The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutANNEXATIONS N 42ND AVENUE/W EL DORADO DRIVE NO 23 FILE 1 1989 L73-51 06�w off 0 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE 1619) 346.0611 May 1 , 1989 Mr . Eric Vogt Eastern Division Chief Riverside County Fire Department 44-400 Town Center Way Palm Desert , California 92260 Dear Eric : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23_ 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989, as No . I23035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely. / ' ' SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted ) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 1 , 1989 Capt . Mike Lewis Riverside County Sheriff' s Department P. O. Box FFFF Indio , California 92202 Dear Mike : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 I am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989 , as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, n SHEILA R. GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted ) 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May I , 1989 County Administrator County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside , California 92502 Gentlemen : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989, as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG : mpf Enclosures (as noted ) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346.0611 May 1 , 1989 Area Code Clerk State Board of Equalization P. O. Box 942879 Sacramento, California 94279-0001 Gentlemen : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 I am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989, as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us . sincerely, �Cy / SHEILA R . GILL :GAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 1 , 1989 Postmaster Palm Desert Post Office 45-300 Portola Avenue Palm Desert , California 92260 Dear Postmaster : Subject : Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989, as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sr.ncerely , SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted) F 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May I ; 1989 Tax Assessor ' s Office County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside , California 92502 Gentlemen : Sub.iect: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 I am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989 , as No. 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited. If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted ) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346.0611 May 1 , 1989 The General Manager Southern California Gas Company 45- 123 Towne Avenue Indio, California 92201 Gentlemen : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989 , as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . $. ncerely, SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted ) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 1 , 1989 Mr . Ernie Moreno Division Manager General Telephone Company 295 No. Sunrise Palm Springs , California 92262 Dear Ernie: Subject : Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989 , as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us . Sineerely, SHEILA R . GILLIG AN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted) 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May I , 1989 Mr . Kermit Martin General Manager Southern California Edison Co. 44-425 Town Center Way Palm Desert , California 92260 Dear Kermit : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18, 1989, as No . 123035. The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely , ; l SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted ) 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 1 , 1989 Mr . Tom Levy General Manager Coachella Valley Water District P. O . Box 1058 Coachella , California 92236 Dear Mr . Levy : SubSect : Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 I am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on Apr i1 18 , 1989, as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited. If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . S 'Dcerely, ��/I �--i SHEILA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted) 1 (nqw 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 1 . 1989 Mr . Stephen Merritt , General Manager Palmer Cabievision P.O. Box 368 Palm Desert , California 92260 Dear Mr . Merritt : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989, as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, SHEILA R. GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted) � 1FC0 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . County of Riverside . (714) 787-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER . 4080 LEMON STREET . 12TH FLOOR . RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 April 27, 1989 State Board of Equalization Tax Area Services Section Post Office Box 1713 Sacramento, California 95808 RE: LAFCO 88-22-4--Annexation 23 to City of Palm Desert Gentlemen: Pursuant to California law, you will find enclosed the following documents relating to the above referenced action: 1 . Resolution No. 89-24. 2. Certificate of Completion (Recorded on April 18, 1989) . 3. Map and legal description. 4. Warrant to cover cost of filing. Property tax transfer negotiations have been completed as required by the Revenue & Taxation Code, and resolutions of affected agencies are on file in this office. Please file the above documents and acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Is1,&.6-- Barbara Ann Beegle LAFCO Secretary Enclosures cc: Assessor Auditor-Controller Elections Department Survey Department Fire Department Communications Department Sheriff's Department Environmental Health Superintendent of Schools CalTrans, District 08 California Highway Patrol Thomas Brothers Maps LAFCO File v/Applicant Affected Agencies CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION S i � a LJ Pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization A cAf io 1985, S 57201 , 57202, and 57205, this Certificate is hereby issued by Executive t Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside nty, California. �L 1. Short-form designation, as designated by LAFCO is 88-22-4. 2. The names of each city involved in this change of organization or reorgani- tion and the kind or type of change of organization ordered for each city are as follows: City Type of Change of Organization City of Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 3. The above-listed city(ies) are located within the following county(ies) : County of Riverside 4. A description of the boundaries of the above-cited change of organization or reorganization are shown on the attached map and legal description, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein. 5. This change of organization or reorganization has been approved subject to the following terms and conditions, if any: None. 6. The date of adoption of the Resolution ordering this change of organization or reorganization (with or without election) was March 23, 1989. A certified copy of Resolution No. 89-24 is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. I hereby certify that as Executive Officer for the Local Agency Formation Com- mission of Riverside County, the above-listed agency has completed a change of organization or reorganization pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Act of 1985. Dated: April 17, 1989 By: KEINLIH M. Executive Officer RESOLUTION NO. 89-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ;n PALM DESERT , CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN In CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985, WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS PALM DESER'r ANNEXATION NO. 23. LAFCO NO. 88-22-4. WHEREAS, on February 25. 1988, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 88-17 initiating annexation proceedings For Annexation No. 23; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing relative to Annexation No. 23 on February 23 , 1989, and approved said annexation with the determination that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert be authorized the Conducting Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in its capacity as Conducting Authority held a noticed public hearing March 23, 1989, pursuant to Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 57000; and WHEREAS, prior to and at said public hearing there were no written protests filed and not withdrawn; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation represents a logical extension of the City of Palm Desert's boundaries and will not be taxed for existing general bonded indebtedness by the City of Palm Desert, and the regular Riverside County assessment roll shall be utilized in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the territory described in Exhibits "A" and "B" 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 fifteen ( 15) certified copies of this resolution to LAFCO along with any other required submittals. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on this 23rd day of March. 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NSON. CRITES NO - ABSTAIN: NONE OY WILSON Mayor ATTEST: / E15 C/ i ' 1,4DON ILA R SHE . GI - ; - ��N. City Clar City of Palm Desert, Califor a y Q ---- _ , 1 t ,i LO RESOLUTION NO. 81-133 + O I M A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING TO ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CLAIFORNIA. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in regular session assembled on this 24th day of _Sept., 1981, that : 1 . The County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert are the agencies whose area or responsibility for service would be affected by annexations to the City of Palm Desert. 2. Representatives of each of the affected agencies have met and negotiated an exchange of property tax revenue as follows , to become effective for tax purposes beginning July 1, 1981, for all areas annexed to the City until such time as this resolution is rescinded or superceded. A. The City of Palm Desert shall assume responsibility for all general municipal services to areas annexed as are required by law or presently provided throughout the City, and for such service, the City shall receive 257 of that portion of the property tax revenue generated within territories annexed under the ad valorem tax rate established by Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California, that represents the County of Riverside ' s share of such property tax revenue . B. The County Auditor shall upon annexation by the City convert the above-established percentage figure into actual dollar figures and thereafter allocate to the City such property tax revenue in accord with the provisions of Section 95 et, seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 3 . The City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby agree to the above-recited exchange of property tax revenue. 4. The Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to each affected agency and to the Executive Office of the Local Agency Formation Commission and to the Auditor of the County of Riverside pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this 24th day of September, 1981, by the following vote, to wit : AYES : McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi , Snyder & Wilson NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None LSON, P4ayor ATTEST: 1 HEILA R. GIL AN,City C City of Palm Desert, Ca ornia I Board of Supervisors County of Riverside CIO raj 3 RESOLUTION NO. 81-362 DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED 4 BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING TO ANNEXATIONS TO 5 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 6 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervises of the County 7lof Riverside, State of California, in regular session assembled on 8 October 13, 1981, that: 9 1. The County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert 10 are the agencies whose area or responsibility for service would be 11 affected by annexations to the City of Palm Desert. 12 2. Representatives of each of the affected agencies have 13 met and negotiated an exchange of property tax revenue to become 14 effective for tax purposes beginning July 1, 1981, for all areas , 3.51annexed to the City until such time as this Resolution is rescinded 16 or superseded, as follows: 17 a. The City of Palm Desert shall assume the responsi 18 bility for all general municipal services to areas annexe 19 as are required by law or presently provided throughout 20 the. City, and for such service shall receive 25% of that 21 portion of the property tax revenue generated within 22 territories annexed under the ad valorem tax rate estab- 23 lished by Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State 24 of California., that represents the County of Riverside ' s 25 share of such property tax revenue. 26 b. The County Auditor shall upon annexation by the 27 City convert the above-established percentage figure into 28 actual dollar figures and thereafter allocate to the City DAMES K ANGELL u`8RA""eio�. such property tax revenue in accord with the provisions ,LA C.W FORNu �, 7 1 of Sections 95 et seq. , of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 2 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert and the C3 Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside do hereby agree to 4 the above-recited exchange of property tax revenue. 5 4. The Clerk of this Board shall transmit a certified 6 copy of this Resolution to each affected agency and to the Executiv 7 Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission and to the County 8 Auditor pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 9 10 11 Roll Call resulted as follows: 12 Ayes: Abraham, Younglove and McCandless Noes: None 13 Absent: Schroeder and Ceniceros 14 151 16 17 18. . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 . pC:jf 27 10/8/8128 JAMESN.ANGELL - - COUNTYCOUNSEL LAW 18RARY FLCM RWER8IDE,CAUFORNIA u. na 'r c� b . +• V I�! ' e ■ C1 o • RESOLUTION -'z < r ` p EXHIBIT 'T M I NQVI.Y LAM! J t Jr�t'.� WlL It,l WllU IL ' K y MAP r� NOT O SCALE: U �J _ }IDHYH PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT n-�■�o.ets: 777777. > N 89'45' 26'E 2658.0 ' COUNT OF RIVERSIDE NOTE: This plat was prepared from record data only 160 ACRES and does not represent N a survey of the N Cr OCerly shown h on•-: PROP. . t : w P.D. CITY ANNEXATION 07 Lu Cr :O N w r •:•: m N .. w z 3 v •' :•:v 2 S 69°46'US" V Point of Beginning 658,54' COUNTgR Y pp Rly MF ■P APPROVED THIS M INDIAN WELLS CITY UMITf5 14 _ � dY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEYOR � 9Y �a•'� �j�-c LAFCO N0.88-22-4 DATE PROPOSED 'ANNEXA'ANNEXATION NO. 23 °if:■s„t"C3i,. v 5_u pE9EHT ac�op n TO THE CITY OF PALM 9CALE. R4A+.(+" A 014Z SE 1/4 of SECTION Id COA!M.0`y_i PLANNING COMMUNITY _DEVELOPMENT/pLANNIN0, PALM CG9EnT EXHIBIT "A" ArOrFxAnm NO. 23 Q CITY OF PALM DESERT m LAFOO :v0. 88-22-4 N ti That portion of Section 10 T5S ME S.B.M. , being the Southeast quarter of said Section 10, more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 10, thence S. 890 46'05"W. , a distance of 2658.54' along the Southerly section line of Section 10 to the South quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence N. 00 04'21"E. , a distance of 2655.56' to the center of Section 10; Thence N. 890 45'26"E. , a distance of 2658.07' to the East quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence S. 00 03'45"W. , a distance of 2656.05' to the Point of Beginning. Area equals 160 acres, more or less. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPROVLL EY RIV RSlDE COUNTY SURVEYOR EYE i �na�w 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 May 1 , 1989 Department of Finance Population Research Unit 1025 P Street , 5th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Gentlemen : Subject: Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 1 am enclosing one copy each of the final approval of the subject annexation , as well as the legal description and map . The annexation was recorded by the County of Riverside on April 18 , 1989, as No . 123035 . The property annexed is developed and inhabited . If you have any questions or require further information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, �n ` SHEiLA R . GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG :mpf Enclosures (as noted ) LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • County of Riverside • (714) 787-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET . 12TH FLOOR • RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 April 27, 1989 State Board of Equalization �� Tax Area Services Section Post Office Box 1713 MAY 2 1989 Sacramento, California 95808 COMMUNITY DEt'LLOP.MEN1 UPAR1ME141 CITY IF PALM DESERT RE: LAFCO 88-22-4--Annexation 23 to City of Palm Desert Gentlemen: Pursuant to California law, you will find enclosed the following documents relating to the above referenced action: 1 . Resolution No. 89-24. 2. Certificate of Completion (Recorded on April 18, 1989) . 3. Map and legal description. 4. Warrant to cover cost of filing. Property tax transfer negotiations have been completed as required by the Revenue & Taxation Code, and resolutions of affected agencies are on file in this office. Please file the above documents and acknowledge receipt at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, 1s1'6a_6- Barbara Ann Beegle LAFCO Secretary Enclosures cc: Assessor Auditor-Controller Elections Department Survey Department Fire Department Communications Department Sheriff's Department Environmental Health Superintendent of Schools CalTrans, District 08 California Highway Patrol Thomas Brothers Maps LAFCO File ✓Applicant Affected Agencies 3i 'I ' t CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CL 1i p ae A LI Pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization AInty, ott 1985d S io 57201 , 57202, and 57205, this Certificate is hereby issued byExecutive 4 \ Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside California. �L ) :1 1. Short-form designation, as designated by LAFCO is 88-22-4. 2. The names of each city involved in this change of organization or reorgani- tion and the kind or type of change of organization ordered for each city are as follows: City Type of Change of Organization City of Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 3. The above-listed city(ies) are located within the following county(ies) : County of Riverside 4. A description of the boundaries of the above-cited change of organization or reorganization are shown on the attached map and legal description, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein. 5. This change of organization or reorganization has been approved subject to the following terms and conditions, if any: None. 6. The date of adoption of the Resolution ordering this change of organization or reorganization (with or without election) was March 23, 1989. A certified copy of Resolution No. 89-24 is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. I hereby certify that as Executive Officer for the Local Agency Formation Com- mission of Riverside County, the above-listed agency has completed a change of organization or reorganization pursuant to the Cortese/Knox Local Government Act of 1985. Dated: April 17, 1989 By: 649 KE N Executive Officer RESOLUTION NO. 89-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF L7 PALM DESERT , CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT (� REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985, WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 23. LAFCO NO, 88-22-4. WHEREAS, on February 25, 1988, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 88- 17 initiating annexation proceedings for Annexation No. 23; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing relative to Annexation No. 23 on February 23 , 1989, and approved said annexation with the determination that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert be authorized the Conducting Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in its capacity as Conducting Authority held a noticed public hearing March 23, 1989, pursuant to Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 57000; and WHEREAS, prior to and at said public hearing there were no written protests filed and not withdrawn; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation represents a logical extension of the City of Palm Desert's boundaries and will not be taxed for existing general bonded indebtedness by the City of Palm Desert, and the regular Riverside County assessment roll shall be utilized in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the territory described in Exhibits "A" and "B" 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 fifteen ( 15) certified copies of this resolution to LAFCO along with any other required submittals . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on this 23rd day of March, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NSON. CRlTES NO ABSTAIN: NONE OY WILSON, Mayor . ATTEST. l IS DOf! / SHEIL.A R. GIL�'1` N, City Clerr/ Lwro l_�� `<, U1 City of Palm Desert, California J —-- /tm , ._.- RESOLUTION NO. 81-133 O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING TO ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CLAIFORNIA. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in regular session assembled on this 24th day of Sept. 1981, that: 1. The County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert are the agencies whose area or responsibility for service would be affected by annexations to the City of Palm Desert. 2. Representatives of each of the affected agencies have met and negotiated an exchange of property tax revenue as follows, to become effective for tax purposes beginning July 1, 1981, for all areas annexed to the City until such time as this resolution is rescinded or superceded. A. The City of Palm Desert shall assume responsibility for all general municipal services to areas annexed as are required by law or presently provided throughout the City, and for such service, the City shall receive 25% of that portion of the property tax revenue generated within territories annexed under the ad valorem tax rate established by Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California, that represents the County of Riverside's share of such property tax revenue. B. The County Auditor shall upon annexation by the City convert the above-established percentage figure into actual dollar figures and thereafter allocate to the City such property tax revenue in accord with the provisions of Section 95 at. seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby agree to the above-recited exchange of property tax revenue. 4. The Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to each affected agency and to the Executive Office of the Local Agency Formation Commission and to the Auditor of the County of Riverside pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. I PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 24th day of September, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi, Snyder S Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None +� ABSTAIN: None l / / /"OY,,WTLSON, Playor .-. ATTEST: 1 HEILA R. GIL AN,City C City of Palm Desert, Ca ornia �L J I Board of Supervisors County of Riverside a 2 H. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 81-362 DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED 4 BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING TO ANNEXATIONS TO 5 THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 6 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervises of the County 7lof Riverside, State of California, in regular session assembled on 8 October 13, 1981, that: 9 1. The County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert 10 are the agencies whose area or responsibility for service would be 11 affected by annexations to the City of Palm Desert. 12 2. Representatives of each of the affected agencies have 13 met and negotiated an exchange of property tax revenue to become 14 effective for tax purposes beginning July 1, 1981, for all areas . 151annexed to the City until such time as this Resolution is rescinded 26 or superseded, as follows: 17 a. The City of Palm Desert shall assume the responsi 18 bility for all general municipal services to areas annexe 19 as are required by law or presently provided throughout 20 the City, and for such service shall receive 25% of that 21 portion of the property tax revenue generated within 22 territories annexed under the ad valorem tax rate estab- 23 lished by Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State 24 of California, that represents the County of Riverside' s 25 share of such property tax revenue. 26 b. The County Auditor shall upon annexation by the 27 City convert the above-established percentage figure into 28 actual dollar figures and thereafter allocate to the City JAMES H.ANGELL LAW 6MR SLOG. such property tax revenue in accord with the provisions RVEMOE,CALIFORN A -1- l0 7 I of Sections 95 et seq. , of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 2 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert and the ;j 3 Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside do hereby agree to o 4 the above-recited exchange of property tax revenue. ri 5 4. The Clerk of this Board shall transmit a certified 6 copy of this Resolution to each affected agency and to the Executiv 7 Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission and to the County 8 Auditor pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 9 10 11 Roll Call resulted as follows: 12 Ayes : Abraham, Younglove and McCandless Noes : None 13 Absent: Schroeder and Ceniceros 14 151 16 17 18. . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 . pC:jf 27 10/8/8128 u=,- JAMES H.ANGELL OOUNTYCOUNS L LAW LIBRARY BLDG. /UYER U,CALIFORNIA , -2- Ri{Sui-Tk)� ?iii. 89-'� EXHIBIT "A" Ll ANNEXATION NO. 23 M CITY OF PALM DESERT O LAFCO NO. 88-22-4 That portion of Section 10 T5S ME S.B.M. , being the Southeast quarter of said Section 10, more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast comer of said Section810 46'05"W. , a distance of 2658. 54' along the Southerly section line n ne ofSection 10 to the South quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence N. 00 04'21"E. , a distance of 2655.56' to the center of Section 10, Thence N. 890 45 '26"E. , a distance of 2658.07' to the East quarter-point of Section 10; Thence S. 00 03'45"W. , a distance of 2656.05' to the point of Beginning. Area equals 160 acres, more or less. THIS LEGAL OESCR;PTION APPROVLC BY RIV RSIOE COUNTY SURVEYOR BY_ rc • . '-�.+c�.,��i 000M�h Trwl U{ 0�1 { a-iicTrir.11l_ 1J oai < RI':SOLUTION x EXHIBIT "a 0 >� J wl 11 I II I L. i illll R (l wally K Y MAP 1 NOT 0 SCALE: {I PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT --� s� na: eeR N 89'45• 26'E.2658,0 .'•Cbl1NT � •OFRIVER9IDE NOTE: This plat was prepared from record data only and does not represent 160 ACRES a survey of the " LRO property shown h 0n. uJ P.D. NNEXATION J X W ::0Cr w : : r w .. _ O 0Lu >: z S 89°46 a5" s^ 658.54' Point of Beginning COUNTY OF RIV€.R.SJq9 ..._......`:n�: ■MIS M P INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT 15 14 APPROVED, BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEYOR By LAFCO NO. 88-22— DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 Drawn by: TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT A/ N. SAN PF090 A D;Az SE 1/4 of SECTION 10 TSS REE SCALE: COMM�d YV-IPLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM 0E9EFT i CHAPTER 4. NOTICE - a Applicability 56150. Unless the provision or context c ' otherwise requires, whenever this division requires notice to be published, posted, or mailed, the notice shall be published, posted, a; or mailed as provided in this chapter. J + Notice given by clerk; 56151. Notice authorized or contents; when required to be given by publication, ordinance or resolution posting, or mailing shall be given by the 4.. sufficient clerk or executive officer and shall contain ,y . all matters required by any particular provision of this division. If any ordinance, . resolution, or order of any legislative body or the commission gives notice and contains ^' all matters required to be contained in any notice, the clerk or executive officer may ,{ cause a copy of that ordinance, resolution, or order to be published, posted, or mailed, in which case no other notice need be given by the clerk or executive officer. the notice ¢+ trequirements of Section 4002 of the Elections t' Code shall also apply to petitions to annex territory to a city, the consolidation of cities, or the dissolution of a city. 4; Notice given by clerk or 56152. Whenever any notice is required executive officer when to be given and the duty of giving that notice a n some t not specified is not specifically enjoined upon officer, agency, or person, the clerk or executive officer, as the case may be, shall f' give notice or cause that notice to be given. Publication in newspaper(s) 56153. Notice required to be published of general circulation shall be published pursuant to Section 6061 in one or more newspapers of general circulation within each affected county, affected city, or affected district. If any newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in two or 4` more affected cities or affected districts, publication in that newspaper shall be r! sufficient publication for all those affected cities or affected districts. If there are two or more affected counties, publication shall be made .in at least one newspaper of `` 1! general circulation in each of the affected counties. Notice of hearing published 56154. If the published notice is a at least 15 days prior to notice of a hearing, publication .of the notice s' hearing shall be commenced at least 15 days prior to a' the date specified in the notice for the hearing. r . r - 31 - I i Mailed notice to be sent as 56155. Except as otherwise provided in first class mail this division, mailed notice shall be sent first class and deposited, postage prepaid, in the United States mails and shall be deemed to have been given when so deposited. Notice of hearing to be 56156. If the mailed notice is notice mailed at least 15 days of a hearing, the notice shall be mailed at prior to hearing least 15 days prior to the date specified in the notice for hearing. Mailed notice; to whom given 56157. When mailed notice is required to be S' given to: (a) A county, _city, or district, it shall be (` addressed to the clerk of the county, city, or district. a, (b) A conducting authority, it shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested/ and shall be addressed to the clerk of the conducting authority at the mailing address of the legislative body of the authority as specified in the filing made pursuant to Section 53051. (c) A commission, it shall be addressed to the executive officer. (d) Chief petitioners, it shall be addressed to the persons so designated in the petition at the address specified in the petition. (e) Landowners, it shall be addressed to each person to whom land is assessed, as shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of the county, at the address shown upon the assessment roll. j (f) Persons requesting special notice, it shall be addressed to each person who has filed a written request for special notice ; with the executive officer or clerk at the mailing address specified in the request. 