HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 102-82RESOLUTION NO.
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. 286
(KERN RIVER 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 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 organization
are that the privately owned lands within the proposal, consisting
of approximately 44.7 acres, are geographically located for more
efficient services from the City of Bakersfield south of the Kern
River, and the City-owned properties, consisting of approximately
96.6 acres, are more appropriate within the City for tax purposes.
6. That on July 1, 1982, the Bakersfield Planning
Commission reviewed, evaluated and considered the annexation
request and recommended the annexation of territory to the City
of Bakersfield to the City Council.
7. The zoning upon annexation of Kern River No. 8 will
be consistent with the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan.
8. 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 Bakersfield
1501Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Richard J. Oberholzer
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(Legal Counsel for Applicant)
9. 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 15th day of September, 1982,
by the following vote:
;AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARTON, CNRIS NS~N M~AN$
NOES: COUNq!LMEN:
_ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
ABSTAINING~ COUNCILMEN:
CITY C~L~rk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROV~,D 'bi~l~,~-h~ay of September, 1982
MAYOR t "" ~ ~' ' ~
APPROVED ~'S ~'e f%r~f~'
AT~ORN~ of t'he ~ Bakersfield
ANNEXATION NO. ~86
KERN RIVER NO. 8
A parcel of land situated in the Co[mty of Kern, State of Caiifornia,
being a portion of Sections 26, 27, 33, and 34, Township 29 South, Range 27
East, M.D.B. & M.,'mOre particularly described .as fOllowST: ~ "-
Commencing'at a point on the east li~e of said SeCtion 33 which bears
SouthO0° 36'._ID4"west..a~distance of 1600 feet from-~he.northeast corner. of~ .....
~aid Section 33, said point being a point on the Existing Corporate Boundary
of the City of Bakersfield; thence North 89° 08' 24" West along.'the last
named :Corporate Boundary a distance of 1170.374 feet to a point on the
northerly line of Parcel 63 of that certain Quitclaim Deed fro~ Tenneco
.Westi;...tnc...i 'to.the'~.ity of'-.:Baker.s.f~'eld. recor~ed-jun~.6~-t'9Y7 in. Dffi~ci'al·
Records Book'S032, at page 466 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder,
said point being the Point of Beginning for this description;
THENCE (1) Departing from the Corporate Boundary of the City'of Bakersfield
North 69° 46' 13" East along the last named northerly line a distance of
318.41~ feet;
THENCE (2) South 86~ 0.5' 34" EaSt a distance of 490.34' feet;
THENCE (3) North 70° 32' 39" East a distance of'407.98 feet to a point on
the east line of Said'Section 33;.
THENCE (4) North 00~ 36' 04" East along .the laS~ named east line a distance
of 1369.84 feet' to the northeast corner of said Seqtion 33;
I=XHI ~l T
THENCE (5) South 89° 06' 11" E~ast along the north line of the. northwest quarter
of said. Section. 34 a distance of 2663.88 feet to the north quarter comer of
said Section 34;
THENCE (6) South 89° 07' 15" East along the north line of the northeast quarter
of said Section 34 a distance of 350 feet~;
'|'HENCE (7) Nor'theast~rly on a direct line to a ~0int on~=t~e west line of said
Section 26, which bears North. 00° 49' 55" East a distance of 1700/feet from
the southwest corner of sai-d Section 26;
THENCE (8) Northerly along the last named west line to a.point which bears
South 00° 49' 55" West a distance of 343.55 feet from :the northwest.comer
of the southwe'st quarter of said Section 26,'said~'point being a point on the
southerly boundary line of the Cross Valley Canal;
THENCE (9)Easterly along the last named southerly boundary line the following
4 courses: North 48° 36' 25" East a distance of 209.20 feet to a point on a
tangent curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 185 feet;_
THENCE (10) Northeasterl~y along~t'he last· named curve through a central angle of
4.1~ 55' 52" an arc length of 135.39 feet;
THENCE (11) South 89° 27' 43" East a distance of 573.85 feet to a point on a
tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 915 f~et;
THENCE (12) Northeasterly along the last named curve~through a central angle of
31~ 03' 38" an arc length of 496.03 feet to a·point on the east line~.of the
northwest quarter of t-e southwest quarter~of said Section 26, said point being
a point on the Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield;
THENCE (13) generally southerly and westerly along the last named Corporate
~oundary to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 149.31 Acres
~J
c-
(U
>
~J
n~
X
I--
~J
c-
>
X
I--
%
&,,
(..-
(D
,
r'-
>
n..,
×
I--
%
>
OJ
X
I'-
c-
c-
>
~J
n~
X
I--
r-
>
~J
n~
X
(]J
>
(1J
X
I'-
c-
U
c-
~J
0
~,.
