Council Approves Warner Ridge Office Project : Woodland Hills: Lawmakers resignedly vote for the long-disputed development. But attorneys for homeowner groups threaten to challenge the decision.

After seven years of costly, bitter feuding, the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved a large office tower-condominium project on Warner Ridge amid flashes of legislative temper and stern warnings from attorneys of yet more controversy to come.

Even after years of seemingly endless hearings on the issue, the Warner Ridge case continued to evoke high emotions among council members.

At one point, Councilwoman Joy Picus, who represents the Woodland Hills area most affected by the project, said a top planning official’s performance in the case might prompt homeowners to hang him in effigy. At another point, Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky called a judge’s ruling in the litigation surrounding the case “sleazy.”

But in the end, the council resignedly voted 10 to 3 to approve the project and to approve a contract guaranteeing that for the next 10 years it would not seek to restrict use of the property.

A beaming Jack Spound, one of the developers, left the council chambers saying, “We’re very pleased.”

Spound said he is looking forward to wrapping up negotiations with 20th Century Insurance Co., a Woodland Hills-based employer of 2,100, to lease the office buildings. The council action should facilitate the talks, he said.

Still, loose ends remain. After nearly a dozen separate votes Wednesday, the council still must vote again on a zone change ordinance for the project.

If the ordinance is approved, the council will have set the stage for construction of four mid-rise office towers--totaling 690,000 square feet--and 125 condominiums on the 21.5-acre site on the east side of De Soto Avenue.

Approval of the project did not come as a surprise. The city was pushed earlier this year to approve a large-scale Warner Ridge project after it lost several key court tests in its lawsuit with the developer, Warner Ridge Associates.

That lawsuit accused the city of illegally zoning the Warner Ridge property to accommodate only about 60 single-family homes, although the local community plan called for a commercial project on the site.

Voting against the project were Picus and Councilmen Joel Wachs and Ernani Bernardi, all from the San Fernando Valley.

Picus, leading the attack as she has for years, contended the project was ugly and would thrust a commercial development into the residential areas east of De Soto Avenue. De Soto Avenue has been the historic border between the Warner Center commercial center on the west and the homes and bucolic Pierce College to the east, she said.

Before approving the project, the council rejected a last-minute appeal by Picus and Antonio Rossman, attorney for the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, that it adopt, as an alternative, a 471,000-square-foot commercial project with no condos.

Adoption of this down-sized “compromise project” would ensure that his clients drop their battle, Rossman promised the lawmakers. Otherwise, the city faced “continued disputes, continued litigation,” the attorney warned.

Robert Gross, president of the homeowner group that has fought the project for years, also vowed to challenge council approval of the larger project in court.

The council’s own attorney, meanwhile, warned that the city could become entangled in further litigation with the developer if it did not approve the larger project.

Carlyle Hall, a private attorney hired by the council for the case, noted that judges have consistently ruled against the city and that the council could open itself up to $50 million in damages.

“We’ll be back in court and facing an extremely serious situation,” Hall warned.

Councilman Hal Bernson told his colleagues: “The battle is lost.”

Even so, the council rebelled against adopting two provisions in the proposal before them Wednesday.

First, the council on a 9-4 vote rejected the advice of Deputy Planning Director Frank Eberhard and agreed to delete a measure requiring the developer to widen Canoga Avenue.

Picus said widening the road would destroy mature trees. “Not acceptable,” she said. When Eberhard said the modifications she sought would pose technical problems, Picus bitterly told Eberhard that he risked being hanged in effigy if he persisted in his objections.

Picus noted that preserving the trees--and not widening the street--was also acceptable to the developer.

Second, the council voted 11 to 2 to delete a provision in the 10-year development agreement that could have required the city to pay the developer thousands of dollars in cash.

At issue was a provision that spared Warner Ridge Associates from having to pay $4 million in city fees normally required for processing such a project. Instead, the developer would receive “credits” for the $4 million.

Superior Court Judge R. William Schoettler has told the city that he interpreted the stipulated judgment--the accord signed in February to settle the Warner Ridge lawsuit--to mean that if the developer did not use all $4 million in credits the city would pay the developer cash for the unused portion.

But Yaroslavsky, calling Schoettler’s interpretation “sleazy,” said it was not the council’s intent to pay cash for any unused credit.

“I’m flabbergasted that we’re rolling over on this,” Yaroslavsky said. “We’re not being treated fairly by the judge.”

Others agreed that the judge’s interpretation astonished them. “Mr. Bernson and I both were surprised,” said Council President John Ferraro, who, along with Bernson, helped negotiate the stipulated judgment.

Asked later for his reaction to the council disapproval of this provision, Spound said he would consult with his attorney, Robert McMurry.

NEXT STEP

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles City Council approved a series of technical measures, from a development agreement to a General Plan amendment, to permit a commercial and condominium project at Warner Ridge. But a zone change, the linchpin to the effort, was not approved because council rules required that it be ratified unanimously on a first reading. It can, however, be approved with a minimum of 10 votes on a second reading, scheduled for next week. At least 10 council members indicated they would vote for the zone change.