SAN GABRIEL VALLEY | Development News

[AlexTheMartian]

I like how the link to the map at the end of that article actually shows the project site on Google Maps, and I am glad the crossings in San Gabriel is going to get funded, because on the project map on the ACE site it still shows it as pending funding.

The Alameda Corridor East project is improving much of San Gabriel Valley, because I know in Industry, CA the majority of the traffic problems used to be the result of the crossings along Valley Blvd, where the UP Railroad runs right aside it.

[Fern~Fern*]

Originally Posted by godblessbotox

'bout time they get rid of that sea of pot-hole filled parking

There we go again with the same crap...

Where are all the shoppers suppose to park their Big V8 SUV's at, huh???

[godblessbotox]

no one shops at norms. heck. no on goes to that norms either

[AlexTheMartian]

shop at norms? how can you shop there? norms is a restaurant, like a crummy version of Denny's. I gone to the one in West LA a few times (down the strret from Westside Pavillion), it is not the best, but there is not many good options at like 2am

[jessemh431]

Denny's... I hate that place though. I get sick everytime I go to Denny's and Norm's seems like a worse version of that so I'm never even gonna consider going there.

[jgacis]

Originally Posted by godblessbotox

no one shops at norms. heck. no on goes to that norms either

If you've been in that location you can see many asian stores/shops across and down the street. I've seen some people park their cars there so they can shop across the street or nearby when parking elsewhere gets too hectic.

Although Norm's is like a mediocre Denny's , it's own uniqueness in that specific area is what makes it thrive. I've been there only a few times and especially on Friday/Saturday nights its packed with high school kids and older residents who live near the area, especially those along/near Del Mar Ave. in the older neighborhoods. In addition, for the price you pay for, they do give you alot of food per plate. It's a break from the abundant local asian cuisines in that area.

Why do you think it's been able to survive that long there....

[godblessbotox]

yes but the food is just ok, with the same amount of bank i could be extremely full from wonderfully tasty food.

also, that parking lot serves as a makeshift kiss-and-ride lot for the 487 and 76 buses too!

[godblessbotox]

not much of a development, as it has been vacant land for over 2 years.

but i stoped by the proposed "the piazza at temple city"
image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


an internet investigation for this project came up dry. so if anyone has any info about this one let me know *see post below*

photo links
map

[godblessbotox]

in my haste to post, i did not notice the building name is actually "the PIAZZA" not "the PLAZA"

Originally Posted by temple city voice

This article is a continuation of last week’s “Council Halts Piazza Project” story.

After denying a name change from “Piazza Las Tunas” to “Temple City Spectrum”, the City Council moved to approve two additional changes, re-location of the banquet facility and removing the greenbelt initially proposed by the developers. Discussion continued over the five other proposed alterations at the special City Council meeting on September 25, 2007.

The idea of raising the height limits for several of the Piazza buildings caused a heated discussion among council members and the construction management firm, A & W Builders.

Councilmember Fernando Vizcarra, who was previous firmly opposed to the Piazza mixed-use development, stated that the only height increase he would be in favor of was for the banquet facility.

“We settled on 45 feet. That’s what we agreed upon then. That’s how I feel now” said Councilmember Dave Capra. He added, “I can’t make any findings in this particular thing to allow 47.5 feet when we knew from the very first date the agreement was drawn, 45 feet was the limit.”

“We had so much opposition when we started this” said Councilwoman Cathé Wilson and concurred with Councilmember Capra.

With opposition from three councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tempore Ken Gillanders suggested postponing the item. Mayor Judy Wong agreed.

Next on the agenda was the Venetian design aspect of the project. Although the developer was requesting for approval, drawings were not available for the Council to see.

“Like Councilmember Vizcarra said, we need to see the whole thing before we buy into it” said Councilman Capra.

Mayor Wong agreed, “We are asking for something we can see.”

