LA County board approves environmental plan for huge development

ROBERT JABLON
Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) A plan to build 20,885 homes, the largest single subdivision in county history, will add 19,000 new jobs to the local economy, according to county Supervisor Michael Antonovich.

But a less rosy view of the construction was taken by Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who bemoaned potentially jammed freeways and urban sprawl.

Supervisors on Tuesday approved a revised environmental impact report on the plan to build thousands of homes on the oak-and sage-covered hills of the Newhall Ranch, 35 miles north of downtown.

Antonovich, whose district includes the development, noted that it is expected to create new jobs and seven new schools along with the new housing.

``You're going to see that as the economic stimulator for the entire county,'' he said.

Yaroslavsky, who cast the lone dissenting vote on the five-member board, argued that the project would add tens of thousands of cars to jammed freeways at rush hour. He also cited it as another example of urban sprawl that has steadily eaten away at rural edges of the county.

``When is enough enough?'' he asked. ``That is the question that the board should be asking itself. ... We are on a course that is demonstrably wrong.''

Opponents said they may sue to halt the development.

``The county just made that the only option,'' said Barbara Wampole of the group Friends of the Santa Clara River. ``They made the wrong choice again.''

But the developer said all environmental issues were addressed.

``We're obviously very pleased,'' said Marlee Lauffer of Newhall Land and Farming Co. ``There was not one single issue brought up today that we have not heard and addressed in the past.''

She said it will be at least 2006 before the first homes are built.

The project would be built over the course of about 20 years in the Santa Clarita Valley in the northwest corner of the county, already one of the fastest-growing regions in the state. The project, which has been on the boards for a decade, would create five ``villages'' and 350,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space near the Santa Clara River. The homes would range from affordable apartments to high-end homes.

Half of the 12,000 acres of land would be permanently set aside as public wilderness and recreation land and there would be 50 miles of walking trails. The revamped environmental report outlines additional water supplies necessary for the 70,000 people expected to live in the development, relying mostly on the State Water Project and private sources in Kern County.

It also reduces the size of the original project by 730 homes and sets aside a reserve of 64 acres to protect the endangered San Fernando Valley spineflower, which was found on the property.

Environmentalist opponents, some holding up posters of a toad, fish and other wildlife that live in the region, urged the board to postpone a vote pending further study of the update environmental plan.

Supporters noted the need for housing in a state where the population is expected to increase by about 6 million people over the next decade.

``We need to build 25,000 homes a year to meet our demand,'' said Ray Pearl, executive officer of the Greater Los Angeles-Ventura chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California. ``It is absolutely crucial that Newhall Ranch be approved to begin to address housing needs for all Angelenos.''

Newhall Ranch isn't the last massive subdivision that supervisors must address. Developers already have applied to create a 22,000-home project over 25 years near the county's northern border.

The Newhall project would be built in an area rich in local history. Prehistoric Indian sites have been discovered there, the Spanish had an adobe building there and the valley has been the site of movie filming since the earliest days of Hollywood. The development includes the site where actor Vic Morrow and two children died when a helicopter crashed on them during the 1982 filming of ``Twilight Zone: The Movie.''

The project was first proposed in 1994 and the Board of Supervisors approved it in 1999. But Ventura County and environmentalists sued to block it. They argued that developers had failed to protect endangered habitat and that the project lacked sufficient water supplies.

In 2000, a Kern County judge ordered developers to address those issues in their environmental report. The revised documents still need the judge's approval, and county planners and supervisors also must approve specific building plans for each phase of the project.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)