PC 042314 - Laserfiche WebLink

residents can live here as well. He noted that this is his goal in doing this as smart planning, as the City of Planned Progress. Chair Olson stated that Ms. Dennis' letter pointed out the big mismatch between employees commuting in from outside the area versus residents who live here and work here, and the mismatch gets greater overtime from 1990 through 2010. Looking back to the acquisition of PeopleSoft by Oracle and the extension of BART out to Pleasanton, both of which happened during this period of time, he wondered if the City had the ability to determine how many of these workers were coming in via mass transit, as he did not think 75 percent were driving automobiles. He indicated that he used to ride the ACE train to San Jose, and every morning, the train was full of people who got off in Pleasanton, coming in from the Stockton area to work in Pleasanton. He pointed out that the statistics may not be as alarming as they appear. Chair Olson stated that what he hears tonight are cross currents. He indicated that there certainly are properties on this list that are more controversial than others as the turnout of people in the audience indicates. He stated that Pleasanton has a need for housing, and looking at the housing numbers, some may say that they do not want the City to go over 29,000 housing units. He emphasized that Pleasanton has no housing cap, and trying to live within the spirit of the housing cap runs the risk of being sued again. He pointed out that this desire to limit housing in the City needs to be balanced against the need for low- income housing. He referred to the Kottinger Gardens project the Commission just recommended for approval, where the applicant indicated there is a long waiting list of seniors wanting to live in the existing facilities and the additional 95 units to the new facility will not still be able to accommodate them all. He reiterated that both low- income and senior housing represent a need which runs counter to the desire to limit housing in this town, and finding a happy medium means that the City needs to continue planning and developing alternatives. He added that there is also the need for schools, which would lead some to say that the City should not do any more housing. He stated that these three elements are at cross - currents and need to be balanced with one another; it cannot be all just one way. He stated that based on this big picture view, he thinks that many of these sites should stay on the list, and the City should continue to try to work through this and make sure the City has alternatives available. He then asked staff if they had any specific questions on this for the Commission. Ms. Stern stated that it sounds like the Commission wants the City to continue with the sites, so staff will provide additional information for the next go around. Commissioner Allen stated that with respect to the rezoning of the sites, she could argue for two or three of the sites that on their own look good. She noted, however, that she does not think this is the right time in this Housing Element to rezone more properties. She added that she thinks the City needs to focus on helping support the needs Chair Olson mentioned by encouraging people to build the 3,000 units on the sites that have already been rezoned so the City can get more senior housing and more low- income housing. She added that there is also the East Pleasanton Specific Plan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2014 Page 22 of 27