CCMIN032304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Patricia Knutson, 2547 Freitas Way, Fairfield, representing California Splash LLC, responded to a question that was asked regarding what age children would be allowed into the water park without adult supervision. Industry wide and planned for this water park, children over the age of 12 will be pe~nfitted to attend the water park without adult supervision. The proposed day camps will need to comply with the state and county regulations, and in addition, the American Red Cross or a similar agency will facilitate the day camps that California Splash is proposing for the water park. She mentioned that general admittance for attendance is based on tiered pricing. General admission for children between the ages of three and eleven is $15.95, and under the age of three, children are free. She noted that there is a northern California water park that has not been mentioned. This water park is located in the City of Antioch and is the same size as the water park in Concord. This water park is not a commercial facility and is located in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Ayala asked for clarification on the proposed phasing schedule. She wondered if Ms. Knutson was referring to proposals that were delivered today. Ms. Knutson said yes. The proposed phasing schedule were pictures of what was presented to Council in the July 2003 supplemental report that was a part of the Planning Commission package. The proposed phasing plan is a six-year plan and is broken out in three, two-year phases. Glenn Kierstead, 6541 Regional Street, Dublin, applicant, deferred to the traffic consultant to provide the traffic models, which he believed would clarify traffic questions. William van Gelder, Senior Associate, TJKM Transportation Consultants, said that TJKM used the City's most recent traffic model in the California Splash project assessment. He provided traffic models using the City's recent traffic model. One traffic model portrayed traffic on a Saturday in downtown Pleasanton, and traffic on First and Neal Streets. He mentioned that traffic generated on weekend mornings is not what is generated during peak hours. TJKM also provided a traffic model showing Saturday traffic volumes on Stanley Boulevard, Valley Avenue, and Bemal Avenue. Traffic in this area is low. He provided another traffic model showing traffic as it related, without the widening of the road, to the south side of Stanley Boulevard. He believed that staffwas comfortable with the basic traffic volumes on weekends, which is sufficiently light, and the addition of the projected 170 vehicles on the weekends could be absorbed. The traffic model portrayed Thursday evening peak traffic on Stanley Boulevard towards Livermore and Valley Avenue, which is very heavy. There is also very heavy traffic on Bemal Avenue making a right turn heading towards the water park. In the opposite direction, he noted that 60 percent of the vehicles would mm right onto Stanley Boulevard. Therefore, there is a definite heavy traffic peak heading towards Livermore with the offpeak traffic coming into Pleasanton. When it is stated that the LOS does not change, it means that the heavy evening traffic coming from the wa~er park gets to move freely onto Valley Avenue to Santa Rita Road. While the LOS and traffic is waiting, the traffic model for Stanley Boulevard towards Livermore and Valley Avenue is the normal evening traffic Pleasanton City Council 23 03/23/04 Minutes