HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 013-04RESOLUTION NCl0 1 ..~'J~_" 0_4_
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 454 LOCATED ALONG
THE WEST SIDE OF JEWETTA AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 700
FEET SOUTH OF BIRCHHAVEN DRIVE. (WARD 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 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 City of Bakersfield agrees to annexation the territory located along the west
side of Jewetta Avenue, approximately 700 feet south of Birchhaven Drive 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 west of Jewetta Avenue, approximately 700 feet south of Birchhaven Drive.
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.
ORIGINAL
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
Virginia Gennaro
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
2
ORIGINAL
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 pass~p.n~ a~dopted by the Council
of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on JRN ~ 8 7004
by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNClLMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
CITY CLERK and Ex Offi~'io Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED JAN 2 8
HARVEY L. HALL
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield/
APPROVED AS TO F?~CIM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
EXHIBITS:
A Legal Description
B Map
C Plan for Services
MO:djl
January 14, 2004
S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann454.roa.doc
3
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT "A"
JEWETTA NO. 4
ANNEXATION NO. 454
That parcel of land being a portion of the southeast 1/4 of Section 25, T. 29 S., R. 26 E.,
MD.M, in the County of Kem, State of California, more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the southeast comer (monumented) of said Section 25, also being the
point of intersection of the center lines of Brimhall Road and Jewetta Avenue;
Thence N 00° 48' 21" E, along the east line of said Section 25, a distance of 659.94 feet
to meet the southeast comer of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 4244 filed for record in Book
19 of Parcel Maps, Page 130 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder;
Thence N 89° 12' 51" W, along the south line of said Parcel 4, a distance of 30.00 feet to
meet the west right of way line of Jewetta Avenue (Co. Rd. No. 589), said point being on
the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence (1) departing from smd corporate boundary hne, N 8 12' 51" W, along the
south line of said Parcel 2, a distance of 629.86 feet to the southwest comer thereof, said
point also being on said existing corporate boundary line
Thence (2) N 00° 48' 35" E, along the west line of said Parcel 2 and said corporate
boundary line, a distance of 330.23 feet to the northwest comer of said Parcel 2;
Thence (3) S 89° 11' 30" E, along the north line of said Parcel 2, a distance of 629.83 feet
to intersect the west right of way line of said Jewetta Avenue;
Thence (4) S 00° 48' 21" W, along said right of way line, 329.98' feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 4.77 acres (more or less)
GgGROUPDAT\Ron~2003\EXH[BIT A- Annex 454 doc - I -
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL
ORIGI~,IAL
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. At the time of any future development, it is unlikely that
additional police officers would be required to maintain the current level of city service. The
development of any public streets or municipal facilities within the territory will increase the
future maintenance responsibility 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? Private development provides and pays for major 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 is presently zoned County
County E (5) RS (Estate - 5 Ac. min., Residential Suburban) 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 RS-5A (Residential Suburban - 5 acre minimum)
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 incorporated area.
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 area equals 1.084986% 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 is for Cotmty Auditor-
Controllers 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 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 $50,000.00?
The 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 mmexation area is
not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.
G:\GROUPDAT\Ron\2003\Exhibit C - Annex 454.DOC
3
ORIGINAL