HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 109-08RESOLUTION NO. l a 9~ 0 8
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 575
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOSFORD
ROAD AND TAFT HIGHWAY. (WARD 6)
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 at the southeast
corner of Gosford Road and Taft Highway; 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:
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" for
the project attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as though fully set
forth herein, located at the southeast corner of Gosford Road and Taft Highway.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. That for this proposed annexation territory and the prezoning therefore was adopted
by the City Council and the adopted environmental document for the annexation is
determined to be adequate for the annexation proposal.
~gPKF9~
o -c•
>- `m
v4RIGINAL~
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- ------
2 o~gPKF,9~-~
~ m
r r-
!-, O
ORIGINAL
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 JUL 1 6 2008 ,
by the following vote:
YES' COUNCILMEMBER: CARSON, BENHAM, WEIR, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
S: COUNCILMEMBER: YI,Q"YI.Q_
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: U1.f7~.Q_
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: V1ISYl.2_
L1 _ ~c
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Cler the
APPROVED JUL 1 6 2~ Council of the City of Bakersfield
HARVEY L. HALL
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
EXHIBITS: A -Legal Description
B -Map
C -Plan for Services
S:\Annexation\Res of Applic\ROA OS\ROA 575.doc
3
gPKF~
o~ , . `~!
r
uORIG-NAp
ANNEXATION No. 575
GOSFORD No. 4
TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
EXHIBIT "A"
That parcel of land being Lot $ of Sales Map No. 2 of the Lands of J.B. Haggin filed for
record on May 24, 1889 in Book "M" of Maps at Pages 8 & 9 in the office of the Kern
County Recorder, also being a portion of Sectian 4, together with a portion of Section 5,
Township 31 South, Range 27 East, and a portion of Section 31 & 33, Township 30
South, Range 27 East, MDM, in the County of Kern, State of California, more
particulazly described as follows:
Commencing at the West 1/a corner of said Section 4, said point also being a point on the
centerline of Gosford Road (County Road No. 274); thence, North OU°45'26" East along
the West section line of said Section 4 and said c;entcrline of Gosford Road {County Road
No. 274), a distance of 1327.15 feet, to a point on the South line of said Lot 8 and TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1) North 89° 18'57" West, along the Westerly prolongation of the South line
of said Lot 8, a distance of 30.00 feet, to a point on the West. right of way
of said Gosford Road (County Road No. 274);
Thence (2) North OU°45'26" East, along said West right of way of Gosford Road
(County Road No. 274), a distance of 1337.52 feet, to a point of
intersection of the Northerly prolongation of said West right of way of
Gosford Road (County Road No. 274) and the North right of way of Taft
Highway (State Route VI-KER -119);
Thence {3) South 89° 10'40" East, along said North right of way of Taft Highway
(State Route VI-KER-119), a distance of 690.86 feet, to a point of
intersection of said North right of way and the Northerly prolongation of
the East line of said Lot 8;
Thence {4) South 00°45'22" West, along said Northerly prolongation and East line of
Lot 8, a distance of 1335.86 feet, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 8;
Thence (5)
North 89°18'57" West, along the South line, a distance of 660.89 feet, to
said West section line of Section 4, also being a point on the centerline of
Gosford Road (County Road No. 274), and the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
b!-
Containing 21.20 Acres ~N/~~~AS~O~PiCE
END OF DESCRIPTION l')eA9 ~/~-~~~ ~___~~__
~ ~
~gAKF9
o ~ ; -n
vORIGINAL~
i o~~~ ~°
E i~i °$ ~
TY E3
7
~
bbb ~y
i O
~
Q
L: ~ ~ Qt
I
~
E 608FORD ROAD ~
, '
r ~; ~wwi. wuc~n nv 8'" novvJet
o ..
r: _
~ a
b ~
_
_ _ __ _-
~
~ ~
~.e +srrJSz
a 7. O ~ PF
s _.. _
C]''.
'D ~
G M
b
t
ilT/.lf ~
N ~e~~eJJ
O r] VJ ~
~' .
