Town Council Rejects Palm Street School Plan, County Hearing Next
For the second time, the Altadena Town Council voted to oppose granting a permit to operate a private high school on Palm Street. The case will go before the county, likely in April.
Photos
A proposal to put a private high school on a small residential street in the foothills of Altadena was rejected Tuesday night by the Altadena Town Council.
The vote ended the Council's role in a process dating back to November of 2010, when Philip Clarke, the owner of the Arcadia-based Arroyo Pacific Academy, purchased two lots at 183-205 Palm Street where a school had been operating without a permit in 2008 and 2009.
Neighbors on the street formed an association to oppose any future school on the property, and that opposition continued all the way through Tuesday night's meeting.
The Town Council's vote does not mean the school cannot get a permit to operate the school: The ultimate decision will be made by officials at the County Department of Regional Planning. Tuesday's vote means the Council will formally declare their opposition to the project, a factor that will likely be a strong consideration for county hearing officials.
A tentative county hearing for the school has been scheduled for the Department of Regional Planning on April 4, according to Anita Gutierrez, the county planner working on the project.
The Council had voted against the project once in September, and the Council's Land Use Committee voted against it twice, mainly because of concerns over traffic and noise. Clarke, however, modified his plan by decreasing the cap student enrollment to 200 and coming up with a traffic circulation plan that would have students get dropped off in shifts.
No Outdoor Activities
He emphasized that the school would not have any outdoor sports activities, no physical education, no public announcement system and no school bells. A traffic planner hired by Clarke said the increased traffic on the street would fall within the threshold considered acceptable by county planners.
Clarke also drew a large supporting crowd: At previous meetings supporters have had a chance to speak, and many of them are from Altadena and have children who attend Clarke's school in Arcadia.
Ultimately, though, the modified proposal did not win over any of the opposition, which filled about half the room of the Council Tuesday night.
Coleen Sterritt of the Palm Street Area Resident's Association (PSARA), the group formed in opposition to the project, said that while the group thinks Clarke's school could benefit Altadena, Palm Street is simply too narrow and residential in character to serve as a location for it.
"Arroyo Pacific might be good for Altadena, just not at this location," Sterritt said Tuesday.
The Council mostly agreed with PSARA: The group voted 11-3 in favor of recommending denial of the project to county planners.
Council members Jamie Bissner, Allan Wasserman, and Doug Colliflower voted in favor of supporting the project, Wasserman and Bissner stressed the need for educational facilities in Altadena.
Councilman Gino Sund, who voted against it, provided some interesting background on the project and the Town Council's role in making it usable as a school. About 20 years back, the Council voted to support a Christian center there that would serve as a residential unit for foster children whose parents were entering the prison system, Sund said.
In doing so, the zoning on the property changed, making it no longer zoned for homes. Sund said he believes it is the only time in Town Council history the board voted to support a non-residential project to be built in a residential neighborhood.
Sund called it a "cautionary tale" and warned the Council that supporting a school in a residential area, especially one where neighbors are in opposition, would be a bad precedent for Altadena.
Steve Lamb
6:36 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
I'm really glad the ATC is speaking clearly on this issue. We don't need more schools in Altadena, we have far more than our share and no control or ownership of any of them. Gino is right, it was a terrible precident, but at the time there were only three votes against it. What to do with it? The County should buy it, knock the buildings down and turn it into a park. Altadena is WAY way under the Federal minimums for parkland.
Steve Lamb
6:38 am on Thursday, February 23, 2012
And this whole nightmare is the Counties fault in the first place. They supported the original developer who was their subcontractor and rammed this pink elephant down our throats. The stress of it and the sense of betrayal actually killed Dottie Bridal.
JAB
4:00 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Gino Sund does bring up an interesting point. I wonder, however, about the wisdom of tackling this issue by punishing the current owner of the property, who has followed legal requirements and precedent in good faith with the CUP application. The best way to address it would be to buy the property and apply to the County to reverse what was done in the past. For members of the Town Council, it seems to me that civic duty requires an impartial application of current legal standards and precedent based on County standards. It doesn't make sense to reject a legitimate CUP application that meets current County requirements as a means to protest a perfectly legal decision made 20 years ago. Make it a park? Sounds good to me. Make the owner an offer and go through the proper channels.
Steve Lamb
4:28 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Uh NO. The Town Councils Civic Duty is to protect Altadena. Being confused on that point and taking your position, that we just go along with County precedent is what got us to where we are. The ATC is there to keep this community from being run over by the County . In this rare case they (FINALLY) did the right thing. And yes the County indeed should use imminent domain , take down the eyesores and landscape this as a casual recreation park. Its what they should have done in hte first place thirty five years ago after the Y closed it down.
JAB
9:56 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Actually, I think we can agree on civic duty including the protection of Altadena. That goal is not mutually exclusive to my comments. The problem I have is some of those against the CUP application by default frame the decision to vote against the CUP as protecting Altadena. But that is not a conclusion arrived at through impartial debate. It is a way of justifying a decision already arrived at. To suggest there is no positive aspect to the CUP application, or to state, as several Town Council members did, that there is no way whatsoever it would work, is nonsensical. I have no problem with a "no" vote, but civic duty for me includes actually weighing the benefits along with the costs. That is crucial in protecting Altadena from those who assume their point is view is correct simply because it is theirs. That kind of groupthink is not fair to CUP applicants acting in good faith. And again, if you really have a problem with legal County policies, address the County through the ballot box and through channels which exist to make changes. It is somewhat disingenuous to live in County administered territory and to complain about County policies as being against the community. That is like sitting in a pool and complaining about being wet. It certainly is not appropriate to punish private property owners who are acting in good faith because you disagree with the County.
mister altadena
11:53 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
A park?! Won't the sounds of children screaming with delight, cars starting up, driving around looking for parking, picnics/BBQspeople playing until 8p after the time changes be bothersome to the area's residents?
Forget all that, just make it into a Japanese tea garden so it'll be serene enough as to not bother anyone.
Steve Lamb
11:21 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Japanese tea garden works for me. I LOVE those....