Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> ORDINANCE NO. 374 <br /> <br /> AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF <br /> CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY, DESIGNATED <br /> AS "ANNEXATION NO. 29, PLEASANTON-SUNOL <br /> ANNEX 'C'", TO THE CITY OF PLEASANTON. <br /> <br /> The City Council does hereby recite the following facts and <br />make the following findings: <br /> <br /> SECTION: 1. a. On August 26, 1963, the Council of the City <br />of Pleasanton did pass and adopt Resolution No. 3426 giving notic~ <br />of the proposal to annex certain uninhabited territory to the <br />City of Pleasanton, said territory being therein designated as <br />"Annexation No. 29, Pleasanton-Sunol Annex 'C"', said resolution <br />describing the boundaries of the territory proposed to be <br />ann e xe d. <br /> <br /> b. Said Resolution No. 3426 contained a notice <br />of the day, hour and place when and where the Council of the <br />City of Pleasanton would hear protests made by any person owning <br />real property within the territory proposed to be annexed, the <br />time of said hearing being not less than fifteen nor more than <br />sixty days from the date of passage of said Resolution. <br /> <br /> c. On October 14, 1963, at the hour of 8 p.m. <br />in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of the City of Pleasan- <br />ton, County of Alameda, State of California, said time and place <br />being the day, hour and place fixed in said Resolution No. 3426 <br />for hearing protests to the said annexation, the said City Coun- <br />cil did hear and pass upon protests made, there being none, and <br />did determine that protests had not been made by the owners of <br />one-half of the value of the privately owned territory proposed <br />to be annexed as shown by the last equalized assessment roll, nor <br /> <br />by public owners of one-half of the value of the publicly owned <br /> -1- <br /> <br /> <br />