Laserfiche WebLink
which is based on the entertainment holding value of the pools, water slides and <br />entertainment capacity of its total build out capacity. California Splash LLC has <br />presented worse case scenarios based on full build out. The infrastructure will include <br />sewer, water, electrical, landscaping, fire suppression, shade structures, restrooms, <br />change rooms, locker storage, equipment storage, and all future plumbing for any <br />additions that may be approved in the future. To recover these costs in a reasonable <br />period of time, California Splash LLC must develop a certain percentage of the Park. He <br />provided pictures to Council that showed traffic on a Friday evening and on a Monday <br />morning. These pictures show that there is no traffic congestion that is created by the <br />water park facility. Patrons to the water park will be coming after commute hours, and <br />traffic, when leaving the park, will be going against commute traffic. He asked Council <br />to make its decision based on factual data and not on fear or speculation. He also asked <br />Council to consider this application for Phase I only, particularly for the youth, the future <br />youth and the families of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico closed the public hearing. Given the late hour, he recommended <br />continuing the discussion to March 30, 2004. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said she was not interested in the full plans for this project. She would <br />be interested in knowing if any of the Council would be interested in scaling back the <br />phasing process for this project to something that would be livable. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman said she wanted to be allowed a chance to read through all of the <br />information and ask questions of staff. She had a number of concerns related to the <br />information that the applicant's consultants have provided. She primarily was most <br />concerned that this project was not referendable. The only way she would be remotely <br />interested in looking at a scaled back project would be if Council were to deny this <br />project and take the necessary steps to initiate a PUD rezoning so that no matter what <br />decision Council made, if the public was unhappy with it, it would be referendable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell supported the Mayor's suggestion to continue this discussion to <br />March 30, 2004. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 26 03/23/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />