Lines Drawn in Santa Clarita Bid for Control of Growth : Growth: The city says it needs a sphere of influence the size of Atlanta to prevent overdevelopment. A coalition of opponents is challenging the request.

If the city of Santa Clarita had its way, it would plan the future of the surrounding Santa Clarita Valley, roughly 160 square miles of oak-stubbled canyons ripe for development.

That’s an area larger than Atlanta. Put in international terms, it’s more than twice the size of the tiny nation of Liechtenstein.

But diverse forces--including the building industry, homeowners in Castaic and even Los Angeles County sanitation officials--are lobbying to quash Santa Clarita’s territorial ambitions. At stake--at least in the eyes of the city’s residents--is the future of the Santa Clarita Valley, where developers hope to build thousands of new homes and sanitation experts want to open at least two new garbage dumps.

City officials already are drafting plans that envision a valley where parks are plentiful, schools uncrowded and oaks and hillsides preserved for posterity. Many residents, disillusioned with explosive growth allowed by county government, fear those goals will remain just dreams unless the city extends its grasp over the surrounding valley.

“I think it’s necessary to control what they’re doing to us in the Santa Clarita Valley,” said planned-growth advocate Robert Silverstein, referring to developers and county government. “Most of the development is being built outside the city.”

How the valley will grow could be determined in part Wednesday when Santa Clarita officials ask the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, to grant Santa Clarita a “sphere of influence” over 160 square miles of unincorporated land bordering the 40-square-mile city.

A sphere of influence establishes the potential future boundaries of a city, and its creation is a standard step in a city’s incorporation. A sphere of influence does not give a city control over unincorporated areas but does confer political leverage over land outside its borders.

Santa Clarita officials admit that their proposed sphere is unusually large. “But there are good reasons for that,” Assistant City Manager Ken Pulskamp said.

Santa Clarita is the heart of the burgeoning valley, and growth throughout the region ultimately will affect city residents and services, Pulskamp said. It makes sense, he said, to draft a unified plan for the region’s growth.

The proposed sphere would extend to the Ventura County line on the west and to the Los Padres and Angeles national forests on the north and east. The Santa Susana Mountains would form a natural border for the sphere to the south.

But LAFCO Executive Director Ruth Benell is recommending that the commission chop Santa Clarita’s request by more than half. LAFCO, which oversees incorporations and annexations, could accept Benell’s recommendation, approve the city’s proposal or draft its own sphere of influence boundaries.

Benell said her recommendation was based partly on the city’s performance record. Santa Clarita is still a month away from its second anniversary and has not had sufficient chance to prove its capability to guide or serve the surrounding valley, she said.

If LAFCO approves Benell’s recommendation, the city would be denied influence over two canyons viewed as dump sites by the Department of Public Works, Department of Health Services and the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Those agencies asked Benell to keep the canyons, Elsmere and Towsley, out of the city’s grasp.

Another roadblock to Santa Clarita’s ambitions was thrown up by residents of Castaic, where the local chamber of commerce collected more than 500 signatures on petitions urging LAFCO to leave Castaic under county control.

“We do not want to be included in the city of Santa Clarita in any way, shape or form,” said Dennis Havranek, chamber president.

Castaic, known primarily as a truck stop along the Golden State Freeway, was to have been included in the new city until LAFCO scaled back Santa Clarita’s original cityhood proposal two years ago. But now, Havranek said, Castaic residents have lost confidence in Santa Clarita, calling its government ineffective. He cited, for example, the City Council’s inability to influence the debate over a dump in Elsmere Canyon.

Also fighting Santa Clarita’s expansion goals is the Dale Poe Development Corp., which plans to build more than 9,000 homes outside the city west of the Golden State Freeway. But part of that development is included in the sphere recommended by Benell. In a Sept. 27 letter to LAFCO, Poe said that including his development in the city’s sphere may create “unresolvable conflicts” that would slow his plans for more than 4,600 units.

In a novel attempt to avoid Santa Clarita control, Poe has suggested forming his own city. Benell said Poe has explored the idea but had not submitted a formal incorporation request. Poe was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Pulskamp, the assistant city manager, said fears that the city’s control would be overbearing are unfounded. “We’re not trying to hamper anybody’s project,” he said.

But Santa Clarita already has adopted ordinances that could hinder some developers’ plans.

Silverstein cited a strict city ordinance passed this year to protect the valley’s trademark oak trees. Another new ordinance requires larger--and more--parking spaces in commercial projects than those required by the county.

Moreover, the city is drafting a general plan for the entire Santa Clarita Valley, even though it has no legal obligation to do so. A general plan acts as a broad blueprint for development.

Under state law, a general plan must address seven categories, or “elements,” such as public safety, transportation and housing. Santa Clarita’s draft plan is more comprehensive, adding six new elements not required by law. They include human resources, community design and even air quality--a subject usually addressed by state and federal authorities.

The draft says flatly that new development should be allowed only if there are public services, such as roads and schools, to support the growth.

Santa Clarita’s desire to plan for the entire valley prompted a stinging letter last month from Richard R. Wirth, a lobbyist with the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California. In short, Wirth said, Santa Clarita was trying to do too much too soon--and over too large an area.

“You walk before you run,” Wirth said in an interview.

In his letter, Wirth said the city should wait for LAFCO to establish its sphere of influence before it starts planning the whole valley’s future. He suggested that the city throw out the six additional elements added to its general plan.

“It simply makes little or no sense to expend taxpayers’ money on efforts to create plans beyond the scope of what is required under existing law,” Wirth wrote.

Santa Clarita officials, meanwhile, insist that regional planning for the Santa Clarita Valley makes sense. “We still feel strongly that the original presentation ought to be adopted,” Pulskamp said.

In an effort to win the support of LAFCO commissioners, Santa Clarita invited them to take an aerial tour of the valley to get a better picture of growth trends in the region.

None of the commissioners took up the city’s offer, Benell said. “I think the commissioners are pretty aware of what’s going on in that area,” she said.