HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 225-04RESOLUTION NO. ~ 2 ~ ' 0 ~
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANN EXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 467
LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 178, (SOUTH
OF THE RIO BRAVO DEVELOPMENT), GENERALLY
EAST OF THE COMANCHE DRIVE. (WARD 3).
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 t4,
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 generally south of
State Highway 178, west of Comanche Drive 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 generally south of State Highway 178, west of Comanche Drive.
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.
>-
ORIGINAL
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-Hertz. berg 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
2
~RIGINAL~
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 5300 Lennox Street, Suite 303, Bakersfield, California 93309.
......... O00 ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passe.~l~d,~dlol~t~d, 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 v
ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER
APPROVED JUL 1 2004
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CM~./
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
July 21, 2004
S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~ann467.roa.doc
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT "A"
"RIO BRAVO NO. 3"
ANNEXATION NO. 467
A portion of Section 23, Township 29 South, Range 29 East, M.D.M., County of Kern, State of
California, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said section 23, said corner being a point on the
existing Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence South 00°00'32" East along said Corporate Boundary and the east line of said section
23 a distance of 180.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1) continuing along said Corporate Boundary parallel to the north line of said section
23, South 89°34'00 West, a distance of 5261.29 feet to a point on the west line of said section
23;
Thence (2) departing from said Corporate Boundary, South 00°25'46' West, along the west line
of said section 23, a distance of 5111.02 feet to the southwest corner of said section 23;
Thence (3) North 89°39'19'' East, along the south line of said section 23, a distance of 5300.33
feet to the southeast corner of said section 23;
Thence (4) North 00000'32'' West along the east line of said section 23, a distance of 5118.78
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 620.04 acres (more or less)
ORIGINAL
ORIGINAL
~o
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 territory is proposed for development as a single family residential area consisting of
R-1 size lots. The annexation of this territory should not affect the near term level or capability
of the City to provide needed services. There is a slight possibility that upon final build-out of
the area, additional police officers would be required to maintain the current level of city service.
The addition of the new public streets and municipal facilities within the territory will increase
the 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 entire territory is zoned Coun _ty A
(Exclusive Agricuture) 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 entire
territory has been prezoned to City A (Agriculture) Zone which is consistent with the existing
County Zoning. However, the City is processing a General Plan Amendment for change of
zoning as requested by the owner. The amended zoning will be City R-1 (One- Family Dwelling )
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. 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 1.082729% 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 territory proposed for
annexation is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.
ORIGINAL