CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

foreseeable projects would cause a significant environment impact." She mentioned that the new Pleasanton Baseline Traffic figures are substantially higher than predicted by earlier studies. The new Baseline Traffic Report shows that traffic at stanley Boulevard, Bemal Avenue, and Valley Avenue at peak evening hours are at LOS F northbound and LOS E southbound, and by 2010, traffic will have an average of LOS E. It was also assumed that outgoing traffic from the water park would be a reverse commute. The community is now aware that there is no reverse commute at Stanley Boulevard, Bemal Avenue, and Valley Avenue, and the traffic is at LOS E and LOS F in both directions. This is a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; therefore, an EIR must be put into effect to adequately address the major issue of traffic and to help Council to reach an informed and responsible decision. Charles Huff, 490 Pine Hill Lane, concurred with previous speaker's comments related to traffic issues. He asked if the project was going to be sold at some later date, and who would be the new buyers of the project if it were sold? He believed these were questions that Council needed to address with the applicant. He noted that the developer has provided information from his side only in terms of traffic and all of the other components of an EIR, which he believed Council needed to take into consideration. He also asked Council to take into consideration the intent of the project and whether it was for the betterment of Pleasanton, youth or the developer's pocket book, or future buyers. The lack ora full EIR concerned him. He believed this was truly the wrong project in the wrong location. There was a break at 9:14 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:26 p.m. Mayor Pico indicated the public comment portion of the public hearing would be concluded this evening and the appellants would be given the opportunity to present a rebuttal. The meeting would then be continued to an adjourned meeting of the City Council on March 30, 2004 to allow Council the opportunity to discuss the matter, take action and bring it to closure. Scott Bethel, 21 Castledown Road, encouraged Council to make its decision based on the facts as they have been presented and not on the fears. Based on the facts, he believed Council would find that the expansion of the water park- is good for the community and at no cost to the community. Phil Blank, 4339 Hearst Drive, mentioned the liability aspects of this project. He was being concerned about the water park being a destination attraction and how easily it could cause the City to be liable ifa lawsuit was filed against the water park. He mentioned that the City of Concord was sued along with Waterwofld and had to pay out $1.7 million dollars for an accidental death of a high school student, and up to $4 million dollars for other personal injuries. He quoted a statement from the EBRPD report, which stated, "both the water park concessionaire and the City of Pleasanton will assume full liability for the respective facilities." It was his understanding that when this liability Pleasanton City Council 15 03/23/04 Minutes