My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN011105
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN011105
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:40 AM
Creation date
1/5/2005 10:47:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/11/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN011105
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
in response to an inquiry from Ms. Fox, Mr. Swift clarified it was important for the <br />public to comment at all the planned meetings and at the end of each meeting, they can <br />ask questions or talk about the information presented at that meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman envisioned this and the next workshop as information gathering <br />and after that the usual format for public comment would be followed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Arkin asked if the goal of these meetings was to create an internally <br />consistent General Plan? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that was correct. <br /> <br /> Mr. Arkin indicated he had questions and concerns about the traffic model and <br />how projections are made, as well as their accuracy. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift began to present the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Roberts asked what commemial occupancy rate was used in the build out <br />projections? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift responded it was 93%, which included the South Bay development, as <br />well as any property estimated to be built under the General Plan, with the exception of <br />those covered by a Specific Plan, such as the Staples Ranch. <br /> <br /> She indicated there was confusion about the number of residential units left to <br />develop. Mr. Iserson said there were 1700 units left and the staff report says there are <br />2611. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that a traffic model considers various land units together. <br />There are a number of locations in the city where assisted living facilities are planned. <br />The traffic model considers assisted living and independent senior living facilities, as one <br />category in the model so there is the same trip rate. He further explained how housing <br />units are calculated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iserson commented that he believed Ms. Belding was referring to the 29,000 <br />units in the housing cap, whereas the numbers in the staff report refer to the number of <br />units reached in the General Plan build out. That would be less than the housing cap. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked if the 27,300 units figure was pursuant to the General Plan <br />build out? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it would be 27,315 units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Arkin asked if Table I build out assumptions included the extension of West <br />Las Positas and Stoneridge? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it included everything in the General Plan Circulation Element, <br />including West Las Positas and Stoneridge. <br /> <br /> Ms. Roberts thought the 2003 model had taken out West Las Positas. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.