3. Are there certain areas of the City where increasing housing strategies should be concentrated? • Throughout the City but look for specific areas around transit, commercial areas, neighborhood amenities.
• Concentrate around transit stop, walkable places, Downtown, Fair Oaks, Mission District.
Opportunity by Ostrich Farm can be created.
• Mound/Oxley is close to amenities and would encourage walkability/public transit. • Huntington Drive has pockets that could accommodate increased density, paratransit would be needed to support development in other areas.
• All of the above - Downtown, Mission west of the subway stop, Mission should allow four stories.
• Mission west does not want to mess with the historic downtown. There is not a lot of transit ridership. Has been a decrease in ridership.
• If throughout City, not blanket, culture may not support it. • City/PlaceWorks has done a good job of identifying areas but there are some additional/other areas: Huntington Drive is underutilized (four cities connect). Currently, medical offices and low rise that is underutilized. Also look at Ostrich Farm, Mission, and Fair Oaks.
• First priority is near Gold Line station. Incalculable asset that we are not realizing potential of.
• Meridian mixed-use is good. Exciting possibility for mixed-use and density in that corridor. • Disbursement throughout City but with contextually different housing types. More near transit and services (Gold Line). Well served everywhere already, so can add housing anywhere.
• Prefer to see more housing near transit hubs (Mission/Fair Oaks and metro station). • Near transit and where practical; consider vacant lots. • Downtown could accommodate a lot; Fair Oaks has a lot of opportunity for mixed-use; should be spread to some of the existing multifamily areas - triplex/four-plex. • Shouldn’t only be in 3-5 targeted areas of the city. Look at single-family residential neighborhoods also. Allow higher densities on first two-three properties off main corridors.
4. Can you think of examples of housing buildings in South Pasadena or other cities that would be good in South Pasadena either because of the size, style, mix of uses, features, degree of affordability, etc.?
• Different style in different places, Mission should look like it was built 150 years ago. • Different styles are appropriate, design review process is important, micro-apartments is something that should be considered in some areas, should not limit ourselves to a specific style/type.
3 - 363
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-10 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE • Townhomes at Hope and Meridian is a good example, design standards that are not automobile oriented, cars are moved to the back, less curb-cuts, design and size should prioritize three bedrooms or more to accommodate families. • Mission/Meridian townhomes, variety of styles, bungalow to Spanish, does not want generic developments, need to have a sense of place, or reflects the historic character. • Needs to represent South Pasadena, Adobe style, historic examples, character needs to be similar to the unique neighborhoods.
• Respect the historic fabric of the neighborhood block, be flexible given the context of the neighborhood, save the front historic design and modifications are located in the back, concerned about affordable housing
• Generally, multifamily - Look at occupants, tenants (end users) as they transition over lifespan. Professionals, families, seniors; look at different users. Density/massing/open space/courtyards great but also can limit development so we need to look closer as implications of those constraints. It can be too restrictive. Need to dive into more and see specific examples.
• Dense, walkable courtyard multifamily buildings already exist in South Pasadena. See Bank Street (10 units of housing in communal setting possible because without onerous parking requirements). Would love to see that happen again. Currently, the City parking requirements do not allow such projects to be built. Would like to see requirements change to bring back those types of projects and diversity of housing types. • Sierra Vista Apartments on Esperanza Avenue (low-income senior, 1-2 bed), example of dense affordable complex with beautiful exterior - Yosemite lodge style. Blends well with single-family and multifamily on block. It is only 45 units, so maybe higher density to get more units.
• Likes Andalucia example, doesn’t like Aliso example.
• Mission Meridian.
5. Other than the technical approaches to meet the RHNA, what other housing goals and objectives are important to you?
• Design standards are set in stone, we can make sure it looks good. • That infrastructure/community services are able to support the new housing units. • Specifically, how we address affordable housing. One concern of ADU plan is that her work as an architect has shown that ADUs are just additional single-family for real estate but does not meet the goal of affordable units. Not just adding units, but how can we assure they are affordable units? Multifamily development also needed to meet minimum they need to make their projects pencil out. Make it more viable and provide more assurance. Don’t skim the surface. Financing for developing affordable units is needed, mentioned Pasadena as an example. Can City partner with bank or banks for affordable housing? • Housing Element sets values to production. Wants to see recognition of race-based exclusionary practices. Contemporary recognition and repair of redlining and other racist practices. Altos de Monterey in the 1960s was the only place to allow non-white residents.
Would like to see acknowledgement of past and commit to real policies that are equitable. • In addition to being affordable, have permanent supportive housing. • Reduce parking requirements near transit stops.
3 - 364
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-11 • Tenant protections.
The following questions were brought up during the breakout groups:
• Do all units count the same toward the RHNA requirement? For example, is a one-bedroom apartment treated the same as a three-bedroom dwelling? • Could 710/Caltrans money be used for more transit?
• RHNA appeal, what are our chances to lower our numbers? Workshop 5
Public Workshop, October 21, 2021 (Workshop 5)
The City held a hybrid public workshops after release of the public draft Housing Element on Thursday, October 21, at 6:30 pm. Participants had the choice to attend in person at City Hall or to attend virtually.
The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the 2021-2029 Public Review Draft Housing Element. After the presentation, the public was invited to ask questions and share comments.
