Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 012-04RESOLUTION NO.0 1 ~ '~' ~ ~- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 453 LOCATED EAST OF HENRY LANE, NORTH OF ROSEDALE HIGHWAY AND SOUTH OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, GENERALLY EAST OF COTTONWOOD ROAD. (WARDS I AND 4). 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 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 City of Bakersfield agrees to annexation the two territories (1) located east of Henry Lane, north of Rosedale Highway and (2) located south of the Arvin-Edison Canal, generally east of Cottonwood Road; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield owns the territory located south of the Arvin-Edison Canal, generally east of Cottonwood Road; and WHEREAS, the territory located south of the Arvin-Edison Canal, generally east of Cottonwood Road is used for public facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to serve the territory upon annexation; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the two territories 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 east of Henry Lane, north of Rosedale Highway, and north of the Arvin- Edison Canal, generally east of Cottonwood Road. ORIGINAl. 8. 9. 10. 11. 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 preposal 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 preposed 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 2 ORIGINAL 12. Alan Tandy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Virginia Gennaro City Attorney City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 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 pat~d,~0j:l J}ndnOJated bythe Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ~,r,, ,~,, ZUU'~ , by the following vote:  COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER APPROVED 'JAN PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC ~ CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield MORE SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE 3 ORIGINAL MAYOR of the City of Bakersfielc~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney EXHIBITS: A Legal Description B Map C Plan for Services MO:djl January 14, 2004 S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann453.roa.doc ORIGINAL EXHIBIT "A" HENRY LANE NO. 1 MUNICIPAL FARM NO.6 ANNEXATION NO. 453 Those two (2) "single areas" being a portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 21, T. 29 S., R. 27 E., M.D.M., Area No. I (Henry Lane No. 1 ) and a portion of the northeast 1/4 of Section 28, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., M.D.M., Area No. 2 (Municipal Farm No. 6), both in the County of Kern, State of California, comprising 63.39 total acres (more or less), more particularly described as follows: Area No. 1 (Henry Lane No.1) Commencing at the south 1/4 comer (monumented) of said Section 21, also being the point of intersection of the center lines of Rosedale Highway (State Route 58) and Patton Way (Co. Rd. No. 1269); Thence N 89° 42' 16" W, along the south line of said Section 21, a distance of 245.70 feet; Thence N 00° 01' 31" W, 245.70 feet to meet the north line of that land conveyed to Trustees Ralph M. Palla and Dorothy C. Palla, per Grant Deed filed for record in Book 6816, Page 830, Official Records in the Office of the Kern County Recorder, said point being on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence (1) N 89° 42' 16" W, along said property line and said corporate boundary line, a distance of 135.57 feet to meet the east right of way line of Henry Lane (Co. Rd. No. 2029); Thence (2) N 00~ 02' 32" W, along said right of way line, a distance of 501.44 feet to the northwest comer of that land conveyed to R. W. Henry Oil Producers Limited Partnership, per Quitclaim Deed filed for record as Document No. 0196000755 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (3) S 89° 42' 16" E, along the north line of said property, a distance of 135.72 feet to meet the northeast comer thereof; Thence (4) S 00° 01' 31" E, along the east line of said property, 501.44 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.56 acres (more or less) G:\GROUPDAT\Ron\2003\EXHIBIT A - Annex 453.doc - I - ORIGINAL Area No. 2 (Municipal Farm No. 6) Commencing at the northeast comer (monumented) of said Section 28, also being a point on the center line of Panama Lane (Co. Rd. No. 770); Thence S 00° 30' 19" W, along the east line of said Section 28, a distance of 1395.54 feet to intersect the south right of way line of the Arvin-Edison Intake Canal, said point being on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE PO1NT OF BEGINNING; Thence (1) S 00° 30' 19" W, along the east line of said section 28 and said corporate boundary line, 1250.96 feet; Thence (2) N 89° 39' 51" W, along said corporate line, 23 l 8.47 feet to intersect the east right of way line of the wasteway basin channel of the Arvin-Edison Intake Canal; Thence (3) N 00° 29' 59" E, along said right of way line, 1157.30 feet to intersect the south right of way line of the main channel of the Arvin-Edison intake Canal; Thence (4) S 89° 41' 01" E, along said right of way line, 2011.54 feet to the beginning of a 555.00 foot radius curve thereon, concave northwesterly; Thence (5) northeasterly, along said right of way curve, through a central angle of 33~ 37' 37", an arc distance of 325.73 feet to the TRUE POiNT OF BEGINNiNG. Containing 61.83 acres (more or less) G:\GROUPDAT\RonX2003\EXHIBIT A - Annex 453.doc - 2 - ORIGINAL I SEC21 'E.29S. R.27E. 6.10~ (3) "HENRY LANE NO, I- MUNICIPAl. FARM NO. $" A NNEXA ?'I ON NO. ~ (AREA NO. I) = I. 5G AC. l 71AC ~5 I £ Al. 8196 ~..35AC. R 5.1AC ROSEDA£ E HIGHWAY '.OUNTY - EXHIBIT "B# ORIGINAL iINAL ORIGINAL [J © o © OFIIGINAL 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 minimal size territory will not affect the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. Additional police officers should not be required to maintain the current level of city 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 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 subiect territory is presently zoned 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 City prezoned the territory to the corresponding City M-I (Light Manufacturing) 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 and State Highway Patrol services. The present Cit~ refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees County residents now pay 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: List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing general tax rates in the area equal 1.274144% 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 County Auditor-Controller 2003 lien date). Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. No~ the last listed (1992-93) 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 property with a market value of $50,000.00? The general property rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation. Is the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract ? No, the existing industrial land use is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract AREA NO. I (HENRY LANE NO. I) G:kGROUPDAT\Ron\2003\Exh[b[t C ~ Annex 453.doc ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL 7. 8. 9 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 no effect on the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. The entire annexation area has been acquired by the City for expansion of the Bakersfield Municipal Sewer Farm System at Treatment Plant No. 2. 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 uo-radin, 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 E(20) RS (Estate - 20 Ac. min. lot size) 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 R-S (Residential - 20 Ac. min. lot size) Zone. The prezoning is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan designation. 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. N/A - The territory will be City owned land within the corporate boundary for Municipal use (see Item 1.). Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes: List existing tax rate(s) in area. N/A- When annexed, the subiect area will revert to tax exempt status. Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. N/A - territory will have tax-exempt status. How will the difference in tax rates affect a property with a market value of $50,000.00? N/A - territory will be tax exempt. is the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract ? No, the territory is not subiect to a Williamson Act Contract. AREA NO. 2 (MUNICIPAL FARM NO. 6) G:\GROUPDAT\Ron\2003\Exhibit C Annex 453.doc OR[GIN^L