AR 26 SUPP CORR CORRESPONDENCE — Pasadena City Council, June 8, 2026

McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, June 4, 2026 9:05 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please Preserve Pasadena's Historic Neighborhood Transitions [ 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.

Re: Please Preserve Pasadena's Historic Neighborhood Transitions Mr. MarkJomsky,
I urge you to support the proposed SB 79 Delay Effectuation Ordinance and continue pursuing TODAP planning before blanket statewide standards take effect throughout Pasadena.

The City's own maps show that Pasadena's transit zones extend deeply into established residential and historic neighborhoods. Areas surrounding Fillmore Station especially overlap with Landmarked homes, historic streets, rent-controlled housing, and Long-established neighborhood fabric.

Larger-scaLe growth should be focused in appropriate commercial and higher-intensity corridors — not pushed deeper into established residential and historic neighborhoods without a clear plan for where that growth belongs.

The Planning Department reports also make clear that Pasadena is still actively studying TODAP and evaluating how density could be shifted within TOD areas while still complying with state law.

That planningwork deserves time.

Please preserve every remaining planning tool still Legally available to Pasadena and continue protecting the neighborhood character and transitions that make our city unique.

Sincerely,
BeverlyAshley
Pasadena, CA 91107
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected]
06/08/2026
Item 26
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Joanne Xian <[email protected]>
Friday, June 5, 2026 12:21 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance |[ I ] 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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-family and low-density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations.

We need more housing in Pasadena. While LA County as a whole has seen rent decreases, Pasadena's rent has increased 5.8% to a median of $2,823. These costs harm working families by putting them at risk of displacement or homelessness, especially in this time of rising inflation and lower federal support. SB 79 projects have to follow local affordability requirements, so every deferral we pursue is a missed opportunity to build urgently needed affordable housing in our city.

Please reconsider this course and work with city staff on a full alternative plan that protects historic resources while allowing the housing growth our city needs to be affordable to all.

I visit Pasadena all the time with my kids and their grandparents , housing is essential for the livelihood of the city.

Joanne Xian
San Gabriel, California 91776
06/08/2026
Item 26
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
torn boat <[email protected]>
Friday, June 5, 2026 6:23 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance [ I ] 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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm a 30 year resident of Pasadena and I live walking distance to the Sierra Madre Villa station. The young people I know who grew up in Pasadena are still living at home as young adults because housing has become unaffordable for most people. We have a severe housing shortage and we need to build more housing to give our young people a chance to have their own place to live and transit orientated developments are a smart way to do it. This is why I fully support the intent of SB79 to build higher density apartment buildings near our metro stations.
torn boat
Pasadena, California 91107
06/08/2026
Item 26
••rtfe
,«
^ •A»^£. ^K t^
»».»'1 ••;•^»A-
**•-
£<^ -^

RECEIVED
202UUN-5 AH 9: 16
Y ^LLK^
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA ^;|"1<^)NpASADENA
115 West California Boulevard, #305, Pasadena, CA 91105 www.mhnapasodena.orq May 29, 2026
Pasadena City Council and Mayor Gordo
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: June 8 action item related to SB 79
Dear Honorable Mayor Gordo and Pasadena City Council,
The Madison Heights Neighborhood Association, representing over 1,500 residents, hopes you will pass the proposed Uncodified Delayed Effectuation Ordinance regarding SB 79. We are aware of the potential pros and cons, including for our own neighborhood near Fillmore Station which would not be subject to the delay, but in the aggregate, we feel this is the best course for the city overall. We care deeply about the entire city.

Also, while we understand that further pleas to Sacramento are likely to fall on deaf ears, we nonetheless urge the City to continue - both formally and informally - pressing our state representatives to make two targeted amendments to SB 79 that are essential for protecting the historic resources our state so values:

1. Eliminate the arbitrary pre-2025 cutoff date for historic designation protections. This does not make sense if we still value historic resources and the unique character they give our city and state.

2. Eliminate the 10% cap for historic resource protections within a transit area, which could force Pasadena and other cities into the impossible position of having to decide which historic resources are worthy of protection and which are not.

These changes should not be an impediment to dramatically increasing housing with a focus on transit- oriented development. These goals and values are not mutually exclusive. Pasadena has been a leader in showing we can - and should - keep increasing housing to resolve the severe housing crisis, and keep protecting our valued and limited historic resources. The fact that the State approved our well-crafted Housing Element just three years ago proves Sacramento agrees it can be done.

Please keep trying to help Sacramento understand this.

Thank you and best regards,
^^tt-
John Latta
President, MHNA
06/08/2026
Item 26
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Stephanie Bower <[email protected]>
Friday, June 5, 2026 10:33 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance [ I ] 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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I have been a passionate supporter of PUSD since my kids were little, more than 20 years ago. The beautiful diverse communities we were part of have been endangered over that time because Pasadena has become increasingly unaffordable for most middle and lower class families. For that reason, I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-family and low-density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations. We need to build strong neighborhoods that are affordable and that welcome families from all demographics.