O r
~
'°~
s
3
~
ga
. 7~ _
- ~
~ m
;
`
t ~ . ~
~ 1
1
--- -
-_'
i i
~ I
~
q aao•va+w w-aon
+~ vss x
I K
~
6
~
~ I
~~ ~
R ~
I ~~
,5 e
i ~a m
€
00
y
I(
h - - - - - ! r
,~ ~ ~
NZ ~ U~
A
-------------.___ . _- -._ I
-i
,~
~~~
g~r~
1 Q~ D
~
n ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
__
"i ~ ~ w c v n
_._ _
_ ~ m
I a I
I
__! ~ ~ ~
~
t T ~ '~.~ c I A 2
N ~~~_ 7
a
~
~
. ~ i~a
=3~~
F
~~
m
~WW~~
N~apr
„~ 0 0
~~~po m Q u a
A~$$~ N n y Z c~
C~-r~~p iN ~ 11 2 ~
z~~ oD ~ Q ~ Pr
`~,=~o ~ oo ~ o w~ ~
x ~ V H T
~,,~-~ 2 5
~~ ~~ ~ O ~ O a
~~~~$ m
°~~~W ~ ;1
~o~~.
o x~
~~~>
s -~
~~
~~
o~~PK~9~'-c~
. ~,
>- m
`~OFiIQINA~
u~ co
~ .
~n o
oz
Z~
ON
X C'3
W
Z
Z
a
W
V
W
N
V Z
i-c
W O
K a
W ~
4.
Z
a
w
_ LL ~
'>
w
w
w
w Z
w
w
w
N C ~ O ~ ~
~ ~ O Q »
~ >'
~ >
Q ~ W ~ ~
~ ~ »
~ ~
•~ ~
~
~
~
~
a o
a
~
~
~ a
~
Q
_
:. ~ .~
~
~ J
a J
s ~
J W
a~ ~
~ ~
J W
a~ ~
J W
a~ J
a J
a W
~ W
~ W
w
~ w w w wo ww ff ww wW w w ¢ oc o~
_
~ z
W
c~ z
W
c~
a
3 z
W
c~ zz
W~
c~w z>
WW
c~ac o-
}
m z>
WW
caac z??
W(yJ
c~oc z
W
c~ z
W
c~ w
(A w
IA
» w
Cn
>
2
U
v
N ~
J
W
eQ
~
N lL
~
~
~ ~
N S
Z
~ ~
wo
'
~
~ a
~ s
m
w
~ o
~
x
a ~~
IS
hS
4
C
~
~
F- }
F-
~_
~
~_ O
~
~
U U V V V V V V V V V V V
J
~ ~
a` Q
a. ~
3 w
~' ~? w
3 S Y
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ w
0
~
= ~z » > W > > > }
a t~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 O ~ ~ U U
0
° _ ~
~ Q ~ ~ ~ a~ w
w
> c
'c m a
~ ~
n.
-~ ~ Q
U c0 S
~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ o is ~ ~ ~°
~
a a ~ a iL cn t) ~ rn :~ u. c~i 3
u
x
w
z
0
F
vi
T
~gAKF9
o ~'-c~
} , >, m
r7 0
ORIGINAI
U
o, ~
:~' •~ gi
U
C ~~
co
.~ '~ ~ ~ ~
eo d
T ~ L
oU ~ ~ ~ o
~ ~
T~ ~ H
~w~==z~
J ~ N ~ ~.
>Z
~' ~~~ ~.a
~'
.~
3
.~
..
0
>.
c
0
of
3
C m
~ U
Z m
.~ ~
~~
~; ~ c
s ..
a w ._'
~ ~ ~ °'
.. z
~ ~
•° ~ a c
o- ~ ~ _o
~ "'
c ~~ ~
a
T
~ U
Q ~, A ~ O ~
AN ~ ~ J'~ _« Ns.
