Suit May Offer Peek at Deals on Zoning : Warner Ridge: A suit against the city of Los Angeles seeks to change the factors that affect government decisions on controversial land-use issues.

A rare glimpse into the sometimes rough-and-tumble process of land-use decisions in Los Angeles may emerge in a $100-million lawsuit filed by developers who claim politics superseded prudence when a proposed Woodland Hills office complex was rejected in January.

The lawsuit, filed last week against the city and three council members by partners in a proposed Warner Ridge office project, charges that closed-door threats, vote-trading and duplicity color what is intended to be a rational weighing of competing interests.

The lawsuit alleges, for example, that City Council member Joy Picus’ camp was angered by a 1986 decision by the developers of Warner Ridge to meet homeowner demands for alterations to a project access road because it denied her an opportunity to appear heroic to homeowner critics of the project.

The developers’ move kept Picus from posing as a developer-basher and from appearing to “extract” the modifications at the same time she supported construction of the proposed 810,000-square-foot office complex, according to the lawsuit, filed on behalf of developers Albert Spound and the Johnson Wax Development Co.

“Decisions are often not based on the merits of a project, but on politics,” said Robert McMurry, attorney for the developers. He said one purpose of the lawsuit is to reform City Hall by exposing the bare-knuckles politics that shape development decisions.

The lawsuit claims that the council illegally deprived the developers of the value of their property without due process on Jan. 24, and seeks $100 million in damages or, as an alternative, that the council zone the property for commercial development.

The suit was filed against the city of Los Angeles but also names Picus and Councilmen Zev Yaroslavsky and John Ferraro.

Lobbyists and City Council members acknowledge privately that the lawsuit’s allegations about the planning process ring true. But some wonder if it is possible, or even wise, to purge political considerations from planning matters.

Without commenting on the merits of the lawsuit, attorney George Mihlsten, a prominent City Hall lobbyist, said the courts generally have given legislative bodies wide latitude to act as they see fit on most land-use matters. “The city cannot afford to lose the Warner Ridge case because it would fundamentally change the nature of land-use decision-making,” he said.

Jackie Brainard, Picus’ press secretary, said neither Picus nor any member of her staff would comment on specific allegations in the lawsuit. In a press release, Picus said the lawsuit is “about developers who didn’t get everything they wanted.”

At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that McMurry’s clients purchased the Warner Ridge property in 1985--and spent $50 million on the project--in the belief that Picus, the community and the city’s planning processes all backed the construction of an office park on the site.

In 1988, just before Picus sought reelection, a Woodland Hills homeowners group threatened to oppose Picus politically if she did not block the proposed commercial project, the lawsuit claims. Then Picus reversed herself and began using hardball political tactics to stop the project, the lawsuit alleges.

Picus won reelection in the 1989 primary, avoiding a runoff by a narrow margin. In January, the council voted to support Picus and to zone the property to allow only estate-sized homes.

Picus’ efforts to block the project included threatening to oppose ethics legislation proposed by Councilman Michael Woo--a swing vote on the council’s planning committee--if he did not back her on the Warner Ridge issue, the lawsuit claims.

The Canoga Park lawmaker’s staff also allegedly threatened two lobbyists--Steve Afriat and Jim McDermott--by saying that because they were representing Warner Ridge they would not be warmly received in Picus’ office even if they were representing other clients. The staff urged the lobbyists to drop Warner Ridge as a client, and they did not, the lawsuit states.

Asked last week if Picus had threatened him, Woo, who voted to oppose the Warner Ridge office project, said: “Because this is a matter of litigation I’m not supposed to comment. But don’t assume that the whole account” in the lawsuit “is accurate.”

Afriat refused to comment on the incident involving the alleged threats. McDermott said Picus’ chief aide, Michelle Gagan, had threatened him but he refused to provide any details beyond those alleged in the lawsuit.

Courtroom allegations that politics have distorted the city’s planning process are not new.

In February, Superior Court Judge John Zebrowski sharply condemned the council for requiring a developer to prepare an environmental impact report before building a retail center on the site of a Studio City carwash which became a cause celebre among homeowners who wanted to preserve it.

The council’s action in the carwash controversy was “more an exercise in constituent relations and legislative back-scratching than careful and responsible environmental analysis,” the judge said in his ruling.

But McMurry said he intends to prove politics and vote-trading form the foundation of many City Hall land-use decisions. By proving such practices are endemic, McMurry said he hopes to improve his chances of persuading a judge to intervene in his client’s favor.

“In private conversations before the council vote . . . numerous council members indicated . . . that regardless of the merits” of the Warner Ridge project, for political reasons they could not vote against Picus, the lawsuit claims.

The council’s “well-established practice and policy” was to allow individual council members a virtual veto over development in their districts, the council members reportedly told the developers, the lawsuit states.

Such a policy “creates a situation in which an applicant . . . does not receive a full and impartial hearing and consideration before the council,” the lawsuit continues.

Some lobbyists and council members say McMurry should have little trouble proving those points to a judge.

“Deals are cut all the time at City Hall,” said one lobbyist who asked not to be identified. “It’s plain old horse-trading--you vote for me on this, I’ll vote for you on that. And I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it, either. It’s the art of compromise.”

Ferraro, the council president, denied the council engages in “vote-trading per se.” But, he said, “You do look to the council person of the district for leadership” on planning issues. “You vote your conscience but they know the district better than anyone.”

Several City Hall observers said that such support for the position of a City Council colleague is not always given readily. Sometimes threats of reprisals are necessary to pry loose a vote, especially on major projects with citywide impact where a large amount of money is at stake.

“Certainly I’ve seen that done,” said Arthur Snyder, a former city councilman who is now a leading City Hall lobbyist. “I have to say, however, that Joy is not one of those who engages in threats herself. But there are others who do so on a regular basis.”

Lobbyist Ken Spiker, formerly the council’s top legislative aide, said, however, that he has never heard of lawmakers threatening one another on land-use issues or even of engaging in vote-trading negotiations.

“It’s not necessary. There’s an unwritten rule of ‘I’ll stay out of your district if you stay out of mine,’ ” Spiker said. “It’s not like in Sacramento where people keep little black books on each other.”