Please reconsider your decision to side with the nimbys that are working to thwart building this diverse community.

Stephanie Bower
Pasadena, California 91107
06/08/2026
Item 26
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jeff Cyrulewski
Friday, June 5, 2026 10:39 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Council Agenda Item 26: SB79 and the Future of 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.

Dear Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
My name is JeffCyrulewski, and I'm a Pasadena resident, a board member of Keep Pasadena Moving and a Transportation Advisory Commissioner. As Pasadena begins planning for the long-term implications of SB 79 through the TODAP process, I hope the City continues approaching this issue with both realism and strong advocacy for Pasadena's unique neighborhoods.

I recognize the difficult position cities now face under evolving state housing laws, but at the same time, I believe many residents remain concerned that the current SB 79 framework still does not adequately reflect the realities of cities like Pasadena.

Many major corridors experience daily congestion, residential streets are increasingly used as cut-through routes, and parking availability remains a challenge in many neighborhoods. Yet SB 79 could allow substantially greater residential density near transit corridors and stations throughout the city.

Supporters often assume that residents living near transit will drive less and own fewer vehicles. However, Pasadena's reality is more complicated. Many residents still rely on cars for work, school, shopping, medical appointments, and daily activities throughout the region.

This raises important questions:
• Where will additional vehicles park if future projects provide little or no parking? • How will surrounding residential streets be protected from spillover parking? • Will Pasadena retain Local control over parking management policies in the future? • How will increased traffic affect already-congested corridors and intersections? • How will emergency access, neighborhood circulation, and quality of life be maintained? Recent public discussions have highlighted another concern: the possibility that future state housing Legislation could further limit Local parking regulations near transit-oriented development areas. While no such law currently exists, Sacramento has repeatedly reduced local authority over parking requirements, and many residents are understandably concerned about where these policies may lead.

I absolutely support thoughtful planning and recognize that Pasadena must prepare for future growth. However, planning must be grounded in real-world transportation conditions, not assumptions. Before major changes are implemented, residents deserve clear answers regarding traffic, parking, infrastructure capacity and neighborhood impacts.

Growth should be planned responsibly, transportation systems should function effectively and neighborhoods should remain Livable. Most importantly, Pasadena residents deserve a voice in decisions that will shaoe how 06/08/2026
Item 26
our city moves for decades to come. I believe Pasadena can continue supporting housing goals while also protecting the historic character and neighborhood fabric that residents value so deeply.

Thank you for your continued work on these complex issues, Jeff Cyrulewski
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Susan Mossman <;
Friday, June 5, 2026 12:32 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
City Council for June 8 - Support for Item 26
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromI. 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.

JuneS, 2025
RE: Agenda Item 26 - Support

ADOPTION OF AN UNCODIFIED DELAYED EFFECTUATION ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ABUNDANT AND AFFORDABLE HOMES NEAR TRANSIT ACT (SENATE BILL 79) (Planning Dept.) Dear Mayor Gordo and Council Members:

I strongly urge you to adopt the staff recommendation and approve this ordinance! SB-79 threatens to have dire consequences for Pasadena's historic resources, and usurps Pasadena's ability to carefully plan for its future. We are already providing for significant increases in housing through our general plan and specific plans while protecting our history, community character, historic places, and neighborhoods. This state legislation is ill-conceived and runs roughshod over all our efforts as a city to balance and blend new development with Pasadena's unique and irreplaceable character.

City staff has worked diligently to create a response to these heavy-handed state regulations that addresses the most destructive issues while allowing, as we have planned for years, increased density and height for housing projects near public transit hubs. Pasadena already did, and continues to do, this work, and we know how to do it so much better. Please, please adopt staff's recommendation for Option 2 and protect Pasadena from egregious state housing rules.

Please don't let a half-century of work to preserve and protect the best of Pasadena's architectural legacy and community identity be undone. I hope that you will support staff's recommendation and stand up for Pasadena having control over its own future.

Sincerely yours,
Susan N. Mossman
06/08/2026
Item 26
§ffi Outlook
Council Meeting 6/8 - Agenda Item #26: OPPOSE/AMEND - SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance From p brown <
Date Fri 6/5/2026 4:30 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Cc cityclerk <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from'-earn 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.

Dear Hon Mayor Gordo and Council Members:

My wife and I are retirees and homeowners in District 6.

I am writing to ask you to OPPOSE the proposed ordinance to delay SB 79, or to amend it to narrow its scope to cover only historic zoned properties, and to not seek any delay for areas already zoned RM-12, RM-18, RM-32 and RM-48.

It makes absolutely no sense for the proposed ordinance to include in the delay areas ALREADY ZONED for multifamily housing, around the Del Mar, Memorial and Lake A line stations and TODs. There is absolutely no reason to delay SB79 for such parcels already zoned multifamily.

