Newhall Ranch Project Fits New Suburban Trend

Fifty years ago, as World War II veterans came streaming home, the San Fernando Valley promised a refuge from urban ills--good schools, new homes, green parks.

Today, dozens of new developments like the massive Newhall Ranch project approved Tuesday entice residents to move toward the Valley’s fringes with exactly those same promises.

As a result, the 21,000-home Newhall project is merely the latest example of this urban growth irony: the San Fernando Valley, the prototypical suburb, is itself surrounded by suburbs.

“This is clearly the next phase, the suburbanization of the outer valleys,” said William Fulton, editor of a Ventura-based planning report. Newhall Ranch “is going to further the general pattern of creating a ring of suburbs around the San Fernando Valley.”

Besides Newhall Ranch, several other projects are poised for development on the Valley’s edge, including Ahmanson Ranch, a proposal of 3,050 homes in Ventura County just west of the Los Angeles County border, and the Baldwin development, a planned 550 homes in Calabasas. Those come in addition to established suburban outposts like Westlake Village, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley.

Population dropped in nearly every part of the Valley during the ‘90s, with most of the region shrinking at a rate faster than the rest of the city, according to figures from the Los Angeles Planning Department. Meanwhile, new suburban communities, such as Santa Clarita, just north of the Valley, exploded. Some posted 20% to 30% increases in population.

The trend alarms some urban planners who fear a repeat of the “white flight” that benefited the Valley when thousands fled decaying Central Los Angeles in the ‘50s. Such a relocation would further erode the city diversity and economic base.

But others say the new suburbs, with their long commutes and drain on local services, may finally force new life into long-moribund city efforts to revitalize urban centers.

For their part, Newhall Ranch officials say their so-called ‘New Town” project--actually a city of 60,000 people with a projected population greater than that of Camarillo--isn’t targeting any special market.

*

Instead, as an example of their commitment to an economically diverse community, they point to a pledge to build 2,200 low- to moderate-income homes in the area--though those homes will be available at reduced rates for only 15 years, instead of the 30-year requirement normally imposed by the state.

“Newhall Ranch will provide a wide range of housing--for a full spectrum of all different economic levels,” said Carol Maglione, spokeswoman for the Newhall Land & Farming Co.

She pointed to the nearby community of Valencia, a development begun by Newhall some 30 years ago, as an example of the economic diversity to be expected in the company’s newest project.

Valencia is a community in Santa Clarita--a city with a population that is 80% white, with a median household income of nearly $60,000, according to Santa Clarita’s Economic Development department. Los Angeles, by comparison, is a little more than one-third white, with a household income of around $31,700, according to a 1994 city report.

That sort of disparity, which has historically existed between suburb and city, worries social critics as they eye the new suburbs and wonder whether the so-called “inner suburbs” may face the sort of problems once experienced by inner cities, including a decline of economic and political power.

“There are costs to not directing growth into more dense areas,” said Jerold Kayden, an associate professor at Harvard University’s Design School. “We begin to replicate the abandonment of the city.”

Another irony of the new suburbs is that many of them attempt to duplicate features found in the inner cities--a trend called New Urbanism, in which new developments have city-style centers that provide shopping, restaurants and a sense of community.

In a sense, the new suburbs represent a return to planned communities of the 1920s and 1930s, places like Leimert Park and Westwood Village, which had a mix of shopping, single family homes and apartment complexes.

If the trend in New Urbanism continues, Los Angeles will be a city surrounded by suburbs surrounded by imitation cities. And that gives some urban planners hope about recapturing those fleeing to the new suburbs.

*

After all, if such families are seeking an urban experience, that’s the one thing the city can offer. If crime continues to drop and schools improve, the exodus from the city might reverse, which has happened to an extent in places like Chicago.

In fact, some planners say the new suburbs could help renew a commitment to urban redevelopment.

Ed Blakely, an urban planning professor at USC, said cities should offer more tax credits and clean up once-toxic sites to encourage new home growth. In addition, cities should actually shrink government-designated redevelopment zones, since such areas inflate land prices and discourage development, he said.

The approval of Newhall Ranch “should push people who are interested in inner city revitalization to come and work on that problem,” Blakely said. “People like myself who are very strong on inner city building aren’t doing enough to make it happen.”

At the same time, the new suburbs offer some things that inner cities can’t duplicate, particularly environmental amenities. Ahmanson, Newhall and Baldwin, for instance, all set aside substantial portions of their project to protect green space, complete with hiking, bridle trails and parks.

That is nearly impossible to do in a built-out city like Los Angeles.

“Once [an area] is developed, the opportunity to put in parks is very difficult,” said Con Howe, director of planning for Los Angeles.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

A New Suburb

Key development dates

June, 1994: Newhall Land & Farming Co. proposes transforming 19 square miles of ranchland near Magic Mountain into a community of almost 70,000 people, making it the largest single development in Los Angeles County history.

Oct. 7, 1996: Newhall Land announces it will give 9 square miles of land, including a stretch of the Santa Clara River and an area in the Santa Susana Mountains known as the High Country, to the nonprofit Center for Natural Lands Management.

Jan. 14, 1997: Ventura County’s Air Pollution Control Board claims the project’s draft environmental impact report ignores its impact on Ventura County.

Feb. 18, 1997: In a bid to ease opposition to its project, Newhall Land decides not to place 15 large luxury homes in the ecologically sensitive Santa Susana Mountains. It also will perform an environmental review of the Salt Creek Canyon wildlife corridor and install a traffic signal in nearby Val Verde.

June 11, 1997: At a Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission meeting, it is disclosed that about 500 homes have been eliminated from the plan. In addition, a business park will be scaled back, with a heigh limit of 45 feet.

December 17, 1997: The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission gives the project its unanimous approval. Decision is appealed by Ventura County and the cities of Santa Clarita, Santa Paula and Moorpark.

March 24, 1998: At the only public hearing on the matter, dozens of neighbors and elected officials implore the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to extend the public-hearing process and request new environmental studies be done.

July 14, 1998: Concerned that Newhall Ranch will drain the group water along the Santa Clara River, Ventura County Board of Supervisors submit a lengthy letter to their Los Angeles counterparts threatening to sue if their concerns are not addressed.

July 15, 1998: The Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club files a complaint with the state Public Utilities Commission alleging plans to supply water to the project could draw so much from the Santa Clara River and underground supplies it would threaten water supplies for the entire Santa Clarita Valley.

July 28, 1998: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors orders Newhall Land to scale back the project from 24,351 homes and condominiums to 21,615, an 11% reduction. In addition, 2,200 homes will be offered for sale and rental to low- and moderate-income families and building will be prohibited within 100 feet of the banks of the Santa Clara River.

Nov. 24, 1998: Project is unanimously approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Ventura County officials vow to challenge the decision in court.