HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 104-78RESOLUTION. NO.'104-T8.
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, IDENTIFIED AS'~NNEXATION NO. 276
(PACHECO NO. 9).
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 under the authority
of Section 35140 of the Government Code of the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Bakersfield
hereby Resolves,' 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 Resolution
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 provi-
sions of Section 35102 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 Municipal Organization Act
of 1977, commencing with Section 35000 of the Government Code of the
State of California, it is requested that proceedings be authorized
for annexation in accordance therewith.
5. That the reasons for the proposed change of 0~ganization
are as follows:
a. Certain owners 'of'property withi'n the territory have
requested annexation into the City. o'f'BakersfieId.
'b. The requested annexation is proper"and logical for
orderly. growth of the City.
c. Future intended uses are in accordance with the
adopted Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
d. Tentative Tracts.4001and 4108'with appropriate
environmental documents have been approved bythe City subjectto
annexation to the City of Bakersfield.
e. The proposed annexation will not adversely affect
the level or .capacity of the City 'to deliver necessary public
services.
f. Approximately 70% of the'proposed boundary line is
contiguous with the City~.~limits of Bakersfield.
g. Sewer facilities. presently exist within the
boundary of the proposed annexation and were sized to accommodate
this territory.
h.
Street.
i.
City presently provides street lights along "H"
A City-owned and -maintained drainage basin
presently exists within the territory north of Pacheco Road and
easterly'of 'HUghes Lane.
6. ?The zoning upon annexation of PACHECO NO. 9 will be
essentially the same as presently exists in the county.
7. 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:
H. E. BERGEN K.W. HOAGLAND
.... .... City~Man-ager ......................... · ....Ci{y-Attor-ney-~--
City of Bakersfield City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield,. CA 93301
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(Legal Counsel for Applicant)
8. 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 ofKern County
at 1110 Twenty-Sixth Street, Bakersfield, California.
o0o.
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 the 4th day of October, 1978, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BARTON, CHRISTENSEN,
No~s: cou~c!.~,~:.. ~ ,~
ABS~zNT: COUNCILMEN: ~ ~ ~ , ~
ABSTAINING COUNCILMEN: ~ ~ ~
CITY. ficio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
, 1978
Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
--{~T'T0'~ -EYi~"'o '
- ~
.... C~T N a-keEs-fi e ld- ..... :-
0 0 ' .0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0
o
fJ
.H
,.8 '
a~
rJ
*H
la.,
c,~ 0
C.H c~
,.-I
~oo
I:::
,--I u
~ ~ oH .,-i
:~ cJ
I:::o.c::
0j o.H,u
.H
I
.H
.H
,-.-I
0 0
,u,.~
t--I ~
· H 0
O
rj $-; .H
.l.stl4
· H 0
I
cJ :~.H
}-.; o
G
~o=
· H ,u ,o
o.H
HcJ}-.; I
r.:d ~r:x,~rJ3
~:~ c) o,.c:=.
o~>~o~
oH
t-I~:: ~>:~
· H · G
o
~k,-~o
,-c::.Ho~
o
.H.
o
.H
¢)
,.c:
#
l,,q~at 'effects, if any, would annexation of this territory have on existing level
of city services (i.e., need for additional emergency service 'personnel or con--
struction of new facilities, etc.)? --'
The annexation of this territory will_.nOt affect the leve_l
or capaci. ty of the cit~ to 'provide the needed services. _
Would City require any upgrading or change in facili~ies to serve affected terri-
tory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.)? If so., would city o__rresid~nts be
responsible for financing?.
As development takes place, the developer pays for
all improvements and dedicate~ them to the city.
Indicate Rnd exp'lain existing zoning in affected territory.
See a~tached zonin~ maps
123-13 and 124-19 (M-2, E-8, C-2, R-l, and A-l)
. VI.
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 BakersflUid Metropolitan Area General'Plan shows the territory on the
southeast corner of "H" Street and Pach¢co Road as low-density residential.
The territorY in the Rorthwest portion of the annexation is shown as Indus-
· .t'rial. Future uses will ~e in accQrdance with t~e General Plan.
0
-- 0
ell.- ,s,,,
u.L:j
hm
%
°, o
oo
c
o
ZONE MAP 124-19
VII.
VI!I.
List city services that arcs will directly or indirectly benefit from such as
decrease in fire insurance rate, shorter emergency response time, use of com-
munity facilities, etc.
For the territoLY in_quedtion, public safety services can be more readily
' provided ~y the city than the county. Fire insurance rates are less ex-
~ensive in the city than in the county because of a better insurance rating.
Please provide the fo'llowing information relative to city: and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area.
There is no difference in taxes to be accrued to the county or city because
ot the annexation. ~Proposition 13 set limits on taxes at 1% of market value.
List' city tax rate(s).
See above (VIII)
How will the difference in tax rates affect, a house with a market value of
~50,000
None