HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATIONS EAST COOK STREET NO 6 1979 RESOLUTION NO. 78- 141
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANI7_ATION KNOWN AS "PALM DESERT
ANNEXATION NO. 6", PURSUANT TO SECTION 35140 OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENT CODE.
WHEREAS, one-hundred percent of the property owners have requested
annexation by petition, within the area hereafter known as, "Palm Desert
Annexation No. 6", and more particularly described in the attached map .and
legal description; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act has been complied
with, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 78-32, in that the Director
of Environmental Services has issued negative declarations for general
development plans encompassing the subject property, and the appeal period
has expired; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed Change of
Organization is appropriate for the following reasons:
1 . The request is a logical expansion of the City boundaries.
2. Expanding the boundaries of the City through the proposed annexation
is considered consistent with the Municipal Organization Act of
1977, which encourages limiting the number of annexations processed
and expanding City boundaries to include logical growth areas.
3. The proposed area to be annexed has been determined to be of
satisfactory size to provide municipal services without adversely
affecting the rest of the community.
C NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1 . The above recitations are hereby determined to be true and correct
and represent the findings of the Council in this matter.
2. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to file an official application
with the Local Agency Formation Commission for Palm Desert Annexation
No. 6, pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 for
uninhabited territory since less than twelve registered voters reside
in the area.
3. In addition to any required application, the clerk is hereby instructed
to forward the attached Plan for Services to LAFCO as required by
Section 35140 of the State Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council , held this 9th day of November ' 1978, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4D. MNS, Playor
C i
ATTEST:
_ez 2- ,�
�
SHEILA R. GILL AN, City C15yk
City of Palm Desert, California
CLANCY
LANE
p W W
< mi W
o z s
T W
> N
44 < AVENUE
w �
N ¢ 0I x
W F U
Z ¢O O
fl HIGHWAY n 111 p
F LOCATION MAP
w
W NOT TO SCALE
F
N
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
2657.95' �_
N 8 9° 4 8 31" E
I
PROPOSED PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT
1
3
F«44'
SECTION 10
T-5-S , R-6-E ,S.B.B.M.
m _
N < V
m ^ o w
C O 0 °
m O 0
O
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT
i 186.33 ACRES °1� N
P.O.B. PROPOSED PALM DESERT
_— y 10 CITY LIMIT
' S 890 49'OB"W
1328.83 ' ---�
I6 S IPROPOSED
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 7 SECTION15H T-5-5, R-6-E S.BN573717. 47E 1967946.44 I o S89°49' 37"W
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PALM DESERT
x CITY LIMIT
0
0
U
L.A.F.C. 78 -
A.J.D. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6
bDATE 8-2- - 8 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SCALE I =800�
n/ IN SECTION 10 a 15 T-5-S R-6-E S. B. B.a M. STD. DRAWING NO.
CfYY� GINEER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT L - 6 -A
01TAiNINT NiN?(f
l
V �
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly boundary line of the City of
Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California , said point
being the common section corner of Section 9 and 10 and Section 15
and 16, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian.
1 . Thence North 000 07' 49" East along the section line of the
aforementioned Section 9 and 10 a distance of 2,654.92 feet;
2. Thence North 890 48' 31 " East a distance of 21657.95 feet;
3. Thence South 000 07 ' 11 " West a distance of 2,655.04 feet;
4. Thence South 890 49' 08" West a distance of 1 ,328.83 feet;
5. Thence South 000 04' 25" West a distance` of 995.45 feet;
6. Thence South 890 49' 37" West a distance of 1 ,329.61 feet
to a point in the common section line of the aforementioned
Sections 15 and 16;
7. Thence North 000 05' 46" East 995.26 feet along the common
section line of Section 15 and 16 to the point of beginning.
This parcel contains 186.33 acres more or less.
l
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL :TING
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
B. CASE NO . TT 14004 (Continued)
Mayor Wilson invited input in FAVOR of the request , and none was
\W-
ffered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request, and none
as offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed.
uncilman Snyder moved and Councilman Puluqi seconded to waive
further r ading and adopt Resolution No . 80-61 as amended. Motion carried
unanimous .
C. SE NO. SNC-2 : CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
YVIEW LANE TO DESERT VIEW DRIVE.
Mayor Wilson declared the Public Hearing open and called for the
Staff Report .
Mr. Wi liams reviewed the Staff Report and justification
for ren ming the street Desert View Drive. He pointed out
that the\ equest had been presented to Council on May 8th
at whichr ime this public hearing had been scheduled.
Mayor Wilson i\ited input in FAVOR of the request , and none was
offered. He invited input in OPPOSITION to the request , and none
was offered. _ He \declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPhe son moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded
to waive further reading an adopt Resolution No . 80-67 , approving a
street name change from Skyv' ew Lane to Desert View Drive. Motion carried
unanimously.
IX. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 80-68 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CAL FORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
NEGOTIATE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIED
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES.
Mr. Bouman reviewed the reso tions and each provision of it .
Councilman Snyder stated that with espect to Item 4 , the Manager
should make sure that the County doe not have the equipment availa-
ble before the City goes out and buys it Mr. Bouman stated that a
list of equipment was available, and h would be aware of this concern.
Councilman Puluqi stated that he felt tha in Item 5 , the phrase
"as a first priority" should be eliminate in that it might be
misinterpreted by the other cities . Mr. Bo man stated that this
was in the resolution at the County' s request and could be deleted,
At Council ' s request , Mr. Eric Vogt , Fire Ma\dal , explained the
capabilities of the City' s Snorkel Truck. Councilman Puluqi added
that it was not so much the truck as it is the ma\wer that it can
provide.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson moved and Councilman Pulugi seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 80-68 as amended to delete
the words "as a first priority" in Item 5 . Motion carried uri\imously.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 80-69 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT,. CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BET14EEN THE CO
RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING T ANNEXATIO
UMBE 6 0 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT , CALIFORNIA, 6�4-4.
Mr. Bouman explained that this is another resolution dealing
with annexation where, after Proposition #13 , the City will
receive 25% of the property tax collected by the County.
Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Snyder seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 80-69 ; carried unanimously.
June 12, 1980 Page 4
31ba r=
56t 'ON 3ONb'NIa80 goo gCq�)j D
-1ION(100 xin 1H3S30 w-led do �kljo
2OD
OD
D]
m co COOK STREET
0
9 � o
— N
-• _ Cl) — z 0 -o CO)
N 0
�+ = 0
A'
c Cl)
c
(P
rF
PORT L AVENUE <
I r
ri
rT
FAa CA YO I —
, t{{ r r
YI � <
r COOK 5}REET m
a i3
17.
IOU
J F 1
Elio,
fiz-4-.' .+..Sw ..
J
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palrn Desert
TO: JIM HILL, PAUL WILLIAMS, AND CLYDE BEEBE
FROM: SHEILA GILLIGAN
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION NO. 6 DATE: April 5 , 1979
The subject annexation was filed with the County Recorder on
March 27 , 1979, and is now officially a part of the City. All
documents are on file in my office if you need to review them.
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN
CITY CLERK
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
E. (Continued)
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
waive further reading and pass Ordinance No . 204 to second reading ,
approving a Change of Zone from ' S ' Study to PR-5 , S .P . , U.A. Motion
carried unanimously with the members present.
CASE NO. TT 14081 , DAVIS MOSS , APPLICANT: Consideration Of
A Request For Approval Of A Tentative Tract Map To Create A
28 Lot Subdivision, Containing 24 Residential Condominiums
on Approximately 5 Acres In The PR-5 Zone Located On The
South Side of Hovely Lane East of Monterey Avenue .
Mr . Williams stated that this was a request for a Tenta-
tive Tract in compliance with a Development Plan previously
approved by the Planning Commission for a 24 unit condominium
unit on small acreage. He stated that both the Staff and
the Planning Commission recommended approval .
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and
invited input in FAVOR of the request .
MR. BILL FITCH, 74-075 E1 Paseo, of Wallach & Associates,
addressed Council on behalf of the applicant and stated -
the concurrence with all conditions .
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the
request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing
closed.
Councilman Wilson expressed concern about approving projects
without knowing what might or should take place in that
whole area. Mr. Williams responded that this was the
second Tentative Tract approved by the Council , and one
of the major concerns in developing of this area is what to
do with the homestead areas . Each is a little different,
and each is unique. This type of development seems best
suited for the area in view of the homesteaded land.
Councilman Wilson inquired about the overhead line , and
Mr. Williams advised that it was a 115 KV and could not
be undergrounded.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-25, approving Tenta-
tive Tract 14081 . Motion carried unanimously with the members present .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 79-30 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CON-
TIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 , WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE
DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 6 .
Mr . Bouman reported that this was the final action of the
Council on Annexation #6 which was approved by LAFCO on
March 8th.
Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-30. Motion carried
unanimously with the members present .
rB1 RESOLUTION NO. 79-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
`t ) THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CON-
TIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 , WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE
DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 8 .
MR. Bouman stated — "same speech, different annexation" .
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to waive
further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-31 . Motion carried unani-
mously with the members present.
March 22, 1979 Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 79-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CON-
TIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVI-
SIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 ,
WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION
NO. 6 .
WHEREAS , the City Council did, by Resolution No . 78-141 adopted
on November 9 , 1978 , initiate annexation proceedings for Annexation
No . 6 ; and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public
hearing relative to Annexation No . 6 on March 8 , 1979, and approved
said annexation with the recommendation that the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert be authorized to proceed without Notice and Hearing
inasmuch as the owners have requested the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Palm Desert , California, as follows :
1. That the territory described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and made a part hereof by reference, be, and the same is hereby by this
Resolution, annexed to the City of Palm Desert .
2 . That the City Clerk is hereby instructed and directed to
transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to LAFCO along with any
other required submittals .
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 22nd day of March
1979, by the following vote, to wit :
AYES : Brush, Newbrander, Wilson & McPherson
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mullins
ABSTAIN: None
JAMES McPHERSON, 1;AYOR PRO-TEM
ATTEST:
/ t
— SHEILA R. LIGAN, TY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESER CALIFORNIA
_,-,:,...t:'- - ....�::.:<._ .._-,_.-- .. - - ._ -• .__.. .. ..-.. - .. .-- .-_ .- .etc:-:vk-:,...>-...
4f'J:
RESOLUTION NO. 79-30 EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly boundary line of the City of
Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California, said point
being the common section corner of Section 9 and 10 and Section 15
and 16, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian.
1 . Thence North 000 07' 49" East along the section line of the
aforementioned Section 9 and 10 a distance of 2,654.92 feet;
2. Thence North 890 48' 31 " East a distance of 2,657.95 feet;
1 3. Thence South 000 07' ll West a distance of 2,655.04 feet;
� 1
4. Thence South 890 49' 08" West a distance of 1 ,328.83 feet;
5. Thence South 000 04' 25" West a distance of 995.45 feet;
6. Thence South 890 49' 37" West a distance of 1 ,329.61 feet
to a point in the common section line of the aforementioned
Sections 15 and 16;
7. Thence North 000 05' 46" East 995.26 feet along the common
section line of Section 15 and 16 to the point of beginning.
This parcel contains 186.33 acres more or less.
1
VqOTTYTTr)M Mr) _ EXHIBIT B11
CLANCY
LANE
F
o W w
o z
> N
44 a AVE NUE
w a
w
N
f
2 J
O Y
� O
� O
S HIGHWAY n III u
LOCATION MAP
w NOT TO SCALE
N
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
2657.95'
N89° 48' 31" E
2 I
PROPOSED PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT
i
44' 3
I SECTION IO '
T-5-S , R-6-E ,S.B.B.M.
01 -_
N P P
O
PALM DESERTCITY LIMIT N z 186.33 ACRES NiH
P.0.8. PROPOSED PALM DESERT
_— 9 I 10--- CITY LIMIT
5 89°49'O8�W
J�-;
� 1328.83 'COUNTY OF RIVERSIDEI6 15 SECTION 15N 573717.47 v T-5-S, R-6-E ,S.BIoE1967946.44p
i S89°49' 37-W la
1329.61'
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROPOSED PALM DESERT
o CITY LIMIT
0
- U
L.A.F.C. 78-
AjD. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6
DATE P,-23-78 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SCALE I"=800'
IN SECTION 10 & 15 T-5-S R•6-E S.B.S.& M. STD. DRAWING NO.
C1iY%ET4GINEER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT I L - 6 -A
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATE OF FILING
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
I, Wayne B. Curren Assistant Executive Officer of the
Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Riverside, do hereby
certify that:
1. The application hereinafter referenced and described has been
submitted to me and has been found to be in the form prescribed by the
Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission.
2. The application contains the information and data requested
and required by said Commission and provisions of the State Law.
3. The application has been accepted for filing by me on
Fahrilary 15 , 1979
4. The proposal has been set for hearing before the Commission on
March 8 , 1979 The staff report will be
mailed to you on the Friday before the Commission meeting.
Applicant: _City of Palm Desert
Address : P. 0. Box 1977
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Application Title: Annexation #6 to City of Palm Desert
General Location: East side of Cook Street Northerly of the Whitewater Stormwater
Channel
This certificate of filing is issued pursuant to authority and require-
ments of Section 54791 0£ the Government Code, State of California.
All time requirements and limitations for processing and consideration
of aforementioned application specified by State Law and/or rules and
regulations of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission
shall become effective and run from the date of issuance of this
Certificate of Filing. 2
February 15 1979 C,-kja'
Date AssistantVExecutive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
County of Riverside
PETITION
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA
In accordance with the Municipal Organizational Act of
1977, as amended, Government Code Sections 35 , 000 etal,
I/we respectfully represent as follows :
1. I/We are the owner (s) of Assessor' s Parcel Num-
bers 619-060-015 and 619-060-016 which have as-
sessed values as shown on the Equalized Assess-
ment Roll of the County of Riverside.
