We Get (More) Letters: Another Opinion on 99 Cent Store Development

Dear Mayor Gordo, Councilmember Kennedy,

I attended the 45-minute Zoom meeting held by the Summerhill Apartment Community Investments on Thursday, Feb. 4.

I would like to share some observations about the meeting and the project on the site of the 99cent store at Los Robles and Villa as proposed.

Context:
The area is exceptionally consistent: one- and two-story buildings, many single-family homes built between 1900 and 1930, some low-rise apartment buildings, a handful of three-story structures. Lake Avenue Church is large, but is adjacent to the freeway, where air quality for residential use is not desirable. Lot sizes vary, but the typical residential lot is 50 x 150. Mature trees, often Coast Live Oak. It’s shady and lovely, whatever the building. Today are many historic districts in northwest Pasadena, either locally designated or listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and whose significance is now treasured.

Notably, Pilgrim Towers, the retirement community building, was completed in 1979, 42 years ago, long before sensibilities about the impact of such developments on a neighborhood have changed. And while 11 stories tall, it has a relatively small narrow footprint and is heavily landscaped with mature trees around the perimeter. Pilgrim Towers should not be used as a point of comparison with this very different development of market-rate housing.

It would be interesting to learn how many occupants of Pilgrim Towers shop at, and depend on, the 99.

Givens:
The General Plan allows a range of 0 – 87 units per acre. By contrast, the Zoning limits units per acre to 32. Likewise, the project does not meet City of Garden Apartment Development Standards. So, there is an inconsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning that has not been reconciled There are 2.5 acres on the site. Ideally, following Zoning, 32 x 2.5 = 80 units. (My math may be a little off, but sounds like a 323% increase!) 80 units are still a considerable number.

As presented Thursday Feb 4: Historic Context
The designer presented the design as taking cues from the surrounding neighborhoods. (This was unclear: although still in early stages, the project did not appear to reference the context or nor were any examples mentioned of how “historic cues” were referenced.) One of the two marketing people introduced himself as being born and raised in Pasadena. However, the extreme intervention that this project embodies demonstrates that a permanent disfigurement of a community, physically and culturally, may be proposed from any quarter.

Several times the purpose of the Zoom meeting was stated in order to “prepare us for what was to come.” (Excuse me? Is this a done deal? Inevitable? By contrast, one may suggest that we, the community, shall prepare them, the developer, for “what is to come.” The comment rang as condescending.)

The designer mentioned that the project would enable “eyes on the street.” (This famous quote by Jane Jacobs, who fought all her life to protect neighborhoods against heavy-handed community upheavals — especially powerless minority communities, as executed under New York’s powerful Robert Moses — was immortalized in her book, The Death and Life of American Cities. “Eyes on the street” are far more likely to emanate, one may argue, from those single-family homes and small businesses rather than from the inhabitants of an insular, inwardly oriented “enclave of Modernism.”)

During the Zoom, some of us repeatedly asked that the meeting be recorded. It was not. Other chat comments, intended for “Everyone,” per Zoom protocols, were suddenly directed only to the marketing team, so that all attendees couldn’t see them. The meeting was abruptly ended by the developer at 4:45 with many people still wanting to make comments.

Housing that is Affordable
Repeatedly, attendees asked about affordable housing. The only response was that it was going to be accommodated off-site. “Off-site” affordable housing is NOT wanted. It should be on site, part of the project; moreover, a significant portion of the project should be devoted to housing that is affordable. It should be part of us, part of the community. Affordable housing elsewhere … why? Would that compromise the upscale effect of the development? Frighten well-paying renters.“Separate but Equal” comes to mind, frankly. By contrast, such an action would destroy the rich diversity here in this network of communities, all of which would be drastically affected, a diversity that is not lip service but one that actually is REALLY diverse. A reality that we love, that we depend on, and that we want to nourish because it enriches all of us.

In addition, what would happen to surrounding property values? What would be the ripple effects? Would those families and individuals strugging now, fragile now, be faced with higher rents? Sure, those of us fortunate enough to own our homes may “benefit,” but housing prices in LA are high anyway. Of greater benefit is living in and enjoying our fantastic communities.

Modernism
The 272+/- unit project was presented as an “enclave of Modernism.” An enclave is defined as a “distinctly bounded area,” within a larger unit. Like a fortress.
. First, the surrounding historic context, from which we were told design cues were taken, is hardly Modern. That notwithstanding, how does this particular project differ from all the other “Modern” developments all around Pasadena? Rather, it appears formulaic, generic, and predictable.
. Second, Modernism sought to disrupt the conventions of historic architecture as being only for the rich and also to exploit new building technologies on behalf of a new paradigm: gracious living in healthful places was deserved by all. It was a social ideal intended for “everyman,” habitats rich with plentiful green spaces and air that we all need to thrive. (Thousands of research papers have proven that nature near and nature far is necessary for human well-being.) Pretty green renderings can be deceiving compared to the built reality.

. Third, this development is not “Modern” unless Modernism is defined only as a style and not a series of questions we raise on behalf of our brothers and sisters. The proposed project is MASSIVE, more like stolid Soviet-style housing of the ‘60s. In comparison to the context, its impact recalls the (very) short film, “Bambi Meets Godzilla.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s3UogfAGg0

The 99cent store
True, the store is antiquated. True, it’s not pretty to look at, and the adjacent building is sad indeed. But the store serves a vital service for the community across income levels. Why should I pay $3 for a box of black raspberries at a regular supermarket when I can buy the exact same product, same supplier, same label, for $1? Many of us are not hyper-hip, and simply admire and practice frugality. In Europe, many such stores are designed to fit into a new setting – witness Richard Neutra’s Channel Heights project of 1942. Why not this store, preserving continuity and service to the community?

Conclusion
This and other recent community Zooms showed intense concern about this project. As presented, it is wholly inappropriate for its site, presenting a significant impact to the environment and to the historic resources all around it. It should be downsized, lowered in height and decreased in massing, and redesigned according to established Zoning laws. It must address the scale of the area, introduce more greenery, and respect the many different populations we are and whom we need around us. With us.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Barbara Lamprecht

Got something to say, email Managing Editor André Coleman, at andrec@pasadenanowmagazine.com