CCMIN031604 - Laserfiche WebLink

recreation activities expansion area was designated to broaden only a moderate increase in water slide facilities. She believed 200,000 visitors or more are significantly more than a modern increase. Because the EBRPD's plan for land use does not agree with the California Splash proposal, she requested that Council direct the EBRPD to modify its land use plan to match the scale of the proposed California Splash proposal. She requested that Council direct California Splash and the EBRPD to significantly scale back its plans and reduce the price point of the facilities to allow local and Tri-Valley youth to use this facility on a regular basis. She mentioned that the Phase I plan for the water park includes surf hill and mother lode slides. These water slides are elevated and will be placed close to the homes in the Vintage Hills area as opposed to facing and being close to Stanley Boulevard. She believed this was an issue. Some of the water slides are 20 to 30 feet of the elevation pad of the nearby homes, which she believed was also a problem. She also believed Council needed to send a clear message to EBRPD that it needs to get permission from state agencies to operate such a facility, as well as modify its Land Use Plan to include these facilities. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, was unclear as to the minimum age that would be required for children to receive a season pass. She was also unclear as to whether California Splash has any experience in running a day camp at this site. She pointed out that at a workshop held in February on land use and the General Plan, it was mentioned that the Kiewit/Busch property was earmarked as one of the sites to be considered for high-density use. At last week's traffic meeting, she noted that a representative fi.om Alameda County talked about Staples Ranch. She did not believe that the Kiewit/Busch property nor Staples Ranch were included in the traffic model, which will impact Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue with or without E1 Charro Road and the use of Route 84 for the San Jose people coming to use the water park. She mentioned the chain of lakes and believed the City was near bringing one or introducing one to the community within the next three to five years, which Council should also consider when looking at the impact on traffic. She was hopeful that the residents located on the east side of Pleasanton would have some type of recourse if all of the mitigations for noise were not met. Frank Brandes, 6889 Corte Sonoda, a former member of the Pleasanton City Council, mentioned that he talked with prior Councilmembers and Mayors to see what they did in certain situations like this, which he thought might be helpful. In the 1970's, he mentioned that Six Flags was interested in placing an amusement park in the City of Pleasanton. The City Council at the time rejected the plan for the same types of issues that were mentioned this evening. He mentioned that the existing water park came before the Council when he was a councilmember. The Council rejected the proposal. At that time, the water park was not within the City limits, and the City was at the mercy of EBRPD and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. The majority of the councilmembers from Livermore were also against the existing water park. He noted that the Council decided it was not proper in its responsibility to the citizens of Pleasanton that EBRPD and Alameda County have that much influence over things that affected Pleasanton. Council then went about annexing properties into the City's jurisdiction whenever it was feasible. One of the pluses in annexing this property is that it is now Pleasanton City Council 38 03/16/04 Minutes