10/18/01 comments on LAUSD's Draft EIR Report For Valley New High School #l by Anita SantoSpirito.

My name is Anita SantoSpirito I represent the Zelzah/Northridge section of the United Northridge Homeowner's' Groups. I live on the east side of the CSUN campus on Zelzah Avenue.

I read with GREAT dismay the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Academy High School #1 to be built on the CSUN campus prepared by the Aspen Environmental Group for LAUSD .

My comments are as follows:

I don't agree with many of the assumptions as stated in this report. In my opinion the report TOTALLY UNDERESTIMATES the traffic impact, (specifically the number of cars that was ASSUMED to be added to an already overburdened street), public peace and DEFINITELY safety issues.

888 students arriving in fewer than 200 cars from approximately three miles or more away? The figures are just not realistic. What is mentioned in the report specifically is the overflow of students from Monroe High School will be attending this proposed academy high school. The LAUSD claims there would be no buses to this school. I challenge the assumption that the students will walk from a great distance. Students will need to drive or be driven. In my estimation, in reality, there will be MORE cars in the WHOLE neighborhood than stated in this report. Zelzah Court Property:

As to the issue of carcinogenic pesticides found on the Zelzah Court property. The discovery of pesticides gives GRAVE concern for the safety of the students and neighborhood. The report states this land has environmental superiority. How is that possible when there are substantial toxins in the soil? This topic will be covered in greater detail by Jim Parker from the White Oak Homeowner's Group. However, I do want to mention that THIS issue is of great concern to ALL the surrounding homeowner's groups. Taxpayer's funds pay for the type of study the Draft EIR represents. In spite of the importance of exposing the neighborhood to the possible release of toxins from the soil, this Preliminary Endangerment Assessment was NOT made available in electronic form to the interested parties. Interested parties were notified a copy of the PEA could be purchased at a cost of $300 per copy. This is UNACCEPTABLE considering the circumstances.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control identified discrepancies in the PEA Report regarding the toxic substances and requested a response by September 15, 2001. Was this supplemental report submitted? DTSC will not issue a determination until completion of the public participation process set forth in the California Education Code (CEC). They feel the response action will take six months OR more to complete.

The School Land Trade Bill - SB593 Introduced by Alarcon back in February 2001. The report states no decision will be made on the building of the high school till all the facts are in - before all the facts were distributed which included the toxin report. The Governor of California signed the bill October 10 - eight days before the EIR was distributed. The perception is that LAUSD lined all their ducks up in a row dating back to February of this year. Full disclosure did not mention the bill recommended in February allowing the land trade. This information was discovered by the homeowners after attending many meetings by LAUSD during spring and summer meetings. It appears that “action” on the project was premature on part of LAUSD. Section 2 of the Alarcon bill states: there is “an urgency necessary for immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety”. I dispute this claim due to the toxins in the soil issue pending. Toxins in the soil in no way preserve my peace or health or safety.

The issue of the land trade: In the l980's school bussing was a mandate. Forced bussing forced Prairie School to close. As a result, parents placed and drove their children to private schools as they did not want their children to be bussed far away to south central LA. Contrary to statistics stated in this report, local Chamber of Commerce and Realtors in the area currently report there is an influx of new families to this area who have young children who will need to be schooled. The Draft EIR Report states that the elementary schools are operating UNDER capacity. LAUSD stated that there is a CRITICAL need for ALL grade level seats coming up and there is overcrowding in all schools. Parents will no longer be willing to send their children out of town anymore and want their children to attend LOCAL schools. How can they justify tearing down an existing elementary school?

In this time of reduced dollars it makes no sense to spend millions of dollars to tear down an existing school. It is a known fact that CSUN has for the past 20 years attempted to discredit the need for this school as they have intentions of using the Prairie Street property for their own ends claiming it is not worthwhile to repair and it is unsafe. Suggested in the past were a bus hub, a parking lot and a parking structure. If unsafe why then has LAUSD been using the buildings as offices? This report also states overcrowding at five middle schools and twelve elementary schools. Overcrowding is the justification given by LAUSD for building the Academy High School. Justification for reopening Prairie Street School as elementary school:

There are no elementary schools within 2 miles available to this neighborhood. Parents who do not have options now will have one. Open the school and the children would come.

What already exists: street access to drop off/pick up would not problematic, current buildings that could be updated/refurbished, electricity, plumbing, playground, parking. The cost of upgrading existing buildings could not possibly be as much as tearing down the school or building a new one elsewhere.

LAUSD Facilities Master Plan adopted goals and guidelines that state all K-12 children attend schools in THEIR neighborhoods. Monroe High Schoolis not an elementary school and is 3 miles away and is the ONLY high school mentioned in the Draft EIR. Only mention made of other schools is in terms of “also accommodate local students”. As stated by Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, there are FOUR high schools within a 1 mile radius of the proposed Academy High School.

1 public, 3 private and 1 continuation school. Granada Hills High School is just ½ mile away. We agree with his statement that it makes no sense to add traffic and congestion to an already “saturated” area.

Small school site policy:

The population density for Monroe High School is in West Hills and does not apply to the Northridge area. The proposed location for the Academy High School does not comply with the guidelines for small school sites. Also does not comply with the CDE for at least 3 alternative sites.

We suggest utilizing the Zelzah/Lassen property which could house a much larger school and could accommodate MORE of the overflow from other High Schools. Could be built with a bridge over Lassen Street to allow students safety in crossing to CSUN property and access the athletic facilities.

Convert Prairie Street School into Academy High School. Location is close to center of CSUN students affairs and would still have availability of the athletic facilities. Traffic mitigation is much less since street around the school already exists.

The Academy High School as proposed fractionalizes our community. We will be highly inconvenienced in EVERY way if another school is placed on this street. It is just not in the best interests of this community.

We will fight in court not to have another Belmont II fiasco in our area. Additionally, we have been given no assurances that the high school will be used as stated in this Draft EIR, nor will local students have access to it.

Questions:

Is money still available for school construction funds?

How long will it take to reevaluate the toxin issue?

Was FEMA money given to CSUN to repair Prairie Street school? If so what happened to it?

I represent the Zelzah/Northridge homeowners and as such reject the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Cal State Northridge aspires to be a good neighbor and wants the neighborhood to be supportive of them. It's hard to look upon CSUN as a “good neighbor”. The fact is that whenever they want to do something that negatively affects the neighborhood each and every day, it has always come off as a “done deal” with only the required “lip service” given to the community.

It is our intent to protect our safety and property values.

Anita SantoSpirito Zelzah/Northridge Homeowner