HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10181994 - 2.3 a.3
- Contra
TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Costa
FROM: Phil Batchelor a' County
Executive Director r CU"
DATE : October 18, 1994
SUBJECT: Southern Pacific Arterial and North Main Realignment Traffic Study -
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT Study Requirements for Traffic Study of Southern Pacific
Arterial Project, North Main Realignment Project, and Pleasant Hill
BART Specific Plan Land Use Alternatives (Attachment A) ; and AUTHORIZE
the Redevelopment Agency to circulate a Request for Proposal to
Traffic Consultants . Such acceptance and authorization does not
commit the County to any particular course of action.
FISCAL IMPACT
Traffic study costs are expected to be in the range of $100, 000-
125, 000. Redevelopment Agency tax increments funding will be used;
no General Funds are involved.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan/Redevelopment Plan
The County, in 1983, adopted a Specific Plan for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area. The vision of that Specific Plan is to cr ate a
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE :
JLAMJ
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATaION OFA NCY COMMIT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) :
ACTION OF AGENCY ON October 18 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x
See Addendum A For Board .actions .
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: III , Iy,y NOES: I ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: II ABSTAIN: - MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Jim Kennedy
646-4076 ATTESTED October 18 , 1994
cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR
County Counsel AGENCY SECRETARY
Public Works
Community Development
Redevelopment Agency
via Redevelopment Agency
Contra Costa Centre Association
Stand-Up
BY-4 A , DEPUTY
JK:1h
sra16/sparter.bos
transit based development center at the highly accessible Pleasant Hill
BART Station. In order to create this major employment and housing
center at this transit hub, the Specific Plan (and surrounding area)
provided for the development of approximately 3 .2 million square feet
of commercial space (office, hotel and retail) and 2, 000 housing units.
The development of the Specific Plan is a model for interjurisdictional
cooperation, with BART, the cities of Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,
the local homeowners (Walden Improvement Association) , and the County
participating in a joint planning process . The Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Specific Plan was endorsed by the participating
jurisdictions .
To implement the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan, the property owners
financed approximately $40 million in road and drainage improvements
(two assessment districts, one Mello-Roos district, development fees,
and land dedications were employed) . The County created its
Redevelopment Agency and the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Redevelopment Plan in 1984 . The Redevelopment Plan was created as a
vehicle for assembling the development sites required by the Specific
Plan, and to finance another $40 million in road, drainage, and other
public improvements .
B. Proposed Projects to be Studied
1 . The "SP Arterial"
Included in the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan and in the County
General Plan was a roadway within the former Southern Pacific right-of-
way linking the Station Area with Monument Boulevard to the north.
Attachment B provides a description of the project and a discussion of
issues . Traffic studies completed as part of the Specific Plan
process, and in the EIR, identified traffic impacts at Buskirk
Avenue/Monument Boulevard and at Treat Boulevard/Bancroft Road. The
proposed roadway project, the "SP Arterial, " was found to mitigate the
identified traffic impacts, and was therefore included as a part of the
Specific Plan. The Redevelopment Plan provides for a Redevelopment
Agency to finance the SP Arterial . To that end, the Redevelopment
Agency incurred bonded indebtedness of approximately $16 million to
finance the acquisition of the former Southern Pacific right-of-way
between Walden Road and Monument Boulevard, and to help finance the
roadway construction.
In February , 1994 the Board of Supervisors sitting as the Redevelopment
Agency authorized the lead agency, the Redevelopment Agency, to proceed
with the preparation of environmental documents for a roadway project
in the former Southern Pacific right-of-way.
2 . North Main Realignment
The North Main Realignment Project was conceived as a result of the
County' s 1990 "Additional Traffic Mitigation Study. " The project was
identified as a means of enhancing access to the Pleasant Hill BART
Station from southbound I-680 . A description of the project is
included as Attachment C. The project has a commitment of Measure C
(1988) funding. Traffic studies relative to this project are proposed
to be part of the traffic study for the SP Arterial because of the
interrelationship of circulation issues in the area.
3. Pleasant Hill BART Land Use Alternatives
On February 15, 1994 the Board of Supervisors sitting as the
Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to initiate a review of
alternative land use patterns for the Pleasant Hill BART Station. The
development of higher density transit-based development is to be
maintained. The traffic study will examine three alternatives: (1)
maintaining the office/commercial emphasis of the current Specific
Plan; (2) developing residential uses on the vacant sites now planned
for office; and (3) a mixture of office, residential, and institutional
uses.
C. Community Concerns
Since authorization to proceed with an EIR for the SP Arterial was
approved, significant community opposition to the SP Arterial has
emerged. Attachment B, a memo to TRANSPAC, provides a project
description and issues discussion. Attachment D is compilation of
correspondence received opposing the project. Attachment E is
correspondence either favoring the project, or favoring further study
of the project. In response to community concerns the staff opted to
recommend proceeding with a traffic study in advance of an EIR to
assist in identifying project issues and alternatives, rather than
including a traffic study as part of an EIR. This was to assuage the
community that preparing an EIR would "predispose" the County to
proceeding with the project.
A question raised in the community commentary on the SP Arterial is
that it would expose the County to a reimbursement responsibility to
the State of California due to a non-transit use in the former Southern
Pacific right-of-way. Approximately 100 of the funds the County used
to purchase the right-of-way between the Pleasant Hill BART Station and
Monument Boulevard were State funds. AB 3142 (Hauser) , approved in the
1993-94 Legislative Session, requires that a public agency reimburse
the State if the right-of-way is used for any non-rail use. The County
has clarified with the author of the bill that this bill is not
retroactive, and would not apply to the County' s purchase of the
Southern Pacific right-of-way.
D. Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee Recommendation
On July 25, 1994 the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Steering Committee
considered a Technical Committee recommendation for Study Requirements
for the SP Arterial/North Main Realignment. The Steering Committee is
comprised of elected officials representing the County (Gayle Bishop
and Mark DeSaulnier) , the City of Concord (Lou Rosas) , the City of
Pleasant Hill (Terri Williamson) , the City of Walnut Creek (Ed
Dimmick) , and BART (Dan Richards) , as well as representatives of the
Contra Costa Centre Association (Bob Russell) and the Walden
Improvement Association (Kelly Guncheon) . The Steering Committee
(Attachment F is a draft of the Steering Committee minutes) recommended
the following:
s
1 . That a traffic study be conducted absent any reference to the
SP Arterial (which included the intent to not study the SP
Arterial) ; and
2 . That the traffic study requirements include (1) an
origin/destination study; (2) an enhanced Alternative G (no
project) , which would also include a non-motorized trail; (3)
add a no project plus reduction of density in both BART and
private holdings; (4) study the Wayne Drive flyover and/or a
combination of new off-ramps, .including moving Contra Costa
Boulevard off-ramp further south; and (5) including a no
project and reduction of density for the North Main/Oak Park
Boulevard study.
The Steering Committee recommendation requires a number of legal and
policy issues to be studied and discussed including:
1 . The adopted County General Plan and the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Specific Plan include a roadway project that has
encountered significant neighborhood and political
opposition, as has the staff-proposed modified project, from
neighborhood interests wanting to eliminate the SP Arterial
in any form. Must the traffic study conducted as part of the
CEQA process include in its analysis of feasible
alternatives, the General Plan project (and/or the modified
staff proposal) to be valid? Alternatively, if the "project"
were defined to be removal of the SP Arterial from the
Circulation Element of the General Plan, would the traffic
study completed as part of the CEQA process have to analyze
the current General Plan project (and/or the modified staff
proposal) to be valid?
2 . Should no feasible alternatives to an SP Arterial be
identified in an CEQA process, what would be the implications
relative to development entitlements provided to date? To
future amendments to development entitlements? To extension
of Development Agreements? To unentitled/unvested property
rights held by a public agency?
3 . Must a traffic study conducted as part of a CEQA process
include in its analysis of feasible alternatives the roadway
project included in the Circulation Element of the adopted
General Plan?
E . Legal Issues
Morrison & Foerster has provided a legal opinion on behalf of the
Contra Costa Centre Association (Attachment G) . They concluded that a
traffic .study would have to include an evaluation of the SP Arterial,
and provides an opinion on related development matters .
F. Policy Issues
Policy issues posed are as follows :
1 . Should the significant regional resource in the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area be compromised in order to avoid focused
local impacts?
2 . Should the significant public and private investment of
financial and political capital be ignored?
3 . From a "wise planning" perspective, is it not still
preferable to concentrate development at transit hubs?
G. Staff Recommendation Differs from Steering Committee
The staff recommendation does not concur with all of the Steering
Committee recommendations for the following reasons:
1 . The traffic study must, under CEQA, examine the General Plan
project, and other feasible alternatives, to be valid;
2 . An origin/destination study is not proposed because such
studies have been done recently (as part of the
Transportation Authority' s programs, and for the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area in 1988) , and because of the cost.
Staff is aware that a City of Walnut Creek origin/destination
study for Ygnacio Valley Road cost approximately $43, 000.
Furthermore, the proposed study will evaluate
origin/destination data generated by the CCTA transportation
model .
3 . Consideration of reduced density is premature and fraught
with legal complications, given the presence of Development
Agreements . Reduction of density should be considered only
upon a determination that the SP Arterial and/or the North
Main Realignment projects are defective for environmental,
traffic, economic, or technical reasons, and that no other
alternative traffic mitigation projects exist. The current
focus is on finding traffic mitigation measures that work.
If no acceptable traffic mitigation measures work, then land
use and land use intensity should be looked at over a wider
area than just the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area.
The staff-recommended Study Requirements does include an enhanced No
Project alternative that would include the bikeway, and adds the
bikeway to the current General Plan project. The Wayne Drive flyover
is included in the study requirements as an alternative for the North
Main Realignment project. The traffic study will permit assessment of
the Wayne Drive flyover with the SP Arterial and its alternatives. The
Wayne Drive flyover was extensively studied by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (Bechtel, 1993) . This project and the North
Main Realignment conceptually address the same problem. The Authority
found technical flaws, and estimated the project cost to be over $19
million, or more than three times the cost of North Main Realignment.
H. Conclusion
The issues associated with the SP Arterial are significant and complex.
The underlying concept of "transit-based development" is more sound
today than it was in 1983 . The concerns of parties opposed to the SP
Arterial are legitimate and need to be evaluated. The concerns of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area property owners (which include BART and
the County Redevelopment Agency) are no less legitimate. To make a
fully informed decision, your Board needs to have current and sound
data relative to the benefits and impacts of various traffic and
circulation alternatives, including the SP Arterial, among others.
ADDENDUM A
The Board of Supervisors having before it on this date for
consideration the preceding report on the Southern Pacific
Arterial and North Main Realignment Traffic Study, Pleasant Hill
BART Station area,
James Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency Director, presented the
staff recommendation before the Board today and a brief overview
of the history of the proposal . Mr. Kennedy also commented on
the opinion from County Counsel dated October 17, 1994 .
Supervisor DeSaulnier discussed various issues on the
proposal and neighborhood concerns with Mr. Kennedy.
The following persons were present to give testimony:
Lou Rosas, 1818 Elkwood Drive, Concord;
Ed Dimmick, 1251 Sheppard Court, Walnut Creek;
Kelly Guncheon, 148 Greenwood Circle, Walnut Creek;
Jeff Ordway, no address given;
Jeff Hogan, 230 Hookston Road, Pleasant Hill :
John Ruzek, 756 Hilton Road, Walnut Creek;
Lillian Thomas, 917 Bancroft Road, Walnut Creek;
Kathleen Van Winckel, 112 Greenwood Circle, Walnut Creek;
Rodney Van Winckel, 112 Greenwood Circle, Walnut Creek;
Linda Denari, 1175 Carey Drive, Concord;
Gene DeMar, 1313 Gragg Lane, Concord;
Rochelle Cohen, 1260 Mountbatten, Concord;
Barbara Gilmore, 224 Elaine, Pleasant Hill;
Jeri Fueff, 1024 Bermuda Drive, Concord;
Mark Denari, 1175 Carey Drive, Concord;
Bob Schwab, 1004 Hampton Drive, Concord;
Daryl Bergman, 1160 Linden Drive, Concord;
Merle Gilliland, 1535 N. Main Street, Walnut Creek;
David Gold, 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, #450, Walnut Creek;
Tamara Galanter, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, San Francisco;
Peter Duncan, 112 Roble Road, Walnut Creek;
Bruce Lesser, 14 Kilgo Court, Pleasant Hill;
Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to go ahead with the traffic
study, putting the emphasis on Buskirk Avenue and removing the
Southern Pacific Arterial . He also recommended the removal of
Southern Pacific Arterial Project as it is planned out of the
General Plan and the Specific Plan, and hopefully what would be
there would be a bike trail with some room for mass transit in
the future .
Supervisor Bishop seconded the motion.
Supervisor Powers clarified that what the Board was
suggesting was to have the staff develop the traffic study in
accordance with the intentions expressed in the motion.
Supervisor DeSaulnier commented that the project proposal
contradicts what is in the General Plan and clarified that the
motion was to go ahead with the traffic study, removing the SP
Arterial as an option and with the preferred option Buskirk
Avenue .
The Board discussed the issues .
Supervisor Torlakson expressed support for the motion.
Supervisor Powers offered a substitute motion to structure
the traffic study consistent with most of the comments that
Supervisor DeSaulnier made, with the preferred alternative as
Buskirk but to evaluate what the other alternatives are and
possibly move forward with a General Plan study that would amend
the General Plan to change this out as a road way and to return
the matter to the Board for consideration next week.
The motion died for lack of second.
The vote on the motion was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Bishop, DeSaulnier and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisor Powers
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
ABSTAIN: None
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the traffic study with
Buskirk Avenue as the preferred option and with the Southern
Pacific Arterial removed as an option is APPROVED; the traffic
study of the North Main Realignment Project is APPROVED; and the
Redevelopment Agency is AUTHORIZED to circulate a Request for
Proposal to Traffic Consultants .
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 17, 1994
To: Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development Department
Attn: Jim Kennedy, Deputy Director-Redevelopment
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Diana J. Silver, Deputy County Counsel
Re: SP Arterial - Pleasant Hill BART Station Ar a: traffic study
SUMMARY
If the proposed traffic study for the SP Arterial is not part of
an environmental impact report ( "EIR" ) , and is not intended
ultimately to be part of an EIR, the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA" ) does not require analysis of feasible alternatives. If
an EIR is prepared for a future project involving development in the
former Southern Pacific right-of-way ( "SPRW") , i.e. , the SP Arterial,
both the general plan/specific plan project and the modified staff
proposal for the SP Arterial should be included in an EIR' s required
discussion of reasonable alternatives . If the project description
differs from the general plan/specific plan project, the EIR must
discuss any inconsistencies between the project and the plan. Any
traffic study prepared in connection with such an EIR should provide
information relating to all these project proposals .
You have advised us that previously approved development
agreements were conditioned upon the inclusion of the 4-lane SP
Arterial mitigation measure . If this is correct and no feasible
alternative to the SP Arterial is identified in an EIR for a general
plan amendment ( "GPA" ) which is adopted and removes the SP Arterial
from the circulation element of the general plan, previously approved
developments (which have not been fully built out) could be subject
to legal attacks on CEQA grounds when further implementation of
phases of such development is sought . In addition, there might be
specific provisions of such development agreements which could be
violated, thus resulting in adverse consequences for the contracting
redevelopment agency depending on the particulars of any general plan
or specific plan amendement finally adopted.
As for unvested/unentitled property rights, the elimination of
the SP Arterial by GPA could result in the denial of future projects
Harvey Bragdon 2 October 17, 1994
at the same level of intensity, if there were unmitigated significant
traffic impacts, without an adequate statement of overriding
considerations regarding such traffic impacts. Absent any other
relevant facts being brought to our attention, it does not seem that
there would be any financial exposure by the county or redevelopment
agency to these property owners.
BACKGROUND•
According to the information you have submitted to this office,
the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1983) , the
Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area (1984) and
the County General Plan adopted in 1991 provide for the construction
of a 4-lane roadway within the former SPRW to connect the Pleasant
Hill BART area to Monument Boulevard ( "SP Arterial") . You have
advised this office that the SP Arterial was adopted as a mitigation
measure to offset traffic impacts in the area.
The redevelopment agency has spent approximately $7 million to
acquire the SPRW in this area. Through the sale of bonds, the
redevelopment agency is now financially ready to proceed with the
construction of the SP Arterial . Approximately one million square
feet of commercial space and twelve hundred residential units (out of
a total 3 . 3 million square feet of designated commercial use and 1400
housing units) have been built within the specific plan boundaries.
The redevelopment agency has entered into development agreements for
the remaining commercial property. The redevelopment agency owns the
remaining unimproved residential property.
Although a four (4) lane facility (including a portion for high
occupancy vehicles ( "HOV" ) and a portion for mixed flow traffic) is
provided in the specific plan and the general plan, staff has
proposed that the roadway be modified to a two (2) lane roadway
(including HOV and mixed flow vehicles at designated points) . On
February 15, 1994, the Board of Supervisors authorized review of the
specific plan and directed the deputy director of the redevelopment
agency to begin the preparation of environmental review "for a
project that includes amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Specific Plan and the SP Arterial . " 1 Although those
amendments are not specified in the February 15, 1994 board order, we
understand from you that such proposed amendments consist of the
modified staff proposal for a two lane roadway in the SPRW.
You have also indicated that you have been directed by the
Pleasant Hill BART area steering committee to ask the Board of
Supervisors to conduct (before the actual CEQA review, including an
EIR, is begun for the project) a preliminary traffic study to
1 We note that no proposed amendments to the County General
Plan are mentioned in the February 15, 1994 board order.
i
Harvey Bragdon 3 October 17, 1994
determine whether or not the modified staff proposal for a two lane
roadway is necessary (TRANSPAC memo, May 25, 1994, p.2) . We further
understand that if the traffic study concludes that even a 2-lane
roadway is not necessary in this area, county staff may wish to
recommend that the Board of Supervisors initiate a general plan
amendment to remove the SP Arterial from the circulation element of
the general plan. For purposes of feasible alternatives analysis
issues, we assume that the project is either (1) the modified staff
proposal for a 2-lane roadway in the SP Arterial as described above
or (2) the removal of the SP Arterial from the circulation element of
the general plan. 2
In connection with the proposed traffic study you have asked the
following:
(1) Must the general plan project (4-lane roadway) and the
modified staff proposal (2-lane roadway) for the SP Arterial within
the former SPRW be included as feasible alternatives in the traffic
study conducted as part of the CEQA process? Alternatively, if the
project is defined as removal of the SP Arterial from the circulation
element of the general plan, must a traffic study analyze the general
plan project and the modified staff proposal for the SP Arterial?
(2) If the SP Arterial is eliminated (by a general plan
amendment) and no feasible alternatives to the SP Arterial are
identified in the CEQA process, what are the impacts on past and
future development entitlements, including development agreements?
DISCUSSION•
1 . Is the Traffic Study Exempt from CEQA?
We understand that on July 25, 1994, the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area Steering Committee recommended a traffic study to be
completed to determine whether a roadway is needed in the area at
this time (staff report for proposed board order, October 18, 1994) .
We cannot determine from the staff report whether the traffic study
is merely a feasibility study (not part of a defined project) , or
whether it will be part of an EIR for a project to be defined in the
future. CEQA does not apply to feasibility or planning studies that
will not have a legally binding effect on later activities. (14 Cal .
Code Regs . , § 15262 ; see Pub. Resources Code, § 21150) . If the
traffic study will involve only feasibility or further planning
2 The materials submitted by you for our review,
specifically, the TRANSPAC memo of May, 1994, indicate that the
modified staff proposal for a 2-lane roadway is considered to be
an interim solution and that, ultimately, the 4-lane roadway
provided for in the Pleasant Hill BART Area Specific Plan and the
County' s 1991 General Plan will be proposed as a future project .
Harvey Bragdon 4 October 17, 1994
studies for possible future actions not yet approved, funded or
adopted by the Board of Supervisors, it is statutorily exempt from
CEQA review.
If, however, the traffic study is to be used in an EIR analyzing
traffic impacts for a project concerning the SP Arterial, an analysis
of feasible alternatives to the SP Arterial in the traffic study is
appropriate, inasmuch as such analysis will be required in the EIR.
(14 Cal .Code Regs, § 15126 (d) ) .
2 . CEQA Requirements if Traffic Study Is To Be
Part of An EIR
A. Reasonable Range of Alternatives Must Be Analyzed
An EIR for either of the described projects must discuss a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project and its location that could
feasibly attain the project' s objectives, and it must evaluate the
comparative merits of each alternative. (14 Cal . Code Regs . , §
15126 (d) ; Pub. Resources Code, § 21100 (a) (6) ; Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal . 3d. 553 , 566 . )
The discussion in an EIR must focus on alternatives that will
eliminate significant adverse environmental impacts or reduce them to
insignificance even if they would be more costly or impede the
project' s objectives to some degree. (14 Cal . Code Regs. ,
§15126 (d) (3) ; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1988) 197 Cal .App. 3d. 1167) In addition, the specific alternative
of "no project" must be analyzed in the EIR. (14 Cal . Code. Regs . ,
§ 15126 (d) (2) ) An EIR must discuss project alternatives even if the
described project' s significant environmental impacts will be avoided
or reduced through mitigation measures. (See Laurel Heights
Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988)
47 Cal . 3d 376, 403 . )
In considering the range of alternatives that must be analyzed in
an EIR, one commentator has stated that every reasonable alternative
need not to be analyzed. (1 Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under The
California Environmental Quality Act [Cont .Ed.Bar 19931 , § 15 . 5,
p. 587) The EIR must study only those alternatives that feasibly
could attain the basic objectives of the proposed project . (14 Cal .
Code Regs . , § 15126 (d) ; see Save San Francisco Bay Ass'n v. San
Francisco Bay Conserv. & Dev. Comm'n (1992) 10 Cal .App.4th 908) The
number of alternatives that is reasonable and appropriate will vary
from case to case . (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal . 3d 553 , 566 . )
You have indicated that approximately eight or nine alternatives
for the SP Arterial will be examined in the traffic study. As the
general plan and specific plan provide for a 4-lane facility, this
alternative would have to be considered in an EIR. The staff has
recommended an interim 2-lane facility as a result of its analysis of
S
Harvey Bragdon 5 October 17, 1994
present traffic needs . Accordingly, this alternative would appear to
be within the range of reasonable alternatives to be analyzed in an
EIR.
If the traffic study is to be incorporated into an EIR for one of
the two projects described here, we recommend that alternatives
analysis include at least (1) the project described in the general
plan/specific plan, i .e, a 4-lane roadway, (2) the modified staff
proposal for a 2-lane facility for which CEQA review has been
authorized by the Board of Supervisors, and (3) the "no project"
alternative (required by 14 Cal .Code Regs. , § 15126 (d) (2) ; County of
Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1981) 124 Cal .App.3d 1, 9) . We
understand that some of the neighbors have suggested that there be
open space and trail at the location of the former Southern Pacific
right-of-way. This might be another alternative that may be
appropriate for consideration. When the actual formal CEQA process
is undertaken and the scope of the EIR determined, a number of
additional alternatives may be discovered which should be considered.
We note also that in addition to the "no-project" alternative,
the EIR may be required to consider a "no development" alternative if
the "no-project" alternative entails future development . (See 14 Cal .
Code Regs . , § 15125 (c) ; Environmental Planning & Info. Council v.
County of E1 Dorado (1982) 131 Cal . App. 3d 350 : court required
comparison of the project with the existing, undeveloped
environment . ) Finally, although a proposed alternative may require a
general plan amendment, this is not a sufficient basis for
eliminating the proposed alternative from consideration in the EIR.
(See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52
Cal . 3d 553 , 570, 573 . )
B. Consistency with General Plan/Specific Plan
Neither the proposed project for the 2-lane roadway nor the
possible alternative project eliminating the SP Arterial describes
the project provided for in the current specific plan and general
plan, i .e. , a 4-lane roadway. An EIR for either project must discuss
inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable plan
(14 Cal . Code Regs . , § 15125 (b) ) If there is a conflict between the
proposed project and the plan, this would normally constitute
evidence of a significant environmental effect . (CEQA Guidelines,
App. G(a) ) It may be argued that the proposed 2-lane facility does
not conflict with the plan, as it is only an "interim solution" ; the
4-lane facility described in the plan is intended to be built in the
• t 1
Harvey Bragdon 6 October 17, 1994
future (see e.g. TRANSPAC memo) .3 On the other hand, the
elimination of the SP Arterial could be deemed to be inconsistent
with the general plan and the specific plan, and thus could be
attacked as causing a significant adverse environmental effect . If
the proposed traffic study is to be used in an EIR for a project
dealing with the SP Arterial, inconsistencies of the project with the
general plan/specific plan for the SP Arterial need to be analyzed.
A general plan amendment before either project is approved may be
necessary to avoid any inconsistency.
C. Change in the Project
You have advised that the SP Arterial was a mitigation measure
adopted by the Board of Supervisors as part of the original project
approval for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and
Redevelopment Plan. The elimination of this mitigation measure may
cause CEQA difficulties for the implementation of further phases of
these projects., If this change will lead to new significant
environmental impacts, a new EIR may be required before these further
phases of already approved developments may be implemented (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21166 ; see Stone v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 205
Cal .App. 3d 927) Thus, CEQA review may be required for a change in
the project, i .e . , elimination of a mitigation measure. 4
In making the determination whether new significant
environmental impacts will result from elimination of the mitigation
measure, it will be necessary to evaluate current information
regarding effects of such elimination. (Pub. Resources Code, §
21166 (a) ; 14 Cal . Code Regs . , §15162 (a) (1) ; see Fund for Envtl .
Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal .App.3d 1538, 1544 . ) It is
not the scope or magnitude of the proposed change in the project
which requires a new EIR; only if such change will require important
revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental impacts not included in the previous EIR
3 This argument could be subject to legal challenge on the
ground the County is "piece-mealing" the project by proposing
only a 2-lane roadway at this time, and that the proposed project
description should be considered inadequate for failing to
describe the "reasonably foreseeable" 4-lane facility. (see City
of Santee v. County San Diego (1989) 214 Cal .App. 3d 1438) If the
EIR examines the impacts of the 4-lane facility and discusses .it
as a reasonably anticipated future project in a cumulative
analysis, this challenge may be avoided (See Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47
Cal . 3d 376, 394) .
4 CEQA review probably would also be required for a general
plan amendment to change the general plan and specific plan
provision for a 4-lane SP Arterial .
Harvey Bragdon 7 October 17, 1994
would a new EIR be required. (14 Cal . Code Regs . , § 15162 (a) (1) ; City
of Lomita v. City of Torrance (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1062, 1069) 5
You have asked about the implications for previously approved
developments, amendments, extensions of development agreements and
for unvested property rights held by a public agency if the SP
Arterial is eliminated from the general plan/specific plan and no
feasible alternative is identified.
Concerning previously approved development agreements which
provide for the SP Arterial improvement, if this mitigation measure
is eliminated, as explained above, it could require further CEQA
review before implementation of further portions of previously
approved projects could occur. Implementation of additional phases
of development could be subject to legal challenges on CEQA grounds .
Similarly, it would be difficult to justify extension of development
agreements which had included a mitigation measure for traffic
impacts that has been eliminated. Although such legal challenges may
not be successful if adequate environmental analysis and mitigation
measures are adopted (or, if significant impacts are not mitigated,
with a sufficient statement of overriding considerations) , such
litigation could be time-consuming and costly to the county.
With respect to property for which no development entitlements
have been approved, if the SP Arterial is eliminated and no feasible
alternative or mitigation measure is found, there could be
significant environmental effects, e.g. , traffic impacts, which would
have to be analyzed and addressed when development approvals are
sought for that property. If these could not be effectively
mitigated or adequately addressed in a statement of overriding
considerations in the EIR (see 14 Cal . Code Regs. , § 15093 (b) ) as
part of a project approval, future proposed developments approved by
the Board of Supervisors may be subject to successful legal
challenge. (14 Cal . Code Regs . , § 15092)
DJS/amc :df
DJS-2\a:\arteria1.sp
5 We do not discuss other reasons for requiring additional
environmental review and the criteria for each e .g. , substantial
changes in circumstances and new information of substantial
importance (14 Cal . Code Regs . , § 15162 (a) (2) , (3) ) .
A
Attachment A
Page 1 of 4
SOUTHERN PACIFIC ARTERIAL PROJECT,
NORTH MAIN STREET/OAK PARK BOULEVARD INTERSECTION PROJECT, AND
PLEASANT HILL BART SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
STUDY REQUIREMENTS
STUDY APPROACH
The study requirements address three interrelated projects:
- Southern Pacific Arterial Project;
- North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard Intersection Project;
and
- Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Land Use
Alternatives Study.
The horizon years for completion of these projects vary. Both
road projects are anticipated to be completed by 2000. The land
use alternatives study anticipates build-out of the Specific Plan
area by 2010.
The study should evaluate these projects in the following
sequential steps:
1. Evaluate the Southern Pacific Project and its alternatives
and determine the Preferred Project;
2. Evaluate the North Main/Oak Park Boulevard Project
alternatives and determine the Preferred Project;
3 . Evaluate the combined impacts of implementing both Preferred
Projects for the Southern Pacific Arterial and the North
Main/Oak Park intersection, and other projects anticipated
to be completed by 2000 and 2010;
4. Evaluate the transportation impacts of the Specific Plan
land use alternatives assuming implementation of both
Preferred Projects for the Southern Pacific Arterial and the
North Main/Oak Park intersection, and other projects
anticipated to be completed by 2010;
5. Determine the Preferred Land Use Project and evaluate its
cumulative impacts for 2010.
A key challenge of the study is to develop a methodology and
procedure that addresses the evaluation needs of each project
comprehensively and efficiently, and in a manner that is
understandable and responsive to decision makers and the public.
Use of screening procedures or sensitivity analyses should be
considered given the number of project alternatives.
The study should provide the technical data to evaluate the
transportation, air quality, and noise impacts of each project
pursuant to NEPA and CEQA guidelines.
Attachment A
Page 2 of 4
Southern Pacific Arterial Prosect
Proposed Project: Two-lane mixed-flow arterial between Monument
and Hookston, two-lane HOV road between Hookston and BART
Station.
Project Alternatives
1. Project Alternative A: Two-Lane HOV road between Monument
and BART Station.
2. Project Alternative B: Two-Lane Mixed-Flow Arterial between
Monument and BART Station.
3. Project Alternative C: Two-Lane Mixed-Flow Arterial between
Monument and Treat.
4. Project Alternative D: Two-Lane Mixed-Flow arterial between
Monument and Bancroft.
4. Project Alternative E: Two-Lane HOV road between Monument
and Treat.
5. Project Alternative F: Widening Buskirk Avenue to four
lanes between Monument and Oak Park.
6. Project Alternative G: No Project (No road but includes the
bikeway) .
7. Project Alternative H: Full Development of the Southern
Pacific Right-of-way Purusant ot the General Plan which
includes a mass transit facility, roadway, and bikeway
(program level of analysis, not a project-specific level of
analysis) .
North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard Intersection Prolect
1. Project Alternative A: Realign North Main Street vertically
to intersect with Oak Park Boulevard.
2. Project Alternative B: Realign North Main Street
horizontally to intersect with Oak Park Boulevard.
3. Project Alternative C: Construct right-turn only lane from
northbound North Main Street to eastbound Oak Park
Boulevard.
4. Project Alternative D: 1-680 Southbound Flyover Ramp to
Wayne Drive.
5. Project Alternative E: No Project
Attachment A
Page 3 of 4
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area S-oecific PlanLandUse Study
1. Alternative A: Develop residential uses on the vacant sites
now planned for office use.
2. Alternative B: Develop mixed residential and institutional
uses on the vacant sites now planned for office use.
3. Alternative C: Develop vacant sites for uses as proposed in
the Specific Plan.
Study Objectives of Southern Pacific Arterial Project
1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Proposed Project and
Project Alternatives at:
- improving the Level of Service for Basic Routes and
Routes of Regional Significance;
- improving auto, pedestrian, and bicycle safety;
- reducing through traffic using adjacent residential
neighborhood streets;
- increasing ridership at the BART Station; and
- improving transit access to the Specific Plan area.
3. Identify any adverse effects of the Proposed Project and
Project Alternatives on adjacent neighborhoods and land
uses.
4. Identify any adverse effects of the Proposed Project and
Project alternatives on the goals for the Specific Plan and
the former Southern Pacific Right-of-Way, and the General
Plans for Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek.
Study Objectives of North Main/Oak Park Proiect
1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Project Alternatives at
improving Level of Service for Basic Routes and Routes of
Regional Significance , and improving auto, pedestrian and
bicycle safety.
2. Identify any adverse effects of the Proposed Project and
Alternatives on adjacent neighborhoods and land uses.
3 . Identify any adverse effects of the Project alternatives on
the goals of the Specific Plan and of the General Plans for
the County Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek.
Study Objectives for Both Road Projects
1. Define a preferred project that is acceptable to the
community.
2. Evaluate the transportation impacts of implementing the
Southern Pacific Arterial Project (preferred alternative)
Attachment A
Page 4 of 4
and the Oak Park/North Main Street Project (preferred
alternative) and other projects planned for 2000.
3. Evaluate transportation impacts of implementing the
preferred projects plus other projects planned for 2010.
Objectives for Specific Plan Land Use Study
1. Identify a broader range of potential land uses for the
Specific Plan Area that are within the Plan's transportation
constraints.
Consultant Selection criteria
1. Qualifications of Consultant's Team
2. Approach to Meeting Objectives of Studies
- Familiarity with CCTA model and technical procedures
manual;
- Methodology for coordinating study objectives and
evaluating alternatives and developing consensus on the
preferred projects;
- Community participation plan;
- Consistency with NEPA/CEQA guidelines
3. Prior or related experience, especially at evaluating ROV
and transit strategies, implementing community participation
plans, and working with multiple jurisdictions on
controversial projects.
4. Management Capability of Consultant
5. Commitment of Key Personnel
6. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise
Participation
7. No consultant who has previously used the CCTA
transportation model for Central County will be eligible to
submit an RFP as the Prime consultant.
r. Attachment B
r Page 1 of 4
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: May 25, 1994
TO: TRANSPAC
FROM: Jim Ken ed
Deputy/Directo - edevelopment
SUBJECT: Southern P ific Arterial Project - Project Information
1 1 Summary
On June 2, 1994 the TRANSPAC members have requested a presentation on the County's
proposal to construct the Southern Pacific Arterial. The following is a brief project
description, a list of related issues concerning the project, and a map depicting the
proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
The proposed Southern Pacific Arterial Project consists of the construction of a 2-lane
roadway within the former Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way (SP ROW) from
Monument Boulevard to the Pleasant Hill BART Area (PH BART). The recent ISTEA
application described the arterial as an HOV facility from PH BART Area to Bancroft and
included the completion of the Iron Horse Trail. The ISTEA application has since been
withdrawn due to the project's "state of readiness" compared to the Diamond Boulevard
Extension. The proposed arterial would run parallel to the existing and future segments
of the Iron Horse Trail and would be constructed so as to not interfere with the proposed
future transit corridor. When constructed, signals would be installed at all major roadways
that the arterial intersects. Mohr Lane would be closed at Monument Boulevard and a
short segment of roadway, including a new bridge, would be constructed to connect Mohr
Lane to the new arterial.
The adopted PH BART Specific Plan provides for a four-lane facility to be constructed to
connect the PH BART area to Monument Boulevard and that through traffic be
discouraged between Treat Boulevard and Coggins Drive. Discouraging through traffic
is intended to preserve the intersections capacity for PH BART Area development related
traffic. Per the Specific Plan, the purpose of the road is to mitigate the impact of traffic
generated by the business development planned in the BART area, and to enhance
accessibility of the BART Station Area. The road is not intended to introduce a major
arterial through the BART Station Area. In addition, the Specific Plan states that a 20 foot
wide strip for Bike and Pedestrian traffic be preserved within the SP ROW and that an
exclusive busway should be incorporated into the PH BART Station Area portion of the SP
ROW.
Attachment &'
—� Page 2 pf .>4
TO: TRANSPAC -2- May 25, 1'994
Therefore the proposed 2-lane arterial is an interim project that is consistent with ultimate
development of the Specific Plan and the former Southern Pacific right-of-way.
Previous traffic studies (1983, 1987, 1990) indicate that the proposed project is needed
to relieve traffic congestion related to the increase in development in the PH BART Area.
The objective of the SP Arterial is to improve the operation of intersections around the PH
BART Area, particularly the Buskirk/Monument Boulevard and Treat/Bancroft intersections
by diverting traffic around the PH BART area. The Steering Committeee ranked the SP
Arterial as the number one priority project to alleviate traffic congestion in the PH BART
Area. The road will serve traffic that currently uses Treat, Bancroft, Hookston, Las Juntas,
Mohr Lane, Bentley and Buskirk to get to and around the BART area. The arterial would
specifically help the intersections of Monument/Buskirk and Treat/Bancroft.
FUNDING AND CURRENT STATUS
The PH BART Station Area Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1984 to be a mechanism
for financing infrastructure improvements necessary to support the development of the
Specific Plan as adopted. The identified priority for Redevelopment Agency funding was
the SP Arterial. Reflective of that priority the Redevelopment Agency spent approximately
$7 million to acquire the former SP ROW for the SP Arterial project, and to preserve the
right of way for future transit use. The Redevelopment Agency has also sold bonds, and
has the funds necessary to construct the SP Arterial at this time. Recently, the PH BART
Area Steering Committee and Board of Supervisors authorized the initiation of the EIR.
However, further direction has been to first complete a traffic study to adequately study
recent transportation and BART system changes and determine whether the project is
needed at this time.
COMMUNITY ISSUES
Buskirk Ave. as an alternative - Comments from the City of Pleasant Hill in recent PH
BART Steering Committee meeting were that Buskirk would not "work well" as an arterial.
Specifically, the right of way needed from the Montgomery Ward Shopping Center for the
widening would be significant. The Omni/Means study did not separate the Buskirk
Widening from the SP Arterial project. Future traffic studies should look at the individual
impacts of these two projects.
Sunnyvale offramp fly-over alternative -The flyover would not alleviate the same traffic
impacts as the SP Arterial except for a small amount of traffic that might get off at the
proposed urban diamond interchange at Monument and 1-680 and then take the SP
Arterial. The flyover would introduce a substantial amount of traffic through the Specific
Plan Area, from the flyover to eastbound Treat Blvd., via Oak Road, and causes further
deterioration in traffic flow at the Treat Blvd./Oak Road intersection. To construct the
flyover would be extremely difficult because there is no good place to relocate the truck
scales between SR24 and SR242, and the touch-down area at Wayne Drive is difficult.
The cost, approximately $20 million, is also prohibitive.
Attachment B
Page 3 of 4
TO: TRANSPAC -3- May 25, 1994
The Iron Horse Trail -The Iron Horse Trail will be on the opposite side of the ROW from
the proposed road and will remain in the SP ROW, as has always been planned. The
County has always worked closely with the East Bay Regional Park District who operates
and maintains the trail. Cooperation has been mutual in obtaining grants and developing
funding and license agreements for the trail. Though the trail has recreational uses, the
funding for the trail in this area has been based on bicycle commuter benefits.
Proximity to Fair Oaks School -Appropriate safety measures will be taken to ensure the
safety of the school children. Fences or sound walls would be constructed to separate the
play areas from the road. Pedestrian crossings at all intersections would be installed.
These crossings could also be incorporated into the trail crossings. We have contacted
and met with the school district regarding their concerns. Contact began in January of
1994.
Proximity to Len Hester Park - The new road will not impact the park. No ROW is
expected to be taken from the park to construct the road. Noise studies might indicate that
a sound wall should be constructed to mitigate the increased noise levels near the park.
Businesses in the Hookston Station Area -The proposed road will require the relocation
of 3 businesses in the Bancroft/Hookston area. These businesses are currently leasing
the land from the County on a month to month basis and are fully aware of the
Redevelopment Agency's plans. The Redevelopment Agency will help them relocate to
a suitable location both financially and in searching for the new location as part of the
project.
Traffic Signals - The proposed traffic signals for the SP Arterial would be interconnected
to ensure the most efficient operation of the arterial.
