Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATIONS NEC PORTOLA AVENUE/COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE NO 15 1982 RESOLUTION NO. 83-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TE�RITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ,HE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977, WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 5 LAFCO NO. 82-34-4. WHEREAS, on August 12, 1982, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 82- 116 initiating annexation proceedings for Annexation No. 15; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing relative to Annexation No. 15 on December 13, 1982, and approved said annexation with thejecommendation that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert be authorized to proceed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting of January 13, 1983, at which time all persons desiring to be heard did give input and no written protests were filed by any owners of land and improvements within the territory to be annexed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by 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 a certified copy of this resolution to LAFCO along with any other required submittals. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of January, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Kelly, Jackson, Puluqi, Snyder and Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None OMEO S. PULUQI, Mayo ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILL AN, City k City of Palm Desert, Califor is /pa J CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8 3-5 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 15 LAFCOB 82-34-4 In its entirety the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.M. , located in Riverside County, California. Contains approximately 160 acres, more or less. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPROVED RUO,057- 31. 199 Z BY RIVERSIUE CQU"rY SURVEYOR BY d�• O u^.aa.n r. RES. 33-5 N � _ 1.4.62.--- Tr —32— 33�- Li T4StR6E T5S R6E 5 4 H 3 m � o t a " J 36TH AVE— 29 2 •� 31 32 I 3233 � a F u i r J LOCATION NIAP I 0 t I � I I -45j R6E FRANk-SW4*TRA. 3132 I 32133 i• 33!34 lYwo[+wire oc.16 S -'-awT weces" oa,a���`� 5 r5S R6E Y1 all ll� ` Y' N I/4 ruY oocRr aTr 2640' s n 0 160 Acres W yl Y Im F ,. .. a PROP «i P.O. c ui ui City Unit a c e a • $'; ¢ u a _ 2640' 7 8> pa" ocfc+T cm UmfT g g I I/4 COr. 9 !0 W Q O n /� 2/p,� ® 6�j,p ,,��77 8 II• �.IT.� . ®2—CAW-W EDATE: UST 2s,1982PROPOSCEDD AMMEMMOH H&I 5TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERTN A. AZ IN SECTION 4 T 5 S R 6 E S.B.M. SCALE ENV.SERVt abrv. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, CITY OF PALM DESERT 1 ' 2000' -I-32— 33--f T45I ­R6E T5S R6E 5 4 H 3 FAF5 � a ` a t cou owe 'ORIVE yl f 3 29 2 8 MovL pnE 36 TH AVE.— — 31 32 3 33 9 W d w Q LOCATION NAP a i t i T4SiR6E FRAME-SMIaTR1� 3132 1 32133 } 33�34 DRIVE 6 5 --_OE9EiIT GnEENf D}r nulv*n 1'' S 4 (W NCENPALMSW.) • Y� r54+ R6E I M ' 2 I alil 1 fq: n. I 1,44 COL PALM DERRT OTY LIMtt 1` 2640' F i� •1 � `'�` 1 f ,Ir i� f• _ pail O 160 Acres W 1 Ali,=a PROP •� QI P.D. o� W M; City Limit. .N o a a ; a a 1 I _ COUNTY OF pIYER5IDE ✓�� 2640r —mil 8� PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT 6 9 I/4 Cyr. 910 -- L A, Q a � I j S LS a.F C®. 82-34-6 DATE: AUGUST 25,1982 G°pG°d00 p00 BC D °, Drawn by: TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT �Tc& RAMON A. Az IN SECTION 4 T 5 S R 6 E S.B.M. SCALE DIRECTOR:ENV.SERVICES DIV. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, CITY OF PALM DESERT I"= 2000' RESOLUTION NO. 83-5 t 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 MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977, WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 15 LAFCO NO. 82-34-4. . .I i WHEREAS, on August 12, 1992, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 82- 116 initiating annexation proceedings for Annexation No. 15; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public hearing relative to Annexation No. 15 on December 13, 1992, and approved said annexation with the recommendation that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert be authorized to proceed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting of January 13, 1993, at which time all persons desiring to be heard did give input and no written protests were filed by any owners of land and improvements within the territory to be annexed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by 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 a certified copy of this resolution to LAFCO along with any other required submittals. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of January, 1983, by the Qfollowing vote, to wit:. AYES: Kelly, Jackson, Puluqi, Snyder and Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None OMEO S. PULUQI, Mayo ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILL AN, City k City of Palm Desert, Califo is /pa EACH DOCUMENTTO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED,IS CERTIFIED TOBEA FULL,T^UF_AND CORRECT CORYOFTHEOR;GINALON FILE AND ON RECORD IN MY OFFICE. Dated: )S// HEILAR. LIGA Ci CIesK f City of Pawn D omia l Ln t4i CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. :83.5 EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF PALM DESERT . ANNEXATION NO. 15 LAFCOf 82-3" In its entirety the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township S South, Range 6 East, S.B.M. , located in Riverside County, California. Contains approximately 160 acres, more or less. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPROVED' fh,o+vsr 3/. i99z BY fiIYERSwE CL'L'i 1Y SURVEYOR �• RES. 33-5 32— 33 US. R6E TSS R6E 5 4 e+ a a 36TH AVE.— 3 3232 0 1 T 3 33 3 i a LOCATION MAP J 6 y 1 I T4Si34 R6E FRANK 31 I 3 } 33� m6 3 -- „ — ''` 6 r5s R6E I I ! C •l r 1' •�i $J I/4 M"Y 00vlw QIY i a ?Ij o 160 Agee W =1 PROP c G �i[26540' P.D. `r yj M.J u 17 C.) .ur cc"" un urrt g $ I 1/4 Con 9 10 DATE: AUGUST 25,1982 [PROPOSED ln1UV blSW4�c (om Hool s �"by' f) TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RAMON '"A. p AZ IN SECTION 4 T 5 S . R 6 E . S.B.M. SCALE DIRECTOR:ENV.xc�on. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, CITY OF PALM DESERT I = 2000 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82-117 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 15 LAFCO# 82-34-4 In its entirety the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.M. , located in Riverside County, California. Contains approximately 160 acres , more or less. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTICN APPP.OVED' Ruaosr 3-1,-—19gz BY RIVLPSIDC CC 01 Y SURVEYOR BY 1AFC0 LOC AI.ACENC I' PUIt?1ATIUN CU\t\I ISSIUN • Cuuniy of Rivcnidc DATE: December 13, 1982 LAFCO NO. : 82-34-4 Honorable Mayor & City Council City of Palm Desert PROPONENT: City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: You are hereby notified that the proposal for annexation to City of Palm Desert (Nn- 15) was approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Riverside at a public hearing on December 13. 1982 A copy of the legal description of this proposal as approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission, is attached to this notice and is the legal description which must be used in all further actions regarding this proposal . Any previous descriptions which do not conform to this description should be corrected or destroyed. Any special conditions, authorizations, or amendments are noted in the resolution. It is now the responsibility of your Council to proceed to complete this annexation in accordance with the laws governing annexations to cities. Please notify your Local Agency Formation Commission by letter when the annexation has been completed. If the proposal is abandoned or not completed, please notify us within 90 days. Sincerely, �-, _ , _ . 1 e, - MISCHELL ZIMMERMAN Assistant Executive Officer Attachment: Legal Description Resolution EcE IvE cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1982 PALM DESERT CITY HALL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RUUERTF.ANDERSEN ADMINIS'I RATIVE CENTER 0 4080 LEMON STREET • 12THFLOOR 0 RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501 I approved by the County Surveyor, are approved. 2 7. The territory to be annexed is uninhabited, there being 3 fewer than 12 registered voters residing therein. 4 8. The annexation shall be subject to the terms and condi�� 5 tions which are presently imposed on similar annexations in accord- s ance with the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) (Government 7 Code Section 35000 et seq. ) . 8 9. The City of Palm Desert is designated conducting author 9 ity and is authorized to proceed in accordance with MORGA in complet 10 ing the annexation proceedings. 11 1 10. The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a certi- 12 fied copy of this Resolution to the above designated conducting auth 13 ity, to the chief petitioners if different from the conducting autho 14 ity, and to each affected agency. 15 -� 16 17 F. ILLAJ BOYD, JR., Chairman 18 I certify the above Resolution was passed and adopted by the Local 19 Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on December 13, 1982 20 ROBERT J. FITCH 21 Executive Officer 22 By MISCHELLE TIMMERMAN, 23 Assistant Executive Officer 24 25 26 PC:jf 27 12/10/82 28 GERAID J.GEERUNGS ,COUNTYCOUNSEL SURE 300 3535-IVM STREET RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA - 2 - 1 approved by tEfe County Surveyor, are approved. 2 7. The territory to be annexed is uninhabited, there being 3 fewer than 12 .registered voters residing therein. 4 8. The annexation shall be subject to the terms and condi- 5 tions which are presently imposed on similar annexations in accord- 6 ance with the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) (Government 7 Code Section 35000 et seq. ) . 8 9. The City of Palm Desert is designated conducting author 9 ity and is authorized to proceed in accordance with MORGA in complet 10 ing the annexation proceedings. 11 10. The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a certi- 12 fied copy of this Resolution to the above designated conducting auth 13 ity, to the chief petitioners if different from the conducting autho 14 ity, and to each affected agency. 15 16 F. GILLAI BOYD, �R. , Chairman 17 18 I certify the above Resolution was passed and adopted by the Local 19 Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on December 13, 1982 20 ROBERT J. FITCH 21 Executive Officer 22 By MISCHELLE 1IMMERMAN, 23 Assistant Executive Officer 24 25 26 PC :jf 27 12/10/82 28 GERM J.GEERUNGS COUNTYCOUNSEL SUITE 300 3535-I0TH STREET RNERSIDE.CALIFORNIA - 2 - laasaa wigd do uro LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSI(8931j%getylgfjl4Ngt4[pjdlAMB4) 787-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET • 12TIl FLOOR • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 9250I-3651 PUBLIC HEARING Monday, December 13, 1982 9:00 A. M. Board of Supervisors Meeting Room Riverside, California A G E N D A 1. Call to Order and Salute to the Flag. 2. Approval of Minutes of November 18, 1982. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: r Consent Item• a. LAFCO #82-38-5--Annexation #19 to County Service Area 91 New Items: b. LAFCO #82-34-4--Annexation #15 to City of Palm Desert C. LAFCO #82-21-1--Annexation #28 to City of Lake Elsinore. 4. Abandonment of Previously-Approved LAFCO Proposals. 5. Report on Mountain Water Company. 6. Election of Officers. 7. Possible Hearings for January 13, 1982. 8. Adjournment. ROBERT J. FITCH MISCHEIA,F ZIMMERMAN LYNDA TIIORSON F.xeculivr Officer Assislnnt Executive Officer }'xrrnlice Srrreta n 1 11AFC0 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • County of Riverside • (714) 787-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSE:N ADMINISTRATIVE. CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET • 12TH FLOOR • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3651 December 8, 1982 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: David K. McElroy, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: LAFCO N82-34-4--Annexation k15 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, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California 92260. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: This proposal has met all requirements of the law. The map and legal description were approved by the County Surveyor on August 31, 1982. The City of Palm Desert, serving as lead agency for the environmental review, determined that the annexation would not have a significant effect on the environment. A negative declaration was filed, and no appeals have been submitted. POPULATION: There is no population at the present time. LAND USE: According to the Cove Communities General Plan, the site is designated as Very Low Density Residential , which allows a density of three or less units per acre. The Open Space and Conservation Elements designate the site as an Urban Area. The cur- rent zoning is R-1-12,000 (One Family Dwelling, 12,000 square foot minimum lot size). The City has prezoned the area PR-5 (Planned Residential Development, 5 dwelling units per acre) and the City' s General Plan designates the site Low Density Residen- tial which allows a density of three to five dwelling units per acre. . Existing land use is vacant. According to the Coachella Valley Blowsand Region Map, ROBERT J. FITCH MISCHELLE ZIMMERMAN LYNDA THORSON Executive Officer Assistant Exeneive Officer Executive Secretary LAFCO #82-34-4 December 8, 1982 t Page 2 the site is located in an active blowsand area. County Planning Department staff recommends that this hazard to mitigated as the site undergoes development. MARKET VALUATION: The County Assessor reports the 1982 market value for the land to be $1,454,563. Four parcels consisting of 20 acres are Federally-owned, thus are nontaxable and have no value listed. There are no structures listed. COMMENTS: The area proposed for annexation is generally located north of Country Club Drive, east of Portola Avenue, and west of Cook Street. The site is the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 6 East. It is contiguous to and substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and is in the City's sphere of influence. The City was initially approached by a property owner who represents 15 acres or 9.4% of the area proposed for annexation. The City has prezoned the site for planned residential development. Such development would result in an anticipated 320 dwelling units being built by 1990. Upon full occupancy, the area population would be 700. MUNICIPAL SERVICES: i� In its plan for the provision of municipal services, the city acknowledges it is a contract city with several basic services provided either by independent agencies or another jurisdiction by contractual agreement. Highlights of the plan include: - Water and Sewer - These services are provided by the Coachella Valley Water District. Such services would be available whether or not the property is annexed. - Police and Fire Protection - The City contracts with the County of Riverside for law enforcement and fire protection services. With respect to both, the City would be required to provide additional police vehicles as well as a fire station when development occurs in this area. The City indicates in its plan for services that the fire facility will be financed primarily by the levy of a fire facilities fee of $100 per residential unit. Those services provided directly by the City would include planning and building, public works, parks, general administration, and code enforcement. In addition to those mentioned above, the City would also provide for trash disposal by contract. Public transportation is offered by the Sunline Agency. PROPERTY OWNERS' DESIRES: The applicant states that there are 25 property owners in the area, and all have been contacted. To date, eight favor the annexation and none have expressed oppo- sition. Written concurrence of the landowners has not yet been submitted with the application. LAFCO #82-34-4 December 8, 1982 Page 3 SUMMARY: - The proposed annexation is contiguous to and substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and within its sphere .of influence; - Although the applicant does not have 100% of the property owners' con- currence, no opposition has surfaced to date. - Since the area is substantially surrounded by the city, annexation would promote the orderly development of this local governmental agency and be a logical change in organization. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the factors outlined above, it is recommended that the Commission: 1. Certify it has reviewed and considered the City's environmental assessment on this annexation which resulted in the filing of a negative declaration; 2. Approve Annexation #15 to the City of Palm Desert. 3. Designate the City of Palm Desert as conducting authority. Respectfully submitted, David K. McElroy Administrative Analyst L_ 09ZZ6 V3 `4a8saO wLed aALaO UO,CUP3 06u0a0W 98T-6£ LPaO •H UPJO 'SaW 9 'UW SN EZZ06 VO `4unoweaPd SLLI6 V3 ` Latageg ups 4a8a4S uosloPC '3 SOTO 4aaa4S p4SLA 8069 aadoo3 'A 44agP2Ll3 'sW 4aaglt9 '9 VLUL6aLA 'sW ELM '0I `aOELLPM 06Z06 V3 'e6uedoi M xog 'O'd peoa Ppea4u3 'M 6LZU UL4apW pL0La4pd UaLLLW 'W LaMaC sw S9ZO6 V3 `ngtLPW 29ZZ6 V3 `s6ULadS wLed VZ66 6 V3 `saL96uV Sol peod as;pmanL9 SVV6Z aALaO oaen6PS 6LZ VOZZ# ` 'PALS DJL4sLW TOSOT kaao3 ad0H 'SW UOSLLM UeLLV 'aW La6aLS UPOC -SW 6VZATA jpppup3 ES9Z6 V3 `sLLLH Pun6el PLgwnLOO 4SL4Lag 'PumeLDN 09ZZ6 V3 `4aasaO wLed OI IA 'M p0UPL9 PL4p9 TOSE anuanV ueal LES-002 FIZZ X09 '0'd aauu03 •l 44auu@N -saw g •aw ,Cuedw03 I I200 wrtOLLPS 4oan4O 4SL4deg s9L4t3 4a9saO ZMZCSl'`'?Ppup3 Z0906 V3 `40POS 6uol 09ZZ6 V3 `4aasaO wLed ejaagLV 'uo4UowP3 OTbT -4dV "PALO Pua00 '3 0061 b9ST X09 'O'd anuanV aadseC 9£OOI - TOS ULbUI •9 ua9LL03 -SW IawepV xOLV •saW g •aW Oil 'S6ULPLOH 039VO aC 'pLPUOO:)bJ 'X'j 'aW T9006 V3 ' saLa6uV Sol xauuV LPULwaai Zg£b X09 'O'd OTZ06 V3 `sLLLH klaaAag LT20 IaoA MaN 'aaowuaN IUPO LPUOL4PN 3L4LDPd 44LanoaS O£S 'a4S "PALO aaL4SLLM TLT6 Peoa L'a4Uan03 E£i aaLLM '9 SLa43 •aW 4SLL63 SLnol 4oLALULMS PPULI g lueaj Zb996 VO 'UOSIoPC 8b9Z6 V3 `40ea8 u046UL4unH V3 ' C4L3..aa4sOj M 008 X09 V E '42 a4p4S 'PALS 4Jea9 TIL8T anuanV LRkOd 4aod ZZZ L'aaagpaW •0 aLJ0CAPW 'SW uewganb •C 4aagod •saW B •aW ouezuaanel L'[aanag OULaeW •S sawPC 'saw g 'aW OEOT6 VO 'PuapeSPd 4gnoS 09Z36 V3 `4aasaO wLPd OIZTI AN `aaowLLeg 44a0N PPOH LLLW OT6T aALaO PIL043 OSb-ZL anuanV 412H 69tZ 4snai Luwo uosu4oC L44ag pue PaaWOd 4uaOULA •saW q •ald uosu4oC eapuesseO uo4L'pO M snMgdoa41 aW 90906 V3 `93uPaa0i S0916 V3 `POOMRLLOH 44a0N anuanV ukLPA3 ZT6ZZ aOPLd uea0O L9EZT 44RSa0j •l l44owLi 'saW g .'aW azoo Faeg •aW �E oO 4aeg wall LAFCO LOCAL AGENCYFORMATION COMM ISSION • County of Riverside MINUTES OF MEETING November 18, 1982 Present: Commissioners: F. Gillar Boyd, Jr. , Chairman Walt P. Abraham Donald Galleano Henry B. Clark Pat Murphy Cliff Rose Donald L. Schroeder Staff: Mischelle Zimmerman, Assistant Executive Officer David K. McElroy, Administrative Analyst Patrick Conkey, Deputy County Counsel Rob Klotz, Deputy County Counsel Lynda Thorson, Secretary Helen Tomala,. Assessor's Office Sandy .White, Planning Department Donald Duncan, Survey Department Dave Frisch, Survey Department 1. Call to Order and Salute to the Flag. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Boyd at 9:02 a.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of September 9, 1982. The minutes of September 9, 1982 were approved as printed. 3. Resignation and Appointment of City Commissioner. Chairman Boyd introduced and welcomed Mayor Pat Murphy to the Commission. Mrs. Murphy is Mayor of the City of Cathedral City, and was elected by the Mayors' & Councilmen's Association on November 10, 1982, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mayor Julius Corsini. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consent Items: Chairman Boyd opened the public hearing on agenda items a. through i . There being no proponents or opponents wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. a. LAFCO #82-16-3--Reorganization to include concurrent annexations to Eastern Municipal , Rancho California & Metropolitan Water Districts ROBERTT.AN DERSEN ADM INISTRATI VE CENTER 0 4080 LEMON STREET 0 12TIIFLOOR 0 RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501 LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 2 Moved (Abraham) , Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16329; approve this reorganization which includes the concurrent annexation of 20.75 acres to Metropol- itan Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and Rancho California Water District; designate the Board of Supervisors as Conducting Authority and authorize the Board to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) b. LAFCO #82-17-3--Annexation to Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District Moved (Abraham), Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16407; approve this annexation to the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District; designate the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Water District as Conducting Authority, and authorize the District to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) C. LAFCO #82-22-4--Annexation to Palo Verde Irrigation District Moved (Abraham) , Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16492; approve this annexation to the Palo Verde Irrigation District; designate the Palo Verde Irri- gation District as Conducting Authority, and authorize the District to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) d. LAFCO #82-26-5--Annexation #89 to County Service Area 61 Moved (Abraham) , Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16432; approve Annexation #89 to County Service Area 61; designate the Board of Supervisors as Conducting Authority, and authorize the Board to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) e. LAFCO #82-27-5--Annexation #90 to County Service Area 61 Moved (Abraham) , Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16425; approve Annexation No. 90 to County Service Area 61; designate the Board of Supervisors as Conducting Authority, and authorize the Board to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) f. LAFCO #82-29-3--Annexation #8 to County Service Area 84 Moved (Abraham) , Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16449; approve Annexation No. 8 to County Service Area 84; designate the Board of Supervisors as Conducting Authority, and authorize the Board to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 3 g. LAFCO #82-31-1--Annexation #15 to Rancho California Water District Moved (Abraham) , Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16531; approve Annexation No. 15 to Rancho California Water District; designate the Rancho California Water District as Conducting Authority, and authorize the District to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) h. LAFCO #82-32-4--Reorganization to Include Annexation #53 to City of Indio and Annexation #1112 to Valley Sanitary District Moved (Abraham) , Seconded (Rose) - that the Commission has reviewed and considered the City's environmental determination which resulted in the filing of a negative declaration; approve this reorganization - which includes Annexation #53 to the City of Indio and Annexation #1112 to the Valley Sanitary District; designate the Board of Supervisors as Conducting Authority, and authorize the Board to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) i. LAFCO #82-36-3--Annexation #19 to County Service Area 69 Moved (Abraham), Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16547; approve Annexation No. 19 to County Service Area 69; require the necessary lights be installed with cutoff luminaires since the tract is within a 30-mile radius of the Mt. Palomar Observatory; designate the Board of Supervisors as Conducting Authority, and authorize the Board to proceed without notice and hearing. (Unanimous) Continued Item: j. LAFCO #82-12-4--Annexation to Palm Desert Water & Services District Mrs. Zimmerman presented the proposal and briefed the Commission on the meeting held October 8 to provide an opportunity for both districts (Coachella Valley Water District and Palm Desert Water & Services District) to discuss their respective concerns, and determine whether a compromise could be achieved. Subsequent to the meeting written correspondence was received from Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) reaffirming the District's decision to oppose the annexation. Chairman Boyd opened the public hearing. Proponent: Bob Mainiero, Mainiero, Smith & Associates, representing the Palm Desert Water & Services District, stated that the annexation seems to be natural , since the area is bounded by the district on three sides, but the laws don't seem to be on the district's side. Mr. Mainiero also stated that he was available for questions. LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 4 Opponent: Mr. Maurice Sherrill , legal counsel for the Coachella Valley Water District, explained the District's position. He further stated that some time in the future CVWD will presumably take over the Palm Desert Water & Services District (PDW&SD) . PDW&SD cannot provide the services the CVWD can to future development of this area, and CVWD can provide superior service. The District's policy has been to withhold consent to annexations of this type because it does not want to perpetuate a situation which it will ultimately have to assume. Mr. Sherrill further stated that he was available for questions. There being no further proponents or opponents wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved (Rose), Seconded (Galleano) - that annexation to the Palm Desert Water & Services District be denied. (Unanimous) k. LAFCO #82-35-1--Detachment from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Mrs. Zimmerman presented the proposal , stating that landowners whose properties represent 76 percent of the market valuation within the area proposed for detachment support the detachment. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Proponents: Mr. Fred Christensen, Christensen & Wallace, Inc. , consultant for the proponents. Mr. John Holt, Chairman of the Decker Canyon Property Owner's Detachment Committee. Mr. John Thomas, property owner. Mr. Christensen stated that his clients concur completely with the staff report and its recommendation. The action before the Commission had its genesis on June 22 when the District held a public hearing to increase its availability fee approximately 678%. At that hearing, several Board members and staff told protestors that they could, if they wished, detach from the district. In sub- sequent conversations with the former district general manager, Mr. Christensen was told that the district would not oppose the detachment if that was the desire of the property owners, and if they understood the effect of such action. As of today, these property owners wish to detach and fully undertand the ram- ifications of their action. In fact, from the original group of 12 owners there are now 67 owners involved, representing some 62% of the total number of land- owners in the canyon. The district is not opposed to the detachment. The General Manager stated at a public hearing that he was categorically opposed to detachments. Also, the district has discovered that Decker Canyon repre- sents revenue and an additional water source to the district. Property owners have invested, in terms of replacement value, in excess of $100,000 in twelve operating months. A natural reservoir in Decker Canyon represents 140,000 gallons of water. Other individual ponds serve as backup reservoirs. . Mr. Christensen presented an exhibit of the Decker Canyon area. The property owners within Decker Canyon were each sent a letter informing them of the proposed detachment, and the ramifications of the detachment were clearly given. LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 5 Mr. Holt asked that people in favor of the detachment who were present to stand, and thanked the Commission for the opportunity of letting them present their side of the story. The people have considered the future; and from past experiences with the dry years and draught, landowners have had ample water supply to meet their needs. The people are fully aware of the ramifications of the detachment. Mr. Thomas stated that people in the valley are fully aware of what they are doing. The people do not receive any services from the district, and those who receive services should be assessed. Availability charges should be for those who receive water from the district. Decker Canyon people have invested in wells which are the most economical sources for long-term use. Mr. Christensen stated that he believed the reports received from his office and staff established the equity and justification for detachment. A signifi- cant majority of the landowners wish to detach their properties from the district. The reasons are simple -- they have a sufficient supply of ground- water to serve their immediate and short-term needs; they receive no services whatsoever from the district; they object to paying an availability charge which is being used to maintain and operate facilities which are only of benefit to others in the district; and they feel options are available to them should they require more elaborate water requirements in the future. Mr. Christensen respectfully urged the Commission to approve the detachment. Opponents: Mr. Michael Riddell , Best, Best & Krieger, attorney, representing the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Mr. Ron Campbell , General