15 d Posted notice; place 56158. Notice required to be posted shall be posted on or near the doors of the meeting room of the legislative body or commission or upon any official bulletin board used for the purpose of posting public notices by, or pOrtaining to, the legislative body or commission. Posted notice; time 56159. Posted notice shall remain posted for not less than five days. If the posted notice is notice of a hearing, posting shall ; be commenced at least 15 days prior to the date specified in the notice for hearing and shall continue to the time of the hearing. 32 - �' a PART 4. CONDUCTING AUTHORITY PROCEEDINGS FOR CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION OR REORGANIZATION i ,a. CHAPTER 1. GENERAL Change of organization 57000. (a) After completion of proceedings or reorganization by the commission pursuant to Part 3 proceedings to follow (commencing with Section 56650) , proceedings this part for a change of organization or reorganization !! shall be taken pursuant to this part. Conducting authority (b) If a proposal is approved by the proceedings to comply commission, with or without amendment, wholly, with commission resolution partially, or conditionally, the conducting approval authority shall conduct proceedings in accordance with this part. The proceedings hl shall be conducted and completed pursuant to i those provisions which are applicable to the proposal and the territory contained in the proposal as it is approved by the commission. i If the commission approves the proposal with modifications or conditions, proceedings shall be conducted and completed in compliance with those modifications or conditions. Proceedings abandoned 57001. If the conducting authority does not if not completed complete a proceeding within one year after within one year the commission approves a proposal for that proceeding, the proceeding shall be deemed abandoned unless prior to the expiration of �! that year the commission authorizes an extension of time for that completion. The f� inability of the conducting authority to complete a proceeding because of the order or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction S temporarily enjoining or restraining the proceedings shall not be deemed a failure of completion and the one-year period shall be �+ 1 tolled for the time that order or decree is in � ! ( r., effect. F, Conducting authority 57002. (a) within'35 days following the s: clerk to set for public adoption of the commission's resolution making q hearing within 35 days determinations, the clerk of the conducting authority shall set the proposal for hearing and.,give notice of that hearing by mailing; •publication, and posting, :as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 56150) of '� Part 1. The date of .that hearing hearing i? Authority to approve without shall not be less than 15 or more than 60 notice, hearing or election days, after the notice is given. (b) If authorized by the commission pursuant to Section 56837, a change of organization or t reorganization may be approved by resolution - 97 - t I of the conducting authority without notice, ` hearing, and election. ) No conflicting proposal 57003. Once notice is given by the clerk of may be filed the conducting authority pursuant to this 9 ' 1 chapter, jurisdiction over the proceedings is acquired by the legislative body of the conducting authority, and until those i proceedings are completed or terminated pursuant to this part, no conflicting petition or resolution of application seeking the change of organization or reorganization of all or part of the territory described by the notice given by the clerk shall be filed with, or acted on, by the commission. Processing fees; 57004. The conducting authority may conducting authority establish a schedule of processing fees for the estimated expenses of complying with procedures required or authorized by this part or local ordinance. The fees shall not exceed the amount reasonably required by the conducting authority to comply with those procedures. Notification of the fee schedule shall be given to the chief petitioners. The processing fee shall be deposited with the conducting authority. The deposit of the processing fee shall be made within the period specified by the conducting authority. No further action shall be taken until the processing fee is deposited. Failure to conduct 57005. After the expiration of 60 days from proceedings; commission the date of adoption of the commission's certification resolution making determinations, the commission may by resolution certify either of the following to the board of supervisors of the principal county in which the affected territory is located: (a) That the executive officer was unable to effect mailing or delivery of a certified copy of the commission's resolution making determinations to any conducting authority for either of the following reasons: (1) The conducting authority did not make the filing required by Section 53051. J (2) The return, undelivered, of that certified copy after having been mailed to the clerk of a conducting authority at the address specified in the filing required by Section 53051. (b) That the conducting authority has not initiated, conducted, or completed proceedings for the change of organization or 98 - r i reorganization in compliance with the C commission's resolution making determinations }s, or has not complied with any terms or I {; conditions of that resolution. Authority to assume 57006. At any time after the adoption of a j jurisdiction by board resolution of certification pursuant to of supervisors Section 57005, the board of supervisors and tp the clerk and the officers of the county shall ; I ; I assume jurisdiction to conduct and complete { f any proceedings for the change of organization LL ` Rf or reorganization and to enforce compliance ' F i with any terms or conditions referred to in !I that resolution. Upon the assumption of that jurisdiction, the board of supervisors and the i clerk and other officers of the county shall II have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to 1 those proceedings and shall exercise all C powers and duties vested in the conducting i authority and the clerk or other officers of the conducting authority for the purpose of completing those proceedings. Any ' + •'E jurisdiction assumed and exercised by the � ' # board of supervisors and the clerk or other officers of the county pursuant to this section shall be given the same force and ji effect as if taken by the conducting authority i )� and the clerk or officers of the conducting `.�i_( oi' authority. District formation 57007. Except when a district formation is I J proceedings follow part of a reorganization, formation 11 5district principal act proceedings shall be conducted as set forth in the principal act of the district to be ' formed, and this part shall not apply, except �I for the provisions relating to the completion ! and effective date of a change of organization }N or reorganization contained in Chapter 8 ' (commencing with Section 57200) _ When the d , district formation is part of. a j. reorganization, all of. the proceedings shall ) be conducted pursuant to this part. E _` CHAPTER 2. NOTICE OF HEARING Public notice required 57025. Upon receipt of a copy of the CC� s for conducting commission's resolution making determinations, authority proceedings; Cthe clerk of the conducting authority shall > publication, posting, (give notice of the hearing to be held. on the' mailing, mailed notice proposal by publication pursuant to Sections requirements 56153 and 56154 and by posting pursuant to Sections 56158 and 56159. The clerk shall also givemaled notice: to each affected city., , �, . affected district, or affected county, (the : 99 1 ,'commission, the chief petitioners, 'if any,�all'1 4,landowners owning land within any territory' proposed to be formed into, or to be annexed to, or detached from, an improvement district within any city or district, and to persons !' requesting special notice, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 56155 to 56157, t inclusive. °t Contents of mailed notice 57026. The mailed notice required to be given by Section 57025 shall contain all of "k the following information: (a) A statement of the distinctive short ; form designation assigned by the commission to. the proposal. (b) A statement of the manner in which, and by whom, proceedings were initiated. However,, a reference to the chief petitioners, if any,:, shall be sufficient where proceedings were initiated by a petition. (c) A description of the exterior boundaries i • of the subject territory. (d) A description of the particular change a or changes of organization proposed for each of the subject districts or cities and new I ;t districts or new cities proposed to be formed, i and any terms and conditions to be applicable. The description may include a reference to the ?' commission's resolution making determinations for a full and complete description of the change of organization or reorganization, and a J. the terms and conditions. (e) A statement of the reason or reasons fot the change of organization or reorganization 8 as set forth in the proposal submitted to the commission. {. � (f) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) , a statement of the time, date, and place of the hearing on the proposed change of organization or reorganization. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) , if inhabited territory is proposed to be annexed to a city with more than 100,000 residents which is located in a county with a population of over 4,000,000 the date shall be at least 90 but not more than 105 days after the date of adoption of the resolution initiating the proceedings. The resolution shall specify a . ; date 90 days prior to the hearing when registered voters may begin to file protests. `., written protest; notification (g) If the subject territory is inhabited and the change of organization or • ' reorganization provides for the submission of written protests, a statement that any owner 100 - i j of land within the territory, or any registered voter residing within the no territory, may file a written protest against ,r the proposal with the clerk of the conducting � } authority at any time prior to the time 1 specified for commencement of the hearing by the conducting authority on the proposal. (h) if the subject territory is uninhabited and the change of organization or i reorganization provides for submission of S a written protests, a statement that any owner of land within the territory may file a 5 written protest against the proposal with the clerk of the conducting authority at any time prior to the time specified for commencement r' of the hearing by the conducting authority on the proposal. d r CHAPTER 3. CONDUCT OF RFAR7r7G { Hearing date and time; 57050. (a) The hearing on the proposal # continuance up to 60 days shall be held by the conducting authority on the date and at the time specified in the b notice given by the clerk. The hearing may be s, y continued from time to time but not to exceed 60 days from the date specified for the hearing in the' notice. Hearing is to consider (b) At the hearing, prior to consideration ?( commission resolution, of protests, the commission's resolution ii I� protests, evidence making determinations shall be summarized. At ;i,l that hearing,�the conducting authority shall It hear and receive any oral or written # ,,. : ,i Withdrawal of protest protests, objections, or evidence which is ° made, presented, or filed. Any person who has kS, filed a written protest may withdraw that I ,: protest at any time prior to the conclusion of fi the hearing. I :; Written protest submitted; 57051. At any time prior to the time time specified for commencement of the hearing in I i the notice given by the clerk, but not i -1 thereafter, any owner of land or any registered voter within inhabited territory ' proposed to be annexed or detached, or any owner of land within uninhabited territory �I proposed to be annexed or Written protest; contents detached, may file a written protest against {3 . and who may file the annexation or detachment. Each written protest shall state whether it is made by a 3; landowner or registered voter and the name and address of the owner of the land affected and the street address or other description i sufficient to identify the location of the land or the name and address of the h� I LI 101 J I'._ 1 registered voter as it appears on the affidavit of registration. Protests may be made on behalf of an owner of land by an agent authorized in writing by the owner to act as agent with respect to that land. Protests may, f „ be made on behalf of a private corporation which is an owner of land by any officer or is + employee of the corporation without written authorization by the corporation to act as agent in making that protest. Each written protest shall show the date that each signature was affixed to the j ?y protest. All signatures without a date or " bearing a date prior to the date of publication of the notice shall be disregarded for purposes of ascertaining the value of any' written protests. Determining value of written 57052. Upon conclusion of the hearing, protest the conducting authority shall determine the value of written protests filed and not " withdrawn. The value of written protests shall be determined in the same manner prescribed in Sections 56707, 567O8, and 56710 . for determining the sufficiency of petitions filed with the commission. r Improvement district; 57053. If the terms and conditions of exclusion of lands any change of organization provide for the �1 formation of a new improvement district, or r _the annexation or detachment of territory to,, or from, an existing improvement district, td0 I . conducting authority shall do all of the following: . � (a) Exclude any lands proposed to be formedf into, or to be annexed to, the improvement ' ' district which the conducting Y authorit findsl' will not be benefited by becoming a part of < the improvement district. (b) Exclude any lands proposed to be 7 detached from an improvement district which the conducting authority finds will be benefited by remaining a part of the improvement district. (c) Notify the commission of any exclusion of lands pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b). 4 1 102 - CHAPTER 4_ RESOLUTION OF CONDUCTING AUTHOP= Registered voter districts 57075. In the case of registered voter and cities; resolution districts or cities, where a change of making finding on written organization or reorganization consists protests; annexations, solely of annexations, detachments, or detachments, CSA formation formation of county service areas, or any or combination combination of those proposals, the conducting authority, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, shall adopt a resolution making a finding regarding the ! value of written protests filed and not withdrawn, and take one of the following ' actions, except as provided in subdivision (b) i! ' of Section 57002. i inhabited territory (a) In the case of inhabited territory, take one of the following actions: 'r (1) Terminate proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with Section it 57078. (2) Order the change of organization or f reorganization subject to confirmation by the ^ registered voters residing within the affected i ..' territory if written protests have been filed i' and not withdrawn by either of the following: ,,(A) At least 25 percent, but less than 50 1 ? percent, of the registered voters residing in 4 ' the ,affected territory. E (B) At least 25 percent of the number of c owners of land who also own at least 25 E percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. III (3) Order the change of organiza- tion or reorganization without an election if written ;1 protests have been filed and not withdrawn by ;l less than 25 percent of the registered voters y or less than 25 percent of the number of owners of land owning less than 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. Uninhabited territory (b) In the case of uninhabited territory, p take either of the following actions: (1) Terminate proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with Section II` ' 57078. i (2) Order the change of organization or reorganization if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by owners of land who Ai own less than 50 percent of the total assessed value of land within the affected territory. it lid r: - 103 - �3 Special protest provisions; 57075.5. Notwithstanding Section 57075, if " 4 annexation to city over territory proposed to be annexed to a city ' '•.j 100,000 population in with more than 100,000 residents is inhabited, Los Angeles County and is located in a county with a population of over 4,000,000, the conducting authority, not more than 30 days after conclusion of the hearing, shall adopt a resolution making a finding regarding the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn and take one, of the following actions: (a) Terminate proceedings if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by' 50 percent or more of the registered voters within the affected territory. (b) order the territory annexed subject to the confirmation by the voters on the question, and call a special election and submit to the voters residing within the affected territory the question of whether it' shall be annexed to the city, if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn byi either 15 percent or more of the registered voters within the territory, or 15 percent or more of the number of owners of land who also own not less than 15 percent of the total assessed value of land within the territory. (c) Order the territory annexed without an election if written protests have been filed j , and not withdrawn by less than 15 percent of the registered voters within the territory and less than 15 percent of the owners of land who own less than 15 percent of the total assessed value of land within the territory. ,i ' Landowner voter districts: 57076. In the case of landowner-voter resolution making finding districts, where a change of organization of written protest; or reorganization consists solely of annexation or detachment annexations or detachments, or any combination of those proposals, the conducting authority, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, shall adopt a resolution making & finding regarding the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn, and take one of the following actions, except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 57002: (a) Terminate proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with Section 57078. (b) Order the change of organization or reorganization subject to an election within the affected territory if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn represent either of the following: 104 - (1) Twenty-five percent or more of the !0 number of owners of land who also own 25 ? • percent or more of the assessed value of land within the territory. xr, (2) Twenty-five percent or more of the voting power of landowner voters entitled to vote as a result of owning property within the j '• territory. (c) Order the change of organization or reorganization without an election if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25 percent of the number of owners of land who own less than 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. + ` 4 Resolution making finding 57077. (a) Where a change of organization A" on written protests: consists of a dissolution, disincorporation, dissolution,`disincorpora- incorporation, establishment of a subsidiary ( i ' tion;incorporation, district, consolidation, or merger, the o subsidiary district, conducting authority, not more than 30 days ,,� ,•yj consolidation, merger after the conclusion of the hearing, shall '? adopt a resolution making a finding regarding r the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn, and take one of the following r actions: [[ (1) Terminate proceedings if a majority 6a: protest exists in accordance with Section 57078. (2) Order the change of organization subject jI {( to confirmation of the voters, or in the case of a landowner-voter district, subject to confirmation by the landowners, unless '; otherwise stated in the formation provisions of the enablino statute of the district. -(3) order the change of organization without f election if it is a change of organization i that meets the requirements of Section 57081, 57083, or 57087; otherwise, the conducting authority shall take the action specified in paragraph (2) . Resolution making finding (b) Where a reorganization consists of one 8. on written protests: or more dissolutions, incorporations, reorganization including formations, disincorporations, mergers, 1 dissolution, incorporation, establishments of subsidiary districts, ( district formation, consolidations, or any combination of those Ii ' disincorporation, merger, proposals, the conducting authority, not subsidiary district, more than 30 days after the conclusion of consolidation the hearing, shall adopt a resolution regarding the value of written protests filed "IyY i and not withdrawn and take one of the ^ ` following actions: )'i•. (1) Terminate proceedings if a majority ( "l. protest exists in accordance with Section s` 57078. is ti^ - 105 i (2) Order the reorganization subject to confirmation of the voters, or in the caseof �j landowner-voter districts, subject to confirmation by the landowners, unless otherwise stated in the formation provisions of the enabling statute of the district. (3) Order the reorganization without election if it is a reorganization which .. meets the requirements of Section 57081, 57083, 57087, or 57089; otherwise, the conducting authority shall take the action ;i specified in paragraph (2) . Majority written protest; 57078. In the case of any reorganization.; uninhabited and inhabited or change of organization, a majority 4 territory protest shall be deemed to exist and the proposed change of organization or reorganization shall be abandoned if the rl conducting authority finds that written protests filed'and not withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the hearing represent either of the following: _ (a) In the case of uninhabited territory, landowners owning 50 percent or more of the assessed value of the land within the territory. (b) In the case of inhabited territory, 50 percent or more of the voting power of voters entitled to vote as a result of residing in, or owning land within, the territory. 7 a Notwithstanding Sections 57075 ' n 570 9.atio )termination ( g't detachment;Ci Y conducting authority and 57078, if the proposed change of ., by con g y . organization is a city detachment, the conducting authority, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, may by resolution terminate the detachment proceedings. q (b) Notwithstanding Sections 57075, 57077, and 57078, if a proposed reorganization includes the detachment of territory from any city, the conducting authority; not more than 30 days after conclusion of,/the hearing, shall terminate the proceeding if a resolution or written protest against the reorganization is filed prior to the conclusion of the hearing by any city from which any portion of the r territory of the city would be detached or removed pursuant to the reorganization. District annexation; 57079.5. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 5707$ factors to consider and and 57076, if the proposed change of adoption of resolution organization is a district annexation, factor to be considered by the conducting authority shall. include all of the following: - 106 - (1) whether the proposed annexation will be for the interest of landowners or present or future inhabitants within the district and within the territory proposed to be annexed to the district. (2) The commission's resolution making determinations. if ' (3) Any factors which may be considered by the commission as provided in Section 56841. (4) Any other matters which the conducting authority deems material. I Except for findings regarding the value of written protests, the conducting authority is not required to make any express findings concerning any of the factors considered by { the conducting authority.. { (b) The conducting authority for a district j annexation, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, shall adopt a resolution and take one of the following actions: i (1) Disapprove the proposed annexation. (2) Terminate the proceedings as provided in Section 57075 or 57076. I � (3) Order the annexation as provided in Section 57075 or 57076. PC City "island" annexations; 57080. (a) With respect to a proceeding resolution ordering or initiated before January 1, 1981, when terminating approved and authorized by the commission pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 56375, i the conducting authority shall, not later than ii q 35 days after conclusion of the hearing, adopt a resolution ordering the annexation without an election or shall, by resolution, terminate the proceedings. Sections 57050, 57051, and 57052 do not apply to any annexation subject to this subdivision. (b) With respect to a proceeding initiated t. on or after January 1, 1984, when approved and authorized by the commission pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 56375, Sections 57050, 57051, and 57052, shall apply and Ir subdivision (a) of Section 57075 does not apply. (1) If the territory proposed to be annexed M y is inhabited territory, the conducting P authority, not more than 30 days after conclusion of the hearing, shall adopt a resolution making a finding regarding the 5 value of written protests filed and not withdrawn and shall do either of the e following: � I 107 - , i I RESOIaTTICN NO_ l�`� � A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CORTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985, WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 23. LAFCO NO. 88-22-4. WHEREAS, on February 25, 1988, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 88-17 initiating annexation proceedings for Annexation No. 23; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing relative to Annexation No. 23 on February 23, 1989, and approved said annexation with the determination that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert be authorized the Conducting Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in its capacity as Conducting Authority held a noticed public hearing March 23, 1989, pursuant to Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 57000; and WHEREAS, prior to and at said public hearing there were no written protests filed and not withdrawn; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation represents a logical extension of the City of Palm Desert's boundaries and will not be taxed for existing general bonded indebtedness by the City of Palm Desert, and the regular Riverside County assessment roll shall be utilized in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the territory described in Exhibits "A" and "B" 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 fifteen (15) certified copies of this resolution to LAFCO along with any other required submittals. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on this;;�F)rA day of N k),�1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: -�5-��-( 4�i NOES: rie� ABSENT: P� 1= �4N ABSTAIN: S. ROY WILSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /tm CITY OF PALM DESERT COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST MEETING OF Consent Calendar Item 1 . TO BE CONSIDERED AS : X' Public Hearing Item Regular Item 2 . REQUEST : (Agenda Item� Wording ) u� -rs-s R6E• 3 . FINANCIAL : ( Complete if Necessary) (a ) Acct/Prof . (b) Amount Requested ( c ) Current .Budget7 (d) Appropriation? Apprvd : Finance Director 4. SUBMITTED BY : APPROVAL : Department Head City Manager 6/ 13/88 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPART1434T OF OCK4.NITY DEVELOPVRNr TRANS II7T%L LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Conduct public hearing and consider approval of resolution annexing approximately 160 acres, generally located north of 42nd Avenue, east of present city boundary, South of Lakes Country Club and west of future El Dorado Drive, more particularly described as the southeast 1/4 Section 10, T5S R6E. III. APPLICANP: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: Annexation #23 V. DATE: March 23, 1989 VI. OONPENPS: A. Staff ReccmTendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No. D. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF REC OW1EZJDATION: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. , annexing 160 acres to the city, Annexation #23. B. DISQ)SSIUM: After more than a year of processing, the proposed annexation was finally approved by LAFCO at its February 23, 1989 hearing. The city had obtained signed petitions from five (5) of the six (6) property owners plus a petition signed by 132 residents at Good Samaritan Village (AKA the Carlotta). These 132 signatures presumably represented all 100 registered voters in the area to be annexed. The public hearing was necessitated because the city did not have petitions from all six property owners. The only property owner who has not signed a petition is Dempsey Hahn Corp. Staff have met with the principles of the company on several occasions over the past year and sought the necessary petition. While Dempsey Hahn Corp. does not oppose the annexation, it was not prepared to submit a signed petition. TRANSKETTAL L AMiMTICN #23 MARM 23, 1989 Government Code Section 57075 (a) (copy attached) delineates the actions to be taken by the conducting authority depending upon the amount and type of written protests filed. Staff have prepared a draft resolution based on the assumption that no written protests were filed and not withdrawn, which was the case when the report was written. Should this situation change then section 4 of the resolution may need to be revised prior to adoption. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: SRS/tm 2 RESOLUMON NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CDRTESE/KNOX LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1985, WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 23. -22-4 NO. 8 LAF(O 8 WHEREAS, on February 25, 1988, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 88-17 initiating annexation proceedings for Annexation No. 23; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Caimission held a public hearing relative to Annexation No. 23 on February 23, 1989, and approved said annexation with the determination that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert be authorized the Conducting Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in its capacity as Conducting Authority held a noticed public hearing March 23, 1989, pursuant to Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 57000; and WHEREAS, prior to and at said public hearing there were no written protests filed and not withdrawn; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation represents a logical extension of the City of Palm Desert's boundaries and will not be taxed for existing general bonded indebtedness by the City of Palm Desert, and the regular Riverside County assessment roll shall be.utilized in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the territory described in Exhibits "A" and "B" 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 fifteen (15) certified copies of this resolution to LAFW along with any other required submittals. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert on this day of 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: S. ROY WILSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /tm ER IT "A" ANNEXATION NO. 23 CITY OF PALM DESERT LAFC)D NO. 88-22-4 That portion of Section 10 T5S R6E S.B.M. , being the Southeast quarter of said Section 10, more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 10, thence S. 890 46'05"W. , a distance of 2658.54' along the Southerly section line of Section 10 to the South quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence N. 00 04'21"E. , a distance of 2655.56' to the center of .Section 10; Thence N. 890 45'26"E. , a distance of 2658.07' to the East quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence S. 00 03'45"W. , a distance of 2656.05' to the Point of Beginning. Area equals 160 acres, more or less. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPROVLG 14 , "i — 82? BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEYOR BY_ � I I i i CHAPTER 4_ RESOLUTION OF CONDUCTING AUTHORITY i Registered voter districts 57075. In the case of registered voter and citiesl resolution districts or cities, where a change of making finding on written organization or reorganization consists protests] annexations, solely of annexations, detachments, or detachments, CSA formation formation of county service areas, or any or combination combination of those proposals, the conducting ! ' 6L authority, not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, shall adopt a resolution making a finding regarding the value of written protests filed and not , withdrawn, and take one of the following actions, except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 57002. Inhabited territory (a) In the case of inhabited territory, take one of the following actions: (1) Terminate proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with Section h 57078. i•: (2) Order the change of organization or reorganization subject to confirmation by the registered voters)residing within the affected I� y territory if written protests have been filed it and not withdrawn by either of the following: �(A) At least 25 percent, but less than 50 f percent, of the registered voters residing in the affected territory, i; Pik !( (B) At least 25 percent of the number of " 4 • I" :c. owners of land who also own at least percent of the assessed value of land within t the affected territory. (3) Order the change of organiza- tion or i ?' reorganization without an election if written irA protests have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25 percent of the registered voters j or less than 25 percent of the number of owners of land owning less than 25 percent of j iI;S the assessed value of land within the affected A . territory. �.� Uninhabited territory (b) In the case of uninhabited territory, take either of the following actions: t m It Ii 3. . (1) Terminate proceedings if a majority "y protest exists in accordance with Section k 57078. (2) Order the change of organization orj ! (', reorganization if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by owners of land who (i•:' own less than 50 percent of the total assessed V;) rid value of land within the affected territory. - 103 T ' " 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 March 2, 1989 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 23 LAFCO NO. 88-22-4 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a resolution approving an annexation of approximately 160 acres to the City of Palm Desert generally located north of 42nd Avenue, east of the present city boundary, south of the Lakes Country Club and west of the future EI Dorado Drive. The annexation was initiated by the City of Palm Desert on behalf of a group comprising a substantial percentage of the registered voters in the area. The reasons include: 1 . The proposed territory to be annexed is adjacent to and substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and, therefore, represents a logical expansion of the city's boundary. 2. The area is predominately urban in character and requires a higher level of urban services than are currently offered by the County of Riverside. The City of Palm Desert can provide these services which include higher levels of police, fire,: paramedic and general code enforcement and participation in the local Palm Desert political process. The property is more particularly described as SE 114 Section 10 T5S R6E. g L — --i R �l r �IUIIII K Y MAP NOT 0 SCALE: N00.YX PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT N89'a5'2fi'E2658.0 '�BUNT OF RIVERSIDE NOTE: j This PISS was prepared, Item record data only and does not represent 160 ACRES ! a surrey pI the property shown hereon PROP. W P.D. CITY ANNEXATION J !`W V i6 pif ip e W :::Y i:: • W Z .0 1 U a !: .; :ii; rPolnl of De9lnninp S 69'4605'y 658.54 COUNTY OF RiV�q.B1pE ,;;; ass ._ • . INDIAN WELLS CITY_LIM it I$ 14 - SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 23, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested 'persons are invited to attend and be heard. Any land owner within the territory. or any registered voter may file a written protest against the proposal with the City Clerk at any time prior to the public hearing. IDempsey Hahn Corp. Manhattan Land & Investment Garland Gember Corp. 140 1st Street Group 981 P.O. Box 1313 Batavia, IL 60510 P.O. Box 1400 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 i Oceanside, CA 92054 Lutheran Good Samaritan G. Miller Development Co. Todd Dempsey Society P.O. Box 4682 10006 Scripps Ranch Blvd. 41-505 Carlotta Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Suite 204 Palm Desert, CA 92260 San Diego, CA 92131 Coachella Valley Water City of Indian Wells Sandpiper Homes Ltd. District City Clerk c/o Southwest Dev. Co. P.O. Box 1058 44-950 El Dorado 1525 B Street, Suite 2200 Coachella, CA 92236 Indian Wells, CA 92210 i San Diego, CA 92101 i i Robert B. Varner Lakes Country Club Assn. Mr. Kenneth Mohr 75001 Vintage Drive 161 Old Ranch Road i Executive Office Indian Wells, CA 92210 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I LAFCO 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Fl . Riverside, CA 92501-3651 County Clerk County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 i Ij I D i roiau. illalaa, /I t.,..,u, ,. iw .f1�111� 4a1 fIR I,r M1A 10 llAI11w{ /T T ERR ` S..y �e�•�t a3t-m-el3-3 YROOA eew 33M0 -'M111e1R Of3 K.//'S�'11 1 101 wyq @ RA Nt"}[41 K 1•A OR-M-Otf•S >aO (� . R O/l_�I atR-r-na-a !IRON •RR133 Ar K R tl)3130tt 0A 41 M-M-M-S Mn13 r lflLlf IC 0•A + a3rw M MLO 3R 13ri t31ORL a3 K t-A t3t-oD•a01-a - �.(� �Olf VJ{aR-aR-Aa-O tOOR � ODOR D!w 'fl Mle V0-W a+t�w a a.+3 3aan ler w wi�r wi I�ilfii�nMOi list! ' I + 1 O 1 t� �; 4-3trR A.'DOrt-IRL IA M EA IIAIIZAI 111R /eR) OR�Ali R)IR ani7•Rr 1OORRr R1t1tIfIP1 t ry TSO RORI R L� S1I1 TA IY31V OR�tra RR T D) „ lAlpMl A�[{EIIY� IR�1 0�-Of{gyp)-3 •Ilrel IOPIAU IQ IA)il 0 /A 3 101/Al TC 0.00 1 r m AYA e'f-0]'c:mo ab IARm AwO i �ilm IBT A v 1 i00f M 0 a)SA " ALII -0IL a�-p11S10-1 f0AI1 aNAI NrV��p31�p 31RO IOI RfdL w�� vo 1�1Rt f Y [ OAS�a I}gNJ 03 012 f32-000-011-L ITp000 1ll�L' • G�if�9•P6��p�3y0�r0SOS)��Stfl iR RM�3�a�ylvp�yi0D9A TC 0-N i >IfR 'IO.A)6TRL RSQIRfOI�SR ILL�i�wLl tOtS[Y MM 6n 7 On M-Me IZ-3 GM7 c GA "J.F F (AID TC 0w Dfta '��[)j' per+ OJ�R�S(T1N p \.w +pIND)T - Im+ R n3 1 1 R.Ipr inn y-A-R aR�plr-IILLI ew M taAO R-A IRII►L101 IMIR SRi nR►rres <i Iel ANKR[t, RIRAr Rsumtol SnR3 nw rwr to I.w On r.v raO TRr fJwtlw +n m Af+O �C a�_Oai aS<-b10.O+s•r lllp I!� I.@�IM ryelV IRI 1 1.1 IOtrA)IM 1 1 pf10 I YpN}/ I1A{ 0� A/AO 1C OIo:M a>c-1�30-et1-1 LMOee Lr•OO 33a0 N)wip •�A t( a-A -�-M-L Y300A S3AA 1 Ar !<101 R[ n OR[ R A r r'�n w ]ew +lua ov r+[rw r'w �++rtwt rea r{r • ] t+ m r to Ir ewlr uN m rn ww ras ]lprm� rr m ']Me 11w]01]-p{,i/-ep-Ol]'Y 1 •^ Ike w rIMlt elm l 1 Iw wt.Opl NI 1 LDLW ]]r Is �' tYt eta:e�o ar'c]o-w�'1 nwt{t +1{{rt ]]f{e a MIMI O t tlt•p]p'w['t Y]owo ` { •1{Y W TRIO° n-aeo e. t1tl 4 M ru m Y tfse OT 011 tl!-0]O-0tJ-] t]wiL . 1!A! r{•lae]rr w]r�ll�t�a{"'A'1� 1[ 0'W ` m "RIM et A2)lY-eDM-r tT11f0] IA]f0] IC OD 1 1 mr w-r-r eom-{y,,rat M w+w r-w 1wYlrrrol 1Oi ]p!e tom �R(. Iro. Rlslrrld IN M twrt"D l.M trillrn las I� prlf0� In m Y PF ac C p a<o f=-dt oot-, awe Yrro Is mli 1 a lam r"r r wnwo anew ta-wt-ow•t awo YI]po n{{e - Yie w� � t "w n�] ii"t3i5'r'i{]tl�o�i'mea 11{�� fir. riocwo o>a{'epe we-at-w]-] awe nww ]{ow y]IP ! OFF, t11115r G fisY , �0 ] a ota-�{ci-dtow-o aiou Ywm 14M) n�y�1 G YaY snw '• ;A;`r°'ems. "��a ca.e. k is If , 1 �1 Inn I y{.]p-r •tul ry 1W Ive r•r �nnrtwl slot wfw Rr m I wrfQ, fir. OCIMMlr N rr Irw b L w 1R11 rn ws ry e]Onis m m yllr {��rw{eta.At a=-ort-ow'i awls ww{ 1{Ioe ]noo I NI i;tilt l�elli{e tj MAR 11989 � �TT.yytwy:,�mlapplFF..oEar�rfi��+' -- ,y LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION LiPOTLy IIMMI O'Clide . (714) 797-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER . 4080 LEMON STREET • 12TH FLOOR • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 DATE: February 24, 1989 Honorable Mayor and City Council LAFCO NO. : 88-22-4 City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 PROPONENT: City of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: You are hereby notified that the proposal for Annexation #23 to the City of Palm Desert was approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Riverside at a public hearing on February 23 , 1989 A copy of the legal description of this proposal as approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission, is attached to this notice; and it is the legal description which must be used in all further actions regarding this proposal . Any previous descriptions which do not conform to the attachment should be corrected or destroyed. Any special conditions, authorizations, or amendments are noted in the attached resolution, and must be complied with by your Council in its role as Conducting Authority. It is now the responsibility of your Council to complete proceedings in accordance with the laws governing this approved application (Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 57000) . Upon completion of proceedings, it is requested that you furnish LAFCO with fifteen certified copies of your resolution and a check made payable to the State Board of Equalization in the amount of $ 480.00 You should keep in mind that unless proceedings are completed within twelve months from the date of LAFCO' s approval , the application will automatically be abandoned (Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 57001) . If there are extenuating circumstances, please notify us in writing at least 30 days prior to the end of this one-year period to secure an authorized extension of time. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, �7 LYNDA THORSON = - Executive Secretary i cc : Clerk. of the Board of Supervisors 1 1 Local Agency Formation Commission County of Riverside 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. 01-89 APPROVING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY 4 TO CITY OF PALM DESERT LAFCO NO. 88-22-4 5 6 BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the Local Agency Formation 7 Commission in regular session assembled on February 23, 1989, that the 8 annexation of approximately 160 acres generally located at the northwest g corner of 42nd Avenue and El Dorado Drive, as more particularly described in 10 Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, to the City of Palm 11 Desert, is approved. 12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND FOUND that: 13 1 . Commission proceedings were commenced by resolution of the City 14 of Palm Desert. 15 2. The annexation is proposed to provide more municipal services 16 by the City of Palm Desert. 17 3. The distinctive short form designation of the proposed 18 annexation is LAFCO No. 88-22-4, Annexation No. 23 to City of Palm Desert. 19 4. An environmental assessment was made on the proposal and a 20 negative declaration filed thereon by the City of Palm Desert pursuant to the 21 California Environmental Quality Act. The negative declaration has been 22 reviewed and considered. 23 .5. The boundaries of the territory as set forth in Exhibit "A", 24 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, have been approved 25 by the County Surveyor, are contiguous to the City of Palm Desert, and are 26 approved. 27 6. The territory to be annexed is inhabited, there being more than 28 12 registered voters residing therein. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 4080 LEMON STREET 12TM FLOOR IVEREIOE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 (714) 787-2786 1 7. This annexation is consistent with the sphere of influence of 2 the City of Palm Desert and all other affected local agencies. 3 8. The City of Palm Desert is designated conducting authority, i 4 9. The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a certified copy 5 of this Resolution to the above-designated conducting authority, to the chief 6 petitioners, if different from the conducting authority, and to each affected 7 agency. 8 9 7 10 _ n 11 F. GILLAR BOYD JR. , hairman 12 13 I certify the above resolution was passed and adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on February 26, 1989. 14 15 —1jGa�"yyV /�• ��Y�!/r5 16 KENNETH M. MOH Executive Officer 17 o CQ 18 aV f0 9 00 uV r 20 m 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. 23 CITY OF PALM DESfRr LAFCO NO. 88-22-4 That portion of Section 10 T5S R6E S.B.M., being the Southeast quarter of said Section 10, more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 10, thence S. 890 46'05"W. , a distance of 2658.54' along the Southerly section line of Section 10 to the South quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence N. 00 04'21"E. , a distance of 2655.56' to the center of Section 10; Thence N. 890 45'26"E. , a distance of 2658.07' to the East quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence S. 00 03'45"W. , a distance of 2656.05' to the point of Beginning. Area equals 160 acres, more or less. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPROVLG !4 � '0;— 8-,? BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEYOR BY__ � tc pp ,f'(jrts��M:, ,.,c a■ r coo■ ee s tt _ - ' a 0 0 ■ .. — tC • 0 • �" G J WJ I (Ill 11 T—I LSD 41WLI I KEY MAP J � NOT 10 SCALE: i - Npp7M PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT :•s i;:2 :? N89'45'26'E'2658.0•'•COUNTOF RIVERSIDE .•• NOTE: > This plat was prepared from record data Only and does nOt represent 16 0 0 ACRES •:;N a survey of the N `N PROP• properly snOwn hereon. P.D. CITY ANNEXATION F• •{:W X CC J Y .•.W WIxo- W O1 7s is M Lu CL N • O �. Z S 89046'05" 658.54' COUNTY OF Point of Begin 'n mg ■ I INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT 15 14 THIS MJP APPROVED . I _ 1f 6 - . BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEYOR ■ . BY��!r�zs K-••c LAFCO NO.88-22 DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 Drawn- y: /1/ gs+. .Gi.0 t-? �_ ZA TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO RAMO SE 114 of SECTION 10 T5S ROE SCALE: COMM.DNG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM DESERT 1 STATE BOARD OF EOUALIZATIO'. SCHEDULE OF PROCESSING FEES Section 54902.5. Government Code Effective July 1, 1984 1. GENERAL APPLICATION: The fees set forth in this schedule shall apply to all statements filed pursuant to Sections 54900 to 54902 of the Government Code. Statements must be filed by January I if they are to be reflected on the next tax roll. (See Section 3 (f).) The provisions and definitions given in Sections 2 and 3 below are to help you compute the fees and serve as guidelines to insure acceptance of maps and legal descrip. tions. Fees shall accompany the statements (See Section 3 (e).) Mail statements, maps and fees to, Valuation Division, State Board of Equalization, P.O. Box 1713, Sacramento, CA 95808. 2. DESCRIPTIONS AND MAPS. After our initial processing has been completed, all filed documents are micro- filmed and then destroyed. Any document that will not produce a readable photographic image must be rejected and returned to the sender for replacement.. See Section 2 (9). (a) Every description must be self-sufficient within itself and without the necessity of reference to any extraneous document. When a description refers to a deed of record, the deed should be used only as a second. ary reference. (b) When writing a metes and bounds description of a contiguous annexation,all details of the contiguous partion(s) of the boundary may be omitted. The points of departure from the existing boundary must be clearly established. (c) A e=ecific per-col cescription in sectionalized land (e.g., The SW % of Section 22, TIN, RIW) is permissible without a metes and bounds description of the perimeter boundary, (d) A parcel description making reference- only to a subdivision or a lot within a subdivision is not acceptable, unless all dimensions needed to plot the boundaries are given on an accompanying plot. The relationship of lot lines with street right-of-ways must be clearly indicated. (e) Every map must clearly indicate all existing streets, roads and highways within and adjacent to the subject territory, together with the current names of these thoroughfares. (f) Every map shall bear a scale and a north point. If a reduced map is to be filed, the oriyinol map must have a graphic scale affixed to it before the reduction is made. (g) The point of beginning of the legal description must be shown on thi map. The boundaries of the sub. ject territory must be distinctively shown on the map without obliterating any essential geographic or political features. The use of yellow lines to highlight the boundaries is urged,as this color photographs as a light gray. (h) All maps must be professionally drawn or copied. Rough sketches of maps or plats will not be accepted. 3. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL FEE PROVISIONS. (a) "Single area' means any separate geographical area regardless of ownership. A lot, a subdivision or a township could each be a "Single area'. For the purpose of this schedule a geographical area which is divided into two or more parcels by a roadway, railroad right-of-way, river or stream shall be considered a "Single area'. A "Single area' does not include two areas that are contiguous only at a point or two areas that are contiguous to an existing boundary or a city or district but not to each other. (b) "Zones" include temporary zones in highway lighting districts, other zones, improvement districts, or any other sub-units of a city or parent district. (c) "Concurrent transaction" includes any Combination of formations, annexations and withdrawals of a lino!! area under one resolution or ordinance. The Fee shall be according to the fee Schedule (4(a) ), there is no additional costs for the number of transactions involved. IF more than one resolution or ordinance, each single area must be separately computed under the fee schedule (4(o) ). (d) The fees in Section 4 of this schedule are based on the concept that any given action is confined to a single county. If more than one county is involved, add $150.00 for second and each additional county involved. (e) The processing fee ill accompany each statement unloss f arrangement for quarterly p,ymnnts has been made. The use of quarterly payments shall be limited to those governmental entities that normally file more than 25 statements each year. Quarterly payments must be made during the month following the end of each quarter. See Section 3(h). (f) If the January 1st statutory deadline for filing statements is extended by a special validating act, the fees in Section 4 shall be doubled. If the statement is filed between December 1st and the end of the annual filing period the fees in Section 4 shall be increased by ten percent. (g) If an annexed or detached territory comprises on entire city, district, or zone without affecting the existence of that city, district or zone, the total processing fee shall be $150.00. (h) Payment of the fee for the formation of a city or district may be deferred until that city or district receives its first revenue (Ch. 512, Stats. 1978). Each deferment shall be subject to a $25 billing charge. IMPORTANT: IF YOU HAVE AN UNUSUAL SITUATION OR ARE UNSURE, DO NOT GUESS AT THE FEE. CALL (916) 445.6950 OR (916) 322.7183 OR WRITE TAX AREA SERVICES SECTION, P.O. BOX 1713, SACRAMENTO, CA 95808, FOR HELP TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT FEE. 4. PROCESSING FEES. See Section 3 for definitions and modifications of the fees under certain circumstances. A separate fee must be computed for each ordinance or resolution. (a) Single area transactions ACREAGE FEE 0 — 10 $ 160.00 J Ill — 20 $ 180.00 21 — 60 $ 250.00 61 — 100 $ 350.00 101 — 660 $ 480.00 661 — 1500 $ 700.00 1501 — 3000 $ 900.00 3001 — 6000 $1,200.00 over 6000 ' $1,750.00 (b) Dissolutions or consolidations, per district or zone $170.00. , LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • County of Riverside • (714) 787-2786 .� ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET • 12TH FLOOR • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 i December 8, 1988 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Ken Mohr, Executive Officer SUBJECT: LAFCO 88-22-4--ANNEXATION 23 TO CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to annex approximately 160 acres to the City of Palm Desert for municipal services. INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: This proposal has met all legal filing requirements. The map and legal description were approved by the County Surveyor on April 6, 1988. The City of Palm Desert conducted and environmental assessment which resulted in the filing of a negative declaration. POPULATION: The applicant indicates the population within the proposed boundaries is 132. The Registrar of Voters reports there are 100 registered voters within the affected territory. LAND USE: The Open Space and Conservation Map of the Comprehensive General Plan identifies the subject area as: "Areas Not Designated As Open Space". The subject area also lies within the Upper Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area and the Western Coachella Valley Community Planning Area. The policies of the community plan designate the subject area for Category 2B-Urban Residential Land Uses. Category 2B allows for residential densities to range from 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre, and requires a full range of public � 1 t LAFCO 88-22-4 December 8, 1988 Page 2 services including circulation, water/sewage distribution and collection and utilities. The area is currently zoned R-1 (Single-family Residential ) , and R 1 -12000 (Single-family Residential , minimum lot size 12,000 so. ft. ) . The es , City of Palm Desert has prezoned the subject area as Planned Residential , and has designated the land use densities at 4 to 10 units per acre. The Environmental Hazards and Resource Element of the General Plan identifies the subject area to be contained within Groundshaking Zone IVC. The northern portion of the affected territory is also within a region recognized for its blowsand hazard potential . MARKET VALUE: The County Assessor reports the 1987-88 land value is $1 ,889,524 and structure value is $10,240,000 for a total market value of $12, 129,524. COMMENTS: The proposed annexation encompasses approximately 160 acres and is generally located at the northwest corner of 42nd Avenue and El Dorado Drive (both unimproved) . The affected territory is inhabited, contiguous to the City of Palm Desert and consistent with the City' s sphere of influence. Approximately 140 acres of the proposed annexation is presently vacant while the remaining 20 acres is a developed senior retirement facility known as the Good Samaritan Village. The City of Palm Desert gives the following reasons for initiating the proposed annexation: 1. "The proposed territory to be annexed is adjacent to and is substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert, and therefore, represents a logical expansion of the City' s boundary. 2. The area is experiencing development pressures and requires a higher level of urban services than are currently offered by the County of Riverside. The City of Palm Desert can provide these services." Additionally, the City of Palm Desert indicates the proposal is supported by residents and property owners within the affected area. Written documentation in support of the annexation has been submitted by property owners who hold title to 89 percent of the area's assessed value; and, by a petition signed by 132 residents who reside at the Good Samaritan Village. According to the applicant, the residents favor annexation to the City of Palm Desert in order that they may receive a higher level of City services, specifically fire, police and paramedic. FISCAL IMPACTS: The County Auditor-Controller reports the total property taxes generated within the affected area are $121 ,295. At present, the County' s share of the property tax is approximately 29.73 percent or $36,061 . In accordance with 0 LAFCO 88-22-4 December 8, 1988 Page 3 the negotiated property tax split agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert, the City would receive 25 percent of the County' s share or approximately $9,015. The remainder of the taxes generated will continue to be divided among the other affected agencies including: County Free Library, Desert Sands Unified School District, Coachella Valley Water District and Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District, just to name a few. It should be pointed out that approval of this annexation would also result in a corresponding exchange in service responsibility. For example, the County would no longer be responsible for providing a number of services including but not limited to: police and fire protection (unless by contract) , planning and land use regulations, street cleaning and maintenance and building inspection. However, certain Countywide services such as health, general hospital, social services and justice systems would continue to be the responsibility of the County. To provide for these ongoing services, the County would retain approximately $27,046 of the property tax generated within the affected area. At the present time, no specific development plans have been identified for the 140 acres which are currently undeveloped. Therefore, staff is unable to project any future fiscal implications which may occur as a result of development. PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES: To support its application, the City of Palm Desert has submitted a Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services. Following are excerpts from that Plan: - Water and Sewer: The developed portion of the proposed annexation is presently being provided with water and sewer service from the Coachella Valley Water District. The District currently has water and sewer lines located along Carlotta Drive which lies within the boundaries of the proposed annexation. As future development occurs, Coachella Valley Water District could provide additional service through line extensions from existing facilities. In addition, Coachella Valley Water District' s sewage treatment plant is located east of Cook Street immediately adjacent to the proposed annexation. - Police Protection: If annexed, the City of Palm Desert would provide police protection services under contract with the Riverside County Sheriff' s Department. Existing manpower and equipment include 20 officers, a full-time crime prevention officer and 4 cars. The City estimates emergency response time to the annexation site would be approximately 3 minutes. - Fire Protection: If annexed, the City of Palm desert would provide fire protection services under contract with the Riverside County Fire Department. The City of Palm Desert contracts for 54 full-time personnel , 15 volunteers, 4 pumpers, 2 rescue squads, 2 rescue salvage vehicles and 2 paramedic units. The proposed annexation would be served from the fire station located at Portola and Country Club Drives, and it is estimated that response time would be 3 minutes. i LAFCO 88-22-4 December 8, 1988 Page 4 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: It should be pointed out, that approval of this annexation would result in the creation of an island of unincorporated territory located between the Cities of Palm Desert and Indian Wells. Staff consistently discourages the creation of such boundary configurations and when proposals are submitted which would result in the creation of islands, staff generally recommends that the Commission utilize its conditioning powers to require that the affected agency submit a subsequent proposal to eliminate the island of unincorporated territory. In this instance, however, LAFCO 88-51-4--Annexation 24 to City of Palm Desert and LAFCO 88-23-4--Annexation '1 to City of Indian Wells are on file, and, if approved, would eliminate this island of unincorporated territory between the two Cities. LAFCO 88-51-4--Annexation 24 to City of Palm Desert, is scheduled to be heard this date. LAFCO 88-23-4--Annexation 11 to City of Indian Wells, was originally scheduled to be heard this date, however, the City of Indian Wells requested that this matter be considered at a subsequent hearing because the City has a General Plan hearing scheduled on December 8 and, therefore, representatives would be unable to attend the Commission' s December 8 hearing. It also should be noted that the City of Indian Wells along with representatives of the Sunrise Company, who own approximately 640 acres located adjacent to the subject annexation object to the proposal due to their concerns regarding the City of Palm Desert's purported desire to delete E1 Dorado Drive north of Avenue 42 once the area is annexed to the City. According to representatives of the Sunrise Company, such a deletion would have a major impact on traffic circulation to and from Sunrise' s proposed Sunterra project. According to the City of Palm Desert planning staff, , no plans currently exist to delete the extension of El Dorado Drive north of Avenue 42, as suggested by representatives of the Sunrise Company. SUMMARY: - The proposed annexation is contiguous to the City of Palm Desert and consistent with the City's sphere of influence. - The area is legally defined as inhabited, as there are more than 12 registered voters residing within the proposed boundaries. - Written documentation in support of the annexation has been submitted by property owners who hold title to 89 percent of the area's assessed value and by a petition submitted by 132 residents of the Good Samaritan Village. - The City of Palm Desert has prezoned the area Planned Residential . - The City of Palm Desert is willing and able to extend municipal services as required, and residents desire the higher level of municipal services which can be provided by the City. - Approval of the proposed annexation would result in the creation of an island of unincorporated territory, however, two pending proposals, I • LAFCO 88-22-4 December 8, 1988 Page 5 LAFCO 88-51-4--Annexation 24 to City of Palm Desert and LAFCO 88-23-4--Annexation 11 to City of Indian Wells, are on file, and, if approved by the Commission, would eliminate this island of unincorporated territory between the Cities of Palm Desert and Indian Wells. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the factors outlined above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commission: 1 . Certify it has reviewed and considered the City of Palm Desert' s environmental assessment which resulted in the filing of a neqative declaration; 2. Find the annexation is inhabited; 3. Find the annexation is consistent with the City of Palm Desert' s sphere of influence and the spheres of influence of all other affected local agencies; 4. Approve LAFCO 88-22-4--Annexation 23 to City of Palm Desert; and, 5. Designate the City of Palm Desert as conducting authority. Respectfully submitted, Ken Mohr Executive Officer MAPS A 0 . ......... ...... 0 HOVLEY LAN! -j Lul t I KEY MAP I U NOT 10 SCALE: PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT :-x ... • ...... N 89045' 26'E 2658.0 * OOUNT OF RIVERSIDE • NOTE: This plat was prepared from record data only and does not represent 160 ACRES a survey of the Lo ::::PROP. property shown hereon, P.D. CITY ANNEXATION -j >- X W zi ::::o z 0 a. W U) O X. Point of Beginning z S 89'46'05" 0 658.54' COUNT JQF....... ■ 15 14 THIS M P APPROVED INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT — e�-- ��dP BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEYOR ■ BY LAFCO NO.88-22-4 DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 Drawn by: /V" O�LD TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO 4F/ SCALE: RAMON A. DIAZ SE 1/4 of SECTION 10 T58 ROE COMM.DEVJPLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM DESERT 1*-600, I r a I � a ♦ II / ti n➢lt \ Y•p -fs • Y j .: `• a rovw a Y Y Y M IJIO]IrJ rl a • 11 II !1 II� J m Y Y • N n l N {Iwilr N I co co _ J--r, It Fig "', ♦ ti PIN a I V : i y � s cnD».•J• .Dery clfiwJ I,Y`� ' r rlonr» � an JniJ]n Clrr D :rr trirw rJ��w� •I' l•JYq ) en. rns -I :ill:w a a ,i rSt1' O e r l.r•.. - —1' � I - . e.. v➢ el. __ '�I �J lnr lvrYO'C [fir�� II . . .. -eJw—♦..t' '>�,.illrvro�v z� l II '� z. 2:C`N so a (L., IID 1eF1 c-4D,nw ` c nJYn Inns C_.p9 "• ➢f tll' L.r.lxli YD[ IYrrtvrw �` ~ vY➢-1 ,J)DII IY)rT ' a.erC r'IN•o5� �..�11),Iw, =77Y _ r.x0.•.J rt frinr/ YO rD./r_ •JJYD fIJ • � � [ n -9?0 v YO SDNrYIf wvIl • p 0 ^ ^ O ' r OJr r (1 inr 0 F .4e,n.,a..;f,1 . .Y• 'll I I � I t\ O r:ll l)D r ill I OI V � S 2 n u I \ )nr '� .)Y)I NON T J'i.Nu ln• r y� _1r .l.).n'On .uw IC rNJ)Ys u)rm•.. .. fZON 1 OIJ 11 r n LP. 10 L w � _ w •" i � I � it Y Y— ✓J�•nnt. '.�- „MogS°�4..; '`�:��•ao P J NYDIr a„� v `�!_Vy♦��"V`a f\��tiY��O i JYI1vxvMvn On:NIII� i'I =� _ r^ •.V tl•.ra r0\�� aaY. • it t PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Riverside County Local Agency Formation Canoission MUE: February 3, 1988 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert SLEOEM Plan for Services for Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 I. INrRCDUGTICN: Pursuant to Section 56653 of the State Goverrvmt Code, the city is required to file with any new annexations a plan outlining the method by which services will be provided in the area to be Mvmxed. This report represents the required plan for services for proposed Annexation No. 23. The City of Palm Desert, being a contract city, must rely on many other agencies to provide for services both in the oceminity and areas subsequently annexed. In addition, many services provided such as water and sewer, electricity and 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 major emphasis of this report is to address ttnee services provided directly by the city either through city staff or direct contract with the city by other agencies. In addition, whe=ever possible this report will address the mettnds by which other service agencies would provide needed facilities in the area. II. DESCRIPTICN 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 for water and sewer, Southern -California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone Company and Palmer Cable. The services provided by this city directly would be in planning and building, public works, parks, adMnis ration and rode 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. There are no major read improvements necessary to facilitate access to the area. III. LEVEL, OF SERVICE: The level and range of services provided would include sufficient sized water, sewer, gas and electrical facilities to service development proposed for the area. Planning, building, public works and code enforce- ment services as provided by the city directly would be on the basis of need. PALM DESERr ANNEXATION NO. 23 The area is within the five mimrte response zone of the Portola and Country Club station. Backup would be provided by the El Paseo/Town Center, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, Bermuda Dunes and Thousand Palms stations. Paramedic ambulance services would be provided by the Indian Wells Fire Station. The city presently contracts from Riverside County Sheriff Department for 120 hours per day for citywide patrols which will be expanded as needs require. IV. Tn4DG FOR SERVICE EXTENSIONS: Basic utility services would occur as a part of development. The city services would be available immediately in the area of planning, building and code enforcement, public works, police and fire. Road improvements would occur as a part of new development. V. REQUIREMERM OF NEW DE.VELaDRAEUr AND FIPG+L MG: New development would be required to extend roads in the area and to provide for needed nauicipal facilities through the city's development ordinances. A fire facilities fee of $100.00 per residential unit will be used to finance the necessary fire facilities. The provision of planning and building services would be provided through the fees generated from new development. Ongoing maintenance of roads created in the area, would be provided on the basis of sales tax generated from commercial facilities in the area. In summary, it is felt that development of this area would result in a balance between needed services and the revenue to provide said services. /dlg 2 PAL14 DESERT AMNEXA'PICH NO. 13 ATD1Cf24E@ PROVISICN OF MLNICIPAL SERVICES: #3 Fire and Police Fire: The area is presently serviced by the County Fire Deparbnent fro,,u the Bermuda Dunes Station. Response time is estimated between 10 and 15 minutes. If annexed to the city the area will be served from the fire station at Portola and Country Club. Response time, if wrmced to the city, is three minutes. Police: The area is presently served by the unin=wporated county area response units. Typical response is estimated at 10 minutes plus depending an the location of the respading unit when a call is placed. If annexed to the city it would receive full city police service. The city currently contracts for 120 hours of service per day. Respase time into this area is estimated at three minutes. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS : Q . GPA A `19I30 ZTAL S=' VICZS DE+T. INITIAL S-6=y EVALUATION CSZCZ,IST M1 VOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered camp)ets for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation- - measures and cc=ents are provided on attached sheets). • Lems Ma a No 1 . Earth, will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in Zgeologic Substructures? — b. Oisrupticns , displacements , compaction, or ✓" overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? / d. The destruction, covering, or modification V of any unique geologic ar physical features" _ _ e. Any increase in wind ar water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 2. Air. will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or / temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? i J. Water the Y� Ma-de po proposal result in: a. Changes. fn currents or the course or 1 directio n of water• movements? Changes in—abso•rat+tin rates — = pat;sr-ns, ge or the rate and•amount icis surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the flood waters? cbur=e or flowof — — d. Alteration af.the direction % flow of groundOr waters? rate of e. Change in the quantity of ground watan, either through direct additions or wfth_ drawais. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? / f. Reduction in the amount of water other_ ✓wise available for public water supplies? a. Plant life, Will the proposal result in: a. Change In the diversity of species , numbers of any species of plants or ( inclucrops;ding trees . shrubs , grass , and b. Reduction of the n Or endangered s umbers of any unique , rare, p es of plan37 c. Introduction of new Species — — � an area , or in a new of plants into replan! shment bf existing�s the normal , g soecles? • � Animal, ,ii11 t e r p pasal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , - land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction %f the numbers of any unique, — rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of anima into an area, or result in a i the migration or movement of barrier barrierier to animals? d• Oe.terioration to existing wileTifa habits+ ? __ 1 3. Yes M`a tic 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural / resources? -/ b. Ceoletion of any man-renewable natural resource? 7. E.nercv. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.deselopment of new sources of / energy? S. Risk ooff_Uoset. . • 0oes the proposal involve a risk or an explosion or the release of , hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides, oils chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ 9. E-ono�is. Will the proposal result in: — a. A change in 'the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and impro•+eren u exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted ccM: nity risk standards? _ 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted co=unity noise and vibration levels are exceeded? U. land Use. Will the proposal result in the aiteratzon of the present developed or planned land usa of an area? 12. Ocen Soace. Will the proposal lead to a Decrease in the amount Of designated open space? l 13. Poou_on, Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate Of the human Population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by aye. income, religion, racial , or ethnic i j group, occupational class , household type? V ` Yes 14. E'r-lOvment. Will the proposal result in _ aaaitiona new long-tarn jabs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Hcusina. Will the prtpasal result in: a. Change in number and per cant of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , /families lin� demandve to variousincomerClasse to sIn the City? V b. Impacts on existing housing or Creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulatiom. the proposal resu t tn: Will /a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? V b. Effects an existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ d. Alterations to present patterns of cirtuiation or mevement of pecple and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards tp motor vehicles , bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ — 17 . Pubiic Serlices. Will the proposal have an effect r upon , o resu t in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following s: a. fire protection? b. Ponce protection? / l C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ e. Maintenance of public facilities , including / roads? f. Other governmental services? 18. P_tic Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal Y_ ya be resu tin ;-net change in govees rnment fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annua.iized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need or new systems , or alterations to the following utilities: -a a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? C. Water? d. Sewer Or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f• Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level care provided? of community health Z1. Social Se r,ices, Will the proposal result in -1 an increased ae nd for provision of general social services? / 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista Or view open to the public? b. the creation of an aesthetically offensi site open to public view? ve c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? Z3. Light and Glar Will the proposal produce new tgnt Or g are? 24• Arthealoaical/Historical , Will the proposal resu t to an a teratian of a significant archeological Or historical site, structure , Object. or building? vms Navhe v 25. `"andatory Findincs of Sicni4ic a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment-' b. 00es the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A Short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) ! C. Coe$ the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact an :+a or more separate is relatively small , resources where ale impact on each resource but where the effect of the total of those impacts an the environment is significant. ) d. Oaes the project have envwircnmentai effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared 3y: INITIAL STUDY EXPLANATION OF INITIAL STUDY OEOa1ST CASE ND'S. GPA 87-5 AND CZ 87-11 PR EA The pro sect at this time is to general plan and crezone an area encompass I nc 160 acres in anticipation of the site being annexed into the City of Palm Desert . Adoption of the general olan. orezoninq the property and the annexation thereof to the city will not directly Impact the environment. Presently. the area Is vacant except for Good Samaritan village (20 acres) and the improved 42nd Avenue ( 112 street) and Carlotta Drive (fully Improved) . The remaining five parcels In the area ( IAO acres) will develop in the future. When development occurs the environment may be Impacted. these potential Impacts will be assessed and mitigated as necessary on a case by case basis when development or000sals are received by the city. 1 . EARTH The area will be developed In an urban manner whether or not It Is annexed into the City of Palm Desert. During construction of the develop- ments on the orocerties movement of earth will result in order that the orolects comoly with the orovlslons of the clty's grading ordinance. This will assure that there are no significant adverse Impacts on the environment. a. The project will not result in any malor excavation or gradinq activity that will reach the geologic substructure of the site. b. When development occurs there will be compaction of soils. which Is required as Part of the city's construction ordinance. Compaction Is a normal part of any construction activity and does not result In any adverse impact to the environment. C. The t000graohv of the area Is relatively flat. there maybe minor Changes to meet city drainage requirements. d. As stated oreviousiv. the area Is flat and. therefore. does not contain any unioue or ohvsical features. e. If anything. future construction on the land will reduce wind and water erosion. However. it should be noted that this has not been a problem In the area. 2. AIR a. The area will be ieveloced in an urban manner whether or not it is annexed to the city. Ourino construction of future develooment5 construction eouioment will be operated. The city will assure tnat construction eauioment eomolies with state and federal requirements pertainino to emissions from this eauloment. The orolect' s whir, develop in the area will comoly with city ordinances and will net deteriorate the ambient air quality. (iPA 87-5 a C/Z 97-I1 INITIAL STUDY b. The development of the area wlII not create obJectlonable odors. If there are odor problems. they are referred to the appropriate agencies for resolution. C. The residential type of developments which will be built as a result of this Proposed orezonina will not alter air movement. moisture. temperature or any change In climate either locally or regionally. 3. MAT The area wlII be developed in an urban manner whether or not It Is annexed to the city. It Is expected that the area will develop with low density residential Projects. a. If necessary to meet city drainage requirements to Protect adjacent properties. the course of water falling on the site may be altered. This would result In a positive rather then adverse Impact on the environment. b. The rate of ground absorption will be reduced as the amount of area built upon or paved Increases and the natural area decreases. This will not result In a significant adverse Impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated because the city's drainage requirements. fees and drainage projects financed by those fees are Intended to handle the Increased runoff created by this or any development. C. The project site Is not subject to flooding. d. Development on the site will not alter the direction of rate of flow of ground waters. e. The future developments will not add to or withdraw from any ground water. As stated Previously. none of the activity either during construction will Impact or touch the geologic substructure. f. All development proposals for the area will be reviewed and serviced by the Coachella valley water District. That agency has not advised the city that there would be a problem in servlcina this area. The same district wi I I supply water to the area whether It Is In the city or not. 4. PLANT LIFE The area will be develoued in an urban manner whether or not it is In the city. Development will result in the existing desert perennial shruo suecies (creosote) being removed and new plants Introduced. 2 GPA 87-5 a C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STIAT a. in order to complete the landscaping which will be needed to meet city requirements, new plants wlII be Introduced on site. However. these plants and shrubs have been Introduced Into the desert area previously. b. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species of flora. C. See Item 4a. A recent biological survey conducted for the city on a vacant site within 1100 feet of this property concluded that "No plant species listed as rare. threatened or endangered by any governmental agency were discovered on the site nor were any expected"l . Given the similarities In the sites It Is felt that the seine conclusion can be asserted for this area. S. ANIMAL LIFE The area will be developed in an urban manner whether or not It Is in the city. The recent biological survey conducted for the proposed Monte Carlo development 2. within 1100 feet of this area determined that there was evidence of various animals on the site ( let round tailed ground squirrel , black tailed Jackrabbit and audobon cottontail ) . In addition the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard was spotted. it is expected that this area will also provide habitat for these animals. Said habitat will be eliminated when development occurs In the area. The fringe-toed lizard Is a federally listed species. A conservation Plan has been established which assesses Fees (11600/acre) on projects located within the habitat boundary. All new developments In the area will be required to may the $600 per acre fee for acquisition of land In the lizard preserve north of 1-10. This fee will be collected whether or not the city property is annexed to the city. I Smith. Peroni & Fox Planning Consultants. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Monte Carlo Villas and Monte Carlo Plaza. November 1987. Page 12. 2 [bid 3 GPA 87-5 i C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY 6 & 7 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY a-b Development of the area wlll result In the use of natural resources and energy. However. an eculvalent amount of natural resources and energy would occur whether the area is annexed to the city or not. Development of residential uses will Increase the rate of use of gas which will be used for heating hot water and the heating of homes. The city building department will require all construction to Comply with the Uniform Building Code ( Insulation of units) . Development of residential uses will also result In additional energy uses( orimarily for air conditioning purposes) mow ver. the develoasent of new sources of energy will not be reaulred. 8. RISK OF UPSET No chemicals or explosives will be stored on the site or transported through the area. 9. C� ONONI LOSS a-b The area Is not in an area endangered by flooding. Development of the orooerty will increase its value above that of vacant land. The area Is not subiect to 9eologlc risks beyond accepted community standards. and there will be no improvements seriously exposed to geologic hazards. 10. NOiS Development of the area in a residential manner will not Increase ambient noise levels beyond acceotabia CNEL. In Fact . by servicing this area with a local level of street the noise associated with high traffic volumes associated with arterial streets will be areatly reduced. 11 . LAND USE the area is oresentiv un,7,�r m e countvi manned For low densitv residential uses. The C , r + or000ses to also 1)dv? (:his area develop with similar low density resiaentiai uses. 12. OPEN SPACE . The site Is not desionatea for oven suace use and will not in the future. 4 GPA 87-5 i C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY If the entire area were to develoo to its maximum density. the 160 acres could produce 800 dwelling units ( 160 x 5) . These units could orovide for a 000ulation of 1816 oeoole based on the city's average household size of 2.27 oersons per occupied dwelling. Less than 1001 of the units will be occupied by full time residents if this area corresoonds with other areas of the city. This means that a 000ulation less than 1816 oeoole should be expected. The copulation can be expected to be similar whether It Is annexed to the city or not. Good Samaritan Village Is an existing retirement facility housing 132 oeoole. The facility occuoles 20 acres. The facility administrator adv 1 ses that there are III apartment units and a 59 bed sk 1 I 1 ed nursing facility at the community and could house a maximum of 226 residents. The c I tv 19 I n race I of of an ago I 1 cat 1 on for the 31 acres north of Good Samaritan to extend the Lakes Country Club by nine additional golf holes. No additional housing is or000sed. The 19 acre site located east of Carlotta Drive has been approved by the county for 82 single family lots. When these three situations are considered in the total then the likely maximum copulation for the area is reduced. The remaining vacant lend. some 90 acres could result In a maximum of 450 units plus 82 units gives a unit total of 532 or a oroiected maximum ooculatlon of 1208 plus the maximum 226 residents at Good Samaritan. This number ( 1434) could also be expected to be reduced due to the seasonal nature of the residents expected to purchase the units. The additional 1434 residents would represent an increase of 8.4% to the existing 17. 111 000ulation. The location distribution. density or growth rate will not be altered nor will the distribution by age. income. relialon. racial or ethnic grouo. 14. EMPLOYMENT This Is a residential area which will orovide a minimal amount of new Iona-term iobs. Jobs created could be expected to be service oriented ( landscape maintenance and pool service) . The existing Good Samaritan Village has 132 residents and 85 staff members to serve them with a oav roll in excess of 5900.000 per year . This staff includes doctors. nurses. administrative. maintenance oeoole and.-the like. 5 (IPA 87-5 t C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY Overall employment generated In this area will not be significant when compared with the city as a whole. An egua I amount of emp I oyment cou I d be expected whether the area Is annexed to the city or not. t5. FIOUSIN The area will be develooed In a residential manner whether or not it Is annexed to the city. The zonlno proposed allows a wide range in tvoe of housing units which may be constructed. The private sector can be expected to develoo types of housing which are needed at the time develop- ment occurs. The housing likely to be developed should approximate the existing mix In the city although no mobil home parks are anticipated In this area. , Creation of this housing will not Impact existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. This area when developed can be expected to generate additional vehicular movements. Expanding upon the discussion of Item #13 Population. the 532 single family units can be expected to produce 10 trios per day according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook for a total of 5320 trips ends per day. This same handbook projects 3.3 trip ends per day per unit In the retire- ment community for a total of 336 ( 111 X 3.3) trip ends. The area then could be expected to produce total traffic movements per day of 5686. This number could be expected to be reduced due to the seasonal nature of the sInoIe. famlly residents as well as the aging of residents at Good Samaritan. As well . the county Is oresently revlewlno a development proposal on the 40 acre parcel at the northeast corner of this area for a retirement facility (senior housing) . Said development is proposed at eight units per acre. These 320 units. although higher than the number of units expected In the base zone. would result In fewer residents and fewer traffic movements. If developed at five sinale family units oer acre the 40 acres would house 200 units and generate traffic of 2000 movements oer day. This 2000 figure Is included in the earlier oroiected total traffic movements of 5686. If developed at eiaht senior units oer acre the 4U acres will produce 320 units but create oniv 1056 daily traffic movements ile: 320 X trios oer day) . Therefore. total traffic movements created by development of tnis area should not exceed 5686 oer day and will likely be in a range between 4630 and 5686. 6 13pA e7-S a C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY b. 00"I pmeI of this area wlII result in a demand for new parking. No existing parking facilities will be affected. All new develop- ments will orovlde adequate on-site parking facilities. Compliance with the oarklno requirements of the city Zonino ordinance will assure adequate oarkina is provided to each development. c a d The area Is oresentiv served with Carlotta Drive connecting to 42nd Avenue which connects with Movlev Lane In the city. Carlotta Drive Is a local street (40 feet curb to curb) and 42nd Avenue Is Improved on the northerly half only. As noted In section 16 (A) above. this area can be expected to generate between 4630 and 5686 daily traffic movements. Creation of local streets. 40 feet curb to curb. provides for one lane In each direction as well as parking on both sides. Local streets of this width. according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, have maximum capacity of 10.000 vehicles per day. This area than can be adequately serviced by a collector local level street system. The existing half improved street portion of 42nd Avenue will no longer be needed as well as the southerly 350 feet of Carlotta Drive. These streets can then be vacated back to the adjacent parcels which dedicated or sold them to allow earlier street improve- ments. The recent OKS Traffic Study indicated that present level of service on Movlev Lane east of Cook Street and Eldorado Drive south of Country Club Drive is "A". Adding the proposed range of . traffic movements (4630 to 5686 movements per day) to either or both of these streets will not raise the LOS above acceptable limits. If the upper end of the range Is used and the traffic Is. split evenly then, the traffic movements on Movley increase from 9050 per day to 11 .873• (9050 plus 1 /2 of 5686) which increase the percentage of forecast capacity from 38% to 49.5%. This eauates to an LOS of "A" ( let below 60% of capacity) . Adding 50% of 5686 to the existing 6550 count on Eldorado south of Country Club will increase It to 9393 movements per day and increase its V/C ratio from 27% to 39%. This eouates to an LOS of "A". If we assume 100% or the 5686 goes in either direction then the numbers change as follows: ADT Vic LOS Movlev east of Cook 14.736 61% "8" Eldorado south of Country Club 12.236 51% "A" Annexation and develooment of this 160 acre area will have no significant adverse imuact upon existing transportation systems . 7 I I IPA 87-5 i C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY e, The present patterns of circulation will be altered. The existing street amass wl I i be change(j. An equally adequate street system will provide street service t:o the 160 acre area. Eliminating the connection of Hovl ey Lane to 42nd Avenue wi I 1 have no adverse Impact upon this area. At this time 42nd Avenue and Carlotta Drive provide the required street circulation for the movement of people and/or goods. mo other properties are serviced by these streets. Changing the circulation pattern will provide an equal and adequate level of access to the 160 acre area. The Increased traffic levels resulting from this proposal do not exceed volume to capacity ratio of 61%. The street widths proposed allow for parking lanes on each side. All oroJects will provide rem I red on-site parking. Parking on the streets. while It will be available. It will be an uncommon event. Six foot wide sidewalks will parallel the streets as presently exist an Carlotta Drive. As a result there will not be an Increase In traff I c hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 17. PUBLIC SERVICES a. The city contracts for fire Protection with the County of Riverside. Fire stations serving this area are located at Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive and at Eldorado Drive and Mlghway 11. Fire Protection services will be expanded as necessary. Funding for this expansion is Provided by payment of the fire mitigation fee of $100 Par residential unit as Provided by Ordinance 266. This fee is collected at time of building I:)ermit Issuance. The fire department w I 1 I bit ab 1 e to serve the new area as I t develops. This service would be available from the same providers whether or not the area is In the city. The city does Provide an uugraded service in the form of paramedics. The Cost of this service Is funded through a 248 per year fee Per dwelling unit. This fee was affirmatively voted for by the citizens of Palm Desert. These additional services will be available to this area If It Is annexed to the city. b. The city contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department for police service. As Population expands the city expands the amount of service it contracts for. The city council determines the extent of police protection purchased. The city's crime Prevention officer reviews all development proposals with a view to designing in desirable security features. EI GPA 87-5 A C/z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY The main Impact this Proposed area will create for the Police department will be a small amount of additional traffic. This traffic would result whether or not the area is annexed to the city. C. The Desert Sands Unified School District orovldes school facilities for this area. The number of students to be generated wi I l be the same whether It is annexed to the city or remains In the county. In either case all develoueent or000sals will be required to Pay a state school facilities fee of 11 .50 oer square foot of residential building area. d. The city. In con iunct I on with Coache I l a Valley Parks and Recreation District. orovldes recreational facilities In the City. Oevelooments In the PR (planned residential ) district typically Provide a substantial amount of orivate on-site recreation facilities ( let Good Samaritan village) . Other developments In this area will likely do so also. in addition. the city orovldes a wide range of Parks and other recreational facilities which will be available to residents of this area whether It is annexed to the city or not. Any Impact this area would have on exlstino facilities will be minimal . e. Public facilities ( roads) will be maintained by the city oubllc works department If it is annexed t the city otherwise It will be serviced by County of Riverside Roads Otcartment. The or000sed addition of one mile of local street to the city's existing system will not negativeiv Impact the ability of the city to maintain the streets. f. Other governmental services would be Provided by the City of Palm Desert if the area is annexed to the city. Existing city staff Is adequate to service this area ( ie: olannino, uullding and other city services) . If it is not anne-tj ,e area will continue to be serviced by County of Riverside. Indio ce. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE As discussed oreviously rhr .- iry has reauirements for new developments to oav fees to expand For which it Creates a need. This fee structure coupled with rr,- 25% of the Prauerty taxes which the city receives through the CC�,nty for all new areas annexed to the city tvpically results in a wash From a fiscal imuact uoint of view, 9 IIPA 87-5 i C/Z 87-I1 INITIAL STUDY 19. UTILITIES a. b. c. d. e. f The area will be served by the same utilities whether or not it is annexed to the city. These utiIftles are aware of the development Proposals currently under review by the county and have indicated that they can provide service to the area. 20. HUMAN HEALTH a i b Residential development of the Property will not create any health hazard or Potential health hazard. There will be no change in the level of community health care Provided. The area Is served by three hospitals which have more than adequate bed capacity to serve this area. The same hospitals will be available whether or not the area is annexed to the city. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The area. when developed. can be expected to provide housing for a fairly wide economic and demographic segment of the community. whether it Is annexed to the city or not this range of housing types can be expected to be similar. The development of the area may result in some agencies being required to render service. Given the low numbers of Persons who could be expected to require services ( le: no low cost 0 assisted housing is expected to be constructed In the area) then it is felt that the impact. If any. would be negligible. 22. AESTHETICS a. bilc The proposed PR (planned residential ) zoning allows a broad range of house types. The zoning also Permits one and two story structures as high as 30 feet. The citv's development review Process requires that all develooment Proposals be reviewed by planning commission at a oublir hearing at which time orooerty owners within 300 feet are Invited to comment on the overall Plans . The city's architectural review commission reviews develooment pr000sals on at least two occasions (Preliminary and final Plan review) . 10 GPA 87-5 a C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY Both the Planning commission and the architectural review commission are typically very interested in assuring compatibility of new Projects with existing developments. This Process alona with the high minimum standards the zoning ordinance sets for landscaolno. oarkina and architecture assure that future developments will be compatible with other development In the area. Annexation of the area Into the city will assure that future development are aesthetically acceptable and compatible. 23. LIGHT ANO GLARE Future development of the area will result In new light sources being Introduced Into an area which Is presently unlit. If annexed into the city. then all exterior lighting will be reviewed as a Part of the architectural review Process to assure that light does not spillover Into adjacent properties and otherwise impact the community. 24. ARCMEOLOGICAL/MISTORICAL As a Part of the north sphere specific Plan EIR a cultural resource Identification report was orepared by the Archeological Research Unit at University of California. Riverside. This report Identifies the subject area as being within an area which has the potential to be a culturally sensitive area. The report recommends that the city contract with the Eastern Information Center to review Projects on a site by site basis. A decision on this form of mitigation has not been made. The city can assure that all oroiects will be reviewed for compliance with CEOA and the archeological /historical impacts evaluated. 25. MANOATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. The annexation of the area to the city will not degrade the Quality of the environment or curtail the diversity in the environment . Oevelmvwnt of the site whether it is annexed to the city or not will result in similar impacts ile: eliminate it as ooen land) . Annexation and develounent of the area will not have significant imodcts which can not be mltivated to an insignificant level . b. Development of the area will result in vacant ooen land belna occupied by buildings . Tnls will be a long term impact. The area is not an area designated to be maintained as ooen space. therefore. it is felt that this imoaCt is not slaniflcant. Other ImpdCt5 Previously Identified herein can be mitlaated to Inslaniflcant levels. ' ll (?A 81-S I C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY C.. Z1i!' heoacts which have been Identified when considered with other d6v looment activities in the area will Increase the total cumulative Impact. however given the limited extent of the Impacts ( le: after being mitigated through aocroorlate conditions Imposed on develop- mental activity) it Is felt that the cumulation Impacts will not be significant. d. The orofect (annexation of the area to the city and future develoc- ment of the area with residential uses) will not cause substan• adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly. 12 Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission LAFC No. To accompany application for City of Palm Desert Annexation #23 Location address Applicant City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 346-C name address zip telephone no. Background Information: 1 . Briefly describe the nature of the proposal : Armexation of 160 acres to the City of Palm Desert 2. General Location Southeast quarter of Section 10, TSS ME (northwest comer Eldorado Drive (unimproved) and 42nd Avenue (unimproved)). 3. Describe the area, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics. Generally flat, vacant (except for Good Samaritan Village) . 4. Is the proposal a phase or a portion of a larger project? No If so, identify the larger project. 5. Does this proposal include property on which a previous zone change application, conditional use permit, public use permit, subdivision, or parcel map has been denied by the County Planning Commission? N/A Please explain. 6. Does this proposal include property on which a previous environmental assessment or environmental impact report has been submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department? Probably - several proposed developments are currently under review by the county and Good Samaritan Village may have had an EIR prepared some time ago. To the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. Date .' - ;' % - Signed project sponsor By Title.Use additional sheets, if necessary II. Assessment of Environmen6gl Imoact : Please answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. The applicant should be able to explain or substantiate his response to every question. ) A: Characteristics of the Natural Environment. Yes No Count 1 . Land (Topography, Soils , Geology) a. Does the project site involve a unique landform or / biological area , such as beaches, sand dunes, marshes, etc.?_ ✓ b. Will the project involve 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 known earthquake fault? _ 2. Water a. Is the project located within a flood plain? _ ✓ b. Does the project involve a natural drainage channel or stream bed? � T 3. Flora and Fauna a. Are there any rare or endangered species of plant life in the project area? _ b. Will any mature trees be removed or relocated? _ _I 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 refuge or reserve? 4. Potential Alteration to Natural Features a. Will the project result in the removal of natural resources for commercial purposes ( including rock , sand, gravel , oil , / trees, or minerals)? b. Will the project involve grading in excess of 300 cu. yds.? _ i g, Potential Direct Impac f Project. Yes No County Use 1 . Impact on Existing physical surroundings. a. Pollution Air water, noise land ✓ W 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 project expected to result in the generation of noise levels in excess of those currently existing in / the area? — — (4) Will the project involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including pesticides. herbicides, other toxic substances or radioactive material? — — b. Aeplicable Pollution Controls and Standards. Will the project require a permit or other approval from any of the following agencies? — State or Regional Water Resources Control Board — _V_// County Health Officer — JL Air Pollution Control District - J City or County Planning Commission — U. S. Environmental Protection Agency — County Airport Land Use Commission - 1 (2) Does the project require variance from established j environmental standards (e.g. , air quality, noise, ✓/ water quality)? — — 2. Impact on existing facilities and services. a. Circulation. (1 ) Is the project expected to cause noticeable increase in pedestiran traffic or a change in pedestrian patterns? — — (2) Will the project result in noticeable changes in vehicular traffic patterns or volumes (including bicycles)? — — (3) Will the project involve the use of off-the-road vehicles of any kind (such as trail bikes)? — — b. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal . (1 ) Will the project entail the acquisition of water / from wells or surface sources for commercial and/or non-domestic use? - -3- C. Oemand for Se� . ice , rom Special Ois _ricts an, _ ir Municipalities or County. (1 ) Will the project require the extension of existing public utility lines? (2) Will the project require public services, from an agency, district or public utility which is currently operating at or near capacity? _ 3. Miscellaneous a. Will the project employ equipment which could interfere / with existing communication and/or defense systems? b. Is the project located within the flight path or noise / impact area of an airport? _ ✓_ C. Potential Indirect Impact of Project. 1. Land Use a. Is the proposed project expected to result in other changes / in land use either on or off the project site? b. Could the project serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas, or increase in development intensity of already developed areas (examples include the introduction of new or expanded public utilities , new / industry, commercial facilities or recreation activities)? c. Is the project adjacent to or within 500 ft. of an existing public facility or site for same? IJ d. Is the project inconsistent with any adopted general plan, / specific plan or present zoning? _ ✓__ e. Does the project involve lands currently protected under / the Williamson Act or an Open Space Easement? _ J Z. Visual Impact a. Is the site for the proposed project adjacent to a designated Scenic Highway or within a Scenic Corridor? _ b. Will the project obstruct any scenic view from existing residential areas, public lands, or public roads? _ 3. Social/Cultural Impact a. Will the project require the relocation of housing or business in order to clear the project site? b. Does the project site include or affect a known historical or archeological site? -4- III. Statement as to Significant Environmental Effect. If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section II , but believe the .project will have no significant adverse environmental effect, indicate your reasons be,l ow. `t-, , c.•<=mil To the best of my knowledge the above information is true and Complete_ ' _ �? Signed 1. �' Date: _ _ _ ./ g - Project Sponsor) By Title ci -5- RESOLUTION NO. 88-9 EXHIBIT "A" NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14. Division 6, Article 7. Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code. CASE NO: C/Z 87-11 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CIrY OF PALM DESERT PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexatlon zoning of 160 acres in the southeast quarter of Section 10 Ile: the area south of the Lakes Country Club. north of 42nd Avenue and east of the present city boundary) . City zoning shall be similar to the existing county zoning in that the entire area will be prezoned planned residential five dwellina units per acre (PR-5) except for the 20 acre Good Samaritan Villaae site which will be zoned planned residential ten units per acre (PR- 10) and the 40 acre property In the northeast corner of the subject area whicn in addition to the PR-5 zone will have a Senior Overlay (S.0. 1 which will permit senior housinq to ba constructed at densities above the hase znne and the 11 .-Icres north of Goon Samaritan which will be prezoned PR-4 (planned residential four units per acre) . The Director of the Department of Community Development. City of Palm Desert. California. has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this findina. Mitigation measures. If any. Included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects. may also be found attached. RAMON A.D Z DAiF. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /dig 3 COMMENTS om a I61910'62469 cdy V We11, 44450 ELDORADO DRIVE INDIAN WELLS,CALIFORNIA 92210 May 9, 1988 Mr . Ken Mohr LOCAL AGENCY FORM ATION COMMISSION Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street , 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3651 Attention: LAFCO COMMISSIONERS Re: Palm Desert Annexation 23-LAFCO 88-22-4 Dear Mr . Mohr : e is recommends to the Local The City of Indian W Agency 1 Formation Commission that they deny Annexation #23 to the City of Palm Desert based on the lack of Palm Desert ' s consistency with local circulation systems . Specifically, the proposed Annexation has implied in it future City of Palm Desert actions to eliminate capacity and future access on Avenue 42 and Eldorado Drive. Such contemplated actions by the City of Palm Desert conflict with the circulation elements of the City of Indian Wells and County of Riverside. ' It is our opinion that the integrity of the local and regional circulation system should be maintained. Any effort to modify such circulation systems should be coordinated with proper regional agencies required CEQA Environmental Impact Report evaluation and General Plan Amendments. It is clear that the City of Palm Desert desires to set into action with this annexation, the first of a series of City actions which significantly affect the City of Indian Wells ' adopted circulation and land use elements. Mr. Ken Mohr May 9, 1988 Page 2 The City of Indian Wells respectfully asks the Commission to deny the Palm Desert application or defer action until such time as a full environmental review is coordination in order to divulge the full intent of Palm Desert ' s actions regarding the interacting circulation system of Palm Desert , Indian Wells and the County of Riverside. Respectfully submitted , (ar/dfy A.I .C.P. Planning Director HMS: ftg cc : CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY I LAW OFFICES NOSSAMAN. GUTHNER, KNOX 8 ELLIOTT LOS ANGEL[! CENTER TOWER WASHINGTON, O.C. THIRTY-IIRST FLOOR 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE SIXTH !ROOK MS SOUTH IIOUCRO• STREET 11.0 19!• . CT, N. W. LOS ANGELES. CA 90071.1602 SUITE 1260 w•S MINOTO N, D.C. C. 2003e-ee99 12131 el2•7600 COSTA MESA. CA 02626-1901 12021 223.9100 17141 630-0000 SAN FRANCISCO SACRAMCNTO TELECOFIER Ilia 6.6.023* ?MIND FLOOR SUITE 300 100 THE EM BARCAOCRO 1010 'L• STRCET SwN IR•n C15C O, CA 94105.1296 SACRAMENT O. C• 9561♦ 141e1 613.2700 May 12, 1988 191e1 .+:-O Z3e WRITER'S DIRECT D1Al NUMBER REFER TO FILE NUMBER SO474-004 Via Messenger Mr. Gillar Boyd, Chairman Local Agency Formation Commission Riverside County Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3651 Re: Proposed Annexation No. 23 to the City of Palm Desert (LAFCO No. 88-22-4) Dear Chairman Boyd and Commissioners: Our client, Sunrise Company, is the owner of the 640* acre 'Sunterra Project" which is located adjacent to the territory to be included in the proposed annexation No. 23 to the City of Palm Desert. The of this brief letter is to formally state our purpose Y client 's concern over the subject annexation so that this may be included in the analysis of the proposal which is to be prepared by your staff, and, secondly, to notify the Commission that Sunrise Company representatives intend to testify at any public hearing which may be scheduled to consider the application. The City of Palm Desert has already prezoned the subject property in anticipation of annexation and is preparing to amend the circulation element of its general plan so as to delete Eldorado north of Avenue 42 and Avenue 42 as a major east/west collector street, as now currently provided in the existing general plan circulation elements of the City of Indian Wells, City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, and as described in the SCAG transportation model. The main entrance I NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX 8 ELLIOTT Mr. Gillar Boyd, Chairman Local Agency Formation Commission Riverside County May 12, 1988 Page 2 to the Sunterra Project is at the intersection of Eldorado and Avenue 42. The effect of the changes described above have an obvious impact on the project. In addition, changes to the circulation pattern in the area would have obvious consequences for traffic circulation in the region. Given such consequences, it is hardly appropriate to base such a change on the perfunctory :negative declaration prepared by the City of Palm Desert in connection with the proposed prezoning and general plan amendments. On December 15, 1987 this office communicated the concerns of Sunrise Company to the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert. A copy of that letter is attached hereto and the comments reflected in the letter are incorporated by reference herein. Should you or your staff have any questions regarding the above, we would be pleased to respond. We respectfully request notification of any public hearing which may be held by your Commission on the proposed annexation. V tr C J. yn II NOS GUT , KNOX 8 ELLIO JJF: ls Enclosure cc: Ken Mohr, Executive Officer 1137F DEMPSEY • HAHN CORPORATION CORPORATION January 23, 1989 Stephen R. Smith 4-275 Prickly Pearland Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Steve, Would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your time spent with us last week. We appreciated your update and would like to be kept on your mailing list to be kept appraised of any changes or activity taking place that would affect our land. Thanks again for your time and assistance and we will be watching your progress with the Sun Rise Corporation closely. �-� Sincere . � Gerard Dempse� cc:Diana, Todd 140 FIRST STREET BATAVIA, ILLINOIS 60510 879-1030 AREA CODE 312 <j 1> DEMPSEYHAHN CORPORATION CORPORATION August 8 , 1988 HuG 121988 COMMJNRY DivELDPMENT DLPARTMLNT CITY OF PALM DESERT Mr. Steve Smith, Assoc. Planner CITY OF PALM DESERT 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Smith, We have not heard from you recently regarding our property on Hovley Lane and are curious as to the status of the road question and how it affects our 10 acres at the corner of Hovley Lane and Carlotta Drive, We would appreciate having an update on the current status of both the road as well as the Indian Wells and Palm Desert dispute over the boundary lines . Any assistance or information that you can provide at this time would be of help to bring us up to date on current developments. Sincerely, DEMPSEY/ �RPORATION Gerard R. Dempse cty. Treasurer GRD/cs 140 FIRST STREET BATAVIA, ILLINOIS 60510 879-1030 AREA CODE 312 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 March 2, 1989 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 23 LAFCO NO. 88-22-4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a resolution approving an annexation of approximately 160 acres to the City of Palm Desert generally located north of 42nd Avenue, east of the present city boundary, south of the Lakes Country Club and west of the future El Dorado Drive. The annexation was initiated by the City of Palm Desert on behalf of a group comprising a substantial percentage of the registered voters in the area. The reasons include: I . The proposed territory to be annexed is adjacent to and substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and, therefore, represents a logical expansion of the city's boundary. 2. The area is predominately urban in character and requires a higher level of urban services than are currently offered by the County of Riverside. The City of Palm Desert can provide these services which include higher levels of police, fire, paramedic and general code enforcement and participation in the local Palm Desert political process. The property is more particularly described as SE 114 Section 10 T5S R6E. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 23, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested Oersons are invited to attend and be heard. Any land owner within the territory or any registered voter may file a written protest against the proposal with the City Clerk at any time prior to the public hearing. 11AFC0 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • County of Riverside • (714) 787-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET • 12TH FLOOR • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 June 22, 1988 JUN 2 4 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARiMENJ Mr. Hardy M. Strozier, Planning Director On Df PALM DESERT City of Indian Wells 44-950 Eldorado Drive Indian Wells, California 92210-7497 Mr. Ramon A. Diaz, Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Mr. Jack Conlin Sunrise Company 75-005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Subject: LAFCO #88-22-4--Annexation 23 to City of Palm Desert and LAFCO #88-23-4--Annexation 11 to City of Indian Wells Dear Sirs: As a follow-up to our meeting of June 17, 1988, 1 would like to reiterate the understanding reached between LAFCO staff and the Cities of Palm Desert and Indian Wells with respect to the above-referenced proposals. 1 . The pending proposals exclude the unincorporated territory east of Cook Street between 42nd Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, which thereby would result (if approved) in the creation of an island of unincorporated territory. 2. LAFCO is prohibited from approving proposals which would result in the creation of unincorporated islands unless specific findings are made. First, the finding must be made that by not allowing the island to be created it would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community; and, secondly, the finding that the proposed island is so located that it cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city (with respect to the pending proposals, it appears doubtful LAFCO could make the latter of the two findings) . i June 22, 1988 Page Two 3. The City of Palm Desert recently submitted a proposal to annex the unincorporated area east of Cook Street between 42nd Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, which is presently within its sphere of influence. LAFCO staff has not determined that this proposal is complete. Assuming the proposal is deemed acceptable, we would anticipate scheduling this matter for hearing in September or October. 4. Inasmuch as the three proposals, when considered together, do not propose the creation of an island of unincorporated territory, then it would be reasonable to schedule all of the pending oroposals for hearing when they can be heard concurrently (September/October) . It is my hope that the foregoing points are mutually understood by all parties. If you should have any questions, or be in need of clarification, please do not hesitate to give me a call . Sincerely, X � Ke Mohr Executive Officer KM:bg c: Supervisor Larson Ed Studor r I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346.0611 June 10, 1988 Mr. Ken Mohr, Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 4080 Lefton Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3651 Re: LAFCO 88-22-4 Dear Mr. Mohr: Enclosed is the written material which may help you to understand the history Of this annexation request. Much of the information is not in written form in that it was generated during meetings held at Supervisor Larson's Indio office. Basically the chronology of events is as follows: I. June, 1987, owners of Good Samaritan Village, Inc. , filed written request for annexation with the city. 2. October-November of 1987 prezoning and general plan work was processed through planning commission. 3. January, 1988, city received Board of Supervisors resolution opposing City of Palm Desert proposal to close Hovley Lane as part of general plan and prezonirg. 4. January, 1988, Palm Desert City Council adopts prezonirg ordinance to facilitate annexation application and continues for 90 days amendment to circulation element. 5. March, 1988, Palm Desert files annexation application with LAFC0. 