State Senator Sasha Renée Pérez presented Senate Bill 1090, her proposal — co-authored by Assemblymember John Harabedian — to exempt Altadena from two state housing laws that have allowed outside investors to buy fire-scarred lots and pack them with new units. An estimated 450 residents turned out, filling the council’s meeting room and overflowing into the parking lot, where as many as 300 people followed from outside.
Senate Bill 1090 would bar the use of Senate Bill 9 — the state’s lot-split and accessory dwelling unit law — and Senate Bill 1123, which permits lot splits of up to 10 units, within Altadena. The protection would apply by zip code, would not cover applications filed before January 1, 2027, and would expire January 1, 2030. The measure is scheduled for its first hearing before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on June 24, 2026.
Pérez also told the crowd what the bill does not do. It would not stop a homeowner from rebuilding, and it would not block anyone from adding an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit for family.
“This bill does not impact your ability to be able to build an ADU or a JADU,” she said. The target, she said, is the lot split that turns one home into many.
Why Altadena needs a separate bill
The legislation exists, Pérez and county officials said, because of how Altadena was mapped after the Eaton Fire of January 2025.
An executive order Governor Gavin Newsom signed in 2025 exempted areas designated as very high fire hazard severity zones from the two density laws. That order covered the entire Pacific Palisades, along with Malibu and Sunset Mesa, but left out most of Altadena, which — apart from a thin band along the foothills — is not classified as a very high fire hazard zone. Pérez said the governor has declined requests to extend the protection to all of Altadena by zip code.
“The fact that Altadena was not included in the original executive order … and that the governor has refused to include Altadena in an updated executive order is an issue,” Pérez said. “Frankly, it’s one that I want to see get resolved.”
Investors bought close to 49 percent of Altadena properties sold between February and July 2025, compared with roughly 10 percent during the same period in 2024, Pérez said, citing a report by Sage.
The bill is sponsored by Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, Pérez said, and is backed by the community group Altadena Recovery Watch.
Anish Saraya, the county’s Altadena recovery director, told the council the county has already restricted Senate Bill 9 lot splits and accessory dwelling units in the small slice of Altadena that does fall within a very high fire zone, on direction from Supervisor Barger.
But that leaves most of the community unprotected. He added that all Senate Bill 1123 projects submitted to the county to date have been voided after the state confirmed that vacant lots surrounded by other vacant lots do not qualify under the law.
Even so, Saraya cautioned, more than 1,600 homes are now in construction across Altadena — meaning Senate Bill 1123 will eventually become applicable again as the community builds out around remaining vacant lots, which is part of why he said legislative protection is needed now.
Saraya said the county’s inboxes hold more than 450 emails about the developer-driven projects, citing proposals at 411 Punahou Street and 2284 Norwick Place as examples of plans from developers who are “not folks that are interested in being part of our community.” As a civil engineer, he added, “some of these designs offend me personally and professionally.”
Miles Kealing, field representative for Assemblymember Harabedian, told the council the assemblymember is a “proud principal co-author” of the bill and said his office had concluded after conversations with Newsom that legislation was the cleanest path forward.
“This is a pro-housing bill,” Kealing said, “because it ensures that construction in Altadena prioritizes the families and people that are trying to return and not the developers who are trying to maximize their profits.”
A community that isn’t united
Despite the shared anger at outside developers, the bill drew objections from an unexpected quarter — the nonprofit builders working to create permanently affordable housing in Altadena.
Leaders of the Altadena Community Land Trust told the council they rely on Senate Bill 9 to build affordable homes for displaced renters, and that a blanket ban would shut those projects down along with the speculative ones.
“Senate Bill 9 is a key component of our ability to build housing that is truly affordable,” said Shannon Larsole, board president of the land trust. She and others — including the nonprofits Greenline Housing Foundation and Beacon Housing — build “gentle density” such as bungalow courts, a form common in Altadena before the fire.
Katie Clark, a founding member of the land trust and a displaced tenant who lost her home, urged the council to back a narrow exemption rather than an outright ban.
“We need a scalpel and not a sledgehammer,” she said, adding that the group has already submitted proposed carve-out language to Pérez’s office, the county and the council.
The projects built by for-profit developers under the two laws, she said, “are not affordable housing. … They will be engines of further displacement and gentrification.”
‘It can’t go into effect until 2027’
Other residents warned that the bill, as written, may arrive too late — and could even make matters worse in the short term.
Because the measure does not take effect until January 1, 2027, and cannot be applied retroactively, the county must keep accepting and processing applications until then. Pérez said reaching backward to cancel filed projects would be unconstitutional and would get the law struck down in court.
That gap alarmed speakers who said the announcement effectively signals developers to rush their applications before the door closes.
“We’ve actually put up a signal for further developers to come in and buy up properties and get their applications in before this goes into effect,” resident Neil Tyler said. “That needs to be fixed and it needs to be fixed now.”
Residents also questioned the timeline. Though the protection has been described as a five-year shield, it would run only three years, from 2027 to 2030 — well short of a rebuild that Pérez acknowledged typically takes six to eight years. Several urged her to push the expiration date later.
Pérez said she is open to extending it but must first secure the votes, and warned that a longer protection would draw more opposition in Sacramento. The fastest way to move up the start date, she said, would be to add “urgency” language allowing the bill to take effect as soon as the governor signs it, likely in the fall — a step that requires a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the Assembly.
Saraya raised a final concern about infrastructure. Because the projects are approved “by right,” or ministerially, he said, the county is legally barred from requiring studies of water, sewer or electrical capacity before they proceed. By restoring local review, Pérez said, Senate Bill 1090 would let the planning commission weigh those impacts and take public comment.
What happens next
The council took no formal position on the bill, describing the meeting’s discussions as an introduction, and said members will weigh their stance in the coming days.
Council Chair Nick Arnzen pointed residents toward a planned community gathering and the Altadena Town Council Legislative Committee, led by council member Darlene Green, for those who want to weigh in.
Residents can read the bill at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee is set to take up Senate Bill 1090 on June 24, 2026.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
