PC 08/08/77 - Laserfiche WebLink

meeting was to receive c ;:izen input. Mrs. Fulton I ~ not agree with the social aspects of the proposed program. She did not agree that Agricul- turally zoned lands could that easily be placed under the Williamson Act, since the County would need to make that decision. Also the taxing aspect of land which cannot be used for development is a serious problem for many landowners. Additionally, she felt that the subsidized housing pro- posal would be a problem. Mr. Swift clarified how the requirements of the Williamson Act would be administered within the City, followed by further explanation from City Attorney Ken Scheidig. Mr. Jack Bras, local architect, then spoke. He felt himself to be in the same sort of position as Mr. Oakes, only to a lesser degree. He stated that if the Growth Management requirements would go into effect soon, he would definitely request exemptions for two recently approved residential developments. Next, Chris Beratlis, 425 Main Street, Pleasanton, spoke. He was not totally opposed to the GMP. He felt there were pros and cons to the pro- posal. He worried that the stifling of residential growth would carry over to the hoped for growth in commercial and industrial development. He was of the opinion that the GMP would have some very far reaching adverse effects. He reserved the right to speak again at another time. Commissioner Jamieson asked Mr. Davis whether his clients would sue the City should the GMP be adopted. Mr. Davis deferred a reply to Mr. Oakes, who stated that unquestionably, he would reopen the lawsuit if the con- ditions of the 1972 agreement were not adhered to. Mr. Davis stated that his position is not so much that the Growth Manage- ment Program is good or bad, but that it should not be applied to prior commitments made between developers and the City. If the program were to apply to all developments not falling under those prior commitments, then he felt that would be a different matter. Discussion then ensued as to an appropriate date for the next meeting. Secretary Harris stated that certain documents would need to be prepared should the Commission feel a decision could be made at the next meeting. Chairman Butler stated that the Commission plans to have the majority of testimony completed at the next hearing. He felt notice of the hearing should be advertised in the papers. Secretary Harris advised that the staff would advertise the date when the ordinance would be discussed. After some further discussion as to the best method to handle the matter, the Commissioners established the next hearing for the evening of September 7, at the Council Chambers. A motion was entered and adopted continuing the hearing to that date. Roll Call Vote Motion: Wood Seconded: Shepherd Ayes: Doherty, Jamieson, Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Shepherd, Wood, and Chairman Butler -4 - ...___..._..._.___..___..a_ _ ,.