Porter Ranch Tests Bernson Vulnerability : Politics: Some of the councilman’s opponents believe the incumbent’s support for the controversial project and campaign contributions from the developer could be his downfall.

Sometime in the next year or so, bulldozers will chug across the rolling hills above Chatsworth, smoothing the ground for a neighborhood fire station--the first major construction in the massive, $2-billion Porter Ranch development project.

But although bulldozers won’t kick up any dust for some time, the project--which covers more acreage than any other in Los Angeles history--is raising thick political dust in the crowded race for the City Council seat held by Hal Bernson, the development’s main City Hall champion.

The Porter Ranch project emerged this past week as a central issue in Bernson’s reelection effort. He faces six opponents in the April 9 primary, the largest field since he was first elected in 1979. If no candidate wins a majority of votes, the two top vote-getters will face off June 4.

Last Tuesday, Bernson was angrily criticized at a public hearing on future growth in the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch area attended by more than 300 residents of his northwestern San Fernando Valley district. A number of speakers accused Bernson of promoting too much growth.

Two days later, local newspapers carried stories about Bernson’s latest campaign finance report, pointing out that he accepted at least $5,000 in the last six months of 1990 from the ranch’s developer and others with a financial stake in the project. The project was approved by the City Council in July.

Besides the recent contributions, the councilman accepted $50,380 from developer Nathan Shapell and his business allies between 1982 and March, 1989, according to an analysis of campaign records by The Times.

But how volatile a campaign issue is Porter Ranch? Are Bernson’s constituents angry enough over the Porter Ranch development to dump him?

Most of Bernson’s opponents believe they are. Opponents argue that the ranch--which is to include 3,400 dwellings and 6 million square feet of commercial space--will aggravate traffic congestion and overload local schools and water supplies. They also charge that Bernson’s acceptance of campaign contributions from Shapell and his associates was unethical.

Bernson and his supporters strongly disagree that the ranch contoversy could defeat him. The councilman said it is a high-visibility issue that concerns many voters but hardly a political Achilles’ heel for him. He predicted he will win a majority of votes in the primary.

“It’s no secret that Porter Ranch is something that people are concerned about. But we don’t believe we’re vulnerable on it,” he said.

Paul Clarke, Shapell’s chief spokesman and a former Bernson campaign manager, dismissed the ranch as “basically . . . a non-issue.”

The project, he said, ranks “just ahead of a meteorite falling on your house and lightning striking your uncle” in polls performed for Republicans in past local campaigns in which Porter Ranch was an issue.

The councilman said that although he has championed the development on the City Council, he insisted on a significant scaling-down of the project’s commercial portion and built in enough controls to ensure that the ranch is a high-quality, well-ordered development.

Bernson said he insisted that the developer pay for $80-million worth of mitigation measures. The money would be used, among other purposes, to widen freeway off-ramps in the area and help speed traffic by synchronizing lights at 50 nearby intersections.

But some political observers said Bernson’s close association with the project could prove highly damaging.

Lynn Wessel, a Republican political consultant who has worked for builders statewide, said growth-related issues “generate a lot of emotion in local elections.” He said Porter Ranch “represents a real vulnerability” for Bernson.

Wessel said it will require “a lot of resources--people and money--for Bernson to get his side of the story out” and blunt opponents’ charges that the ranch project will damage the quality of life in his district. Bernson has about $167,000 on hand for the campaign, and is expected to raise much more than his opponents during the course of the campaign.

Another Republican political consultant, who asked not to be identified, said Bernson’s acceptance of campaign money from Shapell and others with financial interests in the project “looks awful” and gives his opponents an opening to impeach the incumbent’s integrity.

Bernson said he took no money from ranch backers between February, 1988, and last September, while the project was under consideration by city officials. The money he did accept, he said, did not affect his vote on the ranch.

But the GOP consultant noted that Bernson’s acceptance of the recent $5,000 led to yet more unflattering news coverage and unnecessarily reopened the ethics issue only weeks before the primary.

The consultant said Bernson’s association with the project and its developer is so damaging that he is likely to be forced into a runoff with one of two major opponents: school board member Julie Korenstein or Northridge businessman Walter Prince.

Prince, the affluent owner of a janitorial and building-maintenance service, spent $55,000 of his own money in an unsuccessful 1989 effort to recall Bernson. He recently hired Rick Taylor, a well-known Democratic political consultant, to run his campaign.

The GOP operative said he thinks Bernson and Korenstein will sharply attack each other in the primary, with the councilman zeroing in on Korenstein’s liberalism and problems in the school district. If enough political blood is shed by both, voters may turn to Prince and propel him into the runoff with Bernson, the consultant said.

Bernson charged that his opponents are one-issue candidates and that he has supported a number of growth-management measures, including an ordinance to limit the issuance of new building permits in order to avoid overloading the city’s aging sewer system.

He also said he will emphasize his efforts to get more police officers in the district and his responsiveness to constituent problems with city services.

Prince said one factor in Bernson’s favor is that major construction--with its attendant noise and disruptions--has yet to begin in Porter Ranch. So far, the project is embodied only in traffic projections and environmental reports which haven’t brought home its real impact to local voters.

“People hear the traffic numbers and the statistics, but they still haven’t gotten stuck in the traffic yet,” he said. “Our job is to educate the rest of them.”