McGlincy 79-08 - File 1Local Agency Formation Commission
County Administration Building
70 West Hedding Street, East Winq
County of Santa Clara San Joae, California 95110
EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF FILING
OF RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION
The undersigned certifies as follows:
I am the duly selected and acting Executive Officer of the Santa
Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission.
A resolution entitled, " RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE CTTV ~nrrNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL, PROPOSING ANNFXATTIIr~ (1F r~~eT ~,A7~~+~s, AREAS TITHE
CITY OF CAMPBE L
and designated as MC GLINCEY 79-8
was filed with me on June 25 19$Q_•
Said resolution has been duly adopted by the legislative body of
Citv of Campbell which is an affected ~a#.y/city/
met, as defined in applicable law. Pursuant to Sections 35140-35141/
8, inclusive, Government Code, I have examined the resolution
and the supplemental application filed with this proposal and find these
documents to contain all the information and data requested by the Santa
Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission.
Based upon such examination, it is HEREBY DETERMINED AND CERTIFIED
that this resolution of application is hereby being certified for filing
on the date shown below.
This resolution will be considered at the Aua. 6 1980
meeting of the Local Agency Fontaation Commission.
Dated: X~
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
WILLIAM M. SIEGEL, Executive Officer
Paul E. Sagers
Assistant Exe tive Officer
78-7c
Resolution of Application
RESOLUTION N0. 5 84 0
Resolution of Application of the City Council of the City of Campbell, proposing
annexation of designated areas to the City of Campbell pursuant to the Funicipal
Organization Act of 1977.
SECTION 1. APPLICATION FORA CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION. This reolution is a
proposal~e pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (Government Code
Section 35000, et seq.) and more particularly under Sections 35013 and 35150(f)
thereof, fora change of organization, that being the annexation of the territories
described in the attached exhibits to the City of Campbell.
SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION OF TERRITORY. The area prop~oosed for annexation to
the City~ampbell is designated as: ~1CGLIPd~'EY 79-8
A metes and bounds description and a map of t~ territor es propose to a annexed
are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
SECTION 3. REASONS FOR ANNEXATION. The reasons for the proposed annexation
are that the territory proposed to be annexed:
(a) Is less than 100 acres in area, as appears in the exhibits attached
hereto,
(b) Is surrounded by the City of Campbell, and includes the entire area
surrounded,
(c) Is substantially developed,
(d) Is not prime agricultural land as defined by Government Code
Section 35046, and
(e) Is both receiving benefits from the City of Campbell and will
receive benefit from the annexation.
SECTION 4. PREZONING. The property has been prezoned by the City of Campbell.
SECTION 5. PUBLIC MEETING. Pursuant to appropriate notice, a public meeting
was hel o~ n ley 7 and 8, 1979 and on February 4, 1980 for the purpose of informing
the residents and landowners of the territory proposed to be annexed of the intent of
the City of Campbell to initiate annexation proceedings, to inform them of the process
to be followed, and to hear the concerns of those affected by the proposal, as required
by the rules and regulations of the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission.
SECTION 6. REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION. The City Council hereby requests the
Santa Cara ounty Local Agency Formation Commission and the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Santa Clara to conduct proceedings for annexation of these territories
to the City of Campbell.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION. The City Council requests that
effective ate of the ISLAND ANNEXATIONS be fixed as the date of the recordation
with the County Recorder of a certified copy of the certification of proceedings
under Government Code Section 35352.
SECTION 8. FILING. The City Clerk is directed to file with the Executive
Officer o-~~anta Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission, twelve certified
copies of this resolution together with twelve copies of the site specific plan for
providing services within the territory to be annexed as approved by the City Council
on June 23, 1980.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Campbell at a regular
meeting held on the 23rd day of June, 1980 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen: Paui. Chamberlin, Podgorsek, Hammer
NOES: Councilmen: None
ABSENT: Councilmen: Doetsch
APPROVED:
usse r. yor
ATTEST:
y s c er, ty er
Tf1E FOREG OI'JG INSTRUMENT IS ATRUE
AND CORRC CT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
ON FIL'e IiJ THIS OFF1:, E.
ATTEST: PHYLLIS O. ACKE R, CITY CLERK
CI Y O QELL, CALIFORNIA
BY
~,s' ~ O
BASED
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR SERVICE
Introduction
This Site Specific Plan has been prepared in response to LAFCO planning requirements for
evaluating annexation proposals under the ~1unicipal Organization Act of 1978. This plan
is based upon the Master Plan for Services, which was approved by the City Council on
June 23, 1980.
