L.A. Hopeful Deal Near on Fryman Site : Studio City: State parks agency makes counteroffer to developer, keeping alive efforts to block construction of 26 luxury residences in canyon.

Mayor Tom Bradley’s office expressed guarded optimism Tuesday that agreement is near on its new plan to save Fryman Canyon in Studio City from development by buying it for an estimated $10.1 million, including giving a developer about 10 acres of prime city real estate.

Monday night the board of directors of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a state parks agency, rejected one key provision of the Bradley-backed plan to buy the 63-acre canyon but also kept alive the often stormy negotiations with the developer by making a counteroffer.

The action was the latest development in the months-long effort by city officials and environmental activists to block plans to build 26 luxury residences in the woodsy canyon.

Joseph T. Edmiston, the conservancy executive director, said late Monday that the total contents of the compensation package that a city-conservancy-private sector coalition is willing to pay for the canyon, just west of Laurel Canyon and north of Mulholland Drive, “is no longer in dispute.”

The key sticking point remains over when developer Fred Sahadi would get some of the money, Edmiston and city officials said.

Edmiston called this a major issue, but Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani expressed confidence it can be bridged. The mayor’s office is “guardedly optimistic,” Fabiani said.

The conservancy is willing to contribute $6.75 million toward the purchase price. The parks agency wants to defer payment of $2 million for six months, Edmiston and Fabiani said. But Sahadi has been willing to accept a delayed payment of only $1.5 million, they said.

Whether the $500,000 difference will be a deal-breaker for Sahadi is unclear. Neither Sahadi nor his attorney, Neil Papiano, could be reached for comment.

The compensation package for Sahadi includes $8.95 million in cash and the transfer of title to Sahadi of four city-owned properties, including a 5-acre site in Woodland Hills, a 4-acre site in the Calabasas Highlands and two sites in Pacific Palisades. The city-owned properties--unused land belonging to the Department of Water and Power--are in the Santa Monica Mountains and suitable for development.

The DWP lands were the latest ingredient added to the Fryman Canyon negotiations and represented a major decision by the city to put more of its money into the deal after acquisition talks had been stalled for weeks.

And they might represent a concession by the developer, Fabiani said. “He’s gambling on a roll of the dice by taking these properties,” he said. “If he’s right and the real estate market rebounds and he doesn’t run into any zoning problems, they could be worth more. But if he isn’t. . . .”

Fabiani said the developer apparently would seek to develop the four parcels. The deputy mayor said, however, the city was not guaranteeing Sahadi that he would get the needed zoning or building permits.

“We’ve made no such representations to him whatsoever,” Fabiani said. The deputy mayor also said the $1.2-million value he put on the properties was based on a “full-blown analysis” by DWP, but he did not know if the land had been formally appraised.

The conservancy also is adamant that Sahadi give 32 acres of the Fryman Canyon site to the parks agency before the deal is settled. The agency has sued Sahadi and the city of Los Angeles over these 32 acres, contending that Sahadi now illegally retains title to it in violation of conditions set by the city in approving Sahadi’s building plans.

Until last week, Bradley and Councilman Michael Woo--in whose district the canyon is located--backed a plan to pay $10.9 million for it, with $1.96 million coming from the city’s Runyon Canyon trust account and $8.7 million from the conservancy.

The plan reviewed by the conservancy board Monday night also commits the city to reimburse the Runyon Canyon trust fund for money used in the Fryman purchase. The Runyon Canyon fund was set up to buy parklands, and its funds are administered by the city and the conservancy.

Edmiston has demanded that the Runyon Canyon fund be replenished with municipal funds because it has been his contention that the Runyon money is actually the conservancy’s--therefore its use, without replacement, would mean the city would not bear its share of the burden of buying a park within its boundaries.