Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10191993 - TC.1 T.C. i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DATE: October 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Status of the California Toll Road Company Proposed Mid-State Tollway Project. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: A. DETERMINE that the California Toll Road Company's (CTRC) "Mid-State Tollway" project is not in the best interest of the County. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board to continue to work with Alameda and San Joaquin counties and the cities in the region to resolve the issues of jobs, housing, transportation and conservation in the eastern Bay Area region. DIRECT staff riot to include the CTRC Mid-State Tollway in the action plan for East County. DIRECT the Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency to explore other means of financing the action plan. B. The following option was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting with no action lby the committee and is forwarded for the full Board's consider- ation. SUPPORT the termination of the franchise agreement between the CTRC and Caltrans. II. Financial Impact: None. Continued on Attachment: X , _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUN ��RATO X RECOMMENDATION O DCOM I' EE APPROVE OER FI SIGNATURE(S): m Powers Gayle Bishop ACTION OF BOARD N Oct.: 19 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX Mr. Dennis Parsons spoke on behalf of the California Toll Road Company. Supervisor Powers noted that there wars some disagreement between the Committee members relative to recommendation 1B. During the discussion concensus was reached that approval of Recommendation 1B would not be in the best interest of Contra Costa County. Therefore, the Board APPROVED Recommendation No. lA only. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the BoarA of Supervisors on the date shown. _ ATTESTED: (L�-���[�/9, / �, PHIL BATCHELOR,Clork of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator c:B028.t9 cc: See Page 3 (Community Development ,oePutV Dept. to distribute) Status of the California Toll Road Company Proposed Mid-State Tollway Project October 11, 1993 Page 2 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: In January 1991, the State of California issued a franchise for a toll road to the California Toll Road Company, allowing them to develop a private toll road within the eastern sections of Alameda and Contra Costa counties as well as through Solano County. The route, as proposed in the prospectus circulated by the proponent, would extend from Sunol on Interstate 680 to Interstate 80 near Vacaville. Contra Costa County supported the application of the CTRC to Caltrans in recognition of the need for significant improvement in this transportation corridor. The lack of funding by the State, as well as the limited resources of the County and eastern county cities also prompted the County's support. This, support assumed that the local agencies would have an opportunity to review the impact of the projects during the course of the environmental review process and reassess further support at that time. The franchise agreement was issued under the privatization provisions of Assembly Bill 680 (Baker). The agreement was negotiated in private between Caltrans and the proponent, with no public or local agency participation solicited or allowed. It gives the CTRC exclusive rights to the transportation corridor. In return for building and operating a toll road, the CTRC would be able to gain a return on their investment. The road would eventually be turned over to the State. Staff continues to have concerns over the added cost of the project due to the terms of the franchise agreement. Other unresolved issues include toll setting authority, congestion management and the length of time the franchise is in effect. i The franchise agreement has several milestones. The first is initiation of traffic studies or an environmental scoping prior to June 30, 1991, the second is to obtain the environmental clearance by January 1, 2001, and the last is to commence construction by January 1, 2004. If the CTRC does not meet this schedule,the agreement is terminated. To this date the first task has been completed. A document has been circulated that outlines the steps necessary to complete the environmental impact report, although no Notice of Preparation has been prepared or circulated. Since then, the CTRC has not made any progress toward preparing the environmental document. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in a joint study with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), determined that there was a need for improvements to the corridor. MTC agreed to continue to consider the toll road proposal, if numerous conditions were met. ABAG as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District voted not to participate in MTC's planning process of the CTRC's proposal. More recently, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency has adopted a position opposing the Mid-State Tollway and has declined to participate in any planning effort that can be construed to imply endorsement of that project. In addition to the above concerns, the status of the CTRC Mid-State Tollway has clouded the development of transportation action plans for Contra Costa County. Much valuable time and expense has been spent on determining the role of the CTRC Mid-State Tollway in our action planning process. There is a need to balance jobs, housing, open space conservation and transportation in the eastern part of the Bay Area. One of the MTC conditions for the CTRC Mid- State Tollway to proceed with the environmental study is to develop with Contra Costa and Alameda counties a growth management and open space conservation program for the area. Regardless of the status of the CTRC Mid-State Tollway, staff feels it is important for the two counties and San Joaquin County to review their general plan policies and jointly develop a growth management strategy to preserve the quality of life and to allow economic development to continue. Status of the California Toll Road Company Proposed Mid-State Tollway Project October 11, 1993 Page 3 IV. Consequences of Negative Action: If the Board takes no action, it will accept the current planning process by Caltrans for the California Toll Road Company's proposal for a Mid-State Tollway. cc: Senator Dan Boatwright Assemblyman Campbell Assemblyman Bates Assemblyman Rainey James W. Van Loben Sels, Director of Caltrans Alameda County Board of Supervisors San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors San Joaquin County Council of Governments City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Dublin City of Livermore City of Pleasanton City of Tracy Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County ABAG CCTA MTC SWAT TVTC Transplan Transpac WCCTAC California Toll Road Company SR4 Bypass Authority CAO GMEDA CDD PWD TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DATE: October 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Status of the California Toll Road Company Proposed Mid-State Toliway Project. SPECIFIC REOUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS)S BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. Recommended Action: A. DETERMINE that the California Toll Road Company's (CTRL) "Mid-State Toliway" project Is not in the best interest of the County. AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board to continue to work with Alameda and San Joaquin counties and the cities in the region to resolve the issues of jobs, housing, transportation and conservation in the eastern Bay Area region. DIRECT staff not to Include the CTRC Mid-State Tollway in the action plan for East County. DIRECT the Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency to explore other means of financing the action plan. B. The following option was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting with no action by the committee and is forwarded for the full Board's consider- ation. SUPPORT the termination of the franchise agreement between the CTRC and Caltrans. il. Financial Impact: None. Continued on Attachment: X _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE —APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Tom Powers Gayle Bishop ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT:_ABSTAIN: c:B028.tg cc: See Page 3 Status of the California Toll Road Company Proposed Mid-State Tollway Project October 11, 1993 Page 2 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: i In January 1991, the State of California issued a franchise for a toll road to the California Toll Road Company, allowi g them to develop a private toil road within the eastern sections of Alameda and Contra Costa counties as well as through Solano County. The route, as proposed in the prospectus circulated by the proponent, would extend from Sunol on Interstate 680 to Interstate 80 near Vacaville. i Contra Costa County supported the application of the CTRC to Caltrans in recognition of the need for significant improvement in this transportation corridor. The lack of funding by the State, as well as the limited resources of the County and eastern county cities also prompted the County's support. This support assumed that the local agencies would have an opportunity to review the impact of the projects during the course of the environmental review process and reassess further support at that time. The franchise agreement was issued under