[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6200990,"mediaKeyId","3804849-f21425814e93b77c6314853da399debe","parentId",3804849,"title","South Pasadena staff outline $24.5 million FY2025–26 capital plan; streets, water and pocket parks prioritized","audioSeconds",5113,"startMs",3103000,"endMs",8216000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3804849-f21425814e93b77c6314853da399debe&start=3103&end=8216","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3804849-f21425814e93b77c6314853da399debe/thumbnail_3103000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6200990/South-Pasadena-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/South-Pasadena-staff-outline-245-million-FY202526-capital-plan-streets-water-and-pocket-parks-prioritized","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200990-3fd015b81e436da12b963b923dfa4f92/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162168&Signature=CUc4Ii6kCCYsmqbwDL1OwQeneZWQqKBEm~DlYRGqc~Ray~5iucl9-u4E7fuR-5nm9vJwlcp7xZn2BJjrKEBl7yP1AbpIQ~TteRYyP87tZAmXqdAehcEOvgfRbpraUPaUSl7-vAh0Ue8Qul1ErqC54mUupWA-jdtq08-AcB0IFxx4oKr7x0eugA7Y7y2I0ky16OQUM~KXXMraYXYnHRLvXcLdUKdTozBRcrwxIFTVYnMAw6ZY95JmASNKiozaCp1Pzu~LKi-6Dvv1ilXwWM6FRgTtXM2-K6Ls5gAnC6izetq96oezBE532u24hhYfJZlZaciMNsDYZugNyQhdtXsUHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of South Pasadena, California","date","2025-06-12T22:31:57Z","article","At the City of South Pasadena Public Works Infrastructure Commission meeting on June 11, staff presented the proposed Fiscal Year 2025–26 capital improvement program (CIP) and a multiyear needs assessment that together request roughly $24.5 million in carryovers and new appropriations for next year.

The presentation, led by Acting Co-Director of Public Works Michael Bartanyans, outlined funding sources (general fund, enterprise funds, Measure R/M, SB1, Measure W, federal and state grants and CDBG), a multi-year repair backlog in water/storm/sewer and a prioritized list of 12 near-term capital projects the department recommends advancing.

Why it matters: The plan would accelerate a multi-year program of street, waterline and sewer repairs that staff say are necessary to reduce repeated repair costs and to comply with state/federal program requirements (for example, SB1 match rules). Commissioners pressed staff to accelerate high-visibility items such as Mission Street slow-streets improvements and the Mission/Arroyo intersection work, and asked for more detail about grant strategy and how design spending ties to later construction funding.

Key numbers and projects

- Requested FY25-26 CIP (carryover + new proposed): approximately $24.5 million.
- Major near-term projects highlighted in staff's 12-project list include:
- Street repair package (grind/overlay, select reconstruction, curb ramps, waterline replacement, sewer repairs): roughly $7.4 million planned for FY25-26; about half of that includes waterline improvements and some full-depth reconstruction segments.
- Sewer system CCTV/assessment and rehabilitation: staff expect to award a contract in July for approximately $1,000,000 to CCTV and assess lines and then to bid repairs using that information.
- Slurry/seal project (preventive maintenance): approximately $600,000 (already awarded in April and starting this week).
- Fremont-Huntington corridor (Measure M grant cycle work): $2.3 million proposed for design and staff augmentation in FY25-26.
- Fair Oaks north-south ITS corridor (traffic signal/ITS improvements): carryover ~$995,000 for design with potential larger construction appropriation in later years; staff noted the project is on a tight schedule.
- Westside Reservoir: $800,000 proposed for preliminary and design work in FY25-26.
- Grevillea and Berkshire pocket parks: projects in construction with a combined carryover of about $1.7 million; both include stormwater infiltration elements.

