Laserfiche WebLink
96 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Tarver, <br /> approving initiation of the termination of the the agreement with <br /> EHI for property management services at Ridge View Commons. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Item 12d <br /> East Dublin Specific Plan and Draft EIR (IR92:72) <br /> <br /> No action was required or taken by the Council on this item. <br /> <br /> Item 12e <br /> Guidelines for City's Second Mortqage Loan Program (SR92:411) <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver discussed the preferences that were to be given in <br /> this program. He believed that the importance was that a person <br /> live and work in Pleasanton, whether it was the prior two years or <br /> less and urged that the requirements allow less than two years. <br /> Mr. Tarver requested an amendment to allow six points for "live and <br /> work in Pleasanton for at least the prior two years" and five <br /> points for "live and work in Pleasanton less than two years." <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner did not have a problem with that. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner was pleased about the addition of "has not <br /> previously been a sole owner", which now includes provisions for <br /> the newly divorced, single parent, situation. Ms. Scribner then <br /> questioned the restrictions for resale of the property. It appears <br /> the homeowner has the option to sell the property to any purchaser <br /> and the property would no longer be subject to the restrictions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian indicated that was correct. Under certain <br /> situations, if the City chose not to exercise its option to <br /> designate an eligible buyer or to purchase the property itself, it <br /> could allow the owner of the property to sell it. The only time <br /> that would take place is during a situation of drastic devaluation <br /> of the property. If the property were purchased for $176,000 and <br /> it is later worth only $90,000, the City would not have to take the <br /> loss. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta elaborated that the City would like to retain that <br /> option. In the short term, the City may feel it is still <br /> worthwhile to hold on to the units because they could not be <br /> reconstructed for that price. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated her concern was to not let these units <br /> go. Once a unit is established as affordable housing, it should <br /> <br /> 10/6/92 22 <br /> <br /> <br />