City staff to recommend no driving range expansion!

Wanted to update everyone on the golf course lease and the driving range expansion. The Draft of the Initial Study for the Golf Course Lease recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that as long as the study is not contested and they answer everyone's questions and comments satisfactorily, they could go ahead with the lease and the expansion.

Now for the good news. City staff is recommending (p. 229, http://www.cityofsouthpasadena.us/government/PDFs/packet/Agenda_Packet.pdf) the following:

Instead, it is recommended that the City Council:
1) Direct staff to modifY the existing management agreement with Donovan to delete references about a proposed lease agreement; and
 2) Direct staff to revise the MND to reflect that the City would implement the capital improvement program for the golf course instead of Donovan; and
3) Provide direction whether to delete or leave in place the option to expand the driving range expansion

The analysis below (p. 231) indicates that the city is going to try to continue having the golf course managed by Donovan rather than entering into a long term lease agreement. Furthermore, they are recommending that the driving range expansion not be part of the capital improvements, but rather to use money for needed improvements to kitchen, rest rooms, etc.

Analysis
Staff recommends that the City continue with a Management Agreement with Donovan because it is advantageous for the City from a financial standpoint. Although the driving range expansion was expected to "enhance" the golf experience, staff recommends that this component be eliminated. Shifting the funds from the driving range expansion to other improvements, such as the kitchen and restroom upgrades, would result in greater value to the golf course operations. If the City Council is inclined to remain in the management agreement, staff will request that the City Council approve a 5-year capital improvement program for the golf course at a future meeting. It would include all of the items listed above (under "lease agreement") except for the driving range expansion. At that time, the City Council will have a revised Initial Study IMND that has removed all references to a lease agreement and eliminates the driving range expansion from the capital improvements list. Once this CEQA document is revised and made available, there will be a new 3D-day review period prior to the City Council meeting.

To be on the safe side, I sent my concerns about the MND, Initial Study. This will put it on record, just in case something changes. I will also be going to the city council meeting and will make comment as such. Others who feel strongly may want to attend the city council meeting, though I think the only important comment, other than - THANK YOU! - is to bring up any objection to the Initial Study, in the unlikely event that the city staff recommendation is not followed. If we do not have our objections to the study as part of the public record by the date of the public hearing (this Wed.) then we cannot bring them up later.

Enjoy South Pasadena's only habitat park!

So now we can turn our attention to the weeds. With all of these late rains they are thriving. It is very therapeutic to pull weeds, so once the rain stops, mozie on down and give a pull or two.

Driving range ext to be considered by council, 4/18

Wanted to pass along information on a Public Hearing Notice from the city regarding the environmental review of the golf course driving range extension proposal (extending the driving range and a reconsideration of the lease agreement that was not approved previously) on April 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chambers at 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena.

The proposal to extend the driving range is as follows, according to the public hearing notice:

As proposed, the project would include screening the boundaries of the expansion area, as well as replacing the screening along the northem and southern boundaries of the existing driving range. The screening at the western boundary of the existing driving range would be removed. The new screening would be supported by poles approximately 75 feet in height. The proposed project would also involve the removal of 16 trees within the expansion area, of which 12 are considered mature. Of those 12 mature trees, one is a coast live oak, two are "Significant Trees" (as defined by the City of South Pasadena Tree Ordinance): one is an American black elderberry; and one is a sycamore. 

Environ. Review, p. 3-4:

The project applicant is proposing a 0.59-acre expansion of the existing 4.56-acre driving range at the Arroyo Seco Golf Course. The current driving range is irregular in shape, and is approximately 660 feet (220 yards) in length and 300 feet (100 yards) in width (refer to Figure 2, Project Site). The proposed expansion would extend the length of the existing driving range by approximately 97 feet (32 yards) to the west. The golf course property (which is not included as part of the land leased by the City) extends an additional 39 (13 yards) feet to the west beyond the proposed expansion area's western limits. This area will remain undeveloped and the existing chain link fence will remain in place. Currently, a protective screen is located along the northern, southern and western boundaries of the existing golf course driving range. This screen is supported by poles approximately 40 to 50 feet in height. As proposed, the project would include screening the boundaries of the expansion area, as well as replacing the screening along the northern and southern boundaries of the existing driving range. The screening at the western boundary of the existing driving range would be removed. The new screening would be supported by poles approximately 75 feet in height……

