in need of services. Currently, South Pasadena offers no city funded services other than outreach and resource distribution to the homeless community.  How addressed: The most updated data that the City has in regard to unhoused people is discussed in the Housing Needs section (page 56). However, after publication of this draft of the Housing Element for public review, the County of Los Angeles published the 2022 Point in Time count numbers, which showed that South Pasadena's homeless population increased from 15 in 2020 to 50 in 2022. The City's response system, detailed in Program 2.f responds to the data from recent County homeless counts and reflects the City's partnerships to address the issues regionally.

HRC proposed that their programs services would achieve the following:
“…will improve and expand affordable housing options, improve services to the homeless or specials groups, and increase access to resources for low to moderate -income residents in a variety of ways” As two volunteer organizations, SPTU and CareFirst who work closely with tenants in crisis and the homeless population of South Pasadena, are not aware of any indication that HRC successfully achieved this goal. For example in 2020, HRC poorly advised tenants who had received no cause evictions during the LA County Eviction Moratorium telling them that their evictions were legal. This caused at least one family to self-evict from an affordable unit. HRC only responded when contacted by then Councilmember Rick Schneider. It was with the assistance of Code Enforcement and the City Attorney 3 - 1608
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-137 that SPTU was able to prevent the renovictions from going forward and stop the evictions. This action led to the Renoviction ordinance that was adopted later that year.

Additionally, the contract states that HRC will provide educational workshops within the City of South Pasadena. To our knowledge, there has not been such a workshop since 2020.

Because the outcomes of the 2016 cannot be quantified, we recommend that the City release an RFP for the future provision of those services mentioned in the Housing Element that refer to HRC as the provider. It’s been six years and it’s time for a review and refresh.  How addressed: The new Housing Division will be reviewing the contract with HRC, which is pending renewal, and will confer with the SPTU to ensure that the revised contract, as well as its oversight, improves service to the public and meets the needs of tenants.

Citywide Height Limit Ballot Measure Repeal
We request that a repeal is citywide and not limited to specific areas of the city. A limited repeal would not help us to move the needle on our RHNA obligation. If we are going to do it, do it with the intent of achieving the goal of increasing affordability not protecting exclusivity of certain neighborhoods.  How addressed: The details of the ballot initiative will be developed with significant community outreach, as discussed in Program 2.n., with the goal of facilitating the densities needed to implement the RHNA.

Sincerely,
Anne Bagasao on behalf of South Pasadena Tenants Union
Comments on the 3rd Draft Housing Element
Yvonne LaRose (November 11, 2022)
The Wednesday night joint Council-Planning Commission meeting brought out and discussed a number of issues in relation to a state mandated 2,065 dwelling units increase. We struggle to meet that requirement.

However, after the meeting, Alan Erlich and I talked. He pointed out that San Marino (which has a smaller population than South Pasadena) is only required to increase its dwelling units by 100. Similarly, 3 - 1609
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-138 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE I think Alan mentioned Alhambra, which also has a smaller population than South Pasadena, is being required to increase its dwelling units by 200.

Alan also pointed out the reason for the drastically different requirements of the three cities. It is because South Pasadena is considered to be a transportation rich city due to the fact that the Gold Line passes through it.

While it is definitely true that the Gold Line is part of a reliable rail system of public transportation that's available on a 24-hour, 7 days a week, at 15 to 20 minute intervals, and the line does, indeed, pass through an area near the heart of the city, it deposits passengers at a public transportation bus stop (MTA Line 258) that is essentially an afterthought.

Line 258 runs every 60 minutes along Mission Street, Monday through Friday. It is not operational on Saturday or Sunday. It has 29 stops; among them are CSULA, where it appears it only stops two times, at 9:23 PM and 10:23 PM. Of the three routes it offers, one terminates at Avenue 63 and York Bl. as it passes along South Pasadena via Mission Street.

South Pasadena also has the benefit of MTA Line 260 which runs the length of Fair Oaks from the Alhambra border, through South Pasadena (past Huntington Hospital), and then into Pasadena. That line runs every everyday, starting from the Artesia Station at 4:21 AM and ends at 10:31 PM. at approximately 15 to 20-minute intervals.

South Pasadena offers its residents who are seniors and/or disabled transportation five days a week (Monday through Friday) from 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM via Dial a Ride. We have learned through the Community Services highlight during a Council meeting that the new scheduler considers all passengers are interested in getting to medical appointments or shopping, typically for groceries. The scheduler will confirm a reservation but makes an independent, subjective determination as to whether the reservation should be honored and will (sometimes without notice to the passenger) cancel or change a reservation, leaving the client without transport and needing to change their business itinerary and appointments for that day unless they are able to use an alternative transportation service.

Dial a Ride has become a dismally unreliable means of transportation in and around South Pasadena.

While there are other transportation alternatives such as Uber, Lyft, Access, or taxi, the above three public transportation systems constitute the "rich transportation" of South Pasadena. Given the limited availability of the City's staple transportation, it can be said with accuracy that South Pasadena is definitely not a transportation rich city.