The ~ii.e Specific Plan describes how services will be provided to: Annexation Area
Number 5 known as McGlincey 79-8 --
(NOTE: The island number refers to the map, Exhibit H in the Master Plan for Services.)
I. FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION SERVICE
1. Will there be a change in the agency that provides fire protection and
prevention service?
No (present agency)
XX Yes (proposed agency) City of Campbell Fire Department
2. If Yes to the above, what is the location, response time, staffing and
equipment for the fire station proposed to serve the area? How does this
compare to the location, staffing and equipment of the existing fire station
and existing response time?
City of Campbell Fire Department will respond from its Central Avenue Fire
Station. Standard response is two engine companies plus a Paradedic unit.
Response time is 2-3 minutes, and will be quicker when new station on Duncanville
Court is in operation.
At present, City of San Jose responds to this area from its Hillsdale Station.
Response time is 5-6 minutes.
3. Hot•~ does this proposal relate to provision in the Master Plan for Services
for:
A. Expansion and/or reorganization of fire service?
It is consistent with the Master Plan for Services. The City currently
has capacity to provide full services and responds to emergencies in
this area.
B. Financing of fire service?
As stated in the Master Plan, fire services are financed through the
general operating funds.
4. Will there be an I.S.O. (Insurance Services Office) rating change?
No.
II. POLICE PROTECTION
1. l~lill there be a change in the agency that provides police protection?
No (present agency) Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department
~- Yes (Proposed agency) City of Campbell Police Department
-2-
2. Describe the type and level of police service currently provided to the area.
Currently police service provided to unincorporated areas within the City
of Campbell Urban Service Area is the basic level of law enforcement provided
by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department. General patrol through these
areas is greatly limited and traffic enforcement and vehicle abatement are
virtually non-existent. Response time varies widely and has been reported to
be as great as 20 minutes. City of Campbell units are dispatched for emergencies
when available.
3. Will changes be necessary to provide police protection to this area equal to
the standards established for the rest of your City?
A. Contract changes (only for cities that contract with the County Sheriff)
-not applicable.
6. Equipment - current equipment is ample.
C. Manpower - current manpower is sufficient.
D. Beat Patrol - annexed areas will be incorporated into existing beats
without lowering service levels to current City.
III. LIBRARY SERVICE
1. l,lill there be a change in the jurisdiction responsible for providing library
service to residents in the affected area?
XX No (present agency) Santa Clara County Library
Yes (proposed agency)
2. If there is a change in library responsibility discuss any service changes
that will result.
3. How does this proposal relate to provisions in the Master Plan for Service
for:
A. Library expansion and/or reorganization. It is consistent with the
Master Plan, no changes will be required.
B. Library funding. Funding will continued to be provided as indicated
in the Master Plan for services.
IV. PARK AND RECREATION
1. ~Jhat are the locations of the nearest City Park and Recreation program
facilities?
The nearest City parks are Los Gatos Creek Park and Campbell Park.
-3-
V. STREETS
Substantially Developed or Developing Territory
1. Will the City require facilities in the area to be upgraded to City
standards?
No, except in cases of further development or redevelopment.
2. What are the City standards as described in the Master Plan for Services
that would be applied to the affected area for street maintenance and
financing of same.
The City will maintain all public streets as required and maintenance
will be financed in the same manner as other City streets.
VI. STREET SWEEPING
What is the City's standard for street sweeping that will be applied to the area?
Residential streets will be swept once each month, except where curbs are lacking.
Experience has shown that mechanical sweeping without curbs has minimal positive
effect. No street sweeping standards have been adopted for streets without curbs.
VII. WATER SUPPLY
1. Is a governmental agency currently supplying the area with water?
XX No
Yes, name of agency:
2. If not served by an agency, how is water provided to the area?
Water is provided by the San Jose Water Works Company.
3. According to the Master Plan for Service:
A. Will hook-up to the water agency be required?
No. Unless replacement of system is necessary for health or safety
reasons.
VIII. GAS AND ELECTRICITY
1. Will there be a change in the provider of this utility service if the
proposal becomes effective? If so, discuss what the change will be and
any costs or service implications of the change.
There will be no change. Pacific Gas and Electric Company will continue
service at rates approved by the Public Utilities Commission. These
rates are the same for residents of both the incorporated and the
unincorporated areas.
