Business Group Backs Extension of California 126 : Santa Clarita: Proposed project is intended to reduce surface-street traffic. Opponents say it would displace homes and threaten a wildlife habitat.

The controversy over a proposed extension of California 126 that would displace homes in the Santa Clarita Valley flared anew Monday when the area’s chamber endorsed the plan, saying “the overall benefits . . . must take priority over neighborhood concerns.”

Chamber of Commerce President Marlee Lauffer said she wrote the Sept. 17 letter on behalf of the chamber’s board of directors to Jerry Baxter, executive director of Caltrans District 7, which includes Los Angeles and Ventura counties, to reinforce the chamber’s support of extending the highway.

The project would extend California 126 from the Golden State Freeway on the west to the Antelope Valley Freeway on the east. The extension is intended to reduce traffic on surface streets in the city of Santa Clarita.

Many homeowners and environmentalists have vigorously opposed the nine-mile-long project, saying it would displace existing or planned houses and threaten a wildlife habitat.

Leaders of two residents groups took issue Monday with Lauffer, who said the letter bearing her signature was drafted by the chamber’s staff and approved by the chamber’s board.

“That letter is an absolute contradiction,” said Jack Curenton of Canyon Country, a director of Citizens for a Better 126. “Since the chamber says in this letter that it supports ‘the betterment of the region as a whole,’ isn’t this region composed of neighborhoods?

“I’d like to know which neighborhoods the chamber does not support. Which ones are on the chamber’s hit list?”

Vera Johnson, chairwoman of the Santa Clarita Citizens’ Transportation Committee, said: “I don’t think Marlee Lauffer has read the environmental impact report on this road. If she had, she wouldn’t have written the letter. She has ignored the destruction of wetlands. And she has ignored the destruction of close to 50 homes.”

In the letter, Lauffer wrote that the project “serves a tremendous local need and will greatly benefit the entire valley. Without 126, our circulation system will not work, and congestion will occur on existing and planned roads.”

Lauffer works for Newhall Land & Farming Co., the valley’s largest developer, which also has steadfastly supported the expressway and which owns undeveloped land near a point where the road would split into a $283-million northerly or a $307-million southerly alternative route.

But she said no conflict of interest exists between her chamber presidency, a volunteer position, and her full-time work as Newhall Land’s spokeswoman.

“The chamber president has always come from the business community,” she said. “I don’t make any decisions unilaterally as president of the chamber. I’m speaking on behalf of our board.”

Neither the chamber nor Newhall Land, she said, has a preference regarding the proposed northerly or southerly routes. Newhall Land, she said, had initially favored the northerly alignment “because it would provide access to Whites Canyon Road. But we’ve since learned that the southern alignment would accomplish the same thing.”

Lauffer said the road is “critically needed” and that “we are aware of all issues surrounding this project, and the chamber’s transportation committee has studied them thoroughly. Vera Johnson sat in on meetings of this committee.”

Although many homeowners individually and in groups have opposed any extension of California 126, some concede that a non-freeway road would help unclog east-west traffic through the valley.

“We definitely need a road,” Curenton said, “but let’s build the right roads for the right reasons.”

California Department of Transportation officials say they will decide whether to adopt either route early next year, adding that even though the proposed extension is not part of the state’s 30-year funding plan, construction could begin by 2003.