Guest Opinion | East Pasadena Deserves Better Than This Housing Proposal

GUEST OPINION

Rendering of the proposed Rosemead Family Apartments project at 600 N. Rosemead Blvd. (Photo – FSY Architects)

I fought as Mayor and East Pasadena’s Councilmember to protect the safe, livable, well-designed neighborhoods that define our city and make it a place we are proud to call home.

By William Paparian

East Pasadena’s mid-century charm, human-scale buildings, and quiet residential streets have long been its greatest strength, a place where families raise children, seniors age in place, and neighbors look out for one another. That cherished legacy now stands on the brink of irreversible damage.

On April 14, 2026, the Pasadena Design Commission approved the deeply flawed 133-unit, 100% affordable Rosemead Family Apartments project at 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard, brushing aside the heartfelt pleas and packed-room testimony of dozens of East Pasadena residents. The decision is subject to a 10-day appeal period. This is the moment for the Pasadena City Council to act with courage and conviction: support the appeal and require a fundamental redesign.

I support building more high-quality affordable housing in Pasadena. Working families, special-needs residents, and those still recovering from the heartbreak of the Eaton Fire need safe, stable homes. But that goal cannot come at the expense of basic livability, neighborhood context, and public safety. This proposal fails on those standards.

With only 55 parking spaces for 133 units—0.41 spaces per unit—in a car-dependent corner of East Pasadena, the impacts are predictable. Spillover parking will push into surrounding streets, creating blocked driveways, congestion, and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and emergency vehicles. In a high-fire-hazard zone where Rosemead Boulevard is a critical evacuation route, this is not a minor inconvenience—it is a serious public safety concern.

Equally troubling is the scale and design of the project. A five-story, 71-foot building of this mass on a site surrounded by one- and two-story homes and offices will fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. The building’s blank east façade and generic podium design show little responsiveness to its surroundings. This is not thoughtful infill; it is an out-of-scale structure that will permanently affect light, views, and neighborhood tranquility.

There are also serious questions about the project’s use of State Density Bonus Law concessions and its proximity-to-transit claims. The City has not clearly demonstrated the individualized findings required to justify the extent of waivers being granted. At the same time, core obligations under the General Plan and East Pasadena Specific Plan appear to have been treated as secondary considerations rather than governing standards.

This approval also lands at a critical moment, as the East Pasadena Specific Plan update is still underway and SB 79 takes effect on July 1. Setting a precedent for large-scale, under-parked development on marginal transit sites risks undermining that planning process and inviting further strain on neighborhoods that are already fully built out.

The Design Commission’s vote is not the final word. The City Council has both the authority and responsibility to intervene. It should require a complete redesign, one that significantly improves architectural quality, reduces bulk and massing impacts, and provides adequate on-site parking consistent with neighborhood conditions. If those standards cannot be met, the project should not move forward in its current form.

Pasadena urgently needs more affordable housing, but it must be done thoughtfully, with respect for safety, scale, and community character. East Pasadena residents showed up in force because they understand what is at stake. The City Council should listen, uphold its own standards, and ensure that housing production does not come at the cost of the neighborhoods that make Pasadena what it is.

The Opinion section reflects the opinions of the responsible contributor(s)/writer(s) only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of ColoradoBoulevard.net. ColoradoBoulevard.net does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ColoradoBoulevard.net accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (with no obligation) to delete comments and postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.