We need more housing - and density - in Pasadena to provide housing for families. Pasadena's population has stagnated. Some PSUD schools have too few students, with closures discussed. We have a city budget that can't afford all the essentials - let alone services that would be nice to have. The city and PSUD need the additional tax revenue that more residents would bring.

While LA County as a whole has seen rent decreases, Pasadena's rent has increased 5.8% to a median of $2,823. These costs harm working families by putting them at risk of displacement or homelessness, especially in this time of rising inflation and lower federal support. SB 79 projects have to follow local affordability requirements, so every deferral we pursue is a missed opportunity to build urgently needed affordable housing in our city.

I urge you to oppose the proposed ordinance or at least to amend it so that it no longer seeks to delay SB 79 implementation for all areas around Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake already zoned for multi family by the Planning Department (see Attachment / Map J)-
06/08/2026
Item 26
Respectfully,
P.A. Brown
District 6
Outlook
Urgent Action Needed: Protect Pasadena's Planning Tools From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Fri 6/5/2026 4:31 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe 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.

Re: Urgent Action Needed: Protect Pasadena's Planning Tools Mr. MarkJomsky,
As Pasadena evaluates SB 79, it is crucial to preserve all available planning tools to maintain the character of our neighborhoods. The potential impact on established residential and historic areas must be carefully considered. The ongoing study of the Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan is commendable, but decisions on density, neighborhood transitions, and historic preservation flexibility require thorough citywide planning. It is essential to address concerns about increased density's effects on neighborhoods, such as parking, traffic, and quality of life. Thoughtful growth planning is necessary to ensure long-term livability and neighborhood context are preserved. The decisions made today will shape Pasadena for generations to come. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
John Chu
1 Pasadena, CA 91106
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 06/08/2026
Item 26
Outlook
ITEM #26 I SUPPORT DELAYED EFFECTUATION OF SB 79 ORDINANCE From
Date Fri 6/5/2026 5:57 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Gordo, Victor <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>,· Cole, Rick <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]>; Madison, Steve <[email protected]>,· Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Cc
Some people who received this message don't often get email from important
Learn why this is
[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.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing in SUPPORT of the delayed effectuation of SB 79 ordinance and ask the City Council to develop a well planned and thoughtful TODAP, Transit Oriented Development Alternative Plan. A TODAP of over a quarter million new housing units will take as much time as our city can get from the State.

How a city is developed is important. Lets build a city that we can all be proud of and one which continues to function well because of thoughtful planning.

Sincerely,
J Johnson
Pasadena, CA
91101
06/08/2026
Item 26
Outlook
Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance From Laurie Kay <[email protected]>
Date Fri 6/5/2026 8:14 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-family and low-density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations.

Please reconsider this course and work with city staff on a full alternative plan that protects historic resources while allowing the housing growth our city needs to be affordable to all.

Laurie Kay
[email protected]
1 Pasadena, California 91107-1217
06/08/2026
Item 26
Outlook
City Council for June 8 - Support for Item 26
From Susan Mossman <r
Date Fri 6/5/202612:32PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email fron, important
Learn why this is
[A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe 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.

June 5, 2025
RE: Agenda Item 26 - Support

ADOPTION OF AN UNCODIFIED DELAYED EFFECTUATION ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ABUNDANT AND AFFORDABLE HOMES NEAR TRANSIT ACT (SENATE BILL 79) (Planning Dept.)
Dear Mayor Gordo and Council Members:

As a fifty-year Pasadena resident and former Pasadena Heritage executive director for 30 years, I see SB-79 as a serious threat to Old Pasadena, the Civic Center, the 710 corridor, and other historic places and spaces that Pasadena holds dear. This is a unique city, in large part because we have retained our history in living, breathing ways. Our identity as an historic city has continuously proven to be a significant economic generator as well.
06/08/2026
Item 26
Please don't let a half-century of work to preserve and protect the best of Pasadena's architectural legacy and community identity be undone. I hope that you will support staff's recommendation and stand up for Pasadena having control over its own future.

Sincerely yours,
Susan N. Mossman
Outlook
Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance From Matthew Brehove <[email protected]>
Date Sat 6/6/2026 6:36 AM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I have a baby girl and a baby boy which means soon I'm going to need a cheap 3 bedroom in Pasadena. Will there be any? Let's build them.

I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-family and low-density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations.

We need more housing in Pasadena. White LA County as a whole has seen rent decreases, Pasadena's rent has increased 5.8% to a median of $2,823. These costs harm working families by putting them at risk of displacement or homelessness, especially in this time of rising inflation and lower federal support. SB 79 projects have to follow local affordability requirements, so every deferral we pursue is a missed opportunity to build urgently needed affordable housing in our city.

Please reconsider this course and work with city staff on a full alternative plan that protects historic resources while allowing the housing growth our city needs to be affordable to all.