Based on this analysis, the City should challenge the requirement to develop 2,065 units. The burden on a city of 2.5 square miles is too great. The "rich transportation" is imaginary. What does exist can barely support the 25,000 residents; to add even 2,000 additional people (let alone dwelling units) would overtax all of the City's resources.

Viva
Yvonne LaRose
Organization Development Consultant: Diversity/Title VII, Harassment, Ethics Consultant's Desk - http://consultantdesk.blogspot.com
3 - 1610
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-139 The Desk - http://thedesk.wordpress.com
Cell: 626-606-4677
 How addressed: There are many different factors that are taken into account when determining a City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment, including the proximity to jobs and transit access.

The City was allocated 2,067 units after the reallocations by SCAG after several agencies made various appeals and many factors were weighted. The City is addressing the full amount of its share of housing needs as determined through the RHNA process, and this Housing Element has been drafted to meet those housing needs.

Yvonne LaRose (November 12, 2022)
It seems Agenda Items 3.3 and 3.4 had exhibits to be used with them. Those exhibits were not in the Council chamber when the meeting started. Perhaps they were available at the booth in the lobby of City Hall. The lack of such exhibits for the public made grasping all of the proposed details difficult to navigate. Some members of the audience had questions about the proposed changes but were unable to present those questions and concerns. Frustration was the result.

One of the properties involves Foremost Liquor at Monterey Rd. and Pasadena Ave. The proposition is to remove that structure and convert the property into a different type of use, possibly residential.

The issue with that prospect is that is the only convenience store in the area and appears to generate more business and revenue than the small businesses on the west side of Monterey Road. Perhaps there are other alternatives to removing that business. Interpretation of the proposed change seemed to be tear out the liquor store and rebuild with a multi-use/family dwelling.  How addressed: Foremost Liquor (Site 5 in Appendix A) will be rezoned as part of the larger Ostrich Farm Mixed-Use area to remove barriers to and incentivize the production of housing units. The City is not “tearing out” the liquor store. This mixed-use area will include additional retail opportunities for the west side of the city, which may include a liquor store.

There was also discussion of the Pavilion's parking lot. The proposal is to resurface the parking lot (which was recently completed), install additional parking, as well as build a residential building on the lot. No one in the audience could envision a dwelling unit on that lot that would aesthetically blend in with the area. There also seems to be quite limited space for a proposed dwelling unit in that location.

The proposed changes do not appear to be feasible.
 How addressed: The Pavilions parking lot (Site 16 in Appendix A) is approximately 2.67 acres of flat land within a transit rich area. As discussed in the letter from the property owner, the owner intends to redevelop the entire site with a new store which would include a housing component. It is anticipated that the new store will be approximately the same size as the existing store, leaving an area equivalent in size as the parking to for development of parking and residential uses. Appendix A has been updated to reflect this additional information.

Moving just one-half block to the south of the Pavilion's site is Golden Oaks Restaurant, which is also proposed as a site for demolition and erection of a multi-unit dwelling, plus parking spaces. Again, the aesthetics of that type of change is questionable, not to mention there is scant space to make those types of changes.
3 - 1611
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-140 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: Aesthetics are not an issue that is considered or addressed under state law in the Housing Element. Such issues are addressed through zoning regulations such as the Downtown Specific Plan that will come after the Housing Element indicates were to locate housing resources. Parking is not required in this area due to recently enacted state law under AB 2097 prohibiting cities from imposing minimum parking standards for residential and commercial projects within one-half mile from public transit. Program 3.b has been revised to commit the City to updating its zoning code to conform to the parking standards set by state law.

It sounded as though the Public Works yard is also being planned for renovation and demolition. It's troubling to try to understand where Public Works will be located if their base is removed. Perhaps what was missed in the interpretation of the proposal is that the yard will somehow be upgraded (perhaps with more energy refueling pumps) and remain in the same location.  How addressed: The City’s existing Capital Improvement Program includes a list of sites suitable for relocation of the activities currently conducted at the Public Works yard. The City intends to vacate the Public Works Department from this site so it can be redeveloped as affordable housing with no Public Works activities remaining on the site.

These are the proposals that more significantly stand out in my recollection of Wednesday's meeting.

