HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 43-91RESOLUTION NO. 43-91
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS
ANNEXATION NO. 349, WILSON NO. 4 ANNEXATION
LOCATED SOUTH OF WILSON ROAD BETWEEN THE
KERN ISLAND CANAL AND UNION AVENUE (WARD 7).
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;
and
WHEREAS, an Inital Study was conducted and it was deter-
mined that the proposed project, as mitigated, would not have a
significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE,
City of Bakersfield[ that
follows:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
it hereby finds and determines as
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
of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein.
part
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, the Casa Loma
Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 6, 1986
and the Board of Supervisors on August 25, 1986, and an environ-
mental assessment was conducted and it was determined that the
proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on
the environment with mitigation. A Negative Declaration with
mitigation was prepared and posted March 4, 1991.
7. As mitigation, an archaeological survey is required
for the project area prior to site disturbance. The report is to
be submitted to the California Archaeological Inventory at Cal
State Bakersfield for review. A letter from the California
Archaeological Inventory verifying that any measures of the
report have been completed shall be submitted to the City
Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit.
8. 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 with mitigation for this proposed annexation is
hereby approved and adopted.
9. 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.
10. 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 MAR 2 7 1991 __, by
the following vote:
AYES; COUNCILMEMBERS: ~DWARBS..DeMOND, SMITH. BRUNNI, PETERSONr McDERMOTt, SALVAGGIO
NOES; COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
MAR 2 ? 1991
E. MEDDERS
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
LML/meg
Attachments
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
A ANEX 5
AP.WILS4.1
3/19/91
- 3 -
EXHIBIT "A"
WILSON NO. 4
A parcel of land situated in the East half of Section 7, Township 30 south,
Range 28 East, M.D.M., County of Kern, State of California, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the north line of the southeast~4of
said Section 7 (also being on the center line of Wilson Road) and the southeast-
erly line of the 100 foot-wide right of way for the Southern Pacific Railroad,
Asphalto Branch, said point also being on the existing corporate boundary of the
City of Bakersfield;
TH~ICE (1) North 40035'06" East, along said railroad right of way line, 56.72
feet to a point on the north right of way line of Wilson Road;
THENCE on and along said north right of way line for the next five (5) courses
as follows:
THENCE (2) North 89o52'59" East, 101.17 feet;
THENCE (3) South 00°07'01" East, 13.00 feet;
· ~m/~CE (4) North 89~52'59" East, 150.28 feet to a point on the west right of way
line of Donald Street (Co. Rd. No. 1136);
(5) North 00°00'16" West, along said West line, 13.00 feet;
THENCE (6) North 89~52'49" East, 1130.33 feet;
THENCE (7) South 00°00'32" East, 43.00 feet to a point on the center line of
Wilson Road, said point also being the northeast corner of Parcel 1 as shown on
Parcel Map No. 5314 filed in book 23 of Parcel Maps, Page 175 in the office of
the Kern County Recorder;
TH~CE (8) Continuing South 00000'32" East along the east line of said Parcel 1,
a distance of 178.50 feet to the southeast corner thereof;
'i~]~CE (9) south 89~52'59" West, along the south line of said Parcel 1, a dis-
tance of 1166.49 feet to a point on the center line of the right of way for the~
Kern Island Canal, Central Branch;
THENCE (10) South 32°37'16" East, along said center line, 1337.36 feet to a
point on the south line of Parcel 1 as shown on Parcel Map No. 4397 filed in
book 21 of Parcel Maps, Page 70 in the office of the Kern County Recorder;
'I~E~CE (11) South 89°55'33" West, along said south line, 59.29 feet to a pointm
on the southwesterly right of way line of said Kern Island Canal, Central
Branch, said point also being on the existing corporate boundary of the city of
Bakersfield;
'~1~4CE (12) Northwesterly and West, along said existing corporate boundary line,
to the point of beginning.
Containing 8.13 Acres (more or less)
4:WN4 RTY:wrn
ANNEXATION OF
WILSON No. 4
TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
8.15 -+ ACRES
SCALE:
%3O
7
(11)
III.
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 near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services.
Street improvements resulting from proposed development will have minimal effect on
the maintenance responsibiltiy of the City and will not affect the existing level of
service. The demand for police protection in the area should not affect the City's
officer per 1000 population standard because no residential development is proposed.
Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected
territory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.)? If so, would city/district o__r residents
be responsible for financing? The City will, at time of development would require up-
grading or changes in existing facilities. As development occurs; Developers shall
provide and pay for major improvements and facilities and dedicate them to the City.
Ve
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. Subject property located
within the Casa Loma Specific Plan boundary adopted August 25, 1986 which designates
land use for this area as 7.2 (Service Industrial). The portion of the territory lying
within the Kern Island Canal right of way designated as 3.3 (other facilities) which
provides for existing facilities used for public or semi-public services.
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 proposes no change to the adopted 7.2 (Service Industrial),
or 3.3 (Public Facilities), or more restrictive zoning of the Casa Loma Specific
Plan. Zoning will be the same whether the area is in the City or the County.
D30:ANN. 349.3 -3- RTY:wrn:lh
VII.
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 amore timely manner than
the present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol .services. Current City police
standard is a higher sworn officer per 1,000 population percentage compared to the
County standard. Refuse service will be provided by the City and will result in
savings to the owners within this annexation. No special assessments or charges for
street sweeping, street lighting energy costs and fire hydrants upon any future
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. Existing tax rate in area equal 1.158160% of
assessed market value. This represents the total property tax rate. When annexed
a designated percentage of the total tax of the area will accrue to the City.
(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: If
so, explain. Yes, the tax rate for City bonds equals 0.004041% of assessed market
value. When annexed, the total tax rate will be 1.162201%. (Rates as shown on
1990-91 County Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List).
How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of $50,000.00?
The yearly tax rate would increase by the amount of $2.02 on a building of $50,000 market
value due to inclusion of the City Bond Rate.
D30:ANN. 349.4
-4-
RTY:wrn