Impacts on neighborhoods - Preservation of neighborhoods is a goal in the General Plan
and definitely will be considered in the environmental documents. Soundwalls will be
constructed where the future noise study indicates. We anticipate the need for sound
walls adjacent to existing residential areas. Concerns that the SP Arterial will serve as a
conduit for"Monument Boulevard Problems" being introduced into neighborhoods adjacent
to the right of way are issues that would be addressed in environmental studies to be
completed for the project.
Ultimate number of lanes planned for the SP Arterial - Plans showing as many as 6
lanes that have been circulated are from an alignment study done by the City of Pleasant
Hill. The project being proposed by the County is a 2-lane facility with the ultimate being
a four-lane facility.
New BART stations in Concord and Pittsburg - The traffic study discussed above will
need to address the new BART stations and their impacts on traffic projections for the SP
Arterial.
JK:Ih
cc: Board of Supervisors M.Shiu,Deputy Public Works Director
Val Alexeeff,Director,GMEDA J.Bueren,Assistant Public Works Director,Transportation
Harvey Bragdon,Director,CCD H.Ballenger,Transportation Engineering
Steve Goetz,Chief,Transportation Planning
sral 41transpac.mem
Z00'd ££�z ��� OTS Attachment If `
Page 4 of-4
z0'd -blOi -
Southern Pacific Arterial and Bancroft Extension
�`,a•
Gregory Lane
CJ
r N
�o
Usa Mohr
• Not To Scale
• �
Lane • �'
Boyd Road
m Q •
• Bancroft Extension
Hookston Rd.
• Southgrn Pacific Arterial
Mayhew •
Wy.
Oak • 3 � �� �� ��•
Park Blvd.
Coinins
Dr. e Pleasant Hill
BART. Station
Sunnyvale Ave.
Geary Rd.
1
Cr
c
r m
o
O Proposaa stgnais
Taken fror„-Plessent Hil Batt Area Addbanai Traffic SContra Costa County Public Works
A09afion tudy' W Om WWOam Jure 1990
Transportation Engineering
May 1994
M•A tpn7tlqs n s»Nmm ITlffnA n n n WnNA AA:,-,i t7AAT- ;- -JHW
. ` Attachment C
.ti
r - Page 1 of 3
OAK PARKIN. MAIN
Description: Alternative # 1: Raise N. Main at Oak Park Overcrossing. Alternative # 2:
Realign N. Main to connect directly to Oak Park/Pleasant Valley Drive Intersection. (See
attachments).
Benefit: Provide better access to Pleasant Hill BART Station from IV680 southbound
Cost: Alternative # 1: $7 Million
Alternative # 2: $5 Million
Funding: Measure 'C' funds.
Status: City of Pleasant Hill to hire project manager within 1 to 2 months.
Memorandum of Understanding being finalized with City of Pleasant Hill, County
and CCTA.
Environmental Document to begin. Complete in 1 to 1'/z years.
Issues:
City of Pleasant Hill lead agency.
Black Angus concerned about R/W impacts with Alternative 1.
Visual impacts with Alternative 1.
- Significant R/W takes with Alternative 2.
Pleasant Hill wants annexation of Pleasant Hill BART.
/��cH. 4-k
iI ( I I I � I' •• l Attachment C
•' . �1 Page 2 of 3Ic
I t
cl
�ll I 11
1• � I
l
uII
o
Z
r,� � . -••1 ,; of ti
V. •!' �l I
fr/ , � •1 11 1 •� •
r• �
+1 .� ••� 1 4i �I�I 1
iy� lj •': j-' � I i
•,/rid :ivr� --�� 1 �1 ��I ;' •' 1'`. 1 , '
—s—•--_ _ , _—�-� .� � ,,moi �`._.J._.._ 1
_ ISI 1I K PARK
BLVD. t j
' 11 , � ► r, 11 i L i
00
•y I 1���• l � 1 l-
J
b
.l
1
co
---------- - / aWi, , , (�I I IQ
fil
(1 \ ;'
VERTICAL REALIGNMENT OF NORTH MAIN A14-:-�,-1
�.. flu. r4F , 11 ,� •• , .
i � � 1 I •', t .. o f .� l t ' Cl �. .
Attachment C
.. LQ - -' �!�'r; ° •----tom f i '�1 !: -� , . Page 3- of 3
o -
rn1j j•!' t�- ., i ( � ;+� I t t •U'; i,J� 1 '�� i ' � � j j! iy
��' .!� -- ..i M :D�.t_i��" •r +Jttt � iiii ,'�' i:; S
.� _ f. \\ � i ' i s �V � ���j:�• «�.'• �( 1. / � / �lt.��iyf( I �J� � + � . ." _�i M
"l» � .!(_-'�'^-'• .. �i� .,�; ! i �.i._,� .!�-.�".+rGr �k� . ,;s, .�:i1.J!\+' ,}i / tj•,r��..,it Y� �! � i� • t; 1 t
Z- y� a J •y ,.'; .fes i i ,, j� �T
'/.'•�—t+`i ::�� .:•1�•�t��-~'' . •�: ��\i'��1.ti •�M ' \�,qY�.!j`�+,.1• +• � (s+•• �t 41' ,i ,j 1 � + +•i ^
of
1 % _ f
to Y7 -!;�•(.7 .. �as+r�ti Is.ri :.s.rs::.sa ss.a. 1� / , •• I ' 1 ''•
/' •''^ .�/ice_ jr�' `',5:'= —.1.�•�_.,._"r_ _-- ;:�__�.:. .��s:i.i�.``�`.� J l �° � ! � 1 ,I
�.+ � +a.i�•' �•���.�� r•„�,. `•'i �n -� f `w' i ._.-.r,�,���y4 1.�l ice( _ ! 4J ! i � 1•! { 1 i r !! •! i
K OA
PA
A.
RK g - _
•� ••'•/ � •��� �' s_-•—• y? _.►•_•.:,:3,�-.ter_i" �,�.�•..- C�P•sa� ='=� `•�. � Q h u' 1 ! !t 3 r+ 1 1
�.•,k
-14
of Co
bj
CD
it
. (1 `.:'c._t,�_ Ali.._--. � -�`-�-�•-�^- _ �! � r �' _�� 1 i:�� � 1 � !
it
! 1. `� •: {
TAL REALIGNMENT OF NORTH MAiN �;
HORIZON + •
J.. !
b
1 . 67
Attachment D
Page 1 of 75
Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth
302 Patterson Boulevard
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
July 4, 1994
RECEIVED
Board of Supervisors JUL 2 0 S4
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street Ci.ERK BOARD OF SI�PERVISORs
Martinez, CA 94553 coF.�cosrA co.
To the Honorable Supervisors:
The general membership of our Pleasant Hill residents' organization has
voted to urge you to abandon your current plans to build a new road on the Southern
Pacific right-of-way between the Pleasant Hill BART station and Monument Boulevard
for the following reasons:
1. Construction and use of this road, particularly with HOV lanes, will have
serious negative impacts on Fair Oaks, a family-oriented residential neighborhood
in Pleasant Hill and on adjacent neighborhoods in Concord. In recommending this
project in their May 13, 1993, summary to the Pleasant Hill City Council, the Contra
Costa County Public Works Department described this project as " . . beneficial for
the BART area traffic needs."The needs of area residents are apparently not taken
into account. We are asking you, as our representatives, to do so.
2. The roadway would encroach on the Fair Oaks Elementary School
grounds, creating noise and safety issues.
3. The roadway would encroach on Len Hester Park.
4. The road would eliminate several businesses valuable to Pleasant Hill.
5. The road would destroy a section of an irreplaceable open space and
recreation facility: the Iron Horse Trail.
The county general plan for a transit corridor along the Southern Pacific right-
of-way from San Ramon to Concord is no longer viable,since various sections of the
trail have been co-opted for other uses and there is widespread opposition to using
it as a mass transit corridor. Therefore, we feel approving construction of this
particular section of roadway using the existing county general plan is no longer
valid.
According to the C.C.C. Public Works Department (Summary prepared for
the Pleasant Hill City Council, May 13, 1993) 'The traffic generated by the BART
station combined with the 1--680 to Treat Boulevard traffic creates traffic patterns that
Attachment D I' b
Page 2 of 75 2
2.
are overloading the southbound 1-680 Sunnyvale off ramp, the Treat Boulevard/
North Main Street intersection, and intersections around the BART area. If no action
is taken to alleviate the congestion of this off ramp and the intersections, it is clear
that the situation will worsen and the impacts will become unacceptable."
There is a congestion-alleviating alternative to building roads through
residential neighborhoods. Given the amount of"overloading"traffic already being
generated by both BART and the county's surrounding redevelopment area, we
believe a reevaluation ofadditionaldevelopmentplanned forthe BARTredevelopment
area is umently needed. Since continuing high-density development will create yet
more traffic—which can only be mitigated by seriously impacting surrounding
residential neighborhoods—perhaps development should be scaled back.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sarah LeFievre
President,
Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth
2092 Buttner Road
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(510) 939-1032
cc: Pleasant Hill/Martinez Record
SUvem
a�tacanen[ u
Page 3 of 75
G/0
4.35 1.63 through 1.67
THE BOARD OF SUPI / ORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, XLIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 2,1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
aaaasaaaasasaaaaas.erasasaaasaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE
Item No.
1.63 LETTER dated July 19, 1994, from Larry Allen, 1700 Fernwood Drive,Oakley 94561,regarding dispute over
removal of car from private property.
***REFERRED TO SHERIFF-CORONER
1.64 LETTER dated July 18,1994,from M.Mandel,O'Melveny&Myers,400 South Hope Street,Los Angeles 90071-
2899,withdrawing with prejudice the claim for refund of 1989-1990 property taxes dated December 6,1993 filed on
behalf of GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership.
`ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT AND REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL AND TREASURER-TAX
COLLECTOR
1.65 LETTER dated July 19,1994,from D.Jones,Executive Director,Loaves&Fishes,P.O.Box 3335,Danville 94526,
=pressing concern with the reduction in funding to the Contra Costa Food Bank.
***REFERRED TO SOCIAL SERVICE DIRECTOR AND HEALTH SERVICE DIRECTOR
1.66 LETTER dated July 13, 1994,from M.Pastrick,Mayor,City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive,Concord 94519,
advising that the City Council has taken a position in opposition to further studies of or funding for the Southern
Pacific right-of-way/Iron Horse Trail Roadway proposed by the County connecting the Pleasant Hill BART
Development Area with Monument Boulevard.
***REFERRED TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
1.67 LETTER dated July 4, 1994, from S.LeFievre,President,Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth, 302
Patterson Boulevard,Pleasant Hill 94523,urging the abandonment of plans to build a new road on the Southern
Pacific right-of-way between the Pleasant Hill BART Station and Monument Boulevard.
***REFERRED TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
IhomyomtifythintNsisatrueolid— 1`0012yof
an action takaei and entered an the minutes of tris
Board of Supmviaors an the dms shown.
ATrEs�n:1' 0---2g-y
PHti,BATCH OR.Berk of the Soaed
�of SSuupeMaom and County Administrator
cc: Correspondents
Sheriff-Coroner
County Counsel
Treasurer-Tax Collector
Social Service Director
Health Services Director
' Deputy Director,Redevelopment Agency
Public Works Director
Attachment D I-to(Am
IT
CY 01-COM Page 4C9CZA..,L
Mit h.a.1 V P.1,11 i.L. Mo\"I
'f inct it-(L ( ali I I-i nia 1!#-2-,7S I (.u1:. \It r.m
lit, 7'.1-s-111-6i, Fit 11 M. All,11
1111! Nil Molti.-.11
Oil It I (It Till MM)k1�1!.
--7 Concorct
July 13, 1994
REC:FDviz
Honorable Supervisor Tom Powers, Chair -,D
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
P.O. Box 911CLER K 6 O.A
Martinez, CA 94533 `-:-WiSCIRS
Cr
- '
Dear SupervisorV44ers: 7"iv-
The Concord City Council has taken a position in strong opposition to further studies of, or
funding for the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way/Iron Horse Trail Roadway proposed by the
County connecting the Pleasant Hill BART Development Area with Monument Boulevard. This
proposed roadway, while serving as a reliever for development in the Pleasant Hill BART Area,
will provide no relief to regional traffic congestion. It is our position that the benefits of
constructing this roadway are far outweighed by the environmental consequences to local
homeowners and children at Fair Oaks School.
The Concord City Council has made the following findings in support of the recommendation
to oppose the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way/Iron Horse Trail Roadway:
• The environmental impacts of this roadway extension are extensive to the abutting
residential properties and Fair Oaks Elementary School along the corridor.
• The proposed roadway serves no regional traffic relief and may be growth inducing, thus
contributing to the cumulative degeneration of tz-affic conditions in Central County.
• The City of Concord's General Plan does not show any extension of roadways in the
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way. Any studies of such an alternative would prove academic
without support for modification to Concord's General Plan.
• The proposed roadway alignment is completely in Concord at the Walnut Creek Channel.
We find this alignment with Mohr Lane unacceptable, and feel that an additional
signalized intersection between Mohr Lane and Buskirk/Geraldine would contribute to
existing congestion on the Monument Corridor.
Attachment D A
Page 5 of 75ag�`2 V..
Honorable Supervisor Powers
July 13, 1994
Page 2
• The purpose for the proposed roadway can be served by upgrading the existing Buskirk
Avenue alignment and capacity. Studies should focus on improvements necessary to
Buskirk in handling increased traffic loads from the Pleasant Hill BART Development
Area.
• The Southern Pacific Right-of-Way has received significant funding for development of
an off street bicycle pathway. The Iron Horse Trail will provide a safe bicycle link from
San Ramon to Pittsburg along protected right-of-way. Significant portions of the bicycle
facility have received funding and are moving forward at this time.
The City of Concord can find no merit to further roadway studies along the Southern Pacific
Right-of-Way alignment. We would ask your concurrence in denial of further funding requests
to study and/or implement any roadway alignments in the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way
between Treat Boulevard and Monument Boulevard.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our appeal.
Sincerely,
Michael Pastrick
Mayor
MP:jlu
cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
City Council
F. A. Stewart, City Manager
Steve Jepsen, Assistant City Manager
Mike Vogan, Director of Public Works
Tom Clausen, Transportation Manager
John Templeton, Associate Transportation Engineer
.. attachiae:it D
L Page 6 of 75
COSI
dUG
I G PH 4` 9 1.63 through 1.67
THE BOARD OPEO"E ORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUN'T17; e RIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 2,1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: - None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
asaasaaasaasasaaasaacasa...........ariaasasriasaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaasaaaaaamaaav
SUBJECT- CORRESPONDENCE
hent No.
1.63 LETTER dated July 19, 1994, from Larry Allen, 1700 Fernwood Drive,Oakley 94561,regarding dispute over
removal of car from private property.
'REFERRED TO SHERIFF-CORONER
1,64 LETTER dated July 18,1994,from M.Mandel,O'Melveny&Myers,400 South Hope Street,Los Angeles 90071-
2894,withdrawing with prejudice the claim for refund of 1989-1990 property taxes dazed December 6,1993 filed on
behalf of GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership.
`ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT AND REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL AND TREASURER-TAX
COLLECTOR
1.65 LETTER dated July 19,1994,from D.Jones,Executive Director,Loaves&Fishes,P.O.Box 3335,Danville 94526,
azpressing concern with the reduction in funding to the Contra Costa Food Bank.
***REFERRED TO SOCIAL SERVICE DIRECTOR AND HEALTH SERVICE DIRECTOR
1.66 LETTER dated July 13,1994,from M.Pastrick,Mayor,City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive,Concord 94519,
advising that the City Council has taken a position in opposition to further studies of or funding for the Southern
Pacific right-of-way/iron Horse Trail Roadway proposed by the County connecting the Pleasant Hili BART
Development Area with Monument Boulevard.
*"REFERRED TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
1.67 LETTER.dated July 4, 1994, from S.LeFievre,President, Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth,302
Patterson Boulevard,Pleasant Hili 94523,urging the abandonment of plans to build a new road on the Southern
Pacific right-of-way between the Pleasant Hill BART Station and Monument Boulevard.
"*REFERRED TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
t heretry eertlty that this is atrueandeorreaCaphrof
an setlon taken and entered on the mlmhtea of rite
@adot SpQGroaa.�n�the
PHIL 9A�OOR, dans.aItghogweyh
Clerk of tiro 9099d
^of Supervisors and County Administratof
gy' lam}i1YlQ0�.� o"M
cc Correspondents
Sheriff-Coroner
County Comrsd
Treasurer-Tax Collector
Social Service Director
Health Services Director
Deputy Director,Redevelopment Agency
Public Works Director
'Attachment D
Page 7 of 75
VALLEY SPOKESMEN TOURING CLUB
"Sponsors of the Hekaton Classic and the Cinderella Classic"
BOX 2630 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568
RECEIVED
AUG 8194 RECEIVED
.1U-2 7 04
July 21 , 1994 SUPERVISOR SMI-r';
CLERr,,sOARD OF SUPEWSORS'
CONTRA COSTA_CO-
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Members of the Board:
The Valley Spokesmen Bicycle Touring Club, a group of
approximately 700 members of all ages , is opposed to the current
county plan to develop a roadway along the Southern Pacific
right-of-way between Monument Blvd. , and the Pleasant Hill BART
station.
We do NOT believe that this roadway will serve either the needs
of the surrounding neighborhood or the community at large. We
believe that it would interfere with bicycle and pedestrian
commuting as well as recreation usage of the Iron Horse Trail .
We ask that you reconsider your plans for this roadway and
preserve this narrow corridor for a community trail that can
also be used for alternative transportation.
Sincerely,
#4
Bonnie Powers,
Secretary
cc: Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee
Concord City Council
Walnut Creek City Council
Pleasant Hill City Council
L C-:
Attachment D
Page 8 of 75
2110 Willow Lake Court
Martinez Ca, 94553 REcF-NE
ID
July 24, 1994 t Jul 21
BOAAp OF S13PA�R�S
CLFRKCON�A COQ
Supervisor Gail Bishop RECEIVED
18 Crow Canyon Court
AUG 8 1994
Suite 120
San Ramon, CA 94583 ;SUPERVISOR SMS
Dear Supervisor,
I was surprised and dismayed on hearing of the proposal to build a new road from the
P.H. BART station to Monument Blvd using the former Southern Pacific right-of-way
currently used by the Iron Horse Bicycle Trail. This would be an unneccesary and
unwarranted intrusion on the neighborhood and on long range plans for providing safe
and pleasant alternatives to automotive transit.
I am strongly opposed to any automotive access on this right of way!
Sincerely, -
David Saul
Martinez, CA
Cc: Contra Costa County Board Of Supervisors
i� _
Attachment D
RECEf 1��'1=. . Page 9 of 75
i
I
AUG 8 (994
July 25, 1994 ,SUPERVISOR SMITH ' RECEIVED
Supervisor Mark Desadnier A Z 7 W4
. 2301 Stanwell Drive
Concord, California 945QO c�.ER.���A
CMORs
Supervisor Desaunier,
I am writing to state my concern about the proposed installation of a new
roadway along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between the Pleasant Hill
BART station and Monument Boulevard in Concord. Such a new road is
unwarranted and would make an already bad situation worse. Commuting
via bicycle down Monument Boulevard is already hazardous enough; adding
more traffic will make it significantly worse. The need for this new road is
very questionable given the fact that the new road is paralleled by Interstate
680 with on/off ramps conveniently located to both the Pleasant Hill BART
station and Monument Boulevard.
The Southern Pacific right-of-way should remain free to further the cause of
reducing vehicular traffic by encouraging alternative transportation. I urge
you to consider these facts when considering this proposal waste of taxpayers
money.
Sincerely,
Thomas G.ifo er
g
3637 Granzotto Drive
Concord, California 94523
(510) 210-2309 daytime
cc.: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553-1229
��J
Attachment D
Page 10'of 75'
RECEIVED
2110 Willow Lake Court
AUG 81994 Martinez, CA 94553
.SUPERVISOR SMI
i
Et)
C,NCWON-
M—C
o.i
le
July 25, 1994 JLLZ
cornu`
Supervisor Gail Bishop
18 Crow Canyon Court
Suite 120
San Ramon, CA 94583
Dear Supervisor Bishop:
I'd like to voice my concerns about the proposal to build a new road from the
Pleasant Hill BART Station to Monument Boulevard using the former
Southern Pacific right-of-way which is currently being used by the Iron Horse
Bicycle Trail.
Building a road for automobiles would be an unnecessary and unwanted
intrusion on the neighborhood. Contra Costa County needs to pursue other
alternatives to automotive transit- like increasing pathways for walking and
bicycles.
I am strongly opposed to automobile access on this right-of-way!
Sincerely,
-1
Deborah Hebert
cc: Clerk-Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
ALLacn menu v
` Page 11 of 75
COP;TRA COSTABarbara A. Alexander RECEIVED
1980 Montclair Circle
94 AUG _5 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 _ 4
AN 11. 24
AFLOPMENT
COMMUNITY CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS2 August, DEpT CONTRA COSTA CO.
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
% The Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street
Martinez,CA 94553-1229
RE: Proposed Road on Southern Pacific Right-of-Way
Dear Board Members:
I am writing to express my strong ogosition to the Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency's planned new road that would run from the north
end of the Pleasant Hill BART station to Monument Blvd. on the former Sourthern
Pacific right-of-way. I understand that the County has stated that the proposed
road is intended to relieve future traffic congestion from the construction of an
additional 2 million square feet of office space and additional mixed-use
residential units in that area. This is yet another example of County approved
development without infrastructure to support it. Is it not possible to PLAN future
development that takes into account the known constraints of an area, be
they lack of water service or as in this instance, an existing residential neighbor-
hood with a local park and elementary school that would be heavily im-
pacted by additional traffic lanes??
I also understand that preliminary conceptual studies include sound walls that
supposedly would help protect nearby neighborhoods. Do we really want
our neighborhoods in this county to be surrounded by sound wails everywhere
we look?
Also severely impacted/threatened by this proposed road would be the Iron
Horse Trail. The corridor ought to be preserved for this community trail and
ultimately efficient light-rail transit. This area does NOT need another road.
Cannot more emphasis in the planning process be placed on ways to en-
courage use of alternate modes of transportation? Better yet would be to
focus again on the concept of development adjacent to BART stations that
reduces/eliminates auto dependence.
Please oppose the building of this proposed road and any development that
requires infrastructure that does not exist and is incompatible with the existing
community.
Very truly yours,
�w
gr tacien
age o 7
"OS14
STAND-UP !
COS 6Py ,:
pF � „:,�Prr 27
,save the 2raaC. w v `mite for better M �E
anning °PMErr j�E
PT
Date: August 15, 1994
To.. Chariman Tom Powers
County Supervisor Jeff Smith
County Supervisor Tom Torlakson
From: Kathleen Van Winckel }(V�
STAND-UP! Member
I am writing on behalf of the STAND-UP! community coalition. We implore you to vote
in favor of the motion passed by the PH BART Steering Committee to remove the
SP Arterial project from the County General Plan. The SP Arterial is far too destructive
to the community and should be abandoned in favor of other more feasible and beneficial
transit improvement projects in the area.
Opposition to the SP Arterial is growing every day and it is imperative that you consider
these important facts:
- The Concord City Council unanimously approved a motion to oppose the SP Arterial.
The City of Concord's General Plan does not show any extension of roadways (e.g.,
the SP Arterial) in the SP right-of-way and any study of such an alternative would
prove academic without support-for modification to Concord's General Plan.
- The Pleasant Hill City Council is studying options to remove the SP Arterial from its
General Plan. A majority of council members in Pleasant Hill have expressed their
personal opposition to the Arterial but the City cannot take an official position against
the Arterial until it is removed from their General Plan. If necessary, STAND-UP! will
continue to pursue options with the Pleasant Hill City Council to ensure that the
SP Arterial is removed from their General Plan.
- In order to route the SP Arterial around Concord and through Pleasant Hill, eminent
domain proceedings would be required to remove Pleasant Hill residents from their
land. We have high hopes that the Pleasant Hill City Council would not support this
option.
Attachment D .R
Page 13 of 75
- The Walnut Creek City Council unanimously approved a motion to oppose the SP
Arterial.
- County Public Works documents indicate that the value of the SP Arterial is minimal
until it is extended through Walnut Creek to Rudgear Road and through Concord to
SR. 242. Given the unanimous opposition to this project in both Walnut Creek and
Concord, it is unlikely that the Arterial could ever be more than a 1 mile road which
greatly diminishes its relative value.
- The right-of-way was purchased with State funds that restrict the use of this corridor
to a busway or exclusive mass transit guideway. Construction of the SP Arterial may
violate the State funding agreement thereby requiring the County to repay the State for
the current market value of the right-of-way.
OPPOSITION TO THE SP ARTERIAL
Official opposition to the SP Arterial has been expressed by the following groups or
individuals:
County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
County Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Concord City Council
Walnut Creek City Council
Contra Costa Times (by Editorial)
Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth
Walnut Creek Homeowner's Council
Sierra Club
Greenbelt Alliance
East Bay Bicycle Coalition
Mt. Diablo Audobon Society
Rails To Trails
Walden District Improvement Association
Fair Oaks PFC
In addition to the above, over 800 individuals have signed a petition opposing the SP
Arterial project. Hundreds of residents in Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek have
joined forces to oppose this project and form the STAND-UP! coalition.
Attachment D
Page 14 of 75
DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS OF THE SP ARTERIAL
This Arterial would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School endangering
children and cut through residential areas greatly devaluing the quality of life and property
values of neighborhoods in Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut.Creek.
Additionally, the Iron Horse Trail would be devalued from its current status as an escape
from urban sprawl to a concrete path next to a major roadway. The regional significance
of this trail will be forever lost which is ironic because this trail is critical to the County's
goal to increase bicycle commuting ten-fold by the turn of the century. The County has a
dismal bicycle commute rate of only .05% (as compared to 1.1%in the Bay Area) and
on-going efforts by the County to improve these percentages are highly commendable.
However, building the SP Arterial next to the trail will certainly diminish the County's
chances of achieving this goal.
Given the high density planned for the PH BART area, the Iron Horse Trail represents a
unique and precious escape from the urban environment. The Iron Horse Trail is a unique
regional asset that should not be squandered on a 1 mile road.
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
There are many options for transit improvements in the PH BART area that should be
pursued in lieu of the SP Arterial. These improvements include widening Buskirk Avenue,
the North Main Street Vertical Realignment project, reallignment of the Sunnyvale
off ramp at I-680 to existing Oak Park flyover, and the Wayne Drive Flyover(among
others).
The North Main Street Vertical Realignment, Wayne Drive Flyover, and reallignment of
Sunnyvale off ramp projects are designed to improve access to PH BART from I-680. It
is relevant to mention these projects because County documents have claimed that the SP
Arterial would improve access to BART from I-680.
Improvements to Buskirk Avenue are particularly relevant because Buskirk runs parallel
to the proposed SP Arterial. The County General Plan and the Pleasant Hill City General
Plan both provide for improvements to Buskirk Avenue. This option is superior to the
SP Arterial for many reasons:
- The SP Arterial requires 6 new intersections (5 with stoplights) on Monument Blvd.,
Mohr Lane, Lisa Lane, HookstonBancroft intersection, Mayhew Way and Coggins
Drive. We contend that this Arterial will actually degenerate traffic conditions in the
area by interjecting so many new intersections that require stoplights.
- Buskirk improvements require no new intersections.
l
Attachment D .<
Page 15 of 75
- Buskirk has 3 stoplights whereas the SP Arterial would have 5 stoplights with a higher
volume of cross-traffic than the Buskirk intersections. Presumably, local drivers will
rapidly discover that Buskirk is a better route and avoid the SP Arterial putting
increasing pressure on an "unimproved" Buskirk.
- Buskirk is an existing roadway along I-680. The environmental impacts of improving
Buskirk are minimal as compared to the SP Arterial project.
Buskirk provides direct access to several businesses and commercial office
developments in the PH BART Redevelopment area. The SP Arterial only provides
direct access to primarily residential areas in the Redevelopment area.
TRANSIT VILLAGE CONCEPT
We are supportive of the transit village concept used for development of the PH BART
area and we realize that density and transit improvements are necessary components of
this continuing development. We are not supportive of changing the development style
for the area to high volume traffic generating businesses such as regional-draw retail.
Transit improvements should be implemented but should not detract from areas that are
already developed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the opposition to the SP Arterial will make it very difficult and potentially
impossible to build. Potential violation of State funding agreements could make the
project prohibitively expensive. The destructive effects of this Arterial are too extensive
to justify its development and there are many other transit improvement options that the
County can pursue in lieu of the SP Arterial.
We hope that the information outlined above will convince you to abandon the SP Arterial
before more money or time is spent on this project. If you have any questions, please
contact me at either 510-932-0677 (home) or 415-624-0359 (work). Thank you for your
consideration of this issue.
cc: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Concord City Council
Pleasant Hill City Council
Walnut Creek City Council
Contra Costa Centre Association
Mr. Tim Kennedy, Deputy Director of Redevelopment Agency
w y Attachment D
Page 26 of 75
Contra Costa Times
Pleasant Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth
Walnut Creek Homeowner's Council
Sierra Club
Greenbelt Alliance
East Bay Bicycle Cooalition
Mt. Diablo Audobon Society
Rails To Trails
Walden District Improvement Association
Fair Oaks PFC
Attachment D
- Page 17 of 99 D
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
I. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and.traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise„and air pollution,.decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
71 126!2
a
r o k 4 C r t t/r C . 9YT'9�
i� 1313 a4e;
C, �4
( � 4,dez, Dn n .r
d�
Attachment D
Page 18 of 99 '
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, hereby give
notice,with our signature below, that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-oftway, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise, and air pollution, decreases in open space,property.values and public safety, especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
�z IS-
u ZL-�•�"
06-7
�Jrwd /G JaYv ,P
-411,k)M �a ]a u44.
OLs ,2L 0 / ll Q45id -�-- 1 2-- vi fes? �-
Attachment D
Page 19 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1.- Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
7Z* �vE�F 8�� Y P�c� " 1l/
ea*; l R_ I Ll-�l �r=� Ccsnc d
b a+
v��...5. u�:��:�...s 3��2 Woo��wa �2. cam..• .rbrtCzc�t
tZZ -NX11 F- o_-J_-t- 5?' rvt C.0 Cm-1b
j1c1 C)sLc)ext C 1'x-'7(7 2�1 '�, ��
LI �1
cp/1cold
5 �s uc� f a �5 r'm� C Co �
-0- Bor zys Ca CaR,o
e-e. LSO
��
At ✓ r L 14-q &4 Adiu, esIz4L,'
Page�20yof 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
t
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,,decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
2-2, 5 �AOC-4
�, 1zr
Attachment D
Page 21 of 99
PETITION TG AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
I. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having aprofound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,.decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We.ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
l 2 -
Y
Attachment D
Page 22 of, 99
PETITION TG AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution; decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific.Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
306 7 �1c, v�•
1sI� �L
e5�0-"O& 1156z> ku Cts C"O'
114� - VA,n r
-IAM 1mr,11,4 in Mi 11 -;�o 4,I-X-
c:)e L' -e4W
U" 511
�3
J
Attachment 99
Page 23 of
PETITION TO*AMEND PLEASANT HIS:E BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: -
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having aprofound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise;and air pollution,,;decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
X�/S f�/itl,� I-sa i �tiic�c�cr. �o�u�o�Zr� y ,QNCo 2-r�
1,
Q&�c ��Ci��!r� 4-r7q- �3r�c�CSeL �Q,
M 0 0 cv ��n
r ,
,V
Attachment D
Page 24 of,99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,•decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
ok 7 Dtv Con C o r-d
I,. /33 r<
1.e
1331 *;3ct i
v ,
v J i7-nol /Oks COAG
E. , Laci
nueuL
Page 25 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HIL"ART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of'concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: _
1: Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school,,and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
v T <<
(VIA—
V-
Cori
�/1�0.�/,�-- �/.✓carr/ Zv� L c�i�G�c. �/L. (.
O C-CSV -L/ 67 C (Z C
l kl o L' �e (a
r � �/ c� '
Attachment D
Page 26 of,99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: -
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,'decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
C 03 rm cid
J?�
-7' `/
D,
3N(,,�9—kcT (toA�.o *-I Om--
F0
Attachment D
Page 27 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILI ,, RT STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: _
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school,and dissection of our community,are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this"thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
ALee,4A 1923� ixo4kers
/ 7 �0 w
co.-
Attachment
Page 28 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having aprofound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and airpollution,=decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
-,-.._._ ,� �.�- g �► t S `�� . Com, �
'77j
t A� qir 7
Cl<- ic
J-7 90
Dr
rzLY
Y 7i
I
Attachment D
Page 29 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL;BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN-
We the undersigned,.residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
12
. C
M. ')A�n gy, W- 212C
Attachment D
Page 30 of 99
PETITION TOAMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having aprofound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected ofFicials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
o-"
r
y
Attachment D
Page 31 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases-in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
� �O .ri. � C.�i✓c.
Attachment D
Page 32 of 99
PETITION TOAMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
C,oN�-rQD
NAME ADDRESS CITY
5. Attachment D
Page 33 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
I. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our'community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
. Wg (6 00 C-0 Y-1
c /36G GD r
al,d
4:
4��
7l Sa roof'
�(r la yyl c Co"Caj ,
lD �
Attachment D
Page 34 of-99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
.� ,1 1 Hui C-4112" y;r ,��. "�
4
Attachment D
Page 35 of 99
PETITION TOAMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: _
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
-7
r SOAt/ -( yyh� c
fr
Attachment D
Page 36 of 99
PETITION TO-AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS crry
I-/AJ3)6 F, M 1 ,448L-1— 154 L.o,'eALEE_ �L• f"�2gsq ,/ ��v�-
S JLC
420 b". &1'4
o rU �' SL c
CV\ QLA).4�
1444
q, - n
Attachment D
Page 37 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the'undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
ourneighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
�lfi drti nt j��s� ;
n
1� - c
4o 7
al
� 7 3' D ( NLd-o L-D
v
/OBJ/ STi EG � i�/E' Cor/co�PD
Attachment D
Page 38 of 99
PETITION TOAMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,_decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS
V 10 Z 7 5+ —VA
1�36
U �,J �ANKFr
Attachment D
Page 39 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: _
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissectiomof our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
A61 P1 P-S
J T3+
t
4 i `
X L 14
G p r Q r-GAP, 1 a ;l 0e. PIC12.0 C -, -
221,Z,,,
aziacnmenu v
Page 40 of 99
PETITION TO-AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice„with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
I. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard. -
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
TY
t_ j
^� o G h-t o L4
7 a D eO-r&t� t Z.A,
' t / Z/020<_V�
r ce--V 9 S�?_
ccu 4C4-19/4! X'J✓& G.0f.f r c�}YS
-
12 9 Ltia X-r �li. Cu .cCCk
—�
t "`.► 1__d1Ce y
i� pw•✓ �.z. o� tioo,�sTo
i
f197 l ,sA Lw 1112 5- gsz3
7LA,
Ale e 7
t
aLLacnmenL u
Page 41 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below, that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: -
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods;areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
,c�/��'f� ��'�'✓• s -�.�/ ��'�i 6��-��� C'-- ('�iJG'✓ice
C0ncar- C
41 760L�Z4-211 q�(',
( v L cc�1
LJ
kill
�e,. 2 AL00rr
Attachment D
Page 42 of., 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare..
NAME ADDRESS CITY
i
71.11&
,, t 1 ee-z
y
AL Lacrunenz v
` Page 43 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissectiomof our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
Ctt9. I
Log
i c
Cho r19 4
el r Q5 V
or
17V CAwo
rA—
q1 k
1,11k 4
a
Attachment D
Page 44 of.99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAY
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare'.
NAME ADDRESS CITY fkthe.
A4"Gno 12q We-G Cf GI 934-YsR:
l 6sT 3L
e ,Co J
Rz� qe-�
v
C,1V 1 2-Y 2- CY) Lr' N ,OS Lw C�NCoI�Y� ITL
lv, a V r C6 s r L'/Z PlP�SQ/
.613
Page y45�of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below, that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
(5p LT-J+ \!,A R �s k 4 0 co p,r+ CT . k v c 4 If="?6
err„/1- Y'71 W s,")5 )147-4, 4/11;, 1A c
(�./ - i�L l3�o s �� ✓r•�s Gv v.� l�v� �� g�a3s
1333 eY i i W S 4 1 3()'?f l
la6eA AWAF- t9Cjsuzq\A%-,. e �1.._ P. P q. S-i 3 gs-}�
Xerl-
�ov/4L� 1�i21izS/h /3651 �.u� 1!J 7 930-7'
r S LA,1 ,0L 1` v 1 (f r / 1, -c) `f�n
6 /c c f✓Cs M ' ('5 Y- Y ) °°
141 t {"/I � �°C(it�vrr Chi
C'�
aka( . rr I hAcm .bOS6 P ?- C-r e% kv Cmao k S le'sg
9Y.t.lo
U O A Ae +� Di. P�cU�U.r; (f,l 1
u d. i;e,,ker L4 Wo- cre eG
s�hu✓ 2335 (fiiQ r
Attachment P
Page 46 of 99
PETITION TOAMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: _
I. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
2-;6-7 o\1 i F \7 v • �.-� �i�
yoft 41
N-�
11 VV
lav
PV
=�
//Q0 _AlA A.<--0^,b
Attachment D
Page 47 of 99 3
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods;degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free: Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property.values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare. r.
NAME ADDRESS ��' CITY
40 lc i
haAA—
All
• �f
U04 (`-Ql� 2,q
� D
6.L44& Com. C.a C-0 le-D
)D 5 6 .8a--L )(�_d evt CSL
AzW 7769-M65
c
Am Qr wood 4d-fu
Attachment D
Page 48 of 99 17
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: -
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having g a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
N ADDRESS CITY
Jzw-
oU
C�PIySs� CI A. r C"eef-
Attachment D
Page 49 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: -
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,properly values and public safety,especially.in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
s r
<—+7 VIA4
W-0 0
11061L5 a> /Dal
Attachment D
Page 50 of., 99 72 -7
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
Ll
/ -,`cGL.
l .� c7`
I
.i
r
Attachment D
Page 51 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
_ We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS LITY
N. f.,t.1( U t c,, 21 D6400F,,-v#Sw DCtV0t�d�cJCo,2s7
�- 1.2Y I n-7YL
Zc2 E
l alu- d(rco,
G01 Zf� p 1a i Kreel<
0. /3Ct 4A)
6l. It-
f R VQ ro
.,a uucaac L
Page 52 of 99
PETITION TO.AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected otTicials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
�2 ,¢
/O Z Z LTA14C)CaOC:_1
Z 34W04F7-
,Pv �0i 'oe�
I CrS0 gAIQ e,,aD F17 Q.,gti�
,k/Y/ Conco r4
a r ; da I OZ - NCYvF �
O'j r C-0
n Wz,-, 9-'r' O l Z u
5hqlp� #70 60nW71-4 VL-17)
AaQ 4�14 /�4� l oG z C ,.�--
Attachment D
Page 53 of 99 -2--
PETITION
PETITION TG AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P.right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
41)
✓ ✓ ✓ ��
x/ PH
i
IT L 9-4— ALi s i i&,
o A GD Y'of
r
I. .
I"' 52' Arl) :her R466 car
ig
E"TG�f��✓ W�c-c,is ��-�.� %3 n�oK v�cLi �Z�vE c��c oae
Attachment D
Page 54 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having aprofound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
i
� �f)1� t•� ��ti '1 I� --�7 Ot:"rig '
D,,
"L
F ( '
X
/ L
Attachment D
Page 55 of 99
ZZ-
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
LU. el
NAME ADDRESS CITY
(J�usU-r-
9 )7 /3/fiL�'�oF7' R
Ce -i c-r
le( z_ r C.d
Page 56 of 99
PETITION TO*AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
I Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
D/I AW.\
jg� G
G 4- 3 G S r/C qc q L4 nJ L- ro.K CMZ,
,(Li nclPn /G� f .
OSEP LYoN S `f 9d C d! E,c AS (��
r tiLzacnmenL li
Page 57 of 99 J
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
y
2
loo 0
o vt--f- /2(2-pt-t 0 D/f(c0/Z l
r
//7S e r,e-oGL
1-17
C-- CIV,A&L tGVJ-A
Z L rc .
Z�z3 0 .
