Additional Documents

"Additional Documents" Agenda

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2026, AT 7:00 PM

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents to the August 5, 2026 City Council Meetings. The attached documents include submitted written public comments and amendments to the agenda. Submit by no later than 12:00 p.m., on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed the following business day.

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO THE AUGUST 5, 2026, CITY COUNCIL MEETING

General Public Comment_Anne Bagasao

General Public Comment_Lisa Hart

General Public Comment_Yvonne LaRose

Public Comment_Kim Lewis_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Michael Ribas_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Rick Settle_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Rod Yoo_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Sharon Shin_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Adriana Allin_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Shelley Yamane-Shinimoto_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Bill Yee_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Cecilia Wong_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Cheryl Lovejoy_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Debbie Santo-Woo_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Debi Jacobs_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Dennis & Monique Francis_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Erin Schlabach_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Florentino Monzon_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Irene Wong_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Julia Boehm_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Mike Noe_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Stephen Wang_ Item No. 13

Public Comment_Yvonne LaRose_ Item No. 16

Public Comment_Bianca Richards_ Item No. 17

Memo for Item No. 1

Memo for Item No. 17

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2026, AT 7:00 PM ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Additional Documents to the August 5, 2026 City Council Meetings. The attached documents include submitted written public comments and amendments to the agenda. Submit by no later than 12:00 p.m., on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed the following business day. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO THE AUGUST 5, 2026, CITY COUNCIL MEETING General Public Comment_Anne Bagasao General Public Comment_Lisa Hart General Public Comment_Yvonne LaRose Public Comment_Kim Lewis_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Michael Ribas_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Rick Settle_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Rod Yoo_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Sharon Shin_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Adriana Allin_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Shelley Yamane-Shinimoto_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Bill Yee_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Cecilia Wong_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Cheryl Lovejoy_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Debbie Santo-Woo_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Debi Jacobs_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Dennis & Monique Francis_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Erin Schlabach_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Florentino Monzon_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Irene Wong_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Julia Boehm_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Mike Noe_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Stephen Wang_ Item No. 13 Public Comment_Yvonne LaRose_ Item No. 16 Public Comment_Bianca Richards_ Item No. 17 Memo for Item No. 1 Memo for Item No. 17 1

From: Elizabeth Anne Bagasao To: City Council Public Comment Cc: Priscilla Zaragoza; Erica Rede; Lula Cummings; Steven Leland; Rachel Hamilton; Rachel Russell; Michael Cacciotti; Judith Trout; Denise Durrett; Ella Hushagen; William J. Kelly Subject: General Public Comment August 5, 2026 Open Session Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 7:06:03 PM Attachments: Anne Bagasao General Public Comment August 5, 2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Attached please find my written General Public comment for the Open Session Meeting of the Council on August 5, 2026. Thank you! Sincerely, Anne Bagasao 2

Public Comment to the South Pasadena City Council In February 2025, this Council voted 3–1 against directing staff to draft a rent stabilization ordinance. You made that decision based on a deeply flawed consultant report and “education” from the California Apartment Association—an organization known for prioritizing landlord profits over community stability. It is now August 2026. I doubt any of you could name the current local rent cap without looking it up. Yet three of you decided that the 53% of South Pasadena residents who rent their homes did not need stronger protections. And you still have not prioritized tenant protections this year. As of August 1, 2026, owners of multi-unit residential buildings in South Pasadena are allowed to impose rent increases of 8.7%. The average rent for a two-bedroom—what most families rely on—is $2,650 according to Zillow. For those of you who are attorneys and pride yourselves on precision: 8.7% of $2,650 is $230.55 per month, or $2,766.60 annually. You may tell yourselves that “not every landlord raises rent the maximum.” You’re right—not every landlord. But if you bothered to ask your constituents who rent their homes, you would learn that most do receive the maximum increase, year after year. And they are receiving these increases during the highest gas, grocery, and healthcare costs in modern history—while many South Pasadenans work two jobs just to stay afloat. You’ve heard from me for over a decade. So here are the voices of your own residents, reacting publicly to the 2026/2027 rent increases on the South Pasadena Shares Facebook group: • Jane Gould – “My rent has gone up $1200 a month since I moved here… Since the property was bought by a management company, the rent has gone up the maximum every year.” • Julia Goolia – “South Pasadena is notorious… South Pas is not for normal peeps.” • Holly Lang – “Oh good… because the rent in South Pas is notoriously low.” • Lula Cummings – “My experience with the city councils over the past 12 years… has been pathetic… The dismissive, ‘let them eat cake’ response has left me with zero respect for these so-called leaders.” • Vanessa Shih – “We got our first increase of 8% last year… We will probably try for interdistrict transfer to keep our kids in school.” 3

