CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

93fl discussion of reasons for protests submitted by any property owners who might be present , and also whether any requests had been granted for outside water or sewer services in this particular area . City Attorney assured Council majority protests on file did not preclude Council from hearing evidence . He also advised it was possible for a protestant to withdraw his protest by filing a written withdrawal notice prior to closing of the public hearing . City Manager advised that no City services had been granted to any of the property owners in this area proposed for annexation . He advised of Staffts customary procedure to answer questions of applicants relating to annexation benefits , although such information necessarily presumptive as to questions asked concerning possible improvements , design specifications and cost esti- mates , and zoning , until such time as Council makes policy decisions . Specific benefits were noted in the area of fire protection because of a significant lesser rate for fire insurance ; lesser rates for City utility services , if made available to the area , rather than double rates for outside City Limits rates for such services , and City police protection ; planning and zoning from professional Staff , and in addition , the inherent right of City citizens to be able to appear before the Council comprised of local representatives . Phillip Thompson , 4 Greenwood Place , Menlo Park , owner of Lot 2 , Block 17 , in this proposed annexation , quest - ioned possibility of another smaller annexation area being formed in this area in less than the one year period . City Attorney advised that if all owners of property within a new Annexation were to consent prior to annexation and protests thereby precluded , provid- ing all other requirements of the Code were satisfied as to land being con- tiguous to the City , an annexation could be initiated without waiting one year . It was also noted this specific annexation proposal had already been approved by LAFC after considerable study and they might not approve a smaller area for annexation to the City . Mr . Thompson noted certain amount of opposition in the area from those property owners who had already established their service facilities and would be subject to additional expense when City services and improvements furnished . He also stressed fact annexation to City would promote building possibilities for those wishing to develop their land in the area . Discussion held on possibility of this hearing being continued if there was a chance that property owners involved might be able to meet and resolve differ- ence with help of City staff . City Attorney advised Council might continue hearing, if it was so desired , to a time and place certain which would leave hearing open forpurpose of receiving further evidence , and it would be per- missible for Staff to attend any informational meetings held . Raymond Pflug , 3769 : Laurel Way, owner of Lots 4 and 5 in proposed annexation, and also one of the protestants speaking for other residents in the area , advised they were aware of conditions could not remain as they liked ; of their not being adamant against proposed annexation to the City , but felt they had not been consulted in this specific instance as to all details , specifically instance of one parcel in area lacking access . He stated a willingness for this hearing being continued , in order details of suggested improvements might be worked out with w; n 'r