My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2000-08-28
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2000
>
AgdaPkt 2000-08-28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2005 8:48:26 AM
Creation date
7/6/2005 8:16:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
8/28/2000
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
284
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />9/33 <br /> <br />250 sq. ft. per employee density <br /> <br />This is the most widely used office worker <br />density; in the current economy, however, <br />office/high tech space is probably a density of <br />200 sq. ft. per employee or less. <br /> <br />1.76 workers per worker household <br /> <br />US Census figure from 1990. Factors out <br />retired, student, and other non-worker <br />households. <br /> <br />2.27 housing units per 1000 s.f. <br /> <br />Total housing demand per 1000 square feet. <br /> <br />= 100% of Demand. <br /> <br />However, providing 2.27 housing units per 1000 sq. ft. of office does not take into <br />account several factors: <br /> <br />The commute relationships in any metropolitan area; even under the most <br />ideal of conditions all workers will not choose to reside in the same <br />jurisdiction as they work. <br />The concept that the responsibility for mitigating housing demands rests <br />solely with the developer of the office space. <br />According to the 1990 Census 23.3% of those who worked in Redwood City <br />also lived there. In 1980, that relationship was 33.5%; in 2000 the <br />relationship could well be under 20%. At 23.3% of 2.27, (the number of <br />housing units needed to accommodate the housing demand created by <br />1000 square feet of office) the adiusted need would be sliqhtlv over 0.5 units <br />(this translates to 1 unit for every 2000 square feet of off.!.çtl <br />On average if Redwood City were expecting 650,000 sq. ft. of office/high <br />tech space to be built per year, the 0.5 ratio would suggest 325 units per <br />year. This is a reasonable expectation for annual housing production based <br />on past experience in Redwood City. <br />At multi-family densities of 40 to 50 units per acre, 325 units would translate <br />to 6.6 to 8 acres of housing. <br /> <br />Comparing with other City Housing Mitigation measures, Pleasanton and Livermore have <br />in lieu fees that probably represent under 10% of the housing demand created. Palo <br />Alto's housing mitigation program (in place for over 25 years) mitigates at about a 20% <br />relationship. Napa County and the City of Napa have mitigation programs that are <br />roughly 5% of the calculated impact. In summary, when cities and counties determine a <br />mitigation requirement, it is usually some small share of the calculated burden - say <br />anywhere from 5 to 25 percent. <br /> <br />3. Recommendation <br />a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments <br />The recommendation for a Work Force Housing Production Ordinance is' a multi-tiered <br />approach. The July 24, 2000 staff report (on the Urgency Interim Ordinances currently <br />in place) illustrated that the current market favors office development, since office <br />development generates a much higher return to the landowner than does housing. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />. .......---.." -"'YO"" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.