LAFCO staff seeks continuation

While we were disappointed with the LAFCO staff report for the Sept. 26 public hearing, which was posted Sept. 19 on the LAFCO website, we were not surprised. (Read the report HERE)

The staff is recommending continuance of the public hearing in order to give Corona and the county more time to negotiate over the fate of County Fire Station 64. Neither the city nor the county requested the continuance. It appears LAFCO staff believes if both agencies negotiate long enough, an agreement will be eventually reached. It’s the fire services the county must still deliver to unincorporated communities not included in the proposed annexation area that will cost the county big bucks if the city’s takeover is successful. The county’s initial projection was a loss of about a $3 million per year and longterm up to $5.5 million annually. (Read the story HERE)

So, what’s wrong with continuing negotiations and maybe wiping out this deficit for the county? There’s nothing wrong with it if you want the lead fire agency within the annexed area to be city fire instead of Cal Fire.

The continuance suggested by staff most-likely will not be approved by the seven LAFCO commissioners. (We could be wrong!) It is still immensely important that we have a good turnout for the public hearing. WEAR RED! If the continuance is not granted by LAFCO commissioners, the public hearing proceeds. (Read the story HERE)

What follows is the contents of an email Residents for Temescal Valley sent to LAFCO commissioners outlining why we think a continuance of the hearing is not acceptable:

  • We have reviewed the staff report and, speaking for the 4,269 residents who signed letters opposing this annexation, we reiterate why we find a continuance unacceptable.
  • Corona filed the application in March of this year. Six months should have been sufficient time for the city and county to have reached accord in their negotiations. Since neither city nor county requested this continuance, what does staff think will be gained by allowing discussions to continue? Isn’t it possible city and county are at impasse?
  •  It is still questionable whether LAFCO should have accepted the city’s annexation application based on requirements of SB 244 – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, as well as the creation of unincorporated islands and fringe communities. The financial ramifications of the annexation will limit the county’s ability to provide the same level of service to residents living in these neighboring unincorporated areas.
  • In correspondence dated 08-06-13, the county encouraged LAFCO to withhold the certificate of filing for this annexation and to deny the application because of “missing information and because the application does not meet the requirements of the law and LAFCO policies.” What more is there to negotiate/discuss?
  •  Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Section 56658 (i) states, “The date of the public hearing shall not be more than 90 days after issuance of the certificate of filing or after the application is deemed to have been accepted, whichever is earlier.” The scheduling of the public hearing for Sept. 26 did not adhere to CKH; it should have been scheduled for an earlier date. Continuing the hearing only exacerbates this violation of CKH.
  •  California Government Code Section 56666 (a) states “The hearing shall be held by the commission upon the date and at the time and place specified. The hearing may be continued from time to time but not to exceed 70 days from the date specified in the original notice.” A continuance until Dec. 19 does not fall within the 70-day period.
  • It is a great disservice to Temescal Valley residents who have revised work schedules, vacation schedules or taken time off work with no pay to attend the Sept. 26 public hearing. One Valley community has chartered a bus. Residents will again be inconvenienced in both time and expense if they wish to attend the continued meeting.
  • Staff recommends continuing the hearing until LAFCO’s Dec. 19 meeting – one week prior to Christmas. This is not acceptable. And, isn’t that meeting scheduled to be held at Eastern Municipal Water District headquarters in Perris? We fear continuance to that date and venue can be viewed by the public as a ruse to gain a predetermined outcome by minimizing the transparency of the annexation proceedings, as well as eliminating Temescal Valley residents’ participation in the process.
  • Residents for Temescal Valley again asks you not to continue the Sept. 26 public hearing. If you choose to accept staff recommendation, we seek a continuance date within the 70-day period or in January to avoid the December holidays.
  • Finally, many Temescal Valley residents have been involved in this annexation for 20 months now and want to move forward with the process. As scheduled by LAFCO staff, the next step was to be the Sept. 26 public hearing. We are asking that you conduct the hearing on this date.