My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN080189
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
CCMIN080189
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:51:41 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:45:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
211 <br /> <br /> Ms. Marilyn Ornellas, 5808 San Juan Way, stated that she was <br /> relatively new in the area and agreed with Ms. Greene's position. <br /> She inquired what the options would be should the property remain <br /> under the County. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer explained that a property owner has the right to <br />request annexation to the City, and the School District has opted <br />to do that. He added that five years ago, in response to <br />residents from the area constantly asking to be annexed to the <br />City, the Council had a study done on what could be done to annex <br />the entire Sycamore Valley and Alisal area without disturbing its <br />rural atmosphere. The Alisal Improvement Club, the Mayor and the <br />City Attorney spent a year putting together a plan that might <br />preserve the rural character and satisfy everyone's concerns. He <br />pointed out that this is nothing more than a request; the Council <br />reacts to it with a yes or a no. The County does not own the <br />property; the property owners do. These owners also have the <br />right to go to the County, their level of government, and develop <br />their property under it auspices. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ornellas asked if the right to develop a property under <br />the County were restricted by agricultural zoning. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler responded that in some cases, this could be true. <br />However, the County could change that since agricultural zoning <br />does not necessarily prohibit development. The County has its own <br />standards for development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes clarified that the plans developed by the <br />applicant in consultation with some people are just plans and did <br />not have the City's approval at this point. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that while Land Planning Consultants was <br />in constant touch with the Councilmembers during the study, no <br />formal action was taken then; the first request is being made now. <br />If the Council approves the annexation, an application would be <br />sent to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to decide <br />how the taxes would be split between the County and the City. It <br />then proceeds to the County Board of Supervisors for <br />consideration, after which it is returned to the City to be <br />formalized. The property is then annexed to the City. At this <br />point, permission from the City would be necessary for any <br />development in the property. At the same time, it would now be <br />the City's responsibility to provide the necessary infrastructure: <br />sewer, water, streets, and police and fire services. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that annexation would be in the School <br />District's best interest because it would then be in a better <br />position to dispose of the property and invest the money in the <br />School. He also pointed out that annexation with a Specific Plan <br />would be the best way to preserve the rural environment. <br /> <br /> -8- <br /> 8-1-89 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.