HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12182001 - D.5 Y . Contra
r Costa
TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Coy, niy
•rw<I
FROM: John Sweeten
Executive Director
DATE: December 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill.BART Property Charrette Process
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT the Pleasant Hill BART Property Summary Report (October, 2001) as the record of
the Charrette proceedings conducted in 2001; ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of companion
documents including the Community Plan Newsletter, the Property Code, and the Architectural
Standards: EXPRESS the thanks of the Board for the participation of over 500 individuals;
and REQUEST the Redevelopment Director to formally refer the Charrette materials to BART
and the property developer, Millennium Partners, for inclusion in subsequent entitlement
requests to the County.
FISCAL IMPACT
The acceptance of the Charrette Summary Report has no fiscal impact on the County General
Fund. Development of the BART Property, and the business terms that are likely needed to
fulfill the vision created by the Charrette may have very long-term positive fiscal effects.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ X_ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR R COMM DATION OF ANCY
COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF AGENCY ON PA- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Jim Kennedy
335-1255 ATTESTED.
Orig: Redevelopment
cc: County Administrator's Office JOHN SWEETEN
County Counsel AGENCY SECRETARY
Public Works
Via Redevelopment
BART
Millennium Partners B UTY
Lennertz Coyle Associates
Consulting Team
W:Personal\BOARDORDERS\Board.RDA.PHBART.charretteprocess.12.01
V
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The October, 1998 amended Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan
included policy requiring that the BART site (Areas 11/12) be subject to a
Community Design Program. The Specific Plan calls for "transit-oriented
development" — a development pattern of workplace, housing, shops, and public
uses surrounding the transit hub. Transit-oriented development at the Pleasant Hill
BART Station is part of the "smart growth" movement emerging in the County. The
Board of Supervisors have been a leader in focusing public policy discussions on
the efficient use of land to reduce future urban sprawl. The existing Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area is a model of transit-oriented development, i.e., much of the
area is already built-out with,over 2,400 housing units, two hotels, approximately 2
million square feet of office containing almost 4,500 employees, and neighborhood
serving retail. The heart of the area has always been envisioned to be the BART
site. The Specific Plan designated the property to carry a mix of uses, to make the
area a thriving and complete community. Despite its potential, development of the
site has proven to be difficult. The high level of public interest, the sites critical
location, and the public ownership of the site have combined to make development
of the site a challenge. For these reasons a Charrette — a highly facilitated
collaborative public planning process — was undertaken.
The Charrette was undertaken using the design principles of New Urbanism. New
Urbanism principles, when applied to transit stations, result in the transit-oriented
development (TOD). These principles include:
• The Station Area has a mix of uses, where people live, workshop, and
recreate, resulting in a safe twenty-four hour place.
• A choice of housing types allows people of different incomes and ages to live
in the station area, supporting a healthy and diverse culture.
• The Station Area is well connected to the surrounding neighborhoods and to
the region. A continuous network of streets and paths provide a choice of
safe, convenient, and interesting routes within and without the station area.
• The Station Area plan supports choice between walking, biking and transit.
The benefit is a measure of independence for those who cannot drive,
.especially the young and the old.
• The architectural of the station area should represent diverse yet harmonious
groupings of buildings respectful of historic architectural traditions.
• The Station Area will be well connected to a local and. regional bicycle and
pedestrian trail system.
• The Station Area's streets, parks, and squares become the community's
outdoor living rooms. They are safe, convenient, and comfortable places in
which to spend time. No major pedestrian route should be through a
desolate parking lot or through a lifeless street. These outdoor rooms
become the places where the chance meetings of people occur on a daily
basis and provide the space of support for the formation of community
bonds.
The Charrette program was undertaken by a consulting team lead by the nationally
recognized New Urbanist architecture/land planning firm of Lennertz-Coyle and
Associates. The firm is located in Portland, Oregon. They were assisted by a
superb team of specialists. The entire consulting team.included:
• Lennertz Coyle & Associates, Urban Design
> Bill Lennertz, Principal
Steve Coyle, Principal
Laurence Qamar, Principal
Jeff Thierfelder, Project Manager
Carol Collier, Designer
• Peter Katz, Author and Lecturer on New Urbanism
• Geoffrey Ferrell, Geoffrey Ferrell & Associates
• Jeff Tumlin, Nelzon Nygaard, Transit Planning
• Dena Belzer, Strategic Economics, Market Economics
• Carrie Hamilton, CSG Advisors, Financial Modeling
MPersonal\BOARDORDER&Board.RDA.PH BART.charretteprocess.12.01
• Tom Clausen, Fehr and Peers Associates, Transportation Planning
• Seth Harry, Seth Harry Associates, Urban Design and Retail Consulting
• Steve Price, Urban Advantage, Digital Imaging
• Daniel Parolek, Envision Design, Urban Design
• Kristen Paulsen, Communities by Design, Public Outreach'Coordination
The Charrette program was undertaken in February – April, 2001. Over 500
participants were engaged, with over 2,000 Charrette visits. The participants in the
Charrette created the vision that is set forth in the October, 2001 Summary Report,
and the Pleasant Hill BART Station Community Plan Newsletter. The elements of
the community plan are summarized below:
Proposed Elements
Office: 290,000* - 456,000 sq. ft. +/-
Residential Units: 274-446* units including minimum 50 units
for-sale
Storefront: 42,000 sq. ft. +/-
Civic: 7,000 sq. ft. +/-
*With block "A" residential alternative
Note: Numbers will be refined as design progresses consistent with
the Pleasant Hill Property Codes.
Proposed Uses
• Transit facilities;
• Retail, office, and lodging businesses, along with possible business
conference center;
• For-sale townhouses and rental housing;
• Public parks and squares;
• Public buildings, whose possible uses include: daycare, cultural and
educational facilities, community theater, senior center, post office,
meeting hall, library, Iron Horse trail head, and/or bicycle servicing
facilities; and
• Replacement of existing BART parking, including the temporary
parking spaces now located on the Iron Horse trail site.
Since the Charrette the consultant team has also prepared "codes" — detailed
regulations and specifications designed to assure that what was created in the
Charrette is actually delivered on the ground. The Codes, which include the
"Principles and Regulation for Redevelopment of the BART Station Property" and
the "Architectural Standards" were prepared by Geoffrey Ferrell and Associates, a
nationally recognized new Urbanist code writer. The above two documents will, in
large part, be used by the BART property developer— Millennium Partners — as
the basis for their subsequent land use entitlement applications to the County.
Millennium Partners expects to submit an application for Preliminary Development
Plan (PDP) approval in January, 2002. The Codes are expected to be the basis for
this PDP or rezoning action.
The expected time frame for next steps are as set forth below:
• January, 2002 Submittal of Preliminary Development
• February-March, 2002 Review Period of PDP
• April, 2002 CEQA Determination
• May-June, 2002 Planning Commission Hearings
• July-August, 2002 Finalize business arrangements between
BART and Redevelopment Agency;
Approve Ground Lease
• July-August, 2002 Board of Supervisors Hearing/Approval
W:Personal\BOARDORDERS\Board.RDA.PHBART.charretteprocess.12.01
Following the preparation and release of the Summary Report, the Newsletter, the
Regulating Code, and the Architectural Standards the Agency held an additional
public meeting to provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on
the material. This meeting was held on October 30, 2001. This meeting raised
numerous (almost 125) questions and expressions of concern. In order to properly
respond to these concerns the Agency agreed to prepare a written response to all
questions (see attached November 28, 2001 Response Document) and to hold an
additional public meeting on December 6, 2001. This December 6th meeting
concluded the local meetings of the Charrette process. Subsequent to the
preparation of the Response Document the Agency received comments from the
City of Walnut Creek. These comments will be considered as the developer
prepares its Preliminary Development Plan application, and the County conducts its
review and approval process.
By any measure the Charrette has been exceptionally inclusive and intensive. The
Charrette team and the Agency have been extraordinarily responsive to the
concerns of the public. These pre-application steps are all part of a process to be
inclusionary in developing a land use and design concept for the BART property.
The Charrette has, as Steve Potter, a Charrette participant observed, "developed a
plan that no one group of people could have achieved alone — it has drawn the
best from those who participated."
W:PersonakBOARDORDEMBoard.RDA.PHBART.charretteprocess.12.01
RECEI E0
December 18, 2001 i DEC 1 8 LUU1
GLEr;;C EOARCI Or SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Redevelopment Agency
Contra Costa County
Martinez, CA
RE: Pleasant Hill BART Property Charrette Process
Dear Boardmembers:
The League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley appreciates the efforts of the Contra
Costa County Redevelopment Agency to provide innovative, creative planning for the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. League members attended various charrette sessions
and felt that it successfully encouraged public participation in the design process. They
also felt that the charrette increased the understanding of participants when
compromises had to be made because some requests could not be accommodated
without conflicting with others.
The League feels that it is important for the Agency, the design team, and BART
officials to honor the results of that process, including the compromises. We do not
want to see any subversion of this excellent, community-based planning process by
later changes.
The League continues to support affordable housing at the site as well as ongoing
cooperation between the County and transit agencies in getting BART riders to and
from the site.
The League commends the Redevelopment Agency, notably Boardmembers DeSaulnier
and Gerber, for utilizing the charrette planning process to resolve conflicts arising in
intensive development proposals. The results demonstrate that innovative development
can be done around transit hubs in the East Bay, even in locations where the original
planning was less environmentally responsible.
The League urges the Board and the other parties to move forward with the charrette
design as embodied in the Property Code and Architectural Standards.
Sincerely
Marcus O'Connell
Land Use Chair
League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley
i. REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board. 1-4/�(�p
Name: ! Gf. ��� Phone:
Address: /�"Z) S city:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE: /
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ��Date: J! ✓�
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:
• (papaq aq Apm suosied
lip os suoTgPquasa.zd go ggbuaT gTMTT APP ategD aqy)
•s.zaXeads snOTAead Aq appm squeumoo buTgpadaa
pioAV •sagnutz e9ag4 04 uoigpquasa.zd anoA '4TMT I •5
•bUTXeads a.aojaq aTgpTipne jT uoTgequamnoop gjoddns
ao uotgpguasajd anoA 3o Adoo a XJ9TD aqq aniO
•uoigpzzuebJO up 3o anigpquas9ada.z
aqq se ao 3TasjnoA ao3 buiXpads eip noA
aaggaqm pup ssaippe pup ampu anoA buigegs Aq uibag • £
•uinipod aqq 4e euogdoaDTM 9q4 04ut Xpads aseaTd
•uot4p4u9sajd anoA aXem oq uo paTTpo aq TITm nod • z
•.p9a9pisuoo aq oq si u194T
ppuabp jnoA aaojaq auogdo.zoiut s,aaXpads aqq oq gxau xoq aqq
ut (apis asaanaa aq4 uo) mio3 „XeedS o-4 gsenbag„ aqq gTsodea •T
SZI3)I�i3dS
s REQUEST ,TO SPEAK` FORM tt
(.THREE (3} MINt1TE,LIMIT
Complete -this form and place it in the box near. ' the speakers'
-rostrum beforeaddressing; 'the.,:Board.,
Phone.
Name r
t ! -
t3"
a ` b:`: -
4 .
Adare`ss.� .t� 'Z1 Aq
��::�:- '" t``
I, am speaking .for .myself ..or orgainization:, 'j e
ter' (
name of:orgariizatfcn).;.
CHECK -ONE: _
r
�w! I wish to .speak on�:,i'- da .Ttek,, j;. Dated f
My comments will be: •general for against-
3 wish to 'speak ori ttie subject.''of` -
I do not wish to- speak but leave these comments for the
Board. to consider:
....:..... ..:..
. ...........
.:..:._.. ..:..i
.. est. to::S a' ,:.. ko ; •oi� �tYe.;reve'r; ..e;: �_�.,
_:.D� osit .the . RetN pe..:,.., ,-....:..-�..,::.,��, - - -
.: .:... .. . .
. .. box -next to .esker :s ;m_ ierop_hone ::be,•. oreYour_ agen
the P .
r� teffi= to lieirsctetd
w
: tu_,t�iill:,tie 'caed ore::to .make your.::presentation.
....y.
microt?
spas}€ ntQ. ... ::. . . .: .. .
... ,
d
3:.:: : Ben:'b statin our. na�ae_..and.,:a- dress and; whether
eak rig €r�r y..o irsel€ or gas::the
ov..:ire -sp. . .- ' .
ge resentatve o€. ari::or anzator
P
-
4.. :.:�G ve-the Clerk;. a co of;
your :°re'senta't ;on•::or; i";:<: ;:,:
PY, . Y. , . P .,:
su art docuientatzo -; l,f.: available ;bef:or.e.: speaking:.
P
. . .: to
mz:t:.your<presentat :on:.. . three minut'es; . :: Avoid:
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(•Th"e Chair _,may. 1=k it`"length. 'of .presentations ,so all
-..personsma be heard .
1 iWxVLVi iV YL Yra3 . i VJ.a ' '
(THREE (3) MINIITE LIMIT) 1
Complete this form and place - it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before .addressing . the Board.,
Name: Ph ne:
Ad kes's' : city.:
I am ,speaking 'for. myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK O
I wish.,to speak: on Agenda Item # . ;Date:
My' comments vi 11., be:. general.. for ..against
I. .wish to spea;k': on .the 'sub]ect :o.f
I do not.'wish .:to .speak. but .leave .these "comments for the
Board 'to consider:
-
A
oll the
- ,.,..
1 Deposit the ", Re est. o S eak: rev-erre; aide in
the box .net to:the .speone before your. agenda
Item:-is: to 4, cons•zdexed=
2.. u;, vi 12 be "called on:;;t0-ma keour; _resentation.
Y , P
lIease spear. intoie mcrbphs�iie at; he:'podum.
3;: 8:eg2n: by stating: your., name and` a..res's and whether +
you aria speakznc� €ar yoursel f or as the �y
; jrepresentah ve,' of..,_an organization:; '
Give.'.the. Clerk_::a.; copy" of "your .preseri at :an:""or'..`..
support..documentatiori i:f a'vailable before speaking.'
ra. �il'1113t".your .presentation ""to-"th:tee" :minutes-. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous- speakers.
(The Chair may lzmt :length of"presentatioins ;sfl" a31 '
persons may be: beard)
7
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM i
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers
rostrum before addressing the Board.
11-1�Name: Phone: J - 633
Address: 67( ctzh ✓" City: Do., Valk-
I am speaking for myself or 1organization:
Enj1
Q J (name of organization)
CHECK
/ONE: ��as�.� � •i� g��LT
V I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
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:
C
• (papaq aq Apm suosaad
jjp os suoTgpguasajd go ggbuaj gTiuTT APM aTpgJ aqy)
•s.zaXpeds snOTA9ad Aq appiu sguammoo buTgpadaj
ptonV •sagnaiu[ eeigg og uoTgpguasaad jnoA gTUITq •5
•buTXpads ajogaq ajgpjTpnp JT uoTgpguamnoop gaoddns
JO uOTgpguasa.ad .anoA go Adoo p XaajD aqg anTO • �,
•uoTgPZTupbaO up 3o anTgpguasajdaj
aqg sp .ao jjasjnoA jog buTXeads eap noA
aaggagM pup sseappp pup .ampu .anoA buigpgs Aq uTbag
mntpod aqg gp euoqdojOTM aqg 04UT Xpads espajd
•uoTgpguasazd znoA aXpuzog uo pajjpO aq jjTM noA • Z
•paaapTsuoo aq og sT magT
ppuabp anoA ;Daojaq auogdoaDTM s,aaXpads aqq og gxau xoq aqg
UT (apTs as.zanaa aqg UO) uuo3 „XpadS og gsanbag,, aqg gTsodaa •j
82t�I�aT3d8
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ✓u � ,
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone:
/l�'�� �
Address: `'�j `LD Z city: C �
I am speaking for myself or organization: C7 ,X�
/.-tom,-, 1,-4
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE: �l�
Q /�
tl /I wish to speak on Agenda Item # / Date: /a-//�"I�
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:
4
• (papag aq Apa suosied
lip os suoTgpquasaad go ggbuaT gTmil Apm .aTpg, agy)
•s.zaxpads snoTnaad Aq appuz sguammoo buTgpadaa
pToAV •sagnuTm aaigq og uoTgpguasajd anoA gTutTZ •5
•buTxpads ajojaq aTgPITpnp 3T uoTgpguamnoop gaoddns
aO uoTgpguasa.zd jnoA go Adoo p x.zato aqg anTD • �,
•uoTgszTusbJO us 3o aATgpguasa.zd9a
aqg ss ao JTasanoA JOJ buTxpads eap noA
jaggagM pup sseappp pup ampu anoA buTgpgs Aq utbag
•utnTpod aqg gp auogdojoTm aqg 04UT xpads aspaTd
•uoTgpguasajd jnoA axpuz og uo paTTpo aq TTTM noA • Z
•pa.zaptsuoo aq og ST M94T
ppuabp jnoA ajojaq auogdoaDTM s,jaxpads aqg og gxau xoq aqq
UT (apTs 9s.z9n9J aqg UO) UUOj „xpadS og gsanbag,, aqg gTsodaa •T
suaxvaas
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
a
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing
n the Board.
Board. /�
Name: //��iZ�'G s C� /C. dr��yC L�- Phone: 6 79" 7c� /
Address: �� c, ���0' -�G'� City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
4.4 ajar a r ZW,4. ,CA-1 VIf-f%
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: -02/,,,)/eol
My comments will be: general for X against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
L
• (papaq aq Apuu suosied
TTP os suoT4p4u9s9ad jo ggbuaT gTMTT AAM JTeg0 aqy)
•SJ93[pads snoTna.zd Aq apeuz squaunuoo buTgeadaa
pTonV •sagnuTz aasgq oq uotgequasa.zd jnoA gTMTZ •S
•buTXeads ajojaq aTgeTTene 3T uoTgequamnoop gjoddns
JO uoTgpquasa.ad jnoA jo Adoo p XJ910 aqq anTD • �
•uoTgpzTupbJO us Jo anTgequasa.zda.a
aqq ss JO 3TasanoA joj buTXpads eap noA
jaggagM pup ssaippe pus ampu jnoA buTgpgs Aq uTbag • £
-mnTpod aqq qe auoqdojOTM aqq 04UT Xpads aseaTd
•uoTgpquasa.zd anoA eXem oq uo paTTeo aq TTTM nox • Z
•pajapTsuoo aq oq ST M94T
epuabp anoA ajojaq auogdojOTut s,.aaXeads aqq oq gxau xoq aqq
UT (apTs 9s.z9n9a aqq UO) uczoj ,,XeadS oq gsenbag,, aqq gTsodea •T
82i3�IK3d 8
ti i t;r1 _
G i iEC
-3 Ali 10: 37
c i r v o f
��,�LNUT MEMORANDUM
CREEK
Date: November 27,2001
To: Jim Kennedy, Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency
From: Paul Richardson,Acting Director, Community Development Department
Michael Vecchio, Transportation Specialist, Public Services Department \
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill BART Station Area—Summary Report, October 2001
Walnut Creek City staff has attended and participated in the charrette process. We are very
supportive of the goals to provide a transit village with a pedestrian focus. The City staff s
position throughout the charrette process has been to encourage and support housing as the
primary development option with ancillary retail necessary to support the nearby residents,
BART patrons and office workers. We have since reviewed the plans distributed at the October
30ffi meeting in detail and offer the following comments. Please do not misinterpret these
comments as non-supportive but rather as a detailed examination aimed at improving the final
product.
Housing
There are potentially reductions to the number of housing units as Block C has undergone refinement
since the April 10, 2001 meeting. There is a proposed new"slot road"running parallel to the BART
tracks on the north side of Block C. Also,the driveway entrance to the BART garage from the Jones
Rd. extension will have to be shifted west because the suggested entrance directs traffic into existing
speed ramps within the structure. Finally, the consultant team did not believe that residential units
would be successful abutting the BART Station given noise issues. They have instead suggested a
civic use here. v
City Staff believes that residential can be successful on this Block C. Such noise attenuating
measures as triple glazed windows can be installed that cut down interior noise and the units can be
oriented toward a central courtyard rather than the BART tracks or the new"bus slot road". Through
the charrette process the City's position has always urged that residential, with ground floor
supporting retail, was the preferred development type. Staff would encourage that the original
residential agreement be maintained for Block C. We understand the coding must be refined for
residential abutting the slot road and oriented toward the courtyard.
;s
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report- Comments Page 2
November 27, 2001
Traffic Operational Issues
Westbound Treat Boulevard, between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue, presently requires
significant weaving. This occurs because traffic destined to I-680 northbound must weave with.
traffic turning right from southbound Oak Road headed to points west of Buskirk Avenue. This
situation could be improved by re-striping Treat Boulevard and curb line relocations (on the
northwest coiner of Oak and Treat) to eliminate this weaving. The southbound right turn lane
from Oak Road would turn directly into a number three westbound Treat Boulevard lane.
All street approaches to Treat Boulevard should be maintained at their current capacity or greater.
For example, it is unclear from the plans and reports whether southbound Jones Road retains the
three approach lanes (right, through, and left lanes).
Transit Connections
City Staff is concerned that the function of Station Square as a "focus of activity for the larger
neighborhood" will not fulfilled by the current design. The use of the surrounding curb space by
buses, passengers loading, together with circulating buses and vehicles will make the Square
used most by pedestrians on their way to other activities or waiting for other transit services. The
exhaust and noise from engines idling will likely discourage people from congregating. The
realistic use of this space is as a transit transfer location and for visual relief. If the intent or
desire of this Square is to provide some space (landscape or plaza) for those who live or work in
the area, an additional site should also be considered for congregation or respite purposes.
Also, Parked buses will limit visibility of crossing pedestrians to drivers. The proposed street and
sidewalk design should consider transit vehicle operations, other motor vehicle operations,
bicycle flow, and pedestrian access. Careful consideration should be given to the locations of
crosswalks and pedestrian ramps to reduce crossing distances and, most importantly, ensure safe
comfortable crossings that enhance the pedestrian experience.
Parking
On-street parking on Treat Boulevard should be closely scrutinized—particularly during peak
hours. On-street parking will not enhance traffic capacity and safety of Treat Boulevard. It could
also confuse frequent users of the street as to when parking is allowed and not allowed.
However, a"pull-out"lane with parking provided, separated from Treat Boulevard by a narrow
landscaped median, would permit parking maneuvers to occur independently of traffic flow on
Treat Boulevard. This concept, similar to Shattuck Avenue in downtown Berkeley, would
provide an excellent buffer of any storefront activities from the constant heavy flow of traffic (up
to 70,000 vehicle per day) on Treat Boulevard.
Jones Road, at this time, is proposed to have development on only the west side. Therefore, it
would be best to have on-street parking occur on only the west side. This would preclude a
situation where people park on the east side, and unsafely cross Jones Road mid-block.
:f
`1 Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report- Comments Page 3
November 27, 2001
Bicycles and Pedestrians
Presently, the proposed design brings pedestrians and bicyclists from the surrounding area clearly
and safely to the perimeter of the development. However, access and connectivity within the site
need a little more attention. For example, the Summary Report states that crossings will take
place at the"Jones Road access road" or at the "intersection of Las Juntas Way and Coggins
Drive". The connections from these crossings to BART or other portions of the development are
not clearly laid out. Also, pedestrian crossings from Station Square to the surrounding
development blocks will need additional review. These issues should be addressed before final
development plans are completed.
The report states that "roadway widths should allow for bicyclists". However, the street cross-
sections need further development to show how this would occur. Otherwise, the current design
will likely cause bicyclists to use the sidewalks.
Bicycle parking design guidelines should be included in the Architectural Codes and other design
documents. These guidelines should address issues such as quantity, location (e.g., garages or
sidewalks), type of parking(e.g., wave racks or lockers), proximity to doors or entrances,
signing, security, lighting, etc. Only in this manner, can bike parking be included as an integral
part of the overall architecture and urban design without the need to, at a later date, "squeeze"
the bike parking in or"clump" it into one location. (See Attachment for sample guidelines.)
Signage
Commercial sign requirements are not addressed in the codes. We suggest these be considered so
the signs reflect the pedestrian scale of the development.
General Comments
This project affords the general community, BART,transit agencies, and others the opportunity
to install state of the art communications technology. This includes traffic signals, transit
schedule information, information kiosks with monitors and electronic messaging, etc. If not
able to be installed as an integral part of this project, then sufficiently sized conduit or additional
"empty" conduit should be installed to enable the installation of these technologies at a later date
at a low cost.
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report - Comments Page 4
November 27, 2001
ATTACHMENT A
SAMPLE BICYCLE PARKING GUIDELINES
• Bicycle parking should be separated from car parking and vehicular traffic
by a physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from
damage by vehicles. Bike parking provided on sidewalks shall not interfere
with parked cars and their opening of doors.
• Bicycle parking shall be located on a durable, all weather surface and half
the spaces should be covered. This is especially true for employee oriented
bike parking. Employee parking should offer lockable, bike lockers.
• Required bike parking inside a building should be provided in a well-
illuminated, secure location within 50 feet of a building entrance.
• Outdoor bike parking shall be clearly visible and, for major buildings,
located within 50 feet of its public entrance.
• Areas set aside for bike parking within parking facilities shall be clearly
marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. If the bike parking is not
clearly visible from the street or main building entrance, a sign shall be
posted indicating the location of parking.
• Rack types should be specified to ensure a uniform and high quality
standard.
• Bike parking should be provided at the rate of one bike space for every ten
automobile spaces.
• Bike parking locations are more difficult to determine but should be
approximately located relative to what the projected, stand alone automobile
parking demand would be for each proposed land use or business. For
example, if a retail location would normally require 20 auto parking spaces,
then two bike spaces should be provided within approximately 50 feet of the
business's front doors. In instances with solid retail frontage, this would
most logically lead to bike racks being installed approximately every 100
feet along the sidewalk or building frontage.
Redevelopment Agency Contra Commissioners
County Administration Building Costa John Gioia
1st District
651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-1296 County Gayle B.Ullkema
2nd District
John Sweeten
SEN;
Executive Director Donna Gerber
'•..
•: ; __ 3rd District
Dennis M. Barry,AICP
'.� �
Assistant Executive Director Mark DeSaulnier�i "'
41h District
James Kennedy '�•._ Federal D.Glover
Deputy Director-Redevelopment °sr
(925) 335-1275 5th District
November 28, 2001
T0: Interested Pa
rt'
/vim
FROM: Jim Iden R evelopment Agency Director
RE: easant BART Property Charrette-Response to Questions
Dear Frien
Here are promised responses to various questions and concerns that Charrette participants raised at
the October 301h presentation of design Codes or in subsequent correspondence.
On Thursday, December 6th, from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m.there will be another public meeting to address
additional questions and hear additional community comments. It will take place in the Walnut Creek
Civic Park Community Center, 1375 Civic Drive(at the corner of North Broadway). A map showing the
meeting location is included.
This meeting will conclude"the local meetings associated with the PH BART Station property Charrette
process. The Board of Supervisors/Redevelopment Agency Governing Board will consider acceptance
of the Summary Report and related Charrette documents as part of its December 18, 2001 afternoon
calendar(1:00 p.m.start time).
This Charrette is,however,only the first of two steps in land use planning for a transit community on
the 18 acres of BART land surrounding the Pleasant Hill Station. Undertaking the Charrette was the
first step. As most readers already know,a charrette is a unique approach to developing land use
policy and design solutions. It is a means of eliciting the participation and direct involvement of people
who have an interest in the overall development of a project, including local citizens, land and business
owners,designers,agencies and officials. It involves several days of intense on-site education,
interchange and design work and a final design concept that incorporates the ideas and accommodates
the interests of a broad range of participants.
It is important to remember that a charrette does not supplant the conventional land use planning and
approval process. All of the legally prescribed and long-established procedures and safeguards of the
conventional process, including opportunities for public review and comment, remain in place.
The charrette is in addition to and in advance of that conventional process. It is essentially a creative
preliminary planning process for a specific project that enables everyone who has an interest to
participate almost from the beginning. It contrasts sharply with the traditional exclusionary approach
in which the developer envisions what is to be done with the land, sketches out the preliminary
development plan and then brings it to the governmental authority for approval, an approach that
effectively limits public participation to deferred comments on what the developer has already
decided.
' 1
What a charrette produces is much like a preliminary development plan, but with the benefit of
extensive public participation. In fact,the product of the PH BART Charrette,as set out in the
Regulating Codes,will be the preliminary development plan.
By any measure, the PH BART Charrette has been exceptionally inclusive and intensive,and the
Charrette team has been extraordinarily responsive. Since the process began in January,more than
500 residents,commuters, business owners, station-area employees, community leaders,government
officials,and others hove spent more than 30 hours in meetings and other Charrette events. In
addition,the doors of the on-site design studio were open for people to drop in for'more than 70
hours. When participants wanted more information, it was provided. When people wanted to explore
special issues,such as traffic impacts,the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing design, and implications for
the swim club, the Charrette team provided special breakout sessions. Charrette leaders made
themselves available for individual questions and comments after every meeting, were accessible to
participants in the intervals between meetings, and conscientiously endeavored to be responsive.
The second step is the formal land use approval process. This second step will begin early next year
upon submittal of an application for land use approvals by the developer— Millennium Partners. The
basic events that make up this process have already been outlined in recent Charrette material. They
include: the developer's submission of an application for preliminary development plan(or rezoning); a
California Environmental Quality Act determination; County staff review of the preliminary
development plan for consistency with legal requirements and adopted policy; hearings on the
preliminary development plan/rezoning before the County Planning Commission; Board of Supervisors
hearings and determinations. Later, there will be hearings on the final development plan or FDP for all
or portions of the site before the Planning Commission. The FDP is the time when the precise site plan
and architectural detailing is proposed and reviewed.
All interested parties will have opportunities to submit comments to both the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors, and advance notice of the hearings will be sent to all Charrette participants.
Your continued interest and participation is appreciated.
1
a
0
ad
e
Civ 1 GY ?Q4�C
SoF�3Pl-1 Or.
Cq W a�Nh
h`
A�s
tnucr,�io,y
oFwL0 Q Com/ ul
L
R G t=" U Q
Cl - J
r PneriHG
RSV _z
EEubTr lY
H
3 tii�i �QO
is
PLEASANT HILL BART
PROPERTY CHARRETTE
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
NOVEMBER 28, 2001
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 1
1.0 The Charrette Process Page 3
2.0 Urban Design Page 8
3.0 The Regulating Codes/Architectural Standards Page 9
4.0 BART"Station Enhancements" Page 13
5.0 Traffic Concerns Page 14
6.0 Alternative Mode Concerns Page 16
7.0 Infrastructure Issues Including Parking Page 18
8.0 Economics Page 22
9.0 Project Finance Page 24
10.0 Civic Use/Public Amenities Page 24
11.0 Housing Concerns Page 25
12.0 Development Review/Permitting Concerns Page 27
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 2
1.0 The Charrette Process
1.01 The petition requesting the community have the right to vote on the final
Charrette plan misrepresented the process.
- Robert Frederick
The goal of the Charrette was to be an inclusive community based design program.
Based on the magnitude and diversity of attendance it succeeded in realizing this
goal. The petitions suggestion for a vote is misplaced with respect to the
Charrette. The outcome of the Charrette is determined by those who
participated. The subsequent development review process, which will include
opportunities for additional public comment, is an opportunity for individuals and
organizations to provide commentary prior to any land use decision being made.
1.02 The Charrette consultants want to help, and we should all be more polite.
Comments acknowledged and appreciated.
1.03 How are we doing on the timing schedule presented last time?
The completion of the Charrette, and the subsequent development review process
is on the schedule presented during the October 30th Charrette meeting, which is
presented below:
Next Steps - Dates are best estimates
■ December 6, 2001, 7:00 pm Workshop to respond to
Walnut Creek Civic Park Comm. Ctr. Questions/concerns
1375 Civic Dr. Summary Report
Walnut Creek, California Regulating Plan & Codes
■ December 18, 2001 Presentation of Charrette Summary
Report to Board of Supervisors
■ January, 2002 Submittal of Preliminary
Development.
Plan (PDP) by developer
■ February-March, 2002 Review Period of PDP
■ April, 2002 CEQA Determination
■ May-June, 2002 Planning Commission Hearings
W:Persona l\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 3
■ July-August, 2002 Finalize business arrangements
Between BART and Redevelopment
Agency; Approve Ground Lease
• July-August, 2002 Board of Supervisors Hearing/Approval
1.04 Can we get a more realistic picture of the plan?
The purpose of the Charrette process is to develop a consensus on a vision. The
level of visualization will be further enhanced as the developer and their architect
prepare their development applications. The level of visual materials currently
available for this project (at the concept stage) far exceeds any other project at
a comparable stage.
1.05 What changes were made in the plan since the last meeting?
• In response to concerns for the quality of housing in Block C along the
tracks, a non-residential zone was created for the area within 50 feet of
the tracks. This zone is clearly marked on the Regulating Plan.
• In order to mitigate for this loss in residential area,the two corners at
Jones and the Park Block Street will allow four story apartments.
• In response to concerns for more housing, the townhouses will allow
stacked two story units.
• In order to maintain the roof line of the townhouses as depicted in the
Charrette, dormers are allowed as a means to inhabit the fourth floor
(within the 52 foot height limit).
• In response to interest in a discrete public building on the square, the
public building on the Square in Block C is now a separate building
1.06 Where is the "Master Plan?"
The term "Master Plan" is the same as the "Community Plan," Future documents
will eliminate the term "Master Plan."
1.07 Can we vote on the process?
See 1.01 above.
1.06 How can we ensure future uses if we use all the land?
The Code allows flexibility of uses during and after the build out. It prescribes
buildings types that are compatible with one another while allowing a range of
uses. This is the most effective methodology for ensuring the accommodation of
future uses. Furthermore, a fundamental premise of smart growth principles to
W:Persona l\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 4
address current jransportation and land use issues, supports the use of the BART
property as a mixed-use site.
1.09 Concerns regarding the fast timeline.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan was adopted in 1983. Initial
Development concepts for the BART property emerged in the mid-1980's.
Subsequent concepts emerged in the mid-1990's. An initial community design
program was conducted in 1999. The design Charrette was conducted in 2001. The
timeline has not been fast in order to expand community participation and
community discussion RLior to submittal of a land use application by the developer.
The additional five weeks to accept and respond to these questions is an example
of this.
1.10 Why so many disclaimers?
The disclaimers are meant-to highlight the fact that the Codes and the Regulating
Plan are the final controlling documents of development. One purpose of the
illustrative drawings is to gain agreement on design direction as a basis for the
Code writing. The other purpose is to*inspire and direct the.quality of the build .
out.
1.11 Concerns regarding additional questions, and format for future meetings.
The additional meeting of December 6t',and this response document provided
one-week in advance is an attempt to be responsive to these concerns.
1.12 The Charrette process, and the plan that was put together is "a first class plan
for developing the PHBART(sic)area."
The plan was put together by the participants, and reflects a balancing of many
interests. The participants are to be congratulated.
1.13 The six-day February meetings were not conducted as promised. The April follow-
up emphasized esthetics (sic) rather than issues of traffic, parking, economics,
and land use.
The Charrette Process was promised to be an interactive, open design session to
create a vision for the station area that addressed the concerns and needs of all
parties to the greatest extent possible. Following are selected examples of the
process in action.
• The 5-day Charrette provided over 50 hours of open design studio time
of the public to stop by, ask questions and review the designs with the
consultants. The door was always open. Over 500 people chose to stop
by.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 5
• A total of over 85 hours of open public session were logged during the
Charrette prep meetings, the Charrette, and the follow-up meetings to
date.
• During the Charrette the consultants were continually changing the
designs and the process itself in response to public input. In particular,
an extra meeting was added on February 26th to review transportation
issues.
• In response to questions about current traffic volumes raised on Friday,
the County installed counters in the station area on Monday.
• In response to the Swim Club issues, ad hoc separate meetings were held
with Club members during the Charrette.
1.14 Notification of the October 30th meeting was not adequate, and materials were
only selectively distributed prior to the meeting.
Notification of the October 30.'h meeting was mailed by the County more than two
weeks prior. Staff provided advance notice of the meeting to the Walden
leadership well in advance of the meeting.
The materials prepared for the October 30th meeting (the Summary Report, the
Regulating Codes,and Architectural Standards)were distributed to over 350
parties one-week prior to the meeting, and were posted on the County's Planning
Website (cocoplans.org). Walden leadership was aware of this. In addition, the
Newsletter was distributed to over 8,000 households within the vicinity.
Nonetheless, the additional meeting of December 6th is in response to concerns
expressed regarding adequacy of time available.
1.15 The process was"stacked against the public."
Understanding the Regulating Plan & Code's is challenging, which is why October
30th was a first walk-through explanation. The best process - fairest to the public
-- is just what we have done, give them an opportunity to question its contents as
educated reviewers.
1.16 The Charrette outcome was no different than the prior 1999 community design
program.
The previous community design program developed 4 alternative design solutions.
The Charrette is an evolving process focused on building a consensus to one design.
There are many differences between to the two. The interview and selection of
the Charrette Design and Technical Teams was opened to include Leadership from
the Walden Association. Prior to the charrette this Team had numerous meetings
with all stakeholders. Input was solicited from the broadest possible group.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.0I.IIRevisions 6
The Charrette design process was open and in a public environment that
interested parties could literally look over the design and technical team's
shoulders. The work in progress and critique sessions were open to the public.
The Technical Analysis was broadened beyond Urban Design Issues to include
Traffic, Parking, Non Auto and transportation modes. Because traffic and
congestion are important issues, traffic around the Project was measured to see
how it compared to volumes in the EIR.
The participation in the Charrette has been large and by a diversified mix of
interested participants. The results of this and other work have been presented
in public sessions, posted on the Web and mailed to participants. In addition the
Charrette Design and Technical Team solicited questions so that interested
parties can have any remaining questions answered.
The process also facilitated discussion and new ideas in the following areas:
0 Swim Club
0 Replacement Parking
0 Local shuttle bus at the PH Station
Interaction of Bus / Taxi/ Bicycle/ Car Pool and Pedestrian Modes
0 Bridges Crossing Treat Boulevard
Station Improvements
0 Civic improvements and public spaces
0 Liner Building to buffer the parking structures
New Urbanist Concepts
0 Architectural Codes and Standards
0 The mix of uses on the project
0 50 "For Sale" Residential Units
This project has many competing elements. The final design is a synthesis of
these elements. The Charrette was different from previous Community Design
Programs, in that it created an environment for these many varied points of view
to influence the project.
2001 1999 Community
Charrette Design Program
Office(sq.ft.) 290,000-456,000 350,000-650,000
Residential
Rental Units 224-396 0-400
For-Sale Units 50
Storefront/
Retail (sq.ft.) 42,000 sq.ft. 22,000-26,500
Civic (sq.ft.) 7,000 sq.ft. 30,000-60,000
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.O1.IIRevisions 7
2.0 Urban Design
2.01 Why don't you put the 7-story building by the tracks?
The urban design concept incorporates the urban design policies of the Pleasant
Hill BART Specific Plan by putting the lower height residential uses adjacent to
existing residential uses to the east,and the higher office buildings adjacent to
the west. The 7 and 12-story buildings are situated on the property adjacent to
the BART tracks.
2.02 Any steps to get rid of pigeons?
Pigeons are a problem at many of the BART stations. BART Maintenance is
scheduled to do some work in December at the Pleasant Hill Station and will
address this concern, among others.
2.03 The tower's are overdone,and look like a prison?
Station Square was inspired by the California mission tradition wherein towers are
placed in association with public squares. As a pair, they bring attention to the
Station, the most public element of the plan.
2.04 Any thought of 12-story residential instead of office?
The Charrette process resulted in a mix of uses that work together financially to
create the amenities required for making a great place at the BART station. The
office component of the project financially supports the overall project more than
if it were replaced by residential. Thus, any decrease in office space on the site
reduces the funds available for important place-making amenities such as the local
serving retail,green space, and pedestrian friendly streets.
2.05 Emergency Access Plan
All buildings, including the Bart Station have at least two points of access for
emergency vehicles.
2.06 Wheelchair ramp requirements should.be added.
Access to buildings will be in full compliance with county and Federal standards
according to the American Disabilities Act.
2.07 Concerns regarding the elevation change between the office building on Block D
and the parking structure/liner buildings on Block E.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.0I.IIRevis ions 8
Form-based codes seek to control only the most important physical attributes of a
group of buildings. This often includes their alignment along a street, the disposition
of space between them and their overall height. Typically such controls are not
expressed as absolutes, but rather as ranges of acceptable values. For example, the
Peter Katz presentation showed building heights along a street ranging from 2 to 8
stories. The ultimate design objectives can vary from seeking an absolutely consistent
eave line, requiring nearly uniform building heights to one that"punctuates" a key
location with a tower that clearly rises above nearby buildings
The Charrette plan has several objectives in mind with respect to manipulating
building heights.
• The general disposition of building heights in Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan
moves from taller office buildings along the western part of Treat and Oak
Road to much lower scale structures to the east. This gradation takes place
over an extremely short horizontal distance, therefore the ability to provide
for a gradual tapering of heights is limited. Block D is directly adjacent to 7-
10 story office buildings to the west.
• Placing the tallest building at the center of the Station Area composition
provides the greatest distance on all sides to "buffer" the visual impact of
that height.
• The Charrette plan wisely chose to treat the building's height as a positive
compositional element. They aligned the building on axis with Station Square
so that the entire composition of tower and forecourt would unify the scheme,
bridging the divide created by the elevated BART tracks. The BART tracks
act as a significant barrier within the site, therefore a fairly powerful design
gesture is needed to overcome their negative impact.
The end result of the Charrette plan is win/win, using what some might see as a
negative (the height of a tall building) to mitigate a far greater urban design problem
(a divided site).
3.0 The Regulating Codes/Architectural Standards
3.01 How will the Regulating Codes be integrated into the Specific Plan and the County
General Plan?
The broad policies of the County General Plan and the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Specific Plan are implemented through the County's Zoning Ordinance,
specifically through the implementation of the County's Planned-Unit Development
(P-1) zoning regulations and the Preliminary/Final Development Plan (site plan,
architectural/design, landscaping, and signage review). The Pleasant Hill BART
Station Property Regulating Codes, which articulate a set of design and
development standards for the development of the site, will constitute the P-1
zoning regulations and conditions of approval for the Preliminary Development Plan.
W;Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 9
Any proposal for a Final Development Plan approval will then have to be consistent
with the P-1 zoning - the Regulating Codes.
3.02 Why aren't the BART improvements subject to the codes?
Like other regional and state agencies such as the University of California, BART
is exempt from local land use codes. However, BART intends to work with the
County and the private developer to examine a variety of physical improvements,
which serve both transit needs and the need to have the station blend in more
effectively with any surrounding development.
BARTs exemption from local code has been maintained from the inception of
BART for very good reasons, including: The need for low maintenance physical
elements that the taxpayer subsidizes the system; the need for
interchangeability of elements, given the fact that BART operates almost 40
transit stations and must acquire goods and services according to State Contract
Code; and the need for BART to comply with the State Fire Marshall, which
oversees all of BARTs operation, not just that at the Pleasant Hill Station.
On the other hand, fagade improvements which interface with the rest of the
charrette plan should be designed in accordance with the charrette standards,
particularly with respect to color and design. BART is currently conducting a
comprehensive station study for the Pleasant Hill Station and is examining
circulation and access, among other things. This represents an opportunity to
accommodate both needed BART improvements and physical improvements to
enable the station to better architecturally".fit" with the surrounding charrette
plan.
3.03. Why aren't sound standards in the codes?
Noise mitigation is governed by the County's General Plan Noise Element, and
implementing code and permit requirements. Inclusion of such requirements in the
codes is redundant (see also 5.04, 12.01). Care has been taken in siting sensitive
receptors in close proximity to noise generating activities (see also 11.01).
3.04 Is the height limit on Block B 5 stories?
The height limits in the Specific Plan for. Block B are between 5 and 7 stories.
The conclusion of the Charrette was that five stories is the appropriate height to
comply with the principle of height transition to surrounding development, in this
case the residential neighborhood to the east.
W:Persona I\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions lb
3.05 The codes should allow solar panels on the roofs?
This can be accommodated.
That.said, does anyone feel otherwise? They aren't pretty & their payback time is
such that they are more of a statement than a %savings (compared with
conservation/caulk) but I have no urbanistic problem with them at all.
3.06 Incorporate co-generation into the codes.
The codes address physical design of the structures. The indlusion of co-
generation features is more of an operations/financing issue, i.e., does it make
sense given costs/benefits.
3.07 Incorporate energy conservation standards into the codes?
Energy conservation requirements are incorporated into the County Building Codes.
Title 24 requires energy ratings for windows and insulation for both commercial
and residential buildings. The project will have to fully comply.
3.08 Incorporate detailed standards for the Station Square and Residential Green in
the Codes.
Standards incorporating specifications for form,and indirectly for use will be
incorporated into the Codes.
3.09 The Regulating Plan allows buildings with 100' of Treat Blvd. on Block B to be 7
stories, while the visuals depict only 4 stories. Why the difference? Since the
Summary Report suggests 5-10 story buildings are infeasible, why provide for
them?
We have been corrected. It is 5 stories.
The Principals and Regulations document primarily addresses urban design and
place making issues. From this perspective, it is appropriate to consider building
for Block B that could be as tall as seven stories/108 feet (see page 18).
Although, based on recent market conditions buildings between five and ten
stories are economically infeasible, these conditions could change over time. By
including some flexibility in the regulations, the developer can better respond to
market conditions present at the time when building on Block B actually get built
without violating the original intent of the plan.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 11
3.10 Concern over the location of a Civic Building on the northeast corner of Oak &
Treat - as a Civic use it lacks coding; concern for the health of Oak trees.
Two options were drawn for this location during the Charrette Follow-up Meetings
in April. These options were in response to programming desires expressed by
participants who were pedestrians and would be walking from the Oak Road
corridor. They expressed a desire for security measures via"eyes on the street."
They are covered on page 55 of the Summary Report. Option One features an
arcade along the building facing the green, Option Two locates a restaurant in the
green so as not do disturb the trees. The Coding for that building has been
changed to the more precise Shopfront to foster a retail presence on this part of
the property. This is in pursuit of the"eyes on the street" that keep public places
such as this safe. The building is further constrained to 1 storey, its maximum
footprint is as per the Regulating Plan and the County Redevelopment Agency has
committed to its construction being dependant on a finding by the County Arborist
that the foundation will not damage the existing trees. The construction of this
plan should be an opportunity to improve the situation and long-term health of
those trees through soil amendations and other techniques. The County's tree
preservation ordinance would also limit activity within in the drip line of the trees.
An arborist will be retained to review building plans and oversee development to
ensure development would not result in impacts to the trees.
3.11 Concern about the Hotel use designated for Blocks A & C, and that such use was
never discussed.
The Specific Plan allows hotel uses within Area 12. Lodging was discussed as an
optional use throughout the Charrette for Block A and along the square in Block.0
because it could provide supportive uses that are compatible for the square and
the Retail Street,such as retail,and/or much need meeting space. While a hotel
use appears to be infeasible under present market conditions, these conditions
could change, therefore the provision of this option is appropriate.
3.12 The concept of a "Town Architect" is not understood.
The Town Architect would be a resource to be used by the developer, the County,
and the community in developing and reviewing/approving a final development
proposal that would be consistent with the Regulating Codes. The Town Architect
would be retained by the County, and paid for by the developer.
3.13 Concern by regarding the codes not specifying design or use standards for civic
buildings.
Civic Buildings and.Monuments do have greater freedom of expression than the
private buildings. They are however constrained in several ways. Their maximum
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 12
footprint and placement is as per the Regulating Plan and the specific design must
pass through the project Town Architect on its way to the County. The Codes are
being amended to make these parameters clear. As has been said frequently
throughout the Charrette a)the exact nature of the civic use is not yet defined;
and b) civic building's are "exceptional" buildings that require architectural
freedom to accomplish their purpose of creating a sense of place. Adherence to
New Urbanist design philosophies will be provided for.
3.14 How does the code address the top floor of the parking structure? How do the
Architectural Standards treat the top cornice of the parking structure?
The codes direct'the resources of the developer to enhancing the streetscape and
the relationship of the buildings to the street. There are no aesthetic controls for
the view down onto the structure from above- only the economic incentive to the
developer. Prior experience in the Station Area suggest that mitigating this
limited visual impact by landscaped trellis' are problematic due to the intense
summer heat. The Architectural Standards provides for the parking structures to
have a cornice in order to "close" the visual composition somewhat,as the eaves of
a building do.
3.15 Clarify page 15 of the Code regarding Workplace Building Sites.
Workplace never touches Block B and never goes to more than 4 story's (with the
large exception of the 12 story Block D). That has been corrected, see also
related changes to Shopfront for Block B within 100 feet of Treat Max. Height is
5 storeys/65 feet.
3.16 Formatting concerns regarding pages 7,9;11 & 13 of the Architectural Standards.
The fault lies in the formatting: the final document will be set up as a booklet,
printed on 2 sides. In that arrangement, you would simultaneously see pages 7 and
8.
4.0 BART "Station Enhancements"
4.01 How is visual coherence between the BART Station enhancements and the private
development achieved, and how are the enhancements to the BART Station to be
financed?
Enhancements to the BART rail station will be accomplished concurrent with the
private improvements. The Charrette plan identified a range of options for
incorporating the desired enhancement into the overall design program. So long as
enhancements are limited to facade treatments (facade treatments do not trigger
State safety code compliance issues), they can be accomplished reasonably cost
effectively. The conceptual plan of finance provides for Redevelopment funds to
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 13
j ..
pay for various Station Area enhancements. The Station enhancements'would be
part of he public/private partnership financing arrangement.
Financing could also come from a variety of outside sources including federal
and/or state grant funds designed to facilitate smart growth/transit-oriented
development. All parties will need to be opportunistic and creative in seeking
necessary funds. In addition,as BART completes its comprehensive station plan,
needed circulation and access improvements will be designed and fund sources
identified (e.g., grant funds). It is anticipated that both the comprehensive
station planning effort and charrette effort will result in physical improvements
that serve multiple objectives, enabling the County, BART and the private
developer to access a greater variety of fund sources to design and implement the
improvements. There is no expectation that BARTs core revenues for operations
(fare box revenue, sales tax receipts, and property tax receipts)will be used for
Station aesthetic enhancements.
The fact that the BART Station itself is exempt from the Regulations is not only
correct, but necessary for BART to maintain and operate a regional transit
system. BART's exemption from local code has been maintained from the inception
of BART for very good reasons, including: The need for low maintenance physical
elements, given the fact that the taxpayer subsidizes the system; the need for
interchangeability of elements, given the fact that BART operates almost 40
transit stations and must acquire goods and services according to State Contract.
Code; the need for BART to comply with the State Fire Marshall, which oversees
..all of BART's operation, not just that at the Pleasant Hill Station.
Having underscored BART's exemption from any local codes and regulations, BART
still intends to work with the County and private developer to assess and
implement reasonable modifications to its station. Again, BART has undertaken a
comprehensive station planning effort to assess improvements needed at and
within the Pleasant Hill station. It is anticipated that these needed improvements
will serve multiple objectives and can be implemented in concert with the
charrette plan.
5.0 Traffic
5.01 What plans are there to mitigate traffic impacts, including traffic concerns at
intersections north of BART Station Area?
The County funded.a study to evaluate traffic conditions on all routes to the
BART station as part of the 1998 Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Specific Plan. At the request of the City of Pleasant Hill, the study was
managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The troffic standards of
the affected jurisdictions were used consistent with the requirements of the
Measure C-88 Growth Management Program. .
W:Personal\PHBAPT\response.questions.11.O1.IIRevisions 14
The study included an evaluation of access routes north of the station. Upgrades
to the Treat Boulevard/Bancroft Road area and to Geary Boulevard were
identified that would enhance access. However, these upgrades were not needed
to meet adopted traffic standards of the affected jurisdictions. The City of
Walnut Creek is proceeding with upgrades for the full length of Geary Boulevard.
Construction of the first phase is scheduled by the city to begin next year.
Widening of Buskirk Avenue and realigning the North Main Street/Oak Park
Boulevard intersections were determined to enhance access, But these upgrades
were not needed to meet adopted traffic standards of the affected jurisdictions.
Although funding was identified for these projects, the City of Pleasant Hill
elected not to implement them.
The County's Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan amendments
included a commitment to modifications for the Wayne/Oak Road intersection and
the Buskirk Avenue/Geraldine Drive area. That action also included an obligation
to work with Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek on traffic calming measures
in surrounding neighborhoods if needed in the future.
In 2000, the City of Pleasant Hill evaluated access routes north of the BART
station as part of their proposed redevelopment project for the Contra Costa
Shopping Center. The city assumed that Buskirk Avenue would be widened to four
lanes and that capacity and alignment issues would be addressed when
redevelopment plans for the affected properties are submitted.
Currently, the County is cooperating with the City of Concord to upgrade and
signalize the Hookston/Bancroft Avenue intersection. The City of Pleasant Hill is
designing a signal coordination project for the North Main Street/Oak Park
Boulevard area and construction is scheduled for 2004.
The expected trip generation for the proposed land use plan from the Charrette
was compared to the trip generation for the alternatives analyzed in the traffic
study. The number of trips that would be generated would be lower than three of
the four alternatives. Therefore, the findings from the previous traffic study
would be applicable for the number trips that would be generated by the land use
from the Charrette.
The Specific Plan subsequently focused its transportation measures on enhancing
access for buses, pedestrians and bicycles to the area (e.g. the proposed shuttle
and the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing). The County is also working with BART to
improve train service to the Concord and North Concord stations for those
patrons that could use these stations as alternatives to the Pleasant Hill station.
W:Persona l\PHBART\response.questions:11.01.IIRevisions 15
5.02 The accessibility of the Station Area to the regional transportation network
suggests that more activity should be focused here (smart growth principles).
The underlying principle of the Specific Plan, and the BART property Charrette
outcome supports this statement. A balancing of local and regional interests has
been sought, and we believe struck. .
5.03 Where is the troffic information that supports the removal of left turn lanes on
Jones?
There will be four lanes along Jones Road, with an added turn lane near Treat
Boulevard so that the number of lanes on Jones Road near Treat Boulevard would
remain the same.
There will be two lanes in each direction for the length of Jones Road, with left
turns into the residential area from the left lane for northbound travel on Jones
Road. Traffic continuing north along Jones Road would be able to pass left-
turning vehicles by traveling in the right-hand lane. During off-peak times, on-
street parking will be allowed on Jones since the full two lanes are only needed
inbound to the parking structure in the a.m. peak period,and outbound in the
evening peak.
5.04 How are noise impacts addressed?
The County General Plan contains policies and measures to ensure that the goals
outlined in the Noise Element of the General Plan are met. Policy 11-4 of the
General Plan states the new multi-family housing projects, hotels and motels
exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis
describing how the project will provide on interior DNL of 45 dB or less. A
detailed acoustical analysis will be required of this project prior to consideration
of the Final Development Plan. Typical measures to minimize noise impacts of
proposed development projects include site planning,architectural layout of
buildings, noise barriers and construction modifications. The construction
modifications (use of insulation, double-pane windows, etc.) used to improve the
energy efficiency of a building also reduce to interior noise in the building.
6.0 Alternative Mode Concerns (Bus, Taxi's, Bicycle, Pedestrian).
6.01 The impacts by the bus on the quality of the square.
Bus patrons are an essential aspect of the public transportation/alternative mode
setting that makes Pleasant Hill BART a transit center. Their needs have to be
accommodated. Furthermore the viability of retail on the Square is dependent on
it being close to transit population. Bus stops are another way to deliver people
to the square. A bus will stop no more.than 5 minutes for loading and unloading,
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.0l.IIRevisions• 16
thereby keeping their impacts to a minimum. All bus layovers will take place
remote from the square in the alley next to the tracks.
Station Square is, by design,an area for active use by many people. It is not an
area for passive recreation. There are other spaces nearby for persons desiring
such an experience. It is expected that Station Square will be programmed to
provide opportunities for both opportunistic and planned encounters, i.e.,areas for
seating and activities will promote human interaction.
6.02 What are the bike parking requirements of the County? Should the requirement
for bicycle parking be part of the codes?
There are no County-wide bicycle parking requirements. However, the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan does address bicycle parking. Policy 7 states
"Developers shall provide for bicycle transportation, including safe and convenient
bicycle storage, paths to the buildings and shower and locker facilities, where
appropriate." In addition, one of the needs identified from the Charrette process
was a bike station near the BART Station. The bike station will be incorporated
into one of the public buildings in the BART Station Area.
6.03 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access to areas west of I-680.
The Specific Plan proposes to upgrade pedestrian and bicycle circulation from the
west via Treat Boulevard and Oak Park Boulevard. Potential upgrades along Treat
include enhancing the sidewalk on the freeway overcrossing to buffer pedestrians
from the traffic,noise and weather. Potential upgrades along Oak Park Boulevard
include signing and striping bike lanes. A signage system that would identify
pedestrian and bicycle routes between the BART station and destinations west of
I-680 is also under consideration.
6.04 Where is the taxi stand? Kiss and Ride? Why buses around the square?
The taxi stand, as well as the Kiss and Ride drop-off, has been moved to the north
side of the BART platform, in order to avoid competing for curb space with buses.
The County Connection expressed a preference for discreet loading/unloading
areas for these two alternative modes. Taxi and Kiss & Ride users are frequent
users and will quickly adjust to any pattern of access and egress.
6.05 Concerns that the pedestrian overcrossings at Oak and Treat are not represented.
The Specific Plan currently requires a pedestrian Overcrossing at Treat and Oak,
linking to the BART property, and a pedestrian/bicycle Overcrossing at Treat and
the Iron Horse Trail. A first phase community design program was completed, and
the engineering/design team is undertaking additional analysis to be able to
complete the design/siting process. A discussion/decision will have to be made as
to whether it is appropriate/necessary to have a second Overcrossing, facility at
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 17
Treat and Oak. If the current Specific Plan requirement is sustained; the
developer will be required to incorporate a pedestrian bridge landing on the BART
side of Treat Blvd. The visuals created during the latter part of the Charrette
attempted to depict the presence of a pedestrian Overcrossing of Treat at Oak.
6.06 Shuttle servicer details? How will the shuttle work? How will it be funded?
The shuttle service will be funded by revenues from fee parking at the BART
Station. The 581 temporary parking spaces on the Iron Horse Trail will be
replaced with fee parking; all other parking spots will be replaced with free
parking unless BART changes its parking policy.
The economics team preliminarily analyzed the feasibility of replacing the existing
581 temporary parking spaces on the Iron Horse Trail with fee parking in
structures located on the site and providing additional funding to support a local
shuttle bus. The following assumptions were used in the analysis: development
cost of $12,000 (which is on the low-end), current monthly rates for non-tenants
of $160 per space increasing annually at 3%, expenses to maintain the parking
spaces at equal to 35% of revenue, 65% of the construction cost paid for through
debt financing at 7.00%,an equity requirement of about $2.5 million,a one year
construction period,and 5%vacancy and credit loss. This preliminary analysis
suggests a"surplus" of over $200,000 a year to fund a shuttle service.
7.0 Infrastructure Issues Including
7.01 What are the plans for Jones Road? Del Hombre?
The Charrette Plan actually maintains the total land area devoted to the Iron
Horse Trail and an easement for future light rail service on the Iron Horse
Corridor. In order to accommodate the new garage entrance, a portion of the
trail area is moved northward.to just south of Las Juntas. The plan also
recommends a more efficient use of Del Hombre. When the properties facing the
northern end of Del Hombre and Roble Road redevelop,a modified access plan can
be created for the Honeytrail area. This will allow the southern portion of the Del
Hombre right-of-way to be converted to Greenspace, as shown in the Charrette
Plan.
7.02 Concerns that changing the location to the garage from Jones will significantly
change the Plan and therefore needs to be decided before the plan moves
forward. .
Access to the garage requires further study. Whether the developer decides to
move the entrance location will not significantly effect the development.. This can
be accommodated through design. One option is to access the garage through the
block.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 18
BART is initiating a comprehensive station plan to assess, among other things,
circulation and access. BART intends to work with both the County and the private
developer to comprehensively assess the viability of either shifting the garage
entrance from Jones Road or modifying the development footprint to
accommodate the existing entrance. In either case, it is anticipated that a final
solution will be part of the private developer's submittal to the County and BART
next summer.
7.03 Concerns regarding street widths being reduced from 12' to 10-11'.
The standard lane width is 12 feet. However, lane widths of 11 feet or possibly 10
feet may be acceptable, based on the amount of traffic,.the speed of travel and
the number of large vehicles, such as trucks and buses. The Caltrans Highway
Design Manual defers to the AASHTO "Green Book" or "Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets," Chapter V- Local Roads and Streets, Local
Urban Streets, for dimensions of local streets and roads. According to AASHTO,
"Street lanes for moving traffic preferably should beat least 3.Om [9' 10"] wide.
Where feasible they should be 3.3 m wide [10' 10"],and in industrial areas they
should be 3.6m wide [11' 10"]. Where available or attainable width of right-of-way
imposes severe limitations, 2.7 m [8' 10"] lanes can be used in residential areas,as
can 3.3m [10' 10"] lanes in industrial areas." Modern traffic calming practice has a
strong preference for narrow lane widths as a tool of slowing motor vehicle
traffic and improving pedestrian safety. Around the BART Station, we have
proposed 11' lanes where buses and high volumes of traffic are present, and 10'
lanes along the quieter residential streets.
7,04 Why does the Summary Report suggest that the BART patron (replacement of
permanent and temporary spaces) parking may be sited subject to additional
studies?
The Charrette Program included a conceptual level of analysis of the BART parking
Structure expansion. A parking consultant was employed to be as certain as one
can be at this point, nonetheless, the precise and final design/configuration will
have to be accomplished before it can be definitively represented that 100% of
the replacement program can be accommodated in the expanded BART parking
structure. If it cannot, other parking structures on Blocks A,B, or C would be
employed to provide the additional replacement parking (which would be the paid
replacement parking for the temporary spaces).
It is not necessary to specifically identify the access location to the garage from
Jones Road immediately. Ninety percent of the charrette plan can move forward
without stipulating exactly where the garage entrance is to be located from Jones
Road. For example, in the event that the garage entrance from Jones Road does
not change, the site plan in the vicinity of the entrance can be modified to
accommodate this access by shifting the residential/retail development further
west.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.O1.IIRevis ions 19
7.05 Concerns regarding Jones Road realignment. Where does the Greenspace go?
See 7.01 and 7.02 above..
7.06 Are sidewalks needed along the Iron Horse Corridor adjacent to the east side of
Jones?
The need for a sidewalk along the side of Jones Road adjacent to the Iron Horse
Trail will be evaluated as part of the detailed plans for Jones Road and for the
Iron Horse Trail. It may be that a sidewalk is not needed directly adjacent to the
Trail.
7.08 Along the Residential Green 8' sidewalks are not needed.
The width of sidewalks along the residential green will be evaluated as part'of the
detailed plans. It will be important to provide well-designed pedestrian and
bicycle access and circulation to and from the site and throughout the site.
7.09 Why is Jones Road north of Treat reduced to two lanes with no median?
There will be two lanes in each direction for the length of Jones Road, with left
turns into the residential area from the left lane for northbound travel on Jones
Road. Traffic continuing north along Jones Road would be able to pass left-
turning vehicles by traveling in the right-hand lane. Off-peak parking would need
to be prohibited along a portion of Jones Road to allow for vehicles to travel in
the right-hand lane when necessary.
7.10 The current supply of BART parking should be maintained, or increased.
The BART policy of retaining all BART patron spaces as part of a development
program is fully complied with (see also 9.01).. The charrette plan calls for
replacing all of BART'S surface parking to enable the private development to be
constructed. In addition, the 581 temporary spaces are being permanently
replaced as part of a paid parking program (see also 8.03). As part of BART's
strategic planning.ef fort over the past few years,the District has determined
that it should emphasize access of all modes, not just the single-occupant
automobile.
The debate over whether or not to use BART's land for additional parking
structures rather than mixed-use development has been ongoing since the
Specific Plan for the station area was adopted in the mid-1980's. The fundamental
decision that has been faced throughout the debate is whether to build a mixed-
use community that is directly served by the core transit system via pedestrian
connections and which can effectively connect the transit station to the
surrounding community, or to build a large amount of parking capacity which serves
W:PersonaI\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 20
a different, more distant community by car. There are pros and cons to both aside
of the debate. The prime objective is to provide an attractive environment for
those who wish to take advantage of the public transit infrastructure that exists
in the Bay Area and to enable employees and residents of the area around the
Pleasant Hill station to access the system without needing an automobile. It is, in
fact, building your market next to your service, much the way the railroads did
during the 1800's.
Increasing the amount of parking at the BART station is not only expensive, it will
also promote continued development in outlying areas which creates a greater
burden on society than development at the station. Development in outlying areas
necessitates the need for additional infrastructure (roads, sewers, utilities, etc.)
with both a capital and continuing operating cost. Placing.development at current
infrastructure reduces the sprawl of development. Development in outlying areas
results in the demand for automobiles-there simply is no other way to move
around. This-uses more energy and creates more pollution than development at rail
stations. Accessing transit service at the Pleasant Hill BART Station can be
through a variety of modes, including bus, carpool, privately subsidized shuttle
services, walking, bicycling. Devoting scarce public resources to enable an
individual to park an automobile for 12 hours every day versus creating a
sustainable, livable community is not a decision elected officials are willing to
make.
Lastly it should be noted that there are already 3450 parking spaces at the
Pleasant Hill BART Station, the largest number in the entire BART system. With
the additional 581 spaces to replace the Iron Horse Trail removal, there will be a
total of 4031 spaces for BART patrons.
7.11 How will the parking for BART airline customers be handled? Will that parking be
taken from the pool of BART parking, the pay-BART parking, or the private
businesses?
In preparing for the opening of the San Francisco Airport Extension, BART has
been analyzing where"long-.term" parking spaces will be provided from a
systemwide perspective. Not every BART station will have long-term parking to
serve airport patrons. Initially BART has designated 200 spaces at the North
Concord Station for.long term paid parking to serve those on the Concord line.
That station was chosen because it had excess•parking spaces that were not being
used on a daily basis. If the program is successful, it could be expanded to other
stations, including Pleasant Hill. However, wherever the long term parking is
expanded, BART would make an effort to maintain the existing number of daily use
spaces through the use of attendant parking or other means.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 21
8.0 Economics
8.01 What will the range of rents be? Price of homes?
The office rents used in the financial analysis for the proposed project range
from $3.50 to $3.75 a square foot. The retail rents range from $1.50 to $2.50
per square foot depending on the size, location, and anticipated use of the
proposed retail. The residential rents for the proposed project range from $1300
to $3200 per month.. For-sale units are underwritten to sell for just under $200
a square foot.
However, the rental and for-sale residential products will not be mixed within
buildings. Therefore, individual lenders may be financing only one type of project,
such as a single building of flats. In addition, the for-sale units will include fee-
simple title to the land, i.e., buyers will be able to buy both the building and the
underlying ground as they would in any condominium project. There will be no
ground leases for the for-sale units as these are very difficult to finance.
In determining the rents and prices used for the Charrette,the economics team
researched comparables projects both within the local market and at other similar
transit oriented locations in the Bay Area. Although the rents and sales prices
used in the financial model reflect market conditions as of February 2001and
conditions have changed radically since then, this project will not be built for
several years, during which time the market is likely to stabilize and improve.
8.02 Impact of economic changes - Can we fill office?
The market for office space has historically been cyclical. The current downturn
follows a period of very high rents and a very low vacancy rate. Thus, the current
lower rents and higher vacancy rate in the office buildings at the Pleasant Hill
BART station are not unexpected. Moreover, by the time the office for.this
project is built, the economic picture could be very different yet again. The
financial analysis used in the charrette process considered these nuances of the
market and its potential impacts in its determination of the future feasibility of
office at the Pleasant Hill BART station. In addition,according to the Association
of Bay Area Governments, Contra Costa County is projected to add approximately
140,000 new jobs over the next 20 years. A significant proportion of these jobs
are expected to be in businesses that will generate demand for office space, and
preferably at locations well served by transit.
8.03 Why paid parking?
Presently, the only BART parking that will be for a fee are the spaces that replace
the 581 temporary parking spaces currently on the Iron Horse Trail. The 1481
surface spaces on BART property will continue to be free unless BART changes its
parking policy. The fee parking will support building the replacement for the 581
W:Persona I\PHBART\response.questions.11.0I.IIRevisions 22
temporary spaces and a shuttle service for the local area to the BART Station.
Without paid parking, there would be no identified funding source for these
parking spaces and the shuttle. Implementing a shuttle service will encourage
people to use and enjoy the Station Area without creating a demand for more
parking or increasing neighborhood traffic. BART policy allows for paid parking
for net new permanent parking.
A significant advantage that paid parking allows is a guarantee that BART patrons
will be able.to find a space at any time of day at the station. Currently, parking at
the station typically fills very early in the morning, with a few spaces reserved for
parking after 10:00 a.m. Patrons who wish to arrive at the station at 8:30 or 9:00
a.m. have no place to park. Allowing for paid reserved parking or paid midmorning
parking will provide new access to the station that currently does not exist. Such
a paid parking program has been extremely popular at the West Oakland BART
Station.
8.04 Why so little retail space?
In considering the retail component of the project it is critical to understand that
the charrette participants expressed a strong preference for local- rather than
regional-serving retail at this site. Therefore, the retail program was developed
based on a conceptual tenanting plan that would include primarily small users, "mom
and pop" stores not national chains,and uses that could serve the every day needs
of local residents and'workers. While the retail should be high enough quality to
become a "destination," it was not the first goal of this project to have the retail
uses be a primary use, but more a secondary use that would serve as an amenity to
the residential and office users.
Given these parameters, the retail experts consulted as part of the Charrette
process supported the consultants initial conclusions that the amount of retail
proposed at the Pleasant Hill BART station reflects the maximum that the market
can support in addition to the existing and soon-to-be completed retail near the
proposed project. Adding more retail without enough demand early in the project
would result in empty storefronts and a deconcentration of retail that would
negatively impact all the retail in.the area. Such a negative impact would challenge
the station area's ability to create the sense of place critical to its long-term
viability and success.
If the station area succeeds in establishing itself as a great place over time, then
the market demand for retail would expand. Such an expansion could lead to more
retail in the ground floor of the office buildings as well as other spaces within the
station area. The demand for this second generation of retail may result in the
future conversion of office and residential space into retail. One of the design
goals for the buildings is that they be built with this type off lexibility in mind.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 23
9.0 Project Finance
9.01 Why/how is the County paying $27 million for the BART patron replacement
parking program? $8 million for public improvements? $2 million for acquisition
of the Swim Club.
BART policy requires 1-1 replacement of all BART patron parking lots on the
surface due to development. The cost of replacing this parking cannot be carried
by a project that has the desired mix/intensity of uses. Prior analysis suggested
that politically controversial projects such as the entertainment retail project, an
all office project, or a large regional retail center could carry most, if not all, of
the replacement parking costs. In order to complete a project that is consistent
with smart growth principles, and fully addresses the obligation to BART and its
patrons another public funding source - the County Redevelopment Agency is being
utilized.
The general understanding of the Agency for sometime has been its role as a
Financer of up to $8 million of public improvements on the BART property. The
revenue sources are Agency tax increment revenues from development on the
BART property. The financial agreements between-the parties will specify how
those funds get introduced and used.
The $2 million to purchase the Las Juntas Swim Club is to be borrowed by the
Agency from the County,and does not involve or affect the BART property.
9.02 . What role does revenue play in this area being annexed to the City of Walnut
Creek?
The annexation of the area to the City of Walnut Creek will be determined by the
highly complex interplay of the City's ability to cover incremental service costs,
the desires of the property owners- residential and commercial, protection of
development entitlements, revenue neutrality to the County, and return on
investment to the County. The factor that largely determines the annexation of
the residential area surrounding the Station Area is the post Proposition 13
phenomena that residential uses alone do not cover the costs of servicing areas
subject to annexation, i.e., most residential areas alone are a financial liability to
public agencies today.
10.0 Civic Use/Public Amenities
10.01 Is the Station Square mostly concrete or a green?
Station Square is envisioned as mostly green. Hard surfaces would be used for
walkways and possibly a sitting area.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions,11.0I.IIRevis ions 24
10.02 A childcare center is not a civic use, rather is a public use?
Agreed. Civic uses could include educational, cultural, or governmental facilities
that will be determined.
10.03 Who will plant trees along Oak Road and"Treat Blvd.?
Trees will be planted by the developer on the east side of Oak and on the North
side of Treat,according to the Station Area Code. Trees across the street from
the project are shown on the plans as a suggestion for a preferred design. These
trees could be planted through a joint effort by the county and the property
owner.
11.0 Housing Concerns
11.01 Why is housing proposed next to the BART tracks?
In response to concerns for the quality of housing in Block C a non-residential
zone was created for the area within 50' of the tracks.'
11.02 Concerns about the size of residential units.
The development program should provide fora diversity of housing, as exists in
the Station Area today (see chart below). Dwelling unit size could range from
approximately 450 square feet to over 1,400 square feet (for townhouses). The
percentage of efficiency or studio units would not be very high. It should be
noted that should a senior housing project be an aspect of the BART development,
smaller units.would be a higher percentage of the total.
Summary of Residential Rental Properties* - Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area
Unit Type/Size No. of Units % of Total
Studios (475-510 sq.ft.) 162 8.3%
1 bedroom (601-796 sq.ft.) 1,157 59.2%
2 bedroom (850-1,000 sq.ft.) 610 31.2%
3 bedroom (1,150 sq.ft.) 26 1.3%
Total 1,955 100%
*Developments include Bay Landing (360 units): Coggins Square (87 units): Park
Regency(892 units): Station Park (106 units); and Treat Commons (510 units).
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevis ions 25
11.03 How will the provision of 50 for-sale units be assured?
Ultimate disposition of BART property, including any ground lease with Millennium
Partners and/or sale of BART land for the cited 50 units, is a BART Board of
Directors decision. It is recognized that for-sale residential units on leased
ground may not be financially feasible. Thus, BART staff has expressed a
willingness to recommend the sale of property to enable the for-sale units to be
financed.
As Millennium Partners further defines it's project for submittal to the County,
and, subsequent to environmental certification by the BART Board of Directors,
BART staff will request BART Board approval of the terms and conditions of any
property disposition. Currently, BART staff has indicated that they will
recommend sale of property sufficient to enable the 50 units of for-sale housing
to be financed, built and sold. This decision by BART staff, which ultimately must
be considered and approved by the BART Board of Directors, has been made due
to the community's strong desire to have some for-sale residential product in the
overall.charrette plan.
BART staff would prefer to recommend disposition of BART property using a long-
term ground lease. In building the BART system, public funds were used to pay for
the Pleasant Hill BART Station. Recognizing that the public continues to subsidize
BART's transit operation, and recognizing that the BART station and its service
provides a financial benefit to all developers who build next to BART, BART staff
believe that one way to secure a financial return from the public investment is to
dispose of property using a ground lease; increases in land value due specifically to
the provision of BART service can be recaptured.through this mechanism over
time and returned to support BART'S transit service. Further,a ground lease
clearly affords BART the ability to maintain that any use of its property next to a
transit station remains transit-oriented. Sale of land provides a one-time financial
reward only and it does not assure continued transit-oriented use of the property.
It also needs to be clearly understood that the County Redevelopment Agency
acquired numerous smaller property lots around the BART station to assemble
sufficient ground to enable the private sector to develop what exists today;
selling off property to enable for-sale housing to be introduced reverses the
County's action of the mid-1980's. Finally, there are approximately 2,260
residential units within 4 of a mile of the Pleasant Hill BART Station, with 88% as
rentals and 12% as for-sale. Adding 50 for-sale units (approximately 18% of the
minimum residential units - 274) to.this mix will not measurably impact this ratio.
Notwithstanding the above, because of the stated desire of charrette
participants to see some for-sale residential product in the ultimate Millennium
Partners' plan, BART staff remain committed to recommend the 50 for-sale units
to the BART Board of Directors.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.0LIIRevis ions 26
11.04 What are the proposed numbers of low-income units that will be built on the BART
property?
Consistent with smart growth principles the housing program will include a
diversity of housing types, sizes, and affordability levels. The minimum State
Redevelopment Law mandate is that 15% of new units constructed be affordable
units for low and moderate-income households. Most of the primary financing
programs for mixed income projects require a minimum 20% of the units be
affordable to lower income households:
12.0 Development Review/Permitting Concerns
12.01 Will sound of BART be reduced on windows? Buildings?
The County's General Plan Noise Element will require noise impacts to be abated to
adopted standards. Mitigation measures (which could include insulation and multi-
pane glass, among other things) will be determined during the final development
plan and building permit stage.
12.02 How do new plans relate to Specific Plan?
The Charrette concept conforms to the Specific Plan in almost all respects. The
following changes to the Specific Plan would be needed to conform the project to
the Plan: `
• Modify land use matrix for Areas 11/12 to allow residential without a land
use permit (page 22, Figure 6);
• Modify street setbacks (page 50,Policy 1);
• Modify property line setbacks (page 51, Policy 1 & 4); and
• Modify BART Property discussion to modify bridge to reflect north bridge
landing at grade (page 63, Paragraph 3 & 4).
12.03 What are the County requirements with respect to street trees?
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan policy regarding street trees
calls for the use of Platanus Acer folia (London Plane Trees)as the primary street
tree. Other tree specimens may be appropriate and are encouraged. Both the
Specific Plan and the Landscape standards call for trees to be planted at a
maximum spacing of 30 ft.
12.04 What is the role of the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee?
The Steering Committee's charge as reaffirmed by the Board of Supervisor's in
August 1997 as follows:
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 27
That the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Steering Committee (hereafter
"Steering Committee") is charged with evaluating implementation activities
related to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, including
amendments to the Specific Plan;
That the Steering Committee is advisory to the Board of Supervisors;
That the Steering Committee is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, and
the County's Better Government Ordinance;
That the Steering Committee is comprised of nominees of the County of
Contra Costa, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the City of Concord,
the City of Pleasant Hill, the City of Walnut Creek, the Walden District
Improvement Association, and the Contra Costa Centre Association;
That the Steering Committee seek consensus on matters before it,and, if
necessary,apply formal procedures, including motions and votes. All
members of the Steering Committee are voting members; and
• That a quorum of the Steering Committee consists of 51% of the
appointed members, which must include at least one of the County
representatives.
:The Steering Committee is not part of the land use application review process.
12.05 What are the parking requirements for residential and office uses?
The Pleasant Hill BART.Specific Plan specifies maximum parking ratios as follows:
Office 3.3/1,000 sq...ft. of net rentable area
Retail 4.5/1,000 sq. ft. of net rentable area
Housing 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (recent projects permitted at
1.35 spaces/dwelling unit.)
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 28
y
QUESTIONS RECEIVED
y
All questions received are reproduced. The area in which the response to
the question can be found is cited on the margin.
Oct .31 01 09: 54a
p. 4
The Petition of Misgivings
Subject: The Petition of Misgivings
Date: Fri,26 Oct 2001 17:38:58 -0700
Froin: "Robert Frederick"<rdfredx@home.com>
To: <alopezl@cctimes.com>
CC: "Donna Gerber" <dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>,
"Mark DeSaulruer" <dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
Rebuttal to:
Your Front Page Walnut Creek Journal article f following herein)
Re.: BART station plans prompt petition, tall(
Some residents are unhappy about the planned density of the Pleasant Hill BART transit
village
To: CCTimes Reporter-Alan Lopez
cc: District 3 and District 4 County Supervisors
The Petition of Misgivings
Had it not been for a stroke of genius by District 3, County Supervisor, Donna Gerber, who suggested
the Charrette Process to begin with, we may still be in the throes of indecisiveness. She helped to get the
question of what was to be done with the build out of the PH BART Station out in the open and with
public input. This will be the final step in realizing the complete build out of the redeveloped area
referred to as the Contra Costa Centre and billed as such. The BART Station therein is the center-piece
of the entire project and is part and parcel to the overall redevelopment plan through the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Specific Plan as revised and amended. The culmination and final phase of the
redeveloped area will be finalized after some 18 years of economic ups and downs and visionary
planning bordering on new urbanism and smart growth.
In the article you wrote,there are some blatant misgivings that are associated with the process. Here are
the facts: One,the petition that was circulated was for the purpose of allowing the community to have
the right to vote on the final proposed draft of the charrette. Two,the petition was clearly a chance for
the community to vote its approval or rejection of the final submitted Charrette Design. Three,there was t•�t
no alluding to nor illusion that the petition was to be a stigmata for housing density, green space, office,
commercial,parking,increased traffic or that of preserving land. I signed the petition prior to my
resignation as a Director of the Walden Association. And, I find it rather grievous that they would put
their name on someone else's handy work and attempt to corrupt the process.
To the man),who have signed the petition but may now realize they did so under false pretenses, I say,
your article sends the wrong message to the neighborhood. The overwhelming majority of those who
attended the charrette and worked to see the outcome as positive for this community are still.of that
opinion. I think you owe it to this community to report the facts and not some outsider's opinion of what
the facts should be.
Robert Frederick
Former Walden Board member
"Robert Frederick" To: "Mark DeSauInlee'<dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
„.. <rdfredx@home.com>
10130;2001.12:09 PM cc: <jkenn@cd.co.contra-COsta.Ca.us>,"Donna Gerber"
<dist3@bos.co.contr2-costa.ca.us>
Subject: Fw:CCTimes today
Greetings-
What I have underscored in the following article is preposterous! The
Walden District Improvement Association has few members and a support
1 .0
group of less than 150; not the.6000 alluded to in.the article. Most of these
supporters are already in.Condomenium Homeowner Associations around
Pleasant Hill BART and are within the confines of the redevelopment.
The majority of property owners that live throughout the Walden District,
and a great many outside the district, are.in favor of the.build out of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station property as provided by the Charrette Process.
Again, the petition that is now supported by Walden was originated for the
purpose of alloN)Ing the community the opportunity to vote to accept or reject
the final Design of that which was proposed during the charrette.process.
Some)within the Walden Association saw this as a means to an end and
adopted the petition, with thein-own play on words, and not necessarily that of
the whole community.
To further delay, attack and subvert the process serves no earthly purpose
other than to disrupt the community and keep someone's name.in the
forefront it purports to serve; rather than working with those that are
qualified public servants willing to cooperate with..their consti -Liients. .
I think consensus was acheived at the last Charrette meeting. Hopefully,that
benchmark will continue.
Robert Frederick
Former Walden.Board Member
:
OX ME: Nil
IN
:-r�'�i=-TMn�:..-_..��i-�:.?l:u':_��!:�...�_,�v+iSe=:;l..•-sf-�.-,',.1-h==�. �'.�tti�'-..W _ ..uF�.,s, c1.;,r.-_s�
=u �.,.r -�. •-;��sz��s _��-r:-=it"'''-=�.�^;-=�'-a'ii
http://wwvi.contracostatimes.com/news/contracosta/stories/phbart 20011030.h
tm
Published Tuesday, October 30, 2001
Residents mixed on BART plan
a Pleasant Hill station development worries some,
excites others
By Dogen Hannah
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Where parking lots and a seven-story garage now sprawl on 1 B acres:,Contra
Costa planners designing a revamped Pleasant Hill BART station see a
bustling village of restaurants,shops, offices,parkland and apartments.
As county planners prepare to present this vision to county supervisors in
December,some residents who live near the station remain uneasy with the
redevelopment plan.They praise some elements but question others and say
its full extent has not been aired.
"It's not a bad concept,"said Kris Hunt,president of the Walden District
Improvement Association,which represents approximately 6,000 homeowners
near the station."There are many good things in it.But I think the concern is
we're not sure.whefs there
The plan so far,crafted with the help of 500 or so residents during a six-day
workshop called a charrette,includes 290,000 to 456,000 square feet of
offices,274 to 446 residences,42,000 square feet of stores and 7,000 square
feet of civic space.
The.idea is to turn the county-controlled land between Pleasant Hill and.Walnut
Creek into a transit-oriented,pedestrian-friendly neighborhood that also serves
the surrounding community.
The plan has received an unprecedented amount of public scrutiny, said Jim
Kennedy,county redevelopment director.There will be more opportunities to
examine and revise it before the Board of Supervisors considers it in July or
August 2002,he said.
"The community process we have gone through has been a miracle, both in
gaining almost-not quite--unanimous support for a mixed-use project... and
that the design and detailing of the site are substantially beyond any similar
project at a similar point...in the development process,"Kennedy said.
Still,many residents worry whether the plan,which includes lengthy, detailed
rules about what can be built,truly reflects the public's wishes as expressed
during the workshop,Hunt said. One resident has gathered 500 or so
signatures on a petition calling for a community-wide vote on the plan.
"The Walden people are used to lighting fires and kicking tires,"Hunt said.
"You have to get into those boring,ugly details to make it work."
Station Square,a grass-covered plaza in the middle of the project on the south
side of the station platform is one area of specific concern.
Some residents object to allowing buses to circle around the square instead of
using the north side of the station as a turnaround,Hunt said.
That and other elements of the plan have.been refined or defined since the
workshop as planners dig deeper into the design, Kennedy said.They also
have looked at increasing the number of residences and changing the location
entrances to the expanded parking garage.
These and future changes should make the project better,and overall it will
remain true to the concepts that cane out of the.planning meetings,Kennedy
said.The public will have a chance to weigh in as county officials consider or
approve such changes,he said. .
"This thing will be a work in progress,with refinements over the course of the
next many months,"Kennedy said."I'm sure there are a number of things out
there that we haven't bumped into or thought of yet."
Dogen Hannah covers Walnut Creek and Lamorinda.Peach him at
925-945-4794 or dhannah@cctimes.corn.
@2001 Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc.
October 30, 2001
Charrette Questions
1. At the next meeting, can the community please be reminded that the consultants 1.02
want to help and we should all be more polite when addressing our questions to
them? Jennifer Kunz
2. Concerned with 18 acres but because traffic has always (at least the last 45 5.01
years) been an on-going problem,am still concerned with traffic leaving the BART
Area and heading northerly. Signals operate at most intersections going south, but
nothing at (Buskirk-Mayhew)and Las Juntas Mayhew. Are we working with Pleasant
Hill, Concord and Walnut Creek to alleviate congestions on the northern routes out
of BART? Ron Morrison 935-4782
3. How are we doing on the timing schedule presented last time? N/A 1.03
4. Why don't you put the 7-story building by the tracks? What will range of 2.01, 8.01
rents be? Price of homes? The green square is touted but the plan surrounds 6.01, 10.01,
the square with buses to dodge. Will sound of BART be reduced on windows, 2.02, 12.01
on buildings? Any steps to get rid of pigeons? Has anyone mentioned the towers 2.03
are overdone (everywhere)and look like a prison? N/A
5. Can we see a more realistic picture of the plan? 1.04
6. What changes made since last meeting? 1.05
7. Any thought of 12 story residential instead of office? 2.04
8. How new plans relate to Specific Plan? 12.02
9. Traffic impact? 5.01
10. Bike parking required? In Codes? 6.02
11. Ped (bike access) west side of I-680? 6.03
12. Impact of economic changes- Can we fill office? 8.02
13. Emergency access plan? 2.05
14. Parking structure- Why is County paying $9-27 million? 9.01
15. Taxi stand? Buses around square? 6.04
16. Why paid parking? 8.03
W:Personal\PHBART\questions.charrette.10.30.01 1
17. Lanes on Jones Road? Del Hombre? 7.01
18. Where is "Master Plan"? 1.06
19. Jones Road access to parking structure? 7.02
20. Ped Overcrossing at Oak and Treat? 6.05
21. County financial responsibility? 9.01
22. Shuttle service details? 6.06
23. Code integration into Specific Plan and County General Plan? 3.01
24. Can we vote on process? 1.07
25. How can we ensure future uses if we use all land? 1.08
26. Why this fast timeline? 1.09
27. Street Lanes 12' to 10'-11'? 7.03
28. Page 45 - Parking garage locations - why flexibility? 7.04
29. BART improvement subject to codes? 3.02
30. County Ordinance-street tree ordinance. 12.03
31. Jones Road realignment. Where does green space go? 7.05
32. Why so many disclaimers? 1.10
33. How pay for BART Station improvements? 4.01
34. What role does revenue play in this area becoming Walnut Creek? 9.02
35. What plans are there to mitigate traffic outside the plan area? 5.01, 5.04
36. Why housing next to tracks? 11.01
37. Sound standards in code? 3.03
38. Add wheelchair ramp standard? 2.06
39. Correct 5 story height limit on Block B? 3.04
W:Personal\PHBART\questions.charrette.10.30.01 2
40. Allow solar panels on roofs? 3.05
41. Incorporate co-generation into the Codes? 3.06
42. Energy conservation standards in codes? 3.07
43. Sidewalk standards: Along Iron Horse Trail: No need for sidewalk
immediate to Jones. 7.06
44. Along residential green: No need for 8' sidewalks on edges. 7.07
45. Is Transit Square mostly concrete or a green? 10.01
46. Use game standards for details on Square and Green? 3.08
W:Personal\PHBART\questions.charrette.10.30.01 3
Fa f
Su�stS ..
rPJ POn�e
MO fo
�u/uct�pxee�g �pa�G�uu 9/596
�9.�5)935-58J0
SOME POINTS .TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE OCTOBER 30 MEETING RE CHARETTE:
In all the sketches the BART building is shown with different roofing and
.. different windows (in sections) and different color (not grey concrete as
it is presently). Also with a porte-cochere on one side entry. This will I
not come cheaply. Has BART indicated any willingness- to pay for these
changes? If not , who will?
A possibility for part of the "7,000 squ. ft. civic program" is a day care 1
center. That's fine - but it is hardly "civic" but rather commercial. � �' � Z
The bridge (possibly). over Treat by Oak Road is "unresolved". Shouldn't v•s
plans for it be incorporated?
It is good that it is realized all the infrastructure must be in place right
at the beginning. But if the rest is built in stages, during each construc-
tion it will be messy and unpleasant.
In the fold-out of Page 47, it certainly looks like rows of trees all
along both sides of Oak Road. Who will plant those and when? Or are I 10 . 0s
they bushes? Also they are lined up on BOTH sides of Treat. Who will
plant those? Trees are very important. .
Page 45 states "Parking garage location subject to further engineering
studies." It'spretty important that this location be determined RIGHT 7 ' 6�1
AWAY as it will affect everything else. . . . .
October 30, 2001
Walden District Improvement Association October 30, 2001
What's the Rush?
Since February 2001, County Redevelopment has been working on the planning effort
for the surface parking lots at the BART Station. Less than a week before the final
meeting of this charrette process, local residents received some or all of the following
documents: Glossy brochure (short name: Brochure), Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Summary Report (Summary). The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code:
Architectural Standards (Architectural), and The New Pleasant Hill BART Station
Property Code: Principles and Regulations for Redevelopmentof the BART Station
Property (Regulations).
The material and all pictures in the Summary, Brochure, Architectural Code, and
tonight's presentation are concepts only. As the Summary states on page 47:
"While such illustrations represent a generalized vision of the plan, certain details
may be inconsistent with one another and with the ultimate built scheme. For the
most accurate description of the plan as proposed, refer to the Pleasant Hill
BART Property Code."
Some of the things found in the Codes are:
1. BART has made no commitment to alter the BART.Station or platform. In addition, `
the BART station is exempted from the Codes because it is considered a CIVIC 4. I
BUILDING. (p. 3, Regulations) Therefore, it does not have to be changed.
2. The public square will be "generally paved" because of the high level of traffic.
(p. 8, Regulations) In addition, there will be bus drop off/on on all four sides of the I 10. 01
square as well as on the surrounding streets. This is not the public green as
previously presented.
3. The Regulating Plan layout (last page of this handout) shows Building B can be 7
stories/108 feet within 100 ft of Treat Blvd rather than the 4 stories shown. (p. 3 c")19
11, Regulations)
4. The Regulating Plan layout (last page of this handout) shows "Civic Buildings and
Monuments" on the oak tree site at the comer of Treat and Oak Road. Civic uses g v
are not regulated by these codes. For the health of the oak trees, you cannot put
anything within the drip line of oak trees. Why does this project exist?
5. For Blocks A and C, the above ground floor uses include residential, office, or 3 . 1
hotel. (p. 18, Regulations) Hotels have not been discussed.
6. A TOWN ARCHITECT has been introduced for the first time. This person will
be under the direction of Community Development and "shall be responsible 3 l 2
for interpreting and enforcing the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code
regarding architectural and landscape standards, as well as any other
standards not otherwise addressed and regulated by the County Code."
(p. 20, Architectural)
OTHER QUESTIONS/ISSUES:
• Jones Road, north of Treat, is reduced to two-lanes, each way, no median. (p. 51,
Summary) This page also refers to a "Master Plan," also mentioned elsewhere. 1 . o
Where is the Master Plan? (p.. 18, Regulations; p 51, Summary; other locations)
• Moving the entrance to the BART parking structure, at the Jones Road terminus,
closer to the east end of the structure is still being studied after 6 '/2 months. This 1.°2
impacts the location of Jones Road and other development. (p. 45, Summary) 7, aq
When will this issue be decided?
• The pedestrian overcrossing at Oak Road and Treat is not shown, even though it is C,c.S-
required by the Specific Plan. Where is this addressed?
• The County's financial responsibility for BART Project has grown from $29.5 million
in April to $37 million to replace BART parking and provide infrastructure. BART
Replacement Parking at$20 million, Replace Temporary BART Parking at $9 x'03
million, Infrastructure at$8 million. This does not include the $2 million for •°
the potential purchase of the Las Juntas Swim Club. (p. 61, Summary)
• How will the shuttle service actually work? ie.o
• How will the Codes and other items be integrated.with the current Specific Plan and 3 .0 I
the County General Plan?
In no way does Walden suggest that this analysis is complete. Analyzing the 175 pages
of material that arrived on Saturday, October 27 in a comprehensive manner is
impossible in such a short time. The project has changed a great deal since it was
presented verbally in April. The Codes, which are the only things that count in
assessing the plans, are completely new. They deserve greater public scrutiny. The
only project impacted by the Codes will be the one on the BART property. There is no
need to rush the process at this point. Let us take the time to do it right.
1
�l
,t
�CDm e Wi O Y
r/ 'Z �'S ✓ �6 `v i
w �. � $
Q" V �' 1 3�6W13H 13 R tit a�
W
YA
a
(� o a U o
t ► U
d
l m� -3 13
n Q �
oa
Q � U
388&130 c f c Z
i
08 Wo
N � p
��
Oct •31 01 09: 53a
P.
October 30, 2001
Donna.Gerber and Mark DeSaulnier
County Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Re: Comments on the Proposed Dcvelopment Program for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area
Dear Donna and Mark,
I am pleased with efforts you have made to advance this project and 1 really
appreciate the hard work that everyone has put in. However, there are two aspects of the
plan that I think need to be seriously reconsidered. The first is the need for substantially
more retail space mixed in the throughout the project. The second is the need for an
increase in the parking available for transit users.
I strongly believe that the ability to park and take BART is a critical amenity for
the citizens in this area. Not everybody can walk or ride a bike to BART and I know it is
U
very likely that traffic will be getting a lot worse at the Caldecott Tunnel and at the Bay 7'
Bridge before any future construction projects can improve it. Therefore, maintaining the
existing parking supply at BART must be a bare minimum requirement of this project.
To you as decision makers I say this -the lack of additional transit parking is one
aspect.of this plan that is clearly not in the best interest of your constituents. When the
demand for parking continues to rise, people are going to get angry that they can't park at
BART. The addition of a small amount of local-serving retail will be little consolation.
The citizens are going to want to know how our elected officials ended up replacing the
BART parking lots with an office building and condos without even adding any new
transit parking? How can this be in the greater public's best interest? Very simply - it
isn't.
My second concern is the utter lack of retail space. This project is proposing to
have well under 10 percent of the project be retail. Apparently,we lost sight of the goals
in this process because the resulting plan could hardly be called a "mixed-use project"
and it's definitely not "model of smart growth." We basically just have an office building $
on the north side. There's certainly no "mixed-uses" or anything else innovative about
that. The office building should have a significant amount of retail on the ground floor if
1,
Oct 31 01 03: S3a
P. 3
you want to consider it mixed-use. This is a fact. Otherwise it's just another separate
office building on the north side and public funds shouldn't be.spent on that.
The south side of the project will essentially be a neighborhood of town homes
with only enough retail to serve the local neighborhood and perhaps provide some limited
services for BART patrons. The only new amenity for citizens outside of the immcdiate
area will probably be a new Starbuck's at the BART entrance. Nobody is going to
"Shop and Dine"in the area with the extremely limited amount of retail space that is
currently proposed.
I would ask that you, as our representatives, lA ease give extra consideration to the
interests of the community as a whole. If public funds are to be used on this project then
shouldn't this projcct be designed to benefit the entire community, not just the
surrounding neighborhood? The only way to really do this would be to increase the
amount of retail space. The townhomes and the office space will be nice for the folks
who get to move in to them, but the retail is really the only component that increases the
amenities and improves the attractiveness of the area.
It is also very important to note that if the project results in some increase in
traffic, as a traffic engineer I can tell you, this is entirely appropriate. This is a major
transit center directly adjacent to major arterials and a freeway interchange. Focusing s', U 2
the activity in this area is exactly what smart growth is supposed to do. If more traffic is
drawn to this area it will mean that congestion will be lessened in other areas,
In summary,I hope you will ultimately agree that the addition of more retail and
more transit parking to the current plan is critical. As ow-decision makers, we need you
to see beyond the ravings of the Iocal neighborhood association, who have made it .
abundantly clear that they only represent their own interests. Don't let them cloud your
judgement or affect your ability to represent the best interests of our entire community.
We need you to keep sight of the real goals for this project.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen C. Abrams
Professional Traffic Engineer
T.E. License No. 1417
437 Derby Court
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
v A Y
!yd&rze Wowdo, Wpaeyo�r4ua 9/5".96'
7
November 1, 2001
TO. Charette Leaders, Supervisors Gerber.and . .
DeSaulnier, Jim Pnnedy
May I offer a suggestion for your future meetings regarding the PH BART
Station redevelopment? It could apply to meetings on other subjects as
well.
Please', ask everyone.with questions and/or comments to write them down on
a sheet provided, have someone collate them so that duplicate ones are
addressed, and have the appropriate speaker answer them. Warn people
ahead of time that this system will be used - possibly give them ten to
fifteen minutes for .writing.
With reference to the most recent charette meeting on October 30: Ques
tion sheets were provided but were not collected. So questions were oral.
Two staff people wrote the questions from the audience on those customary
big sheets of paper, pasted some on the wall, and then never got around
to addressing more than a couple of them because of lack of time. The
reason there was a lack of time was that people were allowed to speak too
long, many just. reiterating what a previous person had said. Then when
the staff person finally tried to answer questions which had been written
on those long white sheets of paper, beginning with traffic concerns,
audience members were allowed to interrupt (even without a mike) dragging
out the time spent.
I, of .course, felt particularly shortchanged because my own questions were
never addressed. by the time I left at 9:30. Originally the meeting was
scheduled to end at 9:00 p.m.) By 'that time two-thirds of the audience .had
already left.
I have asked these same questions in letters in the.past to our supervisors
and County staff, but with a very few exceptions have not received a reply.
bo I had hoped by attending yet another meeting I could get a response.
The organizers and speakers at this meeting, in particular, are professionals
and should know better than to lose control of meetings in this manner.
I expect your response (if any) may be that everyone should have the oppor-
tunity to "participate". But presumably all in attendance know how to write
- and .participation in some of these meetings following the guidelines I
have mentioned will be a more effective means of participating. Many in
the audience have attended endless meetings and been so frustrated by
hearing the same things over and over that eventually we give up and stay
home!
Very truly yours,
,1�k0. � �
Nov 07 01 03: 07p
p- 2
1115101
Mark DeSaulnier
District IV Supervisor
2425 Bisso Lane, Ste 110
Concord, CA 94520
Donna Gerber
District III Supervisor
309 Diablo Road
Danville, CA 94596
Dear Mark&Donna:
I want to let you blow that I am thrilled with the development plans for the Pleasant Hill BART
station. I attended the Cha.rette processs over the last year, and feel that the team has put together 1 t 2
a first class plan for developing the PHBART area. I applaud your leadership for guiding this
important development and the work done to date by the team.
My wife and I moved to Briaiwood Way (a few blocks from PH BART) 19 months ago from out
of state. At the time, I couldn't believe what an eyesore the parking area was around the station,
but.felt that it offered potential for development (I did not know about the PH BART Specific
Plan). It gets worse every time I drive by, As information came out on the Charrette process, we
became interested and then excited as plans developed.
The materials and update session exceeded our expectations in every way. The plan is well
thought-out, is balanced for revenue and other amenities (although I would like to see more
restaurant space), and provides safeguards for quality development. The aesthetic character
provided by the codes looks very appealing. The development will be a benefit in many ways—
and improve quality of life. The only "disappointment" I found was the way so many
individuals shamelessly tried to advance their cause or personal agenda. It just became
_._._..._. frustrating to sit.througli as it seemed that-so many-people were.using-their time at the
microphone as their personal stage.
I will not deny other residents their concerns. Change is difficult for some. At the same time, I
want to send the clear message that other members of the community are fully behind the plan in
its existing detail. I look forward to further updates and the ultimate achievement of the transit
village. It will be a great addition to the cotrununity and can't come soon enough, in my view.
Michael J.Ellis
1165 Brianvood Way
Walnut Creek
. ' "Kristine Hunt" To: "James Kennedy" <jkenn@cd.co.contra-costa:ca.us>
<ksh13@home.com>
�
11/06/2001 07:41 AM cc:
Subject: charrette questions
Jim,
Here are some additional questions from the charrette presentation:
1.Where is the traffic information that supports removing the removal of the left turn lanes on Jones? Jeff $ p 3
indicated that there would be slowdowns.
2. The civic use building on the corner of Treat and Oak hs been spoken of as a restaurant. However, the
Codes permit anything of any use. When will there be a discussion on this item? This is critical since S . 10
there has been NO sentiment for anything under those oak trees except a "natural" use.
3. The codes contain no requirements for either the design or use of civic buildings. Where are the codes 3 t 3
describing them?
4. Peter Katz showed a slide depicting a huge elevation change between two buildings and said this is not
good new urbanism. This is precisely what is planned for the difference between the 12 story building and 2 . 0-7
the parking structure/housing units next to it. How is this justified?
5. Given the constraints of entering the giant parking structure to get to the Kiss and Ride, why would o S
anyone take that option when going into the bus/traffic circle is so much more logical? Has this been
studied, given removal of the left turn lanes?
KSH
"Ill"James R. Huntlll"" To: jkenn@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us
<hunt@ce.berkeley.ed
(T4.
u> cc: dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us
- 11/06/2001 08:48 PM
Subject: Charrette Comments and Questions
Jim Kennedy
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
Re: Pleasant Hill BART Station Development
As requested at the October 30 meeting, I am submitting the following
comments and questions related to the proposed development plan.
When first proposed, the charratte would be a very rapid planning
exercise. It started with an informational meeting in the Fall of 2000 and
then, I thought, be completed in six days in February 2001. The public was
told that all decisions would be made and all questions addressed. The
Fall 2000 meeting should have provided the consultants with the public„ s
concerns, but evidently they did not hear very clearly about theinternal
conflicts related to too much traffic and too little parking.
The six-day February ireetings were not conducted as promised. The
consultants and presenters demonstrated a lack of understanding of the I
local issues and in fact attempted to minimize the concerns of :.he locals.
It took far too long for the meetings to have agendas that were known .at
the. start of the meeting. There was little control on the time spent on
presentations by consultants and I felt this was an effort to minimize
public input. There was extensive use of breakout sessions with
facilitators at tables to collect questions, there were many efforts to
collect questions on posters around the meeting rooms, but there was no way
to sense the mood of the participants towards development issues. The
transportation and economic experts with local knowledge were largely
silent until the last meeting of the six-day effort, and this did not
provide the participant's with an ability to at least be aware of the
difficult tradeoffs that are needed at this site. The pictures of the
proposed development concept at the end were well received. A quantitative
analysis of the development was not provided.
The follow up meetings in April were again presented as the end of the
planning process and emphasized esthetics of the design rather than the
actual issues of traffic, parking, economics, and land use for office,
retail, housing, and oven space. Again, the concept was appealing, but
there were no details .
The supposedly final meeting was to be held on October 30, but there was
very little pre-notification and information was only selectively 11 . 14
distributed prior to the meeting. A few days before the meeting, I
received the .brochure and then another packet containing a summary of the
earlier meetings and two documents related to property codes that turned
out to be incomplete since they did not contain the Regulating Plan. What T
immediately noticed was the number of disclaimers in the Brochure and I I � b
Summary document. I then spent some time trying to understand what was in.
these official and unofficial documents. The October 30 meeting again did
not have a pre-announced agenda. I was left with the feeling that the
process was being stacked against the public since the documentation was
not designed to be understandable, even for those of us who participated in
all of the previous meetings. Since this was the last of the announced
local meetings before the process moved to the planning department and the 1 l . ls
supervisors, there was added frustration and some distrust. 1
The October 30 meeting had the consultants promoting this as a
demonstration project for new urbanism while the public was more interested
in the details .related to land use, traffic, parking, and timing of the
development. Many questions raised by the participants were collected but
only a few were forthrightly answered. Near the end of the meeting we were I
again told that there would be yet another meeting. I am fearful that I
will again have to wait until the last minute to get information for that
meeting, not have an honest agenda, and have to listen to more
presentations that promote the .general concept of New Urbanism and avoid
the issues. I hope there will be an analysis of this whole charrette 09
process to understand the benefitsto an exercise that appears to drag on 1 . 1 ,3
as long as other efforts, is frustrating for all participants, and does not
correct what all agree is a very ugly situation with the surface parking
lots at the BART station.
The questions below arose from some of what is in the following documents:
„h Large foldout Brochure
,h Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report (Summary)
„h The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code: Architectural
Standards (Architectural)
„h The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code: Principles and
Regulations for Redevelopment of the BART Station Property (Regulations)
;,h The map of the site called the Regulating Plan
1. Throughout the Regulations and the Architectural documents, there is 13 Z
frequent reference to an entity not discussed previously, the Town
Architect. Who pays for this person? Who certifies that this person is
familiar with New Urbanist principles (Regulations, page .9) ? What is the
role of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Steering Committee for this area I--• o 4
compared to the whole redevelopment area? What mechanisms are there for
the Town Architect to work with local and regional interests prior to 3 , � 2
recommendations being submitted to the Community Development Department?
2. On page 13 of Regulations are general principles for building
envelopes. Where are the standards for the top floor of parking structures
in terms of roofs, and lighting? These will not be visible from the 3 . 14
street', but will be visible from the upper floors of the 7 and 12 story
office buildings.
3. On page 15 for Workplace Building Sites, the heights are listed as ;§MAX 3 . 15
7 St. \108 ft Block Ei ". Why does this conflict with Regulating Plan that 3 •
lists ;§Max 52ft ; "?
4. On �pages 15 and 18 of Regulations, upper floor uses for Workplace
Building Sites and Shopfront Building Sites include lodging as an option. 3 � �
Where is the justification for including lodging?
5. On page 18 of Regulations, the height for shopfront buildings is listed
as ;§MAX 7 st.\108 ft within 100 ft of Treat Blvdi ". When did the
possibility of a seven-story building arise on Block B when it was not part 13 ,a 9
of any previous conceptual design? Since the Summary document indicates
that building of height between 5 and 10 stories are not economical, how
can they be proposed when they cannot be built?
6. On page 18 of Regulations under Elements, there is the
statement; i§Consult the Masterplan; " . Where is this Masterplan? d
7. On pages 7, 9, 11, and 13 of Architect, the second sentence is
always i§Refer to the Code Standards at right for the specific prescriptions
of this section. ; " Is this a reference to the following page? If not, 3 I C.
where are the Standards?
8. On page 9 of Architect, there is the statement that roofs
should ;§provide visual coherence to the BART Station Property; " . If the
BART Station is not required to blend in with this development, how can the `1
Town Architect achieve. this intent?
9. On page 10 of Architect, the last bullet addresses the issues of parking
structures. How does this Standard address the appearance of the tops of 3 . )9
parking structures?
10. On page 16 of Architect, the landscapingsection stresses the
3 . 10 i
importance of planting street trees. Where in Architect and Regulations
are the protections for the oak trees currently remaining on the property?
The following items have not been addressed in Architect or Regulations:
11. What are the parking requirements for office and residential? 2, o S
12. How will the i§temporaryi •• parking lots be accommodated into the site? 'j, O 9
13. How will replacement of temporary spaces be funded?
14 . How will shuttle service be funded? o G
15.What about the pedestrian bridge .over Treat Blvd. at Jones Road? ` , 0.5'
16. Where is the compensation for the land removed from Iron. Horse Trail 7, O S
for this development?
17. Since the Specific Plan for the Pleasant Fill BART Station Area is .not
mentioned, what part of that document is still valid?
Thank you. for allowing me to bring these issues forward. I look forward to
seeing the answers prior to the next meeting.
James R. Hunt
2632 Cherry Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
hunt@ce.berkeley. edu.
Nov 01 01 04: 56p Jerry and Kathy Hicks . 925-945-1914 p. 1
Gerald F. !licks
74 Amberwood Lane
MIalnut Creek, CA 9459$
M-1. (925) 94.5-7465 * Fax (92s) 945-1914
F.-Mail: jkhicksninfi.net
A FAX MESSAGE:
Date: November 1,2001
To: Jim Kennedy,Deputy Director-Redevelopment
Contra Costa County
Fax No:335-1265
from: Jerry Hicks
Pages: 1, including,this cover
Jim-
At last'!uesday's [SART Charctt.e, 1 asked two questions,one of which I believe you can supply a quick
answer. I asked about Bicycle parking at the BART development and the;answer was that it would be
according to County standards.
The question is important as we continua;to try to get people out of cam and use alternate transportation.
The bike parking,along,with safe and convenient connections,is a most important ingredient in
furthcTing the use of bicycles. We have a perfect opportunity to make sure that adequate and visual bike
parking exists for SART communtem, rc.5idcnts,and the ofi iec a.nd shop employees and customer:. 'That
is the background for my question.
What are the County's bike parking requirements? Could you please send a copy of the requirements to
me and I will Share these with the other members of WC BAC. l surmigc that these arc"minimum"
requirements and, in most development proposal,, the minimum is planned for. We xhould take a real
good look at any special requirements of this very important community project and make sure that we
provide for abundant hike parking, not just the minimum. I was even suggesting;that bike parking be part
Of the coding, or at least a part of the development proposal.
IFyou would like to have the help or the WC Bicycle Advisory Committee help review any issues dealing
With bicycles at the BART station, I'm sure our members would behappy to volunteer their time and
effort in thi very important venl.ure.
Jerry Wick%
Nicole Schweickert i
35 Cora Court i:,NTRA C0S1
Walnut Creek,CA 94596-6803
November 6,2001 01 NOV —9 Ali IT 20
Jim Kennedy 11 7:,
Director of Redevelopment
651 Pine St.
4th Floor 14. Wing
Martinez,CA 9455
Dear Mr.I'ennedy,
Deja-vu. That was my impression of last week's Bart Charette finale. It was several years ago(5 or 6?)that we were
presented with a similar Transit Village Plan by a different set of consultants:lots of big,pretty drawings of what could be,
lots of promises that this would improve our community,much persuasion that they knew what was best for our
neighborhood(not us,the residents.) I see no difference between what Millennium,BART and our Supervisors were trying 1 1 (e
to do then and what the current cast of players is trying to do now. We keep telling them we're concerned about more
traffic congestion and noise,and the dense collection of tall office buildings,apartments and shops. They keep ignoring us,
putting off decisions and planning more meetings.
Certainly,both the efficiency and appearance of the Pleasant.Hill BART parking lot must be improved;the need for more
parking,the indiscriminate tree removal and lack of landscaping,the pell-mell gravel and asphalt are all problems that need
to be addressed. But the only solution our elected officials are offering us is this Transit City Monster that will create more
problems than it will solve for our community.
Supervisors Mark DeSaulnier and Donna Gerber,BART Director Dan Richard, Redevelopment Director Jim Kennedy,you
all consider yourselves"civil servants". Maybe it's time to start listening to the people you were elected or appointed to
serve.
Sincerely,
Nicole Schweickert
944-0142
"Kristine Hunt" To: "James Kennedy"ykenn@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
s ? <ksh13@home.com>
11/16/2001 09:28 AM cc:
Subject: additional charrette questions
Jim,
Since the answers to the questions are not yet complete, I would like to take advantage of that to add
some items that have been raised recently.
They are:
1. How will the parking for BART airline customers be handled? Will that parking be taken from the pool 7 , I
of BART parking,the pay-BART parking, or the private businesses?
2. Earlier there were written statements made about the size of the dwelling units being as small as 450
square feet which met considerable objections. I have not seen any commitments as to the size of units. I �'
How is that being handled?
3. The 50 units that are supposed to be for sale are spoken of in less that absolute terms. Is this assured 8 a
and by whom? If there is a problem on the lending market obtaining financing for this unusal product in
this part of the world, has BART guaranteed to sell the land to allow the owner-occupied units to be sold? ° 3
4. What are the proposed number of low income units that will be built on the BART property?
5.Why are there now two potential hotel sites?
3. � l
Thanks,
KSH
U. JIM renneay contra Costa Com hiunity DeveloprFrom: Sherri Fishman 9259341132 12/5/01 16.26:40 Page 1 of 2
.a.✓6
To: Jim Kennedy
From: Sherm Fishman
Memo:
Tks for the copy of the Nov. 28 mailing 'svith comments and
commentarv. In someway, my recommendations got overlooked,
altho I have presented them at each Charrette, and faxed memo's to
AIA staffers.
Here is the way I took at the project:
T agree with Mary Phelps that this whole issue should he presenter) to
the voters so that everyone, not just those who are able and interested
enough to attend these meetings, can express their consent or
otherwise. What is wrong with the world's largest parking lot ? Do
we want to go to work or do we want to go shopping. And, who really
wants an apartment facing the subway...if this were NYC ?
I have repeatedly recommended that the 12 story office bldg and the 7
story garage be reversed. Build a 12 story garage and a 7 story office -
bldg. Additionally, all parking should be free. It's cost is in your
ticket. Today's Pleasant Hi.lUMtz, Record (Dec. 5) reports that the
senior citizen shuttle is not being used. It is a failed idea. 0
Further, I have recommended that a 20 megawatt power generator be .
installed on the roof of the garage. This makes the village enerOIT 3 U �
independent, can export power to WC, PH, Mtz, & Cnd and be
stanrlhy power tar- HART See :rtt.rrlied new-%0ip ;ihnnt S.m .InsN St;rte
University energy independence.
Sherm Fishman
934-1331
L' - - ,;} rr'i� .'4.; _ .'.may?:.t•:
t7 - h 13 � - �•O: T'- +5 '�.. rs�RC'-fl�•t,tir.M1 Y;:�, •:S4_:;�.%.i� -_`x'r:.;.').,
n �� rc �n ?E q .+�. ,,4;.'v, �`.'.".ac...i.r�.'.�. ',`'p,:'•.,{.•"s�-_.ey. a1R.i '?i�-p•:: ,{:�c� .
a L a 1 5� _r"v: _ 8_'�s•-' '}" - o;:�s,:.:r�:-<c:..`;:%`.. �'.::�:;.�- a
i� 12 .1 '•'- '.j:.�' �,N ::NS:N.y ;�'��� ;,i:�:.rrd...~L.:C�'35::-•',:,?''%.:It
b ��} .5a� .R:�2:�•{:':'i�`>'o'- ;iei"-�S.•`r` ,�'`''"ti7:Y' +ir.:s.s 7• d''•-,Fri-
'^:-'-. .fir-�� •.
.a o :k.;;:{. .mv:.y'fi-'±•,- "=_i.,,.�5't:":�tc,i'r. c�::, r.^.,•;;-�... w,•..'-;-:::�,1>,��=
N N ";T•,
-''n'i- ^::�.,;';,..%''�`•j-.!
r �`^..= 4 Lv s c '�3 .+n•;.'- .o,C +-, rn o-f � ,a •'•'''•mrd,,. .,�:�"�.'�t.,;�>.
z L C p c= > �+, I U � +4^�:•. •o a`i, ..� - �-.•t.,;, r�-,n� ercn �:a u :_i�.° �j:.T :-c„ � ?5.:i ( lolz. . �^s:._y� My• .
� ••••,•
Al .a3= -t�,?1-.u�i.}ySii• -.t+`-.moi
as�a,i:',rG::: .3+'!.",:^.•- _
s rn c a" ,- G ar c. -2:54`c.��- .a..;;:R'^=:'�•`.x-,a'•, "¢e- `� �. Y_-�j""":-''":.:
Some
_rlzi_;.i'-:;::•,
>T o� !u ;�.,:y:::dC vcrt�.::m. - i2: �t3• '' _al��;z:
c„N..-0 c { :ctd:..�`{�:: :..: .'mss::,, "'F;_-�0',• "5'^». m _
�'
:0.:',i f•��: �r��l":'`.: �c3 ..
C -
-
4] b C - r3 T.:S�'•C•':, �".1'-�' - _- .-y.. '•�'�.�:4..:d1"."y: C,�• �':�:���
(fl - u ti q _ - ..y,,.,,• •+°r.i':}•b "•�� :'.r„ur3-'"".-,,:`d' :Ta•F';+.v:,3,.}'..�ai::�si.Se --c•-fT 4�. _:.�
A - �.d;cb��G�". __ '-'. _ y:�:`,L..fie•�L1x' '..-�A'•;�"':i`LwL3.Yiy'^i ::,'��'.�'.�v:'r��:1.��-S
_. ''�i(. ..`:':•:i `'4,7 �'+J__' .q:T.-:Y-39r :S:L'�r�a •.r;...:
W .^tim � ::-3::.- � ..iY.,;:t, !: -''�';-rat. _•,,,,�,,,,.� :..:=,
sn C _ ..'`'':.-:^.;.,_,.:jn;t:,:97•N'.�2. Za=.�;'@i�� r^ rc.�
G,�� n `'vr�N '-�,m'^.:G,?*�,.:FS::c:i,• ;:��_� i,tv�..�,{S�j:rm,:^'� =4"_�=... -r;�:^ - �`;�.'
�G �, C2 ":t'.[-_x�,::: ' `:d.....''mrv;•ytr"•�„�,.....�.'zf:_s.:•r -E� ,c✓��-:�..::G.i
t• c' e C.2 b::cc p�c�4'�� .:mrr- � '.�riera=•.y.��i;mr.__••_5
= u V b J C :a.:i a., -U�•`���++'j�� :F?:.S N'r j:�., ':::•:;�^la.'""ff `^-. d35�-;'=��';
`- - t4 dr - ,.A.�;.,:'I}�:.T;•'b:.a.::'�-: ��44' 1;..� : -��"ric�.ec::t '
i r. ��,�..^.:��2 '_t-•�:;:�..- ^.yam;;;^�t• -ar..�:••-c:c:�i• •• �,,� s:
� n�= `m Lq :r:c-: :;,w::.,u'�^--:• •-,•-,, .fF.i` ... 2'x„ ..x—.� r-: e-.;:•r:.:.
� o tea'�i "s'�'.s' - n .'�iti: T'.•93L': --yy�'m'�-'.•t�^.s- �.:. ,,_
E b C J L^] _ "Cr-4'+::'`;� _ 1,. �''f'.,:w .� � ]3� �t.•.r
'N � � co E � = c f'"U%��.1•�';:Sp';: -- �!�°,'.a4?• ..Ky�'i�?�`'v:j{��JJS' { 1r;. w' - y"�r„_;.
f--l77� U t{ i \y t:�''• '•: - �{'��,lC+�`2'�.�. ._Y':•'�:Cti�w '�.5.'.,.' .-�_,"n^TT
Ul �,.'c ro � r:+ .� c •-ro'„i”'�_.�°" ,}o a�.Lar:.�.;:'�n;`V '�_- _p� e�ay�• .x�•3z�s-.- ..i,`_�;;::r r .
rr
u7 V
EO x :}:f ,-::lE-y:.?^.i w�'?'�.;-:.,i,.'.F:'teN.t:.y.aC:s:ti:'�..'St.c_`�•'ti+'i:r:n'���'�.y-.._-_�rS"•'JYi�n2 tk'- :'l'•a"cmuo'-�.S�'14":•.),:"��'�E,, 5- .2_ater
O -w'.ry! ^-s>^:L��•
�•^S.�'>•...:�_r>TY:..?Ssl:
La
-t ;:'.c,2?;m:?n+'.f�'�',,aa:�_".4��-c!<i3 'ric.�'i .'w.rJ.. 4�';• 1=1:
aj
a>.CCrr7•• 7N'rru>p� ^7a iN�Cn'�a�I�I'm'�C c��` cro >C: ..4>O,cus aN: t4aa!•rc3J%,'-�b
CX
nc rr NrT 7,
E �o a _o ca - 0- '
E 5 - 3 �3_1
.bcQn 'O
C OG"'.•vL'_op'C>Uc,,
C Go
n ucaL T7 C p Q
c
t° m•a F m 0�.= m °- rtci b } a
U M
Cr] wc'E'- ° ea'rosm LE= o i°� ��� v� � 3crflcp ,,, -' ooao
t7 N C E C N 9 L C N r'J � E C(!/L r- C 0.- U` L it. .0 C a
C'� ;Qjv= �` b,noccL- mroE
p }
c'-k, 0 r m° o L 4 c N-yi ei TMJ o
Qt- b N A V) -'{ �• SD_N 4c C,
C-J C C t9 r C.G.G O O m 4) 7 n T 4 j (N�U7 t,J N 111 1.J ,�St y 4' 'CO �;,•` �-
G C N N C :l; N v
W w C X b C C C C{•'N .'+^r q,.:� 0. 7 �j T] 2 TJ C
L s.C`-.. •r'f, 2 c ai? ? b•O } m b J Q C C C C D L 4
N S N 6 G L t}ii 4 U T} L4�rtj� •7 L;.V '
c 4 !� b• o c y C Oro rn 5
E d a n c ip c N u Y 'a^
c $ a c
crho � � a •J � N �' Ue'w �= > b T'mppptoi
� nJ U G C;Q m •E ti w, CK}y ry w f!) �C 'ti H .�.'� � ry• i ap'.
