Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 180-02RESOLUTION NO. 180'02 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELDASANNEXATION NO. 438 LOCATED (1) AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRINGDALE AND SUNFLOWER WAY AND (2) ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF ALLEN ROAD, BETWEEN OLIVE DRIVE AND SNOW ROAD. (WARDS 4 AND 7). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Sect[on 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 proposed annexation territory along the east side of Allen Road, between Olive Drive and Snow Road, is within the Sphere of Influence boundary but not within the boundary of the North of River Sanitary District; and WHEREAS, the North of River Sanitary District wishes and the City of Bakersfield agrees to annexation the territory located along the east side of Allen Road, between Olive Drive and Snow Road, into the district; and WHEREAS, the North of River Sanitary District agrees to serve the territory located along the east side of Allen Road, between Olive Drive and Snow Road, upon development; 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: 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, 8. 9. 10. 11. located at the northwest corner of Springdale and Sunflower Way and along the east side of Allen Road, between Olive Drive and Snow Road. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to be uninhabited pursuant to Section 56046 of the Government Code. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to have 100% of property owners consenting to annexation. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein is within the City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Boundary. 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. That the names of the officers of the City of Bakersfield who are to befurnished 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. ......... O00 ........ 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 NOV 6 ZI)0Z , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER ~.j..~ ~ kJL COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER J'~-~q~ ~'"~., CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Cie~j~k of the Council of the City of Bakersfield' APPR~)V~D NOV ~200Z HARVEY L-HALL Bakersfielg/ MAYOR of the City of APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILT4~EN City AttorneY~ By: ~-~ ~-~.~,,~ 2~ November 4, 2002 S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann438.roa.doc 3 EXHIBIT "A" SPRINGDALE NO. I - ALLEN ROAD NO. 7 ANNEXATION NO. 438 Those two (2) "single areas" being a portion of the southwest % of Section 24, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., MD.M, being Area No. 1 (Springdale No. 1) and a portion of the northwest ¼ of Section 12, T. 29 S., R. 26 E., MD.M, being Area No. 2 (Allen Road No. 7), in the County of Kern, State of California, comprising 79.94 total acres (more or less), more particularly described as follows: Area No. 1 (Springdale No. 1) Commencing at the south ~¼ corner of said Section 24 being monumented and located within the right of way for the Bakersfield Bypass (State Route VI KER 99), said ¼ corner calculated to be 2,295,575.499 feet North and 6,254,282.550 feet East per California Coordinate System (N.A.D. 83), Zone 5; Thence N 51° 29' 12" W, 1817.67 feet to meet the northwest corner of Lot 15 of Tract No. 3497 per map filed for record in Book 23 of Maps, Page 138 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder, said lot corner also being on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence (1) N 00° 40' 45" E, along the west boundary line of said Tract No. 3497 and said corporate boundary line, 54.19 feet to meet the northerly line of Lot 3 of proposed (County) Lot Line Adjustment No. 71 - 02; Thence proceeding along the boundary line of said Lot 3 for courses (2) through (9) as follows: Thence (2) departing from said corporate boundary line, S 03° 52' 01" E, 25.44 feet; Thence (3) S 23° 51' 07" E, 19.77 feet; Thence (4) S 04° 19' 12" W, 21.49 feet; 3 Thence (5) S 47° 38' 52" E, 17.65 feet; Thence (6) S 67° 10' 43" E, 30.49 feet; Thence (7) S 61© 40' 55" E, 12.26 feet; Thence (8) S 35° 26' 06" E, 27.59 feet to meet the north right of way line of Sunflower Way in said Tract No. 3497; Thence (9) N 89° 19' 15" W, along said right of way line 77.41 feet to meet the west boundary line of said Tract No. 3497 also being a point on the existing corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield; Thence (10) N 00° 40' 45" E, along said Tract Boundary Line and Corporate Boundary Line, 61.80 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.06 acres (more or less) Area No. 2 (Allen Road No. 7) Commencing at a point on the west line of said Section 12 being the southwest corner of Lot 9 of Sales Map of the Lands of Kern County Land Company filed for record May 20, 1892, in the Office of the Kern County Recorder, also being the point of intersection of the center lines of Allen Road (Co. Rd. No. 67 & 843) and Olive Drive (Co. Rd. No. 67), said corner also being monumented and calculated to be 2,341,021.367 feet North and 6,220,367.014 feet East per California Coordinate System (N.A.D. 83), Zone 5; Thence S 89° 18' 22" E, along the south line of Lots 9, 10 and 11 of said Sales Map of the Lands of Kern County Land Co. (and center line of Olive Drive), 1407.14 feet to the southeast corner of Lot "B" of Lot Line Adjustment No. 122-99 per Certificate of Compliance filed for record as Document No. 200120365, said point also being on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield; Thence N 00© 44' 36" E, along the east line of said Lot "B" (and corporate boundary line), 30.00 feet to meet the north right of way line of Olive Drive, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence (1) departing from said corporate boundary, N 89° 18' 22" W, along said right of way line, 1377.14 feet to meet the east line of the west 30.00 feet of said Section 12, also being the east right of way line of Allen Road (Co. Rd. No. 67 & 843); Thence (2) N 00° 44' 36" E, along said east right of way line, 2585.57 feet to