The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES NO 72-82RESOLUTION NO. 72-82 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. 285 (RIO BRAVO 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 organization are that the owner and the developer of the affected territory desire to correct a survey location error discovered in the original Rio Bravo area annexation to the City in 1977, and the City desires that the entire area approved previously for development by the City of Bakersfield be within the City of Bakersfield in order that the City may receive tax revenues for benefits given and to be given to the territory proposed to be annexed and to facilitate dedication to the City of Miramonte Drive within the territory of the proposed annexation. 6. The zoning upon annexation of Rio Bravo No. 2 will allow the same uses as presently existing 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: Philip Kelmar City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Richard J. Oberholzer 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 7th day of July, 1982, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARTON, CHRISTENSEN, MEANS, pAYNE, RA1TY, ROCKOFF, STRONG NOES: COUNCILMEN: ~ ABSENT: COUNCI__LMEN: ~ ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEN: ~ Y~' E~ CIT k of Council of the City of Bakersfield the 'ANNE,~TION NO. 285 RIO i~RAVO NO. 2 A parcel of land situated in the County of Kern, State of California, being a portion of Sections 15 and. 23, Township 29 South~ Range 29 East, M.D.B. & M., more particularly described aS follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Section 23, said corner' being a point on the existing Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield and the True Point of Beginning for this description; THENCE (1) Departing said Corporate Boundary southerly along the east line of said Section 23 to intersect the south line of the north 180 feet of said Section 23; THENCE (2) Westerly along the last named south line one mile, more or less, to intersect the west line of said Section 23; THENCE (3) Northerly along the last named west line to intersect the north line of said Section 23, said intersection being the northwest corner of said Section 23 and the southeast corner of said Section 15; THENCE (4) South 89° 59' 20" West along the south line of said Section 15 a distance of 462.08 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the'east which bears South 67° 07' 04" West a radial distance of 1245 feet from the center of said curve, said point also being a point on the west right of way line of the proposed Miramonte. Drive; THENCE (5) Continuing along the last named right of way line through the following 5 courses: northerly along the last named curve through a central angle 10° 28' 56" an arc length of 227.77 feet; THENCE (6) Nerth 12o 24' 00" West a distance of 641.04 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave to the east having a radius of 1245 feet; THENCE (7) Northerly along the last named curve through a central angle of 38° 03' 30" an arc length of 826.98 feet; THENCE (8) North 25° 39' 30" East a distance of 967.62 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave to the west having a radius of 1155 feet; THENCE (9) Northerly along the last named curve through a central angle of 6° 31' 53" an arc length of 131.66 feet to a point on the north line of the south half of said Section 15, said point being a point on the Existing Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield; THENCE (10) Easterly and southerly and easterly along the last named Corporate Boundary to the Point of Beginning. Containing 53.05 acres (~) EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT ,: .....,~, .. ...: ,,,..;-. " ~ I i',iO~RTH %:,. 'J. ;,- I~!, "'j' ] HALF ',,. ., . ,~ ;~... SECTION' ....,~N SOUTHEASI' QUARTER ' 15 =: \ City Limit-.;: ~ SECTION 15 ANNEXATION NO. 2 8 5 RIO BRAVO. NO.P_ 5::5.05 Acres+' EXHIBIT > L. × c- > 'CU .~. c'-. c- > X , D II81H.X3 OJ ~J CD C c- r-' L S._ CZ c" c- ClJ (~J c'- OJ i X .c" c- c- C c- O 0 0 0 0 0 X c- O · ,4 U 0 0 ~ ] -,-4 0 I C) S_ *r- I ~- ~ (/1 ~- CtU~: ~J~J 0 0 ,= ~0~ _ . = U '~ ~ 0'~ ~OU~~ ~ -~ ~ >~ = U .= 0~ -0~ = =~ 0 0 '~ ~ ~ U~= · ~ 0 ~ >. ~,~ 0 U u~ (].,I 0 r.~U of city services (i .e ~eed i a e personne! or con- , stx~:c~iom of new facilities~ etc,)? Since the annexation responds'tp a ~urvey- ing erro.~' it was .intended that the affected deve]o.Dmentje qervpd by thp npcp~ary City ~ervi.ces. IV, Would city require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected terri- tory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.)? If so, would city o_Lresidents be responsible for'financing? lhe annexation includes the addition of approximately ]/2 mile of Mi~amonte Drive, to be a major collector street, to be constructed to four lanes and improved by adjacent development inc]udinq the Rio-Bravo Golf Course and residential project. Maintenance would be paid for. from City revenues. V.' Indicate and e~p'lain existing zoning in affected territory. See attached _zonine maps 104 and 1Q4-15. The area is zoned A (A~ricultura]). VI. Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List effects on present !and use that would 'occur:as a result of annexation such as maintenance of livestock on property, etc.).. lhe Bakersfield Metropolitan Area Genera] Plan (BMAGP) Land Use Element designates t-he area aDDroved for the qo]fcourse and residential 'development as Low Density Residential use. Anv Drezoning of this area would be R-] 'donsistent with th~ remaining development. · List city,services tna' will directly or: en'efit from such as decrease in fire rate, shorter emergency ~n~e time~ use of com- etmiter faci, lities, etc. Area will benefit .from more frequent police ,pa:t.ro__] service an'd~efore., a faster response t__o_emerqenc.s; situations. After t~e 1985-86 Fj~:upon development of a Rio Bravo Fire Station, the response time from both present City and COunty stations will be considerably shortened. VIII. Please pro.vide the following information relative to city and county taxes: List existinZ tax rate(s) in area. There is no difference in taxes te be accrued by the City because of 'the annexation. Proposition ]3 set a one percent market value limit on the general local' government property tax. The existing __ representative property tax rate is 1.071315 _ List city t~c rate(s). See above How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of SSO,O00 . None. Currently there is no housinq in the subject area. Z 0 Z 3NOZ ,,.~ SEE MAP .%