O
aN�''c�Wtt}77'�. .rGCEtt dNg_=V3'• j L4n, CN tC2oC}.O C QC amOO.0y'L}•oU•L�G�.f�-N.LmN iNC' NCU flCN lVb`"_ TN_] �•VC^ -4C('C�2�'�NN�+'wO-OG°".'Rm°:.Urm'5 o�EpNvQ
Ila, .2 i�� 81 c _ �'a � �v : !:':E
C ..
c a c
r7 }}��.c ca c `��' n, '0 a,,,m+ ro�.'•> R ,2 y m N'T'a n�3 9 N '�T ?���: c '„ 3 y 5"
_ o O
a:= c t 9 a ra c. •�S 'E Q o E •wec N rna, o p'N. ;>.'r >,c
vi Oa•5,: U � E t0 � O y.0 Q 6*LY C `�
u5Ee > � � _ E U _
y- c:7 = cm '^ � croc`• i > 'aE'm�4E ro � q - a
?'a•- ' rt v�a , >;-`' m' m ' 3 .»' n �7 �°-'�';n ro. y`c ro a ..
m o c g l
O
�9 U? N:C C r:3 Lf'L •t7 '.
N aC
n V,d .-N!6 }C-4
N .
� � 45 a�dm tai
I
O i G sOj = cJ S� •r
� � r, 3 .. N ❑.max E � �5 � '
CL
_0 N a b
_�+i r_�1ro cn e rnv � 'N3 a
cn Q
C ro � t• C C0 Y
G! 4 g RN
C of C2 rr c v � >.T
O c
#t�+ 0 c m a a+ N ro
0 0, m in L ?
t
m
I
a
0
3
0
N
1-1 9`1 V�J
~ p g /IVa
w
O
O
N
C)
r
OAK RD
r a
ti
r .
C:)
C) __._.... • , ...
ao .-__. 3>-
CD
N
I1 h i'i'r • ' 1: I
I
x � I
X I
I I
• N II
00
O I I % A I I I I i.'.'�
X
I I m N I I 1 1 vp 6s •.. i'•.. • J
h ru
pN O%
1 I I h I I 1 I N hC •••. " • -
m I I I I I I k C hgn
,u •.. .... I I!
0
M OW
Al
-\`r1 0 '!
r M
DEL HOMBRE LN
m o
d HONEY TRAIL
v w
N , - -
0 0
11 0
N N
r r.
r �..
nn
i C�
o � - opo
_ N�
m ... __ r I
0 c
m �, I
--J jr C (D Q 7' -�'I !
0
. .......... ;u rrl
Eo
ls'
g Q .....
g C a a EL HOMBR L
Ic: - oma v ����
a, U� ( v W o
0 ITI p A;XU G7 — CD ZA-
_ Fr{ �Z
� (D E°� D 0--o"43 55 to
1� 11�TTM OZT �'�',M acm p Ccy CD A �, U
�. ur 0 p -w;--1 r s c M
oxao � �
0-C)
o 8000-0 0 A D r'a6 0W
im � z a— m � � x rrl
Q a m o Z m
C-1- D m° z-a `°m c Z v
�a
W Z z Sa v o m X �y
D az NQ �c•fi� U)
c
m =r°n (m> a
UI v � �3 D '�.+•v V
=r
1.1 ti rt �
N
v
01 OSEC -3 AM 10: 37
C I T Y a F MEMORANDUM
'WALNUT
CREEK �
Date: November 27,2001
To: Jim Kennedy, Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency
From: Paul Richardson, Acting Director, Community Development Department '
Michael Vecchio, Transportation Specialist, Public Services Department
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill BART Station Area—Summary Report, October 2.001
Walnut Creek City staff has attended and participated in the charrette process. We are very
supportive of the goals to provide a transit village with a pedestrian focus. The City staff's
position throughout the charrette process has been to encourage and support housing as the
primary development option with ancillary retail necessary to support the nearby residents,
BART patrons and office workers. We have since reviewed the plans distributed at the October
30'x'meeting in detail and offer the following comments. Please do not misinterpret these
comments as non-supportive but rather as a detailed examination aimed at improving the final
product.
Housing
There are potentially reductions to the number of housing units as Block C has undergone refinement
since the April 10, 2001 meeting. There is a proposed new"slot road"running parallel to the BART
tracks on the north side of Block C. Also, the driveway entrance to the BART garage from the Jones
Rd. extension will have to be shifted west because the suggested entrance directs traffic into existing
speed ramps within the structure. Finally,the consultant team did not believe that residential units
would be successful abutting the BART Station given noise issues. They have instead suggested a
civic use here.
City Staff believes that residential can be successful on this Block C. Such noise attenuating
measures as triple glazed windows can be installed that cut down interior.noise and the units can be
oriented toward a central courtyard rather than the BART tracks or the new"bus slot road". Through
the charrette process the City's position has always urged that residential, with ground floor
supporting retail, was the preferred development type. Staff would encourage that the original
residential agreement be maintained for Block C. We understand the coding must be refined for
residential abutting the slot road and oriented toward the courtyard.
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report- Comments Page 2
November 27, 2001
Traffic Operational Issues
Westbound Treat Boulevard, between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue, presently requires
significant weaving. This occurs because traffic destined to I-680 northbound must weave with
traffic turning right from southbound Oak Road headed to points west of Buskirk Avenue. This
situation could be improved by re-striping Treat Boulevard and curb line relocations (on the
northwest corner of Oak and Treat) to eliminate this weaving. The southbound right turn lane
from Oak Road would turn directly into a number three westbound Treat Boulevard lane.
All street approaches to Treat Boulevard should be maintained at their current capacity or greater.
For example, it is unclear from the plans and reports whether southbound Jones Road retains the
three approach lanes (right, through, and left lanes).
Transit Connections
City Staff is concerned that the function of Station Square as a "focus of activity for the larger
neighborhood" will not fulfilled by the current design. The use of the surrounding curb space by
buses, passengers loading, together with circulating buses and vehicles will make the Square
used most by pedestrians on their way to other activities or waiting for other transit services. The
exhaust and noise from engines idling will likely discourage people from congregating. The
realistic use of this space is as a transit transfer location and for visual relief. If the intent or
desire of this Square is to provide some space (landscape or plaza) for those who live or work in
the area, an additional site should also be considered for congregation or respite purposes.
Also, Parked buses will limit visibility of crossing pedestrians to drivers. The proposed street and
sidewalk design should consider transit vehicle operations, other motor vehicle operations,
bicycle flow, and pedestrian access. Careful consideration should be given to the locations of
crosswalks and pedestrian ramps to reduce crossing distances and, most importantly, ensure safe
comfortable crossings that enhance the pedestrian experience.
Parking
On-street parking on Treat Boulevard should be closely scrutinized—particularly during peak
hours. On-street parking will not enhance traffic capacity and safety of Treat Boulevard. It could
also confuse frequent users of the street as to when parking is allowed and not allowed.
However, a"pull-out'' lane with parking provided, separated from Treat Boulevard by a narrow
landscaped median, would permit parking maneuvers to occur independently of traffic flow on
Treat Boulevard. This concept, similar to Shattuck Avenue in downtown Berkeley, would
provide an excellent buffer of any storefront activities from the constant heavy flow of traffic (up
to 70,000 vehicle per day) on Treat Boulevard.
Jones Road, at this time, is proposed to have development on only the west side. Therefore, it
would be best to have on-street parking occur on only the west side. This would preclude a
situation where people park on the east side, and unsafely cross Jones Road mid-block.
t
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report - Comments Page 3
November 27, 2001
Bicycles and Pedestrians
Presently, the proposed design brings pedestrians and bicyclists from the surrounding area clearly
and safely to the perimeter of the development. However, access and connectivity within the site
need a little more attention. For example, the Summary Report states that crossings will take
place at the "Jones Road access road" or at the "intersection of Las Juntas Way and Coggins
Drive". The connections from these crossings to BART or other portions of the development are
not clearly laid out. Also, pedestrian crossings from Station Square to the surrounding
development blocks will need additional review. These issues should be addressed before final
development plans are completed.
The report states that "roadway widths should allow for bicyclists". However,the street cross-
sections need further development to show how this would occur. Otherwise, the current design
will likely cause bicyclists to use the sidewalks.
Bicycle parking design guidelines should be included in the Architectural Codes and other design
documents. These guidelines should address issues such as quantity, location(e.g., garages or
sidewalks), type of parking(e.g., wave racks or lockers), proximity to doors or entrances,
signing, security, lighting, etc. Only in this manner, can bike parking be included as an integral
part of the overall architecture and urban design without the need to, at a later date, "squeeze"
the bike parking in or"clump" it into one location. (See Attachment for sample guidelines.)
Signage
Commercial sign requirements are not addressed in the codes. We suggest these be considered so
the signs reflect the pedestrian scale of the development.
General Comments
This project affords the general community, BART,transit agencies, and others the opportunity
to install state of the art communications technology. This includes traffic signals, transit
schedule information, information kiosks with monitors and electronic messaging, etc. If not
able to be installed as an integral part of this project,then sufficiently sized conduit or additional
"empty"' conduit should be installed to enable the installation of these technologies at a later date
at a low cost.
`1 Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report- Comments Page 4
November 27, 2001
ATTACHMENT A
SAMPLE BICYCLE PARKING GUIDELINES
• Bicycle parking should be separated from car parking and vehicular traffic
by a physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from
damage by vehicles. Bike parking provided on sidewalks shall not interfere
with parked cars and their opening of doors.
• Bicycle parking shall be located on a durable, all weather surface and half
the spaces should be covered. This is especially true for employee oriented
bike parking. Employee parking should offer lockable, bike lockers.
• Required bike parking inside a building should be provided in a well-
illuminated, secure location within 50 feet of a building entrance.
• Outdoor bike parking shall be clearly visible and, for major buildings,
located within 50 feet of its public entrance.
• Areas set aside for bike parking within parking facilities shall be clearly
marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. If the bike parking is not
clearly visible from the street or main building entrance, a sign shall be
posted indicating the location of parking.
• Rack types should be specified to ensure a uniform and high quality,
standard.
• Bike parking should be provided at the rate of one bike space for every ten
automobile spaces.
• Bike parking locations are more difficult to determine but should be
approximately located relative to what the projected, stand alone automobile
parking demand would be for each proposed land use or business. For
example, if a retail location would normally require 20 auto parking spaces,
then two bike spaces should be provided within approximately 50 feet of the
business's front doors. In instances with solid retail frontage, this would
most logically lead to bike racks being installed approximately every 100
feet along the sidewalk or building frontage.
z >
W
us
a ..=
V)i Ill
z , ~
W vO�m N � UOp
Z Z
z 0CL
Z C LO W dw Or Fa- O
t W Z X O W-x fn ry
L Fi
L� Y o C r+ W �,-0 Z O O W= r' N
Z O U o,v C7 n c aO F LL
m 9a'"~ a�c'co �o�Lu=
y po
I� W m�T= aID W�� ZO W
m _ _
W al Q C9 O; �F N ( �' OO-1 $
® dry, yOL Z _Zj0 Li�t Z2 F-1
ZW 5 g W i y
D) W yJ p W OCL 0 OL 5w
z ME-4 1 m WLmL W V �LWOmo b m
F- 1- yr 1 d>C
CL -4 -P'co ap 03
o
;:1 U)
U lij E--4
Q --- - W w r•-1 N O � ..
ry
nL
dl r� O r
I
LdI
m
2 O
' 1 w U
dU
..J J
N J
N
H
U U
N N
• o t1�
p
IN81 A3NOH Q J
-� o W
Pa cu
Nl 3W8WOH l3Q w
O LL
U �
LL
CD LLI LL
4. 'F4.
Lr)413 0-
_ X O lino
Sm=N I I I N OD
I
y� I I I M
¢do C9 1 IF�B�1 o
O
�� I. �, • \\\-
Par kkq allo•ed A6B I
j i * •
'
I � X
W
� I �
-�Abov 1l , loo,
O
k0
OD
CM
N
/ \ d d
F—
\\ QN Nvo
o
0
N
o
0
0
OAK RD
0
0
,y7by cu
0
0
0
L
N
II
Redevelopment Agency Contra Commissioners
County Administration Building Costa John Gioia
1st District
651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-1296 County Gayle B.Uilkema
2nd District
John Sweeten sent
Executive Director �..£c Donna Gerber
- 3rd District
Dennis M. Barry,AICP
Assistant Executive Director g Mark DeSaulnier
V, ""'','z 4th District
James Kennedy d• -:='r Federal D.Glover
Deputy Director-Redevelopment °,.T
(925) 335-1275 5th District
November 28, 2001
T0: Interested Partjes
i
FROM: Jim Ken R evelopment Agency Director
RE: easant BART Property Charrette-Response to Questions
Dear Frien
Here are promised responses to various questions and concerns that Charrette participants raised at
the October 30th presentation of design Codes or in subsequent correspondence.
On Thursday, December 6th, from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m.there will be another public meeting to address
additional questions and hear additional community comments. It will take place in the Walnut Creek
Civic Park Community Center, 1375 Civic Drive(at the corner of North Broadway). A map showing the
meeting location is included.
This meeting will conclude-the local meetings associated with the PH BART Station property Charrette
process. The Board of Supervisors/Redevelopment Agency Governing Board will consider acceptance
of the Summary Report and related Charrette documents as part of its December 18, 2001 afternoon
calendar (1:00 p.m.start time).
This Charrette is, however,only the first of two steps in land use planning for a transit community on
the 18 acres of BART land surrounding the Pleasant Hill Station. Undertaking the Charrette was the
first ste . As most readers already know,a charrette is a unique approach to developing land use
policy and design solutions. It is a means of eliciting the participation and direct involvement of people
who have an interest in the overall development of a project, including local citizens, land and business
owners,designers,agencies and officials. It involves several days of intense on-site education,
interchange and design work and a final design concept that incorporates the ideas and accommodates
the interests of a broad range of participants.
It is important to remember that a charrette does not supplant the conventional land use planning and
approval process. All of the legally prescribed and long-established procedures and safeguards of the
conventional process, including opportunities for public review and comment,remain in place.
The charrette is in addition to and in advance of that conventional process. It is essentially a creative
preliminary planning process for a specific project that enables everyone who has an interest to
participate almost from the beginning. It contrasts sharply with the traditional exclusionary approach
in which the developer envisions what is to be done with the land,sketches out the preliminary
development plan and then brings it to the governmental authority for approval, an approach that
effectively limits public participation to deferred comments on what the developer has already
decided.
1
r _
What a charrette produces is much like a preliminary development plan, but with the benefit of
extensive public participation. In fact,the product of the PH BART Charrette,as set out in the
Regulating Codes, will be the preliminary development plan.
By any measure, the PH BART Charrette has been exceptionally inclusive and intensive, and the
Charrette team has been extraordinarily responsive. Since the process began in January,more than
500 residents, commuters, business owners, station-area employees,community leaders,government
officials,and others have spent more than 30 hours in meetings and other Charrette events. In
addition,the doors of the on-site design studio were open for people to drop in for more than 70
hours. When participants wanted more information, it was provided. When people wanted to explore
special issues, such as traffic impacts,the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing design, and implications for
the swim club,the Charrette team provided special breakout sessions. Charrette leaders made
themselves available for individual questions and comments after every meeting,were accessible to
participants in the intervals between meetings, and conscientiously endeavored to be responsive.
The second step is the formal land use approval process. This second step will begin early next year
upon submittal of an application for land use approvals by the developer— Millennium Partners. The
basic events that make up this process have already been outlined in recent Charrette material. They
include:the developer's submission of an application for preliminary development plan(or rezoning); a
California Environmental Quality Act determination; County staff review of the preliminary
development plan for consistency with legal requirements and adopted policy; hearings on the
preliminary development plan/rezoning before the County Planning Commission; Board of Supervisors
hearings and determinations. Later, there will be hearings on the final development plan or FDP for all
or portions of the site before the Planning Commission. The FDP is the time when the precise site plan .
and architectural detailing is proposed and reviewed.
All interested parties will have opportunities to submit comments to both the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors,and advance notice of the hearings will be sent to all Charrette participants.
Your continued interest and participation is appreciated.
0
ar
r
$F�ESPt.I I �37J Civi c pr.
cA } Creels
l
?ET%-
L�GLIGq-1ICIy P -
OFWL1s �
S
L
W
OG a`n'T Pn2.LlHG -_ 7
F Gld�r1� 6
LL
v
LMllQ
fi
ub2l+lY
EI' ca.Lso•r
t'F QRpPo
PLEASANT HILL BART
PROPERTY CHARRETTE
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
NOVEMBER 28; 2001 _
W:Personol\PHBART\response.questions.11.O1.IIRevisions 1
1.0 The Charrette Process Page 3
2.0 Urban Design Page 8
3.0 The Regulating Codes/Architectural Standards Page 9
4.0 BART "Station Enhancements" Page 13
5.0 Traffic Concerns Page 14
6.0 Alternative Mode Concerns Page 16
7.0 Infrastructure Issues Including Parking Page 18
8.0 Economics Page 22
9.0 Project Finance Page 24
10.0 Civic Use/Public Amenities Page 24
11.0 Housing Concerns Page 25
12.0 Development Review/Permitting Concerns Page 27
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 2
1.0 The Charrette Process
1.01 The petition requesting the community have the right to vote on the final
Charrette plan misrepresented the process.
- Robert Frederick
The goal of the Charrette was to be an inclusive community based design program.
Based on the magnitude and diversity of attendance it succeeded in realizing this
goal. The petitions suggestion for a vote is misplaced with respect to the
Charrette. The outcome of the Charrette is determined by those who
participated. The subsequent development review process, which will include
opportunities for additional public comment, is an opportunity for individuals and
organizations to provide commentary prior to any land use decision being made.
1.02 The Charrette consultants want to help, and we should all be more polite.
Comments acknowledged and appreciated.
1.03 How are we doing on the timing schedule presented last time?
The completion of the Charrette,and the subsequent development review process
is on the schedule presented during the October 30th Charrette meeting, which is
presented below:
Next Steps - Dates are best estimates
■ December 6, 2001, 7:00 pm Workshop to respond to
Walnut Creek Civic Park Comm. Ctr. Questions/concerns
1375 Civic Dr. Summary Report
Walnut Creek, California Regulating Plan & Codes
• December 18, 2001 Presentation of Charrette Summary
Report to Board of Supervisors
■ January, 2002 Submittal of Preliminary
Development
Plan (PDP) by developer
■ February-March, 2002 Review Period of PDP
■ April, 2002 CEQA Determination
■ May-June, 2002 Planning Commission Hearings
W:Personal\PHBART\respon5e.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 3
• July-August, 2002 Finalize business arrangements
Between BART and Redevelopment
Agency; Approve Ground Lease
• July-August, 2002 Board of Supervisors Hearing/Approval
1.04 Can we get a more realistic picture of the plan?
The purpose of the Charrette process is to develop a consensus on a vision. The
level of visualization will be further enhanced as the developer and their architect
prepare their development applications. The level of visual materials currently
available for this project (at the concept stage)far exceeds any other project at
a comparable stage.
1.05 What changes were made in the plan since the last meeting?
• In response to concerns for the quality of housing in Block C along the
tracks,a non-residential zone was created for the area within 50 feet of
the tracks. This zone is clearly marked on the Regulating Plan.
• In order to mitigate for this loss in residential area, the two corners at
Jones and the Park Block Street will allow four story apartments.
• In response to concerns for more housing, the townhouses will allow
stacked two story units.
• In order to maintain the roof line of the townhouses as depicted in the
Charrette, dormers are allowed as a means to inhabit the fourth floor
(within the 52 foot height limit).
• In response to interest in a discrete public building on the square, the
public building on the Square in Block C is now a separate building
1.06 Where is the "Master Plan?"
The term "Master Plan" is the same as the "Community Plan." Future documents
will eliminate the term "Master Plan."
1.07 Can we vote on the process?
See 1.01 above.
1.08 How can we ensure future uses if we use all the.land?
The Code allows flexibility of uses during and after the build out. It prescribes
buildings types that are compatible with one another while allowing a range of
uses. This is the most effective methodology for ensuring,the accommodation of
future uses. Furthermore, a fundamental premise of smart growth principles to
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.O1.IIRevisi ons 4
address current transportation and land use issues, supports the use of the BART
property as a mixed-use site.
1.09 Concerns regarding the fast timeline.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan was adopted in 1983. Initial
Development concepts for the BART property emerged in the mid-1980's.
Subsequent concepts emerged in the mid-1990's. An initial community design
program was conducted in 1999. The design Charrette was conducted in 2001. The
timeline has not been fast in order to expand community participation and
community discussion pLior to submittal of a land use application by the developer.
The additional f ive weeks to accept and respond to these questions is an example
of this.
1.10 Why so many disclaimers?
The disclaimers are meant to highlight the fact that the Codes and the Regulating
Plan are the final controlling documents of development. One purpose of the
illustrative drawings is to gain agreement on design direction as a basis for the
Code writing. The other purpose is to inspire and direct the quality of the build
out.
1.11 Concerns regarding additional questions, and format for future meetings,
The additional meeting of December 6t',and this response document provided
one-week in advance is an attempt to be responsive to these concerns.
1.12 The Charrette process, and the plan that was put together is "a first class plan
for developing the PH BART.(sic)area."
The plan was put together by the participants, and reflects a balancing of many
interests. The participants are to be congratulated.
1.13 The six-day February meetings were not conducted as promised. The April follow-
up emphasized esthetics (sic) rather than issues of traffic, parking, economics,
and land use.
The Charrette Process was promised to be an interactive, open design session to
create a vision for the station area that addressed the concerns and needs of all
parties to the greatest extent possible. Following are selected examples of the
process in action.
• -The 5-day Charrette provided over 50 hours of open design studio time
of the public to stop by, ask questions and review the designs with the
consultants. The door was always open. Over 500 people chose to stop
by.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisi ons 5
• A total of over 85 hours of open public session were logged during the
Charrette prep meetings, the Charrette, and the follow-up meetings to
date.
• During the Charrette the consultants were continually changing the
designs and the process itself in response to public input. In particular,
an extra meeting was added on February 26th to review transportation
issues.
• In response to questions about current traffic volumes raised on Friday,
the County installed counters in the station area on Monday.
• In response to the Swim Club issues, ad hoc separate meetings were held
with Club members during the Charrette.
1,14 Notification of the October 30th meeting was not adequate, and materials were
only selectively distributed prior to the meeting.
Notification of the October 30th meeting was mailed by the County more than two
weeks prior. Staff provided advance notice of the meeting to the Walden
leadership well in advance of the meeting.
The materials prepared for the October 30th meeting (the Summary Report,the
Regulating Codes, and Architectural Standards) were distributed to over 350
parties one-week prior to the meeting, and were posted on the County's Planning
Website (cocoplans.org). Walden leadership was aware of this. In addition, the
Newsletter was distributed to over 8,000 households within the vicinity.
Nonetheless, the additional meeting of December 6th is in response to concerns
expressed regarding adequacy of time available.
1.15 The process was "stacked against the public."
Understanding the Regulating Plan & Codes is challenging, which is why October
30th was a first walk-through explanation. The best process - fairest to the public
-- is just what we have done, give them an opportunity to question its contents as
educated reviewers.
1.16 The Charrette outcome was no different than the prior 1999 community design
program.
The previous community design program developed 4 alternative design solutions.
The Charrette is an evolving process focused on building a consensus to one design.
There are many differences between to the two. The interview and selection of
the Charrette Design and Technical Teams was opened to include Leadership from
the Walden Association. Prior to the charrette this Team had numerous meetings
with all stakeholders. Input was solicited from the broadest possible group.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 6
The Charrette design process was open and in a public environment that
interested parties could literally look over the design and technical team's
shoulders. The work in progress and critique sessions were open to the public.
The Technical Analysis was broadened beyond Urban Design Issues to include
Traffic, Parking, Non Auto and transportation modes. Because traffic and
congestion are important issues, traffic around the Project was measured to see
how it compared to volumes in the EIR.
The participation in the Charrette has been large and by a diversified mix of
interested participants. The results of this and other work have been presented
in public sessions, posted on the Web and mailed to participants. In addition the
Charrette Design and Technical Team solicited questions so that interested
parties can have any remaining questions answered.
The process also facilitated discussion and new ideas in the following areas:
• Swim Club .
• Replacement Parking
• Local shuttle bus at the PH Station
Interaction of Bus / Taxi/ Bicycle/ Car Pool and Pedestrian Modes
• Bridges Crossing Treat Boulevard
• Station Improvements
• Civic improvements and public spaces
• Liner Building to buffer the parking structures
• New Urbanist Concepts
Architectural Codes and Standards
• The mix of uses on the project
• 50 Tor.Sale" Residential Units
This project has many competing elements. The final design is a synthesis of
these elements. The Charrette was different from previous Community Design
Programs, in that it created an environment for these many varied points of view
to influence the project.
2001 1999 Community
Charrette Design Program
Office(sq.ft.) 290,000-456,000 350,000-650,000
Residential
Rental Units 224-396 0-400
For-Sale Units 50
Storefront/
Retail (sq.ft.) 42,000 sq.ft. 22,000-26,500
Civic (sq.ft.) 7,000 sq.ft. 30,000-60,000
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 7
2.0 Urban Design
2.01 Why don't you put the 7-story building by the tracks?
The urban design concept incorporates the urban design policies of the Pleasant
Hill BART Specific Plan by putting the lower height residential uses adjacent to
existing residential uses to the east,and the higher office buildings adjacent to
the west. The 7 and 12-story buildings are situated on the property adjacent to
the BART tracks. .
2.02 Any steps to get rid of pigeons?
Pigeons are a problem at many of the BART stations. BART Maintenance is
scheduled to do some work in December at the Pleasant Hill Station and will
address this concern, among others.
2.03 The tower's are overdone,and look like a prison?
Station Square was inspired by the California mission tradition wherein towers are
placed in association with public squares. As a pair., they bring attention to the
Station, the most public element of the plan.
2.04 Any thought of 12-story residential instead of office?
The Charrette process resulted in a mix of uses that work together financially to
create the amenities required for making a great place at the BART station. The
office component of the project financially supports the overall project more than
if it were replaced by residential. Thus, any decrease in office space on the site
reduces the funds available for important place-making amenities such as the local
serving retail,green space, and pedestrian friendly streets:
2.05 Emergency Access Plan
All buildings, including the Bart Station have at least two points of access for
emergency vehicles.
2.06 Wheelchair ramp requirements should be added.
Access to buildings will be in full compliance with county and Federal standards
according to the American Disabilities Act.
2.07 Concerns regarding the elevation change between the office building on Block D
and the parking structure/liner buildings on Block E.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.0l.IIRevisions 8
Form-based codes seek to control only the most important physical attributes of a
group of buildings. This often includes their alignment along a street, the disposition
of space between them and their overall height. Typically such controls are not
expressed as absolutes, but rather as ranges of acceptable values. For example, the
Peter Katz presentation showed building heights along a street ranging from 2 to 8
stories. The ultimate design objectives can vary from seeking an absolutely consistent
eave line, requiring nearly uniform building heights to one that "punctuates" a key
location with a tower that clearly rises above nearby buildingse
The Charrette plan has several objectives in mind with respect to manipulating
building heights.
• The general disposition of building heights in Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan
moves from taller office buildings along the western part of Treat and Oak
Road to much lower scale structures to the east. This gradation takes place
over an extremely short horizontal distance, therefore the ability to provide
for a gradual tapering of heights-is limited. Block D is directly adjacent to 7-
10 story office buildings to the west.
• Placing the tallest building at the center of the Station Area composition
provides the greatest distance on all sides to "buffer" the visual impact of
that height.
• The Charrette plan wisely chose to treat the building's height as a positive
compositional element..They aligned the building on axis with Station Square
so that the entire composition of tower and forecourt would unify the scheme,
bridging the divide created by the elevated BART tracks. The BART tracks
act as a significant barrier within the site, therefore a fairly powerful design
gesture is needed to overcome their negative impact.
The end result of the Charrette plan is win/win, using what some might see as a
negative (the height of a tall building) to mitigate a far greater urban design problem
(a divided site).
3.0 The Regulating Codes/Architectural Standards
3.01 How will the Regulating Codes be integrated into the Specific Plan and the County
General Plan?
The broad policies of the County General Plan and the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Specific Plan are implemented through the.County's Zoning Ordinance,
specifically through the implementation of the County's Planned-Unit Development
(P-1) zoning regulations and the Preliminary/Final Development Plan (site plan,
architectural/design, landscaping,and signage review). The Pleasant Hill BART
Station Property Regulating Codes, which articulate a set of design and
development standards for the development of the site, will constitute the P-1
zoning regulations and conditions of approval for the Preliminary Development Plan.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 9
Any proposal for a Final Development Plan approval will then have to be consistent
with the P-1 zoning - the Regulating Codes.
3.02 Why aren't the BART improvements subject to the codes?
Like other regional and state agencies such as the University of California, BART
is exempt from local land use codes. However, BART intends to work with the
County and the private developer to examine a variety of physical improvements,
which serve both transit needs and the need to have the station blend in more
effectively with any surrounding development.
BART'S exemption from local code has been maintained from the inception of
BART for very good reasons, including: The need for low maintenance physical
elements that the taxpayer.subsidizes the system; the need for
interchangeability of elements, given the fact that BART operates almost 40
transit stations and must acquire goods and services according to State Contract
Code; and the need for BART to comply with the State Fire Marshall, which
oversees all of BART's operation, not just that at the Pleasant Hill Station.
On the other hand, fagade improvements which interface with the rest of the
charrette plan should be designed in accordance with the charrette standards,
particularly with respect to color and design. BART is currently conducting a
comprehensive station study for the Pleasant Hill Station and is examining
circulation and access, among other things. This represents an opportunity to
accommodate both needed BART improvements and physical improvements to
enable the station to better architecturally "fit" with the surrounding charrette
plan.
3.03 Why aren't sound standards in the codes?
Noise mitigation is governed by the County's General Plan Noise Element,and
implementing code and permit requirements. Inclusion of such requirements in the
codes is redundant (see also 5.04, 12.01). Care has been taken in siting sensitive
receptors in close proximity to noise generating activities (see also 11.01).
3.04 Is the height limit on Block B 5 stories?
The height limits in the Specific Plan for Block B are between 5 and 7 stories.
The conclusion of the Charrette was that..five stories is the appropriate height to
comply with the principle of height transition to surrounding development, in this
case the residential neighborhood to the east.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 10
3.05 The codes should allow solar panels on the roofs?
This can be accommodated.
That said, does anyone feel otherwise? They aren't pretty & their payback time is
such that they are more of a statement than a % savings (compared with
conservation/caulk) but I have no urbanistic problem with them at all.
3.06 Incorporate co-generation into the codes.
The codes address physicaldesign of the structures. The inclusion of co-
generation features is more of an operations/financing issue, i.e., does it make
sense given costs/benefits.
3.07 Incorporate energy conservation standards into the codes?
Energy conservation requirements are incorporated into the County Building Codes.
Title 24 requires energy ratings for windows and insulation for both commercial
and residential buildings. The project will have to fully comply.
3.08 Incorporate detailed standards for the Station Square and Residential Green in
the Codes.
Standards incorporating specifications for form,and indirectly for use will be
incorporated into the Codes.
3.09 The Regulating-Plan allows buildings with 100' of Treat Blvd. on Block B to be 7
stories, while the visuals depict only 4 stories. Why the difference? Since the
Summary Report suggests 5-10 story buildings are infeasible, why provide for
them?
We have been corrected. It is 5 stories.
The Principals and Regulations document primarily addresses urban design and
place making issues. From this perspective, it is appropriate to consider building
for Block B that could be as tall as seven stories/108 feet (see page 18).
Although, based on recent market conditions buildings between five and ten
stories are economically infeasible, these conditions could change over time. By
including some flexibility in the regulations, the developer can better respond to
market conditions present at the time when building on Block B actually get built
without violating the original intent of the plan.
W:Personal\PHSAP T\response.questions.11.O1.IIRevisi ons 11
3.10 Concern over the location of a Civic Building on the northeast corner of Oak&
Treat - as a Civic use it lacks coding; concern for the health of Oak trees.
Two options were drawn for this location during the Charrette Follow-up Meetings
in April. These options were in response to programming desires expressed by
participants who.were pedestrians and would be walking from the Oak Road
corridor. They expressed a desire for security measures via "eyes on the street."
They are covered on page 55 of the Summary Report. Option One features an
arcade along the building facing the green, Option Two locates a restaurant in the
green so as not do disturb the trees. The Coding for that building has been
changed to the more precise Shopfront to foster a retail presence on this part of
the property. This is in pursuit of the"eyes on the street" that keep public places
such as this safe. The building is further constrained-to 1 storey, its maximum
footprint is as per the Regulating Plan and the County Redevelopment Agency has
committed to its construction being dependant on a finding by the County Arborist
that the foundation willnot damage the existing trees. The construction of this
plan should be an opportunity to improve the situation and long-term health of
those trees through soil amendations and other techniques. The County's tree
preservation ordinance would also limit activity within in the drip line of the trees.
An arborist will be retained to review building plans and oversee development to
ensure development would not result in impacts to the trees.
3.11 Concern about the Hotel use designated for Blocks A & C, and that such use was
never discussed.
The Specific Plan allows hotel uses within Area 12. Lodging was discussed as an
optional use throughout the Charrette for Block A and along the square in Block C
because it could provide supportive uses that are compatible for the square and
the Retail Street,such as retail,and/or much need meeting space. While a hotel
use appears to be infeasible under present market conditions, these conditions
could change, therefore the provision of this option is appropriate.
3.12 The concept of a "Town Architect" is not understood.
The Town Architect would be a resource to be used by'the developer, the County,
and the community in developing and reviewing/approving a final development
proposal that would be consistent with the Regulating Codes. The Town Architect
would be retained by the County, and paid for by the developer.
3.13 Concern by regarding the codes not specifying design or use standards for civic
buildings.
Civic Buildings and Monuments do have greater freedom of expression than the
private buildings. They are however constrained in several ways. Their maximum
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevis ions, 12
footprint and placement is as per the Regulating Plan and the specific design must
pass through the project Town Architect on its way to the County. The Codes are
being amended to make these parameters clear. As has been said frequently
throughout the Charrette a)the exact nature of the civic use is not yet defined;
and b) civic building's are "exceptional" buildings that require architectural
freedom to accomplish their purpose of creating a sense of place. 'Adherence to
New Urbanist design philosophies will be provided for.
3.14 How does the code address the top floor of the parking structure? How do the
Architectural Standards treat the top cornice of the parking structure?
The codes direct the resources of the developer to enhancing the streetscape and
the relationship of the buildings to the street. There are no aesthetic controls for
the view down onto the structure from above - only the economic incentive to the
developer. Prior experience in the Station Area suggest that mitigating this
limited visual impact by landscaped trellis' are problematic due to the intense
summer heat. The Architectural Standards provides for the parking structures to
have a cornice in order to "close" the visual composition somewhat,as the eaves of
a building do.
3.15 Clarify page 15 of the Code regarding Workplace Building Sites.
Workplace never touches Block B and never goes to more than 4 story's (with the
large exception of the 12 story Block D). That has been corrected, see also
related changes to Shopfront for Block B within 100 feet of Treat Max. Height is
5 storeys/65 feet.
3.16 Formatting concerns regarding pages 7,9,11 & 13 of the Architectural Standards.
The fault lies in the formatting: the final document will be set up as a booklet,
printed on 2 sides. In that arrangement,you would simultaneously see pages 7 and
8.
4.0 BART "Station Enhancements"
4.01 How is visual coherence between the BART Station enhancements and the private
development achieved, and how are the enhancements to the BART Station to be
financed?
Enhancements to the BART rail station will be accomplished concurrent with the
private improvements. The Charrette plan identified a range of options for
incorporating the desired enhancement into the overall design program. So long as
enhancements are limited to fagade treatments (fagade treatments do not trigger
State safety code compliance issues), they can be accomplished reasonably cost
effectively. The conceptual plan of finance provides for Redevelopment funds to
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 13
pay for various Station Area enhancements. The Station enhancements would be
part of he public/private partnership financing arrangement.
Financing could also come from a variety of outside sources including federal
and/or state grant funds designed to facilitate smart growth/transit-oriented
development. All parties will need to be opportunistic and creative in seeking
necessary funds. In addition,as BART completes its comprehensive station plan,
needed circulation and access improvements will be designed and fund sources
identified (e.g., grant funds). It is anticipated that both the comprehensive
station planning effort and charrette effort will result in physical improvements
that serve multiple objectives, enabling the County, BART and the private
developer to access a greater variety of fund sources to design and implement the
improvements. There is no expectation that 8ARTs core revenues for operations
(fare box revenue, sales tax receipts,and property tax receipts) will be used for
Station aesthetic enhancements.
The fact that the BART Station itself is exempt from the Regulations is not only
correct, but necessary for BART to maintain and operate a regional transit
system. BART's exemption from local code has been maintained from the inception
of BART for very good reasons, including: The need for low maintenance physical
elements, given the fact that the taxpayer subsidizes the system, the need for
interchangeability of elements, given the fact that BART operates almost 40
transit stations and must acquire goods and services according to State Contract
Code; the need for BART to comply with the State Fire Marshall, which oversees
all of SARTs operation, not just that at the Pleasant Hill Station.
Having underscored BART's exemption from any local codes and regulations, BART
still intends to work with the County and private developer to assess and
implement reasonable modifications to its station. Again, BART has undertaken a
comprehensive station planning effort to assess improvements needed at and
within the Pleasant Hill station. It is anticipated that these needed improvements
will serve multiple objectives and can be implemented in concert with the
charrette plan.
5.0 Traffic
5.01 What plans are there to mitigate traffic impacts, including traffic concerns at
intersections north of BART Station Area?
The County funded a study to evaluate traffic conditions on all routes to the.
BART station as part of the 1998 Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Specific Plan. At the request of the City of Pleasant Hill,the study was
managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The traffic standards of
the affected jurisdictions were used consistent with the requirements of the
Measure C-88 Growth Management Program.
W:Personal\PHSAP T\response.questions.11.01.IIRevis ions. 14
The study included an evaluation of access routes north of the station. Upgrades
to the Treat Boulevard/Bancroft Road area and to Geary Boulevard were
identified that would enhance access. However, these upgrades were not needed
to meet adopted traffic standards of the affected jurisdictions. The City of
Walnut Creek is proceeding with upgrades for the full length of Geary Boulevard.
Construction of the first phase is scheduled by the city to begin next year.
Widening of Buskirk Avenue and realigning the North Main Street/Oak Park
Boulevard intersections were determined to enhance access, But these upgrades
were not needed to meet adopted traffic standards of the affected jurisdictions.
Although funding was identified for these projects, the City of Pleasant Hill
elected not to implement them.
The County's Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan amendments
included a commitment to modifications for the Wayne/Oak Road intersection and
the Buskirk Avenue/Geraldine Drive area. That action also included an obligation
to work with Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek on traffic calming measures
in surrounding neighborhoods if needed in the future.
In 2000, the City of Pleasant Hill evaluated access routes north of the BART
station as part of their proposed redevelopment project for the Contra Costa
Shopping Center. The city assumed that Buskirk Avenue would be widened to four
lanes and that capacity and alignment issues would be addressed when
redevelopment plans for the affected properties are submitted.
Currently, the County is cooperating with the City of Concord to upgrade and
signalize the Hookston/Bancroft Avenue intersection. The City of Pleasant Hill is
designing a signal coordination project for the North Main Street/Oak Park
Boulevard area and construction is scheduled for 2004.
The expected trip generation for the proposed land use plan from the Charrette
was compared to the trip generation for the alternatives analyzed in the traffic
study. The number of trips that would be generated would be lower than three of
the four alternatives. Therefore, the findings from the previous traffic study
would be applicable for the number trips that would be generated by the land use
from the Charrette.
The Specific Plan subsequently focused its transportation measures on enhancing
access for buses, pedestrians and bicycles to the area (e.g. the proposed shuttle
and the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing). The County is also working with BART to
improve train service to the Concord and North Concord stations for those
patrons that could use these stations as alternatives to the Pleasant Hill station.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.I LO1.IIRevisions 15
5.02 The accessibility of the Station Area to the regional transportation network
suggests that-more activity should be focused here (smart growth principles).
The underlying principle of the Specific Plan,and the BART property Charrette
outcome supports this statement. A balancing of local and regional interests has
been sought, and we believe struck.
5.03 Where is the traffic information that supports the removal of left turn lanes on
Jones?
There will be four lanes along Jones Road, with an added turn lane near Treat
Boulevard so that the number of lanes on Jones Road near Treat Boulevard would
remain the same.
There will be two lanes in each direction for the length of Jones Road, with left
turns into the residential area from the left lane for northbound travel on Jones
Road. Traffic continuing north along Jones Road would be able to pass left-
turning vehicles by traveling in the right-hand lane. During off-peak times, on-
street parking will be allowed on Jones since the full two lanes are only needed
inbound to the parking structure in the a.m. peak period,and outbound in the
evening peak.
5.04 How are noise impacts addressed?
The County General Plan contains policies and measures to ensure that the goals
outlined in the Noise Element of the General Plan are met. Policy 11-4 of the
General Plan states the new multi-family housing projects, hotels and motels
exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis
describing how the project will provide an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. A
detailed acoustical analysis will be required of this project prior to consideration
of the Final Development Plan. Typical measures to minimize noise impacts of
proposed development projects include site planning,architectural layout of
buildings, noise barriers and construction modifications. The construction
modifications (use of insulation, double-pane windows, etc.) used to improve the
energy efficiency of a building also reduce to interior noise in the building.
6.0 Alternative Mode Concerns (Bus, Taxi's, Bicycle, Pedestrian).
6.01 The impacts by the bus on the quality of the square.
Bus patrons are an essential aspect of the public transportation/alternative mode
setting that makes Pleasant Hill BART a transit center. Their needs have to be
accommodated. Furthermore the viability of retail on the Square is dependent on
it being close to transit population. Bus stops are another way to deliver people
to the square. A bus will stop no more than 5 minutes for loading and unloading,
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevis ions 16
thereby keeping their impacts to a minimum. All bus layovers will take place
remote from the square in the alley next to the tracks.
Station Square is, by design,an area for active use by many people. It is not an
area for passive recreation. There are other spaces nearby for persons desiring
such an experience. It is expected that Station Square will be programmed to
provide opportunities for both opportunistic and planned encounters, i.e.,areas for
seating and activities will promote human interaction.
6.02 What are the bike parking requirements of the County? Should the requirement
for bicycle parking be part of the codes?
There are no County-wide bicycle parking requirements. However, the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan does address bicycle parking. Policy 7 states
"Developers shall provide for bicycle transportation, including safe and convenient
bicycle storage; paths to the buildings and shower and locker facilities, where
appropriate." In addition, one of the needs identified from the Charrette process
was a bike station near the BART Station. The bike station will be incorporated
into one of the public buildings in the BART Station Area.
6.03 Pedestrian/Bicycle Access to areas west of I-680.
The Specific Plan proposes to upgrade pedestrian and bicycle circulation from the
west via Treat Boulevard and Oak Park Boulevard. Potential upgrades along Treat
: include enhancing the sidewalk on the freeway overcrossing to buffer pedestrians
from the traffic, noise and weather. Potential upgrades along Oak Park Boulevard
include signing and striping bike lanes. A signage system that would identify
pedestrian and bicycle routes between the BART station and destinations west of
I-680 is also under consideration.
6.04 Where is the taxi stand? Kiss and Ride? Why buses around the square?
The taxi stand, as well as the Kiss and Ride drop-off, has been moved to the north
side of the BART platform, in order to avoid competing for curb space with buses.
The County Connection expressed a preference for discreet loading/unloading
areas for these two alternative modes. Taxi and Kiss & Ride users are frequent
users and will quickly adjust to any pattern of access and egress.
.6.05 Concerns that the pedestrian overcrossings at Oak and Treat are not represented.
The Specific Plan currently requires a pedestrian Overcrossing at Treat and Oak,
linking to the BART property, and a pedestrian/bicycle Overcrossing at Treat and
the Iron Horse Trail. A first phase community design program was completed, and
the engineering/design team is undertaking additional analysis to be able to
complete the design/siting process. A discussion/decision will have to be made as
to whether it is appropriate/necessary to have a second Overcrossing, facility at
W:Personal\PH BART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 17
Treat and Oak. If the current Specific Plan requirement is sustained, the
developer will be required to incorporate a pedestrian bridge landing on the BART
side of Treat Blvd. The visuals created during the latter part of the Charrette
attempted to depict the presence of a pedestrian Overcrossing of Treat at Oak.
6.06 Shuttle servicer details? How will the shuttle work? How will it be funded?
The shuttle service will be funded by revenues from fee parking at the BART
Station. The 581 temporary parking spaces on the Iron Horse Trail will be
replaced with fee parking; all other parking spots will be replaced with free
parking unless BART changes its parking policy.
The economics team preliminarily analyzed the feasibility of replacing the existing
581 temporary parking spaces on the Iron Horse Trail with fee parking in
structures located on the site and providing additional funding to support a local
shuttle bus. The following assumptions were used in the analysis: development
cost of $12,000 (which is on the low-end), current monthly rates for non-tenants
of $160 per space increasing annually at 3%, expenses to maintain the parking
spaces at equal to 35% of revenue, 65% of the construction cost paid for through
debt financing at 7.00%,an equity requirement of about $2.5 million,a one year
construction period,and 5%vacancy and credit loss. This preliminary analysis
suggests a "surplus" of over $200,000 a year to fund a shuttle service.
7.0 Infrastructure Issues Including
7.01 What are the plans for Jones Road? Del Hombre?
The Charrette Plan actually maintains the total land area devoted to the Iron
Horse Trail and an easement for future light rail service on the Iron Horse
Corridor. In order to accommodate the new garage entrance, a portion of the
trail area is moved northward to just south of Las Juntas. The plan also .
recommends a more efficient use of Del Hombre. When the properties facing the
northern end of Del Hombre and Roble Road redevelop,a modified access plan can
be created for the Honeytrail area. This will allow the southern portion of the Del
Hombre right-of-way to be converted to Greenspace,as shown in the Charrette
Plan.
7.02 Concerns that changing the location to the garage from Jones will significantly
change the Plan and therefore needs to be decided before the plan moves
forward.
Access to the garage requires further study. Whether the developer decides to
move the entrance location will not significantly effect the development. This can
be accommodated through design. One option`is to access the garage through the
block.
W:Personol\PHBART\response.questions.11.0UIRevisions 18
BART is initiating a comprehensive station plan to assess, among other things,
circulation and access. BART intends to work with both the County and the private
developer to comprehensively assess the viability of either shifting the garage
entrance from Jones Road or modifying the development footprint to
accommodate the existing entrance. In either case, it is anticipated that a final
solution will be part of the private developer's submittal to the County and BART
next summer.
7.03 Concerns regarding street widths being reduced from 12' to 10-11'.
The standard lane width is 12 feet. However, lane widths of 11 feet or possibly 10
feet may be acceptable, based on the amount of traffic, the speed of travel and
the number of large vehicles, such as trucks and buses. The Caltrans Highway
Design Manual defers to the AASHTO "Green Book" or "Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streefs," Chapter V- Local Roads and Streets, Local
Urban Streets, for dimensions of local streets and roads. According to AASHTO,
"Street lanes for moving traffic preferably should be at least 3.Om [9' 10"] wide.
Where feasible they should be 3.3 m wide [10' 10"], and in industrial areas they
should be 3.6m wide [11' 10"]. Where available or attainable width of right-of-way
imposes severe limitations, 2.7 m [8' 10"] lanes can be used in residential areas,as
can 3.3m [10' 10"] lanes in industrial areas." Modern traffic calming practice has a
strong preference for narrow lane widths as a tool of slowing motor vehicle
traffic and improving pedestrian safety. Around the BART Station, we have
proposed 11' lanes where buses and high volumes of traffic are present, and 10'
lanes along the quieter residential streets.
7.04 Why does the Summary Report suggest that the BART patron (replacement of
permanent and temporary spaces) parking may be sited subject to additional
studies?
The Charrette Program included a conceptual level of analysis of the BART parking
Structure expansion. A parking consultant was employed to be as certain as one
can.be at this point, nonetheless, the precise and final design/configuration will
have to be accomplished before it can be definitively represented that 100% of
the replacement program can be accommodated in the expanded BART parking
structure. If it cannot, other parking structures on Blocks A,B, or C would be
employed to provide the additional replacement parking (which would be the paid
replacement parking for the temporary spaces).
It is not necessary to specifically identify the access location to the garage from
Jones Road immediately. Ninety percent of the charrette plan can move forward
without stipulating exactly where the garage entrance is to be located from Jones
Road. For example, in the event that the garage entrance from Jones Road does
not change, the site plan in the vicinity of the entrance can be modified to
accommodate this access by shifting the residential/retail development further
west.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.O1.IIRevisions 19
7.05 Concerns regarding Jones Road realignment. Where does the Greenspace go?
5ee 7.01 and 7.02 above.
7.06 Are sidewalks needed along the Iron Horse Corridor adjacent to the east side of
Jones?
The need for a sidewalk along the side of Jones Road adjacent to the Iron Horse
Trail will be evaluated as part of the detailed plans for Jones Road and for the
Iron Horse Trail. It may be that a sidewalk is not needed directly adjacent to the
Trail.
7.08 Along the Residential Green 8' sidewalks are not needed.
The width of sidewalks along the residential green will be evaluated as part of the
detailed plans. It will be important to provide well-designed pedestrian and
bicycle access and circulation to and from the site and throughout the site.
7.09 Why is Jones Road north of Treat reduced to two lanes with no median?
There will be two lanes.in each direction for the length of Jones Road, with left
turns into the residential area from the left lane for northbound travel on Jones
Road. Traffic continuing north along Jones Road would be able to pass left-
turning vehicles by traveling in the right-hand lane. Off-peak parking would need
to be prohibited along a portion of Jones Road to allow for vehicles to travel in
the right-hand lane when necessary.
7.10 The current supply of BART parking should be maintained, or increased.
The BART policy of retaining all BART patron spaces as part of a development
program is fully complied with (see also 9.01). The charrette plan calls for
replacing all of BART's surface parking to enable the private development to be
constructed. In addition, the 581 temporary spaces are being permanently
replaced as part of a paid parking program (see also 8.03). As part of BART'S
strategic planning effort over the past few years, the District has determined
that it should emphasize access of all modes, not just the single-occupant
automobile.
The debate over whether or not to use BART'S land for additional parking
structures rather than mixed-use development has been ongoing since the
Specific Plan for the station area was adopted in the mid-1980's. The fundamental
decision that has been faced throughout the debate is whether to build a mixed-
use community that is directly served by the core transit system via pedestrian
connections and which can effectively connect the transit station to the
surrounding community, or to build a large amount of parking capacity which serves
W:Persona l\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 20
a different, more distant community by car.:There are pros and cons to both aside
of the debate. The prime objective is to provide an attractive environment for
those who wish to take advantage of the public transit infrastructure that exists
in the Bay Area and to enable employees and residents of the area around the
Pleasant Hill station to access the system without needing an automobile. It is, in
fact, building your market next to your service, much the way the railroads did
during the 1800's.
Increasing the amount of parking at the BART station is not only expensive, it will
also promote continued development in outlying areas which creates a greater
burden on society than development at the station. Development in outlying areas
necessitates the need for additional infrastructure (roads, sewers, utilities, etc.)
with both a capital and continuing operating cost. Placing development at current
infrastructure reduces the sprawl of development. Development in outlying areas
results in the demand for automobiles -there simply is no other way to move
around. This uses more energy and creates more pollution than development at rail
stations. Accessing transit service at the Pleasant Hill BART Station can be
through a variety of modes, including bus, carpool, privately subsidized shuttle
services, walking, bicycling. Devoting scarce public resources to enable an
individual to park an automobile for 12 hours every day versus creating a
sustainable, livable community is not a decision elected officials are willing to
make.
Lastly it should be noted that there are already 3450 parking spaces at the
Pleasant.Hill BART Station, the largest number in the entire BART system. With
the additional 581 spaces to replace the Iron Horse Trail removal, there will be a
total of 4031 spaces for BART patrons.
7.11 How will the parking for BART airline customers be handled? Will that parking be
taken from the pool of BART parking, the pay-BART parking, or the private
businesses?
In preparing for the opening of the San Francisco Airport Extension, BART has
been analyzing where"long-term" parking spaces will be provided from a
systemwide perspective. Not every BART station will have long-term parking to
serve airport. patrons. Initially BART has designated 200 spaces at the North
Concord Station for long term paid parking to serve those on the Concord line.
That station was chosen because it had excess parking spaces that were not being
used on a daily basis. If the program is successful, it could be expanded to other
stations, including Pleasant Hill. However, wherever the long term parking is
expanded, BART would make an effort to maintain the existing number of daily use
spaces through'the use of attendant parking or other means.
W:Persona l\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 21
8.0 Economics
8.01 What will the range of rents be? Price of homes?
The office rents used in the financial analysis for the proposed project range
from $3.50 to $3.75 a square foot. The retail rents range from $1.50 to $2.50
per square foot depending on the size, location,and anticipated use of the
proposed retail. The residential rents for the proposed project range from $1300
to $320.0 per month. For-sale units are underwritten to sell for just under $200
a square foot.
However,the rental and for-sale residential products will not be mixed within
buildings. Therefore, individual lenders maybe financing only one type of project,
such as a single building of flots. In addition, the for-sale units will include fee-
simple title to the land, i.e., buyers will be able to buy both the building and the
underlying ground as they would in any condominium project. There will be no
ground leases for the for-sale units as these are very difficult to finance.
In determining the rents and prices used for the Charrette, the economics team
researched comparables projects both within the local market and at other similar
transit oriented locations in the Bay Area. Although the rents and sales prices
used in the financial model reflect market conditions as of February 2001and
conditions have changed radically since then, this project will not be built for
several years, during which time the market is likely to stabilize and improve.
8.02 Impact of economic changes - Can we fill office?
The market for office space has historically been cyclical. The current downturn
follows a period of very high rents and a very low vacancy rate. Thus, the current
lower rents and higher vacancy rate in the office buildings at the Pleasant Hill
BART station are not unexpected. Moreover, by the time the office for this
project is built, the economic picture could be very different yet again. The
financial analysis used in the charrette process considered these nuances of the
market and its potential impacts in its determination of the future feasibility of
office at the Pleasant Hill BART station. In addition,according to the Association
of Bay Area Governments, Contra Costa County is projected to add approximately
140,000 new jobs over the next 20 years. A significant proportion of these jobs
are expected to be in businesses that will generate demand for office space, and
preferably at locations well served by transit.
8.03 Why paid parking?
Presently, the only BART parking that will be for a fee are the spaces that replace
the 581 temporary parking.spaces currently on the Iron Horse Trail. The 1481
surface spaces on BART property will continue to be free unless BART changes its
parking policy. The fee parking will support building the replacement for the 581
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 22
temporary spaces and a shuttle service for the local area to the BART Station.
Without paid parking, there would be no identified funding source for these
parking spaces and the shuttle. Implementing a shuttle service will encourage
people to use and enjoy the Station Area without creating a demand for more
parking or increasing neighborhood traffic. BART policy allows.for paid parking
for net new permanent parking.
A significant advantage that paid parking allows is a guarantee that BART patrons
will be able to find a space at any time of day at the station. Currently, parking at
the station typically fills very early in the morning, with a few spaces reserved for
parking after 10:00 a.m. Patrons who wish to arrive at the station at 8:30 or 9:00
a.m. have no place to park. Allowing for paid reserved parking or paid midmorning
parking will provide new access to the station that currently does not exist. Such
a paid parking program has been extremely popular at the West Oakland BART
Station.
8.04 Why so little retail space?
In considering the retail component of the project it is critical to understand that
the charrette participants expressed a strong preference for local- rather than
regional-serving retail at this site. Therefore, the retail program was developed
based on a conceptual tenanting plan that would include primarily small users,"mom
and pop" stores not national chains, and uses that could serve the every day needs
of local residents and workers. While the retail should be high enough quality to
become a "destination," it was not the.first goal of this project to have the retail
uses be a primary use, but more a secondary use that would serve as an amenity to
the residential and office users.
Given these parameters, the retail experts consulted as part of the Charrette
process supported the consultants initial.conclusions that the amount of retail
proposed-at the Pleasant Hill BART station reflects the maximum that the market
can support in addition to the existing and soon-to-be completed retail near the
proposed project. Adding more retail without enough demand early in the project
would result in empty storefronts and a deconcentration of retail that would
negatively impact all the retail in the area. Such a negative impact would challenge
the station area's ability to create the sense of place critical to its long-term
viability and success.
If the station area succeeds in establishing itself as a great place over time, then
the market demand for retail would expand. Such an expansion could lead to more
retail in the ground floor of the office buildings as well as other spaces within the
station area. The demand for this second generation of retail may result in the
future conversion of office and residential space into retail. One of the design
goals for the buildings is that they be built with this type off lexibility in mind.
W:Persona l\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 23
9.0 Project Finance
9.01 Why/how is the County paying $27 million for the BART patron replacement
parking program? $8 million for public improvements? $2 million for acquisition
of the Swim Club.
BART policy requires 1-1 replacement of all BART patron parking lots on the
surface due to development. The cost of replacing this parking cannot be carried
by a project that has the desired mix/intensity of uses. Prior analysis suggested
that politically controversial projects such as the entertainment retail project, an
all office project, or a large regional retail center could carry most, if not all, of
the replacement parking costs. .In order to complete a project that is consistent
with smart growth.principles, and fully addresses the obligation to BART and its
patrons another public funding source- the County Redevelopment Agency is being
utilized.
The general understanding of the Agency for sometime has been its role as a
Financer of up to $8 million of public improvements on the BART property. The
revenue sources are Agency tax increment revenues from developmenton the
BART property. The financial agreements between the parties will specify how
those funds get introduced and used.
The $2 million to purchase the Las Juntas Swim Club is to be borrowed by the
Agency from the County,and does not involve or affect the BART property.
9.02 What role does revenue play in this area being annexed to the City of Walnut
Creek?
The annexation of the area to the City of Walnut Creek will be determined by the
highly complex interplay of the City's ability to cover incremental service costs,
the desires of the property owners - residential and commercial, protection of
development entitlements, revenue neutrality to the County, and return on
investment to the County. The factor that largely determines the annexation of
the residential area surrounding the Station Area is the post Proposition 13
phenomena that residential uses alone do not cover the costs of servicing areas
subject to annexation, i.e., most residential areas alone are a financial liability to
public agencies today.
10.0 Civic Use/Public Amenities
10.01 Is the Station Square mostly concrete or a green?
Station Square is envisioned as mostly green. Hard surfaces would be used for
walkways and possibly a sitting area.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevis ions 24
10.02 A childcare center is not a civic use, rather is a public use?
Agreed. Civic uses could include educational, cultural, or governmental facilities
that will be determined.
10.03 Who will plant trees along Oak Road and Treat Blvd.?
Trees will be planted by the developer on the east side of Oak and on the North
side of Treat,according to the Station Area Code. Trees across the street from
the project are shown on the plans as a suggestion for a preferred design. These
trees could be planted through a joint effort by the county and the property
owner.
11.0 Housing Concerns
11.01 Why is housing proposed next to the BART tracks?
In response to concerns for the quality of housing in Block C a non-residential
zone was created for the area within 50' of the tracks.
11.02 Concerns about the size of residential units.
The development program should provide for a diversity of housing, as exists in
the Station Area today (see chart below). Dwelling unit size could range from
approximately 450 square feet to over 1,400 square feet (for townhouses). The
percentage of efficiency or studio units would not be very high. It should be
noted that should a senior housing project be an aspect of the BART development,
smaller units would be a higher percentage of the total.
Summary of Residential Rental Properties* - Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area
Unit Type/Size No. of Units % of Total
Studios (475-510 sq.ft.) 162 8.3%
1 bedroom (601-796 sq.ft.) 1,157 59.2% .