2. I/We request that such land be annexed to the
City of Palm Desert, subject to the condition
that the City of Palm Desert zone the property
in conformance with the Palm Desert Land Use
Plan showing classifications set forth in Parcel
Map 13406. If such conditions do not occur, this
petition is withdrawn and shall no longer be ef-
fective.
3 . There are less than twelve (12) registered voters
living within such land.
LOS COCINEROS, Ltd. , A California
Limited Partnership
Date: ,19� By:
E. George Ma cola,
General Par n
C
PETITION
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
In accordance with the annexation of Uninhabitated Territory
Act of 1939, as amended, Government Code Sections 35 ,300 -
35 ,326 , the following individuals request the annexation of
the attached described property.
Said request is contingent upon the approval of a development
plan for an industrial park as filed with the City Planning
Commission on July 3 , 1978.
We further request that the City Council consider the reduction
of the building excise tax fees for industrial buildings from
20fi per square foot to 5G per square foot.
Lakeside Properties , Inc . , a California corporation;
Cliff Swanson, Inc. , a California corporation;
Frank W. Koenen and Betsey F. Koenen, husband and
wife;
Samuel I. Russell, a married man as his separate
property.
Dated this 3rd day of July, 1978 .
Cliff Swanson, Inc . ,
A California Corporation
BY CLIFF VANSOIT
Minutes Page Five
Palm Desert Planning Commission
March 14 , 1979
VIII . OLD BUSINESS
A. Study and Report : Referral from the City Council
concerning the request from Ridgewood Development , Inc .
for approval of a Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map.
Mr. Crump related the Staff Report to the Commission , noting
that a letter was presented to the City Council from Ridgewood
'immediately prior to their March 8, 1979 meeting. The letter expressed
the applicant ' s interest in proceeding with the Change of Zone, but
requested the Tentative Tract Map be withdrawn. It was determined
that since the Commission recommendation for the Change of Zone was
based on a specific development scheme, it would be appropriate to
refer the matter back to the Commission for input before acting on
the zoning request alone. The Council is seeking a report back from
the Commission to ascertain whether their position on the matter has
changed in light of the Tentative Tract Map withdrawal. He then
cited that Staff recommendation was to recommend approval to the
City Council of a Modified Change of Zone from O. S. to PR-4 zone for
that portion of the O. S. zone lying northerly of the present estab-
lished right-of-way alignment for Hovely Lane, east of Portola, by
minute motion, and direct Staff to forward this report of the
Commission ' s action to the Council.
Commissioner Kryder asked if this was the usual procedure;
doesn' t the Commission generally set a zone change only with a
development plan.
Mr. Crump answered that a zone change does require a develop-
ment plan to accompany it , unless it is initiated by the City.
CCommissioner Kryder then asked why the applicant wishes to
r pursue the change of zone, lacking a development plan .
l Mr. Crump answered that this was essentially the point of
Staff ' s recommendation limiting the action to clear up the residual
piece of Open Space zoning.
On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner
Berkey, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City
Council by Minute Motion of said Modified Change of Zone, and
directed Staff to forward this report of the Commission ' s action to
the City Council; carried unanimously (4-0) .
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Consideration for City In' n of Pre-Annexation Zoning
for City Annexation ArzT No. 10.
Commissioner Fleshman stated that he would have a conflict of
interest , so would excuse himself from voting on this matter .
Mr. Crump presented a report to the Commission , noting that
the 'draft ' resolution requested initiation of a Change of Zone from
IS' (Study) to RM (U.A. ) (Mobile Home Park and Mobile Home Subdivision
Residential District, Upon •Annexation) , or any other -zone deemed
appropriate. -
Chairman Snyder noted that it seems an appropriate zone for
this area. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner
Berkey, Planning Commission Resolution No. 471 was approved as
presented; carried 3-0-1 (AYES : Berkey, Kryder, Snyder; ABSTAIN:
Fleshman) .
CLANCY
LANE
1-
p
744
w
W W
O D
D
>
m
a AVENUE
w Q
W J
IN W
5 O Y
1- 0
2 0 O
m HIGHWAY a III o
LOCATION MAP
W
W NOT TO SCALE
D
H
m
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
__ 2657.95
1 N89° 4 'rE _— 1
1 2 I
PROPOSED PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT
I
3
44' i
SECTION 10 1
T-5-S , R-6-E ,S.B.B.M.
m - -
N p O
m N p 0
V 0 0
» °p 0 0
0 N10
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT z 186.33 ACRES m
1
P.0_B.
1328.83'PROPOSED PALM DESERT
9 IG 1 CITY LIMIT °
589°g9'08W �l
—� _ --------7 —I
I I S g COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3t w 7
n
m e SECTION 15 a
N ,,, T-5-S, R-6-E ,S.B.B.M.o o
N 573717. 47 m o m °
m
E 1967946.44 O11 p 6 10
1 i S89-49' 37'W
1329.61 '
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROPOSED PALM DESERT
x CITY LIMIT
O
0
0
L.A.F.C. 78 -
AJ.D. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6
DATE -13-23-78 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SCALE I"=800'
IN SECTION 10 & 15 T-5-S R-6-E S.B.B.d M. STD. DRAWING NO.
CiTYPENGINEEA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT 1- - 6 -A
DATAPRIMT N41420
NOTES IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CITY ANNEXATION
NO. 6 TO BE CONSIDERED BY LAFCO ON MARCH 8 , 1979, AT 9: 00 A.M.
1. All the property owners within the boundaries of this annexation
have filed petitions in favor of the annexation.
2 . Said property is within the City' s Sphere of Influence. Said
property has been pre-zoned with approximately 72 acres designa-
ted as Service Industrial , and 115 acres designated as PR-5.
Development plans have been approved for a total of 540 dwelling
units in the PR zone districts and subdivision maps have been
approved on 64 of the acres zoned Service Industrial . All of
these projects are awaiting annexation to be completed.
3. The incorporation of this property into the City of Palm Desert
would be a logical extension of the City' s boundary. The
average density of the residential area is 4. 6 dwelling units
per acre (versus the County General Plan which would allow
maximum of 3. 0-3. 9 d.u. /acre) . The General Plan designation in
the City of Palm Desert for the residential area is 5-7 d.u. /acre.
The proposed residential development plan is less than the
General Plan designation in the City. The industrial designation
is in conformance with the City ' s General Plan.
4. Service capability (Response to County Planning Department) . For
the development contemplated, the provision of services would
naturally need to be increased. With the inclusion of this
property into the City of Palm Desert , the residents and
property owners would have available to them a greater level
of police, planning, building, code enforcement , parks and
recreation, and fire. services. The last three will be pro-
vided by the City at a higher level of service, in that the City
is proposing to develop a new fire station to the north of
said property and the development of a major 120-acre park
site westerly of said property. Said services at this level
are not .provided within the County' s jurisdiction. Further,
the City has contracted with a private consultant to complete
a Master Drainage Plan for this area including said property
which, upon adoption and implementation, will provide for con-
templated development in terms of water run-off. Said approach
is not presently followed within the County' s jurisdiction.
In sum, the service level in the City versus the County is
substantially higher. Therefore, the comments made by the County
Planning Department relative to service levels simply are not true.
The City has received letters from all service districts that
will provide service to said area indicating their ability to
serve. Therefore, it is clear that the County Planning
Department ' s concern with regards to the inability to serve
should not be considered.
The County Planning Department ' s suggestion that a study be
done before this annexation is considered relative to the increase
in residential development and its impact upon the area plan
covering this area in the County is not valid. An area plan
has been done, taking into account the slight increase in
density for the residential area. That is known as the City ' s
General Plan, which includes a related Environmental Impact Report .
Said General Plan and related Environmental Impact Report
takes into account incorporation of a large 'number of acres
inot the City of Palm Desert , including said property. There-
fore, no additional area studies would be necessary in the
opinion of the City.
The comments relative to the service capability of the City
by the County Planning Department seem contrary to the State law
which indicates in Section 35,.000 that "the legislature finds
and declares that it is the policy of the .State to encourage
orderly growth and development, which are essential to the
social , fiscal -and economic well-being of the State. The
legislature recognizes that the logical formation and determina-
tion of city boundaries is an important factor in promoting
the orderly development of urban areas . . . Legislature finds
and declares that a single governmental agency rather than
several limited purpose agencies is better able to assess and
be accountable for community service needs and financial re-
sources, and, .therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing
community service priorities. " The County Planning Department ' s
statements seem contrary to this intent . Further , in Section
54774 of the State Government Code, it states, "among the
purposes of a local agency formation commission are the
discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of
orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies
based upon local conditions ,and circumstances. The County
Planning Department statements seem contrary to this intent .
�V
-- - -_ - - _ _- --- - - - - -4��
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
PUBLIC HEARING
Thursday, March 8, 1979
9:00 A. M.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room
14th Floor, County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
AGENDA
1. Call to Order and Salute to the Flag.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 8, 1979.
3. HEARINGS:
a. LAFCO #78-62-1--Formation of Clay Canyon County Water District .
(Applicant has requested that this item be
continued one month. )
b. LAFCO #78-64-4--Annexation #6 to City .of Palm Desert
C. LAFCO #79-1-4---Annexation #8 to City of Palm Desert
d. LAFCO #78-63-5--Annexation #34 to County Service Area #61.
4. Possible Hearings for April 12, 1979.
5. Adjournment.
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
March 2, 1979
TO: Local Agency Formation Commission
FROM: Wayne B. Curren, Assistant Executive Officer
SUBJECT: LAFCO #78-64-4--Annexation #6 to City of Palm Desert
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to annex 186.33 acres to the City of Palm Desert.
SUBMITTED BY:
The City of Palm Desert.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS:
This proposal has met all requirements of the law. The map and legal description
were approved by the County Surveyor on December 4, 1978. The project has complied
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
POPULATION:
Population is zero.
LAND USE:
Existing County zoning is R-1 (Single-family residential ).
ASSESSED VALUATION:
Assessed value of the land is $90,499.
COMMENTS:
The City of Palm Desert proposes to annex approximately 186 acres located on the
east side of Cook Street and about one-quarter mile north of the Whitewater Channel .
The parcel is vacant -- no structures and no population. It is adjacent on the
west side to an industrial subdivision. Areas on the other sides are vacant.
The City of Palm Desert states that the purpose of the annexation is to provide a
higher level of services to a proposed development than would be provided if the
area were to be developed in the County. The City' s plan for provision of services
is attached. The City also states that services will be paid for by state subven-
tions, sales tax, and new construction tax.
aaoi}.40 ani3n3ax3 4ue4sLssy
uaaa auFeM
`pa;;Iwgns XIln_4goadsad
*kjpoy;np 6UL;onpuoo se pa4eU6isap aq 4aasa0 wled
jo 44�3 ay; 4p4; pue panoadde aq 4a9s80 wled 3o R;;j a44 o4 9# uoL;exauuy weyl
:NOIIV0N3WW003d
sL44 o3 pasuoo s,aaumo F4aadoad 'uoi3exauue
�OOi si aaay� �py� uol1pluawnoop anpy ;ou op aM
'sIIaM ueLpul 10 aouanl.4UL 3o aaayds ay3 SULOCpe uoLIpxauup ay3 ;o
a6pa uaalsea ayI '8L61 `51 Faenaga3 uo uoissLwwo0 aye Fq pays�Igp;sa sp gaasa0 wlpd
�o aouanlIui Jo aaayds aye uiyjim sL uoi�exauue ao3 pasodoad 4.Ao4p.aaj 9al4ua ayI
'pane 044 ao3. ueld Ieaauag s,laasa0 wled y;im aaa6e saop
3I 4e44 salels R44 0 aye 'upld Ie.tauag s,k uno0 ay} 441m aoUeuosuoo UL 4oU sL ;Uaw
-dolanap pasodoad ay; aLHM •s94 Muawe IeuoL4eaa3aa apn hui Mm pup (000'0S$ 6UI4
-ewlxoadde Flpa;aodaa) a6uea aolad a;eaapow aye. UL sq[un 6uillamp ULegUoo Iltm paap
Ie.L4UapIsaa ayI Ieia4snpUL ;46il pup lei4Uapisaa }o xIw a sL 4uawdolanap pasodoad
Z a6ed
6L61 `Z 43JPW
b-b9-8L# 003tf1
. Y
Zs b dnl
DESCRIPTION
r . f l t I t a i s •, x�, wl '
In the unincorporated area of Riverside, County of Riverside,
r`. State 6f,r California, 'described as follows
r.Y
The Northwest quarter of ,the 'Northwest quarter of Section 15 ,
L. -,. •:'
Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian,
:'EXCEPTING .THEREFROM the South half ,of the South half of the
Northwestrquarter of , the Northwest quarter of said Section;
ALSO EXCEPTING there from 'the Westerly '\44 feet as °conveyed to
Nthe County of Riverside by Deeds recorded August 6 , 1962 as
r�,1 istrside Count 33 andrNo. 73934 both of Official Records of
{�sTristrument No. 73933 and No.
R^ y�
• G f :. - 0
4: ! t3f.AA� P w 1 r ti ,•,f r :T.i , , .
Wt
1..
l
..wyrf��•elw+.T�r.�H•�n,�e°Mi•..r.+.+r-e.. r,••• v:.1esY+r ++a^•...^x•?^('�«x(ay. .vmn+•rY+'m+, •n.gry'xr_. �..-.w-,••.�.»wwre.m,e:^M'n"'.v�.nn...fwa.nr+. . . ^ ..w
1 4,
r �
ap f• u J htl
1
NOTES IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CITY ANNEXATION
N0. 6 TO BE CONSIDERED BY LAFCO ON MARCH 8 , 1979, AT 9: 00 A.M.
