CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

concern was mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant noted that a full time security guard would be available on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He would like to note that the lawsuit against the City of Concord was a result of an accident. Many security guards were on duty when the accident occurred and yet the City of Concord was sued. He pointed out that destination parks, including water parks, have a high number of these types of accidents, which cannot be mitigated. He asked Council to carefully consider the liability issue when making its decision, and to ask the following questions of staff, the appellant or the City Attorney: is there a mechanism in place with the appellant that would indemnify the City of Pleasanton, and does the City or the appellant have adequate proof of liability insurance that would meet today's standards for the awards that are being made for accidents? He reiterated the importance of the issue of liability. He asked Council to accept the Planning Commission's decision and reject the proposal for a destination water park at Shadow Cliffs Regional Park. Norma Duffy, 4777 Pleasanton Avenue, spoke in favor for the expansion of the existing water park facilities. She strongly believed the parents in the community needed a safe place for their children to go, and she believed the water park was one of the avenues. Kira Eggers, 4290 Croce Court, mentioned that all of the discussions related to traffic have focused on the intersections of Stanley Boulevard and Bernal Avenue. These streets will reach unacceptable levels of traffic volume if the project proceeds, which are very valid concerns. She was concerned about the traffic impacting the downtown. The 2003 Annual Baseline Traffic Report mentions that there are least two downtown intersections that already are at LOS F for p.m. peak hours, which she believed was far beyond the acceptable level of a rating of LOS D. Three other intersections are already at LOS D. She believed the downtown would be impacted with the addition of water park traffic, regardless of the direction in which it is traveling. She pointed out that there already is an unbearable amount of traffic on First Street, Ray Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Main Street for at least three hours every afternoon. The downtown is a historic district and the streets cannot and should not be widened. She did not agree with the comment made by the appellant that any new traffic created by the water park will be in a reverse commute direction. Not only will downtown neighborhoods experience the existing rush hour traffic, they will also experience traffic congestion on residential streets in both directions. Added traffic, noise and pollution will create safety and quality of life problems for families. In addition, Saturday would be the peak time for water park patrons, which corresponds with the downtown Farmers Market. Her family and many other residents chose to live in downtown Pleasanton because of all the amenities and activities that are available. She asked Council if it could guarantee that the residents' quality of life will not face negative effects from the traffic and noise of water park patrons cutting through downtown neighborhoods? She did not believe Council could recommend mitigation to alleviate these issues. She believed the location for the water park is grossly inappropriate, and agrees that there are many parks and outlets for the youth of this community to participate in recreational activities. She concurred with previous speakers who equated Pleasanton to Danville, Los Gatos, San Ramon, and other cities in this area. She believed the Planning Commission made awise decision to deny Pleasanton City Council 16 03/23/04 Minutes