McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sam Alcorn •
Monday, May 18, 2026 4:53 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Written Public Comments — May 18, 2026 Pasadena City Council Meeting iSome people who received this message don't often get email from;1. Learn why this is important [ A 1 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links oropenattachments unless you frnow the content is safe. Report phish using the PhishAlert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button viewarticle "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.' ; : :. ', 'l.:.:^,..'1...1' ,.. 1 , 1; : : ''.•/' :\ " :: ;: . : ', : 1 •L;' ;'':; :1 :.1"1 Submitted by: Sam ALcorn, District 3
ITEM 11 — Appeal of Design Commission Approval, 600 N. Rosemead Boulevard
Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I urge Council to deny the appeal and approve the project, consistent with staff's recommendation.
The hlousing 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 any well-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 taw and good policy.
Deny the appeal. Approve the project.
Thank you for your service.
Respectfully,
05/18/2026
Item 13
SamAlcorn, Districts
ITEM 12 — TEFRA Hearing, CMFA Bonds for 600 N. Rosemead, LP s/layor Gordo and Councilmembers,
support adoption of the TEFRA resolution.
Fhe 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.
Fhankyou.
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 Housing Element commitments require.
Thankyou.
Respectfully,
SamAlcorn, Districts
ITEM 14—Adoption of SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance and Interim Urgency Ordinance
Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I urge Council to 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 law.
The statute then provides specific mechanisms by which local agencies may modify that default: a delayed effectuation ordinance under § 6591 2.160, 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."
What follows from this is plain on the face of the statute. SB79appliesJuly1 unless Pasadena takes affirmative action to modify its application through one of the specified mechanisms. A city that does nothing is not exercising 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.
The 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 of 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 h-lousing Element Law dates to 1 969. The Permit Streamlining Act dates to 1977. 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 of 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.
The state has recently exercised its always-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 56 79's application 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 with 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-controtled 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 residential geography from 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 /vhat 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 unitaterally, 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 120) to determine compliance. If HCD finds the ordinance non- compliant, Pasadena has 60 days to either amend or adopt unchanged, with findings explaining why 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, leading to 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 supporting findings 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 Pasadena to spending staff 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 per the Planning Commission staff presentation) of SB 79 implementation in transit-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 § 6591 2.157 is a complex, multi-year planning exercise that requires HCD 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 state has always retained the power to define the scope of that delegation. When municipalities use their lelegated 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 )ill: the law "far from limiting local control.. . strengthens it" by giving cities the tools to take ownership of )utcomes with state law as a backstop.
:>asadena's December 30, 2025 letter 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 being taken, whose map confirms an intent to exclude housing from most of the area near transit, and /vhose historic-resource carve-out exceeds what the current statute authorizes.
Fhe ask.
i\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 unwilling to 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.
Fhankyou foryour service.
Respectfully,
SamAlcorn, Districts
ITEM 16—First Reading, Uncodified Interim Urgency Ordinance Delaying SB 79
Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
I 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.
The Interim Urgency Ordinance should not be adopted. SB 79 takes effect July 1 by operation of state law; 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 would threaten public health, safety, or welfare. That is the standard the statute requires, and the proposed findings do not meet it.
Please see Item 14 for full discussion.
Thankyou.
Respectfully,
Sam Alcorn, District 3
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 includingfor 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 § 65912.157(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 (hlarabedian) 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 forfull discussion.
Thankyou.
Respectfully,
Sam Alcorn, District 3