L. A. Panel’s Action Renews Warner Center Debate : Hilton Project in Limbo After Extension Is Denied

In a strange twist of events, the previously approved Hilton Hotel project in Warner Center was thrown into limbo Thursday when the Los Angeles Planning Commission refused to grant the developer additional time to begin construction.

“I just can’t believe it,” said Councilwoman Joy Picus, who in November helped persuade the council to approve the controversial project in her district over the commission’s objections. She expressed confidence, however, that the hotel would be built after an appeal to the council or the courts.

The proposal for the 14-story, 340-room hotel has received considerable attention from the start because of an intense lobbying battle between its developer, Norman Kravetz, and a rival developer, Robert Voit, who sought to stop the project. Marriott Corp. recently opened the West San Fernando Valley’s first luxury hotel on property owned by Voit near the Hilton site.

The controversy was thought to be over when the council, following a tradition of deferring to members on issues that affect only their districts, voted 12 to 1 to approve the project.

On Thursday, however, the commission by a 3-2 vote refused to grant a one-year extension on a deadline to begin building the hotel.

Permit Can Be Voided

Under an obscure section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, a developer is required to begin work within six months after receiving city approval of a conditional-use permit for a project. The permit is voided if construction does not begin within that period, but developers can request a one-year extension from the Planning Commission and approval usually is routine.

Ray Norman, a former commission secretary, said he could not recall the commission denying such an extension during his 20 years with the panel.

With the Hilton permit due to expire May 7, Kravetz requested an extension. Gary Morris, a lobbyist for the developer, said Kravetz needs additional time to arrange financing for the project and to prepare a plan, required by the city, for easing traffic congestion.

Staff Recommended Approval

The commission staff recommended approval of the request by Kravetz but commissioners turned it down.

Dan Garcia, commission president, said he voted against the extension because “the commission has so clearly been in opposition to this project from the very beginning.”

Garcia said he had not been contacted by any of the project’s opponents. In fact, Garcia said, his decision was based in part on the earlier lobbying battle.

“It was obvious that the developer had relied on council from the very beginning to approve this project, no matter what the commission thought,” he said.

“The message I was trying to send out is that if you go over the commission’s head, it may catch up to you,” he said.

Commissioner Suzette Neiman voted against the extension, citing the council’s approval of the project. “I just felt it was special legislation at its worst. . . . It’s poor land use,” she said.

In opposing the project last year, the commission cited its impact on traffic in Warner Center, a 1,100-acre office and residential area in Woodland Hills.

Legality Questioned

The commission expressed concern that the hotel conflicts with the Warner Center development plan, which calls for the area’s commercial core to be west of Canoga Avenue. The hotel site is on the east side of Canoga, just south of Victory Boulevard.

Picus questioned the legality of the commission’s attempt to nullify a council action.

“I don’t believe it is possible in this country for an appointed body to overturn an action of an elected body,” Picus said.

Garcia, a lawyer, said he researched the code section in question and concluded that the commission acted within its authority.

In a written opinion to the commission, Deputy City Atty. Michael S. Woodward said the commission’s authority to act on a time extension “is specifically limited to a determination of whether or not the delay has been unavoidable.” He said the policy decision based on the merits of the project was made by the council.

Gary Netzer, assistant city attorney, said he believes the commission’s decision cannot be appealed to the council, but “because of threat of a lawsuit, we will take another hard look” at the legality of an appeal.

Picus predicted that the issue will end up in court if it cannot be appealed to the council.

Despite the commission’s action, Garcia thinks the hotel eventually will be built. But if the commission’s action stands, he said, the developer will need to reapply for a permit and, “in doing so, they’ll negotiate with us about its scale and other things, too.”

City Permit Required

Zoning at the Kravetz site allows office buildings but requires a conditional-use permit from the city for construction of a hotel. Kravetz has proposed the hotel as part of his $165-million “Trillium” project, which will include two 17-story office buildings on eight acres. The office buildings have been approved.

“I’m disappointed,” Kravetz said Thursday after the commission turned down the extension. “This is another hurdle that we have to overcome.” But, he said, it is “not necessarily something that is going to delay or change our plans. We have the right to build the hotel, and the community wants our hotel.”