Court Orders Rezoning of Warner Ridge : Growth: State Court of Appeal rules that the City Council broke the law by changing classification.

In a decision with serious zoning and financial implications for Los Angeles, the state Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday that the City Council illegally rezoned a parcel in Woodland Hills--thwarting developers’ plans for an office complex at Warner Ridge.

A three-judge panel unanimously ordered the council to rezone the controversial 21.5-acre Warner Ridge property so it can be developed for commercial uses--the kind of uses opposed by Councilwoman Joy Picus and local homeowner activists in one of the most bitterly fought and costly land-use fights in the city’s history.

“I’m overjoyed,” said Jack Spound, a principal in the Warner Ridge Associates partnership that owns the vacant parcel near Pierce College.

The partnership sued the city for $100 million in damages, charging that the council’s Jan. 21, 1990, vote to zone the property for 65 single-family homes destroyed its investment.

The suit charged that the residential zoning approved by the council did not match the area’s community plan, which provides a blueprint for development.

The case has “incredible, really frightening implications” for the city’s zoning practices, a disappointed Picus said Tuesday.

The city has estimated that about 8,000 properties throughout Los Angeles have been zoned like Warner Ridge--that is, the council zoned the properties for a less intense use than indicated in community plans.

The ruling opens the door for lawsuits by other disappointed developers who hope to reverse such decisions, developers and others say.

“There are thousands of cases like this,” said Fred Gaines, attorney with the firm of Reznik & Reznik, which specializes in land-use matters.

Robert McMurry, attorney for the developers, said the appellate court decision may mean that a trial in the Warner Ridge case, set for Jan. 27, will focus on how much monetary damage his client has suffered, not whether the city is guilty of violating his client’s rights.

Warner Ridge Associates alleged other illegal action by the city--including a charge that it violated state environmental laws. But those issues were not addressed in the court’s narrow ruling Tuesday.

Even if the council rezones the property as ordered by the panel, the developer still will seek $10 million in damages to cover losses suffered in the last two years, McMurry said.

Mayor Tom Bradley and Council President John Ferraro, fearing an adverse ruling against the city, had met with Picus recently to see if a compromise might be worked out to end the suit. But Picus refused to compromise, insisting that the city’s case was a strong one.

Picus, who represents the Woodland Hills area and became a foe of the developers’ commercial project in November, 1988, said she was very disappointed by the ruling. “This is the year the Grinch stole Warner Ridge from the community,” she said.

“I’m mad,” Picus said. “We’ve got a nameless, faceless court that’s going to allow our community to be destroyed.”

Robert Gross, president of the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, which opposed the commercial project, said the ruling means “that a developer can have anything he wants, regardless of its impact on the city and the community.” Gross and his group believe a commercial project would generate too much traffic.

McMurry, the Warner Ridge attorney, said he has received several inquiries in recent months from property owners who are considering suing the city after learning of the Warner Ridge lawsuit.

“Joy Picus has gambled with the city’s zoning system and with the taxpayers’ dollars and lost,” McMurry said. “It’s been a high price to pay to protect Picus politically.”

McMurry and his clients have complained that Picus’ opposition to a commercial project at Warner Ridge was politically expedient, designed to appease the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization on the eve of her 1989 reelection bid.

Picus’ depositions in the lawsuit, released to the press in late November, painted an unusually vivid, inside picture of how lawmakers make land-use decisions.

The document showed Picus relentlessly seeking to protect her popularity by opposing the Warner Ridge project. She used many stratagems to achieve her goal, including trying to embarrass a council colleague who opposed her, outmaneuvering Mayor Bradley to get the zone change approved and threatening to make “chopped liver” of the Warner Ridge developers.

Although Assistant City Atty. Tony Alperin told reporters it was too early to say if the city would appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, Picus said later that Alperin had told her it would be appealed.

If the Court of Appeal decision remains intact, however, the city will not necessarily be obligated to grant the developer all the zoning entitlements he requested.

The court did not specifically endorse Warner Ridge Associates’ original request to build seven mid-rise office buildings, totaling 810,000 square feet. The court only ruled that the parcel had to retain some form of commercial zoning.

“There’s a wide range of options for commercial,” Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said. “The court did not say which of these we had to take.”