Newhall Plan Approved Despite Local Objections

Zoning changes necessary to build the mammoth Newhall Ranch housing development just over the Ventura County border won unanimous approval Wednesday from the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission.

The vote caps 14 months of rancorous public hearings on the project, which would cover 19 square miles and house 70,000 people between the Golden State Freeway and the Ventura County line.

But angry Ventura County officials vowed to appeal the panel’s endorsement of what is the largest single housing development in the history of Los Angeles County and said they would take legal action if necessary to block its construction.

Officials described Newhall Ranch as an “illegal subdivision” with wide-ranging environmental consequences on the neighboring Santa Clara Valley that planners had completely ignored.

“It’s going to doom that as an agricultural valley,” said John K. Flynn, chairman of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. “We are probably going to sue Los Angeles County and they gave us all kinds of additional reasons to sue them today.”

An appeal of the project’s Specific Plan approved Wednesday will be filed next week, said Dennis Slivinski, assistant Ventura County counsel. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors would probably hear the appeal by February, he said.

Ventura County officials contend that because a 7,600-acre piece of property owned by the developer, Newhall Land and Farming Co., extends into Ventura County, they have authority under state law over any subdivision of the land within its borders. Although it is part of the project, the land would be left undeveloped.

Los Angeles County officials say the land has not been legally subdivided. That, they argue, gives Los Angeles County sole authority.

Slivinski accused Los Angeles officials of disregarding its neighboring county’s concerns.

“I have never seen such a violation of the Subdivision Map Act of this magnitude in my legal career,” Slivinski said. “My impression of the case so far is that it’s purely politically motivated.”

Ventura County officials, along with about a dozen activists from both counties, also were outraged that they were not permitted to address the commission until after the vote was taken.

An error in the agenda had wrongly advertised the session as a public hearing, and planning commissioners refused to reopen the proceedings to allow more comment.

“I was seething,” said Supervisor Kathy Long, whose district includes much of the Santa Clara Valley. “I thought it was rude and in violation of a lot of laws, frankly.”

The move reinforced the perception among local officials that their views are being ignored.

“They’ve got this thing all wrapped and ready to go,” said Fillmore Mayor Don Gunderson, who had also attended the meeting. “I’m not so naive that I cannot see a process.”

Newhall Land spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer said the company was delighted with the decision for a project that “has tremendous public benefit.”

Still, the project is certain to face hefty political opposition from Ventura County, along with environmentalists, nearby municipalities and school districts when it goes before Los Angeles County supervisors next year.

“It’s certainly not going to be a slam dunk,” said Dave Vannatta, planning deputy for Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who represents the area. “Any project with 25,000 homes is going to raise an awful lot of issues.”

Ventura County officials argue the project’s environmental analysis stops at the Ventura County line, but its effects do not. The effects include increased rainwater runoff, traffic congestion and smog.

“We’re neighbors here and at some point regional governments have to look at neighbors not being bound by arbitrary political lines,” Long said. “My intentions is to turn the fire up . . . to talk to our elected officials who may join us in the path of litigation if that’s what’s necessary.”

The Planning Commission on Wednesday modified, albeit modestly, the plan that was introduced last year. The number of dwelling units has been reduced by 867 to about 25,218.

Under pressure from individual planning commissioners, the developer moved 15 lots away from one mountain area. The number of homes planned along the Santa Clara River also was reduced, in favor of a greenbelt and hiking trail.

Overall, residential land use was cut by 43 acres, although commercial and mixed-use acreage increased by 9 acres.

“Some areas will actually be enhanced [environmentally], because farming will be removed, grazing will be removed and areas will be able to be returned to a more natural state,” said Lee Stark, the Los Angeles County planner who has been working on the project. “Along the river, there are places that would be allowed to go back to river riparian vegetation.”

*

Green is a correspondent based in Ventura. Bernstein is a staff writer in the San Fernando Valley. Correspondent Dade Hayes in the Valley also contributed to this story.