HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 123-09
RESOLUTION NO. 12 3 - 0 9
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 611
LOCATED WEST OF ALLEN ROAD, ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF ROSEDALE HIGHWAY. (WARD 4).
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, pursuant to Section 56654
of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation territory is within and consistent with the City of
Bakersfield Sphere of Influence boundary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield agrees to annex the territory located west of Allen Road,
on the north side of Rosedale Highway; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to serve the territory upon annexation; and
WHEREAS, the property owner of the territory has consented to annexation; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it
hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. That the City of Bakersfield hereby proposes the annexation to the City of
Bakersfield of the territory in Exhibit "A" and shown on map marked Exhibit "B" for
the project attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as though fully set
forth herein, located west of Allen Road, on the north side of Rosedale Highway.
2. That a plan for providing services within the affected territory of the proposed
annexation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56653 of the Government
Code, is marked as Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof as though
fully set forth herein.
3. That this proposal for change of organization, to wit, annexation, is made pursuant to
the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and it is
requested that proceedings be authorized for annexation in accordance therewith.
4. That the reasons for the proposed change of organization are that the owners of the
affected territory desire to receive 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.
5. That for this proposed annexation territory and the prezoning therefore was adopted
by the City Council and the Environmental Document for the annexation is
determined to be adequate for the annexation proposal.
J
6. That the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of the
environmental document as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act
have been duly followed.
7. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined
to be uninhabited pursuant to Section 56046 of the Government Code.
8. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined
to have 100% of property owners consenting to annexation.
9. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein is within the City of
Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Boundary.
10. That the Local Agency Formation Commission waive the protest hearing
proceedings pursuant to Part 4, commencing with Section 57000 of the Cortese-
Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
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:
Pamela A. McCarthy
City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Alan Tandy
City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Virginia Gennaro
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
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 5300 Lennox Street, Suite 303, Bakersfield, California 93309.
000
aK
2`~~ F9~
§I~ai AL
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 NOV 0 4 2009
by the following vote:
PE COUNCILMEMBER: CARSON BEN AM, WEIR, COUCH, HANSON, SUL VAN, SCRI ER
COUNCILMEMBER: Y~ oyix
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: _ nck'si
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:
L
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, C
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
APPROVED NOV 0 2009 Council of the City of Bakersfield
~
HARVEY L. HALL
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
0
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GEN ARO
City Attorney '
By:
EXHIBITS: A - Legal Description
B - Map
C - Plan for Services
DL:dc
S:\Annexation\Res of Applic\ROA 611.doc
3
'J o
`~Pi :a Iv/i~
EXHIBIT -A"
ANNEXATION NO 611
TO THE CITY OF BAXERSFIFM
OEMNS NO. 1)
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE IV KER 58) AND JENKINS ROAD
(COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 352), THENCE: EASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE
OF SAID ROSEDALE HIGHWAY S89'23'28'E, A DISTANCE OF 661.04 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
1) THENCE: DEPARTING SAID CENTERLINE N00°44'08'E, A DISTANCE OF
443.00 FEET.
2) THENCE: S89'23'28'E, A DISTANCE OF 661.05 FEET.
3) THENCE: S00'44'08'W, A DISTANCE OF 443.00 FEET.
4) THENCE: N89'23'28'W, A DISTANCE OF 661.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 6.72 ACRES MORE OR LESS
G
CHECKED bye 10
KERN COUNTY SU
RS OFFICE
Daq p
p
App Oved by
~g~~fF9
o sue,
• v
OPtlao~.'.,"a.
p W
{ - oco o
1.
