Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (2)AGENDA REPORT NEW BUSINESS DATE: February 13, 1990 SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REPORT DEPARTMENT: City Mana BACKGROUND: City Manager Approval Item to be presented b George Caravalho As you know, the City worked for many months to prepare a report to obtain a sphere of influence as is provided for in State law. When the City made its presentation in front of LAFCO, it was apparent that the City got very little consideration for the very logical arguments made. A letter has been drafted documenting this process for the State legislature and others.' This letter will be helpful for others to gain an understanding of the types of frustrations a new city faces when trying to obtain a sphere of influence. The proposed letter, as well as a list of those who would receive it is attached. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council authorize the Mayor to sign and send the attached letter dealing with the sphere of influence. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed letter with distribution list. Agenda Item: City of Santa Clarita Jo Anne Darcy Mayor Carl Boyer, 3rd Mayor Pro -Tem Jan Heidt Councilmember Dennis M. Koontz Councilmember Howard "Buck" McKeon Councilmember 23920 Valencia Blvd Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 City of Santa Clarita Fax California 91355 (805) 259-8125 February 13, 1990 Dear : On November 15, 1989, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the County of Los Angeles denied the City of Santa Clarita's request for a sphere of influence extending beyond its existing boundaries. In reaching this decision, we feel the LAFCO continues a series of actions which are inconsistent with the legislative mandate of the Cortese -Knox Act of 1985, and call into question the LAFCO's ability and willingness to exercise its authority fairly and independently. Our purpose here is to express our thorough disagreement and dissatisfaction with the sphere of influence process in the County of Los Angeles, and to solicit your support for possible legislative changes. The City of Santa Clarita is located in the center of the. Santa Clarita Valley, approximately 35 miles northeast of metropolitan Los Angeles. Incorporation of the city in December, 1987, was the culmination of nearly twenty years of effort by residents of the Santa Clarita Valley to gain control over local land planning and development decisions. Valley residents had for many years felt that their relatively small numbers and remoteness from County of Los Angeles hearing rooms had severely limited their ability to control rampant growth and insure quality, sustainable growth, or even participate in the decision-making process. Past and current County development approvals in the Santa Clarita Valley reflect the correctness of their sentiments. The incorporation was only moderately successful in achieving the goal of local regulation of land use and development. During incorporation proceedings, the size of the proposed city was reduced by more than half by the LAFCO. And while the originally proposed boundaries included thousands of acres of undeveloped land, the final city approved by the LAFCO contained predominantly those areas which had already been developed; less than 20 percent of the developable land in the Santa Clarita Valley was placed under the jurisdiction of the city. Of gravest concern to the officials and residents of the City of Santa Clarita is the development which continues under the aegis of the County of Los Angeles in the remaining 80 percent of the valley, which completely surrounds the city. Frankly, we already live with the reality of the County's past decisions, and we fear the future consequences of the County's development policies. These policies have resulted in unrestrained growth, inadequate roads, overburdened schools, parks and similar public facilities, underdeveloped economic opportunities, and a general deterioration of the quality of life in the Santa Clarita Valley. As just one example, there are approximately 40 thousand dwelling units currently in the City. At our periphery an additional 20 thousand units have already been approved by the County, and another 47 thousand have been proposed in the Santa Clarita Valley and are pending approval. In light of this situation, we believe our concerns to be valid, and have repeatedly communicated this to the appropriate County officials and agencies. To date, County responses and actions have done little to assuage the fears or concerns of this community. In response, City officials have sought a sphere of influence over a significant portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. Though acknowledging the sphere's limited usefulness in influencing the actions of another jurisdiction, it would at least increase the amount of consideration the County must give to City concerns. Additionally, the sphere would reflect our general plan area and support long-term planning efforts. At the LAFCO's direction, the City prepared a comprehensive sphere of influence study and submitted it for the Commis'sion's review in August, 1989. The City also spent over $20,000 preparing a topographic model of the Santa Clarita Valley so that major roads, facilities and new growth could be quickly located for presentation. A November hearing was set for the proposal shortly thereafter. As already mentioned, the LAFCO denied the City's requested sphere of influence on a 4-2 vote. It further rejected the recommendation of its own staff for a modified sphere, designating instead an area coterminous with Santa Clarita's current boundaries. In all but the technical sense, they designated no sphere at all. We believe that the LAFCO has shown with this action a clear prejudicial bias toward the protection of county and individual developer interests