Annexation. It’s the big story in town these days. Regular readers of SCVTalk know that it is a topic I write about often. I think that in terms of municipal dramas, this one just about has it all: a cast of colorful characters, including politicians, developers, and residents, all playing their parts in a slow-moving dramatic struggle for power and money.
Annexation has been an ongoing story since the city first incorporated. The new city leaders made pursuing annexations and gaining a sphere of influence for the entire valley one of their highest priorities. To date, the city has processed 27 annexations. As the west side communities undergo the initial fiscal analysis necessary to determine if they could incorporate into their own city, the Santa Clarita City Council is set to take up annexation at its next meeting on Tuesday, February 13th. So the time seemed right to present the events that have led up to this point in our local history.
In order to write this story, I have primarily researched newspaper articles, for which I have provided references. Some of my research also came from Carl Boyer’s book, “Santa Clarita”, which is available in the local libraries. Special thanks go to Dave Bossert for answering my questions and providing comments. In writing this, I have endeavored to present all sides of the issues, at least as it was presented through the press, and I hope that I have been fair. Those that take issue with anything are invited to add their comments.
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA IS BORN
On December 15, 1987, after two previous attempts at self governance, the City of Santa Clarita was incorporated. Fed up with watching their tax dollars being spent elsewhere in the county, and tired of the majority of development around them occurring haphazardly with little regard for the impact on the existing residents and infrastructure, the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley sought to secure local control over the valley’s planning and development, and to see to it that their tax dollars were spent on local projects and capital improvements.
Initially, the city formation committee sought a 90-square mile area, encompassing all of the SCV, including Stevenson Ranch and Castaic. However, LAFCO trimmed the area down to just 39 square miles, limiting the new city to mainly the areas which had already been developed. Not included in the new city was anything west of I-5 or south of SR-14, with the exception of Sand Canyon, where three of the city-hood leaders resided. Most of the undeveloped land remained outside the city, and thus remained outside of their control.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
When the City was incorporated, it was not given a sphere of influence. A sphere of influence is a planning tool which acknowledges which areas outside a city’s border are likely to be annexed into the city in the future. Accordingly, it gives the city a formal role in the planning of the area. LAFCO is solely responsible for granting a sphere of influence, and is not required to grant a city any sphere at all.
Without a sphere of influence, city leaders had no say in the rampant development approved by the County and being built all around them. Six months after incorporation, the City first applied for an expanded sphere. Developers rose in opposition, not wanting to trust development of their land to the newly formed city. The LAFCO staff report recommended a sphere of influence of 95 square miles, but in November, LAFCO voted 6-0 to override the staff recommendation and gave the city no sphere at all, citing landowner opposition and the lack of a city-approved general land-use plan.
Development on the City’s border continued at rapid pace, and again, in an effort to gain control, the City applied a second time for a sphere of influence in 1991. As happened previously, developers opposed having their land included within the sphere, and, once again, LAFCO denied the request. The city remained unable to influence the rapid development occurring all around them.
Carl Boyer, in his book “Santa Clarita”, says: “The County politicians were saying that a sphere of influence really did not matter, that it really did not mean anything. We could still work with each other. … However, if a sphere of influence did not mean anything, why were the developers fighting it?”
STEVENSON RANCH EMERGES
Stevenson Ranch was just being built as the City was becoming incorporated. Supervisor Antonovich established the town council in 1992 as an advisory body, but it had struggled since its’ inception. Former council president Richard Rioux was an active Stevenson Ranch resident who served as president for many years, accomplishing many things. However, some community activists felt that he didn’t represent the majority of residents, and some felt that because he was a county employee, he had a vested interest in cooperating with the county. Said Keith Pritsker of Mr. Rioux in a Daily News article (8/5/98), “He did some good for the community, but he had his way of doing things that wasn’t particularly democratic”.
Dave Bossert also served on the town council at this time. Mr. Bossert told SCVTalk, “I was first on the Town Council in the mid 1990's when Dr. Richard Rioux was President of the then Stevenson Ranch Town Council. I was asked to participate because of my ability to get things done. I was able to lead a sub-association, where I had owned a property, in Stevenson Ranch through the '94 Earthquake damage crisis and making the homeowners whole again.”
After Dr. Rioux’s death in 1997, the council’s influence slowly disintegrated. The town council was revived in 1998 with the election of 11 new officers. The election was only the second held in six years. The top concerns of the new town council were to get more community programs established, work to relieve overcrowding of schools affected by the quick growth of the area, and to make the residents’ position clear about the Newhall Ranch Project.
