HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 023-05RESOLUTION NOP 2 3 '" 0,51~
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 474
LOCATED SOUTH OF McKEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
750 FEET EAST OF WIBLE ROAD. (WARD 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 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 fulty
considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as set f~rth 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 McKee
Road, approximately 750 feet east of Wible 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 to the City of
Bakersfield; 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 '%" and shown on map marked Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein,
located south of McKee Road, approximately 750 feet east of Wible 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.
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,
8.
9.
10.
11.
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-Hedzberg 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
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.
......... 000 ........
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
by the following vote:
-~_S~ COUNCILMI:MBER COUCH, CARSON, BIFNHAM, MACGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
NOES: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER
App ROVED~.,'q.?'J ~
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC ////
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Ciera'of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
MAYOR of the City of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
EXHIBITS:
A Legal Description
B Map
C Plan for Services
MO:djl
January 4, 2005
S:~AnnexatJon',Res of Applic~ann474.roa.doc
3
EXHIBIT "A"
"MCKEE ROAD NO. 4"
ANNEXATION NO. 474
A portion of the southwest quarter of Section 36, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.M.,
County of Kern, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 36, also being the northwest corner of
Lot 23 of Kern County Sales Map No. 1 of The Lands of J.B. Haggin, filed for record May 3,
1889, in the office of the Kern County Recorder, said corner also being the point of intersection
of the centerlines of Mckee Road (Co. Rd. No. 782) and Wible Road (Co. Rd. No. 50)
monumented and officially designated as 2,287,694.466 feet North and 6,251,555.560 feet East
per the California Coordinate System, (N.A.D. 83) Zone 5; Thence South 89°08'14'' East, along
the north line of said Lot 23, said line also being the centedine of McKee Road (Co. Rd. No.
782), a distance of 660.76 feet; Thence departing from said centedine South 00°35'48'' West, a
distance of 30.00 feet, to a point on the south right of way of said McKee Road and the
corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield, said point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1)
South 89°08'14'' East, along said right of way and corporate boundary, a distance
of 660.76 feet, to a point on the east line of said Lot 23, said point also being an
angle point in said corporate boundary;
Thence (2)
South 00°35'56'' West, along the east line of said Lot 23 and said corporate
boundary, a distance of 959.76 feet, to a point on the east line of Lot 24 of said
"Sales Map No. 1";
Thence (3) North 89°06'21'' West, a distance of 660.73 feet;
Thence (4) North 00°35'48'' East, a distance of 959.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 14.56 acres (more or less)
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. Upon future development in the territory additional police officers
would possibly be required to maintain the current level of city service. The planned residential
development including public streets and other municipal facilities in 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? Nov if
any additional development occur% the developer provides and pays for maior facilities and
dedicates them to the City. no up~radin~ or chan~,e in facilities will be required in the territory for
annexation.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The territory presently zoned County A
(Exclusive Agriculture) 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 A (Agriculture) Zone. The prezoning is consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan designation. However~ the owners and the City have
initiated a General Plan Amendment to change the City Zoning to 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 assessment or charges for street sweeping, leaf collection~ street liehting
energy costs and fire hydrants upon development of subiect 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 general tax rate in the area equals 1.102676% 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 for the County Auditor-Controller
2004 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 bonded 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 general 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 proposed area of annexation is
not under a Williamson Act Contract
(McKEEROADNO. 4)
S:\ANNEXATION\Annex 474\Exhibit C - Annex 474.doc - 3 --