CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

information regarding the water park at Shadow Cliffs. He noted that the comments made in reference to the lease agreements that EBRPD entered into were illegal, the time limits had exceeded and a vote is required if EBRPD proceeded with this lease were not tree. EBRPD's lease agreements have a 25-year maximum, which it has never exceeded. If this project is approved, a new lease agreement will be negotiated. A previous lease agreement has not already been negotiated. IfEBRPD exceeded its requirements of its legislation or the Public Resources Code, some vote of the people would be required, which EBRPD has never done and does not intend to do. The Negative Declaration adopted by the EBRPD's Board of Directors in 2002 indicated a total of 943 vehicles coming to the water park and 943 vehicles leaving the water park for a total of 1,886 vehicles, which is the maximum amount that is allowed. Further studies that are required by the Air Quality Board are for any project that will generate 2,000 or more vehicles. The staff report basically contains the same information; however, the totals are slightly different, as the project has changed over the three-year period that it has been under review. EBRPD received no comments fi.om the Bay Area Air Quality Management District when the Negative Declaration was published and circulated for review. The 30- day review period has expired. The Board adopted the document, which is now an official document of the District. He believed there was some fear involved related to comments referencing crime and crime associated with the Park. To EBRPD's knowledge, property values have not diminished because of a location of a water park. A study was conducted by a firm in Berkeley regarding the value of property and its proximity to a District Park. The study shows that district wide, between five and 30 percent of the value of a house is attributable to its location adjacent to a regional park. He noted that the 1989 plan allowed the expansion of this water park. The amendment changed the plan to allow the expansion of the water park. Before the plan was adopted, the expansion of the water park was thoroughly discussed by the Board of Directors in three public hearings held in the City of Pleasanton. The points that were presented to Council by the public that this plan was not consistent and the expansion of the water park was not in the manner in which it was originally proposed were all discussed by the Board. The Board did not concur with these opinions and adopted the plan amendment and the Negative Declaration. The liability issue as mentioned by a previous speaker to the City pertains only to the BMX Park. He mentioned that the water would be discharged into the wetland area adjacent to the Park at the request of Zone 7 to maintain the required ground water discharge profiles in the area. He noted that the wetland area is an important resource, and according to the 1989 and the 2002 plan, it is indicated for preservation purposes. Mr. Campbell asked if the water would be treated before it reaches the marsh area? Mr. Mikkelson said the water is treated and is put through a process to dechlorinate it before it is discharged. He noted that traffic is the most vexing issue and is difficult to understand. At the request of the City, the applicant conducted the traffic study. The City reviewed and accepted the conclusions. If the City wished to conduct the traffic study and provide the information to EBRPD, it would be a process that would be acceptable. EBRPD is not try/rig to confiscate any information by preparing these Pleasanton City Council 21 03/23/04 Minutes