McMlillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rachel Darling <[email protected]>
Monday, May 18, 2026 10:54 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Vote YES to Affordable Homes in East Pasadena
[ I 1 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of affordable housing at 600 N.
Rosemead Blvd.
While some oppose such density of affordable housing, I believe that dense affordable housing leads to improved quality of life for everyone for the following reasons:
*
Studies show that every $1 invested in affordable housing generates up to $3 in local economic activity, benefiting both residents and the broader community. * A study by the National Association of hlome Builders (NAHB) found that building 100 affordable rental homes generates approximately $11.7 million in local income, $2.2 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 161 local jobs in the first year alone. * After examining over 150 major metro areas across the United States and additional internal metro areas, A USC study found that regions making substantial public investments in housing experienced significantly lower rates of unsheltered homelessness. This research confirms public housing as a vital tool in addressing homelessness and ensuring housing security.
*
Studies show that dense affordable housing neighborhoods experience 20% - 50% lower rates of chronic diseases, attributed to greater walkability and access to healthy food options.
Regarding the last point, we need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, 05/18/2026
Item 11
healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.
Rachel Darling
Pasadena , California 91101
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rachel Lausch <[email protected]>
Monday, May 18, 2026 3:29 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Vote YES to Affordable Homes in East Pasadena
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
Council Member,
Dear Mayor Gordo, Councilman Gene Masuda, and other Council Members, I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of affordable housing at 600 N.
Rosemead Blvd. I live just a few blocks away, and I was pleased to learn of this proposal. I have participated in a number of homeless counts the past number of years, and I am grateful for Pasadena City efforts to offer more affordable housing units.
I am a strong believer in affordable housing, so this is a solid word of support for you to approval the funding for these units at this evening's meeting. I believe that dense affordable housing leads to improved quality of life for everyone for the following reasons:
*
Studies show that every $1 invested in affordable housing generates up to $3 in local economic activity, benefiting both residents and the broader community. * A study by NAHB found that building 100 affordable rental homes generates approximately $11.7 million in local income, $2.2 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 161 local jobs in the first year alone.
* After examining over 1 50 major metre areas across the US and additional internal metro areas, a USC study found that regions making substantial public investments in housing experienced significantly lower rates of unsheltered homelessness. This research confirms public housing as a vital tool in addressing homelessness and ensuring housing security. *
Studies show that dense affordable housing neighborhoods experience 20-50% lower rates of chronic diseases, attributed to greater walkability & access to healthy food options.
Regarding the last point, we need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active,. 05/18/2026
Item 11
healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.
Thank you very much for your attention to this letter.
Sincerely,
Rachel Lausch
Pasadena, CA 91107-5364
Rachel Lausch
Pasadena, California 91107-5364
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lisa Odigie <[email protected]>
Monday, May 18, 2026 3:01 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Vote YES to Affordable Homes in East Pasadena
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of affordable housing at 600 N.
Rosemead Blvd.
While some oppose such density of affordable housing, I believe that dense affordable housing leads to improved quality of life for everyone for the following reasons:
* Studies show that every $1 invested in affordable housing generates up to $3 in local economic activity, benefiting both residents and the broader community. * A study by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found that building 100 affordable rental homes generates approximately $11.7 million in local income, $2.2 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 161 local jobs in the first year alone. "After examining over 150 major metro areas across the United States and additional internal metro areas, A USC study found that regions making substantial public investments in housing experienced significantly lower rates of unsheltered homelessness. This research confirms public housing as a vital tool in addressing homelessness and ensuring housing security.
* Studies show that dense affordable housing neighborhoods experience 20% - 50% lower rates of chronic diseases, attributed to greater walkability and access to healthy food options.
Regarding the last point, we need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, 05/18/2026
Item 11
healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.
Lisa Odigie
Pasadena, California 91101
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Susan Maros <[email protected]>
Monday, May 18, 2026 2:31 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Vote YES to Affordable Homes in East Pasadena
|[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report iphish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of affordable housing at 600 N.
Rosemead Blvd.
While some oppose such density of affordable housing, I believe that dense affordable housing leads to improved quality of life for everyone for the following reasons:
*
Studies show that every $1 invested in affordable housing generates up to $3 in local economic activity, benefiting both residents and the broader community. * A study by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found that building 1 00 affordable rental homes generates approximately $11.7 million in local income, $2.2 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 161 local jobs in the first year alone. *
After examining over 150 major metro areas across the United States and additional internal metro areas, A USC study found that regions making substantial public investments in housing experienced significantly lower rates of unsheltered homelessness. This research confirms public housing as a vital tool in addressing homelessness and ensuring housing security.
* Studies show that dense affordable housing neighborhoods experience 20% - 50% lower rates of chronic diseases, attributed to greater walkability and access to healthy food options.
Regarding the last point, we need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, 05/18/2026
Item 11
healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.
Susan Maros
Altadena, California 91001
VlcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
ro:
Subject:
Nancy Macky <[email protected]>
Monday, May 18, 2026 12:42 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Vote YES to Affordable Homes in East Pasadena
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of affordable housing at 600 N.
Rosemead Blvd.
While some oppose such density of affordable housing, I believe that dense affordable housing leads to improved quality of life for everyone for the following reasons:
*
Studies show that every $1 invested in affordable housing generates up to $3 in local economic activity, benefiting both residents and the broader community. * A study by the Natsonai Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found that building 100 affordable rental homes generates approximately $11.7 million in local income, $2.2 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 161 locai jobs in the first year alone. * After examining over 150 major metro areas across the United States and additional internal metro areas, A USC study found that regions making substantial pubiic investments in housing experienced significantly lower rates of unsheltered homelessness. This research confirms public housing as a vita! tool in addressing home!essness and ensuring housing security.
* Studies show that dense affordable housing neighborhoods experience 20% - 50% lower rates of chronic diseases, attributed to greater walkability and access to healthy food options.
Regarding the last point, we need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of life for everyone by drastically reducing air poilutlon, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, 05/1S/2026
Item 11
healthier iifestyies through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.
Nancy Macky
Pasadena, California 91107
\/lcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
:rom:
Sent:
ro:
•ubject:
MimiNQ
Monday, May 18, 2026 3:48 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS #11 & 12 / TONIGHT'S CITY COUNCIL HEARING 5-18-26 Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn why this is important [A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
3UBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS #11 & 12/TONIGHT'S CITY COUNCIL HEARING 5-18-26 Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
OPPOSE the 600 N Rosemead project at its current height and density.
OPPOSE THE DENSITY BONUS: I support the residents' evidence that the density bonus was not justified. The •esidents state that the project does not lie within a 1/2 half mile of a qualified bus rapid transit stop. The olanning department has not adequately proven that this project qualifies for the density bonus.
SAFETY- ROSEMEAD BLVD IS AN EVACUATION ROUTE FOR AREAS THAT ARE IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD 3EVERITYZONE : Adding excessive density on Rosemead Blvd will be a problem during an emergency svacuation. The City Council needs to consider safety when approving high density projects.
PHOTO SIMULATIONS misrepresent the mass and height of the building. With each new photo simulation the hillside in the background keeps disappearing until in the final photo simulations the hillside can no longer be seen in the background. The developer has digitally altered the photos to make this huge project more diminutive.
30NCLUSION: I don't disagree that there is a need for affordable housing but putting high density projects along Rosemead Blvd which is designated an EVACUATION CORRIDOR is going to create safety issues and sause harm to the residents during an emergency evacuation. The residents have done an excellent job of providing evidence that would prove that the developer should NOT be granted a density bonus.
Best
Mimi Nakamura
District?
XXX
05/18/2026
Item ll
^/lcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
05/18/2026
Item 11
•rom:
lent:
ro:
:c:
Subject:
Johnson, Kevin
Monday, May 18, 2026 3:54 PM
Elisa Paster; PublicComment-AutoResponse
Mikaelian, Jason; Duong, Rathar
RE: 600 Rosemead Applicant Response to Appeal (Item 11) Fhanks Elisa; this has been received and I am forwarding to the City Council correspondence email address for Jistribution.
Fhanks,
<evin
<evin Johnson
:)rincipal Planner
^ity of Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department design & Historic Preservation Section
:626) 744-7806
<[email protected]
PA^ADEN.A
MANHIhtt S COMMUNir!' iltEVEI.Oft.lCNr BSCAKTMEhCT
:rom: Elisa Paster
>ent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:48 PM
Fo: commentsDC <[email protected]>
^c: Mikaelian, Jason <[email protected]>; Johnson, Kevin <[email protected]>; Duong, Rathar [email protected]>
Subject: 600 Rosemead Applicant Response to Appeal (Item 11) [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
3ood afternoon,
F^and Paster Nelson represents the project proponent for the 600 Rosemead project.
Fhis email responds to recent comments allege that the amount of parking to be provided at the Project will result in a CEQA impact. Not so. As already discussed in our previous letter, the Project is not subject to SEQA. Even if it were, parking impacts are not cognizable under CEQA for a 1 00 percent affordable housing project that qualifies as an infill residential project within Vi mile of a major transit stop. Public Resources Code § 21099(d)(1) expressly provides that parking impacts of a residential project on an infill site 1/z mile of a major transit stop are not significant impacts on the environment, and the statute further bars reliance on parking adequacy as a basis for significance. That rule has been applied by the courts: Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. CityofCovina (2018) 21 Cat.Aop.Sth 712. 728-729 held that parking impacts are not a significant effect on the environment for projects qualifying under § 21099.Thus, objections that the project does not provide enough parking, or that residents or visitors may circle for spaces, do not state a legally cognizable CEQA impact. For this Project, a 100 percent affordable housing project near major transit, CEQA does not permit parking shortage claims to defeat or delay approval based on alleged environmental effects.
Ve would appreciate it if you would circulate this comment to the CityCouncilmembers and include it in the idministrative record.
'hankyou.
Elisa
ilisa Paster
Managing Partner
'hone: 213.557.7222 Direct: 213.557.7223
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
commentsDC
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:10 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
FW: 600 Rosemead Applicant Response to Appeal (Item 11) For tonights meeting
From: Elisa Paster <
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:48 PM
To: commentsDC <[email protected]>
Cc: Mikaelian, Jason <[email protected]>; Johnson, Kevin <[email protected]>; Duong, Rathar <[email protected]>
Subject: 600 Rosemead Applicant Response to Appeal (Item 11) [ ,;t, ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
Good afternoon,
Rand Paster Nelson represents the project proponent for the 600 Rosemead project.
This email responds to recent comments allege that the amount of parking to be provided at the Project will result in a CEQA impact. Not so. As already discussed in our previous letter, the Project is not subject to CEQA. Even if it were, parking impacts are not cognizable under CEQA for a 1 00 percent affordable housing project that qualifies as an infill residential project within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop. Public Resources Code § 21099(d)(1) expressly provides that parking impacts of a residential project on an infill site ¥2 mile of a major transit stop are not significant impacts on the environment, and the statute further bars reliance on parking adequacy as a basis for significance. That rule has been applied by the courts: Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. CityofCovina (2.018) 2.1 Cal.App.5th 712. 728-729 held that parking impacts are not a significant effect on the environment for projects qualifying under § 21099.Thus, objections that the project does not provide enough parking, or that residents or visitors may circle for spaces, do not state a Legally cognizable CEQA impact. For this Project, a 100 percent affordable housing project near majortransit, CEQA does not permit parking shortage claims to defeat or delay approval based on alleged environmental effects.
