My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:127
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:127
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2006 12:40:42 PM
Creation date
5/18/2006 12:15:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/23/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:127
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />. Concern regarding language in the report related to exploring modifications to improve <br />traffic flow along arterials, including the Stoneridge Drive extension (page 29). Planning <br />Commissioners reiterated their desire to remove the Stoneridge Drive extension from the <br />General Plan. <br /> <br />. A suggestion that the Economic Development Strategic Plan also include information <br />about the economic development plans of surrounding jurisdictions. <br /> <br />. A suggestion that language on page 17 should be amended as follows (additions in italics): <br /> <br />"Encourage and facilitate the location of a UC Extension facility in Pleasanton." <br /> <br />"Encourage and facilitate free or low-cost wireless broadband access throughout the City." <br /> <br />. A suggestion that an incentive program be part of the "Shop Pleasanton" strategy discussed <br />on p. 23, and the need for additional upscale business-oriented restaurants. <br /> <br />. Concern about the reference to "fair share of regional market housing" on p. 25, because <br />this number would change. <br /> <br />. The need to define "workforce housing." <br /> <br />The Planning Commission's review of the Economic and Fiscal Element included some editing, <br />and several comments, including: <br /> <br />. A concern that the City's policy for drawing from reserve funds was not codified more <br />specifically. <br /> <br />. A desire to define what size projects would be required to prepare fiscal analyses under <br />Program 13.9. <br /> <br />. A concern about including the phrase".. . except as otherwise determined by the City <br />Council" in Program 14.4. <br /> <br />Draft minutes of the Planning Commission discussion are included as Attachment 5. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />Provide feedback on the proposed Economic and Fiscal Element of the General Plan; amendments <br />will be incorporated into the Draft General Plan document. <br /> <br />SR 06:127 <br />Page 4 of5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.