City Council OKs Massive Porter Ranch Development

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday gave the go-ahead for construction of the massive Porter Ranch development in the hills above the northwestern San Fernando Valley, despite complaints that it will overtax the city’s traffic, sewage and garbage systems.

Porter Ranch, sometimes likened to a second Century City, will be one of the largest developments in the city’s history. The $2-billion project will provide housing for 11,000 people and jobs for 20,000 when it is finished in the year 2010.

It will have 3,395 residences, including 2,195 single-family homes expected to range in price from $400,000 to $600,000. Six million square feet of commercial space will accommodate a handful of 10-story office buildings, a hotel and a regional shopping center.

Dozens of residents spoke against the project Tuesday during a nearly three-hour public comment period, but when it was the council’s turn to debate, members showed little interest. After a tepid discussion, they approved the project 14 to 0 and sent it to Mayor Tom Bradley for his signature.

“It’s a big project and there may not be another in Los Angeles this big ever,” said Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores. “But the city and community is getting a lot out of this developer.”

Bradley said Tuesday that earlier concerns he had about the development--which will alter the face of the foothills of the Santa Susana Mountains above Chatsworth--had been met.

Last December, the mayor had balked at the plan, forcing the Porter Ranch Development Co. to agree to several minor changes, including a requirement to set aside 200 residences for low-income housing.

About 40 million cubic yards of earth will be moved to make way for the development--enough to fill the Rose Bowl 40 times. The developer will build six additional ramps to the Simi Valley Freeway, pave miles of new streets, and pay for synchronizing traffic signals at about 50 intersections outside the project itself.

After the council vote, Roger Strull, a leader of the homeowner organization PRIDE, said his group will meet to consider a lawsuit to block the project on the grounds that the city violated environmental laws in approving the project.

“We feel the vote was largely influenced by campaign contributions,” said Strull. “The north Valley doesn’t need another shopping center.”

“If we’d wanted to live in this type of area, we’d have moved to Century City, Warner Center or the Pavilion downtown,” said Northridge businessman Walter Prince, echoing a common complaint sounded by the project’s critics.

Residents warned that the development will compound Los Angeles’ water woes, while exhausting the city’s municipal services and capacity to handle trash and traffic. Irwin Cohen of Northridge predicted that Porter Ranch would cause the city to “slide into a Third World situation like New York City.”

Despite these concerns, some saw in the project a silver lining in the improvements the developer will make.

Councilman Hal Bernson, who represents the northwestern Valley, said he initially was worried about the estimated 150,000 daily auto trips that people destined to the commercial area will be taking.

A study convinced him that after the developer pays more than $50 million for traffic improvements, including the computerized signals, street conditions in the area will actually be “better than they are now,” Bernson said.

Such expressions drew hoots of disbelief from foes of the project in the audience.

The council vote seemed to signal a setback for the slow-growth sentiment that had swelled in the late 1980s with passage of development-slashing Proposition U, which halved the amount of building possible on certain commercially zoned properties.

Flores said she and her colleagues felt at ease voting for the project because Bernson and city planners made it “responsive” to community needs.

Among amenities the developer will provide are a site for a library, a 50-acre park, low-income housing and a commitment to provide child-care facilities. “That’s more than we get out of most development projects,” said Flores.

City Planning Department Director Kenneth Topping characterized Porter Ranch as an example of city planning that is sensitive to neighborhood concerns.

Los Angeles should not cave in to the protests of a “relative few” and allow its planning to be driven “arbitrarily by public reaction,” Topping said.

Despite protests that have emerged during three years of planning the project, a call for a show of hands Tuesday in City Council chambers indicated that two-thirds of the 150 people who were present favored the project.

The debate Tuesday was at times acrimonious, as dozens of residents trooped to the lectern to register their objections.

One of the most tense moments arose when Jerry Raskin, a retired Pierce College professor, ticked off donations the developer or his immediate associates had made to council members.

A 1989 survey by The Times found that the Porter Ranch Development Co., its affiliates, company officials, employees and family members had given $245,437 since 1982 to council members and Bradley.

As Raskin noted that Bernson had received more than $50,000 from the developers and Bradley more than $68,000, council President John Ferraro warned him to stay on the subject and threatened to cut off his microphone.

The Porter Ranch proposal has had its ups and downs. A year ago, Bernson sharply reduced its scope by saying he would approve only 6 million square feet of commercial development--1 million less than the developer sought at the time.

Next, Bradley took a bite out of the project when he said he would not approve it as it was proposed. What resulted was a 25% reduction in parking spaces, an agreement for an internal transit system, and a commitment from the developer for a recycling program.

The project overcame two other significant obstacles in the last six months. In January, the South Coast Air Quality Management District voiced its fear that the development would produce an imbalance in the neighborhood’s jobs-to-housing ratio, leading to increased commuting and pollution. But after a second look, the state board gave the project clearance.

More recently, the Los Angeles school district joined the chorus of opponents. School board member Julie Korenstein, who has considered running against Bernson, called Porter Ranch “senseless,” saying it did not provide enough money for future schools for the area.

Korenstein was unable Tuesday to win sympathy from council members for her position. Bernson noted that a promise by the developer to set aside a seven-acre school site for the district until the year 2000 already exceeded anything the city could legally require.

In addition, $17 million in developers fees will be collected to help pay for school construction.

The project is 80% owned by Porter Ranch Development Co., a partnership of Shapell Industries and Liberty Buildings. The Shapell firm is headed by Nathan Shapell, who at 70 is perhaps one of the city’s most politically influential housing developers.

PORTER RANCH DEVELOPMENT Facts and Figures Cost: $2 billion. Size: 1,300 acres. Housing: 3,395 homes planned for up to 11,000 people. Commerce: 6 million square feet of commercial and retail space; jobs for 20,000 people; people mover would transport shoppers and workers around central commercial area. Traffic: An additional 150,602 vehicle trips per day are expected in the area.