Council to Vote Today on Future of Warner Ridge : Development: Councilwoman Joy Picus and project opponents are optimistic that a final vote to deny building permits will end the 3-year fight over Woodland Hills high-rises.

The Los Angeles City Council is scheduled to give the final word today on whether a controversial $150-million high-rise office project should be built next to a Woodland Hills residential neighborhood.

The dispute over the proposal to build seven towers--ranging in size from three stories to seven stories--on 21 1/2 acres of Warner Ridge has sparked bitter conflict for more than three years among homeowners, city officials, representatives of nearby Pierce College and the project’s developer.

Councilwoman Joy Picus, who represents Warner Ridge and has repeatedly tried to prevent commercial development of the area, expressed cautious optimism Tuesday that her council colleagues would support her drive to reject the commercial development, which she said is one of the most important planning issues in her council tenure.

“If the vote was taken right now I am confident of victory,” Picus said. “However, 24 hours is a long time, and I am always wary . . . We are an unpredictable group and you never know what can happen at the last minute.”

Picus will instead ask the council to approve a zone change on the land to allow for the construction of 106 single-family houses, a proposal she said has the “overwhelming support” of the community.

Developer Jack Spound said he was not certain how the council would vote. “I’m anything but confident,” he said. But he added that he had the support of more than 300 residents who live near the project.

Spound added that he was not bothered by Picus’ accusation last week that one of his partners does business in South Africa. Picus said the involvement of Johnson Wax Development is relevant to the debate because of the council’s longstanding opposition to South Africa’s apartheid regime.

“It’s a non-issue,” Spound said. “There is no legislation on the books regarding a company’s involvement with South Africa in a land-use decision. The vote on this project will be made based on its merits.”

An official for the Los Angeles city attorney’s office said the city has passed laws barring firms from receiving municipal contracts if they do business in South Africa. However, he said, it was uncertain whether the prohibition extended to firms seeking building permits.

The councilwoman has said that the proposed development, which would be at the northeast corner of De Soto Avenue and Oxnard Street, is ill-conceived and would be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Picus, who said she has personally lobbied each council member, said that council members should follow protocol of deferring to a decision that she has made pertaining to her district.

She said that De Soto should be maintained as the boundary between commercial development at the adjoining Warner Center on the west and houses to the east.

The council’s Planning and Land Use Committee last month agreed with Picus and voted 2 to 1 against the commercial project. Councilmen Michael Woo and Hal Bernson supported Picus’ argument regarding the building of commercial developments east of De Soto.

Councilman Robert Farrell, the lone dissenter, said he voted for Spound’s project because it had been approved by both a city planning examiner and the city Planning Commission.

Planners had praised the proposal as a “quality development” with built-in safeguards to keep it from causing traffic jams.

Because of the Planning Commission’s endorsement of the proposal, at least 10 members of the 15-member council must vote to overturn that approval.

Representatives of the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, which has vehemently opposed the project, said they were confident that the council would reject it.

“I think we’re going to win, based on discussions we’ve had” with the council “over the past several weeks,” said Rosemary Woodlock, a member of the group’s board of directors.

However, the Pierce College Planning Advisory Committee on Friday said they opposed residential development on the site.

“The only complaints the college receives is from homeowners,” said college president Dan Means. He said new homeowners would probably complain about odors and noise from the school’s farm.