"Eagle Rock: Where land use and
planning is a contact sport"
THE EAGLE ROCK ASSOCIATION
-- e.letter --
December 6, 2001
In this issue:
1. YOSEMITE GYM HEARING -- DECEMBER 12
2. A WALGREENS IS A WALGREENS IS A WALGREENS
3. MORE INSIGHT ON WALGREENS
4. RETAIL IN THE ROCK -- TODAY! -- DECEMBER 5
5. BEATING THE ODDS -- ONE OF OUR OWN! --
DECEMBER 6
6. ORNEDO FAMILY FUNDRAISER -- DECEMBER 16
7. UCLA EXTENSION COMES TO OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE!
-- JANUARY 2002
8. OCCIDENTAL MUSIC DEPARTMENT YARD SALE --
DECEMBER 8
9. TREE-PRUNING WORKSHOP -- DECEMBER 8
10. LETTERS AND E.MAILS (AND THERE ARE MANY . .
. )
11. QUOTE OF THE WEEK
----------
1. YOSEMITE GYM HEARING -- DECEMBER 12
The
East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission will hear the appeal on the Yosemite
Park Gymnasium Project on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2001 AT 4:30 P.M. AT RAMONA
HALL, MAIN HALL, 4580 N. FIGUEROA STREET.
The appeal was filed by two area residents who
oppose the Zoning Administrator's finding that the gym can be built in spite of
inadequate parking, the loss of prime greenspace, and the traffic and safety
issues raised at the original hearing.
We must have a strong community presence at this meeting in order to
convince the Commission that building the gymnasium on this picnic area would
be a grave mistake.
Please
visit http://www.traiger.net/yosemite for more information, or contact
Saul Traiger at saul@traiger.net or 323-254-9620 if you need directions to
Ramona Hall, a ride, or if you have any questions whatsoever.
----------
2. A WALGREENS IS A WALGREENS IS A WALGREENS
TERA
has written a letter to Los Angeles City Planning Department representative
Luis Rodriguez, who was present at last week's community meeting on the
Walgreens project and who is, at TERA's request, now reassessing his
determination regarding this project because of the evidence we presented to
support our contention that the project violates the Colorado Boulevard
Specific Plan. Our letter to Mr.
Rodriguez, dated Monday, December 3, 2001, expounds our arguments and is
reprinted in full below:
BY
FACSIMILE AND/OR HAND DELIVERY
Luis
Rodriguez, Jr.
DRB-HPOZ
Project Manager
Department
of City of Planning
200
N. Spring Street, Room 667
Los
Angeles, CA 90012
Re:
Walgreens Proposal/Corner of Colorado and Eagle Rock
Boulevards/Colorado Boulevard Specific
Plan Violations
Dear
Mr. Rodriguez:
As
was discussed the evening of the community meeting last week on the proposed
Walgreens project (the Project), this Project as it stands is in direct
violation of the Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan (the Specific Plan). This letter will reiterate our findings and
detail the areas of the Specific Plan that have been violated. We would like your determination no later
than Friday, December 7, 2001.
1. The
Project Does Not Meet the Goals of the Northeast Community Plan
This
type of development proposal also does not meet the goals of the Northeast
Community Plan. This Project would
instead be appropriate to a location at a large mall development such as the
Eagle Rock Plaza or on a lot such as the one at the La Loma triangle at
Figueroa Street, adjacent to McDonald's.
Further, the Specific Plan does NOT supersede the Northeast Community
Plan except where it is MORE RESTRICTIVE.
It does not in any way undermine the intent and language of the
Northeast Community Plan except to be more detailed and specific, and to impose
ADDITIONAL restrictions in order to pursue and implement the intent of the
Northeast Community Plan as applied to a specific area.
Regarding
commercial land use, the Northeast Community Plan states as follows:
Strategies
to revitalize the commercial strips in Northeast Los Angeles . . . include
creating Pedestrian Overlay Zones, Business Improvement Districts, and specific
plans. These approaches can result
in reconfigured shopping areas, access and parking improvements, or design
treatments that emphasize cultural, historical, or architectural themes. . . . Redevelopment of existing commercial
strips and areas, and conversion of existing structures to more appropriate
uses, should result in the physical and aesthetic upgrading of these areas. (Emphasis added.)
This
Project contravenes the above quoted sections as well as the fundamental
objectives of the commercial land-use section of the Northeast Community Plan
in Goal 2, which states:
STRONG
AND COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT SUITABLY SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE
COMMUNITY AND ATTRACTS (sic) CUSTOMERS FROM OUTSIDE THE PLAN AREA BY
SATISFYING MARKET DEMAND AND MAXIMIZING CONVENIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY WHILE
PRESERVING UNIQUE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES OF EACH COMMERCIAL AREA. (Emphasis added.)
