HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 49-60RESOLUTION N0. 49.~69
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD ·FIXING A TIME AND 'PLACE FOR HEAR-
ING PROTESTS BY PERSONS 0~NING REAL PROPERTY
WITHIN TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS "WHITE LANE N0.
7" PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF BAKERS-
,
FIELD o
~HEREAS., a petition was filed with the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, on the 13th day of·May, 1960, requesting that certain un-
inhabited territory therein described be annexed to and incorporated
'within the ·city of Bakersfield, and -
!~EREAS, said petition was signed by the-owners of all of the
territory proposed to be annexed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in compliance with the provisions of the. Annexa-
tion of Uninhabited T.erritory .Act of 1939, Chapter297, as amended, BE
IT RESOLVED'by the Council of the City of Bakersfield, as f011ows~
That the boundaries Of the. territory so. proposed to be annexed
to the City of Bakersfield are described as follows:
A parcel of land situate in the County of Kern, State of
California, and being a. portion of Lot 7, inSection 18,
To~/nship 30 South, Range 28 East, M.D.B. & M., according
to the ,'Kern County Sales Map No. I of Lands of J. Bo
Haggin", filed for record May 3, 1889,' .in the Office of
the County Recorder of said Kern County; "
Beginning at the Northeast corner of that certain annexa-
tion designated as White Lane No. 6, as adopted September
'8,' 1959, by Ordinance Noa 1260, New'Series, and which was
.certified October 13, 1959, by the'Secretary of State,Sta~e
of California, a point on the northerly boundary of said
Lot 7; thence South 0° 00' 16" East along the corporate
boundary of the City of Bakersfield~ as same is defined
0
by said rdinance No. 1260, New Series, along a line
parallel with and distant l0 feet Easterly, as measured
perp'endicu~sr to the Westerly boundary' of said Lot 7, the
7 as shown on Map of Tract No. , recorded. February
4,..1960, in. Book ll of-Mapsat Page 43, in the office ~f
.......... ' ...........~aid"CbUnt~"R'~corde~'~ a '~i~t'an&e"'of' 1291~8i3' .~Se'~' to the
Southwest coroner of said Lot 7 distant 30. feet.North of
and as measured perpendicular to the center line of a
public road ~now known as White Lane).of 60 feet in width
15
as sho~rn by' said Sales Map; ' th~nce North 89°
East along the South line· of said Lot ? and departing
from said .corpSrate boundary a distance .of. 518.101 feet~
thence Nor. th 0 00.~ 25" West a distance of 645.945 feet~'
thence North 89° 51' 28" East a distance Of 792.075 feet
to intersect the Easterly boundary.of s~id Lot 7; ~hence
North 0° 00~ 34" West along the Easterly boundary of said
Lot 7 on and along the corporate boundary of the City of
Bakersfield, as same iS defined by that certain annexa-.
tion designated as White Lane No~ 5 'ms adopted August 1?,
1.9~9, by Ordinance No. 1255 New Series, and certified
September 21, 19~9, by the said Secretary of State,. a
distance of ~46.005 feet to the Nortt~east corner of said
Lot 7~ ·thence South 890 51' .13" West along the Northerly
boundary of said Lot 7 on s~nd .along the corporate. boundary
of the.City.of Bakersfield, as same' is-defined by that
certain annexat'ion designated as. I.~ite. Ls. ne No. 3 as 'per
,Resolution approving said annexation adopted April 9,
1957 by the' Board of Supervisors of~ Kern Counby as per
Minute Book llS, Page 160, Records' of said Board of Super~
visors,. a distance of 1310~094 feet. to the ~lortheast corner
of the aforesaid annexation designated as White 'Lane No.
and to the point ~beginning, containing 2?.ll0 acres of
land, more or less.
That' a designation appropriately naming such territory is
"WHITE LANE NO.
BE IT ~FURTHEi.~ RESOLVED, that' Monday, the 20th day of June,
1960, at the hour of eight o'clOck P.M., in'.~he ".Council Chambers of
the City' Hall,V 'lS01 Truxtun -~.venue, Bakersfield, CalifOrnis, ts the
time ~hen and the place where any person o~ning real rpoperty within
such territory so' proposed to~ be annexed +and'having any objections to
the .proposed annexation may appear before' the ·Council Of the. City of
Bakersffeld and show cause why such~ territory should 'not be 'annexed.
.I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
at a regular meeting thereof,.hSld on the 16th day of May, 1960,
by the.following vote:
~YES: BALFANZ. BEI~TLEY, CARNAK!S. COLLINS, CROES',. DOOLIN. ST.IERN,
Council of the City of Bakersfield.
APPROVED-'%th.~,s;-~.~ day of May, 1960
MAY~' Of,, the City ~' Baersffeld