The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutANNEXATIONS COOK STREET NO 2 1974 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY MEMBERS: EXECUTIVE OFFICER WILLIAM JONES ROBERT T.ANDERSEN ROOM 210, COUNTY COURTHOUSE DONALD SCHROEDER ASVT EXEC.OFFICER RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 <.HORTON YOUNGLOVE(olurnarel ROBERT J.PITCH (7 14) 787-2786 - - CITY MEMBERS: wILUAM FOSTER WILLIAM ANDERSON November 21, 1974 NOV 2 1974 PHIL REED(olrernom) SPECIAL DISTRICT MEMBERS: JOHN FETT LEON KENN EDY WILLIAM CARR(eHarmle) THOMAS WATSON(abemele) Honorable Mayor and City Council PUBLIC MEMBERS: City of Palm Desert SHERMAN WH17NAH F.H.BUTTERFIELD Wlernarel Attn: Mr. Harvey Hurlburt, City Manager Post Office Box #623 Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: LAFC #74-40-4-Proposed nnexation #2 to the City of Palm Desert Gentlemen: To confirm the action taken by the Local Agency Format- ion Commission yesterday, November 20th, the proposal for annexation to the City of Palm Desert was denied. The motion was made by Mr. Kennedy and the second by Mr. Schroeder. Vote was 4-1 for denial, with Mr. Fett cast- ing the dissenting vote. Mr. Foster did not participate and Mr. Younglove was not in attendance during this port- ion of the meeting. Very truly yours, Robert J. Fitch Ass' t Executive Officer RJF:rh RESOLUTION NO. 74-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA , CONSENTING TO REQUEST TO INITIATE ANNEXATION (COOK STREET AREA) . WHEREAS, a request has been made by Samuel J. Smith and Edna Smith that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, consent to their commencement of annexation proceedings for an area shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the matter and has recommended that the City Council consent to said initiation of annexation proceedings, and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed annexation would be a logical extension of the existing boundaries of the City of Palm Desert, California; yNOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby consent to the initiation of annex- ation proceedings for the area shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and. made a part hereof . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by said City Council thisl3th day of June , 1974 , by the following vote: AYES: Benson; Brush; McPherson; Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Aston HENRY CLARK, Mayor City of Palm rt, California ATTEST: �� HARVEY Lr+rURLBURl , City Clerk City of Palm Desert, CaliforniaEACH DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED IS CERTIFIE_ TO BE A FULL, TRUE. ID CORRECT COPY Ci?IGINAL ON FILE AND ,F RECORD IN MY 0,/: � _. Dated: -------.�f..r"'6-/7-q/6-/7_-'1-------------------------------- HARVEY L. rl'j_L::U,.T, City Clerk _ City of Paalllm�-� Desert, California Deputy 0AA Ay FAI. : i { f • Svc, xis � J • REC. .4 EA - �X CNAIV I - - I ' I � SCHOOL I 1 =. 1 . ilf 11 'I li Ilirlllllllrlil li,�� AVP11 ' ! I III II II o _ i Ulf �� • •� ; I: ' ' !ill � . �I li I r- _ _-� -�'j�� ill I 1 I• I i �-� P ---- --__ IiIIINI 1 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph, 346-0611 September 5, 1974 Ms. Isabel Dunn 1133 S. Orange Grove Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91105 r Reference: Your letter of August 10 i 974 Your Merle Drive proper,6.—Annexation #2 Dear Ms. Dunn: Palm Desert City Manager, Mr. Harvey L. Hurlburt, requested that I respond to your above referenced letter opposing annexation of your Merle Drive property to the City. In May of this year, two property owners in the Country Club Village Estates tract did request that the City initiate annexation of that area, which would include the Country Club Village Estates. As a result of that request, the Council, by Resolution #74-42 dated June 13, 1974, did initiate annex- ation proceedings on some 320 plus acres which does. include the 10 acres owned by you on Merle Drive. This office proposes to submit this annexation request to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), this month. It is possible that the LAFCO will hold a hearing on this muter on October 16, 1974. If this hearing is held, LAFCO will "notice" the matter and would accept any protest against the annexation request. To verify that this hearing is going to be held, I would recommend that you contact Mr. Robert Fitch, Executive Director, L,AF00, at the County Courthouse in Riverside. The reason for the City initiating these proceedings is based on the fact that the property in question is adjacent to the City boundry and that the inclusion of this property in the City would be a logical extension of the City boundry. The consideration by LAFOD of this request is only the initial step in a long process which would include the circulation of a petition and the holding of an election on the annexation. I am of the opinion that this area would be better served if it were annexed to the City of Palm Desert in terms of the services offered by the City. As r . w Page 2 September 5, 1974 you are probably aware, the City has no tax rate and the impact of annexation would have no effect on the tax rate of this property. 'Therefore, the property would benefit from a higher level of service with no additional costs to the property owners. Thank you for your inquiry on this matter, and if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Paul A. Williams Director, Environmental Services PW/jt Cautt of Appeal Ipsets State An vexation Law SAN FRANCISCO—The State Court of Appeal, Division One, ruled yesterday that annexation decisions should be based on the wishes of a majority of residents rather than on the basis of property ownership. The court thus struck down a state law under which the owners of a majority of the land area in an annexation district could block annexation to a city. The case was Levinsohn v.City of San Rafael,Civ.34720. Court officials said the decision was unanimous and was an appeal from the blarin-County Superior Court. i - The case involved the Country Club Estates area in Marin County, where some residents sought annexation to San Rafael. The San Rafael City Council had dropped efforts to annex the area when it received protests from many land owners, despite requests for annexation by people who lived in the area. The appeal was made by,John.and Jane Levinsohn and Retha T._ Goodwin. I . The court declared the state law giving majority land owners the decisive vote in annexation proceedings was overturned by the appeals court. San Rafael was,ordered to resume proceedings for a vote of the area's residents on the issue. The court found that the state law violated the equal protection sec- tions of the U.S.and California Constitutions.All residents share an equal. interest in city services and regardless of whether they own property. ERWIN, ANDERHOLT & SCHEROTTER A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 81 - 711 HIGHWAY 111 • P. O. DRAWER H • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 • PHONE 17141 347-0606 TO City of Palm Desert DATE P. O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, California 92260 JUL 2 3 1974 ATTENTION: Paul Williams -1 PALM DESERT CITY HALL DATE July 22,_ 1974 - -- -- - Dear Paul: _ Enclosed please find an article out of the Los Angeles Daily Journal regarding the State Annexation Law, for your information. Y Is v y truly, AVID J. ERWIN DJE:ss enc. By _ _ _ SIGNED 1—N-R"A TM1 DI-1 8— ,Inc.,ticx WS.Dollaa,texas 1. ,[[cP rEllow coPr. 2.'![No wN,i[wnNo PNN c[a P,[9 wiiN cawvVN INiwci. ,.wnir[ w[P[f. z. o[r.cN srV o.vx[EP n nwcco PVE'w[iV wN wN,ic carer ra 4[No[v.