HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 065-05 055 05
RI=SOlUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 485
LOCATED SOUTH OF MEANY AVENUE, WEST OF
PATTON WAY. (WARD 4).
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 THURSDAY,
JANUARY 6, 2005, 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. 04-05 on January 6, 2005, 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 Meany
Avenue, west of Patton Way 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:
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 south of Meany Avenue, west of Patton Way.
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.
ORiGiN
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. 4234, which was adopted March 9, 2005, 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 December 17,
2004.
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 Attomey
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 ,M,~ ~ 0 ?l~0~
by the following vote:
COUNClLMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CM¢)
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio C'~rk of the
APPROVED ~A~' ~ 0 ~-~J 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
March 16, 2005
S:Wnnexation\Res of Applic~ann485.roa.doc
3
EXHIBIT "A"
MEANY NO. 4
ANNEXATION 485
Being a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 29 South, Range 27
East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, County of Kern, State of California, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the North quarter comer of said Section 21, said point also being the
intersection of the centerlines of Hageman Road and Patton Way (Co. Rd. 3602);
Thence South 00°03'09" West along the East line of the Northwest quarter of said
Section 21, said line also being the centerline of said Patton Way, and also being the
Easterly line of Existing City Corporate Boundary shown as Annexation No. 307
"Rancho Laborde", completed May 22, 1986, filed in Book 5875 Page 2053 in Kern
County Recorder's Office, a distance of 1337.09 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 12 of
the Sales Map of Lands of Kern County Land Company, filed for record on July 15,
1891, in said Recorder's Office, said point also being a southeast comer of said existing
City Corporate Boundary, said point also being the intersection of the centerlines of
Meany Avenue and Patton Way (Co. Rd. 3602), and also being the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence ( 1 )
Departing from said Corporate Boundary and continuing South 89°44'04''
East along the centerline of Meany Avenue, a distance of 30.00 feet, to the
prolongation of the East right of way of Patton Way;
Thence (2)
South 00003'09'' West along said East right of way of Patton Way, a
distance of 458.00 feet;
Thence (3)
North 89044'04'' West a distance of 695.22 feet, to a point on the West
line of said Lot 12;
Thence (4)
North 00°00'05'' East along the West line of said Lot 12, a distance of
458.00 feet, to a point on the centerline of Meany Avenue, said point also
being on the Southerly line of said City Corporate Boundary;
Thence (5)
South 89°44'04'' East along the centerline of Meany Avenue, said line
being a Southerly tine of said City Corporate Boundary, a distance of
665.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 7.31 Acres.
CHECKED by
KERN COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE
Date 7_- /5'- 05
~,t Ai:~roved by,
~Z
Itl
m
EXHIBIT"C"
1. 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, additional police officers would
possibly be required to maintain the current level of city service. The planned development
including public streets or municipal facilities within the territory will increase the futu~'e
maintenance responsibility of the City but should not affect the existing level of service.
2. 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 developer be responsible for financing? No,
if any additional development occurs, the developer provides and pays for maior facilities and
dedicates them to the City. No up,qrading or chan,qe in facilities will be required in the territory fo~
annexation.
3. indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The territory is presently zoned E(5) RS
(Estate-5Acres / Residential Suburban Combining) Zone.
4. 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 correspondin,q City R-S-5A (Residential Suburban - 5 Acre minimum lot
size) Zone. The prezoninR is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Pla,,
desiqnation.
5. 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. Parcels
within the incorporated area are allowed to connect to available City sewer system lines. Th~
present City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees county residents now pay [u
independent companies. No special assessments or charges for street sweepin~l, 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.
6. Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county faxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing tax rate in the area equals 1.160521% of assessed
market value. This represents the total property tax rate. When annexed a desi,qnated
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-Controllers 2004 Lien Date).
7. Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district?: If so, explain.
No, the last listed (2003-2004) City bounded indebtedness has been paid off and the current
(2004-2005) tax rate list shows no city bonded indebtedness.
8. 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.
9. Is the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract? NO1 the proposed area is not subject
to Williamson Act Contract.
S:~AnnexatJon~z Exhibit C sV~nex 485 Meany 4.DOC ~: