CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

have enough to do in this City. He said he moved to Pleasanton because there was so much to do. He was concerned that Council might see the conditional use permit as its out clause and allow this project to move forward. He was concerned that if this were approved as a conditional use, he as a resident would bear the burden of calling the City to complain about traffic, noise, pollution, crime, and violence. He believed this decision was bigger than the Council and should be put to a vote by the people of this community. Mick Hanou, 2398 Sandpiper Way, reminded Council that its decision should be based on accurate information. He believed the expanded water slide park would generate 140,000 vehicle trips per summer, which included 600,000 to 700,000 miles on City streets using the five miles from the freeways. He pointed out that the taxpayers of Pleasanton would be paying for the maintenance of the streets. The gasoline burned in the City would be 40,000 gallons. He reminded Council that the figures were the applicant's and did not include the drop-off at four trips per person, or take into consideration the water slide's employees. He believed the traffic report that was conducted by the developers was inadequate. The information is internally contradictory and it presents an inaccurate picture. He did not believe the developer could argue that the water slides is designed for a local audience yet use the figures reflective of regional attendance. Council has consistently been presented with favorable numbers and not the numbers that are internally consistent with each argument. He was concerned about the Conditions of Approval. He did not believe the biggest issues raised this evening could be resolved with the Conditions of Approval to effectively mitigate the issues, nor will many of the uses be enforceable as so many of the issues are outside of the control of the Park. He believed that some of the suggested mitigated measures would adversely impact the character of Pleasanton. He believed requiring the concessionaire to pay impact fees would not mitigate traffic. The mitigation itself has an unwanted result. The mitigation of improving the roads by widening it and improving the intersection at Stanley Boulevard would lead to more cut-through traffic on a regular basis. He disagreed with the condition assurances that were made that traffic would flow on Isabel Drive or E1 Charro Road, which he believed could not be enforced. He believed the applicant sincerely is interested in providing a good water park, but after reading all of the reports and attending the meetings, he believed the water park as proposed would be detrimental to the overall community. He believed a water park of this size should be located near 1-580 or 1-680, and an ideal location would be the Bemal property. He urged Council to deny the project. Dolores Bengston, 568 Hamilton Way, thanked Council for providing an open, respectful forum for discussion. Although she would applaud any effort by the applicant to improve the current water park, she was against the expansion. According to the EBRPD Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area Land Use Plan Amendment of 2002, the District acquired the 10.77-acre De Silva parcel in 1997 in exchange for extending the period of mining for the Dumbarton Quarry. According to the District, the addition of this property to the parkland was proposed to allow expansion of the water slides and the development of a BMX facility by the City. It was surprising to her that it was just assumed a major expansion of the water slides could now be considered simply because land was available to construct a big parking lot. She participated in the 1989 Land Use Pleasanton City Council 11 03/23/04 Minutes