The meeting had approximately 12 participants, including two in-person and others on Zoom. Four participants spoke. The following summarizes these questions, comments and staff responses:
• The first question asked for clarification about AB 1398 regarding the possibility for getting the Housing Element approved by HCD by the February 11th deadline in order to avoid the mandatory timeframe for rezoning. The City clarified that before AB 1398 was approved, the February 11th deadline was for the adoption of the Housing Element by the City Council.
However, with the change in law, adopting the Housing Element by the February 11th date is no longer a requirement to stay on the 8-year housing cycle. The law says in order to avoid a deadline to complete the rezoning within one year of October 15, 2021, the City would need to have adopted their Housing Element and submitted the adopted Housing Element to HCD for a 90-day review and receive certification at the end of that review before February 11, 2022.
That new timeline is not feasible because the City is at the initial point of submitting the Draft Housing Element for the first 60-day review by HCD and will not have enough time to adopt and submit the final to HCD by February 11, 2022. Consequently, the City will adopt after February 11, 2022 and be required to complete the rezoning before October 15, 2022. • The next question asked was in reference to whether Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) were included as part of the site inventory in order to meet the City’s RHNA. The City answered that both ADUs and JDUs will be counted.
• The third question asked how the City plans to incorporate the 6th, 7th and 8th (future) Regional Housing Need Allocations (RHNA) if the General Plan update is a 25-year plan with the followup question about the City’s approach for meeting the RHNA from the 1st - 5th Housing Element updates. The City answered that through the 8-year timeframes for updating the Housing Element, the City will attempt to show that the City has the capacity to build the units during the projection period while keeping in mind that the City’s capacity to develop these units is in line with the longer-term General Plan. The Housing Element is on a different timeframe from the General Plan and will be updated again in 2030. Furthermore, staff clarified that the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) will be covering the Housing Element, General Plan Update and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). Thus, the City will use the General Plan and the PEIR as guide when analyzing appropriate sites for the next housing element update. To answer the follow-up question, staff explained that the City was able to address capacity for the 63 RHNA units in the 5th Housing Element with existing zoning. 3 - 365
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-12 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE • The next question was in regard to the sites inventory. A property owner wanted to confirm that his property was included in the sites inventory as he is interested in developing housing.
PlaceWorks confirmed and directed the speaker to find the site in the document. The property was identified as Site #4 and is shown in Table VI-46 and Appendix A. The speaker also wanted to know where the City was in terms of timeline for revising the General Plan. City staff answered that there is a draft of the General Plan Update from 2019, but that it had been put on hold during much of the Housing Element Update preparation in order to integrate consistent programs and policies that align with the Housing Element. Staff stated that the revised draft of the General Plan will be released for public review shortly.
The last comment was about the importance of the City undertaking companion capacity planning for infrastructure including schools, water, wastewater, parking, etc. The commenter noted that the community has been requesting this type of analysis for two years. He would be more comfortable with the plan for housing presented in the draft if that infrastructure analysis was completed.
Workshop 6
Developer Forum August 15, 2022 (Workshop 6)
There were 8 community members, including two Planning Commissioners in attendance at the City’s Developer Forum on August 15, 2022. The City provided a brief presentation that included a status update of the draft Housing Element and the draft General Plan and asked for input on several topics related to development in the City and received the following responses.
Questions #1: Please provide input on development standards, processes, and procedures • A local developer recently had issues with the open space standards and the landscaping requirements for multi-family/high density projects. They felt these requirements could constrain a project and the City should consider reducing the amount of open space/landscaping requirements and allow for roof top landscaping. Program 3.n Zoning Changes requires the City to review the development standards and processes including height limits, open space standards, parking requirements including variances and findings for design review. • A local developer that had done several hillside developments in 2017 was required to remove trees to do the project. This required several trips to the Natural Resources Committee which delayed the project. There were requests to build the units around the trees and bring back to the Committee which added more time and cost to the project. Program 3.n Zoning Changes requires the City to review the development standards and processes including height limits, open space standards, parking requirements including variances and findings for design review. • Another participant spoke about the entitlement process and specific issues with parking requirements. They found it was difficult to meet the density bonus requirement for parking reductions and stated that based on her experience South Pasadena has enough public parking available to meet local demands and the City should consider parking reductions. Program 3.n Zoning Changes requires the City to review the development standards and processes including height limits, open space standards, parking requirements including variances and findings for design review. The City is also considering a single parking requirement in the downtown that could reflect the transit-oriented nature and to require bike parking. Program 3.b - Mixed-Use Developments and Adaptive Re-Use Specific actions proposed to facilitate mixed use development in the Downtown Specific Plan include engaging the development community and property owners to promote shared parking and consider reducing on-site parking requirements on shopping streets to leverage transit access and to incentivize potential office and multi-family residential mixed-use development.
