PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

any constru.ction or operation of a neVV" phase. Staff has the ability to bring back any issue at any time" arLd to address mitigation measures" to hold public hearin.gs" and as a last resort", to revoke the use permit. StatT realized that many community concerns exist", and a large number of c01Tl.munications have been. received expressin.g concerIl.S abo"Ut tra:fl:1c and noise. He added that many residents support the project as "VVelL "VVhile sta:tr- is comfortable from a technical point ofvievv- that traffic and noise issues have been resolved" it belie-ved that the other COrl.cems rc:tl.ect more gen.eral quality of life issues vv-itl""1 a large-scale project. l.V1:r. Iserson noted that ad-vocates of the project believe it VV"ould be a .family recreational activity for Pleasanton" VV"h.ich vvould further a ITun-.ber o-t-tl-.e City"s recreation goals. "VVhen combined VV"ith the proposed I3I"v1X facility" there are n"1any "VVho believe that it vvould be an a1Tl.en.ity for Pleasanton. Staff:-believcd that the issues had been resolved aI1d that the use permit findings could be made. Staff recommended tl"l.at the Planning Commission c01"1sider tl"l.c mitigated negative declaration. as adequate", that the project vvould not l"1a-ve a significant e:fl:ect. on the e1"1vironment", n,akc the conditional use permit findings", and recommend appro-val oftl"l.e design revievv nnd canditicH"1al use permit. applications to the City Council" subject to the conditions of the staff report and the additional memo. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny", 1'V1r. Iserson confirmed that the B1'V'1:X park and California Splash VV"ere independel1t projects. Jim "VVolf:e", Director of Parks and Commrmity Services Tor the City of Pleasant on" ad-vised that the Park District has not gone forvvard vvith the B.l\.4:X park a..nd had initial discussions VV"ith legal staff. Although the Park District has approved BI\IlX as a potential use at ShadoVV" Cliffs" it V'Vas concerned about the potential compatibility "VVith t.he adjacent property irt:he vvater slide vv-ere not to be approved. Commissi01"1er Fox asked l.V1:r. "vvolf:e V\1hether", in his opinion." the VV"ater cannons depicted in tl""1e description ot-the children"'s pond vvauld pose a satety 11azard to children. Mr. "\V"olre indicated that as long as the cannons could 1"101. be aimed at: individuals", he did 1""1ot consider them to be a saf'ety hazard. 11""1 response to an. inquiry by Com:rr""1issioner F'ox" ]'v[r. '-'Tolfe advised that tl"1e District did rlot believe that there vvas a con.flict betvvcCl"1 thc proposed u.se and the r>istrict"'s primary objecti-ve of teaching people to s"V'Vim at the Aquatic Center. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan." I\Ilr. lserson noted that the definition of the V'Vord ....feasible"''' VV"ith respect t.o energy efficiency of the equipment "VVas derived from vv-h.at ""as available on the market a..nd vv-hat made sense from an economic point of vie"-V. He noted that there may be some equipment that vvould be cost-prohibitive". as V\Tell as VV"orkable and practical equipmen.t from both st:arr s and the applicant" s poin.t of vievv. PLANNING COl'Vll'VlISSION IVIINUTES December 10, 2003 Page 10