CRITICS OPPOSE REVISED REPORT OAKMONT V STUDY CALLED 'SKEWED'.

Byline: Helen Gao Staff Writer

GLENDALE - A revised environmental impact report on a 572-unit housing development in the Verdugo Mountains fails to explore options that would leave the rustic area in pristine condition, environmental activists said.

The revised report on the Oakmont V housing development released a week ago does not consider recreational use for the 238-acre project site nor a 12-home scenario that would strictly adhere to the hillside preservation ordinance.

Instead, the report explores a combination of single-family and multifamily dwellings, ranging from 50 units to 482 units, as well as cemetery use. That, project opponents say, is a mistake.

``To not have the alternative as recreation or 12 units is a gaping hole. Everything is skewed toward 400, 500, or 300-some,'' said Max Hobbs, vice president of Volunteers Organized in Conserving the Environment.

VOICE, a leading opponent of the project, has visions of the Oakmont site being transformed into a park with hiking and equestrian trails and picnic tables.

Lee Gregg, vice president of Gregg's Artistic Homes, the developer, argued that a 'no project alternative' included in the report is the equivalent of a recreation alternative.

``They both have the same result: Somebody would have to pay the fair market value under the (California) Constitution'' he said.

Under state law, Gregg said, he is allowed to sue the city to recoup the fair market value of his land if it restricts development on his property in such a way that the land becomes no longer economically viable. The recreation alternative, in his view, is not economically viable.

Gregg, who insists he is not interested in selling his land, said appraisers have valued his property between $40 to $50 million - a figure conservationists dispute as too high.

In their view, the land is worth much less because they believe the current council - elected with overwhelming support from homeowners groups - is unlikely to approve 572 homes.

VOICE has formed a united front with the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council, an umbrella homeowners organization that boasts membership of more than 20,000 homeowners citywide.

Along with other nonprofit environmental groups, VOICE has secured $5 million for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to purchase the Oakmont site in order to preserve it as open space. It is also spearheading a campaign to acquire $2 million more from the state Legislature to augment the acquisition fund.

According to the revised report, written by consultants under city staff supervision, the recreation alternative is not viable because it does not meet the developer's objective to provide housing and the developer has expressed no interest in selling the land.

The 12-unit alternative was eliminated, the report said, because it does not take into account exceptions permitted by the hillside ordinance, which would allow more units.

Project opponents agree the revised report is more comprehensive in detailing negative impacts the project would have on traffic and neighbors such as Camp Max Straus, a camp for disadvantaged children.

The report validates claims by the camp that its rural character would be compromised by construction and lighting from the project.

The report also acknowledges that noise and air quality problems from project construction would adversely affect the camp, which serves children suffering from asthma and other illnesses. The revised report details more than 30 significant unavoidable impacts resulting from the project compared with a dozen in the initial report. Those impacts are defined as problems that cannot be reduced.

Significant unavoidable impacts listed by the report range from conflicts with local land use plans and policies and increased traffic congestion on nearby roads to a loss of wildlife habitats and dramatic changes to the hillsides due to mass grading and filling.

The public is invited to comment on the revised report. Consultants who prepared the report will respond to comments before issuing a final report.

Under a 1993 court settlement with the developer, the City Council is required to vote on the report's validity by March 2002.

The court settlement requires the council to consider the project under an older, less stringent version of the hillside ordinance, which restricts grading and construction on steep hillsides and prominent ridges. The current version was passed in 1993, after the developer had submitted his project.

The revised environmental impact report is available online at www.ci.glendale.ca.us. The deadline to submit comments is Sept. 17. A public hearing on the report is scheduled for 5 p.m., Aug. 16 at the Glendale High School Auditorium, 1440 East Broadway.