REPORT SAYS LAND BUYOUT IS UNLIKELY OAKMONT V STUDY RELEASED.

Byline: Helen Gao Staff Writer

GLENDALE - Using public money to buy the Oakmont V site to retain as open space is highly unlikely, according to the long-awaited environmental impact report on the 572-home project.

The four-volume document released Thursday said that despite $8 million set aside by the state to purchase the site, public acquisition is not realistic because the property owner, Gregg's Artistic Homes, doesn't want to sell.

``Thus, despite the legislative interest in the site, at the current time, acquisition of the site by a public agency is not a reasonably foreseeable option, but rather is still remote and speculative,'' the report said in addressing the most pressing community issue.

Paul Edelman, deputy director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, disputed the assertion.

``I can't think of any property where we have $8 million ready to go. That is about as ready to go as possible from our standpoint,'' he said, noting that Oakmont V is ranked by the conservancy as one of the top 10 properties it wants to acquire.

``Our intent is to keep working with the landowner to seek another appraisal that takes into account some of the factors that were missed in the first appraisal and just hope our number and the owner's number meet,'' Edelman added.

John Gregg, president of Gregg's Artistic Homes, reiterated his earlier position that he intends to build homes on his property.

``We would improve the quality of life for people who would otherwise have to commute in from the desert or Rancho Cucamonga,'' he said, noting that his company has no role in the preparation of the report and has had issues with it as well.

Gregg said if the city wants his property to remain open space, it must pay the fair market value for his land, which he claimed was $46 million in 1990.

Located off Country Club Drive and Oakmont View Drive, the Oakmont V property stretches over 238 acres of the Verdugo Mountains.

Last month, the conservancy approved a project plan that lays out potential recreational uses and trail linkages for the Oakmont site and surrounding land.

Max Hobbs, vice president of Volunteers Organized In Conserving the Environment, said the group's plan fills a hole in the environmental impact report by showing the public what recreational uses are possible at the Oakmont site. The report does not explore in depth the recreational alternative because it has concluded public acquisition is unrealistic.

``(The project plan) lays it out - what part would be a minipark for kids, parking areas, where the trails would be, the tie-ins for different trails going to Burbank, other parts of Glendale, Tujunga and Sunland,'' Hobbs said.

In addition to dismissing recreational use as a viable option, the final environmental report also asserts that school fees to be paid by the developer would fully fund additional enrollment generated by the new homes - a position disputed by the Glendale Unified School District.

Under California Senate Bill 50, the report said, school impacts resulting from a development are legally considered to be fully mitigated after a developer pays a fee under the law - which in this case would be $4.1 million to $4.6 million.

``The law may say the payment of a fee is mitigation, but as a practicable matter, it does not mitigate the problem,'' said Steve Hodgson, assistant superintendent of business services for Glendale Unified, who noted that the fees would not be sufficient to build a new school.

``If you look at the schools that would serve this project - Fremont Elementary, Rosemont Middle School and Crescenta Valley High School - those schools are already at or above capacity,'' he said.

Hodgson said the school district would seek what is called ``a statement of overriding considerations'' from the City Council to state that the project's impacts on the school district are both significant and unavoidable.

Such a statement could potentially serve as the basis for the district to justify seeking higher school fees from the developer.

The Environmental Planning Board is scheduled to consider the report and recommend whether the City Council should certify it at 6 p.m. Thursday at the City Council Chambers, 613 E. Broadway.

The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on whether to approve the project at 6 p.m. Feb. 27 at the Glendale Civic Auditorium, 1401 N. Verdugo Road.

The City Council will make the final decision at 6 p.m. March 5 in the City Council chambers. A teleconference of the council meeting will be broadcast at the Glendale Civic Auditorium.

Marc Stirdivant, president of VOICE, said he would argue that the report should not be certified because it failed to explore a full range of alternatives to the proposed development, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. If the EIR is not certified, the project cannot move ahead, he said.

THE FACTS

A copy of the environmental impact report is available for public review at Glendale's Planning Division counter, Room 103 of the Municipal Services Building at 633 E. Broadway, and at the Central Library, Reference Section, 222 E. Harvard St.

CAPTION(S):

box

Box:

THE FACTS (see text)