Subject: Urgent Request for a Permanent, Comprehensive Ban on All Leaf Blowers

Dear Mayor Gordo, City Council Members, and Director Carmona,

I am writing to express my grave concern regarding the ongoing health and environmental hazards posed by leaf blowers in our city. While I applaud the city’s existing ban on gas-powered leaf blowers and the recent temporary emergency prohibitions following the Eaton Fire, it has become increasingly clear that these measures are insufficient. To truly protect the respiratory health of Pasadena residents, the City Council must implement a permanent and complete ban on all leaf blowers—both gas and electric.

The primary danger lies not just in the engine emissions, but in the particulate matter (PM) these machines forcefully propel into our breathing zone. Leaf blowers generate wind speeds exceeding 150 mph, which aerosolize a toxic cocktail of heavy metals, animal feces, pesticides, mold, and—most critically in our current context—lingering wildfire ash and lead-contaminated soil.

The Critical Health Hazards

Scientific data from the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) confirms that:

• Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): These microscopic particles bypass the body’s natural filters, entering the deep lung tissue and bloodstream. This triggers asthma attacks, increases the risk of heart attacks, and causes permanent lung damage in children.

• Aerosolized Contaminants: Unlike a rake or a vacuum, a blower suspends “re-entrained” road dust and pollutants in the air for up to a week. For a city still recovering from the Eaton Fire, allowing these devices to stir up potentially toxic ash is a direct threat to public safety.

• Worker Health: The landscapers operating these machines suffer the highest concentration of exposure, often without adequate respiratory protection, leading to long-term chronic illness.

The Failure of the Current Ban

Despite the gas-powered leaf blower ban enacted in 2023, gas-powered machines continue to be used daily throughout Pasadena neighborhoods. Residents frequently observe commercial crews operating gas blowers with total impunity. The current enforcement model—relying on resident complaints and a $100–$500 fine structure—is clearly failing to deter the practice.

Furthermore, simply switching to electric blowers does not solve the particulate matter crisis. An electric blower stirs up the same lead-laden dust and allergens as a gas model. The only health-conscious solution is to return to “low-impact” maintenance—rakes, brooms, and vacuums—which manage debris without turning our air into a respiratory hazard.

A Call to Action

I urge the City Council and the Department of Public Health to:

1. Expand the Ordinance: Transition the current gas-only ban into a total ban on all leaf-blowing devices within city limits.

2. Strict Enforcement: Increase the frequency of active Code Compliance patrols and hold property owners—not just the landscaping laborers—financially responsible for violations.

3. Public Health Mandate: Request a formal health impact assessment from Director Carmona specifically regarding the risks of aerosolized lead and ash from power blowing in post-fire Pasadena.

We are a city that prides itself on innovation and quality of life. It is time our municipal codes reflected the biological reality of the air we breathe. I look forward to seeing this issue placed on the Council’s immediate agenda.

Sincerely,

[Your Name] [Your Address/District] Pasadena Resident

Pasadena’s EV Charging Crossroads: A City Lagging in the Fast Lane

Pasadena, a city renowned for its historic architecture, vibrant culture, and commitment to sustainability, finds itself at a critical juncture in the electric vehicle (EV) revolution. While the Rose City has embraced the spirit of electrification, a closer look at its EV charging infrastructure reveals a concerning trend: when it comes to fast charging, Pasadena is falling significantly behind its neighboring municipalities, particularly concerning Tesla’s limited ultra-fast options and the ongoing struggles of Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) DC Fast Chargers. This lag threatens to hinder EV adoption and diminishes the city’s appeal for electric vehicle owners.

Tesla’s Supercharger Disparity: The 325 kW Conundrum

Tesla, a pioneer in the EV market, boasts one of the most extensive and reliable fast-charging networks globally: the Supercharger network. For Tesla owners, the Supercharger experience is often a major selling point. However, in Pasadena, the Supercharger landscape presents a notable discrepancy. While nearby cities like Glendale, Burbank, and even smaller communities are seeing the deployment of Tesla’s latest V3 and V4 Superchargers, capable of delivering up to 250 kW and, in some newer installations, even 325 kW, Pasadena’s offerings are comparatively stunted.

