Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 51-78RESOLUTION NO. 51-78 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. 261 (UNION NO. 8).=',= 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 organization is 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. That the City will pre-zone the area described in Exhibit "A" and that such zone classifications will be as stated in Paragraph VI of the Plan For Providing Services .set forth in Exhibit "C" herein. 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 31st day of May, 1978, by the following vote: CITY~ER~K ~Officio Clerk of the ,- Council of the~i~ty of Bakersfield ="~h~'~s~3"l~L' ef Bakersfield ~, - ....>~ APPROVED as ~'6' ~orm: ANNEXATION NO. 261 UNION AVENUE NO. 8 A parcel of land situate in the County of Kern, State of California, being a portion of Section 17, Township 30 South, Range 28 East, M.D.B. & M., more particularl~ described as follows: .Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the west half of the northwest quarter of said ~ection 17 with the north line of the south 30 feet of the northwest quarter of said section, said intersection being on the northerly' right-of-way line of White Lane, of 60 feet in width, and a point on the exterior Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield; 'Thence (1) departing said exterior Corporate Boundary', easterly along last named north line 140 feet, more or less, to intersect the centerline of the Central Branch of the Kern Island Canal; Thence (2) generally in a southeasterly direction along said centerline, 2500 feet, more or less, to intersect the east line of the west half of said Section 17, said east line being the east line of Lot 18 of Kern County Sales Map No. 1 of Lands of J. B. Haggin filed May 3, 1889 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (3) southerly along said east line 'S 00° 03'13" E, 400 feet, more or less, to intersect the north line of the south 30 feet of said Section 17, said north line being the northerly right-of-way line of Pacheco Road, of 60 feet in width; Thence (4) westerly along last named north line and said northerly right- of-way line, 1313~85 feet, to intersect the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter of said Section 17, said east line being the west iine of said Lot 18 of said Kern County Sales Map No. 1; Thence (5) along said east line, N 00° 03' 13" W, 1321.38 feet, to intersect the south line of the north half of the south half of said Section 17, said .intersection being the s6utheast comer of Lot 15 of said Kern County Sales Map NO. 1; .. Thence (6) along last named south line, N 89° S6' 04" W, 1255.36 feet, to intersect the east line of the west S7.?S feet of said Section 17, said intersection being a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Union Avenue, of llS.S feet in width, said point also being the southwest corner of Parcel 3 as shown on Parcel Map No. 2754 recorded January 16, 1975 in Book 12 of Parcel Maps at page 100, in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (7) along said east line and said easterly right-of-way line, N 00°' 01' 19" W, 495.59 feet, to the northwest corner of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map No. 2754; Thence (8) S 89° 55' 55" E, 598.67 feet, to intersect the ea.st line of the west half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 17; " Thenc~ (9yN 00° 02', 16" W, 485.184 feet to intersect the south line of the north 349 feet of the south half of said Section 17; Thence (10) westerly along last ~m'~'~outh i'ine, 599 feet, more or less, to intersect the east line of the west 57.75 feet of said Section 17; Thence (11) N 00° 01' 19" W, 379 f~et, more or less, along said east line to a point on'the north line of the south 30 feet of the northwest quarter of said Section 17, said point being in the existing Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield; Thence (12) easterly along said Corporate Boundary to the Point of Beginning. Containing 77.4 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT "A" / I, ',t (D (D (D (D © ~ 4J 4J 4.J -,.-I J,J 4J 4J 0 0 0 ,.C 0 0 0 ~ ~>~ ~>~ ~ -P .p -p -p 0 0 0 0 0 r,.) O rj (.) Z :~-~i ~ ~ 0 4J~ ~ ~-i '4-4 m C "0 0 ~ m o ~ 0 ~ · ~ o o o -H ~ / / III. What effects, if any, would annexation of this territorF haye on.existing level Of City Services (i.e., need for additional cmerSency service personnel or con- struction of new facilities, e~c.)