Laserfiche WebLink
setbacks, any design standards, and park standards <br />and open space, for example, for their potential <br />impact upon the development of housing- After <br />including a description of pleasanton's land use <br />controls, the City should then determine whether a <br />policy or procedure poses an actual constraint in <br />the community- <br /> <br />a. We are concerned about the City's plan to <br /> revise downward the minimum density for High <br /> Density Residential (HDR). It does not <br /> appear ~that such an action will facilitate <br /> the development of the remainder of the <br /> City's regional housing need (which is all <br /> lower-income)- In addition, given that <br /> pleasanton has a limited remaining supply of <br /> high density land, such a redesignation and <br /> potential use of high density land for low <br /> density development will make it <br /> significantly more difficult for pleasanton <br /> to accommodate its regional housing need in <br /> future planning periods. This proposal, if <br /> implemented, should be analyzed as a <br /> governmental constraint- <br /> b. Land Use Program 6.4 states pleasanton will <br /> ,,generally discourage the redesignation of <br /> commercial, business park, and industrial <br /> land to residential use, except for the area <br /> surrounding the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART <br /> Station." Given the limited supply of <br /> residential land in pleasanton, particularly <br /> high density land, this program has the <br /> potential to constrain the development of <br /> needed housing in pleasanton- This program <br /> should be analyzed as a governmental <br /> constraint- <br /> <br /> c. Land Use program 19.2 states that "an <br /> affirmative vote of not less than four City <br /> Council members shall be required for <br /> adoption of any General Plan amenSment which <br /> would result in additional housing or <br /> commercial/office/industrial floor area <br /> beyond the level of buildout contemplated by <br /> the General Plan, or which would result in a <br /> higher annual residential growth rate than <br /> contemplated by the General Plan." We are <br /> concerned that requiring a super majority to <br /> approve additional housing or annual housing <br /> starts higher than contemplated by the Growth <br /> Management Plan may severely limit <br /> <br /> 2 <br /> <br /> <br />