CCMIN031604 - Laserfiche WebLink

Hills nine years ago, Pleasanton was a very quiet community until the last few years when all of the growth in the City has occurred in the eastern area. With increased traffic on Bemal Avenue, Stanley Boulevard, and Vineyard Avenue, the noise level is rising in the neighborhoods. She pointed out that almost all water parks are located in areas that are surrounded by industrial and commercial zones. She could only find one other water park where residents expressed noise concerns and were impacted. She believed that the location of water parks should be located near main freeway exits, and Stanley Boulevard does not meet this criterion. She was not against water slides but was against this project being built at its present location and impacting the community and its neighborhoods. She did not believe the BMX Park should be fled to the expansion of the water slides. She supported the youth of this community but did not believe that this proposed project was being built for Pleasanton's youth. This project is a commercial enterprise and will draw people f~om all over the state. She believed this water park would be a destination park and not a local or even a regional park. She was concerned about the elevated water slides, the children screaming, and the 75 percent of the water park that is proposed to be built in Phase I. She concluded her comments by asking the Mayor and Council to support the Planning Commission's decision. Carole Cloud, 2434 Minivet Court, a member of the No Water Park.com organization, argued that the Negative Declaration is inadequate with respect to air quality. In order to be in line with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Pleasanton General Plan, the City should do another environmental review if it is considering reviewing the project. She mentioned that she had contacted the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the agency that wrote the guidelines for the Environmental Quality Act. In its mitigated Negative Declaration of September 2002, EBRPD determined that the project would not cause a significant amount of motor vehicle air pollution based on a certain threshold for the number of car trips in the Bay Area Quality Management District's guidelines. EBRPD underestimated the number of car trips and a more accurate estimate puts the number of car trips well over the threshold for doing an EIR. She believed EBRPD used a higher vehicle occupancy rate with four people per vehicle. She noted that the consultant used the 3.6 vehicle occupancy rate because they averaged the numbers when Shadow Cliffs was a water park. Using their own numbers, the maximum number of visitors on a peak day after the fifth year was 3.769. The consultant estimated that there would be a vehicle occupancy rate of 3.6, which means that there will be 1,046 ears that will be traveling to and from the water park on a peak day after five years. She noted that there would be 2,188 vehicle trips on a busy day after the fifth year. According to Bay Area Quality Management District's guidelines, a detailed air quality analysis of total emissions 5om project operations, including the support mobile source emissions, should be done. In addition the CEQA guidelines state that if any of the thresholds are exceeded, an EIR should be prepared. If the numbers are even within 20 percent of the threshold, an EIR should be done. In addition, CEQA guidelines state that there are many other things that should be examined, which she believed were never considered in this report. CEQA guidelines state that the air quality impact of a project is determined by examining the existing air quality conditions and neighborhood land uses, the direction of prevailing winds, local topography, and the proximity for potential receptors, which means children. The Pleasanton City Council 28 03/16/04 Minutes