Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - CITY COUNTY JOINT PLANNING (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: i CONSENT CALENDAR Lynn M. Harris DATE: December 6, 1992 SUBJECT: City -County Joint Planning Report DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On February 26, 1992, the City Council asked staff to work with Los Angeles County Regional Planning staff to explore ways of cooperative planning. At the same time, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich requested that County staff work with Santa Clarita staff. Phase 1 of the "Joint City -County Planning Program" (attached) is the result of the combined efforts of both staff groups. The purpose of the Report is to provide the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the City Council with a comprehensive overview of options for coordinated planning for the 254 -square mile Santa Clarita Valley. The report is expected to be used by both the County and the City to Identify those options with the best possibility of achieving Joint City and County goals. The report presents program goals, summarizes existing cooperative procedures and Jointly administered activities, and gives examples of methods and approaches for coordinated city/county planning. Each example is followed by a brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of that particular method's application in the Santa Clarita Valley. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council take action to approve the following: 1) Accept the Report as a working document and Identify alternatives the City may wish to explore with the County; and, 2) Consider appointment of a two -member Council subcommittee to meet with a member (or members) of the County Board of Supervisors to establish mutual policy direction for continuation of this effort. councillcrycnflcmk v • 61 • JiMM-MERwyl�l Agenda Item: J m® .Ln r 7 NG RED JOIN I n orlpi 0 0 .0 0 ■ joint CITY -COUNTY planningprogram BACKGROUND report PREPARED JOINTLY BY: County ofLosAngeles Regional PlanningDepanment City ofSanta Clanta Community Development -Department Planning Division J�t� °F lA$ AhCF( December 1992 �gIIF°NNZP County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Dean Dana, 4th District, Chairman Michael D. Antonovich, 5th District Edmund D. Edelman, 3rd District Kenneth Hahn, 2nd District Gloria Molina, 1st District Regional Planning Commission J. Paul Robinson, Chairman Patricia J. Russell, 5th District Sadie B.Clark, 2nd District Rene G. Santiago, 1st District Richard C. Wulliger, 3rd District Executive Office Larry J. Monteilh, Executive Officer Department of Regional Planning James E. Hartl Director Jon Sanabria Chief Deputy Director - Project Manager Lee Stark Supervising Regional Planner Russell J. Fricano Regional Planning Assistant II City of Santa Clarita City Council Jill Klajic, Mayor Jan Heidt, Mayor Pro -tem Carl Boyer Jo Anne Darcy George Pederson Planning Commission Jack Woodrow, Chairman Jerry Cherrington Louis Brathwaite Pat Modugno David Doughman City Administration George Caravalho, City Manager Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager Community Development Department Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager Community Development Christine L. Trinkley Principal Planner - Project Manager Donald M. Williams Senior Planner Christine M. Kudija Assistant Planner 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ....................... 2 II. PROGRAM GOALS ..................................... 3 III. EXISTING COOPERATIVE PROCEDURES AND JOINTLY ADMINISTERED ACTIVITIES .............................. 4 Joint Programs ........................................... 4 Formal Meetings/Committees.................................. 7 Information Exchange ....................................... 8 Public Participation Program ................................... 8 IV. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA "COUNTY MONITORING' PROGRAM .. 10 V. METHODS, APPROACHES AND MODELS FOR EVALUATION IN IMPLEMENTING JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING ........... 12 Multi -Jurisdictional Agreements ................................. 12 Example of Lead Agency Authority: Mufti -Jurisdictional Input ............... 19 VI. TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND AGREEMENTS .. 20 Contracts .............................................. 20 Administrative Agreements .................................... 20 VII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II .......... 21 VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 22 APPENDIX ................................................ 23 COORDINATED PLANNING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA CLARITA - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PHASE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita with a comprehensive overview of options for coordinated planning for the 254 -square mile Santa Clarita Valley. This report is expected to be used by the City and the County to identify those options with the best possibility of achieving joint City and County goals. The reader most interested in these options should immediately proceed to page 12 of the report. The report presents program goals, summarizes existing cooperative procedures and jointly administered activities and gives examples- of methods and approaches for coordinated city/county planning. Each example is followed by a brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of that particular method's application in the Santa Clarita Valley. The report concludes with options and recommendations for Los Angeles County and Santa Clarita to explore during Phase II of the Coordinated Planning Program. The Phase II report will discuss pertinent policies of each agency and will elaborate issues to be addressed by the coordinated work effort. Finally, the report will develop steps toward achieving an appropriate mechanism for coordinated planning, whether that mechanism be a Memorandum of Understanding, a Joint Powers Agreement, or some other formal or informal agreement for implementing coordinated planning. This project has been the result of City Council's direction on February 26, 1992: that the Department of Community Development staff work with Los Angeles County Regional Planning staff to explore avenues and areas of cooperative planning. At the same time, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich requested that County staff work with Santa Clarita staff. ' Phase I of the "Coordinated Planning Program" is the result of the combined efforts of both staff groups. The primary and overriding goal of this program is to promote consistent and sound planning and to enhance the quality of life in both incorporated and unincorporated parts of the Santa Clarita Valley. "Quality of life" is a subjective and elusive term, which defies easy descriptions. Even so, the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County are more likely to achieve abetter