Judges Skeptical About Warner Ridge Appeal : Development: Los Angeles argues against a commercial project but is questioned on consistency.

The judges of the state Court of Appeal showed irritation Wednesday with the arguments advanced by the city of Los Angeles against allowing commercial development on Warner Ridge.

The city has appealed to the panel to overturn a ruling by Superior Court Judge John Zebrowski that favored Warner Ridge Associates, which has been battling the city for permission to construct a commercial development on the 21.5-acre property in Woodland Hills.

Warner Ridge Associates--a partnership of the Spound Cos. and Johnson Wax Development Co.--contends that the city, to placate neighboring homeowners, illegally blocked its plans by changing the rules governing the land.

Several times during oral arguments Wednesday the appeal court panel expressed skepticism about the city’s claim that there was no illegal contradiction between the council voting to zone the property to allow only 65 homes and the fact that the local district plan designated the parcel for commercial use.

The owners of the property originally sought to build 810,000 square feet of commercial-retail space on the Warner Ridge site but found themselves stymied by Councilwoman Joy Picus, the area’s representative, who sided with a vocal homeowners group.

Zebrowski ruled in favor of Warner Ridge Associates when he held that the council violated the law by voting to zone the property in January, 1990, for single-family houses, despite the fact that the district plan called for commercial use. The state’s zoning consistency law requires that a plan and zoning be in agreement, and when they are not, the plan should dictate the zoning, not the reverse, Zebrowski ruled.

Assistant City Atty. Tony Alperin argued before the appeal court that Zebrowski erred.

No inconsistency existed because city policy--its “lesser-included zoning” rule--holds that a property can be zoned to include any use less intense than the use specified in the plan, such as residential zoning for land designated for commercial use, Alperin said.

When the judges asked if it was reasonable for Warner Ridge Associates to assume that their property, in an area designated for commercial use, could be zoned for residential use instead, Alperin admitted that the policy might confuse a layman.

To which Presiding Judge Joan Dempsey Klein commented: “Try a few lawyers.”

And Judge Walter H. Croskey added: “Try Judge Zebrowski.”

At another juncture Klein told Alperin, “You folks have decided on a definition of consistency which I can’t find in a dictionary.”

Klein also appeared vexed as Alperin contended that the district plan language cited by Zebrowski does not really specify commercial uses, but indicates only the need to study possible commercial development for the site.

“How many more studies are you going to have?” Klein asked.

“I don’t know if there’s a limit to the number of studies,” Alperin replied.