Beverly Hills mulls hauling L.A. to court: dispute involves side issue related to Fox studio plans.

The Beverly Hills City Council is scheduled to decide June 23 whether to sue the city of Los Angeles over an issue related to the future development of the 20th Century Fox lot in Century City.

Fox, which has asked to have its 54 acres rezoned for studio uses so it can expand by 771,000 square feet, also had a tract map approved in 1981 for the development of a 2,200-unit condominium project. Fox has threatened to sell the land for condominium development, under its current multi-family residential zoning, if its studio expansion plan is not approved as requested.

The condo tract map's approval was scheduled to expire this month, but a new law went into effect this year allowing such approvals to stand for up to 13 years, and Fox was granted a two-year extension at Los Angeles City Hall. It is this extension, which was done without any review or public hearing, that is being challenged by city officials in Beverly Hills.

The Beverly Hills City Council this month established a 20th Century Fox Expansion Advisory Committee to study the extension question and other matters related to the project and to make recommendations to the council. Beverly Hills officials have stated that they are concerned about the impact of either condo development or studio expansion on Beverly Hills traffic congestion and air quality.

Both the Beverly Hills City Attorney's Office and homeowner groups in the Century City area filed appeals of the extension at Los Angeles City Hall, but the appeals were rejected by city staff.

At the advisory committee's second meeting last week, Beverly Hills City Attorney Greg Stepanicich said he believes the law requires an environmental assessment and public hearing for extension of a tract map. He indicated that he further believes the city of Beverly Hills would win a lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles action, and therefore would be given an opportunity to address its concerns to the Los Angeles City Council.

However, Stepanicich also said that under Los Angeles city law, Beverly Hills would have an opportunity to address some of these issues at the "site plan review" stage, if and when someone decided to build condos on the property.

The advisory committee listened to public comment on the issue for three hours on June 15 before drafting its conclusions for the City Council. Those conclusions consisted of a list of pros and cons related to filing the suit.

The City Council discussed the issue in a closed session on June 16.

"Of course, that ordinance could be repealed or amended by the city at any time," Stepanicich said. "The primary concern is: Would Beverly Hills have an opportunity to address concerns if the residential alternative is built?"

Stepanicich further explained that if Beverly Hills wants to sue, it will have to do so by July 6 because there is a 90-day statute of limitations on such issues.

On the pro-lawsuit side, the committee noted that litigation may be the only chance Beverly Hills has to address "entitlements" related to the condo project, such as building height and project density.

"Fox has made it clear that if they don't get everything they're asking for, they will leave," noted committee member Ron Rosen. "I want to point out that the residential alternative is a serious threat. Fox has not been willing to give up their options."

Other entitlement issues named included whether or not to extend Century Park West and possible requirements that the developer include low-cost senior housing and a day care facility.

Negatives to suing, as listed by the committee, were the cost of litigation, the possible deterioration of the relationship between the two cities, the possibility of "retaliation," the possibility of extending the life of the tract map by virtue of the litigation process, and the likelihood that the lawsuit would be viewed as an "anti-Fox" action.

Indeed, many of the people who spoke at the June 15 meeting had the mistaken impression that the committee was voting on whether to oppose the studio expansion. Fox supporters, including members of the group Friends of Fox, spent hours urging the committee to consider the financial contribution Fox makes to the community and to support the studio plan to avoid having the condo alternative built.

Leaders of homeowner groups, meanwhile, made speeches favoring litigation but would not commit to whether they would carry the torch into court if Beverly Hills doesn't.

"Our attorneys have advised us, as your city attorney has, that this (automatic extension) is nonsense," said Westwood community activist Laura Lake. "Nobody wants Fox to leave. But should Mr. (Fox chief executive Rupert) Murdoch fall off his yacht and everything changes, this community has to be protected."

Jeff Okyle of Friends of Fox countered that "the homeowner groups are very well-equipped to handle the legal battles, and they're looking to (Beverly Hills) for financial support. . . . I think it's to our benefit to sit back and see what happens rather than entering a legal battle." Okyle, however, said he supports Fox because he believes condo development in Century City would lower property values in Beverly Hills.

"The people who support Fox over condos are laying a trap for themselves here by laying the groundwork for Fox to build 2,200 condos, which is more scary than any alternative," said homeowner leader George O'Brien. "We have a little bit of a kitty. We'll do whatever we can within financial constraints."

In a related matter, the committee, which will continue to meet to examine other issues related to the Fox property, asked Fox for a model or drawing of the proposed expansion plan (something opponents have been demanding for months) and was told by Fox consultant Helen McCann that they were "not available."

Committee Chairman Thomas White pushed the issue, wanting to know if a model or drawing exists and whether it will ever be available, but McCann would not answer the questions directly.

"None have been approved or authorized as per your request," McCann said, refusing to elaborate.