Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATIONS COOK STREET/42ND AVENUE NO 22 FILE 1 1987 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. Rm 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside. CA 92502 FROM, City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert. CA 92260 SUBJECT:, Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. Project Title/Common Name: CZ 87-12 Date of Project Approval : December 10, 1987 State Clearinahouse Number (if submitted): Contact Person: Philip Drell Project Location: 119 acres west of Cook Street between Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. Project Description: Preannexation zoning for Palm Desert Annexation No. 22 consistent with current county zoning. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: I . The project ( ) will , (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental impact report may be examined at the above city hall address. X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this project. ,30hnu Ur gtjYtYtvfbur..- Signatu Title DEC 2 21987 tv C-iER!(of IAe r7p�R0 OF SUPERl4S3R� Date Received for Filing Caurty a"R.;vdo,Siate of Cs!i};rn ' v Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ii. REQUEST: Negative declaration of environmental impact and preannex- ation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent tot he City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include service industrial (S. 1 . ) for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multi-family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4,OOO square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. III. APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT IV. CASE NO: C/Z 87-12 V. DATE: November 12, 1987 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. CZ 87-12 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1260. F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 20, 1987 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Waive further reading and pass to second reading CZ 87-12. 2. Adopt Resolution No. making application to LAFCO for Annexation No. 22. B. DISCUSSION: A group of residents in the area comprising 21% of the registered voters submitted a petition to the city requesting annexation. In order to comply with the Reorganization Act's requirement that annexations represent a logical extension of the city boundary the proposed City of Palm Desert Annexation No. 22 includes the industrial park to the north even though no petitions were received from this area. If not included, I� C/Z 87-12 TRANSMITTAL LETTER this industrial park would be substantially surrounded by the city. In similar situations in the past, LAFCO has directed the city to attempt to include these "islands" in annexation applications. The proposed prezoning would be consistent with the current county zoning, the city's general plan and the proposed north sphere specific plan. At the planning commission hearing, strong support for annexation was voiced by residents. Two property owners within the industrial park opposed annexation and the third property owner sent a letter of opposition. Their main concern was that although the city and the county zoning were similar, different standards would be enforced by the city. Being an inhabited annexation. property owner or voter protests of 25% would require an election. Since only permanent residents within the area would be eligible to vote, property owner opposition alone could not prevent annexation. Prepared by� Reviewed and Approved by PD/dIg 2 I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREANNEXATION ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 119 ACRES WEST OF COOK STREET BETWEEN 42ND AVENUE AND THE WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL. CASE NO: C/Z 87-12 WHEREAS. the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of November, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include service industrial (S. I . ) for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multi -family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4,000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all Interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify a recommendation of approval : 1 . The proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the current county zoning and development patterns, the Palm Desert General Plan and the proposed North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed pre-zoning protects the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Pa I m Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact, Exhibit "A", and C/Z 87-12, Exhibit "B" is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California. is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the I ORDINANCE NO. _ City of Palm Desert, California. and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council . held on this day of , 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert. California /dlg 2 ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14. Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code. CASE NO: C/Z 87-12 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include service industrial (S. 1 . ) for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multi-family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. The Director of the Department of Community Development. City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 low 0.5. _ • I s. S.L, SU4.f5 PEI S.P, j I I n _ I .H ___ 0 I I I ---- I �<O - °EEiC W A .S.I - R-1-M + e - R—,--m _I_. Co,,,,., of I. 1— . ter` - I. _ _ :• T4:.E "ip, :.vE� ,�--- -- -� --J - -il- -"-- R-3 4) %Vx�� 1 FI i CL R-1 �...�..�.. n r o � — .,j•. -� a eo00 P.R.-5 I I CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No.CZ87-12 CITY COUNCIL �ho) nr1 (s� Oq ZOn (z� ORDINANCE NO. WLI U0 0 0� Date RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 22 LAFCO NO. That portion of the east half of Section 16, Township 5 South Range 6 east S.B.M. as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Section 16, Township 5 Range 6 East; Thence southerly 3026.02' along the east line of said Section 16, also being the centerline of Cook Street, to a point located along the northern easement line of the Whitewater Storm Channel also being the Palm Desert City Boundary. Thence continuing along the existing city limits of Palm Desert along the following courses and distances: Thence northwesterly R=14500 d =120 52'0" a distance of 2777. 