-4-
IX. GARBAGE COLLECTION
1. What is the agency that presently collects garbage in the area and what is
the present rate structure for this service?
Green Valley Disposal Company, current monthly rates are:
1 can - $3.00; Each additional can - $1.95
2. Were this proposal to become effective, will the agency that performs
this service change, and if so, what agency will become responsible for
garbage collection?
No.
3. How many cans will be allowed and how much will garbage collection service
cost if the proposal becomes effective?
The same rates apply to both incorporated and unincorporated territory.
X. SANITARY SEWER
1. Do sanitary sewers exist in the area?
Yes.
2. Will there be a change in the agency currently responsible for providing
sanitary sewer service if the proposal becomes effective?
No.
3. According to the Master Plan for Services:
A. Do the local collectors and trunk lines have adequate capacity to serve
the area?
Yes.
B. If not, what additional improvements are necessary?
C. How will these improvements be financed?
Improvements to the system will be financed by the users.
4. For existing developments with septic tanks:
Will hook-up to the City system be required?
No except in cases of septic tank failure where sewer main is installed.
5. If existing development is served by septic tank and hook-up to the City
is not required as a condition of annexation, can property owners request
hook-up to the City sewer system?
Yes
-5-
XI. STOR~4 DRAINS
1. Are storm drainage facilities currently provided to the area?
Yes
2. If storm drains do not exist in the area, or if the storm drains that are
in existence do not meet City standards, will the City require that storm
drains be installed and/or improved? If so, when?
XII. FLOOD CONTROL
1. Is the City currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program? If not, does the City plan to do so in the future? When?
Yes
2. Is the territory affected by this proposal within the area of a 1~ flood
as delineated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the National
Flood Insurance Program.
No.
XIII. STREET LIGHTING
1. Are there street lights in the area provided by the County Lighting
Service Area?
Yes
2. If yes, will the City assume jurisdiction of this service upon annexation?
Yes.
3. If there are no street lights in the area, will the City require them
installed upon annexation?
XIV. OTHER SERVICES
1. List other services and/or improvements the City will provide the territory
affected by this proposal and indicate when these services or improvements
will be provided.
City services will be available upon the effective date of annexation.
These include a wide range of services funded through the Federal
Government, including employment and training programs, Community Development
Block Grant programs, such as housing rehabilitation. A variety of regular
City programs would also become available, including voluntary safety
inspections, security programs and street tree planting, complaint
investigations, community services programs such as recreation programs,
senior citizen taxi discount and a senior center.
The City of Campbell also offers a Senior Nutrition Program and a
Paramedic Service.
-6-
2. What will the costs of these services and/or improvements be and how will
they be financed?
Costs will depend upon qualification under Federal regulations, City Council
decision on target areas, and voluntary citizen involvement. Financing is
through Federal Grants and City general operating fund and will not necessitate
additional costs to area residents.
3. Is Cable TV now available in the area and, if so, described any changes this
proposal would have on this service.
Cable TV is currently available to residents. No change will result.
4. Will the existing street numbering or postal service be altered in any way
as a result of this proposal and,if so, explain.
No. Street numbering and postal service levels will not be affected.
XV. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
1. Are there any operating special assessment or improvement districts operating
within the territory included in this proposal.
No. Any assessment or improvement districts were established in the County.
2. If yes:
A. Why and when was the District created?
B. What is the current outstanding financial obligation and how many more
years will it take to retire this debt?
XVI. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
1. Itemize and compare the present property tax rates in the subject area to
the property tax rates after annexation for this current fiscal year.
The basic tax rate for all areas, under Proposition 13, is $4.00 per hundred
dollars assessed valuation. The City has outstanding voter approval bonded
indebtedness for parks, City Hall, Library, and similar long-term projects
which benefit all area residents.
To pay for these projects, the City has levied an additional tax of 20 cents
for $100 assessed valuation for 1979-80. Other agencies, such as school
districts, may also have a tax rate to cover bonded indebtedness; however,
these would apply regardless of annexation.
The following table shows the City property tax amounts that would be
added upon annexation.
-7-
Market Value
80,000
100,000
120,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
Assessed Value
20,000
25,000
30,000
37,500
43,750
50,000
Less Homeowners Exemption
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
City Tax
(.20/~l0o A.v.)