Currently, Tesla Supercharger stations within Pasadena city limits primarily offer a mix of 72 kW and 250 kW chargers. While 250 kW is certainly fast, capable of adding hundreds of miles of range in under 30 minutes for many Tesla models, the complete absence of the cutting-edge 325 kW chargers is a glaring omission. For owners of newer Tesla models like the refreshed Model S and X, or even the upcoming Cybertruck, which can fully utilize these higher speeds, the lack of 325 kW options in Pasadena means longer charging times and a less optimized experience. This isn’t just about bragging rights; it’s about practical utility. In an era where every minute counts, especially on longer journeys, being able to charge at the absolute fastest rate available is a significant advantage that Pasadena currently denies its Tesla-driving residents and visitors.

The absence of these top-tier chargers suggests either a lack of investment or a slower rollout strategy from Tesla specifically for Pasadena. This oversight stands in stark contrast to the aggressive expansion seen in other regions, leaving Pasadena feeling like a forgotten outpost in the Supercharger map.

PWP’s DC Fast Charger Woes: A Promising Initiative Fails to Deliver

Beyond Tesla’s network, the broader public fast-charging infrastructure in Pasadena, particularly those offered by Pasadena Water and Power (PWP), has been a source of ongoing frustration for local EV drivers. PWP, as the city’s utility provider, has a crucial role to play in supporting EV adoption, and its efforts to install DC Fast Chargers were initially met with optimism. However, the reality has been far from ideal.

Reports from EV owners frequently highlight the unreliability of PWP’s DC Fast Chargers. Issues range from chargers being consistently out of service, displaying error messages, or failing to initiate a charge, to slower-than-advertised charging speeds. This inconsistency transforms what should be a convenient pit stop into a gamble, often forcing drivers to seek alternatives in neighboring cities or rely on slower Level 2 charging, which is ill-suited for quick top-ups.

The reasons for these failures are likely multifaceted, encompassing maintenance challenges, software glitches, and potentially insufficient power infrastructure at certain locations. Regardless of the root cause, the outcome is the same: a public charging network that is simply not dependable. In an emergency or when time is of the essence, the last thing an EV driver needs is to pull up to a broken charger. This unreliable experience not only frustrates current EV owners but also acts as a significant deterrent for prospective buyers who might be considering making the switch to electric.

The lack of functional and reliable public fast chargers from PWP creates a critical void, especially for non-Tesla EV owners who rely on the CCS or CHAdeMO standards. While third-party networks like Electrify America and EVgo have a presence in the wider Los Angeles area, their availability within Pasadena itself is still limited, making PWP’s shortcomings even more impactful.

Pasadena Falling Behind: A Regional Comparison

The charging challenges in Pasadena become even more apparent when compared to its immediate neighbors.

• Glendale: Just a stone’s throw away, Glendale boasts multiple Tesla Supercharger stations, including newer installations with higher power output. Furthermore, Glendale has seen a more robust deployment of third-party DC Fast Chargers, often with better reliability records.

• Burbank: Similarly, Burbank has a healthy mix of Tesla Superchargers and public DC Fast Chargers, providing more consistent and faster options for EV drivers.

• Arcadia/Monrovia: Even slightly further east, communities like Arcadia and Monrovia have made significant strides, with newer Supercharger V3 installations and expanding third-party networks.

This regional disparity is not merely a matter of convenience; it has tangible implications. EV drivers in Pasadena, when planning trips or even just running errands, are often compelled to factor in detours to neighboring cities just to access reliable fast charging. This not only adds travel time and inconvenience but also reduces the economic benefit for Pasadena businesses, as EV drivers are spending their charging time and potentially their money elsewhere.

The Path Forward: Recharging Pasadena’s EV Future

Pasadena’s commitment to a sustainable future is commendable, but for that vision to fully materialize, the city must urgently address its fast-charging infrastructure shortcomings. Several key actions are necessary:

1. Advocate for Tesla’s Latest Superchargers: The city should proactively engage with Tesla to encourage the deployment of 325 kW Superchargers within Pasadena. This would not only serve local residents but also make Pasadena a more attractive stop for Tesla drivers passing through.

2. Overhaul PWP’s DC Fast Charger Network: PWP must undertake a comprehensive review and rehabilitation of its DC Fast Charger network. This includes:

   • Proactive Maintenance: Implementing a rigorous preventative maintenance schedule and ensuring prompt repairs for out-of-service units.

   • Reliable Monitoring: Utilizing real-time monitoring systems to quickly identify and address charger malfunctions.