1. All the property owners within the boundaries of this annexation
have filed petitions in favor of the annexation.
2. Said property is within the City' s Sphere of Influence. Said
property has been pre-zoned with approximately 72 acres designa-
ted as Service Industrial , and 115 acres designated as PR-5.
Development plans have been approved for a total of 540 dwelling
units in the PR zone districts and subdivision maps have been
approved on 64 of the acres zoned Service Industrial. All of
these projects are awaiting annexation to be completed.
3. The incorporation of this property into the City of Palm Desert
would be a logical extension of the City' s boundary. The
average density of the residential area is 4. 6 dwelling units
per acre (versus the County General Plan which would allow
maximum of 3. 0-3. 9 d.u. /acre) . The General Plan designation in
the City of Palm Desert for the residential area is 5-7 d.u. /acre.
The proposed residential development plan is less than the
General Plan designation in the City. The industrial designation
is in conformance with the City' s General Plan.
4 . Service capability (Response to County Planning Department) . For
the development contemplated, the provision of services would
naturally need to be increased. With the inclusion of this
property into the City of Palm Desert , the residents and
property owners would have available to them a greater level
of police, planning, building, code enforcement , parks and
recreation, and fire. services. The last three will be pro-
vided by the City at a higher level of service, in that the City
is proposing to develop a new fire station to the north of
said property and the development of a major 120-acre park
site westerly of said property. Said services at this level
are not .provided within the County' s jurisdiction. Further,
the City has contracted with a private consultant to complete
a Master Drainage Plan for this area including said property
which, upon adoption and implementation, will provide for con-
templated development in terms of water run-off. Said approach
is not presently followed within the County ' s jurisdiction.
In sum, the service level in the City versus the County is
substantially higher. Therefore, the comments made by the County
Planning Department relative to service levels simply are not true.
The City has received letters from all service districts that
will provide service to said area indicating their ability to
serve. Therefore, it is clear that the County Planning
Department ' s concern with regards to the inability to serve
should not be considered.
The County Planning Department ' s suggestion that a study be
done before this annexation is considered relative to the increase
in residential development and its impact upon the area plan
covering this area in the County is not valid. An area plan
has been done, taking into account the slight increase in
density for the residential area. That is known as the City' s
General Plan, which includes a related Environmental Impact Report.
0
v
Said General Plan and related Environmental Impact Report
takes into account incorporation of a large 'number of acres
inot the City of Palm Desert , including said property. There-
fore, no additional area studies would be necessary in the
opinion of the City.
The comments relative to the service capability of the City
by the County Planning Department seem contrary to the State law
which indicates in Section 35, 000 that "the legislature finds
and declares that it is the policy of the .State to encourage
orderly growth and development, which are essential to the
social , fiscal -and economic well-being of the State. The
legislature recognizes that the logical formation and determina-
tion of city boundaries is an important factor in promoting
the orderly development of urban areas . . . Legislature finds
and declares that a single governmental agency rather than
several limited purpose agencies is better able to assess and
be accountable for community service needs and financial re-
sources, and, therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing
community service priorities. " The County Planning Department ' s
statements seem contrary to this intent . Further , in Section
54774 of the State Government Code, it states, "among the
purposes of a local agency formation commission are the
discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of
orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies
based upon local conditions .and circumstances. The County
Planning Department statements seem contrary to this intent .
O
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
PUBLIC HEARING
Thursday, March 8, 1979
9:00 A. M.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room
14th Floor, County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
AGENDA
1. Call to Order and Salute to the Flag.
9
2. Approval of Minutes of February 8, 1979.
3. HEARINGS:
a. LAFCO #78-62-1--Formation of Clay Canyon County Water District
(Applicant has requested that this item be
continued one month. )
b. LAFCO #78-64-4--Annexation #6 to City of Palm Desert
C. LAFCO #79-1-4---Annexation #8 to City of Palm Desert
d. LAFCO #78-63-5--Annexation #34 to County Service Area #61.
4. Possible Hearings for April 12, 1979.
5. Adjournment.
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
March 2, 1979
TO: Local Agency Formation Commission
FROM: Wayne B. Curren, Assistant Executive Officer
SUBJECT: LAFCO #78-64-4--Annexation #6 to City of Palm Desert
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to annex 186.33 acres to the City of Palm Desert.
SUBMITTED BY:
The City of Palm Desert.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS:
This proposal has met all requirements of the law. The map and legal description
were approved by the County Surveyor on December 4, 1978. The project has complied
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
POPULATION:
Population is zero.
LAND USE:
Existing County zoning is R-1 (Single-family residential ).
ASSESSED VALUATION:
-Assessed value of the land is $90,499.
COMMENTS:
The City of Palm Desert proposes to annex approximately 186 acres located on the
east side of Cook Street and about one-quarter mile north of the Whitewater Channel .
The parcel . is vacant -- no structures and no population. It is adjacent on the
west side to an industrial subdivision. Areas on the other sides are vacant.
The City of Palm Desert states that the purpose of the annexation is to provide a
higher level of services to a proposed development than would be provided if the
area were to be developed in the County. The City' s plan for provision of services
is attached. The City also states that services will be paid for by state subven-
tions, sales tax, and new construction tax.
ABOLj10 anL4n3ax3 ;ue;sLssV
uaa.an 8 auseM
`pa44 pgns 4lln};oadsab
'44ta044ne 6uL;onpuoo se pa;eu6Lsap aq ;aasa0 wled
Jo 4M ay; ;ey; pue panojdde aq ;,aasa0 wled ;o RM ay; o; 9# uoi;exauuy ;eyl
:N0I1VOMW003N
siy; o; ;uasuoo s,aauMo t;aadoad %O not;exauue
OI s� aaay; ;ey; uoi;e;uawnoop aney ;ou op am
sllaM ueLpul ;o aouanD ui 30 aaayds ay; suLoCpe uoL;exauue ay; Jo
a6pa uaa;sea ayi '8L61 `9I kaenagaj uo uoLssLwwo0 ay; Rq paysIlge;sa se 4aasa0 wled
jo aouanlJuL jo aaayds ay; uiy;LM sL uoi;exauue aoi pasodoad Sao4p.Aa; aai;ua ayi
•eaae ay; ao; Ueld Iea8ua9 s,4aasa0 wled y;LM aaa6e saop
4� ;ey; sa;e;s R413 ay; 'ueld leaaua9 s ,k;uno0 ay; O; M aoueuosuoo uL ;ou sL ;uaw
-dolanap pasodoad ay; O MM •sa;Muawe leuoL;eaaoaa apnloui Mm pue (o0o`05$ 6UL4
-ewLxoadde kIpa;aodaa) a6uea aotad a;eaapow ay; u} s41un 6uillaMp uie;uoo IIFM eaae
le.;uap�saa ayi ' leLa;snpui ;y6L1 pue lei;uapisaa 10 xiw a si ;uawdolanap pasodoad
Z a6ed
6L61 `Z 40JPW
V-b9-8L# 03AVI
- - -- / l --
- - - ---- C -= - - - - -
- -
� � I,
i� -- - - -
�- - - -
�- ��
- -
_ , -�- - � -
- ``�� ` -
� - - _ -"
- mac// .mow-r�iC - -=- .___�`�/�`-' Q'"=`� - r ---
�-�- -
--
G
�� . -- _ __
�_ f �-�
- -
��� -
-- -- - --
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
PUBLIC HEARING
Thursday, March 8, 1979
9:00 A. M.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room
14th Floor, County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
AGENDA
1. Call to Order and Salute to the Flag.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 8, 1979.
3. HEARINGS:
a. LAFCO #78-62-1--Formation of Clay Canyon County Water District
(Applicant has requested that this item be
continued one month. )
b. LAFCO #78-64-4--Annexation #6 to City .of Palm Desert
C. LAFCO #79-1-4---Annexation #8 to City of Palm Desert
d. LAFCO #78-63-5--Annexation #34 to County Service Area #61.
4. Possible Hearings for April 12, 1979.
5. Adjournment.
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
March 2, 1979
TO: Local Agency Formation Commission
FROM: Wayne B. Curren, Assistant Executive Officer
SUBJECT: LAFCO #78-64-4--Annexation #6 to City of Palm Desert
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to annex 186.33 acres to the City of Palm Desert.
SUBMITTED BY:
The City of Palm Desert.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS:
This proposal has met all requirements of the law. The map and legal description
were approved by the County Surveyor on December 4, 1978. The project has complied
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
POPULATION:
Population is zero.
LAND USE:
Existing County zoning is R-1 (Single-family residential ).
ASSESSED VALUATION:
Assessed value of the land is $90,499.
COMMENTS:
The City of Palm Desert proposes to annex approximately 186 acres located on the
east side of Cook Street and about one-quarter mile north of the Whitewater Channel .
The parcel . is vacant -- no structures and no population. It is adjacent on the
west side to an industrial subdivision. Areas on the other sides are vacant.
The City of Palm Desert states that the purpose of the annexation is to provide a
higher level of services to a proposed development than would be provided if the
area were to be developed in the County. The City' s plan for provision of services
is attached. The City also states that services will be paid for by state subven-
tions, sales tax, and new construction tax.
l
.aaoL340 anL;n3ax3 ;ue;sLssy
ua a an g au,'eM
`pa;;Lwgns RLLnj;oadsaa
'Apo4;ne 6uL4onpuo0 se pa4eu6Lsap aq 4.aasa0 wLed
3o 44LO a4; 4e4; pue panoidde aq 4.aasa0 wLed 30 4463 044 o; 9# uoL;exauuy ;e41
NOIIVON3WWOJA
sL ; o; ;uasuo0 s Aeumo R ,aadoud 'uoL;exauue
4 I %OOi sL a.aa4; ;e4; uoL;e;uawnoop ane4 ;ou op am
sLLaM ueLPUI jo aauanL3uL 3o a.aa4ds aq; suLoCpe uOL;exauue 944 30
a6pa u,aa;sea aql •8L61 `si R'.aen,aga3 uo uoLssLwwoO ay; Xq pa4s1Lge4sa se ;aasa0 wLed
jo aouanLJuL 3o a,aa4ds aq; uL41LM sL uoL;exauue Jol pasodoad F,ao;L.a.aa; ait4ua 841
•eaae ay; JOJ ueLd Le.aaua9 s,;,aasa0 wLed 44LM eaJ6e saop
;L 4e4; sa;e;s L'4L0 aq; 'ueLd Le.aaua9 sj4uno0 ay; 44LM aoueuosuoo uL ;ou sL ;uaw
-doLanap pasodoid a4; aL64M 'sa;MUawe LeuOL;eaaoa.a apnLDUL LLLM pue (000`05$ 6UL;
-ewLxoadde kLpa;.aoda,a) a6ue.a aoLad a;e.Aepow ay; uL s;Lun 6uLLLaMp ute;uoo LLLM ea.ae
LeL;uapLsau aql ' LeLJ;snpuL ;46LL PUP Le14u9pLsa1a ;o XL
w e sL ;uawdoLanap pasodoad
Z a6ed
6L6i `Z 40JPW
b-b9-80 O33tll
FROM
To c �DG �'vGL CITY OF PALM DESERT
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE
O�� 9-� P.O. BOX 1648
PALM DESERT, CA. 92260
PHONE 714 346-0611
SUBJECT: I DATE:
Q L (�PsSC n ��P G(L� rJrLXhrJ �N Si �i\ C va c\kC f a 't✓�l
Z
AU G
ENGUNE-E y 'FFlL)- D' SERT
G1$Y 0- — — — — -
PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED
DATE T T —I SIGNED
SEND GREENTINT AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBONS INTACT. PINK COPY IS RETURNED WITH REPLY.
E C E [ E
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FEB 2 2 19
79
BEFORE THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIO'PALM DESERT CITY HALL
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Local Agency
Formation Commission of the County of Riverside, .State of California, in the
meeting room of the Board of Supervisors, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon
Street, Riverside, California, on Thursday, March 8, 1979, at 9:00 a.m. , on the
following proposals:
1. LAFCO #78-63-5--Annexati.on #34 to County Service Area #61 , E. side of Indian
St. , S. of Manzanita Ave. , Sunnymead area, street lights.
2. LAFCO #78-64-4--Annexation #6 to City of Palm Desert, E. of Cook St. , Nly. of
Whitewater Stormwater Channel , Palm Desert area.
// 3. JAFCO #79-1-4--Annexation #8 to City of Palm Desert, S.E. Corner of Cook St. &
Country Club Dr. , Palm Desert area.
For a particular description of the land involved, reference is hereby made to maps
and legal descriptions on file in the office of the Local Agency Formation Commission
in the County Administrative Center, 12th Floor, Riverside, CA.
Not less than five days prior to the hearings, any interested party who wishes to be
heard should file with the Executive Officer of the Commission at the above address
a written request to be heard.
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION s
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
C�r J.J Fitch
Executive Officer
Dated: February 14, 1979
.i r
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/LEAD AGENCY SITUATION
PROJECT TITLE: LAFco 78-64-4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of 186 acres to Environmental 10215
the City of Palm Desert Assessment No.