36.50
46.50
56.50
71.50
84.00
96.50
2. Will this area be subject to any other special taxes and/or fees upon
annexation? For example, utility taxes, construction and conveyance
taxes, business licenses, other fees. If so, please describe the tax
or fee and the rates associated with each.
Yes. The City has a construction tax of one-half of one percent (.5%)
of the total value of new construction. A business license tax of
530.00 per year is charged including home occupations conducted in a
residential zoning area.
In addition, the City has a fee schedule for planning application,
engineering services and building permits.
XVII. LAND USE REGULATION
1. Are there parcels in the territory included in this proposal where the
existing developed land use differs from the land use permitted by the
City's prezoning?
No. The primary uses conform to City prezoning.
-8-
ISLAND # 5 McGlincey 79-8
Individual Island data for Site Specific Plan for Services:
11.486 +
1. Number of acres ............................................ _
18 +
2. Number of inhabitants ......................................
4
3. Number of registered voters ................................
4. Number of dwelling units ................................... 5
Single
-Family Residential
5. What is the present use of the area ........................ and Orchard
6 Parcels under Williamson Bill Contract? ..................•• None
.
7.
What prezoning has been applied? ..........................• R-3-S (High Density
Residential)
8. List all cities, special districts and county service areas located within the
area contained in this proposal:
West Valley College District Sanitation District No. 4
Santa Clara County Valley Water District Central Fire District
Campbell Union School District County Lighting District
9. For City annexations pursuant to MORGA, list those concurrent or future
detachments from Special Districts which are proposed for this territory.
Central Fire District
County Lighting Service District
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
McGLINCEY 1979-8
BEGINNING at the southwest corner of that certain parcel of land vested in Nika
Stojanovich, et al, and described by that certain Grant Deed recorded Juty 16,
1963, and filed in Book 6105 of Official Records at page 182 in the office of
the County Recorder, County of Santa Clara, State of California;
THENCE, along the westerly line of said parcel of land, said westerly line also
being in the existing Campbell city limits line established by Ordinance No.
574, Campbell Annexation McGlincey 1966-6, dated December 27, 1966, North 3° 15'
00" East 365.97 feet to the northwest corner of said parcel of land;
THENCE, along the northerly line of said parcel of land and its easterly prolonga-
tion South 89° 56' 00" East 817.08-feet to its intersection with the centerline
of Union Avenue as described by said Grant Deed;
THENCE, along said centerline of Union Avenue North 3° 15' East 5.56 feet to its
intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of that certain
parcel of land conveyed to Edward M. Stojanovich by that certain Grant Deed re-
corded May 2, 1973, and filed in Book 0357 of Official Records at page 198 in
said office of the County Recorder;
THENCE, along last mentioned northerly line, last mentioned northerly line also
being in the existing Campbell city limits line as established by Ordinance No.
1135, Campbell Annexation McGlincy 1977-6, dated December 27, 1977, East 434.21
feet to a northwest corner of that certain 10.518 acre net parcel of land shown
upon that certain Record of Survey filed in Book 96 of Maps at page 45 in said
office of the County Recorder;
THENCE, along the easterly line of last mentioned parcel of land, last mentioned
easterly line also being in the existing San Jose city limits line, San Jose
Annexation Leigh No. 16, dated January 7, 1965, the following courses and distances:
South 276.87 feet;
South 89° 58' 10" East 1.98 feet;
South 0° O1' S0" West 96.08 feet;
North 89° 58' 10" West 86.74 feet;
South 0° 20' 00" West 96.31 feet to its intersection with the southerly line
of that certain parcel of land described as Parcel No. II and conveyed to Elliott
F. Marrs by that certain Decree Establishing Death and Terminating Life Estate
filed in Book 2895 of Official Records at page 256 in said office of the County
Recorder;
1 of 2
THENCE, along the southerly line of last mentioned parcel of land and its
westerly prolongation, said southerly line and westerly prolongation also being
in the existing Campbell city limits line as established by Ordinance No. 661,
Campbell Annexation McGlincey 1968-7, dated January 27, 1969, West 376.00 feet
to its intersection with aforesaid centerline of Union Avenue;
THENCE, along said centerline of Union Avenue North 3° 15' 00" East 99.09 feet
to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of
first mentioned Nika Stojanovich, et al, parcel of land;
THENCE, along last mentioned parcel of land North 89° 58' 00" West 817.08 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 11.486 acres, more or less, and being a portion of Section 35, T. 7 S.,
R. 1 W., M. D. B. b M.
2of2