the privatization provisions of Assembly Bill 680 (Baker). The agreement was negotiated in private between Caltrans and the proponent, with no public or local agency participation solicited or allowed. k gives the CTRC exclusive rights to the transportation corridor. In return for building and operating a toll road, the CTRC would be able to gain a return; on their investment. The road would eventually be turned over to the State. Staff continues to have'concerns over the added cost of the project due to the terms of the franchise agreement. Other unresolved issues include toll setting authority, congestion management and the length of time the franchise is in effect. i The franchise agreement has several milestones. The first is initiation of traffic studies or an environmental scoping prior to June 30, 1991, the second is to obtain the environmental clearance by January 1:1 2001, and the last is to commence construction by January 1, 2004. If the CTRC does not meet this schedule,the agreement is terminated. To this date the first task has been completed. A document has been circulated that outlines the steps necessary to complete the environmental impact report,although no Notice of Preparation has been prepared or circulated. Since then, the CTRC has not made any progress toward preparing the environmental document. i The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in a joint study with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), determined that there was a reed for improvements to the corridor. MTC agreed to continue to consider the toll road proposal, if numerous conditions were met. ABAG as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District voted not to participate in MTC's planning process of the CTRC's proposal. More recently, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency has adopted a position opposing the Mid-State Tollway and has declined to participate in any planning effort that can be construed to imply endorsement of that project. In addition to the above concerns, the status of the CTRC Mid-State Tollway has clouded the development of transportation action plans for Contra Costa County. Much valuable time and expense has been spent on determining the role of the CTRC Mid-State Tollway in our action planning process. The"e is a need to balance jobs, housing, open space conservation and transportation in the eastem part of the Bay Area. One of the MTC conditions for the CTRC Mid- State Tollway to proceed with the environmental study is to develop with Contra Costa and Alameda counties a growth management and open space conservation program for the area. Regardless of the status of the CTRC Mk State Tollway, staff feels it is important for the two counties and San Joaquin County to review thefr general plan policies and jointly develop a growth management strategy to preserve the quality of life and to allow economic development to continue. Status of the California Toil Road Company Proposed Mid-State Tollway Project October 11, 1993 Page 3 IV. Consequences of Negative Action: If the Board takes no action, it will accept the current planning process by Caltrans for the California Toll Road Company's proposal for a Mid-State Tollway. cc: Senator Dan Boatwright Assemblyman Campbell Assemblyman Bates Assemblyman Rainey James W. Van Loben Sels, Director of Caltrans Alameda County Board of Supervisors San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors San Joaquin County Council of Governments City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Dublin City of Livermore City of Pleasanton City of Tracy Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County ABAG CCTA MTC SWAT TVTC Transplan Transpac WCCTAC Calffomia Toll Road Company SR4 Bypass Authority CAO GMEDA CDD PWD dPr Lv" TC C. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �I RECEIVED R Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration BuildingCCT __ 0 651 Pine St. , 11th Floor Martinez, Ca. 94553 : I OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Dear Supervisors; I am writing to thank you for having the open minds to re-consider the issue of the Mid-State .Toll Road project. I understand you will be considering a staff recommendation to withdraw your support for the project and I wish to urge you in the strongest possible terms to reverse your previous position and formally oppose the Toll Road. This ill conceived, ill advised, poorly thought out project is clearly a major detriment to the quality of life of both people and the natural environment of Contra Costa County and the entire Bay Area. Besides opening up your area to enormous development pressures and the likelihood of uncontrolled sprawl, the road clearly benefits developers at the expense of the county and citizens. It