Writing

  • Great Cities Don’t Happen by Accident

    The first lesson I learned about being a citizen wasn’t taught in a classroom. It was taught at Pasadena City Hall by a woman who didn’t seek to teach anything, but led by example. Her name was Nina Chomsky.

    When I first began attending City Council meetings, I cared deeply about issues arising in Pasadena. I was passionate, but a novice at advocacy. I made big mistakes. At first, I suspect Nina rolled her eyes at me and assumed I was another passing voice who would come and go. But I stayed, and I learned, especially from her. Nina taught me that passion and preparation were not the same thing. She valued both and always came ready to argue her case.

    As I began to understand what being prepared meant, I started reading staff reports closely, asking questions of staff and learning how decisions were actually made from beginning to end. Over time, Nina became more than someone I would simply see at City Hall. She became a mentor and a friend. We did not always agree or view every issue through the same political lens. But Nina taught me that disagreement didn’t have to keep people from working together for a city they both loved. This was our common bond.

    She believed that being a resident of Pasadena came with responsibilities: to pay attention, learn the issues, and show up—even when the decisions at hand did not affect our own street or neighborhood. Caring about a city meant taking part in shaping its future. Her example has stayed with me, along with the question it raised: What do we, as citizens and leaders, owe the places we love?

    Because I love my city and am always looking for solutions, I keep an eye out for thoughtful writing about cities. Lately, I have found myself reading essays by a diverse range of writers and publications, each approaching the subject from a different political perspective.

    Some argue that cities thrive when government is ambitious and willing to invest in the public good. Others warn that cities decline when leaders tolerate disorder, ignore fiscal realities or pursue ideology without measuring results. Still others focus on the importance of beauty, history, civic institutions and a shared sense of belonging. 

    Indeed, these writers do not agree on everything. Together, though, they raise a question that Pasadena should be asking no matter what your political background: What makes a great city?

    A great city is compassionate, but it also understands that compassion without safety and order can fail both the people who need help and the larger community.

    A great city welcomes change, but it does not discard its history or allow development to erase the qualities that made the city special.

    A great city invests in public services, but it also asks whether programs are working and whether taxpayers can sustain them.

    It pays attention to evidence, measures results, and has the courage to change direction when a policy is not producing what was promised.

    It is also a prosperous city—one that welcomes investment while protecting the qualities that made people want to live, work and visit there in the first place. None of those qualities can be sustained by good intentions alone.

    A successful city needs businesses, jobs and a strong tax base. It also needs safe streets, beautiful public spaces, well-maintained neighborhoods, and confidence that City Hall can deliver basic services residents depend on. Those goals should not be treated as competing values or viewed through a political lens. Some crossover can occur between different priorities and approaches. For example, a city can invest in the public good while still keeping an eye on the local government’s budgetary limitations. In fact, these objectives depend on one another to achieve something great. In today’s divisive political landscape, it would be a relief to put politics aside and agree on these basic goals to build and maintain a great city.

    Pasadena did not become Pasadena by accident. Previous generations and civic-minded people protected historic buildings, planted trees, created parks and libraries, supported churches and civic institutions, and built a city known around the world. Now we are making decisions that will permanently shape Pasadena for decades. For instance, we face major changes to housing and development. We are also confronting homelessness and looming questions about public safety. We are now being taxed to fund more services like the library and potentially our fire stations, all the while residents face their own financial pressures. Our city continually responds to state mandates that increasingly limit our local control over how our city grows. These decisions and issues require more than good intentions and compassion for fellow neighbors. They require clear goals, honest numbers, and a willingness to ask whether the policies we adopt will actually produce a viable, growing and historic city we love.

    If stewardship sometimes requires respectfully challenging higher levels of government, like the state, do we have the courage to do it? And if change is inevitable, are we shaping it thoughtfully—or simply letting it happen to us?

    Great cities need elected leaders and professional staff, but they also need citizens willing to participate. They need people who read the agendas, attend the meetings, ask difficult questions, and remain involved after the immediate controversy has passed. They need neighborhood associations, churches, schools, businesses and civic organizations that understand they have a role in the life of the city.

    They also need people like Nina.  After Nina died, Pasadena Star-News Public Editor Larry Wilson wrote beautifully about her life and her devotion to Pasadena. His words reminded me how many people quietly shape a city without ever holding elected office. Nina understood that city government was something to partake and help shape. It was a practice. She showed up, and she paid attention. She expected people to do their homework. She could be tough, but her toughness came from believing that Pasadena was worth the effort.

