Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-95-55 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6779, THE <br />APPLICATION OF RUBY HILL JOINT VENTURE, INC. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Ruby Hill Joint Venture, Inc. has applied for a vesting <br />tentative map to subdivide an approximately 227-acre site <br />into 147 lots of approximately 20,000 square feet each <br />and open space in accordance with the previously-approved <br />PUD modification for Phase II of Ruby Hill and for a two- <br />lot subdivision of Parcel D of Tract 6556 located on <br />Vineyard Avenue, bounded generally by Vineyard Avenue on <br />the north, Vallecitos Road on the south and southeast, <br />and the City of Livermore on the east; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) <br />- MDR (Medium Density Residential) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed public hearing of August 9, 1995, <br />the Planning Commission considered all public testimony, <br />relevant exhibits and recommendations of the City staff <br />concerning this application; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the <br />Ruby Hill development plan with the County of Alameda <br />acting as Lead Agency; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning commission made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. The proposed map is consistent with the General <br />Plan. <br /> <br />The proposed subdivision, with an overall density <br />of 0.77 units per acre is consistent with the <br />General Plan land use designations of the site <br />which are Agriculture, Open Space, and Low Density <br />Residential. The proposed map generally is <br />consistent with the approved development plan for <br />the site. Although changes in the grading, lot <br />pattern, and circulation pattern have been made <br />such that the proposed tentative map is not <br />entirely consistent with the approved development <br />plan, the number of lots have not increased and the <br />changes are an improvement over the original plan. <br /> <br />Because the project originally was proposed and <br />approved under the auspices of the County of <br />Alameda, it is difficult to ascertain whether the <br />map is in total conformance with all of the City's <br />General plan policies and programs. It is safe to <br />