CCMIN020403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Larry Bourland, 4865 Mason Street, said he is delighted with the new park. He said he had gone to the Weber's house to see how close the bowl is and he believes they have a valid concern. There will be a noise problem and privacy issues. He supported lowering the facility. Laura Ismail, 4686 Hen:in Way, also expressed the neighborhood support of the Webers and the concerns about the in-line facility. She also cited privacy and concerns for the safety of the children using the park. She asked Council to support the staff recommendations or remove the facility entirely. Tom Tidwell, 6877 Rayland Court, agreed the facility is too close to the Webers. He said he had attended meetings r~garding the park and there was never discussion about the height of this element or the proximity to the houses. He was also concerned about security in the area between the element and the residential fences. He supported the additional two feet of lattice to be installed. He supported removing the bowl, but did not want slats on the chainlink fence. He discussed various types of trees to be installed, such as Italian cypress, redwoods, etc. That would mitigate the noise and the view. He wanted to work with staff to resolve the issues. His major concern was security to keep the park users out of his and the neighbors' yards. George Caudle, 6873 Hen-in Court, also agreed the facility is too close to the residences and felt there would be a noise problem. He supported the staff recommendations. Jeanne Gabbert, 9135 Olson Court, said she was speaking for herself and other families who do not live in the Val Vista neighborhood. She has visited the Webers and agreed there is a problem. Fortunately, Councilmembers in Pleasanton listened to the citizens. It may be expensive to make changes to this facility, but she urged Council to support the recommendations to lower the bowl and fix it now so in the end it will be what everyone really wants. Rudi Weber, 6872 Herrin Court, said he supported the park and agreed with the staff recommendation to lower the in-line skate facility and remove the tilted bowl at the northern end. The proposal addresses the issues of proximity, noise, privacy and safety. The proposal brings the plan back to the initial design and establishes the agreed buffer. During all the design process, he always asked how far the element was from his fence. He did not know about the apron. He never realized the facility was raised. The seven-foot good neighbor fence was built so people could not look into the yards. It was only when the dirt was piled up that he realized he could see it from his house. The master plan did not include elevations. He believed the noise would be mitigated by dropping the facility to ground level. The fence and trees will also help. He acknowledged it is a dawn to dusk facility, unlike soccer which has scheduled events. He also mentioned safety concerns for the area between the facility and his fence if the facility remains elevated. It will block the view of the area from the street. He supported the plan and the park and appreciated all the work done to work out the issues. Mr. Campbell asked if he liked the lattice. Mr. Weber said it helps obstruct the view, but he could go either way. Pleasanton City Council 10 02/04/03 Minutes