Councilwoman Wilson moved to postpone the item for further discussion. The next item involved access routes for the project. By request of the construction management firm, the Council agreed to discuss access routes after dealing with the issue of a reduction in parking stalls.

“This [parking reduction change] would impact the whole neighborhood,” declared Councilman Capra. Councilwoman Wilson agreed.

Mayor Pro Tempore Gillanders added, “If indeed this project is successful, one of the major things you’re gonna find is that any decent banquet, and that banquet hall is going to attract an additional 200 cars minimum.”

Councilwoman Cathé Wilson then added, “We have to listen to our residents. You build this, you’re gone. We still live here.”

Despite the opposition from councilmembers, David Wilson noted that the number of parking stalls exceeds the requirements imposed by the City.

City Manager Charles Martin then asked if the number of parking stalls, 731, was an ultimatum made to the City Council. The Piazza team then backed down, “we need to have some direction.”

After much debate over the Piazza changes, the City Council moved to continue discussion during the third week of October.

During public comments, some residents urged the City Council to accept the changes, while others asked for more time to think over them.

“We need to have faith in the [Piazza management] people” said Linda Payne, a Temple City resident. “We have to be business friendly.”



This article was written by Matthew Wong. It was published in the Temple City Voice on December 19, 2007.

http://templecityvoice.wordpress.com...oject-stalled/

[godblessbotox]

Originally Posted by temple city vioce

Although this news story happened a few months ago, the Temple City Voice published this article to highlight the significance of the project to Temple City. The Temple City Voice aims to have an updated new story in the immediate future.After a month of intense negotiating, the City Council and the developer of the Piazza at Temple City project have agreed to additional changes.
The Piazza at Temple City is a mixed-use development project located on Las Tunas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard. In May 2006, the previous City Council unanimously approved the controversial development. Since then, the development has struggled with beginning the construction.
In September, the City Council and developer were engaged in heated discussions over eight proposed changes to the development. On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, approximately one month later, the City Council finally agreed to the new alterations proposed by the developer and the construction management firm, A & W Builders.
After a presentation to the City Council and the audience, Charles Martin, the City Manager and City Attorney of Temple City noted that the developer wanted a green light to “prepare the final plan” for the Piazza at Temple City.
“I have a problem with the drawings…It just doesn’t look like what we were expecting” commented Councilwoman Cathé Wilson.
One resident criticized the City Council for “nitpicking the project to death.” Another resident urged the Council to stop “micromanaging” the development.
Scott Carwile, a former City Council candidate, cautioned against giving in, without serious consideration, to all the changes the developer wanted. He added “We need to stick to it [the developer's agreement] and make [them] build the original project.”
Of the six changes presented to the Council, the Council unanimously agreed to four of them: a dual ingress/egress, reduction of parking spaces from 786 to 765, change from one or two large anchors to two to four smaller anchors, and the fabric elevations and shape.
Councilmembers Fernando Vizcarra and Cathé Wilson dissented on the changing of the building elevations. The change, however, was approved on a 3-2 vote.
The last change, the architectural styling for the Piazza at Temple City project, was approved 4-1, with Councilwoman Wilson dissenting.
The motion made by Councilman David Capra is to tentatively approve the architectural styling in concept, but it is still subject to changes after review of the final drawings.
After approving the changes request by the developer, Charles Martin, inquired on several items including whether or not a loan had been acquired and the existence of the owner’s company, TCD Enterprise.
David Wilson, president of A & W Builders stated “We have a term sheet with Far East Bank and East West Bank” and expressed confidence in obtaining a loan from either bank. Wilson also stated that they were currently marketing the project.
Next, the attorney representing Randy Wang, the owner of the Piazza at Temple City project, Benjamin Meeker explained the situation regarding Wang’s company. Meeker stated that Wang’s company had been suspended because of legal issues.
Meeker added that a dispute between a former individual associated with the Piazza at Temple City project arose. The individual, David Choi, filed for the TCD Enterprise name; therefore, Randy Wang, the owner cannot utilize the name anymore. Nevertheless, Meeker informed the Council a new limited liability company (LLC), will be formed within 20-30 days. The name of the new company will be TCD Enterprise LLC.
The City Manager and City Attorney, Charles Martin stated that the City of Temple City could not sign the new agreement with the developer because of the internal dispute; however, “You have your marching orders.”
In response to earlier comments by some members of the audience, Mayor Judy Wong said the Council was not nitpicking the project. “We’re just trying to find out more details about it” responded Wong.
Had the Council declared any of the changes to the project as significant or major, the project could have been challenged again by a referendum. In June 2006, an opposition group emerged to challenge the decision to approve the project. A total of 1937 signatures were gathered to challenge the project, but the City Clerk rejected the petitions on the basis of a “technicality.”
The Piazza at Temple City must be built by August 23, 2009.