We would appreciate it if you would circulate this comment to the City Councilmembers and include it in the administrative record.
Thank you.
Elisa
Elisa Paster
Managing Partner
II
05/18/2026
Item 11
VlcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
05/18/2026
Item 11
From:
Sent:
ro:
Subject:
commentsDC
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:10 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
FW: Support of Appeal against 600 N Rosemead
For tonight's meeting
From: Alexander Jimenez ^ -^
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 10:56 AM
Fo: commentsDC <[email protected]>
Subject: Support of Appeal against 600 N Rosemead
[ ,.t ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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 Commissioner Delgado and members of the Design Commission, My wife and I moved to Pasadena in the fall of 2019, planning to start a family and get away from mid-town LA. It was simply too congested, too full of open drug use by homeless vagrants who would camp right outside our apartment building, despite affordable housing projects supposedly being built to house them. It was simply too depressing to see a future there.
Pasadena was always a different story in our eyes. Beautiful, with parks, character, open roads and filled with positive, productive people. We didn't mind continuing to rent, as long as we weren't paying for a roach-infested apartment surrounded by garbage anymore. Dreams of owning a home in California still seem faint, but as renters in Pasadena we've been very happy.
Imagine our shock at the 600 N Rosemead project, which is set to be built right next to us. A huge, ugly behemoth of a building that violates the character and zoning requirements of the surrounding area. We thought we'd escaped Los Angeles's insane policies, but they followed us East.
Residents have been slow to react to projects like 600 N Rosemead and others along Colorado Blvd. Most residents were left uninformed by the city about the project at the time of its application by Elyssian Housing, which occurred in October 2025, until mid-February 2026. That was after the Design Commission had already issued an initial staff report, absent any input from current residents.
The project is part of a state-wide push via laws such as AB130, AB1763, AB2097, AB2553 and the forthcoming SB79 to flood single-family neighborhoods with high-density, low-quality housing, predominantly reserved for "extreme low income" tenants, as well as for the rising homeless population.
The 600 N Rosemead project alone will pump 133 units (out of over 9,000 planned for Pasadena by 2029) into a 5 story building and repurposed office building that are architecturally out of character with the surrounding residential buildings, and which can only be built with over 80 concessions through the State Housing Density Bonus law. This is how the building is allowed to exceed the 3-story maximum height limit, provide insufficient parking to its units, and claim that it provides open space for children to play, when the play area is, in fact, fully enclosed with no direct sunlight. Shockingly, the building has been consistently passed along by a Design Commission scared to challenge the authoritarian push from Sacramento to transform our community for the worse.
Members of the city council and Design Commission have argued in multiple meetings that their hands are simply tied by the bevy of laws issued out of Sacramento. They say that if they do not pass such projects, the state will institute fines, legal action, and even remove the city's authority to weigh in on new projects. But what good is our city leadership if they forfeit the fight from the start? Especially when you consider that of any projects applying for State Housing Density Bonus concessions, the 600 N Rosemead project has the weakest claim and can be easily rejected outright by either the Design Commission or City Council.
Fhe project relies on two false claims that it is within a half-mile proximity to major transit stops as defined by state law hat would qualify it to claim Density Bonus concessions:
n the first case, the applicant argues that the bus stop at Foothill and Rosemead qualifies as a Major Transit Stop jnder GC §65915(o)(3), and that the stop is within 1/2 mile of the project parcel. In this case, the measurement is Jone using a straight-line from any point on the parcel occupied by the bus stop to any point on the project parcel.
Whether the project is within distance is a moot point however, because the stop does not meet the GC §65915(o)(3) jefinition of a Major Transit Stop: it does not have two lines running at peak hour intervals of 20 minutes or less. n the second case, the applicant argues that its project is within 1/2 mile of the bus stop at Foothill and Sierra Madre \/'\\\a, which has been labeled by the Transit Authority as part of a Major Transit Corridor. However, in such a case the -elevant taw is PRC §21155, which has a stricter criteria for measuring the distance. In this case, no more than 25% of :he project parcel area, and no more than 10% of the residential units (or 100 units, whichever is less) can be further :han 1/2 mile from the stop. The project falls well outside this requirement. No matter how one slices it, the project does not qualify for exemptions from the city's authority to enforce its zoning regulations to their fullest. I am jisheartened by the Design Commission's staff recommendation to reject these points. These are the letter of the law. 3y what power of law do you choose to ignore it in favor of the applicant, which you would never do for any normal developer?
kA/hile the project is objectively unqualified to receive the concessions it needs to be profitable for the applicant, I certainly understand the scale of activism by groups like the YIMBY movement at the state level and Abundant hlousing Pasadena at the local level to force these buildings through. Such activists have argued that projects like 600 N Rosemead are necessary to fight rising unaffordability. However, with the exception of these activists, it is hard to Find any resident who supports this initiative. It's no wonder, given the track record of these projects in other cities, including Los Angeles, which absolutely refute their claims that it will benefit our city.
Katja M. Guenther, a resident who lives less than a mile from the proposed project, recently wrote in Pasadena Now supporting it and claiming that affordable housing is an essential public good. However, as a renter who lives a mere 400 feet from the project, I disagree. This project wilt not make rents affordable or help job-holding, productive people get a leg up in our city. In fact, because the project must be 100% Affordable to even break ground, and has already earmarked a significant portion of its units to house homeless individuals, it will directly exclude the majority of potential renters in favor of those on subsidized living programs. This will only distort the rental market by gobbling up real estate parcels which could otherwise have supported additional market-rate units that would actually address housing supply shortages and reduce real rental prices.