2 bedroom (850-1,000 sq.ft.) 610 31.2%
3 bedroom (1,150 sq.ft.) 26 1.3%
Total 1,955 100%
*Developments include Bay Landing (360 units); Coggins Square (87 units); Park
Regency (892 units); Station Park (106 units); and Treat Commons (510 units).
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 25
11.03 How will the provision of 50 for-sale units be assured?
Ultimate disposition of BART property, including any ground lease with Millennium
Partners and/or sale of BART land for the cited 50 units, is a BART Board of
Directors decision. It is recognized that for-sale residential units on leased
ground may not be financially feasible. Thus, BART staff has expressed a
willingness to recommend the sale of property to enable the for-sale units to be
financed.
As Millennium Partners further defines it's project for submittal to the County,
and, subsequent to environmental certification by the BART Board of Directors,
BART staff will request BART Board approval of the terms and conditions of any
property disposition. Currently, BART staff has indicated that they will
recommend sale of property sufficient to enable the 50 units of for-sale housing
to be financed, built and sold. This decision by BART staff, which ultimately must
be considered and approved by the BART Board of Directors, has been made due
to the community's strong desire to have some for-sale residential product in the
overall charrette plan.
BART staff would prefer to recommend disposition of BART property using a long-
term ground lease. In building the BART system, public funds were used to pay for
the Pleasant Hill BART Station. Recognizing that the public continues to subsidize
BART'S transit operation, and recognizing that the BART station and its service
provides a financial benefit to all developers who build next to BART, BART staff
believe that one way to secure a financial return from the public investment is to
dispose of property using a ground lease; increases in land value due specifically to
the provision of BART service can be recaptured through this mechanism over
time and returned to support BARTs transit service. Further, a ground lease
clearly affords BART the ability to maintain that any use of its property next to a
transit station remains transit-oriented. Sale of land provides a one-time financial
reward only and it does not assure continued transit-oriented use of the property.
It also needs to be clearly understood that the County Redevelopment Agency
acquired numerous smaller property lots around the BART station to assemble
sufficient ground to enable the private sector to develop what exists today;
selling off property to enable for-sale housing to be introduced reverses the
County's action of the mid-1980's. Finally, there are approximately 2,260
residential units within 4 of a mile of the Pleasant Hill BART Station,with 88% as
rentals and 12% as for-sale. Adding 50 for-sale units (approximately 18% of the
minimum residential units - 274) to this mix will not measurably impact this ratio.
Notwithstanding the above, because of the stated desire of charrette
participants to see some for-sale residential product in the ultimate Millennium
Partners' plan, BART staff remain committed to recommend the 50 for-sale units
to the BART Board of Directors.
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 26
11.04 What are the proposed numbers of low-income units that will be built on the BART
property?
Consistent with smart growth principles the housing program will include a
diversity of housing types, sizes, and affordability levels. The minimum State
Redevelopment Law mandate is that 15% of new units constructed be affordable
units for low and moderate-income households. Most of the primary financing
programs for mixed income projects require a minimum 20% of the units be
affordable to lower income households.
12.0 Development Review/Permitting Concerns
12.01 Will sound of BART be reduced on windows? Buildings?
The County's General Plan Noise Element will require noise impacts to be abated to
adopted standards. Mitigation measures (which could include insulation and multi-
pane glass, among other things) will be determined during the final development
plan and building permit stage.
12.02 How do new plans relate to Specific Plan?
The Charrette concept conforms to the Specific Plan in almost all respects. The
following changes to the Specific Plan would be needed to conform the project to
the Plan:
• Modify land use matrix for Areas 11/12 to allow residential without a land
use permit (page 22, Figure 6);
• Modify street setbacks (page 50, Policy 1);
• Modify property line setbacks (page 51, Policy 1 & 4); and
• Modify BART Property discussion to modify bridge to reflect north bridge
landing at grade (page 63, Paragraph 3 & 4).
12.03 What are the County requirements with respect to street trees?
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan policy regarding street trees
calls for the use of Platanus Acer folia (London Plane Trees)as the primary street
tree. Other tree specimens may be appropriate and are encouraged. Both the
Specific Plan and the Landscape standards call for trees to be planted at a
maximum spacing of 30 ft.
12.04 What is the role of the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee?
The Steering Committee's charge as reaffirmed by the Board of Supervisor's in
August 1997 as follows:
W:Personal\PHBART\response.questions.11.01.IIRevisions 27
• That the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Steering Committee (hereafter
"Steering Committee") is charged with evaluating implementation activities
related to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, including
amendments to the Specific Plan;
• That the Steering Committee is.advisory to the Board of Supervisors;
• That the Steering Committee is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, and
the County's Better Government Ordinance;
• That the Steering Committee is comprised of nominees of the County of
Contra Costa, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the City of Concord,
the City of Pleasant Hill, the City of Walnut.Creek, the Walden District
Improvement Association, and the Contra Costa Centre Association;
• That the Steering Committee seek consensus on matters before it,and, if
necessary, apply formal procedures, including motions and votes. All
members of the Steering Committee are voting members; and
• That a quorum of the Steering Committee consists of 51% of the
appointed members, which must include at least one of the County
representatives.
The Steering Committee is not part of the land use application review process.
12.05 What are the parking requirements for residential and office uses?
The Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan specifies maximum parking ratios as follows:
Office 3.3/1,000 sq. ft. of net rentable area
Retail 4.5/1,000 sq. ft. of net rentable area
Housing 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (recent projects permitted at
1.35 spaces/dwelling unit.)
W:Persona l\PHBART\response.questions.11.0I.IIRevis ions 28
m
QUESTIONS RECEIVED
All questions received are reproduced. The area in which the response to
the question can be found is cited on the margin.
Oct .31 01 09: 54a
p. 4
The Petition of Misgivings
Subject: The Petition of Misgivings
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:38:58 -0700
From: "Robert Frederick" <rdf-edx@home.com>
To: <alopez I @cctimes.com>
CC: "Donna Gerber" <dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>,
"Marls DeSauhuer" <d.ist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
Rebuttal to:
Your Front Page Walnut Creek Journal article(folloNving herein)
Re: BART station plans prompt petition, tallc
Some residents are urdlappy about the planned density of the Pleasant Hill BART transit
village
To: CCTimes Reporter-Alan Lopez
cc: District 3 and District 4 County Supervisors
The Petition of Misgivings
Had it not been for a stroke of genius by District 3, County Supervisor, Donna Gerber, who suggested
the Charrette Process to begin with, we may still be in the throes of indecisiveness. She helped to get the
question of what was to be done with the build out of the PH BART Station out in the open and with
public input. This will be the final step in realizing the complete build out of the redeveloped area
referred to as the Contra Costa Centre and billed as such. The BART Station therein is the center-piece
of the entire project and is part and parcel to the overall redevelopment plan through the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area Specific Plan as revised and amended. The culmination and final phase of the
redeveloped area will be finalized after some IS years of economic ups and downs and visionary
planning bordering on new urbanism and smart growth.
In the article you wrote, there are some blatant misgivings.that are associated with the process. Here are
the. facts: One,the petition that was circulated was for the purpose of allowing the community to have
the right to vote on the final proposed draft:of the charrette. Two,the petition was clearly a chance for
the community to vote its approval or rejection of the final submitted Charrette Design. Three,there was �•�
no alluding to nor illusion that the petition was to be a stigmata for housing density, green space, office,
commercial,parking,increased traffic or that of preserving land. I signed the petition prior to my
resignation as a Director of the Walden Association. And, I find it rather grievous that they would put
their name on someone else's handy work and attempt to corrupt the process.
To the many who have signed the petition but may now realize they did so under false pretenses, I say,
your article sends the wrong message to the neighborhood. The overwhelming majority of those who
attended the charrette and worked to see the outcome as positive for this community are still of that
opinion. I think you owe it to this community to report the facts and not some outsider's opinion of what
the facts should be.
Robert Frederick
Fonner Walden Board member
r "Robert Frederick" To: "Mark DeSautnier"<dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
<rdfredx@home.com>
:Z
cc: <kenn cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us>,"Donna Gerber"
10/30/2001 12:09 PM 1 �°
<dist3@bos.co.contra•cbsta.ca.us>
Subject: Fw:CCTimes today
Greetings:
What I have underscored in the following article is preposterous! The
Walden District Improvement Association.has few members and a support
1 .0 i
group of less than 150; not the.6000 alluded to in the article. Most of these
supporters.are already in Condomenium Home*ner Associations around
Pleasant Hill BART and are within the confines of the redevelopment.
The majority of property owners that live throughout the Walden District,
and a great many outside the district, are.in favor of the build out of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station property as provided by the Charrette Process.
Again,the petition that is.now supported by Walden was originated for the
purpose of allowing the community the'opportuaity to.vote to accept or reject
the final Design of that which was proposed during the charrette process.
Some within the Walden Association say this as a means to an end and
adopted the petition,with their own play on words, and not necessarily that of
the whole community.
To further delay,attack and subvert.the process serves no earthly purpose
other than to disrupt the community and keep someone's name in the
forefront it purports to serve; rather than working with those that are
qualified public servants Nvilling to cooperate with their constituients.
I think consensus was acheived at the last Charrette meeting. Hopefull}', that
benchmark will continue.
Robert Frederick
Fomler Walden Board Member
- 'ti -�.s =�i,��':L�_J�:t:''�x- -�+�=ice;*•si',?e��:,��r�`^' ':1 �4' ��-ar'��•`:.]i,_.'�`_'.'z
i.�r 1*r'=` "°,_'e".Y�".s :•.r� �,x'rai.;�r;
_ �t= F - -
:.iy.u..i...-:us���v1� "c�.�,.�4SaFi'-�-3i:_=.as:.43':;''_'i a=rJs_.:r.��LL-�=•.v�L.,.,:—S.S:_L."«"�
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/contrecosta/stories/phbart 20011030.h
tm
Published Tuesday, October 30, 2001
Residents mixed on BART plan
® Pleasant Hill station .development worries some,
excites others
By Dogen Hannah
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Where parking lots and a seven-story garage now sprawl on 18 acres,Contra
Costa planners designing a revamped Pleasant Hill BART station see a
bustling village of restaurants, shops,offices,parkland and apartments.
As county planners prepare to present this vision to county supervisors in
December,some residents who live near the stationremain uneasy with the
redevelopment.plan.They praise some elements but question others and say
its full extent has not been aired.
"it's not a bad concept;said Kris Hunt,president of the Walden District
Improvement Association, which represents approximately 6,000 homeowners
near the station."There are many good things in it.But I think the concern is
we're not sure what's there."
The plan so far,crafted with the help of 500 or so residents during a six-day
workshop called a charrette,includes 290,000 to 456,000 square feet of
offices,274 to 446 residences,42,000 square feet of stores and 7,000 square
feet of civic space.
The idea is to turn the county-controlled land between Pleasant Hill and Walnut
Creek into a transit-oriented,pedestrian-friendly neighborhood that also serves
the surrounding community.
The plan has received an unprecedented amount of public scrutiny, said Jim
Kennedy,county redevelopment director.There will be more opportunities to
examine and revise it before the Board of Supervisors considers it in July or
August 2002,he said.
"The community process we have gone through has been a miracle, both in
gaining almost=not quite--unanimous support for a mixed-use project... and
that the design and detailing of the site are substantially beyond any similar
project at a similar point...in the development process,"Kennedy said.
Still,many residents worry whether the plan,which includes lengthy, detailed
rules about what can be built,truly reflects the public's wishes as expressed
during the workshop,Hunt said. One resident has gathered 500 or so
signatures on a petition calling for a community-wide vote on the plan.
"The Walden people are used to lighting fires and kicking tires,"Hunt said.
"You have to.get into those boring,ugly details to make it work."
Station Square,a grass-covered plaza in the middle of the.project on the south
side of the station platform is one area of specific concern.
Some residents object to allowing buses to circle around the square instead of
using the north side of the station as a turnaround,Hunt said.
That and other elements of the plan have been refined or defined since the
workshop as planners dig deeper into the design, Kennedy said.They also
have looked at increasing the number of residences and changing the location
entrances to the expanded parking garage.
These and future changes should make the project better,and overall it will
remain true to the concepts that came out of the planning meetings, Kennedy
said.The public will have a chance to weigh in as county officials consider or
approve such changes,he said.
"This thing will be a work in progress,with refinements over the course of the
next many months,"Kennedy said."I'm sure there are a number of things out
there that we haven't bumped into or thought of yet."
Dogen Hannah covers Walnut Creek and Lamorinda.Peach hire at
925-945-4794 ordhannah@cctimes.com.
@2001 Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc.
October 30, 2001
Charrette Questions
1. At the next meeting, can the community please be reminded that the consultants 1.02
want to help and we should all be more polite when addressing our questions to
them? Jennifer Kunz
2. Concerned with 18 acres but because traffic has always (at least the last 45 5.01 .
years) been an on-going problem, am still concerned with traffic leaving the BART
Area and heading northerly. Signals operate at most intersections going south, but
nothing at (Buskirk-Mayhew) and Las Juntas Mayhew. Are we working with Pleasant
Hill, Concord and Walnut Creek to alleviate congestions on the northern routes out
of BART? Ron Morrison 935-4782
3. How are we doing on the timing schedule presented last time? N/A 1.03
4. Why don't you put the 7-story building by the tracks? What will range of 2.01, 8.01
rents be? Price of homes? The green square is touted but the plan surrounds 6.01, 10.01,
the square with buses to dodge. Will sound of BART be reduced on windows, 2.02, 12.01
on buildings? Any steps to get rid of pigeons? Has anyone mentioned the towers 2.03
are overdone (everywhere) and look like a prison? N/A
5. Can we see a more realistic picture of the plan? 1.04
6. What changes made since last meeting? 1.05
7. Any thought of 12 story residential instead of office? 2.04
8. How new plans relate to Specific Plan? 12.02
9. Traffic impact? 5.01
10. Bike parking required? In Codes? 6.02
11. Ped (bike access) west side of I-680? 6.03
12. Impact of economic changes - Can we fill office? 8.02
13. Emergency access plan?. 2.05
14. Parking structure- Why is County paying $9-27 million? 9.01
15. Taxi stand? Buses around square? 6.04
16. Why paid parking? 8.03
W:Personal\PHBART\questions.charrette.10.30.01 1
17. Lanes on Jones Road? Del Hombre? 7.01
18. Where is "Master Plan"? 1.06
19. Jones Road access to parking structure? 7.02
20. Ped Overcrossing at Oak and Treat? 6.05
21. County financial responsibility? 9.01
22. Shuttle service details? 6.06
23. Code integration into Specific Plan and County General Plan? 3.01
24. Can we vote on process? 1.07
25. How can we ensure future uses if we use all land? 1.08
26. Why this fast timeline? 1.09
27. Street Lanes 12' to 10'-11'? 7.03
28. Page 45 - Parking garage locations -why flexibility? 7.04
29. BART improvement subject to codes? 3.02
30. County Ordinance-street tree ordinance. 12.03
31. Jones Road realignment. Where does green space go? 7.05
32. Why so many disclaimers? 1.10 .
33. How pay for BART Station improvements? 4.01
34. What role does revenue play in this area becoming Walnut Creek? 9.02
35. What plans are there to mitigate traffic outside the plan area? 5.01, 5.04
36. Why housing next to tracks? 11.01
37. Sound standards in code? 3.03
38. Add wheelchair ramp standard? 2.06
39. Correct 5 story height limit on Block B? 3.04
W:Personal\PHBART\questions.charrette.10.30.01 2
40. Allow solar panels on roofs? 3.05
41. Incorporate co-generation into the Codes? 3.06
42. Energy conservation standards in codes? 3.07
43. Sidewalk standards: Along Iron Horse Trail: No need for sidewalk
immediate to Jones. 7.06
44. Along residential green: No need for 8' sidewalks on edges. 7.07
45. Is Transit Square mostly concrete or a green? 10.01
46. Use game standards for details on Square and Green? 3.08
W:Personal\PHBART\questions.charrette.10.30.01 3
QuNJ�:o
�O f
00 W.,W
fi"Q&a fxed, fpal�°ox rr'� S45,96-
SOME
. 596SOME POINTS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE OCTOBER 30 MEETING RE CHARETTE:
In all the sketches the BART building is shown with different roofing and
different windows (in sections) and different color (not grey concrete as
it is presently). Also with a porte-cochere on one side entry. This will I
not come cheaply. Has BART indicated any willingness to pay for these
changes? If not , who will?
A possibility for part of the "7,000 squ. ft. civic program" is a day care
center. That's fine - but it is hardly "civic" but rather commercial. �' Z
The bridge (possibly) over Treat by Oak Road is "unresolved". Shouldn' t y , v S
plans for it be incorporated?
It is good that it is realized all the infrastructure must be in place right
at the beginning. But if the rest is built in stages, during each construc-
tion it will be messy and unpleasant.
In the fold-out of Page 47, it certainly looks like rows of trees all
along both sides of Oak Road. Who will plant those and when? Or are I 10 . a 3
they bushes? Also they are lined up on BOTH sides of Treat. Who will
plant those? Trees are very important.
Page 45 states "Parking garage location subject to further engineering
studies." It's pretty important that this location be determined RIGHT , ? ' 6 y
AWAY as it will affect everything else. . . . .
• k
�i
October 30, 2001
Walden District Improvement Association October 30, 2001
What's the mush?
Since February 2001, County Redevelopment has been working on the planning effort
for the surface parking lots at the BART Station. Less than a week before the final
meeting of this charrette process, local residents received some or all of the following
documents: Glossy brochure (short name: Brochure), Pleasant Hill BART Station Area
Summary Report (Summary). The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code:
Architectural Standards (Architectural), and The New Pleasant Hill BART Station
Property Code: Principles and Regulations.for Redevelopment of the BART Station
Property (Regulations).
The material and all pictures in the Summary, Brochure, Architectural Code, and
tonight's presentation are concepts only. As the Summary states on page 47:
"While such illustrations represent a generalized vision of the plan, certain details
may be inconsistent with one another and with the ultimate built scheme. For the
most accurate description of the plan as proposed, refer to the Pleasant Hill
BART Property Code."
Some of the things found in the Codes are:
1. BART has made no commitment to alter the BART Station or platform. In addition, `
the BART station is exempted from the Codes because it is considered a CIVIC y. 01
BUILDING. (p. 3, Regulations) Therefore, it does not have to be changed.
2. The public square will be "generally paved" because of the high level of traffic.
(p. 8, Regulations) In addition, there will be bus drop off/on on all four sides of the I If->. o i
square as well as on the surrounding streets. This is not the public green as
previously presented.
3. The Regulating Plan layout (last page of this handout) shows Building B can be 7
stories/108 feet within 100 ft of Treat Blvd rather than the 4 stories shown. (p. 3 • CD9
11, Regulations)
4. The Regulating Plan layout (last page of this handout) shows"Civic Buildings and
Monuments" on the oak tree site at the comer of Treat and Oak Road. Civic uses 3 1 0
are not regulated by these codes. For the health of the oak trees, you cannot put
anything within the drip line of oak trees. Why does this project exist?
5. For Blocks A and C, the above ground floor uses include residential, office, or
hotel. (p. 18, Regulations) Hotels have not been discussed. 3 ' I I
6. A TOWN ARCHITECT has been introduced for the first time. This person will
be under the direction of Community Development and "shall be responsible 3 12
for interpreting and enforcing the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code
regarding architectural and landscape standards, as well as any other
standards not otherwise addressed and regulated by the County Code."
(p. 20, Architectural)
OTHER QUESTIONS/ISSUES:
• Jones Road, north of Treat.is reduced to two-lanes, each way, no median. (p. 51,
Summary) This page also refers to a Master Plan," also mentioned elsewhere. 1 . c
Where is the Master Plan? (p. 18, Regulations;'p 51, Summary; other locations)
• Moving the entrance to the BART parking structure, at the Jones Road terminus,
closer to the east end of the structure is still being studied after 6 Y2 months. This 1.0 z
impacts the location of Jones Road and other development. (p. 45, Summary) 1. 07
When will this issue be decided?
• The pedestrian overcrossing at Oak Road and Treat is not shown, even though it is (..o s
required by the Specific Plan. Where is this addressed?
• The County's financial responsibility for BART Project has grown from $29.5 million
in April to $37 million to replace BART parking and provide infrastructure. BART
Replacement Parking at$20 million, Replace Temporary BART Parking at $9 °3
million, Infrastructure at$8 million. This does not include the $2 million for •°
the potential purchase of the Las Juntas Swim Club. (p. 61, Summary)
• How will the shuttle service actually work? �, v
• How will the Codes and other items be integrated with the current Specific Plan and.
the County General Plan? 3 0 l
In no way does Walden suggest that this analysis is complete. Analyzing the 175 pages
of material that arrived on Saturday, October 27 in a comprehensive manner is
impossible in such a short time. The project has changed a great deal since it was
presented verbally in April. The Codes, which are the only things that count in
assessing the plans, are completely new. They deserve greater public scrutiny. The.
only project impacted by the Codes will be the one on the BART property. There is no
need to rush the process at this point. Let us take the time to do it right.
h
1
1
us
♦� N K O n m 6 G.9` Ci.t N it
G 4 a
ne
V12'1
j 7� \M�'�i".•' r� l
-idg
�yomo
z t+^
o v "Al w F
0
a_Sg N LC
� a
U W
� N
a ` U w
'`•��, lit�81 A3N� �y
�V
_ Hl 389KH 330Rpm G w
v C c Z
•�~�\\ �. �> �!'.:>sti''� �•n:•",� .moi'.• � �
xvp � �N
�\ �^
d
Oct -31 01 09: 53a
p. 2
October 30, 2001
Donna Gerber and Mark DeSaulnier
County Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Re: Comments on the Proposed Development Program for the Pleasant Hill
BART Station Area
Dear Donna and Mark,
I am pieased with efforts you have made to advance this project and 1 really
appreciate the hard work that everyone has.put in. However, there are two aspects of the
plan that I think need to be seriously reconsidered. The first is the need for substantially
more retail space mixed in the throughout the project. The second is the need for an
increase in the parking-available for transit users.
I strongly believe that the ability to park and take BART is a critical amenity for
the citizens in this area. Not everybody can walk or ride a bike to BART and I know it is
1 C3
very likely that traffic will be getting a lot worse at the Cal decott Tunnel and at the Bay 7'
Bridge before any future construction projects can improve it. Therefore, maintaining the
existing parking supply at BART must be a bare minimum requirement of this project.
To you as decision makers I say this -the lack of additional transit parking is one
aspect of this plan that is clearly not in the best interest of your constituents. When the
demand for parking continues to rise, people are going to get angry that they can't park at
BART. The addition of a small amount of local-serving retail will be little consolation.
The citizens are going to want to know how our elected officials ended up replacing the
BART parking lots with an office building and condos without even adding anv new
transit parking? How can this be in the greater public's best interest' Very simply - it
iSTI,t.
My second concern is the utter lack of retail space. This project.is proposing to
have well under 10 percent of the project be retail. Apparently,we lost sight of the goals
in this process because the resulting plan could hardly be called a"mixed-use project"
and it's definitely not "model of smart growth." Vire basically just have an office building
on the north side. There's certainly no "mixed-uses" or anything else innovative about
that. The office building.should have a significant amount of retail on the ground floor if
Oct. 31 01 09: 53a
P. 3
you want to consider it mixed-use. This is a fact. Otherwise it's just another separate
office building on the north side and public funds shouldn't be spent on that.
The south side of the project will essentially be a neighborhood of town homes
with only enough retail to serve the local neighborhood and perhaps provide some limited
services for BART patrons. The only new amenity for citizens outside of the immcdiate
area will probably be a new Starbuck's at the BART entrance. Nobody is going to
"Shop and Dine" in the area with the extremely limited amount of retail space that is
currently proposed.
I would ask that you, as our representatives, 1p ease give extra consideration to the
interests of the community as a whole. If public funds are to be used on this project then
shouldn't this projcct be designed to benefit the entire community, not just the
surrounding neighborhood? The only way to really do this would be to increase the
amount of retail space. The townhomes and the office space will be nice for the folks
who get to move in to them,but the retail is really the only component that increases the
amenities and improves the attractiveness of the area.
It is also very important to note that if the project results in some increase in
traffic, as a traffic engineer I can tell you, this is entirely appropriate. This is a major
transit center directly adjacent to major arterials and a freeway interchange. Focusing s', U IL
the activity in this area is exactly what smart growth is supposed to do. If more traffic is
drawn to this area it will mean that congestion will be lessened in other areas.
In summary,I hope you will ultimately agree that the addition of more retail and
more transit parking to the current plan is critical. As our decision makers, we need you
to see beyond the ravings of the local neighborhood association, who have made it
abundantly clear that they only represent their own interests. Don't Iet them cloud your
judgement or affect your ability to represent the best interests of our entire community.
We need you to keep sight of the real goals for this project.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen C. Abrams
Professional Traffic Engineer
T.E. License No. 1417
437 Derby Court
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Ir
JCYY
0.
� - UI
-1 0 coo�a -post
wpa�o94596
of
(.925)935-5834
November 1, 2001
•ro77"' TO: Charette Leaders, Supervisors Gerber and
DeSaulnier, Jimnnedy
May I offer a suggestion for your future meetings regarding the PH BART
Station redevelopment? It could apply to meetings on other subjects as
well.
Please, ask everyone. with questions and/or comments to write them down on
a sheet provided, have someone collate them so that duplicate ones. are
addressed, and have the appropriate speaker answer them. Warn people
ahead of time that this system will be used - possibly give them ten to
fifteen minutes for .writing.
With reference to the most recent charette meeting on October 30: Ques-
tion sheets were provided but were not collected. So questions were oral.
Two staff people wrote the questions from the audience on those customary
big sheets of paper, pasted some on the wall, and then never got around
to addressing more than a couple of them because of lack of time. The.
reason there was a lack of time was that people were allowed to speak too
long, many just reiterating what a previous person had said. Then when
the staff person finally tried to answer questions which had been written
on those long white sheets of paper, beginning with traffic concerns,
audience members were allowed to interrupt (even without a mike) dragging
out the time spent.
I, of course, felt particularly shortchanged because my own questions .were
never addressed. by the time I left at 9:30. (Originally the meeting. was
scheduled to end at 9:00 p.m.) By that time two-thirds of the audience had
already left.
I have asked these same questions in letters in the.past to our supervisors
and County staff, but with a very few exceptions have not received a reply.
bo I had hoped by attending yet another meeting I could get a response.
The organizers and speakers at this meeting, in particular, are professionals
and should know better than to lose control of meetings in this manner.
I expect your response (if any) may be that everyone should have the oppor-
tunity to "participate". But presumably all in attendance know how to write
- and participation in some of these meetings following the guidelines I
have mentioned will be a more effective means of participating. Many in
the audience have attended endless meetings and been so frustrated by
hearing the same things over and over that eventually we give up and stay
home!
Very truly yours,
(7-
Nov 07 01 03: 07p
P. 2
11/5/01
Mark DeSaulnier
District N Supervisor
2425 Bisso Lane, Ste 110
Concord, CA 94520
Donna Gerber
District III Supervisor,
309 Diablo Road
Danville, CA 94596
Dear Mark&Donna:
I want to let you know that I am thrilled with the development plans for the Pleasant Hill BART
station. I attended the Cha.rette processs over the last year, and feel that the team has put together 2
a first class plan for developing the PHBART area. I applaud your leadership for guiding this
important development and the work done to date by the team. .
My wife and I moved to Briaiwood Way(a few blocks from PH BART) 19 months ago from out
of state. At the time, I couldn't believe what an eyesore the parking area was around the station,
but felt that it offered potential for development (I did not know about the PH BART Specific
Plan). It gets worse every time I drive by. As information came out on the Charrette process, we
became interested and then excited as plans developed.
The materials and update session exceeded our expectations in every way. The plan is well
thought-out, is balanced for revenue and other amenities (although I would like to see more
restaurant space), and provides safeguards for quality development. The aesthetic character
provided by the codes looks very appealing. The development will be a benefit in many ways—
and improve quality of life. The only "disappointment" I found was the way so many
individuals shamelessly tried to advance their cause or personal agenda. It just became
_....._..__. fnistrating to sit.through.as it seemed that_so.many people werE.using-their time at the
microphone as their personal stage.
I will not deny other residents their concerns. Change is difficult for some. At the same time, I
want to send the clear message that other members of the community are fully behind the plan in
its existing detail. I look forward to further updates and the ultimate achievement of the transit
village. It will be a great addition to the community and cant come soon enough, in my view.
Michael J.Ellis
1165 Briaiwood Way
Walnut Creek
�.�•- "Kristine Hunt" To: "James Kennedy" <jkenn@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
<ksh13@home.com>
4 11/06/2001 07:41 AM cc:
Subject: charrette questions
Jim,
Here are some additional questions from the charrette presentation:
1.Where is the traffic information that supports removing the removal of the left turn lanes on Jones? Jeff s p 3
indicated that there would be slowdowns.
2. The civic use building on the corner of Treat and Oak hs been spoken of as a restaurant. However, the
Codes permit anything of any use. When will there be a discussion on this item? This is critical since
there has been NO sentiment for anything under those oak trees except a "natural" use.
3. The codes contain no requirements for either the design or use of civic buildings. Where are the codes 3 l 3
describing them?
4. Peter Katz showed a slide depicting a huge elevation change between two buildings and said this is not
good new urbanism. This is precisely what is planned for the difference between the 12 story building and 2 v 7
the parking structure/housing units next to it. How is this justified?
5. Given the constraints of entering the giant parking structure to get to the Kiss and Ride,why would a S
anyone take that option when going into the bus/traffic circle is so much more logical? Has this been
studied, given removal of the left turn lanes?
KSH
"%-James R. Huntlll"' 7o: jkenn@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us
<hunt@ce.berkeley.ed
u> cc: dist3@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,dist4@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us
11/06/2001 08:48 PM
Subject: Charrette Comments and Questions
f
Jim Kennedy
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
Re: Pleasant Hill BART Station Development
As requested at the October 30 meeting, I am submitting the following
comments and questions related to the proposed development plan.
When first proposed, the charratte would be a very rapid planning
exercise. It started with an informational meeting in the Fall of 2000 and
then, I thought, be completed in six days in February 2001. The public was
told that all decisions would be made and all questions addressed. The
Fall 2000 meeting should have provided the consultants with the public1 s
concerns, but evidently they did not hear very clearly about the internal
conflicts related to too much traffic and too little parking.
The six-day February meetings were not conducted as promised. The
consultants and presenters demonstrated a lack of understanding of the
local issues and in fact attempted to minimize the concerns of the locals.
It took far too long for the meetings to have agendas that were known at
the start of the meeting. There was little control on the time spent on
presentations by consultants and I felt this was an effort to minimize
public input. There was extensive use of breakout sessions with
facilitators at tables to collect questions, there were many efforts to
collect questions on posters around the meeting rooms, but there was no way
to sense the mood of the participants towards development issues. The
transportation and economic experts with local knowledge were largely
silent until the last meeting of the six-day effort, and this did not
provide the participants with an ability to at least be aware of the
difficult tradeoffs that are needed at this site. The pictures of the
proposed development concept at the end were well received. A quantitative
analysis of the development was not provided.
The follow up meetings in April were again. presented as the end of the
planning process and emphasized esthetics of the design rather than the
actual issues of traffic, parking, economics, and land use for office,
retail, housing, and open space. Again, the concept was appealing, but
there were no details .
The supposedly final meeting was to be held on October :0, but there was
very little pre-notification and information was only selectively 1 . 1y
distributed prior to the meeting. A few days .before the meeting, I
received the brochure and then another packet containing a summary of the
earlier meetings and two documents related to property codes that turned
out to be incomplete since they did not contain the Regulating Plan. What I {
immediately noticed was the number of disclaimers in the Brochure and
Summary document. I then spent some time trying to understand what was in
these official and unofficial documents. The October 30 meeting again did
not have a pre-announced agenda. I was left with the feeling that the
process was being stacked against the public_ since the documentation was
not designed to be understandable, even for those of us who particioated in
all of the previous meetings. Since this was the last of the announced
local meetings before the process moved to the planning departmer_t and the
supervisors, there was added frustration and some distrust.
The October 30 meeting had the consultants promoting this as a
demonstration project for new urbanism while the public was more interested
in the details related to land use, traffic, parking, and timing of the
development. Many questions raised by the participants were collected but
only a few were forthrightly answered. Near the end of the meeting we were I
again told that there would be yet another meeting. I am fearful that I
will again have to wait until the last minute to get information for that
meeting, not have an honest agenda, and have to listen to more
presentations that promote the general concept of New Urbanism and avoid
the issues. I hope there will be an analysis of this whole charrette ti •���
process to understand the benefits to an .exercise. that appears to drag on 13
as long as other efforts, is frustrating for all participants, and does not
correct what all agree is a very ugly situation with the surface parking
lots at the BART station.
The questions below arose from some of what is in the following documents:
„h Large foldout Brochure
,h Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Summary Report (Summary)
,h The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code: Architectural
Standards (Architectural)
„h The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code: Principles 'and
Regulations for Redevelopment of the BART Station Property (Regulations)
„h The map of the site called the Regulating Plan
1. Throughout the Regulations and the Architectural documents, there is 13. 1 2
frequent reference to an entity not discussed previously, the Town
Architect. Who pays for this person? Who certifies that this person is
familiar with New Urbanist 'principles (Regulations, page 9) ? What is the
role of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Steering Committee for this area I� y
compared to the whole redevelopment area? What mechanisms are there for
the Town Architect to work with local and regional interests prior to
recommendations being submitted to the Community Development Department?
2. On page 13 of Regulations are general principles for building
envelopes. Where are the standards for the top floor of parking structures
in terms of roofs, and lighting? These will not be visible from the 3 • ly
street, but will be visible from the upper floors of the 7 and 12 story
office buildings.
3. On .page 15 for Workplace Building Sites, the heights are listed as i§MAX 3 • � S
7 St.\106 ft Block Ei ••. Why does this conflict with Regulating Plan that
lists :i§Max 52ft ; "?
4. On pages 15 and 18 of Regulations, upper floor uses for Workplace
Building Sites and Shopfront Building Sites include lodging as an option.
Where is the justification for including lodging?
5. On page 18 of Regulations, the height for shopfror_t buildings is listed
as ;§MAX 7 st. \108 ft within 100 ft of Treat Blvd; '* . When did the
possibility of a seven-story building arise on Block B when it was not part 13 ,c, 01
of any previous conceptual design? Since the Summary document indicates
that building of height between 5 and 10 stories are not economical, how
can they be proposed when they cannot be built?
6. On page 18 of Regulations under Elements, there is the
statement; ;§Consult the Masterplan i •• . Where is this Masterplan? d (�
7. On pages 7, 9, 11, and 13 of Architect, the second sentence is
always ;§Refer to the Code Standards at right for the specific prescriptions
of this section. ; •' Is this a reference to the following page? If not, 3
where are the Standards?
8 . On page 9 of Architect, there is the statement that roofs
should ;§provide visual coherence to the BART Station Propertyi •• . If the
BERT Station is not required to blend in with this development, how can the `l a
Town Architect achieve this intent?
9. On page 10 of Architect, the last bullet addresses the issues of parking
structures. How does this Standard address the appearance' of the tops of 3 . I,-1
parking structures?
10. On page 18 of Architect, the landscaping section stresses the 12,0 3
3 . 10
importance of planting street trees. Where in Architect and Regulations
are the protections for the oak trees currently remaining on the property?
The following items have not been addressed in Architect or Regulations:
11. What are the parking requirements for office and residential?
12. How will the i§temporary-, " parking lots be accommodated into the site? -7 ' (59
13. How will replacement of temporary spaces be funded? O 3
8.
14 . How will shuttle service .be funded? ` b
15.What about the pedestrian bridge over Treat Blvd. at Jones Road? G O
16. Where is the compensation for the land removed from Iron Horse Trail 7. O
for this development?17. Since the Specific Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area is not IZ , p 2
mentioned, what part of that document is still valid?
Thank you for allowing me to bring these issues forward. I look forward to
seeing the answers prior to the next meeting.
James R. Hurt
2632 Cherry Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
hunt@ce.berkeley.edu
Nov 01 01 O4: 56p Jerry and Kathy Hicks 925-945-1914 p. l
Geruld F. flicks
74 Amberwood Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94$9$
Pkl. (925) 94:5-7465 * Fax (925) 945-1914
E-Mail: jkhicktininfi.net
.4 FA NAESSAGE:
Date: November 1, 2001
To: J im Kennedy, Deputy Director-Redevelopment
Contra Costa County
Fax No:335-1265
Frorn: Jerry Flicks
Pages: 1, including this cover
Jim-
At latt]Llesday's BART Charctt.e, l asked two quwions, one of which I believe you can supply a quick
answer. I asked about Bicycle parking at the BART development and the answer was that it would be
according to County standard,,.
The question is important as we continue to try to get people out of cars and use altemate transportation.
The bike parking,along with safe and convenient connections, is a most important ingredient in
tunhc-ring the use of bicycles. We have a perfect opportunity to makc sure that adequate and visual hike
parking exists for AAR'C communters, residents,and the oft ice and shop employee~and customer~. That
is the background for my question.
What are the County's bike parking requirements? Could you please send a copy of the requirements to
me and 1 will share these with the other members of WC BAC. I surmise that these arc"minimum"
requirements and,in most development proposals,the minimLrm is planned for. We should take a real
good look at any special requirements ul'this very important communityproject and make sure that we
provide for abundant hike parking, not just the minimum. I wag Coen sug;estinr; that bike parking-be part
of the ceding,or at least.a part of the development proposal.
Ifyou would like to have the help of the WC Bicycle Advisory Committee help review any issues dealing
with bicycles at the BART station, I'm sure our members would be happy to volunteer their time and
etTort in Thi, very important venture.
Jerry !-lick~
Nicole Schweickert i
35 Cora Court (;:JrI T R �.1 J I L.
Walnut Creek,CA 94596-6803
November 6,2001 01 NOV —9 AIK 10; 20
Jim Kennedy Fes''
Director of Redevelopment s,f 'i
651 Pine St.
4th Floor N. Wing
Martinez,CA 9455
Dear Mr. I'ennedy,
Deja-vu. That was my impression of last week's Bart Charette finale. It was several years ago(5 or 6?)that we were
presented with a similar Transit Village Plan by a different set of consultants: lots of big,pretty drawings of what could be,
lots of promises that this would improve our community,much persuasion that they knew what was best for our l
neighborhood(not us,the residents.) I see no difference between what Millennium,BART and our Supervisors were trying
to do then and what the current cast of players is trying to do now. We keep telling them we're concerned about more
traffic congestion and noise,and the dense collection of tall office buildings,apartments and shops. They keep ignoring us,
putting off decisions and planning more meetings.
Certainly,both the efficiency and appearance of the Pleasant Hill BART parking lot must be improved;the need for more
parking,the indiscriminate tree removal and lack of landscaping,the pell-mell gravel and asphalt are all problems that need
to be addressed. But the only solution our elected officials are offering us is this Transit City Monster that will create more
problems than it will solve for our community.
Supervisors Mark DeSaulnier and Donna Gerber,BART Director Dan Richard, Redevelopment Director Jim Kennedy,you
all consider yourselves"civil servants". Maybe it's time to start listening to the people you were elected or appointed to
serve.
Sincerely,
r �
Nicole Schweickert
944-0142
•
"Kristine Hunt" To: "James Kennedy"<jkenn@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us>
<ksh13@home.com>
11/16/2001 09:28 AM cc:
Subject: additional charrette questions
Jim,
Since the answers to the questions are not yet complete, I would like to take advantage of that to add
some items that have been raised recently.
They are:
1. How will the parking for BART airline customers be handled? Will that parking be taken from the pool '7 1 I
of BART parking,the pay-BART parking, or the private businesses?
2. Earlier there were written statements made about the size of the dwelling units being as small as 450
square feet which met considerable objections. I have not seen any commitments as to the size of units. I.O Z
How is that being handled?
3.The 50 units that are supposed to be for sale are spoken of in less that absolute terms. Is this assured 8 a I
and by whom? if there is a problem on the lending market obtaining financing for this unusal product in
this part of the world, has BART guaranteed to sell the land to allow the owner-occupied units to be sold? I 1 ° 3
4. What are the proposed number of low income units that will be built on the BART property? 11 0 1L(
5.Why are there now two potential hotel sites?
3. I
Thanks,
KSH
U.Jim nenneay contra Costa Com hunity DeveloprFrom: Sherm Fishman 9259341132 12/5/01 16.26:40 Page 1 of 2
a
To: Jim Kennedy
From: Sherm Fishman
Memo:
Tks for the copy of the Nov. 28 mailing with comments and
commentary. In some way, my recommendations got overlooked,
altho I have presented them at each Charrette, and faxed memo's to
AIA staffers.
Here is the way I look at the project:
I agree 117itli Mary Phelps that this whole issue should be presented to
the voters so that everyone, not just those who are able and interested ( . 1
enough to attend these meetings, can express their consent or
otherwise. What is wrong with the world's largest parking lot ? Do -7, 10
we want to go to Nvork or do we ii-,ant to go shopping. And, who really
wants an apartment facing the subway...if this were NYC ?
I have repeatedly recommended that the 12 story office bldg and the 7
story garage be reversed. Build a 12 story garage and a 7 story off-ice -7,
bldg. Additionally, all parking should be free. Tt's cost is in your
ticket. Today's Pleasant Hi1UMtz Record (Dec. 5) reports that the
senior citizen shuttle is not being used. It is a failed idea. �, .O b
Further, I have recommended that a 20 megawatt power generator be
installed on the roof of the garage. This males the village energy
independent, can export power to WC, PH, Mtz, & Cnd and be
st:rnrlhy Pmi,Nr far R RT Sre at ii-lied nr w%rliP ;dmW .San .11m. St.rte
University- energy independence.
Sherm Fishman
934-1331
O ;.tu .9 >'f, _�•:p.j, is c'.
::E;'': ,�} - �.i,4�•ty-' .-,p, _;:t:`r: T.a?x
•� n r w - ° S, S .'4,.,.4.: .n,3,. "'f>._°-'..iii i,,C;".'�..!r.i. o ....•y,y y>: rt �•i
CJ m "`:;sp::`':'.m w= '::2:::en;` ,f•a ..4'};.....y:.,.+:`d. �,• v :' `•;:::
(!'� in r� �'m� o �;�:�,, �2•',N•v:.4,,yi.'��.o i„u�yiq:, •�>.',r.'G?.;a�..c^'=E;23.tJ ��,i,•.�, 'u• 'L�.�i:
ra � c o w v. x a..b•J�t.:E.'.s:;:s;}�+
`��:•5: �� 4C
O `�•:' .:`ri+: rrlr:.A: S•�_' r:!,r�'�: c,.'trk .a
o: 6A'`c:yri:. :f ;: .:���•..�. ::'r
f C6 am c �.r
L ro _....,C;:•c-y•;P,:)�`:'-;�i='�-r%.�,:,�:,,:
u
`l._
r= c C r >. i'=5'- :o yaw.;” ..t.. :•. ,. y
�• a m O m � 'c '•Ic!'�,•T. :.c>m.:,�; :;o'•:_.it[C`✓r;%;:..., 5:�'r-�:_� ...
. Y C a� a I SS j`a;:;�:F p-s�..`�.;�.n' :_c.S.m':.'i:`.:. -..: yj
.m. C ,?l."�.'' 'jGr'-4,� -i7?;',cid. �1 .F°• N1 �.:. ;��,... ...i.;;;+ .
z t_]�q rJ � o � ��':Yi4'f.c✓oi'.b'i' p •'�t��; _ "t��-n'�y,��;�6'•'�.�,i.
C u �.c�'•':'rC"..::E'.,ca" :.C•�?�-:_o;y,',.. :,N'.,� roN'.-•"r�s'y.F'• a< �,��s':�_��S
(� of m -J = „ p���iii:n•.L;�,f°.a ::�. 2"a'.'m �.F". �;�?;a .� i-- 's•._';�,�.,��i:'�:�''.:;
_ - m _a c ,�,e,;: ..�' `itY' _�'q•, - ,. '"v _ - _ `" ate' `;--T.
W c - O . ,-u .'a >'.F,. •:M.°i-"'Sx_,�:'.'�'a' -.= 1. raR t: :s. `II•.'" �-i':';•'.:
c tN- S] Y c f { :c :�: �_S. ?2":. �i :,moi... ;�•m�.y� a.',c:-'
y •tom-->,. ,� ,:. '*sn+'r'.: -u, ?' t-: -�c -.r•r,P:
L � m... N - _�. .j= :«:tY:��'•a'_' "EC3. .yc_• x X :_)s_..x,.
F Gl•:; %i'Oti rr:,�i:5'�i{:.r.y,;N -,r� }., -�T
�,t C -li• m r..�i .r�;?'i - �5. ;.i.=LS':;.'' .'iF'c-.....2ac:-..^Ti*�'��':v`>T'"�:;.':�;.
ON U a 4 - C _ ::,t?::�..:�i.�`_'".'`Cf•.t'::^S�:yyi-:lcil:.1_c�y'W...�� yy _;.t
b
.ry ^'{.:''._:}ar': ^•x
c`.O N - - � N �.�::: �'�!.,'.?�7-•__ ...�F�..._ .•c... . v.Si'-•�s,� t�_"�i^.a"Yt:.^^i
'� S G':'•t�.'r`ll,>��: .•�".��"^v. 2. ,ter^ R•.
m. �s x.:� '" ^;'7;�,-'._:•dt; `; :••a:ir-,::. ':. c?•• � x«tEaxu-a• _pc!yx:
v! O '-c::3-,.,.._;:.:ti:�+.�7•Tr�:'•"' -Zi`''t};`N: yG.•`
� m .�` - N a _;;y,_:G: !�j': nf.m _wt'.:1 �ch..`°::�.;:.•f�,•n"-• 1r'....
-nt, .,-. o:r 7?•'�.'.rn „y;C:J/' G;•'::�'j
t7 [� ..•n.v C•`�•G A'st]'M�:4=.a:'� •:.=ow etl ,•.; x:^J-mom_:. -I^.,
> {�aa'co:c :_"�'_�-,m s =.5:..;:% r'rj +as::__�•:,_s
U U C `�d'' .i ...k)::'s ID':� :m�. .,. 1 _f7f�•,• v1J -r_ i
r3 T c 5a c:"Q�4.a:: '�'''-'..:`'moi�'>`.��t�ry�r p,..TiS�'��7f••^'ra` La '. ,:t-,
,.. m t; :.Ti? • ..:2''- S?:ti"vi�i�tiirio.4'S$':':Yh,�:"_i'^ :x� •�ta`. 5'i
L ; a,,_.r.':r_'P;;z:-ai_n:. =.a: .u.. �n.^,_: <,•rsv_cs:�,
U r 3 o ta ••v��r4,r,S..u':_ _
?+:.sz
=a,: r
�.
_ 'Si•i `-:.., .-x,',r�3•''!. _y�.-'.j'u: :. W..:'. ",._..e::
fuyf°y:1?t.�•; '�-,.
s:�•:-
�.� m vii r. � G "-"�o.:•��4'r.���_::rr. o m`a --s•'or:.tc� +�'". L. �?k. �. ,z_ ''T:y.�
a
c
C
N al C % h_ ,I+1��.�.:y..`;�i,.'.iJ1:Z1.`a.m=; i .;sxs:
.. i
a c syP y
}O U r C4 / ^ :^nt•3'i+�'» "
N C '-t V - `."•c''.:�
D O �2 ,�, '�. _ -N OI U"! C C 7i 1 ' 1". a m - ':n= i •
7.Ej O a N _�,/✓ - C yy' co o
a a afi c o ^ 1
a 0
'20 E n cr v° o s u m E o u n 2 $ a'
X. .- ra, c,= o
c oo aL y;�gPs ca �� a �'_ V•` 1 a+ a
o a (." CS u o r1?
.`r_�• ;,i- ap,� `'' � .`_t .fin
r�;� 1���/�i//ir ��;� ��7,� _,d/��\,• ,�f G-r •�l �fG —•y,�i/�//,���,/,,.
�;//•
'alp f�'' ��,k• ���"'-" •a�e.
vDAP
� G•���;r. 'rJF!".w fl _ i_- :�1 _ �=��I1II,"1)I�I'(�� �JT�~.�`'A4,.,.•
,.,c,��r,. =`l '!I() .:/%, - :7fI' `- llllll(.�)'lt,j•' .!
MY
e e e • -
' � 1
[-'T- ±�Z'� `1�k �` TT �++,�'c�{l,�Y�+�^ti }:4�,.,.f rit r �. ,r�(,;�4j;y � I �{-f r • �
• ! 7:, �w (4'.✓� �� r 't�`+'�P 'tib vY'a $ �. .. -.
r.. 71a /
'-?� •. �rri'k � r„a (� ��,., a i��� �M� ��r 8 � �, -�'� ��
J t
'•� rr g'Jt �f� � �• ��-.i' ^._tel n. ��'s 3' ��r` / ~I
iU D f �,��ii��[✓.°1(r`1 (r ( la �� `�
1111 �-� J�•� t1�1�.i���/y���� i��i.3y��,p�, f [�'1 l �! i,.Jp�U '' � f 1
Al
c` �a-.�v,.wT�r�..'�.•L�'� -L:'' il+• J�� �' 1 .�( I j��_� A f3. �-���I - 1
fr) y. ci•tr� r . —. r- fy? �. i a
_ �-y---� rJ,� r� .;,off• _ _ �L�� , - -� � � �.�
r
'� .�'",-:r _ trf _ .`fix /�l��f ��11�1 �•" t� �
_ (nia a by Ste"�/e Pr•�ce; an Advantage
•
• THE NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
Components of the
• p
•
PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property plan is designed to foster a vital public life through its squares
• and tree-lined streets overlooked by upper storey residential balconies. The redevelopment of the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Property is governed by the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code, which is
• designed to achieve these goals in concert with the techniques and scale of 21 st century development.
While the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Masterplan provides a citizen endorsed urban design
• for the improvement of all properties in its study area, configurations shown for the Bay Area Rapid Transit
Authority (BART) properties can be considered conceptual vision statements only and no commitment has
• been made on or by BART. Within this Code, BART structures are considered to be CIVIC BUILDINGS and
• are thereby not constrained by its prescriptions.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code is comprised of. Definitions, the BART Station Property
• REGULATING PLAN, and the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS. The other document that comprises the Code
• is the ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.
A. DEFINITIONS
•
• Certain terms in the Code are used in very specific ways, often excluding some of the meanings of common
usage. Wherever a word is in SMALL CAPITAL format, consult the definitions for the specific meaning.
•
• B. THE BART STATION PROPERTY REGULATING PLAN
• The REGULATING PLAN is the Coding Key for the BART Station Property that provides specific information
for the disposition of each building site. The REGULATING Plan also shows how each lot relates to the
public spaces (STREETS, GREENS, parks, PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, etc.) and the surrounding environment.
There may be additional design guidelines for lots in special locations as identified in the REGULATING
• PLAN.
C. THE BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS
• The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS establish the basic parameters
governing building form, including the envelope for building placement (in three dimensions) and certain
• permitted/required building elements, such as balconies, and STREET WALLS. The BUILDING ENVELOPE
STANDARDS establish both the boundaries within which things may be done -- and specific things that must
• be done. The applicable STANDARD for a building is determined by its STREET FRONTAGE. This produces a
• coherent STREET and allows the building a greater latitude behind the street-facade.
• The technique of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS is to use private
buildings to shape a vital public space. They aim for the minimum level of control necessary to meet that
goal. Deviations to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS can be
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
3
•
•
`�`� i
i
•
_°, �
` •
�� �
`� �
Y
•
��
r.
•
y
d3�Q
�.
•
•
i
•
•
THE NEw PLEASANT HILL HART STATION PROPERTY CODE
granted only where the unique physical circumstance of a site makes compliance unreasonable and the
specific deviation granted is consistent with the intent of the Standard.
• THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
• THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
The goal of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Architectural Standards is a coherent and pleasing
• architectural character that is consistent with the best local traditions. The Architectural Standards govern a
building's architectural elements regardless of location and set the parameters for allowable materials,
configurations, and construction techniques. Equivalent or better products than those specified are always
encouraged and may be submitted for approval to the Town ARCHITECT.
• THE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
The purpose of the Landscape Standards is to ensure coherent BART Station Property streets and to assist
• builders and owners with understanding the relationship between the PUBLIC SPACE and their own
• properties. These Standards set the parameters for planting of trees on or near each building site and
overlay the prescriptions of the Specific Plan.
• THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCEDURE
The role of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Town Architect (the TOWN ARCHITECT) has been
established to administer an ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW procedure for the development of properties within
the BART Station Property area. It is the responsibility of the TOWN ARCHITECT to review architectural and
landscape plans for compliance with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code and to provide design
guidance when necessary. The TOWN ARCHITECT shall be responsible for interpreting and enforcing the
• Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code regarding architectural and landscape standards, as well as any
• other standards not otherwise addressed and regulated by the County Code.
Wherever there appears to be a conflict between these Codes and Title 8 of the County Ordinance Code,the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Codes (Planned Unit District) shall prevail. For development standards not
• covered by these Codes, Title 8 shall be used as a guideline.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 4
•
• THE NEVA PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• THE NEW
•
• PLEASANT HILL BART STATION
•
• PROPERTY CODE
•
• DEFINITIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 5
•
•
THE. NEW PLEASANT HILL &ART STATION PROPERTY COIDE
Certain terms in the Code are used in very specific ways, often excluding some of the meanings of common
usage. Wherever a word is printed in SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS, it is being used as defined herein.
• ALLEY
• The vehicle passage-way within the block that provides access to the rear of buildings, vehicle parking (e.g.,
garages), utility meters, recycling and garbage bins.
ARCADE
A roofed or built structure, extending over the sidewalk or SQUARE, open to the STREET except for
supporting columns, piers, or arches. Residential or office units may occupy the space over the ARCADE.
• ARCADES shall have, at the sidewalk (STREET), a minimum clear height of 11 feet (signage or lighting may
encroach) and a minimum clear width (from frontage or REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL) to inside column
face) of 10 feet. The area within an ARCADE shall be open to all public access. Supporting Column/Pier
shall be located no more than 20" from the back of the curb (minimum 60" Public access easement/sidewalk
• within the ARCADES' clear width). Where an ARCADE is built the requirement for STREET TREES is waived
• for that STREET FRONTAGE.
BALCONY
The exterior platform attached to the front of the main building ( the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL) or
STREET side). Required BALCONIES, as defined in the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS, must be roofed and
enclosed by balustrades (railings) and posts that extend up to the roof and shall not be otherwise enclosed
• above a height of 40" except with insect screening. BALCONIES aligned vertically on adjacent floors may
post up to one another and share a single roof element.
BUILDABLE AREA
The area of the lot within which buildings will sit. The BUILDABLE AREA sets the limits of the building
• footprint now and in the future -- additions must be within the designated area. This provides for
construction in a manner consistent with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property's urban design goals
BUILDING CORNER
This refers to the outside corner of a building (where the building mass is within an angle less than 180
• degrees. Some of the proscriptions of the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS are specific to BUILDING
CORNERS. Inside corners, where the exterior space is within an angle less than 180 degrees, are not
considered BUILDING CORNERS.
• BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS
• The BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS establish the basic parameters governing building construction. This
• includes the envelope for building placement (in 3 dimensions) and certain required/permitted building
elements, such as BALCONIES and STREET WALLS.
COMMON LOT LINES
Lot lines shared by private lots,generally side lot lines.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
6
THE NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE.
CIVIC USE
CIVIC USES are community uses open to the public including: meeting halls, libraries, schools, child care
centers, police stations, fire stations, post offices (retail operations only, no primary distribution facilities),
• religious halls, museums, cultural societies, visual and performance arts, transit centers (including BART
stations), and government (purely bureaucratic offices not included) functions, especially those involving
the public. CIVIC USE is an allowed use for any site.
• CIVIC BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS
• CIVIC BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS are those structures located on the sites designated on the REGULATING
PLAN and include the BART structures. Other than location, they are not governed by this Code. The
architecture of CIVIC BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS should reflect the citizens' highest aspirations for their
city.
• DORMERS
• Dormers are permitted and do not count against the building storey-height restrictions, so long as they do
not break the main eaves line, and are individually less than 15 feet wide and collectively less than 30% of
the unit's REQUIRED BUILDING LINE facade.
• FENESTRATION
• An opening in the building wall allowing light and views between interior and exterior. FENESTRATION is
measured as glass area (including muntins excluding mullions) for occupied buildings and as open area for
parking structures
GARAGE ENTRY
• An opening (with curb cut) in the building fagade and or STREET WALL where vehicles may enter the block
interior for general parking and business servicing. GARAGE ENTRYS shall not exceed 14 feet clear height
and 24 feet clear width (those existing prior to 2000 are excepted) and shall not be sited within 200 feet of
another GARAGE entry on the same block.
• PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
• PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS are interconnecting paved walkways that provide pedestrian passage through
blocks running from STREET to STREET or interior block parking area. The easement width for these
pathways shall not be less than 20 feet and the paved walkway not less than 10 feet, except where
specifically noted on the REGULATING PLAN, and should provide an unobstructed view through their length.
• PUBLIC SPACE
• Property (STREETS, ALLEYS, CIVIC GREENS, SQUARES and parks) within the public domain within which
citizens may exercise their rights.
REGULATING PLAN
• The REGULATING PLAN is the coding key for the BART Station Property BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS
• that provide specific information for the disposition of each building site. The REGULATING PLAN also
shows how each site relates to adjacent public spaces, the overall BART Station Property and the
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 7
THE NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CORE
•
surrounding environment. For lots in special locations, there may be additional design guidelines identified
in the REGULATING PLAN.
• RESIDENTIAL FLAT
• RESIDENTIAL FLATS are building types are specifically defined in the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD for
RESIDENTIAL FLAT SITES. They allow both Condominium and Apartment arrangements (as defined by the
County Zoning Ordinance).
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE(RBL)
The building must be built-to (coincident with) the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL) The RBL is a
• requirement, not a permissive minimum as is a set-back. The RBL for each lot is shown on the
REGULATING PLAN.
SHOPFRONT BUILDING
SHOPFRONT BUILDINGS are building types spatially defined in the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD for
• SHOPFRONT BUILDINGS sites.
SQUARE , CIVIC GREEN
PUBLIC SPACES located within the BART Station Property, as designated on the Masterplan. The SQUARE is
generally paved, appropriate to a more highly trafficked area. The CIVIC GREEN is a primarily unpaved,
formally configured, small public lawn or park. Situated at prominent locations within the BART STATION
• PROPERTY and often dedicated to important events or citizens, CIVIC GREENS and SQUARES shall not include
active recreation structures such as ball fields and courts.
STREET, STREET FRONTAGE
1. STREET includes all PUBLIC SPACE (STREETS, SQUARES, PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, GREENS, parks),
• including the BART passenger platform -- but not: the BART line itself(or underneath), Block interior
• (parking structure) driveways or ALLEYS.
2. STREET FRONTAGE refers to the building line coincident with the STREET Right of Way (ROW) or the
RBL.
• STREET TREE
A deciduous canopy shade tree as listed in the STREET TREE list on the REGULATING PLAN. STREET TREES
are of a proven hardy and drought tolerant species, large enough to form a canopy with sufficient clear trunk
to allow traffic to pass under unimpeded.
STREET TREE ALIGNMENT LINE
• A generally straight line that STREET TREES are to be planted along. This alignment is parallel with the
• STREET or SQUARE and unless otherwise specified in the REGULATING PLAN is set four(4) feet from the back
of the curb.
STREET WALL
A masonry wall, between 6 and 15 feet in height, built on the RBL or building line.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
8
THE NEW PLEASANT MILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE.
STOOP
An entry platform on the STREET FRONTAGE of a building. STooPs may be roofed but they shall not be
enclosed except by required safety railings or balustrades.
• TOWN ARCHITECT
The TOWN ARCHITECT is an area locally based Urban Designer, familiar with New Urbanist principles and
with the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property redevelopment, who will work with prospective tenants to
show how the BART Station Property can satisfy their site needs in a cost efficient manner. The TOWN
ARCHITECT will work under the direction of the County and will assist the developer, tenants, BART, and
• the County in achieving the goals of these Codes in a cost effective manner. The TOWN ARCHITECT will
make recommendations to the Community Development Department prior to and including consideration of
Final Development Plans or modifications and to the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building
permits.
• TOWNHOUSE
Note: this definition differs from the definition in the County Zoning Ordinance. A residential, common-
wall building type between 18 and 36 feet wide and 2 to 4 storeys. TOWNHOUSES are one family dwellings
in which each has its own front or rear access to the outside, each unit is two stories or more in height,
units may be stacked one over another, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more
• common and fire resistant walls. TowNHousEs shall be owned either fee-simple or as condominiums. All
lower units in Townhouse buildings shall have entry off the STREET from a STOOP as per the building
envelope standard.
"WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET"
• Many requirements of this Code apply only where the subject is "clearly visible from the STREET."Note that
• the definition of STREET includes SQUARES, parks, the BART platform, and all PUBLIC SPACE except:
ALLEYS or the BART rail line and the area underneath. The intent here is to restrict control to things within
the public realm where there is public significance and limit interference in the private realm.
• WORKPLACE BUILDING
• WORKPLACE BUILDINGS are building types spatially defined in the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD for
WORKPLACE building sites.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
9
•
• THE NEW PLEASANT FALL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
•
•
• THE
•
•
• REGULATING PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
•
10
•
•
•
•
• THE NEW PLEASANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY, CODE
• UNDERSTANDING THE REGULATING PLAN
•
• As the principal tool for implementing the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Codes, the REGULATING
• PLAN identifies the basic physical characteristics of each building site and the BUILDING ENVELOPE
• STANDARD(BES) assigned to it.
• The illustration below explains the elements of the REGULATING PLAN and serves as a reference when
• examining the PLAN.
•
•
• UNDERSTAN:DING THE REGULATING PLAN
• THIS IS YOUR BLOCK .ADDRESS
• REOUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL)
The red dashed line indicates the
• r Ii„ = RBL for your- sit^. The Bu;Iding
'C!3) `:I shall oe BUILT--0 the RBL.
PARKING SETBACK LINE
• �... Vehicle Parking (except basement level)
not allowed forward of this line.
• - - - - STREET TREE ALIGNMENT LINE
�T BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD
DESIGNATION HATCH
• - ,,: - - , rIT
• - Shopfront Building Frontage
• f17 7-rr;lir,T i.
lil;lll;l!liiillil!;; Workplace
• I;!!;;;,;;;;,;!!,,; orkplace Bul1ding Frontage
Resicic;ntial Flats Frontage
• _ i 'Townhouse Frontage
•
• Civic Buildings and. Monuments
•
• BUILDING SITES ARE CODED BY THEIR STREET FRONTAGE
• When the Code designation changes at a STREET corner, for example -- the greater hierarchy BUILDING
• ENVELOPE STANDARD type may be applied for a maximum distance of 50 feet down the lesser street. The
• hierarchy, in descending order is: SHOPFRONT, WORKPLACE, RESIDENTIAL FLAT, TOWNHOUSE.
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• tt
•
•
•
• TME NEVA PLEASANT HILL HART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
•
•
•
• THE
•
•
• BUILDING ENVELOPE
•
•
STANDARDS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 12
•
•
THE NEW PLEASANT HILL RART STATION PROPERTY CODE
INTRODUCTION
The BART Station Property REGULATING PLAN identifies the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS for all
• building sites. The goal of the BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS is the creation of good STREET space. They
aim for the minimum level of control necessary to meet that goal. Deviations to the BUILDING ENVELOPE
STANDARDS can be granted only where the unique physical circumstance of a lot makes compliance
impossible (and the specific deviation must nevertheless satisfy the intent of the STANDARD).
The BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS set the basic parameters governing building construction, including
the building envelope (in three dimensions) and certain required/permitted elements, such as BALCONIES,
• and STREET WALLS. The STANDARDS specify building types that will be built within the BART Station
Property.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. BUILDINGS ARE ALIGNED AND CLOSE TO THE STREET.
Buildings form the space of the STREET.
3. BUILDINGS OVERSEE THE STREET AND SQUARE WITH ACTIVE FRONTS AND BALCONIES.
This overview.of the STREET contributes to vital and safe public space
4. PROPERTY LINES ARE PHYSICALLY DEFINED BY BUILDINGS OR STREET WALLS.
Land should be clearly public or private—in public view and under surveillance or
® private and protected.
• 5. VEHICLE STORAGE, GARBAGE AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ARE KEPT AWAY FROM THE
• STREET.
•
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 13
•
• THE NEW PLEASANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD
•
•
• for
• Workplace Building Sites
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 14
•
•
•
TIDE NE`u PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY eOUE
•
•
• Pleasant Hill BART Station
•
• Building Envelope Standards
• g
Workplace Buildin Sites
MAX 12 St\180 ft —
BLOCK D y .,% �. _ — ,,� The building shall bt between 2 and 4 Storeys in height,except
• MAX 7 St.\108 R where otherwise noted here or on the REGUI.A'11NG PLAN.
4—J BLOCK E Any parking structure w/in the block shall not exceed the eave
MAX a St.\52 ft -...-- - height of any building w/in 75 feet.
• .�`� MIN 2 WALLS REQ'D ON Any unbuilt RBL or COMMON LOT LINE shall have a STREET WALL
• STOREYS ANYUNBUILT built along it between 6 feet and 15 feet in height
LOT FRONTAGE
• .._-__—____
6TO ISR
HEIGHT The ground floor elevation shall be no more than 18 inches above
]Bin
MIN '`- the fronting sidewalk elevation.
• 17 FT
'z
No less than 80%of the ground floor shall have at least 12 feet
L clear height
• SET IR The STREET facade shall be Built-To the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE
FRONTAGE REQUIREDBUILDINGLINE(RRL)
w,fwoR (RBL)within 75 feet of any BUILDING:CORNER,and Built-To not less
Lor LINE than 75%of the RBL overall There are no required side setbacks.
\. GARAGEIPAMNG
„•`:. AREA Norwr�EBN, I Any unbuilt RBL shall have a STREET WALL along it,between 6 feet
• I " \\'\`� OF ANYORUUND t1.IXlR
FR°NfAOe and 15 feet in height.
MIN 75% Parking� �` *Parking for vehicles(autos,trailers,boats,etc)shall be at least 20
GARAENTRYS NOT GE FT
ANY feet from any STREETFRONTAGE(except for basement gazageS).
• REQUIRED �:: \� BUILDING CORN Garage/parking entrances shall be no closer than 75 feet from any
BL .LINE (OUTSIDE CORNER)
DG
BUILDING CORNER(except where otherwise designated on the
• \` :` ,. - - REGULATING PIAN).
• REQUIREDREQUIRED BUILDING LINE
BLDG LINE
(RBL
• —
FENESTRATION shall be no less than 30%for all RBL building
facades(measured for each facade and storey between 3 and 9 feet
• — _ above the finshed floor). Blank lengths of wall greater than 20
Awnings, linear feet are prohibited.
Enc°unsged �� -�
^ , FACADE
• V./ FENEStRA'I'IUN
MIN 30%
• The ground floor shall be only non-residential uses such as Office
• and RetaiL
Upper floor uses may be either office or residential(including
—� hlodgEng operations).
• OFFICE --—----.--. --- Functioning entry door(s)shall be along the RBL facade of the
• RFSIDF.N7IAL + building facing Block E.
OFFICE
g'
FICE°� The ,Parking ( )for vehicles autos,trailers,boats,etc. shall be
• ..RIL
— _ at least 20 feet from any STREET FRONTAGE(except for basement
garages). *Except where otherwise designated on the REGULATING.
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
15
•
•
THE NEW PLEASANT MILL HART STATION PROPERTY COIaE.
• SPECIFICATIONS: WORKPLACE BUILDING SITES
HEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS:
1. Principal building height is measured in storeys with maximum heights in feet. These maximums
preserve view corridors and are shown on the REGULATING PLAN.
2. The maximum height limit in feet is measured from the highest fronting grade to the mid point of
the roof.
• 3. STREET WALL heights are relative to the adjacent sidewalk or ground elevation when not fronting
a sidewalk.
SITING SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The buildings shall occupy only the specified (hatched) area of the lot. No part of the buildings
(excepting overhanging eaves, BALCONIES, STOOPS, and small and unroofed garden structures)
shall occupy the remaining lot area.
• 2. Corner Lots: The STREET FRONTAGE for corner lots is both the front and side STREETS(or RBLS).
• ELEMENTS SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The building's STREET fagade should be composed as a simple plane (limited jogs of less than 18"
are considered within this requirement) interrupted only by windows, STOOPS, BALCONIES, and
storefronts.
2. Designated GARAGE ENTRIES shall be the sole means of automobile access, unless otherwise
• approved by the County.
• 3. Parking for vehicles or Garage doors shall not face, and parking areas (unenclosed) shall not be
• located within 20 feet of the STREET, unless otherwise designated on the REGULATING PLAN. These
prohibitions are not applicable to on street parallel parking.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 16
•
• THE. NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STAT ION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD
•
•
for
• SHOPFRONT BUILDING SITES
•
•
•
•
a
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 17
•
•
•
• THE NEW PLEASANT HILL BART CITATION PROPERTY CODE
•
• Pleasant Hill BART Station
•
Building Envelope Standards---- --- -
----
• Shopfront Building Sites _
MAX 7 St.1l os ft The building shall be between 2 and 4 Storeys to in height,except
within 100 It of
• Treat Blvd. Any arking structure w cin the block the shall not exceed the cave
where e REGULATING PIAN
• MAX 4 STA12 ft-,- ----'I height of any building w/in 75 feet.
MIN 2 _ --- ----�' - -- _.. AR unbuilt It RL Or COMMON 1.0'1'LINE shall have a S[RI?II'W.AI.1.
• .�"1 ' STOREYS - - -- WALLS NBU[REQ`D T Y
- -- LAOTFRONTAGE built along it,between 6 feet and 15 feet in height.
• 6 ISfl
--HETelGltT The ground floor elevation shall be no more than 18 inches above I
MIN the frontingsidewalk elevation.
I --n FT ;
Lis.. CLEAR` I• 7 0 I�olessthan80!oofthegroundfloorshallhaveatleastl2feet
• _— + clear height. No less than 80%of the upper storeys shall each have
Lat least 8 feet 8 inches clear height. ——
• ��
REQUIRED BUILDING LUTE(RBLI T The Slul.1 facade shall be Built-To the REQUIRED BUILDING LINI;
-
(RBL)within 75 feet of any BUILDING CORNI•:R,and Built-To not less
• 1 :LOT LINE than 75%of the RBL overall. There are no required side setbacks.
GARAGFJPARKING
AREA NOT wm11N io FT Any unbuilt S'tRF,t:T FRONTAGE,shall have a STREET wAl.l.alon it,
• Y g
OF ANY GRf M;WI{1 I..
"'"TA4E' between 6 feet and 15 feet in height I
• '` I Parkin for vehicles autos,trailers,boats,etc. shall be at least 20 1
MIN 75!5 g ( )
BI.fRi
GARAGE ENTRYS NOT I feet from any ti'17RI?I:f FRONTAGE(excepting basement garages).
1 ALONG �':.' �` :•' WITHIN 75 FT OFANY
• r/�
REQUIRED :;;'' ` �..;�;.� BUIt.DINGC'ORNI.7t
Garage/parkingentrances shall be no closer than 75 feet from an
v J BUFr,I.InE tourslDEcoRNeR1 BUILINCORNFIt(except where otherwise designated on the y
REGULATING PLAN).
• REQUIRED 5�JREOUIRED BUILDING LINE
BLDG LINE .. (RDL)
• IO Fr BALCONY The primary-ground floor facade shall have no less than 60%F
BALCONY wIOT11 SPEC. F
REQUIREDMIN EN1?S•IRn7'TON(measured between 2 and 10 feet above the fronting
•
For'fnpp� _ I sidewalk).Awnings and overhangs are encouraged.
Storey Units• — SFT MIN -I —
• I DEP71 Upper Storey facades shall have between 30%and 70%
_._._...
• �"I
UPPERFACADES
r---- ------- 1 ; 1+ENI:S'nt:17'ION (measured for each storey between 3 and 9 feet
FENESTRATIONnoN above the finshed floor).
MAX 7(rl.
MIN 30% _'1 *Except facades along Treat Blvd.and Jones Rd.,no less than 50%
• ^1� +�TFFAACA HE of the top storey units shall have BALCONIES.
• rT I MIN 60^x, -T_ ,AR(:Ar)ES are permitted if designed and constructed in contiguous
__-
S
I<. I •IREV I'1RON•l'AG1:S of at least 200 feet(or any complete RBL
• _ _I j fronting the square)_Consult the%iasterplan.
1 The ground floor shall house only retail or temporary office uses
• _.—.___— (also lobby and access for upper storey uses).
I
Storey e either:(Block )residential, (Block A 1
I *Lipper Corey uses may b pith B r � 'al or
I
and C), residential,office or lodging.
® -
Fronting the square and the North/South Retail Street(between
IRESID.or I .._______.... Blocks A and B)there shall be functioning entry door(s)along the
'I OFFICE-
STRiA:I•facade at intervals not greater than 75 feet.
RETAIL or
• {Temp.
ONLY oboe ! The garage(parking for vehicles autos,trailers,boats,etc.)shall be
at least 20 feet from any S'TRI F"['1•RONTAGE(except for basement
garages). Except where otherwise designated on the REGULATING
PLAN.
• October-2-001 r.2001 GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES LLC All Rights Reserved
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 18
•
• THE. NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE.
SPECIFICATIONS: SHOPFRONT BUILDING SITES
HEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS:
1. Principal building height is measured in storeys with maximum heights in feet. These maximums
preserve view corridors and also are shown on the REGULATING PLAN.
2. The maximum height limit in feet is measured from the highest fronting grade to the mid point of
• the roof.
STREET WALL heights are relative to the adjacent sidewalk or ground elevation when not fronting a
sidewalk.
SITING SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The buildings shall occupy only the specified (hatched) area of the lot. No part of the buildings
(excepting overhanging eaves, BALCONIES, STOOPS, and small and unroofed garden structures)
shall occupy the remaining lot area.
• 2. Corner Lots: The STREET FRONTAGE for CORNER LOTS is both the front and side-STREETS (or
RBLS).
• ELEMENTS SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The building's STREET fagade should be composed as a simple plane (limited jogs of less than 18"
are considered within this requirement) interrupted only by windows, STOOPS, BALCONIES, and
• storefronts.
• 2. Designated GARAGE ENTRYS shall be the sole means of automobile access, unless otherwise
approved by the County.
3. Parking for vehicles or Garage doors shall not face, and parking areas (unenclosed) shall not be
located within 20 feet of the street. These prohibitions are not applicable to on-street parallel
parking.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
19
•
• THE. NEW PLEASANT HILL. HART STATION PROPERTY COQDE.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD
•
•
•
for
• RESIDENTIAL FLAT SITES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 20
•
•
i
i
•
•
_ .. •
�- �
�. �
:3
_- i
:. •
��. •
_� �
��
•
•
i
•
•
THE. NEW PLEASANT MILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
• Pleasant Hill BART Station
•
• Building Envelope Standards
i Residential Flats Sites
• "I'he butiding shall be between 2 and 4 Storeys in height,except 1
•� where otherwise noted on the REGULATING PLAN. I
• \5M ft 4 St � �.. � Any parking structure w/in the Block shall not exceed the eave
height of any building w/in 75 feet.
• WALL5 REO'D ON
•V.0MM z ANY UNBU"i Any unbuilt REQUIRED BUILDING LINE(RBL)or COMMON LOT LINE
• STOREYS-..,� OT FRnrJTAr,E shall have a S'FRF.ET WALL built along it,between 6 feet and 15 feet
hocHT PEO`D in height.
•
36-601n�MThe rd Storey finished floor elevation of any renden[ral unit
(REO Dr.811_Et E%n ground
AR* _ I shall be no less than 36 inches above the fronting sidewalk.
�, \\ \.�• '\\�.U � \ The first storey shall have at least 8 feet 8 inches in clear height.
• REQUIRED The s R.EET facade shall be Built-To e RE UIRED BUILDING LINE
STREET BUILDING LME (SBL) the Q
rNTERIOR RBI.)within 75 feet of any BUILDING CORNER,and not less than 75%
IAT LINE
of the RBL overall. There are no required side setbacks.
• \.�• \\, L1 C`l�,• ,/� AR Any unbuilt RBL of COMMON LOT LINE shall have a 5'['REET WALL
PARKING
I/ PARKINGING
OPTIONAL along it,between 6 feet and 15 feet in height.
AILEA
\\\ \ NOT
MINIMUM gmpN
• MM73Y. \\\\�,_TOWID (� �� °W The garage,parking for vehicles(autos,trailers,boats,etc.)shall be
BLDG ` RAno I:x aaan o at least 20 feet from an RBL(except for basement garages).
ELGiGG �'� \\\\ (MIN W F7WIDE) �:.�FUBiM ue•, y ( eP 8a g )•
BL LINE /�/ *Except where otherwise designated on the REGULATING PLAN.
• \\ ��\ i .i/�'//�{ Parking access shall be from a designated GARAGE ENTRY.
4 BUILDABLE I **For special TOWNHOUSE configurations the facade shall be 5 feet
T IRE
REQUIRED S TBiAREA
%';
D
UILDMGLME WI N back from the RBL,see Specifications,next
BLDGLME — (RBL) 35 FT JJII p�
iIOFT L ;, BALCONY *A roofed BALCONY is required for at least 50%of the upper Storey
CIO %/ SPEC.
• 4„ BALCONY MIN �� ur11tS Of the building fronting a STREET Or RBI.,minimum 5 feet
REQUIRED '�� deep and 10 feet wide. (Except where the RBL is within 5 feet of a
• UT Units in S U
Upper FloorsEPM7INH \� 1 city or county owned ROW.)
PPeI
i FENESTRATION shall be between 30%and 70%for all RBL building
facades(measured for each facade and Storey between 3 and 9 feet
• FACADE - -. above the finshed floor). Blank lengths of wall greater than 20
^� FENESTRATION linear feet are prohibited.
r T, MAX W T`MIN 30%0%
\�..'•\�\\\�\\\\\\�\�\ \�i�\ice\;\\�\���::\•.
• Upper storeys shall be exclusively for residential use.
• The ground floor may,in addition to residential uses,have small
• (n professional office,building lobby,building managers office,
_ ancillary retail grocery,and cafe uses(each less than 1,000 sq ft).
• � i
oMy The garage,parking for vehicles(autos,trailers,boats,etc.)shall be
at least 20 feet from any RBL(except for basement garages).
RESIDENTIAL I
• LQ..1)LOBBY —-
SHOPS and OFFICES
\ NNL \ice\` '\\ \'•,�`\\,: \\\ \.
• Ormher 2001 n 2001 GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES LLC All RlVhts Reserved
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 21
•
•
•
• THE NEw PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE.
•
•
•
• SPECIFICATIONS: RESIDENTIAL FLATS
• HEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS:
•
• 1. Principal building height is measured in storeys with maximum heights in feet. These maximums
• preserve view corridors and also are shown on the REGULATING PLAN.
2. The maximum height limit in feet is measured from the highest fronting grade to the mid point of
the roof.
• 3. STREET WALL heights are relative to the adjacent sidewalk or ground elevation when not fronting
• a sidewalk.
•
• SITING SPECIFICATIONS:
• 1. The buildings shall occupy only the specified (hatched) area. No part of the buildings (excepting
overhanging eaves, BALCONIES, and STOOPS) shall occupy the remaining lot area.
2. Corner Lots: The STREET FRONTAGE for CORNER LOTS is both the front and side STREETS (or
• RBLS).
• 3. TOWNHOUSE building types may be built on RESIDENTIAL FLATS Sites.
• ELEMENTS SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The building's STREET fagade should be composed as a simple plane (limited jogs of less than 18"
• are considered within this requirement) interrupted only by windows, STOOPS, BALCONIES, and
• storefronts.
• 2. Designated GARAGE ENTRIES shall be the sole means of automobile access, unless otherwise
• approved by the County.
• 3. Parking for vehicles or Garage doors shall not face, and parking areas (unenclosed) shall not be
located within 20 feet of the STREET. These prohibitions are not applicable to on street parallel
• parking.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 22
•
•
•
• THE NEW PLEASANT MILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARD
•
•
• for
• TOWNHOUSE SITES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 23
•
•
•
THE NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE.
•
•
' Pleasant Hill BART Station
•
Building Envelope Standards
• _ Townhouse Sites_ _
• 52 tt Max Ultimate Height l6lt Ophon for The building shall be between 2 and 4 Storeys in height. The 4th
MAX 4 Storey only P� 4th Storey
if Set Back Req d Set Back storey shall be either set 16 ft back from the RBL or built as an attic
or Dormer
storey with DORMERS.
• MAX 3 \\T •• "^ The first storey finished floor elevation of any residential unit shall
latRBOotwnol gide W'i^g WAI S REO'D ON be between 36 and 60 inches above the fronting sidewalk.The fust
• • or Ancillary Bldg ANY UNBUILT
MIN 2�s 1811 MAX Height LOT LINES 3 storeys shall have at least 8 feet 8 inches In clear height.
STOREYS 6 TO 15 ft
• -- -iFiGHT REO'D
MIN / Any unbuilt REQUIRED BUILDING LINE(RBL)shall have a STREET
36-60m aft 8:n 7 WALL built along it and any unbuilt rear Or COMMON LOT LINE shall
iREO'D CLEAR.
have a fence along it,both between 6 ft and 15 ft in height.
II The STREET FACADE shall be Built-To the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE
• /�/�"��! % TMERIOR RBL)within 75 ft of any BUILDING CORNER,and not less than 90%
Req d f?u:ldin'q Line
ROW 5 FT RBL = 5 ft off Frontage, fyp. Property Lines—L�T� of the RBL overall There are no required side setbacks.
Any unbuilt RBL shall have a STREET WAIL along it,between 6 feet
MLN \\\\\
CLOG \\ \\.�\ and]5 ft in height.
• ALONG
\ N,\\
• '` \BLDGIlUNE \�""I ` GARAGEIPARAING FT
AREA The garage,parking for vehicles(autos,trailers,boats,etc.)shall be NOT WrnffN TREETF FRONTAGE* at least 20 ft from an RBL(excepting basement garages). Parkin
I E— \\ \\ OF ANY STREET'FRONTAGE I Y ( P g b'a Be)• g
• � \' access shall be from a designated GARAGE ENTRY.
WI 'IN
1 The lot/unit width shall be between 18 ft and 36 ft. A maximum
• + F r \�\c\\\ i - _ _ of 6 units shall be contiguous as a single building. There shall be a
'RBI.—rte /r//�; - 10 ft gap(gated)between multiple TOWNHOUSE buildings.
• _� ///% - - -Except where otherwise designated on the REGULATING,PLAN.
�� STOOP A STOOP,not more than 5 ft dee and 6 ft wide(plus steps)is
• r^ ' 6 F- Mn. L /.':" P (P P)i
V' WIDTfI //,i�.��i SPEC.
r j/���j required forward of the REQUIRED BUII DING LINE(RBL). (Excluding
• upper units where one unit is stacked above another.)
^\ SFT MAX I
• QJ S loop \OEP I y PRIVACY FENCE A fence,30 to 40 inches in height,is permitted along the STREET
REOUIREDJ, g FT MAX FRONT'AGP"and along the COMMON LOT LINES of the front yard.
• 1 Privacy fencing,between 6 and 8 ft in height,shall be placed along
36-F�Naom any unbuilt rear and COMMON LOT LINES.
• ......................................................... FENESTRATION shall be between 30%and 70%for all RHL building
C �� l facades(measured for each facade and storey between 3 and feet
M\ \ ����\\\� �� ,;\ �\ above the finshcd floor). Blank lengths of wall greater than 20
linear feet are prohibited.
• Upper storeys shall be exclusively for residential use.
• The ground floor may,in addition to residential uses,have small
• (� ^ professional office,building lobby,building manager's office,
�/ \ ancillary retail grocery,and cafe uses(each less than 1,000 sq ft).
• 4 RESIDENTIAL The garage,parking for vehicles(autos,trailers,boats,etc.)shall be
L ONLY at least 20 feet from any RBL(excepting basement garages).
• Resid.,Home Occ. 'Except where otherwise designated on the REGULA'T'ING PLAN.
• Neigh.Commercial
• October,2001 O 2001 GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES LLC All Rights R—rved
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 24
•
•
..-
.�
1 •
..
~y4
'�i+
.• •
t
w��
His
.�^
N'
.i"
`'th,
4
•
i
•
•
•
•
i
TIDE NEW PLEASANT HIM,. ]BART STATION PROPERTY COIDE
SPECIFICATIONS: TOWNHOUSES
HEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS:
• 1. Principal building height is measured in storeys with maximum heights in feet. These maximums
preserve view corridors and also are shown on the REGULATING PLAN.
2. The maximum height limit in feet is measured from the highest fronting grade to the mid point of
the roof.
3. STREET WALL heights are relative to the adjacent sidewalk or ground elevation when not fronting
• a sidewalk.
• SITING SPECIFICATIONS:
• 1. The S buildings shall occupy only the specified (hatched) area. No part of the buildings (excepting
g
overhanging
eaves, BALCONIES, and STOOPS) shall occupy the remaining lot area.
2. Corner Lots: The STREET FRONTAGE for CORNER LOTS is both the front and side STREETS (or
• RBLS).
• 3. Townhouse building types may be built on Urban Apartment House Sites. .
• ELEMENTS SPECIFICATIONS:
1. The building's STREET facade should be composed as a simple plane (limited jogs of less than 18"
are considered within this requirement) interrupted only by windows, STOOPS, BALCONIES, and
storefronts.
2. Designated GARAGE ENTIES shall be the sole means of automobile access, unless otherwise approved
• by the County.
3. Parking for vehicles or Garage doors shall not face, and parking areas (unenclosed) shall not be
located within 20 feet of the STREET. These prohibitions are not applicable to on-street parallel
parking.
r
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 25
THE. NEw PLEASANT HILL HART STATION PROPERTY CODE
• The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code,which includes the Regulating Plan and the Building Envelope Standards,has been prepared
for use in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property. All copyrights and publishing rights are exclusively reserved by Geoffrey Ferrell
Associates. The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, BART, the Developers and Builders and Realtors, etceteras, and Lennertz
• Coyle and Associates L.L.C.are granted full use of this manual for the permitting,regulation,development,management and promotion of the
Pleasant Hill BART Station Property,including copying and distribution to interested parties upon their request as a matter of public record.
• All reproductions and publications of this manual, in whole or in part, shall cant' the following credit: "Geoffrey Ferrell Associates,
Washington,D.C."This manual may not be otherwise photocopied, in whole or in part,without the expressed written permission of Geoffrey
• Ferrell Associates,and may not be used for any other purposes whatsoever.
• The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code is binding on all parties having an interest in any portion of the Property,and each owner is
• required to comply with the requirements set forth herein.
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
19 14th Street S.E.Washington D.C.20003 telephone(202)547.7141 facsimile 547.7151
• GEOFFFERRELL@STARPOWER.NET WWW.GEOFFREYFERRELL.COM
•
•
•
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 26
1
1
1
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
e
•
•
I
�I •
cr
NAVA
I ` � ,.� �l;lr'j•'•r�-:��.�',m_tr.•-••�L. L,.—•j jE•-J �i'F' ) fi �:`L�, •1�.�!!
+!/ l /.fel �l'=� '=+ /,771 i 0, �a. Jb`�l f r L� < 'fir`;• L�'' �' S'v>�X. l',
/��b,j"I�r�.l�y�4. i �Vl•��/�1��/��'/��_�_ ��,�.�,�.�.�4��•�I(Y ,��`�1fF�.f;�-�`y.
r If{ I , b��tJ� Y���/f
...r' /�. r I" _ ' ••fir � i•r.•:�:.�'
��di 1►-�i. �,'S;� � '.,! .r;: �% ��: .•�....�,;J�,�.-� ',� �, ,� • . .era
p OR
, a T
:,1}i���G'`••i� \�•����`- •.�•�•�/, r. y _ , - ��•�� ,+ 'JSP
- �' 't,' �''' itt�tlii.�l 1{1 Ifh �t/� 1! •• i� ,�e !I t j� �I 7�J
I' `, Tm, �.
.a
��•� Ir 'I• i•• lu, •I���lyy,[�I{{I.u, r�Ir:Il i.;;��I Q•fj71�I' �� 1'•i. sr:. lI /�� {� I
r-- �. :��;��+N ,l' r6D I. l.'a. `<3f"$1!'ytit. �(j��j('.r j` :f�°/ierr j';�,,, _/•}. !•.; ;.S.Ei.r ��
,I ,{ {I; � ,�. i! ��.��, G"!'•jl.'� •!�����,y//'.1 ' ����,�i�i�d/ �!l;'�t�T`t�IGJiam•t•ii�.,-tiiti, r3�1'l::tLei'���11 �.
��I ��:r 's"•i{; t..: a_e._Pi� C� ��?'9�i}a7J::Y�I ��� -,.� I_�i.�.�-t_:.': c—'—__.l9 C�SII
#.f ft�1, f�
fad r. •i_��" �/ iJ�---�-'_- t1Q+v' ' .��'�'if'l-��_ r � 1�t
C;:::L:+..�' •-Fz.r-_"'-d-.T�,,•`-�'�... �•..:°.��%��--- .°'•_��:r._.._r_-' L�.���97_CII.LLCC.IC��Z'rF�7.J'/.CI1.�L1�;;����
i
/ I /
D D D ♦ � � D
A
A THE NEW PLE.,AS.ANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
A
A
° TABLE OF CONTENTS
0
0
° I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND INTENT 3
0
A
° R. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 6
° A. BUILDING WALLS 7
B. ROOFS 9
A C. WINDOWS AND DOORS I I
D. STREET WALLS 13
° E. LIGHTING AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 15
° F. COLORS 16
® III. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 18
° IV. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE 20
A
0
°
0
0
A
® GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
° 2
THE NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND INTENT
1 . TRADITION
• These standards favor an aesthetic that is traditional in a broad sense. They specify an architectural
language of load-bearing walls, pitched roofs, and regional materials reminiscent of northern
California's Spanish Colonial Revival structures. The standards also coincide with the Code
requirements that specify certain details, such as column spacing, window proportions, roof
pitches, and overhangs.
• The intention behind these standards is not to copy the past, but to utilize its discipline when
• designing new buildings. Structures created according to these standards will also demonstrate a
• clear relationship to the longstanding architectural traditions of northern California.
• Buildings designed to withstand the elements (gravity, sun, weather, and time) that also
incorporate traditional rules of proportion and massing retain their appeal beyond a simple
question of"style."
• All building materials shall express their specific properties. For example, heavier more permanent
materials (i.e. masonry) support lighter materials (i.e. wood).
2. SIMPLICITY
• The building mass shall consist of a simple composition of basic building forms that follow a clear
hierarchy. For example, the principal structure and accessory buildings will be sited in a manner
appropriate to their size and function.
® • Rooflines shall be simple, utilizing gables, hips, and sheds, or combinations of these basic forms.
Complicated rooflines are to be avoided.
• Details such as doors, windows, eaves, railings, etc. should be carefully designed and constructed.
• These will contribute significantly a building's visual interest and value.
3. EQUIVALENT OR BETTER
• • While only materials, techniques, and product types prescribed here are allowed, equivalent or
• better practices and products are encouraged. Their introduction shall be submitted to the TOWN
ARCHITECT for review and approval.
4. WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
• Many of these standards apply only in conditions WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
Note that the definition of STREET includes, PARKS, SQUARES, the BART passenger platform, and all
public areas but not the BART LINE. These controls therefore concentrate on the public realm and
• minimize interference in the private realm. For example, an architectural element that is visible
only through an opening in a STREET WALL is not CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 3
A • ♦ • • • •
='/Gi 4� r� •� w• T•..,';f •.L, •c^�• �� �- n j1•.'S. h:u�,:r�• _, _�f)��.) �i�/' r '!�
•sem � - •'t r. r ( :�. y.� '� L �_ .�.�� �o%t y .:y'�_�,
�' .� gra •,:'—' -� Oxy' jG�
r .:� ��•y�_? ,[.. �,� �`4`.y tie Zvi�...„rte, } r�.j�j't�'x,�.??• ( i - �/�F�. •/--f .ir./. -
1;� -1 t'};'. .1` �p���'��'j, 'i.•r tY+INfn�ft�•/L'L} �i•i�.�� lVI ll •i w� j.
' -� ' "j'`�`LI r �. 1•j��-��P .. s. .�.o•; �� a-1t ,- .,,.1 jII� I. I � I>1 J �J,J: -'- :. ,' � �,
v .rr lt:-`.1~�erv'� b!L �4'7, ,.. / � l� �•-� `I I � ,�;i 7 ti ; .s - ,J
�:,.; ------ - ',x. .-' _ � �t �ftlr � I A�rr11;.� fir•� l�
�--•.�� ,-' ''.: �; .� � `::r�`:�e�,~-rte •, - _ � - _.� � __ `a
Ftp�� ;�•�� � `-±;' a ������I .v.. _ - ,�� .�'• 1�1�%� �
I ::�� -��.� ,�'',`}:;'�w�.:�'- /+ _ -r.. -_`_"�•�:f�.. '`.-ter— `� - ,c��, �'
'7 G-.-1-1
r _ - .'- '� •. y l"u
ve-f�rlcz Urban Adman fa e,
,fes''-•--�`as r�-�
O'!'•,- ►� i•'i
Jium`, �1;\�;° • • • •
c- •,;ll�rlQ�{�` I�I ll_•TP�� /;% ���. I� .1� �����r ..i��}6�IY. �I,;�. �,,,y,�O��o�•
��� 1� .•�jr 11°1l4fQ2tS-e+-�= ��i{il�h�`�/[/l/�(L L�.iu:�lll �.,•.��','���j�lr� q j��G 1 •
F11as
•' !F;
•�, - �`-fes .�- .• _}J`- r . -r--:: _�, •
hp \\�l�Y. �� -`fie-d.Y��a%���'/�-•��'O,{.�1�/ • -• • •,• • •-
t:�fyi�'It���l.: 6:2�J����\\ 4 .1.�j:e!�,�•��, ��F`t. --,�, • •
rill,
Ri
1, 1�•lj � i�.r �: l.!'/�' 0.+1�►�_�r'II �' Y�:� ..,� _ ts't_i4 .. ....a _:. . _
} 111 r �� �•.. _ 'i�a
1 `��;t1-J`•.C} �1 :�� e'-'' kit� I�"� �- „-�`�a ?�;1"° � �A i..
at FF
• • • • • • • of I • • • •
•
• THE. NEE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• THE
•
• ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 6
•
•
I,!if�ll ��1y. I pip'\'='_ti� � :i���� ' ., -, � -�+ ¢r � '�-liiL?.'e��'l-: ..�.•, ,t..
vii •' i } i � �:"' Va+ �'- � � _. `_'•. -
INMI
'-j f.(�I •le`oft�l,i.11
�• Al,v. i t is / ;z i'v y. I i,� ii iiill!co _ 'L.`: �i .r• �.— i' + +ir j '}9 s.'
11'x,� i• 11
zl�.;sii• �.I �+i� Y, �•J� +�' :�f.�l.,, , ' f y�l �l1F�{}' �..• nlf;,a:;-. ��%l�}�.y-,.,trti.: :•-
�� �{•t'.r b :•:iL ,-:t3 ' asfl'�s',� �.. �. J f ::,r�',;a -;,",••-:•;;.;;-r,'.•���yry, ;1
7� 1 I u Ey=_ a'. !S�' ,:(}�v 91 L9ii� :�S '�" K•- `•7 •,}_, •„ �.lr c�yf I�'rlri
�..
t� C7r:
l� ���ioilf rf
►i►iPUal�_ pRill"
,.�
Ill I V�I01
'�f' y ,«. IIIIIIII QJolo I of=c�l� _aJoio� :I•.'�_ I���i�iu�il aJc�� �"`�\��� �� 1� - ' Y.,.
9,.i IL!Oi., ;T o s LI I6 ulZZ
,J �cU una' �"�'�"'� �
IIiIL'�Ir 9 i •iJ7� Gf drfl ilii'_ a I I' a G v
�.IInflHlun Jill, I ll�b,npn_''�1�I❑a�rnll—�(-lt'L-l!•r'■ -+.}t.f i:: ♦ 'tti..f M '
I
•
THE. NEW PLEASANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
• STANDARDS: BUILDING WALLS (EXTERIOR)
•
• WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
•
• MATERIALS- BUILDING WALLS
• ■ Brick
• ■ Stucco (cementitious finish)
• ■ Native stone
• ■ Precast masonry
■ Gypsum Reinforced Fiber Concrete (GFRC -- for trim elements only)
•
•
• CONFIGURATIONS AND TECHNIQUES
• Walls
• o Wall openings shall be "no more squat than square" (i.e. must be taller than wide).
o Wall openings shall not span vertically more than one storey.
• o Wall materials shall be consistent horizontally (i.e.joints between different materials must
• be horizontal and continue around corners) except for towers, chimneys and piers.
• ■ Brick, Block and Stone
• o Must be properly detailed and in appropriate load-bearing proportions.
•
•
• ■ Stucco (cementitious finish)
o Smooth or sand finish only
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 8
•
•
� .
1 • 1 •. • " S .1 • • ' 1 •1 1 . 1 • •
-
ant
aI
W�l�... I..... .ii... ... it(tiL®®i r n u i�l l iii
--- �'---iIG!Illlliiu•...,i<�i�i�T u>. _.
iiil—tl. =li,i:fii.iit
1• - -/%lT- �v ?�,;� �_ I: i �
` !E [T y WILI'I +u I I Al
i -��:i6���6�1�.- /i / I�i •�i .���L... Ji._ i�I•.�.
ll-II 11 11 li _
IILI�_
ti.,f..11
iIVA
�;. _ r ,, � =— ,,. II II II I il�1'rrti:�� ��ti]-•-• �.F7Lt,j��g1. ��.Vit'r �� r�
dl � I• _ ILII u L`�.�'• 1, �i/�,�� �yl. •L:/e.� 1. ,.`
'—���I1� I. �3l���'(�----ee-``- --`--❑ ° n e q.;,:rV4 � ='ip `Ls ;.� y2r:,
.Aq�\I� _01 214111 WIN ,.�i��. ,lr�'J. ,,,
�I ,.•.. 1 1 t I I I•�i',' a
�'>���
' I �' ,:JI I� Q �.+P'ii�.a.•e"uuallpa �(:.�I I�la7 0 /�I 1r i c A �a�l¢, '•.�� III'i i. IF,
Nil
1= $ � �t9. a�1� - U� ` - Ii. `�li;J,�f'•�•;4f�l �`':�e�L7�,��- �E�ilh,yi �� Ko
��
ill!i��1' ;��...� �-�� �yl�� �,� �, it �_ �•GI � - --=- �'�C
W':fa
• 1 : • ' • ' • • ' 1 • • • " • • • I 1 • • 1
•
TtiE. NEw PLEASANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
• STANDARDS: ROOFS
•
• WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
• MATERIALS
• ■ Clay or concrete (faux clay)
• ■ Tile: barrel or flat roman
• ■ Slate, equivalent synthetic or better
• CONFIGURATIONS AND TECHNIQUES
• ■ Pitch
o Simple hip and gable roofs shall be symmetrically pitched between 6:12 and 10:12.
• o Shed roofs, subordinate and attached to the primary structure, shall be pitched between
• 4:12 and 7:12.
• ■ Overhang
• o Eaves must overhang at least 30" on the primary structure.
• o Rakes (gable end) must overhang at least 24."
• o Eaves and rakes on accessory buildings, dormers, and other smaller structures must
• overhang at least 8."
o Open eaves and simple classical soffits and fascia are allowed.
• o Soffits shall be placed perpendicular to the building wall, not sloping in plane with the roof
• (except for gable end rakes).
• o Cornices and soffits may be a combination of vinyl, wood, and/or metal.
• o Timber eaves and BALCONY brackets must be a minimum of 5.5" in dimension.
■ Cornices and Other Features
• o Overly elaborate, "postmodern" and/or"high-tech" designs are not allowed. Consult the
• TOWN ARCHITECT for appropriate configurations.
• o Skylights and roof vents are permitted only on the roof plane opposite the primary STREET
or RBL.
•
• Buildings seven (7) storeys and above may vary from the exact prescriptions of these
• standards as long as this is not perceptible from the STREET. Specific roof and cornice features
permitted include:
• o So-called "mansard" roofs: flat roof platform behind partial roof slope
• o Alternate imitation clay tile materials, such as fiberglass
•
• Parking structures that front the STREET or RBL may satisfy the overhang requirement with a
• cornice with a projection beyond the structure walls that is not less than 10" total.
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 10
•
•
�7 ��.i4i1 '���yr�i'^�•--_ il"i�!��-T>��y q- _ '7- -1-oD - --� ,y
I -��-_-__ ���/ :I li II II i�Y3 '�'-�'" ~ '�-r-= � -,I�iY i I�i_• ; � %' �s ,I. i
N;....,...�ilei �" �_-_ _ �'.._•7. .C{y}�y,-.`�...._.. -•,� � � �,I
�liti.�i:—i�i=1�`• .��I� u n u ;I a y.,`�;;•u;��_+.-��_��� I � ' � b _ '�;'Y �'
•y � _� -- OII II II 11 II II ..� ..� }'I � l � Q "��� ; -,
Li
_Q ®II6��'(' ®_ISI II��I147II1S}{p�i � �` J,i �T♦ 5 ��fti. ��///I' � y'}f-�� .I� I '
®
® .I II Hyl I � f+� — '1 •'`� 'r—�ffr ,f�BL^Z'f ':I`i';1 f. i `,� R
Iff I, ,�����. ,7 ��I •I�j ... , 'tom''� ,csa s,: 't' I,i•:�� _ •l '�I- I:� �,)• r
i11 1 C Y tj Simi alI 'n-W
� SS.1y��i L ��_,�.,_ = JIB• ..�-
il�hllt � _ _ -'f�,}L��`•;-._ ;,, ' �;
oo
Il6b IaLL i -�" - �:J .. •YYII� T '.
DIiDl,illiil - - 1Oi° "'' �0 ni„ IIIIII�111111,1111111911t1E��P I�_d! •dl!,Ilu�illu�' -^— erG�, { � _� ""'�on
H 13
z�
t1I�IO tl•Lll���l—ul�lUlll ll,�L�71,[' l' r�- f ��',
Stene; rban.Admardi
•
• THE NEW PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
• STANDARDS: WINDOWS AND DOORS
•
• WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
• MATERIALS
• ■ Windows of anodized aluminum, wood, clad wood, vinyl, or steel
• ■ Window glass must be clear, with light transmission at the ground storey at least 90% and
• 75% for the upper storeys (subject to modification if necessary to meet Title 24 requirements)
• ■ Specialty windows may utilize stained or opalescent glass
• ■ Window screens shall be black or gray
■ Screen frames shall match window frame material or dark anodized
• ■ Doors of wood, clad wood, or steel (dark bronze)
•
• CONFIGURATIONS AND TECHNIQUES
• For all windows:
• o Openings for windows, windowpanes, and doors shall be "no more squat than square"
(i.e. must be taller than wide). Transom windows are not included in the measurements
• of this requirement.
• o Windows may be ganged horizontally(maximum 3 per group) if subdivided by a
• mullion that is at least 7" wide.
o Windows shall be no closer than 30" to building corners.
• o Exterior shutters shall be sized and mounted appropriately for the window (1/2 the
width), even if inoperable.
• Upper-storey windows:
• o Double-hung, single-hung, awning, and casement windows.
• o Minimum 2-over-1 double-hung, single-hung sash configurations.
• o For residential buildings: panes of glass no larger than 36" vertical by 20" horizontal
• (except for the bottom sash in a 2-over-1 configuration).
• o The maximum pane size for office uses is 60" vertical by 48" horizontal.
o Egress windows may be installed according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
•
• Shopfront (ground floor) windows and doors:
• o Single panes of glass not larger than 6' height by 4' width
• o Ground floor windows shall not be made opaque by window treatments (excepting
operable sunscreen devices within the conditioned space), and shall allow a minimum
• 60% of surface view into the building (to at least a 20' depth)
• Doors:
• o Double-height entryways are not allowed.
• o Shopfronts may extend up to 12" beyond the building fagade toward the STREET.
• o Doors shall not be recessed more than 3' behind the shopfront windows and, in any
• case, shall have a clear view to a 45-degree angle past the perpendicular from each side
• of the door.
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 12
•
•
0 9
/YM 17 �1;1!11 It,1Q.,
i fl
Jt'
X7-
•
• THE NEw PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
• .STANDARDS: STREET WALLS
•
• WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
• MATERIALS
• ■ Native stone (carved with local and traditional techniques) and equivalent imitation stone
• ■ Metal—wrought iron, welded steel and/or aluminum(black) for gates only)
• ■ Brick
• ■ Stucco on concrete block (or poured) only with brick or stone coping
• ■ A combination of materials; i.e. stone piers with brick infill panels
• CONFIGURATIONS AND TECHNIQUES
•
• ■ STREET WALLS along any unbuilt STREET FRONTAGE shall be between 6' and 15' above the
• adjacent ground
■ Stucco STREET WALLS shall have a hardy species of climbing vine planted along them
• ■ Metal work may additionally be treated to imitate a copper patina
•
•
All STREET WALL facades shall be as carefully designed as the building fagade, with the finished side out,
i.e. the "better" side facing the STREET.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 14
•
•
• THE NEW' PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE.
•
STANDARDS: LIGHTING AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
•
•
• INTENT Materials and equipment chosen for lighting fixtures should be durable, longlasting, and weather well.
Appropriate lighting is desirable for nighttime visibility, crime deterrence, and decoration. However, lighting that is
• too bright or intense creates glare, hinders night vision, and creates light pollution.
•
• STANDARDS
• The lighting for the Station Property shall create light necessary for convenience and safety without causing light
• pollution or glare. Lighting standards will be reevaluated if light pollution becomes evident
•• ■ STREET lighting: lights located between 9' and 15' above grade with a maximum average spacing(Per
block face)of 60' on center and located on STREET TREE ALIGNMENT LINE on each side of the STREET and
• travel lanes.
• ■ At the front of the building, exterior lights shall be mounted between 6' and 15' above grade.
• ■ Lighting elements shall be incandescent, metal halide, or halogen only. No HID or fluorescent lights
(excepting compact fluorescent bulbs, which screw into standard sockets) may be used on the exterior
• of buildings.
• ■ Floodlights or directional lights (maximum 75-watt bulbs) may be used to illuminate parking garages
and working(maintenance)areas, but must be shielded or aimed in such a way that they do not shine
• into other lots, the STREET, or direct light out of the BART Station Property.
• ■ Floodlighting shall not be used to illuminate building walls (i.e. no up-lighting).
• ■ Lighting of the site shall be of a design and height and shall be located so as to illuminate only the lot.
An exterior lighting plan must be approved by the TOWN ARCHITECT.
• ■ No flashing, traveling, animated, or intermittent lighting shall be visible from the exterior of any
• building whether such lighting is of temporary or long-term duration. Also, the operation of search
• lights and other upward-directed and moving lights used to promote business activity is strictly
prohibited.
• ■ Lighting for parking garages shall satisfy Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
• Standards.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
•
The following shall be placed away from any RBL and be screened from view from the STREET:
• Air compressors, mechanical pumps, exterior water heaters, water softeners, utility and telephone
• company meters or boxes, garbage cans, storage tanks, and the like may not be stored or located within
• any area considered a STREET under this Code.
• ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT
Roof mounted equipment shall be placed away from the RBL FRONTAGE and be screened from view from the
• STREET.
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 15
•
•
•
THE NEw PLEASANT HILL BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
• INTENT. COLORS
•
• INTENT AND GUIDING ILLUSTRATIONS
•
• The illustrations and statements on this page are advisory only. Refer to the Code Standards at right for
the specific prescriptions of this section.
•
•
•
7.
'42
BM
•
M OHM
Linnertz Coyie and Assodates/Dan Paro)ek'
41—
Si
A,
f.11
IC V
.W
-j
ii
--Al
rr 1171
ii
...................
--m— eth Harry
•
• Exterior wall colors should reflect the traditional materials and techniques of California's Spanish
Colonial Revival architecture. Just as simple configurations are favored over complexity and ostentation
• in construction and detailing, they are also necessary in color selection.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL Assoc[ATEs FINAL DRAFT
• 16
• THE NE.w PLEASANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
•
•
•
• COLORS
•
• WHERE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET
•
• MATERIALS
•
• Building Wall Colors
• ■ Colors chosen for the building exteriors should be taken from the Station Property color palette.
• ■ Brick shall approximate the color of bricks made from regional clays
• ■ Primary colors shall not be used for building walls unless they are muted in tone
• ■ Neon colors are not allowed.
•
• Roof Colors
• Natural colors (i.e., terra cotta for clay or ersatz clay) tiles
•
• Trim Colors
• ■ For windows, soffits, cornices, moldings, etc.: whites or dark saturated cool colors (greens,
• blues), or bronze. Aluminum windows, screen frames, etc. shall be bronze anodized.
• ■ Schemes may have no more than two trim colors.
• ■ Entry doors are permitted a greater color latitude (including reds), subject to TOWN ARCHITECT
• approval.
• ■ Brick and stone may be left their natural color.
• CONFIGURATIONS
•
■ Schemes with building walls of more than one color are discouraged except where materials are
• different, such as when a decorative stucco door surround is used. Where different wall materials
• allow two-tone schemes, similar colors and tones are recommended. Sharply contrasting colors
• shall not be used (e.g., red-green, blue-yellow).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 17
•
•
•o�f •-� /6 Y`g Jar�,�>j% �f} l\ Cj
_ree _ �>� 1 rte'1 cLe •r _ /fir_.. 'r•.
i�rP4,
'���; ` �- `T�� � '=-mow �_�o;,C���,{�•.I�. / � ' - r � '
21,
/ �Q�iQw•.P �.. ,' ✓R' /.T� 6 jl �. �-•L� -.'i��' ''�.�t.l•r^�. rf ,;� r�,� �� r,
III111.4,l...0
�r il,-- ��'�.•,.. �;��, r •Y ��if�� -�� t�j=rir%:�;: �G.:'r �'I Lzr; � i..:;'�'. . �: .�I •�'1t:f�
d_.iI I.QAq N'°'t 5:�A_r���f�/'yi� .d�1 ..�3 �.t-a!1.11v�•�-'fR =16rL'1'.�•:I7!
RM
?_a�`£a•'�.v"r�lA r6ta�r"t �� I ..• !/ e.ter;• r
= -- � - ,-.- Sl�i.�S•.� _ J.4.� ��.• .'T'.'r� r=�•..r..+v.�+--r-..•.F..�,Y-= Vii.
Lennertz'Coyle avd Assbciates,..as
THE NEw PLEASANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
A. INTRODUCTION
The BART Station Property is designed with"perimeter blocks" with buildings placed at the STREET
• along the outer edge of their sites. The LANDSCAPE STANDARDS ensure the coherence of blocks. They
also serve to assist building owners and operators with understanding the relationship between the STREET
and their own lots. The use of native plants and trees is mandatory; native trees and plants generally
conserve water and require less maintenance than imported or exotic species.
B. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• r
• THE STREETSCAPE
■ In the BART Station Property, the PUBLIC SPACE receives more emphasis than the individual
buildings through its tree-lined corridors.
• ■ STREET TREES are part of an overall STREETSCAPE plan designed to give special character to
each PUBLIC SPACE and coherence to each area.
■ The desired aesthetic shall be achieved through the use of native trees.
• FRONTS AND BACKS
■ Building FRONTS are the public "face" of every building. Owners are encouraged to place
native landscaping plants and/or climbing vines along the area in front of their buildings.
Planters and window boxes are also recommended.
■ The walled off back areas allow building owners to utilize these spaces as efficient working
• environments unseen by the public.
• C. MINIMUM STANDARDS
THE STREETSCAPE
• ■ Each street shall have a canopy of shade trees (STREET TREE) as shown on the REGULATING
PLAN. Wherever the REGULATING PLAN does not show specific streetscape, STREET TREES shall
be planted along the STREET TREE ALIGNMENT LINE at an average spacing not greater than 30
feet on center(measured per block face). At planting, trees shall be at least 3 inches in
• diameter (at chest height), and at least twelve (12) feet in overall height. Consult the TOWN
• ARCHITECT for the designated species for a particular PUBLIC SPACE.
■ For special locations or lot configurations, the REGULATING PLAN may recommend or require
additional plantings.
■ Any unpaved ground area fronting the lots (to the curb) shall be covered with sod or planted
• with vegetation. Groundcovers may be used in place of turf grass.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 19
`�, 7�ti r� �•►4. iQcan__' ai it
-
�b. €, it ej i® r 'aty��{l N ;� _ ,,"M
NOR
ii
i ?`4.�1'.i�:fi:'^�`•.rr."�"'� �Hi\` _I�:� �k�a p-a ,,�— i�� ,�. "'« . .: i� _:;#; i. \1 f+�,• �1
Jim
will?
q '• f 1_ Tz�'Y Y/l
t,��- �: -1 Mityy lr�
��4"!J��,yr � �.7ta.:�� f�r!l��i '-
a I_d l 1 iQQ� I
Piz..
iQ® �i � 6t�9p��
—:a,f.�n-�� >��.;.1��ftiru.i - �'' .,,/h rl:�r'`rt/„” .�,,_' ■'��E-'ti-'� �? tZ
{S;•I� ,` '�s. `i�d,,fi��6g'�jY=;i: • _ ` i ..His
mzR
n
:�.r '��.,��,r :.�-3,�._.r�r- �,_, �`�• _ ..�-� '�'-t ��1 .�=�� 1�" _
It. Y•` �°l i� ���+ •17�i4 B '.��I�Vj°''���►s�r� �"'• s'r� �. ��'���`�'�_t"��L�ti
�•� ` d• �/ 1'�•C t ��r; 'ice �.T.r. .raj'' �•, Y � .r ,_'
rte %
THE NEw" PLEASANT HILL. BART STATION PROPERTY CODE
• The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code, which includes the Regulating Plan and the Building Envelope Standards, has been
prepared for use in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property. All copyrights and publishing rights are exclusively reserved by Geoffrey
• Ferrell Associates. The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, BART, the Developers and Builders and Realtors, etceteras, and
• Lennertz Coyle and Associates L.L.C. are granted full use of this manual for the permitting, regulation, development, management and
promotion of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Property, including copying and distribution to interested parties upon their request as a
• matter of public record.
• All reproductions and publications of this manual, in whole or in part, shall carry the following credit:"Geoffrey Ferrell Associates,
Washington, D.C." This manual may not be otherwise photocopied, in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of
Geoffrey Ferrell Associates,and may not be used for any other purposes whatsoever.
•
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code is binding on all parties having an interest in any portion of the Property,and each owner
• is required to comply with the requirements set forth herein.
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
19 14th Street S.E.Washington D.C.20003 telephone(202)547-7141 facsimile 547-7151
• GEOFFFERRELL@S"I-ARPOWER.NET WWW.GEOFFREYFERRELL.COU
•
•
•
GEOFFREY FERRELL ASSOCIATES FINAL DRAFT
• 21
i
i
•
•
i
f
i
•
i
i
r
� .
pk: c P-511
/ .%ll�f
al
1. u''i ® J 1 I i 11It1El•
111 7,') .[I'm ' ._.. ,� �.. , . 1e�,• ,;��v\� +�.
•i/�ii//�// �0:/�s� '�7ar �d%�°�y. ��r ,;'< f� „ �!'� �'. -'ter;-"!//��//� , -e`,�
!�%�/�f%'�j'�✓r►TG�1�1 g "�'c"' �,fi/ `•;�r'�[, 1:7q=' r�E4� AWSam
liz
.a,�–.a. - •,
/ Ir
'�v_yy,�- .i•I' (1�1JI� � �''r)`,�f l� Ir, ,I�U'� � ..`'. W _•.fi•..� •��1:::.5♦,.�i:1U•_ --';y.�p
�. .;•�I:, � �: p �����ice' •�tf�b �.� J
•i�IL" ��' ... /��' � ,1'411ra:=! :7l'� �• r. is
•'' �rl� ���-�,.A r v+�� nem ��I��Id',f�.�III --f,(I,Ii�,n���r t^M - \\ e
Res'/.
� _ — o'er• ' I�9•
!! I 6 It
_ v. .•.
vzwx mx ilk
c r
��-'°i.�f I� ,1�') Ir 7/!r�= a� +'�� , � �I I I �' ��!'�I•/t1
Ln
� �� t-�� ,, ,��"• ;1� :� l� � — �-� �•_ `�,, r .fir!9 'r•:,tf
�,"41
. r_be.y
;;�� ,Il,.��.��ji�'f 1,J�`� r�j�� p'��'frf ,icl�"',� � ��-•�„•'j1`�� _�_ 'gin
L'%�_�'✓.::"df✓d'tlBGC�//1➢In/J!it�rfielllb4r'i�i,��i �'S/l�/1�.._. �.i� A'•�`T"�Il�� •'� d1�7'��---� �� \
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
■ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
• Dennis Barry,Community Development Director
. James Kennedy,Redevelopment Director
• Maureen Toms,Principal Planner
■ Steven Goetz,Community Development Department Transportation Planning Division
• Lisa Noble,Secretary
BAYAREA RAPID TRA NS/T(SART�DIS TRIC T
• Dan Richard,BART Director
• Jeff Ordway, Property Development Manager
• Patty Hirota-Cohen,Senior Real Estate Officer
iJoel Keller,BART Director
• June Ganletti,Government&Community relations
■ CONTRA COSTA COUNTYBOARD OFSUPERVISORS
• Donna Gerber,Supervisor,District 3
• Mark DeSaulnier,Supervisor,District 4
• Jay Lutz,Aide,District 3
• Marilyn Smith,Aide,District 4
0THERAGENC/ES
• Margaret Stanzione,City of Walnut Creek Community Development Department
• Paul Richardson,City of Walnut Creek Community Development Department
• Shelly Poticha,Congress for the New Urbanism
• Judy Corbett, Local Government Commission
• Greenbelt Alliance, Evie Stiers
LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES
• Kathy Boswell,Walden District Improvement Association
• Kris Hunt,Walden District Improvement Association
•
Terry Flemming,Walden District Improvement Association
• Lynette Tanner-Busby,Contra Costa Centre Association
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
• Mark Farrar,Millennium Partners
■ William Mohr,Catalyst
• Craig Woolmington-Smith,Woolmington-Smith,Inc.
CONSULTANT TEAM
LENNERTZCOYLE&ASSOCIATES, URBAN DESIGN
• Bill Lennertz,Principal
• Steve Coyle,Principal
• Laurence Qamar,Principal
•
Jeff Thierfelder,Project Manager
■ Carol Collier,Designer
■ OTHER CONSULTANTS
• Peter Katz,Author&Lecturer on New Urbanism
.
Jeff Tumlin,Nelzon Nygaard,Transit Planning
• Dena Belzer,Strategic Economics,Market Economics
• Abby Sigal,Strategic Economics,Market Economics
• Peg Stone,CSG Advisors,Financial Modeling
• Carrie Hamilton,CSG Advisors,Financial Modeling
• Tom Clausen,Fehr and Peers Associates,Transportation Planning
• Seth Harry,Seth Harry Associates,Urban Design and Retail Consulting
• Steve Price, Urban Advantage,Digital Imaging
• Daniel Parolek,Envision Design,Urban Design
• Kristen Paulsen,Communities by Design,Public Outreach Coordination
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•� Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3
■
■ TABLE OF CONTENTS
■
■ I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 The Vision
1.2 The Process
■ 1.3 The Master Plan Document
1.4 Summary of the Master Plan
■
II, BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 13
■ 2.1 Project Chronology
2.2, Specific Plan
2.3 Regional Context
■ 2.4 Principles of New Urbanism and Transit-Oriented Development
■ Irl. PHYSICAL & FINANCIAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 19
■ 3.1 Site Description
3.2 Lessons from the Region
■ 3.3 Market Analysis
3.4 Transit Opportunities and Constraints
■ 3.5 Transportation Existing Conditions
■ IV. PUBLIC PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 33
■ 4.1 Public Involvement Process
4.2 Summary of Stakeholder Issues
4.3 The Charrette Design Process
■ V. THE PLAN .................................................................. ... 39
■ 5.1 Evolution of the Plan -The Charrette Log
5.2 The Preferred Illustrative Plan
5.3 Illustrations and Perspectives
5.4 Economic Analysis of Proposal
■ 5.5 Transportation Related Proposals
5.6 Transit Related Proposals
5.7 Parking Analysis
VI. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 83
■ A. Financial Feasibility, Model Assumptions and Structure
B. Frequently Asked Economic Questions about the Project
C. Traffic Counts and other Relevant Background Data
■ D. Log of Public Proceedings
E. Design Concept Iterations
F. Public Comments Made during Events
■
■
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hill SART Station Area Community Plan 5
r.
i
REPORT ORGANIZATION
■
i SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
The Introduction is an executive summary of the of the station
■ area vision, the process that lead up to the creation of the plan, and
the summary of the masterplan.
■
■ SECTION II. BACKGROUND
The Background is a summary of the 30 year history of the
■ Pleasant Hill BART station. This section explains the regional
growth strategy context and the project's relationship with the
principles of New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development.