This article was written by Margaret Thi. It was published in the Temple City Voice on February 20, 2008.

good ol' design by committee
http://templecityvoice.wordpress.com...iazza-changes/

8. UPDATE FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

A. PIAZZA LAS TUNAS STATUS REPORT FROM A&W BUILDERS
Executive Director Martin stated the Agency Members would now hear
from the developer, A&W Builders. Mr. Randy Wang, owner of the
property, was not present. Executive Director Martin advised the
Agency Members to not make any decisions this evening as to a letter
from the owner of the property as it has not been signed. This letter
from the owner as well as a letter from AAE Incorporated (Plan Check
Engineers), dated January 11, 2008, were received by the Agency
Members and submitted for the record.

Louie Aurelio, Senior Project Manager, A&W Builders, read into the
record the following letter from owner Randy Wang, TCD Enterprises,
LLC, dated January 11, 2008 and addressed to Council Members.

“Re: Office Condo Conversion
Dear Council Members:
Year 2007 has been a year of challenges and accomplishments for “The Piazza” project. It has been a year of change, resolutions and progress. Capitalizing on the People who have brought the project to where it is now is the biggest ASSET the project has ever had – The City Council of Temple City, the Staff of Temple City, the Community of Temple City, A & W Builders, HTH Architects and the other Consultants whom have put in their commitment to move forward with the project’s known and undetermined challenges and risks. I believe that coming together as
whole and having the same objective was, and still is, the best tested formula in weathering the storm that has come to pass.
It is with this principle that I would like to employ your assistance and support once again. With consideration on the basis on the three elements of Project Management

– Quality, Budget and Schedule, “The Piazza” is once again being tested on the basis of finance and time of project completion due to current nationwide economic challenges in the residential sector. Financial Institutions are becoming more restrictive on term requirements to minimize risk. This is an unprecedented and unfavorable situation for TCD Enterprises, LLC and other developers and investors countrywide. An unforeseen risk, which may have been favorable at the inception of
the project at three years past. The Residential Sector is in deep water, according to today’s Los Angeles Times. Property values for single-family homes in Arcadia have dropped 12% in value. The condo market has dropped substantially more. Besides the property value decline, and by adding today’s absorption rate, it would take the residential condominiums
approximately five to six years to sell out. Ultimately the holding cost for this would be economically prohibitive. The Commercial Sector seems to be somewhat more promising to most financial loan programs in the current market but still has its own separate challenges.

Agency Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 3

The “PIAZZA” will have an overall development cost of approximately $75 million. The size of this loan requires that no single bank has the ability and or the threshold of pain to fund this loan separately. If the project is funded it will require one primary lender and approximately four to eight additional banks to pony up all of the funds. During the past week, we have presented our new plan for an all commercial project, and completely eliminating the residential, to three major banks: East-West Bank,
Far East Bank, and the Bank of East Asia (BEA). Furthermore, we have made arrangements, to meet later this week, with three additional potential lenders. The new plan had a favorable economic outlook from the three previously mentioned banks with some conditions and requirements.
In pursuing the project loan, at this juncture, we have divided the requirements in to four primary sections:

1. Bank Requirements: As outlined by the bank requirements, the loan process cannot be initiated without the consideration and approval of the “The New Plan” by the City of Temple City.

