Filming in Altadena and Liquor Stores Addressed by Officials at ACONA Meeting (Altadena Patch article)

on

Filming in Altadena and Liquor Stores Addressed by Officials at ACONA Meeting

At Tuesday night's ACONA meeting, professionals in the film industry and officials with Alcoholic Beverage Control and LA County Regional Planning discussed two very popular topics among Altadenans

By Justin Chapman, Altadena Patch, 8/10/2011

The Community Room at the was packed Tuesday night for latest Altadena Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (ACONA) meeting. The crowd was drawn to the informative bi-monthly meeting because the agenda contained two very popular topics in Altadena: frequent film productions in the unincorporated community and liquor stores, a subject that Altadenans have been debating for decades.
Elliot Gold, one of the co-founders of ACONA, started the meeting by projecting predetermined questions onto a screen for the present officials to answer. The audience also had many questions for the film industry professionals, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) officials, and LA County Regional Planning officials who were present at the meeting.

Filming
Geoffrey Smith, the Director of Community Relations of Film LA, which is a company that works with production crews, addressed many aspects of filming in Altadena, including how to get your house inspected by a scout or location manager for possible use in a shoot, insurance should your house be damaged during a shoot, whether or not you have to move out, and most importantly the notification process to your neighbors.
"Look, there's simply nothing subtle about filming," said Smith. "If you're the kind of person who doesn't want a single scratch in your house or you're uncomfortable with 50 people running around during prep days and shoot days, then you probably don't want your house used in a film shoot."
That being said, however, Smith added that he has almost always found Altadena to be very mellow and accepting of film crews. And production companies love to shoot in Altadena because of that partnership, as well as the wealth of beautiful and unique homes that populate the town.
As for letting your neighbors know ahead of time that a film crew will be at your house for a certain number of days, Smith said that while it's the location manager's job to let residents and business owners within 300 feet of the shoot know what to expect, it's also common courtesy for you as the homeowner to do some outreach to neighbors yourself.
"Whether a shoot lasts for a day or two weeks, your neighbors are bearing the brunt of the noise, traffic, parking, and other related issues as well," said Smith. "But it can also be financially pleasing, both for you and your neighbors."
Depending on the kind of production, homeowners can receive up to $5,000 a day in tax-free compensation. And depending on the production's budget, the neighbors may receive compensation as well. Beyond that, the second guest speaker, Russ Fega, has set up a nonprofit organization called the Altadena Community Chest, which gathers donations from production companies that want to contribute to local charities such as the Arroyos and Foothills Conservancy, the Altadena Library, and many other organizations.
Fega, an Altadena resident who represents this town as well as Pasadena and South Pasadena with a company he created called Home Shoot Home, also reaches out to other location managers who work in Altadena in an effort to create more awareness about the Community Chest. He said even if they haven't heard of the program before, they are almost always more than willing to contribute because they want to give back to the community that has given so much to them. That doesn't mean there are no complaints about film productions in Altadena, by any means.
"There's no doubt that filming is intrusive," Smith added. "But it's a huge economic engine for the county and for Altadena in many ways, so we don't want it to go away."