19' to a point on the centerline of said Section 16; Thence North 000 14'38" east a distance of 913.87' along said centerline of Section 16; Thence north 890 49'01" east a distance of 1320' ; Thence north 00" 06° 28" west a distance of 1326' to a point on the north line of said Section 16; Thence easterly along said north line of Section 16 1327.05' to the northeast corner thereof also being the point of beginning. Area equals approximately 119 acres. 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 22. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert. that WHEREAS. the City of Palm Desert desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert; and WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are as follows: 1 . The proposed territory to be annexed is adjacent to and substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and therefore represents a logical expansion of the city's boundary. 2. The area is predominately urban in character and requires a higher level of urban services then are currently offered by the County of Riverside. The City of Palm Desert can provide three services. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation of territory as described in Exhibit "A", according to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Counci I of the City of Palm Desert at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN. City Clerk City of Palm Desert. California Is - - I 9lly 42nd AVE. KEY MAP Not to SCOIG r W W a y Q N N o� Y a 00 V s FRED WARING DRIVE Is I5 1327.05' 192 -4,,,3- 6 1{ a 0 VELIE WAY O COUNTY OF O PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE) clrY LIMIT c1 PROPOSED vl PALM DESERT JONI DRIVE — PALM DESERT CITY OMIT CITY LIMIT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1320' I Mr. DRIVE r � O O o .a Na N c GA RY 7 AVE a J ` a O J O U U V G Ip SNERYL AVE. N PgL C� M- R-rasoo, N DESERT rY filer. P>Tj r9, DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. . Drown by TO THE QTY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO IN SEC. 16 T 5 S R 6 E SCALE aaMON A. Diaz I" : soo' Director:Env Services Div. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PALM DESERT AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT SUBJEUOCTOBER 20, 1987 " REViSM4 Commissioner Whitlock supported Commissioner Richard's statements. Chairman Erwood noted that there is no requirement that when a public hearing is noticed that people have to call the city to register any complaints. He indicated that the public hearing is the place where objections should be stated. Chairman Erwood felt there were three specific problem areas: 1 ) traffic on Portola being quite heavy and this type of facility would Increase the problem; 2) noise is a problem and differs from the project on Monterey and Country Club because the homeowners knew there would be a shopping center; and 3) this is a residential area even though Portola has changed the nature of quietness, it Is still residential . He felt that this project would be injurious to surrounding properties. Commissioner Ladlow stated that she could appreciate this type of proposal , but felt that it was in the wrong place. Commissioner Richards felt that the applicant had not done his homework and that a six foot wall would not mitigate noise. He indicated that staff should be directed under miscellaneous comments at a future meeting to come up with an area where this type of use would be acceptable. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ladlow, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of dental . Carried 4-0. E. Case No. C/Z 87-12 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include Service industrial for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park , multi -family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R- 1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. 8 AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1987 Mr. Dre rt and ted the positive out iti eanddnegative, aspectsnof oannexing staff intoeth l is e city. Mr. Drell explained that a letter had been received by an owner in the Industrial area in opposition, but indicated that the actual uses permitted in the county zoning and in Palm Desert are virtually Identical , but a business license would be required for Palm Desert, of which many businesses already have. Chairman Erwood opened he and present wished to p t public inFAVOR or OPPOSITIONy asked to thepr posed,anyone MS. KIM BORDERS, 74-607 Gary, stated that she Initiated the petition. She she to eliminate eyesores and t would feltthat thec k i city would cl anty stanaupsthe area. She also stated that the property value is not what It should be. MR. JERRY ALLEN, 74-573 Meryl Drive, reviewed the history of the area. He stated that under the county sometimes it takes 90 days to get streets swept. He explained that some street widths are too narrow, but hoped to come into the city. MR. FRANK MOTT, 73-655 Shadow Mountain Drive, stated that the Industrial park was there before the city and indicated that they already have trash service and police and fire protection. He did not feel the city had the right to usurp his property. MS. NANCY VANCUR, owner of three homes on Meryl , stated that Meryl is clean and neat and everyone seems to take care of their property, but acknowledged that some streets have problems ( i .e. cars being repaired) and felt that whether it is city or couy, the ken she hasntcalled the Isheriffs Banda they care of. responded w stated hi t n five minutes. She indicated that she did not want to change to too many rules and regulations. MR. BURT KAPLAN, Rancho Mirage, indicated that he was an owner of five acres of industrial property. He felt that if the residential areas want to be annexed he has no problems with that , but felt that the industrial area should be handled separately because annexation would be detrimental to the industrial area . Additional fees would be requi He aloed r businesses that don't already operate in the city. stated that they store some large RV's which are visible over the fence. MR. MKE FCO couldl decide Nwhat 7would be4-643 r best, dbut tstated theh was A people present to 9 AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1907 Protect his interest and investment in his home. He felt that the neighborhood was pretty good, but needed city ordinances to clean it up. MS. TRACEY MOORE, Salton Beach, owner of property on Leslie, stated that a house near there was condemned by the county several months ago, property Is not kept cleaned up and auto repair work is being done in front yards. She felt if property values were to increase, the property would need to be annexed into the city. MS. SHERRIE HANNEY, 74-643 Gary, stated that she has called 911 and one time they called back and said that they wou I d not be coming out for a couple of hours. She also felt that the area needs to be cleaned up. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. Commissioner Whitlock questioned separating the two areas and Mr. Diaz responded that from past experience, LAFCO would object. Mr. Drell explained the LAFCO process. Commissioner Richards stated that the commission was following the proper rules and would make a motion to pass this to city council . Mr. Diaz noted that another legal notice will be sent and the meeting will be scheduled before city council in November. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1260, recommending approval of C/Z 87- 12 to city council . Carried 4-0. CHAIRMAN ERWOOD CALLED A TEN MINUTE RECESS AT 9:28 P.M. F. Case Nos. GPA 87-5 and C/Z 87- 11 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a general plan amendment to institute the city's general plan, prezone in accordance with the city's zoning ordinance and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains to a part of the city ' s eastern sphere of influence specifically 160 acres in the southeast quarter of section 10, more particularly the quarter 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREANNEXATION ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 119 ACRES WEST OF COOK STREET BETWEEN 42ND AVENUE AND THE WHITEWATER STORM CHANNEL. CASE NO: C/Z 87-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of October, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include service industrial (S. 1 . ) for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multi-family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4,000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify a recommendation of approval : 1 . The proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the current county zoning and development patterns , the Palm Desert General Plan and the proposed North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed pre-zoning protects the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact, Exhibit "A", and C/Z 87-12 is hereby recommended for approval . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planing Commission, held on this 20th day of October, 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dig 2 n O In )1000 _m.�e—� r _ cc ILL N - F Ir i - a3tl]Ov vYnSl 1 L' 1 If 71 �ctGil / �I r o Lo U .l '�♦�r JIB �H � .. CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. Z87- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Date LS ln� u u CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 20. 1987 CASE NO: C/Z 87-12 REQUEST: Negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include service Industrial (S. I . ) for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multi-family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT I . BACKGROUND: A group of residents in the area have petitioned the city for annexation. Prezoning is the first step of the process. The proposed designations are consistent with the current county zoning, the city's General Plan and the proposed North Sphere Specific Plan. If. RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No._ recommending to city council approval of CZ 87-12. Prepared Reviewed and Approved bVl PD/dlg t CASE Y0. 3 -i �'k4-M i T- E:NO'I:$ONIIMTTAL SERVICES DEPT. I,IITIAL STUDY =IR0173IENTAL EVALUATIOIT CHECIKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONM ENTAI IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No I . Earth. Will the proposal result in: _ a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — -- b. Disruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil ? — --C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering , or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? f e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a . Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? — c. Alteration of air movement , moisture , or ` temperature , or. any change in climate , either locally or regionally? 2, Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a._ Changes . in currents ' 'or the course or I - direction of water' movements? b. Changes in-abscrpt-inn rates , drainage patterns, or the rate and- amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- ✓ wise available for public water supplies? _ 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in. a. Change in the diversity s shrubs of species , or numbers of any species of plants (including tree , grass and crops ) ? / b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into f an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal._ Li_e, Will the proposal result in: r a . Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or Insects ) ? ✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare , or endangered species of animals? / C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to esiSting wildlife hab,t2+? 1, . 3. Yes M�be No 6. Natural Resources . Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources ? / b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural ✓ resource? 