■ SECTION III. PHYSICAL & FINANCIAL CONTEXT
The Financial Context describes the current site, market, and
transportation conditions and their relationship to the plan.
■
■ SECTION IV. PUBLIC PROCESS
The core of the public involvement process is the Charrette design
■ process. An abbreviated log of the Charrette design process and a
summary of stakeholder issues is included.
■
SECTION V. THE PLAN
■ The Plan delineates the evolution of design that took place during
i the six day Charrette process and follow-up meetings. The
illustrative plan describes the final master plan. The supporting
documents to the master plan include the market, transit,
transportation, and parking analyses.
■
SECTION VI. APPENDICES
The Appendices include base data and background information
S from participants that led to the plan conclusions.
S
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hi//SART Station Area Community Plan 7
■ I. INTRODUCTION
■
1.1 THE VISION
The Pleasant Hill Bart Station is a major regional transportation
hub for trains, busses, vans, and taxis. It serves an important role
■ in the County's transportation strategy to reduce automobile trips.
While the Station performs this function efficiently, for it to be an
■ overall asset to the surrounding neighborhoods it requires
improvement, or perhaps complete transformation. As a transit
fer
center, it is dominated by a seven story parking garage and acres
of parking, surrounded by wide access roads. It is a place that Aerial view of the Pleasant Hill BART Station
about 6400 transit riders rush to and from each day and is area from the south.
therefore designed for fast and efficient movement.
■ The following report describes a transformative vision for the
■ Pleasant Hill Bart Station Area. It is the culmination of a vision
that began over 20 years ago of a new station community where
■ residents of nearby townhomes and apartments could take their
daily walk to the station, perhaps stopping to drop off dry
cleaning, fill a perscription, or enjoy a cup of coffee and the
■ morning paper. Coming home, they could choose to take a bike
ride on the trail, and then meet some friends at the restaurant
nestled in Oak Park.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station will serve the surrounding
. communities as well. Currently, local residents must drive to
downtown Walnut Creek to find the amenities that the station area
will provide. In the future, many of those car trips will be
replaced by shorter walking or bicycle trips to Pleasant Hill
Station. The new transit-oriented community around the station
■ will add value to the surrounding neighborhoods - transforming
what used to be a utilitarian necessity into a true community asset.
1.2 THE PROCESS
Planning for the Pleasant Hill BART Station area first began in
■ 1978 with a larger regional vision that included an emphasis on
creating communities close to transit. A Specific Plan for the
entire 140-acre Station Area(the BART station itself sits on 18
acres and is part of the larger Station Area) was developed in 1983
and was updated and amended in 1998. The Specific Plan calls for
"transit-oriented development," around the Pleasant Hill BART
■ Station - a development pattern of workplaces, housing, and shops
surrounding the transit hub. The Specific Plan continues to be a
critical component in Contra Costa County's strategy to
accommodate regional growth. Since 1986, much of the 140-acre
■ County redevelopment area that surrounds the station has been
Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan 1.0 Introduction-9
built out. More than 2,400 housing units, two hotels, offices with
THE ILLUSTRATIVE more than 4,000 employees, and more than $40 million in major
DRAWINGS & THE public infrastructure improvements have been built within walking
CODES
The design team has distance of the BART station. About 6,400 BART riders travel
prepared "Codes" - through the Station Area per day.
detailed regulations and
specifications designed In 1995, a retail entertainment development was proposed for the
to assure that what was station site. The concept was not supported by neighborhood
created in the Charrette interests and by surrounding communities and was subsequently
is actually delivered on withdrawn by the developer. The failed plan resulted in
the ground. The codes, amendments to the Specific Plan in 1998 that prohibited large
(including the Specific entertaimnent uses and limited the size of commercial
Plan) control key development. The current master plan is subject to the 1998
elements of the'project's amendments and the broader Specific Plan.
design, such as height,
building placement and
acceptable facade Much later, County Supervisor Donna Gerber,with the assistance
materials, permitted
of New Urbanism consultant Peter Katz, proposed a renewed
uses, and functional effort on the project. The first step in this new approach featured a
planning requirements series of lectures by Peter Katz, author of"The New Urbanism:
such as parking and Toward an Architecture of Community." The community reacted .
access. These codes are favorably to New Urbanist concepts of lively, attractive public
being relined and are streets and plazas. Using this public interest as a foundation, a M
not a part of this strategy was developed for a collaborative public planning
document. process, or Charrette. M
Drawin�o,s, diagrams and Lennertz Coyle &Associates, nationally recognized for their use M
other visual
representations of the of the Charrette process in urban design, was hired to lead a
proposed community design team that included transportation, public involvement and
plan within this report financing consultants. This report is.a summary of the Charrette, M
are conceptual in nature the physical, functional and financial base parameters, and the
and depict a series of design schemes.
design schemes that
evolved over a period of M
months. While such .
illustrations represent a
generalized vision of the
plan, certain details may
be inconsistent with one M
another and with the
ultimate built scheme. M
For the most accurate
description of the plan M
as proposed, refer to the ■
Pleasant Hill BART
Property Code.
f0- >.0 Introduction Pleasant Hi//BART Station Alva Community P/an
M
■
III. PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL CONTEXT
■
MIN
!?!!•»'�:y .,, A dry creek bed and snhhhe Oak trees are
■ �� the only natural features on the site.
. II(U �
Entrepreneurs benefit from the heavy
Aerial photo(fmn the south)of the Pleasant Hill BART Station and surrounding development. pedestrian traffic around the station.
■
■ 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION -
The site occupies a 18-acre site owned by BART on the NE
intersection of Oak Road and Treat Boulevard in central Contra
■ Costa County. The current uses on the site are the Pleasant Hill '
BART Station and Platform, 7-story BART Parking Garage, and
■ surface BART parking lots. The site is bordered by Treat Blvd.,
on the South, Oak Road on the West, Las Juntas Way/ Wayne
■ Drive on the North, and Jones Road on the East. Except for a
■ grove of oak trees on the SE corner, the site is completely paved.
The BART rail line bisects the property on a diagonal running
from the SW to the NE. This site is essentially flat, with a slight
rise from West to East.
Adjacent office development suggests
SITE OPPORTUN/TIES higher density development on the site.
• The BART Station is a possible anchor for development and a
. people generator for a major public space.
• Excellent visibility and access from I-680.
- a
• Good regional access from automobile.
• Regional access via BART.
Good visibility from Treat Blvd.
. • Grove of oak trees at the corner of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd. - y
• The view of Mt. Diablo from the station platform and from
Masking the large parking garages will
. higher buildings. be critical to making this an active.
pedestrian-oriented town center.
■
. Pleasant H111 SART Station Area Community Plan 3.o Context- 19
■
1
A.
`qR.IRt �f • �
A woman waiting to head home on BART. $ 110n \:'trL'V' {'nt:ny ���� ■
� r fir
i PJ
1/9
011
The park at the north edge of rhe site offers 4 x ■
some respite from the traffic.
1'uant�lion. .� �
11igll�iyit�ilit} Zlil_t[
The current property is little more than SEAKIrl t frt:.q kl+cl, <t.lih
a vast field of slnjace parking.
Analysis diagram highlighting site opportunities and constraints.
• The park at the corner of Wayne Drive and Las Juntas Way.
• High Traffic Flow is good for retail. S
• Connections to the Iron Horse Trail.
• Houses to the North and East give potential in becoming a
The existing taxi area.
neighborhood center.
• Future Greenspace.
SITE CONS TRA/NTS S
• Site is bordered on three sides by heavily trafficked roads,
making pedestrian and bicycle travel difficult.
• Site has limited potential for street connections into the
surrounding neighborhoods.
a i • The property is in a transitional zone between the residential e
/aside the Station. neighborhood to the East and higher density offices to the
West.
• Large 7-story garage adjacent to residential
20-3.0 Context Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan
1.4 SUMMARY OF THE MASTERPLAN
`. ' PROGRAM
._ I � .•_. __ �:^ M I,`µu . .'Lig. _ •,
Office: 290.000*-=456.000 sq. ft.+/-
•- r a unit
Residential
" ,�.:.•.. � ;• _.:-, ,� s: 274-446* units
inc.50 for-sale min.
Storefront: 42.000 sq. fi.+/-
civic: 7.000 sq. ft.+/-
I
-V•� :s.:r. �' /' r�. ' f!� '' :L
with Block ;f'resic(errtial alternative
Mote::Vtrnrbers will be r•efined as c(esign
progresses consistent with the Pleasant
Hill BART P-
ioperty Coc(es.
�• , " �. �. BLOCK DESCRIPTIONS
•` 1 BL OCKA.
A seven-story office building faces Treat
Blvd. It includes retail businesses on the
ground floor alone Treat Blvd.and on the
f I new north-south retail street.Offices
_ ,•t ,� � I wrap the perimeter of the upper levels of
thearking g-arage. Residential use's are
allowed as an alternative to office.
BLOCKS.'
_ l , Retail uses line the ground floor on Treat
Blvd.and on the north-south retail street
face ol'Block B.Three stories ol"
;'� - r�i —�• I� apartments are located above the
storefronts on the south and west edges
-;� _ ;• �F': .i.'•� r ( }I ofthe block. with U)WnhomeS wrapping
the north and east sides.The inner block
is a well-landscaped parking court at the
second level ofthe parking Structure.
L .
ff
SL OCK C-
r: < ;1 new civic building is placed next to the
transit station,terminating the view up
The Pleasant Hill BARTAreu btaster Plun the north-south retail street Townhomes
USES. wrap the south and east edges of Block
• Transit Facilities. C. A three-story commercial building
_ Retail. office and lodging businesses,along with possible business conference shields the internal courtyard from train-
related noise.
center.
• For-sale townhouses and rental housing. BLOCKD.'
` Public parks and squares. Block D consists of a 12-story office Public buildings. Possible uses:daycare.cultural/educational.community theater, building. Parking for the office building
library, Iron Horse trail head•and/or bicycle facilities. is accommodated in Black G.
• Replacement of existing-BART parking and the temporary parking spaces now
located on the Iron Horse trail site. BLOCKE.
Block E provides a parking structure
URBAN DESIGN FEA TURES large enough to accommodate all
• Compatibility of Use: Residential is located across from existing residential to the replacement BART parking.as well as
north and cast.Otlice and commercial is located across from existing office to the temporary parking cast of Jones Rd.and
west and south. parking for Block D.The north and west
• Compatibility of Height:Lower buildings ranging from three to five stories are edges of'the block are wrapped with four
located to the north and the cast across from residential.Office buildings range
stories of apartments..<\pedestrian
from seven to twelve stories and are located to the south and west across from taller walkway links the neighborhood across
commercial buildings. Las Juntas to the station.
_' Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan >.0 Introduction- 1 I
1c
S.�
�I
a,
i.
r�
_i
�i
r.
�I
Zzi
18 Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area Community Plan
J
■
■
■
■ Station platform is a barrier to connectivity across the site
• Requirement to replace all BART parking on the site ,{!
■ High ground water constrains underground parking to 1-1/2
levels below grade .-
■ 0 BART requirement for land lease applies constraints to for-
sale housing potential
3.2 LESSONS FROM THE REGION
Many Charrette participants felt that the Station Community E -
should have a local architectural fit. To accomplish this, the design
■ team studied the most loved places in the area for inspiration.
Particular attention was paid to local parks, plazas, and streets
where people like to spend time. On the tour, the team visited A cafe in Rockridge spills out onto the
downtown Pleasant Hill, downtown Walnut■ Creek, Lafayette, sheet,creating a welcoming and interesting environment. - -
Orinda Theater Square,Ashby & Domingo, Elmwood, downtown
■ Berkeley, University Avenue, North Berkeley BART Station, San '
Pablo Avenue /Emeryville, downtown Oakland, Grand Lake
■ Avenue, Piedmont Avenue, and Rockridge.
■ Parking garages in downtown Wabmt
Creek are articulated with upper.stay
■ windows that relate to the older
buildings in town.
■ Parking garages in Walnut Creek have
ground floor retail uses that activate the
■ _ sidewalk.
■ A , T
A -A
,����-TT-rS_���=_a���:,-�:_Vii. ,•.,,:,ms's..-
.
. Fountains,trees,outside tables,planters,awnings,and umbrellas give scale to this public plaza in
Walnut Creek.
. Small,intimate public spaces like this
cafe plaza are favorite local gathering
. places.
. Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 3.0 Context-21
■
3.3 MARKET ANALYSIS �
Throughout the Charrette, Strategic Economics and CSG Advisors ■
highlighted the economic opportunities and constraints
confronting proposed development alternatives for the site. The
underlying strength of the local real estate markets, along with
" uses that are mutually supportive, foster place-making, and
capitalize on the transit-rich location, represent the main economic ■
Aerial view of Pleasant Hill BART opportunities for the site. The constraints relate to the economic
Station and surrounding communities. issues that could prevent the project from going forward.
Constraints included programmatic issues such as accommodating
various types of parking, preferred building types, parcel self-
sufficiency, and return requirements for the developer, BART, and
the County.
MARKETOVERVIEW
To model proposed alternatives for the Pleasant Hill BART
Station, Strategic Economics analyzed the residential, office,
retail, hotel and parking markets, the costs for different building
types, and operating expenses. Detailed information concerning = ■
the market overviews and cost assumptions can be found in the
March 5, 2001 pre-charrette summary.
Strategic Economics prepared most of this background
information for the Charrette in January and February of 2001 and ■
the financial assumptions uses to model the charrette alternatives
reflect a single snapshot in time. Market dynamics are always
changing, and conditions considerably since the charrette,
especially for office product. Therefore, once the project advances
to the next stage, more detailed market reviews and cost ■
estimating will be required based on current market conditions.
RES/DENT/AL
The residential market in the Pleasant Hill BART station is strong ■
and will remain so given the overall shortage of housing in the
Bay Area as well as its proximity to jobs and transit. Strategic
Economics looked at both rental and for-sale housing in the station
area, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, and central Contra
Costa County. Additionally, for rental units, Strategic Economics
surveyed centrally located areas that would compete for tenants
with the Pleasant Hill BART Station such as parts of San
Francisco and Walnut Creek.
As of January 2001 average, monthly rental rates for apartments .
near the Pleasant Hill BART Station were as follows: Studios rent
22-3.0 Context Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Rlan
for between $1150 and $1300, one bedrooms between$1350 and
$1600, two bedrooms with one bath between $1700 and $2000,
and two bedrooms with two baths between$2000 and $2300.
During this same time period, average rents in Concord, Pleasant
Hill, and Walnut Creek were somewhat less, suggesting a
premium for transit proximity and perhaps highlighting a value for
new units with amenities characteristic of some of the apartment Dense,compatible,human-scaled
S housing in Mountain View,California.
complexes near the BART station.
For-sale housing in Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, and Concord sells
for an average price of$438,000 for a detached single-family
house and $340,000 for condos and town homes. The Countywide
average prices are $424,000 for a detached home and $371,000 for
■ condominiums and town homes. BART, the owner of the Pleasant
Hill BART site, typically does not sell its property and negotiates
long-term ground leases with developers. In the United States
ground leases for for-sale housing are extremely unusual. As a
result these units may be very difficult to market, especially if
. comparable fee simple units are also available. In addition, it may
be very difficult to finance such units.
S
Central Contra Costa County has experienced steady residential
absorption for almost a decade, particularly at or near BART
. stations. The rapid rent increases and low vacancies characteristic
of 2000 and the beginning of 2001 are consistent with this trend
indicating continued rapid absorption of any units available for
rent. Recent slowing of the economy may cause rents to stabilize
or decline and vacancies to inch up; however, given the number of
i housing units projected to be needed in the Bay Area in the next
few years versus the number actually planned to be built,
absorption of new units should continue at a healthy rate.
OFF/CE
The office market at the Pleasant Hill BART station, also known
as Contra Costa Centre, consists of 1,470,516 square feet of office
. space with 195,000 currently under construction for the PMI
Group. Additionally, Spieker Properties has approvals to build a
multi-story office building adjacent to the PMI site.As of the last
quarter of 2000, the office vacancy rate at the Pleasant Hill BART
station hovered at 1%. Average rental rates for Class A office
. space were $4.00 square foot per month with about $25-$45 in
tenant improvements. Space leased as soon as it was available.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 3 o Context-23
In the intervening period, the strength of the Bay Area economy
has lessened as the technology sectors have gone into a deep
slump. As a result the market has softened, particularly as the
number of square feet available on the sublease market increased
:. dramatically in the South of Market, Emeryville, the Highway
U. 580/80 corridor and other "new economy" hot spots. Contra
Costa Centre, however, has traditionally been a market for more
established companies, some firms moving all or a portion of their
' operations from San Francisco and other firms from elsewhere in
the region, nation, or world seeking office space in close
.y - proximity to San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Consequently, the
office rents and vacancy at the Pleasant Hill BART station have
not been as volatile.
Tall once buildings,when scaled
properly can add to the attractiveness According to a report from the real estate brokerage firm of CB
and vibrance of a retail center Richard Ellis' "I-680/Contra Costa County Market Index Brief:
Office Properties 1Q2001" the amount of space available when .
sublease space is included has gone from 1.3% in the fourth
quarter 2000 to 8.5% in first quarter 2001. This change also
points to slower absorption rates. In summary, if the downturn
continues and starts having repercussions in non-technology
sectors such as banking and services, then the Pleasant Hill BART
Station office market may soften. Conversely, the limited amount
of new space, its accessibility to transit and relatively affordable ■
housing, and its traditional reliance on more established firms for
its tenant base limits its exposure.
STOREFAONTIRETAiL
Given the parking constraints and the neighborhood context,
Strategic Economics did not look at the feasibility of regional-
serving, destination retail. Focusing on local serving and .
supportive retail, Strategic Economics spoke with a number of
local retail brokers as well as investigated some comparable retails
nodes in the East Bay.
The relative high incomes and densities of the surrounding area as .
well as the high number of BART riders will help to support retail
on the site. The market for local serving and supportive retail is
approximately $2.00 to $2.50 monthly rents with an average of
about $30 in tenant improvements to finish the space for use by
the retailers. This market, however, is highly variable depending ■
on the tenant. For example, a high-end restaurant may demand
over $100+ for tenant improvements. Also, incentives such as
24-3.0 Context Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan
high tenant improvements and low rents may be required to draw
in the first tenants because retailers are not apt to be pioneers. f
New retail uses at the Pleasant Hill BART station needs to work in
concert with existing and proposed residential and office uses.. -
For retail to succeed, a careful storefront strategy needs to be
developed and implemented. The total number of square feet
1 .7
should be fewer than 40,000 net rentable square feet, at least Lively street scene in Oakland,
initially; otherwise, renting out the space will be extremely California.
difficult. Conversely, the number of square feet should not be less
than 25,000 square feet. Less than 25,000 square feet does not
provide enough space for the needs of a local convenience center;
nor does it allow enough space to create a local destination for
even nearby neighbors. Potential types of tenants include a
specialty food store, drug store, restaurant, cafe, dry cleaners,
flower shop, shoe repair, bicycle shop, hair salon, insurance
company, and travel agent. These uses need to be proximate to
one another to generate a buzz of activity, reminiscent of a village
center.
PARK/NG
Strategic Economics looked at the market for parking at the
Pleasant Hill BART station to determine whether or not fee
parking could cover the cost of building a parking structure to
replace the Iron Horse Trail parking spaces (see the Economic
Analysis section of this report for the results of this parking
■ analysis). Currently, office tenants at Contra Costa Centre pay
about $65 a month for an unreserved parking space and non-
tenants pay $150 a month. The daily rate at the Centre's garages
is $8.00 a day.
. M/X OF USES&DENS/TIES
The Pleasant Hill BART Station, its size, location, markets, and
■ context, presents the economic opportunity for place-making. The
economics of place-making, and thus the criteria for assessing it,
differs somewhat from the more traditional "highest and best" use
approach. Place-making thinks about a site in terms of its context
such as access to transit and relationship to adjacent land uses and
■ it emphasizes.the importance of mixing uses to address both
supply and demand. As a result, the uses play off one another to
create a more substantive and economically complex project. This
more organic approach supports nuance, density and flexibility to
enhance economic viability, particularly over the long-term.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is also a transit rich location, i.e.,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 3 o Context-25
it offers many kinds of transit opportunities. Transit rich locations
provide unique economic opportunities for people who live in
these areas. Under these conditions it is possible to have higher .
density development but with fewer cars because households do
not need to own as many cars with transit is a viable transportation
choice. The economic consequences include better support for
local retailers who might capture a greater percentage of residents'
expenditures, expenditures that would have otherwise flowed to .
other shopping destinations because these people are walking to
their neighborhood stores. Other consequences could include
reduced parking ratios and the implementation of a car-sharing
program. The former consequence would reduce the cost of
building the project, while the latter would enable potential ■
residents to spend more on housing and other goods with funds
that would have otherwise gone toward automobile ownership.
However, it is also important to remember that developers and
lenders are still trying to understand the dynamics of transit-
oriented projects distinct from other types of infill development
and that underwriting standards still typically include more
conventional parking ratios. While changes in public policy are ■
helping to change underwriting standards, any policies for the
BART station must still take these into account.
RETURN REOU/REMENTS
For a private developer to build a project at the Pleasant Hill
BART Station, the developer expects that the project will generate
enough net income to meet required investor and lender return ■
thresholds. BART, as the owner of the land, also has return
expectations both from the project itself as well as the increased
ridership that the project generates. The County too has return
criteria that compares its contribution to replace the BART surface
parking, to fund other site improvements, and to meet other ■
Countywide needs and goals, including forecasted increase in its
fiscal base from tax increment revenues without relying as heavily,
on local taxes.
A proposed alternative must meet these economic thresholds to be ■
feasible. The financial model analyzes the developer's return
requirements and provides input to BART's and the County's
broader return requirements.
GENERAL PROGRAMMATIC PARAMETERS ■
Proposed uses for the site had some specific parameters related to
their overall economic viability. The following list shows these
26-3.0 Context Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan ■
items:
• Class A office buildings floor plates should be between 20,000
and 25,000 square to maximize the building's efficiency
• At least 200 residential units are needed to support amenities
and reduce ongoing operating costs.
• The amount of storefront space should not exceed 40,000
square feet initially.
• A mixed-use building with more than one use accounting for
15% of the square footage is much more difficult to finance.
These guidelines helped frame the use program for the site.
SU/LD/NG TYPES
Some building types are more economically viable than others.
. For example, buildings over fifty and less than one hundred feet in
height (approximately over five stories but less than 10 stories) are
not economically viable because they require more expensive
construction types and trigger added life-safety codes but do not
benefit from economies of scale. Consequently, allowable
. building types needed to anticipate structures either under fifty
feet or above one hundred feet otherwise the project was unlikely
to be built.
■ PARCEL SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The size of the site calls for creating parcels that could be treated
as financially independent from each other. To create such
■ financial independence demands that each parcel operates in a
self-sufficient matter. For instance, each parcel must not depend
on other parcels for parking or other functions. Parcel self-
sufficiency provides the developer needed flexibility to both
develop and finance the project. Office, residential, and parking
parcels were created.
Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 30 Context-27
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCT/ON
Infill development also requires that virtually of the site's
infrastructure requirements, including roads, storm water
r drainage, and public open space will need to be built at the
beginning of the project, rather than phased over time. This puts a
greater burden on the project because all of these large costs must
�.. be incurred at the time when there is also the least amount of
economic value.
Passengers boarding the BART train. ■
3.4 TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
This section summarizes key aspects of transit service currently
provided at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. Included in this
summary is data and information about the BART transit system.
Data and information about the four transit authorities serving this
area (Central Costa Contra Transit Authority, Benicia Transit,
Fairfield Suisin, and Livermore Amador Transit Authority) is
included as an appendix at the end of the report. ■
BART .
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is situated off the I-680 corridor
between Concord and Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County. The
station is supported by 3,450 parking spaces (including 581
temporary spaces for I-680/24 construction mitigation measures),
40 motorcycle spaces, 67 bicycle spaces on racks, 53 bicycle ■
spaces within lockers, a taxi stand, and 10 connecting bus routes.
Routes
The Pittsburg/Baypoint- Colma line serves the Pleasant Hill
BART Station seven days a week during peak and off-peak times. .
The line directly links Contra Costa County with downtown
Oakland and San Francisco.
Transfer connections from the Pittsburg/Baypoint—Colma line to
BART's Richmond - Daly City/Colma line are possible at all stops ■
south of Rockridge. Transfers to BART's Fremont—Richmond
line are possible at the MacArthur, 19th Street/Oakland, and
Oakland City Center/12th Street stops. Transfers to the Fremont—
Daly City and Dublin/Pleasanton- Daly City lines are possible at
all stops west of Oakland City Center/12th Street. .
Service Hours & Frequencies M
• During weekdays, the Pittsburg/Baypoint - Colma line
operates at 15 minute headways during the early morning M
(4:17 am - 5:47 am); 5 minute headways during the morning ■
28 3.0 Context Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan •
M
peak (6:12 am— 8:17 am); 15 minute headways during the
daily off-peak (8:32 am—7:34 pm) and 20 minute headways
during the evening (7:34 pm—12:14 pm.)
• On Saturdays, service operates at 20 minute headways all day
(6:14 am— 12:14 am).
■ • On Sundays and holidays, service operates at 20 minute
headways all day (8:14 am - 12:14 am.)
A
Ridership
Average weekday exits from Pleasant Hill have increased from
. 5700 in 1998, to 6700 in 2001.
Origin-Destination Data
• According to a BART origin-destination analysis,
approximately 66% of weekday passengers originating at the
. Pleasant Hill BART Station exit at one of the San Francisco/
Daly City/or Colma BART stations.
• 15% alight at one of the stations along the Pittsburg/Bay Point
—Colma line from Bay Point to West Oakland (but excluding
the McArthur, 12th Street and 19th Street Oakland stations.
. • 15% alight at destinations along the from the Richmond
Station to downtown Oakland. 4% alight at stations east of
downtown Oakland on the Fremont-Richmond line.
Survey Data
■ BART conducted a passenger survey in 1998. The results were
published a year later in the Station Profile Study. The study
revealed the following information about the demographics and
travel patterns of passengers who entered the Pleasant Hill BART
Station.
• 74% of the.surveyed passengers travel to the station from
their homes by automobile; 15% walk; 8% take transit; 2%
bicycle, and less than I% use another mode.
• 48% of the passengers are aged 25-44. 43% are 45-64; 5%
. are 18-24; 3% are 65 and over; and less than 1% are under 18.
• 53% of the passengers are female; 47% are male.
• 28% of surveyed passengers earn incomes more than
$100,000; 37% earn incomes between $60,001 and
$100,000; 28% earn between $30,001 and $60,000 and 8%
. earn $30,000 or less.
• 71% of the passengers are white; 15% are Asian or Pacific
Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 3 o Context-29
Islander; 8% are Hispanic; 3% are black an 3% are other.
86% of the passengers are traveling to work; 4% to
i _ ' school; I%to shopping location; 9% to other locations.
J -
Other factors: ■
• 81% use BART 5 or more days per week.
. _ 78% have a car available to make their BART trips.
r•
16% have employers who pay all or part of BART ticket
cost.
Bus loading terminal at the Pleasant
Hill BART Static n. 12% work at home/telecommute* .
• 4%take casual carpool*
• 69% use the Internet*
Planned Service Improvements
BART does not have plans to change the existing level of service
provided at the Pleasant Hill BART Station. However, the
Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee has requested that BART
evaluate whether equalizing ticket prices between the Pleasant Hill
and Concord Stations would eliminate the current financial
incentives for riders to go out of their way to use Pleasant Hill
BART Station.
Intermodal Planning
Although BART does not currently have specific planning
standards for intermodal connections at the Pleasant Hill BART
Station, the Strategic Plan identifies several intermodal objectives/
measures and strategies related to the goal to "maximize regional ■
transit access, convenience, and ease of use through effective
coordination among transit providers."
Objectives/Measures
• Improve customer's rating of"timeliness of bus
connections"
• Improve intermodal transit time competitiveness relative to
the automobile, for trips that serve major destinations.
• Increase transit ridership and revenue by increasing
convenience (especially for intermodal trips) and develop ■
additional measures of customer satisfaction to track our
success.
• Work to develop proactive, productive partnerships with at
least one or two other transit providers per year to integrate
fares, schedules, services, and information. ■
Strategies
30-3.0 Context Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community P/an
■
■
! Develop and monitor measures on comparative door-to-
door timing for the customer
• Enter into formal agreements with other transit partners,
■ establishing a framework for working together more
closely.
■ 0 Work with transit partners to improve feeder service for
■ customers.
• Support the development of incentives to spur further
! improvements in the quality of transit connections.
• Actively support transit agencies in marketing their
■ connections to BART riders
■ 0 Complete a study to determine the feasibility of providing
real time intermodal schedule information to BART
! customers.
• Design physical infrastructure improvements to minimize
■ rider movement required for transfer between systems, to
■ minimize traffic and other transit complications around
BART Stations, and to improve customer comfort for
transferring and waiting patrons.
3.5 TRANSPORTATION EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is located adjacent to the city
! boundaries of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill and Concord. It is
■ bounded by Oak Road on the west, Coggins Drive on the north,
the Iron Horse Trail (formerly the Southern Pacific right-of-way)
■ on the east and Treat Boulevard to the south.
The site is served by 1-680, a freeway connecting to Solano
■ County to the north, and Alameda and Santa Clara counties to the
south. I-680 connects with State Route 4, providing access to east
and west Contra Costa County and other areas. I-680 also
connects with State Route 24 that provides access with Alameda
! County (Oakland) and San Francisco. A partial interchange is
! provided with Treat Boulevard. Treat Boulevard, designated as a
Route of Regional Significance by the Contra Costa
Transportation.Authority, is a six-lane arterial in the site vicinity
and provides access to and from Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut
Creek and other areas. Treat Boulevard connects with North Main
. Street and Contra Costa Boulevard, both of which are also
designated as Routes of Regional Significance.
Monument Boulevard provides additional access between
Concord and the northern BART Station area through an
. intersection with Buskirk Avenue. Buskirk Avenue is a north-
Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 30 Context-31
i
■
south collector street. The Station is also served by Oak Road, a
north-south roadway just west of the Station. Other streets serving ■
the Station include Geary Road (Treat Boulevard becomes Geary
Road west of I-680), Coggins Drive north of the Station, Las ■
Juntas north of the Station and Jones Road which parallels the Iron ■
Horse Trail. These roadways are designated as Basic Routes,
primarily carring local traffic. They are all routes not designated
as Routes of Regional Significance.
■
Parking for the BART Station is currently provided by surface lots ■
and a parking structure. The existing supply is essentially fully
used by BART commuters. The lots are not fully used in the
evenings and on weekends when BART patronage is lower.
■
The BART Station is served by the Central Contra Costa Transit
Authority (CCCTA), also known as County Connection, as well as
other services such as Solano Bencia. Service is provided along ■
Treat Boulevard and Oak Road.
Pedestrian and bicycling access for the BART Station is provided
along the Iron Horse Trail and along the roadways connecting
with the Station.
The major issues and concerns noted by area residents, ■
commuters, employees, employers and others regarding .
transportation in the area of the BART Station are traffic
congestion, traffic intrusion in the surrounding neighborhoods,
pedestrian and bicycle access, bus access, and parking supply and
management. !
■
■
■
32-3.0 Context Pleasant Hi//BAHT Station Area Community Plan •
0
IV. PUBLIC PROCESS
0 4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
The purpose of the public involvement process was to gain LL--
information and "buy-in" from the community. This promotes a
well-informed design strategy that creates a mutual education
process through which all parties become aware of the various ,
complex elements of the project, including transportation,
economics, program, urban design, and community needs.
The Charrette included many
community meetings of various sues.
Public outreach for the Pleasant Hill BART Charrette started prior
to the January 16, 2001 kickoff meeting, and then it continued
before and after the February 22-27 Charrette, and up to the April
9-10 follow up meetings. The goal of the outreach activities was
to successfully involve as many people in the Charrette process as
■ possible, reaching out to local organizations and individuals, as
well as people who might not have participated in public events in ; 'r
the past. The basic philosophy was to try to promote awareness "fit i
and understanding about the Charrette process by developing l ::
contacts and disseminating information. A key element of the "
■
approach was to continue to contact people throughout the
E.iperts challenged each other,
process, using a variety of different means, to promote attendance generating new ideas.
i throughout the course of the Charrette. The outreach component
involved a combination of the following:
. Mailings: letters of invitation, background -
information, flyers, reminder postcards :
Phone calls: personal calls to key stakeholders, residents
and business contacts -ri . ►. .,.
Faxes: fliers and announcements to key
stakeholders, residents, and business 1
contacts 1:
• Emails: announcements and updates to key
stakeholders, residents, business Local tethets gendeliratel and
presentedd their own design concepts.
contacts; and Charrette event participants
■ • Handbills: posted at the Community Bulletin Board at
the BART station and in local
office buildings
• Signs: posted around the Pleasant Hill BART
station
Banners: Displayed at the Pleasant Hill BART station
prior to the Charrette
Newsletter announcements: BART newsletter, League of
Women Voters, Walden Newsletter, and
others
. Passenger Notices: meeting announcements available at
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area Community P/an 4.0 Pub/ic Process-33
i
thefare gates of the Pleasant Hill BART
■
station
• Cable TV announcements: meeting dates and times posted
on local cable channels; later rebroadcasts �
' of the Charrette meetings played on local ■
cable channel
Press releases: to local newspapers, TV and radio stations
Small group presentations allowed the Website: invitations, announcements, meeting notes,
everyone to critique the work. ■
comments received, sketches and site plans
via the project website; a user-friendly ■
domain name secured and used; there was
also a response area on the website where
people could request to be added to the
Pleasant Hill BART mailing list i
Accurate and comprehensive database creation and maintenance
was another key aspect of the outreach component. Communities
By Design used the County mailing list as a starting point, and
contacted other key organizations for their mailing lists. In
January (prior to any Charrette activities), these combined lists i
Large evening meetings allowed totaled approximately 1200 names. New names were added to the
conuaunity members to give input.
database throughout the Charrette process as people requested to
be added through the website, or as participant lists were
developed at the individual meetings. The Pleasant Hill BART
Charrette database now contains approximately 1700 names. i
Prior to the Charrette, Communities By Design conducted one-on-
one briefings with key project participants and stakeholders,
including: Jay Lutz of Supervisor Donna Gerber's office, Lynette
Tanner-Busby of the Contra Costa Centre Association, and Kris
r Hunt of theWalden District Improvement Organization, to gather i
background information and obtain input for best ways to reach
WHIOn3 aspects of the project were out and involve the community. Kristen Paulsen of Communities
examined.from parking to architecture By Design also participated in several regular meetings of �
to trails and sgfety.
community groups, including the Pleasant Hill BART Steering
Committee and the Countrywood Homeowners Association (at the i
request of Marjorie McWee) to promote the Charrette.
More than 522 individuals participated in one or more of the i
scheduled public meetings and Charrette events, or dropped in ■
during the more than 80 hours of open door studio time. We
believe that the actual number of participants was much higher, as
not everyone signed in at the public meetings.
34-4.0 Public Process Pleasant Hi//BAIT Station Area Community P/an ■
4.2 SUMNIARY OF STAKEHOLDER ISSUES
The following is a summary of the citizen comments made
throughout the extensive public involvement process from January
16th, 2001 to April 10th, 2001.
SCALEOFBU/LD/NGS
• The area around the BART station should provide a local sense
of place, and it should not look like "Anywhere, USA." utli �"
• The blocks should be small and walkable. Participants were encouraged to roll up
their sleeves and draw their suggestions
. • Buildings should front on streets, not parking lots. The and ideas.
architecture should have variety, but also appear compatible
and complementary.
• Create a village center or town square where residents could
gather for events and belong to a community.
■ • Provide places to "meet your neighbors."
• Buildings should be "human-scaled."
• High-rise buildings should be avoided when possible. :. ., �:�;
• Towers should be clustered close to the station, with buildings t �.
stepping down toward the edges of the site.
PROGRAMMING The design studio was almost a non-
The station area should contain mostly local serving uses and stopflurry of,activity
i should not become a regional retail destination.
• Provide a mixture of uses (similar to downtown Walnut Creek)
that would generate activities throughout the day and evening.
Provide a community center or public space that could be used
■ for community events.
• Possible public uses include: a concert hall, a community
theater, a library, a post office, a new swim club/exercise
facility, small science observatory, a fountain, a bowling alley,
a playground (with a dog park), and a roller rink.
• Provide small retail shops such as coffee shops, book stores,
bike shops, dry cleaners, florists: uses that would appeal to Ample time was allowed for communi-
cation between participants and the
locals and not generate large quantities of additional traffic. design consultants.
Additional potential commercial uses include a grocery store,
a bank (with ATM machines), restaurants, delis, bakeries, a
. day care center, and a clinic. Local serving, affordable office
space.
Provide a variety of housing including some affordable
housing near the station, and senior facilities with housing and
meeting space.
. Possible Business Conference Center.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area Community Plan 4.0 Public Process-35
r
■
■
TRAFFIC&PARK/NG r
• Parking should be designed so as not to detract from the
:; ;��h� pedestrian environment.
Address short-term parking during the construction phase of
' the project.
Address the traffic on already congested streets in the area
Look holistically at the regional transportation system, in
Mary local residents became quite particular the traffic flow from Bancroft to the BART Station
enthusiastic,returning for nurltiple ■
,rreetirrgs. via Mayhew and Las Juntas.
• Encourage nonresidents to use the arterials to relieve .
congestion on local roads.
• Increase connectivity, too many dead end streets. r
• Of particular concern was the impact of new development on
Treat Boulevard, which many described as "very congested"
and a neighborhood divider.
9111 The intersections at Treat Boulevard and Oak Road and at
■
' '"• ' Treat Boulevard and I-680 are overloaded.
_ F
-� - It is impossible to merge left and avoid being forced onto I-
`
The Char•rette process is about 680 when turning right from Oak Road onto Treat Boulevard.
edUCC[6011,conte nanity input,and design Connect Jones to Treat versus realign Jones south of Treat.
brainstorming. S
• Concern for pedestrian access and movement in the area.
• The interaction between pedestrians and traffic is currently !
very poor.
The bus lanes are difficult to walk over, and Oak Road is too
wide for pedestrians. ■
y Consider pedestrian connections to the surrounding
neighborhoods, to make the walk into the station safe,
interesting and convenient.
}' SAFETY
Small groups enabled everyone to give ■
input «Provide activity and eyes on the street„ so that the area
around the station will be safe and have low crime rates. The ■
station is currently a nighttime wasteland.
• Accommodate all modes of transportation safely, including
bicycling and walking.
• Concern that the development could increase crime by
bringing in people from other areas, including thieves. ■
AL TERIVAT/VES TO THE CAR ■
• Alternatives to the automobile should be encouraged and
emphasized on site; this includes increased educational efforts,
incentives for public transit use, more frequent late night bus
service, airport shuttles, a light rail system as a complement to
36-4.0 Public Process Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Flan ■
S
BART better bike/pedestrian connections to the site and
improved bike facilities. }�■e�y♦eA.
• Promote increased use of the current public transit system to
alleviate the parking demand.
• Create off-site parking structures (conversions of the old
Montgomery-Wards shopping center and the old Co-ops
building, for example) that would provide free parking for :
• BART riders. Between meetings,there was time for
Connect to the station via free shuttle buses. This program one-on-one discussions of the ideas.
would be in conjunction with charging patrons for parking on-
site, thus rewarding those who were willing to take the shuttle
bus. Many supported the idea of charging for on-site parking
at the station as a way to encourage more BART patrons to
arrive by bus or via carpool.
• Make the connections to the station walkable and interesting, 3
encouraging pedestrian activity as much as possible.
• Create a clear, safe route through the area connecting nearby
i housing, retail, and office uses with the station and parking During the evening meetings,
participants were able to talk publicly
. garages• about particular concerns.
• Recommended physical upgrades: softer trails (not concrete),
better lighting and light color (white not yellow), handicapped
accessible sidewalks and pedestrian bridges, intersection
improvements on Treat Boulevard and other dangerous
crossing areas, bridge or tunnel access across the 1-680 1. �PIL
Freeway toward North Main and across Treat at Jones and
Oak. 'i�
• Provide bicycle access separated from automobile traffic and
pedestrian areas with dedicated bicycle lanes on Treat P'
Boulevard and Oak Street.
Displays of'the work were set up to
• Develop linkages to other existing transit systems, including allow"drop-ins"to.see the design
connecting to neighboring communities in Walnut Creek, progress.
Concord, and Pleasant Hill, as well as surrounding residential
areas.
IRON HORSE TRAIL
. • Integrate the Iron Horse Trail into the project, consistent with
the Regional Trail System such as Colony Park.
• Connected uses together by the trail (e.g. Swim club, buses,
BART, hotel, fitness center, etc.).
• Provide a possible refuge area along the East side of the Trail
i just North of Treat Boulevard that could be named for Del
Hombre. Consider a community garden. Integrate the
proposed pedestrian/bike overpass over Treat Boulevard into
the project.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i Pleasant Hitt BART Station Area Community Plan 4.0 Public Process-37
■
■
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ■
• Some residents had strong feelings about preserving the
natural environment.
' Concern over the safety of the large oak trees on the corner of
Oak and Treat Boulevard.
Preserve views of Mount Diablo to the East. ■
Concern that development on the East side of the site could
Large meetings offered a forint fora block the views of those on the West side of the site.
wide range of community concerns to . Support for increased public space and parks
be aired. ■
• Concern about the timing issues involved with implementing
"green space" along the trail. ■
• Mitigate the strong Southwest winds, and freeway noise from
the adjacent I-680 freeway. ■
4.3 THE CHARRETTE DESIGN PROCESS
The Design process for the Pleasant Hill BART Station was based
on the principle that"the best plan is made by many hands." ■
Small topic-based sessions allowed
local residents to participate in the In order to avoid rework and to make the best use of everyone's ■
details of the design solutions. time, the consultant team conducted an opportunity and
constraints analysis before starting design work. The consultants ■
used short feedback loops in order to insure that the design stayed ,
on track. Each design iteration was tested by a round of review by
`, interested parties. During the Charrette, the design advanced from
f a set of conceptual alternatives to a preferred alternative through a
series of reviews. Feedback was collected during continuous ad ■
� �. hoc meetings with drop-ins, scheduled stakeholder meetings, in- ■
studio daily pinups reviews, and large evening public meetings.
Photo-realistic digital imaging helped After the Charrette, the consultant team performed technical ■
par•ticipartts visualize what locations feasibility studies and incorporated further comments from the
around the station might look like.
public and relevant agencies. The refined alternative was then ■
presented at the Charrette follow-up session, a set of two evening
meetings where further changes were incorporated into plan and a ■
final preferred alternative was presented at the end of the second ■
day.
■
■
■
i
■
■
38-4.0 Public Process Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan ■
■
■
■ V. THE PLAN
■
■ 5.1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE PLAN - THE CHARRETTE LOG
THURSDAYFEB. 22
■ • 6:30-8:30 PM Public Kickoff Meeting
FRIDAYFES.. 23
■ • 11:00 BART Technical Meeting
• 1:00 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Meeting
• 2:00 Retail Meeting
■ • 4:00 Staff Review Meeting
SATURDAYFES, 24
■ • 10:30 Neighbors Meeting
• 4:30-6:30 Public Workshop
■ MONDAYFES 26
• 10:00 BART Technical Meeting
■ • 6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting on Transportation
TUESDAY FES 27
■ • 6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting
■ 5.2 THE CHARRETTE PROCESS LOG
■ START-UP PHASE,-JANUARY 16TH
Public Kickoff Meeting, Tuesday, January 16"', 2001
■ The kickoff meeting was a one evening, hands-on workshop. The
purpose of the meeting was for public representatives, staff,
■ consultants and the public to reach a shared understanding of the
■ project goals, process, constraints, and desired vision. It was
important to have this meeting before the consultants starting their
■ design work. Two hundred participants worked at small group
tables to arrive at the key issues and visions for the project.
■
■
. .ST4,RT RETEARCH& EDUCATION CI>ARR TTE RD IE} A-R.61•'I.S,E AC,'T7r.N
I I
■ Cmssc•]�•O�Irx>ti
E=?Vies�
■ ~^\ Mu Izt Amebawoo � `�aq� y Wo� I r t
F 3 r Lmorr 71 r •.
*p� =,Da !�` FL�74h lR if/ mal.
Kkkng'
N`'; 5• '- rvarria1511iqPJ=I
17.
Irfr i rar.':lore a
5fi+zs4h�•t'.
■
Charrette Process Chart.
■
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hitt BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan 39
■
y �_,,,,•„_, .It RESEARCHAND EDUCATION PHASE:JANUARY 16-FEBRUARY22ND ■
•••'
The purpose of the Research and Education Phase was to continue
I a two-way conversation with the community in order to develop a
fully informed set of participants for the Charrette. During this
h phase, consultants gathered physical, economic and
transportation-based data. They also began to test design concepts
that are based on the latest community input.
n, CHARRETTE PHASE-FEBRUARY221D-2,7r~
e The design team established a temporary studio in the Embassy
Suites Hotel between February 22nd and 27th. During these six
days, a team of architects, landscape architects, engineers,
�" at economists, and transportation and transit engineers worked day
Feb.22-Scheme/A and night to first develop alternatives that eventually merged into
(enlarged version in Appendix G) a preferred alternative. The design studio was open to the public
between the hours of 8:30 AM and 9:30 PM. Unscheduled
---— -- meetings occurred on a regular basis, during which interested ■
people would visit the studio and discuss the design with the
design team. In total, the Charrette included over 72 hours of open
r•'' %�` public design workshop.
Charrette Day One, Thursday, February 22nd
Scheduled Meetings:
i !w.•; k
• 11:30-12:30 Technical Group Meeting
• 6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting
The consultants (design team) set up a temporary Public design
r •`,�� im F 11 studio at the Embassy Suites Hotel. A team of 13 planners,
-- architects, economists, and transportation engineers, made the
.-,wr,
studio their home for the next six days. The studio was open to
Feb.zz-scheme le. the public morning and evening, from 8:30 AM to 9 PM. At 6:30
(enlarged version in Appendix G) PM, the Design Team presented subsequent research and design
concepts at a public review session attended by over 200 people. ■
Two design concepts were presented, one with a diagonal street
leading from the corner of Jones Road and Treat Boulevard to a
station square, (Scheme 1A), and one with streets leading
perpendicular from Treat Boulevard to the station and
perpendicular from Jones Road to the station, (Scheme 113). Part .
way through the meeting some participants expressed their
frustration at the presentation format of the meeting. Many people
expected a hands-on workshop format similar to prior meetings.
The county and consultant team decided to restart the meeting,
setting up workstations around the room where people could .
discuss the proposed concepts in small groups. Input was gathered
using drawings on site plans, flip charts and Post-it notes. After
40 50 The Plan Pleasant H171 BART Station Area Community Plan
the impromptu change of meeting format, most participants felt I � : ..:•a
that the Charrette process was back on track.
—
Charrette Day Two, Friday, February 23rd ;;�. 7117,
Scheduled Meetings:
11:00 BART Technical Meeting
• J
• 1:00 Pedestrian/Bicycle overcrossing Meeting V
2:00 Retail Meeting
• 4:00 Staff Review Meeting
The design team began to assess input from the previous evening's '
session and to rework the design alternatives. A series of meetings Feb.24-scheme 2ANot enough residential;poor retail
were held with members of the design team and the BART eTr
.tposure on eat.
engineering group, the engineer for the pedestrian bridge, County
■ Connection, the developer, and retail experts. All meetings were
open to the public. The meetings offered an opportunity for
everyone to gain a greater understanding of the various aspects of _
the project, so that the designs could be well informed. Financial
and transportation feasibility analysis was continually performed "!
,1
■ on the evolving schemes. Q ,
Based on the high level of citizen interest in transportation issues, til r
the design team decided to add an ad hoc transportation meeting -
for Monday evening at 6:30. The design team worked until 11:30
■ PM in anticipation of Saturday's neighbor's meeting and afternoon Feb.24-Scheme 28
public review. Provides more developable blocks Jor
■ residential and good retail exposure.
Charrette Day Three, Saturday, February 24th
Scheduled Meetings:
• 10:30 Neighbors MeetingwT-
.
• 4:30-6:30 Public Workshop
. Several design concepts were presented to a meeting of neighbors
at 10:30 AM.. A separate station was set up for the Las Juntas r
C.1-.
Swim Club. Since the swim club was listed by the county as a
possible future loction for some of the temporary parking east of
Jones Road on the Iron Horse Trail, it became an important e
. element of the Charrette. Several pool site alternatives were o -
presented and debated by pool members.A steady stream of w
people flowed through the design studio on Saturday afternoon. f'
■ ewn
The A and B schemes were refined and presented to a public
review at 4:30, during which concerns were raised over the low Feb.25-Scheme emphasises a stung
number of residential units relative to the amount of ofiee and the connection between the Iran Horse
poor retail exposure of Scheme 2A.An important evolution from Trail and the Station.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-41
scheme 2A and 2B was the location of the BART replacement
parking garage. 2A located the parking on the north and south ■
sides of the tracks. This arrangement imposed limitations on the
1.•/ r viability of residential blocks on the south. The BART
replacement parking was then consolidated to the north corner,
contiguous with the existing garage. The south blocks then
a.
became viable developable residential sites. ■
�-" Scheme 2B became the favored plan in part due its greater
housing, the square at the station and the retail frontage on Treat.
At this meeting it is announced that in response to the public's
concern for accurate traffic counts, new counts would be ■
conducted for a week starting on Monday.
Scheme 3B ■
Provides more residential and targer
public open.space component. One neighbor proposed a scheme that featured a substantial public
green connecting the station directly east to the Iron Horse Trail.
This concept was incorporated into Scheme B, by creating a green ■
in front of the station and extending a boulevard east to the Iron
Horse Trail.
Charrette Day Four, Sunday, February 25th
The design team continued to revise the design schemes according
to the information and input from the prior three days. Traffic
��„ � ..•'•Q; a counts wereobtained at various locations in the immediate vicinity
A detail of Station Square and the of the BART station.
residential green leading to the Iron
Hoare Trail ut the eastern edge of'the ■
site. Charrette Day Five, Monday, February 26th.
Scheduled Meetings:
• 10:00 BART Technical Meeting
• 6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting on Transportation
Scheme 2B passed a review by a second BART Technical
meeting. The design team began more detailed studies of the
scheme. The economists continued to test the financial and ■
market feasibility of the scheme. Approximately 50 people
attended the Transportation Focus Group at 6:30. The design team
facilitated a discussion of the BART Station area in the regional
transportation context. Scheme 2B was presented and the
transportation impacts were discussed. Input was gathered on the
scheme. The general response was positive. The most common
suggestion for improvement was to increase the number of
housing units and introduce for-sale units. ■
42-5.o The Plan Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area Community Plan
Charrette Day Six, Tuesday, February 27th
Scheduled Meetings:
• 6:30-8:30 PM Public Meeting
. The design team revised their preferred scheme to maximize the
amount of green and housing. Scheme 2B evolved in 3B with a
larger park area. .
After six days, including four formal public meetings, over seven
. informational meetings, and 72 hours of open door studio work,
the design team presented scheme 3B to an evening public
meeting attended by nearly 200 people.
Scheme 3B featured:
• A larger "Station Square" and Residential "Green"
■ connecting the station to the Iron Horse Trail.
• A location for an Iron Horse Trail Gateway with locations for
bike maintenance and rest room facilities.
• A north/south retail main street extending from Treat
Boulevard to Station Square. Retail also on Treat Boulevad
. and around some portion of the square. Possible uses include
cafes and small locally serving shops, such as a drug store
• An interconnected pedestrian network of interesting, walkable
sidewalks and paths connecting the surrounding
neighborhoods to the station.
■ 0 Over 250 housing units of residential including 50 for sale
townhouses. Most units face the surrounding residential
neighborhoods, to the east along the Trail, and to the north
along Las Juntas Way, across from Fox Creek Park.
• Office towers are located to the west, mirroring the existing
office along Treat and Oak.
• Public uses such as a day care center, a health club, and
meeting spaces, among others, are located around Station
Square.
• Taxis and busses circulate around the Station Square, stopping
to pick up and drop off passengers at designated locations.
Layovers occur north of the Square under the BART tracks.
Kiss and Ride is located north of the tracks.
• The existing BART surface parking is accommodated in a
parking structure attached to the current garage. The 250
spaces that were scheduled for possible location on the
neighboring swim club site are accommodated in garages in
. the plan. All parking necessary for the offices, retail and
housing is accommodated on site in garages as fee parking.
On street parking adds to the available parking for the project.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hi//SART Station Area Community Plan 50 The Plan-43
REV/EWANDREV/SE PHASE
The consultant team spent the next six weeks reviewing, refining
and testing the preferred Charrette Plan. Further input was
gathered from citizens, agencies and the developer. The scheme
was revised to assure physical and financial feasibility, and was
prepared for presentation at the Charrette follow-up meetings in
April.
A new gathering place for the
neighborhood and for contnurters.
Station Square looking to the improved Charrette Follow-up Meeting 1 .
Bart platform with a new office Monday April 9, 6:30 PM, Embassy Suites Hotel
building in the background.
The consultant team presented revised design schemes plus
concepts for design codes to a meeting which was attended by
over 150 people. The design team gathered input to inform their
work on further revisions during the following day.
Charrette Follow-tip Meeting 2
Tuesday April 10, Embassy Suites Hotel
The Design Team presents the final draft of the Plan based upon
the previous night's comments. Final public input was gathered,
and traded. The consultant team asked for a"Vote of Confidence"
on the Design Team resulting in an enthusiastic round of applause
from the participants.
44 5.0 The Plan Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan
i
■
■
HOUSING ON LAS JUNTAS WAY
Las Juntas Way becomes a completed re :�
■ street with the addition of a four-story a
building. This building buffers the neigI C —
■ from the BART garage. These new resii;
front Fox Creek Park.
■ 2 BART REPLACEMENT PARKING -
The replacement parking, temporary par•,? B
■ Jones Road, and parking for the office b
■ accommodated in the addition to the exi
ing structure.
3 STATION SQUARE C
Station Square is the primary, formal cialI'
is activated by the station entry and the
■ commercial and civic uses. Loading ancf `
for busses and taxis is accommodated ark
square. Bus layovers are acconimodatec�� _
■ south of the platform (3a).
■ 4 OAK PARK
The oak grove becomes a park fronted
■ Treat. A small retail building, probably
is sited so as not to disturb the trees.
i•
■ rj NORTH/SOUTH RETAIL MAIN STREE-i
Prime retail fronts Treat Boulevard and ° �,:- 1 ••��,
■ along the north-south street to, and parti
the square.
■ l�■ 6 RESIDENTIAL PARK BLOCK & -�
IRON HORSE TRAIL
■ An east-west street, envisioned as an elegy'
■ lined with town houses, connects Station
with the regional Iron Horse Trail. r
■ 7 OFFICE BUILDING ^`
■ A 12 story office building is located acre
■ BART tracks from the square, in proxim
existing office buildings. Because of its
■ on axis with the square, this prominent Y
creates a visual connection between the' E
■ south sides of the community.
* Parking garage location subject to further -
engineering studies.
® a.-
i
5.3 ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHARRETTE SCHEMES
•y�yr. :si�' �'ij-�,' :'1"��:•n'...�i: - r;i•-'Ri�a' '�i.�7•::a. N`S?::;.a - r. I:. '�
q.
iT
../.+F)moi= `�a� .1. liJ�F��=-- �. ��';: � s-+�'•,i+k'.-- ...w�..,.-_-- _ "`Y "r'+•.J'
_- ..�' •, .' r`s�
CL
"' �%'t. .���. %'�'•'; '. - - �—:-� may';"��,,, .,�- '4�•�.g3- `;F' `�_....., •_.,, �`'r • .
mqgq
f� .-4'�:.i. tea? '=3i'•:'E s:a`.=Y`�.-:r'h:.."'iir'..'_•_•�. '� .�5... +n=..c:...:�i... .A:,"" :•iY.,:i..
. Aerial rendering of the proposed design shows how the new buildings would fit in ivith the surrounding c'onununity.
RESPOND/NG TO THE
r�
SURROUND/NG CONTEXT
Many citizens felt that the
■ '' station community should
maintain a similar scale to
_ 1117F the surrounding buildings.
w i The heights and uses of
proposed buildings were
y - therefore coordinated with
n;.;.. �r f r •' existing development - tall
office buildings next to
adjacent tall office
7. ter' buildings, lower-resident
buildings facing existing
Connecting the square next to the station with the Iron Horse Trail was a major objective in the residential areas. Streets
. project. This illustration shows the residential boulevard that connects them,and the small civic were also carefully
building within the generous planted median. aligned to maximize
access and connectivity to
NOTE: Drawings, diagrams and other visual representations of the surrounding destinations.
proposed community plan within this report are conceptual in
. nature and depict a series of design schemes that evolved over a
period of months. While such illustrations represent a generalized
■ vision of the plan, certain details may be inconsistent with one
another and with the ultimate built scheme. For the most accurate
. description of the plan as proposed, refer to the Pleasant Hill
BART Property Code.
. Pleasant Hi/t BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-47
■
■
CREAT/NG A PUBLIC f . ■
GATHER/NG SPACE
For the majority of the ■
participants in the
planning process, the idea
of a central public space at '`" _� -_ _ =`4` — = _
the heart of the -� ,,r' r � � ��
community was -�^: \
compelling. Like manyit
traditional rail stations, the
Pleasant Hill BART Area
Community Plan
1 '
incorporates an adjacent __ ' - ,_ ■
public square. -�
Dubbed "Station Square" ; ■
during the Charrette, the I r =
civic space is planned as `' '` �" ,i - --1 ■
the focus of activity for
the larger neighborhood. -
It terminates both the
north-south retail street _
and the east-west -�I�,. �t ��' ■
residential boulevard. To
further activate the square, I �. �_ ,� - ! ■
the buses are routed
Aerial view oj'Station Square looking east toward Mt.Diablo.
around the green, enabling
convenient transfers to r,�'r.-� t1, LL:i.. ,. :. ., 4 .�T�� ��.:r-� _'* ,•
and from BART. Busses ;,�;::; ,, :.�,::. .;�;,,.;� >•_:. , V. R,.
lay over along the alley
south of the platform. :Qyi
1 " ■
Uses around ;.f.: � A: :r, ■
the square "�•}•.::�:;;a:,,:ws;�:�;:':.;'_
include and
retail
a civic on -�' _��='���;=` '•:
the ground floor, and
residential and office uses o a a n a ` '"b=4 ■
above. Generous
sidewalks are provided to pn 8
encourage al fresco dining ; . _ 'r ` • 3 s-
and pedestrian activity. `h :, _ ° ■
f
till
Street-level view of Station Square showing the improved BART station,retail shops,and ofc•e ■
beyond.
48 5.0 The Plan Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan
■
■
■
■
■ `�- y' i`'. ,::s�� ��, Ary r -�
.rF. _ ':'tJ`J:'" • lit`-• - - � •,;.
K.
':STATILIAR
■ '�.� t `2•` ti\`. ``Y" + _ =y..y: i PARK BLOCK
. �" .� � �:.,•,y', c r=te I , .
V
.' j r
■ Plan detail showing u continuous sequence of green publicspaces creating a gateway to the Iron Horse Trail.
T
5:v¢•n44K STeT 1T-.rficn4 �.�EEJ
A concept section through station square looking at the BART platform.
■
.15.;:j:: �tZ}:Y:,�r` -.i_ +: ,-Fv:.+ i� �!•.�' 1:•� �.r` _;4'••.R' :i_ •ri'.
''�. .'•;�jc i;.f ,,�•' `I . - �:•Y-'_ � '•(. Cdr'; c.''' .i� _ 7)
•t..., •:'/:_ +.�'e �,i� �i4'n �.J. �:'� - :j: ..i•� �?r.--!�'.-ri:::. s%£��;,' 'Z
■ Three alternative concepts for the BART Station improvements. The towel's are envisioned as a part of the abating retail buildings.
■
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-49
■
•,� • - • •- - ��F��:I7!,' ;!/ _ ,_//�,- ,. yc= K=im .