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Palm Desert APPROVING AGENCY:
County of Riverside
Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside, California 92501
P 0 BOX 1977
PALM DESERT, CA 92260 ❑Board of Supervisors
❑Planning Commission
❑East Area Planning Council
The Planning Department has reviewed the above referenced project and found that:
The project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA
The project is exempt from CEQA as it has previously complied with the provisions
of CEQA, and there has been no substantial change in either the project as originally
reviewed or the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken.
a. Negative Declaration was filed in connection with >
EA No. , on
b. An Environmental Impact Report was filed in connection with ,
EA No. , on ,E R No. ,
considered by the Board of Supervisors on
a A "Lead Agency" situation exists in that the County officer or body involved in
approving or supporting the project is not the lead agency and that the lead
agency has complied with CEQA and all appropriate State Guidelines.
Section 4.03 (b) (2) of LAFCO Rules to Implement CEQA.
Patricia Nemeth,A.I.P.
Planning Director
By: Joseph A. Richards
Title: Senior Planner
White - Applicant JAN3 0 ig79
Canary - Case File
Pink - Clerk of Board
Goldenrod - EA File
PD demo ENVIRON<v7EtITf.! S'.RV`.CC
JLW/pop CITY OF PA'_Ll CGSERT
County Use Only
N'S1'h}fan+'`° �aTr"ac±sR "r[ "f9::•'XYL�.fE7, `R1:r;Ewr,'awrr
45-275-PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
November 15, 1978
Local Agency Formation Commission
County of Riverside
Courthouse, Room 104
Riverside, California 92501
Gentlemen:
Notice is hereby given of intention to annex territory to the following
local agency (district or city) :
Palm Desert Annexation No. 6
The annexation is proposed under the following statuatory provisions:
Municipal Organization Act of 1977
A map and legal description of the specific boundaries of the territory
proposed to be annexed are attached hereto and are made a part hereof by
this reference. In addition, a completed form of questionnaire , as required
by the Formation Commission, is submitted.
Please note that the City has complied with the California. Environmental
Quality Act of 1972 and the related Negative Declaration is attached hereto.
Further, the property to be annexed has been prezoned and the related ordi-
nance is also attached hereto.
Notice, process and other communications regarding said annexation may be
directed to the proponents at:
___.-_...__. _...__.._ . . -._Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
P. 0. Box 1977
Palm' Desert, California 92260
Verytruly
y yours,
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN
CITY CLERK
- Attachments (as noted)
& Check #4283 ($400) & Check #4239 ($50)
EIR FORM #1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Case No. : C/Z 07-78 (Prezoning)
Applicant : CLIFF SWANSON, et al
42-529 Adams
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
Description of Project:
A Change of Zone from 'S' Study to S.I. (U.A.) (Service Industrial , Upon
Annexation) on approximately 29 acres located on the east side of Cook
Street northerly of the Whitewater Channel .
Finding:
The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment
and no further environmental documentation will be required.
Justification:
The project is compatible with the General Plan for the City of Palm Desert.
Based on the findings of the initial study, which study is on file at the
Palm Desert City Hall , no substantial significant environmental effects
will occur as a result of the action proposed by the subject project. Further,
the requested zoning is similar to the Industrial zoning that exists at the
present in the County.
Any interested citizen may appeal this determination to. the Planning Commission
within eight (8) days of the date of the posting of public notice by filing an appeal
in accordance with Resolution No. 7$'.32. with the Department of Environmental
Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California. 'If no
appeal is filed within said time, this determination shall be final.
Date Filed with County Cler k
(within five days)
July 7, 1978
Date Public Notice
Is Posted:
July 7, 1978
cc: Applicant Date Appeal Period Expires
County Clerk
File
- July 17, 1978
Bulletin Board
RESOLUTION NO. 78- 141
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANI7ATION KNOWN AS "PALM DESERT
ANNEXATION NO. 6", PURSUANT TO SECTION 35140 OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENT CODE.
WHEREAS, one-hundred percent of the property owners have requested
annexation by petition, within the area hereafter known as , "Palm Desert
Annexation No. 6", and more particularly described in the attached map and
legal description; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act has been complied
with, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 78-32, in that the Director
of Environmental Services has issued negative declarations for general
development plans encompassing the subject property, and the appeal period
has expired; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed Change of
Organization is appropriate for the following reasons:
1 . The request is a logical expansion of the City boundaries.
2. Expanding the boundaries of the City through the proposed annexation
is considered consistent with the Municipal Organization Act of
1977, which encourages limiting the number of annexations processed
- and expanding City boundaries to include logical growth areas.
3.. The proposed area to be annexed has been determined to be of
satisfactory size to provide municipal services without adversely
affecting the rest of the community.
C NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1 . The above recitations are hereby determined to be true and correct
and represent the findings of the Council in this matter.
2. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to file an official application
with the Local Agency Formation Commission for Palm Desert Annexation
No. 6, pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 for
uninhabited territory since less than twelve registered voters reside
in the area.
3. In addition to any required application, the clerk is hereby instructed
to forward the attached Plan for Services to LAFCO as required by
Section 35140 of the State Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council , held this 9th day of November 1978, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
---ABSTAIN: _._..None
TI,
�E R D. G INS, Mayor
C
ATTEST:
�SHEILA R. GILL AN, City Cl k
City of Palm Desert, California _ .
CLANCY
LANE
F
p w w
O w
2 WI F
> N
qq a AVENUE
W J
w O Y
(� W
Z O O
4 HIGHWAY ul 111 t1
-- I LOCATION MAP
F
W
w NOT TO SCALE
n
N
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
2657.95 _
N 8 9° 4 6� 31" E —
'
1
PROPOSED PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT
r-4 4' 1
I SECTION 10
T-5-S , R-6-E ,S.B.B.M.
N Q 0
n ^ O 0
< O
Y ° n O
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT z IB6.33 ACRES C11 w
I
P.O.B. PROPOSED PALM DESERT
-- .9 10 CITY LIMIT
sas°as'oe"w
—�_— 1328.83'
I6 S 5 #
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 7 ,
n
u e SECTION 15 v
T-5-S, R-6-E , S.BAB I., o
N 573717. 47o
p n
E1967946.44 I o 6 10
1S 8SW4
--- '� 1329.61 ' --�
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROPOSED PALM DESERT
Y CITY LIMIT
0
0
U
L.A.F.C. 78 -
AJ.0. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6
DATE _-23-78 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SCALE I' =900
s IN SECTION 10 & 15 T-5-S R-6-B S.B. B.& M. STD. DRAWING N0.
CITY/c iGINEER
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT �' - 6 -A
o1T.Pewr lid 1.ZQ
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly boundary line of the City of
Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California, said point
being the common section corner of Section 9 and 10 and Section 15
and 16, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian.
- 1 . Thence North 000 07' 49" East along the section line of the
aforementioned Section 9 and 10 a distance of 2.654.92 feet;
2. Thence North 890 48' 31 " East a distance of 2,657.95 feet;
3. Thence South 000 07' 11 " West a distance of 2,655.04 feet;
4. Thence South 890 49' 08" West a distance of 1 ,328.83 feet;
5. Thence South 000 04' 25" West a distance- of 995.45 feet;
6. Thence South 890 49' 37" West a distance of 1 ,329.61 feet
to a point in the common section line of the aforementioned
Sections 15 and 16;
7. Thence North 000 05' 46" East 995.26 feet along the common
section line of Section 15 and 16 to the point of beginning.
This parcel contains 186.33 acres more or less.
ORDINANCE NO . 192
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA , AMENDING ORDINANCE NO .
107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE
ZONE FROJI ' S ' STUDY TO S . I . (U.A . ) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COOK STREET NORTHERLY
OF THE WHITENATER CHANNEL.
CASE NO, C/Z 07-78
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert , California, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows :
Section 1 : That a portion of Ordinance No . 107 referencing Sec-
tion 25 .46-1 of the Zoning Ordinance , the Zoning Itiap (Chapter 25.46 of
the Palm Desert municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on
the attached exhibit , labeled Exhibit 'A ' . -
Section 2 : 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 City
of Palm Desert , California, and shall certify to the passage and adop-
tion of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its adoption .
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council
this 14th day of September. 1978, by the following vote , to
wit :
AYES : Brush, McPherson, Wilson & Mullins
NOES : Newbrander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
i
l Nr j
EDWARD D. 11ULLINS , ;layor
-ATTEST :
SHELL 1 E GI?LTG N J�'t: Clerh
City of Palm Desert , California
e
WI �
.. 3 �SZ -,b0-.0N \
O N C0 f� cC V rn i
— — — — to — N
-' N i oI :
fin.,
m
N
Cj
tO
to
fcj
NON
cli
Li i In
ol
CQ
I
CITY 0; PA !"A DES^P,T 43, ;. , is L—
..,;
- d Di (V irl PvO. 192
�� �(�'�� - DATE September 14 , 197E
ORDINANCE NO. 195
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107,
THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM
"S" TO PR-5, S.P. (U.A. ) , PR-5(U.A. ) , S. I . , S .P. (U.A. ) ,
AND S. I . (U.A. ) AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 380 D. U. ON
AN 80 ACRE PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED EASTERLY OF
COOK STREET AND NORTHERLY OF THE PROLONGATION OF 42ND
(I AVENUE .
CASE NOS. : C/Z 11-78 and DP 14-78
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert , California,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows :
Section 1 : That a portion of Ordinance No . 107 referencing
Section 25.46-1 of the Zoning Ordinance , the Zoning Map (Chapter
25. 46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read
as shown on the attached exhibit , labeled Exhibit 'A' .
Section 2 : 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 City of Palm Desert , California, and shall certify
to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be
in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Section 3 : That a Development Plan for a total of 380
dwelling units on an 80 acre portion of the subject property is .
hereby granted to D.K. Kavanaugh subject to compliance with conditions
attached hereto, labeled Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council
this 9th day of November 1978, by the following vote , to wit :
AYES : Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
0r . t
WARD M L INS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
1
SHEILA R. GILrLIGAN, CIT CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
-
Ordinance No. 19": EXHIBIT B
CONTITIONS OF APPROVAL
Standard Conditions:
1 . The development of this project shall conform substantially to
all plans submitted in behalf of this case and as revised
according to the Design Review Board process and/or Planning
Commission action. Any minor changes requires approval by the
Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change
requires approval by the Planning Commission .
2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the
State, City, and any other applicable government entity shall
be complied with as part of the development process .
3 . This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this
project , commencing within one year from approval date and being
promptly completed.
4. Any roof mounted , exhaust , or air conditioning equipment shall
be fully concealed from view from any public rights-of-way and
adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means.
5. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City
Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All con-
ditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate
of occupancy shall be issued until completed.
6. All utility service and distribution lines on or abutting the
subject property, shall be placed underground prior to occupancy
clearance.
7. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by
the Director of Public Works.
1 8 . Curb , gutter , sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving
l shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or
as required by the Director of Public Works.
9. The Fire Protection Requirements as specified in the Fire Mar-
shal ' s memo dated September 14, 1978 , attached -hereto, shall
apply•
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first
obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies :
Riverside County Department of Health
Palm Desert Design Review Board Procoss
City Fire Marshal
Coachella Valley County Water District
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies
shall be presented to the Dept . of Building and Safety at the
time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated
herewith.
11 . No development shall occur on the subject property prior to
the recordation of a tract map.
t
Ordinance No. 195
EXHIBIT B
Page Two
Special Conditions :
1 . Eleven feet of right-of-way shall ,be dedicated along the easterly
side of Cook Street .
2. That, roof treatments on dwelling units be carried around on all
building elevations.
3 . That dwelling unit arrangements shall be varied to break-up the
visual front yard regimentation along street frontages . This may
be accomplished by staggering front yard setbacks, curving streets,
or any combination of techniques to achieve this design objective .
4. A common area shall be designated and improved for the storage of
homeowner recreational vehicles. r
5. Where dwelling units back directly to the rear of other units,
the patio areas shall be arranged so that they are located on
opposite ends of the buildings, so that no two patio areas are
directly across from each other .
6 . The first two corner dwelling units on each cul-de-sac shall have
radial driveways- with garage doors oriented to the side, rather
than the street frontage.
7 . Adequate turning radius shall be provided on all cul-de-sacs as
required by the City Fire Marshal .
8. All cul-de-sacs shall be modified to permit a 40' radius.
9. A detailed drawing of the perimeter wall shall be submitted for
further review.
10. Landscaping of the perimeter wall shall include a double row plant
ing of tamarisks and facing of oleanders. 11
11 . Substitute plants for pines and locusts shall be provided. The
landscaping plan shall place greater emphasis on trees and vines,
rather than shrubs.
12 . Prior to preparation of construction drawings, the applicant shall
provide expanded recreational amenities, as expressed in detailed
plans for each . specific area. The additional recreational amenities
shall relate specifically to the proposed orientation of the units
said areas will serve.
ORDINANCE NO. 195
EXHIBIT B
Page Three
_L , DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION
COOPERATION WITH TH F
CALIFORNA _
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
'' l DAVID L. FLAKE
c R..S fi.b'`�. r P.O. pox 246
JEOUNTY FIRE 'WARDEN 210 'NEST SAN !ACINTO STREET
PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 9237.
TELEPHONE (714) , 657-3183
September 14, 1978
Paul A. Williams, Director Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Reference: Tentative Parcel Map No. 13406
Gentlemen:
Provide the following fire protection in accordance:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM fire flow from any fire
hydrant for a three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computa-
tion shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the
supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants located at each street intersection
(a) but not greater than 400 feet apart in any direction.
A. Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow,
and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted. orange.
B. Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from- each hydrant.
3. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the water system in Parcel Map No. 13406 is in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Fire Marshal ." Upon approval , the original plan will be returned
to the developer.
11 y}truly yours,
David J. Ortegel
Fire Marshal
( DJO:dt
L
i
I
Lnvirou•nent.:l Assessment J?orm f
Riverside County Loc{ Agency Formation Conunisz; f..