7. Energy, Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.de7elopmen energy? t of nex sources of 8. Risk of Upset. . Does the proposal involve a ✓risk of an explosion or the release of , hazardous substances ( including, but not limited to , pesticides ,' oil , chemicals , or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. E,onon cLoss Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding ? b. A change in the value of property and ✓ improvements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted .ccr—,,unit risk _ l stand- ards . 10, !Noise. Will the proposal increase existing f noise levels to the point at which accepted com,munity noise and vibration levels are exceeded? f ii . Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alt' eratjon of the present developed or Planned land use of an area? 12. Ooen Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decr�e in the amount of designated open space? 13• Population. Will the proposal result in: r a . Alteration or the location , distribution , density , or growth rate of the human Population of the City? b. Chance in the population distribution by age , income , religion , racial , or ethnic group , occupational class , household type? 4. Y_ Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in add IT ona new long-.tarn jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed ) 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. 7ransoortation/Circulation. Will the proposal / result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? _ ✓ b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? ✓✓ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation — — or mcvemment of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards - to motor vehicles , bicyclists , or pedestrians? 17 . Public Services . Will the proposal have an effect ✓ upon , or resu t in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areAs : a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities ? _ ✓✓ e. Maintenance of public facilities , including g f. Other governmental services? i 5. Yes Maybe No is. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities : y a. Power or natural gas? ✓ b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal ? 20. Human Huh. Will the proposal result in: ✓. a . The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 21 . Social Se r�ices . Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive ✓ site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness , pleasantness , and uniqueness? 2J . Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce ne:v ight or g are? 24 . Archeologicaa l/4istorical . Will the proposal ✓ resu t in an teration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? / r 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findinas of Sioni`ficance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into J the future. ) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited , but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact an two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts an the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? _ _ _✓ Initial Study Prepared By: 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 October 8. 1987 I Dear Property Owner/Residents/Business Owners: A group of residents and property owners in your area (see attached map) have submitted petitions requesting annexation to the City of Palm Desert. Presently the area on the west side of Cook Street between the Whitewater Channel and 42nd Avenue is unincorporated Riverside County territory with governmental services originating from Indio or Riverside. Although your neighborhood is profoundly influenced by decisions made by the City of Palm Desert, your unincorporated status prevents you from participating in local elections or representation on the Palm Desert City Council . As citizens of Palm Desert, permanent residents would be able to vote for city council members, local initiatives and referendums, run for local office yourself or serve on various appointed commissions and committees. Non-resident property and business owners. although not eligible to vote in Palm Desert elections, have historically been afforded open access and responsive representation by city officials. Since incorporation the city has consistently pursued policies in consultation with business and property owners to protect and enhance property values and promote a prosperous business environment. In addition to gaining a voice in local affairs, becoming part of Palm Desert will result in expanded urban level police and fire services and free paramedic and ambulance services. These additional services are financed by a special tax of $48 per year for each single family residence and $36 per apartment unit. Commercial buildings are assessed according to their fire rating and range between $30 and $70 per year for a 5,000 square foot structure. Since Palm Desert does not have a property tax there would be no increase over what you currently pay to the county. The first step in the process is the designation of specific land uses and zoning for the area. We are proposing that the uses permitted under the county shall be maintained. Uses currently legal under county zoning would remain legal under city zoning. The City of Palm Desert is looking forward to welcoming You into our city. We feel the advantages to all concerned are substantial . - expanded police, fire and free paramedic services full representation and participation in local land use and other city policy decisions - more responsive and convenient access to the whole range of city services _ low taxes If you have any questions about the annexation process or city services contact Philip Drell , Associate Planner a1: 346-0611 extension 485. Sincerely, il'6�1 f RICHARD S. KELLY MAYOR RSK/PD/dlg 2 �w i .s �Ll;�V CITY OF PALM D DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI 6r.tw , �TION: SEP 14 1987 STAFF REP( ECFIVED s�--- DENIED pTFADNIYY DJNiLOPMENT DEPARTMENT - OTHER CITY OF PALM DESERT + ------ _ _ --' �T Le\1 T0: Honorable Mayor and City CounAv-,: FROM: Philip Drell , Associate Plannfi �P1:17 ABSTAIN—1 &JAIL..