RULING ON ROAD CLOSURE DELAYED JUDGE GIVES CITY CHANCE TO DECIDE.

Byline: Heather MacDonald Staff Writer

LOS ANGELES - A judge on Friday postponed a ruling on whether the barricades at Valley Street and Calgrove Boulevard should be removed, saying the City Council should be allowed to vote first.

Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe continued the Hidden Valley and Alamitos Lane homeowners associations' lawsuit against the city, and stayed another lawsuit filed by Citizens Against Barricades until March 26, allowing the City Council 60 days to reach a decision.

``The council's actions will probably resolve this issue,'' Yaffe said from the bench. ``At least, that's what I hope. I do not want to have to make this decision.''

The City Council has voted five times in 13 years to keep the road closed and maintain a homeowners association-owned private gate.

The associations, which want to keep the road closed, sought to stop the city from preventing access to their gate from the road, which allows some Newhall residents to use Valley/Calgrove. The other lawsuit asks the judge to remove the barricades and open the road.

``We were hoping that this would be resolved today,'' said Glenda Bona, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Barricades. ``I just hope that the city decides to operate within the law.''

Citizens Against Barricades' lawsuit contends it is illegal for the city to close a road built with public money - or to continue to allow some homeowners to use the route from the Golden State Freeway to Lyons Avenue and downtown Newhall, while preventing others from doing the same.

However, other residents are concerned that opening the road would create a public safety nightmare by increasing the numbers of cars on the two-lane residential road.

Thursday night, the Santa Clarita Planning Commission recommended that the barricades be removed, and at least $25,000 worth of speed humps, traffic circles, signals and striping be installed to prevent Valley/Calgrove from becoming a heavily used road.

Several council members wanted to vote on this controversial issue before Friday morning's ruling, arguing that the City Council was elected to make these sort of tough decisions.

Councilman Cameron Smyth said he was pleased with the judge's decision.

``This is the responsibility of the council,'' Smyth said. ``The council should not hide behind the judge's robes.''

However, Councilman Frank Ferry said he was disappointed by the judge's decision.

``The court punted,'' said Ferry, who has twice voted to open the road. ``Not one of the council's decisions have been legal. We need a judge to interpret state law, and help us make the right decision.''

The council is expected to hear the case in late February or early March.