Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff extends comment period, defends outreach for Glendale land-use update as residents and council voice concerns
Summary
City staff said it opened a 45-day comment period and expanded outreach for the draft land-use element of Glendale's general plan, but residents and several council members said public notice and clear summaries were inadequate for affected neighborhoods, particularly in Montrose and La Crescenta.
City staff told the Glendale City Council on Aug. 12 that the draft Land Use element of the general plan is the subject of an extended public comment period and increased outreach after staff received a rise in community questions and misinformation.
Bradley Calvert, director of development, said the city opened a 45-day comment period and launched a multilingual mailer to 40,000 addresses, ran social-media outreach that reached thousands of accounts, included notices in the City Connection newsletter and ran 11 community pop-ups and multiple HOA meetings. Staff said they would extend the public comment period by 10 days, from Aug. 19 to Aug. 29, and that an environmental review comment period will follow in the fall.
Council members and residents raised multiple concerns about the timing and clarity of outreach. Public commenters and several council members said that long technical documents (more than 200 pages in some drafts) were difficult to parse, that targeted notification (for example, signs on parcels being studied) would help affected residents, and that more user-friendly summaries of proposed changes to specific lots were needed.
Staff response and clarifications: Calvert told council that city-owned parcels in Montrose and near Glendale Community College were being studied for potential land-use changes to respond to projected housing needs; he emphasized that property ownership alone does not mean parcels will be sold or redeveloped and that parking would be replaced on a 1-for-1 basis if reconfigured. Staff also corrected an earlier, imprecise comment about zoning designations on a specific lot and said they would provide a memo with parcel-specific clarifications.
Public comment highlights: Multiple speakers pressed the council to slow the process and expand outreach. Speakers representing neighborhood groups described receiving limited notice and asked that the city post signs on specific parking lots and produce short, plain-language explanations of what proposed changes would mean for height, density and parking on particular parcels.
Next steps: Staff said it would continue community meetings, post clearer web banners and extend the comment period per council discussion. Several council members asked staff to evaluate different notice formats (including color-coded signs) and to return with options for improving outreach as the plan proceeds to environmental review.
Ending: The land-use update remains underway; staff and several council members signaled willingness to adjust outreach tactics and to provide parcel-level clarity to residents while continuing the statutorily required process.
