Laserfiche WebLink
WM. A. STRUTHERS, Jr. <br /> Attorney at Law <br /> City Hall <br /> Pleasanton, California <br /> <br /> CITYATTORNEY <br /> <br /> ORDINANCE N0. 264 <br /> <br /> AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN <br /> UNINHABITED i~RRITORY, DESIGNATED "ANNEXATION <br /> N0. V, NEAL STREET ANNE"', TO TEE CITY OF <br /> PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> BE IT 0RDAINED BY TBE COUNCIL OF THE CI'i~ OF PLEASANTON: <br /> WHEREAS, On June 4, 1956, the Council of the City of <br /> Pleasanton did pass and adopt Resolution No. 2561 giving notice <br /> of the proposal to annex certain uninhabited territory to the <br /> City of Pleasanton, said territory being therein designated as <br /> "Xrmexation No. V, Neal Street Annex", said Resolution describing <br /> the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed; and <br /> <br /> WEREAS, said Resolution No. 2561 did contain a notice of <br /> <br />the ds.y, hour and place when and where the Council of the City <br />would hear protests made by any person owning real property within <br />the territory proposed to be annexed, the time of said hearing <br />being not less than fifteen nor more than fifty days from the <br />date of passage of said Resolution; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, on July 16, 1956, st the hour of 8:00 P. M., in the <br />Council Chambers in the City Hall of the City of Pleasanton, <br />County of Alameda, State of California, said thne and place being <br />the day, hour and place fixed in said Resolution No. ~561 for <br />hearing protests to the said annexation, the said City Council <br />did hear and pass upon all protests made to the proposed annexation <br />and did determine that protests had not been made by the ovmers <br />of one-half of the value of the territory proposed to be annexed <br />as shown by the last equalized assessment roll, nor by public and <br />private o~ners of one-half of the value of the territory proposed <br /> <br /> -1- <br /> <br /> <br />