   • Improved Customer Support: Providing clear channels for reporting issues and offering transparent communication about charger status.

   • Strategic Expansion: Identifying new, high-demand locations for additional, reliable DC Fast Chargers.

3. Incentivize Third-Party Fast Chargers: Pasadena should explore incentives, streamlined permitting, and partnerships with private charging network providers (like Electrify America, EVgo, ChargePoint) to encourage them to build and maintain reliable DC Fast Chargers within city limits.

4. Community Engagement: Actively solicit feedback from local EV owners to understand their pain points and priorities, using this input to guide infrastructure development.

5. Benchmarking Against Neighbors: Regularly assess Pasadena’s charging infrastructure against neighboring cities and set clear, ambitious targets to close the existing gap.

Pasadena has the potential to be a leader in sustainable urban living. However, its current fast-charging infrastructure is a significant weak link. By prioritizing reliable, high-speed EV charging, the city can not only better serve its existing EV community but also accelerate the transition to electric vehicles, ensuring that Pasadena remains a forward-thinking and appealing destination in the electrified era. The time to act is now, before the city falls even further behind in the race towards an electric future.

The Illusion of the White Line: A Critique of Modern Crosswalk Theater

In the hierarchy of roadway users, the pedestrian is the most vulnerable and, paradoxically, the most deceived. Modern traffic engineering has spent decades perfecting the flow of vehicles, treating the movement of cars as a fluid dynamic problem to be optimized. The movement of humans, however, is often treated as an interruption—a friction point to be managed with paint, blinking lights, and catchy acronyms.

The fundamental flaw in modern pedestrian infrastructure is the “False Sense of Safety.” We are conditioned to believe that a pattern of thermoplastic stripes on asphalt creates a legal and physical sanctuary. We assume that a “Walk” signal generates a force field. In reality, crosswalks without significant physical hardening (like speed tables or concrete bollards) are often little more than “safety theater”—administrative gestures that prioritize liability management over human survival.

This disconnect between perceived safety and actual risk is nowhere more evident than in the rollout of complex, high-tech signaling devices that confuse drivers and lull pedestrians into complacency.

The Rise of the HAWK: Confusion by Design

A prime example of this technocratic approach to safety recently appeared in Pasadena, California. The City recently released the following announcement regarding a new installation:

“The City of Pasadena’s Department of Transportation (DOT) has implemented its first ever HAWK (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) crosswalk at the intersection of Washington Boulevard & Hudson Avenue! The HAWK enhances pedestrian safety for anyone crossing Washington Boulevard at this location. It stays dark for drivers until a pedestrian activation, then flashes yellow, solid yellow, solid red while the pedestrian crossing is completed, flashing red, and lastly back to dark. DOT has more locations planned at key intersections around the City consistent with our Safe System Approach.”

While the DOT frames this as a triumph of the “Safe System Approach,” a critical examination of the HAWK (High-Intensity Activated crosswalk) beacon reveals the inherent cracks in this philosophy.

The HAWK is a “beacon,” not a standard traffic signal. Its default state is “dark.” For a driver cruising down Washington Boulevard—a wide, high-volume arterial—a dark signal usually implies a deactivated or broken system, or simply open road. When a pedestrian pushes the button, the driver is subjected to a rapid-fire sequence of instruction: flashing yellow (caution), solid yellow (prepare to stop), solid red (stop), and then—the most confusing phase—flashing red.

During the flashing red phase, drivers are legally allowed to proceed after stopping, provided the pedestrian has cleared their lane. This creates a dangerous ambiguity. The pedestrian may still be in the intersection (though not in the driver’s specific lane), yet the car begins to move. To a second pedestrian stepping off the curb late, or a child lagging behind, the sight of a car accelerating through a red-flashing light is terrifying and potentially lethal.

Furthermore, the HAWK prioritizes vehicular flow. Unlike a stop sign or a red light that forces a mandatory pause regardless of presence, the HAWK remains dormant to ensure cars are not inconvenienced until absolutely necessary. It places the onus of activation entirely on the pedestrian. If you don’t push the button—perhaps you are rushing, or the button is hard to reach for a wheelchair user—the system offers you zero protection. The crosswalk effectively does not exist to the driver until the electronics are triggered.

