Galanter Tells Builders: Wait Until After Election : Politics: Foes say the councilwoman is trying to duck development issues. She says the aim is to let campaign rhetoric cool off.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, concerned about the heated rhetoric surrounding development issues in her district, said she has told developers that they would be better off waiting until after her current reelection bid to submit controversial building proposals.

A “calm, rational” discussion of development is unlikely in the current atmosphere, Galanter said in a recent interview.

But Galanter’s election foes criticized the councilwoman’s stance, saying it allows her to duck the critical issue of development as she heads into an April 9 primary against six challengers.

“She is making this rule to save herself, because she has presided over excessive development during her term,” said Mary Lee Gray, an election opponent and senior deputy to county Supervisor Deane Dana. “Of course she does not want to discuss this during an election period because her true beliefs (in favor of development) could not be aired.”

And candidate Salvatore Grammatico, a real estate agent and community activist, called Galanter’s position an “incumbency tactic.” Development proposals should be permitted to come forward just before an election, Grammatico said, because “this is the best time to get our representatives to act on something.”

The comments by Galanter and her foes followed the circulation to the media of a memo, apparently written by a development consultant, that described private talks between the consultant and Galanter’s staff concerning a controversial Venice building project. At least two newspapers, including The Times, have obtained copies of the memo.

Consultant Susan Cloke, listed as author of the memo, did not return repeated telephone calls over the last week to confirm or deny that she wrote it. Developer James Coxeter, listed as memo’s recipient, declined through a spokesman to discuss it.

Coxeter has proposed replacing the 795-unit Lincoln Place apartments in Venice with a new condominium and apartment complex. Tenants hope to ward off the redevelopment by purchasing the sprawling 40-acre complex themselves.

The memo, dated Nov. 8, 1990, describes two meetings last year at which Cloke and members of Galanter’s staff discussed the construction proposal.

Galanter aides said they did not see a copy of the memo until it was presented to them by a reporter last week. They rejected as inaccurate the memo’s descriptions of the two meetings.

According to the four-page memo, Galanter’s staff was worried about more than assuring a well-modulated debate on the condominium proposal. Galanter planning deputy Jim Bickhart reportedly expressed concern that Galanter “faces a major reelection problem if a viable challenger emerges,” the memo says.

The memo later says: “Bickhart believes people are judging Galanter as ‘having betrayed the revolution of 1987’ “--an apparent reference to community activists who say the councilwoman has not fulfilled her 1987 campaign pledge to slow development--and as “ ‘cooperating with evil developers.’ ”

Summarizing Bickhart’s message, the memo says: “The upshot of all this is that the council office decided that any controversial development project is a liability and that the council office will oppose all controversial projects where applications are made prior to the election.”

After a second meeting in November among Cloke, Bickhart and Galanter press deputy Rick Ruiz, the memo says, the Galanter aides hoped Coxeter would wait until after the election to file his plans with the city.

Bickhart conceded in an interview that he expressed some concern to Cloke last year about the election, but that his worries have waned “because I don’t believe a viable challenger has emerged.” He said he was worried only about the community’s perception of Galanter because a few opponents were getting “inordinate” attention in the press.

Galanter and her staff denied that they told Coxeter, or any other builder, when to submit plans for city review. They said advice to Cloke on when to submit plans was not based on concern about the election.

Instead, the councilwoman said last week, that she has given the following “friendly” advice to several builders: “If you want to deal with this on a calm, rational level . . . do not have it come up in the middle of an election.”

Galanter added: “I would advise that to anyone, whether developers or community groups.”

She said she would judge development proposals just as critically whether they come up before or after the election.

But the heated rhetoric of the campaign will be absent, Galanter said, if plans are presented later. “I think everybody gets a better deal then, including me, but also including the neighborhood and the developer,” she said.

The Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. is scheduled to meet tonight with representatives of Coxeter’s TransAction Ltd. Cos. to continue discussions about the future of the apartment complex.

TransAction officials have met several times during the last year with tenants to discuss the redevelopment plan. A proposal presented to tenants last year called for demolishing the existing 795 units over several years and building 650 townhouses and 200 apartments, with some units reserved for Lincoln Place’s low-income tenants.

Tenants Assn. President Sheila Bernard said she expects the tenants to get a fair hearing on their proposal to buy Lincoln Place. Bernard added that she is not disturbed by the private meetings described in the memo.

Thus far, Galanter has opposed redevelopment of Lincoln Place, Bickhart said. But the councilwoman must continue talks with the developer because existing zoning allows construction on the site “even over everybody’s opposition,” Bickhart said.

“That is the starting place for the debate. We can’t just ignore” the developer, Bickhart said.

The memo apparently written by Cloke portrays a council office that is concerned about the tenants’ views on plans for Lincoln Place but also sympathetic to the developer.

At one point, the memo says Bickhart told Cloke that the developer--through a series of meetings with the community--”has stopped the (council) office from needing to take a ‘campaign stand’ opposing the Lincoln Place development proposal.” Later, the memo says the council office is concerned that tenants will demand a stop to any development if their buyout proposal is not feasible.

But Galanter spokesman Ruiz said remarks that allegedly showed sympathy for the developer were merely Cloke’s wishful thinking or a “fanciful interpretation” of meetings with the council office.

The memo also says: “To the extent we can involve the community in the planning process for the project and garner resident and neighborhood support, we can anticipate approval and support from the council office.”

Galanter and her staff agreed that this statement is essentially accurate, although they reserved the right to pose objections beyond those raised by the community.