Addressing Community Concerns
Below are YES on Measure SP proponents’ answers to questions and concerns raised by community members and opponents of Measure SP. Answers were compiled with input from architects, attorneys, and community members who have followed the certification of South Pasadena’s Housing Element closely.
Without a height limit in South Pasadena, there will be no building heights and developers could build skyscrapers here, maximize their profit, and destroy this community.
If Measure SP passes and the antiquated 40+-year-old, 45’ height limit is repealed, the city has in place specific plans that define design standards for Mission Street and Fair Oaks. The maximum height on Mission is 5 stories for multifamily and 6 stories on Fair Oaks for multifamily. Other uses here are limited to 4 stories.
There will be an 84’ or 85’ or even higher height limit in the city.
Per direction from the state’s Housing & Community Development office regarding the required ballot measure, the measure “may either eliminate the height limit for the parcels identified in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) or replace the height limit with a new one. If the height limit is replaced, the new limit will be no less than 84 feet to achieve the densities identified in the DTSP.”
There are two important things to note in this language from the state:
1. DTSP refers to the city’s Downtown Specific Plan.
2. These were numbers mentioned in some of the meetings and were thrown out as potential options in the future, but nothing definitive was or is planned. Building to 85’ showed the state that South Pasadena can meet its required housing allocation.
If the measure passes, city staff with consultants will determine height limits approved by City Council through a public process.
Buildings above 85’ are considered high rise and very expensive to build due to the additional requirements of high rise developments: structural, foundation, size of the lot, soil requirements, depth and width of foundation, water tank, pressurized stairs, fire pump, generator, etc. Building heights are also regulated in the California Building Code to ensure safety, health, and welfare for occupants and the public. High rise residential developments above 85’ almost only get built and make sense in extremely dense, high value urban cores (like DTLA or NYC).
Our past consultant on the new zoning claimed that they could fit all our new RHNA numbers (and mandating So Pas plan for 2,067 new units in zoning) by not going higher than our existing 45’ height limit.
This is a misleading statement. The consultant simply suggested various and all options that could theoretically be considered during public outreach meetings. The challenge for Community Development team to achieve the RHNA numbers had to happen ONLY on sites that were vacant lots or the owners gave permission to use them for the study. This does not include EVERY site on Mission, Fair Oaks, Ostrich Farm or Huntington. Community Development has updated the specific plans on Mission Street and Fair Oaks by raising the densities. They have done this to preserve the single-family lower density zones where there is less access to public transit, narrower streets, further from existing commercial and retail areas. The specific plans mass the higher densities and height limits where it makes more sense, along Huntington Drive, Mission Street, Pasadena and Fair Oaks Avenues.
We need to go back to the State and fight the aggressive RHNA numbers mandated to us and the density required.
We have tried this option and failed. This article outlines our attempt to fight our RHNA numbers.
No City has successfully won this effort after taking it to the applicable oversight Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), our Governor, our Attorney General, our courts. Dozens of cities have gone to the courts, and they have all lost the fight. The city’s and we feel vehemently that they will continue to do so.
The Ballot Measure title and language is confusing.
We agree! We didn’t write it and our understanding is that it was written by consultants and attorneys and had to say certain things. We wish it was more straightforward and simpler to understand but we are doing our best to disseminate it and convey as factual and knowledgeable information out to the public as we see it. We need to look beyond the verbiage and focus on the bigger substantial issues here.
If we Vote NO, we get another 9 months and can re-do this all better and with more public input.
This is unrealistic. It took five attempts over five years to get the city’s plan to meet our RHNA numbers accepted by the state. Going back to the drawing boards at this point and opens the city up to costly damages by the state, more lawsuits, and the possibility of developers using “builders remedy” to supersede local codes to build even bigger developments while the city is out of compliance with its Housing Element and trying for a sixth time to get its plan accepted by the state.
The recent departure of all of the city planners involved in the process makes an it even more unrealistic that South Pasadena can develop an acceptable plan in 9 months.
A Yes Vote on Measure SP only protects and benefits “estate properties” or single-family South Pasadena homes.
While it will protect and preserve the single-family character of South Pasadena and our lower density neighborhoods with less traffic and often thinner streets, a Yes vote on Measure SP brings responsible multifamily development to the larger, more accessible and with the better infrastructure in place commercial and higher density cores like Mission, Huntington, Pasadena and Fair Oaks, where it is more appropriate and fits better.
There is no plan for crowded classrooms in SPUSD, traffic and infrastructure.
Community Development conducted an EIR as part of the General Plan and Housing Element to account for all the new projected people and families that would move here. Click HERE to go to the City's website and there are links at the bottom for the Draft EIR and Final EIR. More specifically, SPUSD is constantly looking at and planning for flows and ebbs in their enrollment (both too many and too few students present challenges). Right now, general enrollment and
kindergarten numbers are down (from 5-10%+ now in the elementary and middle schools) which means a significant concern for the future health with a drop in state income coming into our district. The district also has over 200 intradistrict students with special permits - so there is more than sufficient space now to accommodate new students here and make our schools healthier and financially stronger.
Defeating Measure SP will not resolve traffic and infrastructure concerns. The city must still plan for the 2,000+ housing units.
How will City manage affordable housing stock?
The city is not building any housing units, only allowing the zoning to allow for them, be they market rate or affordable. The city’s responsible for updating its zoning to allow for the RHNA numbers to be met and acceptable to HCD. New affordable housing units will be a part of every new project proposed over 10 units