Panel Backs Palmdale Annexation : Lancaster Loses Latest Battle in Old Rivalry Over Land

The city of Lancaster failed in its attempt Wednesday to prevent 40 acres of the unincorporated Quartz Hill area from being annexed by neighboring Palmdale in a flare-up of the local turf war.

By a 7-0 vote, the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission reaffirmed its original Aug. 23 decision to give the undeveloped area to Palmdale. In rejecting an appeal filed by Lancaster, the panel sided with landowners in the affected area, who want to build housing tracts.

The two cities have a history of land feuds. In June, 1988, they reached a settlement of sorts that specified the spheres of influence of each city and marked the outlying areas that each could consider annexing. The Quartz Hill dispute was the first of its kind since the settlement.

The 40-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Avenue N and 55th Street West was within Lancaster’s sphere of influence. But the county commission, which had approved last year’s agreement, changed that by giving the land to Palmdale--a move that rankled Lancaster officials.

Lancaster Councilman George Theophanis accused the county panel of violating the spirit of the 1988 accord, which he said was supposed to allow the two cities to resolve such disputes themselves. He also blamed Palmdale officials for not cooperating sufficiently with Lancaster.

Palmdale officials responded that they remained neutral in the dispute, even saying they had no objection to Lancaster’s desire to preserve its sway over the area. But Palmdale granted the property owners prezoning for their land, allowing up to three houses per acre.

A commission spokeswoman, Michi Takahashi, defended LAFCO’s decision. She said the panel thought there were “overriding considerations,” mainly that the property already is bounded on three sides by Palmdale and that the closest part of Lancaster is nearly a mile to the east.

Commission staff members also had promised worried Lancaster officials that the case would not set a precedent to remove other land from the city’s sphere of influence. A commission report noted there is “no similarly located parcel” between the two fast-growing cities.

The decision was good news for the owners of the three parcels, although they probably could have developed their land in either city. Two owners now hope to build a total of 59 homes on 20 acres. The owners of the remaining 20 acres have no development plans, their representative said.

Kevin Maevers of JK Civil Engineering in Palmdale, who initiated the annexation request on behalf of the owners, said they preferred Palmdale only because Lancaster officials earlier had told them that the location of their land made annexation by Lancaster unlikely.