Firm May File Suit Today for Right to Build Golf Course

A developer who was denied a permit by the Los Angeles City Council to build a golf course near the Big Tujunga Wash is expected to file suit today, claiming the city has illegally denied it the right to develop the land.

The lawsuit will probably rely on the legal argument that the city cannot deny a property owner “all economically beneficial uses” of the land, according to sources.

Land-use attorneys who have followed the matter say the developer has a strong case because it appears that the council opposes any development on the site even though it is zoned for agricultural uses, open space and residential homes.

A golf course meets the zoning criteria for open space.

The developer, Foothill Golf Development Group, has scheduled a news conference on the steps of City Hall today to announce the filing.

According to attorneys familiar with the case, the developer can demand that a judge either force the city to pay for the profits the developer has lost due to the council’s action or request that the council reconsider the decision.

Councilman Joel Wachs, who represents the area and supported the project, said several city attorneys have warned him that the developer has a strong case. He said he tried to convince his colleagues to approve the project but they rejected it on a 10-4 vote, arguing that the project would ruin an environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat.

But Wachs argued that the project would set aside up to 240 acres for horse trails and wildlife preserves.

“It seemed to me as good a deal as we could get,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that a municipality can be found liable for “taking” a parcel if the landowner is denied “all economically beneficial uses” of the land.

Wachs, an attorney himself, said he fears the city could lose the case and be forced to pay the developer “a fortune” or be required to approve the project without several environmental improvements that Wachs has demanded.

“I’m sure this issue isn’t over,” he said.

The council decision culminated 10 years of debate over a golf course that was proposed on 352 acres that is home to the endangered slender-horned spineflower.

Six environmental groups and the California Department of Fish and Game opposed the project. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy offered to buy and preserve the land, but its offer of $3.5 million was rejected.

Still, the most influential opponent of the project appeared to be the 7,500-member Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 11. The group fought the project because it is locked in an ongoing labor dispute with Kajima International, a Japanese-owned corporation that holds a lien on the golf course property.

The union opposes the project because Kajima stands to profit from construction on the land.