2. Pre-Leasing: The required pre-leasing of approximately 30% of the project prior to funding. Our group has now retained three separate brokers to work for the project – Pegasus Realty, SDC Real Estate and NAI Capital. Unfortunately, not until we get our construction financing secured will we be able to receive a legitimate letter of intent (LOI) from a major tenant.

3. Construction Cost: A & W Builders is working diligently to obtain qualified competitive bids to reduce the cost of the overall construction without reducing the quality of work. All cost savings, if any, shall be required by the bank to be withheld in place in the interest reserve category.

4. Appraised Value: Each lender has requested a new appraisal on the property to substantiate the new economic conditions that we are faced. Moreover, should the appraised value be less than what is outlined in our Performa, TCD Enterprises, LLC shall be set in another opportunity to re-evaluate the economic condition of the project. On the other hand, the key challenge is to be able to pay down the development cost of the parking structure. The project, on its own, cannot support all the amenities and the Parking Structure. All the proceeds from the new proposed office condos will be swept to pay down the Parking
Structure. Without the pay down of the Parking Structure, as outlined in the Performa, the income from the approximate 124,000 square foot of retail will not support and equalize the project debt.
In moving forward with the project, without the purging of the agreements in place, due to the proposed change in zoning, between “The Agency” and “TCD Enterprises, LLC”, TCD would like to propose the following items to be under the consideration and approval by the Agency:

1. The conversion of the Residential Condominium use to Office/Medical
Condominium use.
- The overall square footage shall not be reduced;
- The exterior elevations and other architectural features shall be in
compliance with the agreement;
- The building heights shall remain unchanged;
- The parking requirements shall be met.

Agency Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 4

2. A twenty-four month extension from August 2009 to August 2011, without penalties and/or default on the agreements in place. At a minimal each potential lender on the project requires a 12 month tale on the backside of their 30 month construction loan. This will give the developer the opportunity to complete the project and additional time to stabilize the project through the lease up process. As with any project, the nature of being is a result of the effort in providing solutions to every risk that may come its way. While the final outcome may be promising, the
process in getting to the finish line is the biggest challenge which may come in different forms. I believe that the key in getting the “Piazza” to the finish line is to be able to mitigate the issues with resolutions.
Lastly, during the last council meeting, it was discussed in open forum of our financial situation. Ultimately, we need to be able to communicate with the City Council and the Development Team openly. As Mr. Martin had previously stated, this is a
partnership between the City and the Developer. As a result of this open dialogue, after the last City Council meeting, I was inundated with individuals expressing a one sided interest of the project. Firstly, while many may question the uncertainty of the project and on the changes that have come to play, it is CERTAIN that I am
determined to exhaust all avenues to make “The Piazza” a reality. Secondly, TCD’s contractual obligation with A & W Builders and a like, is irrelative to the situation at hand, and would like to maintain its private nature to concerned parties only. Once again, TCD Enterprises, LLC would like to extend its gratitude, to the City of Temple City, for its enduring support to the project team and the future of “The Piazza”. Please don’t hesitate to contact my office should you require any attention concerning this matter.

Sincerely,
Randy Wang
TCD Enterprise, LLC”

Executive Director Martin asked when owner Randy Wang would sign
the letter and Mr. Aurelio responded that Mr. Wang would sign the
letter tomorrow.
Executive Director Martin asked if A&W Builders had any comments
regarding the letter from AAE dated January 11, 2008, and attached
hereto as Exhibit A, containing comments regarding the third plan
check.
Mr. Aurelio responded that A&W Builders just received the letter
yesterday and would like time for their team to digest the comments.
Executive Director Martin stated AAE’s letter seems to suggest that the
project has not gotten off the ground yet. Nothing has been approved
and the conditions attached to the letter are negative.

