HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 79-63 RESOLUTION NO.' 79-,63
A ·RESOLU.TION OF THE COUNCIL OF 'THFj CITY OF-.
BAKERSFIELD FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR° HEARING
PROTESTS BY PERSONS OWNING.REAL 'PROPERTY WITHIN
"PRO-
TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ,OSWELL 'NO. 4,
POSED TO ·BE ANNEXED T0 THE.CITY OF BAKERSFIELD.
WHEREAS, a petition was filed with the-'~.CoUn6il o'f the
City of Bakersfield on the .23~d da~'.0. Lf~ Sept'ember, 1963=5 requesting
that '6ertain .uninhabited' territory therei~ described be annexed-
to and incorporated .within, the City. of Bakers.field,, and-
WHEREAS," said petition was Signed'by the owners of'not
less than One-fourth (i/4) of the· are-a of the land fin such
territory, and representing not less than ·one-fourth (1/4) of the
assessed value of' such,.territOry aC~'ording~'to the'.~last preceding
equalized'· assessment roll of the .Cohnty o~f Kern.
-.-..· NOW, THEREFORE, in complian'Ce with, the. provisions Of the
AnneXation of Uninhabited Territ'ory Act·.of '193.9,..Chapter 297, ·as
amended, BE IT RESOLVED by the c0'uncil of the= City ·of'Baker'sfield,
as follows: " ... ..
That the boundaries'Of ·.the' ~erritory'· so ·proposed t0 be
annexed .to the City of 'BakerSfield· are'-described as f61iows:
A parcel of land situate in the.'C0~nTt-y of Kemp. State of. California,
and being a portion. ofr the' northeast quarter of Sedtion 22,
Town.ship 29~ South~ Range 28 .East, M.D.M.;
.Commencing at the northeast corner Of said Se. ction 22, thence
.southerly along the easterly boundary of said Section .22-to'
-intersect a line para'llell with and distant 55 feet southerly
measured perpendicular to the northerly boUndary o'f said Section
22,r' said point of intersection being a' point on. the current
corporate ~boundary of the City of, Bakers field aS ·defined" by
OrdinanCe' No. 1452,' New Series', and' al·so..being the true· point.of
beginning ~ ' .
.'THENCE (1) continuing Southerly· along-the easterly .boundary ~0f
· '- ..... 7. said Section 22'-to the sOntheast +corner of I the NOrth-
of said Section 22; .,·
THENCE (2)
westerly along the ,S0Uth~rly boundary, of 'said ,North-
hal'f of the northeast ·qulafte~ i'0Y the~ northeast, ',
quarter to a~ point in a lin~/pa~allel ',with' and
distant 328.62 ·'feet eaSLt~ly.,- as .measu~edLat r~ght
':' angles to ..the' westerly bOundar.y .of-the northeast
'-.: ...... quarter of Said. Section":2'o2; '-
THENEE i'(3) northerly along last na~'~=·"P'a~all'el.,iine to intersect
a line parall'el, with.·and .distant 55 feet Southerly.as
measured perpendicular to the northerly. boundary of
· sai'd Section 22, 'said point-of in·tersection being a
~point on the current .corporate~.b6~ndary;
THENCE (4) ~' easterly along the last named parallel 'ii~e, .on and
along the~ current corporate boundary: as defined by
.said Ordinance No~' 1452, New Series,-to the point of
. ·~ beginning and Containing ·32~,2t acres, of land, more-
or less.
': ·That a' designaltion' appr~·p~iaEely naming such, i.territory
'is "OsWell No· 4."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that.. Monday; the 4th' aay
N0~ember, 1963·, at the hour of 8:00 ,P.M., ~in the'Co~un~i!Ehambers
-Of' the City. Hall, 1501 Truxtun A~enue, _Bakersfields, CalifOrnia,
,..·is- the "~time'' ,when' and.-the place wh~re 'any' ·pe'r slon V0wning
property w'ithin such te,rritory.S0.'propOsed to be'-..a~neXed and'
having .any, objectiOnS tO ehe propOse·d annexation ma.y'., appear 'b'ef0re
~the Qouh~il. ~'f the· City of Bake~sfieid a~d show~·c~Se:,why' such z
territory 'should not be annexed. '
· I HEREBY CERTIFy that the foregoing Resol~'tio~
passed-and adopted by'the COuncilof theLCityO'f~Bakersfield at a
regular meeting thereof held on-the, 23rd'day of~September, 1963,
By-the following vote.:- ..
ABSTAf',"41I'~G:
HB NKS MQSSMAN, 'RUCKER, STIERI~, 'WHITTEMORE
_ _
..
CTTY CL~¢'~t"~'~. 'R.:X-Officio- Clerk of -the
Counci't',of'. the City '.of' Bakersfield.
APPROVED this 23~d davy of September,, !963,.
. ' of the-Cit BakerSfield