Santa Clarita / Antelope Valley : Citizens Aim to Put Proposed Transit Corridor on ’94 Ballot

A citizens group wants the fate of a proposed transportation corridor placed on the April, 1994, ballot to make sure the corridor doesn’t pave the way for an eight-lane state expressway.

Citizens For A Better Santa Clarita Valley formed nine months ago in opposition to two alignments suggested for the Route 126 extension that would have connected the Golden State Freeway with California 14 by crossing the valley.

Both alignments were rejected by the City Council in October, and a citizens advisory panel was created to address the chronic problem of limited east-west travel in the Santa Clarita Valley.

The newly suggested corridor proceeds east from the Golden State Freeway along the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road, continues southeast along the planned Santa Clarita Parkway and goes eastward with Via Princessa until it connects with California 14. Panel members outlined the corridor and its supporting network of local roads Wednesday, and critics say it resembles the southern Route 126 alignment and could eventually be used by the California Department of Transportation as a state road.

Jack Curenton, leader of Citizens For A Better Santa Clarita Valley, presented City Council members with a letter Tuesday night calling for a ballot question that would leave the decision of where the corridor should go up to voters.

“By giving it to the citizens to approve, it sort of takes the committee, the planners, the council and puts their feet to the fire to come up with something that is truly good for the community,” Curenton said.

The corridor differs from the southern alignment for Route 126 because the earlier route used a road near Via Princessa and disrupted existing homes, according to City Manager George Caravalho.

Councilman George Pederson said any east-west route through the Santa Clarita Valley will bear some resemblance to the alignments first suggested, but the new roads are significantly different because they include the “major concession” of being a maximum of six lanes wide rather than eight.

Pederson said he is undecided about whether putting the issue on the ballot is a good idea. He said he wants to wait until the proposal passes the Planning Commission.

“I’m generally in favor of citizen participation. I’m not in favor of having an election every time an issue becomes a thorny one,” Pederson said.

Councilwoman Jill Klajic said she is not opposed to placing the corridor on the ballot, but warned area developers might campaign heavily for a route that would benefit builders rather than residents.