Laserfiche WebLink
147 <br /> <br /> requested Council to protect the last of the rural areas in <br />-- Pleasanton by delaying the consideration of the annexation until <br /> the NSSP and the EIR are completed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Linda Peterson, 5747 San Carlos Way, stated that she <br /> participated in the Citizens~ Committee meetings for the NSSP. <br /> She stated that the areas being considered for annexation are part <br /> of the entire Sycamore area and requested Council to postpone any <br /> decision on the annexation until the NSSP and EIR are finalized. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mary Green, 386 Sycamore Road, indicated that she and <br /> some of her neighbors are opposed to the annexation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Severini reiterated that the two parcels whose owners he <br /> represents can be considered separately from the four parcels <br /> because these two parcels are islands, and development is already <br /> taking place on three sides of the properties. <br /> <br /> Ms. Linda Temple, 6409 Alisal Street, expressed her objection <br /> to the annexation. She stated that the properties should be <br /> included in the NSSP and that the rural environment should be <br /> preserved if the annexation is approved. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired when the NSSP will come back to the City <br /> Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that it would take at least another four <br /> months. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked if staff has communicated with or received <br /> any written statements from the property owners of Lots 1, 2 and 3 <br /> on whether they want or do not want to annex. <br /> <br /> Mr. A1 Baez, City Engineering Technician, replied that staff <br /> has received a phone call from Mr. Macari and another from Mrs. <br /> Hambrick, who represents the Roberts, and both have indicated that <br /> their preference is to wait for the completion of the NSSP and the <br /> EIR before considering annexation. He added that the City has not <br /> heard from Mr. Ziemer, who is presently in the hospital. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that it was his understanding that an <br /> annexation of this type would require the majority vote of the <br /> property owners in the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that if the Council proceeds with the <br /> annexation and LAFCO likewise recommends the annexation, the <br /> matter would come back to the Council for final action. At that <br /> point, written opposition from property owners representing more <br /> than 50% of the assessed value would effectively block the <br /> annexation. <br /> <br /> - 7 - <br /> 3 -6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />