19 ATTACHMENT 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

o Pleasanton's Multi-Family Residential Zones(RM zones)require between 4,000, 2,500,2000 and 1,500 square feet(SF)of land per unit. ■ By comparison,neighboring Dublin requires 750 SF of land per unit in its RM zones.Thus Pleasanton's density limits on multifamily housing are between 2-5x more onerous than Dublin's development standards. ■ There is no discussion of these density limits in the analysis. ■ Pleasanton should revise its analysis to consider the impact of density limits in RM zones to bring them in line with peer cities like Dublin. o Pleasanton's Multi-Family Residential Zones(RM zones)require 20'side setbacks. ■ By comparison,neighboring Dublin requires only 10'side setbacks. ■ There is no discussion of setbacks within the analysis apart from noting that Core Area Overlay District allows for reductions in setbacks.But this is limited to a small neighborhood near downtown.The analysis notes that these setback reductions have netted 5 units in recent years.Relative to housing needs,this figure is small.Why is there no discussion of expanding the ability to reduce setbacks beyond areas near downtown? ■ Pleasanton should revise its analysis to consider the impact of setbacks for RM zones,especially side setbacks,as a governmental constraint. o Pleasanton's off-street parking standards are excessive. ■ For example,a fourplex would be required to provide eight parking spaces for four 2-bedroom units. ■ The excessive base standards mean that any reductions allowed as part of overlay districts merely bring parking requirements down to peer city base requirements,rather than true relief. ■ There is no specified path or program for reducing parking requirements near Pleasanton's two BART stations.This has the effect of increasing housing costs for potential development near BART compared to peers like Dublin and Walnut Creek.As a policy matter,overparking residential development near transit has the practical effect of cannibalizing potential transit ridership and undermining public investment in heavy rail transit. ■ Pleasanton should reduce its base parking requirements for apartments and provide a path for reduced or zero parking apartments near BART. We look forward to continuing to engage with the City of Pleasanton in this process.