By Gus Herrera
The Pasadena City Council meeting on Monday, April 25, included three important public hearings.
The first, Item 13 on the night’s agenda, concerned the approval of city staff’s recommendation to re-program unused Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funds, originally appropriated for a public works LED street lighting upgrade project, towards sidewalk replacements and curb-cut improvements for northwest Pasadena.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) limits the amount of unspent CBDG funds that can be retained by the city. According to the staff report, “If the city exceeds this limit, the excess, unspent funds must be returned to HUD.”
On Nov. 2, 2015, city council approved $530,000 of CBDG funds towards the aforementioned street lighting upgrades. Ultimately, this project was unable move forward and it was determined that the appropriated funds would not be expended by the target date of June 30, 2015. According to staff’s report, the LED project required further evaluation and changes to city standards that would push the expenditure of the funds past the cutoff.
Therefore, in order to avoid relinquishing the $530,000, council agreed to re-appropriate the funds towards much-needed sidewalk replacements and curb-cut improvements that would be in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act’s accessibility requirements.
Council approved staff’s recommendation without any objections. This project will target the area in northwest Pasadena just northeast of the Rose Bowl, west of Fair Oaks Avenue, between Woodbury Road on the north and Hammond Street to the south. For detailed maps visit: ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2016%20Agendas/Apr_25_16/AR%2013%20ATTACHMENT.pdf.
The second important public hearing, Item 14, was a presentation by Julie Gutierrez, assistant city manager, on the city’s Capital Improvement Program’s (CIP) budget.
The CIP is meant to address aging infrastructure by means of several proposed projects which deal with everything from the construction of new bridges, to the development of corridor accessibility improvements to help ease the flow of traffic towards the Rose Bowl.
The projects are able to be proposed by city councilmembers, members from all five city commissions, and all other city employees. These proposals are each evaluated and if deemed appropriate, are prioritized within the CIP’s list of projects.
According to Gutierrez’s report, the city currently has 230 active projects within the CIP. These active projects are those which have already received some appropriations or on which work has already commenced, in one form or another. The total estimated cost of these projects is $1.05 billion, with 54 percent ($565 million) already funded to date and $63.5 million recommended for appropriation this upcoming year.
In addition to active projects, the CIP budget presentation also revealed future, unfunded projects which the city must inevitably address. The projects include improvements to city facilities (staff ‘s report revealed Pasadena has over 85 different facilities), streetscape specific plans, park master plans, transportation improvements, among others.
So, when you combine the active projects with the items listed in the city’s future “wishlist,” you realize that if the funds were available, Pasadena could easily spend up to $1.4 billion, in Mayor Tornek’s words, “without a problem.”
This public hearing will be continued during council’s May 2 meeting.
The third public hearing of interest, Item 16, concerned the anti-mansionization efforts for the Lower Hastings Ranch neighborhood, addressed at the city’s planning commission’s latest meeting on March 23 (www.pasadenaindependent.com/news/pasadena-launches-pre-emptive-strike-on-mansionization).
Council adopted city staff’s recommendations 5-2 (Mayor Tornek and Councilmember Masuda in opposition, Councilmember Gordo was absent) which included several amendments to proposed development standards, meant to safeguard resident’s concerns for privacy and the preservation of their neighborhood’s architectural integrity as a community of predominantly single-story, ranch-style homes.
Amendments include stricter requirements with respects to materials, floor-to-area ratio, and setback restrictions, to name a few. Additionally, there will be a neighborhood development permit required for the construction of new houses, additions to existing second stories, or any new developments visible from the street.
These amendments will now be re-visited by the planning commission before returning to council for a first reading.
In order to deal with the question of second story additions within the neighborhood, council adopted staff’s recommendation of a new process for creating single-story overlay zones, which will be applicable city-wide.
Under this process, which is based on a model applied in the City of Palo Alto, residents can initiate petitions, requiring signatures from at least 70 percent of property owners within the proposed zone’s boundaries. Eighty percent of the homes within the proposed overlay zone must be single-story. If approved, the zone created will prohibit second-story additions. To rescind the overlay would require approval from at least 70 percent of the property owners.
Originally, back in March, the planning commission chose not to follow this approach, for fear of pitting neighbor against neighbor, among other reasons. Instead they recommended a second story ban. Tornek and Masuda who both opposed the motion, also argued that the outright ban would settle the issue more effectively.
Council decided against the commission’s recommendation. The overall consensus heeded property rights, feeling more comfortable with a process allowing the residents to make their own decisions.
For more details, visit http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/council_agenda.asp.
