Porter Ranch Opponents Want Bernson Off 2 Key Committees

Members of a community group opposed to a massive development in Porter Ranch on Wednesday asked Los Angeles City Council President John Ferraro to remove Councilman Hal Bernson from two city committees that will consider the project.

A spokesman for Ferraro said the request will probably be rejected.

In a letter hand-delivered to Ferraro’s office, the opponents charged Bernson with acting as a lobbyist for the $2-billion Porter Ranch Development Co. project by speaking in its favor at an April public hearing. The letter also accused him of ignoring community opposition and of creating a “damaging appearance of impropriety” by accepting more than $50,000 in campaign contributions since 1982 from companies involved in the project.

“His objectivity is now in serious question,” said the letter, signed by six leading members of PRIDE, which stands for Porter Ranch Is Developed Enough. “His chairing of the Board of Referred Powers and the Planning and Environment Committee smacks of influence peddling.”

The project, as envisioned by Beverly Hills builder Nathan Shapell, includes 2,195 houses, 800 multifamily units and 7.5 million square feet of commercial space on 1,300 acres in the hills north of the Simi Valley Freeway.

Commission Disqualified

A week ago, the Los Angeles city attorney’s office disqualified the Planning Commission from voting on plans for the development because one of the commissioners--Theodore Stein Jr.--owns property near the site.

That ruling turned consideration of the development over to the Board of Referred Powers. The board, which also includes council members Marvin Braude, Zev Yaroslavsky, Joan Milke Flores and Richard Alatorre, is scheduled to review the project Wednesday.

The board makes recommendations directly to the City Council, which usually refers such large projects to its Planning and Environment Committee, on which Bernson also sits.

PRIDE asked Ferraro to remove Bernson from the two committees by Monday to prevent him from voting at Wednesday’s meeting.

However, William Gilson, Ferraro’s press deputy, said the council president would not remove Bernson unless proof of improprieties was provided.

“What the councilman is looking at is just rhetoric at the moment,” Gilson said. “There’s no way in the world he is just going to pull a guy off a committee until there is something more substantive than these charges.”

Listened to Both Sides

Gilson said Ferraro believes that Bernson has “conducted himself with objectivity” at public hearings on this and other projects in the 12th District. He said that “so far” Ferraro believes that Bernson has listened to opinions from both sides.

PRIDE spokesman Robert Birch said he preferred to wait for official notification from Ferraro’s office before responding. However, he said PRIDE will consider taking the matter to the city attorney’s office and to a private attorney if necessary.

“We have been yelling facts and figures at the city of Los Angeles since February, and nobody seems to be hearing us,” Birch said.

Bernson, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, said last week that it is “simply not honest” to lump seven years of contributions “to make me look like I’ve been bought, I’ve been prejudiced. That’s just not fair.

“There are four other members on the board and 14 other council members,” he said. “Those who know me . . . will respect the fact that I have a close insight into the project, closer than the commissioners may have had.”

PRIDE decided at a meeting Monday to send the letter to Ferraro after the city attorney’s office advised the group that its charges did not establish a conflict of interest, said PRIDE board member Don Worsham.

Assistant City Atty. Anthony S. Alperin, who last week disqualified the Planning Commission, said state conflict-of-interest laws do not allow disqualification of council members because of campaign contributions from a party involved in an issue before the council. Nor is stating an opinion before a vote grounds for disqualification under state law, he said.

“This is a legislative matter,” Alperin said. “The fact that a council member may have stated that he or she favors particular legislation does not form a legal basis for disqualifying.”

In other action on the Porter Ranch development proposal, the Southern California Assn. of Governments criticized the project for upsetting the jobs-to-housing ratio in the northern San Fernando Valley. The proposal calls for creating 3,000 dwellings and 26,000 jobs over 20 years, almost nine jobs per dwelling. SCAG believes that only 1.2 jobs should be created per housing unit to cut down on commuter traffic and other environmental impacts.

“The jobs/housing ratio . . . is eight times higher than what it should be,” SCAG wrote in a memo to the city’s Planning Department. “Presently the jobs/housing balance in the . . . region seems somewhat balanced.”