My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 2005-43
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
PC 2005-43
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2007 4:34:40 PM
Creation date
3/6/2006 1:36:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/24/2005
DOCUMENT NO
PC 2005-43
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-81-30-64D-3M
NOTES
ROCHE MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
NOTES 3
CONSTRUCT 3-STORY RESEARCH BLDG
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
PLANNiN C3 COMMISSION C7I"TY OP PLEASANTON <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-2005-43 <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF <br />ROCJHE MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS FOR PUD DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, <br />AS FILED UNDER CASE PUD-81 30-64D-3M <br />WHEREAS, Roche Molecular Diagnostic bas applied for PUD design review approval to <br />construct a tfiree-story, 138,172-square-foot research building with an additional <br />surface parking of 364 spaces at the existing 33-acre campus located at <br />4300 Hacienda Urivc (Lot 6 of Hacienda Business Park; and <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is YUD-I/C'.-O Planned L7nit Development -Industrial/ <br />Commercial-Offices District; and <br />WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing of August 24, 2005, the Planning Commission <br />considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of the <br />City staff concerning this application; and <br />WHEREAS, an environmental review for the proposed project was undertaken with the <br />Environmental Impact Report <E1R) for the Hacienda Business Park, certified by <br />the City Council on June 8, 1 982, in conformance with the standards of the <br />California F_nvironmental Quality Act (CEQA~; and no subsequent, supplemental, <br />or addendum to the EIR is necessary because there are no substantial changes to <br />the project or the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that <br />involve new significant environmental effects or that substantially increase the <br />severity of previously identified effects; furthcrniore, there is no new information <br />of substantial importance which was unknown at the time the IFTR was certified <br />regarding the project or its effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives; and any <br />previously id enti tied effects or impacts arc ir~i tigated to a level of insignificance, <br />with tfic mitigation nieas~res incorporated into the prof eel's design or unposed <br />pursuant to the conditions of approval; and <br />WHF-.REAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed development conforms to <br />the zoning land use designation for the subject site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.