Agency Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 5

Mr. Aurelio stated most of the comments are on the legal side for
clarity. He felt AAE was doing a good job in making sure the project
was in compliance with the codes. It is his responsibility to make sure
that those codes are put on paper and his engineers are working on it.
He asked for a few weeks to digest the contents of the letter with his
engineers and to come up with a good answer to the Agency.
Executive Director Martin asked if A&W was asking for two more
weeks to be able to explain the letter.
Mr. Aurelio said he could not comment on it as his engineers have not
had time to digest the information.
Executive Director Martin stated when A&W first came on board, they
assured the Agency that the project will be finished on time and the
changes were slight up until the last meeting when A&W said they
would not be able to meet the timeline and now are saying they want
an additional two years. He asked for an explanation for their change
of position.
Mr. Aurelio stated if they could do it, they would, but these are
requirements being given to A&W by banks. They were put in this
situation where they need to work together to finish the project.
Executive Director Martin stated A&W is now asking for a full 2-year
extension to the year 2011 and not offering any reimbursement to the
Agency for that.
David Wilson, President/CEO, A&W Builders, stated the time extension
was required by the lender to make sure there wasn’t a sunset before
the property would stabilize. So the additional 12 months was a
surprise somewhat to them. But looking at the big picture, once the
project is completed, they want to make sure that we are in total
compliance and want additional time to lease out the property. As far
as the time of construction they are still looking at approximately 24
months of construction, but they want time to complete the project and
lease it out and not be in default of the agreement.
In response to Executive Director Martin, Mr. Wilson confirmed that the
Pro Forma submitted to the Agency was the same as given to the
banks and that he felt it was realistic. He also responded that A&W will
have to be aggressive in shopping for contractors at those prices, but

felt they could do it.

http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/CRA%...CRAM080115.pdf

bad luck for temple city i guess

[godblessbotox]

intitial EIR study for this is out as of march 6th. quite a rocky little project

anyhow
image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr


and the eir study if anyone is interested
http://www.ci.temple-city.ca.us/Piazza/Piazza.htm

[godblessbotox]

Originally Posted by pasadena star news

Merchants welcome Ramona reopening
By Claudia Palma and Bethania Palma, Staff Writers
Article Launched: 04/12/2008 11:33:20 PM PDT



The Ramona Boulevard underpass has been completed between Valley Boulevard and Stewart Street in El Monte April 11, 2008. (Staff photo by Leo Jarzomb) EL MONTE - Though traffic was light Friday, local businesses hoped to get more customers after a major thoroughfare reopened last week.

After being closed three years for a grade separation project by Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority, a stretch of Ramona Boulevard was opened to traffic Thursday morning.

"We've been waiting anxiously for the opening," said Joe Perez, owner of El Patio Bar and Grill, located east of the closure.

The 990-foot closure, from Valley Boulevard to Stewart Street, affected local businesses by forcing commuters to take detours on Santa Anita Avenue, or Valley Boulevard to Peck Road, and completely bypassing the Ramona shops.

"Our sales went down to 50 percent less than before they started the project," said Juan de Lira, co-owner of Sherwood Florist.

The owner said they chose the location at Valley and Ramona boulevards because of the traffic coming from both directions.

Without the traffic, they had to depend on borrowing money and on their other shop in Claremont.

"The customers aren't there anymore, and they're gonna take a while before they come back," said de Lira.

ACE spokesman Paul Hubler said the authority did all it could for the businesses directly affected by the closure by providing signs and placing multilingual ads in direct mail circulars as part of their Business Support Program.

De Lira said he knows ACE did what they could to help but

it wasn't enough for the small businesses to make a profit.
"We're just trying to survive," said Elias Farraj, owner of Best Car Stereo shop on Ramona Boulevard near the corner of Valley Boulevard.

Farraj said he sought help for his failing business from everyone, including the City Council, ACE and county Supervisor Gloria Molina.

He also had to sublease the office space next to his shop to an insurance agency, after closing a cigarette shop there after only a year open.

