By any honest reading, Senate Bill 79 is not a conversation with communities; it’s a work-around.
Yes, its banner reads “abundant and affordable housing near transit.” But the bill’s core move is to preempt local standards around train and rapid-bus stations—effectively sidelining city voters and their elected councils in the most consequential land-use decisions we make. That is the point, not the byproduct.
This bill is on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for signing – deadline is Oct. 12. There is still time to provide your comments to the Governor’s office.
By the way, there is no promise to build a single unit for anyone, but you have been pushed aside – for what?
Let’s get some facts straight about South Pasadena
The disparaging stigma that “South Pasadena is against multi-unit housing” is simply false. More than half of the 3.5 square mile town is multi-unit housing, with more on the way despite any legislation.
Have a look at these examples – these are just a few:
-
Mission Bell (Mission & Fairview): 38-unit mixed-use project approved by the Planning Commission in back in 2020; a major downtown infill that survived appeal and conditions. It’s been six years, leaving a blight of once popular local business empty shells collecting dust. See it HERE
-
625 Fair Oaks (Upscale Senior Housing): The city’s single largest ‘new’ development approved in 20 years—an 86-unit senior apartment community, also green-lit back in 2020. Again: approved, on the books without a single unit yet available. See it HERE
-
Mission Street 1.8-acre “buy-and-hold” investment: The 2023 sale of a large Mission Street parcel adds to a pattern that is well in-line with commercial investors: That isn’t voter “obstruction”; that’s market timing. See it HERE
-
Original, Historic SPUSD HQ / City Hall hotel-housing concepts: Multiyear mixed-use and hotel/condo concepts have risen and died in on the table with the reality of fundamental local economics. Most developers are navigating financing cycles and budget shocks—not South Pasadena residents blocking everything outright. See it HERE
In short: South Pasadena has approved significant multi-unit projects. The claim that we “don’t build” is bullying rhetoric—not data.
What SB79 actually does
SB79 draws radius lines around major transit and relaxes local limits—height, density, and use—based on distance and service level. Think mid-rise apartments near rail and rapid bus. Sponsors say this is how you crack the affordability crisis. But the bill’s method is to remove local discretion in those zones—because local discretion (that’s you) is viewed as the obstacle.
If you’re wondering how fast this could matter: the Legislature passed SB79 on Sept. 12, 2025, and the Governor has until Oct. 12, 2025 to sign or veto. That’s the window.
South Pasadena has already made huge concessions locally: Measure SP & Compliance with new California development orders.
Last November, South Pasadena voters approved Measure SP, lifting the 45-foot cap in commercial/mixed-use zones and empowering the City Council to adjust heights to meet state-mandated densities. That was a profound shift away from voter-locked height limits toward more flexible, state-aligned zoning. Agree or disagree, voters already moved.
So ask yourself: If Measure SP put us on a path to meet density and production—under our own governance—why, less than a year later, must Sacramento now seize even more ground with SB79? Is this about affordability—or about making sure the people, like you, and the public process are not in the way of mega-commercial land investments?
“Affordable” is, at best, relative. At worst: impossible
SB79 is pitched as an affordability bill. But affordability depends on enforceable set-asides, anti-displacement safeguards, and the financing math of what actually gets built.
The bill includes some guardrails (demolition limits, risk areas, historic sensitivity), yet the dominant change is preemption: on-the-ground discretion replaced by statewide templates.
If “affordable” were the non-negotiable, we’d be debating deeper affordability, stronger no-net-loss rules, and binding anti-displacement measures as the price of upzoning—not just how tall and how fast.
South Pasadena is not the problem—blank-check preemption is
-
We’ve approved mid-scale infill (Mission Bell).
-
We’ve approved large seniors housing (625 Fair Oaks).
-
We updated our framework via Measure SP to meet state densities under local stewardship.
None of that is “digging in” against development. It’s exactly the kind of incremental, context-aware growth that preserves a small city’s fabric while adding units. SB79 brushes past that progress and says, in effect: your way of life, and your silly process, is expendable.
The real question
California needs housing. But democracy is not the bottleneck—bad financing cycles, permit backlogs, utility constraints, and construction costs are. A state template may speed some projects; it will also produce blunt outcomes and disenfranchise voters in places that are already doing the work.
If SB79 proceeds, insist on enforceable affordability, anti-displacement, and real local implementation authority—not rubber-stamp preemption dressed as equity.
What say you?
As of today, SB79 sits on the Governor’s desk. The signature deadline is October 12, 2025. South Pasadena has already has approved plans to build and voted to build more, and the record proves it.
Do you believe housing affordability can be legislated from CA Senator Scott Wiener’s desk with this bill? Maybe have a look at the projects in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where he’s from.
