My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-92-48
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC-92-48
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:55 AM
Creation date
4/27/2005 3:19:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/27/1992
DOCUMENT NO
PC-92-48
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-92-4
NOTES
CHU/GAHRAHMAT
NOTES 3
90 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-92-48 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION MARING THE PUD FINDINGS FOR CASE PUD-92-4, THE <br />APPLICATION OF MIRIAM CHU AND MAX GABRAHMAT <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Miriam Chu and Max Gahrahmat have applied for development <br />plan approval for 90 small- and large-lot single-family <br />detached units on the approximately 17.5 acre Village One <br />site of the larger Chu/Gahrahmat property located at the <br />southerly side of the Arroyo Mocho northerly of the <br />intersection of Stoneridge Drive with stone Pointe Way; <br />and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) <br />- LDR and MDR (Low and Medium Density Residential) <br />District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed pUblic hearing of June 10, 1992, <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, the proposed project is covered by the stoneridge Drive <br />Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, therefore no <br />additional environmental document was prepared for this <br />project; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. The plan is in the best interests of the public <br />health, safety, and general welfare: <br /> <br />The Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan <br />Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has analyzed <br />in detail the potential hazards and effects of <br />construction on the subject property. <br />Mitigation measures proposed by the EIR to <br />reduce the impacts to an insignificant level <br />have been constructed by other projects, e.g., <br />extension of stoneridge Drive to the project <br />site, or will be constructed by this project, <br />e.g., the extension of stoneridge Drive across <br />the project's frontage and construction of the <br />soundwall along the Stoneridge Drive project <br />frontage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.