quality of life for the citizens of the Santa Clarita Valley by working together than apart. I I 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Santa Clarita Valley (SCV) deserves coordinated planning by both jurisdictions in which it lies. However, planning for the Santa Clarita Valley is complex and involves many players. The primary governmental players, the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles, have authority to make planning decisions that may affect the Valley far into the future. While the City of Santa Clarita was formed so that planning from a local perspective could take place, the City shares the SCV with land governed by Los Angeles County. As the City has grown, so has its awareness of the need to work together with the County. Ultimately, the quality of life in the Santa Clarita Valley will depend heavily on how this happens. When Santa Clarita incorporated, planning for the area within City boundaries proceeded with gradually evolving policies and standards that became — or were perceived to become --- more restrictive than the County's. At this time (1992), the City's General Plan has been adopted for one year, and the Unified Development Code is before the City Council for consideration. In 1990, Los Angeles County updated the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. Planning goals and policies of the two jurisdictions, while ultimately having the same orientation (fostering a high quality of life for the citizens of the Santa Clarita Valley), often differ in their implementation. As the City has progressed in its experience in making land use decisions, and in observing decisions made by Los Angeles County decision -makers, the need for coordination of goals, policies and standards has become evident. No project can succeed without a direction: the program's goals are listed first. The report then reviews existing cooperative work between the City and County, as well as the City's current County Monitoring program. Selected examples of cooperative planning ventures from other parts of L.A. County, California, and the nation provide models to consider in program development. The report ends with some alternative means for doing "cooperative planning." Alternatives such as a "Joint Powers Agreement" or "Memorandum of Understanding" are conventional mechanisms for multiple agencies to work together. Other mechanisms, formal or informal, may be as successful. 2 II. PROGRAM GOALS ■ To promote compatible and sound planning and to enhance the quality of life in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley. ■ To promote compatible land -use policy and development standards in the Santa Clarita Valley (includes resolution of differences in existing policies) ■ To emphasize compatible infrastructure planning, design, and installation in incorporated and unincorporated areas. ■ To coordinate development fees for infrastructure and other public facilities. ■ To utilize locally -generated fees and revenues locally, both in the City and in the unincorporated areas. ■ To maximize opportunities for review and input on discretionary projects. ■ To provide fair and equitable means for public representation and participation. 3 I 1 111. EXISTING COOPERATIVE PROCEDURES AND JOINTLY ADMINISTERED ACTIVITIES There are a number of areas in which the City and.County already work together formally or informally to address various planning issues. Bridge and thoroughfare districts, fire facility fees, trails planning, and comprehensive traffic modeling are some of these. A coordinated planning program would not necessarily change the manner in which these operate, although they might function within a more formal structure. A. Joint Programs 1. Council of North County Planning Directors The planning agencies of Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County meet bi-monthly (second Tuesday, 1:30 p.m.) to exchange information and discuss issues of mutual interest. The designated representative for these meetings is the head of the planning agency for each jurisdiction; staff members often attend, along with invited participants from other agencies. The location of these meetings rotates between the three cities. (While Los Angeles County is an equal participant, all meetings are held in North County due to distance.) The host city is responsible for preparation and distribution of the agenda, although everyone has an opportunity for input. No formal minutes are prepared. 2. Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts The Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66484) enables local agencies to require fees for the provision of bridges and major thoroughfares, provided that the improvements and project boundaries are identified by the City's General Plan (Circulation Element) and local ordinance. When the City incorporated, the Los Angeles County Ordinance 21.32.200 was adopted, which defined the existing "Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) Districts," project boundaries, and established development fees and the method of collection. Subsequent City Resolutions 91-106 and 91-127 established the current fees (to be applied to development projects within the City). Presently, there are two adopted B&T Districts: Bouquet Canyon and Route 126. Other districts, Valencia and Via Princessa, are under study and have not been adopted. Bouquet Canyon, Route 126, and Valencia Districts include areas under both County and City jurisdiction; Via Princessa is entirely under City jurisdiction. Fees are collected by both jurisdictions prior to filing of final maps or to issuance of building permits, and retained in accounts to provide for construction of specific projects - such as the Whites Canyon Bridge - when sufficient funds are accumulated and the need for the project is determined. L 0 I 3. Joint Traffic Model Standards The City and County are developing a Joint Traffic Model to provide uniform and consistent traffic and infrastructure impact measurements and definitions for the entire Santa Clarita Valley. This joint model will provide a more uniform technical basis for evaluating impacts associated with proposed development as opposed to the current use of two separate models. When this project is completed, all new project evaluations in the Santa Clarita Valley will be required to. be consistent with its methodologies and assumptions. Also, implementation of this model may require amendments to the Circulation Elements of both the City General Plan and the Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan. 4. School Impact Fees The School Facilities Act (Gov't Code Sections 65970-65981), adopted by the California Legislature in 1986, enables local governments to require developers to pay fees to mitigate impact on schools, and limits the amount of those fees. However, recent court decisions - particularly the Mira decision regarding legislative (General Plan and zoning) decisions - have allowed local governments to require "mitigation