3 - 366
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-13 • This participant also said that the current height limit of 45 ft is very challenging and was aware that it could get waived with a state density bonus, but the process takes too long. They recommended that the height limit be increased to 55 or 65 feet in specific areas along Mission Street, Fair Oaks, Huntington Dr., and Monterey Road. Program 2.n Citywide Height Limit Ballot Initiative will require the City to place a measure on the ballot in a local election to increase allowed heights above the current citywide limit of 45 feet. • Another participant suggested the open space/landscaping requirements need to be more flexible because when you have to provide open court yards and private open space you have to increase the height of projects because of requirements. They felt that the Open Space requirements (within downtown area) need more flexibility. Program 3.n Zoning Changes requires the City to review the development standards and processes including height limits, open space standards, parking requirements including variances and findings for design review. • A local developer suggested that the entitlement process he experienced allowed him to work with a planner in between Planning Commission reviews to help move the project along. He encouraged making that an option for the future.
• There was on suggestion that the City should implement an electronic permit system. Program
3.e required the City to develop an electronic permitting system for Planning and Building permits, and other relevant permit functions to increase efficiency in processing residential and other permits and to provide accurate data to monitor housing production and other development.
• One comments from a developer was that the City doesn’t have enough planner to handle the volume of projects that are coming in for application and the City should consider bringing on additional contract planners to assist with project application reviews. The Community Development Department also recognizes the concern shared by the developers and has staffed up to deal with the project demands and are now more able to take on the new case load.
Question #2: Input on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
• A develop who has built housing in South Pasadena said that in his experience the inclusionary housing threshold of three units is too low of a requirement. He wanted to do a 4-unit project but it was too costly with the inclusionary housing requirement. The three-unit requirement encourages developers to do bigger units so they don’t have to pay the inclusionary housing fee.
Program 2.m 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 including the unit threshold, the In-lieu fees and cost of a comparable unit and how the inclusionary regulations relate to state Density Bonus law.
Question # 3: Input on likelihood of development of sites in key areas • All attendees participated in a polling regarding the likelihood of development. The five shared sites were rated by most as either somewhat likely or highly likely to develop. The two most likely to develop were the Pavillions site and Shakers sites. • Proposed Ostrich Farm Site 5 (Liquor Store)
− Voted somewhat likely to be developed with mixed-use or residential-only develop by the developer panel.
• Proposed Downtown Specific Plan Site 10 (Near Mission Meridian) 3 - 367
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-14 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE − Voted somewhat likely to be developed with mixed-use or residential-only develop by the developer panel.
− Comments on site: The diagonal edges on Site 10 is problematic for parking. The odd shape makes it hard to design the parking layout and fit in the required number of spaces.
Recommendation was to reduce the parking requirement.
• Proposed Downtown Specific Plan Site 14 (City-Owned Parking Lot and Single-Family Residence)
− Voted somewhat likely to be developed with mixed-use or residential-only develop by the developer panel.
• Proposed Downtown Specific Plan Site 16 (Shaker’s site) − Voted highly likely to be developed for mixed-use or residential only develop by the developer panel.
− Comments: Allowing for higher height limit would be helpful on this site since it’s near transit (near the Freeway).
• Proposed Downtown Specific Plan Site 21 (Pavillions)
− Voted highly likely to be developed with mixed-use or residential-only develop by the developer panel.
Workshop 7 & 8
Community Outreach at SP Farmers’ Market, August 18, 2022 (Workshop 7) On Thursday, August 18, 2022, the Community Development Department set up a booth in the South Pasadena Farmers’ Market from 4:00 to 8:00 pm to discuss the Housing Element. The late afternoon/evening market attracts hundreds of residents and many local employees and is a casual atmosphere for sharing ideas. Over the four-hour duration of the Market, Community Development staff discussed various aspects of the housing element with visitors to the booth, including: the sites inventory; ADUs; the regional housing crisis; the need for rezoning and mixed-use development and where it would be located; and reconsideration of the voter-approved height maximum through a new ballot initiative within the next two years. Those who stopped by expressed appreciation for the opportunity to talk to City staff about the issues.
Specific comments from community members that stopped by the booth included:
• Support for taking time for the community outreach on the height limit ballot measure • Support for more housing and getting away from the exclusionary past of the City. • Property owners in support of the housing overlay that will allow more housing on their property
• Support for modular ADUs and for pre-approved standard plans that residents could utilize (in line with Program 3.f in the draft HE)
• Opposition to any height limit cap revision and to more density • Support for more height for residential only
• Support for allowing higher and denser development in Downtown near the L Line station, provided the architecture and design meet City standards. 3 - 368
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-15 Community Forum and Informational Workshop, August 20, 2022 (Workshop 8) The City held a hybrid public workshop on Saturday, August 20, 2022, from 10:00 to 11:30 am.
Participants had the choice to attend in person at City Hall or to attend virtually. The purpose of the forum was to provide a brief overview of the Housing Element process; provide an update to the community on the status of addressing HCD’s comments to the second draft of the Housing Element; and to solicit feedback from the community on the draft document and proposed programs. After a brief overview of the housing element process, the presentation focused on the bigger issues that needed to be addressed in the Housing Element, including the site analysis, development constraints including the height limitations, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
After the presentation, the public was invited to ask questions and share comments. The meeting had approximately sixteen participants, including nine in-person and seven on Zoom. Thirteen participants spoke. The following summarizes these questions, comments and staff responses:
• Resident asked if there was a density that HCD would assume that anything over a certain density would be affordable.
− City staff responded that there is a minimum density that sites need to be able to meet in order for the site to be suitable for affordable housing. • Resident, who self-identified as former city planning director, stated that the existing General Plan maximum density of 24 du/ac is “ridiculously low.” The maximum density could be raised to 36 du/ac without increasing the city-wide height limit. Supports removing the height limit in the proposed Downtown Specific Plan area.
− City staff thanked the former planning director for his comments. • Since sites less than half an acre aren’t suitable for affordable housing, and a lot of the identified sites have been removed, it’s not clear which sites the City is proposing to increase the density on to make up for the shortfall in units.
− City staff explained that the City is taking two simultaneous paths to meet the City’s housing needs. One path is to identify specific sites that the City expects will be redeveloped into housing during the planning cycle. The second path is to increase the allowable density in a large area of the city, focused on the proposed Downtown Specific Plan area, where some percentage of the sites throughout the entire area will be redeveloped without identifying which specific sites those will be.
• Could the City provide an overview of the terms of the stipulated judgement resolving the existing housing element lawsuit against the city?
− The City Attorney provided an overview of the terms of the judgement: the City must submit a revised draft of the Housing Element to HCD no later than September 15, 2022; the City must initiate a ballot initiative to remove or revise the City’s height limit, and if it fails do a mid-cycle review and update of the Housing Element to meet the City’s housing needs under the existing height limit; until the Housing Element is adopted, the City will not object to Housing Accountability Act projects that are proposed; and a requirement to prepare more detail regarding the applicability of the identified sites in the site inventory. • Where in the hierarchy of land use laws does the voter approved height limit fall? 3 - 369
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-16 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE − City staff responded that a voter approved initiative supersedes both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the city, and that if they conflict the voter approved initiative prevails.
However, if the voter approved initiative is in conflict with State law, then the State law supersedes the voter approved initiative. Since South Pasadena’s height limit does not directly contradict State law, and because there are alternative ways for the City to meet its requirements under State law that do not require the repeal of the height limit, it’s the opinion of the City that State law cannot supersede the City’s height limit. • ADUs have been very popular in South Pasadena, what assumptions does HCD make regarding the affordability of ADUs.
− City staff responded that the City must base its projection of the permitting of future ADUs on the number of ADUs permitted in past years, and that the City has to document rent on ADUs to take credit for the affordability of those new units in its annual report to HCD. • Concerned about increasing the height in the downtown area, can the City look at increasing the density of areas outside of the downtown area instead of increasing the height. Also concerned about mixing condos and multi-unit developments in the single-family residential areas. − City staff responded that raising the density and height in the downtown area would allow for the necessary growth while preserving most of the city’s existing neighborhoods. There is a choice the City and community needs to make about where these new units are going to go, and the direction most members of the community have provided is to increase the density in the downtown area since it’s close to transit and walkable. • What is the proposed new height limit?
− City staff responded that currently there is not a specific height that the City is aiming for, but instead that the height needs to be tall enough to allow for the density anticipated by the Housing Element given the other development constraints imposed by the City’s zoning.
Furthermore, this is a question that the community will need to help answer, and is part of why the City is holding this community meeting and will be holding future community meetings on the topic.
• Can the City take credit for the affordability of ADUs that have been built previously, or only those built during the planning period?
− City staff responded that the City can only take credit for the affordability of ADUs built during the planning period.
• On the General Plan and Mission Street Specific Plan committee during the 1990s, the goal was to downzone the city to reduce the projected population from over 60,000 as proposed in the previous General Plan from the 1960s to something more “reasonable.” The City should be working to fight its RHNA allocation because accommodating that many new units will ruin the city as a small town. With the proposed changes, the added traffic will make the main thoroughfares of the city impassable.
− City staff responded that the goal is to provide the community options for how to accommodate the city’s housing needs.
• The City needs to do more public outreach, including making hard copies of the Housing Element and other planning documents available in hard copy at the public library, and to include visual aids in the documents that illustrate the different densities that are being proposed. 3 - 370
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-17 − City staff responded that the City is doing outreach, such as this meeting, and that visual aids are included in the Housing Element to illustrate the proposed densities. Hard copies of the drafts have been available at City Hall and the Library, and as future drafts are released, they will also be made available in hard copy at these locations. • Has the City looked at the Arroyo Seco Golf Course as a suitable housing site for affordable housing?
− City staff responded that converting the golf course into homes is an option, but one that is not politically popular and therefore not proposed as part of the Housing Element at this time.
• What are the medium- and high-density residential densities in the draft General Plan? − City staff responded that the draft General Plan has not been finalized yet, but that it is expected that a public review draft will be available by the end of September. • What are some creative solutions and options for meeting the housing needs other than building new units, such as converting existing family-owned apartments to low-income units? − City staff responded that the City cannot count existing units to meet its RHNA needs. Most of the time, existing family-owned apartments are the least expensive housing options in a community, so by converting those into deed-restricted Affordable Housing, it eliminates naturally occurring affordable housing and does not create any additional housing opportunities for the community.
• Concerned about the sustainability of the continuation of building new homes. − City staff responded that the solutions to our climate crisis and the solutions to our housing crisis are the same: building more housing near transit and building walkable, transit served communities.
• City has an ordinance that puts a constraint on demolishing buildings that are more than 45 years old.
