CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Plan process. She believed the changes proposed by this project will have profound impacts on the surrounding environment, as well as on traffic and other park uses. She believed the District was remiss in not undertaking a new Use Plan and a full EIR for this proposed major expansion. She appeared before the District in December of 2002 to express her concenas related to the inadequacy of the amended Land Use Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Unfortunately, the majority of the Board approved the amended Land Use Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration. She pointed out a few facts that demonstrated that the current expansion was not studied or included in the 1989 underlying Land Use Plan and EIR. She noted that the District will permit a modest increase of water related recreation facilities in the area designated Recreation Activity Expansion Area adjacent to the water slide. Within the general policy of modest expansion of water slide activities; certain policies will be made a part of any future agreement with the District and the concessionaire. She noted that the full EIR for Shadow Cliffs stated, "the activities that may be so unique that they will become a destination would not be included." The EIR further stated that "the final agreement on the mix of additional recreation activities will be part of the District's concession agreement and design review process; however, activities such as the Lazy River Ride, activity pool and a small children's pool will be given first priority, and if space is available, the Cascade Ride may be added." It also states, "the recreation activity expansion area will compliment and not compete with existing recreation facilities and amenities in the recreation area. Furthermore, the design of the recreation activity expansion will minimize environmental impacts beyond the active recreation zone." She believed it was important to note that the point of origin for figures used in the Mitigated EIR traffic study were exactly the same as those figures used in the 1989 Land Use Plan. It was hard for her to believe that additional studies were not completed to determine current point of origin of users, but it appears to be so. This could have considerable impact on traffic analysis while keeping in mind that according to the 1988 figures, only 17 percent of the users were local Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore residents, and the remainder of the users came from elsewhere, with the biggest percentage from San Jose. She further noted that the 1989 Land Use Plan stated, "the District staff observation and use counts indicate that many people who use the water slide also use the park." According to the amended Land Use Plan, it now appears that staffbelieve the concerns expressed in the 1989 Land Use Plan related to competition with other park uses are no longer relevant. She could not understand why EBRPD staff believes the expanded water slide will not impact the remainder of the Park. This fact will be exacerbated with the expansion of the water slides, and no consideration was given to this in the EIR or the amended Land Use Plan. She believed that most people, who had completed a full review of the 1989 Land Use Plan and accompanying EIR, and the amended Land Use Plan, would come to the conclusion that a new Land Use Plan and full EIR should have been completed for this project. She asked Council to deny this project based on the inadequacy of the Negative Declaration. Brad Poston, 3295 Burgundy Drive, addressed Council regarding the selling points that the applicant had presented for approving this project. One of the selling Pleasanton City Council 12 03/23/04 Minutes