Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 315-04RESOLUTION NO. 3 1 5" 0 4 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 476 LOCATED SOUTH OF HOSKING AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF SOUTH UNION AVENUE. 0NARD 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 cimulation; 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 south of Hosking Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of South Union Avenue 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 generally south of Hosking Avenue, generally east of South Union Avenue. 2. 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. OR, ~ NAL 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 Studywas conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environmenL 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 2 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. ......... o0o ........ 3 ORIG!NA?' I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passe~J,,an.d adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on U~.~ ]. 5 2004 by the following vote: .,..- ...- ../ ./ ./ v" COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attomey EXHIBITS: A Legal Description B Map C Plan for Services MO:djl November 23, 2004 S:~Annexation\Res of Applic~an n476.roa.doc 4 EXlHBIT "A' ANNEXATION NO. 476 HOSKING AVENUE NO. 8 That parcel of land being a portion of the North ½ of Section 32, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., M.D.M in the County of Kern, State of California more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of Section 32, also being the intersection of the centerline of Hosking Avenue (County Road No. 867) and the centerline of South Union Avenue thence; N 89°32'41" E along said Hosking Avenue center line, a distance of 1119.31 feet to the Tie-in; thence S 00032'45" W, distance of 30.00 feet to a point on the South Right of Way of said Hosking Avenue and the True Point of Beginning; Thence (1) Along said South Right of Way of Itosking Avenue, South 89°32'41'' East, 3462.82 feet; to a point on the westerly line of the Central Branch Kern Island Canal per deed recorded as Document No. 0200018555 O.R. Thence along said westerly line the following courses occur: (2) South21 15 39 East, 388.71 feet; (_3) South 14008'56" East, 604.30 feet; (4) South 23040'34'' East, 733.13 feet; (5) (6) Thence (7) Thence (8) Thence (9) South 47041' 13" East, 44.76 feet: South 71°41 '59' East, 44.48 feet to a point along said West Right of Way of Cottonwood Road; South 00029'04" West, along said West Right of Way of Cottonwood Road. 374.04 feet: Departing said West Right of Way of Cottonwood Road, North 89032'41" West, 4137.48 feet: North 00032'45" East, 2032.50 to the Tree Point of Beginning Contains 178.44 Acres CHECKED by COUNT'( SURVE'~ORS OFFiC~ oa~ It. e~9, -ot O, ,!GIN^L O< < ORiGiNAl. © ORIGINAL Ill. IV. 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 effect on the near term level or capability of the City to provide needed services. At the time of the planned future development of the territory, additional police officers will probably not be requ~'ed to maintain the current level of City service. The planned residential development including streets and other municipal facilities will increase the future maintenance responsibility of the City but should not affect the present 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 o~r residents be responsible for financing? Nor as additional development occursf the developer provides and pays for major facilities and dedicates them to the Ctiy. No upgrading or change in facilities will be required in the territory for annexation. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The subiect territory is presently zoned County R-I (Low-Density Residential) Zone. VI. VII Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List effects un 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 R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone. The prezoning is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan designation. last citv/district services that area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire insurai;ce rate, shorter emergency response time, use of cnmmunity 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 upon development of subiect area. _City government also provides increased political representation for the residents within the corporate limits. Vlll Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes: l.ist existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing general tax rate for the major portion of the area equals 1.150999 % of assessed market value. 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 2004-2005 County Auditor-Controller Tax Rate List). IX. Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district: If so, explain. No, the last listed (2003-2004) City bonded indebtedness has been paid off and the current (2004-2005) tax rate list shows no city bonded indebtedness. X How ~*, ill the difference in tax rates affect a property ~xith a market value of $50,000.0(/? The general prop~tax rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to annexation. XI. Is the proposed area subject to a Wiliamson Act Contract? No, the territory is not subiect to a Williamson Act Contract. p- m