The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12061994 - TC.3 . .. � , . i. c. 3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DATE: December 5, 1994 SUBJECT: Recommendation on the Precise Alignment of the &cMs Route 4 Bypass. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. Recommended Action: Consider the alternative alignments for the State Route 4 Bypass Precise Alignment and recommend a project alternative to the County's representative on the State Route 4 Bypass Authority. IL Financial Impact: None. The project is not funded from the General Fund. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: Process: The State Route 4 Bypass Authority, a Jg:!r-lt Exercise of Powers Agency, established by the cities of Brentwood and Antioch as well as Pontra Costa County, has the responsibility to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (F- IR) and adopt a precise alignment for the State Route 4 Bypass project. On December 8,,1994 the Authority will consider the certification of the FEIR and the adoption of the alignment: By agreement, the vote for adoption of the alignment and certification must be by unanimous vote of the Authority's Board of Directors. Incorporated in the Joint Exrcise of Powers Agreement is a provision for consultation with the &I, member agencies prior to caking those actions. Although the consideration at this time would be an advisory to the Cponty's representative on the Authority, it is in no way binding on that member. It should also`be noted that the precise alignment adopted by the Authority must also be adopted by the cities of Antioch and Brentwood and the County who also will act on the FEIR as responsible agencies. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE See "Addendum A" for Transportation Committee Action. APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Gayle Bis ho �"'' Tom Todakson ay ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER The Board considered the alternative alignments for State Route 4 Bypass Precise Alignment, but did not reach a conclusion on a recommended project alternative. The Chair requested the matter be placed on the December 13, 1994 agenda as a Determination Item with reports from staff on proposed alternatives, on actions of the Joint Powers Authority taken at its December 8, 1994 meeting, and to consider the status of the Joint Powers Authority. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby Certify that this IS a trueand correctcopyof an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of supervi ra on the ate shown. LT:eh ATTESTED: 1 -"— J (-I� /y.7 C:605.t12 PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Orig. Div: Public Works (TE) BY Deputy Contact: Lowell Tunison, Tel. 313-2382 cc: See Page 2 • Recommendation on the Precise Alignment of the State Route 4 Bypass. December 5, 1994 Page 2 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:ound: (Cont.) Alignment Recommendation and Alternatives: The Bypass Authority issued the Draft EIR for the Project in November 1993. The document analyzed the impacts of the proposed project alignment as well as two alternative alignments. The alternatives were proposed by two landowners in the area of the proposed project alignment. For identification purposes the three alignments are called the Project, Nunn and Cowell alternatives. The alternatives were examined at a level of detail that would allow adoption of any of the alternatives with the FEIR. A complete analysis of the alternatives is in the report entitled "State Route 4 Bypass Alternative Alignment Study between Vasco Road and Briones Valley Road" which has been forwarded to the members of the Board of Supervisors under separate cover. Attached is the summary matrix from the report. Staff Recommendation: County staff recommends that the Board endorse adoption of the Project Alignment. It best achieves the design goals for the project as outlined in the staff study. Either of the two alternatives will achieve the goals of the project and still can be considered as alternatives. Alternatives for Board action: 1. Approve staff recommendation. 2. Recommend either the Nunn or Cowell alternative for adoption and indicate a preference for a second choice. 3. Indicate no preference. 4. Take no action. None is required for the Bypass Authority to take action. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: If the Board does not make a recommendation for a preferred alignment, its representative on the Bypass Authority will not have that input on December 8th. cc: County Administrator GMEDA Public Works Director Community Development Director State Route 4 Bypass Authority City of Brentwood City of Antioch Alignment Proponents CO N t 0- 0 d to %:: 4) 0 #P 0 0 C: 12s .4 0 V) r co • 6) tp to 0 0 ko N N 0 C, to to co CO W 0 0 I> w co OD ko co co q 0- 's co i1' Inn cv-5 Wo 0 t: r- -S,� 00 — A jo Q 07 0 cp X: op ta th U ui C.