6. March and April, 1988, Palm Desert officials meet with Supervisor Larson and delineate our position and concerns. Mr. Kerr Mohr, Executive Officer Local Agency Fbnnaticn chum;ss on June 10, 1988 7. . April 6, 1988, Supervisor Larson writes to Sunrise Co. expressing "real frustration" at learning from City of Palm Desert representatives that the current plan for Sunterra will eliminate E1 Dorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue. 8. May, 1988, at request of LAFOD Executive Director city council tables the matter of the circulation element which would close Hovley Lane. We trust this information may be of assistance to you. We look forward to meeting with you Friday, June 17, 1988. Very t�rullyy yours, Stephen R. Smith Associate Planner /tm Enclosures t 2 P (Nov @q ftua Bann 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT_,CALIFORNIA 92260 I TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 I May 17, 1988 o V \ V) n m � �_ a s „ Mr. Ken Mohr, Executive Officer o ¢ NZ ��< Local Agency Formation Cur ssion � 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor cr ¢ Riverside, CA 92501-3651 u� � n Ot V m a w Re: LAFrO No. 88-23-4 M = � �� N _; ° v ME Gib Annexation #11 to City of Indian Wells a w o o = cc E Dear Mr. Mohr: S86L aunm'008C Wioj Sd Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted annexation request. The City of Palm Desert opposes the proposed annexation. The application highlights the general nature of proposed development, however, it fails to delineate that Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue has been unilaterally eliminated by the City of Indian Wells. This is a designated "arterial street" on the circulation element to the county general plan. Eldorado would be the only north-south street from Fred Waring Drive between Cook Street and Washington Street, a distance of three miles. The Superior Court in Indio, Judge Jamin, recently determined that the Indian Wells general plan was invalid. The prezoning of the subject property and the actions taken to delete Eldorado Drive from the county circulation plan then were not based on a valid general plan. This whole action then becomes suspect. Can the findings necessary to delete an arterial street from the county circulation element be made when the general plan of the city taking the action has been determined to be invalid? On this basis it is the position of the City of Palm Desert that this matter should not be processed nor scheduled for hearing until County Counsel has done a complete investigation to determine the validity of the actions taken by the City of Indian Wells (ie: the prezoning and the amendments to the various circulation plans deleting Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue). Paragraph 'F' of the attachment to the application in a very confusing manner discusses cn-site circulation and access. For clarification you should be aware that this total 638 acre development as described in paragraph 'B' of the application attachment is to take access from only one street (42nd Avenue) where it intersects with the northerly leg of Eldorado Drive. No vehicular access is provided from the east, west or south. i /;Z�,of��73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, GALIFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 May 17, 1988 J M O Ln Mo as i ra y�j mrl2CP IL d * 7 U Mr. Ken Mohr, Executive Officer Q e ro . "' Local Agency Formation Carmission _o Q 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor P $ Riverside, CA 92501-3651 s - v d d s h � o r o as o Re: LAFOD No. 88-22-4 r w 0 9 Q E a A U o 10 N m w m u c° Annexation #23 to City of Palm Desert w E c t0 ¢d _< ,d [1 ¢ �� o m n m a o ¢a a v1 d Dear Mr. Mohr: SM aunt '0086 wiuj Sd. This letter is pursuant to your inquiry concerning the possible closure or diversion of Hovley Lane. It was very disconcerting to receive Mr. Studor's memo of May 3, 1988 which apparently is based on the actions of the Board of Supervisors on January 12, 1988. In April, 1988 representatives of the City of Palm Desert met with Supervisor Larson and Warren Stallard, Indio Office Branch Manager of the Road Department, several times and it was felt that the matter had been resolve d and it would not be an issue regarding the above noted annexation. Notwithstanding this apparent misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Studor, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in a spirit of cooperation and as a result of your request "tabled" the matter of the possible closure or diversion of Hovley Lane at its May 12, 1988 meeting. We trust that this action on the part of the city will allow you to set this matter for hearing at your June 1988 meeting. We look forward to reviewing Mr. Studor's comments concerning Annexation #11 to the City of Indian Wells (LAFOD #88-23-4) in that that request includes a city approved development plan calling for the elimination of Eldorado Drive which to quote Mr. Studor's May 3, 1988 memo, ". . .both E1 Dorado and 42nd Avenue are currently designated on the County General Plan as Arterial/Major Highways, and have been so designated for many years. In fact, when the Lakes Country Club was developed, just northerly of this annexation, half width improvements to E1 Dorado in accordance with Arterial standards were required of the developer. We believe that these roads are essential elements of the regional circulation network, and are opposed to the pre-annexation plan to terminate them at the annexation boundary. " ' MR. INN M3M • LAFM NO. 88-22-4 MAY 17, 1988 Can you please forward to us any comments that Mr. Studor may make to your agency regarding the Indian Wells annexation (LAFOD #88-23-4). Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Steve Smith of my staff. Yours ly, N A. DI DIRECPOR OF 0.MN[IITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/SRS/tm 2 70� 3EPARTMENTAL LETTER i S:ft COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE -• May 3, 1988 TO: Ken Mohr , Executive officer LAFCO MAY 41988 FROM: Edwin Studor , Transportation Planner Road Department COMMI)NIiY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT RE: LAFCO 88-22-4 - Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 We have been informed that an annexation application has been submitted for the above referenced case involving an area of 160 acres adjacent to the City of Palm Desert northerly of Hovely Lane. The Road Department is concerned with this annexation due to the associated pre-annexation plan which proposes to terminate both E1 Dorado and 42nd Avenue in the annexation area. It is our understanding that the Palm Desert City Council has not yet endorsed this plan, but we are very concerned that the annexation proceed until this issue is resolved. The reason for our concern is that both E1 Dorado and 42nd Avenue are currently designated on the County General Plan as Arterial/Major Highways, and have been so designated for many years. In fact, when the Lakes Country Club was developed, just northerly of this annexation, half width improvements to E1 Dorado in accordance with Arterial standards were required of the developer . We believe that these roads are essential elements of the regional circulation network, and are opposed to the pre- annexation plan to terminate them at the annexation boundary. This matter has been brought before the Board of Supervisors which has taken action to oppose this plan. Attached for your information is a copy of the Board Minute Order regarding this matter , together with a copy of the circulation map from the County General Plan dealing with this area. Please keep the Road Department informed regarding any further actions concerning this case. I can be reached at extension 2519, if you have any questions. ES: lg Attachments cc: Supervisor Larson 4Ramon Diaz - Palm Desert`. Les Cleveland- CVAG Warren Stallard - Road Dept . ( Indio) f 3r11TTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPER\, �$ Cb))rJTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: LeRoy D. Smoot SUBMITTALDATE: January 5, 199e ° _ •° Road Commissioner and County Surveyor ' SUBJECT: City of Palm Desert Pre-Annexation Plan RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1 ) T'ppose the proposed pre-annexation plan by the City of Palm Desert , which would preclude the future extensions of both 42nd Avenue and E1 Dorado Drive in the Palm Desert/ Indian Wells area , pending further review and consideration. 2) Authorize the Road Department to express our concerns regarding the impacts of this proposal on regional circulation to the appropriate public officials/agencies . JUSTIFICATION% It has recently come to our attention that the city of Palm Desert is currently considering a plan for the annexation of approximately 160 acres located just northerly of Hovely Lane. As part of the City's pre-annexation plan, they are proposing to block off the easterly end of Hovely Lane and shunt traffic north and east in a circuitous pattern through proposed residential developments. The plan would preclude the southerly extension of El Dorado Drive as well as the westerly extension of 42nd Avenue to Hovely Lane. This is a dramatic departure from the current General Plan for the area and may have serious repercussions with regard to regional circulation. We are particularly concerned that this action is apparently being undertaken without any notification of or consultation with affected agencies. The Road Department received (CONTINUED) LDS :ES: lg Le Sy D. Smoot Road Commissioner and County Surveyor MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On motion of Supervisor Dunlap, seconded by Supervisor Younglove c,((/ and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above matter is approved as recommended. Ayes: Dunlap, Ceniceros, Younglove and Abraham Noes: None Gerald A. Maloney Absent: Larson Clerk of the Board Date: I January 12 , 1988 By: r'nc . xc: Rbad Deputy Prev. Agn. ref. Depts. Comments Dist. AGENDA NO. OISTTRIRUTION: Sturior 4th FOAM nnn218b 4 0 7 J Form 11A January 5, 1988 Page 2 no notice of the pending action and only became aware of the proposal from a report in the local newspaper indicating that the City ' s Planning Commission had already recommended approval of the proposal . In checking with the County Planning Department , they indicated that they too had received no notice. We understand that a traffic study evaluating this proposal has been prepared , however , we have received no information to support such a radical change in planning for area circulation. It is, therefore, our recommendation that your Board oppose the pre-annexation plan at this time, pending further review and consideration. OFFICE OF THE ROAD COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LeRoy D. Smoot County Administrative Center Road Commissioner and 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor County Surveyor P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 (714) 787-6554 January 20, 1988 City Council City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Proposed Pre-Annexation Plan- El Dorado Drive at 42nd Avenue Honorable Councilmembers : This is to advise you that on January 12 , 1988 , the Riverside County Board of Supervisors took action opposing the proposed pre-annexation plan for the for the area near El Dorado Drive at 42nd Avenue . Attached for your information is a copy of the minutes describing the action taken by the Board . We are particularly concerned with the element of the plan which proposes to terminate both El Dorado and 42nd Avenue in the annexation area . Both of these routes are currently shown on the County General Plan as arterial/major highways and have been so designated for many years . With increasing land use densities and accompanying traffic volumes, it would seem ill advised to delete major components from the regional circulation network without substantial analysis and discussion . J r City Council City of Palm Desert Page 2 January 20, 1988 We would like the opportunity to review any studies that have been prepared addressing the impacts of this proposal as well as any alternatives that may have been considered . In addition , we would appreciate an opportunity to meet with your staff to discuss the rational supporting this proposal . It is my hope that by working together we can come to a mutually acceptable decision regarding this issue . Sincerely, LeRoy D. Smoot Road Commissioner and County Surveyor LDS:ES: lg Attachment cc : Supervisor Larson Warren Stallard 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 April 12, 1988 Mr. Doug Vierra LAFCO 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California 92501 Re: Annexation #23 Dear Mr. Vierra: Enclosed are the property owner petitions that you requested this date. If you should have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, STEPHEN R. SMITH ASSOCIATE PLANNER /tm PETITION .11�'��e� .1�C r init 1 8 1g88 TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA aa41a0nur ui4,1911,e01 rilt!mm.ni GM ut r,MM DISIm In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Section 56000, owners of all subJect property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: APN 632-030-010 Petitioner ' reserves the right to withdraw at �ny time prior to Its finalization. Date: By l Address] llcP_yL�c;i' ��t.Le�y J �11,70 r PETITION MAN 1 1 1988 TO: : THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, OAL`I'F I IAI AI WWI In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Section 56000, owners of all subJect property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: APN 632-030-011 Petitioner ' I ....reserves the right to withdraw at $ny time prior to Its finalization. 1 Dates By: ��14� G f Address: 7`� —` •Oy �' fsS1�11� �� L�2� `ZNQ-/84 WELLS s cRL1i= q2_R/0 PETITION 1`0: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Section 56000, The Lakes Country Club Association, Inc. owners of all subject Property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said Property be annexed to the City of palm Desert. Legal Description: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 17951, as shown by Map on file in Book 101, Page 7 and 8, of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California (see attached map) Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time Prior to its finalization. Date: 12/2/87 n " By: EDWARD 0. ETHELL, P esident Address: 161 Old Ranch Road Palm Desert, CA 92260 PETITION T0: , THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Section 56000, Sandpiper Homes Ltd. owners of ail subject property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: APN 632-030-016 Petitioner ' reserves the right to withdraw at $ny time prior to Its _ ' finalization. 1 Dates _ " \0��ti (S 1 `, - Q\ � -- ^ BY: <�a•Jl1PA-2 Auz.S Addresser,(^� y �c � *` • PETITION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Section 56000, owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: APN 632-030-010 Petitioner ' reserves the right to withdraw at qny time prior to Its finalization. / Date: Address: 70 e P E T I T 1 0 N TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY" OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Sections 35000 to 35400, .. Tha Fv liil hL'r ai1S,UA(�-SaAiari tan c[1Li-E:�y-r-LSn�aSl F1L'F� r-�--.-:�.o,�:'I-Di;;@�:, Sa1 .f ornia as Good Sariariian `/' 11age owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: Parcel #3 and Lettered Lot D of Parcel Map e17951 as shown by Map on file in Book 101, Pages 7 and 8 of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California. Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to Its finalization. Dated this 21st day of April , 1987. THE E . LUTIIERA14 GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY By: 0vsv ��^�..,420,-- Treasurer Address: _The Ev. Lutheran Good Samaritan Societv 1000 Hest Avenue North Sioux Falls , South Dakota 571.04 Telephone: (605) 336-29c8 MR. KEN MOHR LAFl7D NO. 88-23-4 MAY 17, 19M As you are aware the City of Palm Desert was considering closing Hovley Lane where it connects with 42nd Avenue. The reason was to prevent the movement of Sunterra traffic directly to Cook Street. We have had several meetings with Supervisor Larson with Road Branch Office Manager Warren Stallard in attendance. Mr. Stallard's position was that the future Hovley Lane connection to 42nd Avenue is critical to the east-west regional circulation. As a result this city in a spirit of cooperation has tabled the proposed action. We very much look forward to reviewing Mr. Stallard's analysis of the potential impact on regional circulation that the elimination of Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring and 42nd Avenue would create. We trust that you will request a detailed analysis of this potential impact from Mr. Stallard prior to setting the matter for hearing. In summary, it is the position of the City of Palm Desert that this matter should not be set for hearing until the City of Indian Wells adopts a prezoning ordinance and resolutions to amend the general plan that are based on an adapted city general plan that meets all of the requirements of state law. Secondly, under no circumstances should the county permit the elimination of Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue. If, by approving an annexation request LAFCO would facilitate the deletion of this street, then the annexation must be denied. We would also point out that on the map attached to your request for c ments the wedge-shaped parcel of land immediately west of the subject site should reflect that the city limit of Palm Desert abuts the subject site south of the storm channel (Palm Desert Annexation #21, LAFCO No. 87-07-4). Thank you for the opportunity to comment. For the record we request that you send this city a notice of hearing and copy of the staff report as soon as they are available. Yours t�u ly� RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF CONMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAD/SRS/tm cc: Supervisor Patricia Larson Supervisor Norton Younglove, LAFCD Member Supervisor Walter Abraham, LAFOO Member Mrs. Pat Murphy, LAFCO Member Mr. Warren Stallard, Road Branch Office Manager Mr. LeRoy Smoot, Road Ccrmiissicner 2 1AFW -- - - - LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . County of Riverside • (714) 787-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET • 12TH FLOOR • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 March 29, 1988 Mr. Stephen Smith Associate Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: LAFCO 88-22-4--Annexation 23 to City of Palm Desert Dear Mr. Smith: Enclosed are copies of the map and legal description for the above referenced annexation proposal . The County Surveyor' s Office has reviewed the map and legal description and found them unacceptable. They have been marked for correction, and a copy of Mr. Ehe' s memorandum is enclosed for your reference. Please feel free to contact Mr. Ehe, should you have any questions. Please return all corrected copies of the map and legal description (15 copies of the map plus a reproducible, and 15 copies of the legal description) to this office for further processing of the application. Si erely/,�� LtdThorson Executive Secretary Enclosures EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. 23 CITY OF PALM DESERT LAFCO NO. 88-22-4 That portion of Section 10 T5S R6E S.B.M. , being the Southeast quarter of said Section 10, more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 10, thence S. 890 46'05"W. , a distance of 2658.54' along the Southerly section line of Section 10 to the South quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence N. 00 04121"E. , a distance of 2655.56' to the center of Section 10; Thence N. 890 45'26"E. , a distance of 2658.07' to the East quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence S. 00 03'45"W. , a distance of 2656.05' to the point of Beginning. Area equals 160 acres, more or less. PETITION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA in accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Section 56000, owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: APN 632-030-010 Petitioner ' reserves the right to withdraw at qny time prior to Its finalization. Date: /v� �/1 17 By: 1� Addres�z 1�>276 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. Rm 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 �g FROM: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive F k i3 1 7 1988 Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMUNITY UBILLUMLHI b[V1'ft1 iL:VI SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliancec13ffli'LIS&Rllon 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. Project Title/Common Name: Preannexation Zone Change - Annexation #23 Date of Project Approval : Zone Change approved 2/11/88 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted) : N/A Contact Person: Stephen Smith, Associate Planner Protect Location: Southeast 1/4 Section 10 T55 R6E Project Description: Preannexation zoning to facilitate annexation of area to city. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project ( ) will , (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental Impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental impact report may be examined at the above city hall address. X_ A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures ( ) were, (X) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4 A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this project. r Vt JVrT:KVw. . ALP. C ,nmurvi F/ bet" 51 t1ture Title FEB 1 61988 ., rLeRnmrhrenr�o%w 6liPER1.1:SPR' Ceurt�•M R v^rsiM,State of Oe^'- I� Date Received for Filing Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. �i;,c Otl Y cLUE Dal e y� e a cc r O 0 HOVLEY LANE r �•J W o K Y MAP NOT O SCALE: ilaL PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT COUNT OF RIVERSIDE XXI 160 ACRES r PROP. W P.D. CITY ANNEXATION J ;•;LL :;•O W :•Y QJ W •S:.. 2z •: O J :'-V Q a COUNTY OF RIVE R, •• E. ■ INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT 15 14 ■ • 1 • Drawn y: DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 ,y �.�� TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO SE 1/4 of SECTION 10 T68 R6E SCALE: RAMON A. DIAZ COMM.DEV./PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM DESERT 1'-800' EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. 23 CITY OF PALM DESERT IAF'CO NO. 88-22-4 That portion of Section 10 T5S R6E S.B.M., being the Southeast quarter of said Section 10, more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 10, thence S. 89° 46'05"W., a distance of 2658.54' along the Southerly section line of Section 10 to the South quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence N. 0° 04'21"E. , a distance of 2655.56' to the center of Section 10; Thence N. 890 45'26"E., a distance of 2658.07' to the East quarterpoint of Section 10; Thence S. 00 03'45"W., a distance of 2656.05' to the point of Beginning. Area equals 160 acres, more or less. T cLUe 011 s ' a O NOVLEY LANE - K Y MAP 1 NOT 10 SCALE: µ IWTH PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT •:? •N.89°45'26"E 2658.0 ' COUNT OF RIVERSIDE NOTE: •: This plat was prepared from record data only and does not represent N 160 ACRES a survey or the :•> PROP. Property shown hereon. • o P.D. CITY ANNEXATION J ' y :•Sw ::::: V %LL r :•: UJ rn w :•:z � is U o•:: .:•: N ex X.:•i O Point of Beginning ••iz S 890.46'05" 658.54' COUNTY OF RIVER, •• SIR�;.:.: : ::•. ■ INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT 15 14 1� ■ 1 ■ LAFCO NO.88-22- DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 Dr■wn '': �,,dn� TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO .SE 114 of SECTION 10 T8S R6E SCALE: RAMON A. DIAZ COMM.DEV./PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM DESERT 1'-600' errylA .- '1 2 %�.v' F l r cbuNrr OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR RIVERSIDN, COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE LeRoy D. Smoot MAILINGADDRESS CENTER P.D. O. BOX 1090 ROAD COMMISSIONER&COUNTY SURVEYOR RI v ERSIOE. CALIFORNIA 92E02 TELEPHONE Ill<I 707•9994 March 31 , 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Steve Smith Dear Mr. Smith: Enclosed please find a copy of Parcel Map 101/7-8. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Greg Ehe of Survey Division at (714) 787-6397. Sincerely,- �p,�•�I�iVvuo''� William G. Stephenson Senior Land Survevor WGS:GSE:wob Enclosures J ' •K (_71*5'2G' E 'TIED AS f4G1.2'1' TION 10. i m 3 PARCEL 4 { QQ SO.-TO ACRES GROSS JI=� q 30.59 ACRES NET �L' } 0:( W in 71 Li: ho WIF � r! Yu � 3Eµ4 4 Wd FI j- J1� -W0 - LL 6G.GD' WW M Wz _ NB9`44'O5"E 9Ei-� AR- -�0000' F-F'FQ lJ 4K"'b �0Q W.Y T� Is.1�' W 18. IJ "W Q i•u m PARCEL 3 N r g } Zp-00 ACRES GROSS 1�I biQ �' 19.40 ACRES NET ft .b e z U 9 AT •C' {,. PARCEL 2 �NlY•�4'OS•E �Q 3.21 ACRE5 GROSS 4Wt2PE : I D.19 ACRES NET 1ao.or W= Ott� PARCEL 1 N�1`44'OD'E t�` 1 g-p CRES NE /r T �•�� 7R- ---------- low l0. — ... 'D R.GE,ID93T ... (N rl•4ti'OS"E 7 .1/1.' ��.�� R V.M. 44/4G-G� ►�QVLlY L/►NiE �, 114 +• ,"CCEPT AS6E THI 9WITMiRIN ION �C L.SNE Ofr THE 1 - row NOT t G lG N SYiYr'Of"E FOR THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE FD.2"1.P +i fiCa TArO, t RT6R,}jlEGTICN 1C T. i S. R.i E.,3.D M. MR t.��pp �WJWTUD o5, U REOJRDS OF R1VER'910E �t1NTY, WA$ SED OORNIEA� %MCTKYN 10 pEA.FtINOS $MOWN raEREON. RR T L 3� YI V%r. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 March 31, 1988 Ms. Lynda Thorson Executive Secretary Local Agency Formation Caimission 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3651 Re: LAFOD 88-22-4--Annexation to City of Palm Desert Dear Ms. Thorson: Enclosed are corrected copies of the map and legal description for the above noted application. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, i Stephen R. Smith Associate Planner SRS/tm Enclosures TO: LYNDA THORSON MARCH 28, 1988 FROM: GREG EHE, ROAD & SURVEY DEPT. RE: CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 23 LAFCO NO. 88-22-4 MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ARE BEING RETURNED FOR THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS. MAP REVISIONS: 1 . PLEASE MAKE CHANGES AS INDICATED IN RED. 2 . PLEASE SHOW THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ON THE ANNEXATION' S XBOUNDARY. PLEASE DRAW THE MAP TO A STANDARD ENGINEERING SCALE ( 1 '= 100" , 1 ' =200" , ETC. ) . LEGAL REVISIONS: PLEASE MAKE CHANGES AS INDICATED IN RED. 2 . PLEASE GIVE A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OR THE ANNEXATION' S BOUNDARY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL GREG EHE OF THE SURVEY DEPARTMENT AT 787-6397 . s 1`7 �° PETITION TO: , THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Section 56000, Sandpiper Homes, Ltd. owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Descrlptlonc APN 632-030-016 Petitioner ' reserves the right to withdraw at ny time prior to Its finalization. Date: '"\Oh l5c \clY,� Bvc Address JA� i�coo C Z i �I�I�I7L—�'7{II'-�IIII��IIII--IIII�—JI ,�a:p�p_oji� I cn 7 ccea DR] s v+ _ Cd � t Ida, • e`tiI I i.. c / irnr rrrnr M HOYLEY LANE Y ---- K• Y MAP rNOT 0 SCALE: No0.7H I PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT ' }7: N 89°45'26"E 2658.0 ' COUNT" OF RIVERSIDE NOTE: This plat was prepared from record data only and does not represent 160 ACRES a survey of the ?}:6 ;:0 property shown hereon. N PROP. P.D. CITY ANNEXATION Jcc y •''W :{• O X.: f. ::::0 :•: W :•}Y N .•: rn :•:I— 3 r5[ -:-jX. v U •�:N X. V :;• O X. Point of Beginning :i ' z S89°46105° 658.54 COUNTY OF RIV�fi,$JJ2�.,,;;. :?• NEW ■� INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT 15 14 1 LAFCO NO.88-22— DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 Drawn y: N -�5zl,dy,Clv n TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO RAMON A. DIAZ .SE 1/4 of SECTION 10 T69 ROE SCALE:' COMM.DEV./PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM DESERT f 0-600, ' xesolu�iuu oo ii •�C(�. M-21 IWEROFFICE HEMOP UM CITY OF PALM DESERir . T3: Mayor Benson and City C=Y-Iil FRQ�I: Department of C=Mrdty Development DATE: February 12, 1988 SUBJEM Annexation #23 - Good Samaritan Village at al - Resolution requesting LAFOD to proceed Attached is a resolution requesting LAFCO to take proceedings for the annexation of 160 acres in the southeast quarter of Section 10. This resolution, when approved, will complete the city's application. SRS/dig CITY CO CT ION: AYES. �"-- VF;RTFIEII ginal on erg < Qfi A c RESOLUTION.NO. BS A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FOFftTION .X, CCMMSSION 10 TAKE PROC®INGS FOR THE CHANGE OF (fj ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION _ <• NO. 23• , • .. l( RESOLVED, J3y the City mil of the City of Palm Desert, that WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert desires to initiate proceedings pursuant, -- to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation; and r. . WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited and a. description of the boundaries of the territory is set .forth in Exhibit. "A"i.: attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the ._ City of Palm Desert; and WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are as follows'+ 1. The proposed territory to be annexed is adjacent to and'substantially. .;. surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and therefore. represents a . logical expansion of the city Is boundary.. i. 2. The area is experiencing 'expe ing development pressures and i�egiiires a higher. level of urban services then are currently offered by the County of,_ Riverside. The City of Palm Desert can provide these services., NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby" 'adopted. and approved by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert -and the Local-.Agency ... Formation Commission of Riverside County is hereby requested tot take proceedings for the annexation of territory as described in Exhibit "A", according to the terms and conditions stated above and in the mamier provided',-, by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. a PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert at, a,+' regular meeting thereof held on the ZaLL day of February , 1988 by the following ,:; vote, to wit: }' AYES: CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON, BENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE r, t ABSTAIN: NONE <' M. BENSON, Mayor SHEILA R.-GILLIGAN, 90y Clerk City of Palm Desert ifornia I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION Ca4IISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 23. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, that WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert; and WHEREAS, the reasons for this proposed annexation are as follows: 1. The proposed territory to be annexed is adjacent to and substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and therefore represents a logical expansion of the city's boundary. 2. The area is experiencing development pressures and requires a higher level of urban services then are currently offered by the County of Riverside. The City of Palm Desert can provide these services. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation of territory as described in Exhibit "A", according to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert at a regular meeting thereof held on the _ day of 1988 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California RESOLVPION NA. EXIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. 23 I.APW NO. Southeast quarter of Section 10, T5S, R6E Area equals 160 acres, more or less. 2 APPLICATION TO THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Mail or deliver to: Local Agency Formation Commission Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 925013651 FOR LAFCO USE ONLY INTRODUCTION: The questions on this form are designed to obtain sufficient data about the proposed project and site to allow the staff and LAFCO to assess this proposal. Additional background Information is encouraged which may be pertinent to the proposal. Use additional sheets where necessary. Do not leave any blanks. If an item is not applicable, so indicate. Submit this original form and 15 copies.