Laserfiche WebLink
OW; <br />n <br />16. Need a better explanation of Table 4; it is very confusing to <br />persons not directly involved in rating of issues. Last <br />column with heading "1st" is especially vague. <br />17. On page 3-8, Objectives; still unclear that the following <br />goals have been previously adopted and are part of the <br />current comp plan. Perhaps stating "the following goals were <br />reaffirmed by the Planning Commission and Council during this <br />update srocess..." may be helpful. <br />18. Page 3-1; Reference to community survey should credit name of <br />firm which carried out survey. <br />19. Page 3-3; Under Liabilities, perhaps should. tone down <br />nagativeness of using term NIMBY. <br />20. Page 3-3; Confused about wording in Liability which states <br />"fear of change in policies and the physical City by its <br />occupants". <br />21. Page 3-4; Do not understand example listed in center page. <br />Perhaps need to expand on that paragraph to gee across <br />concepts. <br />22. Page 3-11; Clarification that a negative support factor means <br />disagreement, strong or otherwise. <br />23. Page 3-11; Clarify that a low agreement factor means support <br />for disagreement of statement. <br />24. Is it possible to screen addresses off of base maps to allow <br />for greater clarity. <br />25. Disagree with policy issues found on page 3-14 regarding <br />residential development along Highway 10. Believe that <br />Highway 10 should be t:anaformed to commercial uses over <br />time. <br />26. Disagree with policy for retention and protection of <br />single family development along Highway 10, therefore, <br />encouraging residential development on Highway 10. Feels <br />traffic and noise makes residential development along Highway <br />10 undesirable. <br />27. Page 4-2; disagree with example of combining park and wetland <br />resources. Feels discussion of connecting wetland on <br />Groveland Road and Groveland Park bV removing the street is <br />misleading, and feels residents may come to believe the City <br />is going to do this. This suggestion has not been reviewed <br />from a traffic standpoint and may not be feasible to <br />accomplish. It does not desagree with policy of utilizing <br />wetlands and open space, she is just concerned about example <br />used. <br />