Liquor Stores
As Gold transitioned into the second item on the agenda, liquor stores, he played devil's advocate for a moment and reminded the crowd that these stores are also very profitable, but that some donate money back into the community as well. Two officials from the state agency ABC and two from the county's Regional Planning Department took the stage to describe what they do and answer questions from Gold's prepared list and those from the audience.
Anthony Posada, Enforcement Supervising Investigator with ABC, explained the lengthy process for handling complaints about wholesale and liquor retail stores and bars.
"First off, is it hard to get a liquor license? Yes it is," said Posada. "But if you oppose a potential license, you can attend an administrative hearing, and one violation can lead all the way up to the Supreme Court."
He added that every complaint is investigated and requested that any complaint be very specific in order to help with the investigation. Since the agency has so few sworn investigators, it grants funds to local law enforcement agencies. The LA County Sheriff's Department received a grant that began Jan. 1 and ends June 30, 2012. A total of eight stations, including Altadena's, partner with ABC to conduct undercover operations in establishments that sell liquor, according to ABC Investigator Nicole Gomez.
Right now there are 16 off-site liquor establishments in Altadena, but Posada said he can't speak about problems occurring at any one liquor store that might jeopardize an investigation, in response to one audience member inquiring about what she called a "problem liquor store," . That store has seen nearby and this audience member mentioned there are other related problems such as loitering and blight at the location on the corner of Lincoln and Figueroa.
However Posada said that anyone can visit ABC's website and look up information on every licensed store in the state. Another factor that makes it difficult to address suspected violations, according to the county's Supervising Regional Planner, Alex Garcia, is that if a store received a license before 1992 it is not subject to Conditional Use Permit requirements. They've been essentially grandfathered in, making it very hard to enforce because there are much fewer conditions that those stores are subject to.

Next Meeting
Gold announced that an online survey will be emailed to everyone who has attended the six ACONA meetings and put their email address on the sign-in sheet to get an idea of what issues should be addressed at the next meeting, which will be held either Oct. 4 or 25.




Two Packs of Coyotes Target Local Pets: One for Cats, One for Dogs (Altadena Patch article)

on

Two Packs of Coyotes Target Local Pets: One for Cats, One for Dogs

A county official said at a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday that different coyote packs follow different kinds of prey

By Justin Chapman, Altadena Patch, 8/10/2011

An expert tells concerned citizens that the rash of pet attacks by wild coyotes recently can be explained by two separate packs of animals: One that prefers cats, one that prefers dogs.
Ellen Walton, an Altadena resident, has been paying attention to local coyote packs and taken note of the preferential behavior by the two packs.
Walton, who works for the county's Agricultural Commissioner and Weights and Measures, spoke briefly at the about the that Altadena has been experiencing lately.

She said she has been following several packs that actually roam certain neighborhoods to hunt for "preferential feeding." One pack only looks for cats, while another only dogs.

Lost Pets
recently, and in a recent article we discussed the available to pet owners.
Walton gave tips Tuesday on how to protect pets, such as bringing in feeding bowls and fallen fruit from trees at night, as well as securing doggy doors at night. For more tips on coyote prevention, visit the agency's website for more information on this growing problem, or call the local office dealing specifically with coyote threats at 626-575-5462.
The Department of Fish and Game offers the following advice on coyote prevention:

  • Put garbage in tightly closed containers that cannot be tipped over.
  • Remove sources of water, especially in dry climates.
  • Bring pets in at night, and do not leave pet food outside.
  • Put away bird feeders at night to avoid attracting rodents and other coyote prey.
  • Provide secure enclosures for rabbits, poultry, etc.
  • Pick up fallen fruit and cover compost piles.
  • Ask your neighbors to follow these tips.


National Night Out: Residents, Officers Chill Out/Hundreds Attend Crescenta Valley's National Night Out (La Cañada-Flintridge Patch article)

on

National Night Out: Residents, Officers Chill Out

The Crescenta Valley Sheriff’s Department and many more organizations participated in the 28th Annual National Night Out

By Justin Chapman, La Cañada-Flintridge Patch, 8/3/2011

Hundreds turned out Tuesday for the 28th annual National Night Out, which is designed to bring community members and law enforcement official together in an informal setting.
Local residents hung out and got to know the Foothills' hardworking police officers and firefighters. 
Check back on Patch later today for a full story and photo gallery.


Hundreds Attend Crescenta Valley's National Night Out


Several local law enforcement agencies and officials were on hand Tuesday evening to show and talk about the equipment they use and explain how area residents can help prevent crime in their neighborhoods.


By Justin Chapman, La Cañada-Flintridge Patch, 8/3/2011


More than 50 local law enforcement and safety officials and some 100 residents participated Tuesday in the 28th Annual National Night Out, giving the community a chance to come together, meet their law enforcement officials, and participate in anti-crime activities.
Hosted by the LA County Sheriff's Department and the National Neighborhood Watch Association, the event was designed to strengthen the relationship between safety officials and the community.
The hosted two local events for the fourth year in a row, in conjunction with the National Neighborhood Watch Association. One took place in the parking lot at the in La Canada and the other in the parking lot at in La Crescenta. In Montrose, the Sycamore Woods Neighborhood Watch, run by Julia Leeper, raffled off prizes to about a dozen families and individuals at the Twelve Oaks Lodge.
Various organizations set up booths in the parking lots to show the community the equipment they use, fingerprint kids, provide information about preventing crime, and allow residents to ask questions about how to keep their families and property safe from criminals.
In addition to Crescenta Valley Sheriff's officials, participants included LASD Deputy Explorers and Volunteers, the California Highway Patrol, the Fire Department, several Boy Scout troops, the Search and Rescue Team, Crescenta Valley C.E.R.T., the Crescenta Valley Armenian Community Center, and the Drug and Alcohol Prevention Coalition, among others.

Don't Hesitate to Call the Cops
Capt. David Silversparre said the best way to help law enforcement officials is to call them when something happens or if something doesn't look right.
"Basically we want the community to be our eyes and ears," said Silversparre.
"Call us when you see something suspicious, and in each and every case our deputies will respond. This event is designed to heighten crime and drug prevention awareness, generate support for local crime fighting efforts, and get the community involved, which I feel is extremely important. We need to work together."

Need to Work Together
Deputy Jorge Valdivia said that while crime rates fluctuate, the area experiences constant property crime, which is one of the biggest issues local law enforcement is dealing with in the La Canada, La Crescenta, and Montrose areas. He and Silversparre urged residents to take precautions in order to prevent becoming a victim of property crime.
"Every year we try to get the word out about these events and make them better," said Deputy Jorge Valdivia. "The idea is to show that the community and safety officials are working together to send the message that this is a community that takes care of itself and basically let the criminals know that they're not welcome here."
Local residents such as Shannon Mumenthaler, who brought her infant son to check out the festivities, said that she would like to see law enforcement officials host more public outreach events such as this one.
"It makes you feel closer to your community and knowing who's going to come out if you do have an emergency," said Mumenthaler. "I think it's also important for our kids to understand what their jobs are, to help them know who to reach out to when something happens."


















Green Energy Advocates Lobby L.A. County to Reduce Solar Permit Fees (Altadena Patch article)

on

Green Energy Advocates Lobby L.A. County to Reduce Solar Permit Fees

The county recently reduced its fees for residents who want to install solar panels on their homes — and it's considering doing the same thing for businesses