The “Marked Crosswalk” Paradox

The HAWK is a symptom of a larger problem known in traffic safety circles as the “Marked Crosswalk Paradox.” Several studies have historically suggested that marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections (those without stop signs or traffic lights) can actually experience higher crash rates than unmarked intersections.

Why? Because paint creates confidence without capability.

When a pedestrian sees zebra stripes, they scan the road less diligently, assuming the driver sees the same stripes and will comply with the law. The driver, however, is often processing a complex environment at 40 mph. To them, the stripes are part of the background visual noise, less salient than the brake lights of the car ahead or the notification on their dashboard.

The “Safe System Approach” mentioned by Pasadena DOT theoretically accounts for human error. But true safety requires physical calming—narrowing lanes, raising the crosswalk to sidewalk level, or installing concrete islands. Installing a HAWK signal is an admission that the road is designed for speeds too high for safe pedestrian interaction, yet the city is unwilling to physically alter the road geometry to slow cars down permanently.

The Top 10 Problems with Modern Crosswalks

To understand why the “false sense of safety” persists, we must look at the specific mechanical and behavioral failures inherent in most crosswalk designs.

1. The “Multiple Threat” Crash

This is perhaps the deadliest failure mode of multi-lane crosswalks. A pedestrian enters the crosswalk. The car in the lane closest to them stops. The pedestrian, seeing the stopped car, assumes it is safe to proceed. However, the stopped car now creates a blind spot, hiding the pedestrian from the driver in the next lane over. That second driver, annoyed by the stopped vehicle and unable to see the person, accelerates around the “obstruction” and strikes the pedestrian. Paint and lights cannot solve this line-of-sight physics problem.

2. The Invisibility of “Dark Mode”

As seen in the Pasadena HAWK example, signals that remain dark until activated rely on driver vigilance. In bright sunlight, a dark signal head blends into the background. At night, without specific task lighting illuminating the pedestrian (not just the road), the driver sees a flashing light but not the human beneath it. A light that is off 90% of the time trains drivers to ignore it.

3. The “Beg Button” Delay

Most signalized crosswalks are not automatic; they require actuation. When a pedestrian presses the button, they rarely get an immediate result. They are forced to wait for the signal cycle. In this gap of 30 to 90 seconds, frustration mounts. The pedestrian assesses the traffic, sees a gap, and crosses against the signal. The “Don’t Walk” sign is lit, absolving the city of liability, but the system has failed to serve the user’s need for reasonable mobility.

4. The “Right on Red” Conflict

We design intersections where pedestrians are given a “Walk” signal, yet cars are simultaneously allowed to turn right on red into that very same crosswalk. This places the burden of safety entirely on the driver’s neck rotation. Drivers looking left for oncoming traffic will subconsciously roll right, directly into the path of a pedestrian crossing from the right. It is a hostile design that prioritizes car throughput over pedestrian life.

5. Speed Disparity

Crosswalks are frequently placed on “stroads”—streets that function like roads, with wide lanes and high speed limits (35–45 mph). A yellow flashing light does not physically prevent a car traveling at 45 mph from requiring 150+ feet to stop. Placing a crosswalk on a high-speed arterial without narrowing the road is essentially setting a trap.

6. Inconsistent Design Language

Drivers face a chaotic array of signals: standard traffic lights, HAWKs, RRFBs (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons), simple yellow flashers, and static signs. A HAWK flashes red to mean “stop then go,” while a standard signal uses flashing red for “stop sign” and flashing yellow for “caution.” This inconsistency increases cognitive load. A confused driver is a dangerous driver.

7. The Fading Paint Neglect

Municipalities often celebrate the installation of safety features (like the ribbon-cutting for the Washington/Hudson HAWK) but neglect the maintenance. Within two years, thermoplastic stripes wear away. RRFB solar batteries die. When the visual cue fades, the safety evaporates, but the pedestrian’s habit of crossing there remains.

8. False Eye Contact

Pedestrians are taught to “make eye contact” with drivers. In the era of tinted windshields, high beltlines on SUVs, and glare, this is nearly impossible. A pedestrian often thinks they have made eye contact because they are looking at the driver, but the driver is looking through the pedestrian at the traffic light beyond. This miscommunication is often the precursor to injury.

