HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 132-02RESOLUTION NO. I 32"02
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 436 LOCATED (1)
ALONG STOCKDALE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, WEST OF
ASHE ROAD AND (2) SOUTH OF BLOMQUIST DRIVE TO BELLE
TERRACE, GENERALLY WEST OF MCDONALD WAY. (WARDS
5&6).
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 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 along Stockdale Highway west of
Ashe Road and north of Belle Terrace to Blomquist west of McDonald Way.
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.
......... o0o ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Council of th~L~tYJ ~f L~ersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCiLMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNClLMEMBER
COUNClLMEMBER
CITY CLERK and Ex Offi(~ Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Approved JUL 3 ! Z00Z
MARK SALVAGGIO
ViCE-MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MO:djl
July 17, 2002
S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann436.roa.wpd
3
~)i41GINAi
EXHIBIT "A"
STOCK1)ALE NO. 15 - BLOMQU1ST NO. 1
ANNEXATION NO. 436
Those two (2) separate "single areas" being portions of the southeast 1/4 of Section 33, T. 29 S., R.
27 E., M.D.M. and the northeast 1/4 of Section 4, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., M.D.M. (Area No. 1) and a
portion of the northwest 1/4 of Section 2, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., M.D.M. (Area No. 2), County of Kem,
State of California, comprising 3.74 total acres (more or less) more particularly described as follows:
Area No. I
Beginning at the northeast comer of said Section 4, being a monumented section comer and
calculated to be 2,316,948.2885 feet North and 6,241,266.4613 feet East per California Coordinate
System (N.A.D. 83), Zone 5, said Section comer also being on the existing corporate boundary line
of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence (1) S 00° 03' 00" W, along the east line of said Section 4 and corporate boundary line, a
distance of 19.00 feet to intersect the south right of way line of Stockdale Highway (Co. Rd. No. 167
& 1594);
Thence (2) departing from said corporate boundary line, N 89° 50' 20" W, along said south right of
way line, 1357.04 feet to intersect the east boundary line of Tract No. 2548 per map filed for record
in Book 12 of Maps, Page 56 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder, said tract boundary being
on the existing corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence proceeding along said corporate boundary line for courses (3) through (6) as follows:
Thence (3) N 26° 50' 23" E, along the east boundary line of said Tract No. 2548, a distance of 24.48
feet to the northeast comer thereof, said comer being a point on the south line of said Section 33;
Thence (4) N 00° 17' 00" E, 85.00 feet to intersect the north right of way line of Stockdale Highway
(Co. Rd. No. 2341);
Thence (5) S 89° 43' 00" E, along said north right of way line, 1345.47 feet to intersect the east line
of said Section 33;
Thence (6) S 00° 04' 00" E, along said section line, 85.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 3.26 acres (more or less)
-1-
G:/GROUPDAT\Ron\Annex436ExhA
Area No. 2
Commencing at the west 1/4 comer of said Section 2, being a monumented 1/4 comer and calculated
to be 2,314,221.7079 feet North and 6,246,538.7335 feet East per California Coordinate System
(N.A.D. 83), Zone 5, said 1/4 comer also being the southwest comer of Tract No. 1760 per map filed
for record in Book 8 of Maps, Page 155 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder;
Thence S 89° 22' 15" E, along the south line of the northwest 1/4 of said Section 2, also being the
south boundary line of said Tract No. 1760 and center line of Belle Terrace, a distance of 969.29 feet
to meet the southwest comer of Lot 4 of said tract;
Thence N 00° 38' 00" E, along the west line of said Lot 4, a distance of 43.00 feet to intersect the
north right of way line of Belle Terrace (Co. Rd. No. 2922) also being a point on the existing
corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1) continuing N 00° 38' 00" E, along the west line of said Lot 4, a distance of 262.39 feet
to intersect the south right of way line of Blomquist Drive (Co. Rd. No. D-622);
Thence (2) S 89° 22' 00" E, along said south right of way line, 80.00 feet to meet the northeast comer
of said Lot 4;
Thence (3) S 00° 38' 00" W, along the east line of said Lot 4, a distance of 262.38 feet to intersect
the north right of way line of Belle Terrace, also being a point on the existing corporate boundary
line;
Thence (4) N 890.22' 15" W, along said north right of way line and corporate boundary line, 80.00
feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 0.48 acres (more or less)
G:\G ROU PDATXRon\An nex436ExhA
-2-
,DF~IGINA~
'~'0 'glfg 20¥d '~ggg .Y~08 '£g-61-g
'£g-OZ 'ON NO~OS3~
~ 'ON NO~ VX3NNY
'ZZ-gI-I 030~i00~ 'NOLL3?dt~O0 ~0 iI4VOL~V
"S'N ~0£~ 'ON 30NVNIO~O :6 'ON ~VO~O01S.
'0£~ 'ON NOII VX3NNV 07gL~B3~Y8
"g'N LgOg 'ON ~ONVNIO~O '~g 'ON ~L~AI~ '~1 'ON NOIIVX3NNV
Z
0l-£l£-6#l NEV
60-£l.c'-6f'l NdV
")~4'iGIN AL
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 should have no affect on the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services.
The territory consists of street right-of-way only and additional police officers should not be required to
maintain the current level of city service.
Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads, fire
hydrants, mai ns, etc.): If so, would city/district or residents be responsible for financing? Nov the applicant
provides and pays for maior facilities and dedicates them to the City. No upg~'ading or change in facilities
will be required in the territory for annexation.
V. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. * (SEE NOTE BELOW)
V1.
VII.
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 of livestock on property, etc.)*
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 County Sheriff services.
Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. *
Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. *
How will the difference in tax rates affect a property with a market value of $50,000.007 *
*(N/A) territory consists of public street right-of-way only
(AREA NO~I)
~')RIGINA~,
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 should have no affect on the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services.
The territory consists of one residential lot and additional police officers should not be required to maintain
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 city/district or residents be responsible for financing? No. the am>licant
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 subject territory is presently zoned County E
(V2) RS (Estate - V2 acre, Residential Suburban Combining) Zone.
VI.
VII.
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 of livestock on property, etc.) The City has prezoned the territory to the.
corresponding City R-S (Residential Suburban) 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 County Sheriff 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 energy 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 city/district and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing tax rate in the maior portion of the area equals 1.149189% of
assessed market value. This represents the total property tax rate. When annexed a designated percenta?e
of the total property tax of the area 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 city/district: If so, explain. Nov the last
listed (1992-93) City bounded 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 property with a market value of $50,000.007
The orooerty rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation.
(AREA NO. 2)
6
OFIIGINA~