Matthew Brehove
Pasadena , California 91103
06/08/2026
Item 26
^ Outlook
Fw: Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance From Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
Date Man 6/8/2026 7:58 AM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
From: Bert Newton <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 9:54 AM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe 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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm a 35 year resident of Pasadena. I've seen housing prices soar over the three and a half decades that I have lived here. I've seen a lot of people have to leave. We've made some progress here in building affordable housing, but it is not enough. SB79 not only requires the use of Pasadena's inclusionary housing ordinance which will mean 20% affordable units in each development of 10 units or more, but it also provides density bonuses for 100% affordable developments, making those easier to pencil out.

For these reasons, I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-family and low- density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations.

Deferring large areas of our most transit-accessible neighborhoods until 2031 would not only put our affordability goals at risk, it would betray our General Plan goal for Pasadena to be a "city where people can circulate without cars." We need housing near transit for affordable, walkable, low-carbon neighborhoods. 06/08/2026
Item 26
Please reconsider this course and work with city staff on a full alternative plan that protects historic resources while allowing the housing growth our city needs to be affordable to all.

Bert Newton
Pasadena, California 91106-1472
|^ Outlook
Public Comment June 8, 2026: #26
From Melissa M. <
Date Sat 6/6/2026 9:58 AM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Cc Gordo, Victor <[email protected]>,· Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Cole, Rick <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>,· Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]>,· Madison, Steve <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from rLearn 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 DotT portal.

Dear City Council of Pasadena,
I SUPPORT DELAYED EFFECTUATION to ALL RM ZONES OF SB 79 ORDINANCE Please develop a well planned and thoughtful TODAP, Transit Oriented Development Alternative Plan and halt the implementation of SB79 at this time.

SB79 has been a train wreck in progress, and I watched in horror as the State Senator Perez and Assemblyman Harabedian supported SB79 even though the majority of the cities in their districts formally opposed it.

This is Pasadena's moment to get control back of its zoning - which has been wrenched away in the name of "housing" with disregard to historic resources and thoughtful and careful planning.

Finally, please make sure CEQA and public processes are reinstated - Pasadenans deserve the right to know and a right to address their concerns with the City Hall on what is being built before it does.

SB79 is an affront to good governance, and is a sell-off of California cities to big developer$ and the real estate industry.

Pasadena is NOT for sale!
Sincerely,
Melissa Michetson
Professor, Pasadena City College
06/08/2026
Item 26
Outlook
Concerns Regarding the Redirected Development Argument- SB79 From Erika Foy
Date Sat 6/6/2026 11:12 AM
To City_Council <[email protected]>,· Hawkesworth, Matthew <[email protected]>; PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Cc Paige, Jennifer <[email protected]>,· Thyret, Pam <[email protected]>; Johnson, Kevin <[email protected]>
[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.

Dear Mayor Gordo and Members of the City Council,
I have heard concerns that delayed implementation around some Pasadena transit stations could unintentionally increase development pressure around stations that are not eligible for delay, including Fillmore and Del Mar.

While I appreciate the desire to consider all possible consequences, I find this argument largely speculative.

Development opportunities around Fillmore and Del Mar already exist under SB 79 and will continue to exist regardless of whether delayed implementation is adopted elsewhere in the city. Developers do not typically choose projects simply because another parcel across town is temporarily unavailable.

They pursue sites that make economic sense based on location, land values, financing, market demand, and project feasibility.

If a property near Fillmore is attractive for redevelopment today, it will likely remain attractive whether delayed implementation is approved or not.

More importantly, uncertainty should not become an argument against using the limited planning tools still available to Pasadena. The reality is that no one knows exactly how SB 79 will affect our city.

What we do know is that additional planning time creates opportunities for better analysis, public outreach, thoughtful implementation, and continued advocacy for improvements to the law.

It is also worth noting that cities such as Glendale have carefully studied SB 79 and reached the conclusion that delayed implementation is worthwhile. Glendale continues to pursue delay, evaluate planning options, and educate residents, despite facing many of the same uncertainties Pasadena faces today.

As someone who helped organize the landmarking of my block on Magnolia Avenue, I have learned that planning decisions often have consequences that last for qenerations. When uncertainty exists,66706/2026 Item 26
the prudent response is usually more planning, more public engagement, and more information—not less.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Erika Foy
Madison Heights Resident
Outlook
Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance From Koji Sakano <[email protected]>
Date Sat 6/6/2026 11:32 AM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-famity and low-density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations.

Deferring large areas of our most transit-accessible neighborhoods until 2031 would not only put our affordability goals at risk, it would betray our General Plan goal for Pasadena to be a "city where people can circulate without cars." We need housing near transit for affordable, walkable, low-carbon neighborhoods. As someone who does not own a car, and bikes to work in Pasadena and takes transit to elsewhere, having more options for housing near transit is important to me.

Please reconsider this course and work with city staff on a full alternative plan that protects historic resources while allowing the housing growth our city needs to be affordable to all.