Funding sources and constraints

Bartanyans reviewed key funds used for the CIP, including the general funds (104/105/108), Measure R (233), Measure M (236), SB1 (237) and Measure W (239) (Safe Clean Water). He noted SB1 eligibility requires a local maintenance-of-effort contribution (staff cited $1.4 million in 104 account spending to be eligible for SB1 match). He also explained how enterprise funds (water fund 500) are being used for water-specific projects such as the Westside Reservoir.

Staff emphasized the distinction between carryover funds (appropriations made in 24-25 that will be spent into FY25-26) and new proposed appropriations for next year. Projects with carryover and new-proposed amounts are the highest near-term delivery priorities; fully unfunded projects are shown in later years of the plan.

Procurement and delivery changes

Staff described recent procurement and process changes intended to speed delivery: raising staff authority for maintenance awards (up to $75,000) so routine maintenance and smaller professional services do not always require Council awards; expanding emergency authority for the city manager to address urgent failures; standardizing bid packages and adding CIP program manager positions and contract augmentation to increase delivery capacity.

Commissioner questions and takeaways

Commissioners used the presentation to press for clarity and acceleration: several commissioners said Mission Street slow-streets and associated Mission/Arroyo intersection improvements have community urgency and asked why the timeline now showed those items later (2028–29 in the packet). Council member Ferguson and commissioners urged staff to prioritize both near-term operational fixes (painting/replacing rented K-rail, temporary parklet treatments) and to seek grants to avoid overreliance on general fund dollars.

Commissioners also asked for a clearer city grant-seeking strategy; Commissioner Sharma suggested a staff briefing on grant strategy and grant-hunting priorities so commission recommendations can better align with available outside funding.

Operational funding and quick fixes

Staff said the proposed CIP also includes roughly $794,000 for operations and routine maintenance purchase orders (sidewalk repair, small sewer repairs, street maintenance) so the city can do quick, localized fixes while larger design and reconstruction projects proceed.

Votes at a glance (formal action taken during the meeting)

- Motion: Approve the minutes of the May 20, 2025 special Public Works Infrastructure Commission meeting with a minor spelling correction to Chair Abelson's last name.
- Mover: Commissioner Hernandez.
- Second: Commissioner Maling.
- Vote: Yes — Commissioner Dunlap, Chair Abelson, Commissioner Kerwin, Commissioner Hernandez, Commissioner Sharma (5); Abstain — Commissioner Hammond (1). Outcome: approved.

What staff will do next

Bartanyans said staff will refine the CIP for City Council consideration, reconcile final 24-25 carryover amounts through the end of June and coordinate the FY25-26 budget schedule with Finance. Staff indicated the CIP item could go to Council for consideration in mid-June (staff referenced a June 18 Council CIP item) and that the broader budget process would continue through the summer with an anticipated fuller adoption later in the summer or early fall.

Direct quotes (selected)

\"A majority of that $24.8 million is made up with these 12 projects,\" Michael Bartanyans said, summarizing the near-term funding request.

\"If we can get the mission project in before the Olympics, that would be ideal,\" Commissioner Dunlap said, arguing for an accelerated schedule for Mission Street improvements.