Lorrie Baldwin and Keith Pritsker were two of the members elected to the new council in summer of 1998. Mr. Pritsker said in a Daily News article, “It’s clear that with Newhall Ranch, we need clear representation to county government”. Mr. Pritsker also noted that the area still did not have a regional park with amenities such as tennis courts and a swimming pool. “If the county doesn’t have the funding, we need to talk to them and find out why there’s no money and what kind of financing is available to get it done”, he said. A few months later, the town council formed a committee to explore their options for governance.
The Stevenson Ranch Homeowner’s Association was also active in the community. Since only 2000 homes out of the planned 5000 had been built, Lennar Homes maintained three of the five seats on the HOA. However, this developer involvement spurred suspicions from some in the community that the HOA was more concerned with the developer’s interests than those of the residents. The HOA had spawned assorted committees to oversee various issues such as landscaping, security, and civic events. Said Keith Pritsker of the situation, “They have set up a rival organization called the civic committee. It appears to be an attempt on the part of the developer to marginalize the town council and make it ineffectual.” He added, “The town council is supposed to be there to be the liaison of community concerns to county government. … The concern is that if the homeowners association takes over that function of relating to county government, they’re going to take care of the developer’s interests first”.
But Jeff Stevenson, a consultant to Lennar, disputed Pritsker’s remarks, noting that the residents appointed to the homeowner’s association committees represent themselves and their neighbors, not Lennar. He pointed out that the committee members volunteer for their duties and provide feedback to the HOA board of directors on a variety of issues. “They are homeowners who have a huge financial vested interest in the community because they bought a home, and they represent themselves”, he said.
Dave Bossert was no longer on the town council; he was now seated on the Stevenson Ranch Civic Committee. Says Mr. Bossert of this time, “As a member of the civic committee, and later President of the civic association, I was spearheading several community events a year including an annual family festival and the current July 4th Fireworks show. During that time the town council was apparently populated with individuals who were more interested in furthering their own (imagined) political careers and personal agendas than with making sure the community was being taken care of and treated fairly.”
THE VALENCIA MARKETPLACE
In the unincorporated County area west of I-5, the first phase of the Valencia Marketplace opened up in November of 1996. Built by Newhall Land and Farming, the shopping center was anchored with a Wal-Mart Toys-R-Us, Sports Chalet & Staples. Later phases would include a Von’s Pavillion, restaurants, and more shops in a mile-long strip of commercial development. “Residents no longer have to drive out of our community to patronize large, value-oriented retailers”, said Thomas L. Lee of Newhall Land.
Mr. Lee also noted, “The complex will also generate substantial sales tax revenues”. Located just outside of the city limits, the Valencia Marketplace was located in the unincorporated County area, and therefore the sales tax revenues went to the County. The City, however, was impacted by traffic, noise and pollution generated by the mega-mall, and was concerned about the loss of potential sales tax revenue. The Valencia Marketplace was home to the only Wal-Mart and large scale toy store in the SCV, and city residents were spending a lot of money there. City officials hoped to negotiate a tax sharing agreement or annex the area.
Most counties in the state, such as Ventura County, have a general policy of placing large-scale developments within city boundaries. Los Angeles County, however, tends to keep projects in its territory to bring in sales tax revenue. Larry Calemine, Executive Officer of Los Angeles County LAFCO, said in a Daily News article (8/8/97), “In the state of California, there’s been deep financial pressure, and [officials] get into what they refer to as mall wars. The county would love the city to annex houses because those are a drain financially. But if it’s a regional mall, the county wants to keep it and the city wants it.”
STEVENSON RANCH TOWN COUNCIL BEGINS ANNEXATION DRIVE
In April of 1999, the Stevenson Ranch Town Council voted 5-2 to support annexation into the City of Santa Clarita. The vote came after a special committee of area residents voted 17-1 to support annexation. Lynette Findlay voted against annexation, saying that while she supported annexation, she was concerned that residents were not adequately polled. “The community hasn’t really been asked. I think annexation is a great thing, but as a town council, we have to have the community’s input”.
Under LAFCO regulations, an area to be annexed must be contiguous with the annexing city. At this stage of development of Stevenson Ranch, the Valencia Marketplace was directly between Stevenson Ranch and the City of Santa Clarita, so, in order for any annexation to occur, it would have to include the Valencia Marketplace. The City wanted to annex the shopping center to offset the costs of providing increased services to the area. “In general terms, residential annexations don’t pay for themselves. It takes the mix of residential and commercial for it to be fiscally viable ... for the cost of providing services to match the revenue”, said Steve Stark, director of Administrative Services for the City in a Daily News article (4/13/99).
However, in 1998, Newhall Land & Farming Co. had sold the Valencia Marketplace, stipulating in the sales agreement that the Marketplace owner “shall not vote in favor of, lobby for, enter into any agreement to, or take any steps to promote” the annexation of the property. The agreement also states that the owner must take direction from Newhall Land if an annexation vote is held.
Dave Vannatta, planning deputy for Supervisor Antonovich, said in a Daily News Article (8/18/99) that an annexation of the Marketplace would preclude the incorporation of a city west of the freeway, and would force the county to give up a prime tax generator. “In general, annexations of major commercial entities are a problem for us”, he said.
In September of 1999, the town council met and discussed annexation. “We want to have some say in the future of the valley. All these decisions made about the future of the Santa Clarita Valley are made on the other side of the interstate”, said Keith Pritsker. But not all residents were in agreement; Ed Dawson spoke in opposition, arguing that the city government is just one more layer of bureaucracy.
Even though Newhall Land opposed annexation of the Valencia Marketplace, the town council wanted to continue working towards annexation. Annexation could occur if it was part of a larger plan and if a majority of the residents were in favor of it. City officials were optimistic that the County and the City could cut a deal to share the sales tax revenues from the Valencia Marketplace, estimated at $2 million per year.
In a meeting held later that month, City officials requested a petition signed by at least 60% of the Stevenson Ranch residents as a show of support for annexation. “It’s an informal requirement for us to know that they’ve polled their community and know that the majority of their residents want this. After they can show us that, that’s when we’d step in and expend the time and money for city staff to study and pursue the annexation. It can get very expensive”, said City Planner Jeffrey Lambert in a Daily News article (10/6/99).
RICHARD RIOUX PARK IS DEDICATED
After a decade of promises, the first public park in Stevenson Ranch was dedicated in January of 2000. The park was financed by the developers of the community, as well as by Proposition A funds earmarked for recreation. The 16-acre park on Faulkner Drive included a softball field, a play area, an open grass area, a basketball court, a picnic area, and other facilities, such as an outdoor stage, restrooms, and parking.
In contrast, the City had already built several new parks, including Canyon Country Park, and upgraded the play equipment and swimming pools at others. Phase 1 of Central Park was completed, the first building in the Sports Complex was open, and the skate park had been built. Land had been acquired for more parks, and plans were in the works for expanding Central Park & building the Aquatic Center.
CITY TRIES AGAIN FOR AN EXPANDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
In 1996, the City council considered appropriating funds for a study to make a third request for an expanded sphere of influence, but decided against it. Instead, the City chose to try working with landowners, proceeding with annexation only when requested by property owners.
However, the rapid growth in the unincorporated areas had crowded local schools, affected traffic, and threatened the environment, and the City felt it should have more of a voice in the ongoing development occurring outside the city limits. In October of 1999, the city council voted unanimously to file an application with LAFCO.
This time the application excluded the community of Castaic, but included Stevenson Ranch, as well as other areas outside the current boundaries. If approved, the sphere would give the City greater input in planning the developments that were occurring there. George Caravalho, City Manager, noted that an expanded sphere would give area residents a more formal voice in development issues. “Who should make the decision about the ultimate growth and development of the Santa Clarita Valley if it’s not the local residents?” (Daily News, 10/10/99).
However, the City still faced opposition from Newhall Land & Farming Co, who had plans to develop Newhall Ranch and Westridge in the works with the County. “The I-5 has historically been the boundary between the city and the county, and we continue to support that position”, said Marlee Lauffer, spokesperson for Newhall Land, in a Daily News article (10/10/99). “Our company is not interested in initiating any annexations west of the freeway”.
In spring of 2000, the City Planning Department sent letters to residents outside the city limits informing residents of the pending application before LAFCO. The letter sought to educate the residents about what a sphere of influence would accomplish. “A lot of people often confuse annexation with what a sphere of influence is. They think we’re automatically trying to annex them by applying for this extended sphere”, said Jennifer Adamick, Associate Planner for the city (Daily News, 3/2/00).
By April 2000, LAFCO had received letters of opposition to the expanded sphere from Six Flags, Newhall Land and Farming Co., Stevenson Ranch developer Lennar Communities, and other smaller developers, including Castaic Estates, LLC. Newhall Land spokesperson Marlee Lauffer reiterated her company’s stance of opposition to inclusion of their undeveloped land within the city’s sphere, stating that future residents of her company’s planned developments should decide whether they want to be a part of Santa Clarita. (Daily News 4/21/2000).