LAP•C No .
To accompany application for .9,Yl9't'X• -,7-
loV
Location 649 r Of CGCff STr7F�T iGo?7//G�Li Df G NiTi��/rGP SiD �9 G�E�° Cii9���
a less
moo_ .Cesar_ /9'77
Applicant C/i,✓ a, /�,'c. yr Z?cSGPl - j?�L rJ %7rt�/JT�(f� y704,0 (7/
name aaaress ziperg no.
Background Information:
1. . Briefly describe the nature of the proposal.:
�f'D,�OSED /,�jf//✓�1TiDy D%= /�/'/JiYO.</.•??TEG t' /cYG. 33 .4G�E�
2 . General Location rf15T o - Coal .
s aEET, N�PTHEPL'� aF .7 IZ-
all, 7Cu!aT��
3 . Describe the area, including distinguishing natural and mannade
characteristics. TfiE S.?E /5 f/?Esr�rsLY d��`i%`coi�G7� �sr� r�sTs
- /� irS ,yi�rdR/jL -, f/i?iD Cos%OriiaN•
4. Is the proposal a phase or a portion of a larger project? ^_
If so, identify the larger project.
5. Does this proposal include property on which a previous zone
change anplicati-on, con6it zonal_ use p-_=lit, pl?blic use perm
subdivision, or parcel map has beer, denied by ;.he County Planning
Commission? NA' '.
Please explain
6. Doer this proposal include property on whiC'•1 a pr V10uS environ-
mental. assess.nnt or environmental ilr.ract report h as be-en sv.b:ai.tted
to the Riverside County Planning Department? �
questions 5 and/or G were answered yes, fill out Part B of this -
application.
To the best of my knc,olcdge the above information is true and cotuplete.
Date_ /� /5 �7� Signcrl
i:1 U�IJL� up:JL1SUl
Bir
Use additional sheets, Title C-17Y ' jAMAA6c`P_
if necessary
A
C �
I,fr A7j AGEMY FDIZ-vLATIO21 COMMISSION
COII*"ey OF RIVERSIDE
PROPOSAL 0 STIOM"TAIRE�
,Proponent: CiT ' of AiL" DEECA27 _ LAFC no y
(to be ruled it
-Addrees: n• 80X 19-7'7 by LAFCO
Secretary)
O/�[.*9 17ESCvT C 9L2,2&0
Telephone Eo, PROPOSAL D"eSIG',TATION
(City or district name.
TYPE OF PROPOSAL (CHECK If annexation, desig-
nate by number or
Incospo=atc-. a city _ _ " „ other description) :
Form a nea special district P/,IeIk? DESERT
An»e.: to a city _7„ /!l✓/yFX. NO. (�
.%nnex to a special district
Other
P:ROP0.- iOS COMPLETE_ THIS S10B, OF FORM THIS SIDE RESERVED
FOR LAFCO ADVISORY
A. General ST_U COMMENTS _
1, Statutory pzorisions unaet which
proposal is fileQ:
Muyicl;�fl� o�OG4N1zA7ivN fJcT'
o /977
2. General location of proposed area
(use ciL•ie3 a.nd/or communities as
points of reference) :
AiPEA 00' 711E ZM7- 1,06- OF
Cce�{ J`7,4EET, ,'Y09Tf/E�Pc y aF THE
C.%1iTEG1/7Tt P .S7U,v,MuJr3TE.Q �'HAHHEC
-1-
I�
E '
Please answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. ('file
applicant should be able to explain or su`,stantiate. his response to every question.)
A. Characteristics of the Natural Environment. , Yes No Count L'sc
1. Land (Topography, Soils, Geology)
a. Does the project site involve a unique landforn or biological
area, such as beaches, sand dunes, marsh s, etc. ?
b. l70.1 the- project invelve construction on slopes of 25% or.
greater? .
c. Is the project to be located in an area of soil instability
(subsidence, landslide or severe erosion)? �
d. Is the project site located on, or adjacent to a kno �
earthquake. fault? _
2. Water `
a. Is the project located within a flood plain?
b. Does the project involve a natural drainaZe channel or
stream bed? _---_.
3. Flora and Fauna
a. Are there any rare or endangered species of plant life
in the project area?
b. Will any nature trees be removed or relocated,? _
c. Is the project site adjacent to, or does it include, a
habitat, flood source, water source, nesting place or /
breeding 'place for a rare or endangered wildlife species? ✓_ _
d. Could the project affect fish, wildlife, reptiles, or /
plant life?
_._,•___.,e. Is the project located inside or within 200 feet of .a _.•_,�_ �•__ �.__. _ _ _
fish or wildlife rcfu"c or reserve? _
4. Potential Al.ternti.ou to Natural "F^_atures
a. Will the project result in the removal of natural resources
for co^__er.cial. purposes (including rock, sand, gravel, oil,
beer, or nincralr)? L /
b. Will the project iuvolve grading in excess of 300 cu. yds.? V
— 2 —
Potential Diruct Impact: of Project. Yes No Comity Psc
1. l.muact on Existing h`•sical surroundings.
— — -- land)
a. Pollution (Air, water, noise, vv
(1) h'ill the project create dust, fumes, smoke or odors? —
(2) Will the project involve the burning of any material,
including, brush, trees or construction materials? _
(3) Is the projer_t expected to result in the generation of
noise levels in excess of those currently existing in
the area? — --
(4) Will the project involve the appli.cati-on, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous v terials, including.
pesticides, herbicides, other to:cic substances or %
radioactive material?
b. Anl,l.icr:ble Pollui.i.on Controls and Stcndard^.
—.
(1) Will the project require a permit or other appro':'al
from any of the following agencies? —
_ d
State or °egional Water P.e.,curces Control Board
—
L•'
County liealtii Officcr —
Air Pollution Control District. / ----
City or County Planning Cotat:ission
U. S. DnvirOtlmentCl Protection Agency v ---
County Airport 1 and Use .Coma;ission i —
(2) Doa. the project require variance front establi.sh�c-d
_ environmantal standards (e.g. , air quality, noise,
water quality)7 _
2. Ir2act on e::isti.nr, fnci'ities and services.
a. Circulation.
(1) Ic tha project expected to cause noticeable increase. in —
pedea-trian traffic or a chan e in pedestrian pattcrnc;? --
.--_(2) Will the project- result in noticeable changes in —
vciiicular traffic patterns; or volumes (_Including —1
bicycles)? —— —
(3) Will the project involve the use of oCf-the.-road /
vehicles of any kind (such as trail bikes)? S!_
b. Water Supply and Swage Disposal.
(1) 1241.1 t:l:n projoct entail tlic acquisition' of water
r from we].ls or surface sources for coo:::: ercial and/or
not7-do:1cstir_ t:>;c? --
(2) Will septic tanks be utilized for scwz,: .vv disposal? r
Yes No County llre
C. Demand for Service from Special Districts and/or
liunici.paliti.cs or County.
(1) Will the project require the extension of:
existing public utility lines?
(2) Will the project require public services, from an
agency, di trict or public utility ldlich is currently
operating at or near capacity? —� —
3. Miscellaneous
a. Will the project employ equils.ent which could interefere
with existing con::mni.cati.on and/or defense systems?
b. Is the project located clithin the fl.igu,t path or noise
impact area of an airpo-�t?
C. Potential Indirect Impact of Project.
1. Land Use
a. Is the propoecd project expected to result- in .other changes - /
in land use either on or off the projr_ct site?
b. Could the project serve to encourage develosa,ent of
presently undcvcloped areas, or inercase in develo-prent
intensity of alre.;dy de-.eloped areas (e::4r.:plrs include
the .intr0dlirti.ol. of Hell Or e>:pandei't 'f%ul>1_ic llti.l.:.Cles,
new industry, ce- :erci.al facil.i.tes or recreatitn activities)? v
c. Is the project adjacent to or within 500 ft. of an /
existing Public facility or site for satee? ✓ L __
d. Is the project inconsistent with any adcptcd general plan,
specific plan or present zoning? I -----
e. Does the project invol•re lands currently protected under
the Will.i:imsou AZt or an Opcn Space Lasemcnt? _
2. Visual. Truant
a. Is the e.i.tc for tba pronos�d project adjacent to a designated
—Scenic llighl:ay or vithiu a Scenic Corridor?
b. idi.11. The project obr.truct. any scenic view from existing
res:identi.al areas, public '.1:;uds, or public roads? �_�--
3. Social/ctl.tural I a)vrt
a. J'il1 tb^_ project require the reJ.otat:i.on of housing or business
:ill ordu to clear tl:r project :ate? —
b. Does the project site include or affect a lcno,.ni historical or
archcolo,;ical site? -- --
I.A. Sta ompnt as to si_n,nificcnt Anvi.rbnAll Effect.
If you hays rinsvcred yes to one or ,more of We questions in Section II, but believe the
project will have no significant adverse environmental effect, indicate your reason:;
below.
/`� • �• (L. %! " ens ae' Cc s �Lwct G: ✓ ZSCSAO eon
• L w w_
C.
G eyle o. ze:r, ^>te �. zz�LLL->/L�xC is-.zet " .�erU . o. r1 c t
L'ca'ti72PiyCe y - '�CO f q [�w' .O.:tG�L:�- St.�.• Z✓]. Orsc�ieG�_
'NO&A &n,-,�/ zany N'o-
ru> CcCc�s / ta�u���c Was
t ?i GrD�rl�C4ci
&ze
u�r� SGO •;P.v�L °z�
6 C/'ld lL'(<1.w 2.n�Z- L';tKG!-:
/ � i CCG.ee�•yj
To the-Ucst Gf�Lay I;r.G*.a1.:x:P,e tl:c above infarr.:aCion is� true. -Ila Comp Le. '•--�--`__ ._......_.__._._ _
Uatc: %/AIJ 74w Signed
By
'PPP,: pmp Title C)r✓
10-4-73
I'll 73-52t:
- 5 -
NOTE: .Questions ref,>r only to area
Ul;Cltar CO;SiGe:rdw.On for formation"
a :nexaC:.or.,, o:r ot-hWr action -,rot to
Phaaicale �ea:•.azra:a
1, Land area �. Sq. axilHa
or acras
2 St'�i:e gssnesa L description of
toa:>gyaohy (:E3at, rolling, etc.)
C. gje�z a� nd
1, Ponulation in arbjcct area ,� D
2, Numbvr of registered voters O
3, P.unbar of dwAling Units G ,
A, Li;cellhood OZ eigiai2ictnt increase
in cacpuintia;o ir.: proposed area in
the ri€?zc 10 years (ir:•.dicated esti-
mated gro.vth in percent)
1-2 FcQS0i1/S .EST, 70TfIC /0,-61Zr77_/01V
J &zioun9 land uLe i:a proposed area:
dr?C.9N'
2� &•cicting aon:li�g in proposed area:
3. Deg:>j�ribe pxoport:d now dossing, ie any: i eG
Po _ Is, ° S:L. , 5 .L. S ( G
C 2€ th-z pronou'l in cOnfarmitp ��� +'1i5 With pES cu ,o
c Oi✓ I'
- ..:.'_.... appropriclt3 C:it}� OS' cauza4:{ general
End specific plans?
i ES
,
1. Jhs5 nsxaad value in • r:-.p=0 areas �
a.
C.,
d., Total -acromgA :in Ag-n.cu1 t.u1ni'f 4
w be y / to cizyst
j
_ - 46
area to Subso :t to any handed i.ndo st- i
edva ry a1 a::_::za-.3.;7-q city c;'_ dia=rich
Ald
if Ztvo'-ren: s.3 114W aL.U a:D: i1s'?.'t of � ..
outstanding indcMadvezy and currant
debt Sor ica ca:c .rate: 3 ,
3, ifdetachment cr C'._-a«z.:_.....:-C.arz
f . +.
._ e__. :•'��L'a td'f:-CV.a..C. hooded '3.P..i•.,:: 4v.0 _..:IS.. of �
If answer 1z "jaz" . eta-= FaLi-n:nt t.'kf ? k +
w:debtedr_a_=o aiA clrrn:•.t debt
Sarvicz tax rate:
i
1., Mt O.':J;: v ;.fag Al .'a E"i^1Uvo not now pro-
V:.:','v 4' 77a^...".an Oro S',t.?lX:•sed tc be ,s S'OSTAt?W
P�PePC?Ty Q�'NE�PS 0.=
TO at /�✓iYc Xc`T
/Ji9�iE ,yC0V6S7-E-1D Td
.REc'Ei�/E r/;E />/GhE�Q cEc-c1, oi=
SERu�cc' Of.°,T•�ii✓!a.PLE /-iPO71 '7/iE L'i73! j
f
i .
. k .
2. Lisp. gcverns'e:Ur' sezvi r os Aran-watl-v
. nNvided but which Will be ivcreased
tmdeX this proposal:
cco�m.:�:�rr^nLcc'�'U
mall
3. resVe-'z_.a and eva',.Late alte=atil,; --
con-ses of actien uhich wr uld meet
the i? mds dascrilaa al=-ve:
j�nl�aefuem 2, `ao G c9L
V 0
A. hdditiar.a . 1ast__-?cat%r-nj if ar,,:
Z�<YYleCI*>?l d� '(�R C'r*.Vo F/.'7c<•%U. - -
+gill to the anneal
eo is to accomplish the yoals of
2. bat are the prosfectw-'Ve Sources of
raver-L:a (i.-i.cbadin.g the ostimated
property tax rate, if any) ?