makes no sense for the county to support a project with such great negatives, strong public opposition, and obvious flaws. The project will be tied up for years in lawsuits, while the region's transportation problems remain unsolved. Lets spend our time and money building public roads and public transportation, not enriching a few powerful special interests at all of our expense. Again, thank you for your willingness to take a second look at this project. I sincerely hope you will join so many other cities and counties in -the East Bay in opposing this terrible boondoggle. Sincer y, H. b vinsky H. Robb Leeinsky P.O. Bog 1434 ForestvUlle, OA 95436 i KATHRYN P. STEIN 32 Beverly Road Kensington, CA 94707 (510) 524-5393 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYY RECEIVED October 7, 1993 OCT _. 819�9Q Contra Costa Board of Supervisors OFFICE OF County Administration Building COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 651 Pine St. , 11th Floor Martinez, CA 941553 Dear Supervisors:' Thank you for re-considering the issue of the Mid-State Toll Road. I urge you to follow the example of other East and North Bay jurisdictions (such as Solano County, San Ramon, Livermore, Hayward, and Oakland) in opposing the project. There are plenty ;of compelling reasons for opposing the toll road, especially the outrageous contract terms between the toll road developer an,d Caltrans. Not to mention the fact that the toll road will open up the easter flank of the Bay Area to enormous development pressures. Let's find a better way to deal with our county's transportation future -- a way that is both environmentally and financially sensible. A ., in - . CONTRA COSTA D COUNTY RECEIVE OCT _ 81993 OFFICE OF ,f COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR I 44 I I v THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES Richard A.Smith X1834 Golden Gate Ave San Francisco,CA RECEIVED OCT 1 4 MM CUIM BO Ru OF SUPERMSORS CONTRA COSTA CO. -1621 D ............... olddel") ................ 94924 11 (415) 969 B. Bolinasi c '22 Road-P.O. BOX 662 r M� Co - a o132�4d at�- .......... RECEIVED � 1 10 Panoramic Way Berkeley, CA 94704 OCT 15 QW October 9, 1993 CLERK BOARD OFSUPERVISORS COPITRA COSTA CO. Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration BUilding 651 Pine Street, 11 th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear County Supervisors: I own property in the city of Pittsburg and as a property owner in Contra Costa County I am writing to voice my strong opposition the Mid-State Toll Road. I want to thank you for reconsidering the Toll Road issue. Please oppose the Toll Road since it is a boondoggle with outrageous contractual terms between the developer and Caltrans, including a 21 .25% profit margin, commercial leasing rights along the intersections and the assignment of all liability problems associated with the road to the State of California! What a rip-off for the citizens of California. This Road would cause enormous and unplanned development in Contra Costa County. The reason we have such traffice problems now is due to the brilliant planning or lack thereof in the past. Please vote against this project. Who needs it? Not Contra Costa County. Thank you for your attention to my point of view. Sincerely, (Pv- Vf C Constantina Economou _OCT_--8-1M- OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR `Oj1=4=""�._-__`�-;`=?'n'"�/-/,J-t-i-��ov-��'cs�ZL�–_-�—('�-_-��G.'`.__.._�-=------.- S �t7 n5 r 9�Ps w6vh -- Tc . I -- / ..00T 41993 -�� f'100✓ CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS--------- --- ------ _._-E- - - --- -- _..--____: ..�-- ------== - ------ --CONTRA--COSTA CO. j f t r r i i---- �� '_ _..�-- --- - Z/a- cL �ea-/-/: 16-1 Ztz j 9 r i 'I i d. ----- - - -� --- --------�---_ _o�__�' ��c•� �. -- ---���-- %�--.---�--e-__fie_ , - - __ _.• Se_ - fie"-- /---� P �'eve� -- 74- -- 0/7 Zlel wee i - -__/�,��;�P,Z.- _- Lam✓-_-- ���'s3 � , �';����t..--e.J2..�� Gam•- �����2r7�?.�'z.,, ,,,�i,�1 r��� G��!C.� ca-y4 '' RECEIVED - OCT 41993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. m A, ow CZ) m p Z? C-) o 30. x :>10 0 M 00 (n ,� 0 c.n 0 -r- C, cf) C rn Cl) "n n Uj ID i 74M. KZcn i2Gk i c 7 9,41 t f A.n�(.,.I.1w.