Panel Gives Blessing to Plan for New City

A proposal for a City of Santa Clarita was approved Wednesday by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission, moving the bid a step closer to a referendum by voters in the area.

The cityhood proposal, which now goes to the county Board of Supervisors, calls for a city of 43 square miles with about 90,000 residents but excludes most of the Santa Clarita Valley’s undeveloped land.

The supervisors, who will decide whether to place a cityhood measure on the ballot, have 35 days to schedule a hearing on the issue.

Cityhood backers expressed disappointment that the entire 95-square-mile area originally proposed was not included in the boundaries approved by the commission but repeated their prediction that the proposal would pass. Once a city is created, its government will likely look to annex the nearby land, they said.

“About 7,000 registered voters were left out,” said Carl Boyer III, chairman of the Santa Clarita City Formation Comittee. “That’s at least 14,000 or 15,000 people” left out, he said, counting children.

Magic Mountain Omitted

Omitted from the proposal were the community of Castaic, parts of Valencia and Canyon Country--including two large housing developments in which 15,400 homes are under construction--the Magic Mountain amusement park and other revenue-producing commercial areas west of the Golden State Freeway.

Commissioners voted 5 to 0 in favor of the city boundaries as drawn by LAFCO Executive Director Ruth Benell. She scaled down the original proposal by Boyer’s committee that called for a city with a population of about 106,000.

Local residents began a cityhood drive last year, saying they wanted more control over development in what is the fastest-growing area of Los Angeles County.

County Supervisors Pete Schabarum, who opposed the plan in a preliminary vote last month, and Ed Edelman, both members of the commission, were not present. But they will have another chance to vote on the issue because the Board of Supervisors has the final say as to whether the cityhood plan will be placed on the ballot.

For the measure to pass, two-thirds of the voters within the proposed city would have to approve it.

Savings in April Election

Schabarum opposed the cityhood plan because the county, under state law, will have to pay about $3 million to subsidize the city until the end of the fiscal year--meaning for more than six months--if the referendum is held in November, the target date set for an election by the cityhood committee. An April vote would save the county most of that money, he said.

Cityhood backers said they fear that the supervisors will try to delay the election until April for that reason. Supervisors would have to act before Aug. 7 for there to be time to place the measure on the November ballot, Benell said.

“We plan to appeal to the good will of the supervisors,” Boyer said.

The cityhood committee is not alone in criticizing the boundaries as drawn by Benell.

The California Highway Patrol is concerned because the boundaries go down the middle of the Golden State and Antelope Valley freeways, CHP Capt. Bill Kelley said. This could cause both short- and long-term problems, mainly jurisdictional, he said.

Jurisdiction Problem

As long as the area is unincorporated, the CHP handles traffic enforcement there. But if a city is created, it will contract with the Sheriff’s Department for that service.

“If a traffic accident occurs on an overpass, it will be a problem deciding whose jurisdiction it is in,” Kelley said.

CHP officers issuing citations will have to make careful note of where the tickets are issued, Kelley said. In the northbound lanes of the Golden State Freeway, the city will collect the lion’s share of traffic fines, whereas revenue from fines for violations in the southbound lanes will still belong to the county, he said.

Benell said LAFCO often selects center lines of streets and freeways as boundaries because they are easily identifiable.