Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 056-04RESOLUTION NO. ~ 5 6"' 0 4 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 460 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF McKEE ROAD AND STINE ROAD. (WARD 6). 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 annex the territory located at the southeast corner of Stine Road and McKee Road into the City; 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 "A" and shown on map marked Exhibit "B' attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein, located at the southeast corner of McKee Road and Stine 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. 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 290, Bakersfield, California 93301. -~o0o- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfie d at a regular meeting thereof held on MAR 1 ti ~ , by the following vote:  COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, Cl~ CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED HARVEY L. HALL Bakersfiel/~1 MAYOR of the City of APPROVED AS TO F~ORM: VIRGINIA GENNA~) City Attorney EXHIBITS: A Legal Description B Map C Plan for Services MO:djl February 13, 2004 S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann460.roa.doc 3 ORIGINAL EXHIBIT "A" "MCKEE NO. 2" ANNEXATION NO. 460 That parcel of land being a portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.M., County of Kern, State of California, also being a portion of Lot 24 in said Section 35 according to "Kern County Sales Map No. 1 of Lands of J. B. Haggin" filed for record May 3,1889 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder, said land being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the monumented west 1/4 corner of said Section 35, said corner also being the northwest corner of said Lot 24 and is also the point of intersection of the center lines of McKee Road and Stine Road; Thence S 89o 04' 57" E, along the north line of said Lot 24 and said McKee Road center line, 30.00 feet; Thence S 00° 34' 35" W, 30.00 feet to the point of intersection the south right of way line of said McKee Road and the west right of way line of said Stine Road, said point also being an angle point on the existing corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence (1) S 89° 04' 57" E, along said south right of way line and said corporate boundary line, 630.72 feet to intersect the east line of said Lot 24; Thence (2) S 00° 34' 35" W, along said east line and said corporate boundary line, 957.80 feet to meet the north line of the south 330 feet of said Lot 24; Thence (3) N 89° 04' 14" W, along said north line, 630.67 feet to intersect the east right of way line of said Stine Road, also being a point on said existing corporate boundary line; Thence (4) N 00° 34' 25" E, along said right of way line and said corporate boundary line, 957.67 feet to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 13.87 acres (more or less) G:\G ROUP DAT~Ron~2004\EXHIBIT A - Annex 460.doc ORIGINAL "McKEE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 460 Containing 15.87 Ac. +_ c 1 [  ; Q OS C J ~ (2) , o soo ~ooo (3) -- X pROPOSED ~ ~ ANNEXATION EXHIBIT "B" "~=~" " Cl~ OF BAKERSFIELD .~ o'4 O~IClA~ R[~ORDI OF K~RN COUP. C~I~NIA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT c.[c~ 0RIGIN~ OFIIGII~AI. ORIGINAL 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 minimal affect on the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. The territory is presently vacant land for agricultural use and until future development occurs, additional nolice 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, at the time when pronosed commerciall development occurs, the 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. The two public roads providing access to the territory are McKee Road and Stine Road which have already been annexed into the City. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The subject territory is presently zoned County A (Exclusive Agriculture) Zone over the entire area. 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 correspondine City A (A~riculmre) Zone. however the owner and the City are concurrently workine on a General Plan Amendment for a zone chanee to C-2,PCD (Regional Commercial, Planned Commemial Development Combining) Zone. List city/district services that area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire insurance rote, shorter emergency response time, use of community facilities, etc. City Police should be able to resnond 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 sweeoin~, leaf collection, street li~,htin~ energy costs and fire hydrants when located within the City's riffht of way. City government also nrovides increased l~olitical reomsentation for the residents within the con>orate 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 maior portion of the area equals 1.100931% of assessed market value. This ranresents the total nronertv tax rate. When annexed a designated r~ementa~e 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 2003 Lien Date List). 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, existing or proposed land use is not subiect to a Williamson Act Contract.. G:~GROUPDAT~Ron~2004~Exhibit C Annex 460.doc -3- ORIGINAl.