Planners Approve Oakmont Report

As Glendale environmental planners approved a consultant’s report detailing increases in traffic and pollution that a proposed housing development would bring, homeowners and environmentalists argued that alternatives to Oakmont View V were given short shrift or ignored altogether.

“There’s a strong appearance of favoritism toward the applicant,” said Steve Larson, who spoke on behalf of the Oakmont Woods Homeowners Assn.

Oakmont View V is a proposed development of 572 luxury homes in the Verdugo Mountains above Oakmont Country Club.

The environmental impact report, a four-volume tome of more than 2,000 pages, is the second version submitted after the City Council denounced the first one as lacking public comment. It was released last week by Jones & Stokes, an Irvine-based consulting firm.

The report concluded that the project would harm the air, wildlife and scenic vistas. Thirty-three so-called “unavoidable environmental impacts” were listed in the report. They included increased traffic, noise and pollution and a reduction in open space.

But the report said the development would not significantly increase the city’s population or require building community facilities to accommodate growth.

Senior City Planner David A. Bobardt emphasized that the Environmental Planning Board was not making a recommendation on the Oakmont project itself but only on the environmental impact report. The City Council will have the final decision on the development.

“The planning department staff believes the EIR exceeds requirements contained in [the California Environmental Quality Act], state and city guidelines,” Bobardt said.

The report outlined at least seven alternatives to the existing Oakmont plan, ranging from building 482 units to none at all or setting aside the space for a cemetery. Homeowners in attendance said the report did not adequately examine those and other alternatives, including dedicating the area to recreation space.

Homeowners said they came forward with numerous complaints when a previous environmental report was prepared.

“Perhaps the most troubling aspect with the final EIR is its failure to respond to [public] comments,” Larson said.

In anticipation of hundreds of homeowners and environmentalists filling the second-floor council chambers, city staff members had set up extra seating and a sound system on the first floor of City Hall. But only about 50 people were in Thursday night’s audience.

The Oakmont development would replace woodlands of oak and sycamore trees, acorn woodpeckers, deer and other wildlife in Glendale’s Verdugo Mountains. Previous Oakmont phases produced three-story mansions on the hillside, often just 10 feet apart.

Proposed federal legislation calls for a study to expand the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to include the Verdugos. It would allow the Oakmont land to be used as recreational space.

State lawmakers have approved $8 million toward the purchase of the Oakmont tract, but Oakmont developer John L. Gregg said the land was appraised at $46 million more than a decade ago.

Gregg said his company, Gregg’s Artistic Homes, proposed the project in 1992, a year before Glendale adopted a hillside law that would have limited the number of homes to about 50. Gregg sued the city, ultimately agreeing to drop the lawsuit if officials allowed the proposal to proceed under the earlier, less restrictive ordinance.

The final decision on Oakmont is scheduled next month.