CCMIN052306 - Laserfiche WebLink

principles, but was uncertain how it would fit into the General Plan. There might be certain elements that could be incorporated, but he did not want to adopt the entire Ahwanhee principles. Mr. Sullivan referred to the existing General Plan, which encouraged neighborhood schools. He supported keeping that language with some modification based on the final land use plan and the School District demographics. Mr. Brozosky agreed. Neighborhood schools build neighborhoods. Although the city has no control of the schools, from a planning and traffic standpoint, it makes sense to have neighborhood schools. Mr. Fialho referred to the water issue and cited Attachment 4. General Plans often have charts and graphs that analyze existing facilities and comparisons of standards. Staff has tried to identify existing facilities and match that with Pleasanton Unified School District's facilities to get an index per population. That is then matched with the national guideline for the only purpose of providing a benchmark. That is a launching point for further discussions and planning of future recreational facilities. It is a good source document. There was consensus to keep the chart. Ms. McGovern asked if there was information on how much open space and parks are provided per person by the city. Ms. Stern indicated it is in this section and there is a standard provided on page VI-20- 21. Ms. McGovern believed the Planning Commission wanted the city to adopt its own standard and not just rely on the national standard. Mr. Fialho agreed, but said that was not part of this discussion. 6. Meetino ODen to the Public Kevin Close, a Happy Valley resident, referred to Goal 10, Program 17.21, regarding a park in the Happy Valley area. He wanted the reference to be to a park in South Pleasanton and not the unincorporated area of Happy Valley. The EIR supporting the Happy Valley Specific Plan stated the large lots in the area should take care of the need for parks and any other needs would be served by the Bernal property community park. He wanted to avoid any piecemeal annexation by the City of Pleasanton, which may create an island and thereby force other annexations to the City. Vanessa Kawaihau, a Happy Valley resident, referred to policy 3, the annexation into the City of Pleasanton, and felt it was a good thing when accessing city utilities. However, it does not cover properties already annexed to the city accessing its utilities. She stated the County is developing an onsite wastewater treatment policy, which includes all territories within Alameda County. That includes properties in Pleasanton, which have septic tanks and may need to access city utilities. She then talked about Policy 9.10 on page VI-35, which talked about evaluating water supplies as part of the growth management plan report, and noted that earlier this year Council decided there would no longer be growth management reports. She agreed with the school things and had mixed feelings about the Ahwanhee principles. She believed the General Plan Workshop City Council 13 OS/23/06