Agenda Item 1: Density Bonuses, Concessions and Waivers
Dear Mayor Gordo and Members of the Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee,
I recently wrote an op-ed titled “Pasadena Did Not Arrive Here Without Warning” following the August 25 Design Commission meeting. I was stunned by what I heard that evening. Our own commissioners questioned whether some of the housing proposed in Pasadena would provide a reasonable quality of life for the people who will live in it. They raised concerns about extremely small apartments, limited sunlight, inadequate open space, trees, and parking. Commissioner Marie-Claude Fares described apartments with living room and bedroom windows facing a blank wall just nine feet away. Chair Julianna Delgado asked a question that has stayed with me: “What kind of housing is it—just cramming people into little boxes or giving them a good life?”
I have been raising these concerns, along with many other Pasadena residents, for more than a decade. We questioned what would happen if Pasadena continued increasing density without equally serious planning for parks, trees, open space, transportation, parking, and infrastructure. Too often, those concerns were dismissed as opposition to housing. Hearing our own Design Commission now raise many of the same issues was both encouraging and frustrating. For years, Pasadena seemed so focused on how many additional housing units it could zone for that we lost sight of an equally important question: Where would all these people actually enjoy living? Where would their children play? Where would families gather outdoors? Where were the parks, trees, open spaces and shaded streets that make a neighborhood a desirable place to live? We spent years planning for the number of units, but did we put the same effort into planning for the lives people would lead once those units were built?
Your October 14 staff report acknowledges that the most common requests for density-bonus concessions and waivers involve floor area, setbacks, open space, and building height. These are not insignificant details. They affect how much sunlight reaches apartments, the space available for healthy trees to grow, the outdoor areas residents can enjoy, and the relationship between new developments and surrounding neighborhoods. Pasadena has long taken pride in its beautiful, mature tree canopy. Yet we increasingly see developments where trees are squeezed into concrete planters because buildings and pavement take up so much of the property. Drive around Pasadena, and you’ll see empty planters where trees and plants have died and never been replaced. I have also noticed this happening with newly planted street trees, including at the development on the corner of Del Mar and Los Robles and, more recently, at the new Caltech project on California Boulevard.
What concerns me is the lack of apparent follow-up after these projects are completed. Does staff routinely revisit developments to confirm that required landscaping and street trees are surviving? When a tree dies, who is responsible for making sure it is replaced? Residents should not have to drive around, identify dead trees, and report them to the City. Staff should be conducting regular follow-up inspections to ensure developments continue to meet their approved landscaping requirements. I would also like the City to examine how many established, in-ground trees have been removed through development and how many have been replaced with trees in concrete planters. How many replacement trees survive three or five years later? Can we measure actual tree canopy and long-term survival, not simply count the trees shown on approved landscape plans? A small tree in a concrete container cannot automatically be considered an equivalent replacement for a mature shade tree.
I have similar concerns about open space. As Pasadena adds thousands of housing units, I would like to know how far residents actually have to walk to reach a usable public park or green space. Are there neighborhoods where residents must walk a mile or more to enjoy a park? The City should be mapping actual walking distances rather than simply drawing circles around existing parks, particularly in areas where substantial new housing is being approved. We should know whether Pasadena has established a reasonable standard for access to public open space, which neighborhoods are underserved, and where additional parkland could still be acquired or preserved. Once land is covered with buildings, opportunities to create meaningful public open space may be lost for generations.
Transportation and parking deserve the same attention. Pasadena’s own 2026 Short Range Transit Plan acknowledges the continued importance of automobiles, particularly in lower-density areas. Yet we are planning and approving housing partly on the expectation that residents will increasingly rely on other forms of transportation. Are changes in travel behavior actually occurring? The City should monitor vehicle ownership, transit use, and neighborhood parking conditions after developments with reduced parking requirements become occupied. That includes tracking changes in residential and overnight parking permit applications, as well as conducting on-street parking occupancy studies before and after projects are completed. Because residents of certain developments are not eligible for overnight parking permits, permit numbers alone may not tell the whole story. Follow-up studies at six months, one year, and two years after occupancy would help establish whether our assumptions about parking and transportation are proving accurate and what adjustments may be needed.
I recognize that state housing laws have significantly restricted Pasadena’s authority. However, the City established many of its development priorities long before some of these newer state requirements took effect, and our leaders still have a responsibility to use whatever authority remains available to protect residents and the quality of our neighborhoods. The example in your staff report from Santa Monica, where documented traffic and pedestrian safety concerns led a developer to revise a project, shows the importance of ensuring city planning goals and ideals work. Where those laws prevent Pasadena from requiring reasonable standards for sunlight, open space, trees, and livability, I hope our City Council will identify the specific problems and pursue legislative changes in Sacramento.
I would like this committee to direct staff to provide a public accounting of the concessions and waivers already granted and their cumulative consequences. That should include how much usable open space has been reduced, how many in-ground trees have been removed or replaced with container plantings, whether required landscaping is being maintained, and how reduced parking requirements are affecting surrounding neighborhoods. I would also like to see a neighborhood-by-neighborhood assessment of access to public parks and open space, including actual walking distances for residents of existing and proposed developments. Much of this information could be mapped and made available to the public. It seems imperative that staff examine what our city can still require under state housing laws to keep our city feeling like Pasadena. I would like staff to explain what Pasadena can still lawfully require under state housing laws, identify specific actions the City can take, and establish responsibility and timelines for carrying them out.
What troubles me most about the August Design Commission meeting is that residents have been raising many of these issues for years. I believe we need an honest assessment of how Pasadena planned for increased density, what provisions were made for the infrastructure and amenities that growth would require, and what opportunities remain to correct any shortcomings. The City’s responsibility should not end when it approves a development or completes construction. We need to know whether these projects are delivering what was promised and whether the surrounding neighborhoods are functioning as anticipated.
Building more housing is important, but the number of units we produce cannot be our only measure of success. The people who live in those homes deserve sunlight, trees, open space, and neighborhoods that function well. Pasadena should be planning just as carefully for the lives people will lead in these developments as it has for the number of units it can accommodate.
Thank you for your consideration.
