Laserfiche WebLink
73 <br /> <br />Owens if he had any objections to that alternative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Owens said no. He stated that it did not seem reasonable <br />that the City would not exact these contributions from a project <br />that is already zoned High Density Residential, but would do so for <br />an identical project that would require a change in use from Medium <br />Density Residential or Industrial-Commercial-Office to High Density <br />Residential. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver explained that the intention behind the new <br />language was to get some affordability out of projects that go <br />through an increase in density or change in use. He stated that <br />there was some discussion on the possibility that a developer may <br />not want to include affordable units in a project, in which case a <br />fee higher than that provided in the ordinance could be required to <br />provide for the kind of housing that Pleasanton needs and is called <br />for in the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that the ordinance should set down specific <br />amounts on additional contributions that may be required of <br />developers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that having more affordable housing <br />would mean higher density; however, the ordinance would require <br />higher fees from projects whose uses are changed to High Density <br />Residential. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that applicants should be made aware that the <br />Council would be willing to negotiate with them regarding any <br />proposal which would indicate that the City would benefit more from <br />the project if it were High Density Residential rather than Office. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer requested Mr. Swift to explain the revision made to <br />Program 7.13. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that a rental project which requires a <br />General Plan change and does not include lower-income housing units <br />in the project can be approved by the Council, which would have the <br />option to require other contributions to lower-income housing <br />beyond the low-income housing fee. He stated that the program <br />would not require projects that provide low-income housing to pay <br />more than what is required by the ordinance. He added that the <br />program could be clarified by including the words "or in lieu of <br />providing such housing," and that the specific amount could be <br />established by policy since this is not usually included in the <br />General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that the program would not encourage <br />affordable housing because developers would choose to have Medium <br />Density rather than High Density to be exempt from the fees and <br /> <br /> 10-16-90 <br /> - 17 - <br /> <br /> <br />