Laserfiche WebLink
477 <br /> <br />one of these mechanisms was a Redevelopment Plan, which failed at <br />the June ballot. However, the capital improvement problems <br />remained. It was then that the Revitalization Committee was set <br />up, with the task of prioritizing the capital improvements and <br />looking into other funding alternatives. <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />Item 6a <br />RZ-89-10, Application of the City of Pleasanton to prezone an <br />approximately 351 acre site located southwest of Castlewood <br />Country Club and generally west of Foothill Road to the PUD <br />(Planned Unit Development) - Low Density/Rural Density <br />Residential, "A" (Agricultural) District and "P" (Public and <br />Institutional) Districts, or to any other zoning districts <br />consistent with the General Plan <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:459) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> Ms. Margaret Tracy, a member of the Preserve Area Ridgelands <br />Committee Board of Directors, indicated that she was opposed to <br />the adoption of a Negative Declaration. She stated that the 91 <br />acres west of Foothill Road is located in an area of serious <br />geological instability of known landslides and possible earthquake <br />faults. She requested Council to reconsider the environmental <br />impact as well as the present zoning of the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. William Monsen, representing Currin Construction Company, <br />stated that his company concurs in the rezoning and requests <br />approval. <br /> <br /> Ms. Phyllis Couper, 6525 Alisal Street, stated that Council <br />should seriously consider both an Environmental Impact Report <br />(EIR) and the zoning for the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer explained that Council would like to have the <br />property developed under the City rather than under the County. <br />He added that the County has approved a plan for the property, and <br />the property owner is prepared to develop at a higher density than <br />the City would allow under the General Plan. The property owner <br />has agreed to come into the City with a lower number of units if <br />the City provides the development with sewage and other services, <br />which the City is ready to do. The units would then be built <br />according to City standards, which are more restrictive than the <br />County standards. Additionally, putting it under PUD zoning <br />allows the City more flexibility and controls over the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Stanley Rathbone inquired who would service the property <br />with the utilities and police and fire protection it would need. <br /> <br /> -5- <br /> 11-7-89 <br /> <br /> <br />