Court Ruling Stalls Santa Clarita Recovery Plan

A state appeals court has stalled Santa Clarita’s $1.1 billion earthquake recovery and redevelopment plan, saying the city sidestepped environmental laws.

City officials expressed disappointment Thursday, saying the ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal could delay earthquake repair and reconstruction projects as much as a year and perhaps longer, as the city exhausts legal options or completes environmental reports.

“An appeal is probably appropriate,” Mayor Carl Boyer said.

The Dec. 21 decision follows 21 months of legal wrangling between the city and the Castaic Lake Water Agency.

The powerful water wholesaler had sued the city over the Santa Clarita Community Recovery Plan and the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. The water wholesaler claimed it stood to lose as much as $850 million in property tax revenues over the life of the project, a figure the city has repeatedly criticized as inflated.

Santa Clarita incurred $144 million in private property damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. State law allows cities hit by such disasters to establish redevelopment plans without having to complete environmental reports and other details generally required under redevelopment law.

Under Santa Clarita’s plan, the city would have repaired roadways, public buildings, parks, bridges and carried out other projects, such as revitalizing downtown Newhall.

The water agency charged that the city’s plan went beyond mere earthquake repairs.

“Santa Clarita sought to use the disaster provision not only to deal with disaster areas, but also to undertake full-scale infrastructure development that had been sought by the city for a long time,” said R. Bruce Tepper Jr., one of the attorneys representing the water wholesaler.

The appeals court, in reversing a July 1994 Los Angeles Superior Court ruling, said the administrative record showed more concern with economic and infrastructure revitalization than with replacing or restoring facilities damaged in the disaster.

“In the name of ‘emergency’ it would create a hole in [state environmental rules] of fathomless depth and spectacular breadth,” the court said in its ruling.

“Indeed it is difficult to imagine a large-scale public works project such as an extensive deforestation project or a new freeway, which could not qualify for emergency exemption from an [environmental report] on the grounds that it might ultimately mitigate the harms attendant on a major natural disaster.”

City officials counter that the appeals court ruling is tantamount to repealing state laws that give cities the power to deal flexibly with the aftermath of disasters such as earthquakes.

Boyer said city officials had no intention of bypassing environmental regulations and that every project would have been subject to environmental reviews.

Chandler is a Times staff writer and Kirka is a special correspondent.