Builder Seeks City Contract to Shield Porter Ranch : Development: Julie Korenstein says the 20-year proposal against altering the plan unfairly ties the council’s hands.

Developer Nathan Shapell is seeking city approval for an agreement that would prohibit the City Council from altering his huge Porter Ranch building plan for 20 years, a proposal that City Council candidate Julie Korenstein charges would unfairly tie the city’s hands.

Shapell has proposed that the city enter into a legal contract, called a development agreement, that would serve as a 20-year guarantee permitting him to build his 6-million-square-foot commercial center and 3,395-unit residential project in accordance with a plan approved by the city last July.

In exchange, Shapell representatives said they have offered to fund at least $7.3 million in road and park improvements outside the boundaries of the Porter Ranch Specific Plan, which covers 1,300 acres in the hills above Chatsworth.

Korenstein, an avowed Porter Ranch critic who is locked in a battle to unseat Councilman Hal Bernson in the 12th District race, complains that Shapell’s proposal is a “back room deal” designed to rob her--if she’s elected June 4--of any significant say in reshaping the Porter Ranch Specific Plan.

“They want an insurance policy that this project will go forward, Bernson or no Bernson,” Korenstein said. The Porter Ranch developer “is concerned about what will happen if I get elected,” she said. “If I am, I’d try to aggressively scale Porter Ranch back.”

Korenstein said the agreement “would tie the city’s hands for 20 years--that’s too long.”

Bernson said in theory he supports a development agreement as a vehicle to exact new community benefits from Shapell, who is already required under the city’s Specific Plan to fund, for example, a computerized traffic signaling system at three dozen intersections around his project.

Bernson refused to say if Shapell’s proposal is adequate or if the 20-year duration the developer wants is too long. Bernson said he will wait to hear from city staff members, who are negotiating with the developer.

“I’ll want to hear their recommendation, then I’ll make my decision whether to support it,” the councilman said.

Bernson said safeguards to protect the community from unexpected traffic problems, for instance, remain intact. One safeguard prohibits Shapell from building more that 1.5 million square feet of commercial space until funding is secured to widen the Simi Valley Freeway.

Bernson was forced into a runoff with Korenstein in the April primary, garnering only 35% of the vote. Korenstein finished highest among five challengers, receiving 29% of the vote. During her campaign she attacked Bernson for his support of Porter Ranch.

The Porter Ranch development agreement, which must be approved by the City Council, is one of seven similar contract offers that the city is negotiating with other developers.

The city has entered into six development agreements since 1986 when it first began to use the device. Developers have extracted a 20-year guarantee for the 2.7-million-square-foot Hughes Center in Westchester and the 3.1-million-square-foot Continental City project near Los Angeles International Airport.

Developers turn to such agreements as a way to lock in their entitlements until their projects, particularly if they involve long-range building plans, are finished. City officials use the agreements to mandate more concessions from developers than they could legally require under zoning and environmental laws.

Shapell’s initial proposal includes offers to spend $2 million to build a bridge across Aliso Canyon in Granada Hills and $500,000 to build another bridge in Chatsworth to permit Mason Street to span a Southern Pacific railroad track. Also, the developer will donate a 14-acre park site.

If the proposed agreement to freeze the Specific Plan for 20 years is approved, Korenstein said she would only be able to make “minor changes” to the Porter Ranch project. She said it should be less than one-fourth its current proposed size.

Also of concern to Korenstein is whether Shapell is trying to rush the agreement through the City Hall approval process before July 1, which would be her first day on the job if elected.

But that prospect appears remote.

In late April, Porter Ranch negotiators agreed to a Planning Department request to extend the review process 40 more days, to July 21, three weeks after she takes office.

Paul Clarke, Porter Ranch spokesman, said the fact that the developer agreed to the extension should allay Korenstein’s concern that a plan is afoot to approve the agreement before the election. Clarke said the developer’s pursuit of an agreement is not new and does not stem from any fear that Korenstein will be elected.

A top city planning official, David Lessley, said his office was under no pressure to sign off on any agreement.

Clarke also scoffed at the notion that Korenstein can prevent a reasonable agreement from being approved by the council even if she is elected.

“It doesn’t matter if she is elected or not,” Clarke said. “The City Council operates on majority rule. Fourteen members approved the plan before. . . . I don’t think elected officials like to vote one way one time, another way another time.”