L.A. Urged to Reassess Newhall Ranch Plan

Concerned that the massive Newhall Ranch development could destroy the local agricultural industry, Ventura County leaders showed up in force before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, demanding a better analysis of the project.

If approved, the Newhall Land & Farming Co.’s proposal would erect an instant city of 70,000 along the banks of the Santa Clara River near the Ventura County line. That would mean building 24,300 homes, a water reclamation plant and schools.

And that, Ventura County officials argued, would severely affect the rural valley in ways that the neighboring county has yet to consider.

Skipping his own board meeting, Ventura County Supervisor John K. Flynn told the Los Angeles County board that the project could siphon off ground water, taxing the water supply of area farms. He said it will also increase the likelihood of flooding along the Santa Clara River, which ran so strong during last month’s rains that it ripped out hundreds of citrus trees and eroded acres of farmland.

“Agriculture in Ventura County is threatened by this project,” Flynn told the board. “It is threatened by this project for many reasons. . . . A yes vote on this project can in no way be defended.”

He strongly suggested that the counties take a more cooperative approach to the development.

But Ventura County’s pleas for cooperation met with little sympathy from some board members, who a few years ago begged Ventura County to back off on Ahmanson Ranch, a project that would dump traffic on Los Angeles County streets.

“It’s hard for me to rationalize the statements of Ventura County officials,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said. “The impacts are very similar [to Ahmanson], when they turned a completely deaf ear to the complaints we had about a project in their county.”

Los Angeles County supervisors asked staff members to prepare responses to the concerns of Ventura County and Santa Clarita residents by their May 18 meeting.

In addition to the water issue, opponents questioned the project’s environmental review, its impact on schools and the process for providing open space.

The board declined to schedule any additional hearings, but voted to accept additional written testimony through April 10.

Hailed by planners as a revolutionary opportunity to zone and design an entire community, Newhall Ranch--if approved--would mean that a powerful, well-connected developer would have the county’s blessing to plop a population larger than Redondo Beach along the last wild river in Southern California.

Opposition is fierce and angry. The project’s enemies include elected officials from nearly all of the surrounding communities, and the threat of a lawsuit from Ventura County, whose Board of Supervisors has already filed an appeal of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission’s December approval.

“We don’t wish to have litigation on this,” Ventura County Supervisor Kathy Long told her Los Angeles counterparts, pleading for a more cooperative effort. “It is a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

At Tuesday’s three-hour hearing, dozens of neighbors, elected officials and others implored the supervisors to extend the public hearing process and request that new environmental studies be done.

But when all is said and done, Newhall Land & Farming Co., which built Valencia and is a major fixture in the region’s political scene, will likely get to build its little city, according to Los Angeles County insiders.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, whose district includes the site of the proposal, said he hopes to negotiate with the developer to meet neighbors’ concerns, while still allowing Newhall Land to build on the 19-square-mile parcel.

“We need to make sure the infrastructure needs, schools and traffic issues are resolved,” he said. “And we have to resolve to also protect the property rights of the developer.”

James Harter, vice president of Newhall Land and the company’s lead player on the project, defended Newhall Ranch, which has been in the planning stages for years and would represent the company’s biggest effort.

“Newhall Ranch has been meticulously planned,” Harter said.

He argued that far from strapping county funds, it would add to its coffers through sales and property taxes, development fees and construction jobs.

He testified that the project would generate $304 million in taxes and other revenues for Los Angeles County while it is being built, and $21 million annually once it is completed.

Two busloads of opponents, one from Ventura County and the other from Santa Clarita, came to address the board.

They staged a demonstration on the steps outside the hearing room, hoisting signs criticizing the development’s impact on schools, traffic and the environment.

One demonstrator brandished a sign that depicted the San Fernando Valley and Orange County as pieces of toilet paper floating in a commode.

“They’re flushing us down the toilet!” they shouted. A figure representing a politician ripped off another piece of tissue, emblazoned with the words “Ventura County.”

“The word that keeps coming to mind is arrogance,” said Jeri Andrews of Thousand Oaks, a member of the Conejo Valley chapter of the Sierra Club. “The Los Angeles County politicians act like we don’t matter, like the impact of the development stops at the county line.”

Frederick Gientke, general manager of the United Water Conservation District in Ventura County, said that unless the developer is required to purchase water from upstate farmers or other providers, the 24,300-home development would drain ground water that is sorely needed by Ventura County farmers.

“It limits the future of agriculture in Ventura County,” Ojai farmer Jim Churchill, one of about 70 protesters who came to the hearing on buses chartered by two environmental groups, said in an interview. The project, he said, would drive up nearby land prices and drain the area of water.

“It makes it almost impossible to continue farming the land,” he said.