here's a news article (with no link) that was posted elsewhere, it sounds like the city isnt going to allow this coaster, and they sorta hint that the park is becoming unwelcome in Santa Clara, at the end you'll notice the paragraph "It's almost at a point where we need to seriously consider what
happens next with the whole park," Mayor Patricia Mahan said, "all the
buildings that have gone up since the park has gone in. There are
bigger questions here."
So, it sounds like another park is getting ready to bite the dust in the not do distant future, especially if the 49'ers don't drop this stadium business...
Proposed 111-foot-tall Great America coaster hits a bump, neighbor
objects to noise
By Denis Theriault
Mercury News
Article Launched: 09/14/2008 04:09:53 PM PDT
Wooden roller coasters are usually beloved for the bone-rattling drops
and head-snapping twists they deal to their devil-may-care devotees.
But at Great America this summer, it's been a proposed roller coaster
enduring the bumpy ride, buffeted by a next-door neighbor's gripes
over the shrieks of delight it might bring.
Whether that trip turns smooth — or comes to an abrupt halt — could be
decided Tuesday night.
Santa Clara's city council, in a first for the city, could keep the
ride on the lumber pile, swayed by those noise complaints from a
valued commercial landlord. Or, hewing to the recommendation of its
planners, it could push forward on the sprawling, 111-foot-tall
behemoth, billed as the park's biggest capital investment in years.
And a third option? Build the coaster, but check back later to make
sure it isn't louder than expected.
Of course, judging by those who might have the biggest stake in the
debate — roller-coaster fans — whatever decision council members reach
won't be easy.
"If it's by some offices, just keep this one," said Logan Breitbart of
San Jose, emerging from the theme park's other cherished wood coaster,
the Grizzly, on Saturday afternoon. "Another one is unnecessary."
Not so said Aubrey Merriman of San Jose, another Grizzly rider. As he
sees it, noise is one of the perils of setting up shop next to a theme
park. "It'd be a shame," he said. "I'd be pretty disappointed if they
couldn't see the greater good. It would be different if they were
going from complete silence to having a new ride."
The months-old donnybrook — which found its way to a handful of
coaster buffs' blogs and transformed the stuff of child's play into
big-person problems like mitigation and decibel levels — blossomed
from what's typically been a routine zoning request: an exemption from
the area's 35-foot height limit. But after a compromise failed and as
the two sides staked out their positions, in dueling noise-level
reports, at public hearings and in tersely worded letters, the issue
of height was quickly trumped.
For Prudential Real Estate, which owns the 8-year-old office complex
along the park's western edge, those concerns about noise quickly came
down to one word: location. Their property line sits about 150 feet
from the proposed coaster site, home to another coaster some 20 years
ago but empty since then. Prudential's lawyers argued their noise
report showed that the employees in those buildings, occupied by
Nortel Systems, will find their workdays unduly disrupted by the
ongoing howls just across the way.
And, anyway, their lawyers told city officials, the park is already
too loud, even without a new coaster next door.
Prudential officials declined to comment, referring instead to their
correspondence with the city.
But the 32-year-old theme park, which leases its site from the city,
begged to differ. Not allowing the heavily promoted new ride — and
possibly setting new restrictions on heights and volume levels — would
put shackles on the park's future, they said. Even more importantly,
its operators said, their noise report revealed no problems for office
workers.
"Everyone is always adding new projects, new capital, new
improvements," said Jim Stellmack, the park's director of marketing.
"A lot of this business is, 'What have you done for me lately?'"
So which side was right? In May, the planning commission voted 5-1 in
favor of the theme park. But when Prudential appealed, forcing a
hearing before the council in July, council members weren't so sure.
They were certain, however, that they needed more information. And so
a third noise study, which included reviews of the first two, was
commissioned.
It's that report which formed the basis the city staff's
recommendation to approve the height exemption this week. The study,
conducted by East Bay firm Wilson, Ihrig, essentially agreed that
screams, even from 150 feet away, wouldn't intrude.
Still, some officials say, a battle that's seen two city stakeholders
pitted against one another, echoing the controversy over a proposed
San Francisco 49ers stadium on the other side of the park, points to
larger issues, especially as tech companies like Yahoo and others seek
to deepen their presence in the area.
"It's almost at a point where we need to seriously consider what
happens next with the whole park," Mayor Patricia Mahan said, "all the
buildings that have gone up since the park has gone in. There are
bigger questions here."
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED
To read the city staff's recommendation, and to review each parties
report on noise levels, go to sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/
pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=24&doctype=AGENDA.
Mercury News Staff Writer Shelby Martin contributed to this report.
Contact Denis C. Theriault at
dtheriault@mercurynews.com or (408)
920-5035.