Viva
Yvonne LaRose
Cell: 626-606-4677
Josh Albrektson (November 21, 2022)
For APN 5308034015 this is on a mountain and has no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5308034015 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 21, 2022)
1131 El Centro St is a 3 story condo complex built in 1988. You guys cite it as an example of buildings recently built in South Pasadena. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Are they going to tear down new condos for new condos?? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units.
--
3 - 1612
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-141 Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1131 El Centro St. is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1131 El Centro St. is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that these 34 year old builds are redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 21, 2022)
700 Orange Grove Ave is a 3 story Condo Complex built 20 years ago. You guys are claiming there is a chance that this 3 story Condo Complex might be torn down for a replacement 3 story apartment building. Can you guys point to a place where this has happened somewhere else?? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 700 Orange Grove Ave. is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 700 Orange Grove Ave. is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process, including a voter approved modification of the citywide height limit to allow for the construction of buildings on this site taller than three stories. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that these 20 year old builds are redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 21, 2022)
For APN 5314020007, this is in the middle of the block and there is no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
3 - 1613
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-142 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: There is an existing public driveway that provides access to APN 5314020007 Josh Albrektson (November 21, 2022)
715 Prospect Ave and 807 Prospect Ave are 2 story apartment buildings. You guys are claiming there is a chance that they might be torn down for 3 story apartments. Can you guys point to a place where this has happened somewhere else?? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 715 Prospect Ave. and 807 Prospect Ave. are not identified sites for affordable housing production. 715 Prospect Ave. and 807 Prospect Ave. are part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process, including a voter approved modification of the citywide height limit to allow for the construction of buildings on this site taller than three stories. The Housing Element simply says that the possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that these sites will be redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
Every single house in the next two pictures are single family homes that South Pasadena claims will be torn down and replaced with a low income unit. By law, south Pasadena is required to subtract the current unit count from any potential future unit count, so for all of these they should not be able to claim any housing.
 How addressed: Images were not provided as part of this comment. It is unclear which single family homes are being discussed in this comment.

For every current housing site in the downtown specific plan South Pasadena didn’t subtract the current units on the site as required by law. For example at 820 Mission there is a 38 unit condo complex. South Pasadena is claiming 17 units at this site and not subtracting any of the current condos.

This is the case for 50 of the sites claimed in the Downtown Specific Plan.

Sent from my iPad
--
3 - 1614
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-143 Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The projected number of units for 820 Mission St. does subtract the existing dwelling units from the calculation of the projected net increase in housing units on the site.

The site is an approximately 1.75 acre and is located in the proposed Downtown Specific Plan area. This area will allow for a maximum of 70 du/ac, which means the site will accommodate up to 122 dwelling units. As mentioned in the comment, there are currently 38 existing units on the site, which would net 84 housing units if it were to be redeveloped. The analysis of the Downtown Specific Plan anticipates there is a 20% likelihood that a parcel in the Downtown Specific Plan is redeveloped. Twenty percent of 84 housing units is 16.8, which was rounded to 17 as the number of net new housing units anticipated on the site prorated for the likelihood of redevelopment of the site.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
All page numbers refer to the 3rd draft page numbers
For APN 5315021008 on page 191 South Pasadena claims 27 units on a 0.57 lot. This is the southern part of the mission meridian complex built in 2006 and there are already 23 units on this lot.

For APN 5315021031 on page 191 SoPas claims 20 units on a 0.45 lot. This is the middle part of the Mission Meridian complex built in 2006 and there are already 20 units on this lot.

For APN 5315021051 on page 188 SoPas claims 24 units on a 0.65 acre lot. This is the north part of the Mission Meridian complex built in 2006 that already has 23 condos on the lot.

For APN 5315007055 on page 185, SoPas claims 22 units on a 0.91 acre lot. This is a 21 unit condo complex built in 1988.--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: Each of these lots are located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, where an area-wide analysis was conducted. As discussed above for 820 Mission St., the number of existing units was removed from the projected calculation of net new units being claimed in the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
On page 193 it is claimed that the realistic capacity is based on 20% of the sites being developed at 100% capacity.

The total acreage is 54.95 acres with a density of 50 DU/acre. This is a maximum capacity of 2748. 3 - 1615
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-144 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 20% of 2748 is 550 units, not 642 units as claimed.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The maximum density of the Downtown Specific Plan is 70 du/ac, not 50 du/ac. Table VI-51 has been corrected in the Fourth Draft to reflect the corrected maximum density. Table VI-51 does identify the total acreage of the Downtown Specific Plan area that has the potential to be redeveloped as 54.95 acres. At a density of 70 du/ac, the maximum capacity of this area is 3,846 units. Twenty percent of 3,846 is 769, which is more than the 642 units that is anticipated to be developed in the Downtown Specific Plan area during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
For APN 5310016028, this is a 15 foot wide lot that is somebody's garden. https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538996186765348864?s=20&t=5E2YvbfAPxR8AN1ULAtR6 Q
https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538996243224924160?s=20&t=5E2YvbfAPxR8AN1ULAtR6 Q
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5310016028 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
1522 Mission Street is the historic Fair Oaks Pharmacy that has been operating for over 100 years. Is South Pasadena going to allow a by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? It made it 100 years, it is going to close in the next 7?? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
3 - 1616
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-145  How addressed: 1522 Mission Street is not an identified site for affordable housing production. 1522 Mission Street is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
1401 Mission Street is a 3 story condo complex built in 2006. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Are they going to tear down new condos for new condos?? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1401 Mission Street is located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, where an area-wide analysis was conducted. As discussed above for 820 Mission St., the number of existing units was removed from the projected calculation of net new units being claimed in the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
At 820 Mound Ave the city is about to install electric panels and have a long term lease with SoCal Edison. This was just voted on 3 months ago. Is South Pasadena planning on breaking this lease?? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 820 Mound Ave. is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 820 Mound Ave. is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period. 3 - 1617
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-146 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
For Site 16 you guys claim that only the parking lot will be developed and not the newly renovated grocery store that had a grand re-opening on August 3rd.

