The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES NO 72-93RESOLUTION NO. 72.93 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 375, CALLOWAY NO. 5 ANNEXATION (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 THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993, on the proposed annexation of certain properties to the City of Bakersfield known as CALLOWAY NO. 5 ANNEXATION, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 8-93 on March 4, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the prezoning for the annexation area to 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 56800 of the Government Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. That the City of Bakersfield hereby proposes the annexation to the City of Bakersfield of the territory described 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. 2. That a plan for providing services within the affected territoW 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. 3. That this proposal for change of organization, to wit, annexation, is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, and it is requested that proceedings be authorized for annexation in accordance therewith. ORIGINAL 4. That the reasons for the proposed change of organization are that the owners and residents 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. 5. That for this proposed annexation and the prezoning therefor, Ordinance No. 35-19, which was adopted April 28, 1993, 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 January 29, 1993. 6. That the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 107-86 have been duly followed and the Negative Declaration for this proposed annexation is hereby approved and adopted. 7. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to be uninhabited pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 56046 of the Government Code. 8. 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: City Clerk City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Alan Tandy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Lawrence M. Lunardini City Attorney City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 9. 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 ......... 2 ORIGINAL 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 MAY 2 § l~q~ , by the following vote: AVES: COUNCILMEMBERS: EDWARDS, OeMOND, SMITH, BRUNNI, KANE, McDERMOTT SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMF. MBERS .... ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN COUNCiLMEMBERS' CITY CLERK anti Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield MAY 2 6 1993 APPROVED BOB P ,~ MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield MO/pjt res\roa.c5 April 29, 1993 3 ORIGINAL EXHIBIT 'A' CALLOWAY NO. 5 ANNEXATION NO. 375 A parcel of land being a portion of Lots 17 and 18 in Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 27 East, M. D. B. & M., Kern County, California, as shown on "Sales Map of Lands of J. B. Haggin" filed August 20, 1890 in the office of the Kern County Recorder, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at North 00° 06' said section; a point on the east line of said Section 19, distant 17" West, 1335.91 feet from the southeast corner of THENCE North 89° 59' 55" West, 838.50 feet to an angle point on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield, also being the True Point of Beginning; THENCE (1) Departing from said corporate boundary, North 89° 59' 55" West, 503.06 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 18; THENCE (2) North 00° 00' 11" East, along the west line of said lot, a distance of 819.80 feet; THENCE (3) North 89° 50' 10" East, 1310.02 feet to a point on the west line of the east 30.00 feet of said Section 19, also being a point on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield; THENCE (4) Southerly and Westerly along said corporate boundary line to the point of beginning; Containing 24.73 acres {more or less) RTY:lh D 4:CALLWYNO.5 OR~G;NAL SCALE: 24.73'- ACRES ~ 200 0 200 400 600 ORIG;NAL t~-- GREENACRES ........ EXISTING CORPORATE SOIJNOARY ~ ~ ~ / ~) ~'~ .miata PROPOSED ANNEXATION BOUNDARY EXHIBIT "B" ,.~h~._~ j { ~ ~ X Z zm O~ ~r~ X X ~ X X ~ O0 0 00~ OO Z ZOO ORIGINAL Ill. 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 Citv to provide needed services. UPon time of complete build-out of this territory, additional police officers may or may not be required tO maintian the current level of city service. Street improvements resulting from development will have minimal effect on the maintenance responsibility of the city and will not affect the existing level of service. IV. 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? AS development occurs, the developer provides and Days for ma~or facilities and dedicates them to the City. NO uD~radin~ or change in facilities will be required in the territory for annexation. Also at time of development, the developer will Day a reimbursement fee to connect to the sewer main constructed for the Rosedale Towne Center. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The major portion is zoned County A-1 (Limited Acriculture) . A 2.06 acre area in the southeast corner of the territory is zoned County E (10) R S (Estate - 10 acre residential suburban) zone. A county zone chance of the County A-1 zone to E 1/4 (Estate - 1/4 acre minimum) has been adopted and Goes in affect when the subdivision is complete. VI. 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 entire territory is Drezoned to City E (Estate) Zone and is compatible with the adopted County E 1/4 zone chance. RTY: lh D 4: ANNEX375.3 3 VII . VIII A. Bo 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 City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees county residents now DaY to independent companies. No special assessment or charges for street sweeping, leaf collection, school crossing Guards, street lighting ener~v costs and fire hydrants uDon development of the territory. 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 eGuals 1.200342% 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. (Rates as shown on 1992-93 County Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List). Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. Yes, when annexed, the rate will be increased by 0.002400% of assessed market value which eGuals the City bond rate. How will the difference in tax rates affect a property with a market value of $50,000.007 The City Bond rate of 0.002400% amounts to a difference of $1.20 more Der ¥ear on a house of this value. RTY:lh D 4:ANNEX375.4 ORIG;NA[