by Michele Zack
I’d like to thank everyone who commented on the first two “Altadena Story” columns. Readers expressed a wealth of opinions: the frank and prodigious e-discourse stimulated by columns #1 and #2 offered many good ideas — let’s continue this constructive dialogue!
Re-reading every comment before wading into Column #3 reinforced a strong first impression that people care passionately about their hometown’s economy, and many have put serious thought into teasing out possible causes of the demise of Altadena businesses along Lake Avenue and elsewhere.
Among respondents, there is far more consensus on “what” — livelier, more diverse commercial options (shops and services) in Altadena — than on the concrete steps necessary to reach “how” (to transform the status quo).
But there's an equally strong force we know is out there: Reader “Smith” boiled things down nicely to: “Here's the dilemma - there is a fight for change and a fight against change.”
Recognizing this very real dynamic is crucial to any discussion of our future -- as well as recognizing that it’s never quite that simple. Among those who want to see commercial vibrancy return, there is little agreement on (1) what development should look like (other than nice little businesses), and (2) perhaps most importantly — whom development should be allowed to inconvenience.
As a student of Altadena history, and participant in political developments of the past ten years (six on the Town Council), I have observed that the “no-change” force is strong, and remains under the radar until a proposed project threatens the status quo. The "no-change" force has two main parts:
- People: individuals who do not want to be inconvenienced by increased auto and foot traffic, cars parked on the street in front of their homes, and other annoyances that accompany development. (Even something as small as the Backstage at the Coffee Gallery attempting to legalize its customer parking brought out legions of aggrieved protestors.)
- Parking: county parking requirements are the other major factor standing in the way of change. These alone discourage most proposed new businesses before they can get off the ground.
Altadena’s north-south commercial corridors were designed for streetcars, with a narrow commercially zoned strip up either side. When people moved away from public transit, little or no allocation of land was made for parking to support businesses along these strips and at intersections with major cross streets. Impossible-to-achieve parking requirements for most new retail business tops the list of disincentives to investment and entrepreneurial creativity in our town. In the case of the Coffee Gallery, only its grandfathered-in status and strong public support enabled a negotiated, not-too-happy peace with neighbors on Morada. In that case, county land use officials demonstrated that flexibility is occasionally possible. We need more such willingness from the county to help us overcome our parking deficit, and to prevent it from always being the obstacle to new development -- good or bad.
For beyond parking and other “anti-change” forces, quality must also be part of this discussion: all development is not created equal, as many readers pointed out, and just because an existing business is local doesn’t make it good or deserving of support. It seems most Altadenans (at least in principle) welcome higher-end or culturally beneficial uses like the Coffee Gallery, a farmers market, decent restaurants, bakeries, coffee and sandwich shops, pharmacies, grocery and hardware stores, and even art galleries — but want no part of check-cashing outlets, mini-storage, stand-alone liquor stores, carwashes, and drive-through businesses (examples of projects that most Altadena councilmen and residents opposed in the past several years.)
Residential factors
OK., that’s a clear enough message on the retail side. But a complicating problem is that retail is always connected to residential areas (both existing and proposed ones), and we have less consensus there. A vocal plurality of Altadenans are pretty uniformly against new development, even market-rate housing on or near major corridors — even when it will bring new investment to the community and is likely to reduce blight and/or support precisely the retail uses most people say they want.
Two examples of residential projects in the past few years exposed this divide. In both cases the Town Council supported residential projects that most Altadenans — if they showed up — seemed to think were good ideas. “Public Opinion” is an elusive animal -- I’m not arguing that the Town Council always represents the will of the people. But public comment at meetings, responses to notices posted by Regional Planning in affected areas, talking to neighbors, and doing your own research are the tools available to those conscientiously trying to come to good decisions on such matters.
About five years ago, there was opposition to, but more support for, a projected 48-townhouse project on the west side of Fair Oaks that would have run from Ventura south to Mountain View with its western boundary at Charles White Park. Would-be developers hosted community meetings asking for input, notified neighbors, and presented plans to the Land Use Committee and Town Council for comment. They responded to complaints about its “fortress” design by adding pedestrian gates with trellises to the project wall at each unit facing Fair Oaks, and by making the overall design more welcoming to integrate it into the streetscape; they also added several California Oaks to their streetscape plan to mitigate for deodars that would be lost.
