My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 89-009
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
PC 89-009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2013 2:43:30 PM
Creation date
12/18/2006 9:16:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/8/1989
DOCUMENT NO
PC 89-09
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-87-19
NOTES
Dr. and Mrs. William Yee
NOTES 3
west side of Foothill Rd directly across from Foothill High School from the "A" District to the PUD
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
CEQA FINDINGS <br />~RaFr <br />Environmental impact effects and potential mitigation <br />measures are summarized in the Final EIR (pp. 2-1 through 2-9 <br />of the Draft EIR) and are paraphrased herein. The project <br />has been extensively revised relative to the proposal <br />evaluated in the EIR; references to the revised plan refer to <br />the development plan dated January 1989 and to the conditions <br />of approval applied to the project. <br />POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS/ZiITIGATIONS <br />1. Land Use and Plannin <br />1.A. Significant Effect: Substantial alteration of existing <br />.land use and loss of rural fringe. <br />l.a.l. Finding: The revised plan substantially <br />lessens this effect. <br />Fact: The revised plan eliminates development <br />in woodland areas and retains open space <br />along Foothill Road. <br />Fact: Reduced density in revised plan makes <br />lot sizes/open space consistent with <br />other similarly designated areas. <br />1.a.2. Finding: The "No Project" alternative is <br />infeasible. <br />Fact: Retention as open space is inconsistent <br />with General Plan residential <br />designations. <br />Fact: Any other project consistent with <br />General Plan designations would have <br />similar effects. <br />1.8. Significant Effect: Inconsistency with "open space" <br />and allowable density General Plan provisions. <br />l.b.l. Finding: The revised plan eliminates these <br />inconsistencies. <br />Fact: No development and/or lot lies above 670 <br />ft. elevation. <br />Fact: At 23 units, the revised plan is well <br />below maximum General Plan density. <br />-1- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.