++
~ W ~ O ~ {_O[~ O
'~ 'x L LL C ,~ O~ ~ w
N ~ ~ ~ q7q ~ X O iQ
~a o~ U ~cc 5tN
E•- a ~ w ~ c
E~ coo ~, ~~~ ~'oca
~ ~- 3 .~ Y
•~ ~ m~ ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ n.~ as
~ •~ O to -p ~ ~ O ~ ~=i ~ m tH trl
~ O tt~j~ ~ o ~j O G7 gym, p?
.~~ ACC' ~m G.~S ~- O .~ .U 3
~.~ `o ... o c3 m~ eo 3 o m m
~C~ Ind .X~ a ma ~i 7 ~'
N~~E ii~i~ wS ~~i~' H~c°~ a ~ U
~i sznc~~, rn'~ ~o~`~ ~ c ~
ca ~~ ~tEEU 3~ ~.y ~U ~ m
4 z d~'S y«~? ~~ r .~ m
~ cYO o« c~ LL~ ~ ~ u, c ~ ~ ~'
•~~ ymU of ~ ~'~« m G m
to ~ ~~_• ~ E ~ ~~,'~•~ 5 •. «
~p 3~ o co•~~ `m ~ a
3 ..
cn~ ~m~,flQ~ m =c co 3 3
.c "' ~ ~ o~ Ja c c m ~~
>'~K ;a~'OL.Z ~ ~ cN ~ ~ U Y -~i
m m ~. Ln y~ E Y ~' C m co a. S2
C Iv ~ C O C ~ L ~_
C m~ O d. ~ m ~ ~p ~ ~~ ~ L y L
•E ~ o C~~U~Q o U m ~ Wes- o, ~
= cr ~ i,-~a T ~•~ 3 ~ c x ~
2 ~ ~ ~~ ~2 •~ ~ ~.
3.8 ~ HOC 3 a~ p ~~~ c ~' cv c c;
~~ a~~>va F ~ o,~ ~ ~° meo t~
w •E ~ •3 as ~, ~ ~ W •~ U aS 2 '~ E c w a ~ 3 ~ $
W ~ E ~_ ~ ° ~ ~ Q F-•~-y~ Fes- ~ ~~ 3 ~ _ ~ 3 Vii
~~ I? ~~ ~ ~ Y ~ ay N $-c~ o ~ E.W. °' ~
a~ ~' ~o a~.. a 7 N 33 a`a ac~•c o 3 v U
N
s
O~~PKF9.n
~ ... m
r
vORIGINA~
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 an the near term level or capability of
the Citv 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 future
maintenance res npo sibility of the ~ltv but should not affect the existing level of service.
2. Would cityldistrict require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads,
fire hydrants, mains, etc.): If so, would city/district ~ residents be responsible for financing?
Private development provides and pays for major facilities and dedicates them to the City. No
u,Rgrading or change in facilities will be reouired in the territory for annexation.
3. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. Counter zangd the territory A
(Agriculture).
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 Citv has
adopted Ordinance No 4378 changing the prezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-2-CH (Limited
Multiple Family Dwelling /Church Overlay Zone).
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. I' e
should be able to respond in a more timely manner than present County Sheriff services Parcels
within the incomorated area are allowed to connect to available Citv sewer system lines The
present City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees county residents now p~y~,Q
independent companies No special assessments or charggs for street sweeping leaf collection
street lighting energy costs and fire hydrants when located within the City's incoroorated 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 taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing tax rates in the area are 1.070470% (Tax Rate Area
135-012) 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 Citv and remainder
to the County for providing health care and social services l~iate as shown on 2007-2008
County Auditor-Controllers 2007 Lien Date).
7. Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district?: If so, explain.
Na. the 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-assg~sment will not occur due to
annexation.
9. Is the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract? No, the proposed area is not subiect
to the Williamson Act Contract.
S:WNNEXATIONU4NNEX 5751Exhibit C 575.DOC
3
s
o~~AKF9.~
~- rn
1- r~
vfJRl®INA1~