Dear Chair Delgado and Members of the Design Commission,
I want to begin by thanking the Commission for speaking so candidly about the quality of some of the developments coming before you. I’ve been encouraged by your willingness to question designs that don’t seem to reflect the architectural standards Pasadena has long been known for. I realize state housing laws have made your job much harder, but I hope you’ll keep pushing for better projects.
This project isn’t in my neighborhood, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t care. It could just as easily be my neighborhood someday. I feel for the people who live directly behind this property, who may soon have an 85-foot building overlooking their homes, along with more traffic and potentially more cars competing for street parking. If this were happening next to my home, I would hope other Pasadena residents would speak up, too. I think we owe that to one another.
I’m also here because I’m increasingly concerned about the city we’re building. We all love Pasadena, but I think many of us are looking at what’s being proposed and wondering what happened to the plans and standards that were supposed to guide development in our city. I was encouraged to hear Mayor Gordo raise similar concerns at the Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee meeting last night. State housing laws have taken away much of Pasadena’s ability to make its own decisions, and that needs to change. But in the meantime, I don’t want us to give up good design, tree protection, open space, or consideration for the people who already live in these neighborhoods and those who will eventually call these new buildings home.
Looking at the proposed development at 1946–1976 East Colorado Boulevard, I have several concerns about what we’re giving up to accommodate it.
The proposal calls for a six-story building reaching approximately 85 feet, with 154 apartments and 77 parking spaces. It also requests five concessions and five waivers from our development standards. Most troubling to me is the reduction in common open space from the normally required 37,775 square feet to just 7,922 square feet, with no publicly accessible open space proposed. That’s nearly an 80 percent reduction in common open space. With so many apartments, including two- and three-bedroom units, I wonder whether we’re providing enough outdoor space for the families and children who will live here.
And then there are the trees. The project proposes removing 12 trees, including 11 protected trees. I appreciate that the design has been adjusted to preserve a sycamore along Greenwood Avenue, but could similar changes save more of the other trees? My concern is that by the time the tree removal requests come before the city, the building’s design will already be too far along to make meaningful changes. Shouldn’t we be looking at ways to preserve these trees now? I’d also appreciate a complete, updated tree inventory showing exactly which trees are proposed for removal, their species, size, condition, and location. The planning materials appear to contain different tree counts, and I’d like to understand why. I’ve also become increasingly concerned about our reliance on trees planted in concrete pots. I’ve seen too many around Pasadena where the trees have died, and the planters have remained empty for years. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed. These are not substitutes for mature trees growing in the ground. I hope the Commission will consider how much room there will actually be for healthy trees to grow.
I’m also concerned about how this building will affect the smaller residential properties directly behind it. The staff report describes how the building steps down toward the residential neighborhood, but I’d like the Commission to look closely at whether those changes go far enough. An 85-foot building next to much smaller residential buildings is a substantial change. What about the privacy, sunlight, and quality of life of the neighbors who will live next to it? I hope we’ll do everything possible to make that transition less severe.
I spent some time looking at other Meta Housing developments. I was particularly impressed by Citrus Crossing in Glendale, which won a 2025 Gold Nugget Grand Award for affordable senior housing. What caught my attention was the difference in the design. Citrus Crossing incorporates brick, wood siding, and stucco, along with a landscaped courtyard, a pedestrian paseo, and rooftop decks where residents can gather, garden, and spend time outdoors. Now compare that with what’s being proposed here. We have a six-story building with an exterior that’s largely one color of stucco, a substantial reduction in common open space, and 11 protected trees proposed for removal. I appreciate that the Pasadena proposal includes courtyards and a children’s play area, but I wonder why we can’t do more. I realize Citrus Crossing serves a different population and was designed by a different architect. But Meta Housing has already shown what it can accomplish. I hope we can reach that same level of quality with this project, especially given its location along historic Route 66. I’d love to see Meta Housing build something in Pasadena that receives the same kind of architectural recognition. I was pleased to see that planning staff recommends reconsidering Scheme 1 instead of continuing with the proposed Scheme 3. If staff believes an earlier design better reflects Pasadena’s Objective Design Standards, I hope the Commission will encourage the developer to explore it further.
I’m also worried about what is happening along East Colorado Boulevard as a whole. We have several large housing projects proposed along this stretch of historic Route 66. Pasadena’s East Colorado Specific Plan calls for architectural diversity, well-designed façades, meaningful open space, and development that strengthens Colorado Boulevard as our historic main street. I’d hate to see buildings going up that could just as easily be anywhere else.
With 154 apartments and only 77 parking spaces, I am especially interested in what the transportation analysis tells us about the surrounding neighborhood. I’ve spent a great deal of time reviewing Pasadena’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, and I think the document contains a lot of useful information. It should help us understand not only how this project affects nearby residential streets, but also what changes we could make to the building’s design to reduce those impacts. With the proposed driveway on Berkeley Avenue, have we considered how vehicles entering and leaving the property will affect that street and the residential neighborhood behind the development? Could the driveway be better located? Could circulation be improved? Are we considering the other developments coming to East Colorado and what their combined impacts will be? And are we looking at the possibility of additional parking demand on nearby residential streets? I’d like to see the applicable transportation findings shared and used to make this project better for the people who will live there and the neighbors who are already there. Our transportation studies should be helping us solve problems while there is still time to change the design.
I know this is only a preliminary review, but I worry that once these plans get further along, we’ll be told it’s too late to make changes. That’s why I’m writing now. I hope the Commission will take a hard look at what’s being proposed and ask the developer to do better where improvements are possible. I’d hate to see us miss that opportunity.
I hope you’ll pay particular attention to the amount and quality of open space, preservation of the existing trees, the transition to the residential neighborhood, and whether the architecture can better reflect its location along historic Route 66.
Whatever gets built on this property will be here for generations. I want the people who live there to have a well-designed building with adequate outdoor space, and I want to treat existing neighbors fairly. I also want to be proud of the city we’re building. Pasadena has a remarkable architectural history, and I don’t want us to lose sight of that just because state laws have made development more difficult to manage.
We don’t just need more housing. We need to build homes worth living in.
Thank you for your consideration.