Ending

The commission did not vote on the CIP itself; staff asked for commissioners' feedback on priorities, design timing and grant strategy and said they will bring revisions to City Council along the scheduled budget timeline.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","South Pasadena Public Works Infrastructure Commission 06 11 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At the June 11 Public Works Infrastructure Commission meeting, staff presented a proposed FY2025'26 capital improvement program totaling roughly $24.5 million in carryovers and new appropriations, emphasizing street repairs, sewer assessment, corridor designs and pocket-park construction.","taxTitle","South Pasadena City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",70853,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6200995,"South Pasadena staff propose streamlined tree ordinance to speed hazardous-tree removals and simplify permits",834,109000,943000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3804849-f21425814e93b77c6314853da399debe&start=109&end=943","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3804849-f21425814e93b77c6314853da399debe/thumbnail_109000.jpg","/articles/6200995/South-Pasadena-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/South-Pasadena-staff-propose-streamlined-tree-ordinance-to-speed-hazardous-tree-removals-and-simplify-permits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6200995-56e3744baaaa73747963697d4c80beb0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162168&Signature=Qu1C0L5NTpVYh9j99SAMNGXTMo93UfPTcJK5Qw~4GITLs0N3iLvVywdok034UJjHfDdIiMtA5vBXEYnKM~hG7pRlseWerkXi2B3n-HuMibL3wXmmzRafki0322~L4WI02INvBkIne2DmVaM6rL~kqVAVFcH1SRimdAeh5cJUvfMKTBvLPnDnmp42YVBWzpBICYZCvY9Xu-c3-2uRZwGsY2WYHXmDVvZoo0qjWaYmgsgDnJmE0YhyZc-z00dNFD8ogld9rCLa-65jlsIUAgv2gFJJbICDg6uu1oX0J2dfRhOVhhOC~7J1PbEVLgAdhR1U1PXU00PbRhw42mf56jI7Dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","South Pasadena Public Works staff on June 11 presented draft recommendations to update the city's tree ordinance intended to shorten permit timelines, clarify trimming and removal criteria, and protect the urban canopy while reducing costs and delays for residents.

The staff presentation, made by Danielle Garcia, water conservation management analyst for the City of South Pasadena, summarized a comparative review of seven nearby municipal codes and recommended a series of changes including a protected-species list focused on native and drought-tolerant trees, clearer thresholds for when trimming permits are required, alignment with industry standards (International Society of Arboriculture and ANSI), and reductions to replacement requirements for hazardous or development-related removals.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the current permit and removal process can be lengthy and costly for homeowners and for city staff. Staff said the proposed changes aim to make the rules more predictable, easier to administer and enforce, and more consistent with neighboring cities while preserving high-value native canopy.

Staff overview and recommendations

Danielle Garcia told the Public Works Infrastructure Commission the review grew from a City Council directive to identify areas to increase efficiency in permitting and to reevaluate removal and trimming criteria. Staff compared South Pasadena's code with Alhambra, Arcadia, Sierra Madre, Glendora, Glendale, San Marino and Claremont and found variation in how those cities treat maintenance responsibilities, removal and trimming thresholds, and enforcement.

Garcia said staff recommend:
- Focusing regulation and active enforcement on a new \"protected tree\" list largely composed of native and drought-tolerant species rather than regulating every tree on private property.
- Adding clearer maintenance guidelines for property owners and for trees located in public rights-of-way or easements.
- Setting objective trimming thresholds aligned with ISA and ANSI best practices (for example, clearer guidance around the common 10% live-foliage guideline and an ANSI recommendation of no more than 25% removal in a year when appropriate).
- Streamlining removal permitting and lowering replacement requirements, particularly for hazardous or dead trees and for many development scenarios where current replacement counts can be infeasible for property owners.
- Narrowing the circumstances that trigger a 100-foot mailed neighbor-notification requirement to cases associated with development, director denials that are appealed, or when the director refers an application to the Natural Resources and Environmental Commission (NRAC).

Fees, staffing and process details noted in the presentation

Garcia and Acting Co-Director of Public Works Michael Bartanyans provided several specific clarifications about the current process and proposed changes. They said the city currently collects a $141 inspection fee (to cover the contracted arborist site visit), a $364 fee for permit processing when removals proceed, and a $424-per-tree replacement fee when on-site replacement is required. Garcia said staff are considering reducing replacement counts in many cases; she described an approach that would require only one native tree replacement for hazardous or dead trees and that could reduce replacement counts \"by at least half\" in other cases pending further ordinance drafting.

Staff said the city uses a contracted arborist (not a full-time staff arborist). The contracted arborist visits about twice a month for inspections; Michael Bartanyans said there could be roughly 15 property inspections scheduled on a given inspection day. Residents may also submit private arborist reports to supplement the city's review, but resident-paid reports are paid by the resident.

