Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 87-91RESOLUTION NO. 8 7 - 9 1 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 353, DENNEN NO. 1 ANNEXATION (WARD 6 AND WARD 7). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakers- field, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1991, on the proposed annexation of certain properties to the City of Bakersfield known as DENNEN NO. 1 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 Bakers- field Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 26-91 on April 4, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation 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 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", attached hereto and made a part of this resolu- tion as though fully set forth herein. 2. That a map of the territory proposed to be so annexed, marked Exhibit "B", is attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. That the reasons for the proposed change of organi- zation 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. 6. That for this proposed annexation and the zoning upon annexation, therefor, Ordinance No. 3360, which was adopted May 8, 1991, 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 March 14, 1991. 7. That the laws and regulations relating to the prepa- ration 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. 8. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined to be inhabited pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Section 56046 of the Government Code. 9. 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 J. Dale Hawley 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 - 2 - 10. 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. .......... o0o ......... 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 2 ~§§1 , by the following vote: AYES; COUNCILMEMBERS: EDWARDS, peMOND, SMITH, BRUNNI, 7ET[7,30N, McDERMOTL SALVAGGIO NOES; COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS NOME CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED MAY 2 -~ 199~ MEDDERS MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: LML/meg Attachments Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" A ANEX 5 AP.DENi.1 5/11/91 - 3 - $EC .N PANJ IA (8) 3509 · . ~';i P.O.B. , ........ [?) ~ No~ {6) = ' e .... SEC ~ ,, EC 25 AN~XATION NO. ~U_ ~UTI~ ANNEXATION OF DENNEN No. I 92.17 ~ ACRE9 2~ 0 20O 4~ EXHIBIT "B" 2O EXHIBIT "A" DENNEN NO. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 353 A parcel of land being ~)rtions of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 and the North 1/2 of Section 25 in To~]ship 30 South, _Range 27 East, M.D. M., Kern County, California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Westerly right of way line of Freeway 99 (State Route V1-KER-99) and the North right of way line of the Arvin- Edison and North right of way line of the Arvin-Edison intake canal, said point also being an angle poin% on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield, THENCE (1) South 14° 39' 59" East, along said Freeway 99 right of way line, 46.32 to an angle point thereon; THENCE (2) South 13© 14' 06" East, along said right of way line, 93.08 feet to a point on the South right of way line of the Arvin-Edison intake canal; THENCE (3) North 89° 17' 18" West, along said South right of way line, 2291.59 feet to the Northeast corner of Parcel 3 per Parcel Map No. 4385 filed in Book 19 of parcel maps, Page i[05 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; THENCE (4) North 07© 15' 53" East, 135.89 feet to a point on the ~brth right of way line of the Arvin-Edison intake canal, said point also being the Southeast corner of Parcel 3 per Parcel ~ap No. 4200 filed in Book 19 of parcel maps, Page 13 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; THENCE (5) North 08° 42' 50" East, along the East line of said Parcel 3, a distance of 217.33 feet, to an angle point thereon; THENCE (6) North 03° 05' 18" East, 444.58 feet to the Northeast corner of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map ~. 4200; THENCE (7) North 00° 36' 02" East, 629.33 feet to the point of intersection of the East line of Parcel 2 per Parcel Map no. 7470 filed in Book 32 of parcel maps, Page 67 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder and the South line of the North 30 feet of said Section 25, said point also being on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield; THENCE (8) Easterly, Northerly, Easterly and Southerly along the various courses of said existing corporate, to the Point of Beginning. Containing 92.17 Acres (more or less) 33:EX.DENNEN RTY: lh 23 24 (8 FHACT 4106 (3) P.O. B. ANNEXATION NO. :3~3 ~SOLUTION NO, ANNEXATION OF DENNEN No. I TO THE CITY OF eAKERSFIELD 92.17 · AC~ SC~E: ; 2~ 0 2~ 4~ ~ ~ ,~ ...... EX~ C~ ~ EXHIBIT "B" 20 X X X iii. IV. What effscts, 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 lsvel or capability of the City to provide needed services. Upon time of full buildout of this territory, additional police officers will be required to maintain the current level of city service. Streets and other muni- cipal imorovements resulting from development will not affect the City's existing level of ~ervice. Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.): If so, would city/distruct or residents be rssponsible for financing? As development occurs, the developer provides-~nd 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 portion of the ~erri- tory north of Pan~una Lane is County M S (Mobilhome_ Subdivision) zone and County C-2PD (Cor~nerciai, precise development) zone between ?anama Lane and the mobilhome division. The portion south of ?anauna Lane is County A-1 (Limited Agricultural) zone except for a small hair acre portion at the northwest corner being COunty C-1PD (neighborhood commercial, precise developemntl zone. VI. Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. {List effects on present land use that would occur ~s a result of annexation such as maintenance of livestock on property, etc.) The overall impact on the territory will be conversion of existing agricultural land to residential snd commercial develo_~nent south of Panama Lane. The area north of Panama Lane will be prezoned City ~ (mobilhome) zone and City C-2 (Commercial) zone. The entire portion south of Panama Lane is prezoned City R-1 (one-f~mily dwelling) zone. 33:ANN. 353P3 -3- XTY:lh VI I. List city/district services that area will directly or indirectly h~nefit from such as decrease in fire insurance rite, shorter emergency response time, use of co~aunity facilities, etc. City Polite should be able to respond in a more timely matter than present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol services. The present City refuse collection rate is sub- stantially lower than fees county residents now pay to independant companies. No special assessment or charges for street sweeping, leaf collection, school crossing guards, street lighting energy costs and fire hydrants upon development of subject area. VIII. A. 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 1.258853% (portion of area north of Panama Lane) and 1.213748% (portion south of Panama Lane) 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 accure to the City and remainder to the County for providinq health care and social services. (Rate as shown on 1990-91 County Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List). Would effected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: so, explain. Yes, when annexed, the rate will ~ increased to 1.262894% (north of Panama Lane) and 1.217789% (south of Panama Lane) of assessed market value which equals the City bond rate of 0.004041% and the total existing property tax rate. How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of $50,000.00? if the house is used as the principal r~sidence, the $7,000 ho~owners exemption leaves $43,000 for taxing purposes. The City Bond rate of 0.004041% ~mounts to a difference of 91.74 more per year on a house of this value. 33:ANN. 353P4 -4- RTY:!h