By Justin Chapman, Altadena Patch, 7/20/2011

Installing solar panels just got a little cheaper for residents of unincorporated Los Angeles County, thanks in part to recent lobbying efforts by the Sierra Club and other green energy advocates.
The county recently reduced its solar panel permit fees for residents — and it is now considering lowering its fees for businesses, according to officials with the Department of Public Works, the agency responsible for setting the permit rates.
Bob Spencer, a spokesperson for the county's Department of Public Works, told Patch in a phone interview that the county recently worked with the Sierra Club and other consultants to lower its residential fees from $1,144 to $370. That brings the fees below $512 — the average of a recent study of local solar fees conducted by the Sierra Club (attached to this article as a PDF file to the right).
Advocates have been arguing that state law requires solar permit fees to be minimal and standardized. Right now fees vary widely, and they believe that most local jurisdictions are overcharging residents and businesses, according to Kurt Newick, the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Committee Chair of the Loma Prieta Chapter.
The Sierra Club has been lobbying cities and counties up and down the state for the past two years to lower their fees, and released its study showing that solar permit fees in cities across LA County and the county itself vary widely, ranging from $0 in some jurisdictions and up to tens of thousands of dollars in others.
The county itself is now below average for residential fees and just slightly higher than average for commercial fees.
"We had been thinking about reducing the fees around the time the Sierra Club did their survey," said Spencer. "We were already discussing fee reduction anyway because we think it's important for both the county and the state to encourage people to invest in these kinds of energy saving and green energy alternatives."
Spencer said the county looked at a combination of things when they reduced the residential fees.
"We were trying to recover our administrative costs for servicing the permits, and we've looked at reducing the processing time down from about eight weeks to possibly three weeks to review the permits when they come in," he said. "But our biggest concern was lowering the fees for permits for residents."
He added that the county is currently looking at reducing the commercial fees, but there is no official timeline yet and no final decision has been made.
"There's been no final decision on that yet on whether or not we can reduce commercial fees in unincorporated areas, and if we can, by how much," he said.
The county governs about 65 unincorporated communities, including Altadena and small pockets of San Gabriel Valley.
Not only is the county working on lowering rates in its unincorporated areas, but it is working with the Sierra Club, the LA Basin Chapter of the International Code Council and the City of Los Angeles to standardize permit guidelines to enable all cities in LA County to have a streamlined solar permit submittal process and make it easier to lower their fees.
"We're aware of those efforts and we have been working with them," said Spencer. "Our discussions in this entire area of making solar panels an alternative for everyone continue."
However, this is no easy task, he added.
"When you have the county and 88 cities, it's not an easy task to standardize these things across the board. You may find some cities that are reluctant to reduce their fees. It's difficult to get 89 agencies to all agree on the same thing. It's very comprehensive. But we're absolutely working with the Sierra Club and these other consultants to see if we can get that done."
Some nearby cities are far above average for both residential and commercial solar permit fees. , with a residential fee rate of $1,088, and a commercial rate of $13,081.
Altadena's neighbor to the east, Sierra Madre, is also above average with a residential rate of $515 and a commercial rate of $37,349. However, a  after Patch and other news outlets published stories about the high fees in San Marino in other cities.
Newick said cities such as San Marino are "blatantly overcharging" their residents and business owners and also accused them of possibly violating the intent of state law, which requires minimum solar permit fees.
Newick explained that the Sierra Club, in the online Excel program included in the study, specifically developed a permit fee calculation methodology that documents what a permit fee must be for cost recovery.
"But for solar project evaluations, it is not right to base it on evaluation tables," said Newick. "It's basically violating the spirit of state law. It's also been shown in a court of law that (using evaluation tables is) invalid. Cities are not for-profit organizations."
According to Newick, the appropriate solar fee level is whatever a city needs to recover its costs, and not a penny more. He said that $200 to $350 for residential projects and $300 to $3,000 for commercial projects would be appropriate, depending on the size of the project. He added that cities are starting to change because the value of a solar project does not correlate with the resources to permit a system, but it's a slow process.
For that process to happen, however, Newick said that it's really crucial that local jurisdictions complement state and federal solar incentives by having reasonable permit processes and fees, so there's not a bottleneck to getting solar systems installed in their cities.
"They're trying to standardize what these permits look like in order to get them done more accurately and to lower costs," said Newick, referring to those consultants who are trying to standardize permit guidelines across the county. "That's really going to be the solution here."

The Future of West Altadena Redevelopment is Still Up in the Air (Altadena Patch article)

on

The Future of West Altadena Redevelopment is Still Up in the Air

Though the state budget that has been passed eliminates funding for redevelopment agencies, LA County redevelopment officials are still waiting for figures from the state's Finance Department on what it will cost the county to keep the agency

By Justin Chapman, Altadena Patch, 7/12/2011

Despite Governor Jerry Brown's proposals to cut back funding for local redevelopment, a plan which could affect Altadena's ability to improve the Lincoln Corridor area, something of a compromise was reached when the state legislature approved the budget June 28 and there are still options for keeping redevelopment agencies intact.
From the standpoint of those redevelopment agencies, however, it wasn't much of a compromise.  The budget plan calls for redevelopment agencies to stay intact on the condition that "their establishing cities or counties agree to (come up with their share of) $1.7 billion in payments to K‑12 schools."
In other words, city and county governments can keep redevelopment agencies as long as they pay for it out of their own pockets.
The primary purpose of redevelopment agencies is to improve local economies by spurring commercial development in local towns.  In Altadena's case, redevelopment funds helped to build the Lincoln Crossing commercial development in West Altadena.
But many have also been critical of the misuse of redevelopment funds, as well as prioritizing commercial development over funding schools and other governmental functions.
So far, the California Redevelopment Association has stated that at least 50 of its statewide agencies have already said they cannot afford to make the payments that would keep them in existence.

Redevelopment in L.A. County
LA County's Community Development Commission, which services Altadena, is not yet one of those agencies because they are still waiting on the official figures from the California Department of Finance explaining what it would cost to keep the agency intact, according to Corde Carrillo, the CDC's Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment.
"We're going to wait for the actual numbers to come in from the Department of Finance before we would feel comfortable in preparing our informational memorandum to the Board of Supervisors," said Carrillo. "We expect to get those numbers by August 1. That's when we would have sufficient information to prepare a recommendation to our board."

What it Means for Altadena
It's not clear what all these actions will mean for the West Altadena Project Area Committee (WAPAC), the publicly-funded Altadena board which makes recommendations to the county on how to use redevelopment funds in the Lincoln Corridor.
After the county's CDC receives the amounts it would have to commit to in order to maintain redevelopment agencies in August, the CDC will prepare a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, who will have the final say on whether or not the county can afford to pay its portion to the state in order to keep its RDA running. Furthermore, the process could last until November 1, when the county's ordinance to the state is due.
If the supervisors decide that the county cannot afford to pay its share and the CDC is dismantled, there would be no need for the WAPAC, and West Altadena would have one less advisory body looking out for its business interests.
The area that WAPAC covers makes up 80 acres centered around the intersection of Lincoln and Woodbury. The agency was adopted in 1986, and its main achievement was bringing in the Lincoln Crossing development, which transformed a blighted area into a successful shopping development (though it has ). A map of the redevelopment project area is attached to this article.

Legal Backlash
Both Carrillo and Bill Johnson, the CDC's representative to WAPAC, said that state lawyers for the legislature have told lawmakers before the budget was passed that elimination of redevelopment agencies could violate the California constitution. Some county's are already preparing for litigation against the state, according to the San Jose Mercury News.
"The lawyers in the state legislature have issued an opinion that this transfer of local funds, because that's what tax increment is, to the state would violate the state constitution," said Johnson. "Meaning it would be illegal to do that. But the legislature doesn't always listen to their lawyers."

Altadena Without Redevelopment
So what would all this mean for West Altadena if WAPAC gets dismantled?
"There would be one less advisory body to speak for the redevelopment area community," said Carrillo. "The Town Council is responsible for all of Altadena, so they would maybe look at the West Altadena area, and there might be members of them to speak about West Altadena in an advisory capacity. If the community wanted to, they could ask for another type of organization to speak for them or the business community in particular. It's certainly a possibility to have a privately funded entity to replace WAPAC."
Allan Wasserman, a member of the Altadena Town Council and that advisory body's representative on WAPAC, is also supportive of a privately funded entity with similar goals as WAPAC if it goes under.
"West Altadena would probably try to recreate a private form of it," said Wasserman. "Something that's not state sanctioned, but an independent committee, probably financed by private individuals. They could reemerge themselves as a private entity that stays involved with the community."
WAPAC was formed because West Altadena requested a PAC when the county first formed a redevelopment area. Supervisor Michael Antonovich was supportive of it. PACs have to be constituted within redevelopment law. Their members are elected and they cover business owners, property owners, retail, homeowners, and other neighborhood associations.
"We provide administrative services for WAPAC," explained Carrillo. "We're a county support; we don't sit on WAPAC. The committee is made up of community leaders and has its own bylaws."

