SCAG Admits Findings on Porter Ranch May Be Flawed : Agency’s Concession Affects Dispute on Jobs-Houses Ratio

The Southern California Assn. of Governments said Thursday that it may have been wrong in criticizing a key argument by proponents of a 1,300-acre development in Porter Ranch.

SCAG told Los Angeles city planners in June that the Porter Ranch development would have an overly high ratio of jobs to houses, which meant that it would generate an inordinate amount of traffic to and from the northwest San Fernando Valley.

Porter Ranch Development Co. contends that the project would shorten driving trips by creating a balance between jobs and houses in the area--requiring comparatively few long-distance commutes.

The concession by SCAG, a six-county regional planning agency that projects Southern California’s housing needs, is significant because its earlier findings had cast a cloud over a central argument that the developer is making to the City Council.

SCAG on Thursday released a letter conceding to city officials that its original Porter Ranch analysis may have been flawed. That analysis considered housing within the Porter Ranch area only, creating a jobs-housing ratio strictly within the development. It then compared that ratio to the existing ratio for the entire Valley.

By SCAG’s original calculations, the project’s jobs-housing ratio would be five times higher than what SCAG considers ideal for the Valley.

Include Nearby Areas

The developer’s representatives argued that in establishing the Porter Ranch jobs-housing ratio, SCAG should have included housing in nearby communities. They also said the jobs-housing ratio that SCAG used as a point of comparison should also have included housing in eastern Ventura County and Santa Clarita.

In its letter, SCAG admitted that the developer had some valid points, but said the agency was not retracting its earlier finding “that the jobs-housing balance must be met,” said Philip Fernando, SCAG senior planner. The agency did not provide any new calculations based on the larger area.

Porter Ranch Development spokesman Paul Clarke said SCAG’s letter was an abandonment of the agency’s criticism. “By agreeing with us, they’re saying their initial letter was wrong,” he said.

As proposed, the project would generate 21,986 employees and 3,395 housing units, according to the developer’s estimates.

The developer’s attorney, former Planning Commission President Daniel P. Garcia, responded in July with a 10-page letter in which he said SCAG’s analysis was “horribly flawed.”

Garcia maintained that SCAG failed to consider Porter Ranch’s proximity to predominantly residential areas outside the Valley, such as the Santa Clarita and Simi valleys. Garcia said SCAG’s calculation of Porter Ranch’s jobs-housing ratio, limited to the boundaries of the development itself, was ludicrous.

Moreover, Garcia said, the jobs to be created by Porter Ranch are likely to attract workers already living in the northwest Valley.

In its letter, SCAG said: “Mr. Garcia’s points that the jobs created by the project are likely to match the employment needs of the existing residents of the area, and that the project would lead to traffic reduction by virtue of its proximity to housing-rich areas, are well-taken.”

The letter said the agency’s earlier statements were worthwhile because they prompted Garcia to study the situation.

Validity Doubted

Robert Birch, spokesman for PRIDE, a group critical of the development, said he continues to doubt the validity of Porter Ranch’s jobs-housing ratio.

“Mr. Garcia and the company tend to speak as if the Porter Ranch development were to be a horizontal Hancock Building,” Birch said, referring to a Chicago high-rise where many residents work and shop. “That’s a nice projection into the future and it might even be a reasonable assumption, but Mr. Garcia offers no guarantee.”

Garcia, in an interview, agreed that the idea of the project’s jobs-housing ratio “does make a lot of assumptions. You make the leap that you can create opportunities in the geographical proximity of jobs and houses, but that doesn’t mean people will take advantage of it. Over time, I think they will.”