9. A-Pillar Blind Spots

Modern vehicle safety standards require thicker pillars to support the roof in rollovers. These thick A-pillars create massive blind spots at the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions—exactly where pedestrians are located in a crosswalk during a turn. Infrastructure that relies on drivers seeing pedestrians fails to account for the fact that cars are designed in a way that actively blocks that view.

10. Lack of Physicality

The ultimate problem is the lack of “teeth.” If a driver ignores a HAWK signal, they might get a ticket if a cop is watching. If they hit a concrete bollard or speed over a raised crosswalk, they suffer immediate physical consequences to their vehicle. Most crosswalks rely on the former (enforcement) rather than the latter (engineering). Psychological barriers are easily broken; physical barriers are not.

Conclusion

The implementation of the HAWK system on Washington Boulevard is a step, but we must ask: Is it a step toward safety, or a step toward better liability management?

As long as we rely on solutions that require pedestrians to “activate” their safety and drivers to interpret complex flashing codes, we are accepting a margin of error measured in human lives. A truly “Safe System” does not ask a pedestrian to beg for permission to cross, nor does it trust a driver to voluntarily slow down on a wide, open road. It changes the road so that slowing down is the only option. Until then, the white paint remains a dangerous lie.

I encourage all Pasadena residents to write a letter to Pasadena DOT and their councilmembers and staff. 

Pasadena Department of Transportation Attn: Joaquin T. Siques, Director of Transportation

Re: Request for Safety Data and Maintenance Protocols regarding HAWK Installation at Washington Blvd & Hudson Ave

Dear Director Siques and DOT Staff,

I am writing regarding the recent installation of the High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon at the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Hudson Avenue. While I appreciate the City’s commitment to the “Safe System Approach” and the effort to improve pedestrian conditions on this high-volume arterial, I have concerns regarding the long-term efficacy and reliability of this specific infrastructure type.

As a resident concerned with genuine road safety rather than compliance metrics, I am requesting the following information to better understand how the City plans to validate the success of this installation:

1. Baseline Data & Success Metrics Could you please provide the pre-installation accident and “near-miss” data for this specific intersection over the last five years? Furthermore, what specific metrics is the DOT tracking to determine if the HAWK is successful? specifically, are you conducting follow-up studies to monitor driver compliance rates during the “flashing red” phase, which often creates confusion and conflict between vehicles and pedestrians?

2. Maintenance & Failure Protocols Given that the HAWK system relies on a “dark mode” default state, a power failure or bulb outage could render the crosswalk invisible to drivers who are accustomed to ignoring dark signals.

• What is the specific maintenance schedule for this unit?

• Does this system have automated reporting for outages, or does it rely on citizen reporting?

• What is the target response time for repair once a critical failure (e.g., failure to activate) is identified?

3. Future “Safe System” Implementations The announcement mentioned that more locations are planned. Will these future installations also rely solely on signalization, or is the DOT considering physical traffic calming measures (such as raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, or speed tables) that physically enforce speed limits rather than relying on driver compliance?

I look forward to your response and to understanding how the City of Pasadena ensures that these installations provide real protection rather than a false sense of security.

Sincerely,

[Your Signature]

[Your Printed Name]

Vice Mayor Position In Pasadena, Mayor Gordo Trying To Overwrite the Will of the Voters

Mayor Gordo is stating that although charter and the voters voter at 85% to agree at 1 year terms for the vice mayor, Mayor Gordo is attempting to state that the term could be agreed to 2 years.

This is absurd. The council with the mayor are attempting to overwrite the will of the voters. .. So what voters are voting for.

What purpose is the term if the “policy” is set that the terms are 2 years, what in the world are they trying to do here.
Organizational meetings in May.

What a shit-show

2022 Measure PB

Brown Act Matter Violation potential here.

If you have noticed the increase in traffic along the 134 and 5 freeway.

!! LONG TERM CLOSURE !! Left lane closed until 5 AM 12/26/25

Updated 11 hours ago.

Blind Spots and Bureaucracy: Why Pasadena’s DOT Is Driving in the Dark

Pasadena stands at a dangerous crossroads. The City has publicly pledged its commitment to Vision Zero—the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities and serious injuries—yet, actions taken by the Pasadena Department of Transportation (DOT), led by Director Joaquin Siques, suggest a fundamental detachment from the data required to achieve that vision. The controversy centers on the DOT’s reported decision to cease the routine collection of speed data from the city’s electronic speed feedback signs, effectively creating a critical blind spot in public safety planning.

These speed feedback signs are far more than mere warning displays; they are vital sensors logging every instance of reckless driving on high-risk corridors. They record the 85th percentile speeds, peak speeding hours, and the catastrophic outliers—reports indicate vehicles routinely hit 70 mph or more in posted 35 mph zones. This raw, verifiable data is the lifeblood of modern traffic safety. Under California’s Assembly Bill 43, such metrics are indispensable for justifying and implementing necessary interventions like speed tables, traffic circles, and targeted law enforcement.

Director Siques, who assumed the role in 2024 with a vision of promoting data-driven solutions, now faces scrutiny over a policy that is decidedly data-averse. The reported rationale for stopping the collection—that the manual download process is too time-consuming and burdensome for staff—is a staggering bureaucratic abdication. It suggests that administrative convenience is being prioritized over the measurable, life-saving needs of Pasadena’s most vulnerable road users.

This failure creates a dangerous operational gap. When residents report persistent speeding issues, their pleas are reduced to anecdotal complaints. Without the hard numbers on vehicle speeds and frequency, DOT engineers lack the necessary warrant data—the quantifiable proof—required by state and local regulations to install effective traffic calming infrastructure. The city is therefore willingly tying the hands of the very professionals tasked with protecting the community.

Pasadena’s own collision statistics underscore the urgency: unsafe speeds are consistently cited as a leading factor in serious and fatal crashes. By ignoring the real-time evidence of excessive speed, the DOT is not just failing to collect data; it is actively suppressing the quantifiable truth about danger on its streets. This policy stands in profound and dangerous contradiction to the city’s Vision Zero aspirations and makes a mockery of any subsequent grant applications or public campaigns promoting pedestrian safety.

If Pasadena is serious about its pledge to eliminate traffic deaths, Director Siques and the DOT must immediately reverse this course. The safety of pedestrians and motorists cannot be contingent on bureaucratic preference. The department must not only resume the consistent, timely collection of speed data but also commit to its public dissemination, ensuring that the evidence of danger is transparent and actionable. The cost of data collection is minimal; the cost of this data blindness will inevitably be measured in human lives.

Pasadena PWP is increasing EV charging rates at the city owned chargers.   The increase is effective Nov 12, 2025.  The new rates are still substantially lower than those being charged by Tesla and other operators.

These are the new rates.

It is interesting that that the low end can be $0 which means PWP could make the charging free, but this is unclear.

So from FY 25 to FY 26 the rates do not change.

Also notice that the overstay fees can be up to $6 per hour… Tesla charges $1 per minute overstay fees.

Pasadena PWP also has posted 2 hour signs on DC FC, which is absolutely ridiculous.   1 hour should be the maximum that DC FC should be occupied.  If there is nobody waiting then move to another charger or disconnect and start a new session.  But to post a 2 hour limit on DC Fast Charging is absurd.

New Environmental Assessment Results Available on

Post–Fire Dashboard

The Los Angeles County Post–Fire Air, Soil, and Water Assessment Dashboard is updated continually as new assessment results are made available. Residents are encouraged to check the dashboard regularly for updates. Changes are highlighted in the “Latest Updates” section on the homepage.

Key updates made since mid-September are summarized below:

1. Soil Testing at Charles White Park by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks & Recreation and Mayfield Environmental Solutions

Added new section with results from soil testing conducted in September at Charles White Park in Altadena.

2. Indoor Contaminant Testing and Outdoor Ash Testing by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH)

Updated two sections with new results from CDPH and UCSF outlining which chemicals were found in indoor dust and outdoor ash.

3. Eaton Fire Soil Testing Program by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health

Updated data showing results of soil lead testing through October 2025.

4. Blood Lead Level Monitoring by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health

Updated data showing results of blood lead testing through October 2025.

5. Outdoor Air Monitoring by California Institute of Technology (Caltech)

Updated section to add links to the PHOENIX air quality map and a summary of initial findings from data collected through April.

6. Air, Soil, and Pool Testing by Community Action Project Los Angeles (CAP.LA)

Added three new sections with information on air monitoring, soil testing, and pool water quality testing conducted by the CAP.LA collaborative research project.

7. Debris Removal Air Monitoring by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Added new section with results from daily air monitoring around cleanup activities in both the Eaton and Palisades Fire areas.

