PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

...."V\Te belie-ve the project vvill create jobs and Icadcrsl~ip opportu.l."1ities Tor the you.-th o:t- Pleasarl.ton. l.V1:any of the lifeguards" kiosk attcndant.s" and :tacility coordinators employed at the park vvill be fron} Pleasanton. Assuming that the applicant has su.ccessf:~-1.]ly resolved t:l"1e appropriate traT"f:1.c al."1d n.oise mitigatio:n. iSS1.:1CS", and the operator vv-ill pursue an.d/ve cvmn'"lit to their aforementioned conditions" the Youth I'V:1astcr Plan Implementation C::'Oll"11""1"1ittee requests that tl"1C Plal"1.l."1in.g C::ono.ll""1ission support: the project as outlined. """"VVe believe the project "VVill provide youth and their families "V'Vitl"1 a casual" substance-free environment not offered by mainstream recreation programs" schools" or organized sport.s. In addition to the extent that is possible", 'VVe ask tlu:l.t the operator be encouraged by the Planning Commission and City Council to provide Pleasanton youth and their families VV"ith a discount on the rate of admission. to the vv-ater park as a benefit for housing this facility in Pleasanton. ~rhis type of discount "VVould encourage attendance by local residents. "'''' She not.ed that Conncilmember Ste-ve 13rozosky is a member or that grou-p a.l."1d abstained fro.lTl the vote. ,'u-lie Testa" Youth ]\/faster Plan Implementation Committee" 3494 Torlano Court" spoke in su.pport o:t- t.his item. She noted that the Committee look_ed very critically at tl""1is project :trom the beginning a..nd added t.hat she "VVas extren"1ely demanding vv-hen she ex.amined the issues. She vvas very respectful of the neighborhood"'s concerns and belie-vcd that the applicant had been very responsive in addressing tl"1ose concerns. She vvas reassu.rcd by tl""1e :tact: that it "VVould be a conditional use and tl'"lat it. vv-ould ensure that the applicant vvould be accou.n.table to its promises a1""1d con,n,i1-ments to the cornmunity. _Toshua Brysk", 3174 Chardonnay Drive", believed that the studies contained S01T1.e flaV\led assumptions and that tl"1e impacts of parking" noise" tra:t:t'ic", ren""1oval of heritage trees" short term construction", and overall impact on. the commnnity"'s quality of:-life "VVere underrepresented. He believed that qu.ality of life shou.ld be considered as a central issue. He belie-ved the project itself as positi-ve", but that the location vv-as not appropriate. He belie-ved that the traffic issues surrounding Stanley Boulevard and the Ikea that vvill be de-veloped across T-580 shou-ld be considered in more detaiL I--Ie believed that this project may pre-empt otI""1er activities that V\rould be more appropriate for the cono..mu-nit.y. Doug Boedecker" 2974 Chardonnay Drive", noted that he vvas afl:'iliated vv-ith California Splash and vvas an 1 I-year Pleasanton resident. He spoke in. support of this item. He noted that. he vvas a man.ufacturer"s representati-ve for solar povvcred systems and believed that they "V'Vould be an important component of the "V'Vatcr park. He believed that tl""l.ere had beel"1 a major mischaracterization of the vvater park and that it vv-as perceived to be similar to K1""10tt" s Berry Farm", vvith the accompanying tra1-Tic", 1"1oise., and crime. He 1"1oted that it "VVas half the size of the Santa Clara V\Tater park", and three-quarters oFthe size of the Concord vvater park. I-Ie noted that once he clarified the facts about the .park", people he had spokeTl. to l""1ad dropped their oppositi01""1 to the park. PLANNING COl'Vll'VlISSION lVIINUTES Dece<-nbcr 10, 2003 Page 15 -..,.....- -'--.-Y-r'---