Firstly,
it is highly debatable that this Project would "suitably serve the needs
of the community" by the addition of this type of business. It is well known that Eagle Rock and
adjacent communities already have a plethora of pharmacies to choose from, and
this fact was borne out by the results of our survey, which received an
overwhelming 26% response from a wide cross-section of community members. A full 94% of the respondents felt the
addition of a Walgreens would simply be duplicating goods and services already
offered locally.
Secondly,
for Walgreens and the City to contend that this development would "attract
customers from outside the plan area by satisfying market demand" is at
best unconvincing, because there are pharmacies, drive-through and otherwise,
located all over communities/cities that surround ours. So, there likely would be little or no
appeal to members of communities "outside the plan area" to venture
into Eagle Rock to patronize this particular business development because
market demand in those communities has already been satisfied.
Notably,
other "market demands" in Eagle Rock are left largely unfulfilled because
Eagle Rock and Northeast Los Angeles currently lack many businesses we truly
need. We therefore have no choice but
to drive outside of Northeast Los Angeles and Eagle Rock to patronize those
businesses our community lacks.
Deplorably, this means our tax dollars are too often spent in Glendale
and/or Pasadena, and not the City of Los Angeles. According to Goal 2 of the Northeast Community Plan, the entire
site in question (a very sizable and highly visible one) ought to instead be
developed in a way that would fill unmet market demands to bolster the local
economy and steer tax dollars towards our own city.
Thirdly,
and most obviously, this Project would not "preserv[e] unique historic and
cultural identities of [this] commercial area." On the contrary, it would destroy one of the last vestiges of our
history (currently the One-Day Paint & Body building, hereinafter referred
to as the Shopping Bag building) and virtually annihilate our town center. Such insensitive destruction of historic
town centers all over the nation is the preferred course of action of Walgreens
and other national pharmacy chains, and this callous disregard for a town's
history must stop. We are presented
with a wonderful opportunity to stop it here in Eagle Rock by acknowledging and
properly carrying out the goals of the Northeast Community Plan, as supported
by the Specific Plan.
Three
Objectives are provided in the Northeast Community Plan in support of the
Commercial
Land Use Goal, and this Project fails to advance or even to respect any of
these Objectives.
The
first of the three, labeled 2-1, is "TO CONSERVE AND STRENGTHEN
POTENTIALLY VIABLE COMMERCIAL AREAS IN ORDER TO SIMULATE AND REVITALIZE
EXISTING BUSINESSES AND CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPROPRIATE NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT." That the Colorado Boulevard/Eagle Rock
Boulevard intersection qualifies as commercially viable is well established
(for example, the Project would not have been proposed in the first place if
this were not so). And our survey shows
that, in the judgment of the overwhelming majority of local observers, the
Project would do the opposite of conserving and strengthening local commerce
and would do the opposite of stimulating and revitalizing existing businesses;
and, being an inappropriate development project for the location, it does not
qualify for the creation of opportunities for its advancement (through planning
concessions, or other assistance to the developer or potential tenant, by the
City), especially when it would be against the will of the community.
The
second, labeled 2-2, is "TO ENHANCE THE IDENTITY AND APPEARANCE OF
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS." The
physical Project, as presented, clearly fails to satisfy this Objective. Furthermore, its very likely adverse
economic effect on existing local businesses would almost certainly erode
community identity and almost certainly increase the difficulty and cost of
maintaining, let alone enhancing, the appearance of the commercial
district. Moreover, the two stated
planning Policies under this Objective, namely "2-2.1 Identify the salient
features that distinguish the major commercial districts," and "2-2.2
Require that projects in commercial areas be designed and developed to achieve
a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with
appropriate existing uses and development," manifestly have not been
followed by the City in this instance.
The
third Objective, 2-3, "TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS BETWEEN AUTO-RELATED AND
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED ACTIVITIES AND ENCOURAGE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTION IN
COMMERCIAL AREAS," is effectively ignored in this Project, in part because
the Project itself is not suited to the site.
Indeed, under "Policy
2-3.2
Encourage the formation of pedestrian-friendly shopping environments," the
first Program listed is that "Application of the Colorado Boulevard
Specific Plan should continue."
(Emphasis added.)
Therefore
the Project's failure to meet the requirements of the Colorado Boulevard
Specific Plan is, by and of itself, an explicit breach of the language and
intent of the Northeast Los Angeles Community Plan. We now turn to the Specific Plan.
2. The
Project Violates the Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan
The
Specific Plan is divided into main sections, and categorical terms used
throughout the Specific Plan are defined under Sec. 4, DEFINITIONS, after Sec.
3, PURPOSES, and before Sec. 5, PROHIBITIONS.
The definition of "Street Wall" is located on Page 13.