The proposed project would involve the removal of 16 trees within the expansion area, of which 12 are considered mature… Prior to removal of any tress a "Tree Removal Permit" would be obtained, consistent with South Pasadena Municipal Code (Chapter 34 Trees and Shrubs). The ordinance does not have a specific or numerically defined replacement policy on trees removed as a result of development or construction. Tree replacement criteria are discussed within the Private Property Tree Removal/Replacement Permit Application (City of South Pasadena, Public Works Department, Engineering Department) and the City of South Pasadena Guide to the City's Tree Ordinance...

[blah, blah, blah.... the bold, red type was added by me. So how does this go? Residents get slammed for removing trees, whether it is justified or not, but for development, no prob!]

It came as no surprise to me that the draft of the review issued the following finding (p. 12)

X - I find that although the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 

The riveting, 160 page report can be found at this link: http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/whatsnew/PDFs/golflease/ArroyoSecoGolfCourseLeaseAgmt.pdf. It takes a while to download. All relevant info can be gotten at:

Copies of all relevant materials, including the project specifications, and the MND, are on file at these locations:
• City of South Pasadena City Hall, Planning and Building Department (first floor), City Clerk's Office (second floor) located at 1414 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030, hours are from 7:30a.m. to 5:00p.m., Monday through Thursday, and from 7:30a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Friday.
• City of South Pasadena Library, Reference Desk, 1100 Oxley Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030, hours are from Monday- Wednesday 11:00 a.m. - 9:00p.m., Thursday & Friday 10:00 a.m.-6:00p.m., Saturday 10:00 a.m.-5:00p.m., and Sunday 1:00 p.m.-5:00p.m.
• City of South Pasadena Website http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/whatsnew/index.html If you have any questions regarding the MND, please contact Senior Planner, John Mayer, at (626) 403-7220, or via e-mail at jmaver@ci.south-pasadena.ca.us.

Have a read and let me know what you think. I have tried hard not to say too much until I read everything more carefully, but some of it is kind of hard to take. One of the most annoying aspects is the amount of money spent so far, just on this proposal, that may be ultimately be cost prohibitive and financially crazy. Ask the city how much the Environmental Review cost, particularly the amount spent on the driving range extension portion. To see this happening at a time when we are being asked to pay more for water, schools, police, fire, and all of the other essential city services, is truly galling.

I want to report, on a happier note, South Pas girl scout troop 1371 has been working in the nature park on their Silver Award and are just finishing up. They created an interpretive sign for the kiosk on Pasadena Ave (a temporary sign is in place until the permanent one is completed), brochures and an attractive brochure holder, and plant id signs in the park. They also participated in the MLK Service Day in January. All in all they worked very hard and did a truly amazing job. Hats off to Troop 1371!

NEXT PARK CLEANUP: APRIL 21 

Golf Course status report

During the upcoming city council meeting, Wednesday, August 17, there will be a status report (Item 19, the last agenda item on the agenda) on the transition of the golf course operation to Donovan Brothers Golf, LLC. The agenda item is as follows:

Reports
19. Arroyo Seco Golf Course's status report on operations and finances during the transitional period (no staff report)

As a reminder, the lease with Lohmann Golf expired at the end of June 2011. Negotiations for a new long-term lease with Donovan Bros. Golf were held up over a proposed extension of the driving range. In the original instructions from City Council (5-0 vote), a small piece of property located between the existing driving range and Nature Park (but within the original footprint of the golf course property) was to be added to the park and landscaped by North East Trees, an urban forestry non-profit. In spite of this directive, the property became part of the negotiations with Donovan Bros. The golf management company wanted to extend the golf course into this previously unused land. Upfront cost for the extension was to be paid by Donovan Bros. but fully reimbursed by the city through rent credits.

