Woo Feeling Hollywood Hills Heat : Development: Homeowners in the scenic area bitterly object to the councilman’s intervention that would allow a home builder to chop 80 feet off part of a ridge.

Councilman Michael Woo has come under sharp attack by some Hollywood Hills homeowners for his efforts to help a corporate campaign contributor obtain special exemptions it is seeking to build $192 million worth of mansions overlooking Hollywood Reservoir.

The opposition to Woo and the project appears to be increasing, according to several factions of area homeowners. They say that so far, they have collected signatures from more than 1,300 residents and visitors to the reservoir area who oppose Woo’s actions on behalf of the Jefferson Development Corp.

The opponents’ objections are many. They say the massive development project will bring traffic and pollution to the wealthy neighborhood, and that it will encroach on wildlife habitat and mar the scenic views.

Most of all, they object to the developer’s plan to flatten a portion of a ridge, reducing its elevation by 80 feet to create home sites.

Such a ridge cut would be in direct violation of a sweeping environmental ordinance, the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan, which after 17 years of preparation is expected to come before the City Council for a vote within weeks. In anticipation of this, Woo introduced an amendment to the Mulholland plan early this year that would exempt Jefferson.

Jefferson executives say it would be feasible to build the subdivision without the exemption, but that building it on a flattened ridge would make it more attractive and, in many respects, environmentally more sound. They also say that they have taken pains to seek out the opinions of nearby homeowners and address their concerns, and that the project as a result is extraordinary in its environmental sensitivity.

Indeed, some area homeowners have rushed to the defense of Woo and Jefferson. They say a few disgruntled homeowners with hidden agendas and a well-organized propaganda machine are attacking the councilman and the developer.

One of Woo’s colleagues on the City Council, Zev Yaroslavsky, has gotten involved, accusing Woo of “stooping to the very gutter of politics” because one of his aides solicited and accepted a campaign contribution from Jefferson. Seeking contributions from developers who have major projects pending is not illegal, but Yaroslavsky has said he is one of several council members who take pains to avoid such a relationship with developers when the project is in their own district.

What is so sharply dividing the affluent neighborhoods high in the Hollywood Hills is a project being touted by Jefferson and its Japanese backers as “Bel-Air East.”

In all, Jefferson wants to build 64 estate-sized homes, to be priced as high as $3 million each, on a 172-acre parcel. The site, on the north side of the reservoir and not far from Universal City, is the largest and last remaining open canyon in the hills surrounding the reservoir, which also is known as Lake Hollywood.

Arguments over the project’s effects on traffic, pollution, wildlife and scenic views, as well as issues of governmental process, have incited various homeowner factions in recent weeks into something verging on war.

Heated disputes have erupted at meetings. Neighborhood organizations have been snooping on each other, trying to determine who is allying themselves with whom. Flyers from anonymous people and mysterious groups are being slipped under doors and windshield wipers. Groups are accusing each other of circulating misleading propaganda and unfairly worded surveys and of engaging in smear tactics.

But neighborhood activist Victoria Cubeiro says the opposition can be boiled down to one simple complaint: “The bastards are trying to cut our ridges,” she said of the developer. “And what we’re shaking our heads at is, why is (Woo) sticking his neck out so far to help them do it?”

Woo’s intervention on Jefferson’s behalf occurred March 27, as the council’s Planning and Land Use Committee was wrapping up discussions on the Mulholland ordinance before passing it on to the council. Woo successfully inserted an amendment to exempt Jefferson from the plan.

Jefferson’s original development proposal called for knocking more than 100 feet off the ridge. After negotiations with Woo and local homeowners, it scaled back its plans to a cut of 80 feet. Jefferson officials contend that in their efforts to respond to the concerns of area homeowners, they have redrawn their plans for the project more than a dozen times.

“It would be folly for us to despoil the ridge,” Jefferson said in a letter to area residents. “Who, then, would want to purchase our homes, or yours?”

If the ridge cut is not permitted, Jefferson executives argue, the homes would be built on the steep hillside. This would cause the homes to be built closer together and would substantially reduce the overall aesthetic appeal of the development, they contend, not just for the new buyers but for other area homeowners who will have to look at the homes.

In any event, Woo’s actions on behalf of Jefferson, particularly in light of the campaign contributions, have sparked a growing outcry.

Some of the homeowners who oppose Woo’s intervention have joined forces to form Save Our Ridges and the Hollywood Hills Homeowners Coalition, and they are pressing Woo to withdraw his amendment exempting Jefferson from the Mulholland plan.

Such special treatment, they maintain, never could have come about without Woo’s help. “We didn’t know you could do that--cut such a ridge,” Cubeiro said in an interview. “But if you’ve got a councilman behind you, you can.”

City records show that Thomas P. Sullivan, Jefferson’s president, personally contributed $500 to Woo’s reelection in spring of 1989 and $500 to Proposition H, the ethics reform bill spearheaded by Woo that was designed to curtail influence-peddling in City Hall. The ballot measure was approved by Los Angeles voters in June. In addition, Jefferson itself gave the maximum $1,000 allowed to Woo’s 1989 campaign, and $4,500 to the ethics measure.

