Board Puts Off Decision on Controversial Westridge Project

In a flurry of decisions involving development in the northern reaches of Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors on Thursday approved 1,104 condominiums in the Santa Clarita Valley, 19 houses in northwest Chatsworth and a large Antelope Valley shopping center.

But they failed to pass judgment on the largest and most controversial of the projects before them: the 1,890-house Westridge Golf Course Community planned for an oak-filled area of Valencia south of Magic Mountain.

After listening to more than an hour of testimony concerning the Newhall Land & Farming Co. project, which would cut into a county-designated Significant Ecological Area and require the removal of 232 oak trees, the board voted to wait until Sept. 3 to make a decision. They said they would use that time to review written testimony, which will be accepted until Aug. 14.

Although the county Regional Planning Commission narrowly approved the project in February, the city of Santa Clarita appealed that decision to the supervisors. The city argued that despite an array of compromises agreed to by the developer, the ecological area remained an unsuitable location for the golf course and more than 100 of the houses.

“The city’s main concern has not been resolved,” said Santa Clarita Deputy City Manager Lynn Harris.

More than 100 people wearing “YES Westridge” stickers on their shirts filled one side of the supervisors’ chambers Thursday. Opponents complained that many of the supporters work for the developer, but Chief Executive Officer Thomas L. Lee denied that, saying that fewer than 10% were Newhall Land & Farming employees.

Lee, who proposed the development six years ago, said it would create thousands of jobs and bring millions of dollars in tax revenues to the county.

He also said that the golf course is an essential component of the development and could not be located on other Newhall Land & Farming property, as some opponents suggested Thursday.

Developments that on Thursday received zone changes allowing them to proceed include:

* A 634-unit condominium project proposed by American Beauty Investment Co. for 43 acres in Sand Canyon. County Planning Administrator John Schwarze said the project was smaller than the 732 units authorized for that property by the county Specific Plan. A developer of adjacent property spoke in opposition, saying the county was requiring him to meet stricter conditions. Supervisors recommended that he appeal those restrictions to the board.

* A 352-unit condominium project in Saugus, north of Newhall Ranch Road, which will be part of the North River project. The project had previously been opposed by nearby homeowners, who said that when they bought their houses they were led to believe that some of the project land would be preserved as open space. But on Thursday, they said they had agreed to a compromise proposed by the developer, also Newhall Land & Farming, that includes construction of a wall and an earth berm between the two projects.

* A 118-unit condominium project east of West Sierra Highway in Sand Canyon. The project was supported by the city of Santa Clarita in part because developer Percy Vaz agreed to grade the hilly land with a gradual contour instead of the more severe terraced slopes preferred by many of the region’s builders.

* An 83,000-square-foot shopping center on eight acres in the Antelope Valley community of Acton, near the corner of West Sierra Highway and North Crown Valley Road. The Acton Town Council supported the project, although one local resident opposed it Thursday, saying the county should impose more restrictions on the project. As a result, supervisors agreed to bar liquor stores and pornographic book or video stores from the center.

* A 19-unit planned residential development on the edge of Chatsworth, north of the Simi Valley Freeway near Movie Lane Road. The project had previously been opposed by some nearby residents who wanted the property to be preserved as open space, but no opponents testified at Thursday’s hearing.