HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 039-02 059-02
RESOLUTION NO..--
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 433 LOCATED (1) AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF REINA ROAD AND ALLEN ROAD
AND (2) SOUTH OF QUINCY STREET BETWEEN ROBINSON
STREET AND MILLER STREET: (WARD 4 AND 2)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on
MONDAY, JULY 14, 1997, and THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997, on the prezoning for the territory,
notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty (20) calendar days
before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 53-97 on July 17, 1997, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of the prezoning 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 56654 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation territory is within and consistent with the
City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence boundary; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation territory at Reina and Allen Roads is within
the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to serve the territory upon annexation; and
WHEREAS, the property owners of the territory have consented to annexation;
and
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 in Exhibit "A" and shown on map marked Exhibit "B" attached hereto
and made a part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein, located at the northeast
corner of Noriega Road and Allen Road and south of Quincy Street, between Robinson and
Miller Streets.
2. 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.
3. That this proposal for change of organization, to wit, annexation, is made
pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and it
is requested that proceedings be authorized for annexation in accordance therewith.
4. That the reasons for the proposed change of organization are that the owners
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.
5. That for this proposed annexation territory and the prezoning therefore,
Ordinance No. 3819, which was adopted January 28, 1998, 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 November 7, 1997.
6. That the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of the
environmental document as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act have been duly
followed.
7. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been
determined to be uninhabited pursuant to Section 56046 of the Government Code.
8. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been
determined to have 100% of property owners consenting to annexation.
9. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein is within the
City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Boundary.
10. That the Local Agency Formation Commission waive the protest hearing
proceedings pursuant to Part 4, commencing with Section 57000 of the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
11. 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:
Pamela A. McCarthy
City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Alan Tandy
City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Bart Thiltgen
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
12. 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.
........ 000 ........
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
MAR ~o ~aa2 . by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNClLMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER ~-~--~ ~-
CITY CLERK and E~f the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED MAR 20 ZOOZ
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
By: ~
MO:djl
March 5, 2002
S:~Annexation~Res of Applic~ann433.roa.wpd
~JG
Exhibit "A"
"REINA NO. 4"
ANNEXATION NO. 433
Those two (2) separate "single areas" being a portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 12, T.29 S,
R. 26 E., MD M. (Area No. 1) and a portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 21, T. 29 S., R. 28
E., MD.M (Area No. 2), County of Kern, State of California, comprising 38.59 total acres more
particularly described as follows:
Area No. 1
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 12, also being the point of intersection of the
center lines of Allen Road (Co. Rd. No. 67) and Reina Road (Co. Rd. No. 715), said section
corner being monumented and determined by calculation to be 2,338,379.095 feet North and
6,220,332.853 feet East per California Coordinate system (N.A.D. 83), Zone 5;
Thence S 89° 16' 59" E, along the south line of said Section 12, a distance of 30.00 feet to a point
on the existing corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence N 00° 44' 23" E, along said corporate boundary line, 30.00 feet to the point of
intersection of the east fight of way line of Allen Road and the north right of way line of Reina
Road, said point being the TRUE PO1NT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1) departing said corporate boundary line, N 00° 44' 23" E, along the east fight of way
line of Allen Road, 1291.29 feet to intersect the north line of Parcel 9 of Parcel Map No. 9826
filed for record in Book 44 of Parcel Maps, Page 131, in the office of the Kern County Recorder;
Thence (2) S 89° 17' 41" E, along said north line, 1291.13 feet to the northeast corner of said
Parcel 9;
Thence (3) S 00° 46' 58" W, along the east line of said Parcel 9, a distance of 1291.55 feet to
intersect the north fight of way line of Reina Road, said point being on the existing corporate
boundary line of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence (4) N 89° 16' 59" W, along said north right of way line and corporate boundary line,
1290.16 feet to the TRUE PO1NT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 38.26 acres (more or less)
Page 1 of 2
G:~,GROUPD AT~Ron~2002~ReinaNo4Annex433 .wpd
Area No. 2
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 21, also being a point on the existing
corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield, said point also being a monumented corner
calculated to be 2,327,155.362 feet North and 6,268,007.624 feet East per California coordinate
system (N.A.D.83), ZONE 5;
Thence easterly, along the south line of said Section 21 (and said existing corporate boundary
line) 1093.87 feet (more or less) to intersect the westerly line of Lot 8 in Block 3 of"Drury's
Addition to Kern, Map of the Northern Addition to the Town of Kern" filed for record April 27,
1893 in Book 1 of Maps, Page 41 in the office of the Kern County Recorder, said point being the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1) departing said corporate boundary line, northeasterly along the westerly line of said
Lot 8 and northeasterly prolongation thereof, 91.94 feet to intersect the northerly right of way line
of Quincy Street (Co. Rd. No. 552);
Thence (2) southeasterly along the northerly right of way line of Quincy Street, 315.34 feet to
intersect the south line of said Section 21, said point also being on the existing corporate
boundary line of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence (3) westerly along the south line of said Section 21 (and said corporate boundary line),
328.47 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 0.33 acres (more or less)
Page 2 of 2
G 5GROUP DAT~Ron~2002\ReinaN 04_ Annex433 .wpd
I_~B~ I 8 HB7711~I
,O9
III.