-e/r'•C_
• • ` \�t \ f� �tJ���mfr:: ��p/jam, - �Q•�
• Ll-ar X11 r�{t�l ;��,�\- .?�r�',,la l:' ~.y
• • - m; �, � .};,�;�•,�• A•�/.Grp;}) ,:i .,�..,: �
•• • • •, - � °. 11� .1�. � ern .r.�/ .Q �, �n>, ��i,••,
YL r
' 1 2 f , fir;,fI_g� •� yy1. :� �;`�y w1.1
• • • • I ? �; a.i �i ►.c i'% .t "i1r.cf� �l Y.. (hlie
ef
q"'l;voo..a �,,r
jr
s-
•ter- �-�--6 � — � S/
4�f --� ✓%/�'.g� - -r /� ,, Igo
�• ;��' , ijI ii f9m
/IIID ' ;sig A• \I qQS
i!... Olt,
�±±•��
y
km kill ki
II o:; •4° I i f - — t9 //d`'1// I: :�I' a/,�. �• I.�° !'>- y p
. Vf11�1
'�� `'_� e' _.�+° ��s`�•r-p��,Q/Il/�Q/�I��, Ilgi„ I��• i �.,�,111; 6',► �� r: �-
�(�1��,�sa7.i�_•. '...-._�- 1 _�=�°'.c� _ -_ —='r��-- --- i'-!-'�tr:� �� rte. ti��l t
zli
it_ •��. � ���a` h A�
•I I � I
I I
■
i
■
■ f` ti t l } 3, ' : ^ "'� CREAT/NG A SENSE OF
PLACE
The streets of the Pleasant
Hill BART Community
■ ,� - �+ :,, '� Plan define the blocks that
set the pattern for the entire
,, plan. From this layout
■ (3L btyl I-ES I M.P.
tl. % y comes the dimensions and
r- -' r , Lk''= configurations of the
■ 4T buildings,parks, and plazas
that make up the physical
environment in the
development.
Street sections vary from a
narrow 20 access lane to
�.'`��• x'. }, F '� m a broad boulevard with a
' generous planted median
S y;, and associated public
■ - `::,:X14 v ' building. Each is sized
to its articular
■ This local street inspired the design of the retail street. according p
function and location
within the plan.
■
a su•T
rbb aeb.
■
■
Inn Nay,.Tal
■ 101 111 111 111 111 101
T-ICIIl.,e. I T-I I T-i T•..el1011�st W-11
■ W—b.P-9) 64,
na.w.
. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Master Plan
Jones Road
■
■
■
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Pleasant Hlll BART Station Area Community P/an 5.0 The Plan-51
■
i
■
■
The outdoor space created ■
by the buildings that line i
each street is vital. Streets
that are either too wide or ■
that are lined with low
buildings fail to provide }. ■
spatial enclosure. Spatial
enclosure is one of the
elements needed to create :, y; "''' ■
a sense of place.
■
Another design goal was
to provide a human-scaled 111 T-18' 11' 15' ■
Wal. .s ll.y Tl T-1 �•I-U M" W.I.
elements at the street- 68' ■
I.G.W.
level. The street standards
for Pleasant Hill BART Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Master Plan ■
Retail Street
mandate street trees, wide S
sidewalks, on-street
parking, and benches. ■
The architectural codes
specify minimum first ■
floor glazing requirements
and awnings on retail
buildings. These elements ■
help create a comfortable,
intimately-scaled
streetscape that
encourages pedestrian ■
activity. ■
■
■
.... . . .. .
_ _ f.•I , ■
I. ::.12•.x;,; - 1. ,I,�
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I ■
10' 838' 8' 10' 8' 5' S' T -��.: ■
110'
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Master Plan •
Residential E-W Street
■
52-5.0 The P/an Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area Community Plan ■
i
■
■ 11 a 1A o■ ® ® ® ® R R 'S� in l ® J1 11 M
la
0 logo
■ Example elevations of nixed-use retail buildings around Station Square.
■
■ 222 ® ® � W
■ Example elevations of doe three-stay townhonnes along the residential boulevard.
■
INCORPORATING REGIONAL
■ ARCHITECTURAL
CHARACTER
Charrette participants felt
i
that the station community
A Igloo should have a local
■
visit r ] Komiarchitectural fit. The
MINE e; ; 11100. Charrette architects were
inspired by the rich
long 9 ;
■ r ���� architectural traditions of
mass the East Bay. These
■ ��®� �' j i��� building elevations are
® ROM representative of a diverse
■ _ yet harmonious design
palette that will be
allowed under the codes.
. Example elevation of the/2 stony office building.
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 50 The Plan-53
i
■
■
CREAT/NGA ■
COMPREHENSIVE
PEDS'STR/AN NETWORK ■
Charrette participants felt Las Juntas wap Li ■
that pedestrian access to the
For
BART station should be Creek ■
improved.. Park
Currently,pedestrian access
to the BART Platform is
��/ �� ■
difficult. Pedestrians are \ /
forced to traverse large
surface parking lots that \ / :�;';./ ■
lack dedicated pedestrian -t -
routes and adequate
� C
lighting. �f(
$tatint `
Vigorous pedestrian- ��+%�� �—RrrBltiYl; — ■
activity is the hallmark of a
healthy public place. The ■
master plan creates a series i ■
Oak
of linked parks,plazas and Park
broad sidewalks to allow i ■
comfortable and safe
i ■
pedestrian access to the
BART station from all Treat Boulevard
directions. ■
Open space diagram showing landscuped areas(green)and hardscaped ■
Benefits of this network areas(tun).
include reduced parking ■
requirements and increased .
pedestrian safety.
Residents living within ■
walking distance of the
BART station will have ■
more incentive to leave ■
their cars at home,reducing
the overall need for ■
parking. Active uses, good
lighting,and large, street
level windows help to keep
pedestrian routes safe and
attractive.
54-5.0 The P/an Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan
■
■
■
■ �' —• PRESERV//VG
r
:NATURAL AMEW T/ES
. , Two significant natural
features currently exist on
•, � � Ir, G,;. the 18 acre BART site: a
grove of large oak trees on
the Southwest corner of
the site,
and Fox Creek
tom_
Park, a small pocket park
adjacent to Las Juntas
■ Option one-a trellised arcade sit-etches along Treat Boulevard and the western edge of Block A. Way. SpeClWas
taken to press careerve these
■ amenities and integrate
them into the design.
o■
f' During the Charrette, two
ideas emerged for utilizing
the oak grove to provide
„ safe and convenient
u
pedestrian access north to
the station. This site is
viewed by thousands of
cars per day. Whatever is
built at the corner of Oak
and Treat will become an
Option two-a pavilion restaurant sits among the oak trees, with an adjacent outside patio.
important landmark for
the project.
Option one (above left)
! shows a series of arcades
along the south and east
' edges of the grove. This
Zi �. ��- r z-; option provides abundant
= .�•" �Y � .'� .r p<' pedestrian access and
,rl/�71
safety lighting for those
walking to the BART or
�, . � - � � F,. . ;y:-� � •�-' bus stations. Option two
(center left) illustrates a
pavilion restaurant with
,91[ ,�, � . outside seating underneath
P.0'Wu.IiG4 �IB
I '• .n0 '.TnAV.
`"` the oaks. This active
� +
nighttime use will help
maintain safety and create
Prat-Option one. Plait-Option two.
a lively atmosphere in the
area.
. Pleasant Hi//BART Station A,ea Community Plan 5.o The Plan-59
7r tr�':�!'`•;:��t^ a -,rm.•�,-Z• u:'.:n''i•a'~'r'..,- .• , ->a.^_•.ar�:� SW F' ice. .r�'.- r
x}ii, rC. c> .��:��i' %�a,. �.o•1�� ��rr •�• [`';�'i:°t gip`" �t' � S �'•� •,. � f�`��-�t
{ 7rl'.✓ .;�" ¢`er. �t� r [�'` 1. ,��•..t�•P:.t' � r"� �� �,. Y +} r tL !k �y(
J'�r t[ ` ,5Y 3_. .j••,r W r� ..�': Z..7(^-. '1�� � (� '1 1 �FM, � ' �i . -'fi�.rf'-.
�1:. t. 1J [ �' X17 )r�"f���f �. }r •! �, � 1 t�C.S:{-l{ .y_
y � C"�r`..7'.��• f, �t .��- 4�� y Ea�i�� 4. -i�� F�-`�5•r f� •y>g�rri' Fns. ��
•«s�r•��r r -��'. t����� y �r.�ti�,�er.,r: 'ht.:W o.�' i, a�y r, r r/ .i {{ \\ � !-�,
�� 7t+1y r�+:r�.. .�a �,r- 5r{„�A`St$;.I••- 9�3' r•''_ %�j ��{ r 1 yl tJi'� �•-
�!} } -�St apF ,-rte _,`.���•L r ,tt'�r3 �• t��-!'�, � � � 'i c r`'
R`.t �4^a r"t"�i i�,��i y:'STs�-�i•. 'sem„ C iJ U N�•�. r ^•If " ,k
rU7k"y>'t ,[r'��.q.-,�r•.�Z T.�}..•�{'�.r'``cf` I -3��,K ,�;,��r'i•�,,;,1{4 e � "„ .�- - 1.,.
�yr.°s 1�,r t l yl �'•�J�3- J } J irlbl.. � � -I ii I - �'� �Fr�
��� y����i�rJ9'�"ti �'yrt sr �a� •a.�'t� Y'9'.ttf�i' I' i1 f} rFl,l�� r�F � ��
'!�I' y,= �eA� �EIIa J'�^ � � !'r' ' � � ?I� ,� yI�I�I� I. f ��/•.I �}r� , K `, 'II
IS✓y4��, �rJ..[ .•_i r r.•y• + oX ° ! • l L - � f r r � 5 � ,
i r 1 l r ,r;�P� r� ••r .J' ,rL, Lrl�, 1` �f n } [ ``[ 1�
�. �1''r��.jrh.,,' � -•� _�sr. �r`, Y t lr�J4
/Ilr -r l l4if �17 t�L Z\
�j•`7i r .itl',y�•' 1JiS�5.. r-�`r':S' t ....� _.. ._�_ c_ -"' iy _ r '��o 77•m
es � � �rY .- - _.. -�-.y-•'ik'. •t LL� a �- a t -' ,J..S ls�.�
_ _ y F}r - �;ra"` -,y, "�' �f��•F,,,i�t� �r'a�� � � ���j, '�,:'� ��.f
t! - _ ; 1 Q,�°rt/"q .h, { ...r: 'G• �Ey-s F'"-Ly�.i �L_,� .:s a .
r�t
'.�' R fa s�- x t ;.,cry' 'MJ'•• I} A l tit SS,�r•-, � �r �,•t� �*tom
�:{ r v. r y1r b'APr 2q �i . "�' ;``'i•. •y"t� �'7.t n - GG� ��„ �v ,'� -ut{
�'�I I i- auk.. u�-��,- ��{.�;,: � �•� �6 � r� •y 4.�5 `. 7 :..m.
a}oam' lu� t+ tM I a 1
r�,.�••• moi• '� a. r r c�
60
ri
'� r } v �� i h r.,l..,?-. i .' � c a 1�,�.y•ar �.� -�w•.. . �. "�1 , I��--�_ '`�
i.. :. :- -fr- - J -.. `} r try-t t ,,�„•?,.rs5'�(p�. � - -t,� }i� t_53- f ?ay,�/..L� f •
r 1.f-.•`t15Y�f'?�sS'� r-'�ti� 7 t�L [ - �� �r 2. t -t�r .fi fl•� �'U��T - 1�i - - r F s in,�.i
K`
c�r.:7."�> � �`r f r T.{ r 'ry!-.�_,� Ep 'y�. 1{ £ i�l• .2u.- 1 t �. `.J.Lh
o' tti �. , ,�e r �s�l' t �fh �i "� r�-•, .-ttu�� + � +•-4.i+ -�.wt�1L�5r� �r�i}t
'� •�`Y-. -7� i; z rr- � �4 •�, k -� 1 r ` �.�,7' ._j a�..t`11 , fr�i t �S.t - s^•^f•�+' 1 y J_�4 i J '
(y"�}4:t t t�- ,t .gw". u- t ,. L..t t; rte '�"a� 4� r i"• -
.A ti,N J t,
.n� t 9 C
t�`x. �_` � r.r - s•,r � 4 r. p„1 CFY ra+7i�r• .� m � y�� S +.. �r •,;�
�.. _'-+. �'Y r t r I, :y .r ' r k {{-�i.°rti C�'' r r"+�i y" + ,. i. y `•
-. - � J}F�Y 1 - �i S E I ..tayv � l -t a S +..i f• '} � ". �- t-.a,u r
�'„��N:...ri�`i!.°" y`� --5 .v.�3 �,�j .��,_._.,,:� ?i- .x,•}`r.0...-�','�'. ! '`-J�:i�r�.�-:..a.:� w�_...Ay_ �i�. ..�'1u4.�r��r fid_.:..::__�u`•i
'21 J �^j(�f7 %°� l ' � •, i'���1`S r7�t �' i+iga ,
ULS PPP-W! p �'� � -rte -"�"'r� ���+'. ����.r,��n,t�-7�•y��� �[j� � �tiy.�`�
�:. 'r„y i,.,. �iy � r-''�. .. ^.ar j' .� �S�'S• ^t�yy.n .."' r F's�� 'j• 1 N_
I pp
r - 4 y� a v r�,,:�� -•'i' 7 r '�,Rf'-�-..rci .1{=';'.;2^,i? �} � C.r '�1'j�.�, 1��r� '�'r.j;^
+ fal+ � ,. ' a��i' f� J7 ! t 14�'yV-^v '•' �< C' ,.-'�13�' / r�f. X'!1 - h�'��� 1r K+}^
i+jf'TYri�:t/:^ �.�.Y �"'-�i.'t '[ - "L'1 , t � •'J. ~ �•t�'{:Y�(s!� t .[- ,� +:' �h•�•?. ,r rt rn- _
s ^�'.+*. �;�`+p.,-- 6`a� —•��~"�1..�" ��__� rl r ��''�'`, F�' �� :may:
,� `+4u^�H����}.�a.1 _ ACr_. rjh �j�`[ �i r; i^�✓�_C" r"'3: ^ '�'ta
f *•.{ trr,,,� fiy {,€�(• ..-r o-� _Ye1 � `0 ft ',,,,.•e'•r `"`�-1fK. {' .Cy-'+'`'"•+IC :� Y
5M1,^. • .ti, r..,4Y',4. t;;- '.•..c"`""'u` 9 .r ... _i!- ...V•[ 1N ,• = .'f {* �^rw�'`+
i r
Vt
,_.,,.�y„��� r , L'•' •_ �-r- ✓ - �v��� [�:1���.r.iwi.xr+�r ,7'�� ' •�� y°r •� a
ci'3,�.p�`•,',dc1'l•" �IT�' r^ S.1 �. ,n _ _ .LS `'� 'rir•� t' r.. ,�,t�.t a4�l..
.Ni:. J• �'• �] f �. � .�� �,�. n. .ate'j'�! .(�! 'V`�.. .rl- a•b` :Ytt •o
It
-'��. �.., yz� ��j.y[•4'- ^`7�y�` r.i:, ���Ly���i14.'r�kr a 5...•d..�F � - ,� q t �����
��v ;� {t t+•,�!-.- �rJ<'t� L C art h... -.i - \.q. C
'i=-- �•,• i. ti �1(�.tv i 1 e•^c�`r"+��{r ,E;�ry r4 <z r�`,��" r � �p i`' _��. �'�'�'� -..
40, f 3 thY�51{ inirSF / '(F aay Ci riJ�P 'i{9 c .a l y� a
{ OF
f
.:_r.��� '' 4.0 [i._ a �_„l, �-.k{S�'tlk,�,.ti. a� ^r, [• ....�\�. �Y.��n
LEGEND
PJ. Office Use LAS JUNTASAY
-M
Residential Use
Civic Use
■ Retail Use
HC
Undetertninedl
Flex Use
z
J
ALLOVVED HEIGHTS. UJ
USES AND BUILDING
S. 0
X
TYPES _J
Several factors determined
the maximum building
heights allowed on the EV C OT-4 tiny,1
site. The Specific plan
0
stipulates that views of
Mt. Diablo be maintained
0
from the BART platform.
This limits building
heights east of the
platform to 52 feet. The TREAT BLVD
maximum height allowed
by the Specific Plan for
any building north of the First Floor Uses in the Pleasant Hill BARTArea,Vlasier P1111; ■
BART tracks is 12 stories
and 7 stories to the south.
Building construction techniques also influenced allowed building heights. Wood-frame
construction (type V) is the most common and economical construction technique for buildings of up
to four stories. For fire safety reasons, higher buildings must use more expensive steel or concrete
structural systems (type I). This additional project cost can only be recouped if the building is seven
or more stories. In buildings between four and sevmstories, additional rental income doesn't
compensate for the additional structural cost.
Allowed uses are outlined in the codes. In some locations, uses are quite specific. In others they are
more flexible. For example, along the new north-south street that links Treat Boulevard with Station
Square, retail uses are required at the ground level. However, in the upper floors of the same
buildings, a variety of uses are allowed - from housing to office to lodging. The final use will
depend on market demand at the time of construction and thereafter.
58-5.0 The Plan Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan
■
■
■
■ LEGEND
LAS JUNTAS WAY Office Use
910 le 0 W
■ Residential Use
■
Civic Use
® Retail Use
HO
■ �'� * Undetermined/
■ Flex Use
..\ z
LU
C U
0
= The master plan allows for
., �. o
o buildings to accommodate
■ o ,� — -- — interim uses. For
■ r AW U-M example, the square
i ¢ footage of required retail
■ LEstorefront may exceed the
/ A M B �i W initial demand for retail
/ z
° space. In this case, office
■ ,� �,.b d,, uses would be allowed
! until the retail market
■ TREAT BLVD develops.
■ f Generally, housing is
Upper Floor Uses in the Pleasant Hill BARTArea Muster Plan located near desirable
■ visual and recreational
■ amenities (such as the Iron
Horse Trail), and close to
■ existing housing. Office uses are clustered near other office buildings. Retail uses are sited in
. locations that are highly visible to passing cars and along routes to and from public transit.
Structured parking lots are hidden behind other uses (when possible) and architecturally enhanced
(when not screened by an active use). Buildings with civic uses are placed in prominent locations
around the site, terminating views from important streets.
■
■
■
■
■
■
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Pleasant Hit/BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-59
■
5.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL
a :` The financial analysis conducted as part of the Charrette was
designed to test the financial performance of the development
program created during the charrette process. A financial model
was built specifically for this purpose which generated multiple
C. ` , measures of return to test performance from three perspectives:
the developer, BART, and the County. In addition, the model was
structured to test the financial feasibility of each individual
jproduct type included in the overall program e.g., townhouse and
Dill",
flats but the results shown below combine the return from each
u[ar ew
use to reflect the synergisms of a mixed-use project. In addition,
- - `. infrastructure anp
.... the model also incorporated non-income producing elements of
development around the Pleu.rmv Hill
Block t the proposed new the plan includinginfrasttd public improvement costs
mp
BART station. such as streets, streetscapes, the plaza, improvements to the BART
Station, etc. For more detailed description of the model and the
assumptions uses and inputs to this analysis, see Appendix A.
Two alternatives were generated during the charrette, however, the
only difference between the two is the treatment of the block
bordered by Oak Road and Treat Boulevard. One proposes
primarily residential on this block while the other considers
primarily office uses. The following two tables summarize the .
programs for each alternative.
RES/DENT/AL ALTERNATIVE(TOTAL DEVEL OPMENT PROGRAM).'
Rent/Sales .
Price per Feasibility
Square Feel/it Funding Square Ft.(as (Income vs. .
Use Unils/Spaces Coif Sources ul' )/70(11' CU5I5)
290.000 Sq.
Office Ft. S77 million Private 53.50-53,75 i
Storefront 42.000 Sc. Ft. S13 million Private 51.50-52.50
Residential 446 units $93 million Private 52.15-52.75
Total for
Private Uses 778.000 sq. lt. 5183 million
Plazas. parks. •
Public new roads. .
Infrastructure sidewalks.etc. $8 million Public N/.A N/A
BAR1' .
Replacement
Parkin, 1.180 S20 million Public N/A N/A
Iron Florse
'frail
Replacement Publie/Fee .
Parkin, 581 St/ million Financed N/A N/A
'rota) for Public .
13cnefit: S37 Million
Project lbtal 799.000 sq. 11.1S220 million Privale Public .
60-50 The an Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area CommunityPlan
OFFICEAL TERNA TIVE(TOTAL DEVELOPMENTPROGRAM).-
KE Y FINA NCIA L A PIA L YSIS FIND/NGS
14, rice0 .'Fas
, e i6l I
Ll it as:
■ q unding q re
Inconle vs.
os 7
n i t§V
sc.,. U t
i OSt T', �OUrce!'s'!.":n'. BOO
A,
offide
- ,
K)60 00':8 ir - $:I_-2�,.million Private, 3
S ,.,.)0 _S-3 J7,
-illioh' P -�t�t $4-0 2
n I z,� '..) $
S I Mi J, h
4.
1 11- -7
• Re§ide6iial ��'U:j 274AlllitS"'!:<
Private-U'se''s'_,�..,.7,72"000"-s4.°'.ft.: $1,92 nii1l 6n
131
a7as:parks;`,'-.`
PU'
new roads
ni -
In frastrUcturel sid6�61ks,eff: $8 mihiciii' Public
BART
Re'Pl
Parking.'
l:
48 $20 11 11iOil PUblI
c' _
N/A NIA
Iron'Florse
frail .
aceineiff
Public Fee
$q /A
. I I i
Finaiiced'; -/A
Total io:r' iQih,-
a.
fle4772 000 sq. ft.
$37.1 iijjiort
■ ject ota .$229 million Privitc/Pti'bi'l
ic:1
Overall, the final Charrette alternative, with either residential or
office on the parcel bordered by Oak Road and Treat Boulevard,
meets the developer's required return on capital for each
individual land use using cost and revenue assumptions based on
market conditions in February, 2001. However, the returns to the
■ developer are not high enough to meet their own requirements and
generate enough additional revenue to pay for all the necessary
infrastructure and public improvement costs. Therefore some
public/private partnership will be required to finance the
infrastructure and public improvements cost necessary to create a
true "transit village" on this site, including replacing all of the
existing on-site BART parking.
The proposed residential uses are successful enough to meet the
developer's required return, but do not generate any additional
cash to help pay for the major infrastructure and public
improvement costs. Including 50 for-sale units in the program did
improve the overall financial performance of the housing
component, due to the early influx of cash flow upon sale at the
assumed absorption rate. This impact, however, was not dramatic,
due to the small number of for-sale units and the fact that each
townhouse replaced about two rental units due to its larger size
and lower height. This finding is consistent with the fact that
other residential projects in the area around the BART Station
have been financially successful, however, none of these projects
Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-61
have been burdened with providing such elements as a dense street
network, a large green, or replacement parking for BART, all of .
which are necessary conditions for developing the BART site.
Retail and storefront land uses are similar to the public
improvements budget: retail is a crucial component of activated,
new urbanist public spaces, but it is cost intensive especially as .
compared to the achievable rents and is therefore not financially
feasible as an independent use. In all scenarios run by the
economics team through the course of the charrette, the cost to
build retail spaces in all blocks exceeded the revenue this use
could achieve. However, the development of carefully planned .
retail spaces is of primary importance in the development of place
and the creation of a neighborhood that complements and
capitalizes on the BART station. In addition, retail uses help to
increase the value of other uses in project, especially the housing.
Therefore, the financial model was structured to consider the
potential for"cross-subsidy" between land uses, i.e., if the retail
space is not financially viable, but the office space makes more
than enough return, some of the excess revenue from the office
space can be used to cover the retail space's extra costs. Having
one land use cross-subsidize another allows the developer to .
create the desired use mix and still have a financially viable
project overall, even if some uses are weaker than others. The .
financial analysis does indicate that with cross-subsidy from the
office use, the retail component of the project is viable.
The high-rise office land use is the most intensive revenue
generator in the plan, consistently surpassing the minimum return .
thresholds based on February 2001 market conditions. This excess
revenue would enable the developer to cross-subsidize the retail
space, as discussed above, and contribute_to some of the
infrastructure and public improvements beyond basis site
improvement costs. The office cash flow included income from
its associated parking, under the assumption that all spaces
provided for the office (at a ratio of 3.3 spaces per 1000 net square
feet) would be leased to tenants or other users at market rate.
The chart below summarizes the previous discussion showing that .
only the office use generates values in excess of the threshold
62 5.0 The Plan Pleasant Hill BART Station Area C0177177u17iiy P/,v7
return number required by the developer to have a viable project,
while housing essentially breaks even, and storefront uses fall
short of the desired return. Public improvements are also shown
. on this table because they are a cost to the project even though
they are not expected to generate a direct financial return. It is
. important to reiterate that these numbers are predicated on market
conditions from February 2001. The project will require further
financial analysis as it proceeds through the entitlements process
to reflect both changing market conditions and any changes that
might be made in the development program.
■ Scenario I: Block A Office Scenario 2:
Block A Residential
Construction Amount Construction Amount
. Cost above/(below) Cost above/(below)
value threshold 'value threshold_
Public $7,762,000 ($7,762,000) $7,762,000 ($7,762.000)
Improvements
Residential $57,000,000 $0
. Office $122,000,00 $5,250,000 $77,000,000 $3,250,000
0 I
Storefront _ $13,000,000 ($2,300,000) $13,000,000_ ($2,300,000)
TOTALS $199,762,000 ($4,812,000) $190,762,000 ($6,812,000)
These results illustrate that the mixed-use nature of the project
■ accomplishes many objectives while at the same time balancing ,
many interests. From a purely financial point of view, the highest
and best use of this site would be a series of office buildings
perhaps with minimal ground floor retail uses. However, such a
project would not meet the community's objectives and, at this
. point in time might expose the developer to more risk, since there
is currently so much uncertainly in the office market. For BART
and the County an office project might also be the most desirable
because it would generate the highest lease revenues to BART of
r any alternative, create the potential for reserve commuting, and
. provide more revenue above the developer's required return that
could potentially be used to pay for additional infrastructure and
public improvements.
On the other hand, an all-residential project, while potentially
. meeting more of the community's objectives also has drawbacks.
On the plus side, the residential project is still financially viable
for the developer and the market is still strong for all types of
residential product. But, the project would generate virtually no
extra cash to help cross-subsidize the cost of the retail uses or
. contribute to any infrastructure and public improvements costs.
Therefore, on the negative side, an all residential project would
generate the least amount of public revenues including both tax
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Communily Plan 5.o The Plan-63
increment and ground lease revenues for BART and the County,
not provide any cross-subsidy for the project's retail component
rendering this use financially infeasible, and putting the burden of
paying for all additional infrastructure and public improvements
entirely on the County to finance.
The proposed mix of uses included in the development program .
generated by the charrette process allows the developer, BART,
and the County to capture some of the greatest upside potential for
the site and still offer a significant residential component that will
be critical to creating the project's "village" character. In addition,
the office use cross-subsidizes the retail uses while still providing .
additional revenue that can be used to offset some of the
infrastructure and public improvement costs. By mixing uses, all
of the parties concerned are also protected from some market risk.
In a down office market, the residential portions of the project can
still proceed, while in turn, the residential uses will help create a .
stronger image and identity for the office space thus helping to
increase its value.
DETAILED FINANCIAL FINDINGS .
Return to the Developer
As has been explained above, the financial return to the developer
for all three land uses is acceptable given that the office use can .
cross-subsidize the retail/storefront use. However, this is
predicated on the assumption that the developer will be allowed to
build the amount of high-rise office space included in the
development program generated by the charrette. If any changes
are made in this program, the value of the office component may .
not be high enough to cover its costs, and/or the financial viability
of the retail/storefront use may also be threatened. Once the
project has received its development approvals the developer will
conduct another more detailed parcel-by-parcel financial analysis
to further test project feasibility and make decisions about project .
phasing. Ultimately when and how the project gets built will
depend on having favorable market conditions as well as the .
appropriate approvals.
Return to BART
64-5.0 The P/an Pleasant Hi//SART S!,2/ion Area Commul2iry Plan
As landowner, BART is bringing an asset of considerable value to
r the development effort. The agency has a stated intention of
■ retaining long-term ownership of its land; therefore return to
BART will be in the form of ground lease payments. This is
reflected in the financial model as an annual percentage of gross
net operating income from each land use (rental housing, office,
and storefront) prior to debt service. To enable the for-sale town
■ homes, BART has stated it would consider selling land to
accommodate 50 units. In the model, BART receives a percentage
of the home sale price. The income is significant and has an
impact on the developer's bottom line return.
■ Potential increase in BART ridership generated by the intensive
proposed station area development was also analyzed. First, the
model estimates the projected new residential and office
population at full build-out. (Storefront was considered to have
negligible impact on BART ridership, as it is planned to be largely
local-serving in nature.) Capture rates of 46.7% for residential
and 10% for office were applied to the new population, along with
estimates of average daily fare. In total, annual new ridership
revenue for BART could reach approximately $650,000 per year.
■ Potential Tax Increment Financing
At the request of the County, the economics team analyzed the
possibility of tax increment financing for the Pleasant Hill BART
Redevelopment Project. The methodology involved estimating
the capitalized value of the improvements upon completion of the
project. The tax increment was then calculated as the annual
additional tax revenue after 20% set-aside for low- and moderate-
income housing purpose (some of which may be eligible to fiend
this project). The economics team then analyzed the potential
borrowing capacity that may be supported by this annual
increment, using aggressive tax-exempt rate assumptions.
According to the preferred scenario, tax increment financing from
. the BART property redevelopment could yield borrowing capacity
of somewhere between $18 and $20 million.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
The financial analysis also identified four key issues that were not
. previously obvious. One issue considers the financial differences
between building office or residential on the block bordered by
Oak Road and Treat Boulevard. A second assesses specifically the
residential units adjacent to the BART parking garage and their
contribution to the project. The third point discusses the
P/easant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-65
importance of the storefront strategy to create a sense of place.
The final point examines the ability to finance the Iron Horse Trail
replacement parking program with fee-based revenues.
Office vs. Residential on the Parcel Bordered by Treat and Oak ■
In the final alternative, the design team proposed two uses for the
parcel bordered by Oak Road and Treat Boulevard. Building
residential on this site adds a total of approximately 150 units or
140,000 net square feet. Building office on this parcel increase
the project's office square footage by 160,000 net square feet. The ■
different uses present a few financial differences for the County
and BART that are highlighted below.
The office use is a significant income generator assuming market
conditions from February, 2001, generating approximately $2 ■
million over the required return that can be used to cross-subsidize
the retail/storefront uses and contribute to infrastructure and
public improvements. This use also boosts the Redevelopment
Agency's borrowing capacity based on the potential tax increment
by about $2million, from $18.4 million to $20.4 million.
Additionally, office on the parcel increases BART's annual ground
rent about $165,000 a year. The BART ridership revenue ■
potential, however, is about $50,000 less annually with office on
the site rather than housing.
Residential Adjacent to BART Parking Garage
The 60 residential units adjacent to the BART parking structure ■
add significant, qualitative value to the project. They make
critical connections to the adjacent community, increase the
number of housing units, and create an appealing frontage for the
project. Moreover, different housing types will make the station
area feel more like a real village and should be encouraged. These ■
60 units, however, are the least economical of the residential units
proposed for the site.
Several factors reduce their economic viability. First, the costs of
developing a project connected to the BART parking structure will ■
be more than those of a stand alone structure for two primary
reasons: the greater complexity of the design and the increased
risk and time required to coordinate with the parking structure
developer and operator. Second, the potential rent for these units
is likely to be less given their proximity to the structure and the ■
fact that they are north facing. Third, the limited number of units
does not permit significant economies of scale that would help to
66-5.0 The Plan Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan
i
i
limit the expenses or enable provision of additional amenities to
increase the potential rents. Site constraints also will limit the
i provision of amenities. When residential use for the site is
i unbundled, this residential performs poorly, while the financial
return of the other residential units improves markedly. In effect,
i within the residential use, one type and parcel of housing cross-
subsidizes another.
Approach to the Storefront Program
The future success of the station area depends on whether or not
the project as built and tenanted feels and operates like an urban
village. One of the keys to creating a high quality sense of place is
the area's retail program and its storefronts. Consequently,
■ developing a thoughtful and realistic storefront strategy is critical.
The Charrette process yielded several insights about retail on the
site. From the beginning, retail as the primary use for the site was
ruled out because of adjacent neighborhood concerns and potential
i traffic issues. Consequently, only retail that serves the local
community and supports the other proposed uses was studied.
The economic effects of this approach results in the recognition
that retail at this site will not generate additional cash flow and
i may in fact require some cross-subsidy..
Determining the location of the retail had two important and
conflicting goals. One goal for the location was insuring high
visibility to the greatest number of potential users to increase is
financial viability. The second goal was to use the storefront
■ offerings to bolster place-making functions and create gathering
places. As a result, the first goal pushed as much storefront as
possible to Treat Boulevard and the second sought retail around
key public spaces such as the square.
s
i The fact that the market analysis suggested that the area could
support initially only about 40,000 net rentable square feet
exasperated this locational tension. None of the obvious choices—
select one location to create a single retail node, bifurcate the retail
into two nodes, or create too much retail space risking having
■ empty storefronts— seemed appropriate for the proposed project.
The resulting more nuanced approach entails locating a couple
restaurants with sidewalk seating along Treat Boulevard and retail
offerings such as a cafe, newspaper stand, a bike shop, a flower
shop, and perhaps a drugstore around the square near the BART
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hi//BART Station A;ea Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-67
i
a
entrance. To link the two nodes, storefront spaces are located
along the newly created street off of Treat Boulevard. This
storefront space can be tenanted to a number of different types of
users including retailers, civic uses, and residential live/work
spaces. Then, as the station area evolves into the envisioned ■
transit village and as the demand for local-serving retail increases,
the project will have the potential space to accommodate
additional retail tenants. Any lodging facilities could also be
located in the "storefront" area, or adjacent to the square.
Economics of Iron Horse Replacement Parking
In response to the Charrette and the follow-up workshop, the ■
economists were asked to look at the economics of replacing the
parking spaces on the Iron Horse Trail. The daily or monthly fees
charged for those parking spaces would create the funding source i
needed to build the requested replacement parking. Any
additional fiends would help support a local shuttle. ■
The economics team preliminarily analyzed the feasibility of
replacing the existing 581 temporary parking spaces on the Iron
Horse Trail with structured fee parking located on the site and
providing additional funding to support a local shuttle bus. The .
following assumptions were used in the analysis: an all-in
development cost of$12,000 (which is on the low-end), current
monthly rates for non-tenants of$160 per space increasing
annually at 3%, expenses equal to 35% of revenue, 65% financing
at 7.00%, an equity requirement of about $2.5 million, a one year ■
construction period, and 5% vacancy and credit loss. This
preliminary analysis suggests a"surplus" of over $200,000 a year �
to fund a shuttle service.
e
68-5.0 The Plan Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan
■
■
■
5.5 TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS
■ Overall, the traffic and transportation analysis indicates that the
■ impacts for the proposed project would be less than those noted in
the previous EIR for all alternatives except for the "residential
S only" uses. Therefore, the previous traffic study and EIR provide
the primary information for the analysis of the impacts.
■
TRIP GENERA RON
■ The trip generation analysis is attached. This analysis is based on
■ a scenario consistent with the most conservative Charrette
schemes. The land use for this plan consists of 456,000 square
feet of office, 42,000 square feet of retail, 274 residential units and
7,000 square feet of civic uses. The trip generation from these
■ uses results in 6,880 daily trips, with 777 trips during the a.m.
■ peak hour and 878 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
TRAFFIC VOL LIMES
The traffic volumes shown on the attached figures represent actual
■ counts and projections for the year 2010. For Figure 1 (Appendix
C), the peak hour traffic volumes noted as "1997" are from counts
■ reported in the Traffic Study for the Pleasant Hill BART Station
■ Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, 1997. The
volumes noted as "2001" are field counts conducted in 2001.. The
■ volumes noted for "2010" are projections from the 1997 EIR
Traffic Study for the Base Case with the Scenario 1 Project
■ volumes included. For Figure 2 (Appendix C), the estimated trips
■ generated by the preferred plan from the Charrette were added to
the 2001 counts.
■
■ Daily Trip Generation
■ I (EIR Allerna.h.ves and Preferred Plan)
. 350 Office
250 Retail
■ 375 Office
15.000 —�•- --•
61G Office 600 Units
•------------- ---.._..—•--•---•--.. _..-----•-------•--........
6.000 Seats ,50 Retail
456 Office
■ 80 Retail
- 42 Retail
14.000 ---- .._-.._..... _.... - ...................-—
S I 1,234 office 274 Unit;
5.000 -----..._._.--•--------- " - ...... .. _
- — --
658 Ulits
■
SOUrCe: EIR Traffic Study and Felir & Peers Associates
■ QJlic'e and retail shown in thousands.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-69
■
It should be noted that all but two of the 2001 counts are higher
than the counts from the 1997 Traffic Study. The increases in the
counts appear reasonable and are considerably less than the 2010 S
projections. The two 2001 counts that are lower than the 1997
Traffic Study counts are p.m. peak hour counts on Treat Boulevard
between I-680 and Jones Road. There are a number of reasons for
this apparent discrepancy. It should be noted that traffic volumes
vary on a daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal basis. Throughout .
the year, counts vary as much as 10 percent or more, some times
from one day to the next. Therefore, these counts should be seen
as an indication of the changes in traffic volumes. Factors that
may have affected the counts include construction and new
development and new street patterns in the project area, the major .
reconstruction of the 1-680/ State Route 24 interchange, and other
construction in the general area, including the extension of BART
to Bay Point and construction along State Route 4.
i
The volumes shown in Figure 2 for 2001 are the actual field ■
counts added to the trips that would be generated by the preferred
plan from the Charrette. These trips were assigned to the roadway
network based on the directional trip distribution percentages from
the 1997 Traffic Study. As shown in Figure 2, the 2001 volumes
with the preferred project trips added are slightly higher than the ■
volumes from the 1997 Traffic Study and substantially lower than
the 2010 projections from the Traffic Study.
S/TEACCESS
There are a number of areas of concern for the proposed design.
The new roadway into the site with retail on each side may be a
two-way roadway. It may be advisable for the roadway to be one- ■
way only into the site. The exiting traffic may experience
difficulties merging into traffic on Treat Boulevard. If the
roadway is two-way, it should be carefully designed, with traffic
bars or other means to prohibit vehicles exiting the site to attempt
making a left turn onto Oak Road toward Walnut Creek.
ON-SITE C/RCULAT/ONAND PARK/NG
The on-site roadways should be designed carefully to provide
appropriate access for pedestrians and bicyclists. The roadway
widths should allow for bicyclists. On-street parking may be
advisable in most areas, with adequate controls and enforcement.
Parking may be allowed along the Jones Road access road,
providing there are two lanes for traffic in the peak direction, in
70 5.0 The Plan Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area Community Plan
S
S the morning and in the evening. It may be necessary to provide
"standby" towing at certain times of the day to ensure that two
■ lanes are open in the peak direction during peak hours.
PEDESTR/ANS.. BIC YCL IS TS A NO TRAFFIC CALMING
There are crosswalks on the Jones Road access road, providing a
= pedestrian and bicycle connection between the Station and the
Iron Horse Trail and parking area near the Trail. For the proposed
design, the crosswalks should be raised to form "speed tables."
The intersection of Las Juntas Way and Coggins Drive should be
redesigned to emphasize the pedestrian crosswalks and bicycle
access. Other traffic calming measures should also be considered
in the nearby neighborhood. It may be advisable to provide
S parking along portions of Las Juntas Way to narrow the roadway.
On-street permit parking for residents may be useful in the area.
• 5.6 TRANSIT RELATED PROPOSALS
■ INTRODUCTION
This memo provides a brief summary of the transportation issues
that were addressed by the February 22-27 Pleasant Hill BART
S Station Charrette, the follow-up workshops on April 9-10, and
subsequent meetings with County Connection staff. It includes
the key design requirements that the Charrette attempted to
address and an analysis of the resulting plan.
SUILIALIARY BUS FACIL/TY NEEDS
Adding up the comments from each of the transit agencies results
in the following design requirements for the station:
Y Provide 15 bus bays for 40' motor coaches. These can be
either along a straight curb or in sawtooth bays.
O For bus stops along a straight curb, 80 linear feet is
required per bus for independent operations. There should
■ be a minimum of 22 feet between the curb edge and the
street center line.
O For sawtooth bays, only 60 linear feet of curb length is
required per bus, but there should be a minimum of 25 feet
between curb and center line, plus an additional 16 feet of
■ right-of-way for the sidewalk and sawtooth. Sidewalks
should be 16 feet wide at the widest point of the sawtooth
and 10' at the narrowest.
G Future bus stop capacity can be accommodated by
providing on-street parking along curbs in the short term.
These parking lanes should be 11' wide, with an adjacent
11' travel lane, if they may be converted to.bus stops in the
future.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hill BART Stat/on Area Commun/ty Plan 50 The Plan 71
LAS JUMTASWA jf ■
HONEY TRAIL
s
�f•' z
LLJ
A.
115 Norm
1 .>rlh-il:L:aelS only)
j I {
C_
i I
TREAT BLVD
d' Idd' 200' =add' add' Sdd'
Bus Access and Querying Diagrurn
72-50 The Plan Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Ptan i
Make sure that the bus bays are within view of one another
to facilitate bus-to-bus transfer.
• Make sure that the bus bays are within view of the station
. to facilitate transfer to BART.
• Make sure that the bus waiting areas are safe and
comfortable at all times of the day, with informal
surveillance by merchants and/or station agents.
• To the greatest extent possible, separate peak period
automobile traffic from bus traffic
• Allow for safe crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists
s
SIC YCLEAND PEDESTRNANNEEDS
In addition to the detailed requirements for transit, there are a few
specific requirements for bicyclists and pedestrians that were
considered:
• A"bicycle station" offering secure bicycle parking and
other services should be located within view of both the
BART station and the Iron Horse Trail. This could be
placed in one of the storefront spaces near the Transit
Square, or in a separate building on the residential green.
■ Pedestrian facilities should provide safe, interesting,
comfortable access from all sides of the study area to the
station.
•
Traffic calming measures should be undertaken to improve
the interaction among motor vehicles, bikes and
pedestrians.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hit/SART Station Area Community Plan 50 The Plan-73
■
■
■
■
0
1p ■
< ■
LAS JUNTAS WAY ■
■
• \ On:a�:nu rnbxoY onura lM-a:ao L.ryoNr:%nbn •
rtOr rR:n Va:ecntl.o Nl'Vr
bnr:ai%rRi b:notlV ru. a ■
/� n:-b.o.s nil L:rc tna.oen.l \
HONEY TRAIL
' � lar �,,,r I�:�.. I ■
.a.Lv.:o. \ ■
'wl.[art.VaraV Q
rrW;u.L"Lv rnwn:.r I
V�M:I..y.s.rl 1 w^Vui
iMJI^Turm � � ■
\ Vvr nu:4 L.r,a:Jr:nrr
Lst c b-c _rr ■
o c a n.:vai I I, Q
❑ :dafon. ra,:.ly71I I r
Yrlr%n:li:on al:'n � I
rt�•:YV m:n_ � ■
I`
■
TREAT BLVD
0' 100' ?00' 300' X00' 500'
On-Street Parking Diagram ■
■
■
■
■
74-5.0 The Plan Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan ■
■
r RESULT/NG ANAL 1515
The plan developed during the Charrette and refined in the follow-
up workshops meets all key transportation design requirements,
. with excellent bicycle and pedestrian facilities, sufficient bus stops
for currently planned services, as well as the possibility of adding
even more bus stops in the future.
The grid of streets allows for multiple routing options for buses
. through the site, allowing bus drivers to alter course depending
upon traffic conditions. Placing the buses around the "town
square" allows for ahigh-quality passenger waiting area within
view of the station itself and places all buses within view of one
another. County Connection staff is very enthusiastic about all the
■ details for addressing buses at the station.
The removal of the earlier planned "transit green" allows for better
transit routing and stops, and it resolves highly problematic
circulation problems at Oak Road.
There is sufficient parking to meet the needs of BART patrons and
people attracted to new uses proposed for the study area, while
minimizing the traffic impacts on the surrounding community.
Stack and robotic parking should be investigated to determine if
■ the envelope consumed by parking can be reduced, allowing for
cost savings.
Replacing the 581 trail spaces as monthly BART patron permit
spaces allows a funding stream to provide a shuttle connecting
nearby residents to the station.
S
The issue of the Iron Horse Trail pedestrian/ bicycle crossing still
needs to be resolved among local stakeholders, but the plan allows
the bridge to proceed or not, according to the desires of the
. community.
The proposed Oak Road pedestrian bridge across Treat is not well
resolved by the draft plan, and needs to be further analyzed during
subsequent development phases.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant Hit/BART Station Area Community Plan 50 The Plan-75
■
■
REMAINING DETAILS TO BE RESOL VED ■
There are a number of details that will need to be resolved during ■
the design development phase of the project. These include:
Y A road connecting Jones Road to the town square,just ■
south of and parallel to the BART tracks, would be
valuable. This road would help accommodate some bus ■
routing, plus it would allow a good location for kiss & ■
ride, taxis and bus layover.
Design of transit shelters, information kiosks, signage, etc., ■
will be very important. Custom signage and shelters are
acceptable to the transit agencies, but specific ADA and ■
local agency requirements will need to be met.
Bus drivers currently use the BART passenger rest rooms
at the station, which are sometimes not in service or poorly ■
maintained. A single driver-only toilet incorporated into
the project would be very valuable to the transit agencies. ■
The intersection of Jones and the residential green street ■
needs to be addressed. A significant number of bicycles
and pedestrian crossing movements must be ■
accommodated here. A pedestrian-activated traffic light
may be necessary, but traffic calming may be sufficient.
It may be useful to allow bus routing through the garage.
We should explore the cost issues associated with having ■
the first floor of the garage allow sufficient clearance for ■
buses.
Considerable analysis will need to be completed to ensure ■
that all the street widths, travel lane and intersection
configurations are optimized both within and adjacent to =
the project. :
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
76-5.0 The Plan Pleasant HVI SART Station Area Community P/an ■
■
■ 5.7 PARKiNG ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
. Commuter parking was and will continue to be a dominant issue in the Station Area's development.
Stakeholders include BART commuters, the local community, participating public agencies and the
developers. A primary objective of the BART"park and ride" Station is to provide convenient, safe
and free use of the facility's parking. Indeed, a central component of the Station's ridership success
has been its abundant commuter parking and convenient access from the regional circulation
system. BART, however, encourages alternative transportation mode access for its riders when
feasible. At Pleasant Hill, despite BART's desire for facilitating alternative transportation modes to
and from the station—pedestrian, bikes and transit riders—the pressure to provide private vehicle
access and station parking remains high from BART patrons and the potential for a BART Pleasant
Hill/Airport line. In response to this expressed need, the design of parking structures - locations,
size and integration into the site -were a primary part of the Charrette planning effort.
According to the 1998 Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan, all existing parking - all
. 2,814 spaces - must be contained on the BART site. In 1991, a 1,337-space parking structure was
constructed at the northwest corner of the site. In addition to these spaces, BART currently provides
1,477 surface parking spaces for a total of 2,814 parking spaces for commuters, not including 39 on-
street parking spaces. An additional 581 temporary BART patron surface spaces are currently
located on a portion of the County's Iron Horse Trail just east of the Station.
The off-site BART surface parking has been a continued source of tension between car commuters,
who feel that BART parking should remain free and abundant, and the surrounding neighborhood,
who want commuter parking restricted to the BART site, not on the Iron Horse Trail. In response, a
secondary design objective for the Station Area, in addition to locations, size and integration, was the
determination of the amount of structured parking that could be accommodated on the BART site,
within the context of an "urban village" concept.
The Charrette design's parking objective was, initially, to provide replacement of the 1477 BART
M surface spaces on the site. The 581 spaces on the Iron Horse Trail were not part of this initial design
objective. The"urban village" concept for parking consists of structured parking garages that are
physically lined or screened by occupied buildings, at least on the street level. Another design
. challenge was providing adequate parking for the anticpated office, retail, residential and civic uses
that will be developed where the surface parking currently exists.
Through some innovative urban design techniques and parkign structure configuration, however, the
Charrette Plan's parking design and capacity appear to satisfy many of the concerns of both
■ commuters and neighbors. The parking garages are architecturally screened to mitigate the vival
impact. In terms of Plan's space capacity, all current commuter parking, both surface parking on the
BART site and on Iron Horse Trail, can be contained on the BART property.
. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan- 77
w
Block B Parking Levels (-.5) and(+0.5)
Configuration Semi-rectangular footprint will allow improved efficiency. Consider " squaring up" a
■ portion of the perimeter along Jones Rd. to improve efficiency. Full utilization of site
will require that control equipment be placed within the structure thereby reducing
efficiency.
Access Proposed ingress/egress from the west side of this structure should be moved north to
■ eliminate conflict with proposed Block "A" ingress/egress. A total capacity of 365 in
this structure could be served with only one ingress/egress point. The Jones Rd.
location would be.preferred if the bulk of traffic accesses the site from the north,
however placement further from the street intersection will improve egress and
minimize stacking.
Capacity An efficiency factor of 350 sf/sp can be achieved in the bulk of the facility with 380
sf/sp under the perimeter residential and retail space. 365 structured spaces.
Demand/ Parking Demand Conceptual Parking Supply
. Supply Residential= 187 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking= 365
Retail= 72 spaces 4.0/1000 sq. ft) Total On-Street Parking= 63
■ Total= 259 spaces Total= 428
Block C Parking Levels (-.5) and(+0.5) (add optional ground floor parking--204 spaces)
Configuration The angular configuration of this parcel with residential and retail space at the full
perimeter will create a column grid that will impact efficient parking layouts.
Perimeter configurations will create a substantial percentage of tandem spaces, which
■ could be utilized on this block by residential occupancy.
Access Ingress/egress points at the north and south of the structure will permit adequate
access. Ramping solutions localized in the inefficient southeast corner of the
structure may dictate relocation of ingress/egress points to expedite access to/from the
■ ramp.
Capacity An efficiency factor of 350 sf/sp can be achieved in the bulk of the facility with 380
sf/sp under the perimeter residential and retail space. 452 structured spaces. (+204
optional)
Demand/ Parking Demand Conceptual Parking Supply
Supply Residential = 127 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking=452
Civic =42 spaces (6.0/1000 sq ft) Total On-Street Parking= 66
■
Total= 169 spaces Total= 518
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hill RAPT Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan- 79
Block D & E Parking Levels (4.0), (0.0), (+1.0), (+2.0) through (+6.0)
Configuration Tie into the existing parking facility with a semi clear-span or a clear-span column
solution. Footprint size would permit a parked ramp design with the ramp possibly .
occurring near the center of the structure leaving horizontal lines at the perimeter. At
least two additional traffic circuits will be required to accommodate a 2,991 space
expansion with 957 spaces being office usage,generating morning and evening
peaks coinciding with rail peaks. Proposed structured parking addition of 2,991
spaces includes the full build-out on the subterranean level as was shown in the ■
preliminary concept.
Access The three additional access points as proposed will aid in dispersing traffic volumes
between Oak and Las Juntas way and offer operational flexibility.
Capacity An efficiency factor of 320 sf/sp can be achieved in the bulk of the facility with 335
sf/sp at the grade level. 2,991 structured spaces. (Includes 1,477 BART replacement
spaces)
Demand/ Parking Demand Conceptual Parking Supply .
Supply Residential=96 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking=2,991
Office = 957 spaces (3.3/1000 sq ft) Total On-Street Parking= 65
BART Replacement= 1,477 spaces
Iron Horse Parking= 581
Total= 3,111 spaces Total= 3056 spaces
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES-BLOCKS A, B, C. D& E ■
Blocks A& B - Some consideration should be given to a concept which combines the below grade
parking structure footprints of Block A with Block B. Each of these parcels yields a relatively small
parking footprint, which will reduce the parking efficiencies achievable on each individual parcel.
By connecting these two structures below grade, additional square footage can be captured and the
overall efficiency of the combined structures can be improved. Additional costs associated with the
construction of the supported roadway between these two parcels would have to be weighed against
the increased capacity achievable. Other benefits of this option may include opportunities to
combine ramping and access points, reduce vehicular congestion at grade and to improve pedestrian
movement to the grade level. ■
Block C -The Block C parcel will yield less efficient parking layouts due to the non-rectangular
shape of the footprint and the potential perimeter column arrangement associated with residential
and retail structures above. As a desired parking capacity is identified, variations on the footprint
should be studied to identify any configurations that may result in a more efficient relationship
between floor area, column spacing and parking capacity. Combining Block C with Block B in an
underground configuration can also be explored for the same reasons cited in the Block A and Block
B example.Another way to mitigate the inefficiencies of the non-rectangular footprint of Block C
80-5.0 The Plan Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan .
■
■
■
■ would be to utilize express ramps for vertical circulation and to locate these ramps in the least
efficient portion of the overall footprint.
■ Blocks D & E—The preliminary configuration of this addition results in good site utilization and the
footprint will accommodate a number of ramping alternatives. At least two additional traffic circuits
■ will need to be created within the addition to accommodate 3,000+ additional spaces and the
■ resulting ingress/egress peaks. International Parking Design's only alternative recommendation
would be to reduce the footprint of the (-1.0) level southwest corner to match the ground level
■ footprint above. This will reduce the (-1.0) level area by approximately 12,400 sf, or 38 spaces and
eliminate the need for costly supported grade level construction, which would otherwise occur above
this area.
■ Mechanical ventilation and fire sprinkling systems will be required on all of the lower, enclosed
parking levels on site. Utilization of open cut perimeters around some of the footprints may
eliminate the required mechanical ventilation and fire sprinkling systems, thereby reducing cost.
Due to the proposed configurations, this option may only be a possibility on Blocks A and Blocks D/
■ E.
■ TOTALS
Demand/ Parking Demand Estimate Conceptual Parking Supply
■ Supply Residential = 411 spaces (1.5/unit) Total Structured Parking = 4,570
Retail= 148 spaces (4.0/1000 sq ft) Total On-Street Parking = 200
■ Office = 1,398 spaces (3.0/1000 sq ft)
■ Civic = 142 spaces (6.0/1000 sq ft)
BART Replacement= 1,477 spaces
■ Iron Horse = 5 81 spaces
■ Total = 4,157 spaces +l- Total = 4,770
■
CONCLUSION
. The figures indicated above are based on the Charrette design and subsequent refinements. With the
exception of the required BART replacement parking, the actual parking counts will be adjusted up
■ or down as plans are refined by the developer during the individual building and site design process.
Increased detail of design necessary for financing, permitting and construction will yield more
■ precise parking figures. For example, the Charrette plan drawings are based on a scale of 1 inch=
. 100 feet. The documents typically used for permitting and construction will be scaled to 1/8 inch =
1 foot or larger. These detail-scale drawings will indicate specific street and garage parking spaces
■ where an exact number can be quantified.
The buildings and uses described in the Charrette plans reflect a projection of square foot quantities
. and locations on the site. The Urban Codes that guide the development of the BART site are flexible
in terms of the quantities of office, retail, residential and civic uses that are eventually built to
■ accommodate changing markets and other conditions. For example, the Codes describe maximum
and minimum square feet of allowable office, retail and civic, and the number of residential units.
■
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hit/BART Station Area Community Plan 5.0 The Plan-81
■
As described in the data above, each use allocates a different parking requirement that, when
developed, will dictate the actual amount of parking relative to the amount,of each use provided.
As the BART Urban Village is developed, the parking required for commuters, residents,'retail and
civic-use patrons, office employees and visitors will be accommodated without conventional surface ■
parking lots. Through'the design of convenient on-street parking spaces for business and visitors,
and parking garages for commuters, business, residents and visitors that are visually buffered, the
development will evolve into an attractive, convenient and safe place that balances all transportation
and pedestrian needs.
82-5.0 The P/an P/easant Hil/BART Station Area Communi/y Plan
■
VI. APPENDICES
■
■ APPENDIX A: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, MODEL ASSUMPTIONS, AND STRUCTURE
■ The financial model had several purposes. Developed by CSG Advisors Inc. in concert with
Strategic Economics based on input from the County, BART, and the developers, the model was
designed to test the relative feasibility of various program alternatives proposed by the design team
during the Pleasant Hill BART Charrette. To assess the feasibility of alternatives, the model
■ provided three ways of showing return: internal rate of return, cash on costs, and the debt coverage
■ ratio for each land use. It also shows how much subsidy each use requires to meet the developer's
return expectations or the surplus each use provides after meeting such return expectations. The
model informed the design team's work with market reality and represented to Charrette participants
the balance between the cost of public improvements and necessary office and residential revenue.
■ The model also provided a starting point for negotiations between the key parties involved in the
. development of the BART site. Most importantly, the financial model and the economics team's role
in public presentations expanded public confidence in the Charrette process.
■
BACKGROUND AND KEY UNDERLY/NG ASSUMPTIONS
Any financial model is only as good as its assumptions. Strategic Economics provided construction
costs, rents and operating expenses from a survey of comparable developments in similar markets.
Together, the economics team conducted sensitivity analyses of various development, income and
. expense assumptions to fine-tune the model. The team prepared a range of assumptions for each
input, so that each scenario could be evaluated using aggressive, moderate, and baseline
assumptions. (In practice, most final model scenarios were run with the aggressive assumptions in
order to achieve target developer return.) Over the course of the Charrette and wrap-up meetings of
■ February to April 2001, operating expenses were raised to partly reflect California utility cost
■ increases.
Prior to the Charrette, CSG and Strategic Economics met with the entire Charrette team on several
occasions to refine the model's purpose and assumptions. Before the public meetings, the economics
■ team used data from a Lennertz Coyle Associates draft scheme to test the instrument. The results
■ were circulated and comments used to refine the model. During the Charrette, economics team
members worked with the designers to test plans as they were devised, running several scenarios for
■ use in a mid-point presentation with BART, the County and the developers. For the final Charrette
public meeting on February 27, the economics team prepared model runs for two final alternatives.
■ For the wrap-up meetings on April 9 and 10, the team ran four versions of the model, demonstrating
■ various options of homeownership and rental components as well as office vs. residential on specific
parcels. The designers further refined the plan after these meetings, and the final model runs reflect
these refinements.
■ Each different design scenario from the Lennertz Coyle team was represented in the model as a
■ series of inputs: gross square footages, number of units, configuration of parking, type of
construction. The financial analysis, therefore, is dependent on the accuracy of these inputs provided
by the design team.
■
■
Pleasant Hitt BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices-83
■
MODEL 5TRUCTUREAND FORMAT
The starting point for the financial analysis is the assumption of a threshold return to the developer. ■
The underlying premise is that for the project to be built, regardless of the urban design pattern
chosen, the developer needs a baseline feasible balance of office, residential and storefront land uses
as well as desired public improvements to attract capital and investors. This model works well for
illustrating the implications of a ground lease.
The model solves for a threshold developer return measured as Internal Rate of Return, which
compares initial sunk costs to revenue streams over time. Each land use component of the plan was
analyzed separately to test whether its return exceeded the threshold (meaning it could accommodate
additional initial investment, such as funding some public improvements, and still reach the return
target) or fell short of the threshold (meaning it required subsidy to achieve the return target). The .
results for each land use were then compiled on a summary sheet and compared to non revenue-
producing public improvement costs for an overall snapshot of the scenario's feasibility.
Additionally, the model solved for the cash on cost (stabilized net operating income divided by cost)
and debt coverage ratio (net operating income over loan payment) for each land use to measure the
feasibility of proposed alternatives. ■
The format of the financial model separates the proposed project components first by land use, then
by block. Each land use is considered separately so that construction and operating costs could be
estimated for the specific use. The model summarizes the non-income producing elements of the
plan including infrastructure costs and public improvement costs. For the purposes of this analysis, ■
"infrastructure" is defined as major prerequisites to development with assigned funding sources,
such as the replacement BART parking (to be funded by the County Redevelopment Agency) and the
overall site work (to be funded by the developer). "Public improvements," on the other hand, are
elements in the development scenario that define the public experience of the Pleasant Hill BART
station area. New streets and streetscape work, the signature plaza facing the BART station, ■
architectural enhancements to the BART Station, new parks, as various public kiosks and structures
are crucial to the new urbanist concept of the plan, and have significant costs, but do not generate
revenue. Because they are not self-financing and not directly related to the residential, office, and
storefront financings on the primary blocks, these costs were enumerated separately. The rough cost
for such public improvements as estimated in this model is approximately $8 million. ■
The model analyzes three primary land uses (residential, office and storefront) looking at both their
sources and uses (development budgets) and their cash flows. The sources and uses schedules
calculate development costs per block for each land use, subdividing blocks that include varying M
products such as rental and for-sale housing or Class A and Class B office space. In the development
budget, the overall site work costs are pro-rated across land uses per relative square footage. The M
cash flow analysis of each land use calculates developer return based on an assumed sale of the asset M
in year five of operations. Sources and uses as well as cash flow models were also created fora hotel
land use but were not used during the Charrette, as the design team did not formulate a design for this M
option.
M
84-6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hl/l BART Station Area Community Plan M
M
The economics related to parking for the project was a handled in three different ways. The parking
associated with the new development is incorporated into the financial model. Each proposed use
had certain parking requirements. For each 1000 square feet of office space, 3.3 parking spaces need
to be built. Residential calls for 1.35 spaces for each rental apartment and 2 for each for-sale town
house. Retail or storefront space requires 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet. The cost of building the
parking spaces required for each use were charged to each use in the development budget and is
■ reflected in the return numbers. Street parking spaces were deducted from the retail space count and
not deducted from the public improvement costs.
