HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 192-04RESOLUTION NO. :~'~" 9 2 ' 0 4
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 464
LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF McKEE ROAD,
GENERALLY BETWEEN WIBLE ROAD AND STATE
ROUTE 99. (WARD 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 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 south side
of McKee Road, generally between Wible Road and State Route 99 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:
1. 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 along the south side of McKee Road, generally between Wible Road and
State Route 99.
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 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.
.... 000 .......
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was pas[~,e,d ar~d,~d~o~ted by the Council
of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on mAY ~ o ~004 ,
by the following vote:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCiLMEMBERCOUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER ['~L
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER ~J~'t'~.---
APPROVED[~A¥ ~' (~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC//
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Cl~rk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
EXHIBITS:
A Legal Description
B Map
C Plan for Services
MO:djl
May 10, 2004
S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann464.roa.doc
EXIHIBIT"A"
MCKEE NO. 3
ANNEXATION NO 464
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOTS 19 AND 20 OF KERN COUNTY SALES MAP NO. 1
OF THE LANDS OF J.B. HAGGIN, FILES FOR RECORD MAY 3, 1889, IN THE
OFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER, SAID LOTS ALSO BEING A
PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 36, T.30S.,R.27E., M.D.M.,
COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 36, ALSO BEING THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 20, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE
CENTER LINE INTERSECTION OF MCKEE ROAD AND HUGHES LANE;
THENCE S.00°36'SY'W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST ¼ OF
SAID SECTION 36, ALSO BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 20, A
DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SAID MCKEE ROAD, SAID POINT ALSO BIENG ON THE EXISTING
CORPORATE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND IS THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
(2)
(3)
(4)
THENCE S.89°07'46"E. ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE AND SAID CORPORATE BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 1321.58
FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 19, FROM
WHICH THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 19 BEARS N. 00°
36'42" E., A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET;
THENCE S.00°36'42'W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 19, A
DISTANCE OF 1291.61 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 19
THENCE N. 89°05'48"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS
19&20, A DISTANCE OF 1321.65 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID LOT 20;
THENCE N.00°36'SY'E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHEAST ¼ AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 20, A DISTANCE
OF 1290.85 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 39.18 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
m
ORIGINAL
o_Z~o~
~4
J
~ o
RtGINAL
0
o
cq
0
0
OI~IGINAL
b
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 police 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, if any
additional development occurs, the developer 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. The only
public road providing access to the territory is McKee Road which has 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 corresponding City A (Agriculture) Zone over the entire area, however, the applicant and the
City are working on a General Plan Amendment for a zone change to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone.1
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 Sheriffservices. 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 right of way. 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 major portion of the area equals 1.100931%
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 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
subject to a Williamson Act Contract..
G:\GROUPDAT\Ron\2004\Exhibit C Annex 464a.doc
o ~
ORIGINAL