Attachment D
Page 58 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as: -
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution;-decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
JAS CN C,lc n tc Pkrzt5 C- ccML+c(ZC>
E W OR 44 WP 14 u7
!' V�c 11U-- CYE E
WC
v0c�
APF ,_,�
. �� Ac,-J c74 l///&_�- �
�o„�
Page 59 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
I. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
3 a CCrr,N,
IV
tt, l
a7 z,,; 12• �f,�s��1 fit• R t
'V TA
Lo
c--U, _t J ii ' d ,. ,�'`t: r ' ts'! /= f �-t.•.-, E -!L� �� i 7
'f
1�y;rIS y� �1iln a--
} r L ' - I ,
Attachment D
Page 60 of 99 J
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,,decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
/(�,.��-t--t^�.� 'L-�i 13>� Sf-/tt�..�►�^'��'''Y C.g" c�'i • �o�'�c c����
lvc
,UA,- F ICL(A-di- to e.V-m r Lo\r n rJ
v —
1 �
tin
CD4cm-fl SYSZo
Kz r -0 1 I"lel sa o f14f,
Attachment D
Page 61 of 99
1
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PL
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property.values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
ZZ( ',y, - CILG
lots 5���.te �ti. C�Ccr-e.
f / Z Zr"—
/d 2 0 C4-7%
Lela
G� 100 ,
.11q(tt-�, X J (3 Co &t/-d,
�, 1660
Attachment D
Page 62 of 99 1
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way,and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution;�decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
M.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
1 :Pr�HDA
Jo:-E�>9 '5-h fY%kJ C9
6.
74k
/0 3 3 -r i rri L- QCe)rJ CC nro
- r
IQ
Attachment D �, /
Page 63 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and airpollution, decreases in open space,,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
S1 i
/0 r, q a--,- a 2 z
/oi4 ed-7 �
C
2ol OCO,�6& 4�A-7 ee.0 0<P1 e7 ed�Ye oJe
0 Ln-0-a
yv I� &-r
Attachment D
Page 64 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,.decreases-in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
7a.
3 O qH CT CID toCOR
lU` 0
/a
Q
Nine _S+iM0 ( CCJ*nC Oro/
17, ,141/A 4"10A
C .
w,�
t �.
Attachment D
Page 65 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
"Ve the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefitto the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,,and airpollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
lit/6 U9�-/�' �C� Com'12/)
o
UtZA
t ( oue
,I wio,
,1 �
'
h
64
Attachment D ~`
Page 66 of 99 �!
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,,decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
Ah :t:;:L-C444",J k!L
12
C IT,
, 1
� t
�tl'•
f� JUI ' 6t•i nle.l or
L/ n
i
atLacnment D
Page 67 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned,residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and airpollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
1A X
qO
n 990 C� r
oc ) ✓.
*ti
C>A S Q
G
Marion •eerrf-in 173
C
Attachmet D
17
Page 68 of 99 , /�
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the'undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below, that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,: decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
ocull-
1Z, d1v '
I
t 2 -so �o
,ham � � �• 3 O �-��� c� - — J
L.;.tQ
nL Las�sune i}�
v — rage oy oI y
1j
I
rwld ..
a
`..AD
c
�vCC
11L LGLl.l LI1Gl1L L
Page 70 of 99
PETITION TG AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution,,decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
CA0veo eD
NAME ADDRESS CITY
320 Com_-► C
i'_TlfAl,
�. 0 G1� CGU Cc ko
GUS G G7ic�eC�i7
GUi97VVc/�L `Uo�f�l�5 /G" ,-¢ GeQ,cT j?
/Oj6 8�ti'�.eoFr P �� co*(/ o/e4
CDN cjb 9-6
,Tqm tE G tJZZAC.00
/c?3 o
sE C Cly /Z c i
It•N � . L.it���w /-{off /Jcoti�
�Ro !-: t a (-SSD ' Ck s r v c,
Or"I
RET N� 1 I in, (�1 r" , nrot" Yr)
�/ zFrK,-
Attachment D
Page 71 of 99
PETITION TO-AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and,air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
5)UJA Me
o _ -
ti
1 l M l9 Su
r
1_4
�na_ X YZ4,; _LY_ 3 PH
Attachment D
Page 72 of, 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
w
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. righttof--way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
.We believe thatthis road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school,:and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
L1 ND g-q-AiC� FT
l 10,9a 6,Xca-) co
/d 4/ AUT (P FCZ
r
/ � ' Ca r�
/036 Sfl�/�Ce-aFT. gf�_ .
� � N
Attachinent D —
Page 73 of 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek,hereby give
notice,with our signature below,that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. righttof-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and airpollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front ofFair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
f � T, `' /s zz F�
'It/�fijt 44� 5 P:o
1 24
�,� � ` �'` � �•�' � �?�.,ZMI��.� Gr Cur��o.Z'�
e 4-
C7 �f
Attachment D
Paeg 74 o 99
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION.AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, hereby give
notice,with our signature below, that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right-of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise, and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
�61U21 /`lOP n l61 (fQlle /l/O �e.P &)a/17 ua6
C �
no��n r-C��. Cf' s✓�i h�Z
o ydoe u
auuacmenu v
` Page 75 of 99
r
PETITION TO AMEND PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
We the undersigned, residents of the cities of Concord,Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, hereby give
notice,with our signature below, that we oppose construction of an automobile thoroughfare system
described as:
1. Bancroft extension to Monument Boulevard via S.P. right.of-way, and
2. "Southern Pacific Boulevard" from Bancroft to Treat Boulevard.
We believe that this road will be of minimal benefit to the community at large while having a profound negative
impact upon surrounding neighborhoods,degrading the quality of life therein. This road will allow access to
our neighborhoods,areas which have to date been comparatively isolated and traffic free. Increases in crime,
noise,and air pollution, decreases in open space,property values and public safety,especially in front of Fair
Oaks Elementary school, and dissection of our community are inevitable.
We ask that the S.P.Arterial Project be stricken from the BART Area Specific Plan and instruct our
elected officials to cast their vote opposing this thoroughfare.
NAME ADDRESS CITY
C. Z�Ci AtL7 da c_Lai oaL-,-, ect -�ao,
c
I a C4 A 0(9 'r
G' Asmj CbN Cat
4 r leeli n '
oi A/
(- Ye S ( 007, co",16eju .
Attachment D
Pq.ge 76 of 99
WALDEN DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION -`•;o,
Date: May 26,1994
To: Pleasant Hill BART Station Steering Committee
From: Kelly Guncheon
President,'Walden District Improvement Association
Founding Member, STAND UP!
Subject: Traffic Study for the Pleasant Hill BART area
This memo addresses the positions adopted by the Walden Association and the
STAND UP! coalition regarding a new traffic study for the Pleasant Hill BART
area. Because there has been some discussion*about this concept, and it is likely to
be on the next Pleasant Hill BART Station Steering Committee agenda, we are
sending you our position for your consideration.
We do support a traffic study for the Pleasant Hill BART area to clarify and
document specific problems and analyze alternatives for traffic mitigation.
However, the Southern Pacific (SP) arterial should not be studied or considered
an alternative.
It is time to end the SP arterial project once and for all; no further study is
necessary to determine that.
First, it is obvious that the SP arterial is a project that is tied to business
development, not traffic mitigation. The real issue is community development,
not transportation. As such, when the project is evaluated in light of how the
road would effectively destroy the Iron Horse Regional Trail, endanger Fair Oaks
Elementary schoolchildren, ruin the community-built Len Hester Park, and
irreparably splinter Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek neighborhoods
into an Orange County-type of industrial corridor, it has no community support.
The County should waste no more money on the SP arterial project. Instead, it
should focus its efforts and resources on both viable traffic-mitigating alternatives
and converting the SP arterial into what it should be: an exclusive trail providing
bicycle and pedestrian alternatives. We can and must use transportation funds
and resources to motivate central Contra Costa County residents to get out of
their cars and use'alternative transportation. The SP arterial provides a unique
opportunity for the County to do so.
Attachment D '
Page 77 of 99 ,
Inutle�
Gity Of �E
7-
June
June 2, 1994
Tom Powers
Chairman of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Strut
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Mr. Powers, J)—
The Walnut Creek City Council opposes the roadway construction project know as the SP
Arterial. This roadway is being proposed along the SP right-of-way from Monument Boulevard
to the Pleasant Hill BART Station. The Council discussed this project and unanimously voted to
oppose it for the following reasons:
• The Walnut Creek General Plan includes a policy discouraging the use of motorized
transportation such as trains, buses, or automobiles on the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way
within the City's Sphere of Influence.
• The Walnut Creek Transportation Commission, after a public hearing, unanimously
opposed the SP Arterial.
The Public has expressed concerns about the SP Arterial having a destructive impact on
the neighborhoods, schools, parks, and the Iron Horse Trail.
The City Council directed its representative to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Steering
Committee to urge the committee to reject the project prior to any new studies and expenditures
of funds.
Since ,
on B ey .
MAYOR
«: city council
City Manager
TranspoRation Administrattr
Jim Kenn%ly-Coutuy Deputy Dwe"of Re&wlopmart
P.O. Box 8039 ♦ 1666 North Main Street ♦ Walnut Creek California 94596 + (510) 943-5800
Printed on Recycled Paper
Attachment D
` Page 78 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FCI-E��-
CEIVED
FROM: '
of SUPE
- 1 - 41994
DATE:
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- � QRS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.)ARTERIAL
Dear Board Of Supervisors,.
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. 1 ,
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south,wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of.traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART, the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which,if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community, the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Attachment D
Page 79 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
RECEIVED
FROM: R ��il�'v � 1`i��i�'h1�,� I
DATE: 5-/////V MAY - 41994
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- _, CONTRA COSTA CO. I
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.)ARTERIAL
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Mon�ament Boulevard, this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south,wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road,would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART, the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
" From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the Counry to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which, if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse TraR, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
wetnern
1311 Mountbatten court
Concord.CA 94518
Attachment D
Page 80 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM: A-r) (J N C:r u yz4j
DATE: LJ
i.nY - 4199G
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD-
SOUTHERN PACIFIC (S.P.)ARTERIAL n F CFuPtFtVISORs
f i ����o��zA C
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord,would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road, two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART, the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which, if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community, the Iron Horse Trail,and none on the school,at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Attachment-D
Page 81 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
RECEIVED
i
FROM: Patricia Hildebrand
DATE: May 3, 1994 MAY —A �g�n
CLERK EOARD OF•°+v?cRVISORS
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- -:os." co.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.)ARTERIAL ---
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroyingthe peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P. right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which,if improved, would have little adverse
impact on the community, the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Attachment D
Page 82 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
DATE. /r l
Mau _ 4
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO.TREAT BOULEVARD-
SOUTHERN PACIFIC (S.P.)ARTERIAL CLERK s
Dear Board Of Supervisors, V
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which, if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact, it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the•Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neig�orhoods!
Sincerely,
�Yj-7
Attachment D
Page 83 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors REv
ED
FROM: OR*E&w, F,;Y 4 1994
+ RL Stan•n
DATE: CA ( t: tl.,�'1(tiL ;'UP Rvis,
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD-
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.)ARTERIAL 1'
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial,which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south,wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park,a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard,
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road, which,if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail,and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. in
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
17
�� .ilrc.t''." .�f'•-f�JC:�j� I�,Y.r �„��'' � .C.G"-e�'�'.7'�' "✓�'21=a�`
Attachment D
Page 84 of 99 �.
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
�j Mr. & Mrs.Alex Brill
FROM: /-�Jiyt L� 1023 Stimel Dr.
Concord CA 94518
DATE: 4.1 ��y RECEIVED
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- M�v _ 4
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.)ARTERIAL �r'
FRr: BOARD OF OR IS
Dear Board Of Supervisors,. cc'' COST.CO� I
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Twat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. ,
From Monument Boulevard, this mad would rani directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The mad would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road, two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART, the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road, which,if improved, would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover-from the 13=y-off ramp-to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Mr. &Mrs.Alex Brill
1023 Stimel Dr.
Concord CA 94518
Attachment D
Page 85 of 99
' TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Q l Sfoen M4*
DATE: Ndya, A
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- Roof sv°cr;vSO
ARK
ARK 60HA COST�'�"'..� .
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.) ARTERIAL �' {
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard, this mad would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The mad would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord,would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed mad continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage mad,which,if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve tra fic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover-from the-Geary,off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Ise ma-aw
�t •
c+ rx�c;ss
Attachment D
' Page .86 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
RECEIVED
rCLERK
DATE: .72/9 RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- 4
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.) ARTERIALOARD Of SU?ERVISORSNTP.A COSTA CO. f
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard, this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill,as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from -Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road, which, if improved, would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact, it would improve trafic circulation, thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the-Cmaryoff ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
G' � ox el-
Attachment D RECEIVED.
Page 87 of 99 r
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors �i�,� — 4 1c
/
FROM: �c t0 R 14' Y S �C K C!.ERY. 60.AFD OF SUPERVISORS'
r•..= Cos 14 Co.
DATE: M of y 3, /9 9'(1 ;17�- .
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC (S.P.)ARTERIAL 2A,
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this mad would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The mad would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park. .
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord,would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,.two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the.crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road, which, if improved, would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation, thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Pleaseprotect the remaining tranquility and quali life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Attachment D
Page 88 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM: 4L) 6uS7- - 1R 0 r,4 RECEIVED
DATE:
RE:#IONUM�ENI'BOULEVARD h w7T-- '� lT
F1
Fp►: 60 0.
(�STr rn ISOF�
,SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.). � ccs :_ :._: ..
C6 A/eomp
Dear Board Of Supervisors, y+V j-/r
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard, this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the charac`.e*of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord,would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which,if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community, the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school,at a fraction of the cost. In
fact, it would improve trafic circulation, thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
. f
Attachment D
Page 89 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors - -
FROM:
DATE: _
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
RE: MONUNIENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- CONTRA coSTA co.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.) ARTERIAL
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard, this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road, two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating,a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART, the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which,if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation, thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
15rs Howard
1 EIaira D ,EwesDr
Pkmmnt HIB CA
94523-3907
Attachment D
Page 90 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
.
FROM: --� CF�'."
DATE: 42-cr 21 / 994 PAY
c eoa
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- eo►vrR°CoS�PFRv�soRs
SOUTHERN PACIFIC (S.P.) ARTERIAL sra co.
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard, this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
.:,,Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART, the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road,which,if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community, the Iron Horse Trail,and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
• Attachment'-'D
Page 91 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
ECLERRB
EDFROM: 4
DATE: — f.LRVISDRSRE:MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- D.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.)ARTERIAL
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. ,
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major,thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road, which, if improved, would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
� y
Attachment D
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
14,4L6�-ti -t v,Rc,/•v'A b l t-r MAY - 3 q
FROM: ,3 s/ �d.�, G .-1-4;h ccT.
DATE:
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC(S.P.) ARTERIAL
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard, this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road, two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a maior thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage a road, which, if
improved,would have little adverse
V ^�, impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact, it would improve trafic circulation, thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the-Oeary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely, C�i�"
Attachment D
Page 93 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Deb o P-r� h rYl .D
RECEIVI D
DATE: S/Z�9 q MAY - 31994
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- CONTRA COssti co sons
SOUTHERN PACIFIC (S.P.)ARTERIAL
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road, two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed mad continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish, this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road, which, if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school,at a fraction of the cost. In
fact, it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
T.."leur
24M Cierulaint Dr
�(rasmu tiiQ,CA945M
• Attachment D
Page 94 of 99
' . TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FROM: � , RECE!\/FD
DATE:
4 ,
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- CLERK eOARn OF S PERVISORS
SOUTHERN PACIFIC (S.P.)ARTERIAL CONTRA COSTA CO.
Dear Board Of Supervisors,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument Treat Boulevard arterial, which
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord,would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point, Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage mad,which,if improved, would have little adverse
impact on the community, the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact, it would improve trafic circulation,thus helping the business community.
A flyover-from the-(ffeary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Attachment D
Page 95 of 99
445 Nora Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
June 2, 1994
RECEIVED
Board of Supervisors JUN - 6 1994
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
.Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA CO.
Dear elected officials,
We are dismayed to learn recently that the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors is again fostering a .take-over of
the Southern Pacific corridor for automobiles instead of for
people. We believed that about 15-20 years ago, the argument
had been settled that you cannot best serve the people of
Contra Cosa County by making it easier for them to remain in
their cars driving alone. Surely, . it was settled at that time
that the cost of making the Southern Pacific right of way into
a highway, avenue (s) , or street (s) was too dear. It was deter-
mined then that the future exploitation of such a priceless
resource should not be subject to the mere convenience and
momentary need of motorists. 'It was held that to improve the
aesthetics of the County, to foster the health of its citizens,
to provide relief' from the expanding population congestion,
exhaust fumes, and Tepidly deteriorating environment and to
offer a green strip through central county, the railroad right
of way should one day be owned by the people as trail and open
.space. We are surprised that the issue again arises, likely
fostered by the same centers of self-interest that earlier
opposed the people' s interest. We hope and trust, (and expect)
that the long-term interests of this county and its people will
again be served by preserving this very valuable corridor as a
place for people, not cars.
Very truly yours,
Lloyd F. Scott
ez+
Z.:&—
Ann B. Scott
. ' COP`/
Attaclunent D
c;Uh�TRQ Page 96 of
z
�OST4
Marc Rumminger
363 62nd cA 9t4618-q4 JUN 29
Oakland, AM 8:
DFVEtr 1$ RECEiVr
f
June 22, 1994 �PMENr DEPT G v
2 7 IK-14
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
RD
18 Crow Canyon Court,Suite 120
CLERK ON7i;AOO TA 0.
tSORS
San Ramon,CA 94583
Dear Supervisor Bishop:
I am adamantly opposed to the proposal to build a road on the Southern Pacific right-of-way near the
Pleasant Hill BART station. The right-of-Way should be devoted to a bicycle/pedestrian path and,in the
future,a light rail line. Contra Costa County is already designed the automobile only,but projects like the
Iron Horse Trail,which could become a primary route for bicycle commuting in Contra Costa County,are
rare. We must do all we can to preserve trail space and leave it in a usable condition. If the road is built,
the trail will be a horrible place to bicycle or walk because it will be next to a sound wall or several lanes
of high speJ- traffic. Most of my friends don't bicycle because they are afraid of automobile traffic. A
pleasant trail on which to bicycle will help induce beginning bicyclists to ride.
Furthermore,areas near BART stations,which could give Contra Costa County a chance to break its
automobile addiction and decrease traffic congestion,are unique and must be used for non-automobile
oriented projects. Residents of the neighborhood through which the Iron Horse Trail passes are less than
one mile from the BART station and could easily bike to the BART station.People from further north
could use the Iron Horse Trail as their final approach to BART. If you build the road,though,the trail
will become inhospitable and will only be used by experienced cyclists.
Even though I am an experienced cyclist,I fear Contra Costa County's roads. They are designed to move
automobiles as fast as possible and thus are inhospitable for pedestrians and bicyclists. But a bike trail
stretching across much of the county would encourage me to come to Contra Costa County more often.
I encourage you to vote against this misdirected road project. Contra Costa County is already covered
with roads,but trails are a precious asset and must be protected.
Sincerely,yours,
Cc:Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Attachment D
Pae 97 of 99
TO: Clerk of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RECEIVED
FROM: W«�•�M .�.�� �E,��E MAY - 2
DATE: �. �7�%' CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
STA CO.
RE: MONUMENT BOULEVARD TO TREAT BOULEVARD- EIVE�
SOUTHERN PACIFIC (S.P.) ARTERIAL
MAY
- 41994
Dear Board Of Supervisors, E'-'- P
RVIr? S ITHI.am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Monument-Treat Bo ,
would service County development at the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
From Monument Boulevard,this road would run directly in front of Fair Oaks Elementary School,
destroying the peaceful learning environment of these young children. The road would continue
south, wiping out two businesses and ruining the character of Len Hester Park, a facility bought and
paid for by the residents of Colony Park.
The Fair Oaks neighborhood in Pleasant Hill, as well as Colony Park in Concord, would have their
environments transformed as a cascade of automobiles floods south from Monument Boulevard.
Where the proposed road would cross Hookston Road,two more businesses would be displaced.
At this point,Bancroft Road would be severely impacted, creating a major thoroughfare and ruining
the character of these neighborhoods as well.