Sierra Club Official Criticizes City's Defense of High Solar Fees (San Marino Patch article)

on

Sierra Club Official Criticizes City's Defense of High Solar Fees

Kurt Newick of the Sierra Club called San Marino's solar permit fees "blatant overcharging" and suggested the city may even be in violation of the spirit of state law

By Justin Chapman, San Marino Patch, 7/8/2011

After Director of the city's Planning and Building Department Dave Saldaña responded to a Sierra Club study showing San Marino's residential solar panel installation fees as the third highest in the county and its commercial fees above average, Sierra Club representative Kurt Newick found little common ground with Saldaña's explanations.  
See the Sierra Club study, which evaluated 42 Los Angeles County cities, as a PDF to the right.
Newick, Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Committee Chair of the Loma Prieta Chapter, still thinks San Marino is overcharging its residents and business owners who want to install solar projects and thus discouraging people from filing for permits to do so.
"The residential permit process for a 3 kilowatt solar installation runs an average of $512," the Sierra Club said in its report.
Los Angeles's rate is $248--down from $308 in 2009.
San Marino is ranked as having the third highest fee in the county at $1,088 (see table to the right), behind Irwindale and Lawndale.

Calculating Fees
Saldaña told Patch in the that despite the Sierra Club sending emails to San Marino to encourage the city to lower fees and provide more solar installation incentive for residents and businesses, San Marino has not lowered its fees because for more than 20 years they have based their fees on individual project evaluations, using a table that tells the permit technician who conducts the evaluation how much the fee should be.
Newick called the city's fees "blatant overcharging" of residents and business owners. He also accused the city of possibly violating state laws.
"Their fees are way too high," Newick said, referring to San Marino. "For residential evaluations it takes two to four hours. It should be a fixed fee to enable cost recovery for two to four hours of city staff time to do the inspection and permit review. Cities are starting to change because the value of a solar project does not correlate with the resources needed to permit a system."
Newick explained that the Sierra Club, in the online Excel program included in the study, specifically developed a permit fee calculation methodology that documents what a permit fee must be for cost recovery. The table method that San Marino uses to evaluate project fees may be better suited for other projects, Newick said.
"But for solar project evaluations, it is not right to base it on evaluation tables," said Newick. "It's basically violating the intent of state law, which requires minimum solar permit fees. It's also been shown in a court of law that it's invalid. Cities are not for-profit organizations. San Marino is in blatant violation of overcharging for installation fees."
One of Saldaña's claims that Newick agreed with is that commercial projects should have an increased fee, though Newick disagreed with how much that fee should be.
"The same evaluation process applies to commercial permits as residential, except maybe more so because there are a greater number of people in a commercial building," Saldaña told Patch in an earlier interview. "There's going to be more time spent so the inspection will take longer as well. You're going to have a higher cost evaluation. Proportionally it should be an increased fee."
Although Newick agreed that some commercial projects can be quite large, and so the city should charge more for a permit fee than a smaller residential project, he disagreed with Saldaña's argument that San Marino has higher permit fees than other cities because San Marino also requires a fire marshal to inspect solar panel projects for safety reasons such as ensuring adequate roof space is left in case a fire occurs in the future and the fire department needs to axe through the roof.
"That separates San Marino from other cities, because I don't think other cities include that as part of the fees," said Saldaña regarding the fire marshal. "Therefore we don't feel it would be appropriate to lower the fees."
Newick disagreed with this assessment. He said that's largely unnecessary because the city planners and permit technicians are adequately prepared to determine how much space is needed.
"All the fire departments in other jurisdictions charge by the hour," he said. "It's not based on the size of the project. San Marino's charging $13,081 on average, which is several times more than it needs to be for cost recovery."
He went on to say that the high fees are not because of the fire marshal's required presence.

