Judge Halts Huge Westridge Project, but Backs County

Environmentalists and developers both claimed partial victory Monday after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge halted the 1,880-home Westridge development, but upheld the county’s policy regarding building in ecologically sensitive areas.

In his decision handed down late Friday, Judge Robert H. O’Brien said the county failed to adequately discuss or analyze the effects of the 799-acre project on air quality. Further, the county gave “only lip service” to its own requirements that schools and libraries are adequate to serve the development.

“We’ve got to have developers pay their fair share,” said Keith Pritsker, spokesman for Stevenson Ranch Residents for Responsible Development, one of the plaintiffs in the suit. “All too frequently, these builders try to find ways to shift the costs back to the public as a whole, and the local community suffers as a result.”

The decision invalidated all the permits for the Valencia project and sent it back to the developer, Newhall Land and Farming Co., and the county to address the air quality, school and library issues.

Marlee Lauffer, spokeswoman for Newhall Land and Farming, said the company has not decided what its next step would be and it doesn’t know what O’Brien wants the developer to do to improve Westridge.

“This project had to go through a variety of different hearings. We had to follow all the rules and regulations in place and the project was fully analyzed,” Lauffer said. “So we are a little unclear as to what the judge is suggesting.”

The Westridge project includes an 18-hole championship golf course and an array of houses ranging from townhomes to condominiums. Newhall Land and Farming would have spent $15 million in road improvements, built a reclaimed water system and dedicated some money for schools in the area.

Detractors of Westridge contended, however, that the water system would have primarily benefited the golf course and that the money for schools would have been required under current law.

The primary goal of the lawsuit, however, was to preserve the Valley Oaks Savannah, one of a string of Significant Ecological Areas in the county. Environmentalists had accused the county of ignoring Westridge’s impact on the ecological area in approving the project.

Judge O’Brien, however, disagreed, saying that the county had faithfully followed its policy with regard to protecting environmentally sensitive areas.

The Westridge project engulfs a county-designated Significant Ecological Area that is primarily known by its valley oak trees and savanna grasses. Originally, the lawsuit was filed to protect the SEA.

While environmentalists tried to put the best face on the ruling, saying that for now, at least, it protects the area, they also conceded that they were disappointed.

“I was real unhappy with that portion of his decision,” said Lynne Plambeck, vice president of the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, which originally filed the lawsuit. “I don’t know if we’ll fight with them anymore on that.”

Plambeck and others were hoping that a ruling against the county on the issue of protecting the 310-acre Valley Oaks Savannah would also spare from development the other 60 areas in the county designated as ecologically significant.

Environmentalists have long complained that the county has not strictly enforced the SEA system, which was created as a result of a lawsuit against the county to protect the county’s natural resources. Since the system was established in 1980, SEAs have become the sites of golf courses, houses, hotels, retail and office space.

“SEAs were never meant to simply block all projects,” said Joel Bellman, spokesman for county Supervisor Edmund Edelman, “He (Edelman) has always tried to take a balanced view toward the environment and development.”