Santa Clara Final MSR (January 2005)

Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County January 19, 2005 Final Santa Clara Municipal Service Review REPORT OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY Santa Clara Municipal Service Review LAFCO 700 N. Central Avenue• Suite 350 Glendale• California 91203 Phone 818.254.2454 • Fax 818.254.2452 Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County January 19, 2005 Final Santa Clara Municipal Service Review LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION for LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS COMMISSION STAFF Chairman Henri Pellissier Larry J. Calemine Public Member At-Large Executive Officer The Honorable Yvonne Burke Sandor L. Winger Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Deputy Executive Officer The Honorable Zev Yaroslavsky June Savala Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant The Honorable Carol Herrera Serafina Candela-Grossman Mayor, City of Diamond Bar Senior Government Analyst The Honorable Beatrice Proo Douglas Dorado Mayor, City of Pico Rivera GIS Administrator The Honorable Cindy Mischikowski Alisha O’Brien Councilwoman, City of Los Angeles Local Government Analyst James DiGuiseppe Wilda Turner Public Member, San Fernando Valley Administrative Assistant/CIS Jerry Gladbach Amber Delatorre Castaic Lake Water Agency Office Service Assistant Donald L. Dear West Basin Municipal Water District Alternate Members The Honorable Don Knabe Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors The Honorable Cristina Cruz-Madrid Mayor City of Azusa The Honorable Greig Smith Councilman, City of Los Angeles Richard Close Public Member, San Fernando Valley Kenneth Chappell Public Member At-Large Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER 4 Municipal Service Review Findings 2 City of Santa Clarita 34 Sphere of Influence Findings City Services 35 Santa Clarita 6 Service Providers 41 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 1 Antelope Valley Healthcare and Hospital District 44 Introduction and Overview 8 LAFCO MSR Process 13 CHAPTER 6 Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District 45 CHAPTER 2 Santa Clara Valley Service Area CHAPTER 7 About the Region 14 Consolidated Fire Protection District 47 Growth and Population 15 Population, Housing and Jobs 16 CHAPTER 8 Regional Employment 18 County Sanitation Districts 48 Regional Service Providers 19 CSD #26 49 CSD #32 49 CHAPTER 3 Municipal Service Review Determinations CHAPTER 9 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies 20 County Waterworks District Financing Constraints and Opportunities 31 CWWD #36 – Val Verde 50 Cost Avoidance Opportunities 32 Opportunities for Rate Restructuring 32 CHAPTER 1 0 Opportunities for Shared Facilities 32 County Water Districts Government Structure Options 33 Green Valley County Water District 51 Evaluation of Management Efficiencies 33 Newhall County Water District 51 Local Accountability and Governance 33 i S A N T A C L A R A M S R Table 3-1 Fire Service Call Incidents CHAPTER 1 1 Table 3-2 Sheriff’s Dept. Area Crime Stats Water Agencies Figure 3-3 Part I & Part II Crime Statistics Castaic Lake Water Agency 52 Figure 3-4 Santa Clarita General Fund Revenues Table 4-1 Santa Clarita Building Permits Issued C H A P T E R 1 2 Figure 4-2 Santa Clarita Land Use Distribution Mosquito and Vector Control Districts Figure 4-3 Santa Clarita Fire Station Service Calls Greater Los Angeles Mosquito and Vector Control 53 Map Exhibits C H A P T E R 1 3 Map 1 Santa Clarita MSR Area Municipal Water Agencies Map 2 City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence Golden Valley Municipal Water District 54 Map 3 Santa Clarita Fire Stations Map 4 Antelope Valley Health Care District Comments and Responses Map 5 Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District 56 Map 6 Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 26 References 57 Map 7 Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32 List of Tables and Figures Map 8 Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36, Val Verde Figure 2-1 SCAG Growth Projections Map 9 Green Valley County Water District Table 2-2 Projected Growth Rates Map 10 Newhall County Water District Figure 2-3 Job-Housing Units Created Map 11 Castaic Lake Water Agency Figure 2-4 Regional Job-Housing Balance Map 12 Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District Figure 2-5 Employment by Industry Map 13 Golden Valley Municipal Water District Table 2-6 Regional Service Providers ii S A N T A C L A R A M S R Executive Summary The Local Agency Formation Commission has been tasked by the State Legislature to perform a comprehensive review of essential municipal services that are provided to the communities of the Santa Clara River geographic region, also known as the Santa Clarita Valley. Geographic boundaries for the purpose of conducting municipal review study areas were established according to watershed boundaries. The municipal service review is a requirement to updating the sphere of influence of a local agency. Spheres of influence are updated and reviewed no less than every five years and only as determined necessary by LAFCO. LAFCOs were established by the State Legislature to “discourage urban sprawl” and “encourage orderly governmental boundaries.” The Upper Santa Clara River watershed region is an area of anticipated high growth in the County of Los Angeles within the next few decades. The main factors of growth and migration are the availability of water, adequate municipal services and infrastructure, affordable housing, and the ability of the region to sustain itself economically. LAFCO’s mission is to ensure that the local agencies of the region are able to sustain added growth and encourage orderly development of governmental and district boundaries. The Santa Clara Municipal Service Review (MSR) region is characterized as primarily rural and suburban, and is comprised of large areas of unincorporated county territory. Santa Clarita is the only incorporated city and core urban center within the MSR area. Pockets of populated communities exist within the unincorporated areas and include communities such as, Castaic, Agua Dulce, Halsey Canyon, Stevenson Ranch and Val Verde. Like many cities within Los Angeles County, Santa Clarita is a “contract city,” in that it contracts with the County of Los Angeles for animal control, fire prevention and emergency medical services, law enforcement, and library services. The remaining municipal services are provided by the city or special districts. The Consolidated Fire Protection District is the sole provider of fire protection services in the region. Five special districts, Golden Valley County Water District, Green Valley County Water District, Newhall County Water District, County Waterworks District #36, and Castaic Lake Water Agency, provide water to the region. Wastewater service is provided by Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts #26 and #32. The Antelope Valley Healthcare and Hospital District provides healthcare services and emergency medical services, the Greater Los Angeles Vector Control District provides mosquito abatement and vector control, and the Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District provides resource conservation each providing within the Santa Clara MSR area. In conclusion of the Santa Clara MSR, staff recommends that that Commission approve and adopt the nine written determinations for the Santa Clara Municipal Service Review. In reviewing and updating the sphere of influence of the City of Santa Clarita staff concludes and recommends that the sphere of influence should not be revised or expanded at this time and requests that the Commission approve and adopt the four written determinations for the City of Santa Clarita Sphere of Influence Update. 1 S A N T A C L A R A M S R Municipal Service Review (MSR) Determinations The Commission must adopt the following nine written determinations when approving municipal service reviews pursuant to Government Code Section 56430. The following determinations were made for the Santa Clara MSR region, which includes the City of Santa Clarita. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies SCAG estimates that from 2000 to 2025, the population of the City of Santa Clarita is expected to increase by 69,876 residents. Within the Santa Clara Municipal Service Review area, it will increase by 190,113 residents. Anticipated growth in the area could create a significant impact on service demands and response times in the region. There have been continuous efforts by service providers to increase capacity and improve infrastructure in anticipation of on-coming growth. The existing infrastructure of the City of Santa Clarita is sufficient to handle current and future population growth needs. The following infrastructure deficiencies were noted in the region: the need for updated Sheriff’s facilities, additional affordable housing units, and increased parkland and library services. The region’s transportation infrastructure along I-5 and SR-14 must also be improved to meet growing demand and facilitate economic growth in the area. LAFCO contracted with Dudek and Associates to perform a municipal service review of all water agencies within the Santa Clara MSR area. Dudek’s Final Municipal Service Review study of water service providers in the Santa Clara region concluded that Los Angeles County Waterworks District #36 has significant infrastructure deficiencies in areas of the agency’s service boundaries. As a result of LAFCO’s MSR Community Workshop held on November 30, 2004, all water agencies have agreed to a collaborative effort in sponsoring a more in-depth study of some of the issues that were outlined in this report and the Dudek study. Sphere of influence boundaries determinations will not be made on the water districts until after the new study is completed. Growth and Population Projections Santa Clarita ranks as the fourth most populated city in Los Angeles County. Significant future growth in population is anticipated for the City, as well as the entire region. SCAG estimates the aggregate population of the entire Santa Clara Region MSR boundary area to be 238,440. By 2020, the aggregate population is expected to nearly double to approximately 405,587 residents. The biggest issue facing the region will be the availability of infrastructure, low-moderate housing and transportation issues associated with increased growth. 2 S A N T A C L A R A M S R Financing Constraints and Opportunities Many cities throughout the State of California are deeply affected by the State’s budget crisis, especially on those that rely heavily on vehicle license fees. Santa Clarita relies principally on a strong sales tax base. The City continually strives to market and attract economic interests. The Golden Valley Municipal Water District has taken steps to resolve its financial issues. The District is geographically isolated and is the only retail water provider in the area. Cost-Avoidance Opportunities Santa Clarita achieves economies of scale by contracting with the county for services such as, police, animal control and library services, traffic signal maintenance, limited street maintenance, storm drain maintenance, and sewer maintenance. The Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD) of Los Angeles County provides fire and emergency services to unincorporated areas and many cities throughout Los Angeles County. As part of the CFPD, the City avoids the higher costs of providing its own fire department. The City is also engaged in a joint agreement with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to provide parkland and recreational services. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring No government options that would lead to the restructuring of rates for municipal services were noted. Opportunities for Shared Facilities Significant sharing of facilities and resources occurs in the Santa Clara Valley region. By contracting with the County for the following services: the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works for street signal and storm drain maintenance and sewer maintenance, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services, and by inclusion in the Consolidated Fire Protection District, regional facilities are shared by the City and others. Santa Clarita also provides transit services for portions of County territory within the region. The City also utilizes regional wastewater treatment and solid waste facilities. Other shared facilities and resources between County and local agencies include, parks and recreational facilities, schools, libraries and transit services. 3 S A N T A C L A R A M S R Government Structure Options Government Code Section 56375 states that the Commission may initiate proposals for consolidation of districts, dissolution, merger, or establishment of a subsidiary district, or a reorganization that includes any of these changes, if that change of organization or reorganization is consistent with a recommendation or conclusion of a study and the Commission makes certain determinations regarding public service costs and public access to and accountability for services. The initial draft of this study recommended two government structure options for NCWD, adoption of a “zero” sphere of influence and dissolution of the District. The recommendations were based on the findings of Dudek and Associates’ initial MSR study of water service providers in the Santa Clarita Valley region. Both Santa Clara Regional MSR reports state concerns regarding rate structuring, overlapping infrastructure and service areas, and duplication of services with regards to other public water agencies. According to Dudek’s report, there are three water agencies with overlapping service boundary areas in the region, the Newhall County Water District (NCWD), the Santa Clarita Water Company (SCWC), and Valencia Water. SCWC and Valencia Water are public water agencies, not subject to LAFCO's jurisdiction. Since LAFCO does not have jurisdictional authority over these two agencies, it cannot make determinations regarding their service boundaries or propose alternative structure options. In addition, several complaints were received by the Commission regarding NCWD for the denial of water service to developers, and residents within and adjacent to the District. Because of these concerns, all the water agencies in the region have decided to sponsor a study that further addresses the issues outlined in Dudek’s report. Alternative government structure options for NCWD do exist but are not being proposed at this time and are being deferred until completion of the detailed area water study. SOI determinations for the all water districts will be made upon the completion of that study. Management Efficiencies Santa Clarita is a well-managed city that strives to improve the economic and financial condition of the city and quality of life issues for its residents. The City has initiated benchmark studies of services and availability of resources, in order to improve services to residents in the most cost effective way. The City maintains an inter-departmental computer program that tracks the status of projects and has received numerous awards for exemplary services. The MSR determinations of management efficiencies for the water districts are discussed further in the Dudek report. Agencies that are identified as having management concerns are: NCWD, County Waterworks District #36, Green Valley County Water District, and Golden Valley Municipal Water District. 