• Valerie Rose – “I loved my apartment but I always got the max increase. It seems only property owners get a real cost-of-living increase.” • Casey Dukes – “Emotionally preparing to get our letter July 1. We always get the max increase.” • Vee Ree – “This is awful.” • Em-tastic J Bee – “What is the justification for this? I thought we wanted families here… How can people afford this??? 8.7% is a lot.” • Melissa Valdez-Again – “I just got my increase letter… Ever since Bryant took over managing our property, they have taken every opportunity to increase all rates and decrease service.” • Rilla Alexander – “It’s not okay and sadly we have to leave (in part) because of that.” As the co-founder of the South Pasadena Tenants Union—which I ultimately shuttered after your February 2025 vote, because honestly, what was the point?—I have watched this community continue to change. Families leaving. Seniors forced to move in with their children. And at the same time, more and more units sitting vacant or dormant. That is the landscape you have allowed to take shape. I am not writing this letter to ask you to do more. We are all resigned to the fact that you won’t. You read the news; you know how everyday Americans are struggling. More than half of you on this dais identify as Liberals, yet when it comes to protecting tenants—the majority of your own residents—you vote like MAGAs. That is not hyperbole; that is your record. I won’t assume you know that AB 1482 expires in 2030. So I’ll ask plainly: When do you plan to create a local ordinance? You have no problem fighting to preserve the “charm” of single-family neighborhoods and invoking SB 79’s protections for rent-controlled buildings when it benefits you and your neighbors. When it’s convenient, rent stabilization is suddenly a good thing. Meanwhile, South Pasadena still doesn’t have a $14,000 rental registry. Why? We somehow found close to $10,000 to host two World Cup watch parties—wonderful events, truly—scraping together funds for the second one. Yet you can’t find the money for a rental registry? A basic tool for transparency and accountability? So no, I’m not here today to grovel or beg you to do the civilized, humane thing for the majority of South Pasadenans. I’m here to say shame on all of you for lacking the political backbone to protect South Pasadenans from unnecessary displacement and despair. 4

