Local groups, and the city, are already pursuing new strategies; it remains for residents to support them to ensure continued public access to nearby open spaces.

V.O.I.C.E. just sent out this email blast to keep supporters engaged in preventing development of the Verdugo Hills Golf Course, even as it waits for a final environmental impact report delayed by, among other things, budget cutbacks in the city of LA’s Planning Department. Excerpts from the email:

While we wait for the final EIR this is a good time to reflect on what we stand to lose if the proposed project goes through. The City of Los Angeles already faces a shortage of recreational parkland. Loss of the VHGC would only worsen the situation. In fact, the 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report acknowledged this. The loss of recreation is one of two significant negative environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. There is no way to lessen the loss.

Preserving the Verdugo Hills Golf Course is MORE than saving just the existing golf course. The extended property of the VHGC provides space for additional forms of recreation for local residents. The Verdugo Hills Golf Course & Regional Park could become a recreational destination for us all.

The city of Glendale set up the new Glendale Parks and Open Space Foundation. The foundation is now organizing its second fundraiser, the Verdugo Mountains 10K Run and Hike, set for May 1.

Glendale is also preparing to compete for federal appropriations as Congress eliminates earmarks (link is the staff report). The Los Angeles Riverwalk, a plan for upgrading bicycle and pedestrian paths along the border with Glendale and surrounding communities, is one project staff identified in its report as consistent with current federal interests.

The group is committed to preserving the park’s open landscapes and urban wilderness features, and to maintaining oversight of plans and decisions affecting the park.

For more information, check out www.friendsofgriffithpark.org.

Currently, developers pay a 1% fee for any project in the DSP Redevelopment Area (which ends in 5 years) valued at $500,000 or more. In addition to extending the requirement throughout the city, the change will create a General Art Fund for the city, give developers 2 choices (a 2%-of-value on-site public art project, or a 1% contribution to the General Art Fund), and establish guidelines for oversight and art selection by qualified individuals.

Making the arts a priority for public spaces and civic life is one big way Glendale can create a unique brand and promote itself as a destination. Keeping high-quality performing arts options in the city won’t happen without city and public support.

Supporter Arlene Vidor urges residents’ support for the proposal:

“This expansion enables a steady source of funding for the arts that can be used to fund arts events, arts related groups, and venues (new and existing, such as the Alex Theater). Note the Alex which will no longer receive any funds when the redevelopment district in downtown Glendale sunsets in a few years. This change needs a 4 OUT OF 5 Council “yes” vote to pass (because it includes zoning changes) and it’s critically important that you weigh in with your support. PLEASE VOICE YOUR SUPPORT either in person or in writing for joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency agenda items 1a, 1b, and 1c on December 7th, related to improvements in the Glendale Urban Art Program.”

Preface to Glendale’s Urban Art Program Guidelines (in the staff report):

As it exists, the Urban Art Program seeks to promote a diverse and stimulating cultural environment to enrich the quality of life for residents and visitors. The Program encourages the creative interaction of artists, developers, designers, city officials and community members during the design of development projects, in order to develop public art that is meaningful to the site and to the community. The Program anticipates a diverse range of art experiences throughout the downtown, enlivening the public space available during the everyday routines of walking to work, eating at a sidewalk cafe, or shopping on Brand Boulevard. By expanding the program citywide, residents and visitors will enjoy public art throughout Glendale. In addition, by incentivizing in-lieu fee payments into the Urban Art Fund , the City would be able to fund projects in art deficient areas of the City.

Earlier this month, the Verdugo Hills Golf Course Committee learned that the City of Los Angeles Planning Department will NOT be releasing the Final Environmental Impact Report [FEIR] in October. Paperwork from the EIR consultants was submitted in summer 2010, but layoffs and reorganization in city administrative offices may have delayed completion. The committee is now estimating that the FEIR will not be released before the new year.

The VHGC Committee and the STNC Land Use Committee are inviting community members to attend the Monday meeting to hear where the proposed project stands. Link to the meeting flier for details.

Some complications (besides the lack of money): Atwater Village stakeholders have reservations about the city of LA redevelopment plans, Tom LaBonge’s proposal to establish a “waste to energy” plant in North Atwater is not completely off the table, and a high speed rail route determined some time in the future could derail local plans.

The need to raise rates if Glendale residents cut back significantly on consumption was anticipated by Assistant General Manager Peter Kavounas at that meeting, as the notes reflect. It is only news to everyone in Glendale (including a News-Press columnist) who didn’t attend the sessions. GWP held the same meetings in other corners of Glendale to reach out to all residents. The one I attended, at Pacific Park Community Center, was a gathering of only about 15 people, which included Kavounas, GWP Manager Glenn Steiger, and at least three other GWP/city staff members.

If Glendale used too much water, it would be surcharged by the Metropolitan Water District. If a cutback in demand caused sales to fall below the break even point, the logical recourse would be to raise rates. Is this a straight Catch 22, or is there an ideal amount of water that Glendale can use to stay in the narrow comfort zone between GWP and MWD to keep its water rates steady?

The more offensive paradox was an issue that came up at the Pacific Park meeting, and at prior meetings I’ve watched or attended. Why are current residents asked to cut back on water consumption as new, dense, development projects are approved by the city? Whether these new developments are water efficient or not, this is increased water use. Another example of the delicate dance to balance revenue the city desperately needs against costs it wants to avoid.

Follow this link to the survey. If you are interested in offering separate comments or being contacted, go to this page on BrandGlendale.com and fill in the form.

Questions? Annette Vartanian, in Glendale Community Redevelopment and Housing, is listed as the primary contact on the website.