December 9, 2006 Meeting


E-mail note was sent to each member who has provided a contact e-mail address.
Susan Chu and Laura Ellersieck phoned other members on the phone contact list.


Susan Chu brought baked goodies.


9 members


Agenda Items:

  • self-storage on Edison land update
  • ice rink on Monday’s council agenda
  • pre-plan review of development at SMV and Foothill also on council agenda
  • planning for next year, incl. membership outreach & our election
  • planning for council candidate visits?
  • temporary parking permits via internet
  • anything else attendees wish to discuss

The meeting began about 11:23 am

  • self-storage on Edison land update
    • The developer has put their proposals on hold for rework and expects to submit a new proposal in about 6 months.  Reportedly they will no longer submit plans for self-storage on what is currently the Persson’s property.  Reportedly Persson’s has asked Edison to extend their temporary entry permit (their license agreement expired in Dec 2005), but do not know whether that has happened.  Attendees report the 1/2 off clearance sale at Persson’s continues.
  • ice rink on Monday’s City Council agenda (Dec 11, Item 5B3)
    • probably will mostly be discussed in Finance Committee and late in council
    • projected cost now 16.2 million.  Claims cost increase is due to rise in construction costs plus site issues involving difficulty accessing utilities, discovery of uncompacted soil condition and the development of foundation design, methane gas mitigation and Leed compliance requirements”. “Leeds” has to do with energy efficiency.
    • says the plans have been changed
      • reducing spectator seating to 325 (175 and 150) or 300 (175 and 125) from 500.  Claims this won’t impact revenue.
      • “volume of structure has been reduced”.  (Now listed as 62,000 sq ft instead of 65,000)
      • says these changes are expected to save $2 million
    • asking for extra allocation of money for the architect to modify the plans
    • changing financing
      • to get $3 million instead of $2 million from the Pasadena Civic Center.
      • to use all $13.2 million they claim the revenue projections support
      • authorizing expenditures based on the expectation of future authorization of issuance of up to $15 million in revenue bonds
      • indicates that the whole thing is very interest rate and revenue sensitive and could easily lead to city having to subsidize by as much as 10 thousand to almost 300 thousand a year for each of the first 5 years
    • No indication of how the building’s plans are expected to be changed from what we’ve seen previously. Could the reduction in seating indicate the building will be narrowed, allowing space for the access road without Edison land?   There is an indication they had to deepen the footings, presumably because of the “uncompacted soil condition” (given the location, why would they have thought it had been compacted?)
    • council is supposed to approve a management agreement with PISC for 10 years
  • pre-plan review of development at SMV and Foothill also on Council agenda (Dec 11,  Item 10A)
    • likely to be very late in the meeting
    • informational only report.  Council has no actions to take at this time except potential to request additional process steps such as review by commissions that would not ordinarily do so
    • 166,536.98 square foot (3.823 acre) parcel
    • two buildings:
      • a 237,706 (excluding the garage) square foot, 212-unit residential building (including the 15% inclusionary housing requirement)
        • 60 feet (4 stories) tall
        • 339 parking spaces in a semi-subterranean parking structure
        • “contemporary design aesthetic of the residential building complements the design of the Stuart Pharmaceutical Building”
      • approximately 40,000 square feet of performance and supporting space including office space.
        • expect to get parking for this in MTA parking structure
        • historic Stuart Pharmaceutical Company building requires that the project be developed in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation.
    • An environmental “Initial Study” is being prepared.  Expected potential environmental impacts include traffic, historic preservation, and air quality.  If it is determined an EIR is required, that would add 6 months to a year to the project schedule.
    • There will be a Development Agreement, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and must be approved by the City Council
    • The project will be reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Commission
    • There are actually two lots involved and a lot line adjustment will be necessary to support the requested density
    • An Expressive Use Permit (E.U.P.) is required for the proposed theater, a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required
      to allow a commercial use of more than 15,000 sq. ft. in a Transit Oriented Development, and a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for shared parking.  These will all be heard in one hearing, expected in February.
    • The project will go to the Design Commission for both a concept review and a final review.  These are expected in May and June ’07.
  • planning for next year, incl. membership outreach & our election
    • It has already been last February since our last flyer distribution (that was the newsletter).  And March since our election.  We should plan for another newsletter/flyer to remind/notify folks of our existence and let them know what is going on.  We also need to solicit office candidates and notify of when the election will be.
    • We should have election at March meeting. Will try to have newsletter/flyer ready for distribution in January. It should reintroduce association, meetings, e-mail and web addresses. Note upcoming election.  Quick notes on local issues.
  • planning for council candidate visits?
    • There are two candidates for our area’s City Council seat.  The election is March 6. Councilman Haderlein is seeking a third term.  Eugene Masuda is challenging him.
    • Not yet known if some organization will be sponsoring a candidate forum.  Probably, but if they have all the candidates for all the council and school board seats it will allow very little time to each.
    • Question as to whether we should invite them to our January or February meeting to discuss our area issues and goals.  No speeches, just informal question and answer session and the opportunity to tell them what you want.   Limit of 1/2 hour each so we can accomplish other things as well.
    • Agreed we will invite them.  They can choose which meeting depending on their schedule.
    • Want to let our residents know about the opportunity and encourage their attendance, but don’t want a crowd from outside the area.  If one or both is coming to the January meeting, we will do a special flyer distribution in advance.  Susan agreed to walk them around.
  • temporary overnight parking permits via internet
    • the city is working on a system that will allow buying and printing temporary overnight parking permits via the internet
    • payment by credit card
    • reportedly $4 a night vs $3 at the kiosks, the extra to cover the internet service cost
    • they are hoping to have it running in late January ’07
  • anything else attendees wish to discuss
    • Several people had seen an article in the Star News that morning about the owner of the proposed strip club at the former Shakey’s pizza site having opened the day before without any of the required permits. Forcing the city to take action against it and presumably provide gist for additional lawsuits. So there was some discussion about that.

Next meeting is January 13, same time, same place.

Adjourned about 12:10 pm