Tujunga Wash Golf Course Permit Denied

In a stunning political victory for environmentalists and organized labor, the Los Angeles City Council Tuesday denied a permit for an 18-hole golf course on the environmentally sensitive banks of the Big Tujunga Wash, capping 10 years of emotional debate that has split the adjacent community of Sunland.

Unions and environmental groups usually are on opposite sides of the city’s development controversies. Their unusual--and potent--alliance had less to do with the project’s impact than it did with the participation of Kajima International, which is engaged in a bitter dispute over a labor-organizing effort at a Little Tokyo hotel it owns.

The 10-4 vote against the project was a surprising rejection of the city Planning Commission’s unanimous support for the project and a snub of Councilman Joel Wachs, who represents the area and supports the project.

On development questions, the council nearly always follows the lead of the member in whose district the project is planned.

While environmentalists and others cheered the decision, the project developer’s attorney immediately threatened to sue, claiming the council violated his client’s right to use the property in an “economically viable way.”

“Clearly, there has been a taking of this property,” said Mark Armbruster, an attorney representing the developer. “This decision was made on other issues that had nothing to do with the land use.”

A city official who has studied the case said privately that the developer and the property owner have a strong case against the city. If a judge finds for the developer, he said, the city may be forced to approve the project or buy the land, and may have to pay damages.

After the vote, Wachs said the project lost because an influential labor union had joined environmentalists to oppose the project for reasons that had nothing to do with conservation, but to retaliate against an opponent in an unrelated labor dispute.

“The thing that made the difference on the vote was the union’s involvement,” he said. “There is no doubt in my mind.”

But most of the council members who opposed the 352-acre development cited environmental concerns, such as a fear that the project would destroy one of the last remaining habitats of the endangered slender-horned spine flower.

The project was vehemently opposed by seven environmental groups and government agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game, the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society.

But perhaps the most influential player in the debate was the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 11. The 7,500-member group opposes the project because it would benefit Kajima, a large lien holder on the property. Kajima is involved in a prolonged dispute with the union, which is trying to organize employees at the New Otani Hotel in Little Tokyo.

The union has also protested construction of the controversial Belmont Learning Center near downtown Los Angeles because the school district selected Kajima to build the project.

“It’s really important that Kajima be treated as a pariah company in this city, which they are,” said Jennifer Skurnik, a staff director for the local.

The vote was an unexpected defeat for the developer, Foothill Golf Development Group, and the property owner, Cosmo World Corp., which has struggled with federal and local officials for 10 years to win approval for the golf course. Cosmo World is headed by Japanese golf magnate Minoru Isutani.

Even last-minute concessions to the environmentalists and unions failed to sway the council majority to support the project.

Armbruster promised that the developer would increase the amount of land dedicated to a spine flower reserve from 192 acres to 240 acres. He also promised to pay the union $200,000 if Kajima played any active role in managing or designing the golf project.

Kajima was the original developer on the project but was replaced by Foothill Golf because of a financial dispute with Cosmo World. Kajima put an $18-million lien on the property, claiming that Cosmo World still owes the firm money on work it has done on this and other projects.

Throughout the 90-minute debate Tuesday, both sides hinted that a final decision on the project may come in a courtroom instead of City Hall.

Under a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision, a city or other government agency can be held responsible for seizing property if it forces a landowner to sacrifice “all economically beneficial uses” of a parcel.

Armbruster argued that by rejecting the project, the council was, in essence, taking the property from Cosmo World.

After the vote, Deputy City Atty. Keith Pritsker said: “Clearly everyone agrees that a property owner is entitled to a reasonable return on their investment. What it means in the context of this golf course project is open to questions.”