Glendale staff say proposed residential overlay is defensive step; residents and businesses urge protections for Montrose parking lots

City planning staff and the mayor framed a proposed residential overlay for selected city‑owned parcels as a "defensive" step intended to preserve local authority amid recent state housing actions.

"California courts have held that when housing is declared a matter of statewide concern ... the state can come in and take over that land," Mayor Najarian said, summarizing staff's explanation of the legal risk and citing the Anderson v. San Jose case as an example of state action overriding local control (00:18:58).

The city's planning lead, Mr. Calvert, told the council the overlay is not an immediate rezoning and that the city will run an environmental impact report (EIR) and more public engagement before any zoning or development standards are adopted. He said the EIR will test impacts on public safety, water and power and could lead to scaling back the overlay if systems are taxed beyond acceptable limits (00:18:58).

Calvert used Lot 3 in Montrose as an example: "It's currently zoned for R3‑050. That means you could build close to about 30 units on it today ... This overlay zone would increase that to about 86, 87," he said, adding the proposal does not allow 5–7‑story towers adjacent to single‑family neighborhoods as some mailers have claimed (00:24:50).

Despite staff's framing, multiple residents, homeowners association representatives and Montrose business owners spoke during the public comment periods to oppose any change touching city‑owned parking lots that serve the Montrose Shopping Park. "We are categorically opposed to any kind of development on the parking lots that currently serve our shopping park," said David Mosessian, representing Montrose businesses, who urged the council to permanently remove those lots from consideration (01:01:01).

Royal Canyon Property Owners Association board member Paul Karapetyan said outreach to his HOA felt like "check the box" engagement and asked the council to terminate an exclusive negotiating agreement related to the Civic Auditorium. Karapetyan and others asked for more timely, clear notice of meetings and said last‑minute additions to meeting agendas undermined trust (00:53:54).

Patrick Murphy and other speakers raised questions about the city's housing element and the former Sears site, noting the housing element submitted to the state included large capacity numbers that were later reduced in project approvals and asking whether city parcels are being used to make up any shortfall (00:44:50). Staff replied that the housing element identifies sites with theoretical capacity and that actual development is controlled by existing zoning and subsequent approvals (00:50:30).

Council members and staff said they will extend public comment periods and hold more targeted, neighborhood meetings with Montrose stakeholders and neighborhood associations to correct misinformation and gather detailed feedback. Calvert said staff would likely extend the EIR comment period beyond the current extension to Aug. 29 so neighborhood meetings can be held (00:24:50).

Why it matters: The city's land‑use element and any overlay affecting publicly owned parcels could inform future rezoning, development standards and RFPs for city property. Residents and business owners emphasized that potential long‑term disruptions, replacement parking logistics and economic impacts on local small businesses must be addressed before any final decisions.

What's next: Staff said the EIR and an additional round of public outreach will be scheduled; council directed staff to continue neighborhood meetings and to return with more outreach dates and clarifications.