Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 173-91RESOLUTION NO.1 7.$- 9 1 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 355, BUENA VISTA NO. 5 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, held a public hearing on THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1991, on the proposed annexation of certain properties to the City of Bakersfield known as BUENA VISTA NO. 5 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. 38-91 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. 3384 , 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 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Lawrence M. Lunardini City Attorney City of Bakersfield 1501Truxtun 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 AU8 1 4 1991 , by the following vote: AYES; COUNCILMEMBERS EDWARD.S~.DeMOND, SMITH, BRUNNL PETERSON, McDERMOTt, SALVAGBIO NOES; COUNCiLMEMBERS: ASSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: ~0~ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS' /V'~M~ CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED MAYOR of AUG ~. 4 1991 MEDDERS the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: LAWRENCE M. ~ CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield MO/pjt Attachments Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" 5/RCCBV5 7/29/9 BUENA VISTA NO. 5 ANNEXATION NO. 355 A parcel of land consisting of sections or portions of Sections 1, 12, 13, 24 and 25 of T. 30 S., R. 26 E., and sections or portions of Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29 and 30 of T. 30 S., R. 27 E., M.D. M., State of California, County of Kern, ~re particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the South line of the North 30 feet and the West line of the East 30 feet of said Section 29 (T. 30 S., R. 27 E.), said point also being a boundary corner on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield; THENCE (1) West along the South line of North 30 feet of said Sections 29 and 30 (T. 30 S., R. 27 E.) and said Section 25 (T. 30 S., R. 26 E.), also being the South Right of Way line of Panama Lane (County Road No. 4 and 126), a distance of 15,995.98 feet (more or less) to a point on the West line of said Section 25; THENCE (2) North along the West lines of said Sections 25, 24, 13, 12 and 1 (T.30 S., R. 26 E.) a distance of 17,764.7 feet (more or less) to a point of intersection of the West line of said Section 1 and the existing corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield; THENCE (3) Northeasterly, Southerly, Easterly and Southerly along various courses of said existing corporate boundary line to the point of beginning. Containing 3,613.83 Acres (more or less) 35:EX.A4R~ R~:lh ANNEXATION OF BUENA VISTA NO, 5 EXHIBIT "B" :> l RO.B. PLAN FOR PROVIDING SERVICES ANNEXATION NO. 355 (BUENA VISTA NO. 5) SERVICES Agency Which Presently' Check Services Which Indicate How Services Provided Provides Service City/District Will Provide By City/District will be Financed (i.e., general tax rate or special Upon Future Date I assessment.) Annexation (speci fy) UPON COUNTY X DEVELOPMENT GENERAL TAX REVENUES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SHERIFF & HIGHWAY PATROL X GENERAL TAX REVENUES CITY/COUNTY JOINT AGREEMEN5 N/A GENERAL TAX REVENUES COUNTY X GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES NEW STREETS WILL BE CONSTRUCteD BY COUNTY X PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND D,m:i)ED TO C] COUNTY X GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES NONE X GENERAL AND GAS TAX REVENUES UPON N/A X DEVELOPMENT GENERAL TAX REVENUES C~DUNTY X GENERAL TAX REVEhVJES N/A X USER FEE/SPECIAL ASSmSMENT N/A N/A FRANCHISE COLLECTOR X USER FEE Planning Parks and Recreation Library Police Protection Fire Protection Street Construction Maintenance Sweeping Lighting Flood Control Sewerage Water Other (REFUSE) 35:ANN.355 EXHIBIT "C" -1- RTY: lh ANNEXATION NO. 355 BUENA VISTA NO. 5 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 s/w corner of Truxtun Avenue and Eye Street about 8 miles northeasterly of the annexation. Fire-Station 9 (City) is within easy access to the territory located on the east side of Gosford Road on the North side of Westwold Drive. Parks and Recreation-The proposed agricultural, industrial and co~nercial land uses upon annexation will not result in a demand for parks or recreational facilities in the area. Library-N/A Streets-The City Corporation Yard on Truxtun Avenue west of Freeway 99 will provide necessary facilities, personnel and services to accon~ate 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, constructed/maintenance, sweeping and lighting. Sewer-Sewer service is ~vailable from the existing trunk sewer lines in Gosford Road and Buena Vista Road which connect to City Treatment Plant No. 3. Water-The territory (west of Stine Road) will be accepted into the servic~ area boundary of the City of Bakersfield Ashe Water Division. Refuse Collection-When annexed and when development occurs, service will be provided by the City by contract with a franchise collector or by City forces. 35 :ANN. 355P2 -J ~ Service Level Capacit~ 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 irmnediate vicinity of this annexation. First priority response is approximately 7.00 minutes or less. Fire protection is provided on a 24-hour b. s and the annexation will not affect City/County joint service capability or response time. N/A N/A 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 pickup is twice a week. RTY: ih III. What effects, if any, would annexation of this territory 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 the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. Upon time of development of this territory, additional police officers may or may not be required to maintain the current level of city service. Street improvements re- sulting from development will increase the future maintenance responsibility of the City but will not affect the existing level of service. IV. Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.): If so, would city/distruct or residents be responsible for financing? As development occurs, the developer provides and pays for major facilities and dedicates them to the City. No upgrading or change in faci- lities will be required in the territory for annexation. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. Subject property is Zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture) in the County, except for the area east of the Sunset Rail- road. The remainder portion is zoned M-2 P D (Light Manufacturing - Precise Deve- lopment) and M-3 P D (General Manufacturing - Precise Development) VI. 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 property, etc.) The majority portion of the territory is prezoned City A-20 A (agriculture-20 acre minimum) zone. The easterly portion of Section 20 is prezoned City M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone. The small portion east of Gosford Road is pre- zoned City C-1 (Limited Co~nercial) zone. In general, the proposed prezoning is very compatible with the county zoning and will present no substantial alteration of present land use. 35:ANN.355P3 -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 response 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. The present City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees county residents now pay to independent companies. No special assessment or charges for street sweeping, leaf collection, street lighting energy costs and fire hydrants upon develop- ment of subject area. VIII. A. Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes: List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing rate in the major por- tion of the area equals 1.050819% of assessed market value. The other rates in the area are as follows: Area in Section 1 equals 1.172284%; area in east half of Section 12 equals 1.095924%; area in Right of Way for Asphalto Branch, Southern Pacific Railroad, lying east of Gosford Road equals 1.148111%. Would effected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. Yes, when annexed, the rates will be increased by the existing City bond rate which equals 0.004041% of assessed market value. How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of $50,000.00? The City Bond rate amounts to a difference of $2.02 more per year on a house of this value. 35:ANN.355P4 -4- RTY:lh utes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 10 UTE BREAK WAS TAKEN. Commisst~ Cohn made comment regarding File 5156. He did not believe that a pro ep~-.~otton nor a proper vote was made since neither Commissioners B~n or Anderson took any affirmative action one way or the other, and beck. of that he felt that Commissioner Frapwell had a right to vote on that ~ Attorney Marino informed the ~lssion that they may take an action to reconsider the motion. There was~procedural problem in that the names of Commissione s Anrderson and B-J~n were not called and they should have been ca~l ed in order to allyhem to abstain. She further comment d t ae t Commissh toner Fra~pw~11 can participate only where the rules sa thyat h~ean, an sdhe did no~lieve that the rules address that. ~ Commission did mak tin t ta~e furt eh r action on thl%' at~ ~sr~s were informed that they could file a written appeal on~.~ INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ZONE UPON ANNEXATION TO A-20A (AGRICULTURE-20 ACRE MINIMUM), M-2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING) AND C-1 (LIMITED COMMERCIAL), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES OF SAID PROPERTY IN THE cOUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY TO PANAMA LANE AND WEST OF THE CITY LIMITS KNOWN AS BUENA VISTA NO. 5 ANNEXATION CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ANNEX 3769 +/- ACRES (5.896 SQ. MI.) OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY TO PANAMA LANE AND WEST OF THE CITY LIMITS KNOWN AS BUENA VISTA NO. 5 ANNEXATION Commissioner Anderson declared a financial conflict of interest. His firm is providing services for an adjacent landowner. Proposed annexatien consists of approximately 3,769 +/- acres. Zoning Upon Annexation from county zoning of A (Exclusive Agriculture), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial-Precise Development Combining District) to city A-20A (Agriculture-20 acres), C-1 (Limited Commercial) and M-2 (General Manufacturing), or more restrictive zones. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Dennis Fox spoke in opposition indicating there are impacts that should be dealt with and should be dealt with on a policy matter. Mr. Ken Whitney resident on Buena Vista Road commented that this is an agricultural community and was not in favor of annexing prime agricultural land to the city for development. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 9. BUENA VISTA NO. 5 ZONING UPON ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION (continued) Chairperson Rosenlieb addressed Mr. Whitney's concerns indicating that this is a rapidly growing urban area, and as we continue to grow into our ag lands, and open lands and all lands on the fringe of the exist- ing urban area, a lot of people come forward and say they don't want this is their back yard, they don't want any more growth, they don't want any more pollution. they don't want any more traffic, they don't want any more. She further commented that the leaders in Bakersfield and Kern County seem to be very pro-growth. This push came after the fall of the oil industry and so many jobs were lost. As a Commission, they work to try to control the growth that is happening. Motion was made by Commissioner MeSsher 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 the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, BJorn, Cohn, Messher, Powers, Rosenl~eb, Frapwell NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Messnet to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5150 consisting of a change of zone from the County des- ignation of A (Agriculture), M-2-PD (Medium Industrial-Precise Development Combining District) and M-3PD (Heavy Industrial-Precise Development Combining District) to the city designation of A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum), C-1 (Limited Commercial) and M-2 (General Manufacturing), or more restrictive zones with conditions listed in Exhibit "A" and mitigation as listed in Exhibit "B" and rec- ommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, BJorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell 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 Buena Vista No. 5 Annexation and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, BJorn, Cohn, Messher, Powers, Rosenlteb, Frapwell NOES: None