8. Residential Soil Testing by Chapman University

Added new section with results from lead testing conducted in February-April in soil from 20 residential properties in and around the Eaton Fire area.

The $4.7 Million Paradox: Pasadena’s Rent Board Delivers High Costs, Unspent Funds, and Escalating Controversy
When Pasadena voters passed Measure H, they ushered in a new era of tenant protections, creating a powerful Rent Stabilization Department (RSD) and a 13-member Rental Housing Board (PRHB) to protect housing stability. Yet, nearly three years after its passage, the new bureaucracy is mired in a paradox: it is funded by millions of dollars in escalating fees levied on landlords, while its own budget reports reveal a staggering failure to spend those funds.

This operational paralysis has left the department’s director, Helen Morales, and the board caught between an enraged landlord community that feels financially targeted and a tenant population still waiting for the full-scale services they were promised.

The New Bureaucracy and Its Leadership
The new city apparatus is led by two key bodies. The first is the Rent Stabilization Department, the administrative wing led by Director Helen Morales, who was appointed in mid-2024. Morales, who previously established a similar division in Beverly Hills, was hired to build the department from the ground up, tasked with everything from implementing a rental registry to educating the public.

The second, and more powerful, body is the Pasadena Rental Housing Board (PRHB), a body with the authority to set rent adjustments, establish regulations, and hear petitions. This board, recently appointing new leadership with Tenant Representative Allison Henry as Chair and At-Large Member Lourdes Gonzalez as Vice-Chair, has become the epicenter of the controversy.

From the moment of its inception, landlord groups have decried the board’s composition as “extremely lopsided.” Critics, such as the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA), have publicly claimed the board is dominated by renter-advocates, with insufficient representation for housing providers. This perceived imbalance has fostered a deep-seated distrust, with landlords arguing their concerns are systematically dismissed during public comment, creating an adversarial, rather than regulatory, relationship.

The High Cost of Stabilization
The entire $4.7 million budget of the Rent Stabilization Department is funded not by general city taxes, but by a “Rental Housing Fee” charged directly to landlords for every rental unit they own.

This fee has become a flashpoint. In August 2025, the Rental Housing Board voted to set the 2025-2026 landlord registration fee at $238 per unit. This was a significant hike from the previous year, which itself was a complex, multi-part fee. Landlords who fail to pay face escalating late fees of up to 50% per unit, adding another financial threat.

Department staff justified the increase by explaining that the program’s total costs, including a negative cash balance of over $566,000 from its chaotic launch, had to be divided among a smaller-than-expected pool of eligible units. After thousands of units were found to be exempt, the remaining housing providers were left to cover the entire department’s budget.

For landlords, this is a direct, non-recoverable financial burden. Groups like the Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors (PFAR) have argued this “unfair burden” essentially forces the private sector to subsidize a city bureaucracy. This sentiment is the driving force behind a major lawsuit from the California Apartment Association (CAA), which is challenging the legality of Measure H’s relocation assistance requirements, arguing they conflict with state laws like the Costa-Hawkins Act.

The $2.1 Million Question: Services Not Rendered
If the high cost to landlords is one side of the coin, the other is the department’s documented failure to deploy these funds. This is the core of the “services not rendered” critique.

A quarterly budget update presented in April 2025 revealed a stunning fact: with 75% of the fiscal year completed, the Rent Stabilization Department had underspent its $4.7 million budget by 45%.

More than $2.1 million in collected fees sat unused.

The department’s official explanation cited “staff turnover in senior positions” and massive unspent funds in “Services and supplies.” This budget line, intended for contracts, outreach, and technology, was reportedly 60% unspent.

This figure is the most damning evidence for those questioning the department’s efficacy. It raises a critical question: If the department is successfully collecting millions in mandatory fees, why is it failing to execute its most basic function—spending that money to provide services?

For tenants, this underspending represents a profound missed opportunity. That $2.1 million was not just a number on a ledger; it was the budget for the very programs Measure H promised. It was funding for more housing counselors, robust community outreach, a fully functional petitions and hearings program, and legal support for tenants facing eviction. While the department has offered some walk-in sessions for registry help and basic FAQs on its website, its own reports prove it is operating at just over half-capacity.

The department, under Director Helen Morales, is charging landlords for a fully-funded, fully-operational department while delivering—by its own financial admission—a shadow of one.

