My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-3-15CPAC Summary
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
2023 Comprehensive Plan
>
Archive (2015 Incomplete Update)
>
Comprehensive Plan Update - 2015 to present
>
Advisory Committee-Discussion Summaries
>
2015
>
12-3-15CPAC Summary
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/28/2017 12:26:09 PM
Creation date
11/28/2017 12:26:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />CPAC Group Review Comments <br />Session # 2 <br />December 3, 2015 <br />Chapter 2 – Community Profile (see notes from 11/16/15 also –Page 3-4) <br /> <br />Ensure graphs/charts follow or better relate to narrative <br />Include a section regarding public safety and crime; breakdown by geographic area <br />Provide a greater level of data for demographic and market profile – additional <br />breakdown by geographic area. A more effective means of communicating data is to <br />break down demographic information by maps, geographies –disparity exists in the <br />community and needs to be better depicted vs aggregate data; recommendations will <br />differ based on geography <br />P 4 <br />Include “inner-ring” near “first” <br />o <br />rd <br /> largest community in the County by <br />Explain relevance of being the 3 <br />o <br />population; why/how are we at an advantage/disadvantage for being in this <br />position; provide additional context, consider the environment within which we <br />are locatedand make comparisons to appropriate municipalities <br />Should we continue to be a bedroom community? <br />o <br />Be proactive in our evaluation of municipal competition for business and <br />o <br />residents; determine how we could improve <br />P.5 <br />ensure Historical Society of U City reviews the community history <br />o <br />Include historical information on Olive Boulevard, Sutter-Meyer house, etc. <br />o <br />De-emphasize/un-glorify private residential street development <br />o <br />Include representation of all of U City in the Community History; be more <br />o <br />balanced to include variety of housing stock (materials, etc) <br />P. 9 <br />Indicate that though the community is diverse, it is not integrated <br />o <br />Visual depict the demographic information by map <br />o <br />Poverty information by map; context regarding concentration of poverty – i.e. <br />o <br />transient student population <br /> <br />P.11 <br />Create a map of housing vacancies <br />o <br />P. 12 <br />Is there readily available data regarding U City retail gap analysis? <br />o <br />Mention point of sale vs pool status <br />o <br />Discuss commercial vacancy rates; rental rates <br />o <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.