O_
E
(D
JD
0
~J
C)
\
c-
U 0
X
x
· r- I::: c-'
0 0 0 0
CJ CJ CJ
x ×
x
x
X
0 0 0 0 0 0
U
>
,__1
>
'0
U
.H
0
¢)
I-,
U
0
U
0
U'
..-¢
.-.I
0
e..
0
· ,'¢ 0
~ .H U
0 ;4
0
0
0
0
I
O
.-=~o
~ g
O-s--
g
~--":::~(iJ
,Dc'V1
-"s aJ
~ >,
......
X
~ ::~
_a u
u
~ o
~j o
u
U '
III.
P~at effects, if any~ annexation of this terr ry have on existing level
of Cit~ services (i .e., need for additional emergency servic~'personnel or con-
struction of new facilities, etc.)? The major portion of the proposa3 is City-
owned ]and which is desiqnated as Open Space on the Land Use Element. As such the
demand for.services will be ]arqe]y recreational such as bike path-maintenance and
security. Since Truxtun Avenue, owned by the City, bisects the property it will
continue to be maintained and patrolled by the City as the need requires. Approxi-
mately ]3 acres of privately owned ]and is subject to industrial development which
s'hou]d not require 'additional emergency service personnel. Arty new facilities
necessary to serve private development will be provided by the deQe]oper.
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. The industrially designated area would require
access (streets), fire hvdrants, water mains, sewers and possibly other facilities
dependent on the tvpe and intensity of uses proposed. The deve]np~r wn,~]d b~
· required to provide and/or fund such improvements.
V. Indicate ind eip'lain existing zoning in affected territory. R-F Recreational-
Forestwy Zone used to implement the County Land Use Element (Rosedale General Plan)
, designated for conservation/recreation
,...... ........~ ............_. ......:.., ,-... .. .... :. -):. .. ~ .... ..:.:,. ..... ........,..·..~....... .....
Indicate and explain proposed' prezoning in area. (List effects on present land
u~e that. would occur'as a result of annexation such as maintenance of livestock
on property, etc.) The City-owned properties and a major Dortion of the privately
owned property are designated as ODen'SDace. on the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (BMAGP) Land Use Element. These areas are currently under further'
study in a specific plan proposal for the Kern River Corridor. lipon completion
and adoption of the specific plan precise zo~ipg can be more ~adily determined
for the floodplain areas. The Floodplain Primary Zone will be applied to the
primary floodplain. The privately owned ]and South of Truxtun Avenue (approx. 13
ac~es) is designated for industrial .use on the BMAGP and it is DroDosed to be
prezoned to M-] (Light Manufacturinq).
VII.
Lis~ city-services tea will directly or indite y benefit from such as
decrease in fire insurance rate, shorter emergenc)' responie time, use of com-
munit)r facilities, etc. City police is able to respond to calls in t~Lis__aasea.__
faster than present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol Services (i.e., this
area is. a.servi.ce island which is bounded.. by the City to those agencies). The
proposal will also allow the proposed Bike path to be developed, maintained and
patrolled entirely within areas under City jurisdiction.
VIII.
Please provide the following information relative.to .city'and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. There is no difference in taxes to be
accruedto the County or City because of the annexation of private property.
Proposition 13 set a one percent of market value limit on the general local
government propertV tax. The. existinq representative property tax rate is
· 1.201541 percent market value. The City-owned proper.ty cur-rently produces
· $1,072 tax revenue to the County which would no longer be paid by the City
____1if annexed.
List city tax rate(s). See above
How will the difference xn tax rates~ affect a house with a market value of
$50,000 None and not applicable.