December 8, 2007 Meeting Summary

Preparation

E-mail reminder.   Susan and Laura phoned their contact lists.

Acknowledgments

Susan brought freshly baked brownies.

Attendees

13 members

Meeting

Agenda Items:

• Ice Rink
  • PCC easement
  • Construction access
  • Construction bids
• Park pedestrian path
• Nearby development
  • Edison right of way
  • Space Bank on Foothill
  • The Stuart apartments
  • Gateway Tower property
  • “Pleasures” club
  • New soccer field on Sierra Madre Blvd
  • St Lukes property
  • New WAMU branch
• PWP nuisance on Alameda and Avocado
• Avocado Ave speed humps
• Utility Users Tax ballot measure
• anything else attendees wish to discuss
  • permanent e-waste collection center

The meeting began about 11:25 am

• Ice Rink
  • PCC easement
    • On Nov 19, Council approved via consent calendar (and no discussion) an Easement from PCC granting the city ingress/egress rights across it’s land for access to the ice rink parcel.
    • The easement simply says “for valuable consideration”.  What that valuable consideration might be has never been publicly discussed.  Whatever agreement has been made between PCC and the city has not been made public.
    • It has long been believed that the proposed signal light at the Foothill driveway is part of the inducement by the city.  There has also been the rumor that the city will build a warehouse for PCC to use.  While never publicly admitted, there is some support for the rumor because an area location drawing presented to the Design Commission in January 2007 included a box just south of the water well with a label indicating a 22,000 sq ft PCC/City warehouse.
  • Construction access
    • PCC has reportedly forbidden the city to use the easement for access to the ice rink site by construction vehicles. While it is understandable that PCC wouldn’t want the traffic through it’s parking lot and next to its buildings, it would be the least impactful route.  This leaves the city in a quandary.
    • We similarly don’t want the traffic through our neighborhood streets.  (It’s bad enough that the PWP and its contractors have been taking advantage of us with little recourse the last seven months.)  At our urging, the Conditional Use Permit for the Ice Rink forbids use of the Alameda entrance. Councilman Haderlein has also reportedly told city staff that this is not an acceptable option.
    • The road that comes from Maple next to the PWP plant is reportedly too unstable to be used and not feasibly capable of being upgraded.  (Presumably why PWP hasn’t been using it for its construction traffic.)
    • Thus the city is reportedly looking at building a temporary road from Orange Grove Blvd through Viña Vieja Park.  This would enter on the north through the Edison gates (the former nursery entrance). It would then proceed south through the eastern portion of the park, probably exiting out the existing utility access gates at the southern end.
      • Clearly this would wipe out the usability of the eastern portion of the park for the year+ duration of ice rink construction and could not help but impact the environment of the rest of the park with lots more noise and dust then would be the case just from the construction to the south.
      • It would undoubtedly require removal of many trees in the eastern area.  (Hopefully they could be saved for replanting afterward.)
      • It would likely cause lots of noise and dust (once again) for the residences whose backyards face the park.
      • It would cause a traffic hazard on Orange Grove, especially with the curve right there.  (The reason the nursery didn’t like using that driveway.)  Have been told the city would probably require a flagman be present at Orange Grove whenever trucks are coming or going.
      • It would dramatically increase truck traffic on Orange Grove, a primararily residential street, plus Sierra Madre Villa or Altadena Dr, as trucks come from / go to the freeway.
      • Was told the city expects to limit truck traffic to non-peak hours for both traffic and the park.
      • City is looking at surrounding temporary construction road through the park with orange snow fence (like was present where white fence is now when park opened).
      • Certainly must add significant cost to the project.
  • Construction Bids
    • Construction for the Ice Rink project has been put out to bid and city staff is expected to open received bids sometime this month (December).  Reportedly city staff is really concerned the bids will be higher then the current budget.  They are perhaps wishfully thinking construction costs have fallen some and a bid will come in that will fit within budget, but if not hoping to get insight into where the costs lie so the design might be revised or construction phased or something.
    • According to brief non-agendized discussion in a City Council meeting, requesting bids may have been discussed by the Finance committee.  But it has never been discussed by the Council itself in public session and it hasn’t appeared as an agendized item for private session.
  • Design
    • Told that the design hasn’t changed except for a few minor materials issues since the initial design presented to Design Commission.  The notion of spectator enclosures next to the walkway on top the locker rooms is out.  Will just be walkway with windows. Although some folks would like the building to be a presentation venue, that isn’t the charter and the city can’t make the financial case to spend a lot extra on spectator seating.
    • City Council has never been presented the ice rink design.  Now told that it will not be presented to them until staff brings the “whole package” to them for approval, which will be when they are to approve the construction contract.
  • Landscaping