� CA-) o,aek)ao- o� \o - �\--A3 Monica Brooks -To Cosmo �oa�d o� SvQeRv�sc�s p� SwPe�v�S�Rs Cr) � � matey ood` &ev ER-\ oAk (aA Ca��- c� Cis 27 VISTA CLARA DRIVE SAUSALITO,CA 94965 Oct. 5, 1993 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration Bldg. 651 Pine St. , 11th Floor Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Supervisors, It has been a dark cloud looming over Contra Costa County with possibility of the Mid State Toll Road being built. You are to be commended for re-considering this outrageous development between the toll road developer and Caltrans . If this road goes through it is inevitable that it will open up the eastern portion of the Bay Area to enormous growth with development pressures . There are many more sensible and less environment damaging alternatives . Please vote against this unfeasible project. Don' t ruin your beautiful county with yet more development such as this . Sincerely, — Mr . and Mrs . Alberic de Lae s w � CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED OCT 6199 r OFFICE OF ''` COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECEIVED OCT 61993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 6940 Sayre Drive CONTRA COSTA M Oakland, Ca . 94611 October 4, 1993 Dear Boardof Supervisors : I was pleasedto hear that you re-considering your support for Mid-State Toll Road . I believe there are much better ways to deal with Contra Costa ' s and the East Bay ' s transportation needs than with this costly maneuver by developers who are not interested in the area ' s future but only their own pocket books . Thank you for your attention to my letter. Sincerely yours, LA Virginia Barclay Goldstein 7,571 Bm��k!`Jaid; RECEIVED OCT - 71993 CLERK ROARS?OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. L r N a a! O N U 8 d Q p � W tv\ V �� a RECEMED OCT -- 7 1993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. u DAVID L. MASSEN 700 Church Street,Apt. 313 San Francisco,CA 94114 (415) 626-7086 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors October 5 , 1993 County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor Martinez , CA 94553 Dear Supervisors : Thank you very much for re-considering the issue of the Mid-State Toll Road. I hope you will follow the example of so many other East Bay and North Bay jurisdictions--including Solano County, San Ramon, Livermore, Hayward, and Oakland-- as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Association of Bay Area . Governments in opposing the project. I feel there are many good reasons for opposing the toll road, including: -- the outrageous contract terms between the toll road developer and Caltrans , which include a 21. 25% profit margin, lucrative commercial leasing rights at tollway intersections , monopoly rights to build the project . and ensure that no competing public roads interfere with the .toll road; • and the assignment of all liability problems related to road operations to the state of California--not the developers ; -- the fact that the toll road will unnecessarily open up the eastern flank of the Bay Area to enormous development pressures--and make it impossible to plan appropriately for eastern Contra County ' s future; -- there certainly are better ways to deal with Contra Costa ' s and, the .East Bay' s transportation and development future. The sooner we dispense with the toll road, the sooner we can move on to examine environmentally and financially sensible transportation alternatives. Please stop this transportation boondoggle. The open space and agricultural products your county has are important .to me. . We don 't need more major roads ; there 447.,m�.0 .,people. ;-� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I sincerely, RECEIVED E OCT 71993 OFFICE OF `' ` COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine St., 11th Floor OCT 71993 Martinez, CA 94553 October 4, 1993 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Dear Supervisors, As a Bay Area citizen I want to thank you for re-considering the issue of the Mid-State Toll Road. After lengthy study, I feel that this project will offer nothing to the quality of life in our area, and could, indeed, create enormous environmental pressures and the specter of ugly, strip mall-itus. Besides the obvious environmental problems this road represents, there is the question of the outrageous contract terms the toll road developer has secured. We (the tax-paying citizens who live in the Bay Area) would pay the price tag and reap the benefits of ugly, unplanned development and increased pollution--while the developers would take home the bacon. Please consider alternatives to our transportation problems that include trains, BART and better bus services---not a new toll road. Besides, Californians don't DO toll roads--let's keep that concept east of the Rockies. Sincerely, AL4.,� /",_1 Denise Voelker 22. ALERA ST Cr, CA ±L zT` j"��!\��%ti._ Lk "{-- s` C. � ct-LA ^ -_ Ohl -�,� k �S -� RECEIVE® � OCT 7 1993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. �w'"�--.� _• ��-` US:1 ac\w � I k � e . • �\�\��� l,`� - ��i�tii�!