Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> ORDINANCE NO. 366 <br /> <br />AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF <br />CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY, DESIGNATED <br />AS "ANNEXATION NO. 24-B, FOOTHILL ANNEX~' <br /> <br /> The City Council does hereby recite the following facts and <br />make the following findings: <br /> <br /> SECTION 1. a. On April 19, 1963, the Council of the City <br />of Pleasanton did pass and adopt Resolution No. 3383 giving <br />notice of the proposal to annex certain uninhabited territory <br />to the City of Pleasanton, said territory being therein desig- <br />nated as '~Annexation No. 24-~, Foothill Annex~'~, said resolution <br />describing the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed <br /> <br /> b. Said Resolution No. 3383 contained a notice <br />of the day, hour and place when and where the Council of the City <br />of Pleasanton would hear protests made by any person oWning real <br />property within the territory proposed to be annexed, the time <br />of said hearing being not less than fifteen nor more than sixty <br />days from the date of passage of said Resolution. <br /> <br /> c. On June 10, 1963, at the hour of 8:00 p.m. <br /> <br />in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of the City of Pleasanto~ <br />County of Alameda, State of California, said time and place being <br />the day, hour and place fixed in said Resolution No. 3378 for <br />hearing protests to the said annexation, the said City Council <br /> <br /> did hear and pass upon protests made, there being none, and did <br /> determine that protests had not been made by the owners of one- <br /> half of the value of the privately owned territory proposed to <br /> be annexed as shown by the last equalized assessment roll, nor <br /> by public owners of one-half of the value of the publicly owned <br /> territory proposed to be annexed as determined by said legislativ <br /> <br /> - 1 - <br /> <br /> <br />