    The city we inherited reflects the choices of people who came before us. The city we leave behind will reflect the choices we make now. It is our turn to show up, ask difficult questions, and care enough to help Pasadena become its very best. Great cities don’t happen by accident. They happen because, generation after generation, people decide their city is worth showing up for.

  • Full Speed Ahead on Policy, Still Stuck in Traffic

    Pasadena has ambitious plans for changing how we travel. But are we solving the transportation problems we already have?

    Anyone who regularly drives along California Boulevard knows what happens when the Metro train comes through. Traffic comes to a standstill, sometimes backing up all the way to Los Robles Avenue. Drivers sit and wait for the train to pass before traffic can begin moving again. This is hardly news to anyone who drives in Pasadena, but here’s why it bothers me:

    Pasadena is pursuing a $75.1 million roadway project along Pasadena Avenue and St. John Avenue. That’s quite an investment. Proposed improvements include better sidewalks, upgraded traffic signals and intersections, lighting, landscaping, and bicycle facilities.

    The money to fund this project was originally part of a $230.5 million Metro Measure R allocation meant to separate the train tracks from vehicle traffic at California Boulevard. That plan never came to fruition because preliminary estimates showed just how expensive and disruptive the construction would be. I understand why Pasadena walked away from it.

    But finding a less expensive alternative was never supposed to mean giving up on fixing the traffic problem. I fought hard to make those railroad crossings a priority because I knew how frustrating they were for residents. In September 2022, I wrote to City Council asking why improvements to the crossings ranked sixth on their list of priorities while the $75.1 million Pasadena Avenue and St. John Avenue project came first. I honestly believed residents would be outraged to learn that addressing such an obvious, everyday problem wasn’t the city’s first priority.

    Ultimately, Pasadena set aside $2.5 million in 2023 to improve traffic monitoring and signal coordination along the Metro A Line, with equipment planned for up to 18 intersections. But when I recently asked the Transportation Department about progress on that project, I learned that it is still in what the city calls the “pre-design” phase. The city is preparing to hire a consultant, and it doesn’t expect to award a contract until the first half of 2027. Only then will the design phase begin. More than three and a half years after the funding was approved, we’re still waiting for the actual design work to start. Meanwhile, we are still stuck in traffic.

    Pasadena is moving ahead with its $75.1 million Pasadena Avenue and St. John Avenue project, with public meetings scheduled for October 29 and November 4. Shouldn’t we understand whether the railroad-crossing improvements will help traffic before making decisions that could send more cars onto surrounding streets? And when will those railroad-crossing improvements finally be installed? Asking for a friend.

    I’d love to see Pasadena Avenue and St. John Avenue looking better, with improved sidewalks, more trees, and attractive landscaping. Those streets could certainly use it. But City Hall seems more interested in putting its transportation policies into practice than fixing the problems we’re already dealing with.

    It’s no secret Pasadena wants more people to walk, bike, and take public transportation more often. But when did implementing these policies become more important than fixing the traffic problems right in front of us?

    I sometimes wonder how many Pasadena residents realize just how much emphasis City Hall has placed on bicycle transportation. Beyond the $75.1 million Pasadena Avenue and St. John Avenue project, there’s another $12.6 million for Greenways along four north-south streets and $9.9 million for improvements along Columbia Street. That’s nearly $100 million in roadway projects that include bicycle infrastructure, with even more transportation planning underway.

    Those who use bicycles in Pasadena want safer streets; I can understand that. But what about everyone else trying to get around Pasadena? According to the city’s own transit plan, 97% of residents live in households with at least one vehicle. And just ask any current resident who’s tried to get from one side of Pasadena to the other lately; traffic is a problem. When we’re talking about $75.1 million, shouldn’t we be asking whether we’re spending it on the problems that need our attention most?

    Before we spend this kind of money, I’d like to know how many bicycles actually use the Union Street Protected Bikeway and how many cars sit and wait at our most congested intersections. I’d also like the city to explain what we’re expecting to accomplish with these significant Metro investments and how we’ll know if they’re working. Is that really asking too much?

