Homeowners Challenge Settlement : Warner Ridge: The group contends, among other things, that the development agreement cannot be finalized without a public review.

A Woodland Hills homeowner group is challenging a settlement agreement reached last week between developers and the Los Angeles City Council over development of the controversial Warner Ridge site in Woodland Hills.

Antonio Rossmann, an attorney for the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, sent a letter Thursday to the Los Angeles city attorney’s office contending that the settlement cannot be made final without a public review. Rossmann’s letter said the environmental impact report prepared for the project is inadequate because it “lacks the city’s independent judgment” and does not address the specifics of the settlement.

Rossmann also said that if the City Council does not address the homeowners’ concerns, the group will take legal action.

“We want to put the city on notice,” said Robert Gross, president of the homeowner group. “We thought it best to get a communique in there. We have some hope that the City Council, when it sees what it’s giving away, and the implication of the impact for other developers . . . will change its position.”

A spokesman for the developer said the action by the homeowner group was not surprising, but declined to comment further. City officials from the Planning Department and the city attorney’s office could not be reached for comment.

The council voted 11 to 2 last week to allow a project on the 21.5-acre site that would include 690,000 square feet of commercial space and 125 condominiums. In return, the developers agreed to drop a $100-million lawsuit against the city.

A week before the settlement was reached, the homeowner group had sent a letter to the council saying it was willing to accept a 471,000-square-foot project, but no larger.

“The 471,000 square feet is what the law provides for,” Gross said. “The city’s settlement goes well beyond what the law allows.”

The developers had contended in their lawsuit that the zoning for the site was illegally changed in 1990 to block the project, depriving the owners of all economically viable use of the property. The site is designated for commercial use in the city’s Community Plan and an appeals court ruling had supported the developers’ position.

In addition to receiving council permission to build the project in the settlement, the developers were allowed to avoid paying $25 million in fees they would have had to pay under city zoning and planning laws, including traffic mitigation fees and funding of public art.

In addition to arguing that the environmental report was inadequate, Rossmann also argued in his letter that the fee exemptions should not have been allowed.