Manager, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Mr. Riddell asked that the Commission not approve the detachment. The problem with the proposal is that it is a very bad idea and extremely shortsighted. The report prepared by Christensen & Wallance fails to mention that currently the annexation fee charged by EVMD is $300 per acre. To annex at a later date will cost the people approximately one-quarter million dollars. The area will ultimately develop and be a beautiful place. The wells that serve Decker Canyon are sufficient to meet current needs but not for ultimate needs. The proponents want to detach from the district for several reasons. One is to avoid the availability charge which is $2.95 per acre currently. When it becomes necessary to receive more water, the proponents say they have several options. Three miles away is the Santa Margarita Water District, which is in Orange County. Decker Canyon is within the sphere of influence of EVMWD, and the Santa Margarita Water District cannot serve the Decker Canyon area. Pro- ponents say that they can form a mutual water company. It is not necessary to detach from EVMWD in order to form a mutual water company. But if they do, they still won't have enough water so they will still have to get water else- where; and the only place they can get it is from EVMWD. Another option would be to form their own district with the authority to pro- vide domestic water. Where will they get the water? They will probably still have to get water from EVMWD. Forming a water district doesn't bring in the needed water. The only place they can get water is from EVMWD. LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 6 The $2.95 per acre availability charge is not that much to pay for the availability of water; but if it is, then what they should do is go before the EVMWD Board, let them know that they think it is unfair, and ask that it be changed. The new District Manager is trying to help people in Decker Canyon, and is willing to work with them in order to help solve their problems and answer their questions. The EVMWD is located entirely within the boundaries of the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) , which is within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) . EVMWD buys a lot of its water from state water projects; and under Metropolitan' s contract with the state water projects, there is a clause which states that the water they serve from the state water Projects can be utilized only within Metropolitan's service area. The Decker Canyon area is within all three water district boundaries. WMWD also has authority to charge a $30 availability water charge. Mr. Riddell stated that he does not understand how the proponents can get water from Santa Margarita Water District because they would have to first detach from Western Municipal Water District. At one time, EVMWD hired engineers to take a look at the organization of the district. Among other things, the engineers suggested that the district increase the availability charge from $1.95 to $22.95 per acre. The people with- in the district, at a public hearing held on,, June 22, 1982, stated that they could not afford $22.95 availability charges. The district said the people were right and did not enforce the charge. What the people in Decker Canyon fear isn't going to happen. Mr. Riddell once again stated that to detach from EVMWD would be a very extreme and shortsighted solution to a problem that can be solved by the normal democratic process in showing up before the Board of Directors, telling them it is not fair, and having them make a decision -- something that all of us have to do. Mr. Riddell remarked that the staff report indicated that more than 50% of the property owners signed the petition, and that very little was said about those who did not sign. Several property owners who were contacted have not signed and are not in favor of the detachment. It is not fair to those people to detach their property from the only water purveyor in the area and, therefore, stifle any expectations that they might have in ultimately developing their property. Those who are here today have water to meet their current needs; but it is not known how many of those not present have water to meet their current and long-range needs. Mr. Riddell summarized by saying that the District has the necessary water lines to serve the Decker Canyon area, the area is located within the District's sphere of influence, and it is only good planning for the District to build facilities to ultimately serve the area within its sphere of influence. For all of these reasons and perhaps more, he respectfully requested that the area not be detached from the district. Mr. Campbell presented an exhibit showing the Decker Canyon area. He then stated that he had talked to six property owners, representing about 170 acres, and all were opposed to the detachment. These property owners were not aware that it will cost them more to annex at a later date. LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 7 There is a need for long-term and short-term water supply. By next summer, the District will have 10 million more gallons per day. There will be a 5 million gallon a day well that will run through a 24" pipe which loops around Lake Elsinore. There is a 33" pipe line that comes from Canyon Lake which comes from the San Jacinto River basin. The District also buys water when it is needed from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through its aqueducts. The EVMWD is working to improve its services in the Elsinore Valley area. The District has submitted a sphere of influence proposal to LAFCO, but has not had a chance to review it as yet with staff. The sphere of influence, as proposed, will help the District plan for future service needs. The District will submit, today, a letter to the State Water Quality Control Board for a grant proposal for a groundwater management technique study, which fits in perfectly with long- range planning and will include the entire sphere of influence and also Decker Canyon. Mr. Campbell stated that he and the EVMWD Board of Directors are very sensitive to standby charges, and held a public hearing in regard to them. The District prepared a water availability assessment exemptions for the people. However, it was not comprehensive enough to include those people in Decker Canyon. The pro- posed charges were dropped at the hearing. Mr. Campbell further stated that he would like to work with the people and figure out assessment exemptions for the people in Decker Canyon. If the detachment is approved, there will be many many others seeking detachment from the District. The District is very sensitive to the standby the responsibility assessment and ponsibility the District has. Mr. Campbell asked that the Commission not approve the detachment. EVMWU is moving ahead in its planning and pledges to accept its responsibility. Mr. Roger Woods, property owner, stated that Mr. .Campbell had talked to his wife on the telephone and she did not inform Mr. Campbell that they were opposed to the detachment. Rather, he and his wife support the request for detachment. Rebuttal : Mr. Christensen stated that this detachment does not disturb a nonexisting sphere of influence. It is true that an annexation to the Santa Margarita Water District could not be done and continue to have Western MWD as the wholesaling agency. However, there is a municipal water agency in Orange County which is a wholesaling agency; and were that to be an alternative in the future, LAFCO would make the decision. With regard to the establishment of a mutual water company, it seems that a critical point, unfortunately, is that property owners appearing before the Commission today are extremely distrustful of the EVMWD Board of Directors. Mr. Christensen read a letter addressed to Mr. Campbell , dated August 31, 1982, into the record in which several items were discussed regarding water capacity. Mr. Christensen stated that, to date, he has not received an answer to the LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 8 letter. Mr. Christensen asked where the extra capacity would come from. He further stated that he has asked for a copy of the minutes from EVMWD's September 22 board meeting more than once and has not received them either. The people in Decker Canyon feel that they have been treated badly by the EVMWD Board of Directors. Mr. Christensen stated that everyone has the right to take a risk to be wrong. There is no guarantee that there will be sufficient water in Decker Canyon forever; but the property owners feel that they are not being properly repre- sented, that they are not being fairly dealt with, and they want out. They have the right to make that mistake if, indeed, it is a mistake. Mr. Christensen urged that the people be permitted to detach from EVMWD. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Moved (Schroeder), Seconded (Rose) - to adopt the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 16650; approve the detachment of Section 21, Township 6 South, Range 5 West from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District; and designate the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District as Conducting Authority. (Unanimous) 1 . LAFCO #82-30-3--Annexation #44 to City of San Jacinto Mr. McElroy presented the prooposal . The Chairman opened the public hearing. Proponents: Mr. Brian McNabb, City of San Jacinto. Mr. Jim Versteeg, property owner. Mr. McNabb stated that the City of San Jacinto concurs with the staff recommendation. Mr. VerSteeg stated that he supports the staff report. There being no further proponents or opponents wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Moved (Schroeder) , Seconded (Galleano) - that the City's Environmental Assessment on the proposed annexation has been reviewed and considered; to approve Annexation #44 to the City of San Jacinto; and designate the City of San Jacinto as Conducting Authority. (Unanimous) M. LAFCO #82-20-1--Annexation #27 to City of Lake Elsinore Mrs. Zimmerman presented the proposal . The Chairman opened the public hearing. Proponent: Mr. Van Stephens, Planning Consultant for Butterfield Equities Corporation, LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 9 stated he was available for questions. There being no further proponents or opponents wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Moved (Abraham), Seconded (Rose) - that the City' s Environmental Assessment on the proposed annexation has been reviewed and considered; to approve Annexation N27 to the City of Lake Elsinore; and designate the City as Conducting Authority. (Unanimous) n. LAFCO #82-39-3--Annexation 845 to City of San Jacinto Mr. McElroy presented the proposal , stating that as of November 17, 1982, there are 11.1 registered voters in the area. Today, the City presented evidence that the area has been prezoned. There are approximately 72 owners of record in the area, the City has contacted 40 of them, and reports they are in favor of the project. A petition has been presented consisting of 15 ownerships, which represent over 13% of the assessed valuation, which oppose the annexation. There is also a supplemental registered voters' petition, in opposition, signed by 20 registered voters that has been verified by the Elections Department. This petition represents more than 18% of the registered voters who oppose the annexation. Mr. Carl Quandt owns 138 of the approximately 361 parcels, who is also opposed to having his property included in the annexation. The Mt. San Jacinto Community College also opposes inclusion of its property in the proposed annexation. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Proponents: Mr. Ross S. Nammar, City Manager, City of San Jacinto. Ms. Kathy Hall , President, San Jacinto Unified School District Board, and property owner. Mr. Nammar stated that the City is in opposition to some of the staff's recom- mendation. The City concurs with staff recommendations No. 1. and 2. , but not 2.a. and 2.b. , or 3. He then presented an exhibit showing the City' s domestic water service, and explained there is an agreement between the City and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) . If the area proposed for annexation is reduced in size, it will reduce one parcel which is presently under one ownership. If this parcel is deleted from the annexation, the property owner will have to come back and request annexation because EMWD does not have water facilities to pro- vide service to that area. Presently the City and EMWD do have an agreement whereby they will service outside and within each other's boundaries where the city or district do not have lines available. Consequently, that area will be getting water service from the City until EMWD's lines reach the property. Mr. Nammar asked that the parcel be added back to the annexation area. In regard to Recommendation No. 3. , Mr. Nammar asked that the requirement to conduct an election be deleted. He further stated that when the public hearing is held before the City Council ; and it is determined that an election is LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 10 required then an election will , if necessary, be held. Mr. Nammar commented that the City is not gerrymandering as was stated by staff. In recent discussions with owners of the mobilehome park, and during recent County Planning Commission meetings, owners as well as residents in the area have indicated that they are in favor of the annexation; and the City will , in fact, probably be coming back within 60-90 days asking to annex that particular area. Mr. Nammar further commented that the Mt. San Jacinto Community College did not take a stand in opposition to the annexation, but rather, a neutral position. The area is within the City' s sphere of influence and the majority of the property owners wish to become a part of the City. Mr. Nammar respectfully requested that the Commission look favorably on the annexation, add back the area requested, and delete the election requirement. Mr. Nammar added that he was available for questions. Ms. Hall stated that the San Jacinto Unified School District Board supported the annexation. Property owners in the area are trying to block the proposed R-6 zoning and the surface mining permit requested by Mr. Carl Quandt. The area is growing, and the people would like to protect themselves by having a nearby fire department, police department, and local government. These are also reasons for deciding to annex and not solely just to block the other land use proposals. People in the mobilehome park are in favor of the annexation. In regard to opposition to the annexation, two of the residents who signed Mr. Quandt's petition have indicated that they would like to have their names withdrawn from the petition. They were not told the truth by Mr. Pierce, who circulated the petition. He misrepresented himself and issues to the residents. The majority of the opposition is from Mr. Quandt. The people in the area want better police and fire protection. The present response time from the Sheriff and County Fire Department is poor. Ms. Hall concluded that residents are trying to protect their homes, their children, and their health in blocking the surface mining permit request, and they feel that Mr. Quandt is protecting nothing. Opponents: Mr. James Stinson, representing Mr. Carl Quandt. Mr. Steve Weileman, Vice President and General Manager of Woodhaven Development. Mr. Stinson stated that he does not feel that developing or not developing property should be a concern of the Commission. Rather, the concern is that apparently residents are not pleased with the services provided by the County. The City of San Jacinto has wanted to annex Mr. Quandt's property and the community college' s property for years. However, over the years, there has .been an unwritten law that the City would not annex north of the Ramona Expressway. Over a period of years, circumstances and people change. It now appears that residents, in addition to not being happy with county services, are not happy LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 11 with the proposed land use projects. The County, as well as the City, have a process to hear these matters; therefore, residents have available to them the hearing process to discuss these points. The County went to an additional expense on these projects by having them heard on the same date at the City Hall in the City of Hemet. The land use projects were heard by the Planning Commission. Concerns of the opposition were heard, and a substantial number of conditions were imposed upon Mr. Quandt in the proposed lighting plan. The R-6 change of zone is still in the hearing process. There are certain con- ditions that have been imposed on the R-6 project, and the project will be heard again at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors. The City of San Jacinto is working with the proponents. They are talking about 518 acres. Why not take in the entire 800 acres and include the rest of Mr. Quandt's property? Why not include the mobilehome park? Why not give the people an opportunity to decide? Mr. Quandt retained Mr. Pierce to obtain signatures for the petitions of oppo- sition. He does not know whether or not Mr. Pierce was unethical . Mr. Stinson then explained the petitions to the Commission stating that, in essence, of the 518 acres most of the opposition and proponents for the annexation are coming from the subdivision. The subdivision should be the subject property before the Commission today. Mr. Stinson presented two exhibits, one being the Tentative Tract Map 18568 for the proposed R-6 project, which will be presented to the Board of Supervisors. The other was an exhibit showing Eastern Municipal Water improvement districts. In regard to improvement districts formed in 1965, Mr. Quand•t and the community college annexed to Improvement District 17 with Mr. Quandt paying the annexa- tion fees. In 1968, they again paid all costs for sewer mains to the mobile- home park. In 1978, they became part of Improvement District N19 with Eastern Municipal Water District. To date we have spent some $1,900,000 for water lines and street improvements. That does not include the $416,000 cost in street improvements for the Sunrise project. In 1978, they petitioned LAFCO for establishment of County Service Area 119 for street lighting. Mr. Stinson asked that the Commission delete Mr. Quandt's projects from the proposed annexation and allow the City to annex the 56-house subdivision. He then stated that the City has indicated Mr. Quandt's type of development is not compatible with the community college, so why did the City, in taking the prop- erty immediately to the west, approve a mobilehome/travel trailer subdivision with 13.3 dwelling units per acre? The reason they did that was because the County would not permit this type of development. Mr. Quandt's development proposes 6 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Stinson recommended that the annexation be denied, but if the Commission finds it must approve annexation, that it be restricted to Tract 6517, the 56-house subdivision. Mr. Weileman, stated that he is opposed to the annexation because of the time Wand investment in the project (R-6 development), at this point; and the delay that it would cause. There is a recorded residential tract on part of the LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 12 property proposed for annexation, and sewer lines have been installed. Mr. Weileman stated that it would seem testimony presented by the proponents is devisive as pointed out by LAFCO staff, possibly annexation of the entire area is premature at this time, and should be limited to those residents who have concerns about the benefits they receive. The balance of the territory should appear before the Commission at a later date. Rebuttal : Mr. Nammar stated that Mr. Weileman has no vested interest in the area proposed Tor annexation. Additionally, there seems to be some confusion now in regard to the water service area. Mr. Nammar restated the city's position with respect to staff' s recommendations. He asked the Commission to approve the proposal and allow the city to schedule a public hearing, in accordance with the law, to deter- mine whether or not there is sufficient opposition to warrant an election. He also pointed out that state law has changed; and consequently, that is why we have spheres of influence and LAFCO's, so that development in each community with- in Riverside County and the State of California can progress in an orderly manner. The present majority of property owners as well as the City of San Jacinto support the annexation; and he requested the Commission to give them an oppor- tunity to proceed under the law to expand the boundary in an orderly manner within the city' s own sphere of influence. Ms. Hall stated that the area is growing. The people want better services. If the R-6 tract goes into effect, one of the selling points will be the good services provided from the City of San Jacinto. We know that a lot of money has been spent by Woodhaven, but we live there. We are ready to go into the City of San Jacinto. The R-6 zoning proposal will be before the Board of Supervisors -- whether or not it goes through, these homeowners deserve good service too. If all of the homes are built, one Deputy Sheriff will not be sufficient to serve the people. The response time now is around 45 minutes unless there is a dire emergency. Why wait and have a catastrophe? Ms. Hall stated that she doesn't want to have to worry about whether or not they will receive police and fire protection. Ms. Hall asked that the Commission not deny the annexation nor mandate an election. There being no further proponents or opponents wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Abraham asked Mrs. Zimmerman how the election requirement is determine. Mrs. Zimmerman answered if there is evidence that there is sub- stantial opposition, the Commission has authority to condition its approval to require the city to conduct an election. This is a discretionary action by the Commission; and it is true the proposal can be approved without this condition. Once the city is designated as conducting authority, a public hearing must then be scheduled by the city. If 25% or more of the registered voters or landowners file valid written protests, then the city would have no choice but to call for an election. LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 13 Commissioner Abraham then stated that the larger portion of land involved in this annexation proposal has less population and that the landowners do oppose being annexed. Mrs. Zimmerman stated that based upon the amount of opposition presented to staff, the election requirement was added. Commissioner Galleano stated that he felt it would be helpful to all commissioners if some graphics were presented pointing out the mobilehome park which is north of the subject annexation, the Sunset Tract, and the 56 houses. It is obvious that the Commission is far apart at this time. Also, the total number of acres owned by Mr. Quandt would be helpful . Mr. McElroy presented an exhibit showing the area Mr. Galleano asked to see. Commissioner Galleano then stated that there seems to be a discrepancy as to the position of the community college with respect to this annexation, and asked for clarification. Mrs. Zimmerman answered that the college wishes to remain neutral on the overall annexation, but the Superintendent of the college verbally made it quite clear that they prefer not to have their property in- cluded in the proposal . Commissioner Clark asked what percentage of the land is occupied as opposed to the total annexation proposal . Mrs. Zimmerman answered that the majority of the land is uninhabited. It was roughly estimated that less than 20% of the total area was inhabited. Commissioner Abraham asked that if the Commission adopted staff's recommendations, could not the residents of the 56 houses dictate the result of the election? Mrs. Zimmerman replied in the affirmative, that in an inhabited annexation, only registered voters may determine an outcome of an election. Commissioner Abraham then stated that the other 80% would have no choice in the matter. Mrs. Zimmerman stated that they would be subject to the results of the election. Commissioner Abraham then stated that he has problems with the proposal . Mrs. Zimmerman stated the Commission does have the option to approve the proposal and allow it to gor to the conductingauthority without y the condition for an election. If the protest which has been presented to the Commission, at this time, is pursued at the conducting authority level , the city would be required to conduct an election. Commissioner Abraham then asked Mrs. Zimmerman to explain the protest procedure. Mrs. Zimmerman stated that if the City conducted a public hearing and less than 25% of the landowners or registered voters filed valid written protests, there would not be an election, and the city would be required to order the annexation in accordance with the Commission' s determinations. Commissioner Abraham further stated that perhaps this matter should be con- tinued until a firmer commitment from the college is received and to provide an opportunity to pursue the possibility of annexing the populated area with or without the mobilehome park into the city. Chairman Boyd asked if it was possible to approve annexation of the subdivision at this time and continue the balance of the proposal . Mrs. Zimmerman stated that the boundaries could be modified, but continuing the balance of the pro- posal would delay processing of the annexation request. It could not be LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 14 finalized until the Commission' s decision is made on the proposal as a whole. Commissioner Boyd stated that the people who live in the subdivision should be allowed to annex to the City, if they wish. Commissioner Murphy noted that she agreed with Commissioner Boyd, and stated that there are a lot of people not receiving services that should be. She further indicated that she would like more time to study this proposal . Commissioner Galleano stated that he also concurs with Commissioner Abraham's position, and that there has to be some sort of examination of the sewage disposal and water services. There is a question here as to who is going to provide the services and that is pretty basic. Chairman Boyd stated that it appeared that there was no choice but to continue this matter. Mrs. Zimmerman stated that possibly it could be continued to the January 13, 1983 meeting. After further discussion among Commissioners and staff it was: Moved (Abraham), Seconded (Schroeder) - that this matter be continued to the January 13, 1983 meeting. (Unanimous) o. LAFCO #82-33-4--Annexation #14 to City of Palm Desert Mrs. Zimmerman presented the proposal and explained the problems that would be created if the annexation were to be approved as submitted by the City. The proposed boundaries would create an "island" of unincorporated territory totally surrounded by the Cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. It was noted other cities throughout Riverside County are experiencing similar problems in desiring to annex uninhabited areas in which a smaller "island" of residents are resistant to annexation. As examples, a visual transparency of the Cities of Banning and Beaumont was displayed which reflected the poten- tial problems associated in excluding islands of unincorporated territory. In order to establish consistent policy with respect to this issue, staff recommended that the annexation be approved subject to the conditions that the potential "island" of Palm Desert Greens be incorporated into the boundaries and that Annexation #15 (which is scheduled for the Commission' s December meeting) subsequently be approved. Chairman Boyd opened the public hearing. Proponents• Mr. Martin Bouman, City Manager, City of Palm Desert. Mr. Ray Diaz, Environmental Services Director, City of Palm Desert. Mr. Hal Walker, a principal with Elsmere Developments & a property owner. Mr. Tom Suitt, representing several owners involved in the annexation. Mr. Bouman stated that it has been the Policy of the City of Palm Desert not to aggressively seek annexations, but simply to accommodate the wishes of property owners in uninhabited areas. The City has never had an annexation of LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 15 anything but uninhabited territory and always with the express wishes of the property owners, always within its sphere of influence, with one controversial exception, and always with what was considered a logical extension of city boundaries. The City feels the same way about this proposed annexation. What makes this annexation different is that the City does not deny that an island of territory is being created, but they don't know what to do about it. About a year ago, the Commission heard the City's Annexation #13, which was immedi- ately to the east, and when the Commission approved the annexation it said, "Now we see what's happening here, an island is being substantially created, and before you come back, we want you to make efforts to try and resolve that situation. " The City has made those efforts. The residents of Palm Desert Greens, as well as the Santa Rosa Country Club have been contacted, and they have rejected annexation to the City. The City would agree with staff's recommendation, but the people do not want to be included; and the City really doesn't have a lot to offer the residents. The three Cove Communities -- Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells -- contract for fire service through the County of