State Analyst Backs Up City’s Vote Against Golf Course

The Los Angeles City Council was on sound legal ground when it voted last month to reject plans for an 18-hole golf course on the banks of the Big Tujunga Wash, the state’s legislative counsel said in a report released Friday.

The analysis by Legislative Counsel Bion M. Gregory comes in the wake of a $215-million claim by Foothill Golf Development Group, which charges that the city illegally rejected the project.

The developer contends that the council scuttled the proposal because of lobbying from an influential labor union, not because the project lacked merit.

The claim charges that by rejecting a permit to build the course, the city has essentially “taken” the property without giving the developer fair compensation.

If the City Council does not act on the $215-million claim by mid-October, Foothill Golf can file a lawsuit.

The legislative counsel’s analysis, which was sought by state Sen. Tom Hayden, argues that the developer still has the option of building a smaller project, such as a nine-hole course, or selling the 352-acre site to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which has offered to buy it for $3.5 million.

“The council did its job in protecting the public interest and should reject this bogus claim,” said Hayden, a vocal opponent of the project.

Hayden asked for the legislative counsel’s opinion based on his position as chairman of the Senate’s Natural Resources Committee. The Big Tujunga Wash is considered one of the last “wild” rivers in Los Angeles and is home to the endangered slender-horned spineflower.

But Mark Armbruster, an attorney representing Foothill Golf, said the legislative counsel’s opinion is moot since the ultimate decision on the dispute would lie with a civil court judge, not the state Legislature.

“I wish Sen. Hayden’s office the best, but I don’t think they know what they are talking about,” Armbruster said.

He added that the question of whether the city’s action deprives the developer of its property is a constitutional issue, not a legislative matter.

Armbruster has repeatedly said that the council has left no viable option for the developer because a nine-hole course would not be profitable. He has also said that the $3.5 million offered by the conservancy is far too little for the parcel.

An environmental report has rejected several alternative uses for the property.

For the past 10 years, environmentalists, residents and the owner of the property, Cosmo World, have debated the proposed golf course in Sunland.

The project had won the unanimous support of the Planning Commission and the councilman for the area, Joel Wachs. But it was rejected by the council after the 7,500-member Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 11, got involved.

The labor 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.