    In a December 2024 article, Pasadena transportation planner Scott Johnson wrote that the project would “encourage traffic to use other arterial corridors, such as Fair Oaks Avenue and Arroyo Parkway.” That caught my attention. Shouldn’t we have the $2.5 million traffic-monitoring system up and running before encouraging more cars onto those streets? We need to understand how traffic is moving today so we can measure what happens when the roadway changes are made. Surely that should be part of planning a $75 million project. Otherwise, how will we know whether we’re improving traffic or making the backups at the railroad crossings even worse?

    These aren’t just numbers on a traffic study. They affect our everyday lives. We use our cars to drive kids to school, run them to soccer practice, take our parents to appointments, pick up groceries, and try to get to work on time. Cars have been part of life here for generations. After all, historic Route 66 ran right down Colorado Boulevard! We can encourage people to change their transportation habits, but expecting our dependence on cars to disappear overnight simply because City Hall has adopted new policies? It’s just unrealistic.

    We seem to have an extraordinary commitment to changing how people travel in the future, while some of the most obvious transportation problems affecting Pasadena today remain unresolved.

    Mayor Gordo acknowledged this reality during the October 14 Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee meeting. He asked when he might realistically be able to give up his car and acknowledged it could be a long time. He also questioned the practicality of riding a bicycle up North Lake Avenue carrying groceries, particularly for senior citizens.

    I was glad to hear him say it. Because, like it or not, a lot of us aren’t giving up our cars anytime soon or even in our lifetime.

    And that’s why I keep questioning our priorities. What good is another transportation plan like the Pasadena Avenue and St. John Avenue Roadway Network Project if we’re still sitting at the same intersections, waiting for traffic to move? Before Pasadena spends millions redesigning how we travel tomorrow, has it done enough to fix how we travel today?

    If you’ve ever sat through the traffic at California Boulevard, you know why this matters. I’ve created a One-Click letter asking Pasadena City Council to count the bikes, count the cars, and show residents how these projects could affect our streets before the plans get too far along.

  • Design Commission meeting

    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.

  • What happens when you show up…

    Pasadena Now quoted me in its piece on the East Colorado Housing Project. Read it here.

    And in a piece about state-imposed density.

  • October 14 Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee meeting (part 2)

    Agenda Item 2: Update on Major Housing Projects Currently Under Review

    Dear Mayor Gordo and Committee Members,

    As you receive an update on Pasadena’s major housing projects, I hope you will look beyond the number of units moving through the development process and consider what all this growth is going to mean for our city.

    The materials accompanying this meeting identify 23 major housing projects totaling 4,160 units, either submitted for review or under construction. That’s a substantial amount of development, and I wonder whether Pasadena is growing faster than our ability to plan for it.

    I’ve lived in Pasadena for nearly 30 years and raised my three children here. For more than a decade, I’ve followed our planning decisions, attended meetings, read reports and raised concerns about the direction our city is heading. And I have to tell you, I’m increasingly troubled by what I’m seeing.

    Pasadena didn’t become the city we love by accident. Generations of residents have worked hard to protect its architecture, neighborhoods, mature trees and character. We have spent decades establishing standards that have made Pasadena a desirable place to live. Are those standards still being upheld as we accommodate more development?

    Are our streets ready for thousands of additional residents? Do we have the infrastructure to support this growth? Where will the additional parks and open spaces be? Are we protecting the mature trees that make our neighborhoods special? And are we looking at the combined effects of these developments rather than evaluating each project in isolation?

    These are not new questions. Many residents have been asking them for years, and I believe they deserve more than assurances that everything will work out.

    Somewhere along the way, we seem to have started measuring success by the number of housing units being produced rather than the quality of the city we’re creating. I think it’s time to bring some common sense back into the discussion of growth.

    I’m not suggesting Pasadena shouldn’t grow. But growth must be accompanied by responsible planning, and I want to know who at City Hall is taking responsibility for the bigger picture.

    I ask this committee to request that future housing updates address more than the development pipeline. Show residents whether our streets, parks and infrastructure can accommodate the anticipated growth. Explain how Pasadena’s development standards are being maintained, what deficiencies have been identified and what the City intends to do about them. We should also be measuring whether the commitments made during project approvals are being fulfilled after construction.

    Perhaps the most important question is this: When we look back ten years from now, will we be proud of what we’ve allowed to be built? Or will we wonder why we didn’t ask harder questions when we still had the opportunity?

    We need to get back to what has always made Pasadena special. I don’t want to see decades of careful planning and preservation lost because we failed to consider the consequences of our decisions.

    We have worked too hard to protect this city to simply watch those qualities disappear. Growth is inevitable, but losing what makes Pasadena a wonderful place to live should not be.

  • October 14 Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee meeting

    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.

  • Are We Becoming Santa Monica?

    Protect what makes Pasadena special before we lose it.

    For years, I’ve had this nagging feeling that Pasadena is becoming more like Santa Monica—or, more broadly, like the Westside. Pasadena has always been different from Santa Monica in many ways—warmer climate, slower pace, historical character, and old-school charm. Frankly, Pasadena has been much easier to get around too. You would never confuse one city for the other. Yet over time, I’ve started to notice something the two cities increasingly share: policy choices that are chipping away at the ease and success that have long made Pasadena such a good place to live.

    The first policy that really caught my attention was the heavy emphasis on housing around transit. It seemed that Pasadena prioritized the number of units over the quality of what was being built—less character, less open space, trees in concrete pots, and buildings that could easily be mistaken for ones in Santa Monica, Culver City, or anywhere else. And this is in a city that takes pride in its architecture.

    Along with the new housing comes reduced parking. New projects are being planned with fewer spaces, based on the idea that residents will drive less if they live near transit and use the metro or bikes. For example, the proposed project at 2000 E. Colorado Boulevard includes 144 apartments but only 64 parking spaces. To state the obvious, many residents still need a car to function. Pasadena residents drive across town for school, soccer, groceries, and doctor visits. People aren’t organizing their lives around a rail line or bike lane—they base their routines on where their kids, jobs, doctors, and errands are.

    As part of the push to get people out of their cars, Pasadena has added bike lanes throughout the city, including along Union Street and other parts of the city. I enjoy riding a bike when it makes sense—but not when I’m in a hurry, when the route feels unsafe, when the weather isn’t great, or when I have kids or groceries to carry. People decide how to get around based on what they need to do that day, not on a city goal.

    Then there’s homelessness. It was one of the first issues that drew me to City Hall. It has become much more visible, especially around businesses and parks. And more recently, it became very personal when I saw people living on the sidewalk and in the park right next to my church and its school. I believe in outreach and services, but our schools still need to operate without worrying about what’s happening outside the school gates; parents want to know their kids are safe, sidewalks should be accessible, and our parks should be places families can enjoy. We need laws and enforcement to keep our city clean, safe, and functioning.

    To be fair, Sacramento is driving many of these changes, especially around housing, transportation, and parking. But I worry that Pasadena isn’t always pushing back. In many cases, the City and its council seem to be moving in the same direction. State mandates shouldn’t end the conversation. If anything, they make it even more important for Pasadena to review the local impacts and decide where common sense can still win the day.

    The best analogy I can share for how I see this is the game of Jenga. Pull out one block, and it stays upright. Then another. Each move seems manageable alone. But eventually, the whole structure begins to wobble when too many stable blocks are removed.

    That’s what I’ve worried about in Pasadena for years—how all these newer policies will unfold once they are layered together. Will the city remain stable, or will it start to collapse like a Jenga tower?

    And Santa Monica is definitely wobbling.

    The Los Angeles Times recently asked a simple question: What happened to Santa Monica? RAND research shows some of Santa Monica’s economic struggles began before COVID. That means we can’t blame everything on the pandemic—something was already going wrong.

    As I read about Santa Monica, I kept thinking of Pasadena. The details differ, but the pattern and policies feel familiar.
    When you see how some of these policy goals are actually implemented, the trade-offs become clear. Road diets or added bus lanes can remove car lanes, turn lanes, and parking. Reduced parking requirements can make driving less convenient, with the hope that more people will switch to other climate-friendly modes. More housing can mean higher density, less open space, and fewer mountain views—changing an area’s feel in ways that may never have been intended. And a service-first approach to homelessness can still leave parks, sidewalks, and businesses dealing with trash and safety concerns, sometimes without knowing whether those who are unhoused will accept the help being offered.

    What disturbs me is what these policies seem to assume about residents—that they will drive less, need less parking, accept denser living, use transit more, and live with whatever happens in parks, next to our schools, and on our streets. Businesses are expected to adjust too.

    But if Santa Monica’s struggling downtown and retail sector are any indication, those adjustments aren’t happening smoothly. More than 11% of Santa Monica’s retail space is vacant, while Pasadena’s recent Economic Development Strategy put its citywide retail vacancy rate at about 5.5%. Pasadena is not there yet—and that is exactly why this is the time to pay attention.

    Affordability adds another layer. Pasadena’s sales tax is now 11%, with state, county, and local taxes all contributing to that total. Pasadena households and businesses are also dealing with higher utility costs. When living, shopping, and doing business become more expensive and complicated, residents and businesses can start to feel like the city is working against them rather than for them.

    This is where cities can get themselves into trouble. We become so fixated on whether policies sound good that we forget to ask what they’re actually doing to the city and its residents when they are layered together. Layer enough of them together, and the base may not be as strong as we think.

    Santa Monica is now adding police downtown, making parking easier, supporting businesses, and investing in revitalizing the Promenade. But I still don’t hear enough about whether past policy decisions contributed to the city’s current issues.

    We may not have all the answers yet, but Pasadena should want to know before making many of the same moves.
    What worries me most is that, little by little, we might start losing what makes Pasadena special—the mountain views, trees, clean parks, neighborhoods with character, and the ease of living, shopping, and getting around with our kids.
    We don’t want to become Los Angeles. And sometimes, I fear that this is exactly where we are headed.

    Before Pasadena makes its next move, we should pause and assess how these changes work together—and whether the tower remains steady.
    Pasadena has the advantage of observing this elsewhere first. We should make good use of that.

    Policies should adapt to people and their lifestyles, not just lofty ideals or the latest “zero” campaign. We should be careful not to expect residents to change their lives to fit policies, but to shape policies to support a better life for residents and businesses.

    Santa Monica learned some of these lessons the hard way. Pasadena doesn’t have to.

  • Pasadena Did Not Arrive Here Without Warning

    My jaw was practically on the floor as I listened to Pasadena’s Design Commission meeting on Aug. 25. I could not believe what I was hearing. Two thoughts kept running through my mind: We are creating a city that may fail when it comes to transportation and we are tragically proposing and approving apartments where children may never see the sun or have a tree to sit under. And somehow we are calling this progress.

    Thankfully, commissioners were finally questioning the lack of meaningful open space, extremely small units, limited daylight, trees and parking, and whether the housing being built would offer families a reasonable quality of life. But what truly floored me was hearing the word “tenements” used by Design Commission Chair Julianna Delgado during a preliminary discussion of a proposed 144-unit, 100% affordable housing project at 2000 E. Colorado Blvd.
    “It’s almost like we’re building a whole system of tenements,” Delgado said. “So we went for hundreds of years trying to get away from that, and now we have people stuffed in to give them a roof over their head. But life is more than just that.”

    She then observed that people living in historic tenements “at least had a robust street life,” something she noted does not exist along this portion of Colorado Boulevard, and where I personally only see cars whizzing by, empty storefronts and a lack of any meaningful trees.

    I sat there wondering how Pasadena could get so far down this road that the chair of its own Design Commission is now comparing the emerging development pattern to tenements?
    It was Delgado who raised the evening’s most important question: “What kind of housing is it—just cramming people into little boxes or giving them a good life?”

    She is right. We have become so focused on counting units and making everything “affordable” that we have stopped considering the cost. What kind of life will people actually have inside these apartments? The trade-off we are making as a city and state, putting aside our values simply to fit more people within our borders, is a detriment to those we are seeking to house.

    Commissioner Marie-Claude Fares supplied an even more disturbing image. She described units with living room and bedroom windows facing a blank wall only 9 feet away.
    “Putting kids in front of a blank wall in their bedrooms, never seeing the sun—that really, really, really concerns me,” she said.

    We already worry that children spend too much of their lives sitting in front of TV, computer and cellphone screens. Are we now going to build bedrooms with a forced view of blank walls, too?

    Affordable housing should not mean housing built to a lower standard of dignity, daylight, health or quality of life. Families of limited means deserve homes where children can see the sun and residents can gather outside to rest under trees that provide actual shade. These families deserve the same careful planning and high standards that Pasadena should demand for any housing.

    Delgado identified the larger issue, noting that the problem is not a single flawed project.

    “I think I’m more concerned about the pattern that we’re starting to see for acceptable design for 100% affordable projects, which is not acceptable: small units, no open space.”
    The critical word is “pattern.” This is not only about one building. It is about what Pasadena is allowing—and increasingly being required by the state—to become standard. The commission’s candor was both astonishing and encouraging to hear. Residents did not begin raising these concerns last month. I have been hammering away at these exact issues for more than a decade: trees, traffic, open space and quality of design.

