Laserfiche WebLink
44 <br /> , <br /> 1 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) <br /> Item No. 5 (continued) <br /> In response to question as to the legal status of a Recommendation <br /> in the Special Area Plan, City Attorney Schricker advised that such <br /> a Recommendation is a policy statement of the Council but, if under <br /> the State law governing annexations, there are no grounds for <br /> denying annexation, then the Recommendation falls to the State law. <br /> Mr. Schricker pointed out that the Local Agency Formation <br /> Commission (LAFCO) was not compelled to approve the application <br /> of the property owners for annexation of the subject property, but <br /> the Commission has the authority to do so and chose to do so. <br /> Pat Sikora, 165 Atherwood, referred to the letter read by Mr. <br /> Harrison, calling attention again to the Special Area Plan <br /> Recommendation that "Annexation of property with a Williamson Act <br /> contract will not be approved until the contract is cancelled by <br /> San Mateo County with all legal issues resolved, or until the <br /> contract expires." Mrs. Sikora stated that the annexation is <br /> premature at this time and inconsistent with the Special Area Plan. <br /> Mayor Biagi stated again for the record that the Williamson Act has <br /> nothing to do with the subject before Council at this time, <br /> observing that preparation of the Special Area Plan for all of the <br /> Horgan Ranch property in the Redwood City Sphere of Influence was <br /> initiated by Mrs. Sikora and neighbors of the property and approved <br /> by Council in order to insure desirable development. The Plan <br /> applies to any development of the property at such time as it might <br /> occur, but it does not supersede State laws relating to <br /> annexation. <br /> City Attorney Schricker then advised that the only question before <br /> p,.,. Council relates to protests of property owners and asked City Clerk <br /> Hildebrand if 50% or more of the property owners of the subject <br /> property had filed written objections to the annexation. Mrs. <br /> IMO Hildebrand reported that no written protests have been filed. <br /> City Manager Fales stated for the record that the City has gone on <br /> record with LAFCO in communicating reluctance to annex the subject <br /> property to the City. <br /> Discussion followed and Mrs. Sikora commented and replied to <br /> questions relating to Williamson Act status following annexation; <br /> whether the City has any role in the matter; the difficulty <br /> involved in determining when is the best time to protest an • <br /> annexation; the fact that the Special Area Plan allows the citizens <br /> of Redwood City to determine the nature of any development which <br /> may eventually take place on the property; the lack of jurisdiction <br /> of the City with regard to annexation; the desire of the City to <br /> have access to the annexation process which affects it; and whether <br /> opposition to the annexation may be because of opposition to <br /> development of the property for housing at some future time. <br /> In response to request for a statement of the options open to <br /> Council at this time, Mr. Schricker advised that the mandatory <br /> nature of annexation proceedings allows the Council to ascertain <br /> from protests of property owners whether the annexation can take <br /> place. He further advised that even if all Council members voted <br /> "No", the law provides that the incomplete proceedings could be <br /> certified over to the Board of Supervisors of the County to <br /> complete, and the City would be exposed to certain legal risks. <br /> Mayor Biagi invited anyone else present who wished to speak to do <br /> so. No one wished to speak. <br /> M/S: Stangel/Bury to close the public hearing. <br /> Carried unanimously and public hearing closed at 8:30 p.m. <br /> Reg.Mtg. <br /> 8/10/81 <br /> Page 3 <br /> { <br /> 1 <br />