Annette Lucas | Questioning the Wiley Assumption

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor

Since the implementation of the One Valley One Vision and the adoption of the Circulation Element in 2011, numerous housing units have been approved in both the city and county in the Santa Clarita Valley. More developments are in the planning process, plus more annexation is a possibility.

Considering that the Circulation Element was an agreement based on an analysis of the valleywide network of major and secondary highways, it logically follows that any amendment to the Circulation Element should also require a thorough analysis of the entire network and Caltrans.

Were the Calgrove Interstate 5 ramps put in place for a two-lane road? I don’t think so!

How can the city officials use an assumption that to downgrade the four-lane future widening of Wiley Canyon Road is in the best interest of transportation/circulation or a single developer?

How can it be calculated that Wiley Canyon does not serve the entire valley as a direct access to the I-5 freeway?

It would be illogical and a disservice to the public at large to effectively remove a critical section of Wiley Canyon Road as a secondary highway from the Circulation Element.

How can the city planners make that decision with the projected growth for one developer?

This road serves as a primary, unimpeded route to Calgrove Boulevard and the Interstate 5 freeway on-ramps, particularly at a time when the Newhall Ranch development, consisting of 21,500 units, is currently under construction and contributing to increased traffic in the circulation network.

Additionally, there is potential for the development of thousands of units in the central part of the city of Santa Clarita, such as in Placerita Canyon, housing near the mall, and the possibility of citywide accessory dwelling units throughout single-family neighborhoods.

Disregarding the inclusion of a roadway in the extensive transportation network outlined in the master plan, solely based on an individual environmental evaluation, displays a deficiency in forward thinking and sets an adverse precedent for upholding the master plan.

How does this assumption serve the entire valley, which is also developing at a fast rate?

Annette Lucas


Related To This Story

Latest NEWS