CITY-COUNTY RIFT GROWING NONRESIDENT FEE PLAN HIGHLIGHTS TENSION.

Byline: Heather MacDonald Staff Writer

SANTA CLARITA - The era of good feelings between the city of Santa Clarita and the county of Los Angeles is waning.

Although city and county officials have rarely missed an opportunity in the last year to tout their joint achievements, tension has been burbling under the surface for the last year, officials said.

``We each have to do the right thing by our constituents,'' said Mayor Cameron Smyth.

Last week, the growing rift between the city and the county became public after four members of the Santa Clarita City Council voiced support for a plan that would give Santa Clarita residents first shot at registering for city parks and recreation programs and charge nonresidents an extra fee to sign up for coveted classes and sports teams.

Fifth District Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has condemned the priority registration and nonresident fee plan, saying it will complicate the city's relationship with the county.

However, Antonovich has not responded to the call by the West Ranch Town Council for county residents to boycott Santa Clarita's big-ticket retailers, according to Bob Haueter, the supervisor's deputy. The town council advises Antonovich.

``I think our relationship with the city is good,'' Haueter said.

A two-tiered parks plan, such as the one under consideration by the City Council, is simply unfair to county residents, who spend a good deal of money at the city's shops and restaurants that in turn pay the city sales tax, according to the town council members.

Santa Clarita uses revenue generated by the sales tax to pay for most city services, including police and fire protection. And like most cities, it pays for services for residents outside its borders.

For many years, clashes between the city and county were commonplace as Santa Clarita worked to establish itself after it incorporated in 1987. The cityhood movement was driven by a desire for more effective civic services than those delivered by the county.

If the parks registration dispute continues to intensify, a host of joint projects and policies could be placed at risk, including the fight against the 56.1-million-ton Cemex mine and the proposed annexation of Towsley Canyon into the city from the county, officials said.

``We have to be careful to not let this one issue escalate into something bigger,'' Smyth said.

City officials said last week they do not want to fight the county, but work together in order to improve residents' quality of life.

The city and county's relationship markedly changed about three years ago with the launch of the One Valley/One Vision framework, which was designed to ensure that Santa Clarita has a say in important decisions, including the approval of housing developments, outside its borders.

Antonovich has said if the city implements the priority registration and nonresident fee plan it would complicate ongoing efforts to complete a joint general plan for the Santa Clarita Valley through One Valley/One Vision.

The general plan is the most important planning tool for both the city and the county, and sets development standards and zoning designations.

While an initial draft of the joint general plan is expected to be released next month for review, city and county officials have yet to begin to discuss which policies and standards should be included.

``That's the hard part, and I expect the next round will be more difficult and tense,'' said Santa Clarita Planning Director Jeff Lambert. ``Hopefully, we'll stay on track.''

Development has been at the heart of most clashes between the city and the county, as the thousands of new homes built in the last decade have strained both the city and the county's infrastructure and their ability to provide municipal services.

Last December, the Regional Planning Commission directed its staff to review several developments in Santa Clarita after county officials accused the city of having a development policy of ``do as I say, not as I do.''

Santa Clarita routinely demands that projects in the county meet the city's high standards, while not consistently applying those same measures to city developments, according to county officials.

City officials maintain that Santa Clarita's development policies have been been enforced equitably both inside and outside the city.

County officials were also angered by the City Council's plea that they avoid cutting down Old Glory, the 400-year-old oak tree in Pico Canyon that was at the center of widespread controversy and a 71-day-long tree-sitting protest.

At the root of the dispute over parks registration is the concern that if Stevenson Ranch parents find their children locked out of the city's tennis, basketball and swimming programs the long-stalled push to annex the 3,000-home master community will regain momentum, officials said. That could force county officials to share the estimated $4 million in sales tax revenue that Los Angeles County receives from the Valencia Marketplace with Santa Clarita. The shopping center includes several big-box stores, such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

Santa Clarita officials have repeatedly asked Antonovich to support a revenue-sharing agreement because the city is affected by the traffic, noise and pollution created by the shopping center at McBean Parkway and The Old Road.

However, Antonovich has said that he would only be willing to discuss such a plan if Santa Clarita would give the county a portion of the receipts from the Valencia Town Center and Auto Row, the city's biggest sales tax generators.