Laserfiche WebLink
subsequent CEQA process unless Council required it. If Council only approved a scaled <br />down project, which is what he believed the intent of the motion pertained to, i.e., four <br />new water slides and all ground level amenities. Any required expansion would need to <br />come back as a separate application, which would require a subsequent CEQA process <br />with a new traffic study and noise analysis. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala believed the intent of her motion was to approve a scaled down project <br />to include the existing four water slides and four new water slides and all ground level <br />amenities, and require any expansion to come back as a separate application which would <br />require a CEQA process with a new traffic study and noise analysis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift believed the word "phase" should be removed fi.om Ms. Ayala's <br />motion. Council would be approving a scaled down project and leaving it open to the <br />applicant at some subsequent time to be able to come back with a new expansion project <br />which would be reviewed at that point in time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said that her motion was to approve a scaled down project and then <br />leave it open to the applicant at some subsequent time to be able to come back with a new <br />expansion project, which would be reviewed at that point in time. <br /> Mayor Pico restated Ms. Ayala's motion, which was to uphold the appeal and <br />allow the appellant to build a scaled down project that would include all of the ground <br />level amenities and four additional water slides on the same hill. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked Ms. Ayala if this was correct. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said yes with the improvement of the existing water slides. As stated, <br />she asked Mr. Swift if her motion included that any additional plans that would come <br />forward would be required to go through the CEQA process, and require a new traffic <br />and noise study?. <br /> <br />Mr. Swirl said yes. <br /> <br /> If Council approved the motion, Mr. Campbell believed the project would be <br />subject to the referendum process. He asked if the scaled down version for the project <br />would have to be approved again if it was brought back to a new Council? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said that it would not be a phased approval in which staff would write <br />procedure for looking at subsequent phases. His understanding of the motion was that <br />this is all the project is and the applicant would have to start over again. Since the <br />property is zoned Public and Institutional, it would require a new design review and <br />conditional use permit application, which would be reviewed by the Planning <br />Commission, which could be appealed to the City Council. This would not automatically <br />go to the City Council. The additional plans would be required to have its own CEQA <br />process. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 14 03/30/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />