Judge Upholds Fine Against City in Warner Ridge Action : Development: The assessment was levied to cover the builder’s costs to fight a “frivolous” motion.

Superior Court Judge Kathryn Doi Todd refused Monday to rescind a $6,015 fine she imposed last month on the city of Los Angeles for filing what she described as a “frivolous” courtroom motion over Warner Ridge development.

At a brief hearing, Todd refused to reverse her June 6 ruling, despite a plea from Assistant City Atty. Tony Alperin.

Todd originally levied the fine after the would-be developer of the 21.5-acre Warner Ridge site in Woodland Hills complained that some of the city’s maneuvers were designed only to promote delays and to increase the developer’s legal expenses, exhausting it financially.

She ordered the fine to be paid to the developer, calculating it to cover the legal costs in fighting a demurrer motion filed by the city. What irked the judge and prompted the fine was that the demurrer was virtually identical to one sought by the city in 1990, which had been rejected by another judge.

At the June hearing, Todd indicated that she had been tempted as well to fine the city an amount equal to the loss of taxpayers’ money in court time needed to process the “frivolous” motion.

Todd on Monday also rejected a request by Arthur J. Hazarabedian, attorney for Warner Ridge Associates, the developer, that the city’s previous fine be increased by $2,227 to cover the partnership’s costs of preparing for Monday’s hearing.

Monday’s hearing was the latest episode in the litigation, in which Warner Ridge Associates--formed by the Spound Cos. and Johnson Wax Development Co.--is suing the city for $100 million.

The partnership claims the City Council illegally deprived it of its right to develop the Warner Ridge site when the council voted in January, 1990, to rezone the property.

The developer was seeking to build an 810,000-square-foot commercial-retail complex on the ridge when the council, at the urging of Councilwoman Joy Picus, rezoned it for a maximum of 65 single-family houses. The partnership maintains that the city misused its zoning powers to placate homeowners in Picus’ district who oppose the commercial development.