California has always been the land of big dreams, big ambitions and big plans. But big developments? Alas, they may be history in this state.

Just look at what happened to the Newhall Ranch project. It would have been a big development, all right. The north Los Angeles County planned community would have included seven public schools, shops, offices, parks and houses – in fact, 21,000 houses. It would have been a new home to almost 60,000 people. That’s much more than either Culver City (with about 40,000 residents) or Beverly Hills (about 35,000).

But the California Supreme Court a little more than a month ago sided with naysayers and nixed Newhall Ranch’s environmental impact report. And with that, years of planning, untallied expenses and untold work was tossed out of the proverbial window.

The developers gulped and gamely declared that they would soldier on and try again. But the rest of us are left to assume that Newhall Ranch, while it may not be dead yet, sure is breathing hard. If anything gets built at all, it will probably be much smaller.

What’s astounding about all this is that the Newhall Ranch developers played by the rules – rules that developers in other states don’t face. They agreed to all manner of energy-efficiency initiatives. They’d build bicycle paths and install drought-tolerant landscaping. They agreed to create wildlife refuges and arranged to have tiny minnowlike stickleback fish caught and released elsewhere, out of harm’s way.

Los Angeles County supervisors approved Newhall Ranch 12 years ago. The environmental impact report, more than 5,800 pages, was approved by the state’s Fish and Wildlife Department in 2010 and it eventually got de facto approval by an appeals court more than a year ago.

But a divided state Supreme Court picked apart the methodology used in the environmental report. For example, even though the state wildlife department reportedly projected the Newhall Ranch development would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 31 percent by 2020 – better than the state’s goal of 29 percent – the court, on its own, decided to move the goalposts and said that new projects needed to go even further to counteract the less than 29 percent reductions from existing developments.

The court also didn’t like the plan to relocate the little fish and, well, we could go on. The point is clear: Big developments such as Newhall Ranch cannot be built in California. Opponents will wear down developers. Settled matters will get relitigated. Rules will be added and then changed. Courts will agree with opponents.

For reprint and licensing requests for this article, CLICK HERE.

Prev