HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 46-88RESOLUTION NO. 46-88
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 322
(CALLOWAY NO. 1 ANNEXATION).
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 terri-
tory 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, the ordinance for which was adopted
February 24, 1988, an Initial Study was conducted and it was
determined that the proposed project would not have a significant
effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was pre-
pared.
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 uninhabited 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
Interim City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Arthur J. Saalfield
Interim City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
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 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 802, Bakersfield, California.
.......... o0o .........
- 2 -
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 March 16, 1988 , by
the following vote:
AYEG: COUNCtLMEMB'"R,~: CHILDS, DeMOND, GMIT~, RATTy, Pr'irqSON. M:DERMO]] ~ALVAGGIO
NOES: COUNCILUE M¢~: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMb~E~,~S: No~e
ABSTAINING: C~NCILMEMBE~: NQne
~ITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED March 16, 1988
MAYOR of the City of/Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
CA/meg
Attachments
A ANEX 5
AP.CALL.1
3/07/88
- 3
ANNEXATION NO. 322
EXHIB[T "A"
CALLOWAY NO. 1
A parcel of land situated in the County of Kern, State of California, being a
portion of Section 19, 20, 29 and 30, Township 29 South, Range 27 East, M.D.B. &
M., more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point of intersection on the South line of the North 30 feet of
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29 and the East line of the %'~st 840.77 feet of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, said South line also being the S¢~th right of way
line of Rosedale Highway (State Route Vl-KER-58), said point of intersection on
the Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield.
~{ENCE (1) departing from said corporate boundary along the said South line N.
89° 08'14" W., a distance of 810.77 feet to the East line of the West 30 feet of
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, said East line also being the East right of way
line of Calloway Drive (Co. Rd. No. 360 & 522);
~{ENCE (2) S.81°22'60" W., a distance of 61.03 feet to a point of intersection
of the West line of the East 30 feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30 and the
South lille of the North 40 feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30, said West
line also ~ing the West right of way line of said Calloway Drive, said South
line also being the South right of way line of said Rosedale Highway;
THENCE (3) N. 00°51'16" E., a distance of 40.05 feet to a point of intersection
of the North line of Section 30 and the West line of the East 30 feet of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 30;
~{ENCE (4) continuing N. 00°29'05"E., along the West line of the East 30 feet
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, a distance of 1364.35 feet to a point on the
Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield, the said west line also being the
West right of way Line of Calloway Drive (Co. Rd. No. 522);
~ENCE (5) Easterly and Southerly along the various courses of the said
Corporate Boundary to the true point of beginning.
Containing 19.68 ac~es of land, more or less.
4:CALL.NO.] LT:wrn
I ~L~Na ST
:4) (5)
SEC, ,30
SEC, 21
T, 295,
?L27 E,
SEC. 2~
T, 295,
ANNEXATION NO, ~ RESOLUTION NO,
ANNEXATION OF
CALLOWAY NO.
TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
19.68 ± ACRES
S..CAL__E:
4b~- -o 400 8oo ebo
........ EXISTING CORPORATE
BOUNDARY
'""'"""""" PROPOSEO ANNEXATION BOUND~IT
EXHIBIT
Provides Servioe I City/District Will Provide Bf City/District will be Firmno~d
(i.e., ~ral tax rate cr s~ecial
Upon Future []~te ass~ss~nt. )
~rexaticn (s~=cify)
(/1NIY & HIGhlY PA~q2L X
GU. NIY & SI~IE X (&SIkVE) ~ & G~S Z%X ~v~XUE
CI1NIY & STk/E X (&SIA/E)
N/A X 6MX~RAL & G~ 7AX ~v~LE
N/A X G~FJ~L 7AX ~A~N3E
~ (IlgIR~[bU I X USER ErE
Streets
Ccnstruct(cn
Flood Co]trol
Water
O~er
EXHIBIT "C"
4:ANbEX322.1
looaticn
Indicatm locaticn frcm vlaich servioe
will be [xovid~d (i.e. rmarest fire
station, litrary, etc. )
F~ire protmcticn will ccntirue to he ad~inistem~d fron Cctnty shaticn
Nc~ 65 located within eastmrly pcrticnthe anrm~aticn a~a cn
l~s~ble Hi~a~y.
