Expressway Plan Raises Controversy : Santa Clarita: One proposed route for the freeway connector would be more injurious to wetlands; another would be less favorable to development.

Environmentalists and developers in Santa Clarita are once again battling it out, this time about whose interests will be paved over by an eight-lane expressway connecting the Golden State and Antelope Valley freeways.

California 126, a nine-mile, limited-access highway, is proposed by the California Department of Transportation to alleviate traffic congestion projected over the next 20 years in the fast-growing Santa Clarita Valley.

A citizens advisory committee has already determined that the expressway should begin at Henry Mayo Drive (a portion of the current State 126) at the Golden State Freeway and run parallel to the Santa Clara River until it reaches the Antelope Valley Freeway near Via Princessa.

But the controversy begins when the route crosses east of Bouquet Canyon Road. One alternative under consideration is to run the route north along the river into Canyon Country before jogging back to Via Princessa. This alternative would displace 38 acres of flood plains and 54 acres of wetlands along the river.

The second option is to build the route south of the river along foothills where developers have plans to build at least 138 homes.

“It’s a real trade-off between the taking of the flood plains and wetlands and taking of residential areas,” said Jeff Bingham, an environmental consultant hired by Caltrans to study the effects of the project.

State 126, currently a two- to four-lane state highway beginning in Ventura County, takes a circuitous route through Santa Clarita, along Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road. The road serves up to 33,500 cars a day and is considered by state transportation officials to be hazardous because it has a total of 3.5 traffic fatalities per million vehicles. A comparable street elsewhere has 2.5 fatalities per million, according to Caltrans studies.

The proposed expressway, which is expected to cost between $283 million and $307 million, would run directly across northern Santa Clarita Valley, carrying a maximum of 75,500 vehicles per day. It would have limited access to assure that motorists traveling from one freeway to the other will have few delays.

Although both routes would have undesirable side effects--including the displacement of wildlife habitat, houses, businesses and planned development projects--the north alignment would take away more wetlands and flood plains while the southern route would deal a heavier blow to planned development projects, according to an environmental study on the project.

Throughout most of the year, the Santa Clara River, which runs east and west through the city of Santa Clarita, is little more than a dry riverbed lined by shrubs, cottonwood and oak trees. But environmentalists fear that the northern route would damage the habitat of several species, including two fish--the endangered unarmored three-spine stickleback and the Santa Ana sucker--and the least Bell’s vireo, a small migratory bird that nests in the area.

Shawna Joyce, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Forest Service office in Saugus, said she is concerned about the effect the project may have on the least Bell’s vireo, a federal endangered bird that relies on the riverbanks for shelter, food and nesting spots.

“If that habitat is lost or significantly altered, that could endanger the survival of that species,” she said.

Joyce said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering designating the Santa Clara River in Santa Clarita a “critical habitat” for the bird. Such a designation, Joyce said, would require the state to make additional studies on the project and take extra precautions to protect the bird. “It would complicate things,” she said.

Any wetlands taken by Caltrans must be replaced under federal law with riparian habitat nearby, Bingham said. A more detailed study must be done after the route is chosen to determine how best to replace the wetlands, he said.

Caltrans is also required to pay property owners “fair-market prices” for any land that is taken to build the state highway. But developers fear that the time and money invested in planning new housing projects and businesses on the route will not be entirely recovered.

Chuck Fuhr, a representative of Warmington Homes of Costa Mesa, said his company is interested in buying the land and building homes on 171 vacant lots along the southern route. “So, obviously we would like to see it go north,” he said.

He said Warmington Homes has yet to lose any money because of the proposed project but must put its expansion plans on hold. “Had this not come up, we would be proceeding with the 171 lots,” Fuhr said.

Newhall Land & Farming Co., the largest landowner in Santa Clarita, also favors the northern route because it would connect with Whites Canyon Road, which would improve traffic circulation in the area, said company spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer. The southern route would not connect with Whites Canyon Road.

But Lauffer said the company also has a financial interest in which route is chosen. Newhall Land & Farming owns several acres of land in the path of the southern route that the company has considered using for a mixed-use development project, Lauffer said.

The project would have several negative environmental effects regardless of which route is chosen:

* The Bouquet Center, including 14 businesses, at the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road would be eliminated.

* A planned shopping center across from Bouquet Center would fall within the state highway route.

* A Price Club store east of Sierra Highway and north of Via Princessa would be in the path of the route.

* At least 15 acres of wetlands would be displaced by either route; an additional 39 acres would be displaced under the north route and 24 acres would be eliminated under the south route.

But the environmental study completed in June by Parson’s, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas Inc. of Orange County, concludes that the negative effects are the price that must be paid to improve traffic circulation.

“Since the proposed route adoption will ultimately serve to improve local and regional traffic conditions, local short-term adverse impacts . . . are consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the Santa Clarita Valley and Northern Los Angeles County,” according to the study.

Hunt Braly, a spokesman for state Sen. Ed Davis, who represents Santa Clarita, agreed. “The route is essential to the future transportation needs of our valley.”

A public hearing Wednesday organized by Caltrans to get comments and criticism from officials, residents, and business owners near the two proposed routes attracted about 50 people, most of whom complained that the project would create too much traffic noise.

Although nobody argued against the need for the expressway, several speakers said they are against building it through their back yards.

Michael Kotch, president of the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, urged Caltrans to choose the southern route, which would have the least impact on the wetlands while a Newhall Land & Farming representative asked that Caltrans choose the northern route.

After considering the comments, the advisory committee will meet next month to recommend one of the routes to the California Transportation Commission, which has the final say in the matter. The commission is scheduled to take up the issue in February.

Although Caltrans officials say the project will probably not be built within the next 10 years, the adoption of a route will require local planning officials to keep the highway’s right of way from being developed.

Environmental Impacts of Expressway

Caltrans is considering adopting one of two routes for the road--a north and a south alignment. Both alternatives have negative side effects.

North South Category alignment alignment Cost $283 million $307 million Wetlands lost 54 acres 39 acres Homes displaced 46 0 Planned homes 78 138 Businesses displaced 15; 350 employees 19; 350 employees Hazardous wastes 4 potentially 9 potentially contaminated sites contaminated sites

Proposed Expressway

Caltrans is considering building an expressway connecting the Golden State Freeway and the Antelope Valley Freeway. Two routes are under consideration, a north route and a south route.