HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 026-04RESOLUTION NO~ 0 4
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 458 LOCATED ALONG
THE EAST SIDE OF OSWELL STREET TO STERLING ROAD,
GENERALLY SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 58. (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 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 annex the territory located along the east side
of Oswell Street to Steding Road, generally south of State Route 58 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
detachment; 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 Oswell Street to Sterling Road, generally south of Allen Route 58.
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 t(~ 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 Govemment 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
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 290, Bakersfield, California 93301.
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 ~'~'~ 1 ~. 2004
by the following vote:
~ COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, t¢~O, HANSON,'8~PM~-V¢~, SALVAGGIO
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER . ~ .
COUNCILUEMBER ~ .
00
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPRO.~VED FEB ! ~, 2004
MAYOR of the City of BakerSfield
APPROVED AS TO F6RM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By;.' /
EXHIBITS:
A Legal Description
B Map
C Plan for Services
MO:djl
Januaw 14, 2004
SSAnnexation\Res of Applic~an n458.roa.doc
3
EXHIBIT
"OSWELL NO. 11"
ANNEXATION NO. 458
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
2, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, M.D.M., COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EXISTING CORPORATE
BOUNDARY LINE OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD;
THENCE (1) SOUTH 89"48'04" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER (AND SAID CORPORATE BOUNDARY LINE) 2656.04 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE (2) DEPARTING SAID CORPORATE BOUNDARY, SOUTH 00°31 '36" WEST, ALONG
THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, 1331.62 FEET TO
THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EXISTING CORPORATE
BOUNDARY LINE OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD;
THENCE (3) NORTH 89°45'20'' WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SOUTH HALF OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER (AND SAID CORPORATE BOUNDARY) 2658.13 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE (4) DEPARTING SAID CORPORATE BOUNDARY, NORTH 00"37'02" EAST, ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, 1329.53 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 81.16 ACRES.
p:~ROJECTS\03146~LEGALS~qNEX458.DOC JLM 1/6/2004 3:45 PM
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 not affect the near term level or capability of the City to
provide needed services. At the time of full build-out of the proposed residential development,
additional police officers could likely 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
A-1 (Limited Agricultue) 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 A (Agriculture) Zone. However, a General Plan
Amendment to change the City zoning to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone is nearing completion.
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 lightin~ 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 1.130836% 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 County 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 annexation area is
not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.
G:\GROUPDAT\Ron\2004\Exhibit C - Annex 458.DOC