NEW HEARING ON ANNEXATION?

Byline: Judy O'Rourke Staff Writer

SANTA CLARITA - The agency that rules on municipal boundary changes could decide next week whether to hold a new public hearing on a plan to annex a Canyon Country neighborhood to Santa Clarita after the agency botched an earlier hearing on the matter.

The Local Agency Formation Commission had tentatively approved the annexation, but after enough protests were received to potentially trigger a vote - and LAFCO subsequently discovered it had failed to provide sufficient notice to schedule the required hearing - the decision was tabled.

Now the commission will consider on Wednesday whether to set a new date for a hearing on the move by residents of the Stonecrest neighborhood, now under the county's jurisdiction, to annex to the city.

The annexation is a strategic one for the city because Stonecrest is the nearest neighborhood to a proposed sand and gravel mine the city is battling, after county approval.

LAFCO's staff is recommending a protest hearing be set for June 28. March 30 would be the first date protests could be filed.

In a letter dated March 8, county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich urged the agency to follow this course, thus allowing the property owners a say. The city has completed 27 annexations in its 18 years, and only in the past year has Antonovich become involved.

``I have no doubt that ... Antonovich's letter was instrumental in this matter returning to the LAFCO board,'' said Paul Novak, a deputy for the supervisor. Novak said that besides making sure interested parties understand the rules for sending or circulating objection letters, the supervisor's office would remain uninvolved in the process.

Sandor Winger, LAFCO's deputy executive officer, has refused to comment on the matter for days, and his office said Thursday he is unavailable until Monday.

Stonecrest resident Steven Huerta, who countered the city's annexation proposal by collecting neighbors' signatures on 303 protests, had said his aim was to force a vote.

If LAFCO heeds its staff's recommendations, protests collected by Huerta would be tossed out, but he would be given a second chance. On Thursday, he remained hopeful.

``I share the same sentiments as Mr. Antonovich,'' he said. ``The residents here in Stonecrest deserve the right to vote. I will be out there again.''

If LAFCO schedules a new protest hearing, residents would have at least 90 days to file protests against the annexation. A hearing would follow. The annexation could then be decided or, if enough valid protests are received, a special election would be held to give voters the final say.

If fewer than 15 percent of residents protest, the decision would be made by LAFCO, if more than 50 percent protest, the annexation would be denied. If between 15 and 50 percent of residents protest, a vote would be warranted.

Only property owners registered to vote in Los Angeles County would be eligible to vote on the annexation.

Novak, who handles annexation matters for Antonovich, said geography had nothing to do with the supervisor's support in a March 8 letter to LAFCO for residents who live in the unincorporated area.

``... Antonovich felt residents were being penalized for a bureaucratic technicality and that if enough signatures had been gathered to proceed with a vote then the vote should move forward,'' Novak said. ``The signatures that were invalidated were invalidated because they did not have a date or were collected prior to the initiation of the protest period.''

The city would support a new protest hearing.

``The city supports compliance with the government code, and if a restarting the public hearing process is necessary to accomplish that, we support LAFCO's decision,'' said senior planner Kai Luoma.

Santa Clarita officials who had surveyed Stonecrest residents said there seemed to be ample support for the annexation. Of the 27 annexations the city has completed, just one had protests early on, but residents ultimately approved the annexation. Residents in outlying areas who desire the additional services the city offers usually spearhead the process.

The Stonecrest annexation would form a kind of land bridge to another site the city covets for annexation: city-owned land atop the 56.1-million-ton Cemex gravel mine planned in Soledad Canyon, which city officials have long fought.

Mexico-based Cemex Inc. was granted mining rights in 1990 by the Bureau of Land Management. On Feb. 10, an appellate court ruled a consent decree between the County of Los Angeles and Cemex allowing for the mine was negotiated in good faith and is ``fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.'' City officials say they have not exhausted their legal options.

Officials acknowledge that controlling the land above the mine would confer no authority over mining operations, but they continue to pursue annexation of the area.

If the Stonecrest annexation fails, the city might consider a reconfigured version of the proposal, Luoma said.

``The city's ultimate goal regarding the 906 city-owned acres in Soledad Canyon is to bring that property into the city's jurisdiction,'' he said. Mike Murphy, the city's intergovernment relations officer, said incorporation would serve at least two purposes.

``It gives the city land use control authority over all of the property it owns,'' he said. ``Currently the authority resides with the County of Los Angeles.'' The city also pays property taxes on the acreage, which would be exempt.

Cemex filed a lawsuit in state court in December, challenging an environmental review in the city's plan to annex 1,885 acres, which includes the area where the mine is proposed.

LAFCO will consider that matter on Wednesday.

Judy O'Rourke, [phone]

judy.orourke(at)dailynews.com