HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 094-03RESOLUTION NO. 0 9 ' 0 3
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 449 LOCATED ALONG
THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH UNION AVENUE, GENERALLY
BETWEEN PANAMA LANE AND THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL.
(WARD 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 headng on MONDAY, JULY 14,
1997, and THURSDAY, JULY t7, 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 Californiaq, 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 of Bakersfield agrees to annexation the territory located along the east
side of South Union Avenue, generally between Panama Lane and the Arvin-Edison Canal, into the
City; 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,
located south of McKee Road, between State Route 99 and Wible 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.
8.
9.
10.
11.
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 headng
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
2
Bart Thiltgen
City Attomey
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.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council
of the City of~/.~r~fl~[~3at a regular meeting thereof held on
, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERCOUCH, CARSON,~eNHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER ~ O ~ ~
COUNCILMEMBER l,J o ~/~-
COUNCILMEMBER ~ ~.~,~ UA~lf~
PAMELA A. McCARTHY,
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED JUN 1 1 2003
~ /
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
MO:djl /
May 27, 2003
S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann449.roa.doc
3
EXHIBIT "A"
UNION NO. 11
ANNEXATION NO. 449
That parcel of land being portions of the northwest ¼ of Section 29 and the northeast ¼
of Section 30, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., M.D.M., County of Kern, State of California, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 29 as established by a California
State Division of Highways Monument, said corner also being the point of intersection of
the center lines of South Union Avenue (Co. Rd. No. 97 & 2380) and Panama Lane (Co.
Rd. No. 782 & 266);
Thence S 00° 35' 18" W, along the west line of the northwest ¼ of said Section 29 and
center line of South Union Avenue, a distance of 422.02 feet to a point on the north line
of the south 900 feet of the northwest Y, of the northwest ¼ of said Section 29, said
point also being on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield and is the
True Point of Beginning;
Thence (1) S 89° 31' 45" E, along said north line and corporate boundary line, 275.55
feet to a point on the east line of the west 275.55 feet of the northwest ¼ of the
northwest ¼ of said Section 29;
Thence (2) S 00° 35' 18" W, along said east line and corporate boundary line, 900.00
feet to a point on the south line of said section segment, said point also being on the
north right of way line of the Arvin-Edison Intake Canal;
Thence (3) departing said existing corporate boundary, N 89° 31' 45" W, along said
north right of way line and said section segment line (and westerly prolongation thereof),
333.30 feet to a point on the west right of way line of South Union Avenue,also being a
point on said existing corporate boundary;
Thence (4) N 00° 35'
line, 900.00 feet to a
feet of the northwest
18" E, along said west right of way line and corporate boundary
point on the westerly prolongation of the north line of the south 900
¼ of the northwest ¼ of said Section 29;
Thence (5) S 89° 31' 45" E, along said north line and corporate boundary line, 57.75
feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 6.89 acres (more or less)
G:\GROUPDAT~Ron~2003\EXHIBIT A - Annex 449.doc
~. 005
,00'006
What effbcts, 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 capability of the City to provide needed services.
The territory is a relatively small developed area 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, if any additional
development occurs, thc 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 affbcted territory. Thc subiect territory is presently zoned County CH
(Highway Conunercial) Zone over the south 500 feet and the remaining north 4.00 feet is presently zoned
County R-3 D (High Density Residential, Architectural Design) 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 has prezoned the territory to
corresponding City C-2 (Commercial) Zone over the south 500 feet and City R-3 (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) Zone over the remaining north ~00 feet..
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 comnmnity 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 ener~ 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 folk)wing information relative to city/clistrict and county taxes:
List existing tax rate (s) in area. The existing tax rate in the maior portion of the area equals 1.14-7605% 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 on County Auditor-Controller 2002 Lien Date List).
Would aftbcted area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. No, the last listed
(1992-93) City bounded 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 properw rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation.
Is thc proposed area subject tn a Williamson Act Contract? No, existing or proposed land use is not subject to a
Williamson Act Contract..
-3-
FOR YOUR
INFI~RMATII~N
NORTH