Sabha, Tamer
From:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Michael Coppess
RE: PUBLIC COMMENT -- Leg Policy Comm'ee MeetingAgenda Item 2 - SB 79 From: Michael Coppess
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 3:32 PM
To: Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Leg Policy Comm'ee Meeting - Agenda Item 2 - SB 79 Dear Legislative Policy Committee:
I urge that the Committee recommend the full City Council that the Council pass a resolution formally opposing SB79.
The point of SB 79 is to take away City discretion and to nullify local planning. That fact, on its own, should move the Council to protect local planning and oppose the senate bill.
From my observation (and near 40 years in this City) planning in Pasadena is not just a series of checklists or other rote process. Rather, planning in Pasadena is a well-considered process that encourages public input at every stage. The City's General Plan is a monumental document resting on a monumental amount of work - built upon countless meetings with residents, dozens of commission and council hearings, and millions of City dollars invested in consultants and staff.
And its been that way since at least 1992 when Pasadena voters approved a proposed new General Plan after a campaign that encouraged residents to "imagine a great city" and people came out by the thousands to do just that.
Now that 1992 General Plan has been revised and changed in large part to allow for more housing and have been submitted to and approved by the state. One thing that hasn't changed is the City's guarantee to Pasadena residents that community participation will be honored and "citizens will directly participate in shaping plans and policies for Pasadena's future." (Guiding Principle 7) As I see it, SB79 undercuts and disregards the efforts of Pasadena residents who wrote letters, answered questionnaires, went to neighborhood, commission and council meetings and otherwise directly participated in the shaping of the City's General Plan, including specific plans and housing element. And SB79 undercuts and disregards the actions of City Council in directing staff, hiring consultants, doing public outreach and ultimately deliberating over and voting to approve the City's General Plan.
It is not that I agree with everything in the current General Plan. I don't. But, I honor the local public process.
I urge the Committee to recommend full Council action protecting local planning and opposing SB79.
Sincerely,
Michael Coppess
Pasadena, CA
1