23 - Laserfiche WebLink

• This plan starts with 8 DU/AC. This is not at all consistent with the rest of Pleasanton. • The 30 DU/AC should not be centrally located. • This plan has far too much industrial space considering current inventory. • Almost every group who has looked at this project has requested the ()SC and TS be moved. Other: • I totally disagree with the Housing Commission's I' point about Alternative 2 being best because of its community centered site planning. I think this is the worst planning for all concerned living in the area. I suppose others in the community might like it since it's tucked in the middle so they aren't visually impacted by it. • I generally agree with the Planning Commission's overall assessment although I do not believe the high density housing should be centrally located. • Generally agree with comments of letters in that this neighborhood should feel like Pleasanton. Not starting with 8 DU/AC and going up from there. The majority of the land for housing should be single family, similar in nature to the rest of the community. • I agree with Scott Raty's comment (d) in reducing the plan's proportion of light industrial. If necessary, other locations in Pleasanton could serve this purpose. • I also agree that we should look for small lot detached homes for workforce housing, rather than jumping from 3 to 30. We could accommodate more of a mix. • I agree with Becky Dennis' assessment that higher density housing might be well placed near the outlets on the northern boundary. • I agree with Nancy Allen that more dense housing would be more appropriate near BART and transportation. In summary, I think we have made progress but I don't think any of these plans yet reflect the best efforts and desires of the task force. We need to come up with additional alternatives.