Bradley Again Rejects Porter Ranch Plan : HEAD Planning: Mayor dismisses revisions offered by Councilman Hal Bernson as ‘cosmetic.’ He renews his veto threat.

Mayor Tom Bradley on Wednesday rejected what he called “cosmetic” revisions in a 1,300-acre development proposal for Porter Ranch and vowed for the second time in a week to veto the project if it is not changed to his satisfaction.

Bradley’s criticism of the project came one day after Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson, in an attempt to mollify the mayor, made changes in the plan at a council committee hearing.

The committee sent the $2-billion proposal to the full 15-member City Council, where it will need 10 votes for passage because of the mayor’s opposition. If Bradley then vetoes the project, 10 votes again will be needed to override him.

Bernson, in whose district the development would be built, said he will press ahead and seek council approval of the project. But he did not rule out more discussions with Bradley.

“I just think he could have done a little more homework, or his staff could have given him a little better advice on this,” Bernson said. “They made a serious mistake. They should take another look at it.”

Last Friday, Bradley raised a range of planning and environmental concerns about builder Nathan Shapell’s proposal for 2,195 single-family homes, 1,200 townhouses and nearly 6 million square feet of commercial space in the undeveloped hills north of the Simi Valley Freeway in Chatsworth.

In a statement released Wednesday, Bradley said, “A few days ago, I offered my strong objections to the current plan for its lack of affordable housing and mixed-use development, and poor transportation planning and housing. The revisions offered (Tuesday) only make cosmetic changes. They don’t correct the fundamental problems of the project.”

Bradley last week recommended 10 changes in the Porter Ranch project, including cutting office-complex parking in half to encourage ride-sharing, moving neighborhood-serving stores into the residential area and making provisions for affordable housing. He also urged a recycling program.

Bernson, in guiding the proposal through the council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee on Tuesday by a 2-1 vote, amended it to make 20% of the project’s townhouse units available to low- and moderate-income people.

He also said several of the mayor’s suggestions were either already in the plan or were impractical. For example, Bernson said, recycling should be instituted through a pending citywide ordinance and not at the Porter Ranch project alone.

Bradley, in his statement Wednesday, said Bernson did not go far enough on affordable housing. The mayor said he wants 20% of all the housing--and not just the town homes--to be affordable.

Moreover, the Bradley statement said, the plan “does not require any affordable housing, and at most may provide only 240 affordable housing units in a project with 3,400 units.”

Bradley assailed Bernson’s reasoning on not requiring a Porter Ranch recycling program as “an embarrassing excuse to avoid recycling.”

Bradley also objected to the project’s 1.5-million-square-foot regional shopping mall, which would be the size of the Northridge Fashion Center. Although the mall was not included in the mayor’s earlier list of 10 proposed changes, Bradley had said last week he had “reservations” about the mall’s size.

On Wednesday, Bradley referred to “size and traffic congestion caused by” the mall and said, “Questions about whether or not a new mall is necessary in the already mall-populated San Fernando Valley were not addressed.”

A stunned Bernson responded Wednesday that “if the mayor had spent a little more time in our end of the Valley, he would notice that there are no malls in the northwest Valley.”

At Tuesday’s committee hearing, Bernson refused to compromise on Bradley’s suggestions for reduced office parking and moving stores into residential neighborhoods. But Bradley’s statement did not refer to those two concerns.

PORTER RANCH: DIFFERENCES OF OPINION What Bradley wanted

1. Allocating 20% of the project’s 3,400 housing units for low- and moderate-income families.

2. Integrating residential areas with commercial areas of the project to give it a greater “mixed-use” quality.

3. Including an internal transit system within the project area.

4. Incorporating neighborhood-oriented retail into the single-family residential areas.

5. Cutting office complex parking in half to encourage ride-sharing and use of public transit.

6. Planting trees in parking lots so the lots would eventually be 50% shaded.

7. Installing dual plumbing in office buildings to encourage the use of reclaimed water.

8. Instituting programs for recycling and / or composting.

9. Providing street trees.

10. Having the developer set aside a 15-acre junior high school site as well as a seven-acre elementary site already to be set aside in the plan.

How Bernson changed the proposal

1. Allocated for affordable housing 20% of the 1,200-unit multifamily residential area only.

2. Said the plan is already mixed-use--offered no change.

3. Inserted language requiring a plan for a privately funded internal transit system be submitted to and approved by city officials before much of the commercial construction could begin.

4. Said the idea would create undesirable “mini-malls”--offered no change.

5. Said the parking restrictions would be impractical--offered no change.

6. Said the plan already included provisions for such trees but inserted language to assure it.

7. Changed the plan to require dual plumbing but only if the city certifies it can pump safe reclaimed water to the area of the hillside project.

8. Said recycling and composting programs should be imposed through a pending citywide recycling ordinance--offered no change.

9. Said the street trees were already in the plan--offered no change.

10. Added the junior high site set-aside but also added a last-minute restriction on how the school district could acquire the elementary school site.