Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 72-78RESOLUTION NO." 72-78 RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 272 (PANAMA NO. 2). 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 o'f 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 organization are that~the'owners'of-the affected territory desire to receive muni- cipal services from the City of Bakersfield and the City desires to receive tax revenues for benefits given and to be given to the terri- tory proposed to be annexed. 6. The zoning upon annexation of Panama No. 2 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 City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 K. W. HOAGLAND City Attorney City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue 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 of Kern 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 12th day of July, 1978, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN BARTON, CHRISTENSEN, MEDDERS, RA]TY, ROGERS, SCEALES, Ft4~MgN~ NOES: COUNCILMEN: ~ D -- ..... -,-~ APPROVED as to form: July, 1978 Bakersfield ANNEXATION NO. 272 PANAMA NO. 2 A parcel of land situate in the County of Kern, State of California, being portions of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.M., being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of the east 30 feet of said Section 23 with the north line of the'south 30 feet of said Section, said intersection being a point in the existing exterior Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield; THENCE (i) easterly 1539.85. feet, more or less, along said exterior Corporate Boundary as defined in Course No. 41 of that certain Annexation designated as "Wible No. 2," adopted by Ordinance No. 2394, New Series, on January 25, 1978, and certified on March 3, 1978 by the Secretary of State, State of California; THENCE (2) departing from said Corporate Boundary, S 0° 40' 48" E, 60 feet, more or less, to the south line of the north 30 feet of said Section 25; THENCE ('3) westerly along last named south line and along the south line of the north 30 feet of said Section 26, 4120 feet, more or less, to intersect said existing exterior Corporate Boundary; THENCE (4) northerly, easterly and southerly along said Corporate Boundary to the Point of Beginning. Containing 82.6 Acres, more or less. EXHIBIT "A" \ \ \ \ \ E I 4~ ~ 0 0 0 0 rJ -= ~. ,~. o o o 4J o u '0 4~ 0 · ,-~ 0 0 0 O (1) -.-I > .O ~ I © · ,-I -,-I -,--I 0 n:l (D ~ ,-GO 0 ~ © --,4 ~ c~ G · G · ,-I -,-I E~ ~0 o m o0~ .--I,-:t -N..~~ ~ ,-Io ~ I -,-I ,q-p ~ OD ~.-Q ~-,..4 ~ O hJ, J © ©,-I ,-I r,.) 0 'P ,'r_j -~ 0,--~ ,o4rJ r.n ~ (1) J,J-p -p © h 0 · ,-4 > h G >¢ OO -0 .... O_ 04j 0 ~ 0 ,.-4 rd H. -H > . ~ (~ rJ .r--I 'H .4 ¢) 0 --O ,-04J ©r.~ · ,-I O © .-Q O ~O · ,-'1 -,-.I ..,.~' ~ O (1) ~ ~..~ -.., hq~at 'e. ffec'ts, if 'any, ~,ould an?exation of this territory have en cxistin~i level of city services (i.e. ,' need for additional emergency service personnel or con- s-~ruction of new facilities, etc.)? The annexation will not appreciably effect t~e ~bAlity of the city to provide thesJ needed services- Would city require any upgrading or change in faciliEies to serve affected terri- tory (roads, fire hydrmnts, mains: etc.)? If so, would city o_ir residents be responsib]e for' financing?- As the area develops, fire mains ~nd hydrants would be installed at the developers'expense- Roads would.be ~nstalled by the deve%opers- v. · Indicate ind exp'lain existing zoning in affected territory.' ~he existing zoning is agriculture .(A) and is dejlcted on the Metropo%itan ~a~ersfield General Plan as low- density res~ential (see attached zoning map 123-23)- . VI. · Indicate and explain proposed nrezoninE in area. (List effects on present land use that would occur as a result of annexation such as-m~intenance of livestock on property, etc.) - · - The zoning upon annexation wi ] ] that use presently exj. sting on the propertyi' (i.e., .. mobilehome Dark and low density residential) .. VII. VIII ' - such List city services th':~t area will directly or indirectly benefit from 8ccrca5c in fire insur2nce rate, shorter cmcrgcnc)' rcsi~onsc time, use of com- mtmity faci 1 i ties, .e. tc, '- The delivery ~g._~_~b] ~c saf~ty g~rv~c~s wq ]1 be more efficient. Fire rates should be les~ expensive in the city as compared to the county. " ~ : Please provide the fojllowing info~.~ation relative to city and county taxes: List existing tax rate(s)in area. The tax differential characteristics cannot be ascertained at this time and are subject to the Jarvis-Gann amendment cons~deratzons · List-city tax rate(s)- How will the difference in tax rates affect, ~50,000 a' h'ouse with a market value of -t