APCD, County confirm LADWP did not follow rules

demolitionThe Great Basin Air Pollution Control District has confirmed that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power did not file required paperwork regarding potential asbestos in the historic hair shop in Independence.  Inyo County also confirmed that LADWP failed to wait for an environmental review and issuance of a demolition permit before destroying the old building.

Jan Sudomier, Air Quality Specialist for APCD, confirmed that DWP did no go through the required steps before demolishing the building.  She said she has emailed them the form, fee requirements and asbestos survey all required under law.  Sudomier said DWP should have taken these required steps before demolishing the building.

When asked if they had followed the required air quality steps prior to demolition, DWP forwarded a copy of a form submitted to APCD in 2010. Sudomier said that form was for a renovation plan for the Hair I Am building, not demolition.

Sudomier said she was surprised that DWP forged ahead with demolition without dealing with the asbestos issue.  She said they have always been cooperative in the past and have their own asbestos removal team.

Inyo County Counsel Randy Keller confirmed that DWP failed to go through a California Environmental Quality Act review as required by Inyo County when LA filed for a demolition permit for the hair shop.

Keller said Inyo’s Planning Department said LADWP needed to do a CEQA review on the building.  Keller said both Planning and County Counsel departments maintained the need for a CEQA review.  He said DWP tore down the building without it.


, , , ,

4 Responses to APCD, County confirm LADWP did not follow rules

  1. Ted May 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    So what next?

    • Steve May 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

      Not a thing Ted. Litigation is always a cheaper route for DWP to go. That’s why permits, ordinances, and laws mean nothing.

  2. Alice Chan May 22, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    Just typical for DWP; do something heinous and irreversible, and don’t even ask for forgiveness afterwards when it’s discovered that they’ve violated the rules. We have decades of history showing this behavior. Why would we expect it to be any different now?

  3. Nancy Bright Masters May 23, 2012 at 12:46 am #

    I post this from Cornwall, a region in England where ancient sites and venerable buildings are preserved, and contribute to a healthy tourist economy, as well as informing historians about the past. Inyo County should consider adopting a historic preservation ordinance to ensure that buildings and places will not be destroyed in the future. Also, the use of historic preservation easements by willing owners would help preserve historic structures, similarly to ranch and farm easements used by the Eastern Sierra Land Trust. The State Historic Preservation Office website has information about ordinances and the Mills Act, a property tax benefit for landowners.


Leave a Reply