ASCP UPDATE
To the Council We Will Go
We believe that the BZA decision does not alter the devastating impacts the Arroyo Seco Canyon Project will have on the habitat, wildlife and water resources in Hahamongna and the Arroyo Seco. The Arroyo Seco Foundation (ASF), Pasadena Audubon Society, Ken Kules, Morey Wolfson and Hugh Bowles have teamed up again to appeal ASCP directly to the Pasadena City Council. CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, sets a minimum standard for environmental complicance, but several of the issues we appealants are raising, such as environmental stewardship, are also policy issues that should be determined by a policy-making body, so it has been our goal to ensure that the Pasadena City Council would review the FEIR and ASCP itself and take responsbility for it. On March 29, we paid another $807.25 fee and filed our appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals decision, which will now be heard by the Pasadena City Council. The date has not yet been set. Until then, we urge you to communicate your concerns about ASCP and the importance of a resilient water policy directly to the members of the Pasadena City Council. | |||||||||
EARTH DAY 2021RESTORE OUR EARTH — RESTORE OUR ARROYONEWS FLASH - TROUT IN THE ARROYO!
Steve Olivas Found This Trout in the Arroyo Last Sunday | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
Earth Day Special: Steelhead in the Arroyo —
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
April 19, 2021 - Last month our appeal of the Arroyo Seco Canyon Project (ASCP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) went to the Pasadena Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). It was a grossly unfair process in which the planning staff report, which should have been an objective analysis of our appeal, was largely crafted by Pasadena Water & Power Department (PWP) staff, and PWP was given great advantages in the ability to present slides, expanded comments and rebuttal. At a critical point in the discussion, after the public hearing had been closed, the representative of the Pasadena City Attorney's office improperly injected a very prejudicial perspective on CEQA requirements to redirect the Board's decision, which we appealants were not allowed to rebut. Nonetheless, the Board did add several helpful requirements to the FEIR, although their enforceability is problematic. 
