City Council Votes Down Big Tujunga Golf Course

In a stunning victory for environmentalists and a union local, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday denied a permit to put 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.

The 10-4 vote against the project was a surprising rejection of the Planning Commission’s unanimous support for the project and snubbed 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 immediately threatened to sue, claiming the council violated the developer’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 was defeated because an influential labor union had joined environmentalists in opposing the project for reasons that had nothing to do with conservation, but to retaliate against an opponent in an unrelated labor dispute. Normally the two groups are at odds over development issues, he noted.

“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 spineflower.

“There is precious little of that kind of open space left in Southern California,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg.

The project was vehemently opposed by seven environmental groups and 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 a large lien holder on the property, Kajima International, which is involved in a prolonged dispute with the union that is trying to organize employees at Kajima’s New Otani hotel in downtown Los Angeles.

The union has also protested the 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 union packed the council chambers with about 80 union workers and other opponents, several of whom wore signs bearing the word “Kajima” with a bar through it.

Afterward, the workers held a celebration rally on the steps of City Hall and made speeches decrying Kajima and the management of the New Otani.

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 a golf course. Cosmo World is headed by Japanese golf magnate Minoru Isutani.

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

Armbruster promised that the developer would increase the amount of land dedicated to a spineflower reserve from 192 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 due to 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.

But the council was not swayed by Armbruster’s concessions.

“The bottom line is that this was a bad investment” by Cosmo World, said Councilman Richard Alarcon.

The vote was surprising because it appeared in recent months that the project was the legislative equivalent of a two-foot putt.

The project was originally designed to be a PGA championship course that would have cut into the wash riverbed. But last year, to satisfy environmental concerns, the developer scaled down the project and promised to set aside 192 acres of open space for equestrian trails and a spineflower reserve.

Since then, the project has been unanimously supported by the Planning Commission and backed by several homeowner groups and chambers of commerce in areas adjacent to the property.

Two weeks ago, the council postponed a vote on the project because the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy--a state parkland agency--said it wanted to make an offer to buy and preserve the project site.

But the conservancy was able to offer only $3.5 million, based on a private land appraisal. Armbruster said Cosmo World has never been interested in selling the land and would not do so for such a low price--less than the company has already spent on planning and preparation, he said.

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.

An attorney for Small Wilderness Area Preservation argued that the city would be protected from such a lawsuit, contending that Cosmo World can still develop the land with a smaller golf course, perhaps nine holes.

But Armbruster said the developer has studied a nine-hole course and determined that it would not be financially feasible.

During the debate, the council did not ask the city attorney’s office for an opinion on the land-taking issue.

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.”