PC 042314 - Laserfiche WebLink

deficit in the above - moderate - income level, which is the type of housing density they are looking at with about four to six units to the acre. He added that the Dublin Canyon Road section of this property is absolutely flat and can be categorized as infill, and that they have water and sewer adjacent to the property. He stated that they are looking forward to working with staff and the elected officials and Commission members in developing a plan that they can all be very proud of. Jocelyn Combs, Citizens for a Caring Community (CCC), agreed that Pleasanton is the City of Planned Progress. She stated that back in the 1980's, the City was talking about having a jobs /housing balance. She indicated that she has not seen the numbers for that but believes that the City is not in balance there. She pointed out that the staff report and CCC's letter says that the in- commute to Pleasanton is 76 percent, and the citizens who live and work in Pleasanton is 15 percent. She stated that she alluded earlier to problems she faced when she moved to Pleasanton 30 years ago regarding a worsening of the air quality, which she sees happening again. She noted that she is also probably not alone in wanting to leave Pleasanton on a Friday afternoon to go to the Sierras and trying to figure out what time she would have to leave in order not to be bumper -to- bumper all the way there; or if she wanted to commute into San Francisco or Oakland by car and not by BART, what time in the morning she would have to leave so as not to be in bumper -to- bumper traffic. She pointed out that 1 -580 will have six lanes in each direction, and the City does have some control over that. She noted that the Workday development heard earlier estimates that at one employee for every 300 square feet, there will be 1,400 new employees commuting in and out of Pleasanton, and only three percent will be take BART. She indicated that the City is not absorbing the number of people it could who work in the City. She added that the City can go higher than the RHNA numbers and do a better job of balancing the input and outflow in the City, which is not a static thing and will increase in the future. Ms. Combs pointed out that she tried to get a secondary unit on her property, and the fees alone were $80,000, which is what it would cost her to actually build the unit. She added that on -site parking would completely obliterate her front yard. She indicated that anecdotally, her neighbor's son works at the Livermore Outlets, and he said he was the only one there who lived in Pleasanton; everyone else came from the Central Valley. She noted that this is the City's workforce development, along with people who work at Stoneridge Mall, who are commuting for the most part from Central Valley. She added that this workforce development is now her children, but it used to be her when she worked and lived at an apartment, which she was really glad were there for her. Alicia Starron, Pleasanton residents for 19 years, stated that there have been two attempts to develop the Merritt site, which the neighborhood has mostly supported as the owners have a right to develop the property. She indicated that they had negotiated in good faith with the developers for both of those attempts: the first attempt ended in a referendum, and the second a few years later did not go forward because of the economic situation. She further indicated that they had reached agreements for the most part on certain concessions that worked with the existing communities, noting that the proposal was for above - moderate housing at two units per acre for a total of about PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2014 Page 17 of 27