CCMIN033004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Hosterman said that this is a very expansive project and she did not believe it was compatible. Mayor Pico suggested that Council either look at entertaining a motion to deny the appeal or a motion to approve the project in phases subject to conditions that it would then discuss. Mr. Brozosky said he would like to see a sealed down version. Ms. Ayala believed that the ground level activities would bring added amenities to the water park, such as the Lazy River for smaller children to enjoy who might not benefit from the water slides. If the operator decides to walk away from this project, he will leave the water slides in its existing condition. It is a possibility that EBRPD could bring another operator in to renovate the water slides. Mr. Bmzosky said the project is a small operation and if the operator cannot make it work, he believed it would be harder for someone else to come in and operate the water slides in its current condition. Twenty years ago, he believed the water slides were a good amenity to the community but if compared to what people expect today, the water slides are inadequate. The water slides as they exist today do not fit in with the remainder of the amenities that the City has to offer. He said that the reason the Planning Commission denied the project was because they wanted the applicant to come back with a smaller first phase. It was moved by Mayor Pico, seconded by Ms. Hosterman, to deny the appeal for the expansion of the existing water park facilities and related improvements at Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. Mr. Brozosky requested clarification on the motion. He believed the motion was to deny the appeal and allow the applicant to move forward with all of the phasing plans. Mayor Pico said no. The motion was to deny the appeal, which means that the motion was to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project. Therefore, there is no additional expansion of the water park. Mr. Brozosky asked Mayor Pico if his motion was the same as the previous motion with the removal of the PUD rezoning for the water park? Mayor Pico said yes. Ms. Ayala believed the direction of the motion was backwards. Unless she could get a scaled down version for the expansion of the water park approved, she would vote in favor of Mayor Pico's motion. If she could get approved a scaled down version then she would vote against Mayor Pico's motion. She would rather provide a substitute motion to see if there is interest in supporting a scaled down version first, and if not, then she was fine with turning the appeal down. Pleasanton City Council 11 03/30/04 Minutes