SR 06:097 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Ms. Stern noted that Attachment I also incorporated the following recommended changes to the Goals, Policies, and Programs in the Draft Public Facilities and Community Programs Element: ]. A new Policy 6.] was added regarding maintenance and improvements of public facilities. 2. Program 1].3 was added, which addressed the need for public awareness about the Chain of Lakes. 3. Policy ]4 described both public and private schools in that policy. 4. Program 16.5 discussed Wi-Fi connections in the Library. 5. Program ] 7. ] 0 was reinstated and discussed no access fees for parks. 6. Program 17.21 identified the need for a neighborhood park in Happy Valley as discussed by the Commission. 7. Program 17.23 was added, which discussed trails needed to connect parks and recreational facilities. 8. Policy ] 8 and related programs specifically address the maintenance and improvement issues brought up by the Commission, particularly the drainage on the sports fields and the expansion of the swim center. 9. Policy 19 addressed the Commission's concern about greater access and longer hours of operation of several facilities, where it was needed and feasible. ] O. Policy 24 discussed downtown facilities, including restrooms, wireless connection, and signage. II. Policy 25 and related programs addressed the diversity issue. 12. Program 28.4 discussed facilities and the provision of child care services. Staff requested the Planning Commission's feedback on these changes in order to bring it before the City Council. Chairperson Arkin complimented staff on ajob well done in summarizing the Commissioners' comments. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the standard of restrooms not included, Ms. Stern replied that the discussion at the meeting mentioned a 500-foot distance standard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that at the previous meeting, the suggestion to put Happy Valley back into the park plan (Program ] 7.2]) had occurred after the public hearing. He expressed concern that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Happy Valley Specific Plan noted that there was no need for the park because of the large lots in the area. He noted that ifthe City planned to put the park into the General Plan, he would strongly urge that it be specified that the park be placed within the City limits and not in the unincorporated Happy Valley area. Chairperson Arkin noted that the City may not pay for parks in the County. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 8,2006 Page 2 of5