A Mandate Mired in Conflict
The Pasadena Rent Stabilization Department and its oversight board are failing to satisfy either of the constituents they serve.

Landlords feel they are being financially punished by a “lopsided” board that raises their fees by nearly 100% to cover its own launch-year deficits. They see a system that is quick to levy penalties but deaf to their concerns about maintenance costs and inflation.

Tenants, meanwhile, are the beneficiaries of a department that is, on paper, one of the best-funded in the region but is operationally hamstrung, failing to spend millions of dollars collected in its name.

The mandate of Measure H was to provide stability. Instead, its implementation has created a new, expensive bureaucracy defined by legal battles, financial penalties, and a critical inability to perform the very services it was created to fund.

For more information, here is a video update from Pasadena Media about the new leadership elected to the Rental Housing Board. This clip discusses the board’s mission and the transition from its previous chair, Ryan Bell.

PMN – New Leadership Elected to Pasadena Rental Housing Board

I cannot say that I am surprise by this announcement.
This just was announced. While we don’t know if there is anything further behind this announcement. It is clear that the city manager who started three years ago is now leaving.
Typically when one person in a high position retires there will be others.
From my experience dealing with Mr. Marquez was difficult to say the least, his secretary was not helpful at all and had an attitude when trying to get a call back.
Which I never did ever get a return phone call. This alone is what is wrong with the city manager position in Pasadena. At least previous city managers would return a phone call or email.
We hope this will change. When the city looks for a replacement which will most likely be someone from within, that needs to be an absolute, that the person in this position communicates and returns emails and phone calls to the stakeholders of the city.
We wish Mr. Marquez the best in the future and dealing with his family issues.

Pasadena City Manager
Miguel Márquez Announces Retirement

PASADENA, Calif. — The Pasadena City Council announces the decision by City Manager Miguel Márquez to retire from his position as the City’s Chief Administrative Officer so he can focus on family during a time of significant personal need.

Mr. Márquez joined the City in August 2022, bringing with him a distinguished record of public service, including his most recent role as Chief Operating Officer of Santa Clara County and his service as an Associate Justice of California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal. His leadership came at a pivotal time for Pasadena; he has been instrumental in guiding the City through several unprecedented challenges.

During his tenure, Mr. Márquez led with integrity, compassion, and a steady hand. He appointed the majority of the City’s current executive leadership team, assembling a diverse and highly capable group of professionals dedicated to collaborative governance and excellence in public service. Under his leadership, the City, among other things:

Maintained fiscal stability during uncertain times, with a balanced budget each year and financial reserves restored to pre-pandemic levels;

Secured labor peace through long-term contracts with the City’s employee unions;

Successfully passed Measures PL and L to support the retrofit and upgrade of the City’s historic Central Library, and to provide operational support for libraries citywide;

Invested millions of dollars to upgrade aging police and fire equipment to enhance the City’s public safety response efforts;

Invested millions of dollars to improve the City’s streets;

Procured more than $1B in long-term contracts for carbon-free energy, keeping the City on pace to exceed the State’s carbon-neutral mandate at least 15 years early, and making significant progress (92%) on the City’s goal of 100% carbon-free energy by 2030; and

Led a comprehensive response and recovery effort following the devastating windstorm and Eaton Fire earlier this year.

Mr. Márquez has built strong, collaborative relationships with each member of the City Council and is widely respected for his intelligence, fairness, and humility. He is not only a trusted leader but also a valued member of the Pasadena family.

“While Miguel’s departure is a significant loss for our City, we fully support his decision to prioritize his family,” said Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, Victor Gordo. “We are deeply grateful for his service and the example he has set of selfless, principled leadership.”

In reflecting on his decision, Mr. Márquez shared:

“Serving the people of Pasadena has been one of the greatest honors of my career. I’m incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished together, and I’m grateful for the trust and support of the City Council, our dedicated staff, and this remarkable community. In light of my father’s recent passing, my family needs me at this time, and I need to be there for them. I leave knowing the City is fiscally stable, in good hands, and is on a solid path forward.”

Mr. Márquez is expected to continue to serve as City Manager until a permanent successor is appointed, ensuring a smooth and thoughtful transition.

Press release graphic featuring a portrait photo of Pasadena City Manager Miguel Márquez. The graphic is titled ‘Pasadena City Manager Miguel Márquez Announces Retirement.’