HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 024-05RESOLUTION NO. 0 24 "05
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 1500 FEET EAST OF SOUTH UNION
AVENUE. (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 fully
considered the findings made bythe 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 1500 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 Bakersfieid 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 1500 feet east of South Union
Avenue.
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.
m
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.
6. 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.
7. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined
to be uninhabited pursuant to Section 56046 of the Government Code.
8. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined
to have 100% of property owners consenting to annexation.
9. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein is within the City of
Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Boundary.
10. 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.
11. 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 GERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council
of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ,..1~ ~ _g ?~n,..~
by the following vote:
.._.~_AYES~;~. COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD1 HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
NOES: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC ,/~
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio CleC, k'of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED ' h
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
January 4, 2005
S:~nnexatJon~Res of Applic~ann476.roa.doc
ORiG*NAL
EXHIBIT "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 corner 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 ttosking 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) South-1 15 ~9 East,~88.7 feet;
(3) South 14 08 56 East, 604.30 feet;
(4) South 2o 40 34 East, 73o.13 feet;
(s)
(6)
South 47°41'13TM East, 44.76 feet:
South 71 °41 '59" East, 44.48 feet to a point :flong said West Right of Way
of Cottonwood Road;
Thence (7)
Thence (8)
South 00o29'04" 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''
\Vest. 4137.48 feet:
Thence (9) North 00032'45'' East. 2032.50 to the True Point of Beginning
Contains 178.44 Acres
CHECKED by
I(EI~N COUNTY SURV?ORS OFlr~E
Dale [1- 69. o ~i"
OP, iG~NAL
ZZ
<
;>
0
0
Z
Ur~,u,NAL
1II.
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 required 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 or residents be responsible for
financing? No, as additional development occurs~ the developer provides and pat's for major
facilities and dedicates them to the Cti¥. No upgrading or change in facilities will be required
in the territory for annexation.
Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The subject territory is presently
zoned County R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zone.
VI.
Vll.
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 R-1 (One Family Dwelling} Zone. The prezoning
is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan designation.
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 lil~htin~ energy costs and fire hydrants upon development of subject area.
City government also provides increased political representation for the residents within the
corporate limits.
VIII.
Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes:
List 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.
How will the difference in tax rates affect a property with a market value of $50,000.00?
The general property 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 subject to a
Williamson Act Contract.