Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE:Taylor Yard-The Latest01

Expand Messages
    Do I understand this correctly! Over 100 acres will be devoted to passive recreation, active recreation, and State Park Space and only 24 acres are to be
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2001
      the latest
      Do I understand this correctly!  Over 100 acres will be devoted to "passive recreation, active recreation, and State Park Space" and only "24 acres are to be devoted to "retail/commercial/residential mixed use creating jobs and affordable housing"?  Do I understand that 24 acres is to be the only amount left to provided the needed infrastructure and community-based limited commercial businesses to support the communities of Glassell Park, Cypress Park, and Mt. Washington, young and old?  Am I to believe that 24 acres is sufficient enough to support limited-commercial for the community at large including the required parking on-site without creating subterranean parking?  Am I to understand that affordable housing may be located next to the train tracks, developed possibly in contaminated soil, densly developed in a commercial mixed use area, and provided regardless of the already abandoned structures (warehouses) in our co! mmunities which could be renovated and used for affordable housing?  And lastly, am I to understand that the Jackie Goldberg, Eric Garcetti, and others favor limiting the needed commercial infrastructure such as fine dining establishments, banking services, a theatre and entertainment complex, and community-based retail/commercial businesses to a mere 24 acres and are willing to create 100 + acres for open spaces, parks, and wetlands which have no real significant value to the majority of people who live, want to work, and support their communities?  Someone, please clarify this for me because although I do not support redeveloping Taylor Yard again with warehouse and industrial style development, I wonder if anyone has considered the needs of the people - the true blue collar and white collar counterparts - people that live and work hard to upkeep their respective communities?  Have those individuals who are working so diligently and respect! fully to create a State Park talked with the individuals in these communities, or that community Neighborhood Council Chairperson, or youths looking for part-time jobs in their communities? 
      Don't get me wrong!  I commend those working hard on this matter and I appreciate all their effort.  However, I just want comprehend exactly who decided on the amount of acreage for open space versus the small amount alloted for community infrastructure, community-based businesses, and definitely the parking needed to sustain new development.  An base of Infrastructure which supports those communities that patron this area!  Please write back, someone and give me your views or insight.
      -Oh yes, forgive me for my spelling.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: mel
      Sent: 5/31/01 7:43:32 PM
      Subject: the latest

      Dear Coalition:

      On May 8th, we filed our opening brief in our CEQA lawsuit against Lennar Partners, the City of Los Angeles and Union Pacific Railroad over the future of the Taylor Yard.

      The same day, the California State Attorney General's office filed a brief in support of our position that Lennar's proposed industrial project violates CEQA and they have joined us in demanding a full Environmental Impact Report.

      Lennar's reply brief is due June 10.
      Our response to their reply is due July 8.
      The hearing is scheduled for July 20.

      Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg, Senator Richard Polanco and 13th District candidate Eric Garcetti have all written eloquently to Lennar asking them to sell Parcel D to the State for park purposes.  Look for other electeds to follow suit. We have formally requested a meeting with Lennar to discuss selling, but they have not yet accepted.

      Add your voice to theirs and write to Lennar!
      For a list of addresses and a sample letter, reply to this message.

      Lennar is getting desperate. They are now calling their industrial project "Parque del Rio", trying to convince people that what they have to offer is the best we can expect.

      There will be more to tell in the next 10 days, so
      Mark your calendars now for the next general meeting:
      Monday, June 11th  6:30pm at the River Center.
      Our attorneys will be there to answer any questions.

      In the meanwhile, show your support!
      Lawn signs and t-shirts are available!
      Just let me know how many you want and where you want them.

      A State Park at Taylor Yard can provide:
      •  2 miles of riverfront park
      •  41 acres of active recreation & community resources
      •  62 acres of passive recreation, habitat restoration, flood protection, cultural/historical resources
      •  24 acres of retail/commercial/residential mixed uses creating jobs and affordable housing.

      Lennar's "Parque del Rio" will create diesel pollution way beyond the AQMD limits, heavy truck traffic in our neighborhoods, bad water quality impacts, 30 acres of warehouses & blighted views for all!

      Don't forget to VOTE on Tuesday.
      See you on the 11th.

