PC 08/08/77 - Laserfiche WebLink

He then explained the functions of the Residential Allocation Board. Its membership would be composed of two City Council members, two Planning Commissioners, one Human Services Commission member, one Park and Recreation Commission member and one member from the Housing Authority Board. The Committee-recommended program is that the decisions of the Residential Allocation Board not be appealable to City Council, but only through the courts. The necessity for a housing element of the GMP had been questioned. The recommendation is to weigh the three major categories as follows: 1) fiscal consideration - weighted a maximum of 40~ - 2) environmental consideration - weighted a maximum of 40o and 3) housing consideration - weighted a maximum of 20~. The lower percentage assigned to housing is because of the separate mandatory allocation for housing outside of the allocation that would be completed after by project developers. The proposal in the GMP also discusses a yearly allocation to be made in the fall of each year. This way, developers who have received approvals would be in a position to start construction the first part of spring. Another concern which has been expressed is that the GMP process would supercede the design review and Planning Commission functions. Mr. Harris agreed this would be true to a degree. So, to protect those functions, the Residential Allocation Board would be excluded from making any physical changes in design plans. One final major concern which Secretary Harris noted in his conversations with people is that portion of the fiscal element of the program which allows contributions to the Capital Improvement Program of the City. There have been questions as to why staff is recommending such a function. Staff feels that because of the design of the GMP favors projects in certain locations, other projects can compete only if the contribution section is included. Because of shortages of funds to complete many improvements in the City (which cannot be required under the Subdivision Ordinance), this is one method by which a developer can gain points which would put his development in a more favorable position. Secretary Harris emphasized that the program is untested, at least in the City of Pleasanton. The plan is designed to be flexible and would be implemented by three documents. The City would be monitoring the program through funds from a 701 planning grant which has already been obtained for this function. Next, Brian Swift made his presentation. Basically, the GMP calls for a yearly allocation set by the City Council for residential development. He detailed how the GMP proposes to meet the General Plan requirement established for lower income housing. He further detailed the functions of the Residential Allocation Board. The Board would be allowed a 15$ deviation either over or below the number of allocations set by City Council. In the actual selection process a development would need to meet certain mandatory criteria such as engineering conservation standards water cones servation standards, noise conservation standards, traffic congest~bn -2- _....__,.,,_...t,..r.... ,. .~.__ .._ .._....-....... .. ._... _. ..,~.. ...._... .. _. .... .. .... _. . _.......... .....