CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

points mentioned was employment for Pleasanton youth. As Council pointed it out at its last meeting, discriminating against people based on where they reside in order to be considered for employment is against fair hiring practices and is also illegal. The other selling point provided by the applicant was the potential discounts for Pleasanton residents and youth. It was mentioned at Council's last meeting, that the applicant is open to the idea of discounts. He wondered how this fit into the applicant's overall business model? He asked how many more people would have to visit the park to offset the lost revenue from discounts provided to Pleasanton residents and youth? He would like to see the applicant's commitment to offering discounts for Pleasanton residents and youth in writing. He believed the water park would not attract or keep a single family in Pleasanton. The City of Pleasanton, at least in his view and the view of most residents, is an upscale, family oriented community. He believed people strive to live in Pleasanton. If this project was approved, he believed the developers and its financial backers would benefit from this project, and the EBRPD would be able to fix its deficit. A few local teens would receive employment and another recreational opportunity would be offered in Pleasanton. If this project was approved, he strongly believed that Pleasanton would be diminished, as the proposed project is not consistent with the community, and the communities close to the water park will lose property values and its quality of life. Kathy Flachsbarth, 2955 Liberty Drive, did not believe the water park expansion made any sense for Pleasanton for many reasons. As a Shadow Cliffs homeowner for ten years, the issue that was of most concern to her was noise. Noise studies were conducted last fall and findings indicate that noise levels will be at an acceptable level for the neighbors. While a noise study was conducted on individual noises such as water pumps, screaming music and loud speakers, no study was conducted combining all of these elements together. She did not know how any noise study could accurately duplicate a fully operational water park. Shadow Cliff residents have to endure the noise generated by the motorboat races in October, the added property loss values and increase in crime. It is no wonder that the neighboring residents close to the water park have very real concerns about their quality of life if the expansion of this water park is approved. While the argument that traffic is a non-issue because it will flow in the opposite direction of commute traffic may have merit, she asked why is it acceptable to clog streets in both directions? Peak attendance at the water park is anticipated for the hottest days, which will result in the highest number of vehicle trips on days when air quality is at its worst. She was perplexed as to how the BMX facility was tied to the water park expansion. She believed that the only way a BMX facility coul(l be built was if the water *Iktes aro expanded. She suggested building a BMX facility without the burden of a water park. She did not agree with the statement made that there is nothing in Pleasanton for kids to do, and contrary to this, Pleasanton has numerous neighborhood parks, sports and tennis parks, a beautiful aquatics center, and year round activities offered through the City's Parks and Recreation Depa~hnent. She believed the price for admission to the water park would only allow her family the opportunity to visit the water park once or twice a year. She asked Council to consider how this proposal will affect all Pleasanton residents, and to support the Planning Commission's decision and vote no on this project. Pleasanton City Council 13 03/23/04 Minutes