As a resident who also works in the film industry, the parking lot is one of the few that can accomodate production vehicles in the town. Filming brings revenue from a clean industry that is disparately needed by our little town as we have no car dealerships or big box stores. Any development of the property would be wise to consider making the first floor parking with 14 feet of clearance to accomodate production vehicles. You could still put a facade on the front to hide the vehicles and the upper floors could be either residential or commercial (preferably commercial). That way the school could still get the parking income, which they need to charge more for and which they disparately need and the town could have more viable commercial space to generate more tax income.

Leave it empty. Why do we need to fill the limited empty space we have in this town? Where is everyone supposed to park when these new bldgs go in?

I, too, like the idea of leaving the lot empty; it's not an eye sore, even when the filming trucks are there and is useful for overflow for the farmer's market and surrounding businesses. But if anything HAS to go there, I'd "vote" down more residences, in the interest of not over-packing Arroya Vista Elementary. I'm sure this will be considered as it's in the school district's best interest. Only small businesses make sense on this block, if something must be built.

Leave it alone!!!! Jeez

Back in the 70s, us high school students had our behind the wheel part of driver's ed. in that lot. Oh, the memories...

it's an historic site like the library. consider NOT developing it! except plant grass and trees. consider design as an extension of historic public library and green areas. continue to use for public purposes and farmer's market etc. (Same should be considered for corner lot at mission/ fremont.) I understand why private developers/ property owners get so excited to develop every square inch of real estate as soon as it becomes available $ - but for this unique location, let's just say no as matter of public policy.

I heard one of the proposals includes historic preservation of the property with trees in a courtyard and a kid's water fountain. It's one of the proposals with retail and residential.

At the last school board meeting, the Superintendent's committee presented analysis of the three RFPs. Overall, the YMCA ranked the lowest of the three proposals when evaluated on the following topics: qualifications of proposer; value of proposal to the district; and value of proposal to South Pasadena. As for the historic aspect, it does say that one of the proposals "The School Yard" would "Provide $1,000,000.00 in 'historically preserved' tenant improvements to the district offices. District would remain on site." Here is a link to the group's presentation: http://bit.ly/wIqWBN

I say this over and over: Do we really need more retail/condo development?

I continue to think that input just from the nearby neighbors is not right. This town is 3 square miles in area. We are all neighbors. One thing that all of you who advocate leaving it as it is and not adding more commercial development fail to consider is that the city needs money to function.

Let's turn it into a big petting zoo and charge admission ;-)

SPUSD desperately needs a income source. Sensitive development and retaining the existing building is a viable options. No one wants to preserve our architecturally significant structures than I do, but the State of California cannot pay its bills (read our teachers and staff) or provide for more than the bare minimum for our students. Make the parking clearance to accommodate commercial vehicles for additional film rental income. Let's hear what SPUSD comes up with ...

Did I miss the "community" meeting (not a school board meeting) that the SPUSD had specifically to discuss their plans/need to develop the property on Mission St to all the citizens of So Pasadena BEFORE requesting proposals? Or, how about a list of the committee members who are supposedly representing the community...have they had a public meeting to discuss the proposals?

If neither of the above has happened, it appears SPUSD is going down the wrong path again in their attempt to play developer. Does anyone remember the first proposal they entertained years ago for an alzheimer care facility proposed by an Orange county consultant?

The right type of development should be an asset to Mission St shopping, the school district AND the city as a whole. Everyone should be involved in the decision, not just a select few chosen by the Superintendent to evaluate the three proposals.

This meeting mentioned above was held because a group of community members who live in close proximity to the district offices wanted to obtain information and state their opinions. However, before the 18-person Superintendent committee was formed and proposals were analyzed, the district was—and still is—encouraging residents to share their thoughts, concerns, etc. at school board meetings. You can also e-mail Superintendent Joel Shapiro (JShapiro@fc.spusd.net), and he will relay your thoughts to the board. I just uploaded the Superintendent committee's report to this article. If interested in this development, take a look.

Thanks for the quick response Kristen. I guess my comment was too subtle and I will have to explain.

I'm all for the neighbors that are affected having a meeting, but they shouldn't have had to go out of their way to ask for this meeting...it should have been the first step for the district if they wanted an open, collaborative process with the people. But, of course they don't.

And, to expect people to go to a school board meeting to express their opinion is like So Pasadena freeway fighters going to Caltrans to express their opinion...it goes exactly nowhere!

So back to my original questions...was their ever a single community meeting specific to this subject to discuss the proposals and solicit input and comments from the community about the three proposals and who, specifically named, are the citizens representing the entities on this committee? I think the answer to the first question is no.

It's not too late for the district to salvage this process before it develops into a full-blown land use controversy (as is usual in So Pasadena) and seek the input from the community and really mean it. Reconsider their process for seeking input on these three proposals and have a meeting or two to provide information.

It's time for the district to show some respect for the citizens who have voted in two parcel taxes.

Joanne,

Your points are well taken. However, I do not believe this process can be salvaged.
E-Mailing the school superintenant with our concerns and asking him to forward these concerns to the board is not the same as an open and collabortative public hearing.

What we now have is another Fair Oaks fiasco in the making. But on a much larger scale.

Kristen. May I suggest a new Patch Poll on this subject with the following question: "Do you believe the South Pasadena Board of Education has properly involved the public in the proposed development of the SPUSD Parking Lot?"

@Sam: I would be happy to do so. I will link the poll to this thread when it's published.

Thanks, Kristen.

As promised, here is the transparency poll. Feel free to pass it around. http://patch.com/A-rbb9