SR 06:127 - Laserfiche WebLink

. Concern regarding language in the report related to exploring modifications to improve traffic flow along arterials, including the Stoneridge Drive extension (page 29). Planning Commissioners reiterated their desire to remove the Stoneridge Drive extension from the General Plan. . A suggestion that the Economic Development Strategic Plan also include information about the economic development plans of surrounding jurisdictions. . A suggestion that language on page 17 should be amended as follows (additions in italics): "Encourage and facilitate the location of a UC Extension facility in Pleasanton." "Encourage and facilitate free or low-cost wireless broadband access throughout the City." . A suggestion that an incentive program be part of the "Shop Pleasanton" strategy discussed on p. 23, and the need for additional upscale business-oriented restaurants. . Concern about the reference to "fair share of regional market housing" on p. 25, because this number would change. . The need to define "workforce housing." The Planning Commission's review of the Economic and Fiscal Element included some editing, and several comments, including: . A concern that the City's policy for drawing from reserve funds was not codified more specifically. . A desire to define what size projects would be required to prepare fiscal analyses under Program 13.9. . A concern about including the phrase".. . except as otherwise determined by the City Council" in Program 14.4. Draft minutes of the Planning Commission discussion are included as Attachment 5. RECOMMENDATION Provide feedback on the proposed Economic and Fiscal Element of the General Plan; amendments will be incorporated into the Draft General Plan document. SR 06:127 Page 4 of5