Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />Item 6a <br />Application to LAFCO for Happy Valley Annexation. (SR98:250) <br /> <br />Roger Higdon presented the staff report. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the issue regarding lots 116 and 119 concerns a challenge to the Specific <br />Plan. He said the owners of Parcel 116 and 119 favor being included in the annexation but these <br />two property owners have filed a lawsuit against the City alleging certain deficiencies in the <br />Specific Plan. He said the purported owner of Parcel 124 has joined that lawsuit, but there is <br />a question about whether the purported owner is actually the owner. This matter will be settled <br />by the end of the month. Given that, and staff's reasons for not including those parcels were <br />that there was opposition to the Specific Plan, it is staff's recommendation tonight that Parcel <br />124 be included in Alternate 1, assuming that the Council moves in a westerly direction as to <br />the annexation. But the recommendation tonight excludes Parcel 116 and 119 unless the parcel <br />owners are willing to drop the lawsuit. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti clarified that Parcel 116 and 119 have requested to be included in the <br />annexation. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said that is accurate. Staff's position is that if the property owners have a <br />problem with the Specific Plan, they ought not be included in the Council's application to annex. <br />Nothing prevents them from filing their own petition with LAFCO to be annexed to the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked if the owners of Parcel 124 were participating in the lawsuit. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the actual owners of the property do not support the lawsuit. <br /> <br />Mr. Pico asked if all the parcels could be included but certain parcels deleted later. He <br />asked what the limitations were on deleting. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said that is an option. He said the City has about a two week window if the <br />application is on the October LAFCO agenda. <br /> <br />Mr. Pico asked if this needed to be a separate action. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the resolution could contain a provision that says if the litigation is not <br />resolved by the time that LAFCO makes its determination, the two parcels would be deleted. <br /> <br />Mr. Pico asked if the language could be for all three parcels. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said yes. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />09/15/98 <br />