Glendale Rejects Oakmont

With a court battle looming, the Glendale City Council unanimously rejected plans for a 572-home mountainside subdivision after a marathon hearing that lasted until 5 a.m. Wednesday.

Opponents of the Oakmont View V project hugged, cried and cheered when the council denied the proposal to build the luxury homes in the Verdugo Mountains. The project has been debated for more than a decade.

After the 11-hour hearing, the developers said in a statement they would take the matter to court.

“Now, all bets are off,” said the statement released by Gregg’s Artistic Homes. “We’re headed back to court--soon and in a big way.”

Company officials declined to comment further. Vice President Lee Gregg said before the hearing that a lawsuit would accuse the council of violating the developers’ property rights because of pressure from homeowner groups opposed to the project.

An earlier lawsuit resulted in a judge’s order that prevented the council from imposing hillside-protection limits on Oakmont. The limits were adopted after the development was proposed.

Council members said Wednesday their decision followed a close review of the plans.

“I’ve been involved with this for 10 years; I know the project pretty well,” Councilman Dave Weaver said. “We knew [the developer] would sue. He didn’t get his way.”

Other council members said they were influenced by negative environmental reports. City planners released a 24-page report last week that found the project “inconsistent” with Glendale’s General Plan and that it would be a potential landslide hazard.

Last month, a 2,000-page environmental impact report concluded that Oakmont would harm the air, wildlife and scenic vistas.

Oakmont “was not right for the city,” Councilman Rafi Manoukian said. “I feel comfortable with my vote.”

Gregg disputed the findings in both reports.

To accommodate the overflow crowd at the hearing, the council provided a televised link between City Hall and the Civic Auditorium.

Hundreds of opponents packed the auditorium early Tuesday evening, and dozens remained when the hearing finally ended.

“We are happy the City Council did the right thing,” said Odalis Suarez, who argued against Oakmont at several public meetings. “There is nothing good about the Oakmont proposal.”

Preservationists have persuaded state lawmakers to allocate $8 million to purchase the 238-acre tract, but developers said the land was appraised at $46 million more than a decade ago.

Allen Brandstater, a spokesman for the developer, added Wednesday that a conservation group had expressed interest in buying the property, but that the council’s decision “slammed the door” on that option. He would not explain why.