Koji Sakano
Pasadena, California 91106
06/08/2026
Item 26
S Outlook
Protect our City- SB79
From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Sat 6/6/202612:06PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Re: Protect our City- SB79
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing out of growing concern regarding SB 79 and the long-term implications it could have for Pasadena's historic neighborhoods and established residential areas.

While I appreciate the City pursuing a TODAP and preparing for future housing requirements, I do not believe Pasadena should focus solely on adapting to SB 79 without simultaneously pushing far more aggressively for improvements to the law itself.

Pasadena is not a generic city. Our community is defined by historic neighborhoods, walkable streets, mature tree canopy, landmark homes, schools, churches, and neighborhood transitions that have evolved carefully over generations. Once those qualities are lost, they cannot simply be rebuilt later.

The current framework of SB 79 still contains serious unresolved concerns, including:
• The arbitrary pre-2025 historic designation cutoff
• The 10% cap affecting historic resources
• Reduced local flexibility in sensitive residential areas • Increased pressure on neighborhood transitions near schools, churches, and landmark districts As TOD planning discussions move forward, I worry that increasing pressure for housing production could gradually overshadow the voices of residents trying to preserve Pasadena's historic character and livability.

I urge the City to continue fighting for stronger protections and meaningful amendments at the state level before irreversible planning decisions are made locally.

Pasadena should not simply absorb state mandates. It should lead in advocating for a more balanced housing policy that respects both growth and preservation.

Thank you for your consideration.06/08/2026
Item 26
Sincerely,
Michael Buchanan
- Pasadena, CA 91106
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] Outlook
Pasadena SB79 Considerations
From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Sat 6/6/2026 3:25 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Re: Pasadena SB79 Considerations
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I support housing and thoughtful growth in Pasadena, but I also believe growth must fit the neighborhoods where it occurs.

As SB 79 moves closer to implementation, I hope the City will prioritize compatibility, neighborhood transitions, historic preservation, infrastructure, parking, and tree protection.

Cities across California are now struggling with the unintended consequences of broad state housing mandates, and Pasadena should learn from those experiences before making irreversible decisions.

Pasadena's historic neighborhoods are among the city's greatest assets. They deserve careful planning and meaningful protections — not arbitrary outcomes created by statewide overlays.

Please continue advocating for revisions to SB 79 and ensure Pasadena retains as much local planning and historic review authority as possible.

Sincerely,
Mark Freeark
^ilr--- • —
Pasadena, CA 91106
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 06/08/2026
Item 26
Outlook
6/8/26 Item 31 - SB 79 delayed implementation ordinance From Thomas Tai < -..-...—„- -_^ ^
Date Sat 6/6/2026 5:06 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Dear Pasadena City Council Members and Mayor Gordo:

I write with significant concerns about the proposed SB79 delay ordinance pending before the council.

First, I question the legal and factual basis of the "emergency" nature of this ordinance. SB 79 was passed and signed into law months ago last year. The adoption of this ordnance right before the deadline of July 1, undermines the argument that there is a genuine emergency occurring. I urge the council to consider very carefully whether this emergency declaration will pass legal muster with HCD. We must not place ourselves in the same category as Huntington Beach, Norwalk, and La Canada Flinta-idge, which have all exposed themselves to significant legal liability with questionable sta-ategies to fight state housing law. Before the council places this city in a legal tenuous position, I urge it to consider whether it would be better to let SB79 go into effect on July 1, rather than enacting an ordinance that is doomed to fail for lack of genuine "emergency".

Second, this ordinance is a failure to address the housing crisis with the urgency it deserves. As a resident of one of the TOD zones, I welcome more housing. Pasadenans are confronted with extremely high rents that are sapping their financial resources at a time of high inflation and incompetent federal economic management, while PUSD is on the verge of collapse due to the lack of a tax base and decline in student population. These crises can be solved in part by housing abundance.

I urge the council to reject deferral of R-16, R-32, R-48, RS, and the specific plan areas. This would allow us to preserve historical resources while ensuring we increase our housing supply and protect inclusionary housing requirements and renters.

Your attention to this matter is highly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Thomas Tai
06/08/2026
Item 26
Outlook
Concerns Regarding SB 79 and Historic Preservation in Pasadena From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Sun 6/7/2026 10:25 AM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Re: Concerns Regarding SB 79 and Historic Preservation in Pasadena Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the potential long-term effects of SB 79 on Pasadena's beloved historic neighborhoods and residential areas. While I acknowledge the necessity of planning for future housing requirements through a TODAP, it is crucial that Pasadena does not solely concentrate on conforming to SB 79 without pushing for substantial enhancements to the law itself.

Pasadena boasts unique historic neighborhoods, tree-lined streets, iconic buildings, and a carefully nurtured character developed over generations. Once these characteristics are lost, they are irreplaceable. The current stipulations of SB 79 present significant unresolved issues, including the arbitrary pre-2025 historic designation cutoff, the 10% limit on historic resources, diminished local flexibility in sensitive residential areas, and heightened pressure on neighborhood transitions near schools, churches, and landmark districts.