You can hear the city council and planning commission trying to explain possible ways that the parking lot could be developed without disrupting the grocery store from 27:00 to 31:00 of the November 9th meeting. They were discussing what they would say that HCD would find acceptable. It is pretty obvious that the owner is not themselves considering developing just the parking lot. http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/2022_11_09.cfm How can you guys claim there is substantial evidence that the parking lot will be developed when it is clear from the meeting that the owner is not actually considering it?? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The property owner of Site 16 has provided a letter expressing their intention to redevelop the entire site with a new store within the 6th Cycle. It is anticipated that the new store will be approximately the same size as the existing store, leaving an area equivalent in size as the parking to for development of parking and residential uses. Appendix A has been updated to reflect this additional information.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
For Site 14 the owner is getting a new foundation for one home and once that homes foundation is finished he is planning on moving on and doing the foundation of the second home. This site is 2 blocks from city hall. You guys can go down and see the Foundation Repair LA INC sign in front of 1508 El Centro right now. Attached to this e-mail is a picture of this sign if it doesn’t make it into the comments section of the Housing Element.
3 - 1618
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-147 How can you guys claim there is substantial evidence that the current use is being discontinued when the current owner of these single family homes is getting two new foundations at this time?? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The property owner of Site 14 has confirmed with the city that they are interested in redeveloping the site with multifamily housing.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
802 Fair Oaks is the Fair-Hope building and is one of the few remaining early twentieth century structures in South Pasadena Fair Oaks Corridor. This is South Pasadena designated cultural heritage landmark number 49. Are you going to allow it to be torn down?? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
3 - 1619
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-148 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: 802 Fair Oaks is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 802 Fair Oaks is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
For APN 5308002059 this is a front yard and driveway
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5308002059 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
The following APNS do not exist in the Los Angeles County Records and if claims that homes could be built on them they should have APNs that actually exist:
5308023004
5317009909
5310034900
5310018903
5314017901
5314016044
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The APNs identified in this comment have been updated in the Housing Element to reflect the new APNs given to these parcels since the Housing Element was first drafted.
3 - 1620
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-149 Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
For APN 5311001018, at the Design review board meeting of Sept first a plan was approved for a new commercial building. This site is not eligible to be considered for housing. https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/30612/638000752592000000 --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5311001018 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 22, 2022)
The following is a list of single family homes and duplexes that South Pasadena is claiming will be new housing in the 3rd Housing Element/Downtown Specific Plan. In every case you guys are claiming the homes would be torn down and replaced by a low income unit in this planning period without subtracting the original home from your calculations. Sometimes you guys have a duplex that would turn into one low income unit, which is a net -1 home.

You are required to subtract out the original housing and only claim NET housing for RHNA.

Single family homes
515 Mission st
519 Mission St
802 Orange Grove Ave
815 Magnolia
821 Magnolia
827 Magnolia
805 Prospect
700 Prospect
704 Prospect
909 Magnolia
913 Magnolia
806 Meridian
3 - 1621
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-150 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 808 Meridian
810 Meridian
1007 Hope St
808 Fairview
806 Fairview
804 Fairview
1103 Hope st
1107 Hope St
1111 Hope St
803 ½ Fremont Ave
807 Fremont Ave
812 El Centro
1011 Mound Ave
825 Brent Ave
Duplexes
706 Prospect
521 Mission St
1115 Hope St
1117 Hope St
1123 Hope St
833 Brent Ave
817 Adelaine
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
3 - 1622
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-151  How addressed: All of these properties are located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, where an area-wide analysis was conducted. As discussed above for 820 Mission St., the number of existing units was removed from the projected calculation of net new units being claimed in the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 23, 2022)
1100 El Centro is the South Pasadena Unified School District. They just purchased this building last year and moved all of their offices into this building. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Have you talked to anybody at the school district?
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1100 El Centro is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1100 El Centro is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 23, 2022)
For APN 5314018010 it is in the middle of the block and no access. https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538994198770339843?s=20&t=5E2YvbfAPxR8AN1ULAtR6 Q
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5314018010 is a flag lot that has access to Bank Street.

Josh Albrektson (November 23, 2022)
1050 Fremont Ave is Calvary Presbeterian Church. It is one of the oldest churches in the city, at least 4 stories tall, and probably the best looking church in the city. Would South Pasadena allow this building to be torn down?? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for 3 - 1623
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-152 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE low income sites??? Have they talked to the church? It also has a preschool Monday to Friday which is one of the more popular pre-schools in the city but they are COVID deniers. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1050 Fremont Ave is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1050 Fremont Ave is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 23, 2022)
The building at 1019 El Centro is the South Pasadena Bank Building. It is the first bank in the city and is South Pasadena designated cultural heritage landmark number 8. Is South Pasadena going to allow a by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? Is there substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued??
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1019 El Centro is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1019 El Centro is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 23, 2022)
For Site 16, Can you guys point to examples of grocery stores that have had their parking lot turned into housing while the grocery store remained open??
--
3 - 1624
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-153 Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The property owner for Site 16 has provided a letter expressing their intention to redevelop the entire site with a new store. It is anticipated that the new store will be approximately the same size as the existing store, leaving an area equivalent in size as the parking to for development of parking and residential uses. Appendix A has been updated to reflect this additional information.