The
two areas of the Specific Plan that have been violated by the Project are Sec.
7, BUILDING STANDARDS, and Sec. 13, PARKING AND STREET ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS. The two specific
definitions that apply to these sections, respectively, are "Street
Wall," located on Page 13, and "Project," located on Page 12.
The
definition of a "Street Wall" is as follows:
A
Street Wall is an exterior wall of a building which faces Colorado
Boulevard, Eagle Rock Boulevard or any street which intersects either Colorado
or Eagle Rock Boulevard. (Emphasis
added.)
Sec.
7, BUILDING STANDARDS, A, Ground Level Development, reads as follows:
(1) Every Project shall include a Street Wall,
which shall extend for at least 75 percent of the length of the street
frontage, and shall be located five feet from the front lot line.
Please
note that this requirement applies to all of the "Specific Plan area"
and not solely to one Subarea or another.
It also very deliberately includes Eagle Rock Boulevard and Merton
Avenue, because the latter is a "street which intersects . . . Eagle Rock
Boulevard." The example of Merton
Avenue being just one, this provision clearly embodies the entire first block
in any direction of all corners of the Colorado/Eagle Rock intersection,
northeast, northwest, southwest, and southeast, including the first
parallel/perpendicular street in any direction away from the intersection
itself. The Project would be situated
on the southwest block of Colorado and Eagle Rock Boulevards. The Building Standards unequivocally state
"Every Project," and this Project includes a total area that is
coterminous with Colorado Boulevard, Eagle Rock Boulevard, and Merton Avenue.
The
Project currently includes a low-level wall serving as a buffer between the
Colorado Boulevard lot line and the proposed parking lot of the Project, NOT a
"wall of a building which faces Colorado Boulevard." Although this low-level wall seems to
satisfy the requirement of extending a minimum of 75 percent of the street
frontage (but does not even satisfy the "five feet from the front lot
line" requirement), it by no means qualifies as a Street Wall as is
mandated by the Specific Plan. A
"wall of a building" also does not exist at the street frontage of
Eagle Rock Boulevard. Further, the
Project offers no defined "Street Wall" at the street frontage at
Merton Avenue.
To
reiterate, there are three street frontages to this Project, one on
Colorado, one on Eagle Rock, and a third on Merton, and not one of these street
frontages contains the "Street Wall" required by the Specific Plan.
Regarding
the parking issue, the definition of "Project" is as follows:
The
construction, erection, addition to or structural alteration of any building or
structure or a change of use on a lot located in whole or in part within the
Specific Plan area. A Project does not
include interior remodeling of a building which does not increase the floor
area.
Sec.
13, PARKING AND STREET ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, Part F, reads as follows:
No
parking shall be permitted on that portion of a lot located between the front
lot line and any portion of a building which faces Colorado Boulevard, Eagle
Rock Boulevard or any street which intersects either Colorado or Eagle Rock
Boulevards.
Please
note that this requirement also applies to the entire Specific Plan area, and
not to one specific Subarea or another.
Its introduction states, "Projects shall meet the requirements of
this Section, as determined by the Department of Building and
Safety." Please also remember that
"Projects" are defined as being located "in the Specific Plan
area," and not within just one Subarea or another.
This
Project would encompass several separate lots, only three of which are located
in Subarea 1 of the Specific Plan area.
It has been argued that because the actual structure of the Walgreens
store would be located in lots outside of Subarea 1 of the Specific Plan area,
Sec. 13, Part F, would not apply.
As
stated above, a "Project" is "the construction, erection,
addition to or structural alternation of any building or structure or a change
of use on a lot located in whole or in part within the Specific Plan
area." (Emphasis added.) Regardless of where in the Project area the
Walgreens building itself would be situated, the proposed adjoining parking lot
that would serve that company's customers constitutes the largest part of this
Project, and a portion of it is indeed located in Subarea 1 of the Specific
Plan area. This is ONE SINGLE Project,
not two, and not more; so, the entire Project therefore is subject to the
provisions of the Specific Plan, which in this case supersedes the Northeast
Community Plan, imposing additional restrictions in order to pursue and
implement the intent of the Northeast Community Plan as applied to this
specific area.
Further,
when Sec. 13, Part F, of the Specific Plan states "No parking shall be
permitted on that portion of a lot located between the front lot line and any
portion of a building which faces Colorado Boulevard, Eagle Rock Boulevard or
any street which intersects either Colorado or Eagle Rock Boulevards," it
does not specify that the building itself must be situated on a lot that in and
of itself falls within the Specific Plan area.
Instead, this provision clearly encompasses "any portion of a
building which faces Colorado Boulevard, Eagle Rock Boulevard, or any
street which intersects either Colorado or Eagle Rock Boulevards."