{�{�{�{ilt�ltl'�I111��111t�'I�tit�llllilll' Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration Bldg. 651 Pine Street, 11 th Floor Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Supervisors, 5-Oct., 1993 We are writing to thank you for re-considering the Mid-State Toll Road, and to urge you to follow the example of so many of your East Bay neighboring jurisdictions as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Association of Bay Area Governments in opposing this project. We feel that contract terms between the developer and Caltrans are outrageously unfair, giving up far too many rights and decision making powers to these developers. This project would also open up the eastern flank of the Bay Area to enormous development pressures, making it impossible to plan for an environmentally sustainable future for Contra Costa County. As a young couple (one of us is a native San Franciscan), we feel the urgent importance of reducing the impact of the automobile on regional air quality and find the idea of a Toll Road to be counter productive to true environmental solutions for the Bay Area, i.e. greater access to, and funding of mass-transit, and stricter restrictions on single driver automobiles. Please join with us in working to see the Bay Area's air quality and open space preserved and protected for your, our, and future generations to come. Sincerely, Saul Robbins Erin Dawn CONTRA COSTA COUNTY� 56 Dolores Terrace 5t9 �� RECEIVED f San Francisco, Ca. 94110-1011 415 255 4689 CT 7 IMOFFICE OF COUNTYADMINISTRATOR THIS IS 100% POST-CONSUMER WASTE RECYCLED PAPER ` C CFOARDOrSUPER\JJ ORS 2756 San Benito Drive pNTRA COSTA CO Walnut Creek, CA 94598 October 1, 1993 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine St . , 11th floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors : Thank you for re-considering the issue of the Mid-State Toll Road. I strongly urge you to oppose the project, both for environmental and. financial reasons . The toll road would encourage rampant development of eastern Contra Costa County, a development that would not come out of careful planning for appropriate land use . I see this road as a major threat to the Bay Area ' s greenbelt . Financially this toll road makes sense to only the toll road developers . The .profit margin, the leasing rights, the monopoly ensuring no competing public roads, the State ' s acceptance of road-operations Liability--all these contract terms benefit the road developer BUT NOT THE TAXPAYER. The terms truly seem outrageous . Please join the Association of Bay Area Governments and numerous cities as well as the county of Solano in opposing the project . There are much beater ways to address the East Bay' s and our county ' s transportation problems and future development . I am a long-time resident of Contra Costa County and care deeply about its future . Sincerely, Arleen Fraser 10/2/93 Dear Supervisors,. - I am writing to thank you for re-considering the issue of the mid- state Toll Road.and,.I would like to take this op-portunity to urge you to join many other East Bay and North Bayr jurisdictions as well as the Bay.- Area Air Quality- Management District and the Association of Bay Area Governments in opposing the project. In your deliberations I hope .you will keep in mind:The outrageous contract terms between the toll road developer:.--:and Caltrans(which. in- cludes a 21. 2.5% profit margin and the assignment of all liability problems related to road operations to the state of California--not the developers) ,the fact that the toll road will open up the eastern flank of the Bay- Area to enormous development pressures and also that there are better ways to deal with Contra Costal's and the East Bar's transportation and development future.The sooner we reject the toll road scam,,the sooner we can move on to examine environmentally, and financially sensible transportation alternatives. Thant you for your time, Robert R. Ransdell i RECEIVE® M..,..' OCT 4 1993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOR& CONTRA COSTA CO. VIS©? "All tL dj-O-A- C1-�R��i�1��SR Cfl 41 IA n _'t/ �i. 3 ,�N �,i ,; �.'=- i � � � g(�( # I d 6 i � d £ � � '� � , � `� � ' M= -� ��= ,'n c ,� ;��.-1\ r,� ��fi � o .-+ ,,� � � �r ami d O� °' d � � � •� � G 0 or = g.� �. ,� .1 [()) 2-1 93 ViSze A a4VL A- H Idsd - al jw S6, 'D'u wood, plca'aQ'-' o 49aq pjc�L-� In oppo-S py ecy or so04 -44 Goth - cc a/lt-bi^ dL np 4�- RECEIVED OCT - 51993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. (I QR ` RECEIVED f is f\ 9 45,63 OCT 0I SOF COLt i S\k 'Ic I, �E 2576 San Benito Drive RECEIVED Walnut Creek, CA !94598-4103 October 2, 1993 , 5 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration Building gQARDOFSUP ERVISORS 651 Pine St . , 11th Floor CONT COSTACO• Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors, Thank you for reconsidering the Mid-State Toll Road issue . Please join other' North Bay and East Bay jurisdictions, such as Solano County, Livermore, Oakland, Hayward and San Ramon, in OPPOSING the project . There are many good reasons to oppose the toll road: 1 . The contract terms are outrageous : giving a 21 . 