As the proposed road continues south from Hookston along the S.P.right of way,neighborhood
after neighborhood would be inundated with the crowding,noise and stench of traffic. As we
approach Pleasant Hill BART,the road culminates by destroying the Walden neighborhood and
eliminating a significant number of parking spaces at the BART station.
From start to finish,this road would have a devastating impact on all.
I would urge the County to terminate this proposal and to focus on existing alternatives.
The Buskirk corridor is an existing frontage road, which,if improved,would have little adverse
impact on the community,the Iron Horse Trail, and none on the school, at a fraction of the cost. In
fact,it would improve trafic circulation, thus helping the business community.
A flyover from the Geary off ramp to Treat and BART would improve the situation at the intersection
of Treat and North Main and would help alleviate surface traffic in Pleasant Hill.
Please protect the remaining tranquility and quality of life in our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Attachment D
Page 98 of 99
' t Fir 12: 4 b May 9, 1994
James Kennedy - - -- j`
PT
Deputy Director-Redevelopment
County Administration Building
651 Pine St., 4th Fir.,North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-1296
1 will own my home in Colony Park this summer. The debt will be paid that I
assumed thirty years ago. At that time our family consisted of four little boys. We
came from a community that had a park and swimming pool. We greatly desired this
for our new community. With neighbors, we formed a Swimming Pool Committee. This
group met to determinE the feasibility of establishing a community-owned and non-
profit swimming pool. This group was already in place when the news that the
property we were hoping to purctF3se was going to be sold by Chester Hook. He had
recently won a county board of supervisors zoning decision permitting development of
the land for a beer distribution center.
The residents of Colony Park formed an assessment district to pay half the
land purchase price and to develop the park.The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development paid the other half. Each home was assessed $250.00 each year
for four years. (Today that would amount to about $4000.) 70% of the residents
were in favor of this plan. We gave the land to the City of Concord. Concord agreed
to maintain the property.
Len Hester was our representative as Councilman. He died in a car accident as
he returned from a Council meeting, one night. The park was subsequently named in
his memory.
My neighborhood had many children attending Fair Oaks School. The parents
were often called in for conferences with the school psychologist. We called ourselves
`The Mental Block". It was hard to raise kids in the `60's. I dare say it is just as hard
if not harder to care for families today.
Len Hester Park and Fair Oaks School are not luxuries for our community. They
are NECESSITIES. The proposed Southern Pacific Arterial would put an end to life as
we know it. The Iron Horse Trail would enhance the area. We can't stand by and let
the Southern Pacific Arterial become a reality. We must STAND UP instead!
JOAN H ERRENKOHLRILL
1023 SnMEL DR - CONCORD, CA 94518 - PwoNE # (510)689-4892
Attachment 7 - Page 99 Qi.
•fr �l
CIAJL
�L
c
�4���
"
e"YL C�
Attachment E
Page 1 of 10
j ? y KDTA12 GROUP INC.
- 911 Wilshire Boulevard
2 ppt� Suite 2150
LOs'Ar�elb ]CA 90017
�
FtrrENiti1 r TEL(213)622-2211
DEVEC� T DEP(213) 622-0429
KOAR GROUP~INC.
August 8 , 1994
Supervisor Tom Powers, Chair
County Board of Supervisors
District 1
100 37th Avenue, Room 270
Richmard, Califcrnia 94805
Subject: Traffic Study at the Contra Costa Centre
Dear Supervisor Powers:
We are the owners of the Embassy Suites Hotel at the Pleasant
Hill BART Station.
We understand that the Board of Supervisors will vote in
September regarding a traffic study around the Pleasant Hill BART
Specific Plan Area and specifically on the issue of the S.P.
arterial. At the recent Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee
meeting it was recommended to the Board that the S.P. Arterial be
dropped from consideration in alleviating traffic congestion and
also consider the impact that would have on the private/public
entitlements in the Specific Plan Area.
We are writing to state that we are very much opposed to
downsizing or reducing the entitlements on the properties in the
Centre and we are also opposed to dropping the S.P. Arterial from
future consideration.
The design of the S.P. Arterial has been in the General Plan for
over 10 years. It is a traffic measure of regional significance
that both benefits and impacts several neighborhoods. Not
considering this road at all in the traffic study would probably
cause the subsequent E.I.R. to be deficient and result in a waste
of time and money since any decision could probably be challenged
in court.
Attachment E
Page 2 of 10 .
Supervisor Tom Powers
August 8 , 1994
Page 2
We are not saying that the S.P. Arterial is the only solution. We
are saying that is should be included as one option among many.
But whatever final resolution is determined, in no way should it
impact our development rights. The private parties at the Centre,
and the County, have spent millions of dollars to bring the
development to where it is today and there is a long way to go.
Am implicit or explicit reduction in entitlements would not only
damage our long term ralationship but would threaten D=ure
investment; no one will put money into an area where there is a
possible threat to their entitlements.
We realize there is a lot of vocal opposition from the local
residents. Once again we would like to emphasize that this is a
regional issue. In fact, the S.P. Arterial will reduce traffic in
the very neighborhoods that are opposed to its construction
because drivers to BART will use the S.P. rather than taking
other local streets.
Again, we would request that you keep the S.P. Arterial as an
option in the traffic study and do not consider any reduction in
entitlements as part of the analysis.
Very truly yours,
KOAR Pleasant Hill Partners, L.P.
By: Steven C. KeInger
Vice-President
cc: Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Jim Kennedy
Christopher Beckman
AELacrmmenu h
REAL
KENNETH T BBE -FS . PRrPaW 3 of 10
DAv In BALDWIN ■ VICE PRESIDENT
�I► STRATEGIES, INC. n
_ u����jR 0QST
(707) 255p-9/3- 34 FAx (707) 2W-9345
A REAL ESTATE STRATEGY AND SERVICES COMPANY 1700 SECO%4vaF:1,$urrE 313,NAPA,CA 94559-2409
I/ PH
OP.f�r'�N
i1 DEV Et fTY Y
PT
August 9, 1994
Supervisor Tom Powers,Chair
'00- y 9card of Supervisors
District 1
100 37th Ave., Rm.270
Richmond, CA 94805
Supervisor Mark De Saulnier
County Board of Supervisors
District IV
2301 Stanwell Drive
Concord, CA 94520
Subject: Traffic Study in the Pleasant Hill BART Snecific Plan Area
Dear Supervisor Powers and Supervisor De Saulnier:
We have been advised that the Board of Supervisors will vote in September regarding a traffic
study in and around the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Area (the "Areal, that excludes the
S.P. Arterial as part of that study. We have been further advised that at the most recent
Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee meeting it was recommended to the Board of
Supervisors the S.P. Arterial no longer be considered ... and that to mitigate elimination of the
S.P.Arterial a down-zoning or reduction in entitlements should be considered.
As consultant and representative of HD Delaware Properties, Inc. (formerly Homart
Deve!opment Co.), the owner and developer of the Station Oaks property, R E A L Strategies,
Inc. is (1) very opposed to any effort to reduce the entitlements of any undeveloped properties
within the Area, and (2) very support!ve of a traffic study that includes the S.P. Arterial as an
alternative.
The General Plan and EIR,which have been in effect for more than ten years, have included the
S.P. Arterial as a potential traffic mitigation measure. It is a traffic mitigation measure that not
only has an impact on the Area, but has regional ramifications as well. It does not seem either
prudent or in keeping with the spirit of the General Plan and EIR to suddenly change course
and not consider the S.P. Arterial as a part of a traffic study. In fact, to not consider the S.P.
Arterial may be in violation of the EIR, and most likely can be challenged through legal
channels.
Attachment E
Page 4 of 10
It is our understanding there has been substantial opposition to the S.P. Arterial from several
vocal neighborhood and special interest groups. However, the landowners and developers in
the Area who have vested entitlements and development rights are not suggesting that the S.P.
Arterial is the only answer that will satisfy the General Plan and EIR. But, a complete traffic
study, considering all alternatives, must be made to comply with the EIR, and the results may
be that other mitigation measures can be put in place to mitigate future development We don't
know what the results of such a traffic study will be, nor do the neighborhood and special
Interest groups.
The landowners, developers and the County have spent millions of dollars to make the Contra
Costa Centre into the nationally acclaimed working, living and transit hub it is today. To allow
special interest groups to negatively influence future development which Is entitled through
legally enforceable development agreements would be short-sighted for both the region and
the community.
As working partners in the development of this important transit, living and working hub,we are
hopeful that your good judgment to (1) vote for a traffic study that includes the S.P. Arterial as
an alterative,and (2) not to consider reduction in entitlements as an alternative,will prevail.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L Tibbetts
President
KLT:Imb
cc: Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Tom Toriakson
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Jim Kennedy
Attachment E
AMERICAN"ASSETS, INC. Page5of10
,
10140 CAMPUS POINT DRIVE
l SAN DIEGO, C,fiLi&ORNIA 92121-1520
(619) 546-2600 :
FAX (619) 546-2620
August 9, 1994
Supervisor Tom Powers, Chair o=
County Board of Supervisors o
District 1tr- S
100 37th Ave., Room 270
Richmond, CA 94805
Subject: Traffic Study at the Contra Costa Center
Dear Supervisor Powers:
It is my understanding that the Board of Supervisors will vote in September on a traffic
study for the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Area and the S.P. Arterial.
I am opposed to dropping the S.P. Arterial from future consideration, as well as reducing
the entitlements on the properties in the Centre.
I am requesting that you keep the S.P. Arterial as an option in the study, and do not
consider any reduction in entitlements.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
AMERICAN ASSETS, INC.
J e Cronemeyer
Asset Manager
Commercial Real Estate
JC:fp
cc: Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Jim Kennedy
Attachment E
Page 6 of 10
NYSTROM ENGINEERING
RICHARD A. NYSTROM
CIVIL ENGINEER * PLANNER
500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD. SUITE 425. WALNUT CREEK. CA 94596
(510) 935.8077
August 10, 1994
M
< 3:va
Supervisor Tom Powers M
Chair, Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
100 37th Avenue, Room 270
Richmond, CA 94805 C)
V)
rn
Subject : Traffic Study at the Pleasant Hill BART Specaican
Area -,Zr
Dear Tom,
Sometime in September, the Board of Supervisors will vote regarding
the preparation of a traffic study around the Pleasant Hill BART
Specific Plan area, including the issue of the Southern Pacific
right-of-way arterial. At a recent meeting of the Pleasant Hill
BART Steering Committee, the Committee recommended that the traffic
study proceed, but that the SP arterial be dropped from
consideration in the traffic study. It also recommended that,
depending on the outcome of the traffic study, the reduction of
land use and entitlements in the area might also be considered. As
an engineering consultant to the Contra Costa Centre Association
since the approval of the Specific Plan, I wish to state that I am
very much opposed to the elimination of the SP arterial from future
traffic consideration, and I am especially opposed to consideration
of reducing land use entitlements to the various properties in our
Association which acquired those entitlements more than 10 years
ago.
As you know, several of our properties have already used their
entitlements by constructing office and commercial uses; some of
the properties have not yet developed. However, all of the
properties participated in an Assessment District ten years ago
which financed $10 million of improvements in and around the
Pleasant Hill BART station area, most of which were road
improvements . Based on the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan
mitigation recommendations, that $10 million financing was our
Association' s contribution to road improvements to help alleviate
traffic congestion in the BART station area. Since that time, we
understand that the County has spent approximately $7 million in
acquiring the property on which the SP arterial was to be build.
That SP arterial has been in the traffic plan, as a major road
circulation element, ever since the formulation and approval of the
Attachment E
Page 7 of 10
August 10, 1994
Page 2
Specific Plan back in the early 1980' s . Since that time, there
have been three traffic studies performed, all of which have
confirmed the need for the arterial in the SP right-of-way.
Now that the construction of that SP arterial has reached the time
to be designed and built, the neighbors in the area of this
arterial are complaining about the road and have asked for it to be
dropped from the traffic study consideration. I am not necessarily
in favor of building the SP arterial, but to summarily eliminate it
from the road program, without considering any alternatives or
suitable replacements, would be very unwise. The roadway at least
ought to be included in the traffic study as an alternative to a
"no project" roadway, to show whether there truly is still a need
for that arterial and, if so, what other alternatives routes might
be substituted for it. Also, it is my "non-legal" judgment that a
traffic study which does not consider alternatives could not be
used subsequently in an EIR which would be required to amend the
General Plan and Specific Plan.
As to the notion of possibly reducing land use entitlements in this
area, that would not only be a grossly unfair punishment to the
undeveloped properties, but it also would raise numerous serious
legal questions as to existing Development Agreements. Since the
property owners have spent $10 million in road and infrastructure
improvements, and many more million in developing or preparing to
develop their individual properties, any proposal to reduce land
use entitlements would undoubtedly meet with major legal and moral
opposition.
My request to the Board of Supervisors is a simple one: 1) Approve
the conduct of a traffic study around the Pleasant Hill BART
Specific Area; 2) Include in that study the "base case" of no
arterial in the SP right-of-way, but include the SP arterial as one
of the alternative projects studied; and 3) Postpone, or deny, any
proposal to reduce land use entitlements to the properties in this
area. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
Nystrom Engineering Corp.
Richard A. Nystrom, President
RAN:nc
Attaclameh E
Pa -
August 10, - 1994
Page 3 -
CC: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor, Gayle Bishop
Supervisor, Tom Torlakson
Supervisor, Jeff Smith
Jim Kennedy
Bob Russell
Lynette Tanner
W:\DATA\WP51\NANCY\DICK\POWERSTR.LTR
' tLl.dlallllCill. L+
. TRANSAMERICA Pagerlof 110a
REAL,ESTATE MANAGEMENT boo Estate rriery Street Cu.
� i•,•'i i ��- � 600 Monrgomery Street
` V S l y 4th Floor
San Frami%CO,CA 94111•z-9c
415 9-93-4100
29 pH 2. 5 Far 411 983-4109
August 24, 1994 , L�P, �EPr
Q I� O Se.•.. �e
Supervisor Tom Powers S`k PP
'' s
District I e P
100 37th Avenue, Room 270
Richmond, CA 94805
RE: TRAFFIC STUDY AT THE CONTRA COSTA CENTRE
Dear Supervisor Powers:
I understand that the Board of Supervisors will vote in September regarding a traffic
study around the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Area and specifically on the issue of
the S.P. Arterial. At the recent Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee meeting it was
recommended to the Board that the S.P. Arterial be dropped from consideration in
alleviating traffic congestion and also consider the impact that would have on the
private/public entitlements in the Specific Plan Area.
I am writing to state that we (the owners and managers of the Urban West Office
Building, Phase 1) are very much opposed to downzoning or reducing the
entitlements on the properties in the Centre and also we are opposed to dropping the
S.P. Arterial from future consideration.
The design of the S-.P. Arterial has been in the General Plan for over 10 years. It is a
traffic measure of regional significance that both benefits and impacts several
neighborhoods. Not considering this road at all in the traffic study would probably
cause the subsequent E.I.R. to be deficient and result in a waste of time and money
since any decision could probably be challenged in court.
This is not a statement of the suitability of the S.P. Arterial as the only solution or the
best solution. We are saying that it should be included as one option among many.
But the final resolution should in no way impact our development rights. The private
parties at the Centre, and the County, have spent millions of dollars to bring the
development to where it is today and there is a long way to go. An implicit or explicit
reduction in entitlements would not only damage our long term relationship but would
threaten future investment; no one will put money into an area where there is a
possible threat to their entitlements.
Albuquerque Denver Houston Irvine Los Angeles Phoenix San Diego San Francisco
X7
Attachment E
Page 10 of 10
August 24, 1994
Page Two
We realize there is a lot of vocal opposition from the local residents. Once again we
would like to emphasize that this is a regional issue. In fact, the S.P. Arterial will
reduce traffic in the very neighbonccc pis that are opposed to is construction because
drivers to BART will use the S.P. ratht , than taking other local streets.
Again, I would request that you keep t:ie S.P. Arterial as an option in the traffic study
and do not consider any reduction in a ititlements as part of the analysis.
Re tfqlly,
Mic ael T. Lippm A
Northern California RegioI anager
Transamerica Real Estate anagement Co.
Managing Agent for Colony M.B. Partners, LP.
at Urban West Office Building, Phase I
MTL/hdg
cc: .Jim Kennedy
Bob Russell
Lynette Tanner
Brian DeGracia
MaryAnn Rounds
Attachment li
<-
Pqgq Iof8
X11
PLEASANT HILL BART STEERING COMAITTTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
7/25/95
I. Committee Members Present: Mark DeSaulnier (Contra Costa County), Gayle Bishop
(Contra Costa County), Ed Dimmick (City of Walnut Creek), Kelly Guncheon (Walden
District Improvement Association), Dan Richards (Bay Area Rapid Transit District), Lou
Rosas(City of Concord), Bob Russell (Contra Costa Centre Association), Terri Williamson
(City of Pleasant Hill); (Gene Wolfe, alternate, City of Pleasant Dill). City of Walnut Creek
was also present.
II. Chair DeSaulnier called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The summary of the March 21,
1994 meeting were approved with the last two paragraph of Section 3 being amended and
restated as follows:
"Peter Duncan noted the presence of vacant tree wells surrounding the BART
property. He indicated he would be willing to pay for seven(7)trees along Oak Road
if BART would purchase the remaining seven (7) trees and provide for planting and
maintenance. Dan Richards indicated BART would be agreeable to providing and
planting the remaining seven(7)trees if the Contra Costa Centre would provide the
maintenance. Bob Russell indicated he would take this item to the Contra Costa
Centre Association Board and report back to the Steering Committee.
"Sunne McPeak noted that BARTs landscaping, as with other property owners in the
area,would normally occur with development on the property. Peter Duncan pressed
for a time frame for BART to prepare a landscape plan for the area. Dan Richards
indicated that he was reluctant to pursue such a course, indicating that it may mislead
people into believing that BART has sufficient funds for a rehabilitation program. He
asked for help in setting local priorities."
The summary as amended was approved unanimously(M/S/C Bishop/Rosas).
III. Traffic Study for Southern Pacific Arterial,North Main Realignment, and Pleasant Hill BART
Specific Plan Land Use Alternatives
Tim Kennedy presented the recommendation of the Technical Committee. The fundamental
recommendation was to utilize the traffic study as a planning document. This traffic study
will ultimately be utilized in a CEQA document, and therefore must look at all feasible
alternatives. The traffic study scope of work is intended to provide a process that the staff
and the Steering Committee may use as a planning tool in rendering ultimately a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a preferred alternative. Therefore, the
Technical Committee recommends that a traffic study be conducted that looks at feasible
alternatives. Since the alternatives that area feasible from a traffic standpoint are not precisely
known, the work scope has been set up in a way to relatively quickly identify those feasible
alternatives as the Technical Committee views them. Supervisor DeSaulnier noted that any
Attachment F
Page 2 of 8
final resolution to the SP Arterial issue seemed to require a General Plan Amendment. He
inquired whether the SP Arterial had to be included as part of the traffic study. Mr. Kennedy
responded that, because the project is in the existing General Plan, it is logical to include it
as an alternative. The no project alternative would be equally logical, and there are a number
of additional alternatives that have been proposed through the process. The scope of work
should suggest those alternatives should also be examined. Supervisor Bishop asked whether
the County would be legally obligated to include a traffic analysis of the SP Arterial project
in an EIR study in order to avoid a deficient EIR. Mr. Kennedy responded that it was his
understanding of the legal obligation that we must examine, in the context of the CEQA
process, all feasible alternatives to the proposed project. Supervisor Bishop requested that
County Counsel be asked to provide their legal opinion. Bob Russell stated that the project
should be included to avoid potential lawsuits. He noted that the Contra Costa Centre
interests were in seeing that some project alternative go through, not necessarily the SP
Arterial. In order to do that, options need to be studied and SP Arterial should be one of
those options.
Steve Goetz, Chief, Transportation Planning for Contra Costa County, presented the
Technical Committee's proposed Scope of Work. He noted that there were actually three
interrelated projects covered by the Scope of Work, including the SP Arterial Project, the
North Main Street/Oak Park Boulevard Intersection Project, and the Pleasant Hill BART
Specific Plan Land Use Alternative Study. Councilman Dimmick suggested that additional
alternatives were needed because seven of the nine alternatives suggested putting a road on
the SP right-of-way. Mr. Goetz noted that there were more than just road projects in the
alternatives. There was a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) alternative and a transit
alternative. In addition, the alternatives provided for trail usage. Councilman Dimmick also
asked for clarification on the Specific Plan Land Use Study Alternative B. Mr. Kennedy
stated that the proposed alternative would constitute the introduction of more flexibility in
use for the privately owned sites than is currently the case. The current Specific Plan for the
privately owned sites are relatively exclusive in terms of the use, primarily being office and
commercial. The concept of Alternative B is to permit more flexibility in terms of use, by
permitting sites to be developed residential rather than commercial or to develop mixed use
projects in which there is an integration residential/commercial/institutional uses in one
common plan of development.
Supervisor DeSaulnier opened the matter to public comment.
Don Stedman stated his opposition to the roadway, citing neighborhood impacts. He noted
that the City Councils of Concord and Walnut Creek had opposed the project.
Don Mount suggested that the goal of the Steering Committee should be to terminate the SP
Arterial within the most timely manner so that the community could be put at ease. He stated
that STAND-UP could be in an adversarial mode or in a partnership mode, depending on the
timeliness and action of the Committee and the Board of Supervisors. He stated his opinion
that there was no legal reason for the SP Arterial to be included in a traffic study. He noted
that they have been advised by outside counsel in arriving at this conclusion.
2
Attachment F
Page 3 of 8
Kathy Tate, representing the Valley Spokes and Bicycle Touring Club, read a letter stating
their opposition to County plans to develop a roadway in the Southern Pacific right-of-way.
John Ruzak, representing the East Bay Bicycle Coalition and the Sierra Club, indicated their
opposition to any efforts leading to the development of the proposed roadway on the former
Southern Pacific right-of-way. He stated that the narrow corridor should be preserved as a
community trail and for future efficient light rail. He suggested that bicycle trails are not
compatible with roadway uses. Supervisor Bishop commented that the Hauser bill (AB ??)
is pending in the State Legislature. The bill would require that any jurisdiction that purchased
right-of-way with transit or rail funds has to be used for rail purposes. Otherwise, the funds
are subject to being paid back.
Rochelle Cohen cited the list of parties supporting opposition to the SP Arterial, including the
Greenbelt Alliance, Sierra Club, Valley Spokesmen, Audubon Society, Walnut Creek
Homeowners Council, Fair Oaks Homeowners, PFC of the Fair Oaks School, Pleasant Hill
Citizens for Responsible Growth, Walden Association, residents of the Park Royale, as well
as residents of the Brookview Mobile Home Park. She also noted the support of the Concord
City Council, Walnut Creek City Council, and the editorial support of the Contra Costa
Times.
Will Nelson inquired about the financial impact of a policy change, and inquired about the
cost of the study being proposed.
Rodney van Winkle stated that he was a founding member of STAND-UP, and had engaged
in a lot of study of the Pleasant Hill BART Plan. He concluded that the idea for the Pleasant
Hill BART Plan ten years ago was a good idea and the County should be commended for
being forward thinking in taking a transit hub and deciding to build commercial space and
residential units in high density to maximize transit utilization. His concern was that the
economic pressures that exist today with respect to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
would cause decisions to be made from a short term perspective rather than a long term
perspective. He indicated the need to spend the time to do it right and look at the long term
consequences before any actions are taken. He stated it would be important to see quality
housing, quality area-serving retail, and a quality living environment that includes trails, parks,
and open space for the people living and working in the high density environment. He
requested clarification about the County General Plan treatment of the SP Arterial.
Bev Lane, a Board member of County Connection and a candidate for the East Bay Regional
Park District's Board, noted the need to keep in mind alternatives such as walking and biking.
She suggested that multi-use trails as part of the project are essential.
Tamara Galanter, an attorney with the law firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger and
currently under contract to STAND-UP, stated that it was important how you define the
project from both a legal perspective, a policy perspective, and a political perspective. She
suggested that the project should be redefined to "not doing the project" under CEQA. You
first define the project and then make a preliminary assessment as to whether there's going to
be potential for significant impact. If there is a potential for significant impact, only then do
3
Attachment F
Page 4 of 8
you go ahead and prepare an EIR. If the project is defined to be "not doing the project," then
it's very likely that no EIR would be required.
Marian Paarup, a representative of the Cambridge neighborhood, went on record opposing
the SP Arterial project.
Supervisor DeSaulnier closed the public comment period.
Terri Williamson provided a clarification of the City of Pleasant Hill's position. She noted that
the City Council had discussed this issue, and that the City asked that a change in General
Plan be considered to eliminate the SP right-of-way. However, since the project is in the
City's General Plan,their City Attorney determined that an amendment would require an EIR,
and that a Negative Declaration would not be sufficient because of the fact that the SP right-
of-way was designed in large part to alleviate traffic running through the City. She stated that
the impacts Countywide may be different than they are for the City of Pleasant Hill in
particular. Councilwoman Williamson also had some suggested additions to the traffic study:
1. There should be no preferred project identified.
2. The study should start with an origin/destination study of the present traffic.
3. The no project alternative should include a non-motorized trail.
4. There should also be a no project alternative and a reduction of density.
5. That a Wayne Drive flyover be included as a project alternative.
6. That the North Main/Oak Park Alternative F (no project) include the additional
alternative of no project plus reduced density.
7. That the traffic consultants being retained be a firm not previously utilized so that
clean slate exists at the start.
Supervisor Bishop noted that eliminating the SP Arterial could arguably be done using a
Negative Declaration.
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Goetz responded to the various inquiries made during the public
comment section. With respect to the financial impact of a policy reversal, it was noted that
that would be affected by the traffic study result. Based on current traffic studies, if the SP
Arterial is removed, the legislative body would either have to make findings of overriding
consideration or look to other alternatives, including other physical alternatives, or a
reduction of density. Clearly the latter alternative could have significant financial effects, both
on property owners and the County. All of the property owners have vesting development
agreements, so the ability to alter those development rights is not something that the County
in its sole capacity may be in a position to deternrine. The cost of a traffic study is very much
dependent upon the scope of work and the degree of definition which you have going into the
4
Attachment F
Page 5 of 8
study. Based on the proposed scope of the Technical Committee, we estimate the traffic
study to be in the $80,000 to $100,000 range. With respect to why the County is obligated
to look at the SP Arterial as part of a larger project from 242 to Rudgear, it was noted that
the County purchased the SP right-of-way in part to demonstrate to the State that mass transit
along this corridor could be preserved. Also the Southern Pacific right-of-way is included in
the County's Circulation Element with two roadways. One of the South Broadway extension
through the City of Walnut Creek, and the other roadway is the extension of Bancroft Road
up to Monument Blvd. With respect to the question about why we do not use the term "mass
transit" in Alternative H, it was clarified to note that Alternative H is mass transit and a
roadway project. With respect to the inclusion of alternative forms of non-motorized
transportation being evaluated, it was indicated that additional project alternatives could be
stated along those lines. With respect to the question of having a consultant familiar with the
Transportation Authority model, it was indicated that it was important to use that model for
evaluating traffic impacts. He noted that a prime consultant could utilize a sub-contractor if
they were not familiar with the model.
Bob Russell indicated that he represented the commercial property owners in the area. He
restated that the Contra Costa Centre Association absolutely wanted the SP Arterial. What
they were interested in is a feasible solution to traffic mitigation responsibilities in order to
preserve the development capacity at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. He noted that
hundreds of millions of dollars of investment have been made, and the property owners want
to ensure their development rights aren't encumbered or altered. He suggested the need to
conduct a broad traffic study that would include the SP Arterial as an option.
Councilman Rosas restated the City of Concord's opposition to the project. He also noted
that the City of Concord's General Plan does not show any roadways within the former
Southern Pacific right-of-way. Since a small segment of the proposed roadway is in the City
of Concord, the City would have to be willing to undertake a General Plan Amendment to
provide for it. He did not think there would be much support for this.
BART Director Dan Richards indicated BART's perspective on these matters. He noted this
intent to abstain on the question of the road, feeling that it is an issue needing to be answered
by the local community. However, wrapping the issues of the road project in a traffic study
of it to include development densities were of concern to him.
Kelly Guncheon inquired as to the source of funds for purchasing the SP right-of-way. Mr.
Kennedy noted that the bulk of the right-of-way between the Pleasant Hill BART Station and
Monument Blvd. had been purchased with County Redevelopment Agency funds. A small
portion of the funding for the Hookston Station acquisition(between Mayhew and Hookston)
used State funding for transit purposes. The remainder of the right-of-way throughout the
remainder of the County was purchased largely with State funds. The need to clarify the
implications of the Hauser bill was noted.
Councilman Dimmick expressed his support for having an origin/destination study be part of
the traffic study. He also suggested that the freeway off-ramp at Oak Park be examined.
Councilwoman Williamson suggested that the rebuilding of the Contra Costa Blvd. flyover
5
Attachment F
Page 6 of 8
may also present an opportunity to do something of a more joint nature.
Councilwoman Williamson noted that the County would be having a golden opportunity to
examine density reduction in the near future. She noted that the BART Development
Agreement lapses with the County in 1995 unless we renegotiate it. Director Richards
restated that he did not think this was the time or place to raise such issues. Development
rights do lapse, and so it can be brought up.
Councilman Rosas moved that the Steering Committee recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that a traffic study be conducted absent any reference to the Southern Pacific
Arterial. Supervisor Bishop seconded the motion with a friendly amendment defining the
project as abandonment of the Southern Pacific Arterial as a road project. In the
commentary, Councilman Rosas clarified that the intent of the motion was to include not
studying the SP Arterial. The motion passed with five voting yes (Dimmick,Rosas, Bishop,
DeSaulnier, Guncheon), one voting no (Russell), and two abstaining(Richards, Williamson).
It was moved by Councilwoman Williamson that the traffic study scope include (1) an
origin/destination study,(2)an enhanced Alternative G(no project), which would also include
a non-motorized trail; (3) add a no project plus reduction of density in both BART and
private holdings;(4)study the Wayne Drive flyover and/or a combination of new off-ramps,
including Contra Costa Boulevard being moved further south; (5) including a no project and
reduction of density with the N. Main/Oak Park Blvd. scope. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Rosas. Director Richards offered a substitute motion, which was to accept the
motion of Councilwoman Williamson with the exception of deleting any reference to
reduction of densities. Mr. Russell seconded the substitute motion. Supervisor DeSaulnier
noted that the inclusion of the density reduction provision would act almost like a poison pill
to the remainder of the recommendation to the Board. Councilwoman Williamson suggested
that alternative land uses have differing effects and should be examined. Director Richards
indicated that people seem to want it both ways. Saying we don't want to look at the SP
Arterial because its politically unacceptable, and then come back and say we have to look at
everyone else that's on the table seems inconsistent. He noted a concern that the BART
Board could feel backed into a corner, feeling that they have to support the SP Arterial in
order to support the existing BART development rights. He stated his preference for doing
a traffic study of the existing situation, and focus our attention on finding mitigations that
work. Should no alternatives be acceptable then an examination of densities may be
warranted, but that issue should be saved for another time. Councilwoman Williamson
suggested that BART needed this information for its upcoming Development Agreement
negotiations. She also noted that AB 3152 (Bates) could allow a density bonus for housing
built at a transit node of up to 50%. Director Richards indicated his position with respect to
the Bates bill. Provisions such as that would not be used to override agreements that BART
has with localities.
The vote on the substitute motion failed with three voting yes(Richards, Russell, DeSaulnier),
and five voting no (Bishop, Dimmick, Rosas, Guncheon, Williamson). The original motion
passed with five voting yes (Williamson, Rosas, Bishop, Dimmick, Guncheon), and three
voting no (Richards, Russell, DeSaulnier).
6
Attachment F
Page 7 of 8
Supervisor DeSaulnier indicated that the conduct of public workshops requested by the
Walden Improvement Association could be worked out through his office. The Committee
took a ten minute break.
IV. Status Report-North Main Realignment at Oak Park Boulevard
Bob Russell voiced his concern over the lack of progress on this project. He hoped that the
project would be expedited. He did pose the question as to whether the City should be the
lead agency for the project. Councilwoman Williamson noted that the traffic studies that had
just been recommended by the Steering Committee included various alternatives relative to
this project. She believes that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will see this
movement as progress. Mr. Guncheon inquired as to the connection between Pleasant Hill
annexation of the Pleasant Hill BART Station and the North Main realignment. Mr. Kennedy
noted that the City of Pleasant Hill had initiated an application to annex a portion of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station. No final action has been taken with respect to that application.
Various parties who may ultimately effect that decision have been approached for support.
The City ofPleasant Hill has indicated that they may have to assess the infrastructure projects
that are being proposed in view of the outcome of the annexation issue. Mr. Russell noted
that that was the essence of the Contra Costa Centre's concern about the City being the lead
agent on the project. It was moved and seconded to accept the report. Motion passed
unanimously(M/S/C Bishop/Rosas).
V. Del Hombre Lane
Mr.Kennedy provided the staff report. Michael Brent spoke to the issue."He indicated that
the map included with the staff report could be defective and would need to be clarified. Staff
indicated that they would do so. He also expressed concern that the area not become a new
access point for the Treat Commons complex Mr. Kennedy noted that the issue of Treat
Commons was dealt with by the Steering Committee a number of years ago. A decision was
made to not permit Treat Commons to access their parking area via Del Hombre or to utilize
Del Hombre as a portion of their parking. A motion to accept staff recommendation was
made and seconded(M/SIC Williamson/Dimmick). The motion passed unanimously.
VI. Recommendations of the Walden District Improvement Association
This item was dealt with as part of the SP Arterial actions.
VII. Status Report from BART/Walden Improvement Association on Station Area Maintenance
Greg Chan,a representative ofBART,indicated that BART staff is meeting with the Walden
Association as well as other organizations in the area with an interest in the area. Director
Richards also indicated that the BART staff had come up with a landscaping program and
budget that proposed a significant emphasis on Pleasant Hill. With respect to the offer by
Peter Duncan to donate trees to BART to plant along Oak Road, Mr. Richards indicated that
BART would plant the trees if the Contra Costa Centre would agree to include them in the
area-wide maintenance lighting and landscaping maintenance program. Mr. Russell indicated
7
Attachment F
Page 8 of 8
that the Centre Association would be agreeable to that.
VIII. Status Report on Pleasant Hill BART Pocket Park
Mr. Kennedy gave the staff report. Major elements of the park are falling into place,
including the lease of BART property and the design component. Councilwoman Williamson
inquired about the meaning of a provision in the lease agreement protecting BART's joint
development capabilities. W.Kennedy responded that should BART develop residential uses
on a portion of the property, they would be subject to the County's Park Dedication
requirements. The provision in question indicates that they will get some credit for the
provision of this site as a park feature for that residential development.
The next meeting date was suggested to be November 14, 1994.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
=15/phbwIn in
Attachment G
Page 1 of 8
MOR.RISON & FOERSTER
SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEYS AT LAW NEW YORK
LOS ANGELES WASHINGTON, D.C.
SAS PLEASE RESPOND TO: DENVER
ORANGE COUNTY P.O.BOX SIM LONDON
PALO ALTO VMINUT CREEK.CA 9459648130 BRUSSELS
SEATTLE HONG KONG
101 YGNACIO VALLEY ROM,SUITE 450 TOKYO
VV LNUr CME K.CA 94596.4095
TELEPHONE (510)Za-M 0 DIRECT DLAL NUMBER
TE[EMC3IMILE (SIM 94&9912
(510)295-3310
September 23, 1994
Honorable Tom Powers, Chair
and Members of the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Traffic Study for Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area
Dear Chairman Powers and Board Members:
We are writing this letter on behalf of our client, the Contra Costa Centre
Association, regarding the traffic study that is proposed to be conducted in and around
the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area (the "Traffic Study"). We
understand that the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") will vote within the next month
or two regarding the scope of the Traffic Study, and specifically whether the SP
Arterial will be included as part of the Traffic Study. The SP Arterial is a proposed
roadway within the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way from Monument
Boulevard to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area (the "Planning Area").
We have been advised that the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee (the "Steering
Committee") has recommended to the Board that the SP Arterial should be eliminated
from the Traffic Study and that the Board should consider mitigating the elimination of
the SP Arterial by reducing the density of land use entitlements in the Planning Area.
As discussed below, adhering to the Steering Committee's
recommendation would present significant legal problems. The Steering Committee's
approach would lead to inevitable violations of the Contra Costa County General Pian
(the "General Plan"), the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (the "Specific
Attachment G
Page 2 of 8
MORRISON & FOERSTER
Chairman Powers and Members of
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 23, 1994
Page Two
Plan"), the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), multiple development
agreements entered into by the County in the Planning Area, and the Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area (the
"Redevelopment Plan"). Furthermore, eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic
Study would result in uninformed decision-making. The only way to determine
whether there are superior alternatives to the SP Arterial for mitigating traffic impacts
in the Planning Area is-to include the SP Arterial in the Traffic Study. Abandoning the
SP Arterial would also waste $7 million of taxpayer money already spent on acquiring
the SP Arterial right-of-way. In addition, reducing development entitlements could
jeopardize the County's ability to provide high density housing on property in the
Planning Area that the County Redevelopment Agency has already spent approximately
$4,000,000 to acquire. It is also generally recognized that the original long-term vision
for the SP Arterial may be the most feasible traffic solution to ensure the continued
success of the County's highly acclaimed Pleasant Hill BART Station project.
Therefore, the only responsible course of action for the Board of Supervisors is to:
(1) include the SP Arterial as an alternative in the Traffic Study; and (2) reject the
Steering Committee's proposal to reduce land use entitlements in the Planning Area.
A. The General Plan and the Specific Plan Require that the County
Include the SP Arterial in the Traffic Study.
1: General Plan.
In addition to land use policies and objectives that apply on a County-wide
basis, the General Plan contains more detailed development policies for a number of
specific areas in the County, including the Planning Area. Since the General Plan is
the "constitution for all future development" in the County, any decision by the Board
that is inconsistent with the General Plan may be invalid. See Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990). The policies in the General
Plan relating to the Planning Area generally incorporate the development standards
contained in the Specific Plan. In addition, the General Plan specifically provides that
"[i]n cooperation with Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and transit operators, [the County
Shall] determine the feasibility of establishing bus service along the SPRR right-of-way
between Concord and Rudgear Road." General Plan Policy 3-122, page 3-65. Thus, it
is clear that the-General Plan requires the County to determine the feasibility of
implementing the SP Arterial. This is exactly what the Traffic Study is designed to do:
determine the feasibility of traffic alternatives, such as the SP Arterial, in the Planning
Area. Therefore, a decision to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would
directly conflict with the General Plan.
' Attachment G
Page 3 of 8
MORRISON & FOERSTER
Chairman Powers and Members of
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 23, 1994
Page Three
2. Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan also contains a number of requirements and policies
relating to the SP Arterial. The Specific Plan provides that: "[w]hile it is beyond the
boundaries of the Specific Plan Station Area, it is recommended that the SP ROW
[right-of-way] between the Station Area and Monument Boulevard to the north be
acquired and a new 4-lane arterial roadway be incorporated into the ROW connecting
Coggins Drive with Monument Boulevard." Specific Plan, page 31. The Specific Plan
further provides that: "[a] new exclusive busway shall be incorporated into the BART
station area and a portion of the SP ROW to facilitate an improved north-south bus
route in the subregion." Specific Plan, page 35 (emphasis added). Finally, the
Specific Plan provides that "[a] minimum 20' wide ROW shall be maintained within
the SP ROW with interconnecting routes to the BART station reserved to provide for
regional pedestrian and bicycle circulation." Specific Plan, page 36. Thus, the goals,
policies and implementation measures of the Specific Plan call for the SP Arterial to be
included as an important traffic improvement in the Planning Area.
Just as planning decisions by the Board must be consistent with the
General Plan, so must its decisions be consistent with the Specific Plan. The Specific
Plan is just below the General Plan in the land use approval hierarchy and is used for
the systematic implementation of the General Plan for specific areas. Gov't. Code
§ 65450. Thus, zonings, subdivision, public works projects and development
agreements all must be consistent with the Specific Plan. Gov't. Code § 65455,
65867.5. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Trac Study would be inconsistent
with the express policies and implementation measures of the Specific Plan.
Accordingly, such a decision could constitute an unlawful act.
B. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study Would Violate
CEQA.
