2174 - Laserfiche WebLink

PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON - COUNTY OF ALAMEDA STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 2174 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR. CASE PUD-81-30, APPLICATION OF PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND CALLAHAN-PENTZ PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Prudential Insurance Company of America and Callahan- Pentz Properties have applied for Planned Unit Development (PUD - Industrial/Commercial and Offices) zoning and development plan approval of a 573 acre "business park" to include approximately 16 net acres of "garden" offices, 62 net acres of general offices, 51 net acres of "midrise" offices, 48 net acres of industrial warehousing, 282 net acres of research and development/light manufacturing, and 39 net acres of retail/commercial/financial development with the remaining approximately 75 acres to be used for street and flood channel right-of-way purposes, to be located on the east side of Hopyard Road between the Arroyo Mocho and a point approximately 1400 feet south of I-580 and extending east to the tracks of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned PUD/C-F (.Planned Unit Development/Commercial Freeway), Office, Industrial Park, Light Industrial, and General Industrial Districts; and WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing of May 19, 1982 the Planning Commission certified that they had read and recommended that the EIR prepared for the subject application is adequate and sufficient and considered all public testimony, exhibits and reports prepared for Case PUD-81-30 as described above; and WHEREAS, recommends that the project would have significant adverse impacts on the environment with regard to impacts pertaining to soils, hydrology, archaeology and other factors, however, conditions of approval of case PUD-81-30 as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of this case by reference, would reduce those impacts to an insignificant level; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds that permanent loss of prime and near prime agricultural land; increase in commuting which would more than offset any reduction in vehicle miles travelled and thus, affect air emissions and energy consumption; increased traffic congestion on surface streets and freeways; and increased noise levels especially as they impact upon residential uses adjacent to certain surface streets are not mitigatible if the project is approved or would remain significant despite inclusion of mitigation measures, but that there are overriding social