CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

until such time as some of the left mm traffic is allowed to travel onto Busch Avenue and down E1 Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard or someplace else. Ms. Ayala asked if60 percent of the traffic would mm onto Valley Avenue and head towards Santa Rita Road? Mr. van Gelder said yes. Mr. Kierstead deferred to the consultant who prepared the noise study. Peter McDonald, 315 8th Street, San Francisco, Smith, Fause & McDonald, Inc., provided answers to comments made regarding acoustics, sound, noise, noise alternative, and noise modeling. He noted that parallel wails are identified as an issue for highway noise mitigation with parallel sound barriers running miles down the freeway and how sound ricochets back and forth between them. There are no such issues with this project and the issue of parallel walls was not appropriate or relevant to the discussion for the water park. He presumed that the comments made related to a funneling effect study referred to aversion acoustics. This is a nighttime phenomenon that sets in when a cold marine layer slips in underneath the hot valley air. This was addressed in their October 2002 report. While this is a fascinating problem, it does not relate to the applicant's proposed development of the water park. He presumed that the reference to a bowl effect study and a complete hillside analysis related to whether or not there was a phenomenon of something similar to a Greek Amphitheater. These types of phenomenon are very weak and only take place on something the size of a Greek Amphitheater. The phenomenon would be hard to measure let alone hear in respect to scattered hill sites. He was aware of the issues concerning the noise that is generated as a result of the motorboat races. It appears that a speedboat generates at least 110 to 120 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. He pointed out that the laws of perception state that a 10 dBA change is perceived as having or doubling of sound. The difference between 70 dBA at 25 feet that is allowed for this project and the 115 dBA for the speedboats is a perceived 20 dBA difference in sound level. He responded to comments made regarding the entire noise study being conducted based on 25 children screaming. Smith, Fause & McDonald, Inc. had conducted many analyses and looked at a public address system, people, and pumps. The people noise study was modeled at a nearby park to avoid traffic noise and other intrusive sources. Within the people noise model, 250 people were modeled enjoying the water slides, which was then expanded to include 3,800 people. He pointed out that these people are down in the flats of the applicant's proposed park. Smith, Fause & McDonald, Inc. separately analyzed people at the top of each water slide with each platform at the maximum capacity of 73 people simultaneously screaming. He pointed out that people at a large gathering typically do not scream unless there is a team sport involved. In his opinion, the screaming characteristic has no center point of focus and nothing to excite people to scream about for this proposed project. He pointed out that every one of the components: the pumps, the public address system, and the people in the flat area, were considered together and there is no impact going towards the residents that exceed 70 dBA at 25 feet. He was hopeful that issues that had been raised as points of concern had been addressed by the noise studies that were prepared. Pleasanton City Council 24 03/23/04 Minutes