O Z
OF'S
z
s a
~g
J
- -
tmnao w+nm
zz~aauaRVa aoaan
I~ I I
a I I
I~
ao awnm I
a~wtaReaave eo uu x I N~Reo a.uznm
I [zxawctmrve ao uu
ICI
I'I
G ~ e III
f+ ~ ~ ~ III
I
ill
o•zatavaanve ao uu e ( I
a.n.».~ ~a„. M.N».WS mxrr I
~ uzzo-wrwr ~I I
w I
~ r~ O [[4co-IW'Ndv ~ I
I
b ~ fir. B~ rt¢ztrrorNav ~l_
9 Its;
c y` 01
V R ~ I
~ rt-t[tr,arMd, ~I I
~ I IeW ~ ~
M.10.H.005 !d'1!] dAQN.D3a ro 8 y
8 i.fo.rr.uaN fa'tin • R U 6
I I
t
I ~
I
III
la. I
Iii I
b
- - _
~c
~J I I
s
c* z co
0 a:
Z0 z Z LULU ww w ww~
qq z a ZZ9
WW 0 t~h jjcl
w 2E N
Z ZA o [CQ x¢ L'3 W(9 C7 wcr
O
3 3 F- Qmw.7d'.l zd
= c Qd <m ;i:)4Do ;www
m. cc CC CC CC QZ -ac m Za: mLL LL LL
W W W W Q W W W W W W W WCr_ Q
C_ ZZ WW=)W WLwNwww(WgUww
C)~ZCa~LL~ocmc~arc~occ~ca»>
2 z
W V m a
V m w
2! O
s ao U
0 N cc
m w
W N m w
7: ~ a
w
LL
LL ~Z
11 z w w w w
c 6:)
a- D
?r UZUUU ; N wougo
x a
W m
' Q }
Z a` a a
m
d m
a 3
a w
LL as
~ 3
0 LL
QzCCZ F- Wzz=z
§ U) nk
81 8 J<;
U
C
rp
:~O
X
N
w c m
rn W
0 cc
> c~a r m Z
m « m Z
co as3CLE cis vm N JLL~ S
U1
s
I,
r-
RIGNAL
U1 p a> a) e m y y
n ~E g ~ 9 ~
O N 'S C Z7
fU vj y c y y C
C to y N+ y
•E o if V 2 cM •2 N
cd e I
CL cc
Oc St y~
vj
y N a 9 3 ~
A
7 i
cm E N O O O m m~ O
V Z~ C w alb
mem _t~ U y~ r c+c #
g 'O 0~ p c ~y O O
`~gE aas S v, cg
m
c.,ra0s g: $c_ x x o
m c 0 m 3 m m .ffi
E
46 CL N O O{ L9 V y U U 3
r
CL 4) CLx E~ c 3~ 7
-~C c c_ m c ~co a1 aj Q
c N m E l~. e~ W LiJ t H C0 m Q V
.3
W A m n m N-~l~ c a
r L°
g ti. ~ O O r m U Q ~ O
$ ~ ~ ~ O m O ~ ~ C O~£ .S U
2- E c a~ c c c Z
0 ca fA 4)
to Wit` d m a3, U o° Zv c $
3 r U a c~
c 0 x flJ0 a fi 03 ~a m ~
o m
r- RL
it U ipo $ ,g I g -3 g cc
c an 0 3
r= 'o
IA • a ~
0 3 a3 ~v F m c
tcca m ~E~ m~ ma
a
0 -0 r, cc
0 cc
1
eoJ~3y r rc Y cc
m .U~ WEB Z5 ~°n>,~r~~
a d0 a
u) ~ mg LO. ~ ~ 3, to 3 ~ U S
N
_ ,7
1. What effects, if any, would annexation of this territory have on the existing level of city/district
services (i.e., need for additional emergency service personnel or construction of new facilities,
etc)? The annexation of this territory will not affect the near term level or capability of the City to
provide needed services. At the time of any future development, it is unlikely that additional
police officers would be reauired to maintain the current level of city service. The development of
any public streets or municipal facilities within the territory will increase the future maintenance
responsibility of the City but should not affect the existina level of service.
2. Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads,
fire hydrants, mains, etc.): If so, would city/district or residents be responsible for financing?
Private development provides and pays for major facilities and dedicates them to the City. No
uparadina or chance in facilities will be required in the territory for annexation.
3. Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected territory. The territory is presently zoned County A
(Exclusive Aaricultural) Zone.
4. Indicate and explain proposed pre-zoning 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 City has
adopted the ore-zonina C-O/PCD (Commercial & Professional Office/Planned Commercial
Development Zone).
5. List city/district services that area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire
insurance rate, shorter emergency response time, use of community facilities, etc. City Police
should be able to respond in a timelier manner than present County Sheriff services. Parcels
within the incorporated area are allowed to connect to available City sewer system lines. The
present City refuse collection rate is substantially lower than fees county residents now pay to
independent companies. No special assessments or chances for street sweeping, leaf collection,
street lichtina enemy costs and fire hydrants when located within the City's incorporated area.
City government also provides increased political representation for the residents within the
corporate limits.
6. Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. The existing tax rate in the area equals 1.067962% of assessed
market value. This represents the total property tax rate. When annexed a designated
percentage of the total property tax of the area will accrue to the City and remainder to the
County for providing health care and social services. (Rate as shown on 2008-2009 County
Auditor-Controllers Tax Rates and Assessed Values).
7. Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the city/district? If so, explain.
No. the current tax rate list shows no city bonded indebtedness.
8. How will the difference in tax rates affect a property with a market value of $50,000.00?
The property rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessment will not occur due to
annexation.
9. Is the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract? No, the existing annexation area is
not subject to at Williamson Act Contract.
-3- A
SAANNEXATIOMANNEX 6111E hibit C.DOC
+~Ip'i~aii~alaL