Environmental Review Tactics Studied : Politics: Los Angeles may follow other area cities in limiting developer roles--and the appearance of conflict of interest--in environmental statements.

Los Angeles officials who are considering steps to stop developers from directing environmental reviews of their own projects would be following a path charted by many other communities--a move critics say is long overdue.

Many other local governments in Southern California, including Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and the city of Santa Clarita, do not let developers manage the environmental review process, out of concern about conflicts of interest.

The city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, however, continue to let developers select and manage the consultants who prepare environmental impact reports, or EIRs, on their projects. Developers then have the opportunity to read and edit the reports before sending them to city planners. Once planners have accepted an EIR, it is issued as an official government report.

To a wide assortment of critics--including planning officials outside Los Angeles and homeowner and environmental activists --the arrangement is a conflict of interest and an invitation to abuse.

“It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that information is going to get filtered to best serve the needs of the person that’s paying the bill,” said Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.

“I’ve been in this business long enough . . . to know that you can pay a consultant to say anything,” said Jeffrey T. Harris, deputy director of environmental review in the Santa Barbara County Resource Management Department. “The process can be manipulated severely when you turn the process over to the fox and put him in the chicken house.”

In Santa Barbara and Ventura counties and other areas considered to have tough planning and environmental standards, government planners choose and manage the EIR consultants, leaving the developer no role but to pay the bills. As a further precaution, some cities even restrict communication between consultants and developers.

No official statistics exist, but an informal survey by The Times of about 40 planning departments suggest more manage EIRs this way than leave developers in control.

In areas where developers choose consultants, planning officials do review EIRs and prescribe changes before putting their seal on the work. But planning departments typically are understaffed, and experts say the most sharp-eyed planners may be unable to spot every data gap or expunge all promotional language.

The consultants “basically take the attitude that they are working for the developer, for the person who’s paying the fee,” said Frank Meneses, a senior planning assistant with the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. Often “when the first copy comes in, it’s almost like a sales brochure,” agreed Pamela Holt, chief of environmental analysis for the regional planning department. “Our role is to take any inherent bias out of that.”

Some EIRs sing “paeans of praise for the project,” said Franklin Eberhard, deputy director for project planning with the city Planning Department. Keeping the consultants neutral is one of the “constant battles we fight,” said Albert Landini, supervisor of environmental review for the city department.

These officials said, however, that adequate EIRs are produced under their system.

They said they send the documents back until they’re satisfied that they are sufficiently thorough and unbiased.

But city planners acknowledged last week that they are thinking of taking over the job of choosing and managing the consultants who prepare EIRs, leaving developers only to pay the bills.

“Environmentalists and homeowners may feel more comfortable if it’s not done by the developers,” Eberhard explained.

Developer representatives have already served notice that the proposed change could meet heavy resistance. Developer lobbyist Robert Wilkinson, who heads an advisory committee to the planning department, predicted the plan is “going to be objected to by everybody in the development world.”

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an EIR is required for any project that may have significant environmental effects, including impacts on air and water quality, wildlife, recreation, traffic and public services such as schools. Officials may approve an environmentally harmful project, but its impacts must be fully and objectively disclosed.

EIRs must also discuss alternatives to the project, and possible ways to mitigate environmental harm, such as by setting aside open space, planting trees, restoring wetlands, or making traffic improvements.

The mitigations proposed in EIRs are of special importance to the developer because they can be very costly, even in the millions.

Evidence of bias does appear in some developer-prepared EIRs, critics say, despite the efforts of planning officials.

One example is the controversial Paramount Ranch project, a 150-unit tract of million-dollar homes to be built on the former Renaissance Faire site in Agoura. The National Park Service and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy had long hoped to buy the scenic, oak-studded tract as an addition to the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area.

But the developers were not willing sellers and the EIR did not explore the alternative of using the site as park land. Environmental and homeowner groups have cited this and other issues in a pending lawsuit that seeks to void the county’s approval of the project.

Another example is the EIR prepared for the Porter Ranch project, a huge commercial and residential complex planned for the hills above Chatsworth.

The city public works department had argued that the developer should make certain bridge improvements because the project would add traffic to the area. The EIR, however, stated that the developer had no legal obligation to make the improvements.

In some instances, consultants have come under subtle or not-so-subtle pressure to provide favorable EIRs.

An EIR consultant who has worked mainly in northern California said that on two occasions developers who hired her to work on EIRs offered special inducements in return for favorable reports. In one case several years ago, she said, she was told that if she could justify all the lots the developer wanted, one of those lots would be hers.

