CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

cover the costs of hiring additional police officers to cover the additional increase in the City's population as a result of this project. Richard Pugh, 2866 Garden Creek Circle, raised the issue of park security and the welfare of the younger visitors to it. He did not believe the serious issue of public security had been addressed by the applicant and on this basis, he could not support the proposed project. He asked Council to distinguish between the existing small water park and a larger scale water park because it will change the basis upon which it can evaluate the crime statistics and the risk of public security to minors. He urged Council to require the applicant to submit a comprehensive security plan with guaranteed attendance by licensed and experienced security staff who can guarantee a safe family experience for all visitors, including minors. Given the volume of people and the type of public security needs that are going to be created if this Park is expanded from a small scale to a destination scale, he urged Council to require the applicant to include a local police booth at the park. He pointed out that the costs of lawsuits arising from trying to enforce issues of public security have been very expensive. He also asked that the applicant be required to cover this anticipated expense. John Carroll, 2981 Moreno Avenue, addressed Council regarding the safety of the proposed enclosed water slide fides, job availability for youth and the apparent lack of what he believed was the proven track record of the engineering finn, who apparently designed the proposed expansion of the water park. He reminded Council that legislation was passed in 1999 that regulates thrill rides like those that are being proposed for this project, and SB 755, authored by Senator Torlakson. If SB 755 is passed by the Legislature it would prohibit minors from being attendants for or operating amusement rides in California. Run Kane, 3679 Canelli Court, wondered what the real attendance profile was for the first five years. He believed the Park would realize somewhere between $4 to $5 million dollars per year plus other income that would be derived from other concessions. In addition to this revenue, EBRPD would be receiving parking fees at $300,000 to $400,000 per year. The $45,000 that the City of Pleasanton would realize through its tax dollars did not seem to be a good deal for the City. To him, it seemed to be a deficit shifting process. He asked what the City would have to pay to support the Park? Safety and traffic expenses will all be costs that will have to be borne by the City and its residents. Jake Krakauer, 1969 Palmer Drive, pointed out that City roads and streets are at capacity and when more traffic is proposed, particularly on Stanley Boulevard, major incidents are bound to happen, which will worsen the traffic situation in the community. He believed the expanded water park will be a destination point and will create undesirable effects. Judy Symcox, was strongly in favor of reducing the traffic on Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue. She asked Council to guarantee that Busch Road will never connect to Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue as traffic is at peak capacity. While she was in Pleasanton City Council 19 Minutes 03/23/04