Citizen objection to the golf course extension and the city's failure to file CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) documents resulted in a temporary agreement with Donovan Brothers. Since the expiration of the lease with Lohmann Golf, Donovan has been paid by the city to manage the facility. It is my understanding that they will be reporting to City Council on Wednesday on "the operations and finances" during this period.

As a reminder, under the long-term lease agreement being negotiated by the city and Donovan Brothers, the golf course management company would provide upfront capital for facility improvements to be reimbursed by the city through rent credits. The company would pay the city rent to manage and run the facility, and would cover operating expenses. Profits generated by the facility would go to the management company. In this arrangement, if capital improvements do not result in increased revenue the city is still fully responsible for the outlay of funds via these ongoing rent credits.

Under the temporary agreement, the city pays Donovan Bros. a fixed amount to run the facility, but keeps the profits. It is my understanding that capital improvements are paid by the city in this temporary arrangement, but resulting increases in generated revenue are kept by the city. In contrast to the long-term agreement, the outlay of capital for improvements is linked with an expected increase in revenue.

Through this long process I have written blog posts, newspaper editorials, and spoken at city council meetings explaining my position on the driving range extension issue. I have tried hard to be accurate in describing what I believed was being negotiated. If now, or in the past, I made any erroneous statements, I welcome corrections.

Previous blog posts:

WildSuburbia Blog

April 20, 2011: City Council to Review Driving Range Extension in Closed Session
April 6: City Council Action Item 19: Driving Range Extension
April 1, 2011: Driving Range Extension on City Council Agenda
March 19, 2011: Golf Course vs Habitat
March 6, 2011: City Council considers extending golf course

Native By Design Blog (Nature Park blog)

April 20, 2011: City Council to Review Driving Range Extension in Closed Session
April 15, 2011: 4/17/11 (Sunday) Cleanup & 4/20 (Wed) City Council Meeting 4/17/11 (Sunday) Cleanup & 4/20 (Wed) City Council Meeting

City Council to Vote on Recommendation to.....

The golf course extension is once again on the agenda for the next open session of city council, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. I am really trying to get this right but I'm no lawyer and so I am not completely clear on it. The following is a cut/paste of the agenda item and the supplementary info on it in the agenda packet.

May 4, 2011 Agenda Item 12. Consideration to add the property adjacent to the back of the driving range to the golf course lease agreement.

Agenda Packet, Item 12:
Recommendation
May 4, 2011

Consideration to Add the Property Adjacent to the Back of the
Driving Range to the Golf Course Lease Agreement

It is recommended that the City Council:
I. Direct staff as to whether the Council wishes to consider including a portion of the property adjacent to the back of the range to the proposed lease agreement with Donovan Bros. Golf;

2. Direct staff as to whether it wishes to consider an approximate 27 yard extension to the driving range; and

3. Direct staff to return with a lease agreement including exact measurements of a proposed extension, capital improvement items, rent credits and appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Fiscal Impact
None.

Commission Review and Recommendation
The Arroyo Seco Lease Committee recommended Donovan Bros. Golf to operate the City'S Golf
Course.

Background
Formal negotiations with Donovan Bros. Golf began during Closed Session on March 2, 2011 and subsequently during closed session on March 16, 2011. At the March 16, 2011 Closed Session, City Council asked staff to bring the option of extending the driving range to open session. Staff presented a proposed extension of the driving range to the City Council at the April 6, 2011 where a motion to have the City Council consider allowing for a full extension failed. However, City Council directed staff to return to negotiations with Donovan Bros. Golf and propose a less-than-full extension of the driving range, which would leave a reasonable space between the Nature Park and the extended driving range.

Analysis
During negotiations with Donovan Bros. Golf on April 27, 2011 they were asked if they would be willing to enter into a lease with the City for the operation of the Golf Course if the driving range were to remain at its present length. Donovan Bros responded by saying that they were not willing to lease the golf course without the right to extend the driving range. Donovan feels that the driving range is the amenity that needs the most attention and extending it would make the golf course a more-viable operation. They did say that they would accept an approximate 27 yard extension of the driving range and they were willing to curve the fence, however this would prove more costly.

Should the City Council direct staff to bring back for its consideration a recommendation to allow for an extension of the driving range, staff will work with the Planning Deparhnent to begin the appropriate CEQA process. Furthermore, Staff will also address the pending grant applied for and awarded to North East Trees to expand the nature park into the unimproved area in the back of the driving range.

Legal Review
The City Attorney has reviewed this report.

Public Notification of Agenda Item
The public was made aware that this item was to be considered this evening by virtue of its inclusion on the legally publicly noticed agenda, posting of the same agenda and reports on the City's website and/or notice in the South Pasadena Review and/or the Pasadena Star-News.

As I read this, Donovan Bros. is not interested in leasing the golf course without being able to extend the driving range. The compromise number is 27 yards, as opposed to the original 35 yard extension. It is not clear to me exactly where either of these lines would be. My question to Donovan Brothers is, if the extension of the driving range is so important to the success of the entire golf course facility, are you willing to take on some of the financial risk?

I also received a couple of emails from individuals who believe that the golf course extension can not be included in the proposed lease until the environmental assessment is done.

I stand firm on not wanting any extension of the golf course driving range because of:
1. Financial risk for the city in the form of rent credits for "improvements" and incentive to make improvements. (Isn't increased business enough incentive? What other South Pasadena business is given rent credits, tax credits, or whatever to make business improvements?)

2. The land is better used as habitat for the health and well-being of plants, animals and people.

3. This very city council approved plans by a vote of 5-0 in 2009 to extend trails from the Nature Park into this land. In fact they approved a proposal by North East Trees to take on the project. An "about-face" reduces the city's credibility when it claims that it has an good environmental record. I am concerned that this move will make it harder for the city to get funding for projects for clean water, clean air, and other environmental improvements.

4. Before the land is given to the golf course it should be vetted fully with the public. This means the public is entitled to clear, accurate and complete information on what is at stake, including answers to the following questions:

1. What will be the exact location of the border and what type of fencing will be used?
2. How much soil disturbance and grade change is needed to extend the driving range?
3. If soil is to be removed, how will it be disposed of? If there has been dumping on the site and the soil is contaminated, who will pay for the cleanup?
4. How much is this project likely to cost and who will pay for it - both now and later? What are the possible cost overruns?
5. How much is the Environemental Assessment and possible full EIR likely to cost the city? Will Donovan Bros. pay this upfront also? Will they get rent credits to cover the preconstruction costs even if they fail to get final approval for the extension?
6. How much additional money can we expect the extension to generate and how are these numbers calculated?
7. How will the trees be protected during construction and during use of the land as a driving range?
8. How much pesticide- and fertilizer-contaminated runoff can be expected to enter the Arroyo Seco from the turf grass?
9. How much additional water will be required to maintain the area and where will this water come from?
10. Other water issues: Is the golf course currently irrigated with water drawn from the Arroyo Seco? Is this legal? If it has been irrigated with Arroyo Seco water, will it be allowed to continue to use this water and even increase this usage? Is it safe to use water drawn from the Arroyo Seco on turf that children and adults play on?
11. Is it legal to include this provision (extension of the golf course driving range) in the lease before environmental review?
12. Why should the lease include this provision before these questions are answered?

Let your city council know where you stand on this! I hope to see you at the city council meeting on Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 7:30 PM.

City Council to Review Driving Range Extension in Closed Session

On April 6, 2011 the South Pasadena city council voted against (Ten and Sifuentes for and Schneider, Putnam and Cacciotti against) directing staff to negotiate with Donovan Bros. on a full extension of the driving range to the border with the Nature Park. On a 5-0 vote, the city council directed staff to negotiate in closed session a compromise position with the prospective golf course lessee.

For more information on this meeting, please call the city and request the meeting minutes. They were posted on the web but have since been taken down. I wrote about the meeting on this blog. There is also information in the following newspapers:

The South Pasadena Patch
The Pasadena Star-News
The South Pasadena Review, April 13, 2011, p.2, Council Seeks Compromise on Golf Course Driving Range

Having read through the 58-page agenda packet (yes, several page were "intentionally left blank" but it was quite a read) here are my continuing concerns about this endeavor.

Opposition to Including Extension of the Driving Range in the Golf Course Lease

I am opposed to the inclusion of an extension of the driving range in the golf course lease agreement on the following grounds.