    • Am now told that instead of putting a landscape buffer immediately east of the access road that runs along the east side of the building, that area (which is on Edison land) will not be landscaped.  Instead they have returned to the original idea/promise of landscaping the city land on the west side of Avocado Ave.  This is reportedly in the ice rink project budget.  Although promised, have not yet seen anything in print on this though.
• Park pedestrian path
  • The current path to the park from our neighborhood is a temporary solution devised to work around the late discovered problem of the Edison lines being “too low” and the solution discussions with Edison being slow and cumbersome.
  • When Ice Rink construction begins, the path must be moved because the building will be on top of its current location.
  • The Conditional Use Permit for the Ice Rink specifies that a pedestrian path from our neighborhood to the park must be maintained throughout construction.
  • No matter where the path is located, if construction traffic goes through the park it is going to impact the safety of the path.  There could be very strong push back from city staff to not have any path during that time, or at least once again a fight to keep gates open as promised.
  • The ice rink project is reportedly looking at moving the temporary path east some and recreating it with a canopy such as is used to keep sidewalks next to construction sites open.
  • In recent months Edison has reportedly been actively discussing possible solutions with the city.
  • Reportedly Edison has agreed to strongly consider raising the “too low” lines on the east rank of towers at the same time as doing the work to put the new Tehachapi circuit on the west rank of towers.  That work, however, is not scheduled to be complete until 2013.
  • Now there have also reportedly been statements by some at Edison that in fact the lines are not “too low” for pedestrian traffic to go underneath them.  That maybe the path can be in its originally planned location afterall.
  • There have also reportedly been discussions of two primary candidate “permanent” solutions while the wires are still “too low”.   Both move the entry on Avocado to the location on the approved park plan, which is just south of where Las Lunas intersects Avocado.
    • This re-raises the concern of parking on our adjacent streets.  At least until the ice rink parking lot is available and busy dog park users discover they can more conveniently use it.
      • At busy times dog park users have been parking way down the street on Orange Grove.  Our neighborhoood via this path would be much closer.
      • Even with the current path location, we heard the reason PCC insisted on the south side of the path being enclosed was because they perceived that dog park users were parking in their lot.  That is quite a distance compared with a direct path to our neighborhood.
    • One plan would route the path directly from the entry on Avocado across under the “too low” Edison lines, but under some sort of “canopy” that Edison agrees would offer sufficient protection.  Protection from what isn’t clear, since it couldn’t protect against magnetic fields and if there is concern about the lines falling then no one should be allowed under them anywhere.
      • Downsides
        • Any sort of canopy could have claustrophic feeling for path users
        • Would clearly point out to dog park visitors an opportunity for additional parking on our streets.
        • Could prove to be attractive nuisance
      • Upsides
        • Probably best visibility and security for users of the path, depending on what is used to enclose it.
        • Best security visibility for neighbors
        • Shortest route for users of dog park
    • Another plan would route the path from the entry on Avocado north along the fence line, behind the houses to the point where the white fence currently jogs under the electric wires and intersects the chain link “buffer” fence.  The path would cross under the wires just to the north of the white fence.  It would not need to be covered because the wires are deemed to be high enough at that location.
      • Downsides
        • The path might still have a claustrophic feeling because it might have fencing/walls on both sides as it runs north-south to keep users out from under the wires and out of house backyards.  It appears as if the fences could be as much as 15′ apart however.
        • Directing traffic directly behind the houses could cause them extra noise, loss of privacy, and potential for criminal activity over what they already get.
        • Lack of visibility of path users to neighbors and park users could make this path less safe and a greater attractive nuisance.
        • Greater distance to travel if going to dog park.
      • Upsides
        • Might be less costly?  No canopy involved, and potentially fewer feet of new fencing.
        • Less obvious to non-neighbor park users as an opportunity for closer parking.
  • No matter which path is chosen, upgrading the Avocado frontage and some kind of landscaping instead of just weeds would provide some compensation to neighbors for the increased nuisance.  It would also make neighbors and path users feel less like they are the poor relations relegated to seeing only weeds and accessing the park via a desolate backdoor entrance.
• Nearby development
  • Edison right of way
    • RHC, which has development rights from Edison for their right-of-way, has not submitted any new applications for development, including any for public storage.  Appears they have been focusing on projects in other cities where there is less opposition.
    • According to L.A. Times article on November 18, Edison has changed policy and will no longer allow construction of permanent buildings under its power lines.  This would seem to be the death knell for the public storage plans.
