Smaller project would be a boon
Regarding the Craftsman house at 2128 Glenada Ave., in Montrose, I am very disappointed with the developer of this site (“Montrose cottage facing demolition,” March 21).
His presentation of his plans at the Crescenta Valley Town Council some months past was met with near unanimous opposition, especially from the neighbors on the street. This should have been a cue for developer Gevorg Voskanian to change his plans a bit.
The opposition was to the amount of the units proposed and the demolition of the oldest home in Montrose (1914) and a particularly fine example of California Craftsman that is exemplified by so many of the rest of the homes on Glenada.
This home (and street) is definitely a historical resource to the community, specifically if it remains intact with the rest of the historic homes on this street.
It was made known to the developers that if they moved the existing house out to the front setback and north to the side setback, restore the house, subdivide it into a duplex (it’s large enough), and build two units in the back using the architectural details from the historic home, he would be a hero to the community.
The developer’s architect says the house is in poor shape and not worth saving. I have seen, in my experience in design and restoration, homes in worse shape than this brought back to glory by sensitive and clever construction. If this situation were in Pasadena, there would be no question as to what the developer should do.
Voskanian stated at that Town Council meeting that he “wished to do your community no harm.” Please prove it. Prove that you can work with your neighbors on Glenada for a design that is compatible; stay the demolition of this historic resource, which will only engender more opposition and delay your project. Saving the house and restoring it in a clever new guise as a duplex in a slightly smaller project would save you money on all the underground parking you’re planning, save the neighborhood, save your reputation.
Time to ‘get to it’ on smoking ban
I wonder why more than 30 cities just in Los Angeles County are ahead of Glendale when it comes to banning second-hand smoke (“Council appears ready to snuff smoking,” Thursday).
Just take a stroll down Brand Boulevard on a beautiful afternoon and count how many times you have to hold your breath to keep from breathing in cigarette smoke.
Like Councilman John Drayman said, “let’s just get to it.”
Council made right decision on smoking
A big thank you to our City Council for taking a giant leap toward a much-needed smoking ordinance last Tuesday (“Council appears ready to snuff smoking,” Thursday).
Rather than spending our tax dollars on an outreach program that would have produced very predictable results and would take months and months to complete, they decided the public would be better served by just drafting an ordinance and starting the process in earnest.
This means the public can weigh in on the ordinance in definite terms, rather than wishy-washy “what ifs” and guesses as to what kind of ordinance the city will eventually adopt.
They are not taking away the right to weigh in on it. No doubt, our City Council chambers will be jam packed by people on both sides of this issue when it comes down to a vote.
There are many in the smoking community who claim their rights are being quashed and that they are being vilified, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is unhealthy to breathe cigarette smoke on any level, and it’s a practice that, unlike a fireplace, can be taken into any environment.
Nonsmokers are not asking smokers to quit, nor are they expecting miracles. They are asking for the city to step in and put stricter limitations on smoking in public places for their health, the health of their children and the health of our city and oceans.
Not all smokers do so in the presence of children on the playground or puff away at tables outside of places like Cold Stone Creamery, but enough do that it’s a problem. Those who lack consideration and common sense will ultimately be the ones who force all smokers to “pay” for their actions.
So, when pointing fingers and blaming nonsmokers for losing the right to smoke wherever, think again. If more smokers were courteous and used good judgment, there wouldn’t be outcry for change. Put the blame where it belongs. It’s not a witch hunt. It’s a health issue.
Ban foreshadows stripped rights
I would like to speak out on the proposed smoking ban (“Council appears ready to snuff smoking,” Thursday).
Day after day we hear of another right being stripped from us. Since when should any government decide what we should or should not do, outside of socialist countries.
Smoking outdoors has not been proven to be a health hazard to others. I can see that smoking in a confined area such as a restaurant or store may affect other people’s health, especially if they have any respiratory problems.
So Burbank and Calabasas have banned smoking; why does Glendale have to follow suit? Because it’s the popular thing to do?
Come on now, City Council members. Wake up and start tending to the real problems in our city.
May I add, as a smoker I have always been considerate of others, especially children. If nonsmokers keep pushing this in their cities, maybe some of their rights should be taken away too! Let’s ban cappuccinos, loud music, loud talking, screaming children.