Hidden Hills Tries to Oust Embattled City Attorney

The Hidden Hills City Council, taken over this week by members opposed to a proposed development that includes lower-cost housing, moved to fire the city’s attorney on the eve of a key court battle, but the attorney vows not to leave quietly.

City Atty. Wayne K. Lemieux’s support for the development put him at odds with three council members who took office Tuesday night after winning election by campaigning against the project.

Among the new council’s first acts was an effort to replace Lemieux as the city’s advocate in an important hearing today in Los Angeles Superior Court involving the development plan.

The council also scheduled a special meeting for this morning to “act upon the legal representation of the city,” a discussion expected to focus on proposals to fire Lemieux.

Lemieux, who had previously talked of resigning in the wake of the election victory by the three new council members, switched gears late Tuesday.

“I’m not going to resign,” said Lemieux, the city’s attorney for the past 10 years. “If they want to fire me, they can fire me any time they want.”

He said council members wanted to fire him Tuesday night during a closed session held to discuss the lawsuit and personnel matters.

But Lemieux’s law firm works under contract with the city, and he said he insisted that his status be discussed in public, forcing the council to schedule today’s special meeting.

Councilman David G. Stanley--elected last week with Susan Norris Porcaro and Howard Klein--presided over Tuesday’s meeting and said that during the closed session “a discussion ensued with respect to representation of the city.”

He said after the closed session that the council had “a real need, if we are going to make a change” in the city’s legal representation, “to do it extremely quickly.”

Lemieux’s status with the city was in limbo Wednesday.

He had not been fired, but late Tuesday the council hired two Los Angeles law firms to represent the city in his place at the hearing today in a lawsuit filed by developer Danny Howard.

Howard proposed building nine single-family homes, a five-story commercial building and a 48-unit lower-cost apartment building for senior citizens in Hidden Hills.

He filed suit last year, contending that the city was trying to back out of commitments he said it had made to approve his project.

Today’s hearing before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge R. William Schoettler Jr. concerns Howard’s request for a court order requiring the city to approve the project.

The project is closely related to a separate 1984 lawsuit over the city’s formation of a redevelopment agency to finance storm drain construction.

Los Angeles County and a private attorney sued the city, arguing that state law requires redevelopment agencies to use some of their money to provide “affordable” housing.

Hidden Hills, in the far southwestern corner of the San Fernando Valley, is a city of large estates, on private streets behind a guarded gate.

The suit was settled by agreement, which Howard maintains committed the city to construction of the project.

Schoettler said last month he was prepared to order Hidden Hills officials into his courtroom to approve Howard’s project if needed to carry out the settlement of the earlier suit.

But Michael Jenkins, one of the new attorneys hired Tuesday by Hidden Hills, said he plans to argue that “the city cannot commit to do something that is otherwise required to be the subject of public hearings.” Hearings were required for zoning changes needed for the Howard project.

In another twist, Lemieux said Wednesday the council could not prevent him from appearing on behalf of Hidden Hills in today’s hearing.

The legal parties to the hearing include not only the City Council but the city redevelopment agency as well.

Although council members are also the directors of the redevelopment agency, they were not meeting as such on Tuesday and thus could not have removed him as the agency’s attorney, he said.

Jenkins, who also serves as city attorney for Westlake Village, disagreed.

“It was their action to substitute Mr. Lemieux out of the case entirely,” Jenkins said.

If all the attorneys show up today as promised, the matter will probably become one more question to be decided by the judge.