Guenther also argues that there is plenty of parking to go-around along Rosemead Blvd and in the nearby commercial and residential neighborhoods. She says that any additional parked vehicles along Rosemead will "calm traffic." These arguments are ironic considering the project applicant's repeated assurances that residents simply won't have cars since they will use public transit. That is the argument made to justify such Transit-Oriented Density projects everywhere: the incredible lie that people in southern California won't have cars. Of course these activists want it both ways: Proposed residents won't have cars, but if they do then current residents' concerns about their impact are unimportant. The Design Commission and City Council should be considering the CURRENT residents' needs and input, not hypothetical residents.
I must mention again the impact this substandard housing project will have on the children who may ultimately be living there. If residents will depend on public transportation, one wonders how children will get to school. There are no schools within walking distance, and no school bus routes run past or near 600 N Rosemead. Or is this another case where the parents will quite miraculously have a car of their own? We can't help but doubt the intentions of these pro- advocates when they claim these projects benefit the public, considering their disregard for the welfare of children. Will the Design Commission and City Council really sign their names to a project that raises children in such terrible circumstances?
Activists from Abundant Housing Pasadena state that when they think of Pasadena, they envision the Rose Parade, not parking, traffic, or trash on the streets, as if these are laughable concerns. Well of course that's the case, because Pasadena has historically rejected policies popular in Los Angeles. However, if these projects are approved, soon they will be all anyone thinks about when looking at our once-great city. This is the city's chance to continue a tradition of prudent decision-making. The Design Commission and City Council must step up on behalf of its residents and say no o these low-quality, market-distorting projects that will irrevocably tarnish our city, starting with the project at 600 N :?osemead. Thank you.
^^—
\LEXJIMENEZ DESIGN
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mariana
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:28 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Item 11 Support LHRA Appeal
Item 11 Support LHRA Appeal
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
, Learn why this is important at
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
05/18/2026
Item 11
To: Pasadena City Council
Re: Support - LHRA Appeal - 600 N. Rosemead Project
I am a longtime resident of east Pasadena. I am writing in support of the LhlRA appeal of the 600 N. Rosemead project. I am not opposed to affordable housing being built on the site, I am opposed to the density of the development and it's current iteration. • The building does not appear to qualify for the 3-story density bonus, as it is outside of the 1/2 mile distance from a "major transit stop" as noted in code.
Subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resource Code . ... "A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one- half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 700 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor."
• The building does not appear to to be located with 1/2 of a major transit stop with "unobstructed access" as noted in code.
GC 65915(p)(2)(A) "is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development," • How did the city determine that the bus stop meets the required time intervals to be considered a "major transit stop"?
PRC Chapter 2.5 Section 21064.3 (c)
• On page 16 of the December 11 , 2025 planning document it states:
The proposed project includes a variety of dwelling unit sizes, all over 450 square feet in size, which complies. The project indicates a minimum of 150 square feet of open space per unit (19,800 square feet for 132 units), with a 25 percent reduction of 4,950 square feet, due to the proximity to a public park. Additional details regarding the park proximity will be required for future submittals. With the 25 percent reduction, the total required open space is 14,850 square feet. The proposed open space /'s 15,000 square feet and complies with the minimum open space required for the adaptive reuse standards. A higher level of detail will be required for future submittals in order to verify compliance with all standards where applicable.
Pasadena's adaptive reuse standards reference "walking distance" when determining 1/2 mile walking distance to a public park for the reduction in the open space requirement. Given that walking distance is used for this concession, then why is the city not using "walking distance" for the 1/2 mile requirement for the density bonus?
Adaptive Reuse Standard F. Open Space.
1. A minimum of 150 square feet per dwelling unit is required and shall be provided in the form of common and/or private open space.
2. The following may count towards common open space:
a. Lobbies, provided they include residential amenities, including but not limited to work stations, lounge areas, or fitness centers; b. Existing or new publicly accessible open space and street setbacks, provided they include publicly accessible amenities including but not limited to landscaping, seating, fountains, and/or public art.
3. Accessible rooftop areas may count toward common open space at a 1.5:1.0 ratio, provided they contain residential amenities such as pools, lounge areas, furniture, and/or landscaping.
4. If located within one half mile walking distance to a public park, as designated in PMC Section 3.23.010, the open space requirement may be reduced by a maximum of 25 percent.
• The proposed building height at the roof line is 71'. Does this take into account additional height as a result of equipment that is being placed on top of the roof line? • The East Pasadena Specific Plan proposed draft presented on March 11, 2026 included a map, Figure 6 with the following statement:
Figure 6 shows the current proposed draft residential density. It shows the highest residential density (87 units/acre) through the area south of Foothill Boulevard and along Colorado Boulevard and a mix of densities north of Foothill Boulevard (32 to 87 units/ acre) with lower densities for shallow properties and those on the periphery. Staff recommends maintaining non-residential uses for the properties north ofHalstead Street in order to continue support for research and development uses.
Why is the city allowing the development of a building that is in contrast to what was presented to constituents at the March 11, 2026 meeting? This particular development is on a shallow lot, on the periphery, and north of Halstead.
• The city's housing plan element HE-3.9 Neighborhood Stability states:
HE-3.9Neighborhood Stability. Promote strategies that guard against neighborhood gentrification and facilitate the ability of long-time residents to remain in their neighborhoods as economic conditions change.....
The regulations ensure that sufficient on-site spaces are available to accommodate vehicle ownership rates of residents and the actual parking required for special needs housing, while encouraging use of other modes of transportation by mandating maximums in TOD districts. Because of this flexibility, Pasadena's parking requirements are not considered an impediment to housing development, including special needs housing. In sum, the City's parking regulations are typical for those in a suburban community and responsive to reduced parking demands in TODs and more urbanized areas.
I would like to point out that based on the city's own Transportation Study, only 3% of residents live in zero-vehicle homes. Given that low percentage, we can anticipate that residents in this development will most likely own vehicles. • Why is the development exempt from CEQA?