San Marino Compared to Other Cities
"Every jurisdiction I have talked to has been very reasonable," Newick continued. "The fire people are actually computing the fees correctly, and they're not gouging on their fee schedules. They're just charging for their time, which is usually only a few hours. They review the plans independently of the planning department, and some will do inspections, some won't. It depends."
San Marino has not been one of those jurisdictions that has cooperated with the Sierra Club's request to reconsider their permitting processes and evaluation and installation fees.
"I contacted San Marino in 2009 and this year to try to convince them to lower their fees, and they didn't," said Newick. "I went to the city clerk and sent both letters I wrote to all the city council members, requesting that they review their current fee calculation process. I'm hoping one of them will step up to the plate and see that their solar fees be reviewed and revised to their appropriate level."
According to Newick, the appropriate level is whatever that city needs to recover their costs. He said that $200 to $350 for residential projects and $300 to $3,000 for commercial projects would be appropriate, depending on the size of the project.
He praised cities such as nearby Sierra Madre in the county and other areas of the state that have or are considering lowering their permit fees. Recently, a after stories in Patch and other sources about San Marino's and other city's high fees were published.

The Future of Solar Fees
"I think Sierra Madre looking at lowering their commercial rates is great," said Newick. "At some point in the next few years there's going to be a crossover into grid parody, where solar will be less expensive than traditional energy, in which case there will be a lot more people installing small and large solar systems."
For that to happen, however, Newick said that it's really crucial and even required that local jurisdictions compliment state and federal solar incentives by having reasonable permit processes and fees so they're not a bottleneck to getting solar systems installed in their cities.
"The city and an independent entity needs to scrutinize how long the evaluations are taking and how much time is supposedly needed right now to approve a permit in San Marino," said Newick. "Someone needs to take a closer look at that."
Newick also mentioned that there are other organizations looking to standardize guidelines, such as the LA Basin Chapter of the International Code Council, that will enable all cities in LA County to have a streamlined solar permit submittal process and lower their fees. Osama Younan, an inspector who works for the City of Los Angeles, is working on permit guidelines for all LA County cities.
"They're trying to standardize what these permits look like in order to get them done more accurately and to lower costs," said Newick. "That's really going to be the solution here."

Council Passes Proposed Changes to 710 Resolution (South Pasadena Patch article)

on

Council Passes Proposed Changes to 710 Resolution

Although the changes were few in number, they would essentially alter the city's long-standing position of opposing a freeway

By Justin Chapman, South Pasadena Patch, 7/7/2011

Opponents of the 710 freeway extension voiced concerns about proposed changes to South Pasadena's existing at the City Council meeting Wednesday.
Although the changes were few in number, they would essentially alter the city's long-standing position of opposing a freeway.
State legislators have told the city that the  will never happen, but they have yet to take it off the table. Ten has instead proposed to add phrases to the existing resolution that states the underground tunnel would be detrimental to the people of South Pasadena "unless and until an adequate environmental review shows" it is not.
During a conference call in the middle of this discussion, South Pasadena's litigation attorney Tony Rossman said the surface option would be taken off the table if the city agrees to support an environmental review of the tunnel route option.
"Since the surface route is not really being considered, though theoretically possible, South Pasadena gets nothing and for this nothing South Pasadena agrees to not fight the tunnel," Bill Sherman wrote to Patch prior to the meeting. 
Many people who spoke during public comment Wednesday expressed frustration and concern. The extra phrases are too vague and could potentially put the city back up against the wall, they said. 
"How can we as a city ask for an environmental review and sound research but at the same time say we're against any freeway extension?" Mary Ann Parada said.
 
Janet Irvine agreed.
 
"I'm opposed to the city even considering changing its position on the 710 extension in any form," she said. "We are weakening our position with no guarantee that we'll get anything."
 
After nearly two hours of debate and public comment on this item, Council member Philip Putnam finally made a motion to keep Resolution 7147 passed by City council in February while striking many of the "Whereas" clauses but keeping the vague phrases proposed by Ten.
Another "Whereas" clause was tabled to the next council meeting as a consent item, so staff could work out the details of the language. The modified resolution was passed unanimously.