4 S A N T A C L A R A M S R Local Accountability and Governance Santa Clarita is responsive to the citizens of its city. The City participates in joint regional planning efforts with the County of Los Angeles for the Santa Clarita Valley. It encourages community input and public participation at Council meetings, community meetings and workshops. The City publishes and mails informational materials to its residents advising them of community issues and events, city affairs, and local activities. Recommendation: Staff recommends that that Commission approve and adopt the nine written determinations for the Santa Clara Municipal Service Review. 5 S A N T A C L A R A M S R Sphere of Influence (SOI) Determinations City of Santa Clarita Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425, the Commission must make the following four determinations when reviewing and updating the sphere of influence for the City of Santa Clarita. Staff proposes no changes in the City’s current sphere of influence. Future annexation requests and SOI amendments must take into account the availability of municipal services at the time of filing. Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area Planned land uses for developed lands within the City’s sphere of influence consists of 66.7% Residential, 7.7% Commercial Office, 10.6% Industrial, 5.2% Public Services, 9.7% Transportation, Communication, and Utilities. Developed land comprise 56.1 % of the total land area of the City, vacant lands 30.4 % and open spaced lands 13.5%1 There are approximately 1,968 acres of Prime Farmland in the MSR area, located principally along the Santa Clara River; along Castaic Creek; west of San Francisquito Canyon, along Interstate 5, adjacent to the Antelope Valley Freeway. Areas designated as Farmlands of State Importance exist east of San Francisquito Canyon and along Bouquet Canyon Road; areas designated as Unique Farmland exists east of San Francisquito Canyon and west of Bouquet Canyon Road; and Farmlands of Local Importance are located long Chiquito Canyon Road and south of Acton.2 Present and Probable need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area The City of Santa Clarita provides adequate public facilities and services to meet the current needs of residents and businesses within the current sphere of influence. As further development occurs in the future, a higher level of municipal services and additional or upgraded infrastructure and facilities will be needed in the Santa Clara MSR area specifically parks, libraries, upgraded policing facilities, water and wastewater systems. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services The City of Santa Clarita provides adequate municipal services to its residents and has the capability of providing increased services as the city expands. 1 Land use percentage was derived using data proved in the Santa Clarita Valleywide General Plan, Table 2.1-1 Existing Land Uses. 2 Santa Clarita Valleywide General Plan, 6 S A N T A C L A R A M S R Existence of any Social or Economic Communities of Interest A variety of social and economic communities of interest occur in the area. Areas of economic interest include commercial uses along Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard, including Valencia Town Center, along Soledad Canyon Road, Sierra Highway, San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue). The Valencia Industrial Center has a concentration of light industrial uses. Newhall, Valencia, Saugus, Canyon Country, Placerita Canyon and Sand Canyon are communities of interest that exist within the City’s SOI. Residential communities of interest outside of the City’s sphere of influence include Acton, Agua Dulce, Castaic, Hasley Canyon, Pico Canyon, Stevenson Ranch, and Val Verde. Recommendation: In reviewing and updating the sphere of influence for the City of Santa Clarita, staff recommends that the Commission not revise or expand the city’s sphere of influence and that the Commission approve and adopt the four written determinations of the City of Santa Clarita sphere of influence update. 7 Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction and Overview This report has been prepared by the Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County (LAFCO), in accordance with Government Code Section 56430 of the State of California Government Code. Effective January 2000, the State Legislature amended the Government Code requiring that LAFCO conduct a comprehensive review of municipal services and update the spheres of influence of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction by December 31, 2005 and subsequently, every five years thereafter as necessary. The new legislative requirement directs LAFCO to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction not less than every five years. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCO’s history, powers and responsibilities. HISTORY OF LAFCO After World War II, California experienced dramatic growth in population and economic development. With this boom came a demand for housing, jobs and public services. To accommodate this demand, the state approved the formation of many new local government agencies, often with little forethought as to the ultimate governance structures in any given region. This lack of coordination and inadequate planning led to a multitude of overlapping, inefficient, jurisdictional service boundaries and the premature conversion of California’s agricultural and open-spaced lands. Recognizing this problem in 1959, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. appointed the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission’s charge was to study and make recommendations on the “misuse of land resources” and the growing complexity of local governmental jurisdictions. The Commission’s recommendations on local governmental reorganizations were introduced to the Legislature in 1963, resulting in the creation of local agency formation commissions for each county. LAFCO RESPONSIBILITIES LAFCOs were formed to discourage urban sprawl, preserve agricultural and open-spaced lands and encourage the orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies. LAFCOs are responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, including annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts, and consolidations, mergers and dissolutions of districts, as well as reviewing ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure. LAFCOs’ efforts are directed toward seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-spaced lands are protected. 8 LAFCO POWERS Each LAFCO regulates boundary changes proposed by other local governmental agencies or individuals by approving or disapproving such changes, with or without amendment, wholly, partially or conditionally. Each LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates to spheres of influence, as well as proposals involving the dissolution and consolidation of special districts and the merging or establishment of subsidiary districts. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as applications initiated by petition or resolution of a legislative body. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Pursuant to Government Code Section 56326, the Los Angeles County LAFCO is composed of nine regular Commissioners: two members from the Board of Supervisors; one representative from the City of Los Angeles; two members who represent the other 87 cities in Los Angeles County; two members who represent special districts; and two public members, one representing the public as a whole, and the other representing the San Fernando Valley Statistical Area. There are six alternate Commissioners; one from each of the above-membership categories. Municipal Service Review Origins The municipal service review requirement was adopted after the Legislature’s consideration of two studies recommending that each LAFCO throughout the State conduct reviews of local agencies. The Little Hoover Commission study focused on the need for oversight and consolidation of special districts, whereas the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century study focused on the need for regional planning to ensure efficient service delivery as California’s population continues to grow. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In May 2000, the Little Hoover Commission3 released a report entitled Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources of the Future. This report focused on governance and financial problems among independent special districts, and the barriers to LAFCO’s pursuit of district consolidation and dissolution. The report raised the concern that “the underlying patchwork of special district governments has become unnecessarily redundant, inefficient and unaccountable." 4 In particular, the report raised concerns about a lack of visibility and accountability among some independent special districts. The report indicated that many special districts hold excess reserve funds and some receive questionable tax revenues. The report expressed 3 The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency that was created in 1962. The Commission’s mission is to investigate state government operations and – through reports, recommendations and legislative proposals – promote efficiency, economy and improved service. By statue, the Commission is a balanced bipartisan board composed of five citizen, members appointed by the Governor, four citizen members appointed by the Legislature, two Senators and two Assembly members. 4 Little Hoover Commission. Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? ( Sacramento: Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, May 2000), 12. 9 concern about the lack of financial oversight of the districts. It asserted that financial reporting by special districts is inadequate, that districts are not required to submit financial information to local elected officials, and concluded that district financial information is “largely meaningless as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of services provided by the districts, or to make comparisons with neighboring districts or services provided through a city or county.”5 The report pointed to relatively low voter turnout rates and a greater frequency of uncontested elections among special districts than among city councils. Further, the report questioned whether specials districts are providing adequate notice of public meetings. In addition to concerns about the accountability and visibility of special districts, the report raised concerns about special districts with outdated boundaries and outdated missions. The report questioned the public benefit provided by health care districts that have sold, leased or closed their hospitals, and asserted that LAFCOs consistently fail to examine whether they should be eliminated. The report pointed to service improvements and cost reductions associated with special district consolidations, but asserted that LAFCOs have generally failed to pursue special district reorganizations. The report called on the legislature to increase the oversight of special districts by mandating that LAFCOs identify service duplications and that LAFCOs study reorganization alternatives when: service duplications are identified, district insolvencies appear, district reserves are excessive, rate inequities surface, a district’s mission changes, a new city incorporates and when service levels are unsatisfactory. To accomplish this, the report recommended that the state strengthen the independence and funding of LAFCOs, require districts to report to their respective LAFCO, and require LAFCOs to study service duplications. COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE The legislature formed the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century (“21st Century Commission”) in 1997 to review current statutes on the policies, criteria, procedures and precedents for city, county and special district boundary changes. After holding 25 days of public hearings, wherein over 160 organizations and individuals, the “21st Century Commission released its final report Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century in January 2000. The report examines the way that government is organized and operates, and establishes a vision of how the state will grow by “making better use of the often invisible LAFCOs in each county.”6 The report points to the expectation that California’s population will double over the first four decades of the 21st Century, and raises concern that our government institutions were designed when our population was much smaller and society less complex. The report warns that, without a strategy, open spaces will be swallowed up, expensive 5 5Little Hoover Commission, 24. 6 The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century ceased to exist on July 1, 2000, pursuant to a statutory sunset provision. 10 freeway extensions will be needed, and employment centers will become farther removed from housing, leading to longer commutes, increased pollution and a more stressful lifestyle. Growth Within Bounds acknowledges that local governments face unprecedented challenges in their ability to finance service delivery since the voters cut property tax revenues in 1978 and the legislature shifted property tax revenues from local government to the schools in 1993. The report asserts that these financial strains have created governmental entrepreneurism in which cities, counties and districts compete for sales tax revenue and market share. The 21st Century Commission recommended that effective, efficient and easily understandable government be encouraged. In accomplishing this, the 21st Century Commission recommended consolidation of small, inefficient or overlapping providers, transparency of municipal service delivery to the people, and accountability of municipal service providers. The sheer number of special districts, the report asserts, “has provoked controversy, including several legislative attempts to initiate district consolidations”7 but cautions LAFCOs that decisions to consolidate districts should focus on the adequacy of services, not on the number of districts. Growth Within Bounds cautions that LAFCOs cannot achieve their fundamental purposes without a comprehensive knowledge of the services available within its county, the current efficiency of providing service within the county, future service needs, and expansion capacity of each service provider. Comprehensive knowledge of water and sanitary providers, the report argued, would promote consolidations of water and sanitary districts, reduce water costs and promote a more comprehensive approach to the use of water resources. Further, the report asserted that many LAFCOs lack such knowledge, and should be required to conduct such a review to ensure that medical services are logically extended to meet California’s future growth and development. The state-mandated municipal service review would require LAFCO to examine consolidation or reorganization of service providers within a geographic area. The 21st Century Commission recommended that the review should include water, wastewater, solid waste, and other municipal services considered important to future growth. The Commission recommended that the service review be followed by consolidation studies and preformed in conjunction with updates of spheres of influence. It also suggested that service reviews be designed to make nine determinations, each of which was incorporated verbatim on the subsequently adopted legislation. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW LEGISLATION The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCO to review municipal services before updating the spheres of influence of local agencies.8 This requirement verifies the need for a coordinated and efficient public service structure in support of California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to comprehensively study existing and future public service 7 Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century (Sacramento: Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, 2000), 70. 