Builder Claims Betrayal on Vote by Yaroslavsky : Politics: The developer of Warner Ridge testifies that he expected support in return for campaign contributions. The councilman denies the allegations.

Developer Jack Spound said he thought he had built a cordial, trusting relationship with Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky in the months before the January, 1990, vote that would determine the fate of his $150-million Warner Ridge office project.

Spound said Yaroslavsky had asked him to help raise money for his mayoral bid and Spound had done so, collecting about $17,000. The developer said the Westside councilman had asked for tickets to the 1989 Super Bowl and Spound had gotten them, although Yaroslavsky did not go. And the two men had discussed Warner Ridge strategy and compared notes on how the council would vote. Spound thought he had an ally.

Then, according to Spound, on the day the issue went before the council, Yaroslavsky betrayed him by providing the decisive vote to defeat Spound’s proposal to build a seven-building office park on the Woodland Hills property.

Spound describes Yaroslavsky’s actions in a sworn statement given in a $100-million lawsuit filed against the city by Spound and his partners. They contend that their plans to build 810,000 square feet of offices were defeated illegally in 1990 by the City Council.

In an interview last week, Yaroslavsky agreed that he had asked Spound to raise money for him and that the two men had a cordial relationship. But he angrily denied other aspects of Spound’s account, including the Super Bowl ticket request, and said Spound was trying to argue his case in the media by selectively releasing documents in the litigation.

“He’s trying to pressure the council through the media to cave in . . . and it will not work,” Yaroslavsky said. “He knows the law and he knows the truth . . . and it’s just the way it is.”

Although Councilwoman Joy Picus, who represents Woodland Hills, was the key player in the project’s defeat, Spound’s deposition touches on the actions of other council members, including Yaroslavsky, Hal Bernson and Michael Woo, in the highly politicized process.

Spound’s deposition, released by his attorneys, offers a peek behind the scenes of the intense lobbying efforts by both sides, in which planning concepts took a back seat to politics.

This is the second time this month that the aggrieved developers have released documents that they say show politicians took illegal steps to halt projects.

The revelations come at a time when the city’s planning process, and the degree to which it is influenced by political considerations, is undergoing close examination by Mayor Tom Bradley and the City Council. Earlier this month, Yaroslavsky proposed a measure to shield city planners and planning commissioners from lobbying.

Yaroslavsky challenged Spound’s attorney, Robert I. McMurry, to release the record of four days of testimony that the councilman gave in his own deposition.

McMurry has declined to release further documents in the case, which is not set for trial until January, because attorneys representing the city have threatened to go to court to seek sanctions if more are made public.

McMurry said it would be highly unusual for the court to order such sanctions, which could include fines or preventing the documents from being used as evidence in court.

Yaroslavsky said his deposition “would put things in perspective.” He said Spound has only released “copies of things that he wants released . . . and it’s apparent there are differing stories.”

Picus’ deposition in the case was made public earlier this month by the plaintiffs. In it, she said she had unsuccessfully lobbied the Planning Commission on the project and had threatened to make “chopped liver” out of Spound if he released a poll that she feared might damage her chances of reelection. Picus said the political advantages of opposing the project helped shape her position.

Spound has claimed in the lawsuit that he was misled by Picus into believing that she supported a commercial development even before Warner Ridge Associates bought the property in 1985 for $20.5 million.

In his deposition, he states that at a 1984 meeting with Picus and the seller of the property, Picus “was convinced that the community was adamantly opposed to residential development” and that commercial use of the property “was the solution to a long-running problem.”

Spound contends that Yaroslavsky promised on several occasions to “take care of” Spounds difficulties with the Warner Ridge project.

But on Jan. 24, 1990, when the issue was before the council, Yaroslavsky voted against Spound.

In the end, Picus had 10 votes, including Yaroslavsky’s--the bare minimum she needed to overturn a Planning Commission recommendation to allow the offices to be built.

Yaroslavsky said last week that he voted to support single-family houses on the site because Spound’s proposed office project was too large and would create too much traffic.

Spound, however, said Yaroslavsky reneged on his agreement to help him and in the end decided not to risk angering Picus.

Picus, in her deposition, said she told Yaroslavsky that she had enough votes to win without his.

“I knew that he had a tough time on this issue,” Picus said, referring to Yaroslavsky and his friendship with Spound. “The purpose of my message was to make him more comfortable, to not feel that he needed to support me on the basis of friendship.”

Yaroslavsky denied having had any such discussions about his vote. “I don’t do that sort of thing,” he said. “Whatever my vote would have been, it would have been regardless of the outcome.”