SR 05:146 - Laserfiche WebLink

Janice Stern From: Stephen Page [ichanne]@comcastnet] Sent: Tuesday, May 31,2005 3:06 PM To: Janice Stern Cc: ichannel@comcast.net Subject: Needing a New Vision Statement based upon Draft Vision Statements, Analysis, & Discussion Draft Principles (presented for May 31, 2005 Town Hall Meeting, Senior Center) May 31, 2005 TO: Janice Stern, Principal Planner, City of Pleasanton FROM: Stephen J. Page, resident, 1113 Hopkins Way, Pleasanton, CA 94566, T: 925-577-2020 RE: Needing a New Vision Statement based upon Draft Vision Statements, Analysis, & Discussion Draft Principles (presented for May 31, 2005 Town Hall Meeting, Senior Center) Dear Ms. Stern, Please forward the following vision of what I would like the City of Pleasanton to be, not only in the next 10-15 years, but today, not merely as an ideal state to which we strive,but an actual state which we provide to individual residents. (To be provided to all present.) Part 1. Analysis of Version 1: Vision for Pleasanton General Comment: The Vision Statement needs to be specific and focused on improvements in information delivery to citizens and residents, and human service delivery to individual. Self-congratulatory language should be omitted from a vision statement. Sentence One: "Pleasanton is a well planned, well-rounded community with desirable neighborhoods, an award winning downtown with its small town character, a diversified economic base, excellent schools and a wide variety of community facilities." Comment: The statement ignores defining the requirements for proper planning, namely, that proper planning requires a focus on the impact of that planning on individual residents. A well-planned community does not make planning decisions which result in negative impact on its most vulnerable citizens, children and mature adults. A well-planned community, provides open communications channels directly to individual decision-makers and staff members, so that leaders can gauge what is truly needed. A well-planned cormnunity provides substantive feedback to those interested enough to comment. A well-planned community service provider which partners with another monopoly service provider, like a school district, does not allow its partner (the school district) decisions to negatively impact children in the community. (i.e. privatizing publicly funded school grounds by gating them, locking them, and discouraging children who attend them from playing on school grounds after hours. See Hearst School.) Who says it is well-planned? Who says it is well-rounded? What do those terms mean? Define them. Do children desire to live in a neighborhood with no access to parks or playgrounds? Pleasanton has them, and such neighborhoods have been "sold out" by the planning process which enabled the School District to sell their land (Lund Ranch) at a time when population was increasing, in order to build more homes which could support the financing of a bypass road to the Golf Course, which will benefit few who live in the City. Who gave the downtown an award? Be specific. Omit any comment regarding the schools, since it has been proven very clearly that the City has little power to affect or control what the 1