to. the detriment of the general public. Furthermore, we believe the LAFCO's unarticulated and unwritten policies are subject to manipulation leading to arbitrary decisions and inconsistent application of the provisions of the Cortese -Knox Act. Finally, we believe that the LAFCO did not fairly consider all evidence presented to it and, in fact, had arrived at its decision prior to the public hearing. We are led to these beliefs by some of the activities which took place before and during the hearing. The following partial listing of points illustrates and supports our sentiment: - LAFCO staff recommended approval of less than 50% of the requested sphere. - LAFCO staff did not consult with city officials during the formation of its recommendation. - When asked by the City to reconsider and/or amend the recommendation prior to the hearing, LAFCO staff stated that this could not be done. - LAFCO staff later, at the commencement of the hearing, made substantial changes to its original recommendation. (City officials had not been notified and were completely unaware of staff's proposed change.) - LAFCO staff cited the eleventh -hour submittal of a "cityhood" proposal within the City's requested sphere as sufficient reason for changing its recommendation. - The "cityhood" proposal was received by the LAFCO two days before the hearing. (The City's sphere request had been submitted to the LAFCO two and a half months earlier.) - The "cityhood" petition received by the LAFCO was spearheaded and financed by a major land developer and included signatures of putative future residents still in' escrow. - The LAFCO staff report heavily emphasized the concerns of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District over the placement of four existing and proposed landfills in the City's sphere, and used those concerns as the basis for removal of the areas from the City's proposal. The areas of concern to sanitation officials constituted less than four percent of the total sphere area requested. City staff was informed of heavy developer lobbying of LAFCO members against the City's request (not unusual). Though they gave no public testimony, several Building Industry Association officials were present at the hearing and conversed repeatedly with at least one member of the LAFCO while testimony was ongoing (highly unusual). Lack of a general plan by the City was cited by several LAFCO members as a partial basis for their denial action. LAFCO has conditioned the City's reapplication for a sphere of influence on the adoption of its general plan. While a reasonable policy established by most other LAFCOs in the state, this LAFCO had never articulated this requirement to the City and has, by its own admission, approved spheres many times in the past without the benefit of an adopted general plan. The general content, character and tone of the LAFCO's deliberations make it clear that the City's compelling reasons for requesting the sphere were not of concern to the LAFCO members. - A full transcript of the hearing is available on request. We recognize that the City of Santa Clarita is not unique in facing the challenges and demands of heavy growth pressure. However, in light of the above, the City remains politically powerless to affect the massive scale of development occurring just beyond its corporate limits. Studies commissioned by both the County and the City show conclusively that existing infrastructure in the valley is inadequate to service our community, and that future needs are not being met by County policies. We are alarmed by this, and fear we will eventually inherit these problems when county residents request annexation to achieve local services and representation. Opposition to the City's sphere of influence and comprehensive general plan program is strong and includes the County of Los Angeles, the Building Industry Association, and several large, independent .residential land developers. Given the current disposition of the LAFCO and the strength of this opposition, City officials are not sure of how to proceed in a responsible manner. In relating our dissatisfaction with the process to you, we seek your understanding of our situation, solicit your ideas and suggestions, and earnestly open the door to a forum for continued discussion of this issue. At least one idea we have considered would be a LAFCO "board of appeals," a board composed of LAFCO officials and commissioners from around the state to whom decisions made by individual county commissions might be referred for review. Given that the dilemma faced by this city appears localized, perhaps a statewide legislative remedy is not required. For, while it is clear to us that most LAFCOs in California are discharging their mandate successfully and effectively, it is equally clear that this is not the case in Los Angeles County, the wealthiest and most populous county government in the state. In closing, I wish to emphasize that the City's primary concerns are not related solely and specifically to the most recent action taken by this LAFCO, but to the pattern of decisions which have systematically thwarted the efforts of local, municipal governments to effectively achieve and plan for a prosperous future. On behalf of the City Council and citizens of the City of Santa Clarita -- and the Santa Clarita Valley -- I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely yours, Jo Anne Darcy Mayor POTENTIAL RECIPIENTS OF SOI LETTER OF 1/13/90 1. League of California Cities 2. Assemblymembers Wright and Davis 3. Congressmen 4. Governor 5. CALAFCO 6. All County LAFCOs (especially Ventura) 7. Cortese 8. Newspapers 9. TV News 10. Attorneys 11. Lobbyists 12. Judges 13. School Districts 14. Office of Planning and Research 15. APA 16. LA County Supervisors 17. Association of Contract Cities 18. Independent Cities Association 19. Richard Dixon, CAO, LA County 20. SCAG