The city of Santa Clarita is asking residents to protest the Judicial Council of California’s chosen site for its eight-story courthouse, according to a city news release Thursday.
The Judicial Council of California issued a notice of preparation in October for a massive 4-acre courthouse complex at the former site of The Greens, which is 26501 McBean Parkway.
The site has been vacant for years, was proposed for a multistory hotel and then became an abandoned property the city had to take nuisance-abatement action on, prior to last month’s announcement.
But more recently, the property has been identified as part of a billion-dollar development plan for the area, which is only one of the issues mentioned by the local opposition.
“The city of Santa Clarita has serious concerns regarding the project proposed by the state Judicial Council for an eight-story courthouse on the property on McBean Parkway,” read a city call to action from Carrie Lujan, the city’s director of communications.
Both city staff and elected officials issued statements in reaction to the plans that expressed surprise and a lack of communication prior to the announcement, a contention the Judicial Council pushed back on during an outreach meeting on Nov. 12 in Santa Clarita.
“The state Judicial Council did not notify, or consult with, the city on their selection of the site,” according to the statement from Lujan.
“The location is unsuitable, due to anticipated impacts to traffic circulation and given its proximity to residential, commercial and retail areas,” Lujan’s statement continued. “Moreover, the project scope directly conflicts with the community and economic characteristics within that corridor.”
City Manager Ken Striplin said in a phone interview Thursday that the McBean Parkway location was definitely not on the list of sites the city deemed acceptable for the courthouse, which the Judicial Council said happened twice.
Striplin said the city had identified three locations as acceptable: one was off Golden Valley Road, and two were on Sierra Highway.
City officials shared a copy of the letter they sent the Judicial Council in May 2023.
Kim Bobic, the courthouse project manager for the Judicial Council, indicated at the meeting the courts had a list of acceptable sites given from the city and county more than two years ago at the start of the process, which was discussed several times and even updated.
In the weeks before the meeting of representatives from the Judicial Council, the state court agency had one other potential site in mind, but the owner, Five Point, took it off the table, leaving the courts with little option, according to Bobic.
Bobic said most of the properties on the list were ineligible based on state criteria, so another list was sought.
“We got the same list of three properties, one of which was already under entitlement with the city. One was (in a 100-year) flood plain and the other one wasn’t available,” she said, referring to the May 2023 letter.
Bobic also said on more than one occasion during the Judicial Council’s Nov. 12 outreach meeting that the current courthouse site, which is a structure owned by the city and the county, was the preferred destination.
Striplin said he was made aware of the county’s plan when the state published its notice in October.
The county indicated in a statement Monday that it doesn’t have plans for the future of the outdated and seismically deficient structures that currently serve as the courthouse, space for several local county service offices and the city’s Valencia Library.
But also noted that there are big plans for the area being discussed, and a massive justice center hub for the region was not included in them.
While the court was making its plans for the property, the city envisioned the lot as part of the city’s Valencia Town Center Plan, a framework the city approved last year in the hopes that Centennial would “reimagine” the mall property as a mixed-use regional retail destination, a la the Irvine Spectrum Center.
Centennial did not respond to a request for comment on the courthouse plan.
The Dallas-based real estate developer-owner-operator purchased the mall property across the street for nearly $200 million more than two years ago, and its team has toiled on plans that have slowly leaked out. The future anticipated investment is expected to reach hundreds of millions of dollars, adding more than 2,000 homes and acres of commercial development too.
A statement from L.A. County on Monday indicated that city and county officials told the council that neither party had an interest in relinquishing the resources currently housed there without an adequate replacement identified.
“Los Angeles County could not agree to a plan that demolished the current courthouse but did not include funding to relocate county staff and services, including Sheriff’s Department operations, that are currently operating at the courthouse site or being served by the adjacent power plant,” according to a statement attributed to the county’s CEO, sent Monday by Lennie LaGuire, director of countywide communications.
“Any future new courthouse building would be solely owned and operated by the state of California,” according to the statement. “There are no approved plans for any reuse of the current courthouse site. As the Judicial Council of California continues its long-range planning for a future state-owned courthouse, the county will develop plans for any changes or reconfigurations of the existing site that may be needed to serve Santa Clarita residents.”
County officials also shared a letter sent to the Judicial Council in January 2024 that mentions the Valencia Town Center plan, as well as the current need for its buildings there, in asking the state to remove the current courthouse site from the list.
The new facility addresses a number of needs for the state courts’ fastest-growing region, according to the Judicial Council.
The new building would have 24 courtrooms, eight large ones and 15 multipurpose rooms and an arraignment courtroom in approximately 278,000 building gross square feet.
It would allow a major consolidation of services, create resources needed for growth and address outdated facilities, according to the Judicial Council.
Striplin said he couldn’t say what the next step would be for the city until staff had an opportunity to have a discussion with the City Council and receive its direction.
He said prior to the agenda’s release for Tuesday’s City Council meeting that he expected the talk to take place in closed session, adding that it could either be part of a property discussion or potential litigation. Both types of discussions are typically exempt from public-disclosure laws.
When asked if the property could be part of potential litigation, Striplin paused before answering:
“The (City) Council will have all the options made available to them.”
The state’s project page is available here: bit.ly/SCVcourthouse.
