CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

as presented by the opponents, were accurate. While there will be a small increase in traffic it will not be at the rate of 50,000 vehicles to 200,000 vehicles. As a long time resident of Pleasanton, he believed the changes have been well planned out. He had confidence in Council that it would look at the facts and not the fears, and provide the applicant a chance to expand the water park facility at Shadow Cliffs. Steve Ward, 3020 Badger Drive, noted that the City of Pleasanton prides itself in community involvement, yet for this project, even if the City process was followed, that process failed to communicate with and to the community. This project makes the City of Pleasanton a destination city. 'All citizens of Pleasanton will be impacted. He believed this project was not disclosed to the community by the City, and was disclosed in a newspaper article. The Planning Commission staff report states that notification was provided to the surrounding property owners and residents within 1,000 feet. He and his neighbors did not receive any such notification. What they did receive was the March public hearing notice as they are within 1,000 feet of the proposed project. He did not want the meetings held last summer at the tennis courts to be counted as focus groups as these meetings were the result of community opposition. Focus groups are held to receive input to plan a project. At those meetings, the project was cast. He pointed out that a PUD requires an EIR and this project does not meet this standard. EBRPD, acting as the lead agency, opted not to prepare an EIR and instead, it adopted and submitted to the City of Pleasanton a mitigated negative declaration for a land use plan. It should not be up to the EBRPD to decide such issues, and not having prepared an EIR, the residents of this community have lost the ability to initiate a referendum that a PUD makes available. In addition, it contradicts the City's position that all other developers must submit an EIR for their project's approval. The City should not have accepted the negative declaration and only agreed to review this project if an EIR was prepared. On June 25, 2003, the rezoning of the De Silva property did not separate the rezoning fi.om the project's approval. The Planning Commission meetings of June 25, 2003 and Council minutes of July 15, 2003 did not state that a 30-day appeal clock would start after the property was rezoned. The community has now lost the ability to challenge this decision through a referendum twice, once through the 30-day appeal clock and secondly, because this project is not a PUD. These actions have left the community without a voice. He reminded Council that it voted in opposition to the Ikea store in Dublin because it would make Pleasanton a destination location, and would affect the volume of traffic in the City. With that in mind, the residents of this community are now informed that the City does not have a weekend traffic model. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what impact this project will have on the City. He asked Council to consider what it would take to revoke this permit. The citizens of this community have responded to this proposed project and the majority of the emails received by the City are in opposition to this project. He asked Council to be good stewards of the Building ora Community Character and have respect for the majority of its constituents that have stated their opposition to this project. He respectfully asked Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny this project. Joe Winstead, 4673 Black Avenue, believed that the $40,000 to $50,000 that the City would receive as tax revenue would repair the streets, but would not be sufficient to Pleasanton City Council 18 03/23/04 Minutes