McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:Subject:
William M. PaparianMonday, October 5, 2026 4:54 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Jomsky, Mark; cityclerk
City Council Meeting - 10/6/26 - Agenda item #5 Measure PFD [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Reportphish using the Phish Alert Button (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
City Clerk —
Please distribute this comment to the City Council on agenda item #5 recommending a position in support ofMeasure PFD.
I am writing on the endorsement, not on the election.In November 2018, Measure I added a permanent three-quarter-cent sales tax, sold at about $21 million a year. The ballot said the money would maintain essential services "such as fire, police, paramedics, emergency service/response times" and "keep fire stations open." Voters passed it, 69 percent to 31percent. It is a general tax. The city now reports about $32 million a year, with about $10.7 million going toPasadena Unified under Measure J. None of it was reserved for replacing a fire station.
In June 2019, the first capital budget after that vote recommended $1.5 million in Measure I funds to design a replacement for Fire Station 37, at 3430 East Foothill, then estimated at $21.3 million. On June 12, Mayor Tornek said those design dollars would be better used for short-term repairs. On June 17, Public Works item4 recommended the transfer, and the Council adopted it, Resolution 9725. Station 37 went back on the unfunded list. It is still there. The September 2025 Fire plan puts replacement in 2031-33, at about $34 million, and says financing was only then being discussed.
An endorsement of Measure PFD does not change that record. Measure I already used the fire-station sentence. The design money for Station 37 was recommended, then moved. The station is still unfunded.
William Paparian
Former mayor, 1995-1997
Former East Pasadena councilmember, 1987-1999
10/06/2026
ltem5
RECEIVED
^ OCT-6 AM 7= 47
October 5, 2026 ,, ,•'"•<;-' -.Mayor Victor Gordo .:. CJTY OF ^SADENA Members of the Pasadena City Council100 North Garfield AvenuePasadena, CA 91101Re: Item 5 - Legislative Policy Committee RecommendationsDear Mayor Gordo and Members of the City Council:
I was reading Item 5 and was struck by the recommendation that the City of Pasadena take an official position opposing Proposition 39.
What immediately came to mind was SB 79.
I know Pasadena opposed SB 79, and I appreciated the letters the City sent to Sacramento. ButSB 79 directly affected Pasadena residents and went to the heart of our ability to govern ourown city. It changed the rules for development around our transit stations, affected our historicresources and neighborhoods, and overrode portions of planning work that residents, staff,commissions, and prior City Councils spent years creating.
The City itself argued that SB 79 failed to recognize that hard-won local work.
To me, that is exactly the kind of issue our Legislative Policy Committee should be focused on most aggressively: state and federal actions that directly affect Pasadena residents, Pasadena finances, Pasadena neighborhoods, our infrastructure, our public services, and our ability to govern ourselves.That is why I am struggling with the recommendation on Proposition 39.
Proposition 39 is a statewide voter-identification measure that Californians will decide at theballot box. Yet the full Pasadena City Council is now being asked to formally oppose it on behalfof the City, and the staff report does not explain what specific municipal interest of Pasadena isat stake.
I am not writing to debate the merits of Proposition 39. My question is about Pasadena and ourpriorities.Pasadena's own State Legislative Platform says the City should protect local funding and local decision-making authority. That makes sense to me. Those are areas where the actions ofSacramento can directly change what happens in our city and where Pasadena's voice isespecially important.
SB 79 is a perfect example. When the State is considering legislation that can override ourlocally adopted plans, change what can be built in our neighborhoods, affect historic resources, 10/06/2026
ltem5
and diminish decisions Pasadena residents spent years helping to make, I want to see enormous urgency from our Legislative Policy Committee and our City Council.That should be where we are spending our political capital.There are plenty of people in Sacramento fighting over statewide politics. There are only eight people on the Pasadena City Council whose first responsibility is Pasadena.
I want my City Council focused first on the things only my City Council can do.Before Pasadena takes an official position on Proposition 39, I would appreciate understanding what specific Pasadena interest is at stake and what standard the Legislative Policy Committee uses to determine which statewide political issues warrant an official position from the City.Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,Erika Foy