By Mary O’KEEFE

Since the publication of the CVW articles last week concerning the City of Glendale’s General Plan update, there has been a lot of talk, confusion and accusations concerning accuracy regarding the update process. CVW spoke with Bradley Calvert, director of Community Development with the City of Glendale, to attempt to get a clearer picture of what the General Plan is and what it may mean to Montrose and Glendale.

According to the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), “A general plan is each local government’s blueprint for meeting the community’s long-term vision for the future.”

The local General Plan should start with a shared community vision that will help set priorities throughout the planning process and inform decision makers about community values, according to LCI.

Let’s be clear: there is a lot of work that goes into creating the General Plan. There are specific guidelines that have to be followed and numerous elements that have to be included.

In 1971 California amended its Government Code to make General Plans mandatory for every city and county in the state. It also required all local land use approvals to be consistent with the jurisdiction’s General Plan as the statement of local planning policy for the future. The General Plan requirements have been updated over the years but at its base it is to act as the link between the expressed values and vision of the community and the result. This is the basis of why the update of the General Plan is being done.

The issue that seems to be gathering a lot of attention is that within the plan, if approved by the Glendale City Council, City-owned parking lots could become residential developments. This includes parking lots in Montrose.

“The large lot, number three, is zoned for R3050 and parking, so it could be both [residential and commercial],” Calvert said.

R3050 zoning means the property is zoned for moderate density, residential development.

“The other [parking lots in Montrose] have a ST3 zoning,” he added. “Those are a combination of our commercial zoning. With that being said, the ST3 zone does allow residential densities at what we call R1250.”

ST3 zones allow for medium-to-high density multi-family dwellings, which is similar to Glendale’s R1250.

The bottom line is that most business owners and residents are not as concerned about how the lots are zoned but what would be planned for those lots.

Concerns range from business owners who worry about development and how that would affect their businesses, that Montrose would lose its valuable parking spaces, and residents who are concerned about the size of additional housing and how that will affect a variety of issues, including fire safety.

“The thing that I have to continue to caution is that it doesn’t mean that [the City] is or will or anyone can just come and [develop the City-owned property],” Calvert said. “The City owns these properties, the City decides ultimately if anything were to happen at all … The City has complete control over those properties and the decision of whether or not anything would happen to them at any point in the future – now or 20 years away.”

The point Calvert wanted to stress was that the City does not have a developer chosen nor does it have a development planned.

CVW pointed out that those most concerned about the information being shared, specifically at the Montrose Shopping Park Association meeting this month, were not concerned that the City was going ahead with a development but that it could do this.

“And that is a fair concern,” Calvert said. “That is the kind of concern and kind of comment we would like to hear. I think the problem with the narrative, and what I am seeing in flyers and what I am seeing in print elsewhere, is that it’s imminent, that we have a proposal in our hands, which we don’t.”

He said he understood the fears business owners and residents have.

Another matter was in regard to the City’s outreach pertaining to the issue, which from the City’s point of view has been extensive; however, from those interviewed by CVW concerning the General Plan, outreach has been lacking.

MSPA’s board of directors has been focused on getting  information out to business owners and residents in the area, including putting flyers on its website and handing out flyers throughout the shopping park that urge the public to speak up about this issue.

“We are working with Bradley Calvert to schedule four informational meetings to help clarify the issues,” said Andre Ordubegian, MSPA president.

Once those dates have been set, CVW will share that information with its readers.

  Mary Okeefe