My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
2382
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
2382
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2009 12:38:23 PM
Creation date
7/31/2007 11:43:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/9/1983
DOCUMENT NO
2382
DOCUMENT NAME
GP-81-30
NOTES
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND CALLAHAN-PENTZ
NOTES 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OF A 573 ACRE PORJECT HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK
NOTES 3
PLEASANTON
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
EXAIBIT A <br />Significant Effects and Findings <br />For purposes of this Exhibit, the Hacienda Business Park <br />is referred to as the "Project" and the Amendment to the Growth <br />Management Element is referred to as the "Amendment". <br />I. Land Use and Planning. <br />A. Significant Effect. Potential regional surplus of <br />land committed to commercial/industrial development <br />resulting in delay in Project buildout or abandonment <br />of Project in partially built state. <br />a.l Finding. Phasing of Project development is <br />infeasible due to economic considerations. <br />a.2 Fact. Allowing Developer to develop and market <br />the Project as market conditions dictate will <br />minimize the likelihood of delay in Project <br />buildout o'r abandonment of the Project in a <br />partial].p built state. Different uses are <br />located' throughout the Project making phased <br />development impractical. <br />a.3 Fact. The Project is located at the inter- <br />section of I-580 and I-680, an area well suited <br />for large scale urban infill and more likely <br />than less favored locations to build-out as <br />scheduled. <br />a.4 Fact. The notion of phased project development <br />is inconsistent with City's requirement that the <br />public improvements related to the Project be <br />built in one phase. <br />a.5 Finding. The Residential Community Alternative, <br />Reduced Intensity of Development Alternative, No <br />Project Alternative or Mixed Use Alternative <br />could partially mitigate the potential signi- <br />ficant effect. However, each of these Alterna- <br />tives is infeasible. <br />a.6 Fact. See Section XII (for infeasibility of <br />these Alternatives.) <br />1. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.