Again,
according to the definition of "Project," this Project is just
that. It is "the construction,
erection, addition to or structural alteration of any building or
structure or a change of use on a lot located in whole or in part
within the Specific Plan area."
Within Subarea 1 of the Specific Plan area, the Walgreens Project
proposes to demolish the Shopping Bag building, which indeed would comprise a
"structural alteration of any building or structure." Constructing in its place a parking lot to
service a drug store rather than the existing auto painting business indeed
constitutes both a "Project" (the "construction" of a
parking "structure") and a "change of use" (both in surface
area that actually covers the footprint of the Shopping Bag building as well as
the total Project site's proposed tenant(s) and their completely different use
of the property). Erecting a retail
outlet, as designated by Building C on the Project's site plan, also
constitutes a "change of use" on that part of the site in the same
way.
Again,
"No parking shall be permitted on that portion of a lot located between
the front lot line and any portion of a building which faces Colorado
Boulevard, Eagle Rock Boulevard or any street which intersects either Colorado
or Eagle Rock Boulevards." Just the
inclusion of Eagle Rock Boulevard in this provision points directly to the
distinct regulation of any development that concerns our historic town center,
inclusive of the one-block-wide area in all directions of the intersection of
Colorado and Eagle Rock, which this Project would greatly affect and which this
provision was clearly written to protect.
Walgreens' CEO L. Daniel Jorndt was cited by the New York Times
as intending to locate his company's stores nationwide at the "corner of
Main and Main," which, in our town, is the corner of Colorado and Eagle
Rock Boulevards.
As
undoubtedly evidenced above, this Project and its total parcel area have been
determined to meet the definition of "Project" as defined by the
Specific Plan. A portion of this Project
is physically located in Subarea 1 of the Specific Plan area on Colorado
Boulevard; BUT, this entire Project's coterminous lot-line relationship
to both Eagle Rock Boulevard and Merton Avenue as also defined by the Specific
Plan verifies the fact that the entire Project is governed by the Specific Plan
and its provisions.
Therefore,
the proposed parking that would be located between the indicated Walgreens
store structure and Colorado Boulevard does not meet the Plan's
requirements. Further, the parking that
would be located between the Walgreens store structure and Eagle Rock
Boulevard, and the parking that would be located between the Walgreens
structure and Merton Avenue, which intersects Eagle Rock Boulevard, also
violate the provisions of the Plan.
3. The
Project as It Stands Is Absolutely Wrong for Our Community and Must Be
Reconsidered
Mr.
Rodriguez, during the November 28 meeting you raised the issue of
"intent" in defense of the Project and its design. If the City, Walgreens, and the developer
can talk about "intent," then surely the members of this community
have a right to talk about "intent" as well. One can get as technical as one wants when
carefully examining this issue as far as the Specific Plan and its applications
are concerned, but it is abundantly clear that this Project puts nothing less
than a sharp stake right through the very heart of the Specific Plan, including
its intent, goals, and
objectives. Moreover, it makes a
mockery of the very significance of the wider-reaching Northeast Community
Plan, which took well over 10 years of volunteer time to rewrite.
The
current Walgreens proposal is the kind of Project the Specific Plan (which, may
I remind you, is there to support and ensure the proper implementation of the
Northeast Community Plan) and the Northeast Community Plan itself were
written precisely to prevent, and it is appalling that this Project was
ever approved by your Department. We
expect you will come to the same conclusion, and, again, we would like your
determination by Friday of this week.
Thank you.
Finally,
please note that the Planning Department should ALWAYS consider TERA to be a
"community of interest" in any planning matter that pertains
to Eagle Rock.
Sincerely,
Joanne Turner, President
The Eagle Rock Association
jwt
cc:
Council member Nick Pacheco
Robert P. Roscoe, Walgreens
Michael Marino, FCD Realty &
Development
Con Howe, Director of Planning, City of
Los Angeles
Terry Speth, Planning Department, City of
Los Angeles
Saul Traiger, member, Community Plan
Advisory Committee
TERA Board of Directors
----------
3. MORE INSIGHT ON WALGREENS
PROTECTING
HISTORIC BUILDINGS FROM CHAIN DRUGSTORES
Thu,
04 Oct 2001 08:31:30 -0400
Several
years ago the major drugstore chains---CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid, and
Eckerd---lost interest in strip malls and began to focus their expansion plans
on prominent downtown intersections. As Walgreens CEO Daniel Jorndt told
the New York Times, the chain's preferred location these days is 'the corner of
Main and Main.'
Often,
of course, these intersections are occupied by some of the community's oldest
and most significant buildings. Rather than reuse these structures, chain
drugstores have bulldozed numerous downtown blocks to make way for their
cookie-cutter outlets:
* An ornate 1906 Beaux Arts style building in
DeKalb, Illinois was demolished for a Walgreens.
