My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
09 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
021709
>
09 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2009 1:21:44 PM
Creation date
2/12/2009 4:35:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/17/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
09 ATTACHMENTS
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
314
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 />Steve Otto <br />From: nancy alien <br />Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:17 PM <br />To: Steve Otto <br />Subject: Ponderosa meeting tomorrow night at Planning commission <br />Hello Steve, <br />Page 1 of 1 <br />I am concerned about the proposed Ponderosa development to add over 100 homes that is on the commission <br />agenda for tomorrow and request clarification on the following questions. <br />1) It appears from the map that 100% of the traffic from this addition is flowing to BuschNalley vs. being <br />evenly balanced between Mohr Ave. and BuschNalley. I had understood that the original Ponderosa <br />development was to be balanced and believe that any addition of 100+ homes should be balanced so no <br />one street takes the full hit. 1 strongly recommend that if this is built that a design be created such that <br />traffic is balanced between Mohr and Busch Valley consistent with the earlier development to minimize <br />impact on any one area. <br />2) In terms of the senior housing that was approved, this housing has a much lower age limit than the intent <br />of the original senior housing -why is 55 the age vs. 65 as I believe exists with the apartments? I can <br />see how the assumption of car traffic would be 50°h lower if age limit was 65, but at 55, most people are <br />still working especially since this is the oldest person in the family), and many still have teenagers/college <br />students in the home. Do you have back up data you can share about the traffic patterns of age 55 <br />specifically to substantiate a 50% reduction vs. an average residence. Does the study specifically apply <br />to age 55? <br />a. When the council approved this for senior housing or a school, what age was assumed? <br />b. I recommend if this project is approved that the same age limit of 65 be used to support what I <br />believe was the intent of this area. <br />3) What happens when one of these homes is resold and what provisions guarantee that the new buyers <br />will also be the specified senior age? Who oversees and audits this? <br />4) The city web site did not have the traffic report study referenced? Can this be made available? What is <br />the impact on StanleyNalley7 <br />5) What is the route that construction traffic will take? Given Santa Rita and Valley are not supposed to <br />have large trucks, I would like to see written stipulation with fines if not followed, and oversight to insure <br />construction traffic be required to take Stanley to Busch (and not be allowed to take Busch/Santa <br />RitaNalley. <br />Thank you for helping to clarify these items. <br />Nancy Allen <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.