CCMIN033004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Pico said he was only talking about the issue of a vote. He was not referring to the conditions of approval or anything else. His personal preference would be to support the appeal to allow the expansion of the water park facilities and related improvements and whatever condition or shape that Council wanted it to be subject to final ratification of this decision by the voters. If the project were denied, Council would need to make a subsequent decision on whether or not it wanted to approve some other project. He did not want to support the motion that was made by Councilmember Hosterman. Mr. Brozosky said that Council could delay implementation of the project so that the applicant could not start construction until ailer the election. Mayor Pico concurred with Mr. Brozosky's comments and believed it would be implicit in the program. He was inclined to support having the expansion of the water park, and wanted to see if there is a way to put this matter to a vote of the people of this community. If push came to shove and subject to conditions, modifications and changes, his personal opinion would not be swayed by his colleagues' comments. He would be supportive of an expansion for this water park. Ms. Hosterman found Mayor Pico's opinion problematic. If Council were to approve the appeal rather than deny it, Council would be putting itself in the position of redesigning a water park. She believed it was inappropriate for Council to place itself in the position of putting together something that all five Councilmembers think might be compatible with the community and still not allow the community the opportunity to vote on the project. To deny the community the opportunity to overturn any project that is important will have a substantial impact on this community and is the wrong direction to go in. She requested Mayor Pico to reconsider his opinion. She believed the appropriate avenue to take is for Council to deny the appeal, enter into discussion to rezone the property and then have discussion about what this water park could look like. She had a number of issues with the water park as it is currently designed. Most of her issues related to the work of the consultants that have gone into this plan. She found most of the information unreliable, and she was not willing to discuss redoing this project without having more solid information. She had a number of questions related to traffic issues that were not solidly answered, and without having some sort of factual basis on which to accept the applicant's contentions, and be able to share it with the community as to whether this project was good or bad for these reasons, was unfair. Again, the only logical direction for Council to go in is to deny the appeal and consider rezoning the property. Mr. Brozosky pointed out that Council needs to make decisions on projects based on what it believes will work for the community. If Council approves a project that it believes will work for the community and if the applicant decides it cannot be done, the project either dies or another proposal is considered. He did not have a problem with the data as provided by the consultants. While staffmay have different ways of interpreting the data, they end up with the same outcome. He mentioned that he had spent a lot of time with the traffic engineers in trying to figure out what this means and comparing this Pleasanton City Council 6 03/30/04 Minutes