(Note: No other application form will be accepted.) APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert Telephone: (619) 346-0611 ADDRESS: 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert CA 92260 Name and title of person to contact regarding this application: Stephen Smith, Associate Planner Address: Same as above Telephone: (619) 346-0611 ext. 486 APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO: Annex 160 acres to city. (Describe proposal or action requested) LOCATION OF PROJECT: Southeast 1/4 of Section 10 T5S R6E - Located at the northwest corner of 42nd Avenue and Eldorado Drive (both unimproved) (Describe boundaries specifically, and refer to major highway, roads, rivers, and topographical features) The property is an essentially flat, vacant (except for Good Samaritan Village Inc. ) . 160 acres on the north side of 42nd Avenue (proposed) adjacent on two sides to the City of Palm Desert. A. OWNERSHIP: 1. Is the applicant a property owner in the area of the proposed project? ❑ Yes 0 No 2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property? 0 Yes 0 No N/A B. AREA INFORMATION: 1. How many square miles, or acres, of territory are included In this proposal? 160 acres 2. Number of structures or dwellings In the proposed area at the present time? —One developed lot (20 acres) Good Samaritan Village Complex. (Specifically describe how the property is improved) 3. Expected increase In the number of dwellings and/or structures in the proposed area which will result from this proposal (describe specifically the number and type of structural Improvements: e.g., single•lamily residences, mobilehomes, commercial, etc.) —Area is experiencing development pressure _now_ Annexation will r cif in deVelopment in city, Whether in city or not By what date? Probably within 3-5 Years it will develop in urban resi- dential manner. 4. Population in the area at the present time? 132 residents at Good Samaritan Village 5. Expected change in the population which will result from this proposal? Annexation will not result By when? in change of popu anon. 6. Number of registered voters within the boundaries at the present time? 100 7. Assessed value: $ 3,408,298. Land $ 1,878,298 Improvements $ 1,530,000 8. Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries by Assessor's number: 632-030-006, 007, _ 008, 010, 011, 012 & 013 &".016 (If necessary, attach printout showing Assessor's Parcel number(s) and landowner(s) C. LAND USE: 1. Current zoning R-1 12,000 2. Current General Plan designation 2 B 3. Prezoning and General Plan designation assigned by City(attach certified copy of City ordinance with assigned prezoning) Planned Residential - Various densities from 4 UPA to 10 UPA 4. Specifically describe how the territory is presently used(e.g., vacant, groves, single-family residences, etc.) 140 of the 160 acres is vacant desert area 20 acres is a develo ed senior retirement facility (Good Samaritan Village Inc. ). 5. Describe how adjacent lands are used: North: Lakes Country Club South: vacant East: vacant West., condominiums 6.25 UPA D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 1. Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. Has a subdivision or lot split been approved by the County or a city?) ❑Yes M No. If so,what agency has approved the map,and what is its reference number? Proposal is to annex 160 acres to City of Palm Desert. . 20 acres is developed remainder is vacant. 2. State reasons which justify this proposal: (For example service needs heaRh mandate, economic benefit, etc.) The area to be annexed is in City of Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. The city is in receipt of petition signed by 132 residents at Good Samaritan Village They wish to be in the city to be eligible to receive a higher level of city services specifically fire police and paramedic. E. PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES (Government code Section 56653): In addition to responding to the questions listed below, attach a detailed narrative plan which thoroughly outlines the full range of municipal services which will be extended to the property,their availability,and the cost of extending these services to the landowner and/or future residents. 1. Water will be supplied by? Coachella Valley Water District What is the distance to the closest water line and where is it located? It is in on Carlotta Drive. Is the agency prepared to immediately furnish the necessary service? Yes If not, explain. What is the anticipated water demand for this project? Typical for single family developments 2. Sewer service will be provided by? Coachella Valley Water District What is the distance to the closest sewer line and where is it located? It is in on Carlotta Drive. Is the agency prepared to immediately furnish the necessary service? Yes If not, explain. What is the anticipated demand for this project? Typical for single family developments 3. Fire & Police: What jurisdiction will provide fire and police services? City contracts ade with county for police and fire services at an upgrd level of service. _ Where is the nearest fire station located? Portol a and Country Club Response time 1-4 minutes Where is the nearest law enforcement facility located? Indian Wells Sherrifs Substation Response time 4. Transportation: a. Designate the names and types of roads which the project will use for primary and secondary access (including direct access streets from the project site to the nearest freeway) Area is served by Carlotta Drive to 42nd Avenue to Hovley Lane to Cook Street to Country Club Dr. to Monterey Ave, to I-10 Freeway-Monterey, Country Club. & Cook are ar eria streets. b. Is widening of an existing street necessary? No ov el y, 42nd & ar o a are local c. Is the project served by County-maintained roads? No ----streets. d. Is construction of new access streets necessary? No 5. .Special Revenues: Does the annexing agency have current plans to establish any new assessment district or fees which would include this area, in order to pay for new or extended services? No Please detail. 6. Will the project be subject to existing bonded indebtedness? No F. PROPERTY OWNER'S POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up total ownership of the project area? (Include with this application copies of all letters/correspondence you have relating to this proposal.) 6 2. How many property owners have been contacted regarding the project? 6 3. How many property owners are in favor of the project? 6 4. How many property owners are not in favor of the project? 0 G. LIGHTING & ROAD MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS ONLY: N/A 1. If street lights are to be installed, list how many, what type and intensity(e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 HPSV9 2. If the application affects a road maintenance district, how many miles of road are to be maintained? 3. Is it your intention to bring any roads to County standards for future acceptance into the County Maintained Road System? H. COMMUNITY BENEFIT: In your own words, how would your proposal benefit the community? The area is in the city's influence.sphere of The oroperty owners and residents are in favor. The cit can provide services to the area. This area, when added to the city willa ow for future annexation by the city to the east. NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and addresses of people to whom notices and communica- tions should be directed, (3 maximum) Name City of Palm Desert - Stephen Smith Telephone (619) 346-0611 Address 73-510 Fred Waring Drive City & Zip Palm Desert, CA 92260 Name Telephone Address City & Zip Name Telephone Address City & Zip Signature of applicant or authorized representative SHEILA R. GILLIGAN Typed or printed name CITY CLERK Title Date PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 23 ATTACHMENT PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES: #3 Fire aria Police Fire: The area is presently serviced by the County Fire Department from the Bermuda Dimes Station. Response time is estimated between 10 and 15 minutes. If annexed to the city the area will be served from the fire station at Portola and Country Club. Response time, if annexed to the city, is three minutes. Police: The area is presently served by the unincorporated county area response units. Typical response is estimated at 10 minutes plus depending on the location of the responding unit when a call is placed. If annexed to the city it would receive full city police service. The city currently contracts for 120 Yours of service per day. Response time into this area is estimated at three minutes. 3 , .J" D a C A ai ■ — CC NOVLEY LANE I � IIIt + WI I - -- KEY MAP NOT 10 SCALE: PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT •••COUNT. .OF RIVERSIDE••• 160 ACRES PROP. P.D. CITY ANNEXATION K GO w > w o ;>:►- ::•z 'tip •:;:o J .•:U a d COUNTY OF RIVER, ULJL41�MEN ■ INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT 15 14 ■ • 1 • Drawn y: DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 ,a .�vl TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO RAMON A. DIAZ SE 1/4 of SECTION 10 T88 ROE SCALE: COMM.DEV./PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM DESERT =BIT 'A' Annexation No. 23 City of Palm Desert IAFCD No. Being the southeast quarter of section 10, T5S, R6E. Area equals 160 acres more or less. CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: Riverside County Local Agency Formation Ca[mission DATE: February 3, 1988 APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert SUBJECT: Plan for Services for Palm Desert Annexation No. 23 I. INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to Section 56653 of the State Government Code, the city is required to file with any new annexations 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. 23. The City of Palm Desert, being a contract city, must rely on many other agencies to provide for services both in the oon mmity and areas subsequently annexed. In addition, many services provided such as water and sewer, electricity and 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 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 for water and sewer, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone Company and Palmer Cable. 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. There are no major road improvements necessary to facilitate access to the area. III. LEVEL OF SERVICE: The level and range of services provided would include sufficient sized water, sewer, gas and electrical facilities to service development proposed for the area. Planning, building, public works and code enforce- ment services as provided by the city directly would be on the basis of need. PAIM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 23 The area is within the five minute response zone of the Portola and Country Club station. Backup would be provided by the E1 Paseo/Town Center, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, Bermuda Dunes and Thousand Palms stations. Paramedic ambulance services would be provided by the Indian Wells Fire Station. The city presently contracts from Riverside County Sheriff Department for 120 hours per day for citywide patrols which will be expanded as needs require. IV. TIMING FOR SERVICE EXTENSIONS: Basic utility services would occur as a part of development. The city services would be available immediately in the area of planning, building and code enforcement, public works, police and fire. Road improvements would occur as a part of new development. V. RDQWIRIIV1NTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING: New development would be required to extend roads in the area and to provide for needed municipal facilities through the city's development ordinances. A fire facilities fee of $100.00 per residential unit will be used to finance the necessary fire facilities. The provision of planning and building services would be provided through the fees generated from new development. Ongoing maintenance of roads created in the area, would be provided on the basis of sales tax generated frun commercial facilities in the area. In summary, it is felt that development of this area would result in a balance between needed services and the revenue to provide said services. /dig 2 RESOLUTION NO. 88-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 1HE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CAL 117ORNIA. CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS 11 PERTAINS TO A PREANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE FOR APPROXIMATELY 160 ACRES IN THE SOUIIIEAST OUARIER OF SECTION 10. CASE NO: C/Z 87-11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert. California, did on the 20th day of October. 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 15, 1987 to consider approval of a negativr, declaration of environmental Impact and preannexation zoning of 160 acres in the southeast quarter of Section 10 ile: the area south of the Lakes Country Club, north of 42nd Avenue and east of the present city boundary) . WHEREAS, the Planning Connnlsslon has recorrnnended approval of the preannex- ation zoning and negative declaration of environmental Impact by Its Resolution No. 1266. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert did hold a duly noticed public hearing on January 14, 1988. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if anv, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to Justify certification of the negative declaration of environmental Impact: 1 . There has been no substantial evidence presented to Indicate that the preannexation change of zone will result in impacts which result in an environmental impact report being reciulred pursuant to CCOA Guidelines Section 15003. 2. Upon annexation to the city all new development Proposals will he reviewed by the city for compliance with Cl-OA. 3. The permitted uses and densities of developments will he substantially similar whether the area develops under the County or Riverside or the City of Palm Desert and as a consequence the prezoning of the area will not result in different tvPes of develoP- ment proposals being approved which could have a significant effect on the environment. 4. As discussed in the December 15, 1987 Planning ccnnm(ssion sl-aff report, development in the area will he limiters to low density residential uses except; for the existing GOnd S,unaritnn Villaq(? which will be limited to 10 units per acre and as srrch anv i,olontlal impacts which were Identified can be mitigated to a level where they will not have a significant effect on the environment. RESOLUTION NO. 88-9 5. The area subject to the preannexation change of zone ( 160 acres in the southeast quarter of section 10) Is within the City of Palm Desert Sphere of Influence as established by LAFCO. 6. The City of Palm Desert is desirous of annexing said area to the city. 7. Prior to filing the necessary application with LAFCO to annex the area to the city the city must prezone the area. 8. The proposed prezonlnq protects the public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of- Pa I m Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That a negative declaration of environmental Impact, Exhibit "A", Is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this 28th day of January_, 1988 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON, BENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 1 / 1JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor i ATTEST: SHE[LA R. Gi L GAN, City Clerk) City of Palm sert. California /dig 2 RESOLUTION NO. 86-9 EXHIBIT "A" NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083 of the California Administrative Code. CASE NO: C/Z 87-I1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A negative declaration of environmental Impact and preannexation zoning of 160 acres in the southeast quarter of Section 10 ( te: the area south of the Lakes Country Club, north of 42nd Avenue and east of the present city boundary) . City zoning shall be similar to the existing county zoninq in that the entire area will be prezoned planned residential five dwellinq units per acre (PR-5) except for the 20 nrre Good Samaritan VI1Inne site which will he zoned planned residential ten units per acre (11R- 10) and the 40 acre property in the northeast corner of the subject area which in addit.ion to the PR-5 zone will have a Senior Overlav (5.O. ) which will permit senior housinq to be constructed at densities above the base zone and the 31 acres north of Good Samaritan which will be prezoned PR-4 (planned residential four- units per acre) . The Director of the Department of Community Development. Citv of Palm Desert. California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copv of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitination measures. if any. included In the project to avoid potentially significant effects. may also be found attached. -WZ -Z RAMON A. DIAZ DAlli DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEV LOPMENT /dig 3 •. • n . C/Z 87-I1 CASE NO. GPA 87-5 ENVIRO N3IEPITAL SEF{VICES DEP INITIAL STUDY T ENVIROY3[ENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST r. NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the below shall form the basis of a decisi topics listed on as to whether the assessment. application is considered complete for purposes of environmental ENUROMMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, passible mitigation measures and comments are provided an attached sheets) . . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction; covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air . quality? b. The creation of Objectionable odors? 1� c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Maybe 3. Wat_ Will the proposal result in: Y— No a-. Changes. in currents, 'or the course or / 1 ' direction of water' movements? /. �' . b. Changes in-absorptjoh r`at s, drainage patterns, or the rate and- amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the flood waters? course or flow of d. Alteration Of-the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? / e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, e either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? / f. Reduction in the amount of water other- 1/ wise available for Public water supplies? a. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs , grass , and / crops )? V b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants. C. Introduction of new species of plants into V an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 5. Animal. Life. Will ,the Proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? / b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, V rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habits+? r 3. 6. Natural Resources. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in 'the rate of use of any natural resources? / b. 0epletion of any non-renewable natural V/resource? 7. En�erc_y. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re quire the.development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Uoset. . Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substUnc I to (including, but not limited , pesticides , oi , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ 9. E Qnonrid Loss Will the Proposal result in: a. A change in 'the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and improvements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accePted .co=unity risk standards? 10- Noise. Will the Proposal increase existing noise levels to the Point at which accepted co.'nnunity noise and vibration levels are /exceeded? ii. land 'use. Will .the proposal result in the a tT errii'on of the present developed or planned land use of an area? / 12. Ooen $Oa[e. Will the proposal lead to a '/decrease in thenemount of designated open space? 13. POOulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population of the Citv? / b. Change in the population distribution by `/aye, income, religion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class , household type? 4. Y_ Maybe No 14. Emoloyment. Will the proposal result in additiona new long-term ,jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cant employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Nousina. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number an units b d Per cent of housing Y type (price Or rent range, zoning category, owner-Occupied and rental , familiesi relative nvarious income nd r to ncomeclassesbir of n the City? b. Impacts On existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal resu t tn: /a.' Generation of additional vehicular movement? V b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ✓ c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation / or movement of people and/or goods? v e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists, or pedestrians? V 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or resu t in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? / c. Schools? ,L/ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓I/ e. Maintenance of public facilities , including / roads? (/ f. Other governmental services? " 5 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal Yes Maybe No result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or ali:erations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ~ b. Communications system? C. Water? -- d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? — ✓ f. Solid waste and disposal? 20' Human n Health Wili the ro C posal result in: a. The creation of any heal th Potential health hazard? hazard or b. A change in 9 the level of community health care provided? / 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in of general V an increased demand for provision _ social .services? / 22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista, open to the public? or view b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? . / c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood ✓(or area) attractiveness, pleasantness,and uniqueness. / 23. Licht and Glars. Will the proposal produce ne:v fight or g are? / 24. Archealocical/4istorical . Will the proposal t V resu in an a teracion of a significant archeological or historical site, structure,object, or. building? j � _ V 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findinas of Siani`Ificance. a. Ooes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail / the diversity in the environment? b. Ooes the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) C. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? _✓ Initial Study Prepared By: z2a INITIAL STUDY EXPLANATION OF INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST CASE NO'S. GPA 87-5 AND CZ 87-11 PREAMBLE The pro iect at this time is to general Plan and Drezone an area encompassing 160 acres in anticipation of the site being annexed into the City of Palm Desert . Adoption of the general plan. orezoning the property and the annexation thereof to the city will not directly impact the environment. Presently. the area is vacant except for Good Samaritan Village (20 acres) and the Improved 42nd Avenue ( 112 street) and Carlotta Drive (fully Improved) . The remaining five parcels in the area ( 140 acres) will develop in the future. When development occurs the environment may be Impacted. these potential impacts wi i 1 be assessed and mitigated as necessary on a case by case basis when development proposals are received by the city. 1 . EARTH The area will be developed in an urban manner whether or not 1t is annexed into the City of Palm Desert. During construction of the develop- ments on the oroperties movement of earth will result in order that the Projects comply with the provisions of the city's grading ordinance. This will assure that there are no significant adverse impacts on the environment. a. The Prolect will not result In any maior excavation or grading activity that will reach the geologic substructure of the site. b. When development occurs there will be compaction of soils. which is required as Dart of the city's construction ordinance. Compaction Is a normal part of any construction activity and does not result in any adverse Impact to the environment. C. The topooraohy of the area is relatively flat. there maybe minor changes to meet city drainage requirements. ' d. As stated previously. the area is flat and. therefore. does not contain any unique or Physical features. e. If anvthina. future construction on the land will reduce wind and water erosion. However. it should be noted that this has not been a problem in the area. 2. AIR a. The area wi i I be developed in an urban manner whether or not it is annexed to the city. Durina construction of future developments construction eauipment will be operated. The city will assure that construction equipment Complies with state and federal requirements Pertaining to emissions from this eouloment. The Project's which develop in the area will comply with city ordinances and will not deteriorate the ambient air quality. GPA 87-5 & C/Z 87-II INITIAL STUDY b. The development of the area will not create objectionable odors. if there are odor Problems. they are referred to the appropriate agencies for resolution. C. The residential type of developments which will be built as a result of this Proposed orezonino will not alter air movement. moisture. temperature or any change in climate either locally or regionally. 3. WATER The area wlII be developed In an urban manner whether or not It Is annexed to the city. It is expected that the area will develop with low density residential projects. a. If necessary to meet city drainage requirements to protect adjacent Properties. the course of water falling on the site may be altered. This would result in a Positive rather than adverse Impact on the environment. b. The rate of ground absorption will be reduced as the amount of area built upon or paved Increases and the natural area decreases. This will not result in a significant adverse Impact on the environment that cannot be mitigated because the city's drainage requirements. fees and drainage projects financed by those fees are Intended to handle the increased runoff created by this or any development. C. The Project site Is not subject to flooding. d. Development on the site will not alter the direction of rate of flow of ground waters. e. The future developments will not add to or withdraw from any ground water. As stated Previously, none of the activity either during construction will impact or touch the geologic substructure. f. All development proposals for the area will be reviewed and serviced by the Coachella Valley Water District. That agency has not advised the city that there would be a Problem in serv(cino this area. The same district will suouly water to the area whether it Is in the city or not. 4. PLANT LIFE The area will be developed in an urban manner whether or not It is in the city. Development will result in the existing desert perennial shrub species (creosote) being removed and new plants Introduced. 2 GPA 87-5 i C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY a. In order to complete the landscaping which will be needed to meet city requirements, new plants will be Introduced on site. However, these plants and shrubs have been Introduced into the desert area previously. b. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species of flora. C. See Item 4a. A recent biological survey conducted for the city on a vacant site within 1100 feet of this property concluded that "No plant species listed as rare. threatened or endangered by any governmental agency were discovered on the site nor were any expected"1 . Given the similarities in the sites It Is felt that the same conclusion can be asserted for this area. 5. ANIMAL LIFE The area will be developed In an urban manner whether or not It is in the city. The recent biological survey conducted for the proposed Monte Carlo development 2. within 1100 feet of this area determined that there was evidence of various animals on the site ( le: round tailed ground squirrel , black tailed Jackrabbit and audobon cottontail ) . In addition the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard was spotted. It Is expected that this area will also provide habitat for these animals. Said habitat will be eliminated when development occurs In the area. The fringe-toed lizard is a federally listed species. A conservation Plan has been established which assesses fees (E600/acre) on projects located within the habitat boundary. All new developments in the area will be required to pay the $600 per acre fee for acquisition of land In the lizard preserve north of 1-10. This fee will be collected whether or not the city property is annexed to the city. I Smith. Peroni d Fox Planning Consultants. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Monte Carlo Villas and Monte Carlo Plaza, November 1987, Page 12. 2 Ibid 3 GPA 87-5 t C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY 6 8 7 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY a-b Development of the area will result in the use of natural resources and energy. However. an eaulvalent amount of natural resources and energy would occur whether the area is annexed to the city or not. Development of residential uses will Increase the rate of use of pas which will be used for heating hot water and the heating of homes. The city bullding_ department will require all construction to comply with the Uniform Buildina Code ( insulation of units) . Development of residential uses will also result In additional energy uses( primarily for air conditioning purposes) however. the development of new sources of energy will not be required. B. RISK Of UPSET No chemicals or explosives will be stored on the site or transported through the area. 9. ECONOMIC LOSS a-b The area is not in an area endangered by flooding. Development of the property will Increase its value above that of vacant land. The area is not subiect to geologic risks beyond accepted community standards. and there will be no improvements seriously exposed to geologic hazards. 10. NOISE Development of the area in a residential manner will not Increase ambient noise levels beyond acceptable CNEL. In fact. by servicinalthis area with a local level of street the noise associated with high traffic volumes associated with arterial streets will be greatly reduced. II . LAND USE The area is presently runder the county ) planned for low density residential uses. The city or000ses to also have this area develop with similar low-density residential uses. 12. OPEN SPACE The site is not designated for open space use and will not in the future. 