− The City does have a historic preservation ordinance that may require structures 45 years or older not identified as a cultural resource to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or alteration from the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC). However, it is important to note that these projects taken to the CHC for demolition have not been denied since the ordinance was adopted. Therefore, the ordinance does not appear to be a constraint.
• What are the consequences of the City being out of compliance of the Housing Element Law? − The City Attorney responded that a lawsuit can be brought against the City where a judge could remove the City’s land use authority and/or impose fines. The City was sued, and has a stipulated judgement that requires the city to take certain actions, described above, but does not remove the City’s land use authority or impose punitive fines on the City.
Additionally, the State Attorney General can sue the City and impose fines on the City, but since South Pasadena is working towards completing its Housing Element it is not expected that the Attorney General will sue the City and instead will focus on cities that are not working towards adopting a compliant housing element.
3 - 371
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-18 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE • Have we looked at other cities that have certified housing elements to see how they meet their housing needs?
− City staff responded that the City is looking at the certified housing elements, but that many cities have significantly different conditions that make it easier to achieve a compliant housing element.
Workshop 9
Community Outreach at the Social Services and Social Justice Forum A ninth workshop was held on November 9, 2022 in conjunction with the City’s First Annual Social Services and Social Justice Forum. City staff and the City’s Housing Element consultant were on hand to discuss the Housing Element with members of the public and service agencies present for the Social Justice Forum
Surveys
The City conducted public outreach via two online community surveys. Each of the surveys was launched prior to public workshops for the Housing Element Update.
Survey 1 – May - September 2020
The first survey was made available on the City’s website in May 2020 and was open until September 2020 to allow for a long time period for input to be provided due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The link to the survey was also sent to everyone who registered for Workshops 1 and 2. The main purpose of the survey was to gauge participants’ experience with Housing Elements and the General Plan and to find out a little bit about their perspective on housing issues. A total of 33 responses were received. The survey text is shown in italics below:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this short survey about housing and the General Plan Housing Element.
This survey should take about 2 minutes.
1. Are you:
a. Renter in South Pasadena
b. Property owner in South Pasadena
c. Other
3 - 372
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-19
2. Have you heard of the Housing Element of the General Plan? YES or NO
3. Have you heard of the regional housing needs assessment or RHNA numbers? YES or NO
4. Please rank the following issues in order of importance to you. a. Production of additional housing stock
b. Preservation of existing housing stock
c. Creation of economically sustainable neighborhoods
d. Providing a diverse cost range of housing opportunities
5. Has housing affordability impacted you or your family personally? YES or NO
6. Have you participated in the City’s General Plan Update process? YES or NO
The following summarizes the responses to the survey:
1. Are you a renter, property owner, or other?
Approximately 60 percent of respondents were property owners, 35 percent were renters, and 3 percent chose other.
2. Have you heard of the Housing Element of the General Plan? Three quarters of respondents had heard of the Housing Element, one quarter had not.
3. Have you heard of the regional housing needs assessment or RHNA numbers? Approximately 80 percent of respondents had heard of RHNA, 20 percent had not.
4. Please rank the following issues in order of importance to you? Respondents ranked the four options in the following order from highest to lowest priority:
• Providing a diverse cost range of housing opportunities • Creation of economically sustainable neighborhoods
• Preservation of existing housing stock
• Production of additional housing stock
It should be noted however that most respondents chose all four options as priorities.
5. Has housing affordability impacted you or your family personally? Approximately 55 percent of respondents had been impacted personally in terms of housing affordability, approximately 45 percent had not been impacted.
6. Have you participated in the City’s General Plan Update process? Approximately 58 percent of respondents had previously participated in the General Plan Update process, approximately 25 percent had not.
3 - 373
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-20 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Survey 2 – September - October 2020
The second survey was made available on the City’s website in September 2020 and was open until October 2020. The link to the survey was also sent to everyone who registered for Workshops 3 and 4.
The main purpose of the survey was to identify the housing strategies people would like to learn about and discuss at Workshops 3 and 4. A total of 17 responses were received. The survey text is shown in italics below:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this short survey about how the City of South Pasadena can achieve its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the 2021 Housing Element Update. This survey should take about 2 minutes.
During the workshops on September 23rd and 26th, 2020 we plan to discuss the following topics that are options for the City to address its RHNA allocation:
• Effort to Appeal the City’s RHNA number
• Options to Address the RHNA and Receive a Certified Housing Element a. Programs and strategies for an aggressive program to produce more affordable Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in South Pasadena
b. Options for zoning changes to increase density (number of housing units allowed on a property) i. Allowing more ADUs to be built on a single-family property ii. Allowing multifamily housing buildings to be built in single-family neighborhoods iii. Allowing housing to be built in areas that do not currently allow residential development iv. Increasing building heights and densities to allow more housing units to be built in mixed-use areas in town and/or just on specific sites
1. Have you participated in the City’s previous Housing Element workshops?
2. Do you agree that the City should appeal its RHNA allocation of 2,062 housing units?
3. Should South Pasadena’s RHNA remain unchanged, which of the following options would you support to enable the City to meet this target? Choose as many as you agree with. a. Aggressive program to incentivize development of affordable accessory dwelling Unit/Secondary Units b. Upzoning single-family neighborhoods to allow more ADUs, duplexes, or aggregating properties for multifamily development
c. Increased density in specific areas of the City
d. Increased height in specific areas of the City
e. Increased density and height in specific areas of the City f. Increased height contingent upon additional design and development standards to ensure scale and character compatible with the neighborhood
g. Other
4. What other topics/options would you like to see discussed at these or future workshops?
5. What questions do you have about the RHNA or 2021 Housing Element Update? 3 - 374
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-21 The following summarizes the responses to the survey:
1. Have you participated in the City’s previous Housing Element workshops? 41 percent of respondents said yes, 59 percent said no.
2. Do you agree that the City should appeal its RHNA allocation of 2,062 housing units? 35 percent said yes, 41 percent said no. Three people chose other and wrote in a response. The write-ins included two people who said the appeal won’t work, another said don’t spend any money on the RHNA appeal, and another said they don’t know enough to choose yes or no.
3. Should South Pasadena’s RHNA remain unchanged, which of the following options would you support to enable the City to meet this target?
The number of votes each strategy received is shown below from the strategies that received the largest number of votes to those that received the least votes. • Increased density in specific areas of the City – 9 votes • Increased density and height in specific areas of the City – 9 votes • Upzoning single-family neighborhoods to allow more ADUs, duplexes, or aggregating properties for multifamily development – 8 votes
• Increased height contingent upon additional design and development standards to ensure scale and character compatible with the neighborhood – 7 votes • Aggressive program to incentivize development of affordable accessory dwelling Unit/Secondary Units – 6 votes
• Increased height in specific areas of the City – 6 votes Several write-in strategies were also proposed:
• Convert any retail and business buildings that become vacant to residential • Widescale upzoning of single-family neighborhoods
• Reuse empty commercial buildings for affordable housing • Increased height and density throughout the City.
4. What other topics/options would you like to see discussed at these or future workshops? • I would like to know what ways you guys are planning to fit the 2,062 housing units if the height limit is not changed.
• Use of non-profit developers versus regular developers. • The aggressive ADU idea is an attempt to shirk the city’s responsibility to build more housing. It will likely not succeed - as the state will not accept it. ADUs have been legal in South Pasadena for 3 years and there has been almost nothing built. There is little the city can do to get more "aggressive" - let alone reach the type of numbers being talked about. The City needs to allow real densities of greater than 30 units to an acre in your multifamily areas. The multifamily I've seen built has such low densities that it encourages only luxury 1,900 square foot condos.
3 - 375
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-22 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE • There is a lot of fear of change in South Pasadena. Can we help people visualize South Pasadena in a future that satisfies RHNA requirements? That might help focus energy on the choice between the options.
• Streamlined permitting process. Progressive ways to address the missing middle housing types.
• I hope to see the elimination of parking requirements to facilitate unit production and a serious discussion about inclusionary zoning.
• Adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for affordable housing. • At the first Zoom Housing Meeting, numerous sites were presented as potential areas for development. But much of this data was based on a single conversation with the owner of the property who “said they were open to considering development.” I found that rather loosey goosey. There were too many “ifs” in that scenario. • South Pasadena, along with other towns, is bleeding commercial space. What are the options for converting some of these into work/living lofts?
• Finally, all of the development that has been greenlit in the city only offers 13 “affordable units.” All development must focus on affordability or we can never come close to meeting the numbers. We know that developers don’t make money on building affordable housing, so who will the city partner with to make that happen?
• What about the additional infrastructure that will be needed to support 20 percent more units and a 20 percent increase in population?
• We just came out of a 7-year drought. Where will the extra water supplies come from? • Multiple studies in the last decade, including at Mission Meridian, have proven that transit based housing is an urban myth. It does not reduce traffic. If this plan goes forward, how will South Pasadena achieve its green Climate Action Plan goals in the coming 10 to 20 years?
• Regarding specific locations within the City to be up zoned – PlaceWorks’ previous presentation at the Planning Commission did not address Huntington Drive or any area south of it.
• Even in a city as small as South Pasadena, effects of any changes will be distributed unevenly, which will produce uneven follow-on effects. I live near the Metro station and near the proposed Seven Patios project, which will create a significant traffic impact, especially on Farmer’s Market days. How do any of the proposed options take into account the related structural changes that they will create?
5. What questions do you have about the RHNA or 2021 Housing Element Update? • In what ways are you planning for the moderate and above moderate housing if you don't get the 1,000 ADUs?? What is the current zoning capacity of South Pasadena assuming the 50 units/acre for the Draft DTSP??
• In what ways is the City of South Pasadena critically thinking about progressive development, instead of just appealing the RHNA numbers? • More information on inclusionary requirements, ADU considerations for RHNA counts, and Caltrans housing considerations for RHNA counts.