From: Lisa Hart To: Christina Monde; rap.commissioners@lacity.org; vgordo@cityofpasadena.net; mhawkesworth@cityofpasadena.net; district1@cityofpasadena.net; district2@cityofpasadena.net; district3@cityofpasadena.net; district4@cityofpasadena.net; district5@cityofpasadena.net; smadison@cityofpasadena.net; jlyon@cityofpasadena.net; City Manager"s Office; City Clerk"s Division; City Council Public Comment; councilmember.hernandez@lacity.org; councilmember.nazarian@lacity.org; Councilmember Blumenfield; Councilmember Nithya Raman; councilmember.yaroslavsky@lacity.org; councilmember.padilla@lacity.org; Councilmember Rodriguez; Councilmember Harris-Dawson; councilmember.price@lacity.org; cd10@lacity.org; councilmember.park@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.soto-martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.jurado@lacity.org; councilmember.mcosker@lacity.org; safecleanwaterla@pw.lacounty.gov; scwpcommittees@pw.lacounty.gov Cc: Maue, Brent; dpetschauer@cityofpasadena.net; Julian Lee; karen.bass@lacity.org; Randall Winston; admin@gabrielenoindians.org; Mark Forbes; lyric.kelkar@lacity.org; Lilly Sarafian; David Giron; Daedre Levine; Kristen Pawling; Yadila Guerra; Sean Starkey; Martin Schlageter; Genevieve Arce; Andrew Westall; Kevin Brunke; josh.yeager@lacity.org; kate.pynoos@lacity.org; Davida Koren; Anissa Raja; steve.baule@lacity.org; Virginia Wei; yesenia.huerta@lacity.org; Ted Walker; kevin.ocubillo@lacity.org; Charles Miller; Aurora Corona; Muriel Nacar; Alexandra Tangalos Subject: opposition to Arroyo Seco Water Reuse Project Date: Saturday, August 1, 2026 9:46:51 AM Attachments: image.png image.png image.png Sustainability Alliance Arroyo Seco Water Reuse Project letter 2026 08-01.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Below and attached is our comment letter in opposition to the Arroyo Seco Water Reuse Project, also to be submitted for the Draft EIR. Thank you for your attention. We are writing to express our opposition to this project. While we support the goal of clean water, we ask you to develop a plan that will achieve this by identifying and addressing pollution at the source using nature-based solutions and involving the community from the beginning steps of the process. Nature- based solutions is a term that has been used far too loosely, and we aspire to a more exacting application of the term. We understand that the Safe Clean Water Program is in the process of revising its definition, and it is our position that use of a more stringent one would serve this project well. On July 12 we hosted a public and often tense meeting on the subject, and recognize that due to misinformation on the issue, it can be difficult to parse the truth from the hyperbole. We address some of the frequently mentioned issues below. There is conflicting information about the Kizh Nation’s views about the project (see page 367 of the Draft EIR and this post on Save San Pascual Park’s Instagram account), but given the history of exploitation of indigenous populations (and, centuries after Europeans first arrived, the initial poor outreach about the project), I imagine the concerns raised by the Kizh give most people who might be in support of the project pause. They certainly do us. I also imagine we have all learned at this point that community engagement is not always easy and is not always pleasant, and does not always yield what we want. Sometimes it might not yield a strong reaction; other times you will regret not doing it. But it is better to be safe than sorry. We recognize that the land, as special as it is, is not undisturbed, and that the stream is already channelized. But we want to move toward restoration, not further from restoration. We do not want plastic-lined pools. We want clean water, restoration of the Arroyo Seco, and a healthy, native riparian ecosystem, and also support the goal of more native plants and trees, but not at the expense of the natural park and the many mature native trees we have now. 5

Although addressing the Arroyo Seco Golf Course (which, we should remind people, is a public course) might seem irrelevant given that we want the water pollution to be addressed at the source, the course has been frequently discussed, so we think it bears mentioning that we would love to see no glyphosates used and the implementation of other sustainable practices such as planting native plants there. One option, which the City of Los Angeles’s Department of Recreation of Parks is considering for certain City of Los Angeles golf courses, is the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses. People might feel better about diverting water to a golf course if that were the case, and might feel better about not diverting even more water (62 acre-feet) to the golf course as reported at one point by the City of Pasadena (page 2) than is currently diverted (30 acre-feet). It should be noted that according to the City of Pasadena currently and the draft EIR (page 96), the amount diverted would remain the same at 30 acre-feet (page 96); the conflicting information has been a source of confusion. We recommend that the entities relevant to the San Rafael drainage area develop a proposal that will be supported by the communities at large. We would not recommend that the City of Los Angeles enter into an agreement with the Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena granting them “access to operate and maintain the portion of the San Pascual site within Los Angeles in perpetuity” (page 107, the emphasis is ours) for several reasons, including but not limited to the fact that such an agreement could be in conflict with the Los Angeles City Charter. We understand that cleaning the water is mandated by state law and view the uproar against this project as a call for the Safe Clean Water program, if not sufficiently incentivizing the river restoration programs that people are calling for, to revise their scoring criteria. We want more, and better. There are those who are saying we are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but let’s try harder to get closer to the future the community wants for the river. Yes, it is not realistic to propose an entirely naturalized river, but we would like to collaborate with adjacent entities, including the Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena, to approach something along the lines of the Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan. We are saying, start over, with a different lens, orientation, and set of values. Thank you, Lisa Hart (she/her) Executive Director Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance lisahart@ncsa.la 323.660.2780 (cell) linkedin.com/in/lisamariehart ncsa.la 6