The decision whether to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study
is discretionary and therefore would be subject to the CEQA review process. Public
Resources Code § 21080(a). CEQA requires that environmental review be conducted
"as early as feasible in the planning process," CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b), and at a
point "where genuine flexibility remains." Mount Sutro Defense Committee v.
Regents of the University of California, 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 34 (1978). Adopting the
recommendation of the Steering Committee could set the County on a course of action
Attachment G
Page 4 of 8
MORRISON & FOERSTER
Chairman Powers and Members of
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 23, 1994
Page Four
ultimately reversing existing policies and plans, and would effectively eliminate any
flexibility for the County to implement the SP Arterial in the future. Therefore, CEQA
mandates that the County conduct appropriate environmental review 2dor to making a
decision to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study.
The EIR and Supplemental EIR prepared for the Specific Plan and
Redevelopment Plan could not be relied on as the environmental documentation for
such a decision by the County. These EIRs, which were based on extensive studies of
traffic and circulation in the Planning Area, concluded that major road improvements
would be necessary in the SP right-of-way north of Coggins Drive to mitigate localized
and regional traffic impacts. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would
significantly alter the analyses contained in these EIRs. Thus, it would be necessary
for the County to conduct additional environmental review under CEQA to determine
the environmental impacts of a decision to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic
Study.
Furthermore, if the Traffic Study is ultimately intended to be used in an
environmental impact report ("EIR") to analyze the environmental impacts of the
approvals that would be necessary to abandon the SP Arterial (i.e., General Plan
amendment, Specific Plan amendment, etc.), the Traffic Study must include the SP
Arterial as an alternative to satisfy CEQA. CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a
"reasonable range of alternatives" that could feasibly attain a project's basic objectives,
and must evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. Public Resources Code
§ 21100; CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d). The discussion in the EIR must focus on
alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects
or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if such alternatives would be more
costly or would impede to some degree the project's objectives. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126(d)(3). One of the alternatives that must be addressed in the EIR is the "no
project" alternative, which must "describe what condition or program preceded the
project." CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d)(2); County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71
Cal.App.3d 185, 201 (1977). In this case, the program currently in place that must be
analyzed in the EIR includes the SP Arterial. Accordingly, if the Traffic Study does
not include the SP Arterial as an alternative, the Traffic Study could not be used in an
EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of abandoning the SP Arterial because it
would not satisfy the requirements of CEQA.
Attachment G
Page 5 of 8
MORRISON & FOERSTER
Chairman Powers and Members of
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 23, 1994
Page Five
C. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study and Reducing
Land Use Entitlements in the Planning Area Would Violate
Development Agreements Entered Into by the County in the Planning
Area.
The County has entered into numerous development agreements that
provide landowners in the Planning Area with vested rights to develop their property in
accordance with the General Plan, the Specific Plan and, in certain cases, preliminary
development plans, final development plans and the Redevelopment Plan. Specific
Plan Subareas with land use entitlements vested by development agreements include
Subareas 7A, 7B, 8, 10A, IOB, 11, 12, and 15. A number of other Subareas that do
not have development agreements are already developed. Thus, a substantial amount of
property within the Planning Area is either protected by development agreements or is
already developed. As discussed in other sections of this letter, a County action at this
time to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would be inconsistent with the
General Plan, the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. Accordingly, such a
decision would violate the development agreements that vest the landowners' rights to
develop their property in compliance with these documents.
Moreover, the development agreements provide vested rights regarding
the use, height, density and setback standards for development of property in the
Planning Area. Following the Steering Committee's recommendation to reduce land
use entitlements in the Planning Area would be in clear violation of these vested rights
and would subject the County to numerous legal challenges.
D. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study Would Violate the
Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the County Redevelopment
Agency as a mechanism for financing infrastructure improvements necessary to support
the development of the Planning Area. Although arguably the Board of Supervisors
may not be directly bound to comply with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan,
the County agreed in at least one development agreement (the BART development
agreement) to vest the right to develop property in the Planning Area in a manner
consistent with the terms of the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. BART
Development Agreement, pages 4-5, 25. Additionally, as a practical matter, a decision
by the Board to eliminate the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study would impact the
ability of the Board sitting as the Redevelopment Agency to comply with the terms of
the Redevelopment Plan.
Attachment G
Page 6 of 8
MORRISON & FOERSTER
Chairman Powers and Members of
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 23, 1994
Page Six
The Redevelopment Plan contains a number of overall goals and
objectives specifically relating to the SP Arterial. The transportation and circulation
section of the Redevelopment Plan states that it is the objective of the Redevelopment
Agency to "[p]rovide for the integration of proposed regional rail systems within the
Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way into and through the Project Area."
Redevelopment Plan, page 4. Additionally, the SP Arterial is specifically designated as
a public improvement anticipated by the Redevelopment Plan. ,Redevelopment Plan,
pages 11-12. Thus, abandoning the SP Arterial would be inconsistent with the
Redevelopment Plan and would therefore violate the BART development agreement
(and possibly other development agreements) entered into by the County. Such an
action would also compromise the ability of the Board sitting as the Redevelopment
Agency to lawfully carry out the policies and objectives of its adopted and vested
Redevelopment Plan.
E. Eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study Would Result in
Uninformed Decision-Making and Would Sacrifice Paramount
Regional Interests.
By eliminating the SP Arterial from the Traffic Study, the Board would
preclude itself from being able to make a fully informed decision as to the relative
benefits and impacts of various traffic and circulation alternatives in the Planning Area.
While there may be alternatives that are superior to the SP Arterial for mitigating local
and regional traffic impacts in the Planning Area, the only way to make that
determination is by including the SP Arterial in the Traffic Study.
The exemplary planning process that resulted in the adoption of the
Specific Plan and associated development approvals in the Planning Area has been a
model for transportation-centered master planned business community development
throughout the Bay Area. The Planning Area is home to approximately 3,000 jobs and
represents infill development and infrastructure improvements along a transit hub
valued in excess of$26.8 million. The SP Arterial is a significant element of the
highly integrated circulation plan for the Planning Area that was designed to mitigate
both local and regional traffic impacts. As a matter of sound land use planning, the
Specific Plan should not be picked apart in a piecemeal fashion without fully examining
the broader regional consequences that are at stake. To examine these regional
consequences, the Traffic Study must compare the SP Arterial with other traffic and
circulation alternatives in the Planning Area.
r Attachment G
Page 7 of 8
MORRISON & FFOERSTER
Chairman Powers and Members of
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 23, 1994
Page Seven
F. Following the Steering Committee's Recommendation Would Waste
Millions of Dollars in Taxpayer Money and Jeopardize County Efforts
to Provide High Density Housing in the Planning Area.
Over the past several years, the identified priority for funding of
infrastructure improvements in the Planning Area has been the SP Arterial. Reflecting
that priority, the Redevelopment Agency has spent approximately $7 million of
taxpayer money to acquire the former SP right-of-way for the SP Arterial, and to
preserve the right-of-way-for future transit use. The Redevelopment Agency has also
sold bonds, and has the funds necessary to construct the SP Arterial at this time. By
abandoning the SP Arterial, the Board would effectively be throwingaway the
$7 million already spent by the County on the SP Arterial project. In addition,
abandoning the SP Arterial could jeopardize the County's ability to retain state and
federal funding commitments. In short, a decision to abandon the SP Arterial would be
fiscally unsound.
Reducing development rights in the Planning Area could also jeopardize
County efforts to provide high density housing in the Planning Area. The
Redevelopment Agency has already spent approximately $4,000,000 to acquire
Subarea 4 (South) of the Planning Area with the intent of developing a high density
housing project on the property. At least 15% of the housing units would be reserved
for very low and moderate income households. The Redevelopment Agency has not
entered into a development agreement to vest its right to go forward with this project.
Accordingly, reducing development rights in the Planning Area could jeopardize the
ability of the Redevelopment Agency to proceed with this housing project. Such a
result could threaten the viability of the highly integrated, mixed-use concept of the
Planning Area. It could also pose potential problems with the County's ability to meet
housing element requirements of the General Plan.
G. Conclusion
The Steering Committee's recommendation to eliminate the SP Arterial
from the Traffic Study and reduce development rights in the Planning Area would lead
to the inevitable violation of the General Plan, the Specific Plan, CEQA, numerous
development agreements entered into by the County, and the Redevelopment Plan. In
addition, following the Steering Committee's recommendation would result in
uninformed decision-making, come at the expense of paramount regional interests in
reducing traffic congestion, waste over $7 million of taxpayer money and jeopardize
County efforts to provide high density housing in the Planning Area. The County has
a Attachment G
Page 8of8
MORRISON&FOERSTER
Chairman Powers and Members of
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
September 23, 1994
Page Eight
endured short-term political pressure in favor of preserving the vision of the Pleasant
Hill BART Station project since its inception. Therefore, we strongly urge the Board
to "stay the course" and (1) include the SP Arterial as an alternative in the Traffic
Study; and (2) reject the proposal to reduce land use entitlements in the Planning Area.
Very truly yours,
David A. Gold
cc: Victor Westman, County Counsel
Siivano N[archesi, Assistant County Counsel
Valentin Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency
Dennis Bary, Deputy Director, Community Development
Department
Tim Kennedy, Deputy Director, County Redevelopment
Agency
Lynette Tanner
Robert Russell
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
315524[25875-11
OCT - 17 `9 -4 Mot-4 1 !5 : 1 S PACK r N • M A I I P H .
P02
r /" •
r
NON PROFIT ORGANIZAVON
94528 '- -- -.
October 17, 1994
Clerk, Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
•659 Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Southern Pacific Arterial
Mor.umant Blvd. to Treat Blvd.
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is being written ir; opposition to the County's
proposed 5P Arterial, which would extend from Pleasant Mill
BART to Monument Boulevard. This project, budgeted at
$8.7 Million for a here 1 .5-mike stretch of pavement, represents
a substantial expenditure. Even more important than the high
cost, however, is the destruction a new road would impose on
several neighborhoods (includ.inig 'srhrois) and businesses.
It is questionable as to whether or not the proposed road would
actually relieve traffic congestion in the area surrounding the
Pleasant Hill BART station. The proposed SP Arterial is based
on an outdated study, which doe's not consider the impacts of
projects currently under construction ( such as Concord and
Walnut Creek BART parking structures, BART extensions to East
County area, I-680 improvements:, Etc. ) . A great deal has changed
within the past ten years -- peihaps County plans should accordingly
be changed.
Although it is our uniderstan. ding that a possible alternative to
the aforementioned project would be the widening of Buskirk Avenue,
it is our further understanding; thxt any necessary construction
and/or widening of Monument Blvd.. would be conducted on the
"Montgomery Ward's" side of the, strreet. Thus, the entrance to
our subdivision would not be impacted. we are already experiencing
extensive construction/demol.itibn because of the 1-680 freeway
expansion -- we would not welcoo+s anything further! If, in fact,
the widening of Buskirk would bo restricted to the ward's side
of Monument Blvd. , this would piobabl.y be acceptable by most.
7
. 00T - 17 - 94 MON 1 !5 : 1 !B PACK PN " MAIL- P . H . P . 03
2 -' Clerk, CCC Bd. of Supervisors October 17, 1994
The communities in this area (i.e. Colony park, Fair Oaks,
Sherman Acres, and others) would dea,ive greater benefit from
the development of a 9zeenbelt, and linear recreational park,
aptly named "The Iron Horse Trail" . Th-Is plan would also
work hand-in-hand with the East PayRegiuru2l Parks plans for
scenic walking/riding trails along the Walnut Creek.
We urge you to support the "No Project Alternative" regarding
the SP- Arterial.
Sincerely,
SHERMAN ACRES HOMES ASSN. , INC.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
By:
Vc..rofi.ica C. Paschall
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
President: Veronica C. Paschall 689-0598
vice-President: Melissa ward 689-4103
Secretary: Sandy Cutbill 686-3144
Treasurer&, Jackie Fdua 685-2472
Director: Kathie Tur.,,:,G.al. l $25-1707
Director: DVuq Smith 671-4863
. Directors* Sandy Sultz $25-8635
Co-directors: Craig Law/Vebbie Skrak 689-1802
vcp
cc: Supervisor Mark DeSaulriier,, CuaLre- Costa County
Members, city Council, City of Pleiliidxlt Hill
Public Works Directorr, city-of Piensant Hill
Planning Directort City*.of Pleasant Hill
Members, STAND-UP Committee
Please mail correspondence to Shex-Inar, Acres flomes Assn. , Inc.,
77 Cleopatra Drive
pleasant Hill , CA 94523
.� ' _l 8
OCT - 17 — S4 M O N 1 5 : 1 8 PACK r N " M A I L P . H . P . 02
r
• r• R
Si►eh�nr�n cy4C��s 4�an.es u�ssG�tatt�n,.��rw. � ,, � _.._.�,�,� , ';
NON PROFIT 0AGANIZA110N _ �l�.,,,�,_• •rte
4''�caroet �ItQQ. (� 4528 .�-- __ • � �
October 17, 1994
Clerk, Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Southern Pacific Arterial
Monument Blvd. to Treat Blvd.
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is being written ir; opposition to the County's
proposed SP Arterial,, which would extend from Pleasant Hill
BART to Monument Boulevard. This project, budgeted at
$8.7 Million for a mere 1 .5-mike stretch of pavement, represents
a substantial expenditure. Even more important than the high
cost, however, is the destruction a new road would impose on
several neighborhoods (inelud.in!g schools) and businesses.
It is questionable as to whether or not the proposed road would
actually relieve traffic congea'ticn in the area surrounding the
Pleasant Hill BART station. The proposed SP Arterial is based
on an outdated study, which does not consider the impacts of
projects currently under constructi.on ( such as Concord and
Walnut Creek BART parking structures, BART extensions to East
County area, I-660 improvements., etc. ) . A great deal has changed
within the past ten years -- perhaps County plans should accordingly
be changed.
Although it is our understanding that a possible alternative to
the aforementioned project would be the widening of Buskirk Avenue,
it is our further understandfng; t:hnt any necessary construction
and/or widening of Monument Blvd. would be conducted on the
"Montgomery Ward's" side of the street. Thus, the entrance to
our subdivision would not be impacted. we are already experiencing
extensive construction/demol.itibn because of the 1-680 freeway
expansion -- we would not welco4ie anything furtherl if, in fact,
the widening of Buskirk would b� restricted to the Ward's side
of Monument Blvd. , this would probably be acceptable by most.
E'
' OCT - 17 - 94 MON 1r> : 18 PACK + N r M A I L P . H . P . 03
2 - Clerk, GCC Bd. of Supervisors October 17, 1994
The communities in this area (i.e. Colony Park, Fair Oaks,
Sherman Acres, and others) would dezive greater benefit from
the development of a greenbelt and lir-,ear recreational park,
aptly named "The Iron horse Trail" . This plan would also
work hand-in-hand with the East Bay, R4;_i(jior1al Parks plans for
scenic walking/riding trails along they Walnut Creek.
We urge you to Support the "No Project: Alternative" regarding
the SP Arterial.
Sincerely,
SHERMAN ACRES HOMES ASSN. , INC.
HOAR; Of' DIRECTORS
Vr:voci.i ca C. Paschall
�ir.csidcnt
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
President: Veronica C. Paschall 689-0598
Vice-President: Melissa, Ward 689-4103
Secretary: Sanely cutb i 1 1 686-3144
Treasurer: Jackie Fa%;a 685-2472
Director: Kathie Tunsi;.dll. 825-1707
Director: Doug Smith. 671-4863
Director: Sandy sultz 825-8635
Co-directors: Craig Law/,Debbie Skrak 689-1802
vcp
cc: Supervisor Mark De5aulnier, Cuntrd Costa County
Members, City Council, City of Pleaaar:t Hill
Public Works Director, City-of Flt:usunt Hill
Planning Director, City:of Pledsant: Hill
Members, STAND-UP Committee
Please mail correspondence to Sher'mar, Acres Homes Assn. , Inc.
77 Cleopatra Drive
Pleasant Hill , CA 94523
October 17, 1994
1025 Stimel Drive
Concord, CA 94518
Contra Costa County Clerk
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
725 Court Street
Martinez,*CA
Subject:Proposed Southern Pacific Arterial
Dear Board of Supervisors:
As a concerned resident and registered voter J wish to voice my opposition to the
construction of the proposed road along the existing Southern Pacific Right of Way. In
my opinion the proposed arterial has no basis given current traffic patterns and I urge the
Board of Supervisors to take other action.
Rather than encourage automobile use, thereby increasing pollution and decreasing the
quality of life for all county residents, the county should dedicate use of the southern
pacific Right of Way to non-motorized traffic. Business development does not necessarily
require full access by automobiles. An appealing and successful business corridor can be
created which is inaccessible to vehicles.
Arguments against the road are numerous. Why create a road that will only funnel
vehicles to a BART station already over congested with parking? This road will divide
our community and threaten the lives of residents and their children.
I encourage the Board of supervisors to vote for"no project alternative" at the October
18, 1994 meeting. I intend to be present at the meeting,as well as many of my neighbors,
to bear witness to your actions.
Sincerely,
Pred ric F.Yfint
Date: /-,0
nEQUEST 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: .tn�rGj��.-rrv�ca-2J Phone: � �s/
Address: 1 7 1Y"6e-jF T— /f/-2 City:
I am speaking for: W 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:
["I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider:
4Q-i lw�,)
4
-794PEz�-A- (-K�RS
1. Deposit the "Request To Speak Form" (on the reverse side) in the box next
to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered.
2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the
microphone.
3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for
yourself or as a representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if
available.
5. Please limit your presentation to two (2) minutes. Avoid repeating
comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of
presentations so all persons may be heard.)
Date: J4
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: U a. S Lu- - -z_ Phone:
Address: City: Lc) a141WX ?VW K
0
I am speaking for: ,Myself OR XJ 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: ` Tke -.62c ten J
/ I e.-tier .s Q s vis
I�Kwav*-,d
ye-a. 4-4.se SP vgQJ
Pt�2se
FOX CREEK RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE Box 4505, WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 • 510/943-7621
October 14, 1994
HON. TOM POWERS 5amp/e ofletter sent to alt
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Supervisors it was mai/ed/ate
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and may not have arrived before
651 PINE STREET the October 1h Board meeting:
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
Dear Supervisor Powers:
We understand that on Tuesday, October 18th, the Board will consider the
recommendations of the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee to remove the
proposed "Southern Pacific Arterial" from the County's general plan and to conduct
a traffic study which does not include the "SP right-of-way."
We urge you to join with the overwhelming majority of your Steering Committee
with your Supervisorial colleagues Mark DeSaulnier and Gayle Bishop, the city councils
of the Cities of Concord and Walnut Creek, the Sierra Club, the Greenbelt Alliance, the
Editorial Board of the Contra Costa Times, a host of neighborhood and regional
organizations, and thousands of Contra Costa residents — in supporting those
recommendations.
The Fox Creek Residential Association represents homeowners in a condominium
complex which is in the middle of the Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment Area and
only a few hundred feet from the proposed "Southern Pacific Arterial." We can judge
from first hand experience, as people who live across the street form the BART station
and use BART facilities regularly, that there is no significant need, if any, for that
proposed roadway. Moreover, it would make no sense as a high-occupancy-vehicle
facility, as it is now being touted, and it would be absolutely frightening as anything
more, like a four lane roadway or a highway to Rudgear Road, like some in visible
positions have suggested. It would virtually destroy the immediately adjacent Iron
Horse Trail; any vestiges of the Trail would be little better than a sidewalk through the
Caldecott Tunnel. It would shatter adjacent neighborhoods, a neighborhood
elementary school, a neighborhood park, and the faith of citizens in the planning
process.
Supervisor Tom Powers
October 14, 1994
Page Two
The County citizens who live in and around the Redevelopment Area and the
endangered neighborhoods need your support and protection. They should not be
sacrificed to the unproven and insupportable fears of a few developers who claim that
they may lose a few "entitlements," particularly when options have been suggested.
These citizens should not be sacrificed to planners who slavishly adhere to ill
conceived ideas, because they were proclaimed in some sacrosanct plan, or to
highway engineers who will be ill at ease until the entire earth is paved.
Please lend your valuable support and vote to the adoption of the Steering
Committee's recommendations.
Sincerely,
Charlotte B. Thomas, President
Fox Creek Residential Association