My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052803
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
PC 052803
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:40:40 AM
Creation date
12/8/2005 10:09:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/28/2003
DOCUMENT NAME
PC-052803
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Chairperson Arkin noted that drivers would tend to park in residential neighborhoods in <br />order to save a $5 parking fee. <br />Mr. MacDonald noted that the Park District did have sworn law enforcement officers that <br />patrol the entire park, as well as helicopter officers. He noted. that market studies show <br />that the water park was a local serving facility, not a regional facility; the water parks in <br />Concord, San Jose, and Manteca served their respective areas. <br />He requested the Public Works Director to look at Condition 95 with respect to the water <br />line regarding the reasonable allocation. He would like the condition to be phrased <br />generally. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding tax revenue, Mr_ Kierstead <br />replied that $66,000 would be payable annually to the City based on the term of the lease. <br />The front end of the lease had a higher tax rate than the back end of the lease. <br />Ms. Nerland believed that part of the tax revenue would be shared with the C'ounty_ <br />Mr_ Kierstead noted that they also paid sales tax, and provided revenues for the entire <br />Park District. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr. Kierstead did not expect any drain <br />on local police services because they plat tied to provide their own security for crowd <br />control. He noted that the staff report stated that the dBA level may not exceed 75 dBA <br />25 feet from a speaker; that would be attenuated considerably because it would have to <br />travel 800 feet to cross the property line. He expected. that to be negligible, and probably <br />less than 45 dBA. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sedlak, Mr. Kierstead confirmed that the <br />property line used was East Bay Regional Park property line, across the arroyo. He noted <br />that Stanley Boulevard would qualify as a property line as well. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sedlak, Mr. Kierstead noted that the noise <br />would not be at that volume on a constant basis. The sound would be controlled for a <br />aYaaxinium of 75 dBA, and that the ambient music would be comparable to elevator <br />n11151C_ <br />Mr. Iserson wished to clarify the noise issue, and stated that the 75 dBA at 25 feet <br />distance was the standard from the PA speaker systen-a. The other standard was 70 dBA at <br />any property line. <br />Ms. Knutson noted that the PA system is in place primarily for emergency services, such <br />as inclement weather or an earthquake. The speakers would be set up for different zones <br />throughout the park, so that they may be specifically controlled. The background music <br />did not necessarily play throughout the park all the time; she noted that small speakers <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2003 Page 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.