Should the proposed Porter Ranch development be approved? : FOR : LEO GENDERNALIK

Porter Ranch Development Co. wants to build about 3,000 residences and 7.5 million square feet of commercial space in the Porter Ranch area of Chatsworth. A citizens advisory committee helped shape the $2-billion proposal, but many nearby residents are opposed. The issue is to be considered by a Los Angeles City Council board on June 22.

Leo Gendernalik, 51, is vice chairman of the citizens advisory committee that helped shape the Porter Ranch proposal. An independent developer, he lives in Northridge with his wife, Maria. The Gendernaliks have two college-aged children, Mark and Kim. He argues that the project, and the various measures required of the developer to counter its effects, would serve to improve the quality of life in the northern San Fernando Valley.

Q. Perhaps the biggest issue is how this development would affect traffic. Wouldn’t the office buildings and residences make traffic worse?

A. No one is saying that it is not going to add traffic. What we’re saying is that the level of service, which is a term for measuring how smoothly traffic flows, will be better after the project is completed 30 years from now than it is today. Without the project, you would have gridlock at virtually every intersection in the area.

Q. There is no doubt the area is going to be developed. But wouldn’t measures to improve traffic be required, no matter what development occurs? A. No, I don’t think so. The property is not under single ownership. And if the current plan were not developed, and each of those owners were allowed to build what current zoning allows, then we would end up with a lot more severe traffic conditions.

The principle is that, if you’ve got one developer who puts in 25 houses and have another who puts 100 and another who puts in whatever, the city does not have the legal tools to compel them to provide the improvements we are requiring under the specific plan for this project, which will become part of the Porter Ranch-Chatsworth District Plan.

Q. What justifies the large amount of commercial development contemplated in this specific plan?

A. I take some exception to the term “justifies.” Everything we recommended was based, first, on traffic studies. None of us on the committee wanted to create anything negative within the area where we all lived.

We started with traffic numbers, and forecasts for the demand for commercial and office space over the next 30 years, and--based on that information--we felt the projected commercial-office-retail space was appropriate.

However, we specifically stated that all the commercial development would be geared to: One, the development of the residential areas. Two, the completion of all the traffic studies. Three, the improvements we wanted to the Simi Valley Freeway. And four, maintaining the level of service on the streets in the area.

Q. What about the issue of balancing jobs and housing to reduce traffic? According to one analysis, roughly 90% of the automobile trips created by the development would be non-local and would, therefore, add to surrounding traffic?

A. The longest distance traffic bringing people to the 7.5 million square feet of commercial space would come is in the 6.5-mile to 7-mile range. There were exceptions to that. Some traffic would come from Moorpark, Westlake Village, Calabasas. But that accounted for less than 10%, or even less than 5%, of the amount.

The biggest thing about traffic that people overlook is that there is already an awful lot of traffic in the north San Fernando Valley, and in the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Specific Plan area in particular, that comes from west of Topanga Canyon Boulevard. We’re dealing with a condition being put upon us by neighboring communities, and we’re saying to the developer, if you want to build up here, fix this other guy’s problems.

Q. Why wouldn’t something as large as the proposed Porter Ranch project create as much traffic as a development such as Warner Center or Century City?

A. People would go there. But traffic problems are caused by customers, patrons, who would come for the retail portion, not for the office space. And the retail is only about 1.25 million square feet. Far and away, the majority of the space up there is going to be office space, and that’s nothing but one trip in and one trip out.

Q. Could you describe the residential portion of the project?

A. We wanted this to be as low a density residential development as we could achieve. To that end, we specified minimum lot sizes. Some of the lots are designated as horse-keeping. The streets will have houses only on one side of the street, not two sides.

When the project is completed, we won’t have this tract house look. It will look as though every effort has been made to retain the rural feel of those hills.

This was achieved by the committee saying “We’ve got a clean slate here. What do we want to see built?” This was not something that was put together on a whim. That is the principal reason why there is going to be a community center. And an amphitheater, and an Equity theater. That is certainly not the idea that the developer came to us with.

In the commercial part of it, there will be more open space than at Warner Center. When Warner Center is built out, it will be like Century City. Garbage. We’re not going to have that. I don’t see how anybody could oppose this. It’s better than anything anywhere in the city.

Q. What are some examples of the traffic system improvements that would be required to reduce the impact of traffic from the project?

A. A number of intersections would be computer-controlled. Streets widened. Dual left-turn lanes would be built, left-turn signals installed. On some streets, the parking lanes would be used for traffic during peak hours.

These measures will be required on intersections from the northernmost point of the development to Roscoe on the south and from Topanga Canyon on the west to Balboa on the east.

Q. The opponents say they are not opposed to development, but they don’t want to see their quality of life made worse. How would you respond to such concerns?

A. If we built this, the quality of life would improve. It would improve by virtue of the fact that when this development is completed, with all of the mitigating measures, traffic problems will be better than they are today.

So, if the quality of life is acceptable now, then if it is improved, it ought to be more acceptable. And the only way that can happen is if we compel the developers to do it.

Without the mitigating measures, you’d have a zoo, gridlock, downtown New York City. And that’s not right, and I wouldn’t support it. But that’s exactly what’s going to happen if this project is not developed. Because it will go someplace else, as sure as I am sitting here.