As discussions on TOD planning move forward, there is a genuine apprehension that the drive for housing production might overshadow the voices of residents striving to preserve Pasadena's historic allure and quality of life. I urge the City to persist in advocating for stronger safeguards and substantial amendments at the state level before any irreversible planning decisions are taken locally. Pasadena must proactively support a more balanced housing policy that values both growth and preservation.

Sincerely,
David Sniezko
Pasadena, CA 91106
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 06/08/2026
Item 26
BE Outlook
Fw: Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance From Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
Date Mon 6/8/2026 8:07 AM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
From: Philip Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 11:37 AM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe 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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-family and low-density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations.

Please reconsider this course and work with city staff on a full alternative plan that protects historic resources while allowing the housing growth our city needs to be affordable to all.

Many of my friends and acquaintances are considering leaving Pasadena because the cost of living is just too high. Sb79 is the fix for this, and needs to be fully implemented. 06/08/2026
Item 26
Thank you,
Philip Taylor
Philip Taylor
Pasadena, California 91104
Outlook
Urging thoughtful, robust implementation of SB 79 (item 26) From Jacob Pierce •
Date Sun 6/7/20261:40PM
To Gordo, Victor <[email protected]>; Madison, Steve <[email protected]>,· Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]>,· Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>,· Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>,· Cole, Rick <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; PublicComment- AutoResponse <[email protected]>
Cc Michael Canavan <[email protected]>; Scott Epstein <[email protected]>; Paige, Jennifer <[email protected]>
I 1 attachment (211 KB)
Abundant Housing LA_ Pasadena SB 79 O60726.pdf;
Some people who received this message don't often get email from,-—-. important
Learn why this is
[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.

Dear Mayor Gordo and members of the Pasadena City Council, I write to submit the following letter, on behalf of Abundant Housing LA and Abundant hlousing Pasadena, with comments about the implementation of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, on tonight's agenda.

Our organizations do not object to deferrals for R-12 zones. But given Pasadena's severe housing shortage, we urge you to reject deferral of RS, R-16, R-32, R-48, and the specific-plan areas. Allowing more development in neighborhoods already zoned for reasonable housing density will support walkability and economic vitality by allowing additional development in these areas. Additionally, allowing multifamily housing in qualifying RS areas offers the most potential for affirmatively furthering fair housing and also keeps the risk of displacing low- income tenants to a minimum, while growing the supply of badly needed homes.

Thank you,
Jacob Pierce
Housing Elements & Policy Analyst
Abundant Housing LA
©jacobpierceLA06/08/2026
Item 26
r:-
BM^
:^..

ABUNDANT|Q
njlgnl^ HOUSING LD
it I;:)tx
A^
A
^Itl^ ABUNDANT
^Igni^. HOUSING I
abundant
housing
pasadena
June 7, 2026
Pasadena City Council
100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S249
Pasadena, California, 91101
Re: Support for thoughtful, robust implementation of SB 79 (item 26) Dear Mayor Gordo and Members of the Pasadena City Council, We write, on behalf of Abundant Housing LA and Abundant Housing Pasadena, with comments about the implementation of Senate Bill 79 (Wiener), the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, on Monday's agenda.

Pasadena has a severe housing shortage that's driving up rents and punishing working Pasadenans, with median rents of $2,265, according to Census data, and a median home sale price of $1 .3 million, according to Redfin. That is why we respectfully urge you to limit exemptions based on existing zoned capacity. Our organizations do not object to deferrals for R-12 zones, which is Pasadena's duplex zoning. We do. however, urge you to reject delayed effectuation of RS. R-16. R-32. R-48. and specific plan areas. We must stress that allowing multifamilv housing in gualifvina RS areas, in particylar^offers^the most eotential for affirmatively furthering fair housing and also keej3s_the risk of displacing low-income tenants to a minimum, while growing the supply of badly needed homes. Additionally, allowing more development in neighborhoods already zoned for reasonable density will support walkability and economic vitality by allowing additional development in these zones. Even in these areas, it is imperative that Pasadena allow SB 79 to take effect, with limited exceptions, to allow builders to choose which program better suits a given project and allow more projects to be financially feasible.In short, these changes will help Pasadena meet the needs of residents and community members, while furthering badly needed progress on housing and environmental goals.

Nonetheless, Pasadena may use local flexibility provisions in SB 79 to make near-term adjustments to implementation that reflect local priorities. We recognize, for instance, that Pasadena has an interest in delaying the full implementation of SB 79 on eligible historic sites whose preservation is a priority for the city. As such, we accept the targeted exemption of verified historic sites as a balanced approach that furthers local preservation goals while still unlocking significant zoned capacity for new housing across the surrounding station areas. We would also support the drafting of objective standards that support Pasadena's pedestrian-oriented character but do not preclude development at the densities prescribed by SB 79.

We strongly ask that you please move forward thoughtfully in a way that advances housing options for all residents and at all levels of afford ability.

Sincerely,
^cott Efs-te'^
Scott Epstein
Director Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
tflfij
Michael Canavan
Chapter Chair
Abundant Housing Pasadena
SE Outlook
Agenda Item 26: Please Adopt Uncodified Delayed Effectuation Ordinance Related to SB 79 From Catherine Jurca <
Date Sun 6/7/20261:53PM
To Gordo, Victor <[email protected]>; districtl @cityofpasadena.net <district1 @cityofpasadena.net>; Cole, Rick <[email protected]>,· Jones, Justin <[email protected]>,· Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]>; Madison, Steve <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]>
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from c this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Learn why
[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.

Dear Mayor Gordo and Council Members:

I write to urge you to adopt the proposed Uncodified Ordinance as described in the revised June 8 Staff Report.

This is not a form email, and until two days ago I had never heard of One Click Politics. My impression is that residents who used it did not imagine they could solve the numerous problems of SB 79 so simply— would that we could! Rather, they took advantage of a convenient route to beg Council to implement SB 79 strategically, as allowed under its provisions. Certainly their communications are no less nuanced than the formulaic emails prompted by housing advocacy organizations.

It is no secret that SB 79 stinks. It displays nothing but contempt for thoughtful planning and legitinnate historic preservation efforts over decades. Its stupidity is represented only in part by its exemption of properties listed on local registers but not on the National or California register. Given the remarkable historical significance of properties adjacent to metro stops in Pasadena, most notably Old Pasadena, and the abundance of resources never listed on our local register, it was entirely right and proper that Pasadena object to its adoption in the strongest possible terms. SB 79 is also a poison pill for new mass transit.

Please don't forget, the nay-sayers almost won this one. Unlike the vast majority of housing bills that have sailed through the legislature, SB 79 passed by a single vote in the Assembly and in the Senate (meaning any efforts to amend by Harabedian and Perez are the least they can do in penance for their deciding "yes" votes). The passage of SB 79 says more about the power of Scott Wiener—one of the least flexible and compromise-oriented legislators—than anything about its merits. He thinks historic preservation is a kind of scam to prevent housing—witness the January 1, 2025 deadline for designation —not a way to help make cities places where people want to live. 06/08/2026
Item 26
So I would also ask Council please to continue to oppose the bill and work to eliminate its most destructive elements in the long term. In the short term, please support the ordinance proposed by planning staff.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Catherine Jurca
Resident, Orange Grove Blvd.

Outlook
Fw: Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance From Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
Date Man 6/8/2026 8:09 AM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
From: Maggie Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 2:23 PM
To: PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item #26: No on SB 79 Delayed Effectuation Ordinance [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.

Mayor and Councilmembers,
Hello,
I'm writing to ask you to allow SB 79 to take effect in single-family and low-density zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations. I currently live near the Alien station and I am beyond grateful to have close access to public transit.

We need more housing in Pasadena. While LA County as a whole has seen rent decreases, Pasadena's rent has increased 5.8% to a median of $2,823. If it continues to increase, I will eventually be priced out and so well my kids. These costs harm working families by putting them at risk of displacement or homelessness, especially in this time of rising inflation and lower federal support. SB 79 projects have to follow local affordability requirements, so every deferral we pursue is a missed opportunity to build urgently needed affordable housing in our city.

Deferring large areas of our most transit-accessible neighborhoods until 2031 would not only put our affordabitity goals at risk, it would betray our General Plan goal for Pasadena to be a "city where people can circulate without cars." We need housing near transit for affordable, walkable, low-carbon neighborhoods.

Please reconsider this course and work with city staff on a full alternative plan that protects historic resources while allowing the housing growth our city needs to be affordable to all. 06/08/2026
Item 26
Thank you for your consideration.
-Maggie chen(91107)
Maggie Chen
Pasadena, California 91107
Outlook
Urgent Need for Strong Protections Against SB 79 Impacts From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Sun 6/7/2026 3:30 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Re: Urgent Need for Strong Protections Against SB 79 Impacts Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am reaching out with deep concern regarding the potential consequences of SB 79 on Pasadena's cherished historic neighborhoods and residential areas. While I acknowledge the City's efforts in preparing for future housing needs through TODAP, I believe it is crucial to advocate for substantial improvements to the taw itself.

Pasadena's unique identity is characterized by historic neighborhoods, tree-lined streets, landmark homes, and community landmarks that have been carefully nurtured over time. The existing provisions of SB 79 raise significant issues that must be addressed:
- The arbitrary pre-2025 historic designation deadline
- The 10% cap affecting historic resources
- Diminished local control in sensitive residential zones - Growing pressures on neighborhood transitions near schools, churches, and landmark districts As discussions progress on TOD planning, there is a legitimate concern that the focus on housing production could overshadow the desires of residents aiming to safeguard Pasadena's character and quality of life. I urge the City to persist in advocating for stronger safeguards and meaningful revisions at the state level before irreversible decisions are made locally.