25° profit margin to the developers, but assigning all liability to the state . 2 . The road would unnecessarily open up the eastern chunk of the Bay Area to development pressures--and make it impossible to plan appropriately for the eastern Contra Costa County' s future . 3 . There are better, sounder ideas of ways to deal with the transportation future of the Bay Area . The toll road is financially and environmentally unsound! Thank you for your attention! Sincerely, Anna Fraser CONTRA COM caum mom .4 � „• .. t OCT 4050 Poplar Ave. 's Concord, CA 94521 5 u. 0FRC EOF October 3, 1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contra Costa Board!; of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine St. , lith Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisors: We wish to thank you for reconsidering the issue of the Mid- State Toll Road. We urge you t'p oppose the project along with other Last Bay and North Bay jurisdictions, including Solano County, &an Ramon, Livermore, Hayward and Oakland, as well as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Association of Bay Area Governments. The following',;'. ar. e good reasons for opposing the toll road: 1. The toll road will unnecessarily open up eastern Contra. Costa to enormous development pressures and make it impossible to make appropriate plans for this area' s future. 2. The terms between the toll road developers and Caltrans are outrageous with a large profit margin for the developer, but liability assigned to the State of California. 3. Dispensing with the toll road will allow environmentally and financially sensible transportation alternatives to be developed. We urge you to oppose the Mid-State Toll Road. Sincerely yours, i; CA i � t 0 o oU) tR a 0 s...aFyrry Hiaen 424E Maneela Ct Palo Alto.CA i �944306�-3731 � �� Va4-� We POB 12044 tUc%bHey.'CA 949427/10 _ ; wd4@1111 /1"'ok Wr i CWM COSTA COUNTY RECEIM X'i•tt y �.rs� En 2 October 193 CONTRA COSTA BOARD of SUPERVUSORS f OCT 51993 # COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 651 OINE STREET 11th FLOOR OFFICE OF MARTINEZ, CA 94.553 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Dear Supervisors This is to THANK YOU for reconsidering the fate of "MSIR" ! It is not surprising that after the negative attitudes towards "MSTR" by San Ramon-s6lano County-Hayward-Oakland-Livermore and various North bay Jurisdictions your thinking may have changed. Bay Area Air Quality Management and ,ABAG were also opposed to this stupid arrangement ! ! ! There are, indeed, a multiplicity of excellent legal reasons for stopping "MSTR" once and for all ! 1. The contract terms with the state are absurdly ridiculous in favoring the developers bank account more than any contract of this sort should! 2. Development pressures will swiftly multiply in strength and in quantity following "MSTR's" acceptance and rapidly develop East Contra Costa County into a true East Bay GHETTO ! 3. IF you end this patently boondoggling effort of these anti- public-weal interests you will be able to easily commence examining far better environmental/fiscal/public-oriented alternatives ! ! ! It is to be hoped, that IF your "reconsiderations" are truly honest YOU WILL KICK THE "BASTARDS" O U T ! ! ! Cordially Wallis Wenner Copy to: GREENBELT ALLIANCE 116 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 640 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 Natural and Traditicnutl a CONTRA COSTA COuNTY .. RECEIVED z ,s . ----r , : OCT 5 i •w.3. Cheryl Schwartz. D.V.M. 01 . :� CE OF COUNrf ADMINISTRATOR }- f4' �v pr -- +� C4 A-co '-Lt ,42 e O-e (o/Itiv,(' (�d� t a`, f/�{}—t �✓ j c s� fC t ► C 1/ C COLI "' ra- 1201. E. 12th St. • Oakland, CA 94606 • (415) 531n- 924 7. Printed on recycled paper l CONTRF+ U. ?A COUNTY RECEIVED OCT 61993 OFFICOF E 'S COMADI�INISTRAYOR B.S. Golosman 18295 Las Cumbres Los Gatos, CA 95030 10-3-93 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors I am.against the Mid State Toll Road because : 1. Of the outrageous contract terms.between the road developer and Caltrans ( a 21.25 T profit margin, lucrative commercial leasing rights at .intersections,no competing public roads, assignment of all liability to the state of California ). 2. The toll road will cause enormous development pressure on the East Bay and make proper planning impossible. 3. There are much environmentally and financially better ways to handle Contra Costa's and the East Bay's transportation future. . Please follow the example of Solano County, San Ramon, Livermore, Hayward, Oakland, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Association of Bay Area Governments in opposing this project. Thank you.