1. Environmental concerns
Loss of habitat, increased irrigation (there are serious questions about the legality of withdrawing water from Arroyo Seco without proper Water Master rights), runoff concerns, and protection of native trees during construction and operation of the driving range extension. As the UC researcher noted during the April 6, 2011 city council meeting, although runoff from turf grass may be minimal, not having seen this site, it is not known whether runoff into the Arroyo Seco would increase or not. Although the city council voted to instruct staff to negotiate with the golf course lessee to protect trees in the land in question, there was no serious proposal on how to protect these trees and still create a driving range that may require significant grade changes. There was no arborist report on the trees, nor was there any information on the changes that might be needed to the existing grade in order to accommodate the driving range activity, both recreational and maintenance.

2. The public was not adequately informed of change in land use for the extension of the driving range
Although the Golf Course Lease Subcommittee did allow for public comment from February 2007 through June 2010, there were no public comments in support of a driving range extension. In fact the minutes for the February 17, 2010 city council meeting indicate that the council rejected a potential expansion of the driving range.

According to minutes of the February 17, 2010 city council meeting (attachment 4, page 298), on a vote of 5 - 0 city council advised city staff to “issue proposed RFP... taking into consideration changes recommended by Councilmember Cacciotti: … Section 1.5 to convey that the Nature Park will be expanded for trails and deletion of a footnote that states the range can be extended 30 yards; allowances are to be made to take into consideration the grant from Supervisor Antonovich that will involve moving a fence; and that the next lease agreement exclude a triangular piece of property (90 ft. by the Arroyo and 180 ft by the trail).”

Furthermore, the city had issued an RFP for use of this land as an extension of the Nature Park and unanimously approved a resolution for a $150,000 project from North East Trees to extend the trail, remove weeds, plant native plants, and place rocks and boulders in the area.

3. Financial considerations
The Arroyo Seco Golf Course RFP states in item 8. Operator Upfront Investment (pp. 265-266) that the golf course lessee will front the money to be returned through rent credits.

“City will negotiate a substantial Rent Credit which will compensate the Operator for the cost of money invested in approved Capital Improvements plus an incentive for making the investment. The Rent Credit will be applied to the annual rent as long as it takes to recapture the Operator’s investment.”

In other words, the risk for and cost of the capital improvements are completely assumed by the city. If the driving range extension does not result in significantly higher revenue, the amount of money the city will receive from the golf course lessee will be reduced by the Rent Credit until the investment, “plus an incentive for making the investment,” is fully repaid to the lessee.

It should be noted that the driving range grossed $232,763 in 2006, $219, 215 in 2007, $187,571 in 2008. We have no estimates on the cost of the driving range extension but even with significant increases in gross revenue from the driving range, the costs may be sufficiently high to make this improvement fiscally unwise.

4. Legal considerations
For changes in land use, CEQA requires an environmental analysis to determine whether a full EIR is required. Even if a Negative Declaration is ultimately issued after having conducted environmental analysis, a public comment period applies. In any event there has been no Negative Declaration or environmental analysis. I don’t believe there is a categorical exemption from CEQA because the property in question was encompassed within the footprint of the prior lease as the City Attorney appeared to suggest at the prior council meeting. With all of the physical changes and disturbance of ground that would ensue from the driving range extension, it strains credulity to think that CEQA would not apply.

There may be serious questions about whether the city was in compliance with the Brown Act during the Closed Session City Council meeting of March 2, 2011, during which the driving range extension was discussed. This would also apply to tonight's closed session meeting, item 5, in which according to the April 6, 2011 motion, the city will be negotiating a "compromise" position for a partial extension of the driving range. Although real estate negotiations on price and terms of payment can be executed in closed session, changes in land use are not specifically covered. Furthermore, the Supreme Court case of Laurel Heights Improvement Association teaches that the environmental analysis must precede any discretionary action by city council.

Full disclosure of the financial, environmental, and open space consequences of the driving range extension should be brought out into the open and given adequate time for public review and comment in accordance with applicable law.