Farraj said he is a little relieved that the street is open but knows he still has problems ahead, especially after a visit from a city representative asking him to remove the signs painted on his windows.

John Escamilla, 18, of El Monte said he was surprised to find Ramona Boulevard open this morning.

"This is a main street for us, to go home, to go to the store," said the young man as he waited with a friend for the bus. "It cost more money and gas to go around."

Mayor Ernie Gutierrez said it is a blessing now to have Ramona open.

"It's already alleviating traffic on Peck Road," he said.

Gutierrez also noted there is an electronic sign on Ramona Boulevard to let everyone know that the underpass is open.

The $49.9 million project lowered Ramona Boulevard approximately 26 feet beneath the railroad tracks and features pedestrian and motorist safety improvements and walkways with protective railing, according to ACE project documents.

The street opening came the same day that state officials granted the authority more than a quarter of a billion dollars to extend a below-grade trench in the city of San Gabriel.

The project will relieve snarled traffic at four crossings, including heavily-used San Gabriel Boulevard, officials said.

The ACE projects, meant to relieve traffic congestion at train crossings, come as the number of trains passing through the region is set to increase exponentially, officials said.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach already handle 44percent containerized imports sent from East Asia to the U.S., officials said. And trade with countries such as China and Korea will only rise.

Train crossings such as the one at San Gabriel Boulevard will increase as much as fivefold by 2030, making regrading vital, said John Fasana, chairman of the San Gabriel Valley Coalition of Governments Transportation Committee and a Duarte city councilman.

"It's going to help in terms of relieving bottlenecks at these crossings," he said. "There's a lot of wait time and a lot of frustration, so from a safety standpoint it's important."

Other projects under construction include grade separations on Sunset and Orange avenues in Industry, Temple and East End avenues in Pomona and Brea Canyon Road in Diamond Bar. All are expected to be completed this year.

Other future grade separation projects include Montebello Boulevard in Montebello, Puente Avenue, Fairway Drive and Rose Hills Road in Industry.

"I'm glad (Ramona) is open, I'm sure it would get better," said de Lira, "it can't get worse."

claudia.palma@sgvn.com

bethania.palma@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2110,

article from last week, but still current

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_8908207

[saiholmes]

The Piazza At Temple City
http://piazzatemplecity.com/

[jgacis]

Originally Posted by godblessbotox

yes but the food is just ok, with the same amount of bank i could be extremely full from wonderfully tasty food.

also, that parking lot serves as a makeshift kiss-and-ride lot for the 487 and 76 buses too!

True......

Now, here's another smaller development in Monterey Park. Located at NW corner of N. Gladys St. and E. Garvey Ave. intersection.










There is no significant set-back from the main street (Garvey Ave.), such as a driveway/entrance to a parking lot. This conforms with the city's continuing future plans to enhance Garvey Ave. (and Atlantic Blvd.) as the main thoroughfares for Monterey Park's premier city downtown district. Building frontage is in-line with MP's community image and "Pedestrian Realm" as follows:

ORDNANCE No. 2038 (Section 21.34.090) (c)(2)(iii):

"Non-residential and commercial uses shall be located at or within 5 feet of the interior edge of the Pedestrian Realm at or near the same elevation as the sidewalk"

More FYI relating to this project:

(c)(1)(ii): "For purposes of this section, the Pedestrian Realm width is measured from the curb after any required dedication needed for street widening and is required as follows:

I. 15 feet on Garvey Ave. (east of Atlantic Blvd. to New Ave.)...."

There is alot of space at the rear of the building, which is obviously going to be the parking lot.

Monterey Park will be really changing it's face especially after Atlantic Times Square gets completed. Other future developments that will dramatically change the look and feel of the community are the Garvey Villas (Garvey/Atlantic) and Towne Center (Garvey/Garfield).

