CCMIN033004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Campell asked what the difference would be if Council denied the project? The applicant would still have the same authority to come back with a scaled down version. Mayor Pico believed the difference was that if the project were denied, the project would not be approved. Ms. Hosterman asked what was wrong with denying the project? Ms. Ayala said that if Council was not comfortable with approving a plan that had not been submitted by the applicant as Council is stating it, she was prepared to go ahead and deny the project. She is uncomfortable with the residents thinking that they will have to be "watch dogs" for when this project will come back. She did not believe the applicant would come back with another proposal for a long time. She believed the applicant would get the message. Her hope was to bring in a small project to the community that people could learn about the project, visit the project and start to feel comfortable with it before anything else was added on. If people are going to be fearful that this project will continue and not be allowed the referendum process, she is willing to say that the project does not work and the applicant will have to go back and start over with a small project. Mr. Brozosky said that he would like to hear Mayor Pico's concerns. Mayor Pico stated that he could probably support the motion. He was not sure that the appellant would want to build the project on a scaled down version. He believed it fits in with the family atmosphere that he is looking for, but he personally could approve the project in phases too. If it means just scaling the project down and having the applicant come back at a future date, he could also support it. Mr. Brozosky did not believe there was much difference except for in the future, if the applicant wanted to add on to the project, g/yen Ms. Ayala's motion, the applicant would be required to conduct another traffic study. If the project is coming as a second phase, the applicant would still be required to come back to a public hearing, but would not be required to provide another traffic and noise study. Ms. Ayala said that her motion would require the applicant to provide new traffic and noise studies. If her motion is not making Councilmembers comfortable, and it is unknown that it will make the applicant comfortable, she was not sure who her motion would be pleasing. Mr. Campbell was uncomfortable with the motion because the project still feels like a big water park even though it would be scaled down somewhat. He wanted to protect the integrity and serenity of Shadow Cliffs. As originally stated, he liked the idea of the water slides and placing as many slides as possible on slide hill. He was uncomfortable with the development on the bottom portion to the far western side where the wave pool, mechanical building and other development are located. He was willing Pleasanton City Council 15 03/30/04 Minutes