CCMIN031604 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS Item 6a PAP-57 (PCUP-63/PDR-243, Glenn Kierstead~ California Splash LLC. (SR 04:058) Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the applications for a conditional use permit and design review approval to expand the existing water park fac'ffifies and related improvements at Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area located at 2500 and 3320 Stanley Boulevard. Zoning for the property is Public and Institutional (P) District. Brian Swirl, Director of Planning and Community Development, presented the staffreport. Ms. Hosterman was concerned about the referendum part of this project. Council voted to change the PUD several months ago. She did not realize at the time what the results would have on this project. She remembered asking was the downside? She also asked if this would preclude her from voting in any way that she wanted to when this project was brought forward. She was told no. She asked staff to review what Council did and why it did it, and where it is today. What would it take for Council if it were to deny the project tonight, and change the zoning? How much time would it take before the applicant would come back again? Mr. Swirl provided a brief overview of the site development plan for California Splash Park, as it currently exists. He noted that the East Bay Regional Park District facility was zoned Public and Institutional when the property was annexed into the City. That zoning requires a conditional use permit to expand or modify the use of that Park. A conditional use permit process is not a referendable action. Referendable actions are legislative actions such as zoning, a Specific Plan, or a General Plan. Previously, a certain portion of the property was not part of EBRPD's property, but was owned by the Oliver De Silva Company. The East Bay Regional Park District subsequently acquired that property and sought to add it to their overall Master Plan. The item that was originally moving forward was EBRPD's adding that land to its Master Plan. As part of that action, it asked the City to rezone that property from the Central Commercial District to Public and Institutional, the stone as the rest of the Park. The Park had never been zoned PUD. What was being asked previously was to make the zoning, which was a commercial district, into the same public district. It just so happened that the EBRPD acquired the property at the same time the application to expand the water slide was taking place, and so the EBRPD, in its overall Master Plan action, incorporated as part of its Negative Declaration the addition of this land to the overall Master Plan as well as the creation of the uses for an expanded water slide. The application that was previously before the City was to zone this property to the Public and Institutional District, to review the Use Permit, and for design review. What transpired was that the use permit and design review application for the water slide stalled at the Planning Commission level for additional studies and additional information. The issue was could EBRPD move forward with the zoning from Central Commercial to Public and Institutional, which is what the action taken by Council did. That zoning action could have been referendable, Pleasanton City Council 5 03/16/04 Minutes