SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
November 23, 2009· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

New Courthouse continued

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

newhall

In an editorial this weekend, the Signal praised the state and the county for pushing for a new Courthouse for Santa Clarita.:

Last Monday, the state Public Works Board added Santa Clarita to its list of courthouses to be built in the next five years. It was the final step in the state’s approval process.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich and our local judges, past and present, deserve a great deal of credit for getting Santa Clarita onto the state’s “critical needs” list.

And make no mistake, it is a critical need. Santa Clarita’s current courthouse was built in 1971 only to handle felony arraignments, civil trials, misdemeanor cases and infractions for a valleywide population of about 70,000.

Then, like me, The Signal asked where the Courhouse should go. There are two official possibilities at this point: Pitchess Detention Center and Golden Valley way.

Last week I asked you where you thought the new state-funded courthouse should go.

Surprisingly, 24% of you said “Build it in Old Town Newhall on the recently acquired property across from the library, then we’ll have a town square like in Back to the Future.”

Of course, this isn’t a scientific poll and my answers were hardly unbiased, but I was surprised by the result. And over the weekend I thought more about it.

If our goal is to develop Old Town Newhall as a unique regional pedestrian-friendly shopping and entertainment district, what better way to encourage that than by building a Courthouse on the corner of Lyons & Railroad? Think about it:

  • Courthouses have lots of foot traffic and people milling about for hours and hours on end. What do people in such situations do? They look for places to spend their time & money
  • That location is already served by high-capacity roads (Lyons & Railroad), rail transit (the Newhall Metrolink Station) and Santa Clarita Transit.
  • It will also be served in the future by the Lyons-Dockweiler extension, thus bypassing the fussy HOA in P-Canyon
  • The location of that recently acquired property (across from Billy’s sporting goods) is directly opposite of the new Newhall Library site, which means you could go from reading Crime and Punishment to watching it live
  • Easy freeway access (as easy as Pitchess or Golden Valley at least)

Oh sure there’s problems with the site. For one, it might not be big enough. The City has donated 7 acres of land in Golden Valley for the Courthouse. The county donated 10 acres in Pitchess. Is the newly-acquired property that big?

The City has already talked about putting a "Civic Building" at Lyons and Main Street

The City has already talked about putting a "Civic Building" at Lyons and Main Street

I don’t know (I have a bad sense of scale), but as a founding member of the Santa Clarita Valley Tall Building Society, I think the solution for that is easy: build up!

Finally, there’s one more reason to build in Newhall rather than those other distant and difficult-to-access sites: Courthouses and Libraries give a sense of civic pride to a community. I recognize that’s old fashioned but I believe we shouldn’t hide these civic institutions way up in the hills or on the grounds of a big jail, we ought to display them front and center, right at the end of Main Street, as it were.

Pipe dream? Most likely but apparently I’m not the only one who has it. And it’s not like we haven’t done it before: the existing County Civic Center combines a Courthouse and Library, and it has served us well for decades. And Newhall once had a Courthouse and was considered a community “meeting place” as Leon Worden has explained.

Think about it!

Comments (23)