Josh Albrektson (November 23, 2022)
1023 Fair Oaks Ave is the historic Rialto Theater. It was built in 1925 and is one of the most historic theaters in San Gabriel Valley. There currently is a lease by Mosaic Church for another 20 years. It is South Pasadena designated cultural heritage landmark number 25. Would South Pasadena allow this historic theater to be torn down?? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites???
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1023 Fair Oaks Ave is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1023 Fair Oaks Ave is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 23, 2022)
For APN 5311010065 this is someones front yard
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5311010065 has been removed from the Housing Element. 3 - 1625
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-154 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Josh Albrektson (November 24, 2022)
1000 Mission Street is the Century House. It is also where Micheal Myers lived in the movie Halloween.

It is the second oldest building In South Pasadena built in 1888 and was South Pasadena designated cultural heritage landmark number 34. Is South Pasadena going to allow a by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? Is there substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued?? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1000 Mission Street is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1000 Mission Street is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 24, 2022)
1500 to 1518 Mission Street were all built over 100 years ago and considered to be part of the historic business district. Is South Pasadena going to allow a by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: The buildings at 1500 to 1518 Mission Street are not a part of a designated historic district, although they are eligible to become part of a historic district. The buildings at 1500 to 1518 Mission Street are not identified sites for affordable housing production. The buildings at 1500 to 1518 Mission Street are a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An areawide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The Housing Element simply says that there is a chance that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 24, 2022)
3 - 1626
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-155 For APN 5314016030, this is in the middle of the block and there is no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5314016030 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 24, 2022)
815 Fairview is a 3 story condo complex built in 2006. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Are they going to tear down new condos for new condos?? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 815 Fairview is located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, where an areawide analysis was conducted. As discussed above for 820 Mission St., the number of existing units was removed from the projected calculation of net new units being claimed in the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 25, 2022)
For APN 5317011025, this is in the middle of the block and there is no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5317011025 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 25, 2022)
For APNs 5308034018, 5308034018, and 5306006001, these are on a mountain and has no street access --
3 - 1627
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-156 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APNs 5308034018, 5308034018, and 5306006001 have been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 25, 2022)
1501 Mission Street was built in 1923 and is South Pasadena designated cultural heritage landmark number 37. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? It also has an apartment on top and you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1501 Mission Street is located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, where an area-wide analysis was conducted. As discussed above for 820 Mission St., the number of existing units was removed from the projected calculation of net new units being claimed in the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 25, 2022)
804 to 810 fairview and 1103 to 1123 Hope street contained multiple single family homes and apartments. You are required to subtract the current unit count from any proposed unit count. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 804 to 810 Fairview and 1103 to 1123 Hope Street are located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, where an area-wide analysis was conducted. As discussed above for 820 Mission St., the number of existing units was removed from the projected calculation of net new units being claimed in the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 25, 2022)
954 Mission Street is the Mission Hotel and one of the oldest buildings and is considered historic by South Pasadena. It is South Pasadena City Landmark number 26. Is South Pasadena going to allow a 3 - 1628
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-157 by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? Is there substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued??
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 954 Mission Street is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 954 Mission Street is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 25, 2022)
For Low Income site number 3 there are 8 above moderate income units. This is clearly stated on A1-

15. There is a duplex on one APN, a duplex on one APN, and a 4 plex on the 4th APN. On Page 183 Table VI-50, instead of putting 2, 2, and 4 as the unit count for Site three, you guys put 8 on one APN and then claimed 7 and 14 low income units on the other APNS that you shouldn’t be able to claim. So there are actually 21 low income units you are claiming on Site 3 that you cannot claim. Please remove these 21 units from your calculations.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: Table VI-50 has been updated to correct reflect what is shown in Appendix A.

Josh Albrektson (November 26, 2022)
1001 Fremont Ave is the South Pasadena Post Office. It is a historic building and the main Post Office of South Pasadena that includes all sorting for delivered mail. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Have you guys talked to anybody at the United States Postal Service??
--
Josh Albrektson MD
3 - 1629
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-158 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 1001 Fremont Ave is not included in Table VI-51 of the Housing Element.

The map in Figure A-3a has been updated to properly reflect the parcels identified in Table VI51.

Josh Albrektson (November 26, 2022)
For APN 5320018022 this is a silver of land with a homes garden on it. https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/1538998300530970626?s=20&t=5E2YvbfAPxR8AN1ULAtR6 Q
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5320018022 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 26, 2022)
820 Mission street is a group of Condos that were built in 2017. You actually site them as representative examples of recent building. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Are they going to tear down new condos for new condos?? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: See discussion of 820 Mission Street in response to comment dated November 22, 2022.

