My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-2003-29
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
PC-2003-29
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2007 9:32:37 AM
Creation date
3/23/2004 3:42:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/9/2003
DOCUMENT NO
PC-2003-29
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-17
NOTES
CURRIN
NOTES 3
SUBDIVIDE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-2003-29 <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF <br />WILLIAM AND BETTY CURRIN FOR PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, <br />AS FILED UNDER CASE PUD-17 <br />WHEREAS, William and Betty Cunin have applied for PUD development plan approval to <br />subdivide an approximately 2.22-acre parcel into three single-family residential <br />lots located at 8272 Sassafras Court; and <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - RDR/LDR (Rural <br />Density Residential/Low Density Residential) District; and <br />WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing of July 9, 2003, the Planning Commission <br />considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of the <br />City staff concerning this application; and <br />WHEREAS, a supplemental environmental impact report was prepared and certified for Oak <br />Tree Farm -Phase III which addressed the proposed development plan for the <br />subdivision of the subject parcel; and <br />WHEREAS, there are no substantial changes to the project or to the circumstances under which <br />the project is undertaken that involve new significant environmental effects or <br />substantially increase the severity of previously identified effects, and there is no <br />new information of substantial importance not known at the time the <br />supplemental EIR was certified regarding the project or its effects, mitigation <br />measures, or alternatives; therefore, no additional environmental documentation <br />was prepared for this application; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: <br />1. The plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general <br />welfare. <br />The proposed project, as conditioned, would be consistent with all applicable City <br />standards concerning public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed <br />development is designed to be compatible with the adjacent land uses and <br />complies with the General Plan and all other relevant policies and programs. <br />Adequate geotechnical mitigation measures have been identified to ensure the <br />safety of future lot owners. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.