Sz'aGz
• r f
< l
sal
' 'U.•, yc::S$.�G'. :'a��::Cg vLan/!t. will be vzn-
L'
halydlO. tS `�. �:5'�cl;tuGMtt:"."L �3'-'�+C� �'i`,c'1Gi 3.n
6V3 'l;.32,°"Eg 'Ith,"3
-5-
CLANCY
LANE
H
c w w
D W f
7 N
44 a AVENUE
r a
W J
O Y
W � o
~ � o
0
F HIGHWAY u III O
---' LOCATION MAP
w
w NOT TO SCALE
F
N
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 2657.95'
N89- 4T,E__ 1
PROPOSED PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT
1
. 3
44' 1
1 I
I SECTION 10
T-5-S , R-6-E ,S.B.B.M.
° 3
N Q p •
m r o n
O N O
P O
O �
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT N z 186.33 ACRES C1i ,OD
P.0.8. PROPOSED PALM DESERT
9 I 10--- CITY LIMIT
7 S89°4908"W
I 1328.83' —�
16 S 5 3
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE W 7
n �
u ° SECTION 15 0 °'
T-5-S, R-6-E , S.B.B.M.o� o
N 573717. 47 o °i °
0
E 1967946.44 p l 0 6 luoi
o - S89-49' 37"W
1329.61
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROPOSED PALM DESERT
m CITY LIMIT
0
0
u
L.A.F.C. 78 -
A.I.D. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6
DATE 8-23-78 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SCALEI' =800,
IN SECTION 10 & 15 T-5-S R-6-E S.B.B.8r M. STD. DRAWING NO. .
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT �' - 6 -A
Y GINEER
DATAPRINT N41420
. c
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly boundary line of the City of
Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California, said point
being the common section corner of Section 9 and 10 and Section 15
and 16, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian.
1 . Thence North 000 07' 49" East along the section line of the
aforementioned Section 9 and 10 a distance of 2,654.92 feet;
2. Thence North 890 48' 31" East a distance of 2,657.95 feet;
3. Thence South 000 07' 11" West a distance of 2,655.04 feet;
4. Thence South 890 49' 08" West a distance of 1 ,328.83 feet;
5. Thence South 000 04' 25" West a distance-of 995.45 feet;
6. Thence South 890 49' 37" West a distance of 1 ,329.61 feet
to a point in the common section line of the aforementioned
Sections 15 and 16;
7. Thence North 000 05' 46" East 995.26 feet along the common
section line of Section 15 and 16 to the point of beginning.
This parcel contains 186.33 acres more or less.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Plans for Services for Palm Desert Annexation No. 6
I. - INTRODUCTION:
Pursuant to Section 35102 of the State Government Code, the City is required
to file with any new Annexations effective January 1 , 1978, a plan outlining
the method by which services will be provided in the area to be annexed.
This report represents the required plan for services for Proposed Annexation
No. 6. Tfie City of Palm Desert, being a contract City, must rely on many
other agencies to provide for services both in the community and areas sub-
sequently annexed. In addition, many services provided such as water and
sewer, electricity, gas, are provided without regard to city limit lines .
Therefore, the area proposed to be annexed is presently served or has the
capability of being served by many of. these agencies. The fact is substantiated
by the letters received from responsible agencies as a part of the review by
responsible agencies during the Environmental Review process.
The major emphasis of this report is to address those services provided directly
by the City either through City Staff or direct contract with the City by
other agencies. In addition, wherever possible, this report will address the
methods by which other service agencies would provide needed facilities in
the area.
II. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES:
The utilities which would be extended into the area proposed to be annexed
would be as part of actual development and they would consist of the services
of the Coachella Valley County Water District in the area of water and sewer;
Imperial Irrigation District in the area of electricity; Southern California
Gas Company in the area of gas; and Able Cable in the area of cable television.
The services provided by this City directly would be in planning and building,
public works, parks, administration and code enforcement services. By contract
the City would also provide for trash disposal , police and fire services.
Public transportation would be provided by the Sunline Agency.
The major road improvements would include the widening of Cook Street and
Country Club Drive. The ultimate right-of-way for both Cook Street and
Country Club Drive would be 110 ft. with both having 88 ft. of pavement. Half-
width right-of-way would be reserved along the east side of the area to be
annexed which lies in Section 10 to provide for the future extensions of
Eldorado Drive. The creation of any local streets would be on the basis of
specific projects and would be the responsibility of the developers of the area.
Ultimate development of the area to be annexed and adjacent areas which are
either in the process of being annexed or will be developed in other govern-
mental jurisdictions, will necessitate a bridge crossing at the Cook Street
crossing of the Whitewater Stormwater Channel . This facility would be con-
structed with a combination of federal grants and local participation very
similar to existing bridges in the Valley.
Public park needs in the area to be annexed are minimal as the entire area
will be developed to include a planned fndustrial park and a planned residential
development which will offer residents private recreational amenities. Residents
whose recreational needs are not satisfied exclusively by the private recrea-
tional amenities of the planned residential development will be able to take
advantage of the proposed 120 acre Sand Dune Park to the west of the Subject area.
III. LEVEL AND RANGE OF SERVICES:
The level and range of services provided would include sufficient sized
water and sewer, gas, and electrical facilities to service development
proposed for the area. Planning and building, public works , and code
enforcement services as provided by the City directly, would be on the basis
of need. Police and fire services capability exist to meet the need of the
area at its present stage of development and are proposed to be expanded to
meet the needs of subsequent development in the area. Public transportation
would be provided by the expansion of the existing system to serve the area.
Subsequent development will result in the need for the City to add an addi-
tional police vehicle and the need for an additional fire station in the
vicinity of Country Club Drive.
Since fire services are provided for on a volunteer basis in conjunction
with the County of Riverside and State Department of Forestry, the City
would be required to provide for a facility in the area which would be manned
by these agencies. A fire station has been planned for in the City's
General Plan in this area and will be provided at the time it is needed.
A 1 .5 acre site has been reserved for a fire station and library in the
General development plan for the planned residential development being
proposed in Sec. 10 of the area to be annexed. In addition, said area will
be served by a proposed fire station at 44th Avenue and San Pablo (Civic
Center Complex) , which is tentatively proposed for construction in 1980/81
budget year. In the meantime, the area would be served by the existing
Palm Desert Station at El Paseo and Highway 74 with backup being provided
by the Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms and Bermuda Dunes stations. The basic
administration services of Planning, Building, Public Works, and Code
enforcement would be provided by existing City Staff.
IV. TIMING FOR SERVICE EXTENSIONS :
Basic utility services would occur as a part of development. The City has
on file letters from the various utilities assuring us that these services
would be available. The City services would be available immediately in the "
area of planning, building and code enforcement, public works, and police
and fire. Road improvements would occur as a part of new development. The
construction of the new fire station near Country Club Drive would result
from the City's new construction tax which would be accrued from the new
development in the area, which would be. 20¢ per square foot of new construc-
tion. `
The proposed residential development contemplated for the area is planned
residential which would include the necessary recreational facilities to
serve the ultimate residents of the area.
V. REQUIREMENTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING:
New development would be required to improve roads within the area and
to provide for needed sites for fire and other related municipal facilities
provided through the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The new Construction Tax
of 20t per square foot would provide for construction and additional ac-
quisition of these facilities. The provision of planning and building services
would be provided through the fees generated from new development. On-going
maintenance of roads, created in the area, would be provided through State
Gas Taxes generated as a result of population within the area. Police services
and parks maintenance would be provided on the basis of Sales Tax generated
from commercial facilities in the area. In summary, it is felt that develop-
ment of this area would result in a balance between needed services and the
revenues to provide said services.
2 -
CLANCY
LANE
w
0 w w
a z w �
o z o `
> N
44 a AVENUE
> a
W J
T
0
w F O
O O U
� HIGHWAY a III
LOCATION MAP
w
w NOT TO SCALE
rc
f
N
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
2657.95'
2
I N 89° 4T--- 1
I 1
PROPOSED PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT
3
qq' 1
1 SECTION 10
T-5-S , R-6-E ,S.B.B.M.
m =
a o a
V O O
D 0 O
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT z 186.33 ACRES
I
P.0.8. PROPOSED PALM DESERT
9 I to CITY LIMIT
S 89°49�08 W
—� -----7 — 1328.83'
f16 15 $ ;COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 7n °1SECTION 15 aT-5-S, R-6-E , S.B.B.M.ui oN573T17. 47 o � °
E 1967946.44 6 10
z S89°49' 37"W
I'329.61
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PROPOSED PALM DESERT
x CITY LIMIT
0
0
_ U
L.A.F.C. 78 -
A,J.D. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6
DATE B-2 3-7 8 TO THE CITY Of PALM DESERT SCALE I"=800'
IN SECTION 10 a 15 T-5-S R-6-E S.B.B.5 M. STD. DRAWING NO.
. Y GINEER
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT �' - 6 -A
DATAPRINT N41620
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly boundary line of the City of
Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California, said point
being the common section corner of Section 9 and 10 and Section 15
and 16, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Bast and
Meridian.
1 . Thence North 000 07' 49" East along the section line of the
aforementioned Section 9 and 10 a distance of 2,654.92 feet;
2. Thence North 890 48' 31 " East a distance of 2,657.95 feet;
3. Thence South 000 07' 11 " West a distance of 2,655.04 feet;
4. Thence South 890 49' 08" West a distance of 1 ,328.83 feet;
5. Thence South 000 04' 25" West a distance of 995.45 feet;
6. Thence South 890 49' 37" West a distance of 1 ,329.61 feet
to a point in the common section line of the aforementioned
Sections 15 and 16;
7. Thence North 000 05' 46" East 995.26 feet along the common
section line of Section 15' and 16 to the point of beginning.
This parcel contains 186.33 acres more or less.
WCAI. .1(1CN(:Y 1'ul(MA'flc7N COMMISSL( t4
CouNTY ()p V I V EI(S L DE
TO: C� Ate!: - nor
1.AF•co No. 78-64-4
County Clurk
County Coun�iul Proposal-Annex 16 to Ctty of
Environmental IIed1Lh Palm Desert
u Forwarded on
0 Planning Department
Survey Department RETURN TO LAFCO NO LATER THAN
For LAFCO Use Only
Received back oin
PLEASE PROVIDE CO[4MENTS on the above proposal. Number 'Your aoe�anks tO
correspond to the paragraphs on the attached application form.
The Planning Department staff recommends that Annexation Area 06 to the City of Palm
Desert be denied.
1. Whether the annexation is approved or not, the provision of services for the
parcel would be the same. If the land is developed as an unincorporated part of
the County, existing county service districts would be expanded to meet future
needs. If the parcel is incorporated, the City of Palm Desert would be required to
contract with the same county service districts for the required services. Therefore,
the service provisions would be the same no matter which jurisdiction controls
development on the parcel.
2. This Department has not received copies of the letters from the various service
districts, as mentioned in the application. Therefore, we are unable to agree
with the assumption that the service districts would be able to meet the needs
required by the proposed development and/or future development.
3. The proposal is not in consonance with the County General Plan since the City's
request is for 5-7 dwelling units per acre while the existing zoning permits 0-3
dwelling units per acre.
4. The proposed annexation and its subsequent development would increase the population
Of the City of Palm Desert and its environs by 10%. The nature of this increase
may have long term effects upon County guidelines for development in that area.
Before this annexation may be cogsidered, a study should be conducted to determine
the impact of the development on existing area plans which reflect upon 'the future
of this portion of the Coachella Valley.
5. The City does not provide a valid justification for this proposal. Their only
justification is based on attaining a higher level of services, but as the
discussion in #1 indicates, this will not be the case.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING .DEPARTMENT
Patricia N eta; , Plannin Director
� _/�%L�
PH:sr
Fe-err.ersh, Planner II
r
NOTES IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CITY ANNEXATION
NO. 6 TO BE CONSIDERED BY LAFCO ON MARCH 8 , 1979, AT 9: 00 A.M.
1 . All the property owners within h boundaries of this annexation
t the
have filed petitions in favor of the annexation.
2. Said property is within the City ' s Sphere of Influence. Said
property has been pre-zoned with approximately 72 acres designa-
ted as Service Industrial , and 115 acres designated as PR-5.
Development plans have been approved for a total of 540 dwelling
units in the PR zone districts and subdivision maps have been
approved on 64 of the acres zoned Service Industrial . All of
these projects are awaiting annexation to be completed .
3 . The incorporation of this property into the City of Palm Desert
would be a logical extension of the City ' s boundary. The
average density of the residential area is 4 . 6 dwelling units
per acre (versus the County General Plan which would allow
maximum of 3. 0-3. 9 d.u. /acre) . The General Plan designation in
the City of Palm Desert for the residential area is 5-7 d.u. /acre.
The proposed residential development plan is less than the
General Plan designation in the City. The industrial designation
is in conformance with the City' s General Plan.
4. Service capability (Response to County Planning Department ) . For
the development contemplated, the provision of services would
naturally need to be increased. With the inclusion of this
property into the City of Palm Desert , the residents and
property owners would have available to them a greater level
of police, planning, building, code enforcement , parks and
recreation, and fire. services. The last three will be pro-
vided by the City at a higher level of service, in that the City
is proposing to develop a new fire station to the north of
said property and the development of a major 120-acre park
site westerly of said property. Said services at this level
are not .provided within the County ' s jurisdiction. Further,
the City has contracted with a private consultant to complete
a Master Drainage Plan for this area including said property
which, upon adoption and implementation, will provide for con-
templated development in terms of water run-off . Said approach
is not presently followed within the County ' s jurisdiction .
In sum, the service level in the City versus the County is
substantially higher. Therefore, the comments made by the County
Planning Department relative to service levels simply are not true.
The City has received letters from all service districts that
will provide service to said area indicating their ability to
serve. Therefore, it is clear that the County Planning
Department ' s concern with regards to the inability to serve
should not be considered.
