HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 27-82RESOLUTION NO. 27-82
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
(AMENDED) (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 o 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 November 4, 1981, this Council previously
adopted Resolution No. 83-81, an application proposing proceedings
for the annexation of territory to the City of Bakersfield identified
by Annextion No. 284, and that subsequent thereto the City received
petitions for annexation to the City for areas contiguous to
territory described in Resolution No. 82-81 and for which this
amended application for annexation now encompasses.
7. The zoning upon annexation of Kern City No. 2 will
allow the same uses as presently existing in the County.
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
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Richard J. Oberholzer
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun 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 17th day of March, 1982, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARTON, a I~ISTENECN, MEANS, PAYNE, RATTY, ROCKOFF,
NOES: COUNCILMEN: ~
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEN: ~/~
Council of the Cit~of Bakersfield
. ~~h
M ~.~ of the~Ci.t_~:= of ake s 'eld
APPROVED as to fo~:
CI 0 C of Bakersfield
the
RJO:mm 3.
KERN CITY ANNEXATION NO.'2
ANNEXATION NO. 284
A parce.1 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 3 with the east line of the west 200 feet of said
Section 3; ·
Thence (1) S 89° 02' 51" E along the last na~ed 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 Maps, 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 shown on a map of Tract No. 2562, recorded
in Book 14 of Maps, page 83, records of said Ke~n County, said
intersection also being distant as measured along the following
three courses, from the point of beginning;
Thence (3) (assuming a bearing of N 89° 02' 51" W for the north line
of said Section 3) N 9° 56' 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 radiusof 5945 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 .(5) 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 March 17, 1982
EXHIBIT "A"
T3OS~TE
DR,
COURSE LEGEND
(I) S. 89°02'51"E., 2021.71'
(2.) Corporate Boundary
. GORHAM wAY
\
,,. \,,,
HILLS %% NORDIC
(2) ~ \
~ (2) \
(2) ' \
WAY,
(3) N. 9°56'06"E., 35662'
(4) ~=9°18'25'' R=5945'
L = 965.69'
(5! N.O°37'41"E,2075.56'
Boundary
"'k \ \\\(\\\\ ~
FJORO
Exhibit "B"' _/_TZ__
-H
fJ 0
'!
0
I..¢
[-~
o
I::
o
t-
O '
CJ
o
[-~
o
0
o
0
~J
~J o
~ c~
· o
o~
~ o
u~
~J
o -~
I cJ.H ~ ~ ~ G O4.J H-tJ
-..1' .H ,J=: O ~ .H ~ ,..C: '~ O t--I .H
o
~-H m ~
O,.~t---I
0 ~u
· H 0 c~
4JO~
0
I-~ .H .H o
o ~ ~
~1 o
,HCJCJ~J
~J cJ -H .H ~
o
o
=S n=l I ...el t> .H ~
(U ::>O4J
o~ OaJ ~0
o ~q-~ m-r-I=
0 ~(UO O~4J ~
o
o
III.
What effects, if any, annexation of this terri have on existing .level
,~of city services (i.e., need.for additional emergency seTvice personnel or con-
struct~on of new facilities, etc,)? Th~ annexation of this territory will not
affect the near term level o~ capacity of the City to provide needed services.
Since the ~rea is virtually fully developed, the demand for services is not
expected to exceed the current level provided by public agencies.
Would city require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected
tory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.)?. If so, would city or residents be
responsible for'financing? Yes. Seven new hydrants would require in-
stallation for acceDtabl~ City standards and an additional 30 hydrants would
require adaptation. The total cost for these improvements is estimated at
$19,500 to be paid for by the City.
Indicate ~nd e~ain existing zoning in affected territory. See-attached
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 (BMAGP) Land
Use Element designates the existing developed residential portion of the annexation
proposal as Low and Medium Density Residential use. It also designates the Kern
County Administrative offices as Commercial and the Kern City Golf Course as Open
Space. Any prezoning of this area would reflect the Land Us~ Element designation
and present urban usage.
VII.
List city.services tha ea ~ill directly or indirec benefit from such as
4ecrea~e in fire insurance rate, shorter emergency respog~e time, use of qcm-
mun~ty f~cilities, etc. city police should be able to respond in a mor~ ~im~ly
manner than present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol services. Refuse
Services are currently without charge to City residents. The surcharge paid
for City sewer collection and treatment and water supply currently as non,City
residents would be removed. The City will also assume responsibility for fire
hydrants, and street lighting currently provided by a County service area charge
to the property owner.
VIII.
Please provide the following info.nnation relative to city and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. There is no difference in-taxes to be
accrued to the County or City because of the annexation. Proposition 13 set a
one percent of market value limit on the ~eneral local ~overnment property tax,
The County service area charge'Of $40 annually for street lighting, fire
hydrants and.landscape maintenance and the contract refuse'collection charges
will be absorbed by the City from General Revenue services.
The existing representative property tax rate of 1.201541% per market value
includes special zones and school bonds. In addition $40 is applied per parcel
for CSA N0.'i (hydrants, lighting, etc., ref. above),._and $3.67 per parcel for
CSA No. 12.2 (school crossing guards), .annually..
List city tax rate(s). SEE ABOVE
How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of
~50, OOO NONE
bJ