Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />