The council’s decision upheld the Pasadena Design Commission approval of the project, which includes a new five-story, 82-unit apartment building and the adaptive reuse of an existing office building into 51 additional units. Of the 133 total units, 131 would be affordable housing and two would be reserved for managers.
The appeal, filed by the Lower Hastings Ranch Association, argued the project violated the city’s General Plan, exceeded allowable density and height limits, and improperly received state density bonus incentives tied to transit access.
At one point the hearing moved beyond technical planning arguments and became a broader fight over socioeconomic change in East Pasadena.
“The classism and the racism of many in the opposition was barely being hidden behind concerns of designs,” said Nayeli Hibner of the Clergy Community Coalition. “At one point, Altadena was mentioned here and questioning even what kind of people would be brought to this area and how it would change the character of the area.”
Hibner urged the council to reject what she called “NIMBYism” and support affordable housing in a historically less diverse part of the city.
Supporters repeatedly tied the project to the region’s housing crisis and recovery from the Eaton Fire, which displaced thousands of residents across the region.
“As a millennial, a renter and a husband and a father struggling firsthand with the burden of a housing crisis, I fully support all efforts to build new housing, especially affordable housing in Pasadena,” resident Topher Mathers told the council. “I find it morally indefensible that after Altadena burned to the ground that Pasadena officials would in any capacity stop or delay the construction of new housing.”
Other speakers criticized opposition arguments focused on parking and walkability.
“What’s up with the concern about residents climbing the hill?” Pasadena resident Humira said. “Really, would you be talking about this if these were million-dollar condos?”
Project opponents, however, argued the proposal was too large for the neighborhood and inadequately served by transit.
Erica Jimenez, who said she lives nearby at 500 North Rosemead, criticized the project’s parking ratio and questioned whether low-income families would realistically be able to live there without cars.
“If this development is intended to help families escape poverty or experience the ability to improve their livelihoods, then trapping them in a building that is nearly at the very edge of what is supposedly a major transit area with no ability to get a car eventually should they need one,” Jimenez said.
City staff defended the proposal throughout the hearing, saying the project complied with state density bonus law and Pasadena’s objective design standards. Senior Planner Radha Duong said the project site qualified for transit-related incentives under state law because of nearby major bus routes and regional transportation designations.
“The project meets all applicable development standards, including the zoning code except where provided through the state density bonus law incentives and concessions that are utilized,” Duong told the council.
The hearing also carried procedural significance because the council was acting in a quasi-judicial role rather than a legislative one. City Attorney Michele Beal Bagneris reminded Councilmembers they were required to base their decision on factual and legal findings rather than personal or political considerations.
The project developer said the development would provide housing for residents earning between 30% and 80% of area median income, including units intended for people displaced by the Eaton Fire.
Later in the evening, the council also advanced a related financing item involving up to $60 million in tax-exempt bond financing through the California Municipal Finance Authority.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