4 GPA 87-5 6 C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY 13. POPULATION If the entire area were to develop to its maximum density. the 160 acres could produce 800 dwelIIna units ( 160 X 5) . These units could provide for a population of 1616 people based on the city's averaae household size of 2.27 persons per occupied dwelling. Less than 100% of the units will be occupied by full time residents if this area corresponds with other areas of the city. This means that a population less than 1616 people should be expected. The population can be expected to be similar whether it is annexed to the city or not. Good Samaritan Village Is an existing retirement facility housing 132 people. The facility occupies 20 acres. The facility administrator advises that there are III apartment units and a 59 bed skilled nursing facility at the community and could house a maximum of 226 residents. The city is in receipt of an application for the 31 acres north of Good Samaritan to extend the Lakes Country Club by nine additional golf holes. No additional housing is proposed. The 19 acre site located east of Carlotta Drive has been approved by the county for 82 single family lots. When these three s i tuat i ons are considered In the total then the likely maximum population for the area is reduced. The remaining vacant land. some 90 acres could result in a maximum of 450 units plus 82 units aives a unit total of 532 or a pro iected max I mum popu I at I on of 1208 Plus the maximum 226 residents at Good Samaritan. This number ( 1434) could also be expected to be reduced due to the seasonal nature of the residents expected to purchase the units. The additional 1434 residents would represent an increase of 8.4% to the existing 17. 111 population. The location distribution. density or arowth rate will not be altered nor will the distribution by age. income. relialon. racial or ethnic group. 14. EMPLOYMENT This is a residential area which will provide a minimal amount of new Iona-term iobs. Jobs created could be expected to be service oriented ( landscape maintenance and pool service) . The existing Good Samaritan Village has 132 residents and 85 staff members to serve them with a pay roll in excess of 9900.000 per year. This staff includes doctors. nurses. administrative. maintenance people and the like. 5 GPA 87-5 a C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY Overall employment generated in this area will not be significant when compared with the city as a whole. An equal amount of employment could be expected whether the area Is annexed to the city or not. 15. HOUSING The area will be developed In a residential manner whether or not it is annexed to the city. The zoning proposed allows a wide range in type of housing units which may be constructed. The private sector can be expected to develop types of housing which are needed at the time develop- ment occurs. The housing likely to be developed should approximate the existing mix In the city although no mobil home parks are anticipated . in this area. Creation of this housing will not Impact existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. This area when developed can be expected to generate additional vehicular movements. Expanding upon the discussion of item #13 Population. the 532 single family units can be expected to produce 10 trips per day according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook for a total of 5320 trips ends per day. This same handbook projects 3.3 trip ends per day Per unit in the retire- ment community for a total of 336 ( 111 X 3.3) trip ends. The area then could be expected to Produce total traffic movements per day of 5686. This number could be expected to be reduced due to the seasonal nature of the single family residents as well as the aging of residents at Good Samaritan. As well . the county Is Presently reviewing a development Proposal on the 40 acre parcel at the northeast corner of this area for a retirement facility (senior housing) . Said development is proposed at eight units per acre. These 320 units. although higher than the number of units expected in the base zone. would result in fewer residents and fewer traffic movements. if developed at five single family units per acre the 40 acres would house 200 units and generate traffic of 2000 movements per day. This 2000 figure Is included in the earlier Protected total traffic movements of 5686. If developed at eiaht senior units per acre the 40 acres will produce 320 units but create only 1056 daily traffic movements ( le: 320 X 3.3 trips Per day) . rherefore. total traffic movements created by development of this area shou I d not exceed 5686 per day and w I i I 1 i ke i y be i n a range between 4630 and 5686. 6 (PA 87-5 8 C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY b. Development of this area will result in a demand for new parking. No existing parking facilities will be affected. All new develop- ments will provide adequate on-site oarkino facilities. Compliance with the Darkina reouirements of the city zoning ordinance will assure adeauate Darkina is provided to each development. c & d The area is presently served with Carlotta Drive connecting to 42nd Avenue which connects with Hovlev Lane in the city. Carlotta Drive is a local street (40 feet curb to curb) and 42nd Avenue Is Improved on the northerly half only. As noted In section 16 (A) above. this area can be expected to generate between 4630 and 5686 daily traffic movements. Creation of local streets. 40 feet curb to curb, provides for one lane in each direction as we I I as park i na on both sides. Local streets of this width. according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, have maximum capacity of 10. 000 vehicles per day. This area then can be adequately serviced by a collector local level street system. The existing half improved street portion of 42nd Avenue will no lonaer be needed as well as the southerly 350 feet of Carlotta Drive. These streets can then be vacated back to the adjacent parcels which dedicated or sold them to allow earlier street improve- ments. The recent DKS Traffic Study indicated that present level of service on Hovlev Lane east of Cook Street and Eldorado Drive south of Country Club Drive is "A". Adding the proposed range of . traffic movements (4630 to 5686 movements per day) to either or both of' these streets will not raise the LOS above acceptable limits. I If the uDDer end of the range is used and the traffic is split evenly then the traffic movements on Hovley increase from 9050 per day to 11 .873* (9050 Dlus 1 /2 of 5686) which increase the percentage of forecast caoac i tv from 38% to 49.5%. Th i s eauates to an LOS of "A" ( ie: below 60% of capacity) . Addina 50% of 5686 to the existing 6550 count on Eldorado south of Country Club will increase It to 9393 movements Der day and increase its V/C ratio from 27% to 39%. This eauates to an LOS of "A". If we assume 100% of the 5686 noes in either direction then the numbers chance as follows: ADT VIC LO5 Hovlev east of Cook 14.736 61% Eldorado south of Country Club 12.236 51% "A" Annexation and deve I opment of this 160 acre area wi I I have no significant adverse impact uuon existina transportation systems. 7 r GPA 87-5 i C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY e. The present patterns of circulation will be altered. The existing street access will be changed. An equally adequate street system will provide street service to the 160 acre area. Eliminating the connection of Hovley Lane to 42nd Avenue will have no adverse Impact upon this area. At this time 42nd Avenue and Carlotta Drive provide the required street circulation for the movement of people and/or goods. No other properties are serviced by these streets. Changing the circulation pattern will provide an equal and adequate level of access to the 160 acre area. The increased traffic levels resulting from this proposal do not exceed volume to capacity ratio of 61%. The street widths proposed allow for parking lanes on each side. All projects will provide required on-site parking. Parking on the streets, while it will be available, It will be an uncommon event. Six foot wide sidewalks will parallel the streets as presently exist on Carlotta Drive. As a result there will not be an Increase In traffic hazards to motor vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians. 17. PUBLIC SERVICES a. The city contracts for fire protection with the County of Riverside. Fire stations serving this area are located at Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive and at Eldorado Drive and Highway 11 . Fire Protection services will be expanded as necessary. Funding for this expansion Is provided by payment of the fire mitigation fee of $100 Per residential unit as provided by Ordinance 266. This fee is collected at time of building permit Issuance. The fire department will be able to serve the new area as it develops. This service would be available from the same providers whether or not the area is in the city. The city does Drovide an upgraded service in the form of paramedics. The cost of this service is funded throuah a $48 per year fee per dwelling unit. This fee was affirmatively voted for by the citizens of Palm Desert. These additional services will be available to this area if it is annexed to the city. b. The city contracts with the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department for police service. As population expands the city expands the amount of ser-vice it contracts for. The city council determines the extent of police protection purchased. The city's crime prevention officer reviews all development proposals with a view to designing in desirable security features. 8 GPA 87-5 b C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY The main impact this proposed area will create for the Police department will be a small amount of additional traffic. This traffic would result whether or not the area is annexed to the city. C. The Desert Sands Unified School District Provides school facilities for this area. The number of students to be generated will be the same whether it is annexed to the city or remains in the county. In either case all dove I ocxnent Proposals will be required to pay a state school facilities fee of $1 .50 Per square foot of residential building area. d. The city. in coniunction with Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District. Provides recreational facilities In the city. Developments in the PR (planned residential ) district typically provide a substantial amount of Private on-site recreation facilities Ile: Good Samaritan Village) . Other developments in this area will likely do so also. In addition. the city provides a wide range of parks and other recreational facilities which will be available to residents of this area whether it Is annexed to the city or not. Any Impact this area would have on existing facilities will be minimal . e. Public facilities (roads) will be maintained by the city Public works department if it is annexed t the city otherwise it will be serviced by County of Riverside Roads Department. The Proposed addition of one mile of local street to the city's existing system will not negatively impact the ability of the city to maintain the streets. f. Other governmental services would be provided by the City of Palm Desert if the area is annexed to the city. Existing city staff is adequate to service this area Ile: planning, building and other city services) . If it is not annexed the area will continue to be serviced by County of Riverside. Indio office. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE As discussed oreviousiv the city has requirements for new developments to pay fees to expand services for which it creates a need. This fee structure coupled with the 25% of the property taxes which the city receives through the county for al I new areas annexed to the city typically results in a wdsh from a fiscal impact point of view. 9 1 � (PA 87-5 a C/Z 87-I1 INITIAL STUDY 19. UTILITIES a. b. c. d. e. f The area will be served by the same utilities whether or not it Is annexed to the city. These utilities are aware of the development proposals currently under review by the county and have Indicated that they can provide service to the area. 20. HUMAN HEALTH a 3 b Residential development of the property will not create any health hazard or potential health hazard. There will be no change In the level of community health care provided. The area is served by three hospitals which have more than adequate bed capacity to serve this area. The same hospitals will be available whether or not the area is annexed to the city. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The area, when developed, can be expected to provide housing for a fairly wide economic and demographic segment of the community. whether It Is annexed to the city or not this range of housing types can be expected to be similar. The development of the area may result in some agencies being required to render service. Given the low numbers of persons who could be expected to reoulre services ( ie: no low cost 0 assisted housing, is expected to be constructed In the area) then it is felt that the impact. If any. would be negligible. 22. AESTHETICS a. b & c The proposed PR (planned residential ) zoning allows a broad range of house types. The zoning also permits one and two story structures as high as 30 feet. The citv's development review process requires that all development proposals be reviewed by planning commission at . a public hearing at which time property owners within 300 feet are invited to comment on the overall plans. The city's architectural review commission reviews development proposals on at least two occasions (orellminary and final plan review) . 10 GPA 87-5 8 C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY Both the Planning commission and the architectural review commission are typically very Interested In assurina compatibility of new Projects with exlstino developments. This Process along with the high minimum standards the zoning ordinance sets for landscaolna. Parkina and architecture assure that future developments will be compatible with other development in the area. Annexation of the area Into the city will assure that future development are aesthetically acceptable and compatible. 23. LIGHT AND GLARE Future development of the area will result in new light sources being Introduced into an area which is presently unlit. If annexed into the city. then all exterior lighting will be reviewed as a part of the architectural review process to assure that light does not spillover Into adjacent Properties and otherwise impact the community. 24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL As a Part of the north sphere specific plan EIR a cultural resource Identification report was Prepared by the Archeological Research Unit at University of California. Riverside. This report identifies the subject area as being within an area which has the Potential to be a culturally sensitive area. The report recommends that the city contract with the Eastern Information Center to review projects on a site by site basis. A decision on this form of mitigation has not been made. The city can assure that all projects will be reviewed for. compliance with CEOA and the archeological /historical impacts evaluated. 25. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. The annexation of the area to the city will not degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the diversity in the environment. Development of the site whether it is annexed to the city or not will result in similar impacts ( le: eliminate it as open land) . Annexation and development of the area will not have significant impacts which can not be mitigated to an insignificant level . b. Development of the area will result in vacant open land being occupied by buildings. This will be a Iona term impact. The area is not an area deslanated to be maintained as open space. therefore. it is felt that this impact is not significant. Other Impacts oreviousiv Identified herein can be mitigated to insignificant levels. II (IPA 87-5 i C/Z 87-11 INITIAL STUDY c.. "TW.. tmpects which have been identified when considered with other development activities In the area will Increase the total cumulative impact. however given the limited extent of the impacts ( ie: after being mitigated through appropriate conditions Imposed on develop- mental activity) it is felt that the cumulation impacts will not be sianificant. d. The project (annexation of the area to the city and future develop- ment of the area with residential uses) will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 12 Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission LAFC No. To accompany application for City of Palm Desert Annexation #23 Location address Applicant City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 346-0611 name address zip telephone no. Background Information: 1 . Briefly describe the nature of the proposal : Annexation of 160 acres to the City of Palm Desert 2. General Location Southeast quarter of Section 10, T5S R6E (northwest corner Eldorado Drive (unimproved) and 42nd Avenue (unimproved)) . 3. Describe the area, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics. Generally flat, vacant (except for Good Samaritan Village) . 4. Is the proposal a phase or a portion of a larger project? No If so, identify the larger project. 5. Does this proposal include property on which a previous zone change application, conditional use permit, public use permit, subdivision, or parcel map has been denied by the County Planning Commission? N/A Please explain. 6., Does this proposal include property on which a previous environmental assessment or environmental impact report has been submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department? Probably - several proposed developments are currently under review by the county and Good Samaritan Village may have had an EIR prepared sane time ago. To the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. Date P roject sponso By Title ,% 5cori /-3Tr /U Use additional sheets, if necessary II. Assessment of Environm I Im a t: Please answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. (The applicant should be able to explain or substantiate his response to every question. ) A. Characteristics of the Natural Environment. Yes No County Use 1 . Land (Topography, Soils , Geology) a. Does the project site involve a unique landform or / biological area , such.as beaches, sand dunes, marshes, etc.?_ _✓ b. Will the project involve 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 known / earthquake fault? _ ,✓ 2. Water a. Is the project located within a flood plain? _ I/ b. Does the project involve a natural drainage 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 mature 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 refuge or reserve? 4. Potential Alteration to Natural Features a. Will the project result in the removal of natural resources for commercial purposes (including rock, sand, gravel , oil , trees , or minerals)? b. Will the project involve grading in excess of 300 cu. yds.? _ -2- g. Potential Direct Impact of eject. Yes No County Use 1 . Impact on Existing physical surroundings. — a. Pollution (Air, water, noise, land) 1 Will 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 project expected to result in the generation of noise levels in excess of those currently existing in the area? — — (4) Will the project involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, including pesticides, herbicides, other toxic substances or radioactive material? — — b. ADDlicable Pollution Controls and Standards. 1 Will the project require a permit or other approval / from any of the following agencies? — — State or Regional Water Resources Control Board County Health Officer — v Air Pollution Control District — City or County Planning Commission — U. S. Environmental Protection Agency County Airport Land Use Commission — �L (2) Does the project require variance from established / environmental standards (e.g. , air quality, noise, V/ water quality)? — — 2. Impact on existing facilities and services. a. Circulation. (1 ) Is the project expected to cause noticeable increase in pedestiran traffic or a change in pedestrian patterns? — — (2) Will the project result in noticeable changes in vehicular traffic patterns or volumes (including bicycles)? — — (3) Will the project involve the use of off-the-road vehicles of any kind (such as trail bikes)? — b. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal . (1 ) Will the project entail the acquisition of water / from wells or surface sources for commercial and/or V/ non-domestic use? — - -3- C. Demand for Servi Yes No County rrom Special Districts and/oAO • Use' Municipalities or County. (1 ) Will the project require the extension of existing / public utility lines? _ (2) Will the project require public services , from an agency, district or public utility which is currently operating at or near capacity? 3. Miscellaneous a. Will the project employ equipment'which could interfere / with existing communication and/or defense systems? b. Is the project located within the flight path or noise / impact area of an airport? _ C. Potential Indirect Impact of Project. 1 . Land Use a. Is the proposed project expected to result in other changes / in land use either on or off the project site? b. Could the project serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas, or increase in development intensity of already developed areas (examples include the introduction of new or expanded public utilities, new industry, commercial facilities or recreation activities)? c. Is the project adjacent to or within 500 ft. of an existing public facility or site for same? d. Is the project inconsistent with any adopted general plan, / specific plan or present zoning? T __ e. Does the project involve lands currently protected under the Williamson Act or an Open Space Easement? _ 2. Visual Impact a. Is the site for the proposed project adjacent to a designated , / Scenic Highway or within a Scenic Corridor? _ b. Will the project obstruct any scenic view from existing V residential areas, public lands, or public roads? _ 3. Social/Cultural Impact a. Will the project require the relocation of housing or business in order to clear the project site? — _V, b. Does the project site include or affect a known historical / or archeological site? _ _VVV -4- III . Statement as to Signifitunt Environmental Effect. If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section II , but believe the project will have no significant adverse environmental effect, indicate your reasons below. To the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. Date: _ ;2 V — ��f Signed v^ Project ponsor By Title d -5- RESOLUTION N4081-133 c A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RELATING In ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CLA1 �RNiA, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in regular session assembled on this 24th day of Sept. 1981, that: 1. The County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert are the agencies whose area or responsibility for service would be affected by annexations to the City of Palm Desert. 2. Representatives of each of the affected agencies have met and negotiated an exchange of property tax revenue As follows, to become effective for tax purposes beginning July 1, 1981, for all areas annexed to the City until such time as this resolution is rescinded or superceded. A. The City of Palm Desert shall assume responsibility for all general municipal services to areas annexed as are required by law or presently provided throughout the City, and for such service, the City shall receive 25% of that portion of the property tax revenue generated within territories annexed under the ad valorem tax rate established by Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California, that represents the County of Riverside's share of such property tax revenue. B. The County Auditor shall upon annexation by the City r convert the above-established percentage figure into actual 1 dollar figures and thereafter allocate to the City such property Il tax revenue in accord with the provisions of Section 95 ec. seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 3. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert does hereby agree to the above-recited exchange of property tax revenue. 4. The Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to each affected agency and to the Executive Office of the Local Agency Formation Commission and to the Auditor of the County of Riverside pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 24th day of September, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi, Snyder & Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None j Y LION, 17a7^ ATTEST: HEILA R, GIL AN,City C City of Palm Desert, Ca ornia ORDINANCE N0. 529 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PREANNEXATION ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 160 ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10. CASE NO: C/Z 87-11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of October, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing which was. continued to December 15, 1987 to consider approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and preannexation zoning of 160 acres in the southeast quarter of Section 10 (ie: the area south of the Lakes Country Club, north of 42nd Avenue and east of the present city boundary) . City zoning shall be similar to the existing county zoning in that the entire area will be prezoned planned residential five dwelling units per acre (PR-5) except for the 20 acre Good Samaritan Village site which will be zoned planned residential ten units per acre (PR-10), the 40 acre property in the north east corner of the subject area which in addition to the PR-5 zone will have a Senior Overlay (S.O. ) which will permit senior housing to be constructed at densities above the base zone and the 31 acre site north of Good Samaritan which will be prezoned PR-4 (planned residential four units per acre). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the preannex- ation zoning and negative declaration of environmental impact by its Resolution No. 1268. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert did hold a duly noticed public hearing on January 14, 1988. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval: 1. The proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the current county zoning and development patterns, the adopted Palm Desert General Plan for the area and the proposed North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed pre-zoning protects the public health, safety and general welfare. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California does hereby ordain as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shoo-in on the attached Exhibit "A". ORDINANCE NO. 529 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of, general circulation, published..and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption or upon annexation of the subject area to the City of Palm Desert, whichever occurs first. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this llth day of February, 1988 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, SNYDER, WILSON, BENSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY ABSTAIN: NONE 'BEAN M. BENSON, Mayor ATTEST: n ILA R. GILL , City Cl k City of Palm Desert, Califoftda idig 2 --COVNIHV I,UB--OflWE' - r uur 110 -111111�7 _ ulU I: �liiii� is, sI rr ilii 1 q _ vC •.. junu 0 om `•r lannaiml — I Th E �■ e It t3 ' ■ ,,r I [.ekes > Club i f .. . P.R.-4 P.R�f6 f P.R.-5 P.R.-4 S.O. 31ac. 40 ac. OP '•\ \l w 1 P.R. 6 20ac - - - r P.n.-6 40ac P.R.-5 _ - Sac SUBJECT AREA:;:: :; wwrr ar xivexmoe � - I T CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. 87- 11 CITY COUNCIL G) H9 ORDINANCE NO.0 s28 Date February 11" 198 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS LIVING AT GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE, LOCATED AT 41-505 CARLOTTA DRIVE IN PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY REQUEST ANNEXATION OF THIS FACILITY (WHICH CONSISTS OF 19. 4 ACRES) TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. 24 . "� J 2 . .l .'. �,` �,, f r c � , t 2 5 . .. r L l' 141 (( rr 3 . 26 . it �(�. �) tt4 . 27 tt 29 . 8 . / 31 . < V Iv11 '2 t eµaG: v 10 . 4LzQ, 33 . 34 . 12 . 13 . !- 36 . A'e 14 . ... . _ 37 . 15 . 38 . 19 . 42 . L / 21 . is 44 . _'C ."/ ./ � � L�'/ 47 75 48. 76. 49. C: 77 .50. L C til 78 . A L'Oe 'L 51 . Cc 791 . 52 . 80. 53 . 81 . 54 . 82 . A. 5 . 5 83 . 56. k4--' kl.I "-84 . A3 1- 4 4' 57 . 85 . 58 . 86 . `',IG. iC�j z�is1 .` 59 . 874 61 . 89 Pr� . 62. go . '/,, ,I/ ? ,I'r I t j- I Lc�.c C 63 . % 91 . 64 . ILI L 92 . 65 . 93 . 94 . 67 . 95 . 68. Olt) 96 . 69 . 97 . 70 . 72 . 100 . 73 . 101 74 102 .. Page 2 of 3 . c. l!1C �� 130 .�CLt�! 103 . 104 .6a 131 . 13 2_ I � � y J ,t . 105 . �` /� / 133 . 106 . '/f:/ Eei /� 134 . 107 . 135 . 108 . /c. /! C' ( 7t,YLc 136 . 109 . / 137 . 110 . 138 . 111 . ✓ 139 . 112 . QdwrGl 140 . 113 . 141 . 114 . (� 142 . 115 . 143 . 116Z?&10 V4 144 . nn 117 �• ie< 145 . 118 . _ 146 . ` ) 119 . JJ 147 . 120 .�(/IZI C44 � � !l 148 . 121 . 7/1 �y � /� r ei2/rcL.c- f % A��, C�IjL�Gi / 149 . 122 . 150 . 123 . Lf &t L(Ll-4111� � 151 . 124 . ( (i1X/�ti"Sr"q 152 . 125 . Gy / 153 . 126 . 154 . 127 . w-►�'1,�1J�1r _ w 155 . 128 . �y' ` 1 5 6 . 129 . PETITION f0: THE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In aecor NIiR''- the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 Code Sectloil 56000, The Lakes Country Club Association, Inc. owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached I:ereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Uesert. Legal Description: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 17951, as shown by Map on file in Book 161, Page 7 and 8, of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California (see attached map) Petitioner reserves the riaht to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization: Date: 12/2/87 by. � EDWARD. O. ETHELL, P esident Address: 161 Old Ranch road Palm Desert, CA 92260 vfnrr�s.:. 'Y- 0 MOYL[Y LANE KEY MAP l NOT 10 SCALE: NCaT„ PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT COUNT OF RIVERSIDE 160 ACRES PROP. W P.D. CITY ANNEXATION J Y :•7W U :Xu- cc ::;0 :: T dl •:•:f Iy i:•2 J :`V a. COUNTY OF RIVgR.$JRF;:.:;: ■ INDIAN WELLS CITY LIMIT 15 14 ■ • 1 ■ ■ y:Drawn DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 23 ,� b,A� 4 n TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT N. SAN PEDRO SE 1/4 of SECTION 10 T5S ROE SCALE: RAMON A. DIAZ COMM.DEV./PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING, PALM DESERT 1'-800,