? Initially, there would 'be no affect u~o_n the city services. As these annexations take place one at a time, there comes a time that the CtlmU-- lative effects cause increase~ in requ~r__ed }personnel and equi__pment. Would city require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affecte~ terri- tory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.)? If so~ would'city o~ residents be responsible for. financing? Water facilities are built by the developers a~d dedicated to the City. With this annexation, the developer will~__r~quir~d~to build substan- t""'ial sewerage facilities to'service his project. The developer would then also dedicate Ehese facilities to the city. It may be necessary that he form an improvement district. In any event, the required City service facilities will be installed when developed. Indicat~ ~nd exp'lain existing zoning in affected ,territory. ~ee ~ttached V VI. ·Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area° (List effects on preseht land use that would occur as a result of annexation such as maintenance of livestock on property, etc.) -__ Approximately 3/4 of the territory pr_oposed for annexation will be zoned _ low-de~nsity residential (Mobile Home Park); the remaininq territory will .. be zoned commercial and low-density residential. (See Attached Map) List city services that area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire insurance rate, shorter emergency response time, use of munity facilities, etc. Fire insurance ra~es are less expensive in the City. Public safety response time is much quicker in the City than iX the County for "called'for"· services. VIII. Please provide the following information relative to city and county taxes: List existing tax rate(s) in area. County Tax Rate Tax Code Area Rate 056-001 $10.Sss7 List city tax rate(s). City Tax Rate 10.1747 + 2.5617 = 12'.7364 How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with..a market valu~ of 50,O q assesse value CitV Taxes $1369.16 CoUnty Taxes -- i170.54 'If we consider ~hat ~h~ m~n~mnm ~r.~h fee is S66 per y~r, difference is $132.62. If the subject h~,use is in the county and on City ~ewers, an ad~itiondl.$76.20 should be deducted. This leaves a net difference (in this case) of $56j42. When considerinq fire insur- ance differences, etc. it can be shQwn that a $50,000 market u~lue home doe~ not result in higher net costs by being in the city rather than the county. ~NOTE This net difference'does not account for the additional savings acDrued by being 'within the City limits'such as: 2. 3. 4. 5. Lower Fire Insurance No trash fee No sewer fee. No surcharge ~ater fee Income tax exemption benefit of 2 & B above Plus unquantifiable attributes of ~et~er ~'~b]ic safety capability The following zoning and land uses exist around the perimeter of the proposed annexation area: North - Property is zoned C-2 and A in the City of Bakersfield with a few scattered animals, but mostly vacant pasture land. There are single family residences along the south side of White Lane. South - Most of the property is zoned E-2-RS (Estate) in the county and contains single family dwell- ings on both the north and south sides of Pacheco Road. There is also a salvage yard adjacent to the proposed annexation. East - The property is zoned A in the county with various crops grown from year to year. West - The property is mainly zoned R-4-D on both sides of Union with mixed uses (residential, industrial, commercial and salvage yards.) The area to be annexed is surrounded by these various and mixed urban uses on three sides and has been used in the past for pasture and vari- ous annual crops. The encroachment and trespass of the mixed urban uses in the area has made in infeasible and impractical to economically farm the property anymore. Approximately 1/2 of the territory proposed for annexation is used for marginal farming activity. The remainder of the territory contains the incompatible mixed uses noted above. I llEJlllllllll !~liflliill!!!lllliglllillllli!ll!!!ii!~' ~' Existing Corpora-e =_= . · ,( Boundary ~(.c~.),,~~ N ,54.9' S ~,j~,,.,~ () /-E L (8) (6) ~',:.,~'~ . NO. 275'4 S Line NL SJ- 7/ 2 2Sec l Sec 17 "' 'i ...... E Line ~oundary T30S ' I / R28E .... ~ "::- _ PACH'~,-',(','O int of Beginning WH'ITF' (2~ (4) (3) 17