Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 3 <br /> <br />Steve Otto <br />From: nancy alien ' <br />Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:19 AM <br />To: Steve Otto <br />Subject: RE: Ponderosa meeting tomorrow night at Planning commission <br />Hi Steve, <br />Thank you for your feedback from Mike Tassano on the traffic question. When I read the detail Mike referenced <br />in the ITE handbook, I saw that the handbook said the data for traffic will vary significantly depending on age and <br />activity status of the occupants, which I still do not understand and am wondering if Pam and team have more <br />detail on expected status of proposed community (vs. the actual profile of existing owners in their highest end <br />area near Mohr avenue which I thought was close to 50 also. <br />Did you have feedback on the other questions in a-mail? <br />1) What happens if property is resold (relative to the age limit?) Is this as legal condition that it be resold to <br />someone over 55? <br />a. What is size of garage? <br />2) Why is 100% of traffic flowing to BuschNalley and not split with Mohr - as was request for base <br />community when designed? <br />3) Why is age limit not 65 as was plan with other area and I would have thought the spirit of senior housing <br />concept? <br />4) What is the average age of the oldest household member of the existing Ponderosa highest end homes <br />at the development (the section near Mohr)? My reason for asking is to understand exactly what the <br />difference will be with the new area and to see what the difference, if any is. Knowing pricing is ~$1 M, 1 <br />would think the existing highest end homes in the development have owners who average around 50 <br />already (new question). <br />Thank you Steve. If you cannot answer these and I might need to forward to someone else, please let me know. <br />Thank you. <br />Nancy <br />From: Steve Otto [mailto:SOtto@ci.pleasanton.ca.us] <br />Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:23 PM <br />To: nancy alien <br />Subject: RE: Ponderosa meeting tomorrow night at Planning commission <br />Nancy, <br />Here is the response from the City Traffic Engineer, <br />The ]and use we used for the project is "Senior Adult Housing -Detached". There are 5 land <br />uses available for our use in the trip generation manual -Senior Adult FIousing (Detached), <br />Senior Adult Housing (Attached), Congregate Care Facility, Assisted Living, and Continuing <br />Care Retirement Conununity (CCRC). Of these tive the senior adult housing (detached) <br />description most closely matched the projected land use for the Ironwood Development. Here is <br />a brief description of the land use (abridged): <br />