Parks and Becreaticn-I~e rmarest pa~s ar~J recreaLkn areas ~ in
sdjc~L=nt area as designated b/ the Rand-o Iaborde
Specific Plan which shes a fuhire p~blic p~nk to
be located at the Ncrths~t oz~ner cf Ha3a~
Strsets-qlns City Cctpcraticn Yard on RYuxh3n A~ue wast of Ft~e%ay 99
will [x~zid~ m=c~ssao7 facilities, perscrr~l and servioes to
acomm/~te Public Womks Dep~.~,~nt efforts. Maintmpance
perscrrml will b~ dispa~ fron the CoqTx~tion Yard on a
m~gular kasis for p~ventative maint~n~n~ and "A~ Naedmd" repair
imludir~ street oons~tian a~ m~intanaxm, s~epir~ of st~eb
a-d st~et light m~int~na~c~.
Irdicat~ f~aquancy and availability of
servio~ (i.e., st~et $~pin~, ~spcnse
~ fo~ em~r~ servioes, l~c.
etc.
24 ~ur patrol is [xu~icbd toall a~as with
in City. First p~i~ity m~[~nse ~ is
7 mirutms cr less.
Fire [xotecticn is availabl~ cna 24 ~cor
kasis with respmsa ~ cf 3 mirutes cr less.
/ha armxaticn will rot affect fire ~i~ s~rvi~e.
City padis, cnce establish~, ar~ available
to citizens at ~zscnable
N/A
area is ro~ m s~ptic ~. ~e awe~aticn lies within the
R~na Vista platted sewer a~a w~erebf extm~sicns m~f ~e tied into
City ky cmt~act with tim sa~ co]lect~ if at all pcssible.
~h~ a~na Vista Trunk sa~r ~ is
City mfu~e pickup is t~io~ a ~ek.
4 :ANX~X322.2
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. There
have been no proposals by any property owners in the project area for any ts~e of
development or change from the existing.
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 not require any upgrading or changes in
existing facilities. As any future development occurs, developers shall provide and pay
for major improvements and facilities and dedicate them to the City.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. Subject property is
zoned E (~ (Estate - ~ Acre) for the northerly 11.82 Ac. portion and the area
containinq the caltrans drainage sump. A (Exclusive Agricultural) for the easterly
150 ft. square parcel housing the county fire station and C-2 PD (~eneral C~rcial,
precise developr~nt combining) for the remaining poriton fronting on Rosedale Hwy.
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 Northerly 11.82 Ac. County E. (~) zone is prezoned City
R-1 (one family dwelling) zone and the remaining portion of the territory is
prezoned city C-2 (Commercial) zone. Some mixed uses exist in the territory
and will continue under city prezoning. These will be brouqht into the City
as nonconforming uses since they are uses which would not be permitted in the
zones proposed.
4 :ANNEX322.3
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 co~runity
facilities, etc. City police should be able to respond in a n~re timely manner than
the present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol. Current City Police standard is
a higher sworn officer per 1,000 population percentage co~pared 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, leaf
collection, school crossing guards, street lighting enerQ¥ 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 1.199076% of
assessed market value. This represent the total property tax rate. When annexed
approximately 30% of the total tax of the area will accrue to the City. (Rate as
shown on 1987-88 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 0.004970% of assessed market
value. When annexed, the total tax rate will be 1.204046%. (Rates as shown on
1987-88 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 would increase by the amount of $2.14 on a house of $50,000 this
market value due to inclusion of the City Bond Rate. (Figure includes deduction
for home owners exemption).
4:ANNEX322.4