My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
061813
>
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
>
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/8/2015 2:44:50 PM
Creation date
6/17/2013 11:09:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/18/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 3 <br /> ALTERNATIVE 3 <br /> 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI <br /> BMR Need Generated by: <br /> Market Rate Residential 145 30 46 69 <br /> Retail 59 13 19 27 <br /> Office 277 46 83 148 <br /> Industrial Flex 772 191 260 :152 <br /> Total BMR need 1253 280 408 596 <br /> Potential BMR units 375 <br /> BMR unit deficit 878 <br /> ALTERNATIVE 4 <br /> 0-30%AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI <br /> BMR Need Generated by: <br /> Market Rate Residential 134 30 42 62 <br /> Retail 59 13 19 27 <br /> Office 277 46 83 148 <br /> Industrial Flex 772 191 260 ='52 <br /> Total BMR need 1242 319 452 577 <br /> Potential BMR units 196 <br /> BMR unit deficit 1046 <br /> None of the Alternatives mitigates the need they would create for Pleasanton to provide additional <br /> affordable housing. <br /> One way to address this problem is to increase the amount of rental, 30 unit/acre workforce housing, <br /> and increase the amount of affordability (and project financial feasibility) is through the participation <br /> of nonprofit developers. <br /> Regarding discussion of what percentage of 30 unit/acre housing the EPSP area should accommodate, <br /> rather than set an objective based on the current multi-family/single family ratio of 25/75%, it seems <br /> more logical to consider Pleasanton's carrying capacity for all categories of development at buildout. <br /> (Wastewater export capacity probably provides the firmest boundary.) Set limits that bring jobs and <br /> workforce housing into balance. Plan for the jobs and workforce housing needs generated by market rate <br /> residential development. With this approach, the EPSP area might be the first neighborhood, but <br /> certainly not the only neighborhood, to reflect a stable, sustainable mix of development at the limits of <br /> Pleasanton's infrastructure capacity. <br /> If the EPSP cannot feasibly or physically develop without increasing Pleasanton's current affordable <br /> workforce housing affordable housing deficit, then it should not develop at all. Ideally, the <br /> plan should mitigate its own housing impacts as well as making a partial contribution to reducing our <br /> identified unmet need. <br /> Thank you for your consideration. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Becky Dennis <br /> Citizens for a Caring Community <br /> Attachment: Worksheets for Alternatives 5 and 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.