An additional link between Woo and Sullivan is that Sullivan has acknowledged being a longtime friend of the parents of Woo’s top aide, Gary Townsend. Townsend said in a recent interview that he had had little contact with Sullivan over the past 20 years until he became Woo’s top assistant a year ago.

Since then, Townsend said, he has spoken several times with Sullivan regarding the Jefferson project. One of the times was when he solicited a corporate campaign contribution from Sullivan for the ethics bill. Following the discussion, the development company on May 10 donated the $4,500 to the Proposition H campaign.

When asked how the contribution came about, Townsend responded that he told Sullivan it was an important initiative: “I said, ‘Hey, why don’t you contribute to Proposition H?’ The timing made it look like a quid pro quo when there wasn’t.”

Accompanying the ethics provisions of Proposition H was a 40% pay raise for City Council members.

Councilman Yaroslavsky, who vigorously opposed the measure because he objected to the pay hike, last May accused Woo at a council meeting of “stooping to the very gutter of politics” because his staff had solicited and accepted the Jefferson contribution. Although other lawmakers solicited contributions for the ethics measure, Yaroslavsky singled out Woo as being “unethical” because his office had sought funds from a developer with a pending project over which Woo had considerable influence.

In all, developers and other corporate givers donated nearly $100,000 to the initiative.

Woo has said such donations do not make him feel “especially obligated” to help contributors.

Another link between Woo and Jefferson is provided by Steven Afriat, a well-connected lobbyist who has been retained by Jefferson to help guide the Hollywood Hills development through the city approval process. Afriat also works for Woo as a paid fund-raiser.

Afriat said he believes Woo is helping the developer not because of any political favors, but because the project is a good one.

“Mike has voted against my clients more than he has voted for them,” said Afriat, who has argued Jefferson’s case in meetings at Woo’s office. “I don’t get favorable treatment from him. He’s real careful about what he supports.”

Woo vehemently denies being influenced by campaign donations or political relationships. In fact, despite his sponsorship of the exemption from the Mulholland plan, Woo contends that he has still not decided whether to support the project as it goes through the City Council approval process.

Proof of his independence, he said, lies in the fact that he is taking heat from all sides.

“While some homeowners think I’m doing too much for Jefferson,” Woo lamented, “Jefferson doesn’t think I’m doing enough for them.”

Sullivan, Jefferson’s president, agreed, complaining that Woo has demanded too many concessions. “He has been tougher than anybody,” said Sullivan, “in trying to get something done that is environmentally sensitive.”

Sullivan described critics of the project as a handful of “mad dogs” with no actual base of support.

Woo, some homeowners and the executive board of one area group, the Hollywood Knolls Community Club, say the community’s interests are best served by exempting Jefferson from the Mulholland plan because it encourages Jefferson to continue “good-faith negotiations” with homeowners and to listen to their concerns about the proposed development.

Such negotiations, they said, have led to major concessions over the last two years. The biggest was a reduction in the ridge cut from more than 100 feet to 80 feet; Jefferson also has agreed to install a $250,000 gating system and build public hiking trails in the area.

Complicating matters are the sharply differing views about the project and about Woo among various community groups in the Hollywood Hills.

Four board members of the Hollywood Knolls Community Club, including President Dan Riffe, have issued a statement saying they “have supported--and continue to support--Councilman Woo’s prudent amendment.”

In the statement, they urge neighbors, “Please don’t be swayed by the histrionics of those who haven’t bothered to put their efforts into serious, thoughtful planning for the betterment of our neighborhood.”

But some members of the Hollywood Knolls group complained that their leaders threw their support behind Woo and Jefferson without consulting with the membership.

Riffe, in fact, wrote to Woo on the community group’s stationery last March to urge him to give Jefferson the exemption without polling his members or board of directors.

When Woo later asked Riffe to poll his membership, the board of directors met in emergency session and approved Woo’s actions, 10 to 0 with two abstentions--again without telling the rank and file. A majority of the rank and file have since said in survey responses that their board was wrong for holding such a vote, and that Woo should rescind his amendment, according to Cubeiro.

Another supporter of the exemption for Jefferson is Terry Canfield, president of the Lake Hollywood Estates Homeowners Assn. She contends that if the exemption is withdrawn and Jefferson is prohibited from making the ridge cut, the result would probably be a worse, more environmentally destructive project.

But her group’s rank and file, she admits, said in survey responses that they are split “right down the middle” on whether they support Woo and the project.

And some have accused Canfield, a real estate agent, of supporting the project for personal gain--a charge she denies. Canfield says she is no longer involved in her group’s activities regarding Jefferson, to avoid any conflict of interest, because she hopes to make money when the company’s homes are built, listed and sold.

Less divided are two other community groups, the Hollywoodland Homeowners Assn. and Hollywood Hills Improvement Assn. They have called on Woo to rescind his amendment.

Woo says he is now asking all neighborhood associations to poll their members and report back to him on where they stand prior to the final vote by the council.

“If I am going to stick my neck out,” said Woo, a media-conscious politician who is widely regarded as a prospective mayoral candidate, “I want to see if the neighbors really want this.”

Meanwhile, two independent, outside groups--the 54-member Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns. and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy--have weighed in against Woo. Leaders of the groups say his actions undermine the landmark Mulholland plan and its mandate to preserve the views along the 26 miles of scenic roadway from Lake Hollywood to Topanga Canyon.