• I have some questions as to the accuracy of the predictions since they were determined preCovid. There are now more people moving out of the California than moving into the state. 3 - 376
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-23 • The increased density adjacent to the Gold Line Station under the pretense that all of these people will take the train to work in Pasadena/Downtown L.A. is a false flag. No one at the Mission Meridian Transit Village takes the Gold Line to commute. The ridership on the trains has steadily declined for three years. The few people I know who used the train to commute to Downtown Los Angeles are now driving as a precaution during Covid-19. The condos at the Mission Meridian Transit Village sold for upwards of $1.1 million in 2005. To be honest, it's highly unlikely that anyone who has paid that amount of money for a home is commuting by train. This was reported in the Los Angeles Times in 2007 and still holds true today. My council member used to ride his bike to take the train, but even he has quit doing that. He affirms that residents living at Mission Meridian are not commuting by train. • Explain why South Pasadena never responded to the AFFH or LPFS surveys sent out by SCAG in 2018 and due back no later than April 2019. Our city's allocation now includes excess allocation from other cities who responded to the survey and saw their initial allocations reduced.
• When are you going to admit you want our city to look like Glendale, Pasadena, and Alhambra?
• Do we need to vote on these changes to the General Plan or will it be decided by the City? For instance, height increase was considered for the November Ballot, but up zoning wasn't.
Who makes the decisions?
• Can we zone for/build more housing to exceed the target? • What are resources I can consult to learn more about the RHNA process, specifically to understand how South Pasadena's RHNA number compares to that of other communities? Hearings
City staff and their consultant, PlaceWorks, presented at multiple public hearings at different points in the update process prior to release of the public draft Housing Element.
July 21, 2020
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 21, 2020. The presentation covered the City’s RHNA allocation, sites analysis and options for addressing the identified RHNA shortfall, options for inclusionary housing policy and ADU regulations, and potential options for increased density and height to accommodate additional housing. Information on potential changes to allowed density and height on specific sites was studied and presented. The following questions and input were received from the Planning Commission:
• Provide additional explanation of what moderate and above moderate RHNA means • Has staff considered studying the Pavilions site?
• One consideration is changing what is allowed in single-family areas versus increasing the height limit in other areas
• Has staff looked at the stables site?
• Should think about a road diet on Monterey Road
• Consider street parking in the ADU regulations
• Could pre-approved ADUs include pre-fabricated units? It seems like they would be more affordable
3 - 377
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-24 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE • Are there precedents and incentives for converting market rate units to affordable units? • What about the Caltrans properties?
• What about condo version to market rate then to affordable housing? • Showing partial site redevelopment of Vons and Ralphs sites as the baseline condition with full redevelopment with density and height increases is misleading. If this is the approach needs to be supported more.
• Amount of parking provided for the precedent projects versus what would be required under South Pasadena’s regulations?
• Wondering about the illustrative examples show versus the sites/areas a ballot measure to increase height would actually apply to
• Has City had conversations with the owners of all of these sites? • Can regulations regarding height and zoning be adjusted after the Housing Element is adopted? • Do Density Bonus units count towards the RHNA?
• Seems weird to have a ballot measure to increase height before the Housing Element. • Will the RHNA change?
• Seems like the City would be forced to build more small units • Makes sense to have less parking at the Gold Line Storage sites. Connect with the Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan and do that with all the 5 sites. • Transit access to each of the 5 sites needs to be looked at o Ralphs site should be good, there are multiple bus lines o Ostrich farm site – not sure if there is sufficient transit access • Increased density can add economic benefit/energize the area, just one edge might not make sense
• Premature for a height ballot initiative, the tail is wagging the dog • Should fight the RHNA
• State Density Bonus – allows increased height
• South Pasadena isn’t alone in facing a large RHNA increase • The Council and the Mayor Pro Tem have personally written to and spoken with SCAG and state legislators and they aren’t getting any traction on changing the RHNA o Alhambra – 6,000 + unit RHNA
o San Marina – 398 unit RHNA
o Beverly Hills – 3,096 unit RHNA
• The area a height increase applied to could be less site specific – a wider area • More study is needed ahead of a ballot measure on height, leaning towards not recommending • Supportive of strategic increased heights but thinks we aren’t there yet, not enough time to make a decision to have a ballot measure ahead of the deadline for the general election. Not supportive of sending to City Council for November ballot
• Supportive of need to reconsider height limits
• Housing need is critical
3 - 378
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-25 • The consideration of height increase needs to be more thoroughly vetted, can’t support at this time
Three recorded voicemail comments were received:
• First voicemail comment - SPRIG
o Need an alternative that accommodates the RHNA within the 45-foot height limit o They gathered 67 signatures – don’t want height increase • Second voicemail comment
o No height increase
o Concerns about water, sewer, and electricity
• Third voicemail comment
o Opposed to height-limit increase
o Confirmed they had also submitted written comment
August 5, 2020
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the City Council at their meeting on August 5, 2020. The presentation focused on the consideration by the Planning Commission at their July 21st meeting of recommending to the City Council to place a ballot measure to propose allowing increased height on the November ballot. Staff reported that the Planning Commission did not recommend moving forward with the ballot measure at this time. Staff also presented regarding a potential RHNA appeal by the City.
August 11, 2020
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on August 11, 2020.
New analysis and information was presented about specific sites studied for potential height and density increases, following up on the presentation at the July 21st meeting. Updates included information on transit accessibility of candidate sites, parking ratios for precedent examples, and the addition of one site for consideration for potential height and density increases.
The following questions and input were received from the Planning Commission. • Regarding Ostrich Farm Area:
o Why not include parcels to the east of the vacant site? o Ostrich Farm area is appropriate, without needing to be as surgical as elsewhere o Need to look at how to make Ostrich Farm more of a complete neighborhood o Can it connect to Highland Park?