City Council should take the appropriate time to review these points and possible needed actions. If there is concern regarding the impending expiration of the current lease, a number of solutions should be explored, including having the current operator function on a month-to-month basis, having the Department of Recreation and Parks operate the facilities on a temporary basis, or the city could go forward and enter into a lease with Donovan Bros., addressing all other modifications and improvements except the extension of the driving range. That last issue could be resolved by lease amendment, if necessary.

4/17/11 (Sunday) Cleanup & 4/20 (Wed) City Council Meeting

I realize it is a busy time of year for many but unless we are vigilant and vocal the acre of habitat east of the Nature Park will be leveled, converted into turf grass for the driving range extension, and a 75 ft. tall fence will tower over the Sycamore Circle. I would be happy to tour the area on Sunday with anyone who is interested in seeing what is at stake.

For those who were unable to come to the 4/6/2011 city council meeting, or had to leave before the driving range extension was dealt with, the city council voted 3-2 against a motion by Councilmember Sifuentes to direct city staff to negotiate with Donovan Bros. to extend the driving range to the edge of the park. Councilmember Putnam then made a motion to direct staff to continue negotiating with Donovan Bros. to extend the driving range somewhere between the existing borders of the driving range and the Nature Park with an effort to protect the most significant trees in the undeveloped area. They are also to consider curving the fence as needed to keep significant trees on the Nature Park side of of the fence.

Questions abound regarding whether a CEQA review, or even an initial determination, is required. Even if a negative determination is made, I believe there is a required 30 day public comment period. There are also questions about whether the closed session negotiations were actually in compliance with the Brown Act since they are negotiating more than just "price and terms of payment for real estate transactions." Negotiations regarding land use, and funding for improvements may not be covered under the closed session clause. (Hope I am getting this kind of right - I'm no lawyer!)

Finally, there is great concern about whether it is possible to grade the land and still protect the significant trees. Seems to me one would need to hire an arborist to examine the property, along with detailed plans for grading the land.

So, hope to see you at the park on Sunday, and definitely at the public comment period for the City Council Closed Session on Wednesday, 4/20/2011. The driving range is item #5 and the session begins at 6:30PM. All public comments for the closed session are made at the beginning of the closed session, so be there at 6:30.

South Pasadena City Council/Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)

City Hall Conference Room, Second Floor, 1414 Mission Street
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:30 p.m.

5. Real property negotiation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: South Pasadena Golf Course
City Negotiator: Assistant City Manager Sergio Gonzalez
Negotiation Party: Donovan Bros. Inc.
Under Negotiation: Terms of Lease

PARK CLEAN UP: SUNDAY, April 17, 9 am - noon
Meet at the park info sign on Pasadena Ave and then head down into the park. The group will pull weeds, pick up litter, and enjoy the park. Come for the whole time, for an hour, or just stop by to say hello.

Nature Park entrance on Pasadena Ave., east of the York St. Bridge

Remember to:
- wear sunscreen, hat, sunglasses
- bring water
- bring gardening gloves and tools (weeders, trowels, whatever you use in your own garden)
- comfortable work clothes, including work shoes (sneakers or boots)
- binoculars for bird watching (optional)

Children must be under adult supervision at all times. There is poison oak in the park, which we will point out before we start.

Please pass this info along to anyone else you think might be interested in the park. If you know of anyone who doesn't use the internet, let me know so we can be sure they are kept in the loop.

City Council Meeting Results (4/6/2011)

Although I left before the end of the city council meeting, I received the following information. I will try to be as accurate as I can but if anyone has different information, please let me know so I can correct or add to this.

After hearing an extensive presentation on how and why the golf course driving range extension was the thing to do - with expert witnesses, pictures and even a couple of golf clubs - Councilman Sifuentes made a motion to direct staff to extend the driving range to the edge of the Nature Park. The city’s lawyer said that the Planning Department would have to perform an initial CEQA review. This motion got support only from Mayor Ten.

Councilman Putnam then made a motion to give staff direction to continue negotiating with the potential (though all through the meeting it sure sounded like Donovan Bros. was a done deal) new golf course operator to: 1) extend the driving range but only to the drip line of the most significant trees in the undeveloped area, and 2) to curve the fence as needed to keep those trees on the Nature Park side of the driving range fence. The motion passed unanimously.