fees" in excess of those limits. Consequently, both the County and the City have required "mitigation agreements" between project applicants and the local elementary and high school districts, as a condition of project approval. This agreement process has culminated in a mutual agreement among the County, City, the William S. Hart High School District, and the various elementary school districts to a specific fee for development projects: $2.50 per square foot of residential construction. Fees are paid directly to the school districts involved prior to issuance of building permits. Applicants are informed at both the County and City Building and Safety public counters where to deliver fees, and receive receipts from the school districts, which are then documented in the respective building permit file. 5. Fire Fees In response to the intent of the Board of Supervisors that new development pay its fair share of fire protection and facility development costs, cooperative effort between the County and City, as well as the Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster, has resulted in an agreement to exact a standardized fee for new development. (The Fire Protection Districts of Los Angeles County do not have authority to levy development fees.) Fees are now levied at the building permit stage. Any project which has qualified for a building permit on or before September 28, 1990, would be exempt from the fee, unless the project has a special condition of approval requiring participation. 5 Expenditure of funds collected is planned as follows: ■ The County and the City will agree on construction priorities such as new fire station locations. The City will collect and maintain funds until the District sends a bill for expenditures. ■ The City and District will maintain records and share projections of fund balances on a regular basis. 6. Trails Planning The City Trails Coordinator and the County Northern Region Park Projects Coordinator meet on a monthly basis to coordinate trail needs and connections, and review maps and programs. Other agencies such as the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Recreational Trails Committee, and citizens' groups are consulted frequently for their input. 7. Significant Ecological Area Study Although not a jointly -administered program, the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Study has important implications for both the County and the City. The Department of Regional Planning, in conjunction with consultant Michael Brandman Associates, has prepared this study to update the County SEA'S. The project is being conducted in two phases. Phase 1 has focused on seven SEAs in unincorporated areas of the SCV, in the San Francisquito Canyon SEA (SEA No. 19). This part of the study augments the Department of Regional Planning information on SEAs. Phase 1 reports include generalized flora and fauna lists, parcel ownership, topography, delineation of SEA boundaries, and recommendations for SEA management. Phase 2 is pending due to funding. This program will analyze the balance of the unincorporated SEA's, as well potential new ones. B. Transit Planning and Operations Santa Clarita Transit provides public transit services to both County unincorporated and City of Santa Ciarita residents in the Santa Clarita Valley. Service planning, route planning, and park and ride facility development is closely coordinated with the.Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (North County Transit Liaison.) Joint projects are developed and contractual agreements are in place for shared funding and inter -agency staff support. I 0 {1 B. Formal Meetings/Committees Formal interjurisdictional committees have been formed to address mutual concerns of both the County and the City, as well as other regulatory agencies. These committees are composed of policymakers and/or agency staff, depending on the policy/procedural focus of the committee. Two examples are presented here: Santa Clara River Task Force The Santa Clara River Task Force is a consortium of public and private agencies and individuals from Ventura and Los Angeles Counties with a wide variety of interests in the River. The informal group has met monthly to discuss policy issues concerning the River since November 1991. The initial purpose of the Task Force has been to share information and discuss issues from the viewpoints of the various interests represented. Ventura County Supervisor Maggie Erickson Kildee has organized and chaired the meetings, which have all been well attended (40-60 persons). Both the County of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Clarita have been represented at every meeting. Each meeting agenda has focused on various aspects of River activity; speakers representing diverse interests on these subjects have been included in a forum designed to provide everyone with a comprehensive perspective of the issues. Regulatory agencies with public interests, infrastructure providers, private land developers, mining pursuits, and general environmental interests have all been represented. Agenda topics which have been discussed in previous the General Plans for. each City and County in the resource preservation, each control, beach erosion, transportation and water supply and distribution. 2. Interdepartmental. Engineering Committee meetings have included corridor, environmental sand and gravel mining, I The Los Angeles County Interdepartmental Engineering .Committee (IEC) is comprised of representatives of Los Angeles County Departments of Public Works, and Regional Planning as ex -officio members, and engineers of state or city participating agencies. The IEC serves as a technical highway planning and engineering advisory body. Its primary responsibility is to recommend amendments to the County Highway or Bikeway Plans and to approve alignments or revisions of plan routes. e Committee consensus validates the authority for its recommendations as deriving from the legislative responsibility of the constituent officials, departments and their respective authorized delegates participating in the consensus. IEC members also counsel and represent the decision -makers of their respective agencies, as well as the County Regional Planning Commission. Regular meetings are conducted by departmental delegates authorized to represent constituent officials. Jurisdictions potentially impacted by the IEC's actions are invited to testify and participate in these meetings. 11 C. Information Exchange 1. Case Filings and Activity City and County staff regularly exchange information on new case filings. When new cases are filed, notices are sent out for review by each agency. Other County agencies, such as the Fire Department, Health Services Department, Sheriff Department, are involved in case review and processing. ' 2. Development Monitoring System (DMS) The County's Development Monitoring System is designed to measure the potential impact of new development on various services and forms of infrastructure. The City contributes to the County's data base by supplying ' information about pending, approved and recorded land divisions within its jurisdiction. This data is then inserted into the .County master. database of current subdivision activity. in exchange, the County periodically provides the City with copies of DMS printouts and maps, which summarize project descriptions and indicate status for projects in both City and County areas. ,. 