HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 070-02RESOLUTION NO. 0 ~'0 ' 0 2
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 435 LOCATED (1) AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WIBLE ROAD AND MCKEE
ROAD AND (2) EAST OF OSWELL STREET GENERALLY SOUTH
OF STATE ROUTE 58 (WARD 7 AND 1).
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, t997, 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 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 Wible Road and McKee Road and east of Oswell Street generally south of State
Route 58.
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.
ORIG NA
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 gf~t~h.~ City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
~ ~uuL , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON,-.. ..... A , SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER hJ ~)l'~,
COUNCILMEMBER j'..J ~
COUNCILMEMBER
/~, CITY CLERK and Ex Official/Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED MAY 8 2002
HARVEY L. HALL
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS '1'O FORM:
.ART J.
City Attorne?%
MO:djl
May 8, 2002
S:tAnnexation\Res of Applictann435.roa ,wpd
EXHIBIT "A"
OSWELL NO. 8 - WIBLE NO. 12
ANNEXATION NO. 435
Those two (2) separate "single areas" being a portion of the northwest 1/4 of Section 2, T. 30 S.,
R. 28 E., M.D.M. (Area No. 1) and a portion of the west ½ of Section 36, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.,
M.D.M. (Area No. 2), County of Kern, State of California, comprising 134.40 acres (more or
less) more particularly described as follows:
Area No. 1
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Section 2, also being the point of intersection of the
center lines of Bmndage Lane (Co. Rd. No. 547 & 966) and Oswell Street (Co. Rd. No. 2927 &
2739), said point being a monumented section comer and calculated to be 2,316,559.085 feet
North and 6,278,440.305 feet East per California Coordinate System (N.A.D. 83), Zone 5;
Thence S 00° 36' 52" W, along the west line of said Section 2, a distance of 369.18 feet;
Thence S 89° 23' 08" E, 55.00 feet to the point of intersection of the east right of way line of
Oswell Street and the northerly right of way line of State Route VI-KER-58, said point also being
on the existing corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence departing from said corporate boundary along said northerly right of way line of State
Route VI-KER-58 for courses (1) through (7) as follows:
Thence (1) S 35° 54' 05" E, 95.84 feet;
Thence (2) S 84° 54' 11" E, 113.00 feet;
Thence (3) S 80° 36' 50" E, 80.22 feet;
Thence (4) S 84° 54' 11" E, 1317.00 feet;
Thence (5) S 88° 02' 32" E, 125.12 feet;
Thence (6) N 89° 16' 02" E, 600.08 feet;
G:\GROUPDATXRon\ExhA 435.wpd
-1-
Thence (7) S 89° 46' 40" E, 280.00 feet to intersect the west right of way line of Sterling Road
(Co. Rd. No. 2927);
Thence (8) S 00° 13' 20" W, 270.00 feet to the point of intersection of the south right of way line
of State Route VI-KER-58 and the west fight of way line of Sterling Road (Co. Rd. No. 2927);
Thence (9) S 00° 20' 11" E, along said Sterling Road fight of way line, 514.91 feet;
Thence (10) S 89° 28' 16" E, along said right of way line, 20.00 feet to intersect the east line of
the northwest 1/4 of said Section 2;
Thence (11) S 00° 31' 44" W, along said east line, 1259.55 feet tot he southeast comer of the
northwest 1/4 of said Section 2;
Thence (12) N 89° 52' 12" W, along the south line of the northwest 1/4 of said Section 2, a
distance of 1638.21 feet to intersect the east line of that parcel of land granted to Oswell Land
Associates per Partnership Grant Deed filed for record in Book 5671, Page 1775, Official
Records, in the Office of the Kern County Recorder, said point also being on the existing
corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence (13) N 00° 36' 52" E, along said east parcel line and corporate boundary line, 1330.75
feet;
Thence (14) N 89° 53' 55" W, along the north line of said parcel and corporate boundary line,
961.09 feet to intersect the east line of Oswell Street (Co. Rd. No. 2927);
Thence (15) N 00° 36' 52" E, along said east right of way line and corporate boundary line,
923.99 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 94.39 acres (more or less).
Area No. 2
Commencing at the monumented west 1/4 comer of said Section 36, also being the southwest
comer of Lot 10 of Kem County Sales Map No. 1 of the Lands of J.B. Haggin filed for record
May 3, 1889, in the Office of the Kern County Recorder, said comer is calculated to be
2,287,694.466 feet North and 6,251,555.560 feet East per California Coordinate System (N.A.D.
83), Zone 5;
Thence S 89° 08' 11" E, along the south line of said Lot 10, also being the center line of McKee
Road (Co. Rd. No. 782), a distance of 30.00 feet to intersect the southerly prolongation of the
east right-of-way line of Wible Road (Co. Rd. No. 50), said point being on the existing corporate
boundary line of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
G:\GROUPDAT~Ron\ExhA 435 .wpd
-2-
~3RIGINA~
Thence along said corporate boundary line for courses (1) through (4) as follows:
Thence (1) N 00° 35' 06" E, along the east fight-of-way line of Wible road (and prolongation
thereof) 1319.09 feet to intersect the north line of Lot 9 of said "Sales Map";
Thence (2) S 89° 09' 53" E, along the north line of said Lot 9, a distance of 1291.83 feet to the
northeast comer thereof;
Thence (3) S 00° 36' 17" W, along the east lines of said Lots 9 and 10, a distance of 1319.73 feet
to the northeast comer of Lot 23 of said "Sales Map", said point being on the center line of
McKee Road (Co. Rd. No. 782);
Thence (4) S 00° 36' 17" W, along the east line of said Lot 23, a distance of 30.00 feet to
intersect the south right-of-way line of McKee Road;
Thence (5) N 89° 08' 11" W, along said south right-of-way line; 1291.38 feet to intersect the east
right-of-way line of Wible Road, also being a point on the existing corporate boundary line of the
City of Bakersfield;
Thence (6) N 00° 35' 49" E, along said corporate boundary line, 30.00 feet to the TRUE PO1NT
OF BEGINNING.
