PC 121003 - Laserfiche WebLink

]'\./Jr. Tserson noted that item vvou.ld need more study and suggested that she discuss that issue vvith t.he applicant. Commissioner :rv-1.aas noted that tl""l.c City tested t.h.e Aquatic Park and added that the City vval""1ted people to ret1..l.rn to the Park. She l-.oted that tl""1ere had been problems vvitl""1 the Shadovv Cliffs lagoon an.d inquired vvhether the C::Ol.-U1ty became involved il""1 that process. l'v'Ir. Iserson believed that the Health. DepartlTlel"1t. rI.""l.ay become il""1-Volved. Kelly Fasman", 1 74 Trenton Circle" spoke in opposition to this item" althougl'1. she believed it "VVas a beautiful park. She did not belie-ve that Pleasa..nt.on should bear the burden of providing entertainment for the region. SI"1e believed there "V'Vas a co:n.:tl.ict of interest in the appro-val process because the Park District ovvns the land", vvill profit frorn. the vvater park,. and "V'Vill had its ovv-n agency declare that there vv-ould be no significant cn-vironmental impacts. She expressed concern about traffic and believed that crime and vandalism VV"ould increase as the attendan.ce rises. She believed the cost to the Police Department vvould rise to enforce neighborhood permit parking. She expressed concern that her property valu.es vvould decrease due to this project. She believed that a full EIR should be performed to test the soundness of this project and that al""1 E.IR had not been executed at this site since 1989. She believed that a su-pplemental EIR should be performed to address the tra:tIlc", noise", and other impacts. She noted that Pleasa..nton "VVas a safe", green.. and charming tOV\TT1 and vvould like it to ren1.ail""l. that vvay. 13ria..n C)"'Reilly,. TriValley Hunger Coalitiol""l.", 673 Emerald Street" Livermore", noted that l\/lr. Kierstead l"1ad donated ample storage space to tl"1e Hunger Coalition.", vvl"1icl"1 enabled t.hem to continue receivir:Lg donatiol"1s. He noted thatl'V1r. Kierstead vvas the only businessperson in the commul""1ity to do so and added that he did not seek any publicity,. nor did he publicize it himselr. He believed that l\/lr. Kierstead had demoI1strated great citizenship and responsibility and vvould be al""1 asset to tl"1e community. He sl..-1-pport.ed his efforts "V'Vith this project and asked the Commission to support. it as V\.felL :M:ichiel Han.ou,. 2398 Sandpiper "VVay" noted "that he had read the comprehensi-ve staff report nnd complimented staff on. the detailed analysis of the proj ecL He did not li-ve near any of the affected areas an.d understood the points made by those VV"ho li-ve near the project site. He noted that one of the key aspects 01:- decision-making "VVas to l..-u"1dersta..nd tl"1e -values and tradeof:fs and that good information vvas crucial to making t.hose decisions. He requested that staf:T re-visit their conclusions", especially vvith respect to quality of life iss'LI-es. He believed that the level of service issues presented a significant negati-ve impact to the people living near Shadovv Cliffs and those in other areas of~ Pleasanton. He vv-ould like to see a side-by-side demol'1.stration of parking,. noise", and other issues betvveel""1 this project and the larger VV"ater parks in t.he Bay Area. He vvou.ld like a resolution o:t-tl"1e discrepancy among the various attendance estimates a..nd noted that approximately 4,000 people vvould attend the park per day. He believed this vvas an -unacceptable amOl..-1Tl..t and vvo1..l.1d attract c01""l.tinuous tra.:t~l.c throu.gh.ou.t tl""1e da.y. .I:-:le did 1""l.Ot. PLANNING COl'Vll'Vl1SSION l'VlINUTES December 10, 2003 Page 1 7