My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-88- 26
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
PC-88- 26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2008 10:35:20 AM
Creation date
3/26/2008 12:21:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/9/1988
DOCUMENT NO
PC-88- 26
DOCUMENT NAME
SP-87-1
NOTES
TMI ANALYSTS, INC
NOTES 2
REQUIRED FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY CEQA FOR TMI SPECIFIC PLAN
NOTES 3
NW CRNR OF INTERSECTION I-680 AND BERNAL AVE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
vegetation, wildlife habitat, views, and air quality would be <br />substantially similar to the impacts of the Project and <br />subsequent development of the Project site. This alternative <br />would eaacerbate short term overcrowding in City schools, <br />depending on the timing of development of new schools, as <br />stated at page 74 of the DEIR. <br />2. Findings. The City Council finds that the <br />---- <br />uni~ alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the <br />Project, and rejects this alternative, for the following <br />reasons: <br />a. Mitigation measures incorporated into <br />the Project, or conditions of approval which will be imposed <br />upon specific approvals for development of the Project site, <br />have substantially mitigated or will substantially mitigate, <br />all of the environmental effects of the Project, ezcluding only <br />visual and archeological impacts, thereby diminishing or <br />obviating the perceived mitigating benefits of adopting this <br />project alternative; <br />b. Although this alternative offers the <br />possibility of obtaining some additional developer fees, this <br />alternative would increase the impacts of the Project relating <br />to traffic and noise; <br />c. This alternative would require adoption <br />of a general plan amendment, as the medium density residential <br />development otherwise would be in conflict with certain aspects <br />of the City's current general plan; and <br />51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.