State Attorney General Sides With NoHo Group

An elected committee of North Hollywood residents should not have been excluded from discussions of a proposed development of a $400-million film studio, the state attorney general has ruled.

The residents have been skeptical of the project, which would use condemnation to assemble land for developer J. Allen Radford. City Atty. James Hahn ruled that the group--the Redevelopment Project Area Committee--should not be permitted to advise the Community Redevelopment Agency because several members owned property in the area and therefore had a conflict of interest.

But state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer ruled that California law encourages local property owners to become involved in redevelopment decisions and vindicated the right of the group to discuss the project and advise the agency.

PAC members charged they were being silenced to remove opposition to the controversial project, which includes 1.5 million square feet of offices, restaurants and sound stages on 30 acres next to the Red Line subway station opening next year.

“They [the agency] wanted to keep this whole studio project under wraps until they got all their ducks in a row,” said PAC member Mildred Weller. “They tried to intimidate us by telling us we would be fined or go to jail if we discussed this.”

PAC Chairman Glenn Hoiby, an attorney, said Friday the attorney general’s opinion confirmed his own take that the PAC was badly advised by Assistant City Attys. Tony Alperin and Dov Lesel.

“It validates our position,” Hoiby said. “The answer to the question seems so clear, and the fact that we got it validated by the attorney general is evidence that the city attorney has a conflict of interest and cannot ethically and honestly advise us while at the same time representing the Community Redevelopment Agency.”

Alperin said he now accepts the attorney general’s opinion that the Project Area Committee as a whole can participate, but his initial reading of the law was that the group was disqualified from the discussions.

He said his office agreed to ask the state attorney general for the ruling because some PAC members felt the law was ambiguous.

However, Alperin said he still believes the individual PAC members who own property should not participate.

Hoiby and Weller said they believe a majority of PAC members oppose the Radford project as a gift of city funds to a developer.

“It’s corporate welfare,” Weller said.

Added Hoiby, “There is opposition to removing all of the existing businesses to give the property to a corporate developer.”

Despite opposition from PAC members, the City Council voted May 12 to approve a six-month, exclusive negotiation with Radford to come up with a development agreement.

The attorney general’s opinion could help the PAC play a larger role in scrutinizing the development agreement, and Weller said she is scheduling a discussion of the project for the PAC’s next meeting.

The city attorney’s office issued its opinion in January but agreed to ask the attorney general for an opinion when the PAC objected that it should not be excluded from discussions of the largest project in the history of redevelopment in North Hollywood.

In a legal opinion dated July 15, Lockyer concluded that “potential conflicts of interest do not preclude the PAC from advising the agency,” because redevelopment law requires that some of the elected members own property in the project area and the panel is only advisory.

“In effect, the Legislature has designated persons who have financial interests in a redevelopment project area to be advisors to the redevelopment agency concerning policy matters that would affect the advisors as property owners,” Lockyer said. He said state law provides for the redevelopment agency and City Council to receive the PAC’s advice, “knowing that some PAC members will have personal, financial interests to protect and promote.”

Weller, who owns a parcel that could be taken for a future phase of the project, said the attorney general’s ruling clearly says all members, even those with property affected, can participate.

Patrick Berberian, who owns California Arts Products Co. on the studio site, said he also is looking forward to participating more fully now that he believes he is no longer disqualified.

“It was so unreasonable,” he said of the disqualification. “The reason we were elected was because we own property here.”

Berberian said moving without sufficient compensation would be a hardship for his business, which employs 33 people and has been in North Hollywood for 32 years.

PAC members have charged that it is the city attorney’s office that has a disqualifying conflict of interest stemming from its representation of both the PAC and the Community Redevelopment Agency, which is counting on the film-studio development for tax revenue.

However, the courts dismissed a lawsuit by PAC members seeking to have the authority to hire their own independent attorney.