Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MtNUT~I~ ~C~F REGU`_AR MEETING. <br />Da18 ; November 21, 1973 <br />Time; 7:3o P.M. <br />Pt0a8~ Pleasanton Justice Court <br />preferred to investigate the possi- <br />bility of subsidized housing for the <br />lower income brackets and retain <br />single family stock, wherever possi- <br />ble. They went on record as stating <br />that nothing in the Housing Element <br />should be presented inferring that <br />multiples are the answer and should <br />be used as the only provision for <br />low and moderate income housing. <br />.,Referring to Table 1 on Page 5, <br />Mr. Harris stated that the CAC made <br />a motion that ,all future housing in <br />Pleasanton should correspond to that <br />income array. He feel they meant <br />that all new housing built in the <br />City should more or less correspond <br />to this table based on housing cos ti <br />no more than 2-2 times a family's <br />(gross annual income. In using the <br />.1969 figures, the City found that <br />130 of the people in 1969/1970 <br />census earned less than $8,000. In <br />that year, these people would have <br />qualified for assistance housing. <br />'One of the major amendments was in <br />.the implementing section where <br />,figures based on that array are <br />'shown. It indicates that when the <br />City reaches its maximum growth, <br />'.assuming 75,000 people and 23,000 <br />dwelling units, 13~ of those units <br />built from now on should provide <br />housing for low and moderate income <br />groups. This was in tune with the <br />.spirit and intent of the CAC. This <br />is an actual part of the implementa- <br />'tion program on Page 27, Paragraph <br />2 of the Housing Element. <br />Another major area of conflict <br />between the CAC and staff was <br />reference to a specific growth figure <br />The initial report referred to a 500- <br />800 annual growth rate. The CAC <br />recommended a figure of 500. <br />-7- <br />~~»»~ <br />