The density of this development will negatively impact traffic, noise, and air quality.
Can this site be adequately served by all required utilities and public sen/ices without placing undue burden on existing infrastructure or without passing on expenses to residents by way of a utility increase or future parcel tax? The city's evacuation plan (page 28) indicates that Rosemead Blvd will be used to evacuate people south. Given that Rosemead Blvd is an evacuation route, has the city thought about the potential health and safety risk posed by having excess vehicles parked on a major evacuation route?
I understand there is pressure from the state and lobby groups, however, asking questions about a buildings design is not anti-housing. They are responsible planning questions.
It is disheartening that in today's society it is either or, instead of a collaborative process. Most of the neighbors that I have spoken with are not opposed to the project in it's entirety, they are supportive of building affordable housing, however, the density of this project is the predominant concern.
I urge the Council to support the appeal, or at least pause the process so that further information can be gathered to make a truly informed decision on this building project.
Sincerely,
Mariana S.
McMilIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Daniel Mark <[email protected]>
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Vote YES to Affordable hlomes in East Pasadena
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the 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.
Council Member,
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm writing to support the proposed development of 133 units of affordable housing at 600 N.
Rosemead Blvd.
While some oppose such density of affordable housing, I beiieve that dense affordable housing leads to improved quality of life for everyone for the following reasons:
* Studies show that every $1 invested in affordable housing generates up to $3 in !oca! economic activity, benefiting both residents and the broader community. * A study by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found that building 100 affordable rental homes generates approximateiy $11.7 million in iaea! income, $2.2 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 161 local jobs in the first year alone. * After examining over 150 major metro areas across the United States and additional internal metro areas, A USC study found that regions making substantial public investments in housing experienced significantly lower rates of unsheltered homelessness. This research confirms public housing as a vital tool in addressing homelessness and ensuring housing security.
* Studies show that dense affordable housing neighborhoods experience 20% - 50% lower rates of chronic diseases, attributed to greater walkability and access to healthy food options.
Regarding the last point, we need to move toward being a community that makes car-free living possible. Becoming a city that makes car-free living possible improves the quality of iife for everyone by drastically reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, creating safer streets, freeing up space for green areas and community interaction, promoting active, 05/18/2026
Item 11
healthier lifestytes through walking and cycling, reducing traffic stress, and fostering a stronger sense of community connection.
Daniel Mark
Pasadena, California 91103
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Erica Jimenez -
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:24 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Statement from local resident about the 600 N Rosemead Project (Item 11 for tonight's meeting)
Some people who received this message don't often get email from,1. Learn why this is important [ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 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.
To the city council and members of the Design Commission, This proposed development at 600 North Rosemead has been the first reason my husband and I have had to deal directly with the city council and local government in Pasadena. To say we have been let down by our representatives and leaders is a gross understatement.
From the beginning, the city and developer have shown a shocking lack of transparency. The project was initially approved without any input from local residents, as we were not notified about the development until after the initial design review was presented and approved. It seems that only after residents became aware of the project through other channels did the city and developer see fit to hold a meeting to inform us about the project details (which was full of inaccuracies and obscured the true nature of the project.) For example, at no point in the process were residents informed that the project had reserved 50 of the 133 units for homeless households.
Not only that, but the developer stands to receive up to $65 million of funding via tax credits and bonds, which means they will potentially be spending nearly $500,000 per unit. And yet, with that much funding, the developer claims they don't have enough money to build even one parking space per apartment.
This developer is planning to spend an egregious amount of money, funded by taxpayers, to build what amounts to barely more than a modern "project." They claim this is to help low income individuals and families find housing, but what good is the housing if it is an offense to the people meant to live there?
Let's start with parking. No household in the Los Angeles area, that is hoping to experience upward mobility, is able to survive without at least one vehicle. The idea that hundreds of new residents will be able to take public transportation - with minimal bus service, with stations more than a half mile away when walking, and with a metro train service that just reduced weekday ride offerings by a full 20% is laughable. The project only provides 55 parking spaces, not all of which are e'.'en available to normal cars. Some are reserved for management and for handicap parking. That leaves potentially over a hundred cars to be parked on a busy thoroughfare, N Rosemead Blvd. This, of course, is now admitted by proponents, who first assured us that most residents would not have vehicles and there would be no increase in street parking along Rosemead.
Now, either the households have a car or they don't. Either way, it's an incredible safety risk that the city can't afford to ignore. If the residents have cars and we experience a drastic increase in traffic and on-street parking, it is creating a dangerous chokepoint in a street that is labeled by the city as a Disaster Route. Not only will this affect emergency services like police and fire's ability to get to residents north of the development, but will also affect those residents' ability to evacuate in the case of another fire like in 2025, or a flash flood event.
If the residents do NOT have a vehicle, this is just as bad. The city and developer are planning to put hundreds of residents, including children, in a building from which they cannot effectively evacuate. Residents fleeing from the Eaton fire used their vehicles to escape the flames they had mere moments of notice to escape from. How are families with small children supposed to get away if such a natural disaster occurs again? Bus lines and a metro station over a half mile away, that only run during the daytime hours, leave residents with no way to get out in case of an emergency. And Pasadena police and fire have provided no guidance on how they plan to deal with this sudden increase in either traffic or civilians who will need assistance to evacuate.
Now, hoping that the building remains free from fire hazards, we still have to deal with day to day quality of life, especially for the children who we assume will live in this development. This is a major concern of mine, as a new mother. There is no school within walking distance nor school bus that will take them to school running along Rosemead. What is the city's plan for these children and their education?
05/18/2026
Item 11
\nd when the children are home in this building, they are sure to enjoy their fully covered and dark "play area" that has no view of he sky, and has only two small and pathetic structures that no one would qualify as an actual playground. No sky, one small "rope vail" for small children to climb, and a weird geometric boulder shape labeled "for teens." It looks more like a modern art nstallation than an area that is safe and engaging for children.
A/ith nearly $500,000 per unit, you would think the developer could provide a much higher quality living space for residents. apparently, those who are low income should simply have to live in what amounts to substandard housing, with no potential for jpward mobility, and a demoralizing "open space" because that is all the developer and the city see fit to give them.
Ne should deny this project on every front. As other speakers and citizens have pointed out, the project does not qualify for the ixemptions it has been given based on its supposed proximity to public transit stations. But further than that, the city is creating a lazardous, substandard, and degrading structure for the people intended to live there. I, for one, would have hoped we could do setter for those in our city who need this help, and instead of offering the worst possible option in the form of this development at 300 N Rosemead Blvd.
sincerely,
Erica Jimenez, 91107
resident within 500 feet
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
commentsDC
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:53 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
FW: Rebuttal of Staff Recommendation per Appeal Point 2 re: 600 N Rosemead Project For tonights meeting
From: AlexanderJimenez
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 4:45 PM
To: commentsDC <[email protected]>
Subject: Rebuttal of Staff Recommendation per Appeal Point 2 re: 600 N Rosemead Project [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the 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 Commissioner Delgado and members of the Design Commission, Staff has not established a legally sufficient basis to deny Appeal Point 2 on the theory that the project is within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop.
Staff relies on two separate claims: first, that the Foothill/Rosemead stop currently qualifies because Foothill Transit 187 and Metro 266 operate at 20-minute-or-less peak intervals; and second, that the Foothill/Sierra Madre Villa stop qualifies because it is identified in SCAG's "2050 Plan."
However, the published timetables do not clearly establish the first point. The official Foothill Transit web schedule provides exact stop-level times for the Foothill/Rosemead stop on line 187, and those exact times show multiple morn'ng peak gaps greater than 20 minutes, exceeding even 30 minutes. Metro 266's official timetable likewise uses approximate timepoints and includes peak- period gaps that exceed 20 minutes. Because Public Resources Code § 21064.3 requires two or more major bus routes with service intervals of 20 minutes or less during morning and afternoon peak commute periods, staff should provide exact stop-level schedules and a clear methodology before treating Foothill/Rosemead as a qualifying MTS.
On the second point: Staff has incorrectly indicated that the Foothill/Sierra Madre Villa stop is bindingly designated as an MTS in the currently adopted RTP/SCS. The current SCAG plan materials reviewed are Connect SoCal 2024, and Chapter 3 discusses Transit Priority Areas generally, but does not identify Foothill/Sierra Madre Villa by name as a Major Transit Stop. The SCAG 2050 plan is not an adopted plan, and therefore has no binding authority. To treat it as such is to treat any hypothetical stop listed in any hypothetical plan as relevant in the here-and-now, which is no basis for decision-making.
The supplemental materials to Connect SoCal2024 describe the RTP's general requirement to identify transportation facilities, but do not provide a stop-by-stop MTS designation for this intersection. hlCD's AB 2097 technical advisory says that RTP-listed MTSs can remain binding for AB 2097 eligibility, however, that document is expressly an interpretation for AB 2097 parking exemptions, not a binding adjudication of this Density Bonus appeal. In other words, the Commission is not compelled to follow the guidance of the HCD as it has not provided any regarding the determination of an unlisted MTS.
Moreover, staff actually misstated the second point of appeal. Staff previously indicated that the second stop was part of a Rapid Transit Corridor, which holds a stricter basis for proximity measurement. This point of appeal, having been entirely ignored by staff and replaced with the false assertion that the current SCAG plan designates the stop as a MTS, stands as submitted and is grounds for upholding the appeal in full.
Therefore, based on the record presented, the Commission is not compelled to treat either Foothill/Rosemead or Foothill/Sierra Madre Villa as a Major Transit Stop unless staff identifies the exact adopted RTP/SCS page, table, map, dataset, adoption action, and/or stop-level schedule that legally establishes the designation. Moreover, staff offered no rebuttal to the actual point of appeal regarding the Foothill/Sierra Madre Villa stop. If staff cannot do either at the current time, the commission must uphold the appeal and reject the 600 N Rosemead project presented by Elysian/FSY as failing to qualify for SDBL concessions. Let us be clear: if the Commission allows this building to proceed, it is breaking the law. The building does not qualify for SDBL, therefore, approving it as proposed would mean approving illegal concessions for this project.
Thank you,
Alex Jimenez, Renter at 500 N Rosemead
05/18/2026
Item ll
VlcMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
=rom:
Sent:
ro:
Subject:
Sam Alcorn •
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:53 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Written Public Comments — May 18, 2026 Pasadena City Council Meeting Some people who received this message don't often get email from 'i. Learn why this is important [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the 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.
Submitted by: Sam Alcorn, District 3
ITEM 11— Appeal of Design Commission Approval, 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard
Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I urge Counciltodenythe appeal and approve the project, consistent with staff's recommendation.
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code §65589.5) requires that denial or substantial conditioning of a qualifying affordable housing project be supported by written findings of specific objective standards not met, on a preponderance of the evidence, with heightened protection for affordable projects. The State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915) requires that concessions be granted unless specific findings of adverse impact on public health, safety, or the physical environment are made. The Attorney General's April 2025 legal alert affirmed that density-bonus enforcement is an active state priority. Council members who vote to grant the appeal on grounds that do not survive HAA review expose the City to litigation, fees, and reversal.
I want to add a broader observation. The cities I hope for my home city to emulate: Paris, Vienna, Tokyo, Munich, Stockholm, et c. (name anywetl-functioning global city) do not hold appeal hearings to elected councils on whether specific apartment buildings should be approved when those buildings conform to adopted plans and standards. Their elected councils debate plans; their administrators apply plans. The discretionary, project-by- project review model that brings this appeal before Council tonight is shared with only five other Westminster- tradition countries. The US is a global outlier here. It produces predictable costs: corruption, litigation exposure, delay quantified by RAND at $1,284 per unit per month, and exclusionary outcomes.
State housing law is not the enemy of cities. It is a friend. Each statute (HAA, DBL, SB 35/423, AB 130, SB 79, et c.) removes from Council's plate a category of decision that Council should not want to spend time and resources on. Recognizing this is in alignment with both state law and good policy.
Deny the appeal. Approve the project.
Thank you for your service.
Respectfully,05/18/2026
Item 11
SamAlcorn, Districts
ITEM 12 — TEFRA Hearing, CMFA Bonds for 600 N. Rosemead, LP Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I support adoption of the TEFRA resolution.
The two 600 N. Rosemead items on tonight's agenda reinforce each other: the financing supports the project, the entitlements allow the project, and Pasadena's affordable housing pipeline depends on both proceeding.
Thankyou.
Respectfully,
SamAlcorn, Districts
ITEM 13 — TEFRA Hearing, CMFA Bonds for Colorado Crest, LP Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I support adoption of the TEFRA resolution. Colorado Crest is exactly the kind of transit-corridor affordable housing Pasadena's hlousing Element commitments require.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
SamAlcorn, Districts
ITEM 14—Adoption of SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance and Interim Urgency Ordinance
Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I urge Councilto reject Option 2 and adopt no ordinance.
SB 79 is the default.
Government Code § 65912.157(n) applies SB 79 to incorporated cities on July 1, 2026, by operation of state taw.
The statute then provides specific mechanisms by which local agencies may modify that default: a delayed effectuation ordinance under §65912.160, a TODAP under §65912.161, an industrial-employment-hub exemption, a no-walking-path exemption. Each is permissive. § 65912.160(b) reads: "A local agency may adopt an ordinance." § 65912.161 (b) reads: "A Local agency may adopt an ordinance that creates a transit-oriented development alternative plan."
i/Vhat follows from this is plain on the face of the statute. SB 79 applies July 1 unless Pasadena takes affirmative action to modify its application through one of the specified mechanisms. A city that does nothing is not sxercising forbearance or asking permission; it is allowing state law to operate as the Legislature wrote it.
Pasadena's zoning authority has always been delegated state authority.
Fhe framing of state housing law as an intrusion on local control, which animates Pasadena's December 30, 2025 letter to the Governor and which appears to motivate the current ordinance, reflects a misunderstanding 3f where Pasadena's zoning authority comes from. The Planning and Zoning Law (GOV. Code § 65000 et seq.) is the source of municipal zoning authority in California. The Housing Element Law dates to 1 969. The Permit Streamlining Act dates to 1 977. The Housing Accountability Act dates to 1982. The State Density Bonus Law dates to 1979. None of this is new. Municipalities are creatures of the state, exercising delegated authority, and state housing law has always been the framework within which that delegated authority operates. Article Xl § 5 3f the California Constitution gives charter cities home-rule authority over "municipal affairs," but California courts have consistently found housing policy to be a matter of statewide concern that preempts local control, and the home-rule defense has been losing in housing cases for decades.
Fhe state has recently exercised its atways-existing authority more actively because municipalities have used their delegated zoning power in ways that harm Californians who do not live in those municipalities, whether that's because they wish to live there but can't afford to, or because they haven't been born yet. SB 79 is a continuation of that pattern, not a departure from it.
The proposed findings do not support the proposed ordinance.
SB 79 § 65912.160(c) authorizes delay "due to the threat to public health, safety, or welfare."This standard requires the City to find that SB 79'sapp//cat/on would threaten public health, safety, or welfare, and that the proposed delay addresses that threat.
The findings in Attachment A do not make this finding. Finding 1 invokes General Plan Goals 7 (Architectural Design and Quality) and 8 (Historic Preservation) to argue General Plan conformance. Finding 2 simply asserts that the delay "would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City." This is the inverse of what SB 79 requires. The statute does not ask whether the delay is consistent lA/ith the General Plan or whether the delay would harm public welfare. It asks whether SB 79's application threatens public welfare. The findings nowhere make that affirmative finding, because no such finding could honestly be supported on this record. Allowing multifamily housing on RS-zoned land near high-frequency Metro stations does not threaten public health or safety. Allowing higher density on RM-zoned land in transit-rich areas does not threaten public welfare.
Attachment J shows the ordinance's actual intent.
the map in Attachment J makes the ordinance's design legible. Within the half-mile radius around each of Pasadena's six Metro A Line stations, the map shows stacked exclusions: RS zones, all four RM density categories (RM-12, -16, -32, -48), specific plan sites at 32 du/ac or less, specific plan sites at 48 du/ac or less, excluded non-residential sites, rent-controlled sites, price-controlled sites, sites on the local register, and sites on the state/national register. The cumulative effect is to exclude the substantial majority of transit-served residentialgeographyfrom SB 79 application.
The purpose of SB 79 is to prevent cities from excluding housing near transit. The map's evident design is to exclude housing from most of the area near transit. These are opposing intents. A reasonable reader of the statute and the map concludes that Option 2 is structured to achieve through stacked permissive mechanisms what SB 79 does not allow cities to do directly. This is the legal and political weakness at the heart of the proposed ordinance.
The historic-resource carve-out exceeds the statute.
SB 79's historic-resource provisions reference specific designated resources. The proposed ordinance applies the carve-out at the district level, including all sites within state and national register districts, not only individually-designated resources. SB 79 does not authorize this scope. Pasadena's December 30, 2025 letter to the Governor asked the Legislature to expand SB 79's historic-resource protections to include landmark districts and resources "eligible" but not yet designated. AB 2576 (Harabedian), currently passed by the Assembly, does substantially what the December 30 letter asked. The current statute does not authorize what AB 2576 would authorize. Pasadena is attempting to claim by ordinance what the Legislature has not yet granted.
This presents two problems. First, the district-level carve-out is Legally vulnerable on its face; it claims authority the current statute does not provide. Second, if AB 2576 passes, the carve-out becomes redundant. If AB 2576 fails, the Legislature will have declined to provide the authority Pasadena is asserting unilaterally, making the carve-out more vulnerable still. The right move is to wait for AB 2576 to be resolved.
The HCD review problem.
If Pasadena adopts the proposed ordinance, it is subject to post-adoption substantial-compliance review under § 65912.160. HCD has 90 days (extendable to 1 20) to determine compliance. If HCD finds the ordinance non- compliant, Pasadena has 60 days to either amend or adopt unchanged, with findings explainingwhy it believes the ordinance is compliant despite HCD's contrary determination. Eitherway, the ordinance is exposed to SB 79 enforcement under § 65912.157(m), which includes private and AG enforcement actions, attorney's fees, and HAA-aligned remedies.
Pasadena's history with state housing-law enforcement is directly relevant. In May 2022, Attorney General Bonta's Housing Strike Force intervened on Pasadena's SB 9 implementation, leadingto a revised ordinance after collaboration with the City. The AG's office has demonstrated willingness to enforce state housing law against Pasadena. SB 79 enforcement will be no different, and the maximalist scope of the proposed ordinance combined with weak supportingfindings and the district-level historic-resource carve-out makes enforcement more likely, not less.
The costs Pasadena does not need to bear.
Adopting the proposed ordinance commits Pasadenatospendingstaff resources drafting, defending, and updating it; legal exposure to HCD enforcement and private-party challenges; political capital on a position that is increasingly out of step with the post-AB 130 state housing-law environment; and a five-year delay (extending to approximately 2031 perthe Planning Commission staff presentation) of SB 79 implementation intransit-rich neighborhoods. These costs ultimately fall on Pasadena residents in foregone housing supply, sustained pressure on rents and home prices, and continued constraint on the affordable-housing pipeline that depends on multifamily-eligible land.
A TODAP under §65912.157 isa complex, multi-year planning exercise that requires hlCD review and demonstrating "at least as much overall residential capacity" as SB 79 would otherwise provide. If Pasadena wants to pursue a TODAP later, it can do so without first adopting an urgency-and-delay ordinance.
The reframe Council should consider.
state housing law is not Pasadena's enemy. Pasadena's zoning authority is delegated state authority, and the itate has always retained the power to define the scope of that delegation. When municipalities use their delegated zoning power in ways that harm Californians who do not live in those municipalities, the state is not ust permitted but obligated to act. SB 79 is that action. Governor Newsom said it directly when he signed the 3itl: the law "far from limiting local control.. . strengthens it" by giving cities the tools to take ownership of outcomes with state law as a backstop.
:>asadena's December 30, 2025 tetter to the Governor opposing SB 79 was signed by Mayor Gordo and copied to :he League of California Cities. SB 79 is now law, signed by the Governor whom Pasadena asked to consider :urther amendments. The question before Council on May 18 is not whether to continue opposing SB 79, but /vhetherto expend Pasadena's resources on a legally vulnerable ordinance whose findings do not support the action beingtaken, whose map confirms an intent to exclude housingfrom most of the area neartransit, and /vhose historic-resource carve-out exceeds what the current statute authorizes.
Fheask.
!\dopt no ordinance. SB 79 takes effect July 1 by operation of state law. If Pasadena wishes to pursue a TODAP n the future, it can do so on its own timeline without an interim delay package. f Council is unwillingto do that, the minimum acceptable position is to remove the RS-zone exclusion entirely, .imit the historic-resource carve-out to individually-designated resources rather than district-level inclusions, and add a specific sunset date to whatever delay is adopted.
Fhank you foryour service.
respectfully,
3amALcorn, Districts
ITEM 16—First Reading, Uncodified Interim Urgency Ordinance Delaying SB 79
s/1ayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
submit my Item 14 comment as my comment on Item 16, consistent with the agenda note that Items 14,16, and 17 are considered concurrently including for public comment purposes.
Fhe Interim Urgency Ordinance should not be adopted. SB 79 takes effect July 1 by operation of state taw; the delay-and-TODAP provisions are permissive mechanisms cities may use, not required actions. The urgency framing in particular requires findings of specific, immediate threat justifying interim action. The findings in attachment A invoke General Plan Goals 7 and 8 but do not make the affirmative finding that SB 79 application /vould threaten public health, safety, or welfare. That is the standard the statute requires, and the proposed findings do not meet it.
3leasesee Item 14forfulldiscussion.
Fhankyou.
Respectfully,
SamAlcorn, Districts
ITEM 17— First Reading, Uncodified Delayed Effectuation Ordinance for SB 79
Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I submit my Item 14 comment as my comment on Item 17, consistent with the agenda note that Items 14,16, and 17 are considered concurrently including for public comment purposes.
The Delayed Effectuation Ordinance should not be adopted. Government Code § 65912.160(b) is permissive: "A local agency may adopt an ordinance." Pasadena is under no obligation to act, and the default position under § 55912.157(n) is that SB 79 takes effect July 1 by operation of state law. The map in Attachment J shows that Option 2's cumulative exclusions cover the substantial majority of transit-served residential geography around the six Metro A Line stations, achieving through stacked permissive mechanisms what SB 79 does not allow cities to do directly. The historic-resource carve-out applied at the district level exceeds the statutory authority, asserting authority that AB 2576 (Harabedian) is currently attempting to grant legislatively. The proposed findings in Attachment A do not support the action under § 65912.160(c).
Please see Item 14 for full discussion.
Thankyou.
Respectfully,
SamAlcorn, Districts