[jgacis]

Temple City Voice

“We settled on 45 feet. That’s what we agreed upon then. That’s how I feel now” said Councilmember Dave Capra. He added, “I can’t make any findings in this particular thing to allow 47.5 feet when we knew from the very first date the agreement was drawn, 45 feet was the limit.”

I can't believe this guy. For a grand project like this, will 2.5 feet really hurt the community? It may cost more, but if so, he should state that in financial terms.

Does he really think 2.5 feet will destroy someone's view of the San Gabriel Mountains or cast a shadow of doubt (pun intended) in someone's backyard (which is mostly commercial at that intersection)?

It's also unfortunate that they decided to cancel the residential units. I think that is a mistake. That would have brought in additional tax-revenues for the city from property taxes as well as "IN-HOUSE" consumers for the retailers down below. To think that "next-door" residents with retailers will create only problems, IMO, has no substantial merits.

[godblessbotox]

i would not get worked up about the cancellation. during my investigation into this project it seemed that the info from month to month would be completely different. i suggest getting your hands dirty by reading into the city EIR that was released last month

[jgacis]

I guess we'll have to see.....

I have sat in on Design Review Board (DRB) committee and City Council Meetings here in Alhambra. Lot's of conservative people... (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). But population density is growing and with increasing vehicular traffic, mixed-use developments are the future. It's been like this for centuries in other parts of the world, so this shouldn't be something new. But perhaps we have been very complacent over the many years living in suburbia...

I was born in Los Angeles, and I grew up here in the San Gabriel Valley (started living in Rosemead since 1980, graduated from San Gabriel H.S. in 1990, and been here in Alhambra since 1997). Yet, I still hear (or see) the same old folks in council meetings who say they have been residents in SGV for decades and see their neighborhoods get destroyed by newer developments. Well, sad to say (for better or worse), you can say that for just every civilization that has existed since mankind was created. I've been to over 22 countries now, and I think the developmental changes here in the San Gabriel Valley are great! Maybe not always the best, but progressive. And honestly, I wish some city council members would have bigger vision (instead of worrying about things like 2.5 feet of extra vertical height - 25 feet might be understandable, but 2.5???)....

During DRB hearings, there is sometimes a city historical preservation organization rep. who sits in and voices his/her objection (on behalf of the organization) if a resident proposes a development that does not conform to a community's historical architectural style. And sometimes, these objections have good merit. But it's always interesting to note that future growth doesn't always depend on SIGs (special interest groups) or perceived status-quo.

Just like nature would have it, our cities evolve based on our CURRENT collective needs - whether we individually like them or not. That's what we need to think about when we think about our cities' future developments....

[godblessbotox]

yep, i thought about getting on san gabriels board, but there meeting times conflict with my work/commute time.

so maybe in 6 months i can try it again

[godblessbotox]

image hosted on flickr


the city of san gabriel has approved the sale of the park-and-ride facility in the mission district of san gabriel. this facility is greatly underused in comparison to the one on del mar and norwood.

the land will be re-zoned for a mixed use complex.

Originally Posted by city of san gabriel

On January 16, 2007 the City of San Gabriel City Council and Redevelopment Agency approved a six month Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA No. 07-01) with TSCP, the owner of Mission 261 Restaurant. The restaurant and the park-and-ride lot would be incorporated into a new complex, at least four stories in height, with a boutique hotel, restaurant, residential units, retail and other amenities. Replacement parking for the new uses would also be provided. Negotiations have shown great promise, and preliminary design studies have resulted in a proposal which is now undergoing the preliminary stages of environmental review. This project is a significant step toward implementation of the Mission District Specific Plan. Construction of the project will help to create the twenty-four hour a day environment which is the building block for successful urban development efforts

[Fern~Fern*]

Originally Posted by godblessbotox

yep, i thought about getting on san gabriels board, but there meeting times conflict with my work/commute time.

so maybe in 6 months i can try it again

^ Oh please do Jer......

Hopefully you can start a campaign to break off the SGV from L.A. County!!!