My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
2756
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
2756
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2008 10:35:29 AM
Creation date
7/16/2007 10:09:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/12/1986
DOCUMENT NO
2756
DOCUMENT NAME
GP-85-4
NOTES
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
NOTES 3
AMEND LAND USE, CIRCULATION,A ND GROWTH FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR BUSINESS PARK COMPLEX
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
Resolution No. 2756 <br />February 12, 1986 <br />Page 2 <br />f.l Finding. Adopting the Pleasanton Residential <br />Review Committee's recommendations for increased <br />housing opportunities in the City of Pleasanton <br />will lessen the impact. <br />f.2 Fact. The Pleasanton Residential Review Committee <br />has recommended that the holding capacity be <br />increased to 28,159 dwelling units, with a <br />population benchmark of 79,475 residents and 83,480 <br />jobs. The City's draft revised General Plan <br />incorporates much of the dwelling unit increase. <br />f.3 Finding. Land use authority on a regional level is <br />the jurisdiction of other public agencies and can <br />and should be addressed by such agencies. <br />f.4 Fact. Enabling statutes allow neighboring cities <br />and counties to establish zoning and growth <br />management procedures if required. <br />f.5 Fact. Other jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley <br />Area will need to conduct land use studies, zoning <br />ordinance revisions and general plan amendments to <br />respond to the demand for added housing and growth <br />management procedures within each jurisdiction, <br />even without Project approval. <br />f.6 Finding. Mitigation measures incorporated into the <br />Project will substantially lessen associated <br />impacts. <br />f.7 Fact. See Section III (Transportation and <br />Circulation); Section V (Noise Mitigation); Section <br />IV (Air Quality Mitigation) and Section VI (Public <br />Services Mitigation). <br />f.8 Finding. The No Project Alternative, the Mixed Use <br />Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative, <br />which could partially mitigate or delay the <br />significant effects, are infeasible. <br />f.9 Fact. See Section XII (infeasibility of <br />alternatives). <br />G. Significant Effect. Pressure for more detailed General <br />Plans/Specific Plans north of I-580. <br />g.l Finding. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR <br />are subject to the jurisdiction of other public <br />agencies and can and should be adopted by such <br />agencies. <br />g.2 Fact. The City of Dublin and the County of Alameda <br />should adopt plans providing for development of the <br />area in an orderly manner based on studies. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.