Claim Filed Against City Over Rejected Golf Links

A week after the Los Angeles City Council rejected plans to build a golf course in the Big Tujunga Wash, the developer Thursday filed a $215-million claim against the city, charging that the project was illegally rejected.

The claim, which sets the stage for a lawsuit, accuses the council of opposing the project due to pressure from an influential labor union instead of basing its decision on the merits of the project.

In rejecting the project, the council deprived the developer of its constitutional right to an “economical viable use” of the property, according to the claim.

“It’s unfortunate that the only option for us is to sue the city,” said David Hueber, president of the Foothill Golf Development Group, the developer of the project. “But the project is very simply good for the community.”

The $215 million in damages sought are based on an estimate of expenses of the project and profits lost by the developer over the 30-year operation of the course.

“Make no mistake, we intend to pursue this vigorously in court,” said Ed Casey, the attorney for Foothill Golf.

A spokesman for the city attorney’s office declined comment on the claim. The city attorney has 45 days to respond to the claim. If it is rejected, the developer can file a lawsuit against the city.

The claim was announced on the steps of City Hall, where Hueber and Casey were joined by about 50 supporters of the project who live and work around the wash.

The project backers argued the development would improve the area, which they say is strewn with litter and graffiti.

“Everyone who lives up there knows what the wash looks like,” said Jerry Friedman, a 30-year resident of the area and a director of the Sunland-Tujunga Chamber of Commerce.

For the past 10 years, environmentalists, residents and the owner of the property, Cosmo World, have debated over the 352-acre development, which was planned for a site that is home to the slender-horned spine flower, an endangered plant.

*

The project was unanimously supported by the city’s Planning Commission after Foothill Golf redesigned the project last year to reduce the impact on the wash and the spine flower.

It appeared the project would win council approval before the 7,500-member Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 11, got involved.

The group opposed the project because it is locked in a labor dispute with Kajima International, a Japanese-owned corporation that holds an $18-million lien on the golf course property. The union opposes the project because Kajima stands to profit from construction on the land.

The council rejected the project on a 10-4 vote, with most council members saying the project would ruin an environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat.

But some in City Hall believe the union strongly influenced at least half of the council members who opposed the project.

A 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said a municipality can be found liable for “taking” a parcel if the landowner is denied “all economically beneficial uses” of the land.

Casey said the developer studied several alternative uses for the land, including a residential development, a sand and gravel mining operation and a rifle range. But he said an environmental study issued by the Planning Commission found those alternatives to be “infeasible” or environmentally damaging.