Hollywood Hills scene of classic land-use wrangle.

Controversy swirling about Lake Hollywood project

The City of Los Angeles last week released the draft environmental impact report on a controversial Lake Hollywood housing project, launching the latest round in what could be a lengthy, fierce fight at City Hall.

"This is shaping up to be a real classic land-use battle," said Robert Glushon, an attorney/lobbyist representing neighboring homeowners opposed to the project.

Lake Hollywood Ltd. II, a partnership formed by a handful of wealthy Japanese investors, has contracted with affiliate Jefferson Development Corp. to build 40 homes ranging in price between $3 million and $10 million on a 107-acre site in the Santa Monica Mountains, directly northeast of the Lake Hollywood Reservoir.

The project would include the extension of Lake Hollywood Drive as a private street within the subdivision and construction of a new private street. The developers have proposed to gate and guard the entire project, plus existing homes in the area.

While Jefferson President Tom Sullivan insisted that his team has "left no stone unturned" in its quest to address concerns of the project's neighbors, opponents vowed to prevent would-be builders from proceeding with their plans.

Zoning designated under the Hollywood Community Plan and the city's Slope Density Ordinance supports development of 40 homes on the site. And supporters point out that the closest subdivisions are more densely developed.

But scores of local homeowners -- who have been fighting the project since 1988, when the investors acquired the property from Brown Development Co. in an "all-cash" transaction -- want the environment preserved. In addition to the project's impact on local flora and fauna, opponents also express concerns about other potential consequences: the grading of scenic ridges, rerouted traffic and a proposed "jogger" parking lot and security gates, among others.

"There are enough homes in the neighborhood already," commented homeowner Zilla Clinton. "This is one of the few natural environments left in the city; do we have to develop everything?"

Dan Riffe, a veteran member of the Hollywood Knolls Community Club, said the buyers approached the homeowner/resident association before acquiring the site and have maintained a dialogue with several other local homeowner groups as planning progressed.

He said he feels the project as proposed "answers most of my concerns," although he remains skeptical about certain impact mitigations, tied to California Environmental Quality Act regulations and suggested in the EIR.

Developer Sullivan noted that plans call for preservation of a winding, 500 to 1,000-foot-wide wildlife corridor connecting Griffith Park with Cahuenga Pass, and that the developers have offered to improve the jogging course around the lake, plus add hiking and wildlife observation trails. In addition to gates within the subdivision, the developers have also offered $250,000 to pay for additional gates (some manned) to limit traffic through adjacent subdivisions.

Homeowner Riffe said a sampling of neighbors indicated that "90 percent were interested in some form of gating program."

The draft EIR states that although the removal of oak trees and other vegetation necessary to build the project would have a significant environmental impact on the site, that may be reduced to insignificant levels by mitigations including planting of new trees.

Still, the majority of native wildlife, described in the EIR as squirrels, rabbits, skunks, coyotes, bobcats, reptiles, deer and birds, and plant species currently on the building site are expected to be permanently absent after construction.

Modifications of ridgelines and other natural features are also considered a "net significant adverse impact" of the project, according to the EIR.

The site is on the five-year acquisition list of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for preservation as a parkland, but the EIR notes that funds to purchase the site are not now available.

Another controversy surrounds the proximity of electromagnetic fields caused by the alternating flow of current on Department of Water and Power transmission lines leading to and from the reservoir.

Some studies indicate these fields can cause health problems in human beings, including increasing the risk of cancer, birth defects and clinical depression.

However, the draft EIR notes such evidence is inconclusive, and neither the city nor the state has established residential setbacks for transmission lines.

"The question of adverse effects is a controversy that, as of this time, is unresolved," the EIR states.

Attorney/lobbyist Glushon said he is hiring a consultant to review the draft EIR and will request an extension of 45 days to respond to it. That would double the response time to 90 days from the release date of Dec. 3.

After all the responses are filed, the city staff must comment on them and write a final EIR before the hearing process can begin.

Glushon estimated it will be 1994 before the project reaches the City Council.

As he and his clients view the current plan as promoting "environmental disaster," but also recognize that the developers' plans are consistent with the zoning, Glushon said his approach will focus on "creating a consensus" on a smaller and more environmentally sensitive single-family development.