CCMIN031604 - Laserfiche WebLink

weigh the fact that only a small percentage of citizens fi.om Pleasanton would use this water park, and the remainder of the citizens would have to deal with traffic that would weave through its neighborhoods not to mention the noise, pollution, the potential increase in crime, and the inevitable decrease in property values. She urged Council to do what was right for the people of Pleasanton and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny this proposal. Matt Engerbretson, 4559 Second Street, a member of the No Water Park.com organization, focused on the impact of increased traffic in the downtown area. He questioned the accuracy of the traffic analysis and the impact it would have on traffic. He wondered who would bear the ex>st if the traffic projections were not accurate? More traffic means more customers and more customers means more profit, but the surrounding community will not share in this windfall. He did not agree with the traffic comparison that was provided for this project versus the Sports Park, which is serviced by Hopyard. He did not believe projections or comparisons needed to be made for the downtown traffic, as traffic congestion is clearly visible. He noted that commute time has increased for the morning and evening commute hours, and is longer on Fridays. As more traffic signals are added and the signals are increased to allow for greater traffic for the water park, he asked how much longer would it take for the drivers to get fi-om one side of First Street to the other? He believed the developer's assumptions were flawed and noted that downtown traffic was not just a weekday affair. The downtown is vibrant and events are held on the weekends that contribute to traffic. The increase in traffic can also be attributed to the building of new homes. All of these events involve a large number of vehicles with a limited number of fl'eeway on and off ramps, parking on City streets, and utilizing City services. He believed more cross-town traffic would occur at single intersections so that vehicles can get fi'om one side of Pleasanton to the other. The water park only makes this problem worse. He was aware that Council had the opportunity to hear public comments on another potential solution to the downtown traffic, the building ora West Las Positas exit offofI-680. While this option remains in the City's Master Plan, it remains questionable whether it will ever go through due to understandable concerns from impacted neighborhoods. If the water park project existed in a vacuum and if no other development occurred in Pleasanton, the specter of a few more cars might not be so frightening. He did not believe the community could have fewer freeway interchanges, no cut-through zones, more events, and more attractions without sacrificing that which makes Pleasanton a place worth living. He reminded Council that the decisions it makes today and the decisions that have brought Pleasanton to be the City that it is today, are the sum total of Council decisions fi-om years past. This decision will have an affect on how this City goes forth. He urged Council to consider this project carefully. Keely Parrack, 186 Trenton Circle, a member of the No Water Park.com organization, discussed traffic as it pertained to the peak weekday hours, and as it related to intersections and the level of service (LOS) at Stanley Boulevard, Bernal Avenue, and Valley Avenue, and Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue. She pointed out that the report that Mr. Hallson prepared for the applicant indicated that 70 percent of all arrivals to the water park would occur after noon and that 75 percent will leave the park after 4 p.m. Pleasanton City Council 31 03/16/04 Minutes