The County required them to improve and widen Ventura Street, to replace antiquated Lincoln Water Company supply lines, to bury utility poles in front of the project, and to improve the sidewalk. This land had been mostly unoccupied for decades; the beloved Daisy Thrift Shop on the southern end of the site found another space, and against some opposition (too much traffic, many neighbors -- as always -- loudly complained!) the plan was passed by the Town Council and sent to Regional Planning for final approval.
Timing was off, however, and financing fell through as the housing boom peaked, home prices fell, and the project no longer “penciled out.” I, along with most but not all Altadenans weighing in, supported this development. I believed its many infrastructure improvements, location on a main transportation corridor, contextual design, and affordability (homes were priced high 3s-to mid 4s) would benefit the neighborhood and improve Fair Oaks’ commercial viability.
MonteCedro
Similarly, the MonteCedro senior housing development passed the Town Council, in this case, unanimously, after about 18 months of local public process including more than a dozen meetings at the community center and other venues, notices to neighbors within 1,000 feet, newspaper ads, etc. I had qualms about the fact that the project would remove seniors to Alhambra while the new facility was being built, and that the charitable mission of an historic Altadena institution was changing. These were expressed many times and are part of the public record.
After doing due diligence, however, I ended up supporting this project — in no small part because I believe it will be a major boon to Lake Avenue commercial development to have all those “active seniors” and their guests patronizing small businesses and encouraging development at Lake and Calaveras. My diligence in this case involved walking the entire neighborhood over two weekends, distributing 1,000 fliers listing my phone number, email, the project specifically and talking to many neighbors. (I was running for a final term the summer of 2007 and it was THE issue in our census tract). I could raise no objectors, not even Scripps residents and family members I queried. No one called me about the project except for Scripps manager Mr. Graunke, angry that I’d gone into his facility to canvass residents who happened to be my constituents.
Since this was a completely privately owned project (no public money), there was no change of institutional use, the design actually enhanced open space, underground parking would alleviate street level parking, and it was located adjacent Lake Avenue with businesses and services including public transportation — I finally concluded the project would benefit Altadena, even as I was sad to see the old Scripps go.
I didn’t hear any thing contrary until more than a year later, when a few constituents turned up at Town Council protesting that they had never been informed, and specifically complaining that all the oak trees would be cut down. This was not true (go look!) and by this time the local process was all but concluded and the project was moving along the pipeline to the County’s Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. A small but vehement group of neighbors continued their protest at the county level, alleging — against a paper trail and public record a mile wide — that no one had told them what was happening across the street from them until 18 months into the process. Final approval came in November, 2009, by which time I was off the Town Council — needing a rest after six years of public service.
Agents of change?
So, whither goest, Altadena? The above examples are meant to inform and widen the discussion not just of what, but of how we will holistically evolve as a community in the next 20 years. They do not answer the narrower, but essential question: will the current force of inertia in declining business erode commercial energy until we devolve into the “community of homes” without shops and services envisioned by LA County Planner Richard Bruckner?
Or will creative agents of change, such El Patron, Amy’s Patio Cafe, Webster's Community Pharmacy and Altadena Hardware (the latter two now under new ownership) establish a fresh beachhead of retail activity around Lake and Mariposa from which more new business can grow? Many Altadenans seem to crave the latter scenario. This will take investment, the will to deal creatively with county regulatory framework and our public officials to get them on our side and start helping us, as well as calculated risk-taking by competent and imaginative entrepreneurs. Absent that, the “no change” camp, simply by continuing to exist and protesting changes that bring (no doubt real) inconvenience, will likely win by default if this current season of economic contraction is a long one.
Readers, what do you think?
10 AM 12/5 : some minor revisions made for clarity.
------
Columnist Michele Zack is the author of Altadena: Between Wilderness and City and Southern California Story: Seeking the Better Life in Sierra Madre.
