23 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 2 EPSP LAND USE ALTERNATIVES COMBINED COMMISSION/COMMITTEE AND PUSD BOARD COMMENTS May 31, 2013 Between May 2 and May 28, 2013, the Pleasanton Housing Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Economic Vitality Committee, and Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Committee reviewed the four EPSP working land use alternatives (dated May 2013) and provided the following general comments: Housing Commission • Alternative 2 is generally favored because of its community centered site planning focus and housing mix. • Developer land dedication for affordable housing should be considered in-lieu of payment of City Affordable Housing Fees • Land owners should partner with non-profit housing developers to provide affordable housing. • The City should consider the use of its Affordable Housing Fees to assist in developing affordable housing within the EPSP area. • Relocate the OSC and Transfer Station, if feasible. • Potential housing near the UPRR tracks should be adequately buffered from train noise and vibration. • Office and industrial acreage should be minimized and developed with housing where possible. • School sites should not be located east of El Charo Road due to traffic safety issues. Parks and Recreation Commission • The proposed sizes and locations of the public parks and the private north/south open space spine are good. • The community park site is appropriate for primarily leisure recreational use and the Lake I park site for active use. • Some appropriate uses for the community park include trails, boardwalk and observation tower. • Some appropriate uses for the Lake I park site include a 3-4 acre dog park, tennis courts and swimming pool. • Lighted synthetic ball fields are not necessary within the Plan Area. • An interconnected system of trails is of high importance. Trails should extend around all three lakes and through the private north/south open space spine. • Relocate the OSC and Transfer Station, if feasible. The public should not be responsible for any relocation costs. • The potential public school should be combined with a public park for shared use.