3 - 379
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-26 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE • Regarding Meridian Property:
o Be careful to recognize historic district
o Be careful not to overwhelm surrounding historic structures with additional height o Agree with sensitivity towards Meridian site
• Comments regarding sites in general:
o Vons, Ralphs, and Ostrich Farm are good opportunities o Generally, site locations seem pretty smart
o Concern about putting a lot of units in far corner of the city o Traffic and parking should be a top consideration
o Traffic and parking analysis need to go hand in hand with these sites o Look at what State density bonus law means when considering additional heights o We need to build more housing
o Presentation materials are going to be key pieces when communicating to residents o How much time do we have to make zoning changes outlined in Housing Element? o Does a height increase need to be in place at adoption of Housing Element? o What is required to prove redevelopment potential of a non-vacant site? o Question regarding ADU production target; answered that City will have to include aggressive programs
o What does it mean if we don’t raise heights? (need to explain to the public) o Is there a way to raise heights without going to the voters? o Can City get credit for units built in excess over prior Housing Element cycle? September 8, 2020
City staff and PlaceWorks presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 8, 2020. The focus of the presentation was ADUs and options for supporting that housing type in the City as part of the Housing Element and ongoing City programming. Staff was specifically seeking input on update to the City’s ADU zoning regulations and consideration of policies and programs to include in the draft Housing Element.
One recorded voicemail comment was received:
• City talked about ADU projection methodology at the July 21st Planning Commission meeting.
Doesn’t see that in the presentation this time.
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 - 380
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 381
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-28 2021-2029 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 - 382
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 383
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-30 2021-2029 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 - 384
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 385
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-32 2021-2029 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 - 386
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 387
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-34 2021-2029 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 - 388
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 389
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-36 2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 390
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 391
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-38 2021-2029 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 - 392
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-39
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.
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 - 393
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-40 2021-2029 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.
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.
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 - 394
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 395
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-42 2021-2029 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 - 396
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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
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.
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.
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 - 397
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-44 2021-2029 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 - 398
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 399
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-46 2021-2029 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 - 400
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-47
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.
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.
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 - 401
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-48 2021-2029 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?
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.
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?
objective is to approve at least 600 affordable units during the planning period through density bonuses 3 - 402
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 403
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-50 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
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.
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.
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.
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 - 404
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-51
program also include those centers (i.e., half-way homes) in Program 4.b?
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 - 405
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-52 2021-2029 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 - 406
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 407
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-54 2021-2029 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.
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.
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 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.
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 - 408
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 409
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-56 2021-2029 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.
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.
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
3 - 410
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 411
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-58 2021-2029 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 - 412
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 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. 12B. The economic report that they are doing is to show how feasible a density bonus project would be.
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 - 413
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-60 2021-2029 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 - 414
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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:
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.
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.
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 - 415
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-62 2021-2029 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 - 416
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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.
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 - 417
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-64 2021-2029 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 - 418
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 3 - 419
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-66 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
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.
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 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.
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.
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 - 420
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 421
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-68 2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
27. Removal of all commercial parking requirements within the downtown specific zone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 422
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 423
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-70 2021-2029 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 - 424
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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.
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.”
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.” 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.
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 - 425
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-72 2021-2029 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.
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.
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 - 426
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 427
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-74 2021-2029 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.
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.
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 - 428
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 429
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-76 2021-2029 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 - 430
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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.
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 - 431
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-78 2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 432
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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 - 433
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-80 2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - 434
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 435
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-82 2021-2029 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.
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.
• 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 - 436
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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:
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 - 437
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-84 2021-2029 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.
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. • How addressed: No revisions have been made in response to this comment.
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. 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 - 438
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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 - 439
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-86 2021-2029 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.
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.
• How addressed: The normal operation of the City was significantly affected by the COVID19 pandemic, resulting in the closure of City offices, as well as financial challenges for the City.
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 - 440
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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 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 - 441
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-88 2021-2029 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:
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.
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 - 442
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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:
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 3 - 443
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-90 2021-2029 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.
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.
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
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.
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 - 444
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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
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.
• How addressed: Thank you for your comment.
3 - 445
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-92 2021-2029 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.
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. • How addressed: Thank you for your comments climate change will be addressed in the updated General Plan.
Social/Economic Justice
3 - 446
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 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.
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). • How addressed: The commentor’s statement is noted.
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 - 447
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-94 2021-2029 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.
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. • How addressed: Thank you for your comments.
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?
• How addressed: Thank you for your comment.
3 - 448
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-95
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. • How addressed: See response above.
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 - 449
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-96 2021-2029 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.
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? • How addressed: Thank you for your comment.
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 - 450
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-97
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?
• How addressed: Thank you for your comment, please check back with the City’s Virtual Planning Desk to find out about housing project applications.
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.
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.
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. • How addressed: Program 2.j has been updated to address HCD comments.
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 - 451
Appendix B
MAY 2023 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Page B1-98 2021-2029 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 3 - 452
Appendix B
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA MAY 2023
2021-2029 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Page B1-99 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? • How addressed: Please refer to California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3).
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.