Riverside. The three cities contribute about $3.25 million for fire protection per year, and about the same amount for police protection. The same policy holds true, the unincorporated territory gets the same type of pro- tection as does the incorporated territory. The Palm Desert Greens residents do not want to be a part of the City. It is a walled community with private security and private streets. The City cannot offer to maintain their streets for them. The residents of Palm Desert Greens do not want to pay the fire protection assessment charged to residents of the City of Palm Desert. Mr. Bouman stated that the City will not try to sell annexation to people who do not want to be a part of Palm Desert. Therefore, whereas the staff recommendation is to include this territory in the annexation it would be fine with us but we don't think it can be done. Based upon what we can tell you, at this time, an election will fail . There is no point in trying to force cityhood on 1,200 people who do not want to be annexed. The annexation is in line with others that the Commission has approved, and the City of Palm Desert requests that the Commission approve Annexation #14 as proposed by the City. The City will be pleased to continue and work with citizens of the Palm Desert Greens and Santa Rosa Country Club to annex them to the City. Commissioner Schroeder asked Mr. Bouman what the advantages would be to the property owners if they were incorporated into the City. Mr. Bouman answered that property owners/ developers like the image of being part of the City of Palm Desert, in addition to the fact that the City expedites development plans, and the City works with developers in an effort to have everyone know what's going on. Mr. Diaz stated that the City is in agreement with County Counsel that the Commission has the discretionary authority to approve this annexation per the City's original application, excluding the Palm Desert Greens area; and that it is hoped that through his presentation and others, the application will be approved. r LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 16 Mr. Diaz presented the Commission with background as to what has transpired in order to bring the Palm Desert Greens and the Santa Rosa Country Club residents into the City. He then presented the Commission with a letter that was sent to the Palm Desert Greens' residents for their review. The City held a meeting on February 13. The net results showed that out of 806 written signatures pro- testing the annexation, 710 were verified as registered voters, representing 53% of the people in Palm Desert Greens. These were not a result of a hearing, so if the LAFCO staff recommendation was approved by the Commission, the City of Palm Desert would have to hold a public hearing, and the people who circu- lated the petitions would have to go back to the 710 people and tell them that their first petitions were ignored, which would guarantee that more than 50% of the residents would sign protest petitions. Mr. Diaz stated that staff indicated by approving this annexation, a precedent would be set. The only precedent that might be set in this situation is that the City made a conscious effort to work with people in the area and the voters still did not wish to become a part of the City of Palm Desert. Voting for the original proposal would not set a precedent that any other city or jurisdiction could come before the Commission in order to avoid attempting to annex an area. The City is not attempting to avoid bringing these people into the City. The people do not want to become a part of the City of Palm Desert. Palm Desert would welcome these people into the City. Commissioner Clark asked how much it costs for the people in Palm Desert Greens to maintain the streets and whether or not it was part of the homeowners' fee. Mr. Diaz answered that the costs are paid through the homeowners' fees. Commissioner Clark then asked if the real estate taxes were paid on the land individually. Mr. Diaz replied that they are paid individually. Mr. Walker stated that his company is in favor of the annexation and asked that the Commission vote in favor of the annexation. The property owners want to be in the City because they want to save time. Otherwise development delays can occur which they wish to prevent. The City has been very accommodating, and it is to the advantage of the property owners to deal with the City of Palm Desert. Mr. Suitt stated that his clients do not agree with staff's comments that to approve this annexation would set a precedent. The people in Palm Desert Greens do not want to be a part of the city within the next three to four years. There would not be an advantage to the people in that area as far as police and fire protection are concerned. Mr. Suitt respectfully asked that the Commission approve the annexation as submitted by the City of Palm Desert. There being no further proponents or opponents wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Moved (Boyd) , Seconded (Abraham) - that the City' s Environmental Assessment on this annexation which resulted in the filing of a Negative Declaration has been reviewed and considered; that Annexation #14 to the City of Palm Desert be approved as submitted by the City; and that the City of Palm Desert be designated as conducting authority. (Unanimous) LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 17 The Commission recessed for lunch at 12: 15 p.m. , and reconvened at 1:46 p.m. Commissioner Clark did not return. p. LARD #82-28-3--Annexation #28 to City of Beaumont Mrs. Zimmerman presented the proposal . Chairman Boyd opened the public hearing. Proponents: Mr. Albert Baumstark, property owner. Mr. Al Baumstark, property owner. Mr. Art Carrion, property owner. Mr. Norman J. Davis, City Manager, City of Beaumont. Mr. Albert Baumstark stated that he wants his property annexed to the City of Beaumont for sewer service, and the City of Beaumont can provide this service, which is very important. It is very questionable as to how long the same services could be provided by the City of Banning. There is strong evidence that this area will develop rapidly, if sewer services are available. Both the Cities of Beaumont and Banning will benefit from this annexation. Mr. Baumstark asked that the Commission approve the annexation. Mr. Al Baumstark stated that there are some problems with the present septic tanks. If there were sewers in the area, landowners would develop property in the area. Beaumont has the sewer capacity to serve the area now. Both cities would benefit from the annexation, and it would be a wise choice for this annexation to be approved. Mr. Carrion stated that he is approaching this annexation from a health standpoint. The pumping of Denny's septic tank creates a health problem and, therefore, sewers, are needed to avoid this problem. If the area is annexed to the City of Banning, it would take approximately 4 to 10 years to get sewer services to the area. Mr. Carrion stated that he would like his property annexed to the City of Beaumont. Mr. Davis stated that five property owners had initiated the annexation and that there are 13 properties involved. The area proposed for annexation would continue to be served by the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District whether it is within the City of Beaumont or the City of Banning. The five property owners have indicated, over the years, that they do not necessarily want to be a part of either Banning or Beaumont; but they want sewer service provided to their properties. The City of Beaumont has a sewer line at the present time which can serve the area now and in the future when the area develops. There would be more commercial development in the area now if there was sewer service which would bring more jobs and revenue to the area. Mr. Davis stated that he does not believe that the City of Banning can give the people an idea as to when sewers could be installed. If there will ever be sewer service in the area, it will have to be paid for by the property owners; and it will be very expensive because the lines will have to travel a great distance. When the Presley Corporation develops, they will not tunnel a course through the freeway to provide sewer lines, nor will anyone LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 18 else. The other alternative is to run a line a mile or so to the existing Banning lines. The people in the Midway area will not support this type of proposal . Mr. Davis then read into the record a petition that was given to the City of Beaumont, which opposed annexation to the City of Banning. Mr. Davis also gave the LAFCO Secretary a signed petition representing 100% of the property owners indicating their support for the annexation request. At this point, Mr. Davis stated that staff had pointed out that this area is within the sphere of influence of the City of Banning, and further stated that a sphere of influence line is only that -- a guideline for certain things. He also said that the City of Banning cannot serve the area at this time. Mr. Davis pointed out that staff said it would be inequitable to take the revenue that this area represents and piecemeal annexation of the Midway area. Mr. Davis said that he did not feel this should enter the picture. Beaumont has a service to offer that the proponents want and need, which will serve to improve the area. Mr. Davis said he hoped that based upon that and that alone, the Commission would make a decision. Commissioner Schroeder asked who provides sewer service at this time. Mr. Davis answered that the City of Beaumont provides sewer service. Commissioner Schroeder then asked if the City would provide sewer service without the annexation. Mr. Davis replied in the negative, stating that the City presently has a 50,000 gallon capacity for this area. The City will not extend this capacity outside the city boundaries to help somebody else. Such a thing would not be logical , and the city does not want to contract for outside services, as it causes too many headaches. Commissioner Rose asked Mr. Davis if it wouldn't be the same if it was inside or outside the boundaries of the city limits. Mr. Davis answered that in terms of cost, the ongoing sewage user fee costs are double for those outside the city limits; and the Beaumont City Council has stated that it will not contract for services any more. Commissioner Galleano asked Mr. Davis if the people in the Midway area would have agreed to annex to the City of Beaumont or choose to remain outside. Mr. Davis answered that he didn' t know, but that he would know tonight because he was meeting with people in the Midway area. However, he stated that he didn't think so. The City of Beaumont does have more to offer than the City of Banning, and the sewer line is installed. He further stated that maybe the answer would be to have all of the Midway area annexed to Beaumont. Opponents: Mr. Robert Cohagen, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Banning. Mr. Lawrence Tomasello, Director of Community Development, City of Banning. Mr. Marion Elwood Jones, property owner. Mr. Cohagen read a letter stating the position of the City of Banning, which opposed the annexation. The territory lies within the sphere of influence of the City of Banning. The City of Banning can provide equal services, at the L4 C0 Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 19 present time, with the exception of sewers. However, the City of Banning does have the capacity to serve the total Midway area, but will require the instal- lation of trunk mains and possibly the installation of a lift station. Since the question of an annexation of the total Midway area, in the City's opinion, be addressed as quickly as possible, the City is prepared to make the decision to install a sewer trunk main to Midway a high priority item. Mr. Tomasello stated that 21" concrete sleeves were placed under the freeway for the purpose of future construction. When the Deutsch & Presley projects develop, lines will be brought down to the City's sewer system. At this time, the only service Banning cannot provide is sewer. At present, there are three property owners who have a real sewage problem. They can contract with the City of Beaumont for that service. The $16.80 charge per month for sewer service isn't enough rationale to justify Beaumont's annexation easterly of Highland Springs Avenue which is in Banning's sphere of influence. Mr. Tomasello stated that he was available for questions. 'Mr. Jones stated that when he contacted the City of Beaumont to inquire about sewer- hookups, he could not get any answers from the City's officials. Mr. Jones stated that his sewage affluent goes down hill to Banning. The water is good in Banning. Mr. Jones does not feel that the revenue that would be generated from the sewage hookups to Beaumont should go into a system that was designed 10 years ago. Annexing this area into Beaumont would take the revenue away from Banning, and then it would be more difficult to get sewer service. Mr. Jones has talked with the County Flood Control District regarding the storm drain problem, and they are willing to cooperate with him, as is the County Road Department with the continuance of the road in his development. Mr. Jones further stated that annexing this territory to Beaumont will not help get sewers to this area. If Beaumont annexes this territory, then it should annex all of the territory. Mr. Jones wants to hook up his sewer lines with the Presley development's system, and, therefore, have his sewer lines run downhill . Mr. Jones stated he was available for questions. Rebuttal : Mr. Davis commented on Mr. Tomasello' s comments regarding hallowness of the sphere of influence whichwas referred to originally, and which was demonstrated by the Commission, today, to be nothing but a guideline. It has been amply demonstrated that there are problems in this area that will not be met. When the Deutsch property is developed to the north and those lines to through to pick up with the Presley development to the south, it will probably be 10-15 years from now. There will be no sewage lines until the very last build out. Mr. Davis again requested that the annexation be granted to the City of Beaumont so that the people can be provided with the services they need. Commissioner Galleano stated that the Cities of Banning and Beaumont should get together and provide the people with sewer service. EDA funds were given LAFCO Minutes November 18, 1982 Page 20 ` for the establishment of sewer lines in the area to create jobs; and some compromise should be worked out between the two cities to meet this need on an interim basis. Chairman Boyd closed the public hearing. Moved (Rose) , Seconded (Boyd) - that Annexation #28 to the City of Beaumont be denied. (6/0, Clark absent) 5. Report on CALAFCO Conference. Mrs. Zimmerman reported on the memorandum prepared by Commissioner Younglove in regard to special district representation on the CALAFCO Executive Board as discussed at the annual CALAFCO Conference. Moved (Boyd) , Seconded (Rose) - to approve the recommendations outlined in Commissioner Younglove' s correspondence, dated November 8, 1982. 6. Possible Hearings for December 9, 1982. Mrs. Zimmerman presented the possible hearings for December 9, 1982. The Commission discussed the meeting date and unanimously decided to schedule its next meeting on Monday, December 13, 1982. 7. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, t1ISCHFLLE IMMERMAN Assistant Executive Officer 1AFC0NOV 2 4 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL V LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMIS�UM � R ott%Wf " ��-rpp�st&S (714) 787-2786 ROBERT T. ANDERSEN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET • 12TII FLOOR • RIVERSIDL', AT.17 ORNIA 92501-1651 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Riverside, State of California, in the Meeting Room of the Board of Supervisors, Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St. , 14th Flr. , Riverside, CA. , on Thursday, December 9, 1982, at 9:00 a.m. , on the following proposals: 1. LAFCO #82-21-1--Annexation #28 to City of Lake Elsinore, N.E. of 1-15 & S. of Hwy. 74. 2. LAFCO #82-34-4--Annexation #15 to City of Palm Desert, N.E. Corner of Portola Ave. & Country Club Dr. 3. LAFCO #82-38-5--Annexation #91 to County Service Area 91, Nly. of Manzanita Ave. between Indian & Heacock Sts. , Sunnymead area, Street Lights. For a particular description of the land involved, reference is hereby made to maps and legal descriptions on file in the office of the Local Agency Formation Commission, Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St. , 12th Flr. , Riverside, CA. Not less than five days prior to the hearing, any interested party who wishes to be heard should file with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission at the above address a request to be heard. LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE MISCHELLE ZIMMERMAN Assistant Executive Officer Date: November 18, 1982 ROBERT J. FITCH A1ISCHELLIi ZIMMERMAN LYNDA THORSON Executive Officer Assistant E:xcemive Officer Executive Secretary LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOV 2 4 1982 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CIJ'EffjVftTf16PTFILING 11 Micrhalla 7immprman , Assistant Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Riverside, do hereby certify that: 1. The application hereinafter referenced and described has been submitted to me and has been found to be in the form prescribed by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2. The application contains the information and date requested and required by said Commission and provisions of State Law. 3. The application has been accepted for filing by me on November 18, 1982 4. The application has been set for hearing before the Local Agency Formation Commission on December 13, 1982 The Commission meets monthly in the Hearing Room on the Fourteenth Floor of the Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California; and the hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. The staff report will be mailed to you on the Friday before the Commission meeting. Applicant: __City of Palm Desert Address: 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 APPLICATION TITLE: Annexation #15 to City of Palm Desert GENERAL LOCATION: Northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive. This Certificate of Filing is issued pursuant to authority and requirements of Section 54791 of the Government Code, State of California. All time requirements and limitations for processing and consideration of the aforementioned application specified by State Law and/or rules and regulations of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission shall become effective and run from the date of issuance of this Certificate of Filing. November 19, 1982 Date Assistant 'Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission County of Riverside I i RESOLUTION NO. 82-117 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS, "PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 151-, PURSUANT TO SECTION 35140 OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE. r-a WHEREAS, THE California Environmental Quality Act has been complied with, pursuant to City Council Resolution 80-89, in that all responsible agencies have been contacted and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed change of organization is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The request is a logical expansion of the city boundaries. 2. The proposed annexation is consistent with the Municipal Organization Act which encourages limiting the number of annexations to those areas considered logical growth areas. 3. The proposed area to be annexed is of satisfactory size to provide municipal services without adversely affecting the rest of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. The above recitations are hereby determined to be true and correct and represent the findings of the council in this matter. 2. The city clerk is hereby instructed to file an official application with the Local Agency Formation Commission for Palm Desert Annexation No. 15 as described in Exhibit "A", puruuant to the Municipal Organization Act for uninhabited territory since less than registerd voters reside in the area. 3. A negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 12th day of August 1982, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Newbrander, Puluqi, Snyder and Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: McPherson ABSTAIN: None n OY S N, Mayor ATTEST: d SHEILA R. GIL AN, City k City of Palm Desert, Calif is /pa a l A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82-117 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 15 In its entirety the southwest Quarter of Section 4 Township 5, Range 6 east. Approximately 160 acres. (Z13 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code). Case No: Annexation #15 Common Project Name (if any): City of Palm Desert 1 r y Applicant/Project Sponsor: Annexation of 160 acres within the southwest A of Section 4T5SR6E. The project is simply a change of jurisdiction from the County of Riverside to the City of Palm Desert. There is no specific development being proposed at this time. Further environmental review will be required as applications for development are submitted. The Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, California has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. ad ,� dZ AMON A. DIA DA Director of Environmental Services RAD/pa j 1 ` T;4S H6£ _ i*--Ooftv :rl --T --- weawl 55' Rd£ c W ;4 P.RrS I r f u.a.VA � 1 W _ DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 15 Draw" by' TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT y RAY o(Az Ez IN SEC 4 T S S R 6 : E SCA# Okaetor: Em. Swtar Olv. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION CITY OF DESERT A6 iNOtCFlYEt..;.. ;, � . CASE NO. ®a,° 2osLT1== �C�IP�6 =VnOX!t=TAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIROMIENTAL EVALUATION CBECXLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or im 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? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, — — either locally or regionally? Zf Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a.. Changes. in currents, "or the course or l' direction of water movements? "` . b. Changes in-absorpti'un rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and-amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — — d. Alteration of-the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, I either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — — f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? — — 4. plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass , and crops)? — — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? — — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ., — —S. Animal. 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, 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 exittinn w4iAiifo . C t 3 Yes Ma be No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in ::the rate of use of any natural resources? - r — — b. Depletion of:any non-renewable natural resource? 7. Energy. Will the proposal result in: :' a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ ,/ b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of U set—t1Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides, oil , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. Econo_m, c Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in -the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? t' b. A change in the value of property and improvementsrexposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted COMM-Unity risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels toethe point at which accepted Community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? i c 11. Land Use. Willathe proposal result in the a tteration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the;amount of designated open / space? 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of- the City? b. Change in the population distribution by age, income,'?relig.ion, racial , or ethnic / t. group, occupational class , household type? 4. Yes Maybe No 14. Employment. Will the proposal result in additiona new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Traans ortation/Circulation. Will the proposal result tn: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? ,/ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation — or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? .. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? _ f. Other governmental services? Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? .19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: h 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? f b. A change in the level of coemunity health ' care provided? 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? 23. Light and Glara. Will the proposal produce new�i light or-glare? 24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? • c 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment- 4--- b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into 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 an the environment is significant. ) c/ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: �`"' P E T I T I O N TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In accordance with the annexation of Municipal Organization Act, as amended, Government Code. Sections 35, 300-35, 326 , DABCO HOLDINGS LTD. , the owner of all of the subject propety legally described below (which said property is outlined in red on the maps attached hereto) , respect- ively request that the said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. The W.1/2 of the N.W.1/4 of the S.W.1/4 of Fractional Section 4 , Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian The E.1/2 of the S.E.1/4 of the S.W.1/4 of Section 4 , Township 5. South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian The W. 1/2 of the S.W.1/4 of the S.E.1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 Section 4 , Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. This Petition is being signed by Dabco Holdings Ltd. , the owner of the above described land, by its President, Robert C. Stewart of 54 Fairway Drive, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and its Secretary, Barry Schloss of 1203-10025 113 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Dated this 21st day of August, A.D. 1981. DABCO HOLDINGS LTD. By: Robert— `Stewart, its President Barry Schloss, its Secretary o� e l �Jt a i L Jt i lAi 1 �O a2 O 94 h a. ©_ 1 V w a i 4 It .� a i !. 0 1 1 is Y S, N O n��:•'�3 nc 01981 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF ,PALM DESERT 164 ulv CUt :?=Awjkt6wj .. 1C;:IVcD •�� DtC "sD Pi1 Z 09 PETITION 01TY CLERKS OFFICE TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act qs amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, Eeg htb4 SJ tau i y i ut_J4 pun LlyytkA S ijCd;t>s4 owners of all subject property legally described below see map attached . hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. T-01�� s�1 21 D Legal Description: `� } J] {�, OcC301981 I_V\E W0'S 1 � 1' "ALF gv,RONMENTAL SERVICES -+ CITY OF PALM DESERT So�l'�Ea�t" 6ME'-QuAijrM �' E $q��F -r CAE- QuARER , �L � F So UTk WeTt- 0"AE— O�VAOT R , , o� Skio" 4 , 'to mshrp s s0O1,. 4 N6C !o EA'St S. R.A .4It. R syessoj?s 'f HRccL Nvm8 Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. ated this Al �'ti����•Y i 4 z � 7 &L4,ezL �'a 7 Dom/ �o�ov� PETITION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, 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: 1 v � � Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this Q,4 II PETITION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400 J'I 41Ci k "b AL -:-fL t 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: e C I �' Pc ri. CV �t� o r= c '7 Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated t Ithis By: �lkK�: C1NUY�u l Address: -p , r'z SZ- a Qe '- « -7 3 �6 03 j P ET I T I ON DEC - 31981 4MENTAL SERVICES Cnq OF. PALM DESERT TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, ,t1,QR-70P1, C, !14t D3chR ownerir of all subject property legally described below see map attach;d,17 M hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: �f.G� ay.�o iLi,/� ,•• v�R• SLJ Y o-d Sec�l'35R/c� Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this Address : e���e /jR pad fi� Sits PETITION pEC - 3 �g61 - ENV1�R0c OF�PA� DESERZ S TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESER , CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, S/ u ,ter re. , Torn T,e ( c j c C �rUihcC`7 �i.,L�Z tLdCL C S//J/f/ - s 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: �icu-�c'-�� (oZcZB4 oaf Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this // 3o Pi ey z; / Address: i��rd! <v�.l �>c n / 22-es 900 2;K1 PETITION �cG - 3 NICES T0: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, ENV\RO of YAK C1� In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400; 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: LLriLGe� '"� 7 fLZ�� -S G'J Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. " Dated this By: JILyi �ci 4 4Cl < � j u�` Address: 4 jav;7- RIC22 P E T I T I O N DEC - 31991 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal kr&anniation Act as,,.am%eA, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, 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: Q,oas+a�cn� 1na.