Opponents Urge Judge to Block Newhall Ranch

Citing potential threats to ground-water supplies and sensitive wildlife habitats, Ventura County officials and environmental activists urged a judge Thursday to overturn approval of the massive Newhall Ranch development in the Santa Clarita Valley.

Opponents charge that the environmental impact report on the 22,000-home suburb--the largest housing development approved in Southern California history--is flawed, and they want the court to require the developer to complete more detailed studies.

“The analysis has not been done adequately,” argued Antonette Cordero, assistant county counsel for Ventura County, which last April sued Los Angeles County over its approval of the project.

But the attorney for the developer, Mark Dillon, argued in court that the builder took pains to craft the project around environmental concerns. Dillon said that more than half of the project area is preserved as open space, and that efforts have been taken to keep houses away from the most sensitive habitat areas along the Santa Clara River corridor.

He noted that biologists have spent four years studying the project, which has been tweaked, scaled back and revised to address specific concerns about fish and birds.

“A hard look was taken,” Dillon said. “There was considerable study, considerable analysis, considerable quantifying of the species and habitat.”

The two-day hearing was held in Kern County to avoid any potential legal conflicts. Attorneys for both sides are expected to wrap up arguments today. Superior Court Judge Roger D. Randall is expected to take the case under submission, issuing a ruling at a later date.

The giant housing development by Valencia-based Newhall Land & Farming Co. would span 11,963 acres near Six Flags Magic Mountain, just east of the Ventura County line. The project, which would be built over 25 years, would house a population of nearly 70,000.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the environmental report on the new suburb last year, triggering a legal battle that could stall the project for several years.

In its lawsuit, Ventura County contends that such large-scale development near pristine habitats would harm fish and bird species along the Santa Clara River, which spills into the Pacific Ocean 85 miles downstream and is one of the state’s last wild rivers.

*

In response to criticism that the EIR is vague and not does adequately address specific environmental concerns, Dillon told the court several pages of the EIR were dedicated specifically to analysis of threatened wildlife, such as the least Bell’s vireo, an endangered bird.

Moreover, he said, there will be additional environmental studies conducted over the next 25 years, as the project is gradually developed in five subdivisions.

Project opponents also maintain that, while Newhall Land has identified three potential water sources for its future homes, it failed to adequately study whether those sources could support such a large development.

Ventura County officials fear that the area’s ground-water supplies could be tapped, robbing a precious resource from farmers and threatening a billion-dollar agricultural industry.

But L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, in whose district the project would be built, has said Newhall Ranch would not siphon water from Ventura County. Each time Newhall Land applied to build new homes, he said, it would have to identify the water source for them.

In her argument before the court Thursday, Cordero suggested that the Valencia area also would suffer a significant water shortfall if the project were allowed to go forward as proposed.

Representatives from the state attorney general’s office also raised concerns about water issues. In a brief filed with the court, state prosecutors said that the project would have “serious adverse environmental consequences, which will affect the public and natural resources of the state.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Sarah Morrison specifically argued Thursday that Newhall Land’s environmental review fails to address potential damages to water quality.

*

Dillon is expected to address the water issues in arguments today. Company officials have maintained, however, that the developer has identified sufficient water sources for its project.

Dillon is also expected to respond to arguments made by low-income housing advocates, who charge that the project violates state law because it does not provide enough low-cost housing.

“We’re not saying Newhall should never go forward,” said Michael Rawson, of the Oakland-based California Affordable Housing Law Project. “The county has to follow state law.”