Pasadena Votes to Delay Implementation of a State Housing Law Near the Gold Line — Three Top Officials Sit It Out

[Updated]  The Pasadena City Council unanimously chose a middle ground Monday, adopting a partial delay in implementing a new state law that would allow denser housing near its Metro A-line (Gold Line) stations — but the city’s mayor, vice mayor and a councilmember could not vote, each barred by a property interest within or near the very transit zones at issue.

The vote came on the first reading of the proposed ordinance.

The recusals left five members to act on Senate Bill 79, the state’s Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, which takes effect July 1. They voted 5-0 to give first reading to a Pasadena ordinance temporarily exempting certain local sites from the law. A second reading is required before it is adopted.

The Council decision rejected part of a recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission to exempt all eligible areas within the affected zones zoned for less than 48 units to the acre through 2031. Instead, the motion called for a delay for up to 18 months only for single-family and multi-family up to 16 units per acre.

Under SB 79, a project qualifies if its site sits “within a half mile radius of a tier one or tier two transit stop,” city staff told the council — in Pasadena, the six Metro A-line stations and the transit-oriented development zones around them. The law sets the housing-density and floor-area standards those zones must allow, which in many places exceed what current local zoning permits.

Staff laid out three paths: implement the law in full on July 1; adopt an ordinance delaying it for eligible sites; or craft a longer-term transit-oriented development alternative plan, known as a TODAP.

The council took the middle path, but limited the exemptions further than staff and the Commission had recommended. It would exempt sites with locally designated historic resources in all six transit zones until consideration of a TODAP, but limited the delay to 18 months with a check in on progress in nine months.  In the Del Mar, Memorial Park and Lake zones the delay would only affect the lowest-density zoned areas of RS 6 (single family) and RM 12 and RM 16 (which essentially allow duplexes and triplexes.) The Planning Commission had recommended extending the delay to areas zoned for multi-family areas up to 48 units per acre by a 5-1 vote.

Councilmember Rick Cole made the Council motion, seconded by Councilmember Jason Lyon, arguing that the areas zoned between 16 and 48 units to the acre are already slated for dense multi-family housing around transit and should be allowed to develop under SB 79. Cole also argued that the RM 12 and RM 16 zones contained significant amounts of existing “naturally occurring affordable housing” and while they should be studied for higher density development, the scale allowed under SB 79 might not be appropriate.

The choice drew residents who urged the council not to wait. Michael Canavan, who said he lives about a quarter mile from the Del Mar station, asked members “to allow SB 79 to take effect in all non-historic sites,” telling them his rent had risen 25% and that the loss of so many homes in Altadena after the Eaton Fire had left a market that “is nearly an impossible one” for renters.

He said the law “does not allow the demolition or redevelopment of any rent or price-controlled housing over two units” and that SB 79 projects “would have to comply with our local affordability requirements.”

No resident who spoke supported the delay although written correspondence heavily favored the staff and Planning Commission recommendation; speaker after speaker urged the council to let SB 79 take effect in full. Councilmember Lyon and staff defended the pause as deliberate planning. Lyon called the law “such a blunt tool” that “arbitrarily sets a height of nine stories” immediately next to transit stops, and said it “makes sense to pause and think about where we want to put this density.” Staff said the exemption could legally last until 2031 but that “that’s not our intent,” estimating roughly six to nine months to return with a plan.

Cole also noted that the delay and TODAP provisions are actually part of the law and that taking partial and temporary advantage of those provisions would not thwart the overall goal of producing more housing near transit. He also argued that both fears of wholesale development overwhelming the city due to the new law were overblown as well as hopes that its full immediate implementation would solve the acute housing crisis. “The impact is relatively modest. The reason for that is that development doesn’t take place quickly. Just because a property can be developed doesn’t mean it will be developed.”

The three officials with the most personal direct stake were absent from the voting process.

City Attorney Michele Bagneris said Mayor Victor Gordo, Vice Mayor Jess Rivas, and Councilmember Jones “live either within or in close proximity to the zones” and so “can’t participate.”  The three officials had sought an opinion from the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which could not issue one in time. Thus, the trio did not participate in the vote.

The recusals also left the council unable to postpone, despite Councilmember Steve Madison’s objection to taking up so weighty a matter after 10 p.m. A motion to continue the matter to June 15 required all five remaining votes and failed when Councilmember Lyon abstained.

“I don’t think we should continue the public hearing,” Lyon said, arguing with the budget still needing to be adopted in the coming weeks and that the Council should move forward to resolve this issue, citing the members of the public in the audience who had waited for the item to be heard.

Re-noticing would have missed the deadline, a staff member warned: “It won’t be in place before July 1st” when SB 79 goes into effect.

The ordinance must clear a second reading and be submitted to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review.