August 1, 2026 Re: Opposition to proposed Arroyo Seco Water Reuse Project Dear Los Angeles City Council, City of Los Angeles Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners, City of Pasadena leadership, City of South Pasadena leadership, and Safe Clean Water Program leadership, We are writing to express our opposition to this project. While we support the goal of clean water, we ask you to develop a plan that will achieve this by identifying and addressing pollution at the source using nature-based solutions and involving the community from the beginning steps of the process. Nature-based solutions is a term that has been used far too loosely, and we aspire to a more exacting application of the term. We understand that the Safe Clean Water Program is in the process of revising its definition, and it is our position that use of a more stringent one would serve this project well. On July 12 we hosted a public and often tense meeting on the subject, and recognize that due to misinformation on the issue, it can be difficult to parse the truth from the hyperbole. We address some of the frequently mentioned issues below. There is conflicting information about the Kizh Nation’s views about the project (see page 367 of the Draft EIR and this post on Save San Pascual Park’s Instagram account), but given the history of exploitation of indigenous populations (and, centuries after Europeans first arrived, the initial poor outreach about the project), I imagine the concerns raised by the Kizh give most people who might be in support of the project pause. They certainly do us. I also imagine we have all learned at this point that community engagement is not always easy and is not always pleasant, and does not always yield what we want. Sometimes it might not yield a strong reaction; other times you will regret not doing it. But it is better to be safe than sorry. 7

We recognize that the land, as special as it is, is not undisturbed, and that the stream is already channelized. But we want to move toward restoration, not further from restoration. We do not want plastic-lined pools. We want clean water, restoration of the Arroyo Seco, and a healthy, native riparian ecosystem, and also support the goal of more native plants and trees, but not at the expense of the natural park and the many mature native trees we have now. Although addressing the Arroyo Seco Golf Course (which, we should remind people, is a public course) might seem irrelevant given that we want the water pollution to be addressed at the source, the course has been frequently discussed, so we think it bears mentioning that we would love to see no glyphosates used and the implementation of other sustainable practices such as planting native plants there. One option, which the City of Los Angeles’s Department of Recreation of Parks is considering for certain City of Los Angeles golf courses, is the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses. People might feel better about diverting water to a golf course if that were the case, and might feel better about not diverting even more water (62 acre-feet) to the golf course as reported at one point by the City of Pasadena (page 2) than is currently diverted (30 acre-feet). It should be noted that according to the City of Pasadena currently and the draft EIR (page 96), the amount diverted would remain the same at 30 acre-feet; the conflicting information has been a source of confusion. We recommend that the entities relevant to the San Rafael drainage area develop a proposal that will be supported by the communities at large. We would not recommend that the City of Los Angeles enter into an agreement with the Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena granting them “access to operate and maintain the portion of the San Pascual site within Los Angeles in perpetuity” (page 107, the emphasis is ours) for several reasons, including but not limited to the fact that such an agreement could be in conflict with the Los Angeles City Charter. We understand that cleaning the water is mandated by state law and view the uproar against this project as a call for the Safe Clean Water program, if not sufficiently incentivizing the river restoration programs that people are calling for, to revise their scoring criteria. We want more, and better. There are those who are saying we are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but let’s try harder to get closer to the future the community wants for the river. Yes, it is not realistic to propose an entirely naturalized river, but we would like to collaborate with adjacent entities, including the Cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena, to approach something along the lines of the Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan. We are saying, start over, with a different lens, orientation, and set of values. Thank you for listening, Lisa Hart Executive Director 8

Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance ncsa.la | lisahart@ncsa.la | 323.660.2780 Cc: Brent Maue Dawn Petschauer Julian Lee Karen Bass Randall Winston admin@gabrielenoindians.org Mark Forbes 9

