PC 08/08/77 - Laserfiche WebLink

standards, housing standards under the housing system. The criteria for housing standards would be a combination of the Federal Government's Section 8 program with the GMP, by requiring multiple complexes greater than 10 units to devote l00 of their units to lower income housing. This would mean that 25~ of the household income would be devoted to the rent cost with the Federal Government paying the balance. No single development would be allowed more than 80 multiple units. This would allow more than one developer to build in any given year. Mr. Swift then gave an explanation of the incentive point system. At least 83 of the total of 100 points are fixed incentive points, so that basically, there is no "guesswork." A developer would know ahead of time if he would qualify. The planning staff worked with the Engineering Division to come up with certain areas which would be highly beneficial to the City for Capital Improvement Program developments. The GMP would favor development in areas which would be beneficial to the City by simply developing. These would be in areas where no cost would occur to the City. It was pointed out that some gaining of incentive points by adding extra costly features, could be ameliorated by being passed on to the future homeowner. Mr. Swift then described the Housing Element and the contribution plan to subsidized housing. It is possible that monies generated from the fund would be used to purchase land in favorable locations and then resold to an agency to build low cost subsidized housing. Chairman Butler announced that the meeting that evening was scheduled pri- marily to receive citizen input. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. George Oakes, Amador Valley Investors, spoke. He gave background of his association with the City of Pleasanton. He described his organization's willingness to come to an amicable settlement of the $50,000,000 lawsuit in 1972 due to the City's inability to provide sewer capacity for accepted tracts. Mr. Oakes expressed serious concerns with the Growth Management Program as proposed. He felt it is important that free enterprise be allowed to con- tinue. Commissioner Doherty pointed out that the Growth Management Committee con- sisted of one representative from the building industry, who purportedly gave his sanction of the program now being reviewed. Mr. Oakes replied that he was not aware of who the individual is, nor was he aware that such a representative served on the committee. Next, Mr. Oakes's attorney, Peter Davis, spoke. He stated that it appeared the City was entering into a program which would not allow the City to live up to the sewage agreement signed in 1972. He felt this to be unfair. Dagmar Fulton, resident, then asked if citizen input would be taken on other occasions. Chairman Butler stated that thi hearing would not be. the only occasion for ciitzen input,. but that .the primary purpose. of tPLe -3- ._......_..._...,.~..~......._ _ , .~ ._.. . a............. ... _._ ..__ Y