Residents Angrily Protest Plans to Extend Highway

A crowd of more than 400 angry homeowners turned out for a meeting with Caltrans officials on plans to extend State Highway 126 westward across the city, protesting noisily against both the routes being considered.

Both alternatives--a route north of the Santa Clarita River and another to the south of the river--would displace existing or planned houses, businesses, development projects and wildlife habitat, and increase air pollution, the crowd complained.

The meeting Thursday night--moved from Santa Clarita City Hall to St. Clare Catholic Church in Canyon Country to accommodate the crowd--often smacked of a stormy political rally or a sporting event, punctuated by hoots, jeers, derisive laughter and standing ovations.

One woman’s epithet prompted someone in the audience to scold: “You’re in church!”

“Will we become another San Bernardino County?” resident Angi Kelley asked to repeated applause.

“How are 50,000 more vehicles per day going to affect the quality of the air that our families breathe? . . . The alignments currently being studied are going to increase the noise level in our valley, create more areas for graffiti, decrease the quality of the air we breathe and tear up our scenery.”

The Caltrans officials said that although the proposed extension is not currently in the state’s 30-year funding plan, construction could begin by the year 2003.

Besides igniting a showdown between environmentalists and developers, the argument over the nine-mile expressway exemplified a familiar American scenario: homeowners who complain they are threatened by the very urban congestion they had moved to the exurbs to escape.

Some in the audience complained that no Santa Clarita City Council members were present, although City Manager George Caravalho and others on his staff attended the meeting. Others said the proposal to extend State 126 originated with city officials, not the state--a point confirmed by Caltrans officials and Caravalho--although the city has not endorsed either the northern or southern route.

“Without the city’s approval,” Cherie Province, a Canyon Country schoolteacher told the crowd, “I can tell you, this project will never go through!”

But Caravalho said in an interview Friday that the city fully supports the east-west extension to relieve pressure on Santa Clarita’s traffic-clogged surface roads.

“The biggest issue in the city when I came here was congestion,” he said. “They wanted roads, roads, roads . . . It’s a difficult problem. People don’t want the freeway there--but at the same time, they don’t want congestion.”

Throughout the four-hour hearing, residents spoke at a microphone or shouted from their seats, voicing fears that the road will increase crime and noise, decrease property values and damage wildlife.

They scoffed at remarks by two Caltrans officials, two consultants and a moderator who sat flanked by aerial maps before a towering mural of Christ’s crucifixion, painstakingly fielding oral and written questions.

The church where the hearing took place sits within a few feet of the proposed northern route, which would cost $283 million and is favored by developers--such as Newhall Land & Farming Co., biggest in the area--but which is opposed by many homeowners and neighborhood groups.

The southern route would be costlier, at $307 million. It would displace some planned developments--but no existing homes--and would pass within a quarter-mile of Santa Clarita’s Metrolink commuter train station, where service to downtown Los Angeles begins on Oct. 26.

“If this northern route is adopted, none of us can sell our homes,” resident Joline Edmiston told the Caltrans officials.

“We have real houses with real people and real kids going to school every day. I don’t know how much voice we have against the big developers, but please listen to us!”

For their part, Caltrans officials insisted that residents whose houses are displaced by the extension of State 126 would be paid fair market value for them by the state. They emphasized, too, that the highway is needed to accommodate the fast-growing Santa Clarita Valley’s growth and traffic congestion in the next 20 years.

“You’re entitled to fair market value, based on property values of comparable homes outside the corridor,” Jim Dusini, a Caltrans right of way agent, told the crowd. In some instances, those who “move up” by purchasing higher-priced houses will be paid the difference, he said.

“You’re also entitled to moving expenses--and if you have a Proposition 13 tax benefit, you can move that benefit to your next property. We really do provide a lot of benefits.”

Referring to the current state budget crisis, someone in the audience shouted: “Will you write us an IOU?”

The Caltrans officials tried to assure residents that their concerns will be addressed before the state decides next February whether to adopt the northern or southern route.

“Your voice and your concerns, believe me, carry as much weight as the developers’,” Wally Rothbart, a Caltrans planner, said, drawing howls of skepticism.

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.