8 California Government Code §56430(c). 11 conditions and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently and cost- effectively. Effective January 1, 2001, Government Code Section 56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services provided in a county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following: 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies; 2. Growth and population projections; 3. Financing constraints and opportunities; 4. Cost avoidance opportunities; 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring; 6. Opportunities for shared facilities; 7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers; 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies; and 9. Local accountability and governance. The municipal service review process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings; it only requires that LAFCO make determinations regarding the provision of public services per Government Code Section 56430. However, LAFCO, other local agencies and the public may subsequently use the determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization to establish or amend spheres of influence. Municipal service reviews are not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because they are only feasibility or planning studies for possible future action which LAFCO has not approved. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21150) The ultimate outcome of conducting a service review however, may result in LAFCO taking discretionary action with respect to a recommended change of organization. Either LAFCO, if acting on its own, or the local agency that submits a proposal to LAFCO, will be considered the lead agency for purposes of CEQA and must conduct an appropriate environmental review prior to LAFCO taking action. 12 LOS ANGELES LAFCO M S R PROCESS LAFCO is charged with preparing municipal service reviews and updating the spheres of influence of 180 local agencies. Given the enormity of the task, the Executive Officer has divided the county into nine geographic areas, based primarily on watersheds, for which MSRs are being prepared: 1. Catalina Island (completed May 12, 2004) 2. High Desert (completed August 25, 2004) 3. Las Virgenes (completed August 25, 2004) 4. West San Gabriel Valley (completed December 8, 2004) 5. Santa Clara 6. Gateway 7. East San Gabriel Valley 8. South Bay 9. Los Angeles The Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County has determined that certain special districts (cemetery, community services, garbage disposal, health care, library, recreation and park, resource conservation, and mosquito abatement) are subject to sphere of influence reviews and updates, but are not considered “backbone” municipal services. These special districts will be subject to abbreviated municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates. The MSR process involves agency review and public hearings prior to the Commissioner’s decision on the nine determinations. The process involves the following steps: Preliminary Municipal Service Review: During this step, LAFCO sent questionnaires (Requests for Information) to the agencies about their delivery of municipal services. LAFCO prepares the preliminary municipal service review report, and submits that report to the affected agencies for review. During or upon completion of the 30-day review period, LAFCO invites the agencies to discuss their comments and related policy options with the Executive Officer. Draft Municipal Service Review: After receiving the agencies’ comments, LAFCO makes report revisions and releases the draft municipal service review report to the Commission and to the general public 21 days in advance of the public hearing. LAFCO then holds a public hearing to consider public comment. Final Municipal Service Review: At the public hearing, the Commissioners may proceed to reach the nine written determinations regarding municipal service review or may request revisions or additional analysis to be conducted for the MSR. Sphere of Influence Update: After making the nine written determinations, the commission may proceed to update the spheres of influence of the agencies covered in the municipal service review report. Affected agencies must be notified 21 days in advance of this hearing. 13 Chapter 2 Santa Clara Valley Regional Overview About the Region LAFCO has designated nine regional municipal service review study areas that are principally based on watershed regions. The Santa Clara Region is characterized by the transverse ranges of the Santa Susana Mountains that form the Santa Clarita Valley, and the Santa Clara River that runs through the valley from east to west. The MSR area encompasses 765 square miles (see Map Exhibit 1). The Santa Clara River originates in the northern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains in north Los Angeles County. It traverses west for 100 miles from its headwaters in Acton and flows into Ventura County and the Pacific Ocean. Portions of the river within Los Angeles County are referred to as the Upper Santa Clara River. Major tributaries of the watershed area include San Francisquito Canyon, Castaic Creek, Bouquet Canyon, Mint Canyon, Sand Canyon, and Santa Clara River South Fork. The regional urban core center of the Santa Clara region is the City of Santa Clarita, which is the fourth most populated city in Los Angeles County. The region has three mountain ranges, the San Gabriel Mountains, the Santa Susana Mountains, and the Sierra Pelona Mountains, which form part of the Transverse ranges. Canyons, mountains and hills characterize the topography of the area. There are approximately 1,968 acres of Prime Farmland in the MSR area, located principally along the Santa Clara River; along Castaic Creek; west of San Francisquito Canyon, along Interstate 5, and adjacent to the Antelope Valley Freeway. Areas designated as Farmlands of State Importance exist east of San Francisquito Canyon and along Bouquet Canyon Road; areas designated as Unique Farmland exists east of San Francisquito Canyon and west of Bouquet Canyon Road; and Farmland of Local Importance are located long Chiquito Canyon Road and south of Acton.9 This report does not give a complete comprehensive review of special district service providers within the Santa Clara Valley Region. Municipal Service Reviews and sphere of influence updates for special districts that provide essential or “backbone” municipal services has been completed, however, MSRs on water and waste water will be published and acted on by the Commission at a later date. 9 Santa Clarita Valleywide General Plan, 14 Growth and Population Projections Santa Clarita Population Growth Forecast Santa Clarita 250,000 SCAG 200,000 150,000 Figure ? 2-1 Growth Projections 100,000 50,000 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year The City of Santa Clarita provided LAFCO with population projections using the California Department of Finance’s population estimate for 2002. In 1990, Santa Clarita had 110,690 residents. The City grew to 151,088 in 2000 and currently has 164,900 residents.10 Santa Clarita anticipates high growth rates to occur until 2020 when the City is expected to reach full “build out.” Development project areas that will contribute significant growth are Newhall Ranch, phases of Stevenson Ranch and other residential developments. As a comparison, LAFCO has included population projections based on SCAG’s 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).11 The SCAG based population projections run slightly higher than those submitted by Santa Clarita. The Santa Clarita Valley is one of the fastest growing regions in Los Angeles County. The following chart depicts estimated future growth rates within the Santa Clara Municipal Service Review boundary area, as well as growth rates for the City of Santa Clarita and the City of Santa Clarita sphere of influence boundaries. It is estimated that Santa Clarita will reach its highest growth rate (2.2%) from 2000-2005 and thereafter, growth will occur at a slower pace. The MSR area’s population growth rate will peak at 3.6% from 2005-2010.12 10 California Department of Finance January 2004 Total Population. 11 Population 2000 is based on 2000 Census data with each census block assigned to the particular agency by the County of Los Angeles Urban Research Division. Projected population, employment and housing unit data is based on the SCAG RTP 2004 annual growth rates, as applied to the 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 census tract geographies. 12 Population 2000 is based on 2000 Census data with each census block assigned to the particular agency by the County of Los Angeles Urban Research Division. *Projected population, employment and housing unit data is based on the SCAG RTP 2001 annual growth rates, as applied to the 2000 Census data. These projections are based on 1990 census tract geographies. 15 Growth rate for Los Angeles County in comparison to the MSR region, will retain a relatively constant rate of less than 1%. Santa Clara Projected Growth Rates 2020-25 2015-20 2010-15 2005-10 2000-5 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 16 sraeY Santa Clara MSR Area Santa Clarita SOI Figure ? 2-2 SCAG City of Santa Clarita Projected Growth Rate LA County Annual Growth Rate Population, Housing and Jobs in the Santa Clara Region POPULATION, JOB AND HOUSING BALANCE The following charts outline the population and jobs-housing balance for the City of Santa Clarita, the Santa Clarita SOI area, and the MSR area. SCAG projects that approximately 17,521 jobs will be created in the City of Santa Clarita between the years 2000 and 2025, however; the largest number of jobs created will occur within the MSR area. Figures 2-3?J obs and Housing Units Crea ted Projected Job-Housing Units Created 2000-2025 Santa Clara MSR 61,585 Area 26,927 Santa Clarita SOI 34,552 Area 19,949 Housing City of Santa 26,981 Clarita 17,521 Jobs 0 10,000 20,00030,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 In Santa Clarita, the jobs-resident ratio is 0.3, which is slightly higher than the County’s ratio of 0.2. The job-housing ratios are highest in the MSR area. The largest growth in jobs and housing units created will be within the MSR area between years 2005-2010. SCAG projects that between the years 2000 and 2025, 26,981 housing units will be created in the City of Santa Clarita, 34,552 within the SOI area, and 61,585 within the MSR area Figures 2-4? Santa Clara Regional Demographics Job-Housing Balance City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita SOI 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2000- 5 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2000- 5 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 Population 2.2 2.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 Population 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.3 0.1 Housing 1.8 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 Housing 1.6 3.3 1.7 1.6 1.4 Jobs 0.3 2.6 1.2 1.1 1.0 Jobs 0.3 3.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 Santa Clara MSR Area Countywide 4.0 2.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2000- 5 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2000- 5 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 Population 3.4 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 Population 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 Housing 2.1 3.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 Housing 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Jobs 0.4 3.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 Jobs 0.2 2.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 17 REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT The most recent U.S Census economic census data available is for 1997. The Census data shows that retail trade is the largest sector of employment in the City of Santa Clarita, followed by accommodation and food services, healthcare and social assistance, and administrative services. The five largest employers in the Santa Clara MSR region are: Six Flags Magic Mountain, William S. Hart Union High School District, the United States Postal Service, Saugus Union Figure ? 2-5 City of Santa Clarita Employment by Industry School District, and Princess Cruises.13 Other services Manufacturing 6% 8% Accomodation & Wholesale trade foodservices 4% 18% Arts, entertainment Retail trade 3% 27% Healthcare & social assistance 12% Educational Real estate services 4% 1% Professional Administrative services services 6% 11% 13 City of Santa Clarita Demographics retrieved from: http://www.santa-clarita.com/cityhall/cmo/ed/community_profile/demographics.asp#econ 18 List ofS ervice Providers LAFCO is required to review services for agencies with spheres of influence. The following table provides a list of all agencies having spheres of influence that provide municipal services within the Santa Clara MSR geographic area and includes a schedule of municipal service review and sphere of influence update actions. Service providers include cities and special districts within Los Angeles County whose boundaries are within LAFCO’s jurisdiction. A municipal service review and sphere of influence update of all non-essential service districts was completed prior to the publication of this report. LAFCO determined that abbreviated studies would be preformed on non-essential municipal service districts, such as cemetery, resource conservation, healthcare, etc. The MSR for Miscellaneous Government Services was adopted by LAFCO on June 23, 2004. Separate municipal service review studies will be implemented for all water and wastewater providers within Los Angeles County. Table 2-6?R egional Service Providers Municipal Service Sphere of Influence Agency Review Update City of Santa Clarita Yes Yes Antelope Valley Healthcare/Hospital District Yes Completed Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District Yes Completed Castaic Lake Water Agency Yes Subject to separate action. County Sanitation Districts No. 26 Yes Subject to separate action. County Sanitation District No. 32 Yes Subject to separate action. County Waterworks District #36-Val Verde Yes Subject to separate action. Consolidated Fire Protection District Yes Subject to separate action. Green Valley County Water District Yes Subject to separate action. Golden Valley Municipal Water District Yes Subject to separate action. Greater Los Angeles Mosquito Abetment & Vector Control Dist Yes Completed Newhall County Water District Yes Subject to separate action. Municipal Services The City of Santa Clarita provides a wide range of municipal services to its residents, parks and recreational services, land use planning, street maintenance, flood control and storm water disposal, housing and transportation services. Law enforcement is provided through contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department. Fire protection and emergency medical services are provided through annexation to the County’s Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD). 