3. Building and Safety Services The City and County Departments of Building and Safety frequently exchange information on an informal basis regarding building permit activity within the Santa Clarita Valley. 4. Contracted County Services The City contracts with the Sheriff's Department and Fire Department for services, through a mechanism originally used between the City of Lakewood and Los Angeles County (described in Part IV of this report). Other services performed by the County within the city include street and sewer maintenance, traffic signal maintenance; flood management, fire protection, health services (sewer, septic systems, mosquito abatement, etc.), mapping, and recorder services. D. Public Participation Program Since April of 1991, the City of Santa Clarita has regularly conducted informational meetings regarding any action that might be perceived to be controversial, might have a significant effect on the quality of life, or would substantially change City rules, programs, taxes, or fees. This program, which could grow into a joint City/County program, fosters continuing good public communication and participation in the City decision-making process. The purpose of the Public Participation Plan is to ensure that local citizens, developers, and other interested parties are provided an adequate opportunity to become involved in City decision-making, ensure two-way communication I I] between local citizens and public officials, avoid unnecessary confrontations between local citizens and City representatives, and achieve public consensus on important local issues. Public Participation Plans have been conducted by the City for such potentially controversial issues as the Unified Development Code, the Hillside Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines; the annexation program, (as well as individual annexations), and the Development Impact Fee Study. I I I I I I I I I I 11 I 11 I I II IIV. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COUNTY MONITORING PROGRAM At the direction of the City Council in August, 1990, staff in the Community Development Department began systematic review of major development projects in the unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley (SCV). The purpose of this comprehensive review was to increase the City's participation as an interested agency in projects which, although not within the City's jurisdiction, might affect the City's ability to provide municipal services to SCV residents. General policy direction for monitoring of projects in the unincorporated area is given in Land Use Policy No. 1.9, (Santa Clarita General Plan, Land Use Element), which states that the City shall "continue to pursue a policy of cooperation with Los Angeles County and seek adequate documentation, modification, and mitigation of infrastructure impacts beyond or.bordering the City's boundaries" with the intent to "preserve the character of the communities and the integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley." (General Plan, Land Use Element: Growth Management Goal I.) In concurrence with this policy, projects that have been monitored have been almost exclusively within the City's 256 -square mile planning area, with an emphasis toward projects immediately adjacent to City boundaries. In the 1991-92 fiscal year alone, projects encompassing a total of 6,158 residential units and approximately 12,000,000 square feet of industrial/office space were reviewed. County Monitoring Process and Thresholds for Review Projects are selected for review based on combined factors of location and proximity to City boundaries, consistency with adopted County and City plans and policies for development, nature of entitlements requested, project size (number of lots for residential projects, floor area for commercial and industrial projects), environmental setting, traffic generation, and local infrastructure availability and/or deficits. The Initial Study prepared by County staff assists in determining specific site and cumulative impacts, and impacts of the project to the City are screened according to a checklist which incorporates City environmental review thresholds, (established by City Council Resolution 91-50), and City Traffic Engineering Traffic Impact Report Guidelines. Staff now receives periodic notice of project application filing, preparation of environmental impact reports, and public hearings, and keeps an updated copy of the County's Subdivision Activity Map. However, as in the City, the number of new filings has decreased from previous years, and many developments presently being processed within the County have been in the "permit pipeline" for more than two years. Often, the City is given a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for review and comment two months prior to the public hearing on the project which is the minimum amount of time necessary to review the document, present findings to Council, and submit testimony to the County. This is due in part to the many projects that were suspended during the County's Area Plan Update process, and are now being revived at times as determined by the applicant. Staff has written numerous letters of comment and has presented testimony on various projects; requesting that the County require such project changes as conformance to the midrange density of the County Areawide General Plan, additional traffic mitigation and infrastructure construction and/or funding, changes in project design to accommodate 10 sensitive ares or to preserve hillsides and oaks, and architectural review. Issues raised by the City have been addressed by continuation of the project, field trips by the Regional Planning Commission to the site, and the addition of City -proposed conditions to the requested entitlements. 