Other than Mayor Ten, the council members felt the use of the land for the driving range extension was not about revenue but about balancing competing values and interests in the community.

The good news:
1. The issue was brought out into the open and not decided in closed session.
2. the city will have to do a determination of whether a complete CEQA review and an EIR are needed. This will allow for more public comment.

The bad news:
1. The city ran this meeting in a totally inappropriate and unfair way, indicating that at least some city council members believe that use of public land is the purview of five individuals without the need to consult the people they represent.
2. The land is still very much endangered and will only be saved if enough people participate in the process.

I was heartened to see so many people come and stay until well after 11 PM in support of preserving habitat!

City Council Action Item 19: Driving Range Extension

Hope to see you at tonight's city council meeting (starts at 7:30 PM) where the extension of the driving range is on the agenda as action item #19. For background information check out page 243 in the attached pdf (thanks to Drew Ready for bringing to our attention):

http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/government/PDFs/packet/Agenda_Packet.pdf

Several other blogs have taken up the issue of extending the golf course driving range versus protecting habitat:

ArroyoLover with info on the current golf course and its value and uniqueness: (Note: the driving range will not be extended into the Nature Park. The small parcel in question is located between the existing driving range and Park.)

LA Creek Freak with an awesome graphic re-envisioning the open space along the Arroyo Seco in So Pas.

Hope to see you tonight.

Driving Range Extension on City Council Agenda

The driving range extension is item #19 on the City Council agenda for Wednesday, April 6, 2011.

City Council/CRA
0410611 1
Page 3
Action Items & Items Pulled from Consent Calendar

19. Discussion and direction regarding the extension of the Driving Range at the Arroyo Seco Golf
Course

There is no way to know when the city council will actually get to this item. The meeting starts at 7:30 PM and I am going to arrive by 7:45 PM just to be sure I am there if the council members move this item up. Hope many of you can come to make your voice heard. Please pass this info along. Thanks.

DO NOT CONVERT HABITAT INTO TURF

Many things - important things - are difficult to accomplish. This one is easy. All you have to do is let your voice be heard. If you want to preserve habitat and support your Nature Park, write, call or email South Pasadena city council members and let them know that you do not want the golf course driving range extended into the habitat directly adjacent to the park. (You do not have to be a resident of So Pas to let your voice be heard.)

• Emails should be written to the specific councilman, but sent via the city clerk, Sally Kilby: skilby@ci.south-pasadena.ca.us
• To leave a phone message call: 626-403-7218, press 1 for Cacciotti, 2 for Ten, 3 for Putnam, 4 for Schneider and 5 for Sifuentes.

Things are moving quickly. The draft agenda for the April 6th city council meeting has the council voting on whether to extend the driving range. Please come to this meeting (April 6, agenda items can be moved around at the last minute so please arrive early). Let the city council know that you disagree or before you know it the land will be graded, trees either removed or damaged, and birds, lizards, and insects will be looking for a new home.

The following is a letter I faxed to the city. Feel free to modify it or use it as is (with your own name on it, of course), but please, let your city representatives know how you feel.

March 30, 2011

South Pasadena City Council
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, CA 91030
PHONE (626) 403-7200; FAX (626) 403-7211

To: Michael Cacciotti, Philip Putnam, Richard Schneider, David Sifuentes, Mike Ten

I am opposed to the extension of the golf course driving range and would like to see the habitat on the eastern side of the Nature Park protected and added to the park. Converting the property into turf will worsen pollution at our beaches by increasing toxic runoff into the Arroyo Seco, while decreasing much needed riparian habitat.

On April 6th please vote to protect habitat by rejecting the request to extend the golf course driving range.

Yours,


Barbara Eisenstein
Founder, Friends of the South Pasadena Nature Park
1852 Monterey Road
South Pasadena, CA 91030

Mature western sycamore that is at risk if the golf course driving range is extended

SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE NATURE PARK

Just wanted to let everyone know that we are hoping that city council and the city manager will be at the park this Saturday (3/19/2011) at 9 AM to view the land between the park and the golf course driving range. Please attend and let them know how you feel (see below and below).

