Bradley, in Turnaround, Agrees to OK Porter Plan : Development: Mayor and Councilman Hal Bernson reach compromise on details of $2-billion project in Chatsworth. Basic scope of the building plan remains unchanged.

Mayor Tom Bradley announced Friday that he and City Councilman Hal Bernson have reached a compromise agreement on the Porter Ranch project in Chatsworth, removing a major obstacle to approval of the biggest single development project in Los Angeles history.

Bradley had threatened twice in the last week to veto the $2-billion proposal. But after two days of negotiations between Bernson and mayoral aides, a Bradley spokesman said the mayor would sign legislation authorizing the project if it is passed by the City Council in the compromise form.

Bradley on Dec. 8 listed 10 demands for affordable housing, recycling, public transit and other measures to reduce traffic generated by the project, proposed by Beverly Hills builder Nathan Shapell, a major contributor to Bradley’s campaigns.

On Tuesday, when the proposal went before the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee, Bernson accepted some, but not all, of the mayor’s recommendations.

Bernson, who represents the area, has supported the project largely because of a range of public works improvements the developer will finance.

Bradley promptly announced the next day that Bernson’s changes did not satisfy him.

But on Friday, the mayor released a statement saying Bernson “deserves credit for working out an agreement that meets the needs of the area. Porter Ranch is a much better plan as a result of our mutual efforts.”

Despite the compromise, the fundamental dimensions of the project remain unchanged. The 1,300-acre project on hillsides north of the Simi Valley Freeway would include 2,195 single-family homes, 1,200 town homes, and a commercial complex of nearly 6 million square feet.

Bradley had demanded that 20% of the project’s 3,395 housing units be reserved for people of low and moderate income. Friday’s agreement calls for 600 such units, or 18% to be reserved. The previous plan already had reserved 200 units for senior citizens, but not low-income seniors, and 400 for employees of the project’s commercial center.

Bradley had said that the plan needed public transit within the project area. The agreement Friday requires that an internal transit system be set up with private funds.

Bradley also had sought a 50% parking reduction in the office complex, which will have buildings up to 10 stories high. Friday’s agreement calls for a 25% reduction, with a third of parking revenues earmarked for support of the internal transit system. Bernson had opposed any parking reductions.

He also opposed the mandatory recycling demanded by Bradley. The compromise calls for a composting program and space in homes and offices to store trash for recycling, but no specific recycling program would be imposed.

Bradley dropped his demand to spread neighborhood-serving retail stores into the residential area. Spokesman Bill Chandler said the mayor was satisfied that traffic would be reduced by the transit system, the parking restrictions and a requirement that at least two commercial buildings provide residential space.

Bernson agreed to set aside a site for a junior high school as well as an elementary school site. But Los Angeles school officials, including board member Julie Korenstein, object to the district having to buy the land before the year 2000 and to the required reopening of one of two closed schools before the elementary site could be acquired.

The agreement provides that the proposed regional shopping mall within the commercial center-- which Bradley questioned--could not be occupied until July 1, 1994. Bradley’s statement said he hopes the delay will lead to re-evaluation of the need for it after large malls are built in Simi Valley and Santa Clarita.

Paul Clarke, a spokesman for the developer, said the delay is “absolutely meaningless” because plans do not call for the mall’s occupancy until the mid-1990s. Clarke called the revisions “just a further fine-tuning.”

Bernson said: “I can live with everything in there. . . . We’re happy to add anything that will make this a better plan, although we believe most of the things the mayor had addressed were already covered in the plan.”

Some City Hall officials questioned whether the mayor and Bernson were debating insignificant details.

“I would guess the mayor is doing everything he can to get involved in issues that divert attention from his main problem, and a controversy like this with Bernson is probably the best news he’s had in six months because it takes Far East National Bank off the pages,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky.

Bradley has been embroiled since March in a controversy about his personal finances, including consulting fees he obtained from the Far East National Bank, which in 1988 and 1989 received $3 million in city deposits.

One high-ranking city official, who asked not to be named, said Bradley’s Porter Ranch position “was the mayor showing that he still lives and breathes, and probably the mayor’s new staff saying, ‘Let’s do things on a more pro-active basis.’ ”

“It’s unusual,” Councilman John Ferraro said of the mayor’s involvement in a development issue before its consideration by the full council. “I don’t know of any time in the past that he’s taken this kind of position.”

Mark Fabiani, who took over last month as the mayor’s chief of staff, said Bradley’s concerns were substantial and well founded because of the magnitude of the project. “This is an important project, it’s an important precedent, and the mayor feels strongly about it,” Fabiani said.

Don Worsham, a spokesman for a Porter Ranch residents’ group opposed to the size of the proposed commercial area, had a mixed reaction to the agreement’s provisions. “Obviously they go a long way in meeting the important objectives the mayor had,” he said. “We are still concerned with the commercial density.”