19 Chapter 3 Municipal Service Review Determinations M U N I C I P A L S E R V I C E R E V I E W D E T E R M I N A T I O N S Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies LAFCO’s role is to assess whether a local agency is able to provide needed resources to its residents at the present time and whether it is capable of meeting anticipated future resource demands within the agency’s boundaries and sphere of influence. In areas where high growth is anticipated, it is particularly important for LAFCO to evaluate whether the city has the current capacity and infrastructure necessary to maintain and meet future demand. Consideration must be given to the agency’s long-term infrastructure plans and available resources. According to the Santa Clarita Valleywide General Plan, Santa Clarita has a significant deficit of parkland in comparison to its population. Based on the projected 2020 population the City would need to develop 1,453 acres of local parks to meet the City’s planning standard of 4 acres per 1,000 residents. Library services are also of concern as population demand increases. Infrastructure deficiencies were identified by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department regarding the Santa Clarita Valley station in Valencia, the facility is insufficient to met current needs of assigned personnel. The Valleywide General Plan identifies that municipal services in general, in the unincorporated community of Val Verde are limited due to its isolation. LAFCO contracted with Dudek and Associates to perform a municipal service review study of water service providers in the Santa Clara region. Several infrastructure deficiencies were identified as a result of the preliminary draft report. The Los Angeles County Waterworks District #36 has an aging infrastructure system with a backlog of deferred maintenance needs. The Newhall County Water District has overlapping boundaries and provides service to areas outside of its sphere of influence. Three separate agencies, Newhall County Water District, Santa Clarita Water Company and Valencia Water Company a private retailer, have overlapping service areas that need be addressed. 20 FIRE PROTEC TION AND EMERGENCY SERV ICES Fire protection and emergency medical services are provided to the region by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County. The area is serviced primarily by CFPD Division III, Battalion 6. Fire Station 73 serves as the division’s headquarters. Those fire stations under Battalion 6’s jurisdiction are: 73, 75, 76, 77, 107, 111, 123, 124, 126 and 149. The following chart shows the location of the fire stations, the year facilities were built, condition of existing facilities, the number of staff positions, and equipment for all fire facilities that have primary jurisdiction within the MSR area. See Map Exhibit 3. CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT – SANTA CLARITA VALLEY STATIONS Fire Stations Address Built Condition Staff Equipment 1 Captain 3 Firefighters Specialists Truck CFPD Camp 9 21521 N. Sand Canyon Rd., Santa Clarita N/A Good 19 Aids Crew Bus 1 Captain Truck 9 Firefighter Specialists 5 Crew CFPD Camp 11 8800 W. Soledad Canyon Rd., Acton N/A Fair 90 Inmates Buses 1 Captain 3 Firefighter Specialists Truck CFPD Camp 12 29300 The Old Road, Saugus N/A Fair 16 Aids Crew Bus 1 Captain Truck 9 Firefighter Specialists 5 Crew CFPD Camp 14 35100 San Francisquito Canyon Rd., Saugus N/A Fair 91 Inmates Buses 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Engine 1 Firefighter Squad CFPD Station 73 24875 N. San Fernando Rd, Newhall 1958 Fair 3 Firefighter/Paramedics Patrol 2 Captains Engine 2 Firefighter Specialists Haz Mat Sq. CFPD Station 76 27223 Henry Mayo Dr., Valencia 1966 Good 5 Fire Fighters Patrol 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Engine CFPD Station 77 46833 Peace Valley Rd., Gorman 1988 Fair 1 Firefighter Patrol 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist 1 Firefighter Engine CFPD Station 78 17021 Elizabeth Lake Rd., Lake Hughes 1936 Fair 3 Paid Call Firefighters Patrol 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Engine CFPD Station 80 1533 W. Sierra Hwy., Acton 1972 Fair 2 Firefighters Patrol 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Assessment CFPD Station 81 8710 W. Sierra Hwy., Agua Dulce 1979 Good 1 Firefighter Engine 2 Captains 2 Firefighter Specialists 2 Engines 2 Firefighters Patrol CFPD Station 107 18239 Soledad Canyon, Canyon Country 1962 Fair 3 Firefighter/ Paramedics Squad 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Engine CFPD Station 111 26829 Seco Canyon Rd., Saugus 1973 Fair 3 Firefighter/Paramedics Squad 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Engine CFPC Station 123 26321 N. Sand Canyon Rd., Canyon Country 1960 Good 1 Firefighter Patrol 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Engine CFPD Station 124 25870 Hemingway Ave., Stevenson Ranch 2002 Good 3 Firefighter/Paramedics Squad 2 Captains 2 Firefighter Specialists Engine CFPD Station 126 26320 Citrus Dr., Santa Clarita 2003 Good 3 Firefighters Quint CFPD Station 140* 8723 Elizabeth Lake Rd., Leona Valley 1968 Fair 11 Paid Call Firefighters Engine 1 Captain 1 Firefighter Specialist Engine CFPD Station 149 31770 Ridge Route, Castaic 1974 Fair 3 FireFighter/Paramedics Patrol CFPD Station 157 15921 Spunky Canyon Rd., Green Valley 1970 Fair 3 Paid Call Firefighters Engine * Outside of MSR area but has primary first-in jurisdiction. 21 Funding Funding of fire protection and emergency medical services is through a portion of the ad valorem tax and special tax assessment of property owners. The construction of new facilities is also financed by developer mitigation fees imposed by cities that are within the District’s boundaries. This program is in effect in designated high growth areas of the CFPD, including the City of Santa Clarita. Service Calls Approximately 65% of the CFPD’s service calls are for emergency medical services. Calls for fire incidents constitute only 4% of the total number of calls for fire service in the region. The remaining calls are 12% for false alarms and 19% for other (miscellaneous). The chart below gives the number and type of incidents for each fire station within the region. Consolidated Fire Protection District Table ?3 -1 CFPD Number and Type of Incidents by Fire Station Jurisdiction Service Call Incidents 1/1/03 - 12/31/03 Region Fire Station FIRE MEDICAL FALSE OTHER* TOTAL Santa Clarita Valley FS 73 80 1,285 235 320 1,920 FS 76 61 668 105 177 1,011 FS 77 47 283 43 167 540 FS 78 21 212 37 79 349 FS 80 57 601 104 160 922 FS 81 53 229 63 65 410 FS 107 124 2,475 377 562 3,538 FS 111 53 1,385 229 366 2,033 FS 123 4 93 20 53 170 FS 124 55 1,027 307 342 1,731 FS 126 36 962 254 307 1,559 FS 140 6 58 17 31 112 FS 149 68 487 57 179 791 FS 157 3 24 5 12 44 Total 668 9,789 1,853 2,820 15,130 * Hazardous materials, explosives, good intent and other miscellaneous incidents. Current and Projected Needs The per capita ratio of firefighters to population within the City of Santa Clarita is 3,748 to one. This figure was based on the current population of the City (164,900)14 and the number of assigned firefighters (44) from those stations having primary first-in jurisdiction in within the City. There are several new fire stations that are slated for future construction in the Santa Clarita Valley; they are: Fire Station 100 located in Spring Canyon area, Fire Station 104 located on Soledad Canyon Valley Road, Fire Station 108 located on Rock Canyon Road, temporary Fire Station 156, Fire Station 132 located in Wes Thompson Ranch area, Fire Station 143 located in the Hasley 14 California Department of Finance, January 2004 population estimates. 22 Canyon area, Fire Station 137 located in Stevenson Ranch area, Fire Station 150 located in the Golden Valley Ranch Area, and Fire Station 138 located at Tesoro Del Valle. In addition, a temporary Fire Station 104 is currently under construction in the City of Santa Clarita. Rating Standards and Response Times The CFPD county-wide median response times reported for FY 2002-03 were 4.5 minutes for Urban areas, 5.6 minutes for Suburban and 7.3 minutes for Rural areas. The average response time for 2003 was 4.47 minutes within the City of Santa Clarita and 5.38 minutes for the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clara Valley region. Response times are affected by topography, a large number of rural areas, road access constraints and traffic congestion. The District strives to maintain the State’s Emergency Medical Services Authority Standards for providing emergency medical services. For basic life support calls, the State standard is 5 minutes for Metro/Urban areas and 15 minutes for Suburban/Rural areas. For advanced life support calls, the standard response time is 8 minutes for Metro/Urban areas and 20 minutes for Suburban/Rural areas. 15 The Insurance Service Organization (ISO) is an independent private insurance research group that rates fire departments on their ability to provide protection. The agency uses a rating scale of 1 (best protection) to 10 (least protection) to rate city fire departments on a national basis. Ratings for CFPD vary according to location. According to the Fire District, CFPD generally has a Class 4 ISO rating for the developed areas of the Santa Clara Valley Region, which is considered good-adequate for an urban area. Regional Collaborations In a mutual aid agreement two or more agencies agree to provide mutually beneficial emergency services to each other. Automatic aid arrangements provide for the reciprocal exchange of fire and rescue services. These arrangements provide valuable resources and the volume of calls affected by automatic aid responses is not significant. In the Santa Clara Valley region, CFPD is party to automatic and mutual aid agreements with Kern and Ventura Counties, within areas surrounding the respective county boundaries. CFPD is also entered into an automatic and mutual aid agreement with the City of Los Angeles and the USDA Forest Service, Angeles National Forest Service within the southern portion of the region where Interstate 5 and State Route 14 split. 15 California Emergency Medical Services Authority. EMS System Standards and Guidelines, 1993. 23 HOUSING Affordability &Housing Needs The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a tool utilized by SCAG to determine projected housing needs for a particular city and whether the housing market currently meets those needs. These figures are based on the most current Census data, forecasted employment, and projected growth for the region. The Fair Share Adjustment is utilized to project the needs and housing impact on lower income households in comparison to each community within a regional area. The projected RHNA need for the entire SCAG- North Los Angeles unincorporated sub-regional area is projected to be 30,174 housing units needed by 2005. According to the RHNA, Santa Clarita will require additional housing units for 7,157 households by the year 2005, in order to keep pace with forecasted population growth and demands. There is a concern that the City of Santa Clarita is short of meeting the SCAG projected RHNA goals. The City needs to construct 3,935 new housing units to meet the goal by 2005. Housing affordability is also an issue since most new housing that has been constructed is in the Moderate to Above Moderate Income category. PARK AND RECREATIONA L SERVICES Santa Clarita has a goal of providing 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Parkland acquisition and the development of new facilities are primarily funded by donations, in- lieu development fees (Quimby fees), impact fees, public financing districts, bond measures, and grants. Dedication of development rights, easements, and a joint powers agreement with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy also provide parkland. Maintenance is provided through general fund monies, and Prop A Safe Park Bond. Since its initial incorporation in 1987, the City has increased its parkland from 67 acres to over 200 acres. In addition, the City has over 169 acres of passive and special use parklands. LAW ENFORCEMENT Funding Santa Clarita’s expenditure for contract law enforcement for Fiscal Year 2002-03 was $11,651,389, which represents 20% of the City’s general fund budget. Per capita expenditure on public safety is $74, based on 2002 California Department of Finance population estimates. The City achieves economies of scale by contracting with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. Santa Clarita’s annual expenditure for police services for Fiscal Year 2002-03 was $11,651,389, or approximately 30% of the city’s General Fund operating budget. 24 Regional Facilities The Santa Clarita Valley Station provides service to the City of Santa Clarita and the surrounding unincorporated territory that covers the MSR region and its unincorporated communities. Area coverage for the Santa Clarita Valley Station is 978.5 square miles. The regional Sheriff’s Station is located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway in Valencia. According to the station commander, the existing facility is not adequate to meet the station’s personnel needs and demands. The facility was opened in 1972 when the area had 50,000 residents and 75 sworn officers. There are now a total of 202 sworn and civilian personnel assigned to the station. The residential population has increased four-fold and the number of commercial and industrial buildings has increased dramatically. The physical layout of the building cannot accommodate increased staff size, even though a double-wide trailer was placed in the courtyard 14 years ago to relieve cramped working conditions. Power failures due to the age of the building and failures in the backup generator to activate have caused serious problems with the station’s 911 system. The station also does not meet ADA requirements. Service Demands In 1999, the Department had a total of 8,261 sworn officers on staff. That number has now grown to 8,861 sworn officers countywide. The crime rate in Santa Clarita is relatively low in comparison to neighboring cities. The City continues to rank among the FBI’s top ten safest cities in the nation with a population over 100,000. The Part I crime rate for the Santa Clarita Station area in 2002 averaged 204.79 per 10,000. Part II crimes committed per thousand population averaged 272.86.16 Response Times There are no established standards for law enforcement agencies in California relating to emergency response times, crime clearance rates or patrol staffing levels. Morgan Quitno is an independent private research and company that ranks crime by state and city according to population size. Six crime categories are considered: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft. The organization’s 10th Annual Safest City and Metropolitan Awards ranks Santa Clarita 35th out of 350 cities nationwide. Crime Statistics The following charts and data show crime statistics for both the City and the surrounding unincorporated areas from 1999 to 2002. Part I crimes are Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny Theft, Grand Theft Auto, and Arson. Part II crimes are, Forgery, Fraud, Felony and Misdemeanor Sex Offenses, Non-aggravated Assaults, Weapon Laws, Offenses against Family, Narcotics, Liquor Laws, Drunk/Alcohol/Drugs, Disorderly Conduct, Vagrancy, Gambling, Drunk Driving Vehicle/Boat, Vandalism, Warrants, Receiving Stolen Property, Federal Offenses without Money, Federal Offenses with Money, and miscellaneous Felonies and Misdemeanors. 16 County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. 2002 Crime and Arrest Statistics, 18. 