My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
5_Exhibit B_Resolution_Attachment 2
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2023
>
05-10
>
5_Exhibit B_Resolution_Attachment 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2023 3:15:58 PM
Creation date
5/4/2023 3:12:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/10/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
5
(Superseded by)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2023\05-10
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.
/
541
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
Housing Element Community Survey Summary <br />25 <br />2.2.8 Final Questions <br />Question 14: Is there anything else the City should consider as part of its Housing <br />Element Update? (Please write-in) <br />Answered: 347 Skipped: 275 <br /> <br />This survey question provided an open-ended response field and asked respondents to write in any <br />last suggestions that the City should consider as part of the Housing Element Update. There were 347 <br />responses (50 responses were answered with “No” or N/A or left blank). As an open-ended question <br />requesting input on anything else, common themes were more difficult to establish, however, an <br />effort has been made to summarize some of the major common themes expressed. <br /> <br />Across the 297 substantive responses, the following ideas were presented, organized into topics or <br />themes: <br /> <br />‐ Limit Housing, Build Housing Elsewhere, Reject State Mandates, or Meter Growth (36 <br />mentions) <br />‐ Resources, Infrastructure and Level of Service Concerns <br />o Concerns with the City’s water capacity. Verify that there will be enough water to <br />accommodate future housing before approving. Additional sentiments also raised <br />resentment over the fact that current residents are being asked to restrict their water <br />consumption while the City is actively considering additional housing. (17) <br />o Concerns were raised on already impacted school enrollment and the education <br />system in general (10) <br />o Many are concerned with the over infrastructure capacity in the City and urge the <br />City to consider impacts new housing will have on road conditions, water capacity, <br />traffic, sewer capacity, etc. (4) <br />o Concerns regarding traffic that may be generated from large new projects (5) <br />o Consider impacts new developments may have on existing neighborhood safety (2) <br />‐ Protect Pleasanton’s Community Character and Existing Residents <br />o Pleasanton’s community character is highly sought after and valued amongst its <br />residents, and many are afraid that new housing will diminish the character if not <br />thoughtfully considered. (11) <br />o Do better than Dublin. (5) <br />o Require priority be given to existing residents and employees of Pleasanton for all <br />affordable housing (3) <br />o Make sure that aesthetics and architecture are a priority and encourage quality over <br />quantity (2) <br />o Oppose SB9 and all considerations to densify existing single-family neighborhoods. <br />(2) <br />Public Participation Summaries City of Pleasanton | E-85
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.