*04 Ift to 0- 4p C: o �- 4) 4) tA 0 -1 .co, 0 o "0 0 (D 0 j::, ka C. 0 00,0 C '0 40 0 cX: to w C� — so0) G —0 0 -1ro- V 20 0 C: r. *2 0 —0 0 0 co .......... d4 0 C4 d so 03 w G 4N 67 16 0 0✓0 0 In CD in 0 0 .0 Ol 0 CP 03 (9 CP i0 0 0 ch —0 0 Z:� w 0 0 0 G> 0 - —r 0 co 4) ;A cp r- o c Coe) C-4 0 4) 0 0 04 / 1 0, 406, • 0 0 11 C* 0) 0 0 co C., 0 0. 0 Ojo V) tp, V) 0 0 0 "Oc o A (0 4) e) 0 12 0. 0 CP '00 .6 4) C 0 0 co -0 0 0 Co C* en 9f- 0 0 w 0 0-Y. 0 �a to .6 0 16 4) 4) 0 W vo 2 Cr 5 C: cr O Ul to 0 CO IP i 0) C> 4) 0 to lo a o 0 0 0 C) C: .6 "Oq -r- S ..wj 0 co co 0 C3 03 C5 3� 0 0 0 0 4) 0. (D C-A 40 CP 40 e) 0. C� C4 04* 0 cL. lar C: 0 0 Cs 03 0 0 !6 0 P '0 U� 0 1 !.. W -9. 0 vo co 00C13 0- 0 C' 0 cc v- 0 7 U CP 4 0 it0 0- ss page X co C: 0 v $'Addendum All The Transportation Committee, in a unanimous action, recommended the "Nunn" alignment alternative for adoption as the State Route 4 Bypass alignment, and the "Project" alignment alternative as the second choice for the State Route 4 Bypass alignment. Date: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM 1/ (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name:mak OQN \. kENAQA-bz, Phone: 0� Address: aaw, City: I am speaking for: VMyself OR ❑ Organization: �'1 £ LCL NAME OF ORMANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # p g My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: L.PDQ QAQ State Route 4 Bypass Alignment Alternatives Between Briones Valley Road and Walnut Boulevard Percentage of Right-of-Way on Respective Properties #1 - Cowell #2 - Nunn #3 - Others Mitigated Project 54% 33% 13% Alignment Cowell Preferred 42% 45% .13% Alignment Mitigated Nunn 68% 0% 32% Alignment & e/ Date: Z REQUEST TO SPEAK{ FORM (Two [2] Minute Limit) /U Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: y ,6& Phone: - 02 Address: L ZO V4,4U.l rr(( City: I am speaking for: ❑ Myself OR Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # C My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: 1 Date: 1Z 6 REQUEST TO SPEAK{ FORM (Two [2] Minute Limit) 7 Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: 2 L Phone: /j I Address L °"�!3 t C�R .��lo�G �. I-el l c( City: S-4 I am speaking for: ❑ Myself OR �1 r� 0 0 Cu c NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Tc.• 3 My comments will be: ❑ General For ❑ Against I wish to speak on the subject of: /--� AU tc :J ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Date: REQUEST To SPEAK FoRm (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Mar-sAa/l Phone: /G" Z2"U Address .?RP9 C-b n e.d r4 4 v e 4 r"0-04 City: -f'e•Lz�w ar�-c� I am speaking for: E9 Myself OR ❑ Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ! -❑ Against [� 1 wish to speak on the subject of: /1/� ✓� / �f ��-/ il�y�n � ` ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Date: .� REQUEST TO SPEAK FOAM (Two [2] Minute Limit) 7 Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: ��/�a �� Phone: Address: /`/4 C'��0` �U�" City: �/►i fi,�ea I am speaking for: X Myself OR ❑ Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against I wish to speak on the subject of: � ��r �G A,iC,- /1 GYRI X-J/;t'� ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Date: 6 he REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (Two [2] Minute Limit) (� Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name:�� Phone:U" ��—2,11Address: P to V 77' City: v ry� N f � 4 I am speaking for: ❑ Myself OR X—Organization : NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: )< General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: _ ~-�� ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Date: t 2- REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: azr�R�S �� C— — Phone: Address: Soa CovRT STVeel` City: (+V-{,TTNeZ. I am speaking for: ❑ Myself OR 1. Organization: (24*-6- (04-a IA NAME OF ORGANI TION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: Z General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: PZo-PO e-A comer -S ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for.the Board to consider: Date: REQUEST TO SPEAK Fopm (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: (�� Phone: Address: ---9 AUCity: I am speaking for: L Myself OR ❑ Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # � as .My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ,Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: rvk ❑ I do not wish to.speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: ( S �' Date: �a REQUEST TO SPEAIK FOpi (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete-this form and place it ' the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: i - Phone: 1�:3-1,,- �` - o, Address• Q ('D S C, City: I am speaking for: OR"Myself OR ❑ Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑`"Against ElI wish to speak on the subject of: ��'S (/Z / !4z Z (•�/r��-'� �i ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Date: ` REQUEST TO SPEAK FOAM (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone:E16 Address: U 1 City: am"n P,,Arrwj I am speaking for-� Myself OR ❑ Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: T�I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: LI General El For ❑ Against I wish to speak on the subject of: rot ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: � REQLJEST TO SPEAK FOKM Date: 1;2 G 9- (Two [2] Minute Limit) Completethis form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: 1110 ,h, bZ n e,-t�e it co uy t Phone: 0 �--�y •S� 3 M fi�� y R Address: � City: f I am speaking for: EX Myself OR ❑ Organization: f ) [� 'f Y1!t- NAME OF ORGANIZATION D 1 CHECK ONE: �Q ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against J y� ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: /tJ 6:r 9 (, y' e J ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments fqr the Board to consider: 1114^bb-1774 11 lJJ tKUI 1 L 15 I K 11 l 1 41J1 tKV 14AJK I U ` 4137b t'.kat c 2309 STAMM IL RRn cotIM 006TH OOtiMy CONCOM CALIFORNIA 94520480B f� OF SUPERMORS (hip)646-OW •_•� '� ¢fpy$48.578?(AW MARK DESAUMER SUPERypsDR,M31'FMC1IV CL*-roK CLYDE.COMPOPO,PACMM PLV*Wf WILL December 6, 1994 Supervisor Torn Powers, CIS Board of Supervisors 100 37th Street. Room 270 RMynond, CA 94W5 Dear Tom: As you know, l will be In Washington. DC, on Tuesday, December S with Supervisor Jeff Smith working to secure funds for a new Contra Costa County Juvenile Mall. Since l will not be present for the Board meeting on the M, there are several board Items that I would like to comm nj on or have NO over until my return: item 2.1, Item TC3, and Items S.2 and S.4. 1. l would appreciate item 2.1 being held over until December 13 as I would like to be present when the report regarding admission policies for the homeless shelters is read. 2. 1 am in consensus with Supervisor Smith's comments on Rem TC3 as outlined in his letter of december B to you. 3. l would also Ike Item S.3, the report from the Actin Social Services Director regarding Ceftral Assistance, to be held over till the 13th. 4. kern S.4, the Ad Hoc Committee report regarding Los Medanos Hospital: k was my underMnding that we also recommended that county staff work with the receiver to overlay operations from Merrithew Hospital to Los Medenos and to work on a preliminary offer from our Board to the receiver for the purchase of the full site to be used as a county acute care faMlity. Thank you for your assistancae on these Rams. I am looking forward to our trip to Washington, DC, and to successfully sax"Mg the funks necessary for a now Juvenile Hall. Sincerely, Mark DeS"Ier MD:vib cc: Word Members TOTAL. P.01 $E COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET,ROOM 108A -:< BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINEZ,CA 94553-1293 Y =� (510)646-2080 FAX(510).646-1396 SrA coi r�' JEFFREY V. SMITH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT TWO December 5, 1994 Tom Powers, Chairman Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 100 37th Street, Room 270 Richmond, CA 94805 Dear Tom: You are already aware that I will be out of town during the December 6, Board of Supervisor's meeting. I will be in Washington D.C. , With Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, attempting to secure funds for the Juvenile Justice Committee. The trip will be very beneficial if we succeed. There are several items on the Board's agenda for December 6th that I have some concerns about; item 2 . 1 regarding admission policies for the homeless shelters, item S.2 regarding General Assistance, and item TC3 regarding the Route 4 bypass . Please hold item 2 . 1 over until next week. I would like to be present when that report is heard. Would you please set a date of December 13, 1994 to hear the report from the Acting Social Services Director regarding item S. 2, the testing of General Assistance recipients . I have studied the material on item TC3, the State Route 4 bypass, thoroughly. It is apparent to me that there are two major factors to be considered, environmental impacts and financing. As you are aware, this project involves sensitive environmental land. Any alignment which threatens more environmental areas will be unacceptable. Also, since funding for the State Route 4 Bypass is already questionable, any alignment which is more expensive or limits further revenue generation by limiting proceeds generated by proposed housing will be unacceptable. Clearly, the Nunn Mitigated alternative won't work because it will cost more, it will create more negative environmental impacts than the other options, and it will impact the Cowell proposal and reduce mitigation fees further. Therefore, I believe the Cowell alignment will work I . COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET,ROOM 108A o'• a BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINEZ,CA 94553-1293 (510)646-2080 FAX(510)646-1396 S�q cbJK� JEFFREY V. SMITH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT TWO December 5, 1994 Barbara Guise, Member State Route 4 Bypass Joint Powers Authority 708 Third Street Brentwood, CA 94513 Dear Barbara: We have