Josh Albrektson (November 26, 2022)
For APN 5311017018, there is half a home on the land
--
Josh Albrektson MD
3 - 1630
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-159 Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5311017018 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 26, 2022)
For APN 5320030038, this is in the middle of the block and there is no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5320030038 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 26, 2022)
For APN 5311006068 there is a home on the land
https://www.redfin.com/CA/South-Pasadena/1250-Oak-Hill-Ave-91030/home/7003471 --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5311006068 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 27, 2022)
For the following APNs there is no street access:
5311010028
5311010029
5311010030
5311010033
5311010034
--
3 - 1631
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-160 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: As noted in Notes 3 to Table VI-44, These parcels are part of a potential project to develop duplexes and townhouses on all of these parcels by the same developer who has purchased all of the parcels. The City has confirmed that there is access to this set of parcels.

The parcels include 10 vacant parcels and one nonvacant parcel.

Josh Albrektson (November 27, 2022)
For APNs 5308034017 and 5308034003 these are on a mountain with no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APNs 5308034017 and 5308034003 have been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 27, 2022)
913 Meridian Street is the historic Meridian Iron Works Building. It was a Japanese history museum but when South Pasadena kicked their Japanese residents out of the city in 1942 it was confiscated. It is now the home of the South Pasadena Preservation Foundation. It was built in 1887 and is City Landmark number 5. Is South Pasadena going to allow a by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? Is there substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for a low income site?? Will South Pasadena allow it to be torn down? --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 913 Meridian Street is not included in Table VI-51 of the Housing Element.

The map in Figure A-3a has been updated to properly reflect the parcels identified in Table VI51.

Josh Albrektson (November 27, 2022)
For APNs 5312016016 and 5308021009, these are on a mountain and has no street access --
3 - 1632
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-161 Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APNs 5312016016 and 5308021009 have been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 27, 2022)
920 Fremont Ave is Grace Brethren Church. The building was built in 1907 and is City Landmark number 22. Would South Pasadena allow this building to be torn down?? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Have they talked to the church?
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 920 Fremont Ave is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 920 Fremont Ave is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 27, 2022)
Baranger Studios at 729 Mission St is one of the oldest buildings in South Pasadena and considered Historic by South Pasadena standards. It is South Pasadena designated cultural heritage landmark number 27. Is South Pasadena going to allow a by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? Is there substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued?? https://www.pasadenanow.com/weekendr/historic-iconic-baranger-studios-building-in-southpasadena-is-sold-for-6-8-million/ --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
3 - 1633
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-162 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: 729 Mission St is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 729 Mission St is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
812 Fremont is a 3 story condo complex. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Are they going to tear down condos for new condos?? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 812 Fremont Avenue is located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, where an area-wide analysis was conducted. As discussed above for 820 Mission St., the number of existing units was removed from the projected calculation of net new units being claimed in the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
For APN 5308002064, this is in the middle of the block and there is no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5308002064 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
For APN 5317009903, the actual APN is 5317009033 and this is someone's garden. --
Josh Albrektson MD
3 - 1634
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-163 Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5317009903 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
824 FairOaks is the Comerica Bank Building. It is one of the oldest buildings in South Pasadena. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Would South Pasadena allow it to be torn down??
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 824 Fair Oaks Avenue is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 824 Fair Oaks Avenue is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
For APN 5308022009, there is a home on the land (real APN of 5308022043 --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5308022009 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
For APN 5312031029 there is a home on the land
https://www.redfin.com/CA/SOUTH-PASADENA/20-SHORT-WAY-ST-91030/home/7004227 --
3 - 1635
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-164 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5312031029 has been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
For APN 5308019034 this has a home and backyard on it
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5308019034 is a developable lot between two existing homes. Currently it contains a patio structure for one of the neighboring homes.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
812 Orange Grove, 810 Orange Grove and 802 Orange Grove are all 2 story apartment buildings. You guys are claiming there is a chance that they might be torn down for 3 story apartments. Can you guys point to a place where this has happened somewhere else?? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 812 Orange Grove, 810 Orange Grove and 802 Orange Grove are not identified sites for affordable housing production. 812 Orange Grove, 810 Orange Grove and 802 Orange Grove are a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The Housing Element simply says that there is a chance that this site is redeveloped during the planning period. The Downtown Specific Plan will allow for heights at least six stories or 60 feet, in accordance with Program 2.n.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
3 - 1636
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-165 For Low income site number 12 the city only owns 0.19 acres (35%) of the site. This is not large enough for a low income site. If the city does not have ownership of the whole site by Jan first, 2026, would it be willing to remove it as a low income site?
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: Program 3.o requires the City to evaluate the effectiveness of identified sites and make adjustment as necessary such as increasing densities, modifying development standards, removing sites and rezoning additional sites no later than December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2026. Site 12 will be part of this review and evaluation.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
The block surrounded by Meridian, El Centro, Diamond, and Mission street is a national historic district and has been since 1983. These buildings cannot be torn down. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/123859524
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: While some of the building on this block are identified in the National Registrar of Historic Places with local historic significance, some of the buildings in this block have been deemed to not contribute to the historic character of the district. Furthermore, buildings identified as historic identified in the National Registrar of Historic Places can be adaptively reused (see Program 3.b) and added on to so long as the character defining features of the existing structures remain.