25 Part I crime rates are calculated according to the number of Part I offenses committed per thousand people. The data indicates that Part I and Part II crimes in Santa Clarita have peaked in 2001 and declined in 2002. The following charts provide an annual comparison of Part I and Part II Crimes. Part I Crimes 4,500 4,250 4,000 3,750 3,500 3,250 26 stserrA latoT Part II Crimes 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 Santa Clarita 3,634 3,686 4,298 4,329 stserrA latoT Table 3-2? Area Crime Statistics LA County Sheriff’s Department17 Station Year Area Population Coverage Part I Part II Crime Rate Crime Rate Crimes Crimes in Square Per 10,000 Per 10,000 Miles Reported Reported Part I Crimes Part II Crimes Incidents Incidents Santa City U n incorporated Clarita Area 1999 649.2 147,000 43,950 3,634 5,357 190.31 280.54 2000 648.2 151,088 49,926 3686 5,723 183.37 284.71 2001 638.7 153,486 52,348 4,298 6,016 208.81 292.27 2002 678.5 160,282 54,186 4,329 5,852 204.79 272.86 Figure 3-3? Part I & Part II Crime Statistics 1999 2000 2001 2002 Santa Clarita 5,375 5,723 6,016 5,852 FBI Crime Index FBI crime index data is presented in terms of reported crimes per 10,000 residents. The statistics represent the number of violent crimes reported such as, homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes such as, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft and arson. The FBI Crime Index for the City of Santa 17 County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Year in Review, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Clarita was 2,716 in 1999, 2,741 in 2000, 3,214 in 2001, and 3,229 in 2002, which indicates that the City’s crime rate is rising.18 SOLID WASTE Collection of residential, commercial and industrial wastes for Santa Clarita is handled by private haulers. Two landfill facilities service the MSR area - the Chiquita Canyon Landfill and the Antelope Valley Landfills I and II. Antelope Valley Public Landfill I and II are located in the City of Palmdale. A proposal exists to bridge the two landfills and expand by 185 acres. Antelope Valley Landfill I, located east of Landfill II, was established in the 1950s. It encompasses 72 acres, of which 57 acres is permitted for landfill operations. The landfill has a maximum permitted daily capacity of 1,869 cubic yards. Both landfills have a combined remaining permitted capacity of 12,209,000 cubic yards and an estimated remaining life of eighteen years.19 Landfill II encompasses 98 acres of which 54 acres are permitted for disposal. The landfill has a daily maximum permitted capacity of 2,400 cubic yards. Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill is located in Valencia and encompasses 2,650 square miles. The facility has a daily maximum permitted capacity of 8,600 cubic yards and an estimated remaining life of ten years. The remaining estimated capacity of the landfill is 26,024,360 cubic yards. TRANSPORTATION Rapid population expansion in the Santa Clarita Valley and Antelope Valley has had a direct impact on the freeway system, as the majority of people residing in north Los Angeles County commute to work, mostly to the San Fernando Valley or the Los Angeles Basin. The North County transportation system will face challenging demands keeping up with the anticipated growth in the region. Severe traffic congestion already exists along the region’s main highways and freeways - Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 14 (SR-14 or Antelope Valley Freeway) and State Route 138. Interstate 5 is a main corridor for the movement of goods between the Ports of Los Angles/Long Beach and the Central Valley. State Route 14 is considered a commuter corridor that is estimated to triple the volume of commuters by 2025. Safety issues are also a growing concern; the study indicates that accidents rates involving fatalities, along the I-5 and SR-14, are above the State average. A North County Combined Highway Corridor Study was initiated to review the area’s transportation issues. The study was conducted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the County of Los Angeles, and the Cities of Lancaster, Los Angeles, Palmdale and Santa Clarita, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. The study proposes short 18 California and FBI Crime index, State of California Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. 19 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2002 Annual Report, Facility/Site Summary Details, 2004. 27 term goals (2010) and long term goals (2025) to improve traffic flow and freeway connectivity. The MTA’s recommendations include: new HOV lanes along SR-14 and new HOV connector ramps between I-5 and SR-14. Short-range improvements along Interstate 5, improvements include the addition of an HOV and truck lane in each direction from the I-5/SR-14 interchange to Calgrove Boulevard and the addition of an HOV lane in each direction from Calgrove Boulevard to the I-5/126 Grade Separation. Improvements for SR-14 includes the addition of three HOV reversible lanes from the I-5/SR-14 interchange to Pearblossom Highway, two HOV reversible lanes from Pearblossom Highway to Avenue P and three continuous mix flow lanes from Sand Canyon Road to Avenue P.20 Short-term improvements along the State Route 14 corridor includes: five general purpose lanes in each direction and three reversible HOV lanes from the I-5 to San Fernando Road, three general purpose and reversible HOV lanes from San Fernando Road to Pearblossom, traffic system monitoring improvements, and increased Metrolink train departures and Express Bus service. Long-range improvements include the possibility of constructing a new freeway/expressway between I-5 and I-15, and improvements along the I-5 corridor call for the doubling of lanes from four to eight and the tripling of transit service. Along SR-14, long term plans include the addition of a truck lane from I-5 to Placerita Canyon and the addition of a general purpose lane between San Fernando Road and Sand Canyon. WATER Water Availability There have been several studies undertaken on the availability of water supply and future demand needs for the Santa Clarita Valley, including LAFCO’s MSR study of Water Service Providers for the Santa Clara region21. The reports indicated that water availability was not an issue in the region. Groundwater Approximately 54% of water in the Santa Clarita Valley comes from groundwater. The remaining 46% comes from imported water from State Water Project deliveries. There are two local groundwater basins in the MSR area, the Alluvial Basin and the Saugus Formation. The annual production of the Alluvial Basin is estimated to be between 30,000-40,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) and the Saugus Formation from 7,500-15,000 20 Parsons Transportation Group. MTA, North County Combine Highway Corridors Study, Final Report (Los Angeles: County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2004. 21 SA Associates, Reiter/Lowry/Consultants & Black & Veatch, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan; Luhdrorff and Scalmanini, Santa Clarita Valley Water Report 2002; and Dudek & Associaters Draft Municpal Service Review of Water Service Providers in the Santa Clara Region. 28 acre-feet per year.22 Pumpage from the Alluvium for 2002 was 38,100 AF and has remained consistent for the past ten years. Pumpage of the Saugus Formation in 2002 was 5,200 AF. The average pumpage has been 7,000 AF/yr since 1980.23 Groundwater quality is a concern in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Santa Clarita Water Company closed two wells due to nitrate contamination; Newhall County Water District has closed four wells, and Santa Clarita Water has closed three wells because of perchlorate concerns. Imported Water The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) is the single wholesale supplier of water in the region and provides imported water to four retail water agencies in the MSR area, Newhall County Water District, Los Angeles County Waterworks District #36, Valencia Water Company, and Santa Clarita Water Company. The agency’s service area encompasses the Santa Clarita Valley. The Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency provides wholesale water to small portions of the MSR area north and northeast. An in-depth review of the agency is available in Dudek & Associates’, Final MSR of Water Service Providers in the High Desert Region. LAFCO has contracted with Dudek and Associates to perform comprehensive municipal service reviews of water providers in Los Angeles County. The water service MSRs are being conducted according to the regional areas adopted by the Commission. Regional Water Service Providers The MSR of Water Service providers for the Santa Clara region include Castaic Lake Water Agency and its Santa Clarita Water Division, Newhall County Water District, County Waterworks District #36 – Val Verde, Green Valley County Water District, and Golden Valley Municipal Water District. Dudek’s preliminary study of water providers in the Santa Clara Region concludes that there are adequate water supplies in the MSR area to meet future demand and growth. The preliminary report identifies significant issues regarding infrastructure deficiencies and financial constraints for Waterworks District #36 and Golden Valley Municipal Water District, and problems with overlapping boundary service areas between Newhall County Water District and Santa Clarita Water Company. The Santa Clarita Water Company is a private water company that was acquired by the Castaic Lake Water Agency in 1999. LAFCO has sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to study the infrastructure needs, overlapping infrastructure and boundary areas, and rate differentiations. 22 SA Associates 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, page 2-2. 23 2002 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report. 29 W A STEWA TER The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles (CSD) are a confederation of independent county sanitation districts that operate under one or more joint powers agreements. CSD provides wastewater and solid waste management. The Districts are formed pursuant State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 4700 et seq. The CSD are enabled to construct, operate and maintain facilities for the purpose of collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater. The CSD charges new users or developers a connection fee, which goes into a separate Capital Improvement Fund to finance any future improvements as needed. On February 25, 2004 LAFCO approved the consolidation of County Sanitation District No. 26 into County Sanitation District No. 32. The consolidation will become effective on July, 1, 2005. District No. 32 will encompass 53 square miles and provide service to approximately 150,771 residents. The two districts are closely tied together in their day to day operations in that there is joint waste processing. Two regional wastewater treatment facilities are utilized in the MSR area, the Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants (WRP). Both facilities are interconnected. The Saugus WRP is located at 26200 Springbrook Avenue, Saugus and the Valencia WRP is located at 28185 The Old Road, Valencia. It takes approximately one million gallons daily (mgd) per year of processed wastewater to service 24 households. The Valencia WRP is undergoing expansion to increase capacity from 12.6 mgd to 21.6 mgd. No increase is proposed for the Saugus WRP however, the facility has been updated. The Districts have approved a facilities plan that will ultimately increase treatment to 34.1 mgd. A third water reclamation facility is being proposed for the Santa Clarita Valley, in the Newhall Ranch project area. Both districts appear to have adequate infrastructure to meet demand needs and there are no areas that are difficult to cover. A detailed study of all County Sanitation Districts is presently being conducted to assure that its services meet expected demand needs. 30 Financing Constraints and Opportunities The City of Santa Clarita avoids the costs of unnecessary financial obligations for capital improvements and maintenance associated with new development. Costs for new services and infrastructure are borne by developers through mitigation fees, in-lieu fees, and impact fees and does not directly affect existing residents or have a negative fiscal impact on the City. Santa Clarita received $56,711,725 in General Fund revenues for Fiscal Year 2001-02. The City’s largest revenue source is sales tax, which accounted for 49% of the General Fund. The chart below shows general fund revenue shares received by the City of Santa Clarita for fiscal year 2001-02 and compares it to an average of fund revenues reported by cities within Los Angeles County and the State of California. Figure ? 3-4 General Fund Revenues General Fund Revenue Sources FY 01-02 Other Other Taxes Franchise Income Hotel Tax (TOT) Business License Interest & Rent VLF Utility Users Tax Sales & Use Tax Property Tax 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source as % of General Fund All CA Citites LA County Cities Santa Clarita In Fiscal Year 2001-02, Santa Clarita’s General Revenue was $56,711,725. The City’s per capita general fund expenditure was $373, which was lower than the average of $548 for all cities in Los Angeles County. Sales tax accounted for the highest portion of general fund revenue shares at 49%. By comparison, all cities in the State averaged 23% and cities within Los Angeles County averaged 20%. Vehicle license fees accounted for 19% of the City’s general fund revenue share, compared to 11% for the average of all cities and 10% for cities within the County. Property tax accounted for 31 14 % of the budget and Franchise Income for 11%. The City does not charge utility users tax.24 Most healthy cities maintain an average of 5-10 % general fund balance in reserve. The City’s undesignated and unreserved general fund balance is 12% of the general fund. The City has a goal of building its general fund reserves to 15% and anticipates reaching that goal by fiscal year 2006-07. Santa Clarita’s general fund long-term debt obligation for 2001-02 was $29,597,207, which includes $19,475,000 in Certificates of Participation issued by the Santa Clarita Public Financing Authority (SCPFA) in 1997 to refund 1991 Series Certificates of Participation; $3,200,000 in Certificates of Participation issued by SCPFA for the acquisition of parkland; $2,665,846 principal remaining on a loan financed by Price Enterprises (Costco) for acquisition and public improvements of the surrounding Price Club (Costco) area; $1,740,000 remaining in principal on loan in 1999 from HUD the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for street improvements to the West Newhall area; $1,200,000 principal remaining on a loan for the purchase if property for an employee parking lot, $262,056 principal remaining on loan for the lease of a phone system and two copiers, and $1,054,305 in compensated absences. The City has never defaulted on bonded debt. Cost Avoidance Opportunities The City provides a full range of services to its constituents with the exception of water and wastewater treatment. There is no duplication of municipal services. Cost reductions are fully practiced and economies of scale achieved through contracting of law enforcement services with the County Sheriff, by the provision of fire protection and emergency services through the Consolidated Fire Protection District, by utilizing available county services for animal control, library services, street maintenance, and sewer maintenance. Through the operation of a joint transit authority the City provides transportation services to residents in the region. In addition, other resources and facilities are shared on a regional basis due to geographic constraints and the practice of management efficiencies. Opportunities for Rate Structuring There are no apparent governmental options for city services that would lead to rate variances and restructuring. Governmental services are provided as cost-effectively as possible. Opportunities for Shared Facilities There is a significant sharing of facilities and resources in the Santa Clara region. Regional law enforcement facilities are shared by the City, County, State and Federal agencies. CFPD fire station facilities and resources are shared as there are no city 24 California State Controller’s Office, Local Government Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year 2001-02 32 jurisdictional boundaries. If the closest CFPD resource is busy, the next closest is dispatched, regardless of the municipality. Shared facilities also include parks and recreational facilities, schools, and libraries. The City also utilizes regional wastewater treatment and solid waste facilities. Santa Clarita maintains a JPA with County and the Santa Monica Conservancy for parkland and open space. Government Structure Options LAFCO may consider the advantages and disadvantages of alternative government structure options. According to Government Code §56375(a), LAFCO is empowered to initiate certain changes of organizations such as, district consolidation, dissolution, mergers, and establishment of subsidiary districts, in addition to reorganizations that include these changes of organization. The Legislature, in Government Code Section 56425(g) also encourages the Commission to recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using sphere of influence updates as the basis for those recommendations. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies The City was awarded the Government Finance Officer’s Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its Comprehensive Annual Financial report (CAFR) for Fiscal Years 2002-2003 and was also awarded the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) Certificate of Award for Outstanding Financial Reporting for its CAFR for fiscal year 2002-2003. Santa Clarita has received both awards for the past fifteen consecutive years. In addition, Santa Clarita has received numerous awards in many other areas such as, economic development, public information, air quality, economic development, marketing, and design. On issues regarding the management efficiencies of other service providers within the MSR area, Dudek’s draft MSR report of water service providers for the Santa Clara region addresses concerns regarding management practices and financing issues for Golden Valley Municipal Water District. LAFCO records in 1983 indicate similar issues with the agency at that time. The Commission went as far as to recommend a zero sphere of influence and future dissolution of the District. More detailed information is provided in Chapter 13. Local Accountability and Governance Santa Clarita has the characteristic of an efficient and well-run city that serves its residents effectively. It provides a full range of municipal services. Certain services are accessible by internet. Santa Clarita has initiated studies of services and availability of resources, in order to improve services to their residents in the most cost effective way. 33 Chapter 4 City of Santa Clarita Background The City of Santa Clarita is located in northern Los Angeles County, approximately 35 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. It is bordered by unincorporated county territory to the east, north and west, the City of Palmdale to the northwest, and the City of Los Angeles to the south. It is a relatively new city that was incorporated on December 15, 1987. As a general law city it is governed by a four-member city council and mayor elected at large. The council meets every second and fourth Tuesday of the month. Minutes of those meetings are posted on the City’s website. The City provides live webcasting of Council and Commission meetings. The City limits encompass 47.9 square miles. Santa Clarita’s sphere of influence boundaries encompass 77.78 square miles and extend beyond the city boundaries. A map of the city and its sphere of influence boundaries is provided as Map Exhibit 2. Since 1990, LAFCO has processed 24 annexations to the City of Santa Clarita. The city anticipates future annexations of unincorporated territories as a result of future urban development proposals. Those proposed annexations include the Lyons Canyon Ranch area, Northpark, and Lost Canyon Road. Santa Clarita has several annexation requests currently pending with LAFCO. These include California Canyon, Stonecrest, Whitney Canyon, and South Santa Clarita. 34 CITY SERVICES The City of Santa Clarita is a full service municipal government that is responsive to the needs of its residents and many of the issues regarding growth and future development of the Santa Clarita Valley. It provides the following municipal services to its residents: § Animal Control Services (through contract with Los Angeles County Animal Control) § Ambulance Services – (American Medical Response) § Community Development § Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (through the Consolidated Fire Protection District) § Law Enforcement (through contract with Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) § Public park maintenance, recreational programs and services § Land use planning and building regulation § Street maintenance (some services provided by the City and through contract with Los Angeles County Public Works) § Street lighting § Sewer Maintenance (through contract with Los Angeles County Public Works) § Flood Control and storm water disposal ( through contract with Los Angeles County Public Works) § Transit Services City of Santa Clarita Services ANIMAL CONTROL Santa Clarita contracts with the County of Los Angeles for the provision of animal control services to its residents. Services such as, animal licensing, care and boarding facilities are located at the local animal shelter facility in Castaic. AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC SERVICES Emergency transportation and paramedic services are provided to residents through American Medical Response, a private contractor that provides services though out Los Angeles County. ELECTRIC POWER AND UTILITIES Electric power is provided to residents by Southern California Edison and gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. 35 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SEVICES The Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County provides fire protection and emergency medical services to residents. CFPD is a special district whose boundary service area is under the jurisdiction of LAFCO. As part of the District, Santa Clarita and the surrounding MSR area receive services from the CFPD. More detailed information is provided further in this chapter under City of Santa Clarita Service Providers. HOUSING According to the 2000 Census, the median price of a home in Santa Clarita was $229,200 in 2000. Median home values in the City rose to $499,900 as of July 2004, 25which was higher than the median price for a home in Los Angeles of $448,800.26 The SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) projected for the City of Santa Clarita, between years 1998 to 2005, is for 7,157 additional new housing units. The RHNA indicates that of that total, the City will need 1,256 Very Low Income units, 941 Low Income units, 1,439 Moderate Income units and 3,520 Above Moderate Income units by 2005 to comply with the determined regional growth and housing needs.27 Housing Element Law requires that local agencies plan and address residential needs and housing affordability. Santa Clarita’s Housing Element was recently updated in May 2004 and has been reviewed by State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element addresses compliance with the RHNA. The City has met and complied with the State Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the General Plan Housing Element. From January 1998 to May 2003, the following new housing units have been constructed: 1,851 Above Moderate Income, 907 Moderate Income, and 464 Low Income. There were no very low income units constructed. The remaining construction need for the City is 3,935 units. According to the U.S Census Bureau Building Permit Estimates database, there were 6078 housing units constructed in Santa Clarita from January 1998 to July 2004. The majority of housing constructed in the City is single-family dwelling units. Although, a large number of units have been constructed for buildings having five-or more units, there has been an overall decline in the construction of multiple-unit dwellings over the past few years and an increase in construction of single-family units. The City has not yet met the RHNA requirements and there is a growing concern that affordable housing is becoming scarcer. The following chart provides information on the number of building permits for new housing construction issued by the City. 25 Southland Association of Realtors. 26 California Association of Realtors. 27 University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment <http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/RHNABackground/PDF8aRHDP.pdf> 36 Fi gure ?4 -1 Santa Clarita Building Permits Issued 2004 Building Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Jan.- Jul. Single Family Units 256 792 460 455 334 541 840 3678 Two Family Units 36 16 8 0 0 0 0 60 Three-Four Family Units 79 139 26 0 28 3 0 275 Five or More Family Units 433 294 337 367 628 0 0 2059 Total 804 1,241 831 822 990 544 840 6072 *Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permit Estimates Database LAND USE AND PLANNING The chart below shows the percentage of existing developed land use distribution within the Santa Clarita General Plan Study area, which was adopted in 1991. Both the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles embarked on a mission to create a joint general plan called One Valley One Vision (OVOV). OVOV came about because the City’s goal, policies, and development standards were inconsistent with the County’s hence, the agencies have agreed to a more regional planning approach for the Santa Clarita Valley.28 Approximately 46.3% of land within the City is undeveloped. The second highest land use is single-family residential City of Santa Clarita Land Use Distribution Vacant 46.3% Cemetery 0.1% Mining 0.7% Figure ? 4-2 Santa Clarita Land Use Distribution Oil Fields 2.1% Park 0.7% Open Space 1.9% College 0.8% Public Facilities 1.8% Industrial 4.6% Commercial 3.0% Mobilehome 0.9% Senior Housing 1.0% Single-/Multiple-Family 0.8% Subdivision 1.3% Multiple-Family 2.2% Single-Family 31.8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 28 Santa Clarita Valleywide General Plan, Technical Background Report, Final February 2004. EIP Associates, in assoc. with Stanley Hoffman and Assoc., Meyer Mohaddes Assoc. and Psomas. 37 LIBRARY SERVICES Library services to residents of the City of Santa Clarita and the municipal service review area are provided by the County of Los Angeles. The County estimates that based on SCAG population projections for 2020, there will be a shortage of library facilities and materials in the area. There are currently three community library facilities: § CANYON COUNTRY JO ANNE DARCY LIBRARY - 18601 Soledad Canyon Road. § NEWHALL LIBRARY - 22704 W. 9th Street § VALENCIA LIBRARY - 23743 W. Valencia Boulevard. RECREATION AND PARKS Since its incorporation in 1987, the City of Santa Clarita has endeavored to increase parkland. Initially, the City had 67 acres of parkland. There are now 200 acres of developed park land. The City has a total of 3,360 acres of land dedicated for park and recreational use. Santa Clarita maintains and operates 16 park and recreational facilities. William Hart Park encompasses 224 acres and is located within the City. The park is owned and operated by the County of Los Angeles. City and County parks are mutually open to residents of the unincorporated areas and city residents. There are eleven neighborhood parks ranging from five to ten acres in size: Almendra Park, Begonias Lane Park, Bouquet Canyon Park, Circle J Ranch Park, Creekview Park, Oak Springs Canyon Park, Old Orchard Park, Pamplico Park, Santa Clarita Parks, Valencia Glen Park, and Valencia Meadows Park. Central Park is classified as a metro- regional park and is approximately 80 acres. North Oaks Park is a special use park that is approximately 2.3 acres. The remaining three parks, Bridgeport Park, Canyon Country Park, and Newhall Park are classified as community parks and ranging from ten to forty acres in size. Santa Clarita also has 169.5 acres of passive and special use parks such as, Chevron- Pioneer Park, Lost Canyon Park, Mint Canyon Park, Rivendale Park, River Park, Sand Canyon River Park, and Veteran’s Memorial Plaza. The City has recently constructed an aquatic park, the Santa Clarita Aquatics Center and is expanding Central Park to include four additional sports fields. Whitney Canyon was recently annexed to the City and provides 521 acres of open-spaced lands. In addition, the City maintains 22 miles of recreational trails, a senior center, an aquatic center, community center and sports complex. A variety of recreational programs are offered for children, youth, adults and seniors. Programs for adults include instructional classes and sports activities. Programs for children and youth include instructional classes, sports and team programs, and day camps. Senior citizens are provided with a variety of services such as instructional and exercise classes, cultural and leisure activities, health and wellness programs, and nutritional services, transportation and supportive other supportive services for the aging. Santa Clarita offers a variety of cultural and arts programs. Cultural facilities are limited to educational facilities such as, the California Institute of Arts, Valencia High School, and College of the Canyons. Hart Performing Arts Center, the Canyon Theater Guild, 38 and the Santa Clarita Repertory Theater are also utilized for cultural activities. The City has developed a Cultural Arts Master Plan to focus on the needs of the community in providing more facilities, local arts awareness and shared opportunities. SOLID WASTE The City is primarily served by two non-hazardous landfills, Chiquita Canyon and to a small degree, Antelope Valley Landfills I and II which are located in Palmdale. The City indicated that the City will utilize the Antelope Valley Landfills exclusively in the future. STREET MAINTENANCE The city provides street maintenance, street sweeping and traffic engineering services for roads within the city limits. STORMWATER The Los Angles County Flood Control District (LAFCD) is a special district that was formed by the County to provide flood control and maintenance of facilities. LACFD is responsible for maintaining sections of the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, storm drain catch basins, flood control channels, pipelines and outfalls. Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon are areas within the City of Santa Clarita that are prone to flooding. Santa Clarita contracts with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works for the maintenance of the City’s storm drains, although there are a few storm drains that the City maintains. TRANSPORTATION The City of Santa Clarita operates a transit service that provides para-transit service, local fixed-route services and commuter service to Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. Transportation related capital improvements projects include the McBean Transfer Center which was recently completed; construction of a Transit Maintenance Facility; the Magic Mountain Parkway Interchange project that will widen the I-5 bride over Magic Mountain Parkway and includes replacement of the Santa Clara River Bridge; modification of the eastbound lanes on Valencia Boulevard and the southbound lanes of McBean Parkway; and construction of a connection between Sierra Highway and State Route 14. The mean travel time to work, reported in the 2000 Census, for residents of Santa Clarita was 33 minutes; in comparison to the rest of the nation where the average mean time to work is 26 minutes. Regional transportation issues affecting the quality of life for Santa Clarita residents are addressed further in Chapter 3. 39 WASTEWATER Sewer lines located within city streets are owned by the City of Santa Clarita and maintained by Los Angeles County Public Works Department. Wastewater services are provided to residents by County Sanitation District Nos. 26 and 32. District 26 will be officially consolidated into County Sanitation District No. 32 on July 1, 2005. The consolidation will not affect the quality of services currently being provided. WATER The Castaic Lake Water Agency provides wholesale water to the City of Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita Water Company, a retail division of the Castaic Lake Water Agency, and the Valencia Water Company are private companies that provide water to a small portion of the City. SCWC provides the City with most of its retail water, along with Valencia Water Company and Newhall County Water District. 