Trimming criteria and enforcement

Garcia said staff will include clearer language about triggers that require a permit. She cited the commonly used 10% live-foliage guideline and said the draft ordinance will add explanatory and educational materials so property owners can better understand what 9%, 10% or 12% of foliage looks like, and to incorporate ANSI guidance on larger annual limits when a tree can sustain heavier pruning.

On enforcement, staff advocated targeting limited enforcement resources by concentrating on protected trees and objective criteria that reduce subjectivity in issuance of violations. Garcia said neighbors and commissioners asked for incentives to encourage compliance and education materials to reduce disputes.

Replacement and development impacts

Commissioners raised the heavy replacement burdens that sometimes arise in development cases (for example, accessory dwelling unit projects) where staff said a single lot could be required to replace dozens of trees under current code. Garcia said staff saw cases with replacement counts as high as 30 trees for one lot and said the proposal aims to make replacement requirements viable for property owners while preserving canopy value.

Emergency and special-case handling

Staff said the draft code will retain avenues for expedited removal in emergencies (windstorms, immediate public-safety hazards) and will include clear criteria to allow removal where a homeowner's insurance is being canceled for tree-related risk, or where state-mandated defensible-space requirements in high fire-severity zones require vegetation changes. Garcia said those cases would not be appropriate for a standard notice-and-appeal flow that can take months.

Commissioner questions and feedback

Commissioners pressed staff on the following points:
- Replacement ratio: Commissioner Hammond asked for a specific lowered-percentage target; Garcia said staff are still testing options and proposed, for hazardous or dead trees, replacement by a single native tree and a chart in the ordinance to guide other cases.
- Notification radius: Chair Abelson asked why the city uses a 100-foot notification radius; staff said the 100-foot radius is in existing practice and that the property configuration can sometimes exclude nearby neighbors; commissioners asked staff to analyze whether a larger radius or other notification rules would be appropriate given very tall trees' impacts beyond immediate parcels.
- Arborist staffing and consistency: Several commissioners asked whether the city will hire a full-time arborist to ensure consistent professional opinions. Garcia said the city currently uses a contracted arborist who is called for every application that triggers a professional review; staff said the urban forest management plan could include a goal to retain a full-time city arborist in the future.

What was not decided: No ordinance language was adopted at the meeting and no formal action was taken; staff asked the commission for feedback to incorporate into a draft ordinance that will go to City Council for direction.

Next steps

Garcia said staff will consolidate the commission's feedback and present recommended ordinance language to City Council. Staff proposed a public schedule that includes compiling commission feedback this summer, returning a draft ordinance with a reading in fall 2025, and seeking an ordinance in effect in early 2026.

Direct quotes (selected)

\"We're looking at lowering [replacement requirements] primarily for any hazardous or dead trees, the replacement only being one native tree,\" Danielle Garcia said, describing staff's preliminary thinking on replacements.

\"We currently have a contracted arborist. We don't have one who's a full-time staff, but she does take all of our cases that come through and is able to give the analysis that we're looking for,\" Garcia said when commissioners asked about staffing.

Ending

Staff characterized the direction as one toward simplification, clarity and modernization to maintain a healthy urban canopy while reducing burdens on residents and staff. The commission offered conditional support and asked staff to return a draft that includes proposed replacement ratios, clarified notice rules and the proposed protected-species list for final review before Council consideration.","South Pasadena Public Works staff on June 11 presented draft recommendations to update the city's tree ordinance intended to shorten permit timelines, clarify trimming and removal criteria, and protect the urban canopy while reducing costs and delays for residents.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

South Pasadena staff outline $24.5 million FY2025–26 capital plan; streets, water and pocket parks prioritized

South Pasadena staff propose streamlined tree ordinance to speed hazardous-tree removals and simplify permits