Judge Says L. A. Violated Laws in Warner Ridge Zoning Case

Los Angeles city officials violated numerous laws in their rush to stop a controversial commercial project from being built at Warner Ridge, Superior Court Judge John Zebrowski said Monday at a court hearing.

Zebrowski’s remarks are not binding but do provide insight into his thoughts about a lawsuit filed by the owners of Warner Ridge challenging the City Council’s January, 1990, decision to zone the site for residential use. The suit charges that the city violated state environmental laws, the City Charter and municipal code.

During oral arguments Monday, Zebrowski wryly remarked that the city attorney’s office deserved sympathy because its client had “violated virtually every rule in the books” in its handling of the Warner Ridge zoning case.

“I heard it, but I am not going to interpret it,” Deputy City Atty. Anthony S. Alperin said of Zebrowski’s remark.

After losing at City Hall, Warner Ridge Associates--a development team consisting of Spound Cos. and Johnson Wax Development Co.--sued the city for $100 million, claiming that the council action stripped the property of most of its value.

Robert I. McMurry, attorney for Warner Ridge, has said the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act by adopting zoning for a project that had not undergone appropriate environmental analysis. The project analyzed was a proposed commercial center, not a housing development.

The city’s rejoinder has been that the developer failed to register those objections until the council had acted. “You can’t hide your cards and then play them later,” Alperin said.

The owners also contend that the city did not comply with City Charter and municipal code requirements for the Planning Commission to review all zone change proposals.

A year ago, Zebrowski ruled on another aspect of the lawsuit, finding that the council violated state zoning consistency laws in its 1990 rejection of a proposal to build an 810,000-square-foot commercial project on the site.

Zoning consistency laws require zoning to be consistent with designated uses on a general plan. Although the council zoned the property for low-density residential use, city planning documents had identified it as a site for future neighborhood-office-commercial development.

The city filed an appeal of Zebrowski’s rulings.