Josh Albrektson (November 28, 2022)
1200 Fair Oaks is an Arco station that was recently sold. In the listing brochure it mentioned that Arco has a 15 year lease on the property. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites???
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
3 - 1637
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-166 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE  How addressed: 1200 Fair Oaks Avenue is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1200 Fair Oaks Avenue is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 29, 2022)
For APN 5308034016 and 5308021008 this is on a mountain and has no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APNs 5308034016 and 5308021008 have been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 29, 2022)
700 Orange Grove Ave is a 3 story apartment building. You guys are claiming there is a chance that this 3 story apartment building might be torn down for a replacement 3 story apartment building. Can you guys point to a place where this has happened somewhere else?? What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units. --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: As addressed in the response to comment dated November 21, 2022, 700 Orange Grove Ave. is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 700 Orange Grove Ave. is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process, including a voter approved modification of the citywide height limit to allow for the construction of buildings on this site taller than three stories. The 3 - 1638
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-167 possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that these 20 year old builds are redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 29, 2022)
For APN 5308002072, this is in the middle of the block and there is no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: APN 5308002072 is a buildable lot that has existing driveway access through APN 5308002060.

Josh Albrektson (November 29, 2022)
The former bank at 901 Fair Oaks Ave just underwent an extensive renovation changing it from a Bank to 5 commercial units including Chiptole and Habit Burger (which I eat at 4 times a week). An ATT store just opened and Rice and Nuri is about to open in the next couple of months. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? https://southpasadenan.com/fairoaksmission-project-chipotle-coming-to-south-pasadena/ --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 901 Fair Oaks Avenue is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 901 Fair Oaks Avenue is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 29, 2022)
Lewis Markey building at 634 Mission Street is the South Pasadena designated cultural heritage landmark number 31. It was built in 1928 and was designated a landmark 35 years ago. Is South Pasadena going to allow a by right housing project on this site if it is 20% low income????? Is there substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued??
3 - 1639
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-168 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE https://calisphere.org/item/e5794b9f06005a528fedab717bb7332b/ --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 634 Mission Street is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 634 Mission Street is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 29, 2022)
The Trader Joes at 613 Mission is the second Trader Joes in history. It is also one of the most active grocery stores in the city. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? And you also removed this site in previous drafts because you didn’t believe the current use would turn over.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
 How addressed: 613 Mission Street is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 613 Mission Street is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 30, 2022)
For Low Income Site number 8 you describe an underground gasoline tank and soil contamination.

How much would it actually cost to remediate the site?? Can you find costs or similar sites that have been used for housing?? And there is no 0.71 acres of extra land in South Pasadena that the public works yard could be moved to. Is South Pasadena willing to state that there will be a RFP issued by Jan first, 2025 and if there is no plans for housing by Jan 2026 than the site would be removed as a possible site?
3 - 1640
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-169 --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: Appendix A has been revised with additional information regarding the environmental constraints for Site 8. Program 3.o has been modified to require the City to “evaluate the effectiveness of identified sites and make adjustment as necessary such as increasing densities, modifying development standards, removing sites and rezoning additional sites” no later than December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2026.

Josh Albrektson (November 30, 2022)
For APNs 5311010027 and 5308006024 these are on a mountain with no street access --
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: APNs 5311010027 and 5308006024 have been removed from the Housing Element.

Josh Albrektson (November 30, 2022)
For Low income site Number 2 there is a claim that Bullseye Glass and Judson studios are relatively new tenants. If you label the 6 buildings from west to east, these are buildings 1 and 2.

Those Bullseye and Judson have been there since November 2016 as shown in this google image:
https://goo.gl/maps/s95ehqP1Z7uUU8ZBA
It is actually the entire second floor of building number 3 and the entire building number 5 that just were leased in the past year to Yellow Pike Media and Elementary. How can you guys claim there is substantial evidence that the current uses will be discontinued when there were just new leases signed at the site??
Loopnet Brochure for the listings for buildings 3 and 5. https://images1.loopnet.com/d2/NjuUcEIzCBdbskuj3g5Mj_3zqct3H2jyorx1Mu5ckGw/149161Pasa denaSouthPasadenaBrochure.pdf
--
3 - 1641
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-170 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: As stated in Appendix A, Site 2 is an under-utilized commercial building that will be redesignated as mixed-use. The land owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the site under the new land use, once adopted.

Josh Albrektson (November 30, 2022)
707 to 809 Meridian is a 3 story condo complex built in 2006. You guys cite it as an example of buildings recently built in South Pasadena. What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Are they going to tear down new condos for new condos?? And you are required to subtract the current apartments from the proposed apartments for your counting of units.
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: 707 to 809 Meridian is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 707 to 809 Meridian is a part of the Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period.