Containing 40.01 acres (more or less)
G:\GROUPDAT~Ron\ExhA 435.wpd
-3-
~ P. ZvZ 72.94
RO.B. ~
Rkl. 64,50
7 /5 AC.
dO0
7796 ~6_~/M~
3 W. 64.50
4~86~C
5.//~C
$ TA 7'6
ROUTE
VI'K£R'$8
RT.
29. 69~C.
~/ MR
7~ 90 ~C
5/0
PROPOSED
ANNEXATION NO. 455
L NO. 8-WlBLE NO. 12
[94.$9 Ac. ]
AREA NO. I
CITY
COUNTY
SCALE: (FEET)
lO0 0 lO0 200 ~00 400 500
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CALIFORNIA
ENGINEERING DEI~AI~TMENT
£SP£RAAI,~JA OR. l
I 20.00
~ I RR~ A OWS R.
'~--I"llll'T--'l I' rllll'l--ll''lrT''l'l'llZgT;E~'ll'T'J'l I ~1 I' I ~ I--l'l~ ~.l'
i I~ .k
I~ 20.00 ' ~.
~ · 20.00 : ~
'IoSWELL N0.8-WIBLE N0. It" EXHIBIT"B"
ANNEXATION NO. 455
.~o.o~o~,. Cl~ OF BAKERSFIELD ~.~'~02 _
'" "~ ~ "~' CALIFORNIA ~W" R.T.Y.~
x~nN coup. c~k~,o, mA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT c,l~I' ~"
~)NIGltV~
III.
What effects, if any, would annexation of this territo~' have on the existing level of city/district services (i.e., need for
additional emergency service personnel or construction of new facilities, etc.)? The armexation of this territory should
have no affect on the near term level or capability of the Citv to provide needed services. At the time of full build-out of
the proposed residential development, additional police officers will likely be required to maintain the current lexel of city
service. The completion of any future road construction ~5thin the tercitorv will have minimal effect on the future
VII.
maintenance responsibility of the City and should not affect the existing level of service.
Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to setMce affected terntoD~ (roads, fire hydrants, mains,
etc.): If so, would city/district or residents be responsible for financing? No, the temtorv is now vacant and undeveloped
and when development occurs, the developer provides and pays for major facilities and dedicates them to the City. No
upgrading or change in facilities will be required in the territory for annexation.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territoD'. The major portion of the territory is County M-3 (Hea~'
Industrial) Zone. The state drainfield on the east side of the territorv is County A (Agriculture) Zone. The remainder area
directly south of the State drainfield is County M-1 (Light Industrial) Zone.
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 corresponding areas within the territory have been
prezoned to City M-3 (Heaw Industrial), A (Agriculture) and M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zones, which are
corresponding and consistent with the existing County zoning.
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 timelx manner
than present Countv Sheriff services. The present City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees counW
VIII.
A.
residents now pay to independent companies. No special assessment c: charges for street sweeping, leaf colleetion, street
lighting energy costs and fire hydrants upon further development within the subject area. City government also provides
increased political representation for residents within the corporate limits.
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 l. 125759% of assessed market value. This represents the total propertx- tax rate.
When annexed a designated percentage of the total property tax of the area will accrue to the Cie,' and remainder to the
County for providing health care and social services. (Rate as sho~xn on 2000-01 County Auditor-Controller Tax Rate
List).
Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the ciR'/district: If so, explain. No, the last listed { I992-93)
City bonded indebtedness has been paid off and the current (2000-01 ) t,xx rate list shows no city bonded indebtedness.
How v~4.11 the difference in tax rates affect a property, with a market value of $50,000.007 The propertw rate will not
increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation.
3
(AREA NO. 1)
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
emergency service personnel or construction of new facilities, etc)? The annexation of this territory will have minimal affect on
the near term level or capabiliV,' of the City to provide needed services. The territory is now undeveloped and additional police
officers should not be required to maintain the current level of city service. Annexation of the county road (McKee Rd.~ within the
territory will have very minimal affect on the future maintenance responsibility of the City but should not affect the existing level
of service.
Would ci~/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory- (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.): If se.
would city/district or residents be responsible for financing? No, if any additional development occurs, the developer provides and
pays for maior facilities and dedicates them to the City. No upgrading or change in facilities will be required in the territory for
annexation.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The suhiect territory is presently zoned County A (Exclusi',e Agriculture)
Zone.
VIII
A.
Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List effects on present land use that would occur as a result of annexation such
as maintenance nf livestock on property, etc.) The City has prezoned the territory to the corresponding City A (Agriculture) Zone.
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 manner than present Countx
Sherffi'services. The present City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees county residents now pay to independent
companies. No special assessments or charges for street sweeping, leaf collection, street lighting energv costs and fire hydrants
when located within the City's right of way. City government also provides increased political representation for the residents
within the corporate limits.
Please provide the following information relative to ciD'/district and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing tax rate in the maior portion of the area equais 1.111122% of assessed market value.
This represents the total properW tax rate. When annexed a designated percentage of the total property tax of the ama will accrue
to the City and remainder to the County for providing health care and social services. (Rate as shown on 2000-01) County
Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List).
Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the ciD/district: If so, explain. No, the last listed (1992-93) Citx
bonded indebtedness has been paid off and the current (2000-01 ) tax rate list shows no city bonded indebtedness.
How will the difference in tax rates affect a properl)' with a market value of $50~000.007
The property rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation.
6