Bernson Says Porter Ranch Plan Adequate : Housing: City councilman says the developer has provided enough concessions to offset the effect of the $2-billion project, which may be shaped in a vote today.

On the eve of a crucial vote by a Los Angeles City Council board on the 1,300-acre Porter Ranch plan, Councilman Hal Bernson said Tuesday he sees no need to extract new concessions from the developer to soften the effect of the massive project on streets, freeways and schools.

“I think this is the best plan possible,” said Bernson, whose northwest San Fernando Valley district includes the site of the proposed $2-billion Porter Ranch project. “We’ve gotten more improvements out of the developer with this plan than any other plan in this city.”

The council’s Board of Referred Powers votes on the project today. The board is expected to clear the plan, bringing it within two steps--approval by the full council and the mayor--of winning all the approvals it needs from City Hall.

Bernson, who is the board’s chairman, said there is no need to squeeze more traffic or school mitigation measures out of Porter Ranch Development Co., the project’s major developer.

The Los Angeles Unified School District recently described requirements that the developer donate a seven-acre site for an elementary school and set aside a 15-acre site for a junior high school as totally inadequate. Bernson said the city has done enough for the schools. He said, “I doubt the sincerity of the school district’s criticism when its record has been to close--not open--schools in my district.”

The project’s foes intend to send only a “symbolic” contingent to today’s meeting to protest, said Roger Strull, a leader of PRIDE, the homeowner group that has vociferously opposed the plan. Strull said the group considers the meeting a “sham” because Bernson will lead the session. Bernson has been generally supportive of the plan.

The plan before the board is a blueprint for building 6 million square feet of commercial structures and 3,395 residential units on the rolling and undeveloped hills north of the Simi Valley Freeway.

Shapell Industries Inc., headed by Nathan Shapell, an influential developer and campaign contributor to Bernson and other elected officials, and Liberty Buildings Inc. are 50-50 partners in Porter Ranch Development, which owns 1,089 acres within the specific plan area.

The Board of Referred Powers, which took over the case from the city’s Planning Commission because one of the commission’s members had a conflict of interest, will be considering final approval of a specific plan for the entire 1,300-acre area and the final supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project.

The board also will consider granting final approval to several zone changes and plan amendments for properties south of the Simi Valley Freeway that would also be part of the project.

Paul Clarke, spokesman for Porter Ranch Development, said he foresaw “no surprises” for his client at today’s meeting. Clarke confidently predicted that construction would begin by late 1991 or early 1992.

City review of the plan was delayed late last year after Mayor Tom Bradley, in an uncharacteristically bold incursion into a local land-use issue, vowed to veto the Porter Ranch plan if it did not impose more traffic and housing requirements on the developer.

Bradley’s action initially drew an angry reaction from Bernson. But later the two forged a compromise that only slightly altered the project and included, as a major feature, a requirement that the developer set aside 600 of its 3,395 dwelling units for low- and moderate-income people.

The proposal hit another snag when the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Assn. of Governments complained early this year that the project would create nearly 23,000 jobs, worsening traffic and air pollution.

Both agencies have recently changed their stands, saying the developer has taken steps to remedy the problems they had seen earlier.

The biggest reduction in the plan was wrought a year ago when Bernson demanded that the commercial core be cut from 7.5 million square feet to the current level of 6 million. The developer had originally sought 9 million square feet.

The project also seemed to get a boost from voters’ passage of Proposition 111 only two weeks ago. The measure to raise taxes to support transit projects makes it more likely that Caltrans will be able to carry out a long-delayed program to widen the Simi Valley Freeway.

A major concern of critics has been the effect of the project on the freeway. They have argued that the project’s commercial core should be limited to 1.5 million square feet until the freeway widening is completed. The city, however, now is demanding only that financing for the widening be available in the state highway program before the developer can proceed beyond the 1.5-million-square-foot threshold.

Frank Fielding, chief city planner for the Valley, said a few additional traffic mitigation requirements have been proposed in recent days.

These include:

* A requirement that 12 intersections south of Devonshire Street be incorporated into a computerized traffic signal synchronization system that the developer had previously agreed to install at 38 other intersections.

* A requirement that “unless provided or assured by others”-- the developer will build an auxiliary lane between the Tampa Avenue and Reseda Boulevard interchanges on the Simi Valley Freeway.

* A requirement that the developer improve Topanga Canyon Boulevard between Devonshire Street and the Simi Valley Freeway to include three lanes in each direction.

NEXT STEP After the Porter Ranch project is heard today by the Los Angeles City Council’s Board of Referred Powers, it is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the full City Council on July 3. City officials said the matter will skip the usual interim step of going to the council’s planning committee before being referred to the full council, because it has already been so extensively reviewed by city agencies. If approved by the council, it would go to Mayor Tom Bradley for signature.