11 If V. METHODS, APPROACHES AND MODELS FOR EVALUATION IN IMPLEMENTING JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING j Precedents for successful interjurisdictional governmental agreements and organizations exist throughout the County, State, and nation. These vary in degree of complexity and scope depending on whether the organization is responsible for multiple or single issues. The following are examples of interjurisdictional strategies being implemented by other communities who have united to address common challenges. A. Multi -Jurisdictional Agreements 1. Los Angeles County: Ventura Freeway Corridor Plan Update ' Eight participating jurisdictions have agreed to jointly finance a consultant -prepared plan for the Ventura Freeway Corridor. A consensus plan, focusing on land use and circulation, will be prepared for the entire corridor north of the Coastal Zone boundary (the Cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills . and Westlake Village, and the unincorporated area). These five jurisdictions, along with the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Las Virgenes Unified School District and the National Park Service have signed a single Memorandum of. Understanding that specifies the organizational structure and responsibility of the agencies. The selection of the consultant must also be approved by the all of the participating agencies. The County will manage the selection process and work program of the consultant. In addition, the County will have the responsibility of administering the consultant contract and representing all of the participating agencies by serving as the contracting party with the consultant. A two year, two phase planning program is proposed. The first year program includes identification of active planning programs throughout the corridor and analysis of planning issues—especially those with cross- jurisdictional impacts. Second year products include formulation of the Ventura Corridor Land Use Policy Map and related Plan components, as well as the establishment of procedures for implementing programs of inter -jurisdictional impacts. The product may be used by any of the jurisdictions for preparing or updating their own general plan elements. Application to the Santa Clarlta Valley: Pros: ■ Ongoing, existing model of L.A. County MOU with several County cities ■ Formal agreement, specified roles ■ Specified procedures for cross -jurisdictional program Implementation ■ Opportunity for formal comparison/evaluation of policies and programs t12 L-] Cons: ■ Limped duration: 2 years ■ Consultant Involvement and expense ■ Orientation Is for Plan Update and policy review: In light of the recent adoption of the City General Plan and the County SCV Area Plan Update, major policy additions may not be appropriate (although implementation and standards to follow existing policy might be.) ■ No obligation on the part of any- jurisdiction to modify adopted policies or programs 2. Cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills: "Tri-Citles Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)" for the Transportation Improvement Study On February 13, 1991, the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood (Tri -Cities) completed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to perform a joint Transportation Improvement Study to "identify and mitigate the adverse traffic impacts arising from intensification of land uses in the Tri -Cities area." (Tri -Cities MOU, Section 2) This precedent -setting MOU outlines a program and defines the role of each participant in the study. Los Angeles is the Lead Agency for day-to-day project administration, and a steering committee composed of one representative from each agency provides overall project management and technical staff support. The MOU also stipulates each agency's responsibility for payment, project timelines and the use of information generated from the study. When the study, which includes the examination of at least 130 intersections, is completed, the participating cities will have information essential for identifying and prioritizing street improvements, public transit improvements, and ridesharing programs. Application to the Santa Clarlta Valley Pros: ■ Similar to current Santa Clarita/Los Angeles County Joint Traffic Model effort ■ MOU defines programs and jurisdictions' roles ■ MOU defines mechanisms and prioritizes Improvements ■ Staff of each jurisdiction represented on steering committee ■ One agency - City of L.A. - Is designated lead for administration Cons: ■ Single -Issue MOU related to traffic Improvements only ■ Consultant expense 13 3. Ventura County: "Guidelines for Orderly Development" and Countywide Planning Program The Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development, originally adopted in 1969 and updated in 1985, are designed to clarify the relationship between the cities and the County with respect to urban planning and municipal services. Ventura County policy determines that urban development should occur within or in the sphere of influence of already incorporated cities, which are considered primarily responsible for local land use planning and provision of municipal services. New applications for urban uses or development within a city's Sphere of Influence are encouraged to apply for annexation to the city (and then to process entitlement applications in the city), and are discouraged from applying to the County. In addition to a sphere of influence, each city has an "area of interest." Should development be proposed within a city's area of interest, the application is processed by the County; however, the city's land use goals and policies are applied to the project by the County. The Guidelines thus enable local governments to work cooperatively with the County, by allowing for urbanization corresponding to goals and policies of the individual cities, and conserves the agricultural resources of the County. Associated with the guidelines is the Ventura County Countywide Planning Program (CPP), which coordinates fiveregional planning programs: the Subregional Transportation Plan (Ventura County Association of Governments); Sphere of Influence Plan (LAFCO); Water Quality Management Plan (County); Wastewater Reuse Program (County) and the Air Quality Management Plan (Air Pollution Control District). The CPP is administered by the County Board of Supervisors, the Local Agency Formation Commission, and the Ventura County Association of Governments. Three committees (staff advisory committee, CPP advisory committee, and advisory policy committee) provide support and feedback for program administration; 56 local agencies, special districts, and others participate in project and program review. Application to the Santa Clarita Valley i' Pros: ■ Comprehensive, structured jurisdictional roles In administering land use policies ■ Local planning Issues addressed locally ■ Urban development administered by cities through high level of cooperation between county and city ■ Designation of urban service areas and boundaries create efficiently delivered and utilized urban resources 14 1 4. ■ Mechanisms such as transfer of development credits assist In the concentration of development within the urban service area Cons: ■ May require exchange of jurisdictional responsibilities for land use decisions ■ If adopted, may set precedent forCounty authority In other unincorporated areas ■ City Sphere of Influence presently coincident with City boundary; Ventura County G.O.D. require larger Sphere to be effective ■ City "Area of Interest" defined by City only - may need to be adopted by LAFCO or County ■ L.A. County has well-established departments, staff, and procedures for administering local planning process. Riverside Cities and County: Growth