    Many of us warned about approving greater density without equally serious planning for parks, open space and trees, transportation, parking, other infrastructure and the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. We questioned whether the city was studying the cumulative consequences of all these projects.

    For raising those concerns, I and others were too often portrayed as anti-housing—and called plenty of other, far less polite names. Ask about the size of a building and you were deemed anti-housing. Ask where people would park and you simply did not understand the future of transportation or climate change. Ask whether families would have enough open space and you were standing in the way of progress. Our questions were treated as attempts to stop housing rather than legitimate concerns about how Pasadena was growing.

    Now I’m angry because commissioners are asking many of the same questions, but perhaps too late. We have arrived at the precise moment many residents like myself warned was coming.

    The discussion of parks and open space was particularly revealing. Commissioners considered whether development-related fees could help provide those amenities elsewhere. Fees may be one potential tool, but collecting money does not create open space if Pasadena has not identified and preserved land on which to provide it.

    How is the city only seriously confronting this question now, after so many projects have been approved and so much available land has already disappeared? Have we waited so long that most opportunities have already vanished?

    The parking discussion exposed the same problem. If projects are permitted to provide little or no parking, Pasadena needs real evidence about what happens afterward or what tools we have to manage such an important problem. Are the promised changes in travel behavior such as bike riding and using public transit or ride-sharing services actually occurring? Some residents may use these modes of transportation, but many still need cars to get to work, take children to school and bring home bags of groceries. Buses don’t travel to every destination.

    We have to prepare for the future based on the world as it actually is, not the one we hope might someday exist. This is exactly why planning has to come before approvals—not after the consequences become impossible to ignore. The city should study those consequences now—not wait until 2027.

    I recognize that the Design Commission’s authority is limited. Delgado acknowledged that density, height, parking and the loss of amenities through waivers and concessions are often outside the commission’s hands. But “out of our hands” cannot be where Pasadena’s response ends.

    It is also time to stop hiding behind the state’s harsh new housing requirements, which have unquestionably limited Pasadena’s authority. Our leaders should push aggressively for changes when those laws produce harmful results. Every single council member should be pounding on the state’s door and saying, “Enough. We will not stand by while Sacramento forces Pasadena to build housing that no one should have to live in.” City leaders are only as powerless as they allow themselves to be.

    Pasadena is on the verge of being transformed into a much denser city without the parks, trees, open space, transportation, parking, and infrastructure necessary to support that density. That is not progress. Every project approved without addressing those needs makes the problems harder—and perhaps eventually impossible—to correct.

    Pasadena did not arrive at this moment without warning. The writing was on the wall. Residents and commissioners finally appear to be on the same page. There is no more time to waste debating whether these problems are real. It’s time to show up and get to work—and fast. We have a city to save.

    We have a city to save. Join me in advocating.

    Check the home page for ways to show up for Pasadena!

  • Where Are Pasadena’s Great Trees?

    A visit with a 1,000-year-old tree in Montana made me wonder why we don’t do more to celebrate Pasadena’s living landmarks.

    While visiting Seeley Lake, Montana, someone told me about Gus. I had never heard of him but knew I couldn’t leave without meeting him, which is how I found myself walking through an ancient grove looking for a tree (a 1,000-year-old western larch standing 153 feet tall and nearly 23 feet around, to be precise). According to the sign beside Gus, he has survived at least 40 fires.

    This tree wasn’t especially easy to find, tucked away in the grove along the lake. You had to know it was there and go looking. A local bartender told me the story about how an Eagle Scout’s Service Project helped identify Gus and tell his story. The visit and journey to see Gus made me think about Pasadena and the special trees we have here.

    I have always cared deeply about Pasadena’s trees. After the Eaton Fire, as the controversy over PUSD’s tree removals and remediation continues, I was pleased to see the City pushing to preserve as many mature trees as possible under Pasadena’s Tree Protection Ordinance. I have also been moved by the young people who continue to show up for the trees at their schools — protesting, speaking out and even staging tree-sits to try to save them. And despite the recent removals, it is encouraging to see PUSD now considering an ambitious goal to substantially increase the mature tree canopy on its campuses. If this controversy has demonstrated anything, it is that I am hardly alone in caring about Pasadena’s trees. A great many people in this city love them, value them and are willing to show up for them.
    But back to Gus. Standing beneath its canopy, I could almost feel its age. It was quiet and stoic. It felt as though time were standing still. It was a beautiful experience. Gus made me wonder: Where are Pasadena’s great trees?