In August of 2000, city officials launched one last push in their efforts to win an expanded sphere of influence with LAFCO, with a public outreach campaign by direct mail to 60,000 homes both in and outside of city limits. The City also took out full-page newspaper ads and magazine advertisements. One such ad featured pictures of children playing and read, “Over 40,000 new housing units are approved or pending for development in the unincorporated (non-city) Santa Clarita Valley. This will seriously impact our schools, traffic, emergency service, natural environmental resources, water availability and other urban services. Right now, the City of Santa Clarita has no formal voice in new development approvals outside City boundaries where the majority of development is occurring, and no voice in the adequate provision of schools, parks, and roads.”
The City had collected endorsements from Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster) and U.S. Representative Buck McKeon. The William S. Hart School District, Newhall School District, Saugus School District, Sulphur Springs School District, and the Santa Clarita Community College District all passed resolutions supporting the proposal. Some of the smaller developers, including Lyons Canyon Ranch landowner AOL Time Warner, had also sent letters of support for inclusion in the sphere.
In addition, an independent group collected signatures of residents in favor of the proposal. Jeffrey Lambert noted that while the city endorsed their efforts, they were not being directed by the city. “It is important to show Supervisor Antonovich that the residents, and not just city officials, support this proposal”, said city Planning Director Jeffrey Lambert (Daily News 9/3/00). The LAFCO hearing was scheduled for June of 2001.
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH …
Stevenson Ranch residents met with Santa Clarita city officials in September of 2000 to discuss a proposal for annexation to the city. The petition drive, led by the Westside Annexation Committee, had been collecting signatures since April. Out of the 2000 signatures they needed, they had only collected 300.
In May of 2001, after four years without an election, and even though bylaws called for an election at least every two years, a new Stevenson Ranch Town Council was elected. Three incumbents were reelected, including Keith Pritsker and Lorrie Baldwin. Four new council members were elected, including Paul Ash. The newly elected council voted to back the City in its request for the expanded sphere of influence.
Town Council President Keith Pritsker noted that Stevenson Ranch residents had been concerned that their community’s needs had been neglected as growth and development continued. He cited the inadequate public facilities, the lack of a pool and recreation center, and the limited open space. “If we’re part of the city’s influence, I would expect a greater attention would be paid to details of daily life that are important to local residents,” Pritsker said. (Daily News, 6/8/2001).
AND BACK AT THE ‘NEW’ RANCH …
At the south side of town, Pac Sun LLC was pursuing their development of a commercial center and residential development through the city. The matter was before the City Council in March of 2001. In a stunning decision, the city council denied the project, listening to concerns that the area was too geologically unstable for homes, and that the hills, plants and animals would be threatened by development.
However, the quick rejection fueled concerns for the city’s pending sphere application. Land developers had long objected to an expanded sphere, fearing it would be harder to process their developments through the city. “It feeds into the objections we’ve been hearing all along, that the city could not be trusted to work with developers and large landowners,” said Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Director (Daily News 4/1/01).
“It does appear to be curious. I think it raises a valid concern for developers”, said Larry Calemine, executive director of LAFCO, noting that he would be preparing a report on the Golden Valley Ranch issue for the commissioners.
Pac Sun LLC vowed to pursue approval of the project through the County. If they approved the project, the sales tax and property tax revenues would go to the County. “It’s outside the city and we will still get the project and all the impacts, but none of the benefits”, said George Caravalho. (Daily News 5/3/01)
In June of 2001, LAFCO released its staff report in preparation for the upcoming LAFCO Commission hearing. The report recommended that the city’s influence expand north to include Saugus and San Francisquito Creek, but not extend west of I-5 or south of SR-14. City officials vowed to oppose the recommendation at the upcoming hearing. “I can think of no other jurisdiction in this predicament. There is no logical reason to deny our request”, said Mayor Laurene Weste (Daily News 6/2/01).
At the hearing held on June 13, 2001, LAFCO denied the bid for the expanded sphere, and proceeded to grant the city an even smaller sphere than the staff report had recommended. “They gave us planning over open space where no development will occur”, said Councilman Frank Ferry.
Supporters of the expanded sphere maintained that LAFCO was heavily influenced by the developers and other large property owners who opposed the application. Said Keith Pritsker in a Daily News article (6/13/01, “The big property owners and land developers call the shots. This is nothing more or less than an act to disenfranchise the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley from deciding on a whole variety of levels what their future will be.”
Part 2 will be posted in a few days and will cover 2001 to present day.
The History of Annexation in Santa Clarita (Part 1)
The History of Annexation in Santa Clarita (Part 1)
Attributed to Jeff Wilson (editor-supplied)
Comments (1)