Fryman Canyon Permits to Be Studied : Development: Planners have been directed to review whether an agreement to donate land for park use has been violated.

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday ordered an investigation into whether a developer was granted permits to construct housing in Studio City’s undeveloped Fryman Canyon, the object of a months-long controversy, without complying with an agreement to donate land for park use.

By unanimous consent of the council, city planning officials were ordered to conduct the review after lawmakers learned that developer Fred Sahadi has not deeded 31 acres of his property--about half the parcel--to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

The inquiry was proposed by Councilman Michael Woo, who represents the area.

Transferring title of the acreage to the conservancy was a condition the city imposed on Sahadi in the early 1980s when he obtained city approval to build 26 luxury houses in the canyon.

“I’m as surprised as anybody that the deed was not exchanged,” Gary Morris, the city planning official who imposed the condition, told the council Wednesday.

The council also agreed to postpone until July 11 a decision on whether to designate the same 31 acres as an official cultural-historic monument.

Environmentalists, who hope to preserve the canyon, want the land dedicated as a monument or deeded to the state in order to block construction on Sahadi’s remaining 32 acres of the canyon.

Sahadi plans to build a temporary road across the 31 acres to haul dirt to build pads for the 26 houses.

Barbara Blinderman, president of Mulholland Tomorrow, said the 31 acres should be made a landmark so the Cultural Heritage Commission would have the authority to block Sahadi’s road plans.

The commissioners voted in May to back landmark status for the 31 acres but their recommendation must be ruled on by the City Council.

Councilman Joel Wachs, who once represented the area, noted that the developer was required to maintain the 31 acres as natural open space under city land-use permits granted during the 1980s. Building a 16-foot-wide haul road would violate the spirit of that requirement, he said.

Sahadi has argued that he does not have to transfer title to the land until he has finished grading work.

Sahadi said that not only has the city granted him permission to build the road but has also in effect required him to do so. Hauling fill dirt on a road across his property was deemed less offensive than moving it on winding city streets, he said.

Sahadi also vehemently complained after the hearing that the city’s intent in seeking landmark status or getting title transferred to the conservancy is to help the conservancy buy all 63 acres of Fryman Canyon for less than its value.

The conservancy is negotiating to buy the property. But Sahadi and the agency are several million dollars apart in price.

“They’re saying, ‘If we can beat up Sahadi enough, then he’ll sell his property to us for less than it’s worth,’ ” Sahadi said.

Several council members voiced criticism of the idea of designating raw land, where nothing historic occurred, as a historic landmark.

Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores said she feared that such a designation would undermine public confidence in the city’s cultural heritage ordinance. “There’s going to be a backlash” against it, she said.

Councilman Hal Bernson said he was concerned that the designation would be “a sneak attack way to the kill the project--that’s not fair.”