Palmdale Wins Fight to Annex Ritter Ranch : Growth: The huge project is the largest addition in city history. Foes say it threatens the area’s rural lifestyle.

Proponents of the huge Ritter Ranch project on Wednesday won their long fight to have the 10,625-acre property included in the city of Palmdale, virtually clearing the way for one of the largest residential developments in Los Angeles County history.

“We’re thrilled at this culmination to our three-year effort,” said Peter Wenner, general manager of Ritter Park Associates, the partnership that seeks to develop the parcel, southwest of Palmdale, with 7,200 houses over 20 years.

The Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees annexations and incorporations, voted 7 to 0 to approve the annexation.

The entire annexation is the largest in Palmdale history and adds nearly 17 square miles to a city which, through a bullish expansion policy, already had grown to 80 square miles.

Also backing the plan have been the Palmdale City Council and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the state parks agency that will receive a donation of 6,000 acres of parkland carved out of the Ritter Ranch property.

The new parkland will be the largest single acquisition in conservancy history, conservancy aide Liz Cheadle told the commission.

Testifying against the project were nearly two dozen opponents, led by representatives of the Leona Valley Town Council, who see the Ritter Ranch project as a threat to their rural lifestyle.

But LAFCO member James Van Horn seemed to sum up the thinking of many on the panel, saying, “I recognize Ritter Ranch will have impacts on the area. But I’m here to vote on the annexation to Palmdale, not on the Ritter Ranch development.”

In his remarks, Wenner said the development team, led by Merv Adelson, a member of the board of directors of Time-Warner Inc., and Irwin Molasky, has agreed to provide a generous package of amenities in Ritter Ranch--including 10 parks and five schools--that will also benefit Palmdale’s other residents.

Additionally, the project will generate $100 million in new property tax and development fee revenues for Palmdale over 20 years, Wenner testified. But a city analysis showed that the project, after it is completed, would cost Palmdale nearly $1 million annually in today’s dollars to provide services that would not be covered by those extra taxes and development fees.

But annexation foes said that Palmdale is ill-equipped to provide city services to the huge area and that the project will imperil scarce drinking water supplies in the Antelope Valley.

Timothy Gosney, attorney for the Palmdale Water District, warned that his client--which would not be providing water to Ritter Ranch--is “gravely concerned” that the area’s ground-water supplies will not accommodate the thirst of the 30,000 residents projected to live in the project when it is completed in 20 years.

Mary Ann Floyd, a former Leona Valley Town Council member, complained that the annexation made no geographic sense. “They want to annex one-quarter of our valley into a city that’s a ridgeline and a valley away from us,” Floyd said.

Charles Brink of Acton called on the commission to reject the annexation plan, saying Palmdale is “like a shark cruising and gobbling up land” to secure new taxes to balance its budget.

Wednesday’s vote virtually wraps up the governmental review of the project. The Palmdale City Council still must pass a resolution confirming the annexation and consider lesser technical requirements, but those steps are viewed as formalities.

Foes of the project have launched a three-pronged legal attack against the project, said attorney Chase Mellen, who represents the disgruntled parties.

They have sued Los Angeles County, contending that it should have prepared an environmental impact report on growth-inducing effects of the decision by its Public Works Department to supply water to the project. They have sued Palmdale, contending that its environmental review of the annexation plan was inadequate, and they have filed a lawsuit contending that the plan violates the Palmdale General Plan.

Mellen urged the commission members to delay making any decision until all this litigation is settled, a view supported by others, including Leona Valley Town Council member Paul Sloane.

But Deputy County Counsel Bill Pellman said LAFCO could not make its annexation approval contingent upon the outcome of this litigation.

Pellman also said it was not LAFCO’s concern to study the financial capacity of Palmdale to provide services to Ritter Ranch. Ruth Benell, LAFCO executive officer, said she and her staff had concluded that Palmdale “will be able to expand its services as the area develops.”

Charles Hartley, a county public works official, testified that the county has determined that adequate water supplies exist to serve Ritter Ranch.