40 City of Santa Clarita Service Providers CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (CFPD) is the provider of fire protection and emergency medical services to Santa Clarita and the surrounding unincorporated county MSR area. The area is mainly served by Battalion 6, however, all CFPD stations within the region provide response to calls depending on the proximity of the location and the type of call. The CFPD received an estimated $20,438,902 in property taxes for year 2002-2003, based on the total assessed value of land. When divided by the total population of the City, 158,300 residents in 2002, the average amount received per capita was $129. To offset the impact of development in high growth areas, the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors adopted a Developer Fee Fire Station Plan in 1991 for the benefit of the District. The developer fee, which is currently $0.37 per square foot, is used to fund new fire stations and apparatus equipment. Santa Clarita is one of five cities in Los Angeles County that has adopted the District’s developer fee plan. The other four cities are Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Malibu and Lancaster. Santa Clarita recently awarded a construction contract for the construction of a temporary Fire Station 104 at 26201 Golden Valley Road. There are seven fire stations within the City of Santa Clarita sphere of influence that have “first-in” response jurisdiction, CFPD Stations 73, 76, 107, 111, 123, 124, and 126 (see attached exhibit Map 3). Types of apparatus equipment are explained in Chapter 7. FIRE STATION 73 - 24875 N. San Fernando Rd, Newhall, is the Division Headquarters for Battalion 6 Headquarters and is equipped with an engine, a paramedic squad and a patrol vehicle. It is staffed by 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, 1 Firefighter, and 3 Firefighter/Paramedics. FIRE STATION 76 - 27223 Henry Mayo Drive, Valencia, is equipped with a Hazardous Materials Task Force, comprised of an engine and a haz mat squad. It is staffed by 2 Captains, 2 Firefighter Specialists, and 5 Firefighters. FIRE STATION 107 - 18239 Soledad Canyon, Canyon Country, is equipped with two engines, a paramedic squad and a patrol vehicle. It is staffed by 2 Captains, 2 Firefighter Specialists, 2 Firefighters, and 3 Firefighter/Paramedics. FIRE STATION 111 - 26829 Seco Canyon Rd., Saugus, is equipped with an engine and a paramedic squad that are staffed by 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, and 3 Firefighter/Paramedics. FIRE STATION 123 - 26321 N. Sand Canyon Rd., Canyon Country, is equipped with an engine. The fire station is staffed by 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, and 1 Firefighter. 41 FIRE STATION 124 – 25870 Hemingway Avenue, Stevenson Ranch, is equipped with an engine and a paramedic squad that are staffed by 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist and 3 Firefighter/Paramedics. FIRE STATION 126 - 26320 Citrus Dr., Santa Clarita, is the base station for Battalion 6 Headquarters and is equipped with an engine and a quint. It is staffed by 2 Captains, 2 Firefighter Specialists, and 3 Firefighters. The following chart provides data (years 2001, 2002 and 2003) on the total number of incidents for each fire station having primary jurisdiction in Santa Clarita. The total number includes service calls made for fires, medical, false alarms and miscellaneous, in addition to calls for hazardous materials, explosions, and good intent. Incidents reflect a station’s entire jurisdiction which includes the City as well as unincorporated areas. Santa Clarita CFPD Fire Station Incidents Years 2001-2003 FS 126 FS 124 FS 123 FS 111 FS 107 FS 76 FS 73 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 42 snoitatS eriF Figure ? 4-2 Santa Clarita CFPD Fire Station Service Calls 2003 2002 2001 FS 73 FS 76 FS 107 FS 111 FS 123 FS 124 FS 126 2003 1,920 1,011 3,538 2,033 170 1,731 1,559 2002 2,115 736 3,513 2,266 172 1,512 1,482 2001 2,355 973 3,424 2,123 141 1,742 438 Total Incidents Percentage of CFPD Fire Incidents 2001-2003 For all fire stations having “first-in” Primary Santa Clarita Stations jurisdiction in the City of Santa Clarita, the majority of all calls that FIRE were received by the Consolidated OTHER* 3% Fire Protection District were for 18% emergency medical services. The chart to the left illustrates the percentages of calls received FALSE 13% between 2001 and 2003. Of the total number of calls, 66% were for emergency medical services, 18% for MEDICAL other miscellaneous calls, 13% for 66% false alarms, and 3% for fire incidents. SHERIFF The Santa Clarita Sheriff’s Station is located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, Valencia, CA. The station facility was built in 1972 and is listed as being in fair condition. It is staffed by 167 sworn officers, 33 civilian personnel and 130 volunteers and has 79 vehicles. In 2002, the Department reported 49,543 calls were received, of which 2,828 were emergency calls, 9,898 priorities and 36,817 routine. Officer- generated activity totaled 86,954 incidents, which included arrests, citations and other actions. The City of Santa Clarita has the lowest crime rate for cities with a population of over 150,000. In the City of Santa Clarita, the average response time reported by the Department for emergency calls was 5.23 minutes; priority calls averaged 11.7 minutes, and routine calls averaged 43.6 minutes. In the unincorporated areas emergency calls averaged 7.67 minutes, priority calls 15.67, and routine calls average 49.07 minutes.29 29 Response times were provided by the Department and averaged on a monthly basis. 43 Chapter 5 Antelope Valley Healthcare and Hospital District The Antelope Valley Healthcare and Hospital District (AVHHD) was formed on January 20, 1953, under California Health and Safety Code Section 32000 et seq. The District has an elected five-member Board of Directors. Healthcare districts are empowered to operate ambulances, operate or provide assistance in the operation of free clinics, diagnostic and testing centers, health education programs, wellness and prevention programs, rehabilitation, aftercare, and any other health care services provider, groups, and organizations that are necessary for the maintenance of good physical and mental health in the communities served by the district. The AVHHD encompasses approximately 1,475 miles and provides inpatient, outpatient, and home healthcare services to citizens of the district area. A map of the District is provided as Map Exhibit 4. Clinical and support services that the district provides are: diagnostic radiology, dietary science, emergency medicine, ambulatory care, nuclear medicine, medical laboratory and pathology, mental health services and pharmacy, physical therapy, respiratory care, and social services. The District’s actual budget for Fiscal Year 2003 reports that it received approximately $188,162,000 in Net Patient Revenues and $5,466,000 from other sources. Expenses for Fiscal Year 2003 totaled $199,372,000, the majority of which was utilized for expenditures on labor ($111, 343,000). An abbreviated municipal service review and sphere of influence update for the District was adopted on June 23, 2004. 44 Chapter 6 Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs), also known as “Soil Conservation Districts” were established in response to the “Dust Bowl” crisis that occurred in the 1930s. RCDs were formed pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code Section 9000, et seq. and are formed for the purpose of soil and water conservation, to control water runoff, development and distribution of water, soil erosion and stabilization, watershed restoration and enhancement, and to protect water quality and water reclamation. They were originally empowered to manage soil and water resources. These powers were expanded in the 1970s to include fish and wildlife habitat conservation. RCDs today mange a variety of resource conservation projects which includes soil and water conservation projects; wildlife habitat enhancement and restoration, control of exotic plant species, watershed restoration, conservation planning, and public education. RCDs receive little funding from local taxes. The majority of their funding is through grants and fundraising. The Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District (AVRCD) was established in 1942. Its boundaries encompass the Mojave Desert and Lancaster Valley in the northeast part of the county; the San Gabriel Mountains, south of the Mojave Desert and northeast of the San Fernando Valley; the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley; and the Coastal Plain, which borders the Pacific Ocean on the west. A map of the District is provided as Map Exhibit 5. The District has a five-member governing Board of Directors. Members are generally nominated by the Board of Directors. Meetings are held on a regular, monthly basis. The Antelope Valley Resource Conservation District constitutes 1,600,000 acres and according to the district, provides services to approximately 610,000 residents. The district’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 is $205,000. The majority of the District’s revenues are received from property taxes and the remainder is from nursery sales, nursery and rental nicome, and other miscellaneous funds. Total proposed expenditures are $205,000, the majority of which is utilized for personnel salaries and 45 rent or leases. AVRCD provides public educational outreach programs to the general public and schools within the district. To accomplish this goal the district produces educational videos, sponsors environmental events, workshops and produces various informational media, such as brochures and comic books. Some of the District’s objectives are to promote exotic plant eradication and wildlife enhancement, reduce soil erosion, improve irrigation efficiency, and monitor water quality within the district. An abbreviated municipal service review and sphere of influence update for the District was adopted on June 23, 2004. 46 Chapter 7 Consolidated Fire Protection District About the District The Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD) is governed by the Fire Protection District Law of 1987, California Health and Safety Code Section 13800, et. seq. It was established on April 12, 1949 by a resolution of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, as a result of merging several fire protection districts. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors acts as the governing body. The CFPD provides fire protection, emergency medical, hazardous materials response, rescue services, and in some areas lifeguard services. It also provides other related services such as forestry, fire prevention and educational programs. All cities that receive services from CFPD are within the District’s sphere of influence boundary areas (see Map Exhibit 3). There are ten cities in Los Angeles County that receive fire protection services from CFPD on a fee-for-service basis. They are: Azusa, Commerce, Covina, El Monte, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lynwood, Palos Verdes Estates, and Pomona. CFPD receives funding primarily through property tax revenue, special user tax and contract fees. The Board of Supervisors adopted a Developer Fee Program to meet the need for increased resources in designated high growth areas. There are five cities that have adopted the program, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Malibu, Lancaster and Santa Clarita. Monies received from the program can only be spent within that particular area and are used to help finance new stations and equipment needed due to new development. Previous chapters of this report provide a detailed description of fire stations and equipment. Explanations of types of fire equipment are as follows: an engine carries a hose, water, and has water-pumping capabilities; a truck carries specialized equipment and ladders (no water or water-pumping capabilities); a quint somewhat combines the capabilities of the engine and truck - it carries all the specialized equipment and ladders that a truck carries and also carries hose, water, and has water-pumping capabilities; an emergency support team (EST) is a 2-person unit that provides first-alarm firefighting support to specific areas in the District. This report does not provide a complete comprehensive service review of the District. A separate municipal service review and sphere of influence update of the agency will be prepared for consideration by the Commission at a future time. 47 Chapter 8 County Sanitation Districts The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles (CSD) are a confederation of independent county sanitation districts that operate under one or more joint powers agreements. CSD provides wastewater and solid waste management. The Districts are formed pursuant to State of California Health and Safety Code Sections 4700, et seq. CSD’s are enabled to construct, operate and maintain facilities for the purpose of collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater. CSD is made up of 25 separate districts under one administration. Each district has a separate Board of Directors. The agency maintains 1,200 miles of main trunk sewers, 11 wastewater treatment facilities, and three active sanitary landfills. In addition, the agency operates a refuse transfer station, a refuse-to-energy facility, three gas-to-energy facilities, and two recycle centers. District 26 was formed on January 12, 1991 and District 32 was formed on March 23, 1965. CSD Districts No. 26 and 32 were officially consolidated in February 2004; however, the consolidation will not be effective until July 1, 2005. After Districts 26 and 32 are consolidated this year, there will be 24 sanitation districts. Funding There are no financing requirements for annexation proposals generated by proposed housing developments; however, County Sanitation maintains a policy of requiring that a developer be responsible for conveying wastewater generated by the project to the existing network. Developers pay annexation fees and costs of lines to service their developments. Connection fees charged for hooking into those lines are placed in a special fund to finance future capital improvements and expansion. Environmental Concerns There are two environmental issues concerning both districts with respect to chlorides and nitrates. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board would like the District to meet a standard of 100mg/L for chlorides, which is higher than the standard for secondary drinking water - 250 mg/L. The Regional Board would like CSD to maintain a maximum concentration limit of 5mg/L for nitrates in the reach of the Santa Clara River near the Valencia WRP and 10mg/L near the Saugus WRP. 48 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 26 County Sanitation District No. 26 (CSD No. 26) provides collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater within the City of Santa Clarita and surrounding unincorporated areas east of San Fernando Road (see attached district boundary Map Exhibit 6). It provides service to 90,617 residents and encompasses 15 square miles. The District maintains 24 miles of trunk lines and 214 miles of laterals. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.32 District 32’s SOI includes the City of Santa Clarita and unincorporated areas west of San Fernando Road (see Map Exhibit 7). The District encompasses approximately 16 square miles and provides service to 66,873 residents. CSD 32 maintains over 16 miles of trunk sewer lines, 162 miles of laterals, and one pump station. LSA and Associates is currently performing a Municipal Service Review study of wastewater providers in Los Angeles County. The study will be available at a future date. 49 Chapter 9 County Waterworks Districts Enabling Act County waterworks districts are dependent special districts formed pursuant to Division 16 of the California Water Code Section 55000, et seq. Waterworks districts are empowered to provide water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and fire protection purposes. The district can operate facilities relative to the sale of water, treatment and reclamation of saline and wastewater, and sewage collection. LOS ANGELES COUNTY W ATERWORKS DISTRICT #36 The Los Angeles County Waterworks District was first formed on December 9, 1935. CWWD #36 encompasses 7,507.72 acres and provides service to the Val Verde community and the Hasley Canyon area. The District maintains approximately 827 service connections. A map of the District is provided as Map Exhibit 8. The District’s water supply source is from imported water purchased from the region’s water wholesaler, Castaic Lake Water Agency. It imported 1,071 AF/yr of water from the agency in 2002. Dudek and Associates has prepared a comprehensive Draft Municipal Service Review of water providers for the Santa Clara Region which is scheduled to be adopted by LAFCO at a later date. 50 Chapter 10 County Water Districts Enabling Act County Water Districts are formed pursuant to California Water Code Section 30000, et seq. County water districts are authorized to receive water rights, appropriate, sell, store and conserve water. Surplus water may be sold to municipalities, public agencies or consumers outside of the district. County water districts can also provide wastewater treatment. LAFCO initiated a municipal service review study of all water agencies under its jurisdiction. Water MSR studies were prepared according to the designated LAFCO MSR regional areas. Dudek and Associates has prepared a detailed Draft Municipal Service Review study of water service providers for the Santa Clara region which is scheduled to be adopted by LAFCO at a later date. As a result of the Water MSR report, Dudek recommended further study of the issues involving several water agencies in the region. LAFCO has sent out an RFP to look into those areas of concern outlined in the study. SOI update determinations for the water agencies will be adopted after completion of the new study. GREEN VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Green Valley County Water District was formed in April 1979 to improve and govern the water system of the Green Valley community. The District provides retail water to 463 connections and is limited to a maximum of 500 connections. Its service boundary area covers one square mile. The Agency relies on groundwater as its only water source. Pumpage for 2002 was 113 AF/yr. A map of the District’s boundary area is provided as Map Exhibit 9. NEWHALL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Newhall County Water District (NCWD) was established on January 13, 1953. The Districts service area covers 34 square miles in the western portion of the MSR area, in four service areas: Newhall, Pinetree, Castaic and Tesoro (see Map Exhibit 10). NCWD provides service to approximately 8,500 meter connections and serves a population of 25,304. Water sources for the agency include imported water from the Castaic Lake Water Agency and local groundwater. In 2002, the Agency reported that it received 5,985 AF/yr in imported water and pumped 4,376 AF/yr of local groundwater. 51 Chapter 11 Castaic Lake Water Agency Enabling Act The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) was formed pursuant to California Uncodified Water Acts, Act 9099b (Deerings). The agency is empowered to acquire water from the State and distribute it at wholesale through an agency owned transmission system. Statutory provisions allow the agency to reclaim water, manage groundwater basins, and develop and sell wholesale hydroelectric energy. Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) was formed on April 20, 1962 for the purpose of contracting through the California Department of Water Resources to provide supplemental imported water to the Santa Clarita Valley. The Agency provides water to four retail purveyors, Valencia Water Company, Newhall County Water District, Los Angeles County Waterworks District # 36, and CLWA’s retail water division Santa Clarita Water Company. Santa Clarita Water Company (SCWC) was purchased by the Castaic Lake Water Agency in 1999. SCWC is a private company that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. The Agency’s boundary area covers 195 square miles and includes the City of Santa Clarita (see Map Exhibit 11). CLWA is a contractor of the State Water Project (SWP) and maintains approximately 80 service connections. The Agency’s available SWP entitlement is 95,200 AF/yr, deliveries for 2003 were 47,600 AF/yr. The Agency maintains four water treatment facilities. The Quartz Hill plant services the region and was expanded in 1989. It has the capacity of producing 65 million gallons per day. Dudek and Associates has prepared a detailed Draft Municipal Service Review study of water providers for the Santa Clara Region. Determinations for the MSR and the Districts SOI are scheduled to be adopted by LAFCO at a later date. 52 Chapter 12 Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District The Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD) is an independent special district that was established on August 21, 1958, by the County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to California Health and Safety Codes Section 2200, et seq. Specific powers include the extermination of mosquitoes, flies, and other insects; extermination of rats; and the undertaking of algae research, control and monitoring projects. The Agency’s objective is to prevent and control vectors and vector-borne diseases from emerging. The District’s service boundaries encompass approximately 1330 square miles and it provides service to an estimated 4.5 million residents of Los Angeles County (see Map Exhibit 12). GLACVCD is the largest service provider of mosquito abatement and vector control in Los Angeles County. The District is authorized to provide service outside of its adopted boundary area. Its service area spans from the northwest portion of the County to the southeast, which includes 35 cities in addition to the City of Santa Clarita. The Agency is funded solely through property taxes. An abbreviated municipal service review and sphere of influence update for the District was adopted on June 23, 2004. 53 Chapter 13 Golden Valley Municipal Water District Enabling Act Golden Valley Municipal Water District (GVMWD) was formed pursuant to California Water Code, Section 71000, et seq. Municipal Water Districts are authorized to acquire, control, distribute, treat, reclaim, recapture, and conserve any water for the beneficial purpose of the District and is authorized to sell water to cities, public agencies and persons within the agency’s service area. A municipal water district may also provide hydro-electric power; operate recreational facilities, fire protection and emergency medical services, and collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage, solid waste and storm water. LAFCO files state that the Golden Valley Municipal Water District was established in 1971 in order to purchase state water from the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency. The District encompasses over 8,000 acres and provides retail water to 24 connections within its service boundary area in the Gorman area. A map of the agency is provided as Map Exhibit 13. In LAFCO’s Request for Information (RFI) questionnaire, the agency stated that its sole water supply source is from groundwater wells. The agency reported that the annual pumpage of groundwater for 2002 was 100 AF/yr. According to financial information provided, the District has faced financial constraints and infrastructure deficiencies that are further outlined in Dudek and Associates Municipal Service Review of Water Service Providers in the Santa Clara Region. LAFCO files state that on October 26, 1983, the Commission adopted a motion to designate a “zero” sphere of influence for GVMWD and consider future dissolution of the district. The minutes of the staff report indicate that the District had financial management issues at that time and that services were not being provided to the area. The District was also providing sewer maintenance refuse disposal services that LAFCO was not aware of. Subsequently, the District filed for reconsideration. The minutes from the December 14, 1983 LAFCO meeting indicate that the Commission reconsidered its determination 54 of adopting a “zero” sphere of influence, “until such time as the spheres for other municipal water districts are reviewed in the future.” No further information is contained in the file, and there is no evidence that the “zero” sphere was ever invoked. The District’s representative, Mr. Urban Schreiner, stated that the agency has an agreement with the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency to purchase wholesale imported water. The representative also stated that the agency has never utilized imported water but that there are plans to do so in the future. He also confirmed that the agency provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services. Although the District has faced financial constraints and infrastructure deficiencies, it is evident that this is due to the limited connections and resources. The District was initially established because high population growth was anticipated in the Gorman area, but that growth did not occur. LAFCO acknowledges that the GVMWD is constrained by the fact that it is geographically isolated and the only retail water provider in an area, and therefore, no alternative governmental structure options are proposed because of these limitations. In recent years the GVMWD has actively taken steps to improve their financial situation and ended Fiscal Year 2002-2003 with a positive cash flow. Two housing developments are being proposed in the area and if completed, will increase demand and resources to the District. Dudek and Associates has prepared a detailed Draft Municipal Service Review study of water providers for the Santa Clara Region. Determinations for the MSR and the Districts SOI are scheduled to be adopted by LAFCO at a later date. 55 C O M M E N T S A N D R E S P O N SE S Los Angeles County Sanitation District (November 18, 2004) Comments were noted and revisions were made to the text. Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (November 24, 2004): Comments were noted and revisions were made to the report. City of Santa Clarita (December 3, 2004): Comments were noted and revisions were made to the text. 56 R E F E R E N C E S C I T E D Assembly Committee of Local Government. Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, California Government Code Section 56000 et seq. Sacramento: Assembly Committee on Local Governance, November 2003. California Association of Realtors. California’s Housing Affordability Index falls six points in January; minimum household income needed to purchase median-priced home at $94,020, March 4, 2004. California Department of Water Resources. California Water Plan Update January 2004. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources, Volume 3, Chapter 5, January 2004. California Department of Water Resources. Santa Clara Valley Ground Valley Ground- water Basin, Santa Clara River Valley East Subbasin. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources, October 2003. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2002 Annual Report Facility/Site Summary Details. Sacramento: California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2004. California Emergency Medical Services Authority. EMS Standards and Guidelines. Sacramento: California Emergency Medical Services Authority, June 1993. City of Santa Clarita Annual Operating Budget 2002-2003 and Capital Improvement Program 1003-3007 City of Santa Clarita Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (June 30, 2002). City of Santa Clarita Housing Element Update May 2004 City of Santa Clarita General Plan (June 26, 1991). Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century. Sacramento: Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, January 2000. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Los Angeles: County Sanitation Districts, 2002. Dudek and Associates. Draft Municipal Service Review Report, Water Service-Santa Clara Region. Encinitas: Dudek and Associates, 2004. EIP Associates. Santa Clarita Valley General Plan Technical Report. Los Angeles: EIP Associates: February 2004. Hughes, Heiss & Associates. Sanitation District Organization Study, City of Santa Clarita. Claremont: Hughes, Heiss & Associates, October 30, 1991. 57 Little Hoover Commission. Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? Sacramento: Little Hoover Commission, May 2000. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan 2002: Annual Report on the Countywide Summary Plan and Countywide Siting Element. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2002. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Draft 2004 Congestion Management Program (January 2004). Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.mta.net/projects_plans/cmp/default.htm. Morgan Quitno Press. City Crime Rankings 10th Edition, November 25, 2003. Parsons Transportation Group. MTA, North County Combine Highway Corridors Study, Final Report. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2004. SA Associates. 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, December 2000. Luhdorff and Scalamini. Santa Clarita Valley Water Report. April 2003 Southern California Association of Governments. Final Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, March 2004. Southland Association of Realtors, Santa Clarita Valley Single-Family Median Price: 1998-2004. University of California Los Angeles. SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, 2000-2005. Available from the World Wide Web: http://api.ucla.edu/rhna/RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment/WhatisRHNA/Frame.htm. 58 I N T E R V I E W S Debbie Aguirre, Supervising Planning Analyst, County of Los Angeles Fire Department Kien Chin, Planning Analyst, County of Los Angeles Fire Department Debra Glafkides, Sergeant, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Darren Hernandez, Director of Administrative Services, City of Santa Clarita Basil Hewitt, Engineering, County Sanitation Districts Los Angeles County Kai Luoma, Senior Planner, City of Santa Clarita Patti A. Minutello, Captain Santa Clarita Valley Station, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Urban J. Schreiner, Counsel, Golden Valley Municipal Water District D A T A S O U R C E S Agency-specific data: responses to LAFCO Request for Information Crime Statistics: Los Angeles County Sheriff Department and Crime Statistics: State of California Office of the Attorney General Demographic Data: California Department of Finance Demographic Data: city of Santa Clarita Demographic Data: U.S. Bureau of the Census Economic Data: U.S. Bureau of the Census Financial Data: California State Controller, Local Government Annual Financial Reports Population Projections: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan, 2001 Maps: LAFCO archives; Los Angeles County Public Works Department; Thomas Brothers City and District Parcel Boundary and Ownership Data: Los Angeles County Assessor 59