* A 200-year-old inn in Whitpain,
Pennsylvania, was razed for a CVS.
* The historic Depot in Tarboro, North
Carolina, was torn down early one Sunday morning while citizens groups were in
the middle of negotiations with Eckerd over the its fate.
* In Brownsburg, Indiana, CVS demolished an
entire block of historic buildings on the corner of the town's busiest
intersection. One year later, Walgreens leveled the opposite block.
'There's
no way to know how many communities have been affected,' says Cristina Prochilo
of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 'But we've been flooded with
phone calls from people asking for help.'
In
1999, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, citing fears that downtowns
would be converted to 'cut-rate versions of suburban strip malls,' placed the
'Corner of Main and Main' on its annual list of America's 11 Most Endangered
Historic Places. Soon after, the Trust reached agreements with the major
pharmacy chains to spare buildings listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Unfortunately,
many important and eligible structures have not been submitted for inclusion in
the Register and remain at risk. Nevertheless, the Trust's attention to the
issue and the resulting publicity have strengthened local campaigns. In
Oklahoma City, plans to replace a 1958 Buckminster Fuller-designed geodesic dome
with a Walgreens were recently dropped. In Hamilton, Ohio, six historic
buildings on Main Street were saved from CVS.
Although
citizen protest can succeed, the only way to ensure protection of important
structures is through local zoning ordinances that safeguard designated
historic districts and establish design standards. Such ordinances are
multiplying as communities realize the value of historic buildings.
Some communities are also focusing their economic
development efforts on independent pharmacies and enacting ordinances that
deter chains, such as formula business restrictions, impact reviews, and limits
on the size of retail stores. A 4,000 square foot cap on the size of retail
businesses in some San Francisco neighborhoods, for example, keeps out
drugstore chains, which are reluctant to build outlets smaller than their
standard 14,000 square foot format.
--
The National Trust for Historic Preservation can provide model ordinances and
guidance for communities seeking to protect historic structures. Call
202-588-6296 or visit http://www.nthp.org. -- Examples of size caps, impact
reviews, and formula business restrictions can be found on the New Rules web
site at http://www.newrules.org/retail/index.html.
Copyright
2001 by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. http://www.ilsr.org
This
from PORT ST. LUCIE NEWS (Florida), SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1999:
Two weeks ago, 50-year-old oak trees were bulldozed
in violation of a county permit to make way for a Walgreens drugstore at U.S. 1
and Midway Road. Developer Brian West
said he did not know his site plan called for protecting 38 of about 50 trees
on the lot.
http://www.roadsidepeek.com/roadusa/midwest/mweats/kahiki/index.htm
will tell you about yet another
Googie restaurant that Walgreens bought and tore down.
----------
4. RETAIL IN THE ROCK -- TODAY! -- DECEMBER
5
RETAIL
in the ROCK!
A
dialogue working towards an understanding of consumerism in the everyday lives
of the youth and business owners in the Eagle Rock community.
Please
join Occidental Professor Elizabeth Chin and students from her course
"Consumerism: Race, Gender and Consumption" as we gather to examine
consumerism in the Occidental/Eagle Rock Community.
When: Wednesday, December 5, 2001
Time: 5:00p-7:00p
Where:
Eagle Rock Community Cultural Center
2225
Colorado Blvd
Los
Angeles, CA 90041
RSVP: Please contact Professor Chin at (323)
259-2757 or email ejc@oxy.edu
----------
5. BEATING THE ODDS -- ONE OF OUR OWN! --
DECEMBER 6
This
in from Ruby DeVera, former 14th District Eagle Rock field deputy and Glassell
Park resident:
My daughter, Theresa, will be featured in a special
segment of the Channel 4 News at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 6, as she
continues to "beat the odds." We invite you to watch and see my miracle in action. Thanks.
----------
6. ORNEDO FAMILY FUNDRAISER -- DECEMBER 16
All members of the Eagle Rock Community are
cordially invited to attend the Ornedo
Family Fundraiser hosted by the community of Eagle Rock, Council District 14,
on Sunday, December 16th, 2001.
The
event will begin at 4:00 pm and conclude at 9:00 pm. At approximately 5:00 pm
will begin "La Posada, The Festival of the Journey" composed of over
two hundred members of the community each carrying a lighted candle,
re-enacting the journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
In
addition, the community will provide "A Taste of Eagle
Rock.............Home Cooking" ethnic foods prepared by community
residents. For the children will be
pony rides and pinatas, for the adults music and dancing to a six piece live
band, good food, raffles and an object d'art auction.
Please
join us. This is a very worthy cause for "one of our own."
