PC 052803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Kent Pryor, 3425 Bernal Avenue, noted that he did not have any issues with the park, and wished to comment on parking and traftic_ He disagreed with the cotnmcnt in the report stating that currant users do not park on Stanley Boulevard to avoid the parking fee_ Iic observed. many cars on Stanley Boulevard when the parking lot was not full. On peak days, the cars overflowed into the Stanley Business Park, and noted that the cars got to within 300 feet of his home. He agreed with the analysis presented in the report_ I-Ic expressed concern about the noise and privacy impacts on his residence. He agreed that the project did not add to the peak hour trali-3c, but would like some "down time" from the trafl3c on weekends. Mr. James Pahrier, 3880 Stratford Court, believed that this was an excellent use of fill in land fon~nerly occupied by the quarry. He noted that he worked. as a consultant in the amusement park business, and supported local control of this park by its management_ He hoped that the project would be approved. Ms. Lynn Surbir, 4282 Croce Court, noted that she believed the El Charro Extension would solve many local traffic problems. She noted that her family had attended the water park many times, and believed that it was a positive activity for local kids. She believed the new design would be attractive, and noted that she did not notice the guests at the water park when she walked her dog by the site. She did not think it would create a big impact. Mr. Scott Bchiel, 21 Castledown Road, spoke in support of this item, and recalled several local changes that had been resisted initially, but had become positive aspects of the community. He noted that times, attitudes, and tastes change, and believed that this water park should be updated. He noted that as a business owner, there were limited opportunities for entertaining, and believed this would be a positive addition_ He noted that 5,000 people could be accommodated for Foothill High School football games, and believed that 4,000 people could be accommodated in an entire day. Mr. Derrick Dinelli, 3663 Reflections Drive, noted that he liked the limited nature of what Pleasanton had to offer, and did not believe this was an appropriate addition to the con~munity_ He did not believe the figures cited in the traffic study would be representative once the park was in place, and that trtost of the traii3c would come Iion~ I-580 and I-680. He believed that the advertising would reference the major freeways in giving directions. He expressed concern that the public would use residential ncighbonc~~ods to reach the water park_ Mr. Rob Fisher, 3 162 Half Dome Drive, expressed concern about the noise and trafl3 c, and noted that the 6:30 p.trt. closing time would mitigate their effects. He wanted to ensure that there would not be Fireworks at night He suggested that the CJity control how the directions to the park were advertised. I-Ie believed that the traffic would get worse, even with the El Charro extension. He believed that the noise would affect the neighbors to the south the nzost_ He requested that the applicants build the berm up and build the structures into it, rather than above it_ He suggested that the documents and architectural drawing be posted on the City's website. He did not believe that alcoholic beverages YLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2003 Page 14