Josh Albrektson (November 30, 2022)
1124 Fair Oaks Ave is a 3 story Freemason building. It is one of the oldest buildings in South Pasadena.

What is the substantial evidence the current use will be discontinued as required for low income sites??? Would South Pasadena allow it to be torn down??
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: 1124 Fair Oaks Ave is not an identified site for affordable housing production and therefore the Housing Element does not need to show there is substantial evidence that the existing use will discontinue during the planning period. 1124 Fair Oaks Ave is a part of the 3 - 1642
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-171 Downtown Specific Plan area. An area-wide analysis was conducted of the Downtown Specific Plan where it is expected that some portion of the area will be redeveloped during the planning cycle due to the adoption of the new Downtown Specific Plan and policies implemented as part of the Housing Element update process. The possibility exists, and that the Housing Element programs make it more likely, that this site is redeveloped during the planning period. 3 - 1643
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-172 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Sam Shink, The Albertsons Companies (December 1, 2022)
• How addressed: Appendix A has been updated with additional information from property owner.
3 - 1644
A_AJ.bertsons
Companies
Angelica Frausto-Lupo
Community Development Director
City of South Pasadena
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, CA 91030
December 1, 2022
WfU'JEJ(S T !!Lfil'HO;.E NL MHER: (7 14) 300-6727
'WRJTER·s F.- l\l[An.: SAM.SrtTNK l @.SAJiE\VAY.COM
Via Hand Delive1-y
Subject: Pavilions #2228 1213 South Fair Oaks Avenue South Pasadena Dear Ms. Frausto-Lupo:

I am writing in response to your request related to the City's draft General Plan Housing Element to advise you that ACI, parent company of Pavilions, is considering redevelopment of the subject property sometime prior to 2029. The plans being considered include redevelopment of the entire site and would consist of a new store, residential uses, and parking. We look forward to continuing to serve the residents of South Pasadena.

Very truly yours,

SAMSHINK
Director of Real Estate
letter IC' city of SP regarding reck,,elopmenl pfam
Working together to be the fa,vndi, ~~•
i\migos CE~ r·&d@
AC#E. star. CIIRBSI()
Albertsons SAFEWAY,,. &/rt? PAVILIONS.
•• .,'Jtn- 1 .: ?ii'lftI.T VO @ !:.'!'~ ~ Aoo \130
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MARCHMAY 2023DECEMBER 2022
2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-173 Mark Gallatin (December 5, 2022)
I would respectfully like to suggest the following alternate language for that found on page 216 of the September 2022 Draft Housing Element:

Program 1.b. - Convert Caltrans Homes to Affordable Housing The City will leverage the 68 Caltrans surplus properties that have resulted from the State's cancellation of a proposed route to extend the 710 freeway through South Pasadena to generate capital to create new and rehabilitated, deed restricted, affordable housing units throughout the city. The City has initiated a property sales program for the 710 freeway surplus properties. The City worked with Senator Portantino to pass SB 381 and the emergency rulemaking regulations were released on March 28, 2022. The City will have priority to purchase the surplus properties after the existing tenants. The City has been working with Caltrans to obtain property files and to schedule inspections in order to evaluate the surplus properties. SB 381 also requires that any proceeds from historic properties purchased by the City at Caltrans minimum (acquisition) price and then subsequently sold at Fair Market Value be used to generate affordable housing at a ratio of 3 to 1. Funding has been secured for a feasibility study on the surplus properties that are available to be converted to permanent affordable housing.

Eight-year Objective: Complete a feasibility study and use the recommendations to support decisionmaking regarding possible strategies, including but not limited to, partnerships with non-profit affordable housing developers, to expand housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households and revitalize underused areas.

Funding Source: Measure H
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department/City Manager’s Office Timeframe: Conduct feasibility study in 2022; technical assistance and work with nonprofits at least annually throughout planning period. More specific timing pending State implementation processes. • How addressed: As detailed in Program 1.b, the City is complying with the acquisition process authorized by SB 381 for the acquisition of the surplus Caltrans properties. The City has not made any determinations regarding the eventual dispensation of the Caltrans homes. Currently, the City is doing its due diligence regarding the condition of the homes and the possible financing mechanisms for rehabilitation of the properties. This analysis includes researching possibilities regarding increasing the number of units on Caltrans home sites, where feasible. However, since the due diligence work is ongoing, it is not possible for the City to commit to any course of action regarding these homes at this time.

Comments on the Public Review 4th Draft Housing Element Josh Albrektson (December 5, 2022)
Page A1-11 has an outdated picture
--
Josh Albrektson MD
Neuroradiologist by night
3 - 1645
Appendix B
DECEMBER 2022MARCHMAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-174 2021-2029 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Crime fighter by day
• How addressed: The map on page A1-11 has been updated.

Josh Albrektson (December 5, 2022)
The following APNS you are claiming 100% chance of 100% development in the downtown specific plans, including the Mission Meridian condos:

Page 187 ends

South Pasadena City CouncilMay 30, 2023

South Pasadena City Council
May 30, 2023