By Mary O’KEEFE

Bradley Calvert, director of Community Development (CD) for the City of Glendale, faced a lot of questions from concerned residents and business owners at last week’s monthly meeting of the Crescenta Valley Community Association (CVCA). 

The topic of concern was the General Plan, which the CD staff is now researching and working on. Calvert’s presentation to the CVCA was part of a larger effort to reach out to communities worried about the language it has heard, and the proposals it has seen, regarding several aspects of the Plan. Of particular concern is the possibility of parking lots within the Montrose Shopping Park being listed as areas where housing could be developed. And that was the topic of concern for most of the 60-plus audience members in attendance.

Calvert began the presentation with some “technical background” on the General Plan land use section and, he also said several times, his purpose was to correct some misinformation that was going around the community. 

“I want to preface that we are not here to advocate for a project,” he said. “I’m not here to convince you to think what we’re proposing in the Land Use Element is the right solution. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I want to emphasize that this is a study.”

He said the Glendale City Council has not voted to move on the General Plan and added that the comment period concerning this issue has been “extended indefinitely.” It had been originally scheduled to end on Aug. 29.

“You can get back to us at any point in time,” he said. 

There is no closing date for the General Plan to be completed, according to the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.

The General Plan guidelines state “robust and inclusive community engagement is a vital component of drafting and updating a general plan. State law requires the local planning agency to provide opportunities for the involvement of the community.”

But those in the audience regarded the City’s outreach concerning the General Plan, and specifically the land use portion of it, had not done well. Calvert addressed the comments by many who shared they had only recently heard about this proposal and that they received the information from other areas outside of the City or Calvert’s department. 

“We’re in the very early, beginning stages [of the plan], but we have enough in this where now we can come and solicit your feedback and your input,” he said. “This is not the end-all, be-all. We will take your comments from this period. We’re going to go back to Council before we release the draft EIR [Environmental Impact Review].”

Calvert emphasized this was only a study and what was in the General Plan document is not a zone change. 

The EIR will examine if densities are changed how that change will affect fire and police response as well as power, water and air quality provisions, among other issues. 

Calvert again emphasized that even if the City conducts an environmental review it is not a foregone conclusion that the proposed housing and land use portion of the General Plan will move forward and that things may change, which is why the comment period is so important and why the CD staff plans on being in the Montrose area “a lot” to discuss the issues and concerns.

He then asked how many in the audience were “concerned” about the Montrose parking lots issue. Everyone raised their hands.

“Let me be clear: no one is proposing 500 affordable units on this [Lot 3],” Calvert said.

He added that, even if the zoning was changed, there would not be 500 units built on the lot. 

“There is no proposal to develop this property,” he emphasized. “Nobody is asking us to [develop it]. No one’s bringing anything up to us. We are not looking to develop this property.”

He did add that parking Lot 3 is already zoned residential and classified as a medium density residential lot. 

“I know how important parking is to Montrose,” he added. “But this – what’s being considered – is what we’re calling an overlay zone. And that overlay zone [states] 50 dwelling units per acre. Now, based on the density or the size of that site, if and probably unlikely [it would mean] 87 units.”

The lower number of units did not appear to have any effect on the audience’s overall concern for the Glendale Plan “study.”

Calvert stated again that there are no plans for the Glendale City Council to approve any residential building on these parking lots and the Plan will show good faith intentions to the state, which is requiring the construction of more residential buildings. 

“What we are seeing is a lot of rules and regulations getting passed down to us [in] what I like to describe as a hatchet approach. It’s not taking into [consideration] our local context … We’ve seen our density bonus requirement from the state [change],” he said. “I have been here for seven years and have seen things change five times.”

He added that what the City is trying to show the state are locations that may, at some point, in terms of housing, be something that could be developed. 

Calvert did state that these properties are owned by the City of Glendale and could have been turned into housing 10 years ago – but they were not. 

“We’re not doing it. I say that because I’m hoping for a little bit of faith, a little bit of trust,” he said. “I know we’re the government. I get it.”

The questions then began, started by Mary-Lynne Fisher with the CVCA, who asked about the “surplus land” designation. 