    Pasadena has officially designated Landmark Trees, but where are they? How old are they? Who planted them? What history have they witnessed over the last century and beyond? Are there others that haven’t yet been designated? And why isn’t there an easy way for residents to discover them?

    Imagine a Great Trees of Pasadena map. Start with our Landmark Trees. Give us a photograph, location, species, approximate age, and, most importantly, the story. Let residents nominate other extraordinary trees. Perhaps create walks that encourage people to go out and see them.

    Pasadena is already asking these kinds of questions around the history of our buildings. Through Historic Places Pasadena: Completing Our Story, the city is inviting residents to identify places and stories that matter, and has created an interactive story map to help document them. Why not do the same for the history of our trees and living landmarks?

    Maybe that is where a Great Trees of Pasadena map should begin, with the trees we already love, and the stories we have not yet told.

    I know at least one: the enormous Moreton Bay Fig on Marengo Avenue between Green Street and Del Mar Blvd. With its massive base it almost looks prehistoric, but we know exactly when its story began. Thomas Earley, who would later become Pasadena’s Mayor, planted it at 170 South Marengo in 1880, six years before Pasadena incorporated.

    His house is now gone, but the tree remains.

    The next time you drive down Marengo, slow down and look for it. Better yet, stop and see it up close. Once you know its story — and stand beside that extraordinary trunk — I suspect you won’t look at it quite the same way again.

    Where are the trees that matter to you and your family? It is hard to imagine some of Pasadena’s campuses without the trees that have shaded generations of students, or some of our most beautiful streets without the canopies that define them. It’s what makes our city so unique and beautiful—a “Tree City” for all of us to be proud of and enjoy. Let’s share the experience I had with Gus and map Pasadena’s great trees. Tell your city council your favorite neighborhood tree. Let’s find Pasadena’s great trees, tell their stories and make sure the next generation knows where to find them.

    Check the home page for ways to show up for Pasadena!

  • When Zero Doesn’t Mean Zero

    Pasadena has a thing for zero. Zero Waste. Zero traffic fatalities. One hundred percent carbon-free electricity. And now “functional zero” street homelessness. Who can argue with the aspirations? We all want less waste, safer streets, cleaner energy, and fewer people living on sidewalks. But that is exactly my point: fewer is a goal. Zero is an absolute. And when zero doesn’t actually mean zero, the word begins to lose its meaning.

    Pasadena’s own Zero Waste plan is a perfect example. It calls for Zero Waste by 2040, while projecting a minimum 87 percent diversion rate. That may be a worthwhile goal. But it isn’t zero. The City Council has also adopted a goal of zero traffic fatalities by 2035, and Pasadena is pursuing 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030. Now, we are talking about “functional zero” homelessness.

    Pasadena’s own homelessness data says that even after helping more than 1,000 people exit homelessness into permanent housing over three years, the number of people entering homelessness continues to grow. So before announcing “zero,” shouldn’t we first ask what is realistically achievable?

    If homeless inflow continues to outpace housing, what does functional zero actually mean, and is it achievable? What number are we trying to reach if not? By when? At what cost? And how will we know whether the policy is working? No business could survive by announcing “zero” as the goal and figuring out the math later. Yet government too often does exactly that. We wouldn’t run our households that way either. Imagine raising children around a series of absolute “zero” expectations — zero mistakes, zero bad decisions, zero problems. Real life doesn’t work that way. Real life requires judgment, priorities, tradeoffs, and measurable progress.

    Our city government should work with reality, not slogans. Let’s start with a realistic goal, a clear timetable, a reasonable price tag, and regular reports showing whether we are meeting it. Let’s focus on goals we can measure and ultimately hold our government accountable for meeting them. Businesses do it, and so should our government.

    An aspiration like “zero” cannot replace a well-prepared goal, and a slogan is not a measurement. I would rather Pasadena promise “fewer” and show us the progress than promise zero and later explain why zero never really meant zero in the first place. If City Hall wants to keep promising us zero everything, then residents should insist on three things in return: accountability, fiscal discipline, and no new taxes.

    Define the goal. Show us the numbers. Report the progress. Tell us what it costs. And if reaching “zero” requires another tax, assessment, or revenue measure, that should be part of the conversation from the start — not a surprise at the end. Maybe the most important zero for residents is this one: Zero blank checks.

    Check the home page for ways to show up for Pasadena!