More Notices
Here is an email I received yesterday...
"Here is information for the first phase of Newhall Ranch - The Landmark Village project. You should be able to pull up the draft EIR and review it at:
http://planning.co.la.ca.us/spLandmark.htm
Written comments are due by January 22, 2007. The public hearing is scheduled for 9:00 January 31st.
Please forward this information far and wide and encourage participation in the public process -- please ask folks to write comments before January 22, 2007. Please encourage others to attend the public hearing on January 31st.
Agriculture
According to the American Farmland Trust, the California coast is the third most threatened agricultural region in the nation. The long-term protection of these rich farmlands is of great importance to society. Newhall Ranch would wipe out nearly 1500 acres of agricultural land.
Air Quality
Air pollution is already a major problem in the Santa Clarita area, which has some of the worst air quality for ozone in the Los Angeles area. The valley is a natural air pollutant trap. Ozone derives primarily from emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx). Newhall Ranch NOx emissions of about 3,000 pounds per day would be additive to existing pollution plus that of 40,000 other units under development. Claims that federal and state air quality standards will one day be met while large-scale development proceeds in the valley defy common sense.
Water
Water is generally not available for the projected growth in the Santa Clarita region. Newhall Ranch will get its water from the alluvial aquifer under the Santa Clara River, which is already in an overpumped condition. Supplies of state water, which are not reliable in drought years, continue to be relied on for most development near Santa Clarita. Since state water supplies will fall far short of entitlements in drought years, severe overpumping of both the alluvial aquifer and the Saugus deep-water aquifer under the river are likely to occur.
Loss of Santa Clara River Floodplain
The Specific Plan as approved will result in a loss of over 140 acres of floodplain. An acre is about one football field in size, the loss of floodplain thus amounts to 140 football fields, a very large loss. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has recommended that the Newhall Ranch applicant avoid development in the floodplain. Friends of the Santa Clara River also recommends that floodplain development be avoided. Why? The purpose of floodplains is to store floodwaters - that would seem to be a basic principle of river function, but one often ignored. Usurping the floodplain of a river has serious immediate and long-term repercussions on the hydrology of the river and on channel morphology, both upstream and downstream. Immediate impacts are shown by the need to cover 80% of the northbank and 30% of the southbank with bank stabilization to protect large areas of fill for placement of housing units. Long-term impacts include structural flood control measures of unknown magnitude which could be required in the future due to the cumulative effects of artificial reduction of the existing floodplain. "

8 Comments:
So, what's your point gale?
thats prety much to the point isn't it ? But i think he means
It in a good way!
My point is just information if anyone is interested in commenting on the EIR or learning about the impacts of the project.
gayle are these comments taken directly from the EIR or are they your opinion? If they are your opinion, they have no merit as people can see from your "speach" at the city council meeting.
Anon 8:45 Here you go silly...
The comments were from an email I received. Sorry for the confusion.
I just did a search for the original email so I could give you the source of the comments and I can't find it. I believe the comments were from an organization in LA county.
the problem from organizations is that they can distort the truth, kinda Like when Patti got bashed for her voting record on the NFSP, but than she sent out a Flyer stating that she voted no for the EIR, it was a twist. Stats and statements are consistently distorted in orderto obtain a specific agenda or need. Another example might the old 9 out of 10 doctors recommend, this might be the case but what 9 doc, how many doc did you have to go through to get the 9, or how much did you pay the docs for their endorsment? All distortions to sell items, take the information from the horses mouth that is the best policy, than there is no confusion.
Yes, it is best to get the information from the horse's mouth. That's why I included the link to the EIR.
If you find any discrepancies let me know and I will post them here.
LOL Gayle you missed the point again, this seems to be a trend of yours. You talk about emails and information gained from emails, but you qualify it with I put a link to the EIR. Great, why don't you do the research before you take the information from an EMAIL seriously, just like this blog, no one takes it seriously, it is just fun and occassionally educational, but mostly just makes me laugh
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home