Newhall Ranch

On April 20 you published an [opinion] article by Thomas L. Lee on the benefits of the proposed Newhall Ranch project (“A Plan for Responsible Growth”). Although Lee suggests that the educational needs of the children of the project will be well served, such is not the case. The developer is insisting that all schools be operated year-round or overcrowded to at least 120% of capacity. This will ensure that the developer can get reimbursed for school construction from state funds intended for only the most needy of local districts. Obviously those districts that are truly overcrowded will pay the price for this contrived necessity along with all the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley. Moreover, Newhall Land & Farming Co. has also insisted that should school bond measures require only a simple majority (currently a major legislative goal of the governor), local districts promise to support bond measures that would also help pick up a portion of the developer’s bill for new schools. New developments should pay for their own schools just like every other essential element of a new community.

Lee also says that a school funding agreement is “pending” with several districts. What he fails to note is that his company’s proposed agreement with the local high school district would only provide an inadequate shell of a school--no stadiums, pools, auditoriums, library books, textbooks or computers. The Hart High School District has repeatedly objected to this offer. The truth of the matter is that no settlement is in sight, at least so long as this corporate Medea is willing to sacrifice the future of this community’s children on the altar of its quarterly bottom line.

KEITH PRITSKER

Stevenson Ranch

* Lack of a reliable dedicated water supply is the Achilles’ heel of Newhall Ranch. This is confirmed by the environmental impact report, which acknowledges that a reliable source of water has not been identified.

Lee’s wishful use of the ephemeral Castaic Creek flood flows, along with some hoped-for new State Water Project entitlements, reflect the fact that a reliable supply for the 13,000 acre-feet per year of potable water needed does not currently exist. In dry years, Castaic Creek flows are virtually nonexistent, and in times of drought, the State Water Project may well experience shutdowns as it did for six months in 1971. It is apparent that in a drought, ground water serving residents of the Santa Clarita area would have to be diverted to succor Newhall Ranch, to the extent that it could. Is that good planning?

ROBERT LATHROP

Newhall

* Lee’s article conveniently leaves out the impacts of Newhall Ranch on the Santa Clara River. The Santa Clara has been recognized by Los Angeles County as significant ecological area 23. Newhall Ranch as proposed would result in riprapping 80% of the north bank and 30% of the south bank, and a loss of 313 acres from the river flood plain. These are major impacts to the river and its woodlands, which constitute some of the best remaining riparian habitat in the Southland. It is especially important to properly care for the river, since Southern California has lost 97% of its original riparian forests due to agriculture and urbanization.

Friends of the Santa Clara River has long called for buffers around the riparian corridor. In a May 30, 1995, letter to Newhall Ranch Co., we suggested leaving most of the area between California 126 and the river as a riparian buffer zone. We were ignored. But this is exactly the modification suggested April 23 by the L.A. County Planning Commission and which Newhall Ranch Co. has now been directed to bring back to the commission on June 11.

Lee says in his article, “Many people want to preserve Newhall Ranch’s beautiful and diverse environment.” We agree completely. Allowing for adequate buffers around the river is an essential element in this preservation.

RON BOTTORFF

Chair, Friends of the

Santa Clara River

Newbury Park

* Newhall Ranch represents urban sprawl at its worst. It is in an area detached from current development. It will destroy prime farmland in favor of unneeded housing. In contrast to the “high quality of life” Lee says Newhall Ranch will provide, it will require expensive new infrastructure and cause major traffic and air pollution problems along Interstate 5 when future residents commute to jobs. The effects of air pollution cause a significant deterioration of the quality of life for all Angelenos, especially children, as they are particularly susceptible to lung disease from this source.

DICK HINGSON

Conservation Coordinator,

Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club

Los Angeles

* Lee says that over 25 community meetings were held and a master plan created. Nonsense; the plan was already in place and virtually no changes were made in response to the significant public and local agency input.

Lee claims that increased local employment will reduce the number of commuters in and out of the Santa Clarita Valley. Can he seriously expect that anyone will believe that 70,000 additional people (along with another 50,000 already planned) employed all over the place will reduce traffic? Any look at the traffic-flow model for L.A. County will confirm that Interstate 5 is already at rush-hour standstill and will only get worse, even with a proposed additional high-occupancy vehicle lane.

To paraphrase Lee’s final statement, the Newhall Ranch project is a win-win for Lee and lose-lose for the Santa Clarita Valley. This project needs to be entirely redesigned to accommodate the needs of human beings.

HENRY SCHULTZ, Chair,