Judge Asked to Void Newhall Ranch Approval

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 neighboring Los Angeles County.

Opponents contend the environmental impact report on the proposed 22,000-home suburb--the largest housing development ever approved in Southern California history--is flawed and 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 for its approval of the project.

The two-day hearing was moved to 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 and issue a ruling at a later date.

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

In its lawsuit, Ventura County contends 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.

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

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

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

In response to criticism that the EIR is vague and does not 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 the developer 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 the area’s ground water supplies could be tapped, robbing a precious resource from farmers and threatening a billion-dollar agricultural industry.

In her argument before the court Thursday, Cordero suggested the city of Valencia 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 on water issues. In a brief filed with the court, state prosecutors said 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’s environmental review fails to address potential damages to water quality.

The developer’s attorney is expected to address the water issues in arguments today. Company officials, however, have maintained the developer has identified sufficient water sources for the project.

Dillon is also expected to respond to arguments made by low-income housing advocates, who contend 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.”