Developer Requests for Exclusions May Stall Santa Clarita Cityhood Election

A last-minute effort by two large developers to withdraw some of their vacant property from the proposed city of Santa Clarita could jeopardize a cityhood election in November, officials said Wednesday.

The companies, Newhall Land & Farming Co. and G.H. Palmer Associates, made their requests on Wednesday to the Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees incorporations.

LAFCO had approved Santa Clarita’s 43-square-mile boundary in April.

If LAFCO agrees to consider a boundary adjustment it could take six weeks to draw up new revenue and expenditure figures for the city, said Ruth Benell, LAFCO’s executive officer. Such a delay, she noted, would make a November cityhood election an impossibility.

But LAFCO commissioners urged Benell to compress her timetable and gather financial data from the various county departments before the group’s next meeting on June 24. If that could be done, the November election could still be held, even if the commission decided to alter the boundaries.

Budget Deliberations

Benell said she would attempt to get the information quickly, but she said it would be especially difficult, since the county is in the midst of budget deliberations.

Cityhood backers criticized the developers’ request to remove about 136 acres from the city and speculated that it was a ploy to scuttle cityhood.

“Further delays would be unconscionable,” said Connie Worden, vice chairwoman of the Santa Clarita City Formation Committee. “It appears on the surface that they deliberately held back to see if they could delay the November election.”

The developers, however, denied the accusation.

Arthur K. Snyder, the former Los Angeles city councilman who represents G.H. Palmer Associates, said the subject was not broached earlier because the head of the company was sick during the LAFCO hearings.

Gloria Casvin, a vice president of Valencia Co., the development arm of Newhall Land & Farming, said she does not believe that the request will endanger cityhood.

“It’s not our intent to hold up the city election in any way,” Casvin said.

She said the company decided to make the request when they heard that the incorporation issue was being reopened at the behest of the Board of Supervisors. The board has asked LAFCO to stipulate that the new city would have to pay the county for certain services and reimburse it for a loss of sales-tax revenue during its first few months. The commission will consider the supervisors’ request at its June 24 meeting.

Both developers said their plans to build apartments, condominiums and a shopping center on the properties will be further complicated and delayed if they have to deal with a new city government.

The developers’ move is “very unusual,” said LAFCO chairman Kenneth Chappell, who expressed frustration at the latest incorporation wrinkle.

“We had several hearings on this thing. . . . I think we gave everyone ample time to present their request,” Chappell said. “However, I have an open mind. I’m not making a decision one way or another.”

Benell said the developers have the right to request a boundary change because the Board of Supervisors has not yet set an election date. The board is expected on July 9 to schedule the election.

This is not the first time Santa Clarita’s boundaries have been attacked. Originally, city supporters advocated a 95-square-mile city. But LAFCO pared it down to 43 square miles after rejecting the city backers’ 75-square-mile alternative.