----_ DATE: September 10, 1987 VERIF'IED _Z ;4� ' _ Origina SUBJECT: Initiation of pre-annexation zoning'- f9P �dt�T�ry�iCh tL iljj l Vic; k - Estates area west of Cook Street, north of Whitewater Channel . I. DISCUSSION: We have received petitions signed by 37 registered voters within the Country Club Village Estates area requesting annexation to the City of Palm Desert. This is 21% of the 175 registered voters in the area. Annexation laws only require 5% registered voters petitions to initiate an annexation. In 1974, annexation of this area initiated by two residents was denied by LAFCO presumably due to a lack of resident and property owner support. Based upon the petitions it appears that there is now more support for 1 annexation. In addition to the residential area, LAFCO is likely to require that annexation Include the Valley Industrial Park to the north to prevent the creation of a small unincorporated Island. Property owners in this Industrial area may not be as supportive of annexation as the inhabitants of the residential area. We will be sending a letter to all property owners, residents and tenants explaining the benefits of annexation. The ultimate decision will depend upon registered voter support. Protest by 50% of the voters can terminate the process. A 25% protest by either voters or owners would require an election. Only registered voters would participate in the election. Staff will be recommending that the present county zoning be maintained. This would include service industrial (S. 1 . ) for the existing industrial park, multi family (R-2) along Cook Street and R-1 for the interior. II . RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion initiate pre-annexation zoning for the Country Club Village Estates area and other preparations leading to an application for annexation to the City of Palm Desert. 1 _ Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg r r 1. ' I • t � J AM► yt . YI r. Y• E 1 . .., g � ►euu ott�at cau�n o� RrvtR�tca) pn utnr I CITY U"T oou"rT or*rvIu ---7 I S'�, g i IM o � e ' • g .. S ' I I 4 K CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 20. 1987 CASE NO: C/Z 87-12 REQUEST: Negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will include service industrial (S. I . ) for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multifamily residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-i single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT I. BACKGROUND: A group of residents in the area have petitioned the city for annexation. Prezoning is the first step of the process. The proposed designations are consistent with the current county zoning, the city's General Plan and the proposed North Sphere Specific Plan. II. RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of CZ 87-12. Prepared by'-' —` Reviewed and Approved byy PD/dlg PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREANNEXATION ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 119 ACRES WEST OF COOK STREET BETWEEN 42NO AVENUE AND THE WHiTEWATER STORM CHANNEL. CASE NO: C/Z 87-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Df the City of Palm Desert, California. did on the 20th day of October, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexation zoning of approximately 119 acres directly adjacent to the City of Palm Desert's eastern boundary, west of Cook Street between the Whitewater Storm Channel and 42nd Avenue. City of Palm Desert zoning shall be consistent with the existing County of Riverside zoning and will Include service industrial (S. I . ) for the northerly 40 acre existing industrial park, multi-family residential R-3 4,000 (one unit per 4,000 square feet of lot area) for properties east of Clifford and Christian Streets and R-1 single family for the existing single family areas to the west of those streets. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental impact has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard. said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify a recommendation of approval : I . The proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the current county zoning and development patterns , the Palm Desert General Plan and the proposed North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed pre-zoning protects the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California. as follows: I . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact. Exhibit "A", and C/Z 87-12 is hereby recommended for approval . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 140. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planing Commission, held on this 20th day of October, 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD. Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 2 IWI I I I I—f f I t )1000 � (j14 k C � t f .aeon. ass• / `N _. Nff rr. evl .,.i0n1 i � a Cif ,r) CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. Z 7- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION o RESOLUTION NO.IJII oo� � �> oc� Date B 16 I 9110 42ndAVE. KEY MAP I _ Not to scale W W s W Or N 1 Q H "i _N a � 0 U a ° �► r 16 FRED WARING DRIVE 1615 1327.05' 10 6 I� a 0 VELIE WAY 16 O COUNTY OF O PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE) CITY LIMIT o 01 PROPOSED v� PALM DESERT JONI DRIVE — PALM DESERT CRY LIMIT CITY LIMIT COUNTY OFRIVERSIDE 1320, M LERIV c O a O Y� ya 04 2 O W GARY :3 AV LL J a O J U U U O C 1zo,12, SHERYL AVE. H O P4L41 R-IiI000 a OeSERT C/ry d/at. 27� 19 DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. . I[Drawnbys TO THE ©TY OF PALM DESERT . SAN PEDRO ALE RAMON A. DIAZ IN SEC. 16 T 5 S R 6 E I" a 600' :actor.Env.Services Div. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PALM DESERT e IsI I I15 42nd AVE. KEY MAP Not to scale W W a N I N a � J O 0 0 V Is FRED WARIO G DRIVE 1615 1327.05' — 10 6 1 N O VELIE WAY O O PALM DESERT COUNTY OF — RIVERSIDE) CITY LIMIT aI PROPOSED a� PALM DESERT H) JONI DRIVE — PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT CITY LIMIT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE I1 1320' M LE IVE QU Q W f � m ~ m O m N aj a zWi GARY 7 AVE V LL a O U D O tl 120,32, 9HERYL AVE. M - P4 fo R-1430 cli 0 DESERT Olry dl,I 272.7 DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. . Drawn by: TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN FEDRO SCALE RAMON A. DIAZ IN SEC. 16 T 5 S R 6 E 600' Director:Env. Services Div. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PALM DESERT I" =