Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 174-91RESOLUTION NO.! A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 356, BRIMHALL NO. 2 ANNEXATION (WARD 4). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakers- field, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, he]kd a public hearing on THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1991, on the proposed annexation of certain properties to the City of Bakersfield known as BRIMHALL NO. 2 ANNEXATION, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakers- field Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 39-91 on June 6, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation by this Council and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires to propose a change of organization, to wit, the annexation to the City of Bakersfield of the hereinafter-described territory, pursuant to Section 56800 of the Government Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. That the City of Bakersfield hereby proposes the annexation to the City of Bakersfield of the territory described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this resolu- tion as though fully set forth herein. 2. That a map of the territory proposed to be so annexed, marked Exhibit "B", is attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein. 3. That a plan for providing services within the affected territory of the proposed annexation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56653 of the Government Code, is marked as Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. 4. That this proposal for change of organization, to wit, annexation, is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, and it is requested that proceedings be authorized for annexation in accordance therewith. 5. That the reasons for the proposed change of organi- zation are that the owners and residents of the affected territory desire to receive municipal services from the City of Bakersfield, and the City desires to receive tax revenues for benefits given and to be given to the territory proposed to be annexed. 6. That for this proposed annexation and the zoning upon annexation, therefor, Ordinance No.3382 , which was adopted July 31, 1991, an Initial Study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared and posted on May 13, 1991. 7. That the laws and regulations relating to the prepa- ration and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 107-86 have been duly followed and the Negative Declaration for this proposed annexation is hereby approved and adopted. 8. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to be inhabited pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 56046 of the Government Code. 9. That the names of the officers of the City of Bakersfield who are to be furnished with copies of the Executive Officer's Report and[ who are to be given mailed Notice of Hearing, if any, are: City Clerk City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 J. Dale Hawley City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Lawrence M. Lunardini City Attorney City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 10. That the appropriate City officials shall file ten (10) copies of this Resolution, with Exhibits, with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kern County at 2700 "M" Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, California 93301. .......... o0o ......... -2- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on AU~ ! 4 ~99~ , by the following vote: A~E$; COUNCILMEMBERS. EDWARDS, DeMOND, SMITH, BRUNNL PETERSON, McDERMOTt, SALVABGIO NOES; COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS A CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED A[J~ ~. 4 1991 MAYOR of the C~ty of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: LAWRENCE CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield MO/pjt Attachments Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" 5/RCCB2 7/29/91 BRIMHALL NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 356 A parcel of land being a portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, Township 29 South Range 27 East, M.D. M., County of Kern, State of California, ~re particularly described as follows: Corm~encing at a point on the West line of said Section 30 distant S. 00© 48' 21" W, 659.95 feet from the West 1/4 corner thereof, said point being on the North line of the Southwest 1/4, Northwest 1/4, Southwest 1/4 of said Section 30; THENCE S. 89° 09' 53" E. along said North line, 30.00 feet to a point on the East line of Jewetta Avenue (County Road No. 589) also being a point on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield and the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE (1) Continuing S. 89° 09' 53" E., along said North line, 634.02 feet to a point on the West line of the East 1/2, Northwest 1/4, Southwest 1/4 of said Section 30; TH~CE (2) N. 00° 49' 10" E., along said West line 660.14 feet to a point on the North line of the Northwest 1/4, Southwest 1/4 of said section; THENCE (3) S. 89° 10' 52" E., along said North line 648.32 feet to Northeast corner, Northwest 1/4, Southwest 1/4 of said Section 30, said point also being the Northwest corner of Tract No. 3517 per map filed in Book 23 of maps, Page 170 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; THENCE (4) S. 00° 52' 03" W., along the East line of the Northwest 1/4, South- west 1/4 of said Section 30 a distance of 1320.66 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE (5) N. 89° 08' 54" W., along the South line of the Northwest 1/4, South- west 1/4 of said Section 30 a distance of 1281.07 feet to a point on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield; T~CE (6) North along said corporate boundary line to the point of beginning. Containing 29.24 Acres (more or less) 35: EX. BRMHLL RTY: lh (3) ANNEXATION NO. ~ RESOLUTION NO. ANNEXATION OF BRIMHALL No. 2 TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD :~9.24 *- ACRES SCALE: 200 0 200 400 600 N ........ EXISTING C0RPO!~TE 8I~INOARY EXHIBIT "B" · ...,,~,,.,%~.., (~.