My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-92-44
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC-92-44
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:54 AM
Creation date
4/20/2005 4:40:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/27/1992
DOCUMENT NO
PC-92-44
DOCUMENT NAME
GP-91-03/PUD-91-03
NOTES
MARSH/SMITH ASSOCIATES/CASTLEWOOD HEIGHTS
NOTES 3
29 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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 />. The social, economic and benefits to be derived from the <br />project, as discussed in the statement of Overriding <br />Considerations (Section 5, hereinafter), would not be <br />obtained. <br /> <br />site Redesiqn Alternative <br /> <br />This alternative would incorporate key site plan mitigations of the <br />EIR, while maintaining the applicant's basic objectives. The basic <br />development approach would be similar with this alternative, but <br />some key visual and other impacts would be reduced. This <br />alternative includes the following features: <br /> <br />. Number of residences: 85 units (or less) versus 99 as <br />currently proposed <br /> <br />. Private recreation area <br /> <br />. Use of "half-berm" noise barriers (berm-noise wall <br />combination) instead of free-standing noise walls <br /> <br />. Redesign of the project in the northwest, southwest and <br />east areas of development to minimize visual and noise <br />impacts. <br /> <br />The site Redesign Alternative plan is schematic only, and homesite <br />placement on the site plan is subject to detailed geotechnical <br />analysis and other considerations. A basic purpose for presenting <br />this alternative is to demonstrate the effect of applying <br />site-related mitigation measures to the project. <br /> <br />Page 11-3 of the Draft E1R indicates that traffic, visual, public <br />facilities and services, geology, soils and grading, and noise <br />impacts would be slightly to substantially reduced if the site <br />Redesign Alternative is implemented. <br /> <br />Finding: Feasi~le <br /> <br />The city finds that a modified plan of 85 units or less would be <br />environmentally superior to the project, as initially proposed, for <br />the following reasons: <br /> <br />. Mitigation measures recommended for the project also can <br />be equally and feasibly incorporated into this <br />alternative for development of the project site. In <br />addition, conditions of approval which otherwise would be <br />imposed on the project can be equally imposed on this <br />alternative for development of the project site. said <br />mitigation measures and conditions of approval have <br />sUbstantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate <br />all of the environmental effects of the alternative to a <br />level of insignificance. <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.