Pasadena should not merely comply with state mandates but should take the lead in promoting a balanced housing policy that upholds both growth and preservation. Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
David Lopez
II — - -
Pasadena, CA 91106
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 06/08/2026
Item 26
Outlook
SUBMIT MY COMMENT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6-8-26 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #26 From Mimi N Q <
Date Sun 6/7/2026 10:28 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email from riLearn 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.

RE: SUBMIT MY COMMENT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6-8-26 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #26
Dear Mayor Gordo and City Council
I SUPPORT DELAYED EFFECTUATION OF SB 79 ORDINANCE
I SUPPORT the delayed effectuation of SB 79 and ask the City Council to develop a well planned and thoughtful TODAP, Transit Oriented Development Alternative Plan.

A TODAP of almost a quarter million new housing units will take as much time as our city can get from the State.
"Rome wasn't built in a day, but it burned in one." — English Writer John Heywood, 1538 Public safety is the responsibility of the government. Exponentially adding more housing density should be done with safety in mind. The City needs to ensure that residents can safely evacuate from their buildings and that evacuation routes through the streets are kept clear should another emergency happen like during the Eaton Fires last year. Zoning and Planning for Manhattan level density takes time.....Manhattan was not built in a day.

Delayed effectuation of SB 79 to develop a good TOD Alternative Plan will give our city time to ensure that the new developments will not become fire traps.

Mimi Nakamura
Kewen Canyon Neighborhood Association,
President
District 7
XXX
06/08/2026
Item 26
^i Outlook
Urgent Need for Strong Protections Against SB 79 Impacts From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Man 6/8/2026 7:29 AM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Pasadena should not merely comply with state mandates but should take the lead in promoting a balanced housing policy that upholds both growth and preservation. Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Dawn Vogl
Pasadena, CA 91106
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] Item 26
3B Outlook
SB79 and the Future of Pasadena
From [email protected] <[email protected]> Date Man 6/8/2026 7:36 AM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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.

Re: SB79 and the Future of Pasadena
Mr. MarkJomsky,
As Pasadena begins planning for the long-term implications of SB 79 through the TODAP process, I hope the City continues approaching this issue with both realism and strong advocacy for Pasadena's unique neighborhoods.

I recognize the difficult position cities now face under evolving state housing laws, and I appreciate the City's efforts to thoughtfully evaluate how future growth should be accommodated locally.

At the same time, I believe many residents remain concerned that the current SB 79 framework still does not adequately reflect the realities of historic cities like Pasadena.

Our city's identity is deeply connected to its historic neighborhoods, residential scale, mature tree canopy, landmark districts, schools, churches, and carefully designed neighborhood transitions. These are not obstacles to thoughtful planning — they are part of what makes Pasadena successful and livable.

As the TODAP process evolves, I hope Pasadena continues advocating for:
• Greater local planning flexibility
• Stronger historic preservation tools
• Improvements to the historic resource provisions within SB 79 • Better protections for sensitive neighborhood transitions • Policies that allow growth to be directed thoughtfully toward appropriate areas I believe Pasadena can continue supporting housing goals while also protecting the historic character and neighborhood fabric that residents value so deeply.

Thank you for your continued work on these complex issues.

Sincerely,
William Vogl
06/08/2026
Item 26
Pasadena,CA91106
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] YIMBYLaw
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hellofa) vimbvlaw.org
11 11
11 RECEIVED
2026 JUN-8 AM 9:02
OH v CLERK YIMBY LAW

CJTY OF PAS&DENA
6/8/2026
City of Pasadena
City Council
100 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101.

Re: SB 79 Compliance, Agenda Item 26
To the City Council of Pasadena,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law.

Today this Council considers implementing SB 79, but YIMBY Law urges it not to defer eligibility of residential zones near the Del Mar, Memorial Park, and Lake A-line stations.

Deferring implementation for all parcels zoned RM-48 or lower is a brute force effect that will critically limit Pasadena's ability to produce housing over the next few years.

The law already has protections for existing historic and rent-controlled properties. This exemption would stray far from those resources, at a time when the City is less than 1% of the way towards meeting its RHNA for very-low income housing production.

Moreover, the exemptions at issue would discourage housing where it is most needed, centralizing it in low resource areas. SB 79 is a crucial tool for affordable development along with market rate. Following through with the exemptions would encourage more expensive, less environmentally sound housing production. 06/08/2026
Item 26
Given the ongoing needs of Pasadena and surrounding areas, along with the statutory RHNA obligations, we encourage this Council to let SB 79 take effect uniformly in areas where it applies, rather than creating carveouts that benefit the interests of entrenched wealth.

Sincerely,
(^T{UAAA^
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBYLaw

Pasadena City CouncilJune 8, 2026

Pasadena City Council
June 8, 2026