COLUMN RIGHT/ MICHAEL M. BERGER : L.A.’s Zoning Wounds Are Self-Inflicted : The city resorted to wordplay to restrict use of Warner Ridge.

There has been some hand-wringing going on at Los Angeles City Hall since the state Court of Appeal handed down its New Year’s Eve decision in the Warner Ridge case. That opinion held, unremarkably, that state statutes mean what they say, and the upshot of that unremarkable conclusion is that the city had unlawfully restricted the use of a 21.5-acre parcel of land in Woodland Hills.

Setting aside councilmanic posturing (like referring to the court as the “Grinch (that) stole Warner Ridge” or suggesting that there may be loophole ways to rezone the property that still don’t give the property owner much), what happened at Warner Ridge to cause all this municipal angst? Planning and zoning--generally dreadfully dull stuff that takes place in government buildings and is attended by acolytes who rarely see the light of day.

Each city is required by the state to have a General Plan. That plan has many required parts, and was likened by a California appellate court more than a quarter of a century ago to a “constitution” for a city’s future development.

One of the tools used to bring a General Plan to life is zoning, by which broad planning designations (e.g., “commercial”) are made specific locally. The Legislature has long required that all zoning be “consistent” with the General Plan.

Which brings us back to Warner Ridge, in the western San Fernando Valley. The General Plan calls for commercial development of the property in question, although in the early 1980s it was still zoned for residential and agricultural use. The current owners purchased the property in reliance on the General Plan’s commitment to commercial uses and began the planning and designing of an office complex. At the insistence of Councilwoman Joy Picus, who represents the area, the owners had to obtain the approval of neighboring landowners. As a consequence, the environmental impact report on the project was rewritten and the project altered.

Having jumped through those hoops, the owners were told by Picus that they also needed the approval of the community as a whole. Shortly thereafter, the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization announced its opposition and Picus soon followed suit. In sworn testimony in the ensuing litigation, Picus said that she had taken her position for political reasons deriving from her need of the support of the homeowners’ organization. At Picus’ request, the proposed commercial rezoning was rejected and the property was zoned for large-lot estate homes.

What happened in court should have been predictable. It is hardly “man bites dog” news when a court reads a statute and concludes that the Legislature actually meant what it said. In this case, the court merely looked at a statute that said that zoning must be “consistent” with the General Plan and concluded that zoning that blocks commercial use cannot be “consistent” with a General Plan that designates property for commercial use.

The reasons for the expressions of dismay from various city officials and representatives are manifold. The courts refused to go along with the city’s games. This city has gotten used to being able to regulate property as it pleased and generally count on the courts to protect those decisions. But judicial carte blanche only goes so far. The facts of this case were simply too raw to swallow. In seeking to defend the blatantly political decision to deny the use of Warner Ridge according to the General Plan, the city’s attorneys were reduced to wordplay. They argued that, because property that is commercially zoned may be developed residentially, then it is consistent with the General Plan to zone commercial property solely for residential use. The city’s action was absurd. It tried to use a methodology that provided for flexibility to justify zoning that not only removed flexibility but forbade land uses that should have been permitted.

Not even the City of Los Angeles is above the law. The making of a zoning ordinance is often not a pretty sight. Here, political hash was made of what should have been a routine land-use decision. But don’t weep for the City Council members. Their disregard of the rights of a few property owners will be paid for by the rest of us when this case finally ends. That’s the upshot of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church vs. County of Los Angeles. A temporary taking of the right to use property, as happened at Warner Ridge, constitutionally requires compensation. On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Kathryn Doi Todd ruled that by its actions, the city took the Warner Ridge property. The only issue left is price. A bad decision was made, but it was by the City Council, not the courts.