Clarification on Foothill Height Limits
A recent letter to the editor in the Crescenta Valley Weekly (and other publications) on the height limit of Foothill Boulevard lacked a few details.

The height limit is based from the lowest point of the property. Since just about all of the south side of Foothill Boulevard properties have a slope – some quite a bit – that puts the lowest point somewhere below the main street level.

Properties on Foothill also have varying width sizes. That also should be considered. A lot with a 50-foot width should not be compared with a lot three times the size.

Of the three choices to be submitted, the Crescenta Valley Chamber of Commerce had voted on a 42-foot height. If we were to limit all buildings to 35 feet, properties with a large slope could be limited to a frontage height of 25 feet or less.  This is not encouraging to new businesses. Maybe properties should be individually decided, keeping in mind design of a building will always play an important role.

It was also mentioned in the column that the single-story mini mall on the north side of the 3700 block of Foothill is mostly leased with busy tenants. That may be true of Starbucks, but most of the original tenants have gone out of business.

Another column mentioned all the “For Lease” signs along Foothill. That doesn’t mean larger buildings will have problems. Perhaps it means single story buildings in need of remodeling have problems as well. Possibly it has something to do with the economy, or maybe it just means they need more support from the community.

Honolulu Avenue should not be compared to Foothill Boulevard. Nor should all realtors, architects and developers be considered greedy.

The purpose of the Chamber of Commerce is to encourage business; let’s not scare it away.

Jean Maluccio, past president
CV Chamber of Commerce

OPPORTUNITIES LOST
In regard to a recent article and letter in the Crescenta Valley Weekly concerning the city planning along Foothill Boulevard (“Offers Perspective on North Glendale Plan,” Viewpoints, Aug. 11) I am reminded of the need for council districts, rather than electing council members at large. Former councilman John Drayman, a native son of the Crescenta Valley, while on council probably understood better than any council member the needs of the Crescenta Valley and championed their interests.

With the replacement of Mr. Drayman with Mr. Manoukian the Crescenta Valley will again not have a representative from the Crescenta Valley.

When Mr. Drayman ran for office he often spoke about how the Crescenta Valley was not represented on the city council. He often mentioned the need for council districts, but once on council he never proposed changing the charter for council districts.

South Glendale is very different than the neighborhoods of the Crescenta Valley and also has not been able to influence the decisions at city hall, because nobody from council is from their area. In 2003, the swimming pool at Pacific Park was destroyed and was only re-opened recently, eight years later.

For the past eight years the kids and their families have had to endure sweltering summers without their neighborhood pool. Most of the residents of south Glendale live in older crowded apartments and houses without central air or swimming pools to cool off and relax during the cities often hot and humid months of summer.

With no representation on council from South Glendale, the area is often neglected and needed monies have gone to pet projects of other council members.

Who will represent the Crescenta Valley in the 2013 election? Perhaps the leaders of the Crescenta Valley might want to join their neighbors in South Glendale and study how the city of Pasadena changed their charter for “home rule.” Today, Pasadena has council districts and a mayor chosen by all the citizens of Pasadena.

Mike Mohill
Glendale