  1. cashNovember 23, 2009 at 10:51 am
    Jeff, Having spent more than my fair share of time at a court house, I am not certain a court house in OTN will enhance to area. In days of old, court houses may have met Leon’s vision, but in today’s world their clientele has change significantly. There is not much folklor or romance associated with a court house today. The lowest of the low life are the predominate visitors. If this will improve OTN, I do not see how.
  2. CCNovember 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    I don’t think OTN is the place for a courthouse unless we want to see a string of Bail Bonds & Pawn shops occupy the store fronts. I agree with Cash on this one. A bus load of inmates from Pitchess arriving several times a day would not improve the situation down there.
  3. MoneyNovember 23, 2009 at 3:10 pm
    cash: “The lowest of the low life are the predominate [predominant] visitors.” I guess that’s why you spent your fair share of time there.
  4. lvogelNovember 23, 2009 at 3:23 pm
    Interesting that the Valencia library is right next to the current courthouse. Though I have no problem putting a ‘new’ courthouse near the ‘new’ library, I wonder what the city has planned for the existing Valencia Blvd. locations? I’ve always felt that there is more to their agenda then just a new library and courthouse. The area on Valencia Blvd is outdated and dreary looking. I know that they had talked about increasing the size of the Sheriffs office there. Any word on the new Sheriffs office in Canyon Country? hmmm…..
  5. mikeNovember 23, 2009 at 3:42 pm
    I’m assuming that the new courthouse will take on more serious cases than the Valencia house does, am I right?
  6. lvogelNovember 23, 2009 at 4:16 pm
    You mean the current one doesn’t take serious cases? Why not? You mean like murder, rape, etc.? I had no idea. Is it only ‘civil’ cases that currently get heard there? Very interesting; I had no idea.
  7. lvogelNovember 23, 2009 at 4:18 pm
    BTW, that was in no way meant to be taken as sarcasm..really, I didn’t know that crimes (serious ones) were not tried here.
  8. mikeNovember 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm
    yeah, when I went for jury duty they said is was just stuff like DUIs and domestic disputes. Much more then that and it gets handled in San Fernando or elsewhere. I’m sure someone has a better answer, but yeah.
  9. cashNovember 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm
    Thanks for the spell check Money. You always have so much to offer. The new court house will not be reserved to neighborhood disputes and light weight stuff. We will be asked to take our own trash out. A Court house next to where young children will be hanging out, if McLean is right, does not mix with, think about it people. Even civil matters can become deadly, and often do.. Newhall land will be moving soon from Valencia Blvd. City (Bob my last term Kellar) still has its eye on the civic center concept. I think he will be happy to retire with the Bob Kellar Santa Clarita Civic Center all wrapped and ready.. I can see it now; huge sign with bright lights like the DVH University Center. Ego!
  10. JeffNovember 23, 2009 at 5:39 pm
    Well if hardened criminals are coming to this courthouse (no one is confirming or denying) that might change the picture.
  11. mikecNovember 23, 2009 at 7:08 pm
    San Fernando Courthouse handles the criminial filings for a specified region, that stretches from SCV to Chatsworth….ie misd. and felonies…. I believe our local courthouse handles some civil (ud) and in-fractions ie..tickets….The
  12. cashNovember 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm
    Long term we expect 500,000 people will live in the valley. Should we assume this will not be a consideration for the court house development and case load? BTW to you remember the attorney that was shot outside Van Nuys Court house. If I recall correctly this was a divorce settlement hearing. The Ex Husband was angry and shot the attorney. Court houses and kid handouts don’t seem like a good idea to me, if they can be avoided. And yes I know the existing court house is across the breezeway from the library.
  13. cashNovember 23, 2009 at 7:34 pm
    From the March 24, 2009 city council agenda: In addition to a larger facility, a need exists to establish Santa Clarita as its own judicial district. There are currently no minimum population requirements for establishing a new superior court district in the County of Los Angeles. However, based on prior court districting decisions, the minimum requirement to establish a new judicial district was 250,000. The estimated population of the Santa Clarita Valley as of January 2008 was approximately 278,438. This includes approximately 177,045 residents within the City of Santa Clarita and 101,393 residents in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The population of the entire Santa Clarita Valley is expected to grow to over 428,000 residents by 2025 and over 517,000 residents by 2035. (Population statistics based on Judicial Boundary data, not One Valley One Vision General Plan.) The Administrative Office of the Courts has guidelines that govern the type of court services available in certain areas, which include judge and staffing requirements, both of which are guided by the area’s population. According to the Administrative Office of the Court, the recommended population is 200,000 for an area court to be designated as a judicial district, or judicial branch courthouse. The Santa Clarita Superior Courthouse, or an Area Courthouse, is typically designed to serve areas with a population under 200,000 and offer limited services in the area of civil and criminal matters, family and juvenile law (Trial Court Facilities Act 2002). According to this information, the City of Santa Clarita should be designated as a Branch Courthouse so it may offer a full range of services and be equipped with additional courtrooms, security, jury, and judge facilities to handle the additional case load. With the growing population and the needs of local residents for expanded services, staff recommends that the City of Santa Clarita work with appropriate legislators and public officials, as well as contact the State Administrative Office of the Courts to inquire about expanding services at the Santa Clarita Courthouse and designating Santa Clarita as its own judicial district.
  14. JeffNovember 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm
    Whatever cash. People get shot and killed all over the SCV, including Valencia and Stevenson Ranch.
  15. cashNovember 23, 2009 at 8:25 pm
    Whateverrrrrr Valley Boy! So let’s not put kids at risk just to create a sense of place for public gatherings. You are correct people are found killed all over this valley. No place is immune.
  16. cashNovember 23, 2009 at 8:27 pm
    Just type in your zip code. http://www.crimereports.com/
  17. cashNovember 24, 2009 at 10:25 am
    Jeff, have you given any thought to how the grade separation at Lyons and the Railroad will affect OTN. Unless there is an alignment change, to maintain an acceptable grade, the beginning of the approach ramp up to the bridge would almost have to begin in front of the Billy’s store. It seems bridge will take up lots of space. Just picture moving something like the bridge at Wiley and the railroad to Lyons and the railroad. Seems the city needs to answer this question before it even builds the Library. Maybe navigator knows the answer.
  18. mikeNovember 24, 2009 at 10:46 am
    I’m reminded of this engineering marvel from my childhood http://www.dukesonline.com/PhotoDisplay.aspx?ID=13&ReturnThumbnail=0
  19. navigatorNovember 24, 2009 at 10:55 am
    cash, the EIR process still needs to be completed for the crossing. You are correct in assuming the grade will need to start close to the Main/Lyons intersection. The how remains to be seen. There are a few examples in Burbank that’ll give an idea of process. The question still exists as to whether or not the Commission will allow the at grade crossing especially given the fact that it is so close to another.
  20. SamNovember 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm
    What about a Lyons crossing under the tracks & Railroad Avenue and connecting onto 13th Street? Similar to State Street in Santa Barbara (the street goes under the 101 but does’t go under the tracks). A big bridge in Old Town Newhall wouldn’t look “Old Town”.
  21. navigatorNovember 24, 2009 at 3:49 pm
    There is not enough room to fit either a bridge or an underpass at that point. The at-grade option is really the only option. It is also the most dangerous hence the Commission’s hesitance in giving the ok.
  22. CastaicClayNovember 24, 2009 at 3:53 pm
    I don’t think you can go under the RR Tracks at Lyons. There is river that goes through there. The tracks could go over a road at 15th St. I know it is not OTN, but it is the best access point to the Casdan (sp?) property which is the real reason for more access to that side of the tracks.
  23. cashNovember 25, 2009 at 3:55 pm
    http://www.santa-clarita.com/vgp/_pdf/OVOVCircdraft10-09-08.pdf

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support