Stonecrest annexation protest fails

This Story First Appeared in The Daily News, Saturday July 22, 2006

A long waged battle has come to a close where neighbors pitted against one another, the City vs the County all for a smidge of land next to a very hot parcel.

The Stonecrest neighborhoods in Canyon Country - the closest homes to the planned and contested Cemex sand and gravel mine, will be annexed to Santa Clarita, Officials announced Friday that an insufficient number of protests were submitted, which means the annexation will go through.
The jest of it, the City wanted this land in a big way!
The City of Santa Clarita wanted jurisdiction of the neighborhood to extend city boundaries toward the planned 56.1-million-ton quarry the City is seeking to regulate.

Sandor Winger, executive officer of the county Local Agency Formation Commission, which determines municipal boundary changes, is quoted as stating: "will recommend that the full commission approve the annexation, the 28th since the city formed in 1987".

Several residents withdrew their objections, reducing protests below the limit to force for a vote.
Santa Clarita already has purchased land at the mining site and, while it doesn't own the mining rights, it seeks more oversight and hopes to reduce the scope of the Cemex operation.

Cemex plans to mine 177 acres over 20 years on the southern slope of a ridge just off Soledad Canyon Road - about a quarter-mile-long stretch - east of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The Mexico-based company expects to begin operating there in 2008. The property is a mile from the 600-plus Stonecrest homes.

Santa Clarita's attempts to annex its land above the mine - on hold pending the Stonecrest annexation - is not possible because the land is not contiguous.

If the Stonecrest annexation is finalized, though, LAFCO will proceed immediately to consider annexation of the city land, Winger said.
City spokesperson Gail Ortiz is quoted "Cemex is one of the (Environmental Protection Agency's) top violators, so we're very concerned about having them as our neighbor," said Gail Ortiz, the city's spokeswoman. "We want to make sure all the appropriate ordinances are in place to regulate them properly. If they're in the city of Santa Clarita, there will be no free ride for them."

A spokeswoman for the worldwide conglomerate disagreed.

"Yet again, the city has chosen to engage in gross mistruths and unsubstantiated allegations," Cemex spokeswoman Susana Duarte said Friday. "Cemex conducts its operations in compliance with all laws and regulations and engages in responsible business practices. This is an unfortunate use by the city of the annexation process. As project obstruction, it's not the type of objective the annexation laws were designed to achieve."

In December, Cemex filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the environmental review in the annexation papers. Duarte said the company will continue to watch the process with interest and will continue pursuing all legal recourse.

The city has spent more than $6 million battling the mine. U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, Santa Clarita's first mayor, introduced a bill in May to cancel Cemex's lease and limit any future mining operations on the site to historic levels of 300,000 tons a year. The measure will probably not be considered until next year, though, and McKeon has said its chance of passage is slim.

The county had rejected the mine, but conceded when Cemex filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2002. County supervisors granted the mining permit in June 2004 under a court-approved consent decree. The decree was upheld in February in spite of the city's appeal.

LAFCO tentatively approved the Stonecrest annexation in January, but when more than 300 protests were received just before the decision was finalized in February, a protest hearing was set.

In March, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich intervened on behalf of a group of Stonecrest residents who protested the annexation but failed to follow LAFCO's protocols, asking that they be given a second chance. After a procedural error by LAFCO, a new public hearing was needed.

"The supervisor's position has consistently been, the will of the people shall dictate their destiny," said Tony Bell, a spokesman for the supervisor, noting that Antonovich has opposed the mine since the proposal's inception.

Although 253 Stonecrest residents lodged protests with LAFCO by the June 28 hearing, the letters were offset by 62 protest withdrawals and 48 ineligible protests. The remaining 143 valid protests accounted for about 12 percent of eligible residents, below the 15 percent required to trigger a vote.

About two years ago, city officials and staff members began canvassing Stonecrest residents, urging them to support annexation, and in April the city hosted a community meeting touting the benefits of cityhood, which was followed in May by a meeting hosted by county officials.

Some Stonecrest residents questioned the outcome.

"I find this very suspicious, considering the forces against the residents only asking for a chance to vote for the measure," said resident Daniel Henriquez, who e-mailed a critical letter to LAFCO on Friday. "The entire process was handled in a manner nothing less than deceiving and fraudulent and as such, I believe the tally to be incorrect and should be recounted and verified by an outside independent agency."

In 18 years of cityhood, this is only the second time an annexation protest was lodged.

"The city of Santa Clarita is pleased to welcome the Stonecrest community as the 28th annexation and looks forward to providing them with outstanding levels of public service," spokeswoman Ortiz said.