Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cityclerk
Tuesday, April 7, 2026 3:05 PM
Iraheta, Alba; Jomsky, Mark; Rabies, Sandra; Sabha, Tamer; McMillan, Acquanette (Netta); Soo, Christine
FW: SB 79 Implementation and Protection of Landmark Streets From: Erika Foy -
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 3:05:10 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Madison, Steve <[email protected]>; Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]>; cityclerk <[email protected]>; Jomsky, Mark <[email protected]>
Cc: Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Thyret, Pam <[email protected]>; Glenn ; Gordo, Victor <[email protected]>; Paige, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Johnson, Kevin <[email protected]>
Subject: SB 79 Implementation and Protection of Landmark Streets Nou don't often get email from. Learn why this^is importantil:
[A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Members of the Pasadena Legislative Policy Committee, At the February 11 Planning Commission meeting, the City laid out what SB 79 will do in Pasadena—and it honestly stopped me. Staff-level approvals, no real public process, and buildings up to 55 feet even out to a half mile. That's not small.
Magnolia Avenue is where I live, and it's a street I worked hard years ago to help get designated as a Landmark. It's not just another street—it's the trees, the canopy, the continuity, and the scale of the homes. That's what defines it. And that's what starts to break down when you introduce larger buildings—both through tree Loss, and through the visual impact of something much bigger looming over historic homes. It just doesn't fit.
What also worries me is Marengo. Development there will not stay contained. It will spill over—through height, shadowing, and scale—and Magnolia will feel it, whether it's directly zoned for it or not.
At the same time, there are places where this kind of housing actually makes sense. Raymond Avenue, near me, has empty Lots and is already positioned for larger-scale development. That is where the City should be focusing its efforts—not allowing pressure to push into designated historic streets.
The City has already said these laws don't adequately protect historic resources and take a one-size-fits- alt approach. I agree. So I keep coming back to this: if a landmark street like Magnolia doesn't qualify for real protection under this framework, what does?
So I'm askingyou to act on the specific options the City outlined. Please don't default to full implementation. Move forward with a TOD Alternative Plan and explicitly include designated historic streets like Magnolia within the areas that are protected or excluded. If there is a cap on how much can be protected, then prioritize the places that have already been recognized as landmarks.
Also, use the ability to delay implementation where you can. Give the City time to get this right instead of letting these standards take effect automatically.
And most importantly, put clear, objective standards in place now—height transitions, setbacks, and protections for trees and streetscapes—so they actually hold when approvals move to staff level.
I'm not against growth. But growth should go where it makes sense—and it should not come at the expense of the very places Pasadena has already said are worth protecting.
Because once this starts, you don't get it back Later.
Thankyou,
Erika Foy- District?