“My understanding of surplus land … it applies to land owned by the City that is no longer being used for a government purpose. And suddenly what we found in March is that not only Lot 3 but several other lots throughout the City were being re-characterized as surplus,” she said. “I am not as experienced at this as you are but it seems to me if the parking lot is being used by people who are patronizing the businesses and the restaurants … in Montrose, that is a government use. So why all of a sudden did Lot 3 and about 16 other lots wind up as surplus?”

She asked if it would be simpler to take Lot 3 and most other parking lots that support local businesses out of the surplus land designation? 

Calvert replied that “surplus land designation doesn’t change anything” and it doesn’t force the City to develop the land. 

The questions kept returning to what the City was really planning. The audience heard that the City does not have any current plans to build on Lot 3 or other lots in Montrose; however, they were concerned the City could build. Regarding communication, several speakers brought up past experiences with the City, which included the La Crescenta Avenue Project, where they felt outreach was lacking.

A person in the audience identified himself as a past member of the advisory committee for the North Glendale Community Plan. 

“We worked really hard to get that community plan adopted and we thought we had a pretty good product coming out in 2011. There is reference in the Land Use Element about the community plan, how important it is that we follow some guidelines,” he said. 

He added that he could not find that plan on the Glendale website and asked about designation changes in land use. 

“Back in the day, when we were working on the plan, the zoning for Foothill Boulevard was called Hillside Commercial. I noticed there’s a couple of different designations in the Land Use Element referring to Foothill Boulevard as community commercial now. My question to you – is that a change?” he asked. 

Calvert said the City is looking to simplify some of the classifications of the past. 

“While [the City] currently has several different commercial designations, we are collapsing that down into just two or three commercial designations. So physically there’s no change proposed, it is just the classification is being simplified to have a more streamlined document,” Calvert said. 

Several in the audience simply asked Calvert not to “mess with Montrose.”

Calvert responded that is why he and his staff are in Montrose collecting feedback. 

“This is not a foregone conclusion but we have to put something on paper,” he said. “We’ve got to put some ideas on paper.”

The main focus of everyone in the audience was to leave alone Montrose and the areas along Foothill Boulevard. 

“Everybody is here because we don’t want to lose this wonderful community,” said one member of the audience. 

A suggestion was made to create a Montrose Community Committee that could help with outreach and gather opinions from stakeholders. 

Robbyn Battles, a longtime resident who is a realtor, seemed to summarize best the feelings of those in the room. 

“It’s a pattern that you have – not you personally but the City – going back to the what I call the ‘Starship Enterprise,’” she said. 

Battles was referencing what historian Mike Lawler coined as “Starship Verdugo” located at Verdugo Road and Broadview Drive. It is a large silver and glass building. 

“That was approved in the middle of the day at the end of December. It seems to be a special day when Council has [these types] of meetings. And then we get this monstrosity, which is the first one that blocked views in Montrose. So I don’t believe you,” she said. “I honestly think we need some protection from the City of Glendale because you guys don’t listen to us.” 

She asked who in the audience felt they had a voice in the La Crescenta Avenue Project, which was brought up numerous times at the meeting regarding the lack of outreach. 

“Have you ever been here when there’s a fire and now you want to cut off the top of Verdugo Road?” Battles added. 

There was concern that adding more people will increase parking woes with the addition of parking variances allowed, and that increasing more traffic in the area will slow evacuation efforts in the case of fire. 

The fire in Altadena has been referenced as a wake-up call for the foothill communities. Battles shared her experience with wildfires in the area and how difficult it was to get to safety. 

“You’re telling us we’re not going to get density bonus but you’re going to have to do the density bonus because the state is mandating it,” she said. 

She added she felt the council didn’t really listen to residents or business owners, which the audience responded to with applause. 

“And you’re not telling us that you’re not going to implement this. This is your road map to the future of Glendale,” she said. 

Calvert again told the audience these feelings, and these concerns, is exactly why the public comment period was extended and why he is working with MSPA members to hold four outreach events in the Montrose area – specifically to answer questions of concern. 

City staff will have a booth at the Harvest Market, 2300 block of Honolulu Avenue, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 7. There are three more outreach meetings planned: on Sept. 13 at noon, Sept. 17 at 6 p.m. and Sept. 23 at 6 p.m. They will be held at the MSPA headquarters/Glendale Police Substation, at 3600 Ocean View Blvd. #11.