Yes it may rain. I will send an email if the meeting is canceled and will post on this blog and facebook. Feel free to email me if you have questions: barbara.eisenstein@gmail.com

Hope to see you tomorrow!

IMPORTANT PARK CLEANUP, SAT. MARCH 19, 9 - noon

Members of the city council may be coming to the Nature Park this month. They have been discussing the possibility of allowing the golf course to extend the driving range into the small piece of land that acts as a buffer between the Nature Park and the driving range (you can see my thoughts on this below).

It is very important that those who oppose this come to the cleanup and let your representatives know how you feel. I am not sure what time they will be there, but I think it would be a good idea to arrive at 9.
As always:

Meet at the park info sign on Pasadena Ave and then head down into the park. The group will pull weeds, pick up litter, and enjoy the park. Come for the whole time, for an hour, or just stop by to say hello.


Nature Park entrance on Pasadena Ave., east of the York St. Bridge

Remember to:
- wear sunscreen, hat, sunglasses
- bring water
- bring gardening gloves and tools (weeders, trowels, whatever you use in your own garden)
- comfortable work clothes, including work shoes (sneakers or boots)
- binoculars for bird watching (optional)

Children must be under adult supervision at all times. There is poison oak in the park, which we will point out before we start.

Please pass this info along to anyone else you think might be interested in the park. If you know of anyone who doesn't use the internet, let me know so we can be sure they are kept in the loop.
See you soon!

FUTURE CLEANUP DATES
April 9, 2011

City Council considers extending golf course

Last week I learned that the South Pasadena City Council is considering extending the golf course driving range into the piece of land adjacent to the Nature Park. (Item 6 on the Closed Session Agenda).

It had been hoped that the land would become part of the park providing a buffer between the park and the golf course. I spoke at the public comment period on Wednesday, March 2nd prior to the closed session meeting.

My opposition to this proposal is based on the following considerations:

1. If the driving range (see map below) is extended there will be a tall fence adjacent to the path that goes down to the Sycamore Circle. The view from the Sycamore Circle will not be of an oak woodland (which it would become if weeds were removed and the existing trees were allowed to thrive), but of an unnaturally green field behind a tall fence.
   
2. There are several beautiful native trees in this fenced area including a large, mature western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and several coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) of different sizes and ages. Even if the trees are not removed, the change to the land and the future requirement of ongoing irrigation, particularly in the summer, would likely be detrimental to the trees.
   
3. Converting this land into turf will increase water usage and urban runoff into the Arroyo Seco. It is a direct, downhill slope from the property to the Arroyo. Whether it is recycled or potable water, it will require an increase in water usage. Recycled water usually has more salts than potable water and may endanger any trees that receive runoff or direct irrigation. Runoff into the Arroyo Seco from irrigation of turf with recycled or potable water is definitely a concern and may require an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), or at least notification to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
   
4. The city promotes itself as a “Tree City” and requires residents to go through an arduous and expensive process to remove trees, especially California natives. If it were necessary to remove any of the trees in that parcel to accommodate the driving range activity, this would leave the city open to criticism of having a double standard when it comes to its policy on the value and protection of urban canopy. Project managers sometimes agree to move trees from effected areas as a form of mitigation. This practice has been shown to be ineffective and expensive. It is a waste of money and worse than just chopping down trees with no mitigation at all.
   
5. The city sets a bad example by increasing turf when the public is being told to reduce water usage by removing lawn.
   
6. Looking at a map of the park land along the Arroyo Seco in South Pasadena, the small southwest tip (shaded in blue and red on the map below) is the only habitat that can be enjoyed by the public. It should also be noted that a large portion of the Nature Park is actually on LA City land (the extreme western tip, shaded in red) so that South Pasadena land dedicated to natural habitat is even smaller.

Members of the South Pasadena City Council may be coming to the Nature Park for the next Friends of the Nature Park cleanup on Saturday, March 19th. It would be helpful if you could spread the word to anyone who might oppose the golf course extension. Ask them to contact the city council and to attend the March 19th cleanup to let them know in person how they feel.