Laserfiche WebLink
121 <br /> <br /> Mr. John Pelegrini stated he has had him name on the waiting <br />list for a long time and is still 15 names from the top of the <br />list. He stated it is degrading to be forced to beg for low <br />income housing, and that much of the income for seniors has to go <br />toward medical insurance and bills. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer read the text of Measure J, which was voted on <br />by the residents of Pleasanton on June 3, 1986. It read as <br />follows: <br /> <br /> "Shall the ordinance approving construction of up to 220 low- <br /> income senior citizen housing units be adopted?" <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that the vote on the measure was Yes - <br />6,204; No - 1,746. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated it is his feeling that the vote count <br />indicates that the City electorate has gone on record to support a <br />low income housing project. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Brandes stated the ballot was meant to supply <br />housing needs for people in Pleasanton; that 220 units was the <br />figure the City came up with at that time, and that there would be <br />room and moderate income levels in the complex, with the majority <br />of the units being allocated to low income levels. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Brandes stated he supports Alternate No. 3, or <br />2, but with a higher percentage going to low income seniors. <br /> <br /> Discussion ensued regarding rent levels and financing <br />mechanisms. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tim Truesdale, Project Manager, reviewed the income <br />levels. He stated it is difficult to determine at this time the <br />number of low income units that can be provided by subsidizing the <br />units from the syndication program. <br /> <br /> Council discussion ensured regarding the number of units that <br />should be allocated to each income level. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Brandes to approve Alternate #2 <br />of Staff Report 89:210, with the allocation being 75 for 40% of <br />median income, 50 for 55% of median income, and 50 for 60% median <br />income. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Further Council discussion ensued regarding allocating the <br />maximum number of units to the 40% median income, and splitting <br />the balance between 55% and 60% median income. <br /> <br /> Since it was impossible to ascertain exact figures at this <br />time, Mayor Mercer continued this item to the meeting of May 22, <br />1989, 4:30 p.m., in the City Manager's Conference Room, to allow <br /> <br /> - 19 - 5-16-89 <br /> <br /> <br />