�A P t�� 6 000 8' Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. KI lq Datediu By: aA - Address: `�Qygr kW L PETITION DEC ' 4 1981 EI VIRONMENT S T0: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF '�/ hAQHa IOE ERLCWRNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, 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: U O /4 C' ; Gl s� c: - � TSs R 6c / ��CiC7U �S`•-� /45 $ CSS UA 'S A9 M l3�lc Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this .cD c c - /, /yei p Address: /v CJ•/.�c' /�� tirr Al V 7/ c ADDENDUM TO ANNEXATION #15 LAFCO APPLICATION Action on City of Palm Desert Annexation #15 was first initiated in September 1981 on the request of DABCO HOLDINGS, LTD., owner of 15 acres within the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 5 south, Range 6 east. This quartersection is made up of thirty-one 5 acre parcels and two 2.5 acre parcels. The city determined that the minimum area to be annexed would have to include the entire quartersection. Letters describing the proposed annexation were sent to all the affected property owners. Signed petitions were received from eight owners in addition to DABCO. There was no negative response. The property owners were again contacted in connection with the preannexation zoning hearing before planning commission and city council. There was no written or oral testimony in opposition to the zone change or to the proposed annexation. Ar L CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: August 12, 1982 SUBJECT: Plan for services for Palm Desert Annexation No. 15 I. INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to Section 35102 of the State Government Code, the city is required to file with any new annexations effective January 1, 1978, a plan outlining the method by which services will be provided in the area to be annexed. This report represents the required plan for services for proposed Annexation No. 15. The City of Palm Desert, being a contract city, must rely on many other agencies to provide for services both in the community 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 fact is substantiated by the letters received from responsible agencies as a part of the environmental review process and in conjunction with preannexation zoning considerations. The major emphasis of this report is to address those services provided directly by 1 the city either through city staff or direct contract with the city by other agencies. In addition, wherever possible, this report will address the a methods by which other i service agencies would provide needed facilities in the area. II. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: The utilities which would be extended into the area proposed to be annexed would be as part of actual development and they would consist of the services of the Coachella Valley County Water District in the area of water and sewer, Southern California Edison Company in the area of electricity, Southern Califronia Gas Company in the area of gas, General Telephone Company in the area of telephone and Able Cable in the area of cable television. The services provided by this city directly, would be in planning and building, public works, parks, administration and code enforcement services. By contract the city would also provide for trash disposal, police and fire services. Public transportation would be provided by the Sunline Agency. The major road improvement would include the extension of Portola Avenue along the western boundary of the area to be annexed. Public park needs in the area to be annexed will partially be fulfilled by on-site recreational amenities. In addition, land dedication and in-lieu fees will be collected as development occurs for the implementation of the recreation element of the Palm Desert General Plan. III. LEVEL AND RANGE OF SERVICES: The level and range of services provided would include sufficient sized water and ' sewer, gas and electrical facilities to service development proposed for the area. Planning and building, public works and code enforcement services as provided by the city directly, would be on the basis of need. Police, paramedic and fire service capability exist to meet the need of the area at its present stage of development and are proposed to be expanded to meet the needs of subsequent development in the area. Public transportation would be provided by the expansion of the existing system to serve the area. Subsequent development will result in the need for the city to add additional police vehicles and the need for an additional fire station in the vicinity of Country Club Drive. - 1 - t LEVEL AN D RANGE OF SERVICES (CONTINUED) Since fire services are provided on a volunteer basis in conjunction with the County of Riverside and State Department of Forestry, the city would be required to provide for a facility in the area which would be manned by these agencies. A fire station has been planned for in the city's general plan in this area and will be provided at the time it is needed. In addition, said area will be served by a proposed fire station on the extension of El Paseo, south of 44th Avenue, the existing Palm Desert station at El Paseo and Highway 74 with backup being provided by the Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms and Bermuda Dunes stations. The basic administration services of planning, building, public works and code enforcement would be provided by existing city staff. IV. TIMING FOR SERVICE EXTENSIONS: Basic utility services would occur as a part of development. The city has on file letters from the various utilities assuring us that these services would be available. The city services would be available immediately in the area of planning, building and code enforcement, public works and police and fire. Road improvements would occur as a part of new development. The fire facility would be constructed prior to December 1983. Parks would be built as development occurs through dedication and collection of in-lieu fees. V. REQUIREMENTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING: New development would be required to extend roads around the area and to provide for needed municipal facilities through the city's subdivision ordinance. A fire facilities fee of $100.00 per residential unit and $100.00 per 1,000 square feet of commercial space will be used to construct the necessary fire facilities. An assessment district has been proposed by major property owners in the north Palm Desert area to finance the major utility extensions and road improvements in the area. The Portola Avenue improvements adjacent to this annexation would be covered by the proposed district. 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 revenues to provide said services. /pa - 2 - CLICATION TO THE RIVERSIDL OUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Mail or bring to: County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, California 92501 FOR LAFC USE ONLY INTRODUCTION: The questions in this form are designed to obtain enough data about the proposed project and project site to allow the staff and LAFC to assess the project. You may include any additional information which you believe is pertinent. Use additional sheets where necessary. Do not leave any blanks. If an item is not applicable, so indicate. Submit this form in one copy. Applicant City of Palm Desert Telephone:_146-o6ii Address:__45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert CA 92260 Name & title of person to contact regarding this application: Philio Drell Address 45-275 Pricklv Pear. Lane. Palm Desert CA 92260 Telephone: 346-0611 PROPOSED PROJECT OR ACTION: Palm Desert Annexation No. 15. GENERAL LOCATION: (Area, cross streets, etc.)_ _NnrthPact corner of Porto la Avenue and Country Club Drive. A. OWNERSHIP 1. Is the applicant a property owner in the area of the proposed project: Yes No 2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property? Yes No id.A. B. AREA INFORMATION 1 . Land area in acres 160.acres 2. Number of dwellings in the proposed area at present time Nnne 3. Expected increase in the number of dwellings in the proposed area which will result . from this proposal 320 . By what date? 1990 (state type of dwelling . units, e.g. , single family residences, mobile homes.) 4 . Population in the proposed area at the present time None S . Expected change in the. population in the proposed area which will result from this proposal 70o By when t9g0 6. Amount of publicly-owned land in the proposed area (identify as federal, state or local) 20 acres Federal 7. Assessed value at present time: Land £ 524.036 Improvements None 8. Number of land parcels in the proposed area 33 _,uTER INFORMATIONS �r I . Number of registered voters in area at the present time None 2. Does the proposed boundary cut across precinct boundaries ? No 3. Does the proposed boundary cut across tax rate areas? No D. LAND USE 1 . Current zoning_ P-1 19.000 2. Pre-zoning (Assigned by cities only)_ pR-5 3. Current land use Vacant 4. County General Plan designation 11org low 0-3 d.u./ac. 5. City General Plan designation Low Density Residential , 3-5 d.u./ac. 6. Is the proposal in consonance with the City & County General Plans Yes 7. Probable or proposed land use for next five years -- include known or probable plans for development (Submit any available plans) Low Density Planned Residential Developmen E. DETAILS OF YOUR PROPOSAL 1 . Describe the proposed project In as much detail as possible. Identify the project, including annexations to, detachments from, or formation of new entities (use additional sheets if necessary) Annexation of the remaining 160 areas within Section 4 T5S R6E to the City of Palm Desert. a. The reasons which justify this ro osal are as follows (for Y p P (f example service needs, health mandate., economic benefits, etc.) The Proposed area is surrounded on three sides by the City of Palm Desert. The City of Palm Desert is the appropriate agency to determine urban service priorities. b. Specific services to be added, changed, or eliminated: added (1) Without additional cost to residents/owners: Increased .police patrol . (2) With additional cost to residents/owners: Increased leVel:of fire and paramedic protection. 2. Will the project be subject to existing bonded indebtedness ? No 3 . What will be the approximate annual costs to accomplish the goals of this proposal? $16,000 4. What are the specific sources of revenue to pay for the service(s) ? State subventions. sales taxes. construction and fire facility fees and special fire taxes. (2) ..dt is annual cost to each resident/property owner (specify which)? �48,00 per year assessment. F. PROPERTY OWNERS' DESIRES 1 . How many property owners make up tofal ownership of project area ? (Include with th application copies of all letters/correspondence you have relating to above items) 25 2 . How many property owners have been contacted regarding. project? gr 3 . How many property owners are in favor of project? g 4. How many property owners are not in favor of project? ynnP G. FOR LIGHTING DISTRICTS AND ROAD MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS ONLY 1 . If street lights will be installed, how many, what type (mercury or sodium) and what Intensity (e.g. , 7000 lumen)? 2. Is approved plan by utility company for street lights submitted at this time? (Approved plan must be submitted before energy charges will be assumed by Service Area) . 3 . If road maintenance district, how many miles of road to maintain? 4 . Is it your intention to bring any roads to County standards for future acceptance into the County Maintained Road System? H. PLAN OF SERVICE (City Annexations only) A plan for providing services within the affected territory must be submitted with this application. Use separate sheets. . I. In your own words , how would your proposal benefit the community?.. This annexation will insure that the area will be developed to the same standards and will receive the same high level of urban services as the surrounding incorporated territory. NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS -- List below the names and addresses of people to whom notices and communications should be directed. (3 maximum) Name Telephone Address City & Zip Name Telephone Address City & Zip Name Telephone Address City & Zip Signature of applicant or authorized representative Typed or printed name Title (3) ADDENDUM TO ANNEXATION #15 LAFCO APPLICATION Action on City of Palm Desert Annexation #15 was first initiated in September 1981 on the request of DABCO HOLDINGS, LTD., owner of 15 acres within the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 5 south, Range 6 east. This quartersection is made up of thirty-one 5 acre parcels and two 2.5 acre parcels. The city determined that the minimum area to be annexed would have to include the entire quartersection. Letters describing the proposed annexation were sent to all the affected property owners. . Signed petition were received from eight owners in addition to DABCO. There was no negative response. The property owners were again contacted in connection with the preannexation zoning hearing before planning commission and city council. There was no written or oral testimony in opposition to the zone change or to the proposed annexation. /ir RESOLUTION NO. 82-117 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS, "PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 15", PURSUANT TO SECTION 35140 OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE. WHEREAS, THE California Environmental Quality Act has been complied with, pursuant to City Council Resolution 80-89, in that all responsible agencies have been contacted and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed change of organization is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The request is a logical expansion of the city boundaries. 2. The proposed annexation is consistent with the Municipal Organization Act which encourages limiting the number of annexations to those areas considered logical growth areas. 3. The proposed area to be annexed is of satisfactory size to provide municipal services without adversely affecting the rest of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. The above recitations are hereby determined to be true and correct and represent the findings of the council in this matter. 