Management Strategy In response to a County -wide growth management ballot measure, which, although it was defeated at the polls, indicated interest in controlling burgeoning growth in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, the cities of Riverside County have joined with the County to develop a comprehensive growth management strategy. Currently in draft form, the program is a collective effort to coordinate development policies and standards for the unincorporated areas between Riverside County cities. (The program has used the Ventura County policies, discussed in No. 3 above, as a model). As in Ventura County, an important aspect of the strategy is that each City will have an official "Area of Interest" outside of its Sphere of Influence, in which the city's development standards will apply. Application to Santa Clarita Valley Pros: ■ Similar to Ventura County model ■ Anticipates Calif. state regulation of growth management ■ Cities and County both "win" in proactive strategy ■ Cities' strength In addressing local Issues Is utilized ■ County's strength In addressing regional Issues and being regional resource Is enhanced Cons: ■ As in discussion of the Ventura County G.O.D., Sphere of Influence greater than City boundary Is required ■ County becomes less of a participant in local, urban -scale land -use decisions 15 II 5. Lakewood, California: Pioneer "Contract City" The City of Lakewood, California, incorporated in 1954, initiated an innovative solution to providing essential law enforcement services by contracting for them (as well as other services) with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The I first city in the nation to attempt this type of contractual relationship with a county, Lakewood has maintained its successful reputation as a "contract city" since then, approximately 35 years. The contractual relationship that was established with the County of Los Angeles is now widely referred to as the "Lakewood Plan". In addition to contracting for County services, Lakewood has also worked with County policymakers and staff to accomplish projects that could not have been completed by either agency acting alone. Financial arrangements such as City/County joint funding, lease -back plans, and community fund raising events contributed to the success of these projects: the renovation of the 1933 -era Lakewood Golf Course clubhouse (originally built and maintained by the County, and considered a resource to both City and County) and improvements to the Lakewood Civic Center; including construction of a new County Sheriff's station within the City Civic Center. Applicability to Santa Clarlta Valley Pros: ■ City already contracts with County for law enforcement and fire services ■ May have Implications for Increasing coverage and lowering response time for Sheriffs and fire services In unincorporated areas ■ Serves as precedent for further coordination of services, joint funding for projects, sharing of facilities Cons: ■ Single Issue or project oriented; coordinated planning may need to be more comprehensive ■ Projects accomplished were all within Lakewood Incorporated boundaries - model does not provide precedent for cooperation for projects within Sphere or Area of Interest. 6. Oregon: Joint Urban Service Delivery During the 1980's, spurred by regional recession, and in response to a newly -adopted "metropolitan plan", the Pacific Northwest cities of Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, initiated what became a three-year "urban transition" program with Lane County and the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). The metropolitan plan assigned Lane County cities the task of providing urban services in the metropolitan area; the urban transition program implemented the plan. Both the plan and the program were driven by the pressing need to reduce 16 costs and to avoid duplication of urban services. Moreover, they were supported by the premise that urban services in both incorporated and unincorporated areas could be more efficiently delivered by cities rather than the County, with services to rural areas being more appropriately provided by the County. A nine -member joint policy committee, composed of six elected officials, the two city managers and the county administrator, provided policy direction. Staff of each agency, coordinated by LCOG, cooperated to examine existing urban service delivery (which agency provided which services), and then to identify which services would be more appropriately provided by the cities, and which by the County. Urban services selected for delivery by Eugene and Springfield were: sanitary sewers and storm drainage, fire protection and emergency medical services, police and jail services, planning and building services, roads, parks and library services. Lane County retained the responsibility for providing police.and jail services, as well as the regional library system which served the unincorporated area. Financing agreements for the program were adopted by joint resolution of Lane County, Eugene and Springfield in 1987. Lane.County agreed to reimburse the cities for the costs of providing these services to the unincorporated areas; costs were planned to be re-evaluated after an initial three-year contractual period. With transfer of urban service responsibilities to the participating cities, efficiency and quality have increased. A singular example, planning and building services in Eugene, has resulted in the adoption of the city's standards to the unincorporated area. Consequently, when an area annexes to the city, new construction will already meet city standards for planning and building design. Application to the Santa Clarita Valley Pros: ■ Provides model for urban service management by one jurisdiction delivered in another jurisdiction. ■ Provides model of policy group/staff group Interchange. ■ Shows how to avoid duplication of effort. ■ Long-term transfer of. services Is assumed. ■ Mutual planning and building standards applied to municipal area and/or unincorporated area prior to annexation. Cons: ■ Operates in another state, with different funding mechanisms from California's; economic incentives for the County to maintain control over urban -scale development (and associated development fees) in the unincorporated area may be different In Oregon. ■ . May result in Increased liability when services are provided beyond either jurisdiction's boundaries. 17 r 7. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Cooperation for Solid Waste Management Plan In 1983, to address a growing need for comprehensive waste disposal management, the.62 municipalities of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, joined ' to request the County to develop a waste management program. This action had its roots in the closing of three municipal trash incineration plants in the 1970's. Although the bonds that had paid for the plants had not yet been paid, the host municipalities had been required to close the plants in order to comply with air quality standards. Facing financial hardship, as well as trash overload, the municipalities asked the County for assistance. The County responded by both assuming the bond debt and creating two landfills, which served both the affected municipalities and part of the unincorporated area nearby. This effectively solved the immediate problem of local trash disposal, and set the stage for development of: a comprehensive plan. ' Using a strategy of public participation led by a steering committee composed of municipal representatives, the County, with the aid of a consultant, devised a plan for six regional waste -to -energy incineration facilities. The municipalities were offered four options for facility management; two depended on local management, and two depended on County management. This project is an example of county government identifying and assuming regional responsibilities. While cooperative effort between the cities and the county appears to have been limited to the joint request to develop a waste t management plan, it has resulted in a regional plan where none had existed previously. ' Application to the Santa Clarita Valley Pros: ■ Waste disposal Is both a local and regional Issue. Coordination of waste management plans -by the County, or the County preparation of a regional plan, could create program efficiencies. ' Cons ■ Cities may be less effective controlling local Impacts If the County Is charged with developing a plan that considers the needs of all Incorporated and unincorporated areas. ■ This model describes a single Issue, In which the County took the initiative for plan implementation. It is not a "joint planning process" per se. I ' 18 I B. Indiana: "UNIGOV" - City/County Consolidation In an effort to provide continuing urban services in light of dwindling resources, cities and counties are learning to cooperate and consolidate services. One solution that has.been found to be acceptable to the City of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, is complete consolidation of services: merging of a city government with a county government. "UNIGOV," the consolidated government, was created in 1969. Since then, the consolidation has benefitted the Indianapolis area by concentration of municipal services in smaller government -- for example, there might be fewer officials assigned to the same task, thus avoiding duplication of service, and eliminating some confusion on the part of the public. Applications to the Santa Clarita Valley Pros: If feasible, the City could absorb fiscal responsibility for the entire Santa Clarita Valley - a single government could result In service efficiencies. Cons: ■ . A single government for the Santa Clarlta Valley existed until 1987 when Santa Clarita Incorporated. ,Consideration of a single government (City), once again, would require the City to assume financial responsibility for services throughout the entire Santa Clarita Valley. ■ Although a coordinated planning effort is underway, the City of Santa Clarita Incorporated to obtain greater local control. B. Example of Lead Agency Authority: Multi -Jurisdictional Input 1. Airport Land use Commission The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission serves as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for the entire County. This commission conducts planning activities related to land use in the vicinity of airports. The ALUC assists local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and existing airports. The ALUC also coordinates planning at state, regional and local levels to provide orderly development of airport transportation. These duties include the preparation and adoption of an airport land use plan or Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The ALUC also reviews plans, regulations and other actions of local agencies and airport operations. Cities and other agencies are invited to provide input for the CLUP and other Commission matters. 19 I VI. TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND AGREEMENTS The County's 88 cities and the unincorporated jurisdiction interact on the basis of both statutory mandates and informal agreements, generally for purposes of mutual benefit and public service. Infrastructure and service districts, for example, are highly dependent on interjurisdictional cooperation for efficient operations. The cumulative and cross - jurisdictional impacts of many activities- must be evaluated and considered in local planning decisions. The jurisdictional arrangement of the Valley—with the developed City in the center, surrounded by active and potential developments in the unincorporated area—requires a high level of communication and cooperation between the City and County. To augment the level of coordination required by existing statutes, agencies within both jurisdictions have developed informal ties and lines of communication, as discussed at length in this Phase I Report. While "good faith" arrangements may suffice in most situations, it may be desirable to study establishing formal commitments in the City and County, particularly where decisions by one jurisdiction may have significant fiscal impacts on the other. Such arrangements can be of two basic types: A. Contracts Contracts can take any of several forms, with the end result of binding commitments, based on specific facts and circumstances. Generally, contracts are approved by the Board of Supervisors and the City Council --especially if County or City funds may be impacted.. Joint Powers Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperative Agreement are examples of formats that can be used to create contracts. The specific format is secondary to the fact that a contract is created that binds all parties to certain actions, depending on the occurrence of stated circumstances. Neither the City nor the County can relinquish decision-making authority within their respective jurisdictions; therefore, any arrangement between the two jurisdictions resulting in a ' contract must incorporate provisions reflecting their statutory mandates which cannot be contracted away. B. Administrative Agreements Signed agreements between persons of authority --such as a department head --can be commitments to action. They can provide a high level of assurance that decisions can be made and actions taken in a jurisdiction. Such agreements generally require the same level of consideration or action by all parties. Agreements of this type can take various forms. Agreements, perhaps better described as "understandings", can be very effective in encouraging interaction, negotiation and compromise at the staff level, so that issues are resolved before moving into the levels of formal decision-making authority. 