Laserfiche WebLink
46 <br /> <br /> they meet the parameters that have been established, like traffic <br /> levels. He concluded that he did not concur with many of the <br /> recommendations of the Citizens' Committee for Affordable Housing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that people who have established residence in <br /> Pleasanton should be given priority. She added that it was her <br /> understanding that the City wanted to generate funds to put a <br /> housing package together and that going in multiple directions <br /> could defeat that purpose. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee commented that he believed the intent of the Task <br /> Force was to go in multiple directions and try different avenues to <br /> see which would work. He stated that the affordable housing fee <br /> would not be solved solely through fees and that incentives for <br /> private markets to include units in their project is also <br /> necessary. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes recommended that the parameters include the <br /> possibility of having moderate-income units in addition to low- <br /> income housing to give future councils the option to build <br /> moderate-income units should there be an opportunity to do so. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that the target should be the low-income <br /> rather than the moderate-income group. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that affordable housing should be <br /> provided to as many people as possible and that he personally would <br /> like a percentage of projects set aside for Pleasanton residents, <br /> particularly City, School District and County employees as well as <br /> North Pleasanton employees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes suggested that there be some flexibility in the <br /> ordinance that would indicate Council's intention to set aside a <br /> certain percentage for City residents to be determined by the <br /> Council as the projects are developed. He also requested staff to <br /> come up with a report explaining different indices, including <br /> construction cost and CPI, with figures for the last five years. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that she preferred setting a priority <br /> rather than a percentage for Pleasanton residents. She asked Mr. <br /> Roush if there were any judicial reason to make the units available <br /> to other people after a certain period of time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that it would be all right as long as the <br /> period of time is reasonable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired if it would be possible to include a <br /> clause in the ordinance that stated that at the time of project <br /> approval, the developer would have to present for Council approval <br /> a priority plan showing the time frame on how the project would <br /> <br /> 10-2-90 <br /> - 18 - <br /> <br /> <br />