IV.
What effects, if any, would annexation of this temto~y have on the existing level of city/district services
(i.e., need for additional eanergency service personnel or construction of new facilities, etc)? The
mmexation of this territory will not affect the near term level or canabilitv of the City to t)rovide needed
services. At the trine of any future develomnent, additional police officers may be reauired to tnaintain
the cun'ent level of city service. The develooment of public streets and mnnicinal f~ilili~ wittfm the
territory will increase the future maintenance resoonsibilitv of the City but should not affect thC exisfin~
l¢v¢l of service.
Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads, fire
hydrants, mains, etc.): If so, would city/dis~et or residents be responsible for fmanc'mg? Private
develonment urovides and nays for major facilities and dedicates them to the City. No un~radine or
change in facilities will be rcouired in the territory for annexation. The territory is allowed to be
developed fgr sinele family residantial use.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The subject territory is r~resentlv zoned CglgttY
E (Es~tel Zone which allows suburban single family residential occupancy on estate-size lo~s.
V1.
VII.
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 City vrezoned the
corresvonding County estate lots to City E (Estate One Family Dwelling~ Zone which allows sin~e-
family residential occupancy on 10.000 sa. fi. ndnflrmm size lots.
List city/district services that area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire
insurance rate, shorter emergency response trine, use of community facilities, etc. Citv Police should be
able to respond in a more timely manner than r~resent Cotmtv Sheriff services. The nresent City r~ftlsq
collection rate is substantially lower than fees county residents now nay to indenendent companies. No
~pecial assessments or charges for street swecoing, leaf collecf~on, s~eet li~,_hting enerm, costs and firq
hy0rants when located within the Cilv's incomorated area. Ciw eovermnent also orovides incre,~$~d
l~htigill renresentation for the residents within the cornorate hmits.
Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing ~ax rate in the area eauals 1.104910% of assessed market
valt~q, Thi~ reoresents the total pronertv tax rate. When annexed a designated percentaee of the
property tax of the area will accrue to the City and r~anainder to the County for uroviding health care and
social services. (Rate as shown on 2000-2001 CounW Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List].
Would affected area be subject to anybondedindebtednessofthecity/dislrict: If so, explain. No. thelast
li~q~cl (1992-93~ Ci~ bonded indebtedness has been paid offand the current (2000-200D tax rate list
shgw~ n9 city bonded indebtedness.
How will the difference in tax rates affect a propca'ty with a market value of $50,000.00?
The prgpertv rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation.
3
(AREA NO. 1),.q , .~
ORIGINAL
III.
IV.
What effects, if any, would annexation of this territory have on the existing level of city/district services
(i.e., need for additional eanergency service pexsonnel or construction of new facilities, etc)? The
annexation of this temtorv should have no affect on die near term l~v~l or 9apability of the Ciw to
~ovide needed services. The territory consisls of a ~ortion of one residential lot and adiacent roilOwa¥
and additional oolice officers should not be rcouired to mamlain the current level of city service.
Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads, fire
hydrants, mains, etc.): If so, would ~ty/dislrict or residents be responsible for financing? No,~h~
anplicant provides and pays for major facilities and dedicales them to the City. No up~radin- or ebanae
in facili;i~ will I~e reauired in the territory for annexation.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The subiect territory is presently zoned County
R-3 (High Medimn Residea~tiaB Zone.
VII.
VIII
A.
Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List effects on present land use that would occur as a
resull of annexation such as maintenance of livestock on property, etc.) The CiW has prezoned the
territory to the corresnondina City R-3 (Limited Multinle Family Dwellth~] Zone.
List city/district services that area will directly or indirectly benefit frmn such as decrease in fire
insurance rate, shorter emergency response time, use of connnunity facilities, etc. City Police should be
able to respond in a more timely manner than oresent County Shehffservices. The present City refuse
9911ection rate is substantially lower than fees conntv residents now oar to indaneadent comoaaies. No
soecial assess~nents or charees for street sweeoine, leaf collection, s~eet liehtine enerav costs and fire
hydrants when located within the Ciw's right of way. City aovernm~nt also ~mvides increased ~olifical
representation for the residents within the comorate lhnits.
Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existinn tax rate in the area eauals 1.149189% of assessed market
value. When ~nn~x¢~l i~ desimaated n~centaee of the total nmoeatv tax of the area will accrue to the City
and rgnainder to the County for pmvidinn health care and social services. (Rate as shown on 2000-01
ConnOt Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List].
Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. No. the last
li~ted (1992-93] City bonded indebtedness has been naid off and the current (2000-01] tax rate list shows
no ciW l~onded indebtedness.
How will the difference in tax rates affect a prope~y with a ~narket value of $50,000.007
The ~ro~ertv rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessmeat will not occur due to annexation.
(AREA NO. 2)
,'")RIGIN AL