Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Greggs head back to City Hall

Tim Willert

GLENDALE CITY HALL -- Developers of the failed Oakmont View V project

will be back in front of the City Council on Tuesday, appealing a ruling

on a plan to put a cemetery where the hillside development would have



The Greggs, whose 238-acre hillside housing project was rejected by

the council in March, are seeking a general plan amendment and a zone

change so they can build the cemetery.


In January, the Environmental and Planning Board ruled that a separate

environmental impact report would be required before moving forward with

a cemetery. The board in February denied a request to reconsider.

At that meeting, Gregg consultant Marlene Roth argued that the

environmental report for the housing development would serve to

adequately evaluate the cemetery project.

A cemetery is one of seven alternatives that appear in the final

Oakmont View V environmental report.


“The point we are making is this is one of the alternative the city

certified in the final environmental impact report,” Gregg spokesman

Allen Brandstater said Friday. “The two environmental impact reports we

paid for clearly evaluated all the impacts for that particular property.”

The council will decide Tuesday whether to deny the appeal or set the

matter for a June 4 public hearing.

In March, the city certified the report but rejected the project,

which triggered the latest in a series of lawsuits filed against the city


by the Greggs.

The proposed cemetery would include a 6,000-square-foot chapel and a

45,000-sqaure-foot building for a mausoleumand administrative offices.

A minimum of 100 acres would be needed for burial plots. No

crematorium is being proposed, although it would be permitted with a zone


The same open-space activists who opposed the hillside development are

expected to denounce the cemetery project Tuesday.

“There’s still a huge amount of grading and destruction of habitat

involved,” said Marc Stirdivant, president of volunteers organized in

conserving the environment. “The other impacts are very nearly as

horrifying as the Oakmont project.”

The Greggs, meanwhile, contend that by requiring a separate EIR, the

city is attempting to run up costs and delay the project.

“This is just nonsense,” Brandstater said. “It’s not just, it’s not

fair, it’s not equitable and it’s not right.”

The Greggs have already sued the city over delays in processing the

Oakmont View V environmental report, and for denying the project.

City Atty. Scott Howard, who sits on the board, has said that much of

the information contained in the housing project’s final environmental

document could be used to prepare a new EIR, saving the developers time

and money.