CCMIN031604 - Laserfiche WebLink

report states "non local and commercial traffic shall be discouraged from using streets through residential areas." According to the TJKM traffic study, 60 percent of the traffic going to and from the water park will come up from Sunol Boulevard and onto First Street or Bernal Avenue. Expanding this water park will encourage the use of City streets by many additional non-local vehicles during the week, and many more during the weekends, and high use weekdays when the outside temperatures soars. If Council allows the expansion of the water park, it will be encouraging traffic to use streets through residential areas, which is a violation of the General Plan. She noted that a number of other items did not seem consistent with the General Plan. One of the Community Character element goals includes the enhancement to the appearance of major City entrance streets and to improve the visual quality of entries to Pleasanton. Land use planning adjacent to City entries should be particularly sensitive to esthetic considerations. If Council approves this project for the eastern entrance to the City, she urged Council to apply the same esthetic standards as it did for Applied Bio Systems at the City's southern entrance. Council should also require the same parking and landscape requirements that have been imposed on other commercial enterprises, including that all new parking lots be paved, particularly the overflow parking area. The General Plan also states, "to preserve open space areas with the protection of health and safety." It did not make sense to remove open space and trails, which are used daily by Pleasanton residents in order to build a large water attraction used for about 100 days per year where a majority of the users are non-residents. From a planning viewpoint, she believed the east side of Pleasanton has been neglected. If this project was approved, it might preclude other good ideas because of its incompatibility with existing land uses, or others may wish not to build near a water park. She urged Council to add planning for the entire east side to the current update of the General Plan before approving this project and any other proposal. She believed the traffic studies for this project were done prior to the release of the current traffic model, but were updated. The City is looking at LOS F for Valley Avenue and Stanley Boulevard as well as many other intersections throughout town. The General Plan states that building permits should be withheld in this situation. She urged Council to pay attention to the General Plan and not reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Joan Holledch, 3687 Reflections Drive, a member of the No Water Park.eom organization, noted that the applicant stated that the entire water park proposal included 17 water slides, and Phase I would include 14 of the 17 water slides. She believed Phase I was 82 percent of the total build out for the water park. If the conditional use permit is to have any merit, she believed it was worth considering this percentage. She commented on the anticipated 88 calls for police service to the water park as opposed to the 150 calls for each of the high schools. If there were 150 calls for service over a 10-month high school period versus 90 calls over a three-month water park period, the City is looking at approximately twice as many calls from the water park. Based on the previous comments made by the youth of this community, she believed the real support is for a BMX Park. She was perplexed that the water park was holding the BMX Park hostage. She asked Council to reconsider this, as the youth deserve to have a BMX park and a recreation center. Pleasanton City Council 33 03/16/04 Minutes