Quick summary: Below you’ll find side-by-side “Everyday Language” translations of key quotes from Glendale officials about the CORO – City Owned Residential Overlay, along with line-by-line breakdowns. This piece clarifies what the quotes imply for Montrose parking, potential redevelopment of city-owned parcels (including near GCC), and the role of SB 79 and “proactive planning.” It also includes details for the CVCA community meeting on Thursday, August 28 at 7:00 pm at the La Crescenta Library.
This blog breaks down recent quotes from Glendale officials in an August 22 article by the Glendale Newspress discussing the City Owned Residential Overlay (CORO). The goal, allow residents and businesses undertand what’s actually being communicated. You’ll find a side-by-side Everyday Language translation for each quote, followed by a detailed walkthrough of the wording line by line.
The purpose is to provide more clarity around parking, potential redevelopment of city-owned parcels, and the impact of proposed state mandates such as SB 79— so you can evaluate the facts and decide where you stand.
Each quote includes a “what it means” breakdown and why the response may feel like it avoids the core community question.
Community Meeting: The Crescenta Valley Community Association will host a meeting on Thursday, August 28 at 7:00 pm at the La Crescenta Library.
Community Development Director Bradley Calvert will present the CORO overlay proposal and take questions from the public.
Community Development Director Bradley Calvert will present the CORO overlay proposal and take questions from the public.
State compliance & “development trends” (Calvert)
City’s words
“We’re interested in setting up policies that hopefully demonstrates to the state that we are committed to having rules and regulations that help create housing for the city, but also that we’re just making sure that our land use element is up to date with current development trends of the city.”
Everyday Language meaning
We want Sacramento to see we’re cooperating. We’re updating planning paperwork & policies to align with housing goals and “trends,” not promising specific outcomes for Montrose right now.
What the quote actually means
- “We’re interested in setting up policies that hopefully demonstrates to the state…”
→ The City wants to be seen by Sacramento as compliant with state housing mandates. Optics with the state are a key driver. - “…that we are committed to having rules and regulations that help create housing for the city…”
→ Not a promise of housing, but of policies. It’s about adopting paperwork/rules that signal alignment with state goals. - “…but also that we’re just making sure that our land use element is up to date with current development trends of the city.”
→ The overlay is framed as a document update to match “trends,” not as a response to specific Montrose needs or impacts.
Why it sounds like an avoidance
- The community asked about direct impacts (parking, density, business effects). The reply centers on process and compliance.
- Shifts focus to “trends” and state optics instead of day-to-day consequences for residents and merchants.
Parking & “future council” (Calvert)
City’s words
“We are not eliminating parking specifically in the Montrose area. Even if that discussion were to be had, we… would replace that parking, one for one, if not seek additional parking… as part of any of those developments that could or could not happen. Again, that all depends on the council many, many years from now.”
Everyday Language meaning
Parking isn’t being removed right now. If it is later, the City would try to replace it—no guarantees. Accountability is pushed to a future council, even though today’s zoning opens the door.
What the quote actually means
- “We are not eliminating parking specifically in the Montrose area.”
→ Carefully narrow and present-tense: “not now,” “not specifically.” Leaves room for future change. - “Even if that discussion were to be had…”
→ Acknowledges that a parking-removal discussion is possible; it’s not off the table. - “we would replace that parking, one for one, if not seek additional parking…”
→ “Seek” isn’t “guarantee.” This is aspirational language, not a binding commitment or ordinance. - “as part of any of those developments that could or could not happen.”
→ Hedging: development may or may not occur, which avoids specifics about timing and scope. - “Again, that all depends on the council many, many years from now.”
→ Defers accountability to future councils, even though a current zoning change enables later redevelopment.
Why it sounds like an avoidance
- No enforceable guarantee of one-for-one replacement; “seek” is non-binding.
- Focuses on the distant future while today’s policy change creates the possibility of lost public parking.
SB 79, state override & “proactive planning” (Mayor Najarian + Calvert)
City’s words
Najarian: “Even though there is no legislation and target on those properties, unless those properties have a residential component… the state can pass a law at lightning speed, like they’re doing with SB 79 and take control of that, and we won’t have anything to say with it.”
Calvert: The City has seen enough large-scale state changes to warrant proactive planning.
Calvert: The City has seen enough large-scale state changes to warrant proactive planning.
Everyday Language meaning
The state can quickly override local control (example: SB 79), so the City wants to move first with overlays to keep some say. In short: approve changes now to avoid being forced later.
What the quote actually means
- “Even though there is no legislation and target on those properties…” (Najarian)
→ Acknowledges there’s no current state law aimed at the specific parcels—today. - “…unless those properties have a residential component…” (Najarian)
→ Suggests that if/when housing is added, different rules could apply, changing the state’s posture. - “the state can pass a law at lightning speed… and take control of that, and we won’t have anything to say with it.” (Najarian)
→ Frames Sacramento as able to pre-empt quickly; local say could be sidelined. - “Calvert agreed… warrant proactive planning.”
→ Uses state pre-emption risk to justify moving now (e.g., overlays) to appear compliant and retain partial control.
Why it sounds like an avoidance
- Shifts the conversation from specific parcel impacts (parking, traffic, business access) to a generalized state-pressure narrative.
- Leverages urgency/fear to advance present-day zoning changes that enable redevelopment without detailing where/how.
“Hatchet, large-scale changes” & being proactive (Calvert)
City’s words
“I think at this point, we have seen enough changes and enough of those very hatchet, large scale kind of changes coming down to the city that we need to be more thoughtful and more proactive and that is what we’re attempting to do here.”
Everyday Language meaning
Sacramento has been heavy-handed, so Glendale is pushing its own plan now. The overlay is framed as protection, but it still lays groundwork for redevelopment.
What the quote actually means
- “hatchet, large scale… changes coming down to the city”
→ Characterizes state actions as blunt/heavy-handed, but provides no concrete examples in this statement. - “we need to be more thoughtful and more proactive”
→ Sets up a rationale to act now—advance local policy (like CORO) pre-emptively. - “that is what we’re attempting to do here”
→ Frames CORO as a defensive move rather than a growth policy, even though practical effects can be similar.
Why it sounds like an avoidance
- Doesn’t address residents’ immediate concerns (density, traffic, parking loss) tied to specific parcels.
- Centers on defending process (“being proactive”) rather than clarifying what changes the overlay enables and where.
Pattern to note: Deflection to Sacramento → Process over impacts → Accountability deferred, while zoning changes today enable redevelopment tomorrow.