The following letter was sent to Kim Bobic, senior project manager of facilities services at the Judicial Council of California. She is the point person on the proposed eight-story courthouse on McBean Parkway.
I am sending this to express my concerns about the proposal by the Judicial Council of California to construct an eight-story courthouse at 26501 McBean Parkway in Santa Clarita. The project’s SCH Number is 2025101327.
It appears that this proposal considers neither the impact on the local community nor the concerns of local citizens. I certainly can appreciate the need for updating and expanding the courthouses, but the Judicial Council has chosen a location that both it and the surrounding community will come to regret if the facility is built.
As I understand it, the proposal is to construct a new, eight-story (plus basement), 24-courtroom (eight large courtrooms, 15 multipurpose courtrooms, and one arraignment courtroom) courthouse of approximately 278,000 building gross square feet.
Our family resides a few blocks from this proposed structure, which is in a predominantly residential neighborhood. The property is across the street from the Valencia Town Center mall, which was recently purchased by a developer with plans to construct hundreds of additional residences on the site, which means the courthouse will be inserted into an even larger residential neighborhood.
The proposed structure is inconsistent with the master plan for the area that has been approved by the city of Santa Clarita. An eight-story structure will tower over every other structure and will dominate the skyline. The city of Santa Clarita was extremely concerned about the aesthetics of two proposed hotel developments on that site. Each of those proposals were more aesthetic than what the Judicial Council is proposing.
The property is near the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway, which are already two of the busiest streets in the Valencia community. That stretch of McBean Parkway is the primary route for emergency vehicles travelling to our only local hospital. Additional courthouse traffic will result in delays for emergency vehicles, which will restrict their access to the hospital.
Valencia Boulevard is also a major thoroughfare and is a principal access route for College of the Canyons. During peak academic hours Valencia Boulevard is already congested. Again, additional courthouse traffic will exacerbate existing traffic issues.
The redevelopment of the Valencia Town Center property across the street is expected to increase traffic considerably. The city of Santa Clarita will likely have to reconfigure several streets in order to address the extra traffic generated by the redevelopment. Adding an eight-story courthouse to existing proposed redevelopments will result in gridlock.
The proposal calls for approximately 330 parking spaces in the basement and on the premises. It is hard to believe 330 parking spaces will be sufficient for the proposed level of activity that would be conducted at the new courthouse. According to the Judicial Council’s notice, the courthouse will contain the following component areas: public area – lobby, security screening; 24 courtrooms; judges’ chambers and courtroom support; court operations; clerk’s office; family court services; alternative dispute resolution services; self help area; administration and information technology offices; jury services; sheriff area; central in-custody holding area, including vehicle and pedestrian sallyports; and building support areas. Undoubtedly, hundreds of people will be present daily in the new courthouse facility.
Our residential neighborhood is already plagued by people parking in front of homes due to inadequate parking for businesses and multifamily residences in the neighborhood. It already is difficult to find parking places when shopping at local businesses. The proposed courthouse will likely make matters worse.
The proposed courthouse is likely to increase both the amount of police activity and the number of criminals brought into our neighborhood. This will adversely affect the neighborhood.
Certainly, there are better alternative locations with greater access that are better than the suboptimal choices presented in your proposal. I urge you to work with the city of Santa Clarita to find a better location for this project.
Jim de Bree
Valencia
