More Trims Suggested for Santa Clarita City Proposal

The head of the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission Wednesday suggested Wednesday that the proposed city of Santa Clarita be drastically reduced from five unincorporated Santa Clarita Valley communities to just two: Newhall and Valencia.

“It’s got to be an April Fool’s joke,” reacted Carl Boyer III, chairman of the Santa Clarita City Formation Committee.

“It would be very bad for the valley,” he said. “All of our problems are valley-wide.”

The boundaries must be approved by LAFCO before the proposal can be submitted to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, who will decide whether it will be put before the voters of the proposed city.

Ruth Benell, LAFCO executive director, suggested that the boundaries be reduced for financial reasons to include just the Newhall-Valencia area.

“Newhall-Valencia is a developed area with a nucleus of industry, commercial and residential activity,” Benell said. “That area generates more revenue.”

Fewer Services Needed

She said that would eliminate some of the costly services necessary in less developed areas, such as brush-fire protection.

Her suggestion was one of several moves aimed at whittling down the 95-square-mile city originally proposed, which would include Castaic, Canyon Country, Saugus, Newhall and Valencia.

LAFCO has expressed concern about the city’s size, the largest ever to be brought before the commission, and the financial problems that would entail. Benell has already suggested eliminating much of the westernmost part of the area.

Earlier in the week, a county official said there were indications that the Sand Canyon area would be deleted from the proposed city. Roger Berger, assistant deputy director of the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, said the Sand Canyon bridge was not included in the maps of the proposed city he and other county officials were given for study and comment.

But its backers still believe that the city as originally configured is “financially viable,” said Connie Worden, vice chairwoman of the City of Santa Clarita Formation Committee.

Valley’s Unity Cited

“We know we must make some concessions, and we’re willing to make some, especially along the western boundary, but to eliminate Sand Canyon would be to tamper with the cohesiveness of the valley,” she said.

Cityhood proponents worry that reducing the city to its most profitable revenue-generating areas could leave too much of the Santa Clarita Valley outside the boundaries.

“We could wind up with a rich city that might turn in upon itself and not be concerned with the valley-wide area,” Boyer said.

“Our basic concerns are the same--traffic, schools and water, and those absolutely demand valley-wide solutions.”

LAFCO, which has seven members, instructed Benell in February to redraw boundaries to reduce the budget of the proposed city. Benell suggested eliminating Castaic and parts of Newhall and Valencia west of the Golden State Freeway, including Magic Mountain. However, because of public opposition, LAFCO postponed a decision.

Her revised recommendations are scheduled to be disclosed next week, before an April 22 public hearing, she said.

New Budget Projections

In the meantime, Benell said, she has asked county departments for their budget projections for the revised area.

Berger said the map he received to work with excluded the Sand Canyon bridge, which local residents say provides the main access from Canyon Country to the residential area of Sand Canyon.

Benell would not confirm or deny that Sand Canyon will be deleted from the upcoming version of the boundaries, although she confirmed that the Sand Canyon bridge was not included in Berger’s map.

She said the map circulated among county departments did not necessarily depict final revisions, but acknowledged that more trimming of the proposed area is probable.