Ruben
Ornedo, an Eagle Rock resident, was one of the first to die in the "War
Against Terrorism". Mr. Ornedo was a passenger on American Airlines 77
which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th. Mr. Ornedo is survived by a
wife of only three months, Sheila Ornedo, and a yet unborn child. All monies
raised from this event will go to the Ruben Ornedo Fund for his child. .
This
event is being managed by the Boulevard Sentinel, Community Helpline and Rantz
Auto Center.
To
RSVP or for further information contact Community Helpline, 323-257-2227
----------
7. UCLA EXTENSION COMES TO OCCIDENTAL
COLLEGE! -- JANUARY 2002
Starting
in January, UCLA Extension will offer its prestigious brand of continuing
education on the beautiful Occidental College campus in Eagle Rock. This
first-time collaboration links adult learners in northeast Los Angeles and
adjacent communities with UCLA Extension professional development and personal
enrichment opportunities.
This
unique joint venture arose from a desire to serve the neighborhoods surrounding
Occidental, which have expressed great interest in continuing adult education
on the Oxy campus. Community input helped determine the course offerings, and
will continue to influence the growth of the collaboration.
UCLA
Extension will initially offer seven courses at Occidental in a broad range of
subjects: Basic Drawing, Entrepreneurship and Venture Formation, Business
Economics, The Young Child in the Family and Community, Pronunciation
Improvement for Professionals, English for Professional Advancement, and
Principles and Practices of Teaching Exceptional Learners in the Regular
Classroom.
"This
is the first-ever collaboration between a large public university and a small
private college to pursue our shared mission to broaden educational
opportunities," says Occidental president Theodore R. Mitchell. "The
result will enrich the lives of residents in our community."
UCLA
Extension Dean Robert Lapiner welcomed the opportunity to serve the Occidental
College neighborhood. "Extension has always been an important public
service outreach of UCLA, and working with Occidental gives us an opportunity to
more conveniently reach Eagle Rock and northeast Los Angeles," says
Lapiner. "We hope this partnership grows, and leads to other
collaborations that will help bring continuing adult education where it's
needed most."
UCLA
Extension is one of the nation's largest and most comprehensive continuing
higher education providers. Founded in 1891, Extension currently offers 4,500
courses a year, linking 65,000 adults to new opportunities and adventures
through lifelong learning.
Nationally
ranked for its academic excellence and diversity, Occidental College is a
private, coeducational institution with 1,800 students from around the world.
Founded in 1887, it is one of the country's few liberal arts colleges in a
major city.
UCLA
Extension's Winter Quarter begins on Jan. 5. Complete enrollment information is
available online at uclaextension.org/oxy, or call (800) 554-UCLA for a free
catalog.
----------
8. OCCIDENTAL MUSIC DEPARTMENT YARD SALE --
DECEMBER 8
Occidental
College Music Department YARD SALE
Electronic
equipment, recordings, books and other music paraphernalia
Saturday,
December 8
Occidental
College Music Quad
11 am
- 4 pm
Everything
must go!
----------
9. TREE-PRUNING WORKSHOP -- DECEMBER 8
Join us this Saturday
at 9am
for a
Tree-Pruning Workshop
Learn how to prune and
care for trees
Meet Avenue 57 and Monte Vista
in Highland Park
Call with any
questions.
North East Trees
323 441 8634
----------
11. LETTERS AND E.MAILS
"Thank
you so much for your effort in helping the Shopping Bag Building cause. My wife and I attended the community meeting
last Wednesday and we were buoyed by your clear and reasoned voice in a sea of
idiocy! This whole thing is so
frustrating. Please keep up the good
work -- we support you!"
--
David Shumate, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"My
name is Stephen P. ('Steve') Watkins. I have been a homeowner in Eagle Rock
since September 1998. I have only recently (within the last month) heard of TERA,
and must commend you on your (A) excellent Web site and (B) presentation at the
community meeting re: the Walgreens project last Wednesday, November 28. . . .
Again,
please allow me to express my commendations and thanks for all your hard work,
sacrifices and thoughtful efforts to improve our little 'oasis in the middle of
an urban desert.' Sincerely --"
--
Steve Watkins, soon-to-be TERA member
"My
wife forwarded this e.letter to me. I
would like to be on the mailing list to get them directly. Thanks.
On the issue of the impending Walgreens -- this does
not excite me at all. Eagle rock
defiantly does not need another drug store.
I feel that a bookstore or gallery would greatly enhance our
community. We have an affluent artistic
town, and it would be great if the businesses reflected the residents. Walgreens might be an option if we didn't
have so many stores that already have filled the pharmacy needs.
Great
newsletter, great work -- I am excited to get them. Thanks --"
--
Teod Tomlinson, Eagle Rock resident
"You
are indeed a champion for community activism.