both reviewed the material on the State Route 4 bypass, thoroughly. It is apparent to us that there are two major factors to be considered, environmental impacts and financing. As you are aware, this project involves sensitive environmental land. Any alignment which threatens more environmental areas will be unacceptable. Also, since funding for the State Route 4 Bypass is already questionable, any alignment which is more expensive or limits further revenue generation by limiting proceeds generated by proposed housing will be unacceptable. Clearly, the Dunn Mitigated alternative won't work because it will cost more, it will create more negative environmental impacts than the other options, and it will impact the Cowell proposal and reduce mitigation fees further. Therefore, we believe the Cowell alignment will work best. However, the Project Mitigated Alignment proposal would be a workable compromise. Please support either the Cowell or Project alignments . We thought it was important to provide the Joint Powers Agency our input in as much as this section of the State Route 4 Alignment is entirely within the jurisdiction of the County and will ultimately need to be incorporated into the circulation element of our general plan. Thank you very much for your assistance on this issue. Sioce o s, Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor, District II Supervisor, District IV 1 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET,ROOM 108A -s .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARTINEZ,CA 94553-1293 (510)646-2080 FAX(510)646-1396 �S�A coaKT JEFFREY V. SMITH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT TWO December 5, 1994 Joel Keller, Member State Route 4 Bypass Joint Powers Authority P.O. Box 130 Antioch, CA 94509 Dear Joel : We have both reviewed the material on the State Route 4 bypass, thoroughly. It is apparent to us that there are two major factors to ,be considered, environmental impacts and financing. As you are aware, this project involves sensitive environmental land. Any alignment which threatens more environmental areas will be unacceptable. Also, since funding for the State Route 4 Bypass is already questionable, any alignment which is more expensive or limits further revenue generation by limiting proceeds generated by proposed housing will be unacceptable. Clearly, the Nunn Mitigated alternative won't work because it will cost more, it will create more negative environmental impacts than the other options, and it will impact the Cowell proposal and reduce mitigation fees further. Therefore, we believe the Cowell alignment will work best. However, the Project -Mitigated Alignment proposal would be a workable compromise. Please support either the Cowell or Project alignments . We thought it was important to provide the Joint Powers Agency our input in as much as this section of the State Route 4 Alignment is entirely within the jurisdiction of the County and will ultimately need to be incorporated into the circulation element of our general plan. Thank you very much for your assistance on this issue. ?fSmi Pyr s Mark DeSaulnier or, District II Supervisor, District IV y I tE L • COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET,ROOM 108A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS xt ,� MARTINEZ,CA 94553-1293 (510)646-2080 FAX(510)646-1396 STA cou- JEFFREY.V. SMITH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT TWO December 5, 1994 Tom Torlakson, Chair State Route 4 Joint Powers Authority 300 E. Leland Avenue, Suite 100 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Tom: We have both reviewed the material on the State Route 4 bypass, thoroughly. It is apparent to us that there are two major factors to be considered, environmental impacts and financing. As you are aware, this project involves sensitive environmental land. Any alignment which threatens more environmental areas will be unacceptable. Also, since funding for the State Route 4 Bypass is already questionable, any alignment which is more expensive or limits further revenue generation by limiting proceeds generated by proposed housing will be unacceptable. Clearly, the Nunn Mitigated alternative won't work because it will cost more, it will create more negative environmental impacts than the other options, and it will impact the Cowell proposal and reduce mitigation fees further. Therefore, we believe the Cowell alignment will work best. However, the Project Mitigated Alignment proposal. would be a workable compromise. Please support either the Cowell or Project alignments . We thought it was important to provide the Joint Powers Agency our input in as much as this section of the State Route 4 Alignment is entirely within the jurisdiction of the County and will ultimately need to be incorporated into the circulation element of our general plan. Thank you very much for your assistance on this issue. 7�fSimith rs Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor, District II Supervisor, District IV 3