2. The city clerk is hereby instructed to file an official application with the Local Agency Formation Commission for Palm Desert Annexation No. 15 as described in Exhibit "A", puruuant to the Municipal Organization Act for uninhabited territory since less than registerd voters reside in the area. 3. A negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 12th day of August, 1982, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Newbrander, Puluqi, Snyder and Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: McPherson ABSTAIN: None OYWfLS6N, Mayor ATTEST: —'—I/ j � l._ SHEILA R. GIL AN, City k City of Palm Desert, Calif is /pa CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82-117 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 15 In its entirety the southwest Quarter of Section 4 Township 5, Range 6 east. Approximately 160 acres. RESOLUTION NO. �51 _133 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 ANNEXATON TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert in regular session assembled on this day of , 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 , , 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 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, APPROVE.P and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council held on this 2 Y day of b the followin vote to wit: �' y g ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: S. ROY WILSON, Mayor SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /pa '• I � I —� ♦ I yi Q � t 1 1 1 •f i r •p MUM' `CMIE "DRIVE >E J 36 TH AVE. OV AN 31 32 ' 32 33 r u I 0 W � LOCATION NEAP J Q 6 y 1 T45 R6E FRANS SH1--.— 31132 � 3 3 } 33134 DRIVE 6 5 ---�DESERT GREENS D nawr '' 5 4 lwuNoea PALMSW.) 75S R6E Y 0 u I. e"I I _-- /4 �P. Cor. PALM DESERT CITY UM I v 160 Acres W' N PROP. o ps �MPIILM P.D.=; City Umlt4.13 CDDNTY 11F RIVERSIDE r 264D' T DEfiERT CITY LIMIT9 I/4 COT. a S JRV 1PYA\ltlPR �g ��_� EIRECTO:Rtm ST 25,1982 p�oOpOOO G� 11 Voa 1�7 Drawn by: TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERTT A AZ IN SECTION 4 T 5 S R 6 E SCALE .SERVICES DIV. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, CITY OF PALM DESERT I = 2000 i CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82-117 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 15 LAFCO# 82-34-4 In its entirety the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 6 East. Approximately 160 acres. � I cufLfl� oo nDal , m nD®WcMM'tP 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code). Case No: Annexation #15 Common Project Name (if any): City of Palm Desert Applicant/Project Sponsor: Annexation of 160 acres within the southwest K of Section 4T5SR6E. The project is simply a change of jurisdiction from the County of Riverside to the City of Palm Desert. There is no specific development being proposed at this time. Further environmental review will be required as applications for development are submitted. The Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, California has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. AMON A. DIA DA Director of Environmental Services RAD/pa .7 CASE NO. ® ap z3=80 z=M=Cz=7QO EN4IRONa +=gTAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIROP13iENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of-data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of- all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided- on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in v geologic. substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or ✓ overcovering of the soi17 — — —� 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? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, — — either locally or regionally? Y Y„ ZJ Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a-. Changes.in currents, `or the course or 1 direction of water' movements? '` . b. Changes in-absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and-amount of surface water runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? s - d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ — f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? — — 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, and crops)? — — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? — — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? , S. '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, 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 existinn milalifa t ' 3. Yes Mybe No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in .•:the rate of use of any natural resources? - r b. Depletion ofeany non-renewable natural resource? 7. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.deselopment of new sources of energy? S. Risk of Upset:tiDoes the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides,oil , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an Ic accident or upset conditions? 9. Economic Loss, Will the proposal result in: a. A .change in -the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? t b. A change in the value of property and improvementsrexposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted community risk standards? _ 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels toethe point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? .11. Land Use. Willethe proposal result in the as tterat'on of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in theramount of designated open / space? ✓ 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of= the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population of• the City? _ b. Change in the population distribution by age, income,:?relig.lon, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class, household type? _ _ ✓ . 4. ° Yes Maybe No 14. Emoloyment. Will the proposal result in additions new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Trans ortation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects an existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ _ 1Z c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ✓ e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 17. Public Services. Will the proposal_have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areAs: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? - d. Parks or other recreational facilities? f e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? ,/ f. Other governmental services? t Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? .19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: r a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? _ ci f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: i a. The creation of any health hazard or - potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? _ _ ✓ b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive / site open to public view? - c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? 23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new I fight or g are? 24. Archeolocical/Historical . Will the proposal resu t in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? L/ i1 y _ rat t t _ 6_ - - _ •;^ I 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment-' v b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact an 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. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: �" P E T I T I O N TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In accordance with the annexation of Municipal Organization Act, as amended, Government Code. Sections 35, 300-35, 326, DABCO HOLDINGS LTD. , the owner. of all of the subject propety legally described below (which said property is outlined in red on the maps attached hereto) , respect- ively request that the said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. The W.1/2 of the N.W. 1/4 of the S.W. 1/4 of Fractional Section 4 , Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian The E.1/2 of the S.E.1/4 of the S.W.1/4 of Section 4 , Township 5. South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian The W.1/2 of the S.W.1/4 of the S.E.1/4 of the S.W.1/4 Section 4 , Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. This Petition is being signed by Dabco Holdings Ltd. , the owner of the above described land, by its President, Robert C. Stewart of 54 Fairway Drive, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and its Secretary, Barry Schloss of 1203-10025 113 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Dated this 21st day of August, A.D. 1981. DABCO HOLDINGS LTD. By: �— ---- R�' `Stewart, its P're�-ident Barry SLchloss, its Secretary - a e al C , (+ i , f 1 M + 7 a Q: al V Oi ®+ a • �. '{ GD u i ON � d r i nc� o 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT ,{tea etn i 1 J 0( itECEIVED DEC 39 Pit 2 09 PETITION OiTY CLERKS OFFICE TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act qs amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, Fla M. 1% SW load 1 VGtj IR lap LtM►tit :TwlA 1UC-4 owners of all subject property legally described below see map attached. hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. �TO fl �4!W Legal Description:L` ,,.. ``�� .}� -}�, nFC 3 o 1981 n� wlJ�s \ E ALF 94VIRONMENTAL SERVICES S CITY OF PALM DESERT So�rt,E�� OyIE-QuflR�ER , o�- �S Sov�F�s* CAE— QvAi,VM , a 't� F So uTk Vuett 4 AP66 !c Ef�S�', S. Q.A j'U. Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to- its finalization. Dated this By: ��n - X Address : i 33 l.Q y(=A/—Ir, 9L. NT 2 _ Po. 6a X A�4 l Do s Off/ 46 I-el,, PETITION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, C-X�-,-, � , 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: V C fh 2-CDC; - V !� Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this cicw ,�J -- r S Address: C<�. Zz e 1 y n } PETITION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400 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: Pre-2 9 5 i R1 Pe 2 S UI /Y S S' C Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this to _ By: Address: p' 4 1 �e�xIu C dry• 3 6 - J � j } 4. .. D lawn PETITION DEC 31981 EMTAL SERVICES cry OF PALM DESERT TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, ,i-1ARS0pi� C. Mf D9�R R owners of all subject property legally described below see map attached p �M ulks hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm Desert. Legal Description: if.Gz Q-U-da M�� ram+ PaR. 5uJ � ad SecyT'3'SR�,6 Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this aD 71arX�1 �/�P� By. Address: (C'ehe 9i C POdv/ Ra�rc NOrSrprC- PETITION �V1R�OF FALM �E�1RT S TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400; S!Clrc� , LdIU/.»-�i 7�,e. f' TURN 7e .3//r/.r/ ) li 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: w �Z � //✓ �r 2 T/pN. S i Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated/yt�hii ss, // 3v 'e rLy %i✓iGi e By: Address: /o5d/ Lvcl�/aMe "�yu� PETITION s TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, � at> RS C1X1 In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended-,- Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400; T 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: %.7G— ,12ati� Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its F. . finalization. Dated this By:AL Address: Ems RY L t 4 4.1 t �TC� � P ET I T I ON "DEC - 31981 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Or an' ation Act as,,ame Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, 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: nn 6 aoa0002o - 8' Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. � 1`1 q Dated t i s `�jS1`' By:Address: 1 f il. PETITION DEC ' 4 1981 ENVIRONMENT S T0: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF R&NpQ BE �RLMRNIA In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government Code Sections 35000 to 35400, rltj&eCJ /4- - - lNc'e:"V1` c, A Te-': n 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: s 00 /C).e a .. j Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its finalization. Dated this ,Dcc • � -- By' Address: �Vl�•/.3C ��irJUr�� //7/ O ADDENDUM TO ANNEXATION #15 LAFCO APPLICATION Action on City of Palm Desert Annexation #15 was first initiated in September 1981 on the request of DABCO HOLDINGS, LTD., owner of 15 acres within the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 5 south, Range 6 east. This quartersection is made up of thirty-one 5 acre parcels and two 2.5 acre parcels. The city determined that the minimum area to be annexed would have to include the entire quartersection. Letters describing the proposed annexation were sent to all the affected property owners. Signed petitions were received from eight owners in addition to DABCO. There was no negative response. The property owners were again contacted in connection with the preannexation zoning hearing before planning commission and city council. There was no written or oral testimony in opposition to the zone change or to the proposed annexation. Ar 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: Annexation #14 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Annextion of 730 acres within Section 32 and 29 T4S R6E. The project is simply a change of jurisdiction from the County of Riverside to the City of Palm Desert. There is no specific development being proposed at this time. Further environmental review will be required as applications for development are submitted. The director of the department of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, include in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. R MON A. IAZ DATcZ DIRECTOR OF E WRONMENTAL SERVICES /lr $�.•d � �� 7r`�a.-a Y� „�� F'P • J r e„� y -,�+`'`�yiz - � y' y �" a ' wy ~�! 4r'��Y�7N_��. t�r'�' �i Y j ���+` ..F� >:�k !n. +!i�F b� t i y '•e 1 t�y.��' , ��•.',eL 4 waFr w.>a< R?r e-,s 4 e,� ; ; r 3 � ' +[ � ��y�M.� .a Y'.�+cTS aft 'aA.y 4 �Rr a � �..� +f! i rn'#`"`d .h �p q:.-.." ✓P rr ' #. K ydwry3yna�� 1 .f a, '.y .e r 5r y�, •t.�'- Y t, �. " ` `t ♦�. \ } tl_ ia�^"•^'C_!t� �`.` a '4 J�.-.�4'M'A .9 A'' fi4 '1 � i � f•Z • _n ♦ �. .y ♦ S 1 ,p' Y5 �+F �n i2; M w is+wf.4. is 6 <?� r 3 .c-.' T3 t '� ':'A2✓` y t>rr". �' 'wmL � yZ� 24Az sy}'r i•� `a�°s t'' "� ! �' � ii° .I. , _ r h:- s �'4 K• .tat. ,r 4" yy -5 y � : -�a F�i,� 1!� r. i �,..r pk`Sa � 'pq• lhY �''''}" a<K�T♦ V r, 'f� 1 d �: .. �,yr " ::2 y1&"yr'�<' a�``:'1,. t M"�;�'_+<w .. j,%Fs<�'�Y+�'7',_'?�.�y r ..e��,i_`' ' � � ar�,s - 1 � y x•'Srw '-at +„e �Y.<l�t��•��R 4%" •4N ,�. :��i i�''1�, I-�,4•��. � v r a w1 �t .! � c v- .y r�<j'...�._. i .". "h. �_ ' - .¢, 3 i`Yi.F� t•....f.,'n�.' .+.. .r r -":r '�:r^.'°'1r Y: '.'T t. b i- w :.!' i'. ♦ .Y 7. r! ✓ '... ' . '`r rat + yeCL ' �`,re:.$.�. .at. `� ��a x�•y .: t'L"� k':v`, r .. i y "'�'` _ e r w+ 1 .. r .• t .�.m- iy�• ¢.,54 ��-,tix ,� r'�:.� 'tar i ,.-y'k .. .ti- , .-. t--. =T�4Si'lIBE .: a 'M F y�fv �f��� ;- .yEsa „� Xy, _ tR i '" .-•" > t Fc�'.�.`J 'Nd�"-� ice, �-',.'f �`. yt, _t .�r.a �;�� �� .,x,� ,ey .. . r a .� a � x. ftf 1 r. .e . a.� v. : C�vy d� �. �fi+✓k ,,;;rt�" �` 'JF k^r�Ya 3, Q[ "� L. R r •x;. c� .:' � � e �-;r F ' a '+c.'F .:, i"•'t Y '�" e4� ` - 4_F-1..-.� ._aim 'Y+^ ag,+L Y ♦ r « _ . ?Mt` r;'� n 'M J � a't�«W' r. s y... +'' � _Y.� .py`+. 'qr'r I � a•-t: f' ., 9jF �wr, x,.. _ ks• ,a- t )!..✓ Fy,' .i ,..y:• r�K yS'Ya a "re`�+ '4' i,. �.. r+r+ a .ti r w. .M• 'i. ++ter.srt- 4,t i.. Yf ',""'}°'• i"♦'t14 r r iR �'. •,-• M .,z ay •J y' " , •` •. { 'L.�. �}a. f H t R�tT�.f� ♦ �.- „1 h: .. �. :k- `ir a �.. Kr,��a.v,�:.4ab.�. Y% y kl'�i• •Pr W 4fa`1 ,r •3 M1 i... ' .> <. .'� �� 7r4'vl"'r^,r�+�.� � . � e�' �'4����� ° _ F 'i, µ,i .'n 'i^.uF y _ 4 �t � '� ..f"Y' ;#i "�a,,,a' �•� s NO r ra+ 'fit rr _ x- y w •r ,. ra,•:�,, h ,..,,+,�•: "ib.�, *¢ �� , y V')1' �•• •}� y.• '�1��.�{•�7�'VQ��RT�}••�YR-•}�.� r a h 1 1. �..,' s