Bernson Urges 45% Reduction in Commercial Building : Development: The proposal is part of a revised plan that the councilman backs for Chatsworth and Porter Ranch. The project he supports would be exempted.

Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson unveiled a proposal Tuesday to cut nearly in half the commercial growth permitted in Chatsworth and Porter Ranch--while exempting the Porter Ranch development he almost lost office for supporting.

His proposal would reduce by “almost 45% the amount of potential commercial development” in Chatsworth and the already developed Porter Ranch areas, Bernson contended in an interview after quietly introducing a council motion outlining his ideas for revising and updating the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan.

His initiative surfaced exactly two weeks after he narrowly won reelection to a fourth term in a campaign in which his foes accused him of supporting excessive development. In an election dominated by debate over the Porter Ranch proposal, Bernson took only 35% of the vote in the primary and won the runoff by less than 800 votes.

“I’ve been meaning to do this for a long time,” Bernson said. “But if I had done it during the election, it would have looked political.”

Bernson said his proposal would not affect the Porter Ranch proposal for a 6-million-square-foot office-retail complex and 3,395 homes.

The councilman said the heightened commercial densities allowed there “will reduce the need for as much commercial space in other areas.”

The plan was greeted with cautious optimism by one of the major critics of Bernson’s growth policies, Northridge businessman Walter Prince. As a candidate for Bernson’s seat, Prince had proposed a moratorium on commercial development in the area.

“He’s going to win a lot of friends out here if he’s really sincere about this,” Prince said. “But I reserve the right to remain suspicious.”

One of his suspicions, Prince said, is that Bernson “is trying to protect the Porter Ranch project’s commercial area from competition.”

Specifically, Bernson’s plan calls for reducing the overall floor area ratio (FAR) of commercially zoned property in the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan from 1.5:1 to 0.85:1. An FAR of 1.5:1 means that for every square foot of a lot, 1 1/2 square feet of building can be constructed. Thus, for example, on a 100,000-square-foot lot, a 150,000-square-foot structure could be built. But with an FAR of 0.85:1, the same parcel could accommodate only an 85,000-square-foot building.

“It isn’t that we’re proposing to stop growth, but the old plan just wasn’t strict enough,” Bernson said. “It should put a pretty good cap on growth.”

The existing Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan is under review by city planners.

A panel of private citizens picked by Bernson to review the plan has already advised that the 1.5:1 FAR for commercial properties be maintained, Bernson said.

“But it’s just advisory in nature,” Bernson said. “Now it’s my turn to make my recommendations on what revisions I think ought to be made.”

The Bernson motion also contained 15 other recommendations for revising the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan, including one to limit the FAR of industrially zoned properties to 0.6:1--down from the 0.75:1 FAR now permitted by the plan.

Another recommendation would make it mandatory that all commercial and industrial enterprises participate in a transportation management association. Such associations levy fees on their members to pay for ride-sharing plans, Bernson said.

Another proposal urges that lower density residential projects be encouraged. The plan should be modified, the motion said, to “restrict all residential densities to the low end of the land-use categories as permitted by the plan.”

Earlier this year, an environmental impact report on the revisions proposed by his citizens panel for the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch District Plan proved to be politically embarrassing to Bernson because it projected huge amounts of growth and traffic congestion if the maximum amount of construction permitted by the plan were actually completed.

The embattled Bernson subsequently said the environmental report was full of errors and asked that it be rewritten. Tuesday’s motion in effect called for revising the provisions that would have allowed the growth potential for which Bernson was criticized.