L.A. Opens Secret Negotiations to Settle Warner Ridge Dispute : Courts: Councilman John Ferraro met with developers this week. The move signals a major shift.

In the wake of repeated court losses that confront the city with potentially expensive legal precedents, the city of Los Angeles has entered into secret talks to settle the $100-million Warner Ridge lawsuit, it was revealed Friday.

City Council President John Ferraro met this week with representatives of the real estate partnership that has been battling the city over development of the Woodland Hills site.

The meetings were confirmed by Mayor Tom Bradley’s office, which called them “a major departure from the city’s previous position,” and by Councilwoman Joy Picus, whose campaign to block construction of an office complex on the site brought on the lawsuit.

On Friday, the council also voted 12 to 0 to hire a private attorney to provide an independent analysis of the Warner Ridge case and its ramifications, including the advisability of a compromise settlement.

The Warner Ridge plaintiffs have scored two major courtroom victories in recent weeks that expose the city to similar lawsuits and that may force the municipality to embark on a costly rezoning program. “The implications are staggering,” one council member said Friday.

The settlement talks and the hiring of outside counsel appear to indicate that Picus is losing her grip on the Warner Ridge issue. Picus was the architect of the January, 1990, zoning ordinance that would allow only 65 single-family houses to be built on the 21.5-acre Warner Ridge site, located in her district.

The Warner Ridge investment group, which had planned to build a half-dozen office towers there, then sued the city, claiming the Picus plan was illegal because the land is designated for commercial use in the city plan. The developers maintained that Picus got the City Council to change the zoning because she wanted the political support of a Woodland Hills homeowner group that opposed the project.

Picus confirmed that the settlement talks were occurring, adding that “anything they agree to still must be approved by me and by the council.” She refused further comment.

The two recent court decisions--one in the state Court of Appeal--have upheld the developer’s legal positions.

Last week, the council voted to appeal the two adverse court decisions and to keep the door open to settlement discussions. The talks revealed Friday, involving Ferraro and Robert I. McMurry, attorney for the developers, are fully authorized by the council, said one source familiar with the discussions.

Ferraro, angry that word of the talks had leaked, said: “I hope we can get something settled, and I hope some loudmouthed press people don’t blow this out of the water.”

McMurry refused comment.

Jane Blumenfeld, Bradley’s top planning deputy, said the talks represented “a major departure from the city’s previous position and a positive sign.” Meanwhile, the council voted Friday to spend up to $20,000 to hire attorney Carlyle W. Hall, a well-known land-use litigator, to advise it on the suit.

Councilman Hal Bernson introduced the motion and it was seconded by Ferraro. Picus refused comment on the decision, saying: “Hal has a much clearer notion of it. Talk to him.”

Hall is being retained to give the council a second opinion on the city’s lawsuit, and will advise the city about possibly settling the lawsuit and about its effects on the city’s land-use decisions, Bernson said in an interview.

“We respect Councilwoman Joy Picus’ judgment,” Bernson said, when asked if the moves to settle the case indicated a weakening of the council’s resolve to maintain Picus’ hard-line position in the matter. “However, the courts don’t always agree with the judgment of council members.”

“Our concern is that the city attorney is not giving us clear, straightforward advice,” one lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said of the decision to hire Hall.

Hall represented homeowners in litigation filed in the early 1980s to require the city to reconcile its zoning with its community plans. Their victory in that case forced the city to undertake a massive rezoning effort. Now, another such costly and time-consuming effort may be forced on the city by the Warner Ridge case, city officials have acknowledged.

Hall also recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the city’s actions in the Warner Ridge matter on behalf of a homeowners group. That should disqualify him as a source of independent advice, McMurry said.

“If they really got an independent analysis of their case, they’d see that they’re going to lose,” McMurry said. “But I find it humorous that they’ve hired Carlyle Hall for this.”

Hall could not be reached for comment, but his office confirmed that he had been retained.

The council will discuss the case again in a closed session Tuesday.