Please visit the website http://www.planetizen.com. It is a must for anyone interested in urban
planning and urban environmental issues.
Remarkably, it is updated on an hourly basis.
I often
feel that we Angelenos are the victims of what we are unaware of. I've learned a lot from this site. You might wish to spread the word of it via
the e-letter. Sincerely --"
--
Matt Marchand,Highland Park resident
"In
Response to Walgreens' defense of proposed project on Eagle Rock's Colorado
Blvd:
At
the last community meeting, I asked a member of the Walgreens team why the
company was not using the existing, well designed and attractive Shopping Bag
building. I was informed that the company knows 'what its customers want,' the
implication being that its 'customers want' the Shopping Bag store leveled and
replaced with a cinder block fortress sprawled out upon a sea of asphalt where
meager ficus trees drown in trash.
Yet
another defense offered was that Walgreens' proposed monstrosity wouldn't harm
the character of that block because, after all, it matched the other
monstrosities that developers have, over the years, bulldozed throughout a once
charming area, the remains of which can be seen in our cultural center. When I
asked if the company had figured in the cultural center when making its
character survey, the man representing Walgreens' position didn't know where
the cultural center was. It is right across the street from the building Walgreens
hopes to demolish [and where the last community meeting on this issue was held
and which meeting this same man attended].
In addition to the gross contempt that
Walgreens is displaying toward our town as evidenced by this ignorance, I think
the company is equally ignorant about 'knowing what customers want.' Hey, I'm a
potential customer. If you don't care about my aesthetic concerns, maybe my
concerns as a consumer will count.
For
the sake of your profit & loss argument, let's say I'm in need of a costly
prescription refill; Do I pull into the depressingly ugly Sav-On parking lot
two blocks away from Walgreens or the overwhelmingly tacky Rite-Aid-To-Be on
Colorado Blvd. across from the Vons Pharmacy or, and here's another one of too
many grim pharmaceutical choices, should I spend my money at that latest
abomination on Colorado, the big white windowless Walgreens that looks like all
the others, except this one is particularly loathsome. It is particularly
loathsome because I know that it was built on the bones of a beautifully
designed building and on the backs of a community that begged a company to
respect its environment.
Good
design and great profit are not mutually exclusive; they were meant for
each other. If Walgreens will do with the Shopping Bag Building what they did
with the Firestone Bldg. in Florida, I will vow to be your loyal customer for
as long as your refills can keep me alive!
Please reconsider your proposal.
Sincerely --"
--
Pamela Lansden, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"I
am a 5 year resident of Eagle Rock and reside on a quiet community by the
WestField Mall.
I am
also very frustrated with our " Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce" and
Tera who continue to keep establishments from being constructed in our fine
small community. Who are they to say
for example " Walgreens" and how they can come up with a proper design
for the town and its location,, WHO
are we kidding, if you look at the town's architecture , these is none.. and
for these individuals to continue to stop retail establishment, like,
Walgreens, Starbucks, decent eateries and places of business for our neighborhoods
to shop locally instead of having to go to Glendale and the surrounding cities
is absurd. I am in favor of getting
this town cleaned up and get Colorado Blvd, looking beautiful, instead of
having all the vacancies and unpainted sites.
Our town is a main corridor to South Pasadena and Glendale and many
people travel everyday through Colorado Blvd. lets bring in NEW establishments
and get our town up to a decent appearance."
-- R.
Rodriguez, Eagle Rock resident, in a letter to the publisher of BS and copied
to us
"I
attended the November 28, 2001 meeting in Eagle Rock to discuss the proposed
Walgreen's building on Colorado and Eagle Rock Blvd. I support the idea of restoring the Shopping Bag building and
putting in a Walgreens in the restored building. On my way to work, I drive by a Walgreens on Rosemead Blvd that
looks just like the Walgreens that is currently proposed for the Eagle Rock
site. I am tired of every community
being a boiler plate image of each other.
I
remember visiting British Columbia as a child and knowing I was in a different
country. When I last visited in the
1980's, I thought I was in the US because all of the chains were there, in the
same buildings that we have. In cities
like San Francisco, chains place their stores in existing buildings. This preserves the character of the
community. I would like to see the
architecture and character that is unique to Eagle Rock be preserved."
--
Patti Sugerman, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"Gentlemen
[Walgreens representative Robert Roscoe, developer Michael Marino, and Council
member Pacheco]:
I'm a
resident of Eagle Rock, since 19 years, with a wife and three kids here. We greatly admire the improvements over the
last few years in Pasadena and Glendale, making them nice places to be, to
visit, to spend time in, to be associated with. Please work towards a revision of the Walgreens plan to make it A
POSITIVE IMPROVEMENT in Eagle Rock, not JUST ANOTHER UGLY SHOPPING MINI-PLAZA
that will help keep Eagle Rock ugly for another fifty years!
