PC 052803 - Laserfiche WebLink

at capacity, there would not be enough parking for afull-capacity day. She expressed concern about the traffic near I-580, and did not believe that a continual flow of traffic would ease the congestion. She expressed concern about trash services, and asked if Pleasanton residents would have to pay a higher tax to cover trash disposal. She believed that further investigation was necessary before moving forward with this proposal. Mr_ Ron Karae, 36'79 Canelli Court, recon~amended that a hall EIR be performed so that more complete and up-to-date information would be available. He noted that 65 dB/SPL was normal voice conversational levels; he noted that it would be the equivalent of a cocktail party conversation in his backyard, which he believed was too high. 1-1e recommended setting up a story pole structure to visualize the height of the new structure. Mr. Erwin Ricafrente, 46 Shore Drive, did not object to the change, but noted that Stoneridge Mall and the Business Park are accessible from the freeway. I-le noted that the traffic to and from this location was not easily accessible from the Freeway. He added that the other major water parks in the Bay Area were also accessible from the freeway, and did not require driving through residential neighborhoods to get there_ He inquired whether local kids would be able to work at the water park, versus kids from other parts of the Bay Area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr_ MacDonald noted that the use of green fencing was based on the hypothetical situation of kids yelling at full volume. When the sound calming measures are fully installed, the noise would be non-detectable above background noise. He noted that they would be willing to use Plexiglas if the City so desired. He noted that the Plexiglas would provide more visibility, and that it may provide amore of a psychological impact to the neighbors than the darker fencing. He suggested installing the solid screen fencing first, and if it is determined that the Plexiglas is needed, they would install it. Mr. MacDonald noted that the existing traffic problems were not caused by G'alifornia Splash. He noted that the peak times for the park occurred on the weekends during the summer. The park was being charged the full traffic fee, which is its pro rata share of all the traffic improvements necessary to build out ttae Pleasanton General Plait. He noted that the fees solved problems that ware not crc ated by the park_ Ha noted that summer was a low traffic time for the area, and that the net effect was an improvement of traffic problems. He advised that the parking would all be built in the first phase. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr. Mikkelsen replied that the parking charge would be $5 per car. Chairperson Arkin inquired whether the parking on the site could be reimbursed, so that the water park may provide free parking. Mr. Mikkelsen nosed that they were considering that option. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2003 Page 16