My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-97-35/36
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
PC-97-35/36
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:06 AM
Creation date
11/17/2004 5:05:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/23/1997
DOCUMENT NO
PC-97-35/36
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-97-02
NOTES
STEPHEN CHAMBERLIN/FED EXPRESS
NOTES 3
WAREHOUSE OFFICE BLDG ND
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-35 and PC-97-36 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE <br />APPLICATION OF STEPHEN CHAMBERLIN ASSOCIATESIFEDERAL EXPRESS, <br />AS FILED UNDER CASE PUD-97-02 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Stephen Chamberlin AssociateslFederal Express have applied for Planned Unit <br />Development development plan approval to construct a one-story, approximately <br />90,163 square foot, warehouse/office building and an approximately 3,449 square <br />foot vehicle maintenance building to be utilized for Federal Express' mail sorting <br />and distribution operations on an approximately 5.58 acre parcel generally located <br />at the northeast corner ofI-680 and Stoneridge Drive; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - G&LI (General and <br />Light Industrial) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 23, 1997, the Planning Commission received a proposed <br />negative declaration prepared for Case PUD-97-02; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received and reviewed the Initial Study dated <br />February 6, 1997, and received the recommendations of staff; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held at which time the public was given the <br />opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the potential impacts in accordance with <br />the applicable state and local guidelines governing the preparation of Negative <br />Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that approval of the proposed project would not <br />have any significant adverse effects on the environment; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds that the proposed project will have no <br />potential for adverse impacts on the site's wildlife. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.