      Hello Again Folks: I have received several wonderful and enlightening E-Mail messages and postal mail from truely dedicated and committed neighborhood
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 2, 2001
        Hello Again Folks:

        I have received several wonderful and enlightening E-Mail messages and
        postal mail from truely dedicated and committed neighborhood individuals who
        have made their comments known to me. They have expressed the pros
        and cons of the any development in Taylor Yard and commented about
        the positive and/or negative impacts to the communities of the Northeast
        and East L.A. Areas.

        It is refreshing to know that people are aware of the developmental and
        infrastructural needs of their their respective communities and
        that people do care! To Eliot S., Ann W., N. Smith,
        and the others who have so eloquently answered my previously transmitted
        concerns, thank-you for your community spirit, pride, and for sharing your
        thoughts with the masses! Keep the comments coming folks!


        (GPNCAC Chairman)

        P.S. Sorry for the misspelling and the fragmented sentences!

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: Sekuler, Eliot

        Sent: 6/1/01 4:50:48 PM

        Subject: RE: Taylor Yard-The Latest01

        Clearly, there are sharp divisions within the Glassell Park community
        regarding this issue. I, for one, believe the dedication of the majority of the
        Taylor Yard space to "passive recreation, active recreation, and State Park
        Space" will be to the greater good of the community and of our city.

        Clearly, Los Angeles certainly has a greater need for more park and
        recreation land than it does for another strip of coffee houses. And our
        neighborhood's commercial interests will benefit from this development by
        attracting non-residents to a newly restored riverside park. The lack of
        distinctive features in the Glassell Community has been the subject of
        discussion at recent Glassell Park Neighborhood Council meetings. This
        development will give our neighborhood a distinctive feature that we can all be
        proud of.

        Please note that a 24-acre commercial development is no small area.
        Comparisons: all of Pasadena's Old Town area is approximately 72 acres.
        Disneyland comprises 85 acres. An area one-third the size of Old Town seems like
        a reasonable space for commercial development with no previous

        To trivialize the scope of the proposed commercial development as "a mere
        24 acres" is, I believe, to misunderstand the magnitude of this allotment and to
        characterize the proposed parkland as having "no real significant value to the
        majority of people who live, want to work, and support their communities" is to
        misunderstand our community's needs.

        Our community and our city need more parkland far more than we need another
      • Mike l Gealer
        Hello Bradley, Thank you for appreciating the energy of the people advocating more park space vs. industrial blight. Those of us that have and work with
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 12, 2001
          Hello Bradley,
          Thank you for appreciating the energy of the people advocating more park
          space vs. industrial blight.
          Those of us that have and work with children and families, that like to
          play and walk in nature, young and old ,all of us; know what a severe
          lack of recreation and green space we have in our area. Take a jog around
          Glassell Park , Cypress Park, Carlin G Recreation Centers sometime. You
          might see hundreds of soccer/ baseball kids squished on small strips of
          Thank you FOLAR, Melinda, Marcus, Guillermo, UCLA, Raul, Jackie, Eric and
          all who have projected,outreached, and stalled the industrial for
          regional and local benefit of more play space.

          As to who has been consulted,
          The Neighborhood Council(s) are now forming, and as functioning will
          surely be consulted as such. This is exactly a regional and local land
          use issue for which they were created. Your email here is testimony that
          you have been, though it may have been from outreaches at existing
          community organization meetings.

          Virtually every, existing area neighborhood organization and group has
          been and will continue to be involved as to use,
          Check the support list and petitions.

          Maybe because there is no Glassell Park Chamber or much existing retail,
          other than industrial and mostly scattered small mom and pops in our
          area, there isn't much local coordinated voice. GO FOR IT!
          Perhaps coordinating and outreaching with existing chambers Cypress,
          Eagle Rock, Northeast chambers will help.

          As to parking, an UCLA class project presented recenly at the river
          Center, guided by an instructor who is in the City of LA Planning
          Department did
          propose some underground parking.
          The same UCLA proposal identified entities in Long Beach who would take
          toxic soil from the Yard.
          These important issues are and will continued to be addressed.

          As to quantity of retail/commercial mixed use, nothing is fixed.
          Thank you for and continue to raise this important concern.

          In consideration of retail/commercial infrastructure let's not limit
          ourselves to only Taylor Yards 24 acres.
          Let's look across and down the street, at empty and unleased buildings
          and lots.

          As a community resident and a development consultant, what is your

          For the surrounding area, not only Taylor Yard.

          Mike Gealer
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.