PASADENA HOUSING PROVIDERS – STATEMENT ON COURT OF APPEALS
RULING.
Pasadena, December 21, 2025
CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS KEY PROVISIONS OF
PASADENA’S MEASURE “H” RENT CONTROL CHARTER AMENDMENT

Pasadena Housing Providers applauds Friday’s decision by the Second
District, Division 7 Appellate Count to repeal key rent control provisions
added to the Pasadena city charter by Measure H. Specifically the Court
agreed that certain provisions of Measure H are pre-empted by state
housing law and Pasadena may not require relocation assistance
payments tied to rent increases on units exempt from local rent control;
and further that the city may not impose additional notice requirements
that modify the eviction process established under state statute.
This decision will also protect the private personal information of tenants
and property owners and prevent public access to that private
information.

Despite the statements during trial by Justice Segal, “that this is the most
unfair discriminatory rent stabilization board that I have ever seen” the
court did not rule on the constitutionality of the rent board’s structure.
However, in a similar case, the Superior Court of Orange County did find
that a board without equal representation was unconstitutional.
“Clearly the ballot measure attempted to overreach and circumvent state
law” said Pasadena Housing Providers member Blake Boyd. “Taken

together it is clear that Measure H needs to be amended to correct these
serious flaws. Creating a balanced board and an efficient housing
Department will restore fairness and accountability. It’s in everybody’s
best interests.”

Recent polling by FM3 indicates that Pasadena voters by a four-to-one
majority strongly favor a balanced rent board with equal representation
by tenants and landlords.
Pasadena Housing Providers has prepared a new charter amendment that
will comply with state law and:
1. Retain rent control and eviction protections for existing tenants.
2. Create a fair rent board with equal number of tenants and landlords.
3. Promote single-family rental housing left empty by Measure H
restrictions.
4. Merge the Rent Stabilization Department into the Housing
Department to reduce bureaucracy and improve accountability.
5. Fix the failed dispute resolution process and the unworkable rent
adjustment petition procedures.
6. Cap rent registration fees to halt unconstrained spending by an
unelected board.
The voters were misled by proponents of Measure H and it’s now time to
correct the flaws and illegal provisions of the charter amendment.

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.