The County Planning Department ' s suggestion that a study be
done before this annexation is considered relative to the increase
in residential development and its impact upon the area plan
covering this area in the County is not valid. An area plan
has been done, taking into account the slight increase in
density for the residential area. That is known as the City' s
General Plan, which includes a related Environmental Impact Report .
1 .
Said General Plan and related Environmental Impact Report
takes into account incorporation of a large number of acres
inot the City of Palm Desert , including said property. There-
fore, no additional area studies would be necessary in the
opinion of the City.
The comments relative to the service capability of the City
by the County Planning Department seem contrary to the State law
which indicates in Section 35, 000 that "the legislature finds
and declares that it is the policy of the State to encourage
orderly growth and development , which are essential to the
social , fiscal and economic well-being of the State. The
legislature recognizes that the logical formation and determina-
tion of city boundaries is an important factor in promoting
the orderly development of urban areas . . . Legislature finds
and declares that a single governmental agency rather than
several limited purpose agencies is better able to assess and
be accountable for community service needs and financial re-
sources, and, therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing
community service priorities. " The County Planning Department ' s
statements seem contrary to this intent . Further , in Section
54774 of the State Government Code, it states, "among the
purposes of a local agency formation commission are the
discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of
orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies
based upon local conditions and circumstances. The County
Planning Department statements seem contrary to this intent .
NOTES IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CITY ANNEXATION
NO. 6 TO BE CONSIDERED B}}Y`` LAFCO ON MARCH 8, 1979, AT 9: 00 A.M.
a. Said property is within#.the City' s Sphere of Influence . Said
property has beenednapproximately 72 acres designated as
Service Industriaq KV 5 acres designated as PR-5,
P Development
plans have been approved for a total of 540 dwelling units in
the PR zone districts and subdivision maps have been approved
on 64 of the acres zoned Service Industrial. All of these
projects hage iprepailed and are awaiting
annexation-.rt 06 .
3. The incorporation of these property into the City of Palm
Desert would be a logical extension of the City' s boundary.
The average density of the residential area is 4. 6 d.u. /acre
Lverisus th„eGeneral Plan which would allow maximum of
E u�' cre. he General Plan designation in the City of
Palm Desert for the residential area is 5-7 d.u . /acre. The
proposed residential development plan is less than the General
Plan designation. in the City. The industrial designation is
in conformance with the City ' s General Plan.
Service caAabilitty. A For the development contemplated, the pro-
vision of s ervices would naturally need to be increased. With
the inclusion of this property into the City of Palm Desert ,
the residents and property owners would have available to them
a greater level of police _s-eT* .=,.=a, planning, building, code
enforcement 49ey aes, =4 parks and recreation, and fire services.
The last three will be provided by the City at a higher level
of service in that the City is proposing to develop a new fire
station to the north of said property, the development of a 4�
major 120-acre park site wewterly of said property. Said �<
services at this level are xtftP provided within the Co av"
jurisdiction. Further , the City~i`e--ja4
Master Drainage Plan for th%yarea including said property which
upon adoption, and implementation will provide for contemplated
development in terms of water run-off . Said approach is not
presently followed within the County ' s jurisdiction. In &UP
the service level in the City versus the County is substantially
higher. i!i�z� . Therefore, the comments made by the County
Planning Department relative to service levels simply are not true.
Le my
The City has received from all service districts that
will provide service to said area indicating their ability to
serve. Therefore, it is clear that the County Planning Dept ' s
concern with regards to the inability to serve should not be
considered.
The County Planning Department ' s suggestion that a study be done
before this annexation is considered relative to the increase
in residential development and its impact upon the area plan
covering this area in the County is not valid. An area plan
has been done, taking into account the slight increase in
density for the residential area. That is known as the City ' s
General Plan, which includes a related Environmental Impact Report .
e
POSITION PAPER
ANNEXATION #6 TO CITY OF PALM DESERT, CA.
(LAFCO #78-64-4)
Prepared By
E. George Marzicola Co.
March 5 , 1979
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Outline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PositionPaper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
County . Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
LAFCO Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Housing Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
OUTLINE
POSITION PAPER ON ANNEXATION #6 TO CITY OF PALM DESERT, CA.
I . STATE LAW (GOVERNMENT CODE)
A. SEC. 35000. (ON ANNEXATION) STATE POLICY TO ENCOURAGE
ORDERLY GROWTH THROUGH LOGICAL EXPANSION OF CITIES.
B. SEC. 54774 (ON LAFCO) LAFCO RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENT-
IN STATE POLICY.
C. SEC. 54790 (a) (3) (ON LAFCO) LAFCO HAS NO POWER TO
REGULATE LAND USE ON SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS .
D. LAFCO CONCERNS:
1 . LOGICAL EXPANSION OF CITY
2. PROVISION OF SERVICES
3 . NOT LAND USE ISSUES
II . COUNTY OBJECTIONS
A. LEVEL OF SERVICES SAME
1 . IN CITY, BETTER POLICE
2 . IN CITY, BETTER FIRE
3 . NEW FIRE STATION
4 . NEW SCHOOL SITE
5 . NEW PARK
6. STATE POLICY TO ENCOURAGE ANNEXATION - PROMOTES
ORDERLY GROWTH.
B. COUNTY DID NOT RECEIVE LETTERS - SERVICE DISTRICTS .
1 . WERE PART OF ANNEXATION PACKAGE
C. NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN.
1 . IN CONSONANCE WITH CITY GENERAL PLAN.
2 . IN CONSONANCE WITH COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT.
a. GOALS
(1) VARIETY OF LIFE STYLES
(2) ALL PRICE RANGES
(3 ) CLOSE TO JOBS
-1-
b. EVERYONE PRO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
c. LOWER DENSITY 5 - 3 PER ACRE
(1) LAND COST UP (PER UNIT
(2) DEVELOPMENT COST UP
(3) TRANSPORTATION & UTILITIES UP
(4) PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES UP
[REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CORP. "COST OF SPRAWL"
1974]
(5) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS UP $6000 EST.
(6) SELLING PRICE UP $40 , 000 EST.
3 . MARKET AREA (2/15/79)
a. UNDER $50, 000 - 2 UNITS
b. UNDER $90 , 000 - 193 UNITS - 27%
c. AVERAGE $147 , 600.
4 . CONCLUSION
a. COUNTY, OFFICIALLY COMMITTED TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
b. COUNTY LAND USE ELEMENT DOES NOT PERMIT AFFORD-
ABLE HOUSING.
c. LAND USE ELEMENT NOT IN CONSONANCE HOUSING
ELEMENT.
D. INCREASES POPULATION BY 10o IMPACT STUDY SHOULD BE MADE.
1 . IN CONSONANCE WITH EXISTING CITY PLANS.
2 . P.D. GENERAL PLAN REVIEWED UNDER CEQA 1970 & P.D.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDURES RESOLUTION 74-14 .
3 . PROJECT REVIEWED UNDER C/Z 11-78 , D.P. 14-78
PM 13406 .
4 . DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES , NO SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACT. " ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION DEEMED NECESSARY.
5. 8000 UNITS IN PIPELINE - PROJECT ONLY 7%
-2-
E. CITY DOES NOT PROVIDE VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR ANNEXATION.
1 . LOGICAL EXPANSION OF CITY.
2. CITY CAN PROVIDE SERVICES EQUAL OR GREATER THAN COUNTY.
III. REASONS FOR ANNEXATION (PROPERTY OWNERS)
A. BETTER SERVICES
B. HIGHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - BETTER INVESTMENT
PROTECTION
-3-
POSITION PAPER ON ANNEXATION #6 TO CITY OF PALM DESERT, CA.
I. STATE LAW
The Municipal Organization Act of 1977 , now part of the
California Government Code, starting with Section 35000
states:
Sec. 35000 - The legislature finds and declares that it
is the policy of the state to encourage orderly growth
and development, which are essential to the social, fiscal,
and economic well-being of the state. The legislature
recognizes that the logical formation and determination
of city boundaries is an important factor in promoting the
orderly development of urban areas. Therefore , the legis-
lature further finds and declares that this policy should
be effected by the logical formation and expansion of
cities.
Chapter 6. 6 "Local Agency Formation Commission" - The part
of the government code that controls the activities of LAFCO,
Section 54774 states :
Sec . 54774 - Among the purposes of a local agency forma-
tion commission are the discouragement of urban sprawl
and the encouragement of the orderly formation and develop-
ment of local government agencies based upon local condi-
tions and circumstances.
Section 54790 that controls the powers and duties of LAFCO
states:
Sec. 54790 (a) (3) To review and approve or disapprove
with or without amendment, wholly, partially or condi-
tionally, proposals for the annexation of territory to
local agencies; provided that a commission shall not im-
pose any conditions that would directly regulate land use or
subdivision requirements. Nothing in this subsection,
however, shall be construed as prohibiting a commission
from requiring, as a condition to annexation, that a
city prezone the territory to be annexed; provided that
the commission shall not specify how or in what manner
the territory shall be prezoned .
The mandate to LAFCO is clear . LAFCO must make the following
determinations :
1. Is the proposed annexation a logical expansion of the
City of Palm Desert?
2 . Does the city have the capacity to provide needed
services?
If the answers to these two questions are yes, LAFCO is
obliged to approve the annexation. The issue of land use
is the responsibility of Palm Desert and not LAFCO.
-4-
II . RESPONSE TO POSITION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
#1. Services would be the same if city annexed or area remained
in county.
The city is planning a major park to the west of the annexa-
tion, a school site to the north of the annexation, plus an
additional fire station in the general plan for the area.
The county has no plans for such facilities. The city' s
police and fire protection are contracted from the county,
but the city, historically, has contracted a higher level of
service than the county has provided on its own. Also, the
city is currently studying the possibility of housing its
own police and fire departments . The contention that services
would be the same if the area is developed as part of the
county, as they would be if it was developed as part of the
city, has no basis in fact.
The California Government Code (Sec . 35000) which controls
annexation to local agencies, states that the orderly growth
of urban areas, and the logical formation and determination
of city boundries is an important factor in promoting the
orderly development of urban areas . Therefore, the state has
declared that this policy should be effected by the logical
formation and expansion of cities.
The proposed annexation is clearly a logical expansion of
the City of Palm Desert.
#2 . The County Planning Department did not receive copies of
letters from service districts .
The County Planning Department must not have received the
complete application, because the letters were submitted .
#3 . The proposal is not in consonance with the County General
Plan.
The Los Cocineros Proposal is in complete consonance with the
Palm Desert General Plan. In an annexation situation, whose
General Plan should be followed?
The state has mandated that each city and county include as
part of its general plan, a housing element which makes
"adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community. "
(Title 25 , Chapter 6 , Subchapter 4 , Section 65302 (c) , of the
California Administrative Code. )
-5-
Relative to the state mandate, Riverside County had adopted a
housing element to its general plan which has the following
goals :
A. To encourage a variety of life styles within the region
and within .each of its major geographical sub-units .
B. To encourage the development of housing programs which
will provide all segments of the population with the
opportunity to obtain decent housing and a suitable
living environment within each of the region ' s major
geographical sub-units.
C. To encourage housing opportunities in proximity to
jobs and daily activities.
The Palm Desert General Plan and the Regional Housing Assistance
Plan prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
and adopted as official policy fo the county by the Board of
Supervisors, also makes a commitment to affordable housing.
Everyone is in favor of affordable housing . Annexation #6 is
the first proposal of affordable, unsubsidized family housing
to be proposed for the City of Palm Desert in the city' s ex-
istence. The city is in favor of the proposal , and yet, the
county has declared that is is against the proposal because the
density is too high and is not in consonance with the general
plan.
The county has stated in the housing element of the general
plan that the trend toward increasing lot size is one of the
factors that is pushing housing out of the reach o middle in-
come families. The federal government did a study on the cost
of low density development and found that as density goes down:
1. per unit cost of land goes up;
2 . per unit cost of development goes up;
3 . per unit cost of transportation and utilities goes up; and
4 . per unit cost of public facilities and services go up.
The increase in cost in just land and off site improvements for
this project if the density was changed from the low density
5DU ' s/AC to the county' s very low density of 3DU ' s/AC would add
a cost of $6 , 000 minimum per unit, and when all the other vari-
ables are considered , the increase in price per unit would be
about $40, 000.
As of February 15 , 1979 , in the Palm Desert market area, from
Bermuda Dunes to Cathedral City, only 2 units on the market
were priced less than $50 , 000 , only 193 units or 27 percent
of the market were under $90, 000 , with the average price for
a home or condominium in the market area being $147 , 600 . There
is no question that there is a critical shortage of affordable
housing in the Palm Desert market area .
1Real Estate Research Corporation. "The Costs of Sprawl . " 1974
-6-
Riverside County has officially committed itself to the develop-
ment of affordable housing in all market areas of the county, but
the county' s land use element of the General Plan for the Palm
Desert market area shows very low density estates as the only
residential uses on the areas under county jurisdiction.
The problem is that the County Housing Element to the General
Plan is not in consonance with the Land Use Element of that same
General Plan. The general plan calls for affordable housing, but
has not provided a place to put it. Considering the almost total
lack of affordable housing in the Palm Desert market area, annex-
ation #6 is exactly the type of development the housing element
of the county' s general plan calls for. To make the statement
that annexation #6 is not in consonance with the county' s general
plan is not true. It has been shown quite clearly that it is.
The problem lies in the fact that the county' s general plan is
not in consonance with itself, an that is the problem of the
county, and not of Los Cocineros, Ltd .
