Chatsworth Homeowners Sue to Block Courthouse : Neighborhoods: The group contends that the project’s environmental report did not consider adverse effects on the area.

A group of Chatsworth residents who have fought for more than two years to keep a municipal courthouse out of their neighborhood is attempting to block the $51.5-million project in the courts.

The homeowners filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County on Thursday alleging that the environmental impact report evaluating the project at Plummer Street and Winnetka Avenue violated state laws because it did not adequately consider the adverse effects on the adjoining neighborhood.

“A courthouse should not be across the street from a residence and we hope to stop that,” said Harry Godley, chairman of the 1,000-member Chatsworth Homeowners Committee, which filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Godley said that if the county properly studies the project’s effect, as the lawsuit requests, officials will see that the courthouse should be relocated.

County officials said Friday they had not yet seen the lawsuit but denied that the environmental review of the project was faulty. They added that plans for the courthouse will continue, despite the pending litigation. Last month, county supervisors approved spending $12.3 million to buy the 9.6-acre site and the purchase is expected to be completed any day, officials said.

“We are trying to be good neighbors,” said Robert J. Quist, deputy administrator of the Municipal Court. “But their position is that there should never be a courthouse there. Our position is that there is nothing inconsistent with having a courthouse in that location.

“The EIR is very clean. It’s not like we are putting a chemical plant in. It’s a courthouse, which is like an office building.”

The courthouse would be built at the end of a commercial-industrial area, where it bounds a neighborhood of single-family houses.

The lawsuit contends that the courthouse would lower real estate values, increase traffic and pollution in the area, and expose residents to danger.

“The county’s EIR seeks this court to believe that a nice and quiet neighborhood will not be severely impacted by another half million strangers, driving their cars, exposing residents to vehicular accidents, many of whom are appearing in the courthouse for drunk driving,” the lawsuit reads in part.

“Any person who has seen any municipal courthouse in the morning is familiar with the long lines of frustrated people who received tickets, anger showing in their faces, eyeing the adjoining neighborhood with resentment and hostility.

“The dangers of court are best known to judges who receive protections from marshals and metal-detecting equipment at the courthouse door. The county considered no such protection for the residents.”

Quist said the residents’ fears are unfounded.

“We don’t think a person going in to pay a traffic ticket is a bad guy,” he said.

No date yet has been set for a hearing on the suit’s request to stop the project.

Marvin L. Rudnick, the homeowners’ attorney, said that even if the hearing takes place after the purchase of the property is completed, an order could still be granted halting further progress.

“We think we have a very strong argument,” Rudnick said. “They wrote an EIR that justifies the use of that piece of land. If we are successful they still won’t be able to go ahead and build the building.”