HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 039-03 039-03
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 444 LOCATED ALONG
THE NORTH SIDE OF HOSKING AVENUE, WEST OF SOUTH
UNION AVENUE. (WARD 7).
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 owner of the territory has 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 '%" and shown on map marked Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein,
located along the north side of Hosking Avenue, west of South Union Avenue.
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.
8.
9.
10.
11.
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 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 pass,~rCr:ldoa~o~ted, by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, C~C
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED MAR 1
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
/
MO:djl
February 10, 2003.
S:~Annexation\Res of Applic\ann444.roa.doc
EXHI'BTr "A"
LEGAL DESCRTPTZON
For
HOSKTNG No. 6
ANNEXA'rZON No. 444
Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 3401 recorded in Book 18 of Parcel Maps at Page 58 in
the office of the Kern County Recorder together with the West half of Lot 32 of the Berkshire
Farm Tract recorded in Map Book 1 at Page 38 in the office of the Kern County Recorder. Also
being a portion of the Southeast quarter of Section 30, Township 30 South, Range 28 East,
Mount Diablo Meridian, in the County of Kern, State of California, more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 30, also being the centerline intersection of
Hosking Road and South Union Avenue; Thence North 00001'45'' East along the centerline of said
South Union Avenue, a distance of 661.58 feet; Thence South 89o58"35'' West along the easterly
prolongation of the South line of said Parcel 1, a distance of 57.75 feet to a point on the West
Right-of-Way line of said South Union Avenue, also being the Southeast corner of said Parcel 1
and the point of beginning;
Thence (1)
continuing South 89058'35'' West along the South lines of said Parcels 1 and 4, a
distance of 601.86 feet to the Northeast corner of the West half of Lot 32 of said
Berkshire Farm Tract.
Thence (2)
South 00001'34" West along the East line of said West half of Lot 32, a distance
of 631.54 feet to the North Right-of-Way line of Hosking Avenue, also being a
point on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence (3)
South 89059'05'' West along said North Right-of-Way and said corporate
boundary, a distance of 659.58 feet to a point on the West line of the West half
of Lot 32 and said corporate boundary;
Thence (4)
North 00o01'55" East along said corporate boundary and the West lines of said
West half of Lot 32 and Parcels 2 and 3 of said Parcel Map No. 34-01, a distance
of 1292.83 feet to the Northwest corner of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map No. 3401;
Thence along the boundary line of said Parcel 2 the following three courses;
(5)
North 89o58'05'' East along the North line of said Parcel 2 and said corporate
boundary, a distance of 990.00 feet;
(6)
South 00001'55" West, a distance of 200.00 feet;
(7)
North 89058'05" East, a distance of 271.35 to a point on the West Right-of-Way
line of said South Union Avenue, also being the Northeast corner of said Parcel
2;
Thence (8)
South 00001'45" West along said West Right-of-Way line and the East lines of
said Parcels 1 and 2, a distance of 461.57 feet to the point of beginning.
Contains 27.47 acres gross more or less.
J L ~
~n__N~V
NoINn
o
o
~i??uiS OOOM~V ~
b
II1.
IV.
What e(fbcts, if any, wotdd annexation ~d this tc rntol~ have tm the existing level t)f cily/district services (i.e.,
need fi~r additional emergency scrvi~2c pcrsotmcl or conslructiop, of new facilities, ccc) ? The annexatk)n ~)f this
territory will have mininla[ affect tm thc near term level or capabilit,, ot thc City to provide needed services.
Thc territory is now undeveloped and additional police officers should not be required to nmintain the current
level of c~t¥ scrvicc.
Would cit¥/distric t tequlrc any upgrading or change m [acilities tt) serve affected territory (roads, fire hydrants,
nlains, elc.): If so, would city/district or residents be responsible roi fimmcing! No, if any additional
dcvch)pment occur,, thc developer provides and pays fi)r major thcilities and dedicates thenl to thc City. No
upgrading tlr change ill facilities will bc required in thc territory for annexation.
Indicate and explain existing zoning ill afl~:cted territory. Phc subject territory ts presently zoned County E-2
1/2, RS, MH (Estate - 2 t:~ ac. min., Residential Suburban, Mobilhome Combining) Zone over thc north
portion, County A (Exclusive Agriculture) over thc south half anti County M-2 PD (Medium Industrial, Precise
Development Combining) over thc portion t]-ontm~ South Union Avenue.
VI.
Vll.
VIII
A.
Indicate and explain proposed prezoning m a~ca. (List eflk. cts on present land use that would occur as a result ot
corresponding City RS-2.SA (Residential Suburban, 2 ~/5 ac. min.) Zone, City A (Agriculture) Zone and City M-
2_ (General Manutacmrmg) Zone.
List city/district services that atca will directly or it~ducctly benefit from such as decrease m fire insurance rate,
shorter emergency respt)nsc time, use ot ctmnnunity facilities, etc. City Police should be able to respond in a
more mncly manner than prc~cnt County Sheriff services. The present City refhse collection rate is
substantially lower than fees county residents now pay to independent companies. No special assessments or
charges tbr street swccpitt~, leaf collection, >trcct lighting encrg,3' costs and fire hydrants when located within thc
City'~ right of way. City government also provides increased political representation for the residents within thc
corporate limits.
Please provide thc Mllowing iiik)rmation relative to city/dismct and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. ~hc cxlstin~ tax ratc m thc major portion of thc area equals 1.I47605% of
assessed market value. This rcprcscnts thc total pr?erty tax rate. When annexed a designated percentage of
thc total property tax o(thc area will accrue to the City and remainder to thc County for providing hcahh care
and social services, irate as shown on Ctlttnty Auditor-Conm)ller 2002 Lien Date List).
Would affected area bc subjccl to any bonded indebtedness of thc city/district: Ilso, explain. No, the l~t listed
{1992-9~) Cit~, btmudcd indebtedness has bccn paid ttft and thc currcin tax rate list shows no city bonded
indebtedness.
How will tile diflcrcncc ill tax rates affect a propcrty with a nmrkct wdue of $50,000.00?
Tile property rate will llOt increase duc to almcxation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation.
d
Z
IJJ
Z
'JS ~O.I-IN 0!/~
z~
3FIN2AV NOINr'I HII30S
n n n F~