CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, concurred with Ms. Bengston's comments. She mentioned that she was a member of the EBRPD AdvisoD, Committee and played a role in the review and approval process for its Land Use Development Plan for Shadow Cliffs Park. The Land Use Plan specifically states that the water park was not to become a destination park. In the year 2002, EBRPD changed the use of Shadow Cliffs Regional Park when it mended the Land Use Plan to work with California Splash in making a major water slide attraction that would provide revenue to the District. The concept of creating a large scale, commercial destination park is new for the District and Shadow Cliffs is the first place where this is being tried. The Park District will receive $4 million dollars in a ten-year period, which she has heard will be more than half of what the City of Dublin will be receiving from Ikea over a ten year period. As a taxpayer who supports park bonds, she does not expect regional parks to partner with commercial enterprises to convert public parks into moneymaking ventures. While Shadow Cliffs Regional Park is the EBRPD's second highest used park, it is also one of the smallest parks in land area. In spite of this, EBRPD wants to make Shadow Cliffs an intensive use, combination natural lake and destination theme park. She presented written communication to Council, which entailed specific facts. She pointed out that the design for California Splash includes four more water slides than Waterworld and is about the same size as Soak City. The area is smaller in size than either Waterworld, or Soak City and the water park is not located near a major interstate. She believed that the proposed 17 water slides for California Splash were 131 percent of Waterworld, and the first phase is actually 85 percent of Waterwofld. California Splash offers 1.1.5 acres for parking lots and roads and 7.5 acres for water slides. Currently, the frequent park users notice a shift in the nature of the park during the summer when the four existing water slides are open. The expansion of the water slides will draw more visitors to the park so that on hot busy days there could easily by 7,000 people in the park at any time. She believed this estimate could be low because a combination of a natural lake and a destination theme park in one location could attract many more visitors. Adding a major theme park to Shadow Cliffs will draw many people into the small park area and will exceed reasonable limits on the number of people who can enjoy multiple summer uses. She believed a more compatible use for the expanded area of Shadows Cliffs would be a botanical garden and it would fit with the East Pleasanton General Plan and encourage park usage year round. She pointed out that other water parks are located in commercial zones and do directly impact residential areas or take away existing recreational use. She asked Council to deny the approval for the expansion of the water park. Kelly Fasman, 174 Trenton Circle, presented another 231 signatures to the petition previously presented to Council in opposition to the proposed extension of the water park. She mentioned that the people who signed the petition were offered a pamphlet of factual information prior to signing the petition. The proponents of the petition did their best to avoid any misinterpretation of the issues. She directed the Council's attention to the Negative Mitigated Declaration, which states that "if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects have occurred, then a responsible agency may prepare a subsequent or supplement EIR." The Negative Mitigated Declaration also states, "as a result of increased traffic, until the E1 Charro Road extension is constructed, the project when added to all reasonable Pleasanton City Council 14 03/23/04 Minutes