-- S. LINE SEC. 30 ROAD SALEs MAP OF SEC. SEC. T. 29 S., M.D. 30 R. 27 E. LANDS OF }(ERN COUNTY PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES ANNEXATION NO. 356 (BRIMHALL NO. 2) SERVICES Planning Parks and Recreation Library Police Protection Fire Protection Street Construction Maintenance Sweeping Lighting Flood Control Sewerage Water Other (REFUSE) Agenc~ Which Presently Check Services Which Indicate How Services Provided Provides Service Cit~/District Will Provide By City/District will be Financed (i.e., general tax rate or s~ecial Upon Future Date assessment.) Annexation (speci fy) UPON ~OUNTY X DEVELOPMENT GENERAL TAX REVENUES NOR~ BAKERSFIELD RECREA- tION AND PARK DISTRICT X GENERAL TAX REVENUES ~OUNTY N/A SHERIFF & HIGHWAY PATROL X GENERAL TAX REVENUES CITY/COUNTY JOINT AGREEMEN% N/A GENERAL TAX REVENUES ~YDUNTY X GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES NEW STREETS WILL BE CONSTRUCI~3 BY COJNTY X PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND DEEDED TO C COUNTY X GENERAL AND GAS TAX ~S NONE X GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES UPON N/A X DEVELOPMENT GENERAL TAX REVENUES ~NTY X GENERAL TAX REVENUES N/A X USER FEE/SPECIAL ASSESSMENT VAUGHN WATER COMPANY N/A FRANCHISE COLLECTOR X USER FEE ;ITY EXHIBIT "C" 35:ANN.356 -1- RTY:lh BRIMHALL NO. 2 I. Please provide the following information, when applicable, only for services which will be provided by the Location Indicate location from which service will be provided (i.e. nearest fire station, library, etc.) applicant city. Police-All police services in the City of Bakersfield are administered through the City Police Department located at the southwest corner of Truxtun Avenue and Eye Street about 6 miles easterly of the annexation. Fire-Fire response to this area will be administered from County Station No. 65 located on the northside of Rosedale Highway easterly of Calloway Drive. Parks and Recreation-Upon additional future residential development, developers shall provide park acreage or pay in-lieu fees in accordance with adopted standards of the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park Dist. Library- Not applicable. Streets- Construction/Maintenance; Sweeping; Lighting: The City Corporation Yard on Truxtun Avenue, West of Freeway 99 will provide necessary facilities, personnel and services to accomodate Public Works efforts. Maintenance and personnel will be dispatched from the City Yard on a regular basis for preventative maintenance as needed. Repair includes streets, construction/maintenance, sweeping and lighting. Sewer-Service to the territory is available in the Jewetta Avenue Trunk Sewer which is directed to City Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3. Water-The territory is within the service area of the Vaughn Water Co. Other-REFUSE - Upon annexation, the City will provide collection either by City forces or by contact with any present contracted collector if possible% ~ . 35:ANN. 356P2 ~ ~ ~ -2- Service Level Capacity Indicate frequency and availability of service (i.e., street sweeping, response time for emergency services, rec. programs, etc. 24-hour patrol is provided in the immediate vicinity of this annexation. First priority response is approximately 7.00 minutes or less. Fire protection is provided on a 24-hour basis and the annexation will not affect City/Count' joint fire service capability or response tim~. District parks are open to the public at reasonable hours. Not applicable There will be no reduction in the range capacity of the City to provide the necessary public works services to this area. Services will be on a regular basis and "as needed." Adequate capacity exists. Adequate capacity exists. City refuse pick up is twice a week. RTY: lh III. What effects, if any, would annexation of this terr[tocy have on the existing level of city/district services (i.e., need for additional emergency service personnel or construction of new facilities, etc.)? The annexation of this territory will not affect near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. When future development occurs in this territory, additional city police officers may be required to maintain the current city level of service. Street improvements re- sulting from future development will increase the maintenance responsibility of the city but will not affect the existing level of service. Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.): If so, would cit~/distruct or residents be responsible for financing? The City will not require any upgrm~ing or change in faci- lities in the territory for annexation. As development occurs, developers shall pro- vide and pay for major improvements and facilities and dedicate them to the city. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The ~st half of the terri- tory is zoned county E (5) RS (Estate 5 Acre Residential) zone and county E (1/2) RS (Estate - 1/2 Acre residential suburban) zone. The east 1/2 of the territory is zoned county E (10) RS (Estate - 10 acre residential zone. Vie Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List effects on present land use that would occur as a result of annexation such as maintenance of livestock on the property, etc.) The City pre-zoning designations are compatible with and are intended to accomodate existing land uses. The majority of the territory is prezoned City RS (ResidentialSuburban) zone and approximately 5 acres in the Southeast corner are prezoned City RS - 2.5A (Residential Suburban - 2.5 Acre minimum) zone. 35:ANN.356P3 -3- RTY:lh VII. List city/district services that area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire insurance rate, shorter emergency ~esponse time, use of community facilities, etc. City Police should be able to respond in a more timely matter than present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol services. Current City police standard is a higher sworn officer per 1,000 population percentage compared to the County standard. Refuse service provided by the City will result in savings to lot owners. There will be no special assessments or charges for street sweeping, leaf collection, school crossing guards, street lighting energy costs and fire hydrants. The existing Jewetta Avenue trunk sewer line has capacity to serve the area and is available for development. VIII. A. Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes: List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing tax rate in the area equals 1.218424% of assessed market value. This represents the total property tax rate. When annexed, a designated percentage of the total property tax of the area will accrue to the City. (Rate as shown on 1990-91 County Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List). Be Would effected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. Yes, the tax rate for City bonds equals 0.004041% of assessed market value. When annexed, the total tax rate will be 1.222465%. (Rates as shown on 1990-91 County Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List). How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of $50,000.00? The yearly tax rate would increase by the amount of $2.02 on a house of $50,000 market value due to inclusion of the City Bond Rate. 35:ANN.356P4 -4- RTY:lh Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 12 10. INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ZONE UPON ANNEXATION TO E (ESTATE) AND RS-2-1/2 (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN 2-1/2 ACRE MINIMUM), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES; OF SAID PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF PALM AVENUE, NORTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, EAST OF JEWETTA AVENUE KNOWN AS BRIMHALL NO. 2 ANNEXATION INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ANNEX 30 +/- ACRES OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN%OCATED SOUTH OF PALM AVENUE, NORTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, EAST OF JEWETTA AVENUE KNOWN AS BRIMHALL NO. 2 ANNEXATION Project site is located east of Jewetta Avenue, 1,400 feet north of Brimhall Road. This is an annexation and a zoning upon annexation request on 30 +/- acres. It is the applicants intent to rezone the site residential with an 18~000 square feet minimum per parcel, consistent with the 2010 plan. Staff indicated that considerable opposition was received on this matter. Two petitions in opposition were received by the Planning Department. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Gerber resident on Brimhall Road spoke in opposition to the , size of the proposed lots and the restriction of horses on the adjoin- ing lots. Ms. Janene Flad, resident on Palm Avenue spoke in opposition to annexa- tion because the area has a lot of animals and people who move into the area most likely would not like to live next to animals. Mr. Jim Brown, resident in the area spoke in opposition citing the pro- posed project would cause more traffic congestion, and also objected to any walls that will be built. Ms. Irene Mc Namara resident on Palm Avenue spoke in opposition because the project would cause more traffic. Also, with the animals in the surrounding area. the new residents would most likely not like the animals, crowding of schools, and a wall that will take away the open space feeling. Mr. Steve Ratty resident on Birchhaven Avenue stated his concern with increased traffic and density. Assistant Public Works Director, Mr. Kloepper informed the residents that a project is budgeted for Brimhall and Coffee Roads, however at this time is it being delayed while right-of-way on the northwest cor- ner is being acquired so that the installation can be of a permanent Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 13 10. BRIMHALL NO. 2 ZONING UPON ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION (continued) Ms. Sharon Brown resident on Birchhaven Avenue spoke in opposition indicating that both the city and county have to be careful to maintain Bakersfield as the country/city that it is. It has an individuality about it that cannot be lost. There is a quality of living out here that cannot be lost. Mr. Charles Thomas stated his concern with the lot sizes of the pro- posed project. Ms. Irene McNamara spoke in opposition to not having animals. She referred to Map No. 5334 which shows 27 lots within the i0 acres and asked if it were obsolete. Mr. Carl Moreland with Telstar Engineering addressed Ms. McNamara's question indicating that the bottom portion of the map is 10 acres and the top portion is 20 acres. There is an approved tentative map of 17, 18.000 square foot lots on the lower portion which is in the county and it was thought that it would be best to have this put into the city to be maintained by city services. Ms. McNamara requested an EIR be done on this project. Ms. Ruby Humphrey owner of property on Palm indicated this proposed project is going to be in her back yard and opposes the annexation, she would like to keep it country. She was also concerned with the traffic problem. Mr. Carl Moreland spoke in favor of the annexation. Mr. Wayne Vaughn, Jr. with Carriage Homes commented they do not want to put anything out there that is going to be a detriment to the area. The design of the subdivision was changed from smaller lots to larger lots to meet the concerns of the people. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Powers commented that public concern is not a determining factor in requiring an EIR. A negative declaration in this case in adequate. He further commented that what the applicant is proposing will be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Marino asked if the residents had any restrictions regard- ing their animals. Mr. Grady replied there are no restrictions on the project site nor have they put any on the existing properties to move their animals a certain distance from these properties. Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 14 10. BRIMHALL NO. 2 ZONING UPON ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION (continued) Commissioner reviewed the mitigating measures for the residents. Motion was made by Commissioner Messnet to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was sec- onded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by t~e following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messher, Powers~, Rosenlieb NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioners Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5157 consisting of a change of zone from County zoning of E(10)RS (Estate--10 acre Residential Suburban), E(5)RS (Estate-5 acre Residential Suburban) and E (1/2)RS (Estate-I/2 acre Residential Suburban) to the City designation of RS-2.SA (Residential Suburban-2.5 acres minimum) and E (Estate), or more restrictive zones with condi- tions as listed in Exhibit "A", and mitigation as listed in Exhibit "B", and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Cobh, Messher, Powers, Rosenlieb 'NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Messher to adopt a resolution with required findings as set forth in the staff report approving the pro- posed Brimhall No. 2 Annexation and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messher, Powers. Rosenlieb NOES: None i~Fi--~ITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.52 (P~ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE OF TITLE 7 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY OF'~'BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE Staff requeste~nuation of the hearing on this matter to the regu- larly scheduled meeti~ 20, 1991. Staff report w sa waived. Public__was opened. Motion was m d b C ma e y om issi no er~Anderson~,~n, tinue this hearing to the June 20, 1991 timee g. Mort t oi n was second~k~.Commissioner Powers, and carried. ~