From: Yvonne LaRose To: City Council Public Comment Subject: General Public Comment, August 5, 2026: Solar Panel Fire Containment Readiness and Outreach Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 12:09:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The future of solar energy is an essential part of our existence. South Pasadena is now using at least 24 KW of solar power. That number is growing. Are we, as a community (let alone) our first responders, prepared to deal with a fire similar to the recent one in Boyle Heights? These types of fires pose unique challenges for immediate extinguishment - challenges that our first responders and property owners need to know and address. The cost of making these modifications is not only reasonable, it may also be available from FEMA funds. A simple Google search revealed the following (added as Footnote 3) potential costs and sources. In the proper chain of order for making a request to address the City Council regarding public safety matters, I am taking a step out of the traditional to request three actions by Council: 1. Creation of a training regimen specifically for our first responders with regard to de- energizing, suppression, and extinguishment of solar [panel] fires. 2. Creation of an additional segment in the CERT program that can serve as an introduction to the basic concepts and practices used by owners and residents who have solar panels, especially regarding de-energizing a solar panel array. 2.a. That the CERT training specifically include outreach and inclusion of the senior and disabled populations in these trainings. Respectfully submitted Yvonne La Rose ___ FOOTNOTES: 1. To extinguish a solar panel fire safely, you must prioritize de-energizing the system to eliminate high-voltage electrocution risks before or during suppression. Traditional firefighting foam is ineffective for solar arrays. Instead, first responders use plain water applied from a strict safety distance, or a specialty light-blocking polymer spray. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Because photovoltaic (PV) modules generate electricity whenever they are exposed to light, they cannot be simply "turned off" at the panel level without specialized intervention. [2, 5, 6, 7, 8] 1. Immediate Safety Measures (For Homeowners) Evacuate immediately: Solar fires involve hazardous chemicals and extreme high-voltage direct current (DC). 10

Call emergency services: Dial 911 or your local emergency number and explicitly tell the dispatcher that solar panels are involved. Hit the rapid shutdown: If safe and accessible, use the solar emergency disconnect or rapid shutdown switch to isolate power behind the inverter. Do not use a garden hose: Water conducts electricity; spraying a household hose at an active PV array can cause a fatal shock. [5, 9, 10, 11, 12] 2. De-energizing Tactics (For First Responders) Isolate the utilities: Turn off the main breaker from the utility grid and the DC/AC disconnect switches from the solar and storage systems. Activate rapid shutdown: Turn the external rapid shutdown dial from "ON" to "OFF" to reduce rooftop voltage to safe levels. Apply a light-blocking agent: Products like PVSTOP Solar Panel Block Out can be sprayed directly onto the panels. This creates a non-conductive "liquid tarpaulin" that blocks light, de- energizing the entire system in seconds so responders can work safely. [2, 14] 3. Suppression Strategy Use plain water: Testing from firefighting networks like FireRescue1 proves plain water is the most effective tool. Avoid Class A or B foams as they do not provide cooling benefits for metal and glass components. Maintain safe distance: Apply a straight stream from at least 20 feet away. Apply a fog pattern from at least 5 feet away. [13, 16] Avoid specialized tools: Never use handheld metal tools or "hot sticks" to pull apart panels, as hot sticks only detect AC voltage and will fail to flag dangerous DC voltage. [17] 4. Handling Associated Battery Fires If the solar array is connected to a home Energy Storage System (ESS) using lithium-ion batteries, treat it as a chemical hazard: Ventilate first: Batteries undergoing thermal runaway release highly explosive gases. Responders must open up the space before applying water. Continuous cooling: Copious amounts of water must be applied directly to the battery enclosure to lower internal temperatures. Monitor for rekindling: Damaged lithium-ion batteries can spontaneously reignite up to 72 hours after the initial fire is extinguished. Keep a specialist on-site to monitor the system. [1] FOOTNOTES: 2. There is no specific public database or published city report tracking the exact count of individual buildings or structures in South Pasadena utilizing 20 or more solar panels. Solar Information Context Average Systems: Standard residential installations in South Pasadena typically average around 10 kW (roughly 24 to 26 panels depending on wattage), meaning many residential and 11

commercial roofs exceed the 20-panel threshold. [1, 2] Large Projects: Major public installations in