70 SHARES Share

GUEST OPINION

As a 9-year active resident of Alhambra, I never thought I’d see the day that the City of Alhambra rejects a developer’s plans even in the face of public outcry from the community.

By Melissa Michelson

What was unique about Alhambra’s Planning Commission meeting on March 5, 2018, was that the Planning Commission not only rejected a developer’s plan, but they rejected a plan that was the product of collaboration between the developer and the community. This goes to show that the City of Alhambra is not necessarily “pro-developer”, it is “pro-develop-MENT”.

In 2017, St. Clair Partners and TAG-2 Medical Partners submitted plans to the city to raze 268 mature trees to make way for 127 three- and four-story townhouses and two new medical buildings. In response, I co-founded the Marengo Avenue Water Brigade, a community group of over 90 local residents that had the support of over 400 people who signed a petition demanding the trees be saved and an environmental impact report (EIR) be conducted.

Despite community outcry, the city council unanimously rubber-stamped each version of the developer’s plans. In order to avoid a lawsuit against the City for violating the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the developer finally agreed to meet with us. We and the developer hashed out an agreement which included saving 23 more trees in situ than in their original plans (original number of trees to be saved was 3), transplanting a total of 59 trees compared to their original 36, and eliminating 16 extra parking spaces to be used for green space around the now-saved church.

In the original plan, there were 473 on-site parking spaces—a number that is 16 above what is mandated by the city code.

The Alhambra planning commission meeting was a Kafkaesque moment for me.

First, Steve Kasper who lives across the street from the development spoke in favor of more parking spaces, dubiously suggesting that eliminating the 16 parking spots in question would somehow exacerbate the traffic in the area.

Then former councilman Steve Placido made a come-back appearance, but this time as a public speaker. Placido, during his time as a councilmember, received thousands of dollars from developers and doctors, including monies from Steve Kasper. Even though he doesn’t live in the area, nor was he a councilmember when hundreds of community members attended council meetings last year to speak out against the development, he showed up and spoke without any empirical evidence for why the project desperately needed to retain 16 parking spots.

Even after the commission determined the 3 blocks of street parking would still be available in this requested design change, even after they confirmed the church would not bring in more traffic as it would only be available to the community residents on site, even after I reminded them that this would be a win-win-win moment in terms of collaboration amongst the stakeholders, and even after I reminded them that they themselves gave a condition for approval of the project back in April (that trees and green space should be retained as much as possible), they unanimously rejected our request.

What’s most bizarre is that the city planners could not see the forest for the trees. In recent years, Alhambrans have increasingly expressed their displeasure with how the city is allowed to be overdeveloped and how it is losing its green spaces. Few nights ago, Alhambra’s city planners had the opportunity to remedy this trend, but they didn’t.

They preferred pavement over greenery, development over developer and community.

> Listen to full audio here.

Melissa Michelson is an active resident of Alhambra. Ian Burke Jameson contributed to this article.

The Guest Opinion section reflects the opinions of the responsible contributor(s)/writer(s) only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of ColoradoBoulevard.net. ColoradoBoulevard.net does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ColoradoBoulevard.net accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (with no obligation) to delete comments and postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.