The revised ordinance requires developers of rental units to designate 15 percent of their units as BMR. A separate ordinance requires 12.5 percent of purchase units to be BMR. Both resolutions call for lowering income qualifications for families, extending the number of years the units must be designated as BMR, and reviewing the sale price to adjust for changes in income, interest and tax rates.

Developers present at the meeting wanted the council to resolve the differences so they could continue their projects. However, the Tri-County Apartment Association as well as other trade organizations oppose the revisions, arguing that the city depended on faulty assumptions made by Bay Area Economics, the consulting firm that worked with city staff on the proposed changes.

Bob Hines, government relations director for the Tri-County Apartment Association said that the consulting firm "has made aggressive assumptions to make this pencil out."

According to Hines, the firm has assumed that under a tight market, future construction costs will drop 30 percent. Hines urged council members to postpone voting on the proposal to allow all parties to come together to review the information Bay Area Economics provided.

Some council members expressed concern that the increase in BMR units would mean an increase in current market housing. "The developer is not going to decrease his profit because of a BMR ordinance. I'd hate to tweak it so much that we increase the price of the median," said council member John Howe.

As a compromise between the developer's requests and staff's proposals, Howe proposed not to increase the BMR requirement to 15 percent for both rental and purchase units. Instead, Howe made a motion to have purchase units follow a separate ordinance to designate 12.5 percent of their units to be BMR.

The resolutions passed, though Mayor Julia Miller dissented on both resolutions, and Vice Mayor Tim Risch dissented on the purchase ordinance.

With the current resolutions, the city hopes to provide more housing for low-income families and eventually improve their economic status by extending the time limit requirements. Even so, representatives from the nonprofit community said the resolutions are not enough and do not take into account the needs of very-low-income families.

"The very poor are not considered in this proposal," said the Rev. Timothy Kidney of St. Cyprian Parish in Sunnyvale. "How many families who are making $25,000 to $30,000 can afford the supposedly low rates of today?" Kidney says he hopes that the council will study the issue further to better serve low-income families.