City Council to Rule on Zoning Fight

In the equestrian-oriented community of La Tuna Canyon in the shadow of the Verdugo Mountains on the eastern edge of the San Fernando Valley, people grow their own vegetables and raise pigs, goats and chickens only a few yards from their back porches.

Most teenagers here learn to ride a horse on nearby mountain trails before they learn to drive a car.

“It’s really an awesome place to live,” said seven-year resident Joe Dvoracek. “It’s like this little utopia.”

But many residents believe that their idyllic lifestyle is threatened by a proposed 34-home development that will require grading and blasting of 39 acres of a green, uninhabited canyon.

*

What angers neighbors the most is that a project of this size would be illegal under current hillside zoning laws. But this development may be approved under a 1993 lawsuit settlement reached between the city and the developer over a zoning dispute.

Some neighbors call the settlement a “dirty, back-room deal.” Lawyers for the developer blame the messy dispute on the city’s protracted approval process.

The Los Angeles City Council wades into this hornet’s nest today to decide the fate of the project.

But lawyers for the city and the developer say the council may have little choice but to approve it.

“They can’t back out of the settlement, because that was done years ago,” said Gary Hanken, an attorney for the land owner and developer, Flora Yeh. Part of the problem, Hanken said, is that the city has prolonged final approval, giving neighbors in the community time to raise new objections and an opportunity for the city to change zoning laws.

The contentious history of the project began in 1985 when a 50-home development on 52 acres north of La Tuna Canyon Road was approved. Zoning laws at the time allowed for such a development and no one--including neighbors or then-Councilman Howard Finn--appealed the decision.

In 1990, a state law forced the city to reassess all of its zoning laws to ensure that they were consistent with neighborhood planning documents. After a review, the city rezoned the 52-acre site so that fewer than 10 houses could be built on the property.

The developer sued, claiming that the city could not change the zoning on a project that had been approved.

*

To avoid a lengthy legal dispute, the case was settled in 1993. The developer agreed to scale down the 50-home project to 34 houses, and the city agreed to “initiate and consider” the 34-home project.

But under the settlement, if the council rejects the 34-home proposal, the developer can proceed with construction of the 50-home project.

Jerry Neuman, a land-use attorney representing several neighbors, conceded that the settlement doesn’t give the council many options. But he said that he is considering challenging the settlement’s legality.

“I think the city went beyond its authority to sign that settlement,” he said.

Still, Neuman said the fate of the development may be sealed.

“It is an uphill battle, and I think in the end the city attorney will tell the council that their hands are tied,” he said.

Councilman Joel Wachs, who has represented the La Tuna Canyon area since 1986, is opposed to the development and has asked city lawyers to see what options are left for the council.

“I want to restrict it as much as possible,” Wachs said. “But the lawyers keep saying that if we don’t give them the 34 [homes], they get the 50 [homes].”

He said some neighbors have suggested that the council reject the 34-home project because they don’t think the developer can afford to build the denser 50-home project.

“Some people in the community say let’s roll the dice,” he said.

The project, which is in a small canyon off Ledge Avenue north of La Tuna Canyon Road, has become an emotional issue in the community because residents see it as part of a larger encroachment by Los Angeles’ urban sprawl.

“I can understand that the developer wants to make money, that is the American way,” said Dvoracek, who lives next to the development site. “But the problem is that our canyon is unique.”