Pasadena Council Reviews Lawsuit Against SCE, Reopens All Saints Church Hearing

All Saints Church Pasadena (Photo – AllSaintsPasadena)

The Pasadena City Council confronted potential legal exposure on multiple fronts this week, from a closed-session lawsuit against Southern California Edison to a contentious vote on a proposed safe parking program.

By Andrew Sweet

City of Pasadena v. Southern California Edison Company, et al.

During closed session, the City of Pasadena discussed a joint lawsuit with Los Angeles County against Southern California Edison Company. Filed on March 5, 2025, the lawsuit addresses the “more than 14,000 acres” of destruction, including “approximately 9,400 structures.”

In the lawsuit, the city explains that key assets—such as the Pasadena Police Department’s Advanced Officer Training facility and water management infrastructure—were impacted. SCE argues that other local agencies share responsibility and fault. SCE has offered $42 million in settlements, but Los Angeles and Pasadena are seeking higher compensation.

The Council stated there was no reportable action at this time.

All-Saints Church Public Hearing Reopened

The Council voted Monday night to reopen a public hearing for All Saints Church after extensive debate. The church seeks to propose parking lots with overnight dwellers, operated by a service organization or faith group.

The hearing was first discussed in late November 2025 but stalled after it failed to qualify for a California Environmental Quality Act exemption.

Councilmember Jason Lyon, District 7, stated in a Tuesday debrief that the Council was “faced with a tough procedural dilemma,” with different parties threatening litigation based on the Council’s decision. The Maryland Homeowners Association argued that the November vote, which stalled, was final and constituted “a denial thereof,” according to Pasadena Municipal Code Section 17.72.070(B)(5). The MHA contends that All Saints Church’s parking lot is used for commercial purposes rather than church activities, a position city staff disagree with. The Council considered two letters with opposing opinions, one from Silvio Nardoni, board secretary of the MHA, before making its decision.

The motion passed 6–1–1, with Councilmember Hampton, District 1, abstaining and Justin Jones, District 3, voting no. Mayor Gordo later clarified that he had intended to oppose the motion but had voted in favor instead. The Council justified its decision by citing the lack of a voting member present at the previous meeting and factors related to the remainder of All Saints Church’s application.