Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> ORDINANCE NO. 991 <br /> <br /> AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 982 (AN ORDInaNCE <br /> APPROVING A HILLSIDE PLANNED DEVELOP}.~NT PErmIT FOR <br /> CASTLEWOOD PROPERTIES, INC. CASE PUD (HPD) -80-12) <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City Council on July 14, 1981, adopted Ordinance 982 <br /> approving Case PUD(HPD)-80-12, a hillside residential <br /> project located on 48+ acres at the northwest corner of <br /> Foothill Road and Ber~al Avenue; and <br /> <br />~tEREAS, in adopting Ordinance 982, the City Council made numerous <br /> findings per the requirements of the Hillside Planned <br /> Development ordinance, among them that there are present <br /> on the site topographical features which justified a <br /> density bonus as allowed under the provisions of the <br /> Hillside Planned Development ordinance; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Mr. Lee Henderson, an interested party, has filed an <br /> action in Alameda Superior Court, Action No. H-77592-8, <br /> seeking to set aside the adoption of Ordinance 982, to <br /> enjoin the City from allowing any density bonus on the <br /> subject site, and to declare the density adjustment <br /> section of the Hillside Planned Development ordinance <br /> unconstitutional due to vagueness; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the City and applicant real party in interest, Castlewood <br /> Properties, Inc., have determined not to contest the action; <br /> and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a hearing on the action has been scheduled for September 1, <br /> 1981 at which time the City desires to have complied with <br /> the alternate writ provisions so that the action may be <br /> dismissed; and <br /> <br />~tEREAS, in order to have complied with the action prior to <br /> September 1, 1981, the ordinance repealing Ordinance 982 <br /> must be adopted as an urgency measure. <br /> <br />THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS <br />FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />Section 1: That the City Council finds that the necessity for <br /> complying with the time limit involved in the court <br /> action constitutes sufficient reason for adopting this <br /> ordinance as an urgency measure, necessary for the preserv- <br /> ation of public peace, health, or safety. <br /> <br />SeCtion 2: That Council repeals Ordinance 982 in its entirety, and <br /> that Case PUD(HPD)-80-12 is hereby declared denied without <br /> prejudice. <br /> <br /> <br />