Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> ORDINANCE NO. 37c~ <br /> <br /> AN ORDINANCE APPROVING TH.E ANNEXATION OF <br /> CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERP~ITORY, DESIGNATED <br /> AS ~ ~a~NEXATION NO. 32, ROSE ANNEX ~, TO THE <br /> CITY OF PLEAS~IqTON. <br /> <br /> The City Council does heraby recite the following facts and <br />make the following findings: <br /> <br /> SECTION 1. a. On November 11, 1963, the Council of the City <br />of Pleasanton did pass and adopt Resolution No. 3349 giving notice <br />of the proposal to annex certain uninhabited territory to the City <br />of Pleasanton, said territory being therein designated as "'Annexa- <br />tion No. 32, Rose Annex~', said resolution describing the boundaries <br />of the territory proposed to be annexed. <br /> <br /> b. Said Resolution No. 3349 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 tlme of <br />said hearing being not less than fifteen nor more than sixty days <br />from the date of passage of said Resolution. <br /> <br /> c. On January 6, 1964, at the hour of 8 p.m. in <br />the Council Chambers in the City Mall of the City of Pleasanton, <br />County of Alameda, State of California, said time and place be~-ng <br />the day, hour and place fixed in said Resolution No. 3349 for <br />hearing protests to the said annexation, the said City Council <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-hal-* <br />of the value of '~he Drivately owned territory proposed to be <br />annexed as shown by the last equalized assessment roll, nor by <br />public o~.:~n~'s, of one-half of '~he value of the publicly owned <br /> <br /> -1- <br /> <br /> <br />