County Vows to Fight Development

Moments after Los Angeles County officials approved the environmental report for the immense Newhall Ranch development Tuesday, Ventura County supervisors vowed to fulfill their promise to fight the new suburb in court.

Supervisors also voted to enlist the help of state and federal officials in ensuring that the 21,000-home project adheres to all environmental laws. Supervisor Judy Mikels, however, had doubts about getting state and federal authorities involved in such local issues.

Mikels said such agencies have no power to stop the project, but can only monitor and enforce laws.

“When we end up in litigation over this, I want to make sure we’ve taken all the proper steps, and I don’t know that it’s worth exciting the beehives over this when there’s nothing the bees can do,” Mikels said. She ultimately voted with her colleagues in favor of the plan proposed by Supervisor John Flynn to seek help in Sacramento and Washington.

The midafternoon decision by their counterparts to the south prompted Ventura County supervisors to postpone voting on filing a lawsuit until their next meeting on April 6. Local authorities could not legally take action until a final vote was made by Los Angeles County supervisors, according to Ventura County Counsel Jim McBride.

In a unanimous vote with little discussion, Los Angeles County supervisors approved the project, which would place a city more populous than Camarillo just east of the Ventura County line along the Santa Clara River.

Final approval of the document capped an intense five-year debate over the environmental impacts of the development, and set the stage for litigation. The project, the largest single housing project in Los Angeles County history, was proposed in 1994 by Newhall Land & Farming Co., a cattle and ranching operation founded in 1883.

Ventura County leaders have vehemently opposed the plan, citing the failure of Los Angeles County officials in identifying a water source sufficient to accommodate the thousands of new homes, which are expected to attract nearly 70,000 residents.

Opponents believe the planned community would be forced to dip into ground water supplies that now provide water to the expansive citrus groves across the county line. That could harm the quality and affect the quantity of the 400,000 tons of fruit produced in the region annually, critics say.

Opponents also believe the new suburb would cause air pollution, increase traffic and harm animal species, such as the mountain lion, which roams Southern California’s last wild river.

Assistant County Counsel Dennis Slivinski was one of more than a dozen local government officials and environmental group representatives from both counties who attended the meeting to protest.

“The water supply issue is a critical problem,” Slivinski said. “Their strategy is to build first and ask questions later.”

During the meeting, held in Los Angeles, L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, in whose district the project would be built, said Newhall Ranch would not siphon water from Los Angeles and Ventura counties. He said special conditions built into the approval process would ensure an adequate water supply as each new neighborhood is considered for approval.

For instance, each time Newhall Land filed an application for new homes, it would have to identify the water source for the new residents. Also, an association of water purveyors in the area must submit an annual report on the amount of water available in the Santa Clarita area.

“Today’s action is merely the first step in a long journey” for Newhall, Antonovich said.

But critics who attended the meeting called such protections useless. They also said county planners must do more to address water supply issues on a regional basis.

Environmental activists noted the association charged with producing the water supply report is only a voluntary group with no legal standing to enforce compliance. They fear the annual report will be biased, because one of the agencies in the association, the Valencia Water Co., is owned by Newhall Land.

“I certainly don’t consider them a trustworthy association,” Slivinski said. He also questioned the wisdom in having Newhall officials identify a water source every time they apply to build a subdivision.

“They’re just piecemealing this thing together, and not dealing with the problem,” Slivinski said. “The question we want them to answer is where is the water for 68,000 people going to come from. They don’t have the answer.”

Eileen McCarthy, an attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance in Oxnard, told Los Angeles County supervisors that the project fails to adequately provide housing for low wage earners working at Newhall Ranch, who, she said, will seek affordable houses and apartments in Piru, Fillmore and Santa Paula.

“I urged them to reconsider their decision,” McCarthy said after the meeting. “And at the very least, they should consider requiring Newhall to include [affordable] housing in their plan.”

Times staff writer T. Christian Miller contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Newhall Ranch Project

* Projected population: 60,000

* Size: 12,000 acres

* Number of units: 21,615

* Open space: 6,138 acres

* Neighborhood parks: 246 acres

* Other amenities: A lake, 200-acre

business park and golf course.

* Schools: One high school, one middle

school and five elementary schools.

* Projected completio * date: 2023.