CCMIN051380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Charles Hugel, 3415 Cumberland Gap Court, stated he was opposed to this project and expressed concern regarding parking. He also stated that when young people got tired of the Park they would come into Pleasanton for excitement which could possibly create problems. Ben McEntee, 1385 Kolln Street, stated he was opposed to the installation of the water slide as it would destroy the tranquility of the area, which now enhances nature. He stated the City streets were already overcrowded and he felt this pro- ject would add to the congestion and pollution of the community. Ann Lowenthal, 4586 Gatetree Circle, stated she was opposed to the water slide project and expressed concern regarding control of the entrance to the Park, aud also for bicycle safety. She stated she felt any water slide location should have easy access to the freeway. She cited'several newspaper articles relating to po- tential traffic problems. Jack Parker, 7452 Muir~ood Court, stated he had been involved with youth sports for the past nine years and felt that Pleasanton needed additional recreational activities. He stated he favored the project and urged Council to approve it. J. D. Porter, 1236 Chianti Court, strongly opposed the project stating it would be noisy, and would ruin the peace and tranquiltry of the Park. He stated he felt the project was being pushed through too fast. He cited the enlargement of the Manteca water slide and expressed concern that this could happen at Shadow Cliffs Park. John McClain, 1622 Tanglewood Court, former park employee, expressed opposition to the water slide and asked if there would be increased staff to avoid drownings. He stated that the proposed 30 additional jobs was an insignificant number in the Valley. Robert Graham, 2503 Vineyard Avenue, owner of property adjacent to Shadow Cliffs Park, stated he had many t~espassers on his property every week and expressed concern relative to control and liability. He stated there would also be increased dumping of garbage, traffic, and parking on Vineyard Avenue. .Mr. Graham stated he was opposed to the proposed water slide installation. Melissa Lutz, 4545 Entrada Court, asked questions regarding type of concessions, safety factor on beach area, control factor for.additional amount of people, addi- tional staff, and character of Park. Emily Carson, 2564 Skimmer Court, quoted an article from the Oakland Tribune. She expressed concern regarding early completion of the aide and the economics of it, stating that East Bay Regional Park District could be in the hole before the water slide is in operation. 3ohn Arbuckle, 747 Mirador Court, stated he was neutral on the water slide, but he felt this project was being rushed through past the public. Councilmember Kephart stated the Council is a responsible and elected body and will not make any decision without proper review. Mayor Mercer asked the City Attorney to advise what legal avenues are open to the City. The City Attorney stated that the two agencies that have primary re- sponsibility are Alameda County and the East Bay Regional Park District, and that the City is in the same position as any citizen. He stated the City will ~have an opportunity to comment on the Conditioned Negative Declaration and/or Environmental Impact Report but there is nothing that the City must or can approve. 7. 5/13/80