Newhall Ranch Opponents Continue Attacks

Opponents of the 24,000-unit Newhall Ranch development continued voicing objections to the massive project at a public hearing Wednesday, contending the developer has not sweetened the deal enough to reduce its negative impacts on the Santa Clarita Valley and neighboring Ventura County.

They testified before the Los Angeles County Planning Commission, which is considering whether to recommend that the county Board of Supervisors accept a development agreement with the Newhall Land & Farming Co., the project’s developer.

Many of the project’s opponents said before the Planning Commission makes any recommendation, Newhall Land must reach deeper into its pockets.

“They are required to fully mitigate the impacts [of population growth] to schools and libraries,” said Lynne Plambeck, spokeswoman for the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE). “And it’s the service providers, like the Sheriff’s and Fire departments, that decide how much money is needed.”

Wendy Wiles, an attorney representing the William S. Hart Union High School District, which is negotiating with Newhall Land over the cost of junior and senior high schools within Newhall Ranch, said the Hart district wants the county to reject a proposal in the development agreement that would “usurp the school district’s authority.”

Under Newhall Land’s proposed agreement--in clauses that would kick in if the company and the Hart district are unable to hash out a subsidy for schools--the company would impose expensive conditions on its support for schools.

“Under their proposal, we would be the ones jumping through the hoops,” Wiles said.

Marlee Lauffer, spokeswoman for Newhall Land, said the company has offered to pay the Hart district $5,063 per housing unit, a figure that would build a better school than even state standards recommend.

“The company and the school district basically agree on what a good school costs,” Lauffer said.

“But they want a football stadium, a swimming pool and [auditorium] that would serve the whole community. We don’t think we should be charged for something the whole community, not just our development, will use.”

Newhall Land wants to build the project on a 12,000-acre site along California 126, filling in the open space between the Magic Mountain amusement park and the Ventura County line.

Ventura County has expressed concern over the project’s effects on the Santa Clara River. Two representatives of Ventura County organizations declared that runoff of oils, fertilizers and other pollutants from the Newhall Ranch development would harm the river and wildlife downstream in Ventura County.

Carla Bard, an analyst for the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind that Ventura County is a “third party impacted by Newhall Ranch.”

Bard and Ron Bottorff, a spokesman for the Friends of the Santa Clara River, predicted the runoff would be disastrous to the steelhead trout which spawn in the river and were put on the federal endangered species list last month.

Commissioner Esther Feldman directed Planning Commission staff members to enlist more help in determining the impacts on the fish and any other impacts on Ventura County.

The public hearings on the project are scheduled to continue in downtown Los Angeles Oct. 22.