PC 052803 - Laserfiche WebLink

should be allowed on site, and was concerned about potential problems connected to drinking on-site_ He had mixed emotions regarding the proposal_ M.r. _lerry Lemm, 17 Greens Lane, noted that he had been a Pleasanton resident for 34 years and believed the water park has been a good amenity for the City. He noted that it would benefit the City, the downtown merchants, the Park District, and the young people in Pleasanton. 1-la noted that the City would get this amenity for nothing, as opposed to $35 million for the golf course. Mr_ Doug Boedecker, 5588 Sonoma Drive, spoke in support of this item. He believed that the ponds behind Shadow Cliffs would not be affected by this proj ect_ He believed the water park would also be of value to the adults as well, and noted that he had enjoyed his visits to the Manteca Waterslides. He noted that after the Foothill High School football games, everyone leaves at the same time; people would leave the water park throughout the afternoon, which would not create the sairie traffic congestion_ He believed that people from the South Say would go to Raging Waters in San Jose, and did not believe this would be the market for them. Mr. Jeff Blau, 7794 Forsythia Court, spoke in support of this item_ He looked Forward to an updated water park in Pleasanton that people of all ages could enjoy. Ms. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardor~nay Drive, requested that Board not approve the entire project at this point, and that only the first phase be approved so the residents could assess the consequences_ She believed that the staff report underestimated the size and impact of the entire project, and believed an EIR would be helpful. She noted that the human Factors should be taken into consideration, and added that drivers generally parked where they shouldn't park in order to avoid parking fees. She believed that there should be more screening from Stanley Boulevard, and believed that trees would be appropriate to put along the street. She noted that the developer seemed to be willing to negotiate the height of the structures, and believed that they are too high. She would like to see the structures maintained below the berm line. Ms. Storch wished to contradict a statement made by Mr. Kierstead, which she believed was incorrect: the 1987 land use was accepted by the East Bay Regional Park District, and that this expansion was accepted_ She noted that at that time, it was clearly understood that the expansion of the park was not to become a major destination_ She believed this was a n~aj or destination and a major increase, and noted that was not recommended. or approved at that time. She believed this expansion would change the nature of the park. She noted that page 6 of the staff analysis stated that the parkland to residence ratio would be improved; she noted that the play area at McDonald's was not counted as park area. She did not believe this could be counted as pads area. Ms. Keely Parrack, 186 Trenton Circle, expressed concern that the park had not been properly planned, and believed that an EIR was necessary. She noted that page 1 O of the stafF report stated that the largest number of required parking spaces was 1,937, and that the park would provide 1,949. She noted that was a ratio of four people to each car, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2003 Page 7 5