Bernson Says He’s Against Offices Near Ball Fields

A proposal to build seven office buildings amid the Northridge Little League fields, which touched off sophisticated and controversial lobbying for neighborhood support by opponents and proponents, was dealt a harsh blow this week by City Councilman Hal Bernson.

Bernson, whose support was considered important for approval of the zoning change needed by the project, wrote a letter Monday to the Los Angeles Planning Commission stating his opposition. He said a legal opinion that he solicited concluded that the Little League’s continued use of its 13 acres at Devonshire Street and Wilbur Avenue is assured, regardless of what is built on the rest of the 24-acre parcel.

ASL Financial of Encino garnered Little League support for its 250,000-square-foot project by promising to retain the seven baseball fields and spend $1 million upgrading them, and by convincing league officials that building the office park was the only way to ensure the league’s continued presence.

The North Valley Homeowners Federation, which opposed the office park, argued that a 1987 agreement worked out between Bernson and ASL already guaranteed that the Little League could not be displaced. That agreement allowed ASL to build more homes on an adjacent parcel in return for promising to turn the Little League fields over to the city should the site be developed.

Support Sought

Bernson’s support had been avidly sought by the homeowners as well as the developer. The developer had hired the Dolphin Group, a politically powerful public relations firm, to generate neighborhood support and had urged backers to write or call Bernson. The homeowners had also campaigned, collecting 5,000 signatures from project opponents and distributing lawn signs, bumper stickers and slick information packets on the project.

The homeowners had accused ASL of underhanded techniques and of confusing the true issues--increased traffic, commercial development in a residential area--by misleading residents about the status of the Little League. ASL said the homeowners deceived residents about the impact the office complex would have on the neighborhood.

Connie Levin, ASL’s project manager for the office park, did not return telephone calls seeking comment on Bernson’s decision. Fred Karger, a Dolphin Group vice president, said ASL would have no comment.

Jack Cox, one of the homeowners’ leaders, said he was delighted by Bernson’s decision. “It is clear we have finally put to rest the question about the Little League losing its fields if this project doesn’t get through,” he said.

Making Peace

He urged ASL Financial to accept defeat and not to seek to delay a Planning Commission decision on the project, due June 22. He also said the homeowners group wants to make peace with the Little League and work to ensure the league’s future.

George Hall, the highly visible Little League activist who had championed ASL’s proposal as a way of blocking future attacks on the baseball fields, was disappointed by Bernson’s decision, and he warned there would be political repercussions.

The homeowners “put pressure on him with a bunch of signatures they gathered using misinformation . . . and he’s running scared,” Hall said of Bernson.

He said Bernson’s assurance that the Little League could stay meant nothing. “The city could take the land . . . and then decide to make it into a park and then the Little League’s gone,” Hall said. “And . . . if houses were built along there and they complain, we could be out anyway.”

In his letter, Bernson wrote that he had agonized over taking a position on the ASL project. He said he favored building low-density housing on the site, which is bounded on the north and the west by large homes and on the east by a commercial development.

He delayed taking a position, he wrote, “because of the uncertainty of the future status of the Northridge Little League.” The letter said legal advice sought by Bernson assured him that the 1987 agreement “adequately protects and guarantees that the fields will be there for future use.”

Several Opinions

Bernson was out of town on business and could not be reached for further comment. His press spokeswoman said she did not know who had supplied Bernson with the legal opinion on which he based his decision. A spokesman in the Los Angeles city attorney’s office acknowledged that an attorney in that office had supplied one opinion, but he did not know who provided it. Bernson also solicited advice from a private attorney.

City Planner Marc Woersching said Bernson’s opposition will be considered, as will neighborhood sentiment and the recommendations of the Planning Department, when the Planning Commission meets June 22. He said the Planning Department staff had already written its recommendation, but he declined to make it public until next week.

Woersching said Bernson’s opposition will have even “greater importance” if the commission’s decision is appealed to the City Council, as often happens. “Council members tend to defer to the preferences of the council person in which the project is located,” he said.