meet the south line of the north 30.00 feet of said Section 12, also being the south right of way line of Snow Road (Co. Rd. No. 843); Thence (3) S 89° 17' 53" E, along said right of way line, 1292.61 feet to meet the east line of Lot "F" of said Lot Line Adjustment No. 122-99, said point also being on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield; Thence (4) S 00° 44' 36" W, along the east line of said Lot "F" (and corporate boundary line), a distance of 957.25 feet to meet the north line of Lot "B" of said Lot Line Adjustment No. 122- 99; Thence (5) S 89° 22' 01" E, along said north line (and corporate boundary line), 84.53 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot "B"; Thence (6) S 00° 44'36" W along the east line of said Lot "B" (and corporate boundary line), 1628.23 feet to meet the north right of way line of Olive Drive and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 79.88 acres (more or less) Note: Area No. 2 of City Annexation No. 438 (Allen Road No. 7) shall also be designated as a reorganization area for annexation to North of the River Sanitary District No. 1. G:\G ROU P DAT~Ron\2002~An nexations\Exhibit A\438.doc -2- ~ "~' PARCEL B ' · I SEC. 24 ; [~) T. 30 S. -_-; PARCEL A R. 27 E. : ii Parcel Map No. 1073 ii M.D.M. k~ PORTION OF ~ ~ i ~4~5) Tract No. J4~7 (7) ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' Poi.~ofBe,inni.g(P.O.B.)NOTE ~ ~ SUNFLOWER WAY (~.~.~ .~,zo..~) / ANNEXA ~ ~ ~~ ,XXXXX; Ill. ~vll. VIII A. What effects, if any, would annexation of this territory have off thc existing level of city/district services (i.e., need for additional emergency service personnel or construction of new facilities, crc)? The annexation of this minimal size territory will not affect the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. Additional police officers will not be required to maintain the current level of crv service. Any planned municipal facilities within the territory will not increase the future maintenance responsibility of the City and 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 city/district or residents be responsible for financing? Private development provides and pays for maior facilities and dedicates them to thc Cil~. No UDffradin~' or change in facilities will be required in the territory for annexation. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The subiect territnr¥ is presently zoned County MS (Mobilehome Subdivision - 6000 sq. ft. 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 City prezoned the territory tn the corresponding City MH (Mobilehome) Zone. last city/district services that area will directly nr 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 and State Highway Patrol services. The present City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees County residents now pa~ to independent companies. 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: l.ist existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing general tax rates in the area equal 1.177201% of assessed market value This represents the general property tax rate. When annexed~ a designated percentage 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. {Rates shown are for the Count~ Auditor-Controller 2002 lien date}. Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of thc city/district: If so, explain. No~ the last listed (1992-93) City banded indebtedness has been paid off and the current 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 ~eneral DroDert¥ rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation. AREA NO. I (SPRINGDALE NO. I) © Z I11. VII. VIII A. W'hai effects, if any, would annexation of this lerritory have on thc existing level of city/district services (i.e., need for additional cmergenc) service personnel or construction of new' facilities, ere)? The annexation of this tcrritorv will have minimal effect on the near term level or capability of thc City to provide needed services. Upon future development in the territory additional police officers would possibly be required to maintain the current level of city service. The planned residential development including public streets and other municipal facilities in the territory will increase the future maintenance responsibilit5r of the City but should 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 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 territory presently zoned County A (Exclusive Agriculture) Zone. Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List elTects 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 corresponding City A (Agriculture) Zone. The prezoning is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan designation. However~ the owners and the City have initiated a General Plan Amendment to change the Cil~ Zoning to R-I (One Family Dwelling) Zone. List city/district services thai area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire insuran~ce 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 assessment or charges for street sweeping~ leaf collection~ street lightin~ energy costs and fire hydrants upon development of subject area. City government also provides increased politlcal representation for the residents within the corporate limits. Please provide the following informatinn relative to city/district and county taxes: List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existinl~ ~eneral tax rate in the area equals 1.092585% 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 and remainder to the County for providing health care and social services. (Rate as shown for the) County Auditor-Controller 2002 Lien Date). Would affected area be subject to an)' bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. No~ the last listed (I 992-93) City bonded indebtedness has been paid off and the current tax rate list shows no city bonded indebtedness. How will the difference in tax rates affect a prupcrty with a market value of $50,000.00? The general property rate will not increase duc to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation. AREA NO. 2 (ALLEN ROAD NO. 7) i 99 C]¥O~J ~'I~]IM v UJ Z ~N3AV V. LI_3M3R QVO~ NJ I I~' w