    • Now the question is when RHC will be out of the way so the city can deal directly with Edison in determining future uses of the land.
  • Space Bank on Foothill
    • Property is reportedly in escrow.
    • Land is zoned for industrial/office use and indications are it is being purchased by a developer looking to develop office space.
  • The Stuart apartments
    • Yes, they are done and there are people living there now.
    • Included among residents is our district’s representative on the city’s Transportation Commission.
  • Gateway Tower property
    • This is the 11 story building next to the fire station, south side of Foothill, just east of Halstead.
    • A pre-plan review was presented to the Council on November 19.
    • Owner of property is proposing to build two additional buildings to the south of the tower.  They would be four and five stories.
    • This land is currently used for surface parking.  Both new buildings would be built above at-grade parking.  The southern building would also have subterranean parking.  Because the property is so near the Gold Line station, new development is required to have fewer parking spaces per square footage of office space then is the case elsewhere and was the case when the tower was built.
    • A covered pedestrian walkway is proposed from the buildings along the driveway to Halstead.
    • The proposal could change substantially prior to approval because at this stage no environmental study or or other city staff review has yet taken place.
    • This project could be beneficial to us if it reduces the remaining office space available for development under the East Pasadena Specific Plan that developers of the Allstate property might have hoped to use.
  • “Pleasures” club
    • This is the adult club on Foothill in the strip mall to the west of the Panda Inn.
    • After losing a lawsuit to the city and having its liquor license revoked, it is basically being forced to shut down by January.
    • There is some indication the property will be sold and potentially redeveloped for office space.
  • New soccer field on Sierra Madre Blvd
    • On the north side of Sierra Madre Blvd, just east of Washington Blvd, on County flood control land.
    • The development is privately financed and operated by a former teacher.
    • Not just soccer field(s) but an “academy”, aimed at middle school age children.
  • St Lukes property
    • Sale has been completed to a company named DS Ventures.
    • They have discussed a plan with interested parties, including our Councilman, which is according to him “heavy on residential”.  Including multi-family multi-story buildings immediately adjacent to existing single family homes.  Councilman has stated that is a no-go with him.
    • They have indicated they are amenable to making space available to an operator of urgent care.
    • Have indicated amenable to potentially use of some of the land for a park.
    • Know they have to deal with historic preservation of some of the existing buildings
  • New WAMU branch
    • A teller at the WAMU (Washington Mutual) on East Colorado said that WAMU is going to open a new branch on SW corner of Foothill and Michillinda.  (Recently a Hollywood Video but prior to that it was first Investors Savings, then Imperial Savings, then Household Bank.  When Household was bought by Home Savings the branch was closed and it stopped being used for banking, but the vault is probably still there.  Since WAMU bought Home Savings, it may have owned the property already.)
• PWP nuisance on Alameda and Avocado
  • Did not get any response to complaints and does not appear anything was done to re-gravel the road or keep it wet down to reduce the plumes of dust (except obviously the rain helps).
• Avocado Ave speed humps
  • The speed humps on Avocado are in place.  There is one hump between Del Vina and Las Lunas and three humps between Del Vina and Alameda.  New bright yellow signs warn to go 15 mph.  Neighbors at the meeting hadn’t observed anyone speeding yet, but have noted people going around the humps via the dirt shoulder.
• Utility Users Tax ballot measure
  • Worried by the degree of complaint/confusion leading to opposition, City Council is now working on passing an ordinance to clarify that the proposed revised language cannot be used to impose a tax on internet service even if the federal ban on such taxes is revoked/expires.  That doing so would require a new vote of the electorate.  Mayor reportedly stated the Council cannot just change this ordinance at a later time to undo this protection, but don’t know why that is.  Can’t understand why they didn’t just insist on making the language clear in the first place instead of being satisfied with staff assurances that what it appears to say isn’t what it means.
  • Apparently City Council has authorized filing by the city clerk of an urgent lawsuit against the opposition argument statement on the ballot pamphlet.  Claim is that there are a number of statements in it that are false and misleading.
• anything else attendees wish to discuss
  • permanent e-waste collection center
    • Every Saturday and Sunday from 9 am to 3 pm, residential hazardous waste and electronic waste can be taken to the Los Angeles-Glendale S.A.F.E. Collection Center.
    • 4600 Colorado Blvd., Los Angeles, 90039.  That is just east of the 5 Freeway, next to Griffith Park.
    • There are limits on how much you can take in one visit, and you will be required to show CA identification.
    • Here is a link to the flyer:
      https://www.lacitysan.org/cs/groups/public/documents/document/y250/mdew/~edisp/cnt010031.pdf

Next meeting is January 12, 2008.

Adjourned around 12:40 pm