CCMIN033004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Pico said the motion only changes the phasing for the project with the assumption that the appellant, as a result of changing the phasing, is going to want to scale some things down. Ms. Ayala said no. In the applicant's first phase, he proposed 11 water slides. Some of the 11 water slides were not going to be located on the existing hill. Mayor Pico asked Ms. Ayala if her motion intended to eliminate the eleven water slides, or does the intention of her motion state that in Phase I, Council will only allow the four additional slides to be built, and subsequently in other phase, Council would allow the remainder to be built. He believed there was a big difference. Ms. Ayala said that the intention of her motion was to only approve a scaled down Phase I with the remainder of the phases having to come through an entire new process. She is not approving the entire project or proposal. Mr. Brozosky believed the intent of Ms. Ayala's motion was to approve and only allow the applicant to build Phase I at this time before coming back to Council. He asked Ms. Ayah if the intent of her motion was to state that once Phase I of the project was scaled down, the applicant could not come back and add more? Ms. Ayala said that any applicant could come back to a new Council and ask to add to a project. She wanted to approve only a scaled down version of Phase I, which would include a total of eight water slides, four existing and four new on the same existing hill, and ground level facilities that would include the wave pool, the Lazy River, the children's activity pool, and the children's activity structure. Mayor Pico believed Ms. Ayala's motion was essentially eliminating any additional water slides. He asked Ms. Ayaia if the intent of her motion allowed the corporate picffac area, which is located on the ground level, or was it excluded? He believed it was easier to envision the motion to state that all ground level facilities would be allowed, which in his mind included the corporate picnic areas, the Lazy River, wave pools, and other facilities, with the exception of the additional water slides. If the appellant chooses to come back with a request for additional water slides, he would need to do so under another project approval. Mr. Brozosky asked for staff clarification between the differences in allowing the phasing plan now or scaling the project down and having the applicant come back with a change. At this point, Mr. Swift did not believe there was any practical difference. The only real difference would be potentially in how Council handled the CEQA portion of the application. He reminded Council that it needed to adopt a Negative Declaration prior to approving the project. If Council approved the project in its entirety, but phased and adopted the Negative Declaration, the applicant would not be required to do a Pleasanton City Council 13 03/30/04 Minutes