CCMIN031604 - Laserfiche WebLink

denying this project, and believed that Council should uphold this decision. The Youth Commission also came to the proper conclusion in dropping a blanket endorsement for the Park, and encouraged Council to consider all of the issues that come with building of a water park. Members of the No Water Park.eom believe its findings will show that this project is ill conceived for the space in which it is to be built, and that it affects not only those who llve near the Park, but everyone in the City. The construction of this Park would change the perception of the City from a quiet suburban town to a destination, amusement park venue and negatively impact the way of life of those who live downtown or on or near the major streets in which all visitors must pass to get to the Park. He believed this project is proposed in the worst possible place in town from an accessibility standpoint as it is on the far east side, a gateway into the City, and the furthest point in the City for freeway access. Anyone who travels to and from the Park, other than the estimated 10 percent who come through Liverrnore, must travel through the City. It is common sense that this Park will further increase traffic and erode the average resident's ability to get from one place to another within the City. The increase and impact of traffic in the City is indisputable. He thanked Mayor Pico and members of the Council for allowing members of the No Water Park. eom to make a presentation in an organized fashion. Corky Fuentes, 354 Ewing Drive, a member of the No Water Park.com organization, submitted a petition with 817 signatures in opposition to the proposed expansion of the existing water slide park. In addition to these signatures, 400 were submitted to the Planning Commission on December 10, 2003, which bring the total number of signatures to date to 1,217. Members of the No Water Park.corn collected 510 signatures at the Farmers Market on March 6 and 13 from very willing residents. She noted that nine young adults signed the petition and a few adults from Livermore. She pointed out that Council had received 224 emalls in its packet. She provided a breakdown of the emails: 189 people are opposed to the expansion of the existing water park and 35 young adults are in favor of the proposed expansion.. The main concern of the people who signed the petition was related to traffic and the impact it would have on their quality of life. Gary Smith, 2942 Liberty Drive, a member of the No Water Park. com organization, discussed his concerns regarding the prospect of crime being brought into the community by the expansion of the water slides. He pointed out that the rap sheet from the Concord Police Department Included suspicious persons, battery, auto theft, vandalism, petty theft, and grand theft. These were only calls that were dispatched to the water park. Some of the calls were cancelled and some of the calls were forwarded to the Fire Department for response. Reports were written for 30 of the calls. Problems handled by the water park's in-house security were not included in the rap list which included police being dispatched to other areas outside the park to handle park-related problems or police that were already at the water park. He noted that he had discussed the matter with a Planning Commissioner who related her own story about her visits to the Concord Police Department and to local water park job fairs. After reviewing the Concord police report from the No Water Park.eom website, Planning Commissioner Fox contacted the Concord City Attorney and the Concord Chief of Police. A lieutenant from Pleasanton City Council 26 03/16/04 Minutes