GRANADA HILLS : Planners Oppose Mall on Ranch Site

The Los Angeles Planning Commission on Thursday surprised a group of Granada Hills residents by siding with them against a planned shopping mall on part of an old ranch site once owned by actor James Cagney.

The unanimous decision also disconcerted the developer’s representatives, who didn’t show up because they mistakenly thought that no action would be taken.

“I sure wish I had been there,” attorney Peter Gelblum said afterward. Gelblum, of the Los Angeles firm Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, represents the Richard J. Mazurek Living Trust, which had proposed building a supermarket, day-care center and two-story office complex on the hilly 11-acre site at 17900 Sesnon Blvd.

The commission’s action means that zoning on the property will remain residential, unless the trust successfully appeals the ruling to the City Council--an unlikely scenario because City Councilman Hal Bernson opposes the project--or wins against the city in court.

Both options are being considered, Gelblum said. “This isn’t going to be the end of it, if I can put it that way.”

The proposed 84,000-square-foot mall angered members of Homeowners of Upper Granada Hills, who argued that commercial development would bring crime and traffic to gated subdivisions full of large, pink, upscale homes.

“If I’d known about this (project), I wouldn’t have purchased a half-million-dollar home,” neighbor Gloria Almendares said at Thursday’s hearing.

Planning Commission members appeared sympathetic.

“This is one of the most pristine areas left in the San Fernando Valley,” Commissioner Suzette Neiman said.

The vote came after commissioners denied the trust’s request to postpone action on the zone change. Gelblum said he had been told by planning staff that the postponement wouldn’t be a problem and assumed that there was no need to attend the hearing.

The commission’s ruling contradicts a 1974 district plan of the area that calls for commercial use of the site. Neighbors argued that the plan is out of date. But Gelblum contended that residential zoning on the site violates the plan and is illegal.