Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUT~B~ ~pF REGU _AR MEETING. <br />Dcfe ; November 21, 1973 <br />Time ;, 7 : 30 P . M. <br />Plagsj Pleasanton Justice Court <br />However, in the re-draft, staff de- <br />leted all reference to a specific <br />growth rate, feeling that it was <br />incidental at this point, pending <br />completion of an economic analysis, <br />short range development plans upon <br />which the City could realistically <br />base the growth rate. The Committee <br />took exception to staff's position. <br />On Page 18, again, they took exceptic <br />'to the manner in which staff talked <br />,about multiple units being the total <br />,answer, particularly Paragraph 2, <br />'Sentence 2. They wanted staff to <br />include the motion which was made <br />verbatim at the meeting when the <br />Housing Element was discussed. How- <br />ever, staff cannot see what their <br />objection is to that sentence. <br />The Public Hearing was opened. <br />Mr. Tom Andrews, on behalf of the <br />CAC, indicated: <br />1) There was reluctance on the part <br />of the members to have the element <br />as it is outlined equate multiples <br />jwith moderate and low income housing <br />since they felt that a more positive <br />statement should be made in the ele- <br />ment itself, stating that as other <br />avenues of obtaining funds for low <br />and moderate housing families become <br />available to purchase single family <br />dwellings through Federal legisla- <br />tion, that these funds be sought by <br />'~ the community for that purpose. <br />2) The committee objected to the <br />fact that no reference was made to <br />their recommendation of 500 growth <br />rate figure, in the element presente <br />that evening. <br />~~\ <br />\~~~~\ <br />.1111111 <br />-8- <br />