20 II ' VII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COORDINATED PLANNING PROGRAM Existing practices show the benefits of continued coordination of planning between the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County. Models from elsewhere in the county, state, and nation show that precedents exist for various types of formalized approaches. The City and County are already successfully cooperating on single issue programs such as the Joint Traffic Model, and larger scale, more formal and comprehensive coordination may or may not be needed there. In several of the cases presented, Joint Powers Agreements and Memoranda of i' Understanding have been used. Either could be effective for the City and County to coordinate formally. Administrative agreements between the respective City and County departments could also be useful for resolution of multiple issues. 11 II II iI ii However, in light of the increasing success of informal coordinated City/County programs, it may be reasonable to consider enhancement of these programs as an alternative to formal, and perhaps restrictive planning policy and procedures agreements. Recommendation: City Council receive report, and direct City staff to proceed with Phase II of the Joint City -County Planning Program in a combined effort with staff of the Regional Planning Department. Development of a joint policy statement and implementation programs (Phase II) will require identification and prioritizing of specific planning issues in the Santa Clarita Valley. When these are identified and prioritized, then they can be grouped into policy vs. procedural matters. At the same time, they will be compared to existing County and City policies to identify areas of similarity and areas in which policies differ. Phase II, as Phase I, will be prepared jointly by City and County staffs. Phase II will discuss issues and policies, and present joint recommendations to continue and enhance coordination efforts. 21 II ' VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chambers, Howard L. "Lakewood, California. " Public Management Magazine, July 1988, pp. 8-9 City of Los Angeles, et al. Memorandum of Understanding for the Tri -Cities Comprehensive Transportation Improvement Study, 1991 City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita General Plan. June 1991 County of Los Angeles, Santa Clarita Areawide Plan. December 1990 County of Los Angeles. "Draft MOU and Work Program Outline". Ventura Corridor Plan Update, February, 1992. County of Ventura. "Understanding and Working with the County -wide Planning Program". Ventura County Countywide Planning Program, January 1981. Gunderman, Dave. Riverside Council of Governments. Personal Communication June 25, 1992. Hoff, Gerald L., Jr. "Montgomery County, Pennsylvania". Public Management Magazine, July 1988, pp. 15-16. Stewart, Al W. "Reaching Out for Better Service". American City and County Magazine, July 1985, pp. 48-52. Western Riverside Council of Governments. Growth Management Strategy for Riverside County, Draft 4. 1922 22 II II APPENDIX I PLANNING PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES I ' In addition to the direct responsibilities of the City and the County, many agencies and/or jurisdictions are involved with local land use planning. The following state; federal, and "para" agencies - such as special districts and town councils - may have interest in any joint planning process in the Santa Clarita Valley. A. Political Jurisdictions: Direct Responsibility City of Santa Clarlta The City is responsible for providing municipal services, including approving entitlement applications, in the incorporated area. _ County of Los Angeles The County is responsible for providing .urban services and entitlement approval in the unincorporated area of the Santa Clad ta Valley. The County also provides and operates regional systems such as the courts, health system, and libraries. B. Advisory Jurisdictions: Advisory or Direct Authority California Department of Fish and Game Administers Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code, with respect to alteration of streambeds. Developers and agencies proposing any work within stream channels, including flood control construction, must apply for a 1603 permit. ' California Department of Water Resources Advises on protection of groundwater quantity and quality. CALTRANS Advises regarding highway impacts, performs highway alignment studies. (Presently, Route 126, to the Antelope Valley Freeway, is conducting a study to determine the alignment for which is planned to connect Interstate 5.) 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District Administers Air Quality Management Plan, and advises regarding air quality impacts and suggests mitigation measures. SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments Provides regional land use, housing needs and transportation studies for member governments. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates discharge into "waters of the United States" (such as the Santa Clara River.) U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Provides technical recommendations to the Corps of Engineers regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. U.S. Forest Service Plans and administers land use in the National Forest lands. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Plans for and acquires parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains with the intention of future public dedication. C. Quasi -public Agencies and General Public Advisory Groups Area -wide Roundtable The Areawide Roundtable, composed of representatives of Santa Clarita Valley area Town Councils, (listed below) and other interested organizations, was formed early in 1992 as an informal organization for information sharing among the SCV's residents. Meetings are held bimonthly, and are hosted by Town Councils and the City of Santa Clarita on a rotating basis. Special Interest groups: SCOPE; Oaks Conservancy, Sierra Club, Homeowners' and Property Owners' Associations Many citizens of the SCV contribute considerable time to these and other land use "watchdog" groups, and give valuable input to both City and County policymakers, Commissions, and professional staff. Often, these organizations work in concert to analyze and. provide testimony on development projects, as well as to suggest innovative solutions to pressing challenges. 24 II ' Town Councils:. Stevenson Ranch, Castaic, Acton, Agua Duice ' The Town Councils of Stevenson Ranch, Castaic, Acton, and Agua Dulce have recently formed to provide these communities with a local united voice before County and City policymakers. Councilmembers are elected at large, and volunteer their ' time. The Councils generally have no operating budget, except for donated funds and facilities. However, they serve a needed role in the small but cohesive communities outside the incorporated city. General Public ' The "General Public" is cited as a special category to include those citizens who choose to become active regarding more limited issues or for a limited time. These citizens share an equally valuable role in becoming a part of the "vocal minority" of ' the Santa Clarita Valley. ' CMK.jcg:lkl advancelctctyrpt3-=k j 1 1 1 II 25