Builder Sues After Halting Plans for Lost Village Area : Court: Drisson’s action against the city alleges it lost $3.76 million. The location is probably part of a Native American burial ground.

The city of Los Angeles may have overlooked maps in its own files indicating the site for a proposed office complex in Encino is probably part of a Native American burial ground, leading the development company to sue to recover its losses.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the Drisson Corp. says it lost $3.76 million in development costs and anticipated profits when it scrapped plans to build a large office building on Ventura Boulevard.

Mike Qualls, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office, declined to comment on the case Friday because he said he had not seen it.

The suit alleges the city issued building permits for the complex in May, 1990, then amended those approvals to require an archeological “monitor” following complaints from homeowners. But the developer later backed off after independently discovering reports that the site was likely part of the neighboring Lost Village of Encino--an ancient village and burial ground--which increased the probability that remains would be found there and the project would be halted.

The village, unearthed a decade ago during another construction project at the southeast corner of Ventura and Balboa boulevards, earned its name because its more than 1 million artifacts are believed to be the remnants of a Native American village documented by 18th-Century Spanish explorers and long sought by modern archeologists.

After being told by the city that they did not need to conduct a preliminary archeological survey, even though the development site was across the street from the Lost Village, Drisson officials had proceeded with plans to develop the 48,000-square-foot building at the corner of La Maida Street.

Then, last spring, the company discovered a report filed years earlier with the UCLA School of Archaeology indicating the site was indeed an Native American cemetery. Around the same time, maps indicating the parcel is located in a archeologically sensitive area also were discovered.

The lawsuit alleges that the Department of Building and Safety failed to uncover the maps before issuing permits even though the city planning department had its own copies.

Drisson officials allege they lost $300,000 in payments they made on the land when the sellers refused to close escrow after Drisson declined to release them from liability in the event artifacts were discovered on the site. While the two bickered, the permits expired on the project.

The lawsuit against the city seeks an undisclosed amount of general, special and punitive damages. However, the company maintains it spent $700,000 in fees and filing and application costs and another $200,000 in attorney fees.

David DiJulio, a Glendale attorney representing the Drisson Corp. and its owner Albert Cohen, acknowledged his clients might have been able to proceed with their development plans despite the archeological discoveries, but chose not for moral, religious and financial reasons.

“I don’t want to build in somebody’s cemetery and I hope nobody ever builds in mine,” Cohen said.

Cohen said he and his family believe the property is jinxed, noting that Maurice Cohen, a Drisson vice president who entered into the initial sales agreement and was in charge of the project, was killed after the project got under way, in August, 1990, when he was hit by a car while he was in a crosswalk.

At that time, the family planned to continue developing the office building as a memorial to Maurice, DiJulio said.

“But when they discovered it was a cemetery his mother realized it was a jinxed property and that’s why Maurice died,” DiJulio said.

DiJulio said his clients also maintain they cannot own a cemetery for religious reasons.

The attorney submitted a declaration to the court by a Santa Monica rabbi stating that according to Jewish laws members of the religion with the last name of Cohan--and alternate spelling for Cohen--are forbidden from walking on or visiting a cemetery. The declaration is part of a separate lawsuit filed last year by Albert Cohen against Albert Darakjian, the owner of the property, and several other defendants.

Rumors that the site had been the location of a Native American cemetery began circulating when Gerald Silver, president of the Homeowners of Encino, appealed the initial decision by the city Building and Safety Department not to require a preliminary archeological survey.

As a result, the city Building and Safety Commission investigated the matter and determined in June, 1990, that the project was located on an archeologically sensitive site. The commission ordered that an archeologist and a Native American monitor earthmoving at the project. If the monitor and the archeologist had found any artifacts, they were authorized to stop construction for 90 days.

At that point, DiJulio said his clients--who were seeking an exemption from the Ventura Boulevard Specific plan which governs development in the area--began their own investigation to more fully assess the location and the likelihood of finding artifacts. They hired Nancy DeSautels, an archeologist involved with the Lost Village project since 1977.

The corporation decided to finally shelve its plans in May of last year after DeSautels’ staff discovered a 1968 report filed with the UCLA School of Archaeology, clearly indicating that the property was part of a Native American cemetery and likely to contain numerous artifacts and human remains, the lawsuit states.

DeSautels could not be reached for comment Friday, but she stated in a declaration filed in connection with Cohen’s lawsuit against the landowner that she believes a mound existed on the property until the mid-1950s, containing a village and numerous Native American burial sites. It was graded over at that time, she said, causing the spreading of the remains over the Lost Village of Encino.

A month earlier, a separate consulting firm hired by Drisson officials also found that the city’s planning department had had its own set of maps from the UCLA School of Archaeology since 1970, which indicated the property was located in a very sensitive archeological area and that city planners had failed to warn the Building and Safety Department of its significance, according to the suit.

The Lost Village of Encino has embroiled Native Americans, archeologists and developers in debate since it was accidentally unearthed in 1984, when a construction crew came across a few artifacts while demolishing a defunct restaurant.

The discovery subsequently led to the uncovering of skeletons of about 20 Native Americans from a large burial site. It proved to be the solution to a decades-old archeological mystery but also sparked anger among Native Americans about their ancestors’ remains being disturbed.