HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 216-04RESOLUTION NO. 2 I 6 ' 0 '~
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 469
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
CALLOWAY DRIVE AND BRIMHALL ROAD. (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 headng on MONDAY, JULY 14,
t997, 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 headng 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 generally west of
Calloway Ddve, north of Snow Road 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 northwest comer of Calloway Drive and Brimhall Road.
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 the majority of the 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 headng
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
Headng, 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 Attomey
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
m
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.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed ~qnd_a_dopted by the Council
of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ,JUL O 7 ?004 ,
by the following vote:
~ COU.C,'MEMBE. CO~C., CA~SON, BE.~M. ~G~,.O..A.~ON. SU'L,V,,., S~'~G~,O
NOES: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER ~ ~ ~ { ~.J L~
APPROVED JUL 0 7 2004
PAMELA A. McCARTHY,
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
EXHIBITS:
A Legal Description
B Map
C Plan for Services
MO:djl
June 23, 2004
S:~,nnexation~Res of Applic~ann469.roa.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
"BRIMHALL NO, I0"
ANNEXATION NO. 469
A portion of the southeast quarter of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 27 East, MD.M, County of
Kern, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 30, said corner being monumented and officially
designated as 681,968.316 feet North and 1,669,345.712 feet East per the California Coordinate System,
Zone 5;
Thence North 00°51 '07" East, along the east line ol said section, a distance of 30.00 feet;
Thence North 89°06'37" West, 203.85 feet to a point on the North right of way line of Brimhall Road (Co.
Rd. No. 589) also being a point on the corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield and the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence (1) along said corporate boundary line, and the West right of way line of realigned Calloway Drive,
North 62°32'31'' East, 34.89 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent, 1,430.00 foot radius curve, concave
northwesterly, having a radial of South 67°22'47'' East, from said beginning of curve;
Thence (2) northeasterly along said right of way curve through a central angle of 07°33'49" an arc distance
of 188.77 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent, 1,600.00 foot radius curve, concave northwesterly,
having a radial bearing of South 73°28'09'' East from said beginning of curve;
Thence (3) northeasterly along said right of way curve through a central angle of 09°19'42" an arc distance
of 260.50 feet to intersect the South line of that parcel of land owned by Howard D. and Deborah L. Smith
and designated by the Kern County Assessor as APN 110-170-29;
Thence (4) South 89°07'52'' East, along said South line, 35.19 feet to intersect the West line of the east 30
feet of said Section 30;
Thence (5) North 00°51'17'' East along said West line a distance of 180.01 feet to a point on the North line
of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 30;
Thence (6) departing from said corporate boundary line, North 89°07'38'' West, along said North line, a
distance of 645.04 feet;
Thence (7) South 00°51'24" West, a distance of 631.29 feet to intersect the North line of the the South 30
feet of said Section 30, also being the North right of way line of Brimhall Road (Co. Rd. No. 589);
Thence (8) South 89°06'37" East, along said right of way, a distance of 471.21 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing 8.50 acres (more or less)
ORIGINAL
Z~
Z
<
ITl
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 of this territory will not affect the near term level or capability of the City to
provide needed services. At the time of any future development, it is unlikely that additional
po[ice officers would be required to maintain the current level of city service. The development
of any public streets or municipal facilities within the territory will increase the future
maintenance responsibility of the City but should 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? Private development 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.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The territory is presently zoned County
E Il0) RS (Estate - 10 Ac. min., Residential Suburban combining ) 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 corresponding City RS-10A (Residential Suburban - 10 acre minimum
lot size) 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. City Police
should be able to respond in a more timely manner than present County Sheriff services. Parcels
within the incorporated area are allowed to connect to available City sewer system lines. 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 incorporated 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 tax rate in the area equals 1.246836% 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 is for County Auditor-
Controllers 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 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, the existing annexation area is
not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.
G:\GROUPDAT\Ron\2004\Exhibit C - Annex 469.DOC