We
live here. We would like to be able to
go around Eagle Rock and feel good when we lift our eyes to see what is before
us, or around us. Mr. Pacheco -- please
be a our real and true representative.
Work for us! Sincerely --"
--
Geoffrey Daniel, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"Thanks
for all you are doing, esp. with respect to things like Shopping Bag. As someone who is deeply involved with a
non-profit I know just how much time and energy it takes. Cheers --"
--
Nathan Dalleska, Eagle Rock resident
"It
seems that we are now 'hot' with the Target just down the street from the
Walgreens [proposed site]. I would
prefer they locate elsewhere . . . the idea of a charming historic downtown
requires old buildings that are appropriately renovated."
--
Janet Davis, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"Great
job last night, and amazingly quick and thorough summary for the e-newsletter.
Thanks. Not sure what the 'red'-haired woman who tried so passionately to
discredit the TERA survey was really after!"
--
Peter Sutheim, Eagle Rock resident and business owner, Earworks, and TERA
member
"You
were great at St. Dominic's. You were
strong but conciliatory, kicking corporate [gludius maximus] without nastiness,
allowing them (we all hope) to consider using the existing building without
losing face. Eagle Rock is lucky to
have had you at the microphone. And
hooray for whomever did the great homework tracking down the Miami Walgreens
[TERA's Historic Preservation Committee chair Michael Southard]. Even if these suits turn out to be as immune
to shame as most suits are, it was great work."
--
Cynthia Carle, Eagle Rock resident
"In
my response to your survey, I indicated that, although I am opposed to much of
Walgreen's current plan, I thought the old Shopping Bag building was an
eyesore. But that was before I viewed
the picture you sent showing the old building in its heyday. I have changed my mind! I had no idea that it was such a fabulous
art deco design. I hope Walgreen's will
restore the old building! Thank you for
keeping us all informed."
--
Nancy Asmus, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"Congratulations
on your excellent presentation at last night's Walgreens/community meeting.
Eagle Rock is fortunate to have a strong and intelligent spokesperson like you.
I'm also impressed how quickly you prepared a summary of yesterday and got it
out by the time I opened my e-mail this morning! I wish I would be so
efficient!"
--
Ursula El-Tawansy, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"Unfortunately
we came to the meeting late, 7-9. We
were in the back. Wow, this community
sure gets divided. Anyway, thank you
for having the grace, drive, intelligence, and spunk that you have. You were
great up there. In the words of BMW
design chief Chris Bangle [fellow Art Center College of Design alum]:
"FIGHT FOR DESIGN!"
--
Cynthia Flores, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"I
just want to say I was very impressed with your presentation last night.
You
are a most persuasive speaker and you obviously really planned ahead if you
knew about the Firestone Building in Miami. Personally I am not that passionate
about the Shopping Bag building nor do
I hate the proposed plan because I live in Silver Lake. I realize that I
shouldn't be involving myself too much in this. My mother lives in Glassell
Park and one peppery little lady on Mr. Pacheco's staff said to me, in a very
confrontational way, "What brings you here tonight?" I said, "Concern about the Drugstore." I guess the fact that I will be one day
living in Glassell Park again is not good enough for her so I won't get too
active in this.
However,
the basic concept that these people Downtown can get together with the
Developers and do whatever they want is a problem city wide, and anybody
anywhere in the city who does what you are doing is to be commended. When I was
growing up, Eagle Rock and North Figueroa were enough to take care of most of
our needs. There were plenty of
businesses, and a return to that kind of community is what is needed and is
what you are creating. I know you have a busy family life, and I thank you for
what you are doing."
--
David Chierichetti,Silver Lake resident
"My
husband and I were at the meeting last night and both got pretty outraged at
Nick Pacheco and the total disregard for the clear desires of this
community. We are definitely on board
to fight Walgreens. I plan on drafting
a letter to [our Council member] which I will cc to you. Please let me know if there are
organizational meetings around this.
Thank you for your good work."
--
Katy Hickman, Eagle Rock resident and TERA member
"I
HATE being talked down to [having attended and spoken at the Walgreens
community meeting]! So, let me know if
I can do anything, and I'll see what my time permits. Thanks for your leadership in this and everything else."
--
Rebecca Niederlander, Eagle Rock resident and new TERA member
----------
QUOTE
OF THE WEEK
"You're
Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big."
"I
AM big. It's the PICTURES that got
small!"
--
"Sunset Boulevard," 1950 (a favorite), performed by William Holden as
Joe Gillis and Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond, and directed by Billy Wilder
----------
We
welcome your comments. Please include
your name.
Joanne
Turner <artburn@earthlink.net>
President, The Eagle Rock Association (TERA)