Developer Waits Out Battle in Burbank Over Hillside Plans

Sherman Whitmore IV appeared relaxed as he sat in the Burbank City Council chambers last Wednesday just before a hearing by the city’s Planning Board, even though he knew his proposal to build 33 luxury homes on the slopes of the northwestern hills of the city was just minutes away from being attacked by Burbank hillside and flatland residents.

When his opponents began addressing the board, arguing that the proposal was environmentally unsound and would spoil the beauty of the mountains, a slim and tanned Whitmore rose from his seat and, apparently undaunted, strode out of the chambers.

After spending a few minutes joking with friends, he drove away in his Rolls-Royce convertible.

In an interview later in the week, Whitmore, 52, a major Burbank land owner and veteran of many skirmishes with environmentalists over his development plans, said he left the meeting mostly because he knew what the opponents would say.

‘Heard It All Before’

“It’s just a rerun. There’s nothing new to say, and I’ve heard it all before,” said Whitmore, with a tone of disgust.

“These people view my hills as being their hills. Well, one way or another, I’m going to develop them or they’re going to buy them.”

Whitmore was not the only one disgusted with the proceedings. His opponents called the hearings a charade, saying Whitmore’s plans for the 60-acre development, and another plan to develop an additional 117 acres of hillside, are almost identical to plans that were rejected unanimously by the City Council 1 1/2 years ago.

No decision was made last week on the future of the proposals, but the meeting marked a resumption of the bitter public battle between the outspoken developer and hundreds of Burbank residents who oppose further development in the hills, saying they want to preserve open space.

Report Due June 9

The conflict is expected to escalate in coming weeks as the Planning Board receives public comments and awaits an environmental impact report on the 60-acre proposal, while city officials process the map of the larger proposal. The environmental impact report is due to reach the board June 9. The board will make a recommendation and pass it to the City Council.

Whitmore is already bumping heads with Burbank city officials, who want to purchase his property for parkland. Gov. George Deukmejian signed a bill last October that allocated $3 million in state tidelands oil revenue to help Burbank buy privately owned mountain land, including the 185 acres owned by Whitmore. The state will provide half the purchase price if the city provides the remainder.

Burbank officials said an appraiser they hired put the value of Whitmore’s undeveloped property at $6 million. But Whitmore and his own appraiser have put the value of the property, when developed, at more than $38 million.

Developer Angered

Whitmore said he is angered that city officials have not made him a formal offer, even though they publicly celebrated the awarding of the state grant, he said, as if the city had already acquired the land.

He also accused city officials of trying to avoid dealing with him, and of procrastinating in processing his maps.

“The behavior of the city is unconscionable,” said Whitmore. “The mayor, Mary Lou Howard, went on television and told the world the land was a park. They seem to have this ostrich theory that I will go away and just forget about all this. But no way am I going away. Let them pay me the fair market value for my property. If not, they better shut up.”

City Atty. Douglas Holland said the processing of Whitmore’s maps and the city’s interest in the property were “two different matters.” He said he did not know when the city and Whitmore would formally begin negotiations.

Past Skirmishes

A Miami resident who spends about 11 days a month in California overseeing his Rockmore Properties in the City of Industry and Burbank Hill Properties, Whitmore has skirmished with environmentalists in the past.

In 1980, Whitmore made plans, which he later dropped, to build 14 homes on an 80-acre site in the Santa Susana Mountains above Chatsworth Park South, despite the efforts of environmentalists and historians who wanted to save a stagecoach trail that ran through the site.

“I’m not denying there may be a trail there,” Whitmore said at the time. “As to its national importance, you can declare all of California a historical monument because people have been walking all over it for 2,000 years.”

In Sylmar, Whitmore is also waging a campaign to gain community support for a 1,550-unit residential community he wants to develop on 800 acres of foothill property he owns above Olive View Medical Center.

Met With Residents

He met several months ago with a group of residents and horse owners who are intent on restricting development to single-family houses on large lots and on retaining the horse trails that now run through the mountain property.

When community opposition began to increase in 1983, as Whitmore talked of putting massive housing developments in the Burbank hills, he bluntly said he was doing it “for profit.”

Whitmore repeated that assertion last week. “I’m a developer,” he said. “It’s how I make my money. It’s what I do.”

When asked whether he had any sympathy for residents who want to see trees and greenery instead of houses in the hills, he replied:

“Mountains don’t give anybody any view. I wouldn’t want to live next to one. They’re a fire hazard and a flood hazard. We reduce the fire and flood hazard by building houses.”

‘Not Totally at Fault’

Several residents who live in Burbank hillside developments below Whitmore’s land said preliminary work on the first of Whitmore’s proposed tracts, a 122-home development that has been approved by the city, has already ruined mountain land.

One of the speakers at Wednesday’s hearing, Maurice Oppenheim, said Whitmore stripped the hillside around his development bare, had not put in grass or sprinklers and had allowed broken pieces of cement to accumulate in the catch basin. City Planner Gary Yamada said the charges are being investigated, adding that Whitmore “is not totally at fault for the problems up there.”

Yamada said Whitmore’s new proposals are “fairly similar” to the ones that the city rejected in 1984 after hillside and flatland residents complained about the likelihood of massive mud slides and the destruction of wildlife.

Yamada added that several features of the proposal do not conform to city requirements, and will have to analyzed.

Alternative Offered

About 280,000 cubic yards of hillside would have to be removed from some slopes and used to fill in others to make room for the development, and city variances would have to be obtained for two cul-de-sacs that are longer than the city allows.

Whitmore has also submitted an alternative map for a loop-shaped development on the same site that would have six fewer houses. Whitmore said the city is placing more emphasis on the 33-house project and ignoring the alternative plans for the 27-house project, which he said has a better chance of meeting city standards.

He said such conflicts are the “nature of the business. These people who already live in the hills don’t want someone else to have the kind of view they have. They’ll do anything to stop it. The city can even condemn my property if it wants to. Then I guess we’ll discuss it in the courts.”