The consultant, who would not speak if identified, said that other times she was threatened with loss of contracts for being too thorough. She said she was told: “If it keeps going in this direction, you’re not going to get paid and we’ll find someone else to complete the document.”

Jim Slosson, a consulting geologist in Van Nuys who has worked on EIRs, has also been threatened by clients with loss of work for including data that had not been requested by planning officials, “but that I felt as a professional should be considered,” Slosson said.

“I’ve said, ‘Fine, get someone else,’ ” Slosson said.

A Los Angeles EIR consultant, who would not speak if identified, said he had “had many disagreements with clients about content and findings . . . or even the use of language.” Typically, he said, he put more detail in the EIR than required to “provide . . . a little cushion,” should the developer insist on taking some things out.

Experts said the pressure more often is indirect or subtle, and could tempt the consultant to tone down his conclusions to avoid conflicts with the client. “Certainly, the EIR preparer knows who butters their bread,” said Jim Moose, a Sacramento attorney involved in land-use cases.

Consultants “want to stay in the good graces of the developer and they want business in the future,” said John Kirlin, a professor of public administration at the University of Southern California.

Others cited an informal sorting-out process, in which developers learned over the years which consultants to deal with and which ones to avoid.

Clay Singer, a Santa Monica-based archaeological consultant who works on EIRs, is considered more rigorous than some in assessing archaeogical resources at development sites. As a result, Singer said, he does much of his work outside the Los Angeles area, because in Los Angeles developers have no incentive to hire him.

Locally, Singer said, he is retained by those who “are ignorant of my reputation or . . . who actually want a good job done.”

Some planning officials and developers say the risk of abuse is overrated, since a botched EIR can bring litigation and tie up a project for years.

It’s the developer, more than anyone else, who needs “a bullet-proof impact report,” argued Bob Nastase, a developer and former city planner in Upland.

Others said consultants won’t compromise their ethics, if only for selfish reasons. A consultant need only “misrepresent or leave out some important facts . . . and then that guy is dead meat, he’s all done, he can go get a job selling shoes somewhere,” said Ira Norris, president of Inco Homes, a Southland home builder.

Some developers said they prefered hiring consultants themselves to save time and red tape, not to assure a favorable EIR. They said it can take months for planning agencies to solicit bids and contract with an EIR preparer--something they can do quickly by themselves. Some planning officials said they prefer to leave the developer in charge, since that spares them the burden of administering contracts.

But critics of that process point out that developers are major contributors to the political campaigns of county supervisors and city council members, who often end up deciding the fate of controversial projects. They say developers extend their influence by managing the EIR consultants, some of whom are politically connected themselves.

One example is Engineering Technology Inc. of Sherman Oaks, which not only wrote the EIR on Porter Ranch, but represented the Paramount Ranch developers in hearings before the county supervisors. Engineering Technology is a planning consultancy, but also an “expediter,” or lobbying firm, that doles out more campaign money than many of its developer clients.

Los Angeles isn’t the first place where developers have been reluctant to surrender their control of EIR consultants.

In 1988, for example, former Orange County planning director Robert G. Fisher suggested that the county take over the hiring of consultants. The idea was dropped when it provoked a strongly negative reaction from an advisory committee of developers and consultants, according to Fisher, now the county’s director of harbors, beaches and parks.

A former environmental consultant himself, Fisher said he knew from personal experience that consultants can be pressured by their developer-clients. “I’m not suggesting that it’s typical, but the problem is that there’s that temptation and it’s difficult to know . . . if the public agency isn’t managing the contract,” Fisher said.

“Credibility is a very important issue in government,” Fisher said, “Our system should be designed to promote that.”

In a sense, developers would shed some political baggage if they gave up control of the EIR consultants. Their opponents would no longer be able to say an EIR can’t be accurate or fair simply because the developer had a hand in it.

How They Handle EIRs * Some cities and counties that hire and manage EIR consultants: Burbank, Glendale, Lancaster, Simi Valley, Agoura Hills, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Culver City, La Verne, Azusa, Claremont, Ventura*, Camarillo, Newport Beach, Irvine, San B1701998177 * Some cities and counties that let developers select and manage EIR consultants*: Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Ana, Fullerton, Riverside, San Jose, San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County. * Some cities and counties that prepare EIRs using their own planning staffs: Long Beach, Thousand Oaks, Sacramento County. *Ventura allows developers to pick consultants from a city-approved list, but the city then contracts with and manages the consultants. **Some of these communities require developers to pick consultants from an approved list. San Francisco allows developers to hire the consultants, but forbids them from showing the developers 1952998761Source: Interviews with planning officials from the above cities and counties.