Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 182-04RESOLUTION NO. I 8 ~ ~' 0 4 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO, 462 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HOSKING AVENUE AND SOUTH UNION AVENUE AND ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF ROSEDALE HIGHWAY GENERALLY WEST OF HENRY LANE. (WARDS 4 & 7). 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 Pianning 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 Bakersfieid 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 Hosking Avenue and South Union Avenue and along the north side of Rosedale Highway, generally west of Henry Lane 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 Hosking Avenue and South Union Avenue and along the north side of Rosedale Highway, generally west of Henry Lane. 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 requested that proceedings be authorized for annexation in accordance ther~-~,v~. ~'~,¢ ORIGrNAL 8. 9. 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 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. ......... O00 ..... 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 by the following vote:  COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER APPROVED MAY ! 2 2004 PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney / EXHIBITS: A Legal Description B Map C Plan for Services MO:djl April 21,2004 S:~Annex~tion\Res o! Applic~nn462.ro~.doc 3 ORIGINAL EXHIBIT "A" HOSKING ROAD NO. 7 & HENRY LANE NO. 2 ANNEXATION NO. 462 (AREA NO. I,] That parcel of land being a portion of the Northwest ¼ of Section 32, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., M.D.M., County of Kern, State of California more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of Section 32, also being the center line of Hosking Avenue (County Road No. 867), S 89°50'00" W, a distance of 57.80 feet to the Tie-in; thence S 00°10'00'' E, 30.00 feet to the Tree Point of Beginning; Thence Thence Thence Thence Thence Thence Contains N 89o50'00'' E, 1176.97 feet; S 00004'34'' E, 2032.50 feet; S 89°50'00" W, 761.47 feet; N 00°04'34"W, 1452.50 feet; S 89°50'00"W, 415.50 feet; N 00004'34" W, 580.00 feet, to the Tree Point of Beginning 41.09 Acres ORIGINAL EXHIBIT "A" HENRY LANE NO. 2 (Area No. 2) ANNEXATION NO. 462 That area being a portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 21, T. 29 S., R. 27 E., M.D.M., County of Kern, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south 1/4 comer (monumented) of said Section 21, also being a point on the center line of Patton Way (Co. Rd. No. 1269) distant 25.00 feet south of the center line of Rosedale Highway (State Route 58); Thence N 89°42'16" W, along the south line of said Section 21, a distance of 12 l 6.55 feet to intersect the southerly prolongation of the easterly right of way line of the Calloway Canal; Thence N 40°01' 46" W, along said prolongation line and said easterly right of way line, 105.16 feet to intersect the north right of way line of Rosedale Highway, 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 north right of way line and said corporate boundary line, 39.35 feet to intersect the westerly right of way line of the Drain Easement quitclaimed to the City of Bakersfield by Directors Deed filed as Document No. 0204036164 in the office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (2) departing from said corporate boundary line, N 40° 01' 46" W, along said Drain Easement right of way line, 95.14 feet; Thence (3) N 00° 02' 48" W, along said right of way line, 93.38 feet to intersect the westerly property line of that Drainage Basin site conveyed to the City of Bakersfield by Directors Deed filed as Document No. 0204036165; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Drainage Basin property for courses (4) through (7) as follows: Thence (4) N 40° 01' 46" W, 373.50 feet; Thence (5) N 00~ 02' 48" W, 70.05 feet; Thence (6) S 89° 42' 16" E, 300.00 feet; Thence (7) S 00° 02' 48" E, 283.25 feet to intersect the existing corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield; G:\GROUPDAT\Ron~2004\EXHIBIT A - Annex 462 Area 2.doc OR((31N.AL Thence (8) S 00° 02' 48" E, along said corporate boundary line, 189.44 feet to intersect the easterly right of way line of the Calloway Canal; Thence (9) S 40° 01' 46" E, along said corporate boundary line and said canal right of way line, 63.00 feet to the TRUE PO1NT OF BEGINNING. Containing 1.86 Acres (more or less) G:/GROU PDAT\Ron~2004 EXH BIT A - Annex 462 Area 2.doc ORIOINAL / ii" /PM. $~/ ~0 6. $0,4 3 0~C. 6./0~C. "HENRY L~N~ NO. ~' NX X(5)~ ' ' '' '''F' '~ ROSEOAL~ ~IG~WA~ (SrAr~ ~ ,..~ ~v.~o, CALIFORNIA ~ -~1 ~ K;;, cou,~, c~u~,,~x ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Z .< ORIGIN.~L ORIGINAL 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, gtc)? The annexation of this territory will have minimal effect on the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. At the time of the planned future development of the territory, additional police officers will probably not be required to maintain the current level of City service. The planned residential development including streets and other municipal facilities will increase the futm~ maintenance responsibility of the City but should not affect the present 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? NoT as additional 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. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The maior portion of the territory is zoned County R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zone. A 2 acre square portion at the northwest corner of the territory is zoned County C-2 PD (General Commercial, Precise Development) 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 corresoondin~' City R-I (One Family Dwelling) Zone with the 2 acres at the northwest corner prezoned to City C-2 (Commercial) Zone. The prezoning is consistent with the Metropolita. 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. 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 assessment or charges for street sweeoin,, leaf collection~ street lighting ener,v costs and fire hydrants upon development of subject 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 general tax rate for the maior portion of the area equals 1.160586 % of assessed market value. The existing rate for the 2 acre parcel at the northwest corner of the area equals 1.113671% of assessed market value. When annexed a designated nercentalle of the total tax of the area will accrue to the City and remainder to the County for orovidin- health care and social services. (Rates as shown from 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 ~ed indebtedness. How will the difference in tax rates affect a property with a market value of $50,000.007 The general orooerty tax rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation. ls the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract ? NOT the territory is not subiect to a Williamson Act Contract. G:\GROUPDAT\Ronk2004\Exhibit C Annex 462.doc AREA NO. 1 (HOSKING NO. 7) ORI(~iNAL 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 area consists of an active drainage basin recently acquired from the State of California. Annexation will not affect the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. Annexation 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? No uperadin~ 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-2 {Medium 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-2 {General 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. The maior portion of the territory {!.71 Ac.) was conveyed to the City as an active Drainage basin. The remaining southerly portion {0.15 Ac.) is for drainage and access easement purposes. Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes: List existing tax rate(s) in area N/A - The maior portion (1.71 Ac.) was acquired in fee as a drainage basin site and will have tax exempt status. The southerly 0.15 acre portion is drainage easement and will also revert to tax exempt status. Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. N/A- The 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 - The territory will have tax exempt status. Is the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract ? Nov the territory is not subiect to a Williamson Act Contract AREA NO. 2 (HENRY LANE NO. 2) G:\GROUPDATkRon\2004\Exhibit C - Annex 462.doc