Newhall Ranch Opponents Warn of Pollution and Urban Sprawl

Stepping across the county line to protect the region’s rural character, Ventura County activists joined their Los Angeles County neighbors Thursday, blasting the proposed Newhall Ranch housing development as a short-sighted plan that will bring only traffic, pollution and urban sprawl.

“This,” said Mary Weisbrock, founder of the environmental group Save Open Space, “will be the goose that killed the golden egg. . . . This is the worst regional disaster to come before you. Keep this area as rural and agricultural land.”

Newhall Land & Farming Co. is seeking to build a huge housing development on a 19-acre site just across the Los Angeles County line on California 126. Over a 25-year period, Newhall Ranch would house 70,000 people in about 25,000 apartments, townhomes, condominiums and luxury homes.

Jim Churchill, who grows citrus and avocados in the Santa Clara Valley, said if Newhall Ranch is approved, the effects in Ventura County will not be hard to miss.

*

“It will place economic pressure to convert agricultural lands to urban uses in Ventura County and is very likely to lead to the subsequent development of Newhall Ranch in Ventura County, followed by other agricultural lands down the river,” Churchill said.

Ventura County officials did not speak at Thursday’s hearing before the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, the third reserved for opponents of the development. But they sent a detailed memo earlier this week describing the flaws they see in the project’s environment report--namely that L.A. planners do not take into account the effects on the neighboring county.

The project would dump more traffic on California 126, already one of Ventura County’s most dangerous stretches of road. County transportation planners project an additional 15,480 new trips each day on the county’s roads--more than double the estimate in the environmental review.

The project could also contaminate the county’s air with dust drifting down the river valley, forcing tougher controls on local businesses and possibly stirring up spores that cause health problems such as valley fever, according to the county Air Pollution Control District.

And although the project’s draft environmental impact report was released several months ago, John Tommy Rosas, representing Piru, complained there are only two copies of the voluminous document in all of Ventura County.

*

The commission staff agreed to attempt to resolve the issue by deciding whether to provide an additional copy. The two available copies are at the Government Center in Ventura and at Santa Paula City Hall.

But Ventura County neighbors were not the only foes lined up at Thursday’s hearing.

The city of Santa Clarita has expressed particular concern about the development outside its city limits, because the project would rely on what Santa Clarita officials say is an inadequate system of roads, sewers, schools and parks in the city.

“You must understand that we are not merely bystanders,” Santa Clarita City Councilwoman Jill Klajic told the commissioners. “Unbridled urban sprawl is no longer acceptable. . . . We ask you to withhold approval so we can work with the developer.”

Earlier this week, the Santa Clarita City Council voted to reject the current plan for Newhall Ranch unless it is reduced significantly or Newhall Land officials address dozens of issues.

Arto Nuutinen, an attorney for the Hart Union High School District, told the commission that difficult negotiations between the district and Newhall Land were at an “impasse” over funding issues, but agreed to continue talks with the presence of county lawyers soon.

An attorney from a second school group, the Castaic Union School District, which has also been at loggerheads with Newhall Land about school funding, testified that the district was likely to reach an agreement soon.

“We are reasonably optimistic,” said Clayton Parker, the attorney for the Castaic schools.

*

Several opponents concerned about the availability of water during drought years questioned whether there was sufficient water for the number of people Newhall Ranch would house.

“We do not believe you can let this project move forward unless you have a new water source,” said Lynne Plambeck, an environmental activist and director of the Newhall County Water District.

But Marlee Lauffer, a spokeswoman for Newhall Land, said the planned development would have a sufficient supply of water.

“It’s clear that people are still concerned about the plan,” she said, “and I hope we can clear up their concerns” during the company’s presentation before the commission in a few weeks.

NEXT STEP

Another public hearing for opponents of the proposed Newhall Ranch project is set for Feb. 18. The developer will get a chance to respond in late February or March. Los Angeles County planners will then incorporate comments from public hearings into a final draft of the plan’s environmental impact review before a county Planning Commission vote.