HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 104-82RESOLUTION NO. 104-82
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. 284
(KERN CITY 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 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 provisions 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 (Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government
Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 35000
thereof), and it is requested that proceedings be authorized for
annexation in accordance therewith.
5. That the reasons for the proposed change of organiza-
tion are that the owners of the affected territory desire to
receive, and in some instances already are receiving, 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.
6. That on March 17, 1982, this Council previously
adopted Resolution No. 27-82, an application proposing proceedings
for the annexation of territory to the City of Bakersfield identified
by Annexation No. 284, and that same application was submitted to
the Local Agency Formation Commission on March 18, 1982.
7. That the application expired due to the inability
of the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield to resolve the
allocation of property tax disbursement upon annexation as required
during a thirty (30)-day negotiation period, and the Local Agency
Formation Commission Officer requested the City to resubmit the
application.
8. That on May 26, 1982, this Council adopted Resolution
No. 56-82, an application proposing proceedings for the annexation
of territor~ to the City of Bakersfield identified by Annexation
No. 284, and that same application was resubmitted to the Local
Agency Formation Commission on June 1, 1982.
9. That the application expired due to the inability
of the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield to resolve the
allocation of property tax disbursement upon annexation as required
during a thirty (30)-day negotiation period, and the Local Agency
Formation Commission Officer has advised the City that the resubmission
of the application is necessary.
10. The zoning upon annexation of Kern City No. 2 will
allow the same uses as presently existing in the County.
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:
Philip Kelmar
City Manager
City of Bakersfie~d
1501Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Richard J. Oberholzer
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(Legal Counsel for Applicant)
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 1110 Twenty-Sixth Street, Bakersfield, California.
o0o
2.
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 15th day of September, 1982,
by the following vote:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEN:
CITY of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
CI TOR t e City ~f Bakersfield
KERN CITY A}qNEXATION NO..2
ANNEXATION NO. 284
A parcel of land situate in the County of Kern, State of California,
and being a portion of Section 3, Township 30 South, Range 27 East,
M.D.B.' & M. and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of south line of the north 25 feet
of said Section S with the east line of the west 200 feet of said
Section 3; -
Taence (1) S 89° 02' 51" E along the last named south line, 2021.71
feet, to intersect the extension of the east right of way line
of Cherry Hills Drive, as said drive is shown on a map of Tract
No. 2560, recorded in Book 12 of blaps, pages 49 through 53,
records of said Kern County, said intersection being also a
point on the Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence (2) southerly and along the various courses of said Corporate
Boundary to a point on the west right of way line of Ashe Road;
as said Ashe Road is shmcn on a map of Tract No. 2562, recorded
in Book 14 of Maps, page 83, records of said Kern County, said
intersection also being distant as measured along the following
three courses, from the point of beginning;
Thence (3) dep~rting from said Corporate Boundary (assuming a bearing
of N 89° 02" Si" W for the north line of said Section 3),
N 9° S6' 06" E, 356.62 feet, along the last named west right
'of way line to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to
the west, with a radius of S945 feet;
Thence '(4) northerly along said curve and along the last named west
right of way line through a central angle of 9° 18' 25" an arc
length of 965.69 feet, to the end point of .said curve;
Thence (S) N 0° 37' 41" E, 2075.56 feet, along the last named west
right of way line to the point of beginning;
Containing 262.70 acres, more or less.
Amended February 17, 1982
.. EXHIBIT "A" ~
I,
I
!
(4)
COURSE LEGEND
(I) S 89°02'5!"E., 2021
(2.) Corporate Boundcry
(:5) N. 9°56'06"E, :556
(4) A=9018'25' R=5945'
L = 96 5.69'
(5! N.O°37'41"E.,2075.56
\ ~' NOF:D~C
(2) \
~ (2) \
(2) ',,
FJORD
ANNEXATION NO. 2 8 4
',___.:. KERN CITY ANNEXATION
; LEGEND C B 8~ tzoo
'~ //////// orporate oundary .
t..-I .
o ""
EXI.:ilBIT C ·
o
o
o
rf
(~
C~
C~
0
rt
0
o
0
m~
· ,-4 0
,p · r- o
· 'F--~ -,H 0
:,>! C' ·
0
· H 0
rj U
~-,-(-r-4 0
rj :~
0 ~ Q~
,z~
,-I 0.~4
,-I o
· H.U r,J q)
~ O
='-0 I
~J
,H 0 oJ
o~ O cJ ~ 0
"~ tl n:::)~ n,.j
0 H ,-.I =1 ~ cJu
0 ~ 0 ~,u c~
III'. h.~.at effects, if any, would ~nneyation of this territory.have On existin.,J leve?
of city services (i.e., need.for additional emerSency so.trice personnel or-con~
'struction of ne~ facilities, etc.).? The annexation of this territory will not
affect the near term level. or, capacity of the Cit2& to provide needed services. _
Since the ~r;:.a is virtualIv' fu!lv deveioped~ Ehe demand for services is not _
expected to .'-ceed the current ].evalJrovided bv public agencies..- .'
Would city require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected terri-
tory {roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.)? If.so, would city o~ residents be
responsible for financing? Yes. Seven.new hydrants would requi.re in-
stailation for acceptablh City standards and an additional 30 hydrants would
require adaotation. The total cost for these improvements is estimated at _.
$19,500 to be paid for by t~e City.
Indicate ind e~p]ain existing zoning in affected territory. See at'tached
zoning.map 123-3. The area is primarily zoned R-1 reflecting its predominant
residential and recreational character. The Kern County Superintendent of
_Schools Administrative Center and associated office buildings are zoned C-2 P-D
and C-O.
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 Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General' Plan (B~GP) Land
Use.Element designates ~he existing developed residential portion of the annexation
proposal as Low and Medium Density Residential use. It also designates the Kern
County Administrative offices as Comnercia! and the Kern City Golf Course as Open
.'Space. Any prezoning.of this area would-reflect the Land Us~ Element designerien
and present urban usage.
List city.services that area '~'ill directly or indirectly benefjt from st:ch as
ace!eaSe in fire insurance ratc~ shorter emerge:~cy respon. h~ time, use of cc~-
mgni.'ty facilities, etc. city po-Lij-_e should be able to respond in a more ~ime!v
manner than present Couj~ty Sheriff an~ State jH~-ghW~Y Patrol services. Refuse _
services are currently without chaLiCe to City rj~jidents- The surchar~jid __
for City ~bwer collection and treatment and water supp1J currently-as non-city
residents would be removed. The City will also assume responsibility for fire
hydrants, aHd street lighting'currently provided by a County service area charge
to the property o~,mer.
PleaSe'provide the: followinF, information relative-to city and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. There 'is no _di.ffe~e. in.. taxis t~.lLe
accrued to the Coun_i.v_y_or City because of the annexation. Propositi__on 13 se_U~__
one percent of market va].ue limit on the p, eneral 'local'Kovernment .prooert.v ta:.:.
The County service area charge of $40 annually' for street lighting, fire
hydrants and landscape maintenance and 'the contract refuse coilection_cj~a.r~._es
will be absorbed by the City from General. Revenue services.
The existing representative propert';, tax rate of ]..201541% per market value
i""ncludes special zones and school bonds. In addition $40 is applied per parcel
for CSA No. 't (hydrants, lighting, etc., ref. above), a. nd $3.67 per parcel for
CSA No. 12.2 (school crossing guards), annually.'
List city tax rate(s). SEE ABOVE
Mow will the difference'in ~tax rates affect a house with a market value of
~50, O00 NONE
·
i
;~_.. .....
,Od
ILl
· i
ka
I
0