#4 . The proposed annexation and its subsequent development would in-
crease the population of the City of Palm Desert and its environs
by 10% --- a study should be conducted to determine the impact of
the development.
The proposed annexation is in consonance with the Palm Desert General
Plan. Subject to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) amended and the City of Palm Desert En-
vironmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 74-14 , the city has
prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan.
Also, the project itself was environmentally assessed under C/Zll-78 ,
DP13-78 , and PM13406. The Director of Environmental Services of
the City of Palm Desert determined that the proposed annexation #6
and proposed subsequent development will not have a significant ad-
verse impact on the environment, that a negative declaration should
be adopted, and no further documentation is deemed necessary.
There are currently in Palm Desert and its environs nearly 8 , 000
new units in the pipeline of which annexation #6 represents only
70 of that total .
#5. The city provides no valid justification.
Annexation #6 represents a logical expansion of the urban area of
Palm Desert. As such it is the policy of the state that such an
urban area expansion should become part of the city. As a logi-
cal expansion it is the county ' s responsibility to present argu-
ments why the area should not be annexed . All the property
owners involved in the annexation are in favor of the proposal ,
and the county has not presented one viable argument why the
annexation should not go through.
-7-
III. REASONS THE PROPERTY OWNERS DESIRE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT.
Los Cocineros, Ltd. has studied both the option of remaining
in the county and annexing into the City of Palm Desert.
Through this study, it was determined that the goals and
objectives of Los Concineros can be better met through annexa-
tion. Some of the critical factors include:
1 . As noted earlier in this report, the projected level of
services will be substantially higher in the city.
2 . The standards of development and developmental controls
are, and have been historically, higher in the city. As
such, we are more confident that the city will insure the
compatability, both in uses and development standards
of future neighboring developments, thus insuring the
quality of the environment and the security of our
investments.
-8-
I.UCAI. A(;CN,:y 1't/11MATHM C0tAM1SS1UN
CUUN'1'y or I+ IVERSIDE:
To: :; =+_.or LAFCO NO. 78-64-4
—� County C1 ,rh
County Cuun ;,l Proposal_Afln,jt__j�6 to r,�v nf_
[--� Palm C_scrt
1--1 Hnvironmental IlualLh
For-warded on _
X 1 Planning Department
��^� RE;TURbi TO LT:FCO L-3
Survey Department
. �
I--I For IAr.F CO Uao Only _
—J Received br.Q-;t
PLE7^SE PROVIDE C0: 1NTS on the above proposal . 1'u.5-�r
correspond to the paragraphs on the attached epplicxL on LcFni.
The Planning Department staff recommends that Annexation Area #6 to the City of Palm
Desert be denied.
1. Whether the annexation is approved or not, the provision of services for the
parcel would be the same. If the land is developed as an unincorporated part of
the County, existing county service districts would be expanded to meet future
needs. If the parcel is incorporated, the City of Palm Desert would be required to
contract with the same county service districts for the required services. Therefore,
the service provisions would be the same no matter which jurisdiction controls
development on the parcel.
2. This Department has not received copies of the letters from the various service
districts, as mentioned in the application. Therefore, we are unable to agree
with the assumption Lhat the service districts would be able to meet the needs
required by the proposed development and/or future develonment.
3. The proposal is not in consonance with the County General Plan since the City's
request is for 5-7 dwelling units per acre while the existing zoning permits 0-3
dwelling units per acre.
4. The proposed annexation and its subsegncnt development would increase the population
of the City of Palm Dcsvrt and its environs by 107. The nature of this increase
may have long term effects upon County guidelines for development in that area.
Before this annexation may be c.ogsidc-n•d, a study should be conducted to determine
the impact of the development on existing area plans which reflect upon 'the future
of this portion of the Coachr] ]a \'alley.
5. The City does not provide a vailid justification for this proposal . Their only
justification is based on attaining a higher level of services, but as the
discussion in #1 indicates, this will not be the case.
l'ery truly yours,
IMIERSIDE COUNTY PLA1;`7ING DEPARTMENT
Patricia. N mc`trh: P;�P)annin Director
PH: sr Pe: _r -Fersh, Planner II ---
-9-
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
I
March 2, 1979
TO: Local Agency Formation Commission
FROM: Wayne B: Curren, Assistant Executive Officer
SUBJECT: LAFCO 0 8-64-4--Annexation #6 to City of Palm Desert
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to annex 186.33 acres to the City of Palm Desert.
SUBMIT1ED BY:
The City of Palm Desert.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS:
This proposal has met all requirements of the law. The map and legal description
were approved by the County Surveyor on December 4, 1978. The project has co:aplied
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
POPULATION:
Population is zero.
LAND USE:
Existing County zoning is P,-1 (Single-family residential ) .
ASSESSED VALUATION:
Assessed value of the land is $90,499.
COMiMENTS:
The City of Palm Desert proposes to annex approximately 186 acres located on the
east side of Cook Street and about one-quarter mile north of the ldhitewater Channel .
The parcel is vacant -- no structures and no population. It is adjacent on the
west side to an industrial subdivision. Areas on the other sides are vacant.
The City of Palm Desert states that the purpose of the annexation is to provide a
higher level of services to a proposed develop;-.2nt than would be provided if the
area were to be developed in the County. The City' s plan for provision of services
is attached. The City also states that services will be paid for by state subven-
tions , sales tar., and new construction tax.
-10-
LAFCO 78-64-4
March 2, 1979
Page 2
Proposed development is a mix of residential and light industrial . The residential
area will contain dwelling units in the mcderate price range (reportedly approxima-
ting $50,000) and will include recreational amenitites. While the proposed develop-
ment is not in consonance with the County' s General Plan, the City states that it
does agree with Palm Desert' s General Plan for the area.
The entire territory proposed for annexation is within the sphere of influence of
Palm Desert as established by the Commission on February 15, 1978. The eastern edge
of the annexation adjoins the sphere of influence of Indian Wells .
We do not have documentation that there is 100% property owner' s consent to this
annexation.
RECOMIMENDATION:
That Annexation '6 to the City of Palm Desert be approved and that the City of
Palm Desert be designated as conducting authority.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne B. Curren
Assistant Executive Officer
j —11=
MEMO
To: For the Record
From: Carol Palmer
Date : 2-20-79
Re: The Price and Size of Available Housing Units in the Palm Desert
Market Area as of 2-13-79
The Palm Desert Market Area Includes :
1 . Palm Desert
2 . Rancho Mirage
3 . Palm Desert Country Club
4 . Bermuda Dunes
5 . Indian Wells
Total Units on Market 702
Under $50, 000 2 . 2a
$50 , 000 to $70, 000 51 6 . 8%
$70 , 000 to $90 , 000 140 20 . 0%
$90, 000 to $110, 000 195 28 . 0a
Over $110, 000 314 45 . 0%
Average Price of a Unit is $147 , 600
2 Bdr Under 3 Bdr & Over
Homes Condos Homes Condos
Under $50 , 000 - 2 -
$50 , 000 - $70 , 000 12 7 32 -
$70 , 000 - $90, 000 44 35 49 12
$90 , 000 $110, 000 27 46 60 62
Over $110, 000 36 34 222 22
-12-
_sue_-- - --- _— -----�_---- --- _---_--_- --- --- -
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
NOT OFFICIAL
I
Ld
U
C7 rn -
l =
o
i
I
I � i
I !
� i
1J
G
i
I r
I
CITY OF PALM DI=SERT PLANNING CO,'r`iIMSSION
RFSOI_uTION NO. ---
7 �
_o� �
EIR FORM #1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Case No. : C/Z 11-78 (Prezoning)
Applicant : E. GEORGE MARZICOLA
73-743 Highway 111
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Description of Project:
A Change of Zone from 'S' Study to PR-7, (U.A. ) (Planned Residential ,
max. 7 du/acre, Upon Annexation) , PR-5, (U.A. ) (Planned Residential ,
5 du/acre, Upon Annexation), and S.I. , (U.A. ) (Service Industrial , Upon
Annexation) on approximately 158 acres generally located on the east side
of Cook Street, northerly of Merle Drive.
Finding:
.The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environ-
ment and no further environmental documentation will be required. ;
Justification:
The project is compatible with the General . Plan for the City of Palm
Desert. Based on the findings of the initial study, which study is on file
at the Palm Desert City Hall , no substantial significant environmental
effects will occur as a result of the action proposed by the subject project.
Any interested citizen may appeal this determination to the Planning Commission
within eight (8) days of the date of the posting of public notice by filing an appeal
in accordance with Resolution No. 78t32'. with the Department of Environmental'
Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California. If no
appeal is filed within said time, this determination shall be final.
Date Filed with County Clerk
(within five days)
Sept. 8, 1978
Date Public Notice
Is Posted:
Sept. 8, 1978
-- cc: Applicant Date Appeal Period Expires:
County Clerk
File Sew 17 1978
Bulletin Board
Said General Plan and related Environmental Impact Report
takes into account incorporation of a large number of acres
into the City of Palm Desert including said property. There-
fore, no additional area studies would be necessary in the
opinion of the City.
The comments relative to the service capability of the City by
the County Planning Department seem contrary to the State law
which indicates in Section 35, 000 that�' the legislature finds
and declares that it is the policy of the State to encourage
orderly growth and development , which are essential to the
social , fiscal and economic well-being of the State. The
legislature recognizes that the logical formation and deter-
mination of city boundaries is an important factor in promoting
the orderly development of urban areas . . . Legislature finds
and declares that a single governmental agency rather than
several limited purpose agencies is better able to assess and
be acountable for community service needs and financial
resources, and therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing
community service priorities:"" The County Planning Dept ' s
statements seem contrary to this intent . Further in Section
HXXXXX 54774 of the State Government Code, it states
"among the purposes of a local agency formation commission are
the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of
orderly formation and development of local governmental agencies
based upon local conditions and circumstances. The County
Planning Dept . statements seem contrary to this intent .
1. All the property owners within the boundaries of this annexation
have filed petitions in favor of the annexation.
MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
County Members: Donald L. Schroeder, Supv. 2nd Dist.
14th Floor, County Admin. Center (5/79) 787-2429
Walt Abraham, Supv. lst Dist.
14th Floor, County Admin. Center (5/79) 787-2010
Alternate County A. Norton Younglove, Supv. 5th Dist.
Member: 14th Floor, County Admin. Center (5/81 ) 787-2950
City Members: Phil Reed, Councilman/City of Indio 347-3764
81-767 Lido, Indio, Ca. 92201 (5/82) 347-0154
Ray Brooks , Councilman/City of San Jacinto
209 E. Main St. , San Jacinto 92383 . (5/82) 654-7337
Alt. City Member: J. E. "Duke" DeForge, Councilman
632 N. Wellwood (5/80) 845-2657
Beaumont, Ca. 92223 845-4800
Special District Wayne H. Holcomb
Member: Western Municipal Water Agency (5/82)
Riverside, Ca. 92501 686-4510
F. Gillar Boyd, Jr. , Desert Water Agency
Suite 13, Professional Park
225 S. Civic Drive (5/80) 327-1207
Palm Springs , Ca. 92262 327-9857
Alternate Special Ray'�R. Rummonds
District Members: Coachella Valley County Water District
P. 0. Box 1058
Coachella, Ca. 92236 (5/82) 398-2651
Thomas J. Watson, Rubidous Comm. Serv. Ctr.
P. 0. Box 852
Riverside, Ca. 92502 (5/80) 684-3930
Public Member: A. C. Keith
1168 Lynhurst Dr.
Riverside, Ca. 92507 - (5/81) 684-5688
Alternate Public Henry B. Clark
Member: 73-183 Willow Street
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (5/80) 346-1895
Executive Officer: Robert J. Fitch, 12th Floor, County Admin. Center, Riverside, 92501
LAFCO Planner: Howard L. Powell , 12th Floor, County Admin. Center, Riverside, 92501
May/1978
To----- - _�/�SJ ----- --
Date------- Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
of_� It�/?O�cCe _L(Qe
Phone -----
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU J, L CALL AGAIN
I
WANTS TO SEE YOU li RETURNED CALL
MESSAGE
OPERATOR
MODERN SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLY CO. - FORM 1009
_ FRO _ _
trr.- o_ . AU,,l ❑- � =:=: 1
TO 45-275 P"UCKLY PLA; LAf.E
P.O. 2OX 1638
PA DE_>ERT, CA 92260
Pt: XIE (714) 346-0611
SUBJECT: DATE:
— CRSC � 2� QA(1 ` 17�Lv� .a �� , Doti A —C+� c �� ` �
_.-,�-, H �-A� c.o • Z w.�� Nc�� lZ �.��E.> as \7 a T3cz,,.,�� . •.-�
PLEASE REPLY TO —> SIGNED v�
DATE I SIGNED
SEND GREENTINT AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBONS INTACT, PINK COPY IS RETURNED WITH REPLY.
DFTACH THIS COPY = RFTAlN FOR ANSWFR
o • a
o I
� y
n,
� V
W 8
111 � s
O .. N "2 W 2 d0 6{ '• O (vim r
N
rj
O�
k
N
bN p0 d'3J••W 2633�3 { �
, tiR•B''� 13�q'�I
13��ia� LV�
6�
y �tiq
as
,. 0 a
-
. '.� b nnu-e/sr � nn!-s/se b •p
o
w
ol
Izl
0
�3ZJ !O 13Z7 r_
h n'
RS JS/J .I-m' - �•f -NSIY nl. rri may.
. mom a
a a
.. �- � 2� � .. as v^. •n.y.
o.
0
03
n _
- L
0. .
N
�1
O
µ
V
0
W
619-10
Q
W -
N ,
14
a a
e
' N
Oa Oe a
N
fs'ts•z >.ea�T�PT