The 1480 surface BART parking spaces that need to be replaced first for the project to proceed were
treated separately from the private development. The assumption is that the cost of this replacement
. parking would be paid for with public funds. The 581 parking spaces currently in the Iron Horse
Trail were also treated distinctly from the private development. The fees charged to future users of
these spaces would underwrite the cost of building the structure needed to house these spaces. Any
additional moneys from the parking fees would contribute to a station area shuttle.
r
Pleasant Hitt BART Station Aiea Community Plan 6.0 Appendices-85
a
APPENDIX B: FREQUENTLY ASKED ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT
WHY INVEST PUBL IC DOLLARS?
A development project at the Pleasant Hill BART station that replaces the 1480 parking spaces
currently used by BART patrons, creates the pedestrian-oriented transit village that emerged during
the Charrette, and meets the requirements of the area's specific plan is economically infeasible
without public subsidy. There are at least five compelling reasons why Contra Costa County should ■
invest public funds to enable the proposed development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station.
Increased tax revenues—the additional development on the site will generate significant
property and sales tax revenues for the County.
• Generate lease revenues—over time, the proposed project will generate ground lease
revenues for the County and BART.
• Create more housing and jobs—the-proposed;project promises to deliver at least 300
additional units of housing and approximately 1,500 new jobs.. These new residents and
employees will contribute significantly to the County's economy.
• Utilize existing infrastructure rather than invest in new infrastructure elsewhere — by
encouraging the County's new developments to areas with existing infrastructure and
services, the County reduces its responsibilities to provide such infrastructure and services to
outlying, less accessible places; thus the costs to the County and the public for an infill
project like the one proposed at the Pleasant Hill BART station is of a magnitude less than a
similar project in a currently undeveloped area.
• Maximize the area's location efficiency—creating a transit village will increase the "location �
efficiency" of the Pleasant Hill BART station, benefiting both current and future residents ■
and employees in the area. The pluses of location efficiency include reduced transportation
costs, fewer car trips, increased mobility options especially for children and seniors, and the
other amenities related to a walkable, mixed-use environment.
Public subsidy for the proposed development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station should be limited to ■
only the minimum amount necessary to enable the realization of the alternative that emerges from
the Charrette process. Care also needs to be taken at each step in the process to maximize the
County's return on every public dollar invested.
FOR SALE VS. RENTAL HOUSING
The issue of for-sale housing at any BART station reflects two legitimate interests: local residents
living near a BART station and the region's taxpayers who support BART. Any development at the ■
Pleasant Hill BART station needs to reconcile these two interests. To date, BART has been willing
to balance the local interests with the more regional interests by considering 50 units of for-sale
house. This approach would allow for some housing diversity in the area, while still ensuring that
BART will control enough of the site to ensure its long-term integrity as a regional transit facility.
Local residents who live around a BART station typically want new residential development in their
neighborhood to be ownership housing. Ownership housing is perceived as providing more long-
term stability to a neighborhood as well as preserving and enhancing property values.
86-60 Appendices Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan ■
The taxpayers who have paid for the BART system and who want transit to remain a critical part of
the region's mobility network generally wish to ensure that the land uses around BART stations
remain transit supportive and transit friendly. To support these constituents, the BART Board has
adopted a strong policy to lease, rather than sell, land around BART stations. The four main reasons
for this policy are as follows:
Control over land uses: BART's continued ability to ensure that land uses adjacent to its
stations support transit ridership and are transit friendly.
Share in increased property values: BART's ability to share in additional revenue generated
■ by increases in property values and revenues created by development will help support the
cost of operating the train system and will enhance the public's investment in the BART
infrastructure.
• Density: To take maximum advantage of the public's investment in BART's infrastructure,
higher density at the BART stations is preferred. In general, ownership housing is built at
■ lower density than rental units.
• Parcelization of ownership constrains Transit Oriented Development: To build the station
and supporting infrastructure, BART and the County assembled many smaller parcels into
larger parcel. Subdividing into smaller privately owned plots (condos or town homes)
reverses this effort and may limit future options.
How to determine how much land to convert to private ownership and how much to preserve in
public ownership to protect the public's interest is a difficult decision to make and one that should be
made by elected officials with public input. The Charrette highlighted this issue and identified it as
an issue that will need further discourse. People interested in ownership housing should work with
the County Board of Supervisors and the BART Directors to evaluate a new policy and programming
. options.
The overall development program on the site, including the total number of residential units, does
not change significantly based on whether or not the units are for-sale or for rent. Therefore, the
planning process should focus on establishing a basic number of units to be built on the site. The
ownership issue can be resolved at a later date and through a different process that reflects these
diverse interests.
WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FEASIBLE RESIDENTIAL UNI TS
According to the Specific Plan, the maximum number of residential units on the site is 60 units per
■ net acre. To replace the surface BART parking to make room for new development requires building
structured parking that takes up 4.3 acres, leaving 14.9 acres. Of these remaining acres, about 20%
of the land would be required for roads and public access. Seven hundred and fifteen units could be
built on the remaining 11.9 acres assuming the maximum density.
Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices-87
■
■
■
The economics team has not modeled this alternative because it does not create the village or town ■
center environment emphasized during the Charrette process. For one, it does not recognize the ■
importance of a mix of uses to support each other economically and create a sense of place. Second,
it does not encourage a mix of housing types that also contributes to place-making. Finally, the ■
return on residential does not generate the additional income that would help fund the desired public ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
88-6.OAppendices P/easant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan ■
■
APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC COUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT BACKGROUND DATA
w
TRIP GENERA r/ON
The trip generation numbers for the "final" development plans are listed below. These numbers for
the plan are estimates, based on ITE trip generation rates and assumptions in the previous EIR. The
trip generation numbers for the various scenarios from the previous EIR are also listed for
. comparison.
Plan Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
w/ 345 apts 6,170 627 739
w/ 370 apts 6,414 634 749
■ Scenario
■ 1 8,861 1,481 1,357
1B 8,869 1,482 1,359
2 2,767 218 269
3 14,434 829 1,513
4 10,631 698 1,408
4B 8,219 n/a n/a
5 11,962 903 1,391
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices-89
■
■
COGGINS DR.
i r i' ' <,.,.on �� it� �� � � 1 f � � ■
I i
685(540) 1997 ®L_ 1 ' I ■
II`�t, ;/' r 1,078(1,469) 2010
r1parti f j i'is U i Hyl ) ■
0 ' 517(467) 2001
f ++' 1. ■
f j f ✓ti;
I, I LAS JUNTAS NJAY
BART '\ ,, —'` ■
rorr�m'•. i Parlong itis I
t` f
`\Structure ��ti II ■
361 (352) 1997
®I 853(1,018) 1997 "1 \ �~ ' 378(478) 2001 I' ■
i o 1,038(1,198) 2001 Pleasant l 684(821) 2010
11!31165(31654) 2010 \ i^\ (�
Lj
Staiior5 I rQ�
I �!tices ," 7b
; 'i 'l y i j 1 ■
��
i 1,071 (1,184) 1997 �fApameaaLj 1,378 1,596 2001 t
oil
I 3,111 (3,589) 2010
I ■
Pzni�,��+• � ,
w 1i
1101
TREAT BLVD.
I I �i j I III 3,974
(4,479) 1997 i 3,743 3,771 1997 � 4,504(4,727) 1997
4,241 (4345) 001 3,870(3,544) 2001 4,757(4,909) 2001
6,332(6 2 5,710(6,690) 2010
, ( , ) _
■
■
■
KEY:
4W =Traffic Count Location N ■
Xx(yY)=AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Not to Scale
Pleasant Hill Bart Charette ■
f
F�HR&PErRsPEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES r�ssocr:�T�s,i�c. YEARS 1997, 2001, AND 2010 ■
�� ff li•nne nrinlinn(�nn.crrllmrl.c
March
zoo,
165 -
1657-31 FIGURE 1
90-6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hi/l BART Station Area Community Plan ■
■
■
■
■ COGGINS DR.
L
GL Ull
1,078(1,469) 2010
Ap, nts
C!in -1530(482) 2001va
,
j,
i.
of I
—L3 '
LAS
JUNTAS WAY
BART. ......
Comm'!
M,
Par.,
Structui
391 (493) 2001
684(821) 2010
1,184(1,368) 2001 Pipasant
1 "
3,165(3.654) 2010 Hill BART'
ices
UIT Statioo
Li
1,575(1,818) 20011 4p3rments
3,111 (3,589) U
A "I CC
Parkina
Cc)
TREAT BLVD.
r)f4;, 4,877(5,049) 2
4438(4,5 3,990(3,684) 2001
0011
1 1 3) 2010 e 14,822(5,342) 2010 i 5,710(6,690) 2nin
13
■
■ KEY:
4W =Traffic Count Location N
■
xx(yY)=AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Not to Scale
Pleasant Hill Bart Charette
fFEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES,IN. C. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
p 'Ponspniiaiton Cnavidiaws 2001 (WITH CHARETTE PROJECT) AND 2010
March 2001
1657-31 FIGURE 2
■ Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices-91
APPENDIX D: LOG OF PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS a
Total Number of Participants: 522
Total Number of Hours of Open Studio Hours: 80
Total Number of Participant Hours: over 2,700 (length of events x number of participants)
Pleasant Hill BART Charrette Signed In Participants ■
y •,- 1,._.Y:e`G•L1: .�1 In%a' 1 ay.. t ,e 5�. t:'.
(� 1a 3 V,.c' )^• iii,�: JY fy F� -. �I• ...•- ,.• .�-r gJS.r
.— _. —�___ F,. � "1.1;=� .. i 1'.'41��� •_�._Y,t��.�.: i �K'• :}k`,3t b�,�:i��'�:t� ■
p April Closing Mtg (4/10/01)
��; .<<< ,i ; ,a ,}l. *a:•ir;c-t!":�'�`
_ •� �+y' }Y�� a�d' �•4 /-:fa..�.r'c fi?by cy.F -
t-•U`r {tK i{.! yl _�''=d`,�};,�. .11a`L''y +. d;�7;.. 1•t; fti;:s•,. .n,,
April Drop-ins (4/9-10/01) `r-
f23.�`1Ci r �h�'at�,a�.ii.::,•:o" i y.•-'M'n i.'.4.•t.
...*`+"casrl'i•:1��.`��.c.::1.ss_lLUEl;.Iy��K� � tr :'�`ry:, .�� :�-`',,��.�C:c:C.n. 'h'}-1
wApril Opening Mtg (4/9/01) w `''it �, ■
n Charrette Closing (2/27/01) j 5
f. ■
p Charrette Drop-ins (2/22-27/01) 5 ` ;i �*n = r'+r •• nn t dz_, t} ''
LP
-`AEt£=�p� '.. f }.}' _ :r.;� LSA '`;.. .�>� tiff �'"� ■
Charrette Traffic Mt 2/26/01 `'it s= " "'� '.
p g ( ) I J- ,.17yrr"� Ai ,1�'"-•( :r its $it ar.'
`�'�•_P`,' �1tia¢'.' f 4 2.5
. ryi..,3 N
^.n. ''fiR s�'.... �,
el.y '. ;_ ya'�•;ti }•d.`,� G.,�C fat; - .•'t�+J'X` _'N`'.11,, , +c
a Charrette Centre Mt 2/26/01 5r'sb h , K. x u =;�:;.
_ 'ii:)T(;� 5k%" ,.?tea., +t,� tt.3l��'�' .ir�r.�xr4•`F'. ...�4t<Ya ,�r, �t :,i��.''N.;*:-
4iT'�'• f�',.f,�' �,:" A
a Charrette BART Mt 2/26/01 '' �''- ', l : e �.� i } u w:t:.{^ ir♦ :
11 0 r-,rbc �•t ry_�
Charrette Sat. Work (2/24/01). '"rrta; f` - "�1� t'•-t '�' �:f u'
t7 Workshop !- .. � ., `�-� i• } �'" +.'
C4-76 x�"'•_7" -.�".-•.�,a�"5S"��. •es 7,�.' ��� *"rr L�•fr��i�.�t' „�1;•.:«�r
p Charrette Neighbors Mtg (2/24/01);
QTS.' '�v:�i, l '7w� i`:aa•.a?Si,:it•t,07,:d:i'�3ivtn.w?,- i� �. r+'•..i
■Charrette Opening (2/22/01)
❑Transp. Focus Group (2/8/01)
�Sr MR
.':' �. i .yl:i-Q?'x�;;,°' +�,.Y��Y' 33•/�'rr.'jun.:y�'.�•,.,
❑Reception (1/31/01)
('�'` LF f:a�h" 11•r J Yi\�" L1f'G'1
o'er, rd,h. ��,t�yi-" .:'�'.i.�4cf�'C3.`• i' �.
BUS Tour :1/18/01 7
V Kickoff Mtg (1/16/01)
.sk? lt�f� TI2, .a>. '�i.;Y.:�.�i`';:Ali:��,jr 'i��+;IX�"�N.�,''.3•r�
t�l"c>:a�_:ti�1;+:^-•cK'i'�sl. a:.:z�x},.;�w :�e. wi;l:.t�'�..�4.: - r.r;,�:�:,•,.� �:{
0 50 100 150 200 ■
Number of Participants
92 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hi/t BART Station Ai-ea Community Plan
Pleasant Hill BART Charrette Signed In Participants
Attending Multiple Events
350■ -
300 295
250 -----------
4) 200 ----—--------------
CL
0
(D
a ---—---
150
100 -9
53
50
—U-- — I
27
3 0 1 1 9 1 3
• 0 1 1 [m] 1r�---1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8
# Events Attended
Pleasant SART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices-93
i
i
i
UI;Illfll llllttnnunu"""'"IXAJ
'�t]n►p�j
4113
'/i sAUUG1ulU•JU►Altd�• .%" ,aSc�\�
h 4 ot--
■,I ?/ J r_
'>• • � � ' • ;fir �
4
�
e � � LK
�say
P� w �Jj"�wa�y'?, 1' •w, *1_ �r+.:'t i.�:c,,_- ,�
■ n `r;:.?e fir:.: '�. 't.
■ I OS?rri+.v ,fit'`'^ •r�(��{y�p+ -d
.fir��; � x?j,�y•'
!•��si ,,gy�pp x� '!1nwY
?K ,tib Ham:"• Tt+mP'Y
■ 'o..�.,"`�.":•`{ .�'•��+def••'? +'�" ��� >, --.
■ FEB. 22-SCHEME 15
Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Communitj,,Plan 6.0 Appendices-95
r
r
r
1 •
Y
'•..�4r e
; ',� i���'�..'i��`.•xy,O,
l } � •/ -fes � '' � ,t `
i.�' a •^ ,icy if?tip. 9, '� 1 "''' � ��,..`
c 2; v SGH5MG
oh residential_ Treat. , •
,,lot
retail exPpSute°
•
•
•
•
•
•
RT station A
rea
yi11 BACo�m�nity Pian
Peasant
96o APPen°iees
III IIIIIII!IilIIRID IIGl1111111111III
Y. vEIll1.n.:.""CJ
)- S' ^•t%� >J
� I i��•,'�o J�� 4h�ia/1�
10
QJ rx
IF$
Jt3a+_
�j ; 1 , � yfv t3. \\ �i_�•f't"'I P^rlr, n I;•�r'�
�❑❑�Jll11t• ,
ay
b �. �,.•.r I- �(''CII !!Il!1!i!�811I11iltieal!ilii!L� `=
+ ,� ,. •,; ii :JY Ib ,•Il:rtlticl �Nu �ilianrui•.
1.01
l�• �' � �; }�` urrljl�il.; 4,b:M �.......�9,t, �''9Bt1�'�1D "a!1
■
■
■
LAS Ju�rt�S .WAY ■
' � dam•' � $I��)tccu] ;-. - \.
IAJ
ly
Cu
Emphasizes the importance of a , ..•; •-::��..::•.;:;�.;,-_..��.'. .�•� .• I
■
strong connection between the - _ 4'; n _;;` ;:'„.`• ._ . .
Iron Horse Trail and the Station. ► '�-"` `"" ��:= =-== °� ' i ■
FEB. 25-PART/C/PANT S SCHEME
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
98 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan ■
■
�;
;kz ,
iL
�� �.��•"' �a yah o� � i
�v,f.r1 r- _ •F•,• .-ilj ��• =~`14�'i ll•`• L'
� e
7•,: -6 _`-•z,-�0r 1iS:i.,t::>•.^�C-1V�•.'Sr�`S?�_ .�a:,.r._�ii - � � ��" �
APPENDIX F: PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE DURING EVENTS �
JA IV 16TH, 2001-KICKOFF MEETING
(Public Comments grouped by Issue)
BUILT FORMS:
• Human scale, sense of neighborhood & community
• "Make it look like California, not Anywhere, USA"
• Local serving uses, not a regional destination
• Smaller blocks, walkable with mixture of uses (downtown Walnut Creek)
• Building frontage on streets, not parking .
• Horizontal and vertical mix of uses to generate activities throughout the day and night
• Village center, gathering place, town square feel i
• Higher activities closer to the station and parking further out, up to 1/4 mi.
• Architectural variety, but with aesthetics that blend together buildings with character
• No more high-rises .
• Tallest buildings West of the station lower buildings on East side
• Roof top parks, elevated open space
PROGRAMMING:
• Community center, gathering space, with meeting room facilities ■
• Swim club/exercise facility, there are no close substitutes to losing the current club
• Affordable housing near the station
• Affordable office space
• Bank/ATM
• Small retail such as coffee shops, book stores, post office, bike shop, dry cleaner, florist ' ■
• appeal to locals so we do not end up with more traffic
• Grocery store
• Restaurants, cafes, delis, bakery, serving local office space, close to BART
• Day care, playground, small science observatory, and other services/spaces for kids
• Dog park
• Library
• . Concert hall, community theater .
• Smaller art-house independent theater, no cinema multiplex
• A fountain, easy place to identify & meet (Walnut Creek example)
• Senior facilities, housing/meeting space
• Bowling ally or roller rink, some physical or social aspects
• Healthcare component .
• Pleasant Hill redevelopment connect to Old Wards shopping center(North off map) and old Co-
op building (West off map across freeway)
• Hotel/motel is not a viable use for the property on the Northeast corner of Jones & Treat (demise
of Amerisuites)
100-6.0 Appendices Pleasant H1/1 BART Stalion Area Community P/an
■ TRAFFIC & PARKING:
• Provide parking that is not a "dead place"
• Conflicting opinions regarding parking availability, majority requested adding more
• More levels or entire buildings of structured/security parking
Parking demands of BART are not being met
. Provide off-site BART parking, shuttle drivers onto site
• Encourage using public transportation
Parking fees, carpool/vanpool preferences
• Other nearby parking uses want access to BART lots
• Traffic is congested on Treat Blvd., it's a neighborhood divider but a necessary artery
■ • Bad intersection at Treat & Oak, and Treat & 1-680
• Its impossible to merge left and avoid being forced onto I-680 North
• Connect Jones Road to Treat Blvd.
• Pedestrians and traffic interacting
• Bus lanes are too difficult to walls over
. • Oak Street is too wide for pedestrians
• Traffic backs up (along Jones) waiting for pedestrians
• Deadly intersection at BART tracks and Jones
• Consider widespread traffic impacts from the design
• Traffic flow from Bancroft—Mayhew—Las Juntas freeway
. • Clear local roads, keep non-residents on the main arteries
• Jones Road between Oak and Treat Blvd.
Too many dead-end streets
• Realignment of Jones Road, South of Treat Blvd.
• Concerns about what parking would be available during construction
■ • FHWA funded on site parking structure, it cannot be restricted to BART patrons only or be used
to meet local parking zone requirements
BART STATION CHARACTER:
Create a place to meet neighbors, not a nighttime wasteland, add uses across the tracks from the
■ station, perhaps build on top
• Improve the platform, longer length, connection from parking structure levels
Provide lockers for luggage, lockers and/or parking for bicycles, scooters
COMMUNITY SAFETY:
■ Must feel safe walking and bicycling
• May increase crime, especially from Monument
Thieves brought via BART to local residential houses
• 20 year vision, secure with low crime, safe area
. PUBLIC TRANSIT:
• Provide Incentives for public transit, alternatives to park & ride for to BART
• Ridership education needed
Pleasant H1/1 BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 101
• Airport shuttles
• Connect to neighboring communities, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill downtown
• Light rail
• Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, & Concord to feed the BART system
• Alleviate traffic on Treat Blvd.
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLES:
• Make access to Pleasant Hill BART pedestrian friendly with a walkable community, provide
"town square" feel.
• Bike/pedestrian circulation is currently disconnected, unpleasant .
• Make a clear, safe route through the area, connect nearby housing and retail
• Better lighting, white not yellow
• Softer trails, not concrete
• Handicap access sidewalks
• Improve the dangerous intersections on Treat Blvd. ■
• Bridge or tunnel at Oak and at Jones, the bridge idea was more favored
• Bridge or tunnel across freeway towards N Main
• Other dangerous areas crossing Jones, especially at the Northeast site corner
• Improve bicycle facilities, trails and parking
• Bike access not in traffic or pedestrian area, bike lanes on Treat and Oak ■
• Any overhead bridges should be level enough for a handicap bike to make it up and over
IRON HORSE TRAIL:
• Continue and integrate the Iron Horse Trail through the site in a manner consistent with the
Regional Trail system (ex: Colony Park). The Regional Trail connects swim club, buses, BART, ■
hotel, fitness center, and historic buildings along side.
• Improve the intersection between the trail and Treat Blvd. (underpass or bridge)
• Provide a respite area along the East side,just North of Treat (named for Del Hambre)
• Possible community garden space
ENVIRONMENT:
• 20 year vision, deciduous shade trees, no palms, native and drought resistant, flowers, shrubs,
park benches, bike parking, bike trails, human scale
• Timing of green space implementation along trail r
• Improve the open and green spaces, but preserve the existing Oak trees, especially at the edges
(Southwest corner of site, Northwest corner of site and the last open space along BART Tracks in
the Northeast corner of site)
• Save the beautiful view of Mt. Diablo from the BART Station tracks
• Provide more views, not the East side blocking West side views
• 20 year vision, neighborhood generates some of its own electric power
• Block the Southwest wind, it is too windy
• Buffer the noise level of I-680 and the traffic through the site
102-6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hit/BART Station Area Community Plan
COMMUNITY QUESTIONS & CONCERNS:
■ How to keep "new urbanism" from creating a stereotypical image of an urban area and
contributing to the sameness of America?
• I am very concerned about Bill saying "we solved this by bringing the buildings to the street."
• Will the green space be built to specific plan?
• How will this development affect property values?
. People are not familiar with what is already planned for the development South of Treat Blvd. off
the BART Station site.
For future on-site meetings: It is too dark to walk at night to meeting from site and the walk
from station to meeting was circuitous.
Project labor agreement with Contra Costa Building Traders for construction
■ FEB. 22ND-27TH, 2001-CHARRETTE PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Comments from Public Meetings grouped by Topic)
PARKING
• There is a shortfall still on Iron Horse Trail replacement parking; 250 paid spots is not the same
■ as 581 free spots. Add to parking tower.
• Where are the 581 spaces of parking form the green space going to be? This plan does not show
the promised parking. Look elsewhere!
• 250 spaces from trail on-site (no need for parking at swim club).
• Having 250 spaces violates the Specific Plan.
■ • Expand parking structure first.
• We need more parking not less.
Develop the expanded parking structure first before development of retail, office space, etc..
• Add another level to the structure-currently 7 floors plus basement, why only 6 floors in this
design?
. • The northeast corner of the parking structure has the worst view-screen it!
• How many stories? Make it low.
Place parking at North Concord stop
• Where's the parking garage?
r • New Garage parking space widths minimum 8 feet
. • Different size spaces for different size cars, alternate floors of large and small cars
• If you charge for parking, you reduce parking demand (especially from nearby areas) and you
will increase demand for bus, walking, and bike riding.
• Don't lose sight that this is a train station, needs more access, convenience.
• Given current growth increases part. Bart ridership; today's parking supply should be a baseline.
. • Is there space for buses?
• Main street parallel parking doesn't seem to work, instead, one since only 45 degree angle
parking
• Parallel parking will back traffic up onto Treat
• Do we really need cars all the way around the green?
. Drop offs and taxis?
• Where is the Kiss and Ride area?
Pleasant H111 BART Station Alva Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 103
TRAFFIC
• Make sure there is enough room to the right of bridge for executing turns.
• Traffic calming a priority (crossing Iron Horse Trail to Jones Road). This can be problem for
traffic flow—cars in looking for non existent parking than backing out again will have a very
adverse reaction on H/T (Honey Trial?) residents.
• No cars around square; instead, Main Street to Park Street only. This works because of more
service outlets at this end of Main and around Square.
• Provide Class 1 trail along BART Row to Bancroft Road, to connect with potential trails in.
Concord. .
• Replace Iron Horse Trail Bridge with one at Oak Road
• Need to incorporate fully funded direct Iron Horse Trail over crossing bridge at Jones and Treat
and continue bridge design planning.
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES ■
• Bad pedestrian crossing near I-680.
• Make sure there is grass somewhere on Treat.
• Need to incorporate safe Iron Horse Trail over crossing of Treat Blvd. at Jones Road.
• Much concern about crossing Jones during evening rush hours to reach the bridge over Bart.
There will be a continuous stream of people crossing a stream of cars.
• It should be a true pedestrian center because if traffic circulates around it, it will not feel like a
park. .
• The Square (Station Plaza?) should be pedestrian only, otherwise traffic circle only.
• "Buffer" comfort for peds.
• Pedestrian Tunnel below Treat.
• Blinking light pedestrian/bike crosswalk form Iron Horse Trail across Jones Road (in the
direction of the Station Plaza).
• Bike storage for residents who don't have covered storage.
ENVIRONMENT
• Preserve air right for future greater density.
• Is there an incorporation of solar energy?
• Are the trees at the intersection of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd. sick?
• Save the view of Mount Diablo
• I'm worried about our Mount Diablo view from the station platform...we should see it from all
along the platform, not just one little spot
PROGRAMMING
• Either activate linear park(market, etc..) or give up for larger square.
• Larger community Center on Larger Green
• Mix office and residential on the same properties.
• Plan should allow future air rights; mixed development in future especially around Square and .
Green to Iron Trail.
104 6.0A,opendices Pleasant/-'l//SART Slatioa Area Community Plan
Q
Q
Q
Q • Have a post office annex.
• Better utilization of site-swap the daycare (with something else?)
• Strong landscape feature or fountain.
Q
STATION GREEN
Q • Green should be a bit larger.
■ • The small plaza east of Station Plaza seems awkward; it seems better used as part of the central
greed...or transformed into an active public site (playground, etc..) or anchored by retail
(restaurant)?
• What is this building doing here? (the small public building on this green) Civic space is good,
Q move it elsewhere. Maybe a playground here?
■ • This building is too big.
• This space is `not doing anything'-what about a playground?
i Put brass ducks for children to sit on in the public square (like in Boston Public Garden)
• Picnic tables, fountain, swing sets, larger destination park.
Q
■ RETA I L
• Retail mix should include drugstore/grocery store, Mom & Pop store.
S Preserve space along green for retail expansion
• Maintain future retail around Station Plaza.
Q Target immigrant entrepreneurs as retail tenants/building owners-tap into their networks of
■ potential retail tenants.
• No fast food!
Steps (or elevator) to retail from bridge to the west.
HOUSING
. More housing, more affordable housing-inclusionary, not segregated.
• Market-rate housing: 300 plus units of housing with 45 plus for-sale units.
• Look beyond the site for more long term solution (look outside the box).
• Mix houses/office on same block.
Q • Like housing above retail.
WALDEN
• Walden is the name of the area and the road to the South on Oak Road. It is a historic area, with
walnut groves, heritage oaks, and older homes (at least 3 are about 100 years old). Lets build on
Q this.
■ • Walder Center or Walden Square for name.
• There is an adobe structure on Oak between Treat and Walden, and there are cottages and old
homes on Cherry Lane and Walnut Blvd.
Q POOL
■ • Why not public "community" pool?
• Agreed that use should be recreational.
Pool becomes village pool.
Q P/Basan1/,i//BA/aT Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 105
Q
BUILT FORM
• No higher than other buildings-maximum 10 stories
• Put seven-story tower on the West side of BART with the other tower.
• Need good codes to get this architecture
• Need regulating codes to be available.
• Is the Station Building included in financial analysis?
• Scale back 7-story building on Treat: decrease to 4 stories or increase set-back.
BART STATION CHARACTER
• Lose the towers next to BART ■
• How about an. old-world-style clock that would be visible from the station platform instead of a
flagpole.
• Destination is key concept.
• Architecture is superior to anything around-relates to history.
• Put drawings on the web. ■
FES. BTH. 2001- TRANSPORTATIONFOCUS GROUP MEET/NG ■
(Questions with responses in italics underneath)
1. Re-establish existing conditions (not 1997 LOS) - need new baseline for comparison (incl. unbuilt
but approved development) ■
• The daily and peak traffic volumes were just counted this year (2001). Both the existing and
existing plans Charrette project traffic volumes fit with the counts and projections from the 1997
Traffic Study. The 1997 Traffic Study forecasted traffic by adding to existing traffic the new trips
from unbuilt but approved development,future development of the BART property, plus a certain
amount of regional growth based on growth forecasts for areas outside the Specific Plan i
boundaries. The 2001 traffic counts reaffirm the data and assumptions of the 1997 Traffic Study,
which found that future development in the Specific Plan area will not cause traffic conditions on .
Treat Boulevard to violate the standards for congestion that were established by central county
jurisdictions and adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the Measure C
Growth Management Program. An update to the traffic service objective (TSO) monitoring for .
Treat Boulevard(considered a Route of Regional Significance) was completed by the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority in 1999. The measured speeds and delay index values ranged .
from 21 miles per hour (mph) to 28 mph and 1.35 to 1.75, respectively. These values are well
above the average speed TSO requirement of 15 mph and well below the Delay Index TSO
requirement of 2.0. i
2. Specific Plan limit on growth based on certain traffic levels - (Spec. Plan p. 33) S
• Traffic Service Objective (TSOs) apply for regional and local routes. As noted in the Specific
Plan, "In the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, Treat Boulevard is designated as a Route of
Regional Significance. The remaining streets in the area are Basic Routes and are subject to .
traffic service objectives defined in local general plans. The Contra Costa County General Plan
(1991) designates the land use in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area as 'central business ■
106 6.OAppendices Pleasant Mi/l BART Station Area Community P/an
Q
district.' The traffic level of'service (LOS)for this type of land arse is defined as low E (volume-
to-capacity ratio of 0.90 to 0.94)."
3. Based on maximum parking ratio of 3.3 (spaces) / 1000 (sq. ft. office) would result in 2,600
vehicles.
a Comment noted.
4. Can parking for office be less than 3.3/1000 sq. ft.?-This is max in plan.
• Yes,parking studies would be required for less than the maximum. Lending institutions tend to
prefer as march parking as can be achieved, particularly in suburban areas.
■ 5. Through the Charrette process can less than the 600,000 sq ft. minimum development be proposed?
• The minimum is based on legally vested development rights, set forth in the Development
Agreement.
6. John Muir has higher employee density that exceeds the parking supply 2.7-2.8 (spaces) / 1000
. (sq ft. office) - resulting in valet parking and bank parking in the temporary lots.
• Comment noted.
• 7. Bicyclists have to pay for bike lockers at BART, whereas parking is free, incentives for alternative
modes need to be increased.
■ The Specific Plan requires that a Bike Station will be included in any development plan.
8. Need to look at regional transportation planning.
• This work has been done, particularly in the 1997 Traffic Study for the Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report. Roadway and other improvements were required and were built
■ through an Assessment District in the Specific Plan area.
i 9. Cannot eliminate the through traffic on Treat.
• Comment noted.
■ 10. Integrate into a regional master plan the impacts of this project with the impacts of other
developments in the county.
See 8 above. Also note there is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (a congestion and
growth management agency) which fosters cooperative transportation planning through the
local planning groups in each area of the County, including TRANSPAC in central county,
■ TRANSPLAN in east county, WCCTAC in west county, SWAT in the Lamorinda area and TVTC
in south county. The 1997 Traffic Study was managed by staff from the Contra Costa
. Transportation Authority and the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was reviewed by the central
county cities through TRANSPAC and the Plan was changed based on their review.
.
It. Solutions will work better if there is more cooperation and collaboration among regional
projects.
■ See 8 and 10 above.
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendlces- 107
■
■
■
12. Time of day is an important element to consider -focus on peak commute ingress and egress to
BART parking.
• Comment noted and was considered.
■
13. Improve overall. accessibility to the development. .
• Part of the process.
■
14. Develop uses that don't attract as much traffic from the region.
• Part of the process and included in the 'final"plan from the Charrette. ■
15. Focus on TDM incentives to use alternative modes.
• Part of the process. ■
1.6. Need to take into account traffic from bicyclists' and pedestrians' perspectives, especially 6:00- ■
8:00am. Improve ped. & bicycle environment (also 4:00-6:00pm) ■
• Issues for bicyclists and pedestrians have been and continue to be an important part of the
process.
17. Crossing Coggins is difficult for pedestrians. "Blind" corner at BART access. Island w/ Oak tree. ■
Lanes narrow from 2 to 1 ■
• Improvements are part of the process.
■
18. Difficult access to Canal Trail--- must go through temporary parking.
• Improvements are part of the process for the Iron Horse Trail. ■
19. Unclear whether bicyclists should use streets or Iron Horse Trail. S
• Comment noted and part of the process.
20. Confusing intersection at Treat and Jones where trail crosses Treat for Iron Horse Trail users. ■
• Comment noted and part of the process.
■
21. Accessing BART in a.m. Treat-left turn when going north on Coggins. ■
• Part of the process.
■
22. Better channelization of traffic into BART parking lot---keep traffic moving and minimize ■
conflicts between flows.
• Part of the process. ■
23. Area acts as park & ride. Look at area to north-west (N. Main St. area/old Co-op location) as ■
alternative park & ride. Consider Sun Valley Mall in Concord (utilizing excess parking).
Montgomery Wards parking lot (to be served by shuttle). Consider park & ride at future hotel/
office site (former AmeriSuites site)
• Outlying Park and Ride lots examined by the PH BART Steering Committee and can be
considered in the process. ■
108-6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hiii BART'SlatiOn Area Community Plan
■
B
■
■
■
■ 24. At the Bike/Ped overcrossing at Jones, consider closing the south side of Treat and east side of
Jones to provide a direct connection to the Trail.
■ These are details that will be considered in the design of any overcrossing.
B 25. Improve access through the BART lot to office buildings.
■ • This is apart of site planning, and is a policy of the Specific Plan.
■ 26. Consider Church parking lots as park & ride lots (Orinda model).
Similar to 23, part of process.
■
. 27. How can we attract employers who value alternatives to SOV, and give their employees
incentives to do it?
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) issue was considered in the 1997 Traffic Study. The
County is pursuing the Study's recommendations to promote the use of alternate modes of access
■ to the Specific Plan area and these activities are part of the process.
B 28. Reward the behavior that you want to encourage (e.g. amenities for bikes, pedestrians) - El
B Cerrito Station example of bike lockers.
See 7 above, Bike Station, part of the process.
■
■ 29. If you want more people to use BART, consider increasing amount of BART parking to keep
traffic off the regional streets.
■ Want "transit-oriented"development. The BART Board policy is currently set for the number of
parking spaces at each station. The BART Access Plan for PH BART suggests greater arse of
B alternate modes, not more parking.
■ 30. Retain existing number of parking spaces at BART (3,450)
■ Part of Specific Plan. Permanent BART parking has been set by the BART Board and was
incorporated in the Specific Plan at 2806 spaces. The additional spaces identified in the
■ comment include the temporary parking spaces. Providing additional permanent BART patron
■ parking beyond the 2,806 spaces was considered in the Charrette.
■ 31. BART lots are empty on nights and weekends, so may consider evening (complementary) uses.
• Part of process and previous studies.
■
■ 32. Is BART going to replace the parking in the park ROW?
• The Steering Committee is acting on a variety of measatres, and the Charrette 'final"plan
includes some replacement parking.
■ 33. Reducing BART parking encourages land use patterns that generate more traffic.
■ No plans to reduce BART parking below the established 2806 permanent spaces. Additional
BART patron parking was considered in the Charrette (see 32 above).
B
B Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 109
34. Don't just focus on the commute times- need retail or other off-peak uses.
• Comment noted and was considered.
35. Consider parking structures with retail on the ground floor (e.g. Horton Plaza). ■
• Comment noted and considered as part of process.
36. Can you put a swimming pool on top of a parking garage?
• Technically possible, but economically difficult. Considered as part of process.
37. Dual turn lanes are difficult for bicyclists... like at Treat & Oak
• Considered as part of process, but maybe difficult to change due to traffic volumes.
38. "Pass through" traffic from Bancroft to Mayhew to Las Juntas is a problem for neighbors (also
Las Juntas to Bancroft to Buskirk - neighborhood impacts). ■
• Traffic calming may be appropriate and is provided for in the Specific Plan (Automobile
Circulation.Policy #5, page 34. ■
39. Develop Buskirk as four-lane all the way to Monument Blvd.
• Previously considered as part of the 1997 Traffic Study. Widening to four lanes was not needed
to mitigate traffic impacts from the Specific Plan. With redevelopment of the Contra Costa
Shopping Center (Wards, Century Theater), the City of Pleasant Hill is expected to re-examine. ■
40. Pedestrians "do not have the right of way" in the crosswalks.
• See 38 above under Traffic Impacts. Traffic calming may be appropriate.
41. What is Oakland's mode split? How can we increase Centre's mode split? .
• Part of the process and tivith TDM, see 27 above.
42. Can we predict mode split of new development going in?
• Previously considered in the 1997 Traffic Study.
43. Increase development rights in lieu of parking.
• "Density bonus"was removed from the Specific Plan. Can be considered as part of process.
44. What is this area going to look like in 20 years?
• The Charrette process was planned to answer this question, and hopefully has done so. ■
45. We need better transit service. How can we pay for it?
• The process considers designs/land uses that are expected to emphasize transit use. TDM will be
a consideration in evaluating the alternatives. It is Important to match the design with the
available transit. ■
110-6.0 Appendices P/®asgnt Hill BART Station Area Community Plan
a
a
■
e 46. We don't want traffic to be any worse than it is today, but we want it to be a vital area.
■ Studies indicate the traffic will increase, even without any additional development on the BART
property. Property owners of vacant parcels in the Specific Plan area have already funded and
built significant upgrades to roads in the Specific Plan area to accommodate traffic generated
from development on these parcels. The Charrette ' inal"plan seems to balance traffic
generation and vitality.
47. Opportunity to create a transit village.
Yes, important consideration for the process.
48. Will Fehr& Peers focus at the Charrette be on BART transit or on the car?
. Fehr & Peers is focusing on transportation and traffic, with Nelson-Nygaard focusing on transit
and buses.
49. Last EIR and traffic study projections re: modal splits that were not accurate.
Higher alternate mode splits were identified as potentially achievable in the 1997 Traffic Study.
■ However, the Traffic Study work assumed current levels of alternate mode splits, which are
relatively high for a suburban location. This process emphasizes actual mode splits.
50. Different things affect number of people who will walk, ie: weather, hours worked, other things
they have to do, etc.
i Comment noted.
51. Envision Iron Horse Transit Corridor - Light Rail, etc.- We need to plan for the connections to it
whether walking/bicycle trail or light rail.
Yes, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access issues are important considerations for this process.
. This access includes access to and from the BART Station and to and from the trails.
52. This is our last opportunity to do it right.
• This is important consideration for the Charrette.
■ 53. We need to think 20 years out and put the infrastructure for it in now.
• This is also an important consideration for the Charrette. This was the philosophy of the Specific
Plan when it was adopted in 1984. Property owners were assessed over $40 million for road and
other infrastructure upgrades to serve their development. These infrastructure upgrades were
completed in the late 1980's.
54. Transportation system in London works because stop spacing is short - we need a light rail
system with frequent stops.
• It is important to consider transit operations and usage as part of the Charrette. These
considerations should not be done in isolation, but considered with other issues.
55. Quit thinking temporary solutions and think long term.
This was also an important part of the process.
Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 11 t
N
E
56. Would County consider changing the streets, light rail, etc. ? How far can we go?
• This Charrette process began with few "absolutes." The BART tracks, the columns, the actual
station location and trees may be considered "givens."On-site roadways can be changed. It
would be difficult to make major changes to Treat Boulevard, Oak Road and Jones Road
Internal roadway changes and other minor changes are considered. ■
57. Can the streets in the area be modified? ,
• See 56.
58. Can we consider one-way streets? ■
• One-way streets are possible, particularly for internal roadways. Major streets such as Treat
would not be included.
59. How will parking at BART for airport be handled?
• BART is developing policies for airport parking separate from this Charrette process. ■
60. Flex hour spaces
• These BART policies are not specifically apart of the process, but these issues have been
considered and have been brought to the attention of BART by the Pleasant Hill BART Station
Area Steering Committee.
61. Parking is never temporary. ■
• Comment noted.
62. Parking =Traffic
• Comment noted.
63. Need improved walking entrance thru BART parking lot to the station.
• Access is an important part of the process,for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorized vehicles.
E-MAIL AND FAX QUEST/ONS
(Note issues covered in the 2/8/01 Focus Group meeting issues list are not repeated here. A total of 9
e-mails, 1 fax, 1 letter were received, with 1 personal conversation.)
• Leisure Sports Inc. (now Renaissance ClubSport Hotel & Fitness Resort) gained approval for a
project in subarea 15 of the Specific Plan Area. A condition of approval was offers of Right of
Way dedication on Jones Rd. and Oak Rd. The purpose of these dedications were to mitigate loss
of the right turn lane from Jones to Treat to accommodate a pedestrian overcrossing of Treat for
the Iron Horse Trail. .
• Promote future development that encourages living, service and recreational usage. Providing
feeder mini buses that run to and from various neighborhoods in a timely fashion synchronizing
their timetables to those of BART would greatly reduce current and fiiture traffic congestion.
• The Specific Plan for the Redevelopment Area contains excellent instructions about trails and
paths as a means of getting people to the BART station and through the area on foot or on bikes. ■
112-6.0 A,opendices Pleasant Hi//SART Station Area Community Plan
N
t
t They have not yet been implemented.
■ • Primary need for area is enormously more free parking and free or extremely low-cost (10 cents)
transportation to downtown Pleasant Hill main shopping area, downtown main shopping in
Walnut Creek on an every 10 minutes or less basis.
• Small stores are having trouble recruiting staff as they cannot pay a living wage in this area. So
putting in more "strip mall local shopping areas" does not make sense. Groceries, small
. bookstores, coffee shops already proliferate in this general area. We do not need to compete with
these.
• Parking in two subterranean levels and on street level. Shops on the second level flanking the
train platforms. Shops on the third level, and restaurants on the top level. This is to be in a
terraced design providing greenspaces and plazas about the periphery.
■ • Parcels 11 and 12 are public assets that should not be used for speculative development.
• Provide local services, avoid becoming a regional mall.
• Need improved access for the handicapped, particularly along the roadways to the north, some
without sidewalks.
FEB. 26TH,2001 CHARRETTE EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER MEET/NG
■ (Comments from local area employers and employees)
What special things do you want here?
• Day spa, Restaurants, Bank/ATMs, Pet Store, Dry Cleaners, Post Office, Sheriff's Annex, Small
drug store, Small gift or Hallmark store, Barber, Shoe Repair, Bakery, Yogurt Shop
• Coffer Shop: Peets? Or Starbucks?, Lunch Places, Breakfast Places, Jamba Juice or something
like that, Shopping/Window Shopping, Nail Salon, Good Dinner Restaurant, Movies (crossed
out, marked "OK"),Any Night Life, Theater (ones here need to be entirely renovated), Togo's,
Greeting Card Store
• Brewery/Brew Pub, Flower Shop, Dress Shop, Gym/Health Club (there's one going in), Day
Care, Jazz Club (place to get a away on Friday and unwind before hitting the road), Place to go
to eat your lunch and get out of the building...somewhere to sit, benches, etc.., Bookstore.
• Public gathering place, not necessarily green space (Redwood Park examples), Rooftop park like
in the city,Adolescent-friendly design (lot of schools in the area where parents would like their
kids to be able to use BART), Make it welcome for people of all ages.
Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 113
M
M
M
APR/L 9TH, 2001-ISSUES AND CONCERNS M
(Comments and Issues from Public Meeting and Studio Drop-Ins) ■
What people liked M
• Public greens
• Local-serving retail uses M
• Overall sense of place ■
• Parking garages wrapped in nicer uses
• Main Street environment M
• Better bus access
• Better pedestrian access M
• How views of the platform and within the project were respected ■
• How it reaches out to the Iron Horse Trail
• (Some liked) the balance achieved between those who wanted more parking and those who M
wanted less
• Like uses across from like uses (i.e. - office across from office, residential across from M
residential) M
• How height steps down from high buildings next to freeway, to lower buildings by the trail
• Creation of entrance/gateway to the Iron Horse Trail M
• Creation of a real place
• Eliminated the need for parking on Swim Club site M
Concerns/Issues Outstanding M
• Ultimate uses of the Las Juntas Swim Club site M
• Bike/pedestrian overcrossings
• Parking: Some want more for access to BART and BART-to-airport parking M
• Parking: Some want less because more parking= more traffic
• Parking: Construction staging and how it will affect parking M
• Parking management M
• Building use and building mass: people prefer more residential and lower towers... but office is
what funds all the other positive things about the plan "M
• Traffic
• How bus, taxi, kiss & ride will work ,
• Paid parking in BART structure --- consider change in BART policy?
• Traffic flow, circulation to and from parking structures
• What public benefits come from the investment in this project? M
• The needs of the 600 people who drive in and use BART everyday and don't have other options
• Coding changes to the Specific Plan M
• Drawings/sketches are not to scale or true-to-life and are misleading ■
• The trees shown in the green space on the Iron Horse Trail cannot be put there because of
underground utilities M
• Use of adjacent streets for parking
• Difficult to access station M
• Signal timing: difficult to cross the street
114-6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hit/BART Station Area Community Plan M
M
• Mix of uses
• Different figures from those presented at Feb. 27th meeting and now
• Lodging seems to have snuck in the plan. We don't want more hotels.
• "Underground parking has no limits" --- what does this mean?
• Decision about block size - considered things "out of the box?"
• No one asked for a 12-story office building
• We asked for market-rate housing
• Remember the original intent: form needs to follow function and people need to be able to get to
work
• We have parkland all around and we have a downtown - in Walnut Creek
• Will the economic analysis look at the "no project" alternative?
• Only 10% of the people who work here ride BART
• How does the project affectibenefit people who live within 1/2 to 3 miles of the station?
■ • Parking garage frontage along Oak Road - concern about safety for people who walk past there
• Drawings don't show parking on-street
• Include a view with the surrounding buildings within a block or two on each side
• In architectural standards: "human habitation" and "not less than 450 square feet" are not
compatible. Others say this may be okay.
■ • Range of sizes is best, with percentage of each type
• 12-story building with horizontal lines: would that be typical of the 12-story tower?
• Circulation plan: may not need all the parking on-site if you have amenities for people who bike
or walk
• Efficiency of bus bays for buses coming from all 4 directions
■ • Do not show parking on Oak Road - not possible
• People crossing Jones Road from the Iron Horse Trail to access the site --- show a gap in the
parked cars at the intersection
• Show where the bridges might come down in the site plans
• Take the same amount of care in planning the Oak Road side
. • "Parking Placement"just shows parking for autos and not for bikes
• Specify bike parking: the number of spaces and where they're located
�- • Address management issues
• Hercules' Charrette --- what's happening and why?
As write changes to the Specific Plan, plan so that if back-sliding occurs, the community can live
■ with the result
Written Comments:
• The code is far too complex to cover in this forum. There is a real fear that someone will think it
is okay when it isn't understood.
• "Parking - some want more; some want less" --- this is a misleading statement. The DVCA and
commuters just want to maintain current parking levels which include the 581 "temporary" spots
being displaced by the Iron Horse Trail.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pleasant H111 BAHT Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 115
• The DVCA will contact Steve Coyle to thoroughly review work being conducted with the
planning consultant.
• The County and BART should be very concerned about the safety of pedestrians crossing Jones
Road at the entrance to the site. Doubling the number of cars along Jones going into the parking
garage will make crossing the street very difficult in the am and pm commute hours.
• Why have retail along Treat Blvd. - as you are driving west along Treat, there is no time to be
looking at retail stores or window displays. This could cause problems is the retail windows had
interesting displays.
• Are you conscious of earthquake movement here? This ground can go in waves... so no brick
frontage, etc.
• The bike station is for commuters mainly. It needs to be close the fare gates (what about on the M
southwest corner of Block C, or moving it to the west end of the residential green next to the ■
plaza?). Reward the access modes you want to encourage! Access from the bike station (where it
is currently located) will require crossing two roadways and be further than for people walking M
from most ground-floor parking spaces.
M
• Where will expanded BART on-demand bicycle racks be located? .
• We want the same number of parking spaces as in the present configuration (including the 581
spaces in the Iron Horse Trail alignment).
M
• I do not patronize retail establishments where I have to pay for parking. .
• RE: Iron Horse Trail bridge: John Muir Building people are concerned about users seeing into M
their windows. They say they replaced their windows that had a sun-ray coating because it was
peeling. Why not replace the old coating (that disallows people seeing in) with a coating that is -M
more durable? Have the cost be born by the bridge project cost.
• Free replacement parking for all current spaces (including the "temporary" 581 spaces) is ■
essential!
M
• BART costs $7/day (expensive). Parking costs on top (of that) tilt the balance toward driving to
San Francisco and the resulting flexibility. M
• Current suggested parking alternatives are impractical. They're only easy for those who don't •
have to use there. Ten spots here off-site and 20 more somewhere else off-site won't work as
alternatives. Bus needs massive improvement before it'll work. Until you've provided
workable, low-stress alternatives to driving alone, we need parking! To punish people who take M
public transit (by taking away BART parking access) is unconscionable. The current planned M
"transit village" benefits the Walden area residents with higher property values at the expense of
116-6.0 Appendices Pleasant H111 BART-Station Area Community Plan
M
• I request a circulation plan to not less than 5 miles around the BART station, including the costs
of user-free, zero-emission buses and user-free refreshment buildings (of bathrooms and eateries)
maybe not less than 200 feet apart, and unbundling of commercial and residential units from
minimum tenant and user-free parking spaces so far as government is concerned. The number of
user-free parking spaces BART-commercial-residential per acre should be limited and BART
government should not be permitted to give away land use at tax expense or BART ticket-payers
expense to selected few against good planning. It is a prostitution of civic planning and
■ capitulate suppression of exploration of ideas with constraint of current BART"policy."
APRIL 10TH. 2001-/SSUESAND CONCERNS
(Comments and Issues from Public Meeting)
A. PARKING
■ 1. There is a shortfall still on Iron Horse Trail replacement parking; 250 paid spots is not the same as
581 free spots. Add to parking tower.
The Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan provides for the Iron Horse Corridor to be converted to a
Greenspace use. In order to implement, the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee has been
evaluating measures to mitigate removal of temporary BART spaces. Multiple mitigations for
■ temporary parking removal include enhancements to alternative modes (146 spaces), BART
operations (230 spaces), relocation of Route 70 stop (40 spaces), and replacement temporary
parking (250 spaces). The 250 net new BART patron spaces on the BART property are over and
above mitigations previously identified by Steering Committee. Cost to develop 250 net new
spaces is over$3.5 million. Additional parking for visitors to shoppers to the new projects will
■ ensure that parking spaces are available throughout the day, including BART patrons.
2. Where are the 581 spaces of parking from the green space going to be? This plan does not show
the promised parking. Look elsewhere!
See A-1
3. 250 spaces from trail on-site (no need for parking at swim club).
Two hundred fifty spaces will not be on line for at least two years; temporary parking mitigations
are still being pursued.
4. Having 250 spaces violates the Specific Plan.
• If parking is part of joint development program, an amendment to Specific Plan would be
needed.
5. Expand parking structure first; Develop the expanded parking structure first before development
. of retail, office space, etc.
• Phasing program not yet firmly established;preliminary indications are that BART patron
replacement parking would likely occur first.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant H111 SART Statlon Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 117
6. We need more parking not less. r
• BART access planning policy and County policy encourage alternative mode enhancement, not ■
the development of more and more parking. Just as many people argue that there should be less
parking, since providing parking results in more congestion. The recommended 250 spaces
represents a compromise between competing interests. BART' new parking policy would allow
for consideration of new paid parking facilities and public/private partnerships to construct
additional parkingfacilities. ■
7. Add another level to the structure-currently 7 floors plus basement, why only 6 floors in this
design?
• Expansion structure is same height and has the same number of floors as the existing structure.
8. The northeast corner of the parking structure has the worst view-screen it!
• We concur Liner buildings and other exterior/interior modifications can be developed to
enhance the neighborliness of this corner
9. How many stories? Make it low. .
• The proposed number of stories is needed to fully provide for our replacement parking
obligation. All building heights throughout the project have been designed to be lower on the
east side near residential uses, and higher adjacent to office uses on the western perimeter.
Further, the costs of building parking further below ground is significant given the areas high �
watertable. In addition, we have made sure to preserve views of Mt. Diablo from the Station ■
platform.
10. Place parking at North Concord stop.
• BART enhancements to N. Concord service among the temporary parking mitigations. Currently
there are over 400 unused spaces at N. Concord. Hopefully running additional trains to this ■
Station will encourage about 100 BART patrons at Pleasant Hill to use N. Concord.
11. Where's the parking garage?
• BART replacement parking proposed to be west of existing structure. Private uses all provide for
their parking needs in the back of the buildings. .
12. New Garage parking space widths minimum 8 feet.
• BART specifies minimum of 8.5 foot width.
13. Different size spaces for different size cars, alternate floors of large and small cars. ■
• Compact and full spaces to be provided. A parking consultant has been engaged to optimize
parking program. BART has recently estimated that an additional 80 spaces are achievable from
restriping the existing garage.
14. If you charge for parking, you reduce parking demand (especially from nearby areas) and you ■
will increase demand for bus, walking, and bike riding.
• Pricing has a strong effect on demand, and encourages alternative modes. BART policy requires
118-6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan
■
i
■
■ that BART-dedicated parking be provided free to BART patrons only. We assume that all
i additional BART and project parking within the project will be priced at market rates. Revenues
received may be able to help cover costs to construct, and to operate the parking facility.
■
15. Don't lose sight that this is a train station, needs more access, convenience.
We have worked to significantly improve pedestrian, transit and bicycle access to the Station,
while still providing for significant auto access. There will be safe, comfortable, interesting
pedestrian routes from all sides of the project to the Station. There will be a strong connection
■ for bikes and pedestrians to the Iron Horse Trail, with a Bike Station placed next to the BART
Station. Access for transit will be greatly improved., with additional bus bays, improved
passenger amenities and room for expansion. Management of taxis will also be improved,
® eliminating queuing on surrounding residential streets. Further, the Specific Plan and the
Concept Plan acknowledges the importance of this regional facility by providing for a
concentration of arses conveniently located within easy walking of the BART platform.
S 16. Given current growth increases part. Bart ridership; today's parking supply should be a baseline.
i • See A-6 above.
■ 17. Is there space for buses?
• Bus queuing and loading areas provided for at west end of property. Also, see A-15.
■
■ 18. Main street parallel parking doesn't seem to work, instead, one since only 45 degree angle
parking.
■ Parking consultant is examining on and off street parking. Our experience with parallel parking
on main streets all over the country is generally very positive. In addition, 45-degree angle
■ parking can pose hazards for bicyclists.
19. Parallel parking will back traffic up onto Treat.
■ On-street parking will not be allowed during times when it might back up traffic onto Treat.
During off-peak times, it will provide extra parking spaces, will act as a traffic-calming device,
and will improve the pedestrian environment on the sidewalks.
i 20. Do we really need cars all the way around the green?
■ On-street parking helps provide ba ffer for safety; issue can be further examined.
i 21. Drop offs and taxis?
• See A-17.
■
i 22. Where is the Kiss and Ride area?
• Kiss and Ride opportunities are around the Station Plaza, and just north of the station.
■
B. TRAFFIC
i 1. Make sure there is enough room to the right of bridge for executing turns.
■ The bridges will be designed to accommodate turning motions/site lines at intersections.
■ Pleasant Hi//BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices >19
■
■
■
■
■
2. Traffic calming a priority (crossing Iron Horse Trail to Jones Road). This can be problem for
traffic flow—cars in looking for non-existent parking rather than backing out again will have a
very adverse reaction on H/T (Honey Trial?) residents. ■
• The existing setting on Del Hombre is to be improved as part of Greenspace projects. Adequate ■
turning areas are to be provided.
■
3. No cars around square; instead, Main Street to Park Street only. This works because of more
service outlets at this end of Main and around Square. ■
• See A-20. To be examined. .
4. Provide Class 1 trail along BART Row to Bancroft Road, to connect with potential trails in ■
Concord.
• A connector trail to the David/Minert area is suggested in the Specific Plan, and is being
examined. A public process to discuss alternative alignments to be conducted. a
5. Replace Iron Horse Trail Bridge with one at Oak Road. ■
• The two bridges serve entirely different populations. One bridge for both pedestrians along Oak
Road(south) and Iron Horse Trail users not functionally feasible. ■
6. Need to incorporate fully funded direct Iron Horse Trail over crossing bridge at Jones and Treat
and continue bridge design planning. .
• Iron Horse Trail overcrossing is fully funded. Final design process/determination to proceed to
be undertaken.
■
C. PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES ■
1. Bad pedestrian crossing near I-680.
• Acknowledged. Facture alternative mode enhancements may address, and is suggested in the ■
Specific Plan.
2. Make sure there is grass somewhere on Treat. ■
• Grass can be provided inappropriate locations. Water conservation ordinance discourages
small areas of grass. ■
3. Need to incorporate safe Iron Horse Trail over crossing of Treat Blvd. at Jones Road. ■
• Part of Specific Plan; design alternatives, siting, and localized impacts need to be assessed and ■
considered in final siting decisions.
■
4. Much concern about crossing.Jones during evening rush hours to reach the bridge over Bart.
There will be a continuous stream of people crossing a stream of cars. ■
• Safe pedestrian access alternatives to BART property from Iron Horse Trail are being evaluated. i
Potential improvements include a pedestrian refuge/median on Jones; raised crosswalks, in-
pavement,pedestrian-activated crosswalk beacons; and/or a pedestrian activated stoplight. ■
120-6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan
■
5. It should be a true pedestrian center because if traffic circulates around it, it will not feel like a
park; The Square (Station Plaza?) should be pedestrian only, otherwise traffic circle only.
Size of square, and use of parked cars to bufferfrom traffic lanes is concept being employed. See
also A-20.
a 6. "Buffer" comforts for peds.
a • Trees along the curb and parking part of buffering.
7. Pedestrian Tunnel below Treat.
• Viability as an alternative is being evaluated for April 9th meeting. Potentially constrained by
underground utilities, cost, and safety/security concerns of users. Most pedestrians feel unsafe
walking in a long tunnel.
8. Blinking light pedestrian /bike crosswalk from Iron Horse Trail across Jones Road (in the
direction of the Station Plaza).
• Need for/type of signalization is to be determined when project level traffic studies are
completed. See also C-4.
9. Bike storage for residents who don't have covered storage.
. Can be provided for in residential projects similar to requirements of commercial projects in
area.
10. Better coordination of traffic signals to accommodate pedestrians.
Signal time now controlled by Walnut Creek for Treat Corridor;pedestrian overcrossings
■ designed to address.
11. Pedestrian flow from Oak (south of Treat) to platform is too convoluted.
• Shortest route would have pedestrians continuing north along Oak to BART viaduct and into the
Station; this movement is provided for Pedestrian overcrossing design will need to
accommodate a staircase to come back to ground level to facilitate multiple directions for
desired pedestrian movements.
12. Area west of grove of trees at Oak/Treat doesn't have uses that would provide observation/
security for pedestrians.
. Uses can be considered for the area, so long as trees are not impaired Observation from street
does occur.
D. ENVIRONMENT
. 1. Preserve air right for future greater density.
• Development over BART facilities is technically possible, but difficult to accomplish in a
financially feasible way given need to protect BART operational requirements.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hi/l SART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 121
S
2. Is there an incorporation of solar energy?
• Energy conservation features encouraged by County General Plan policy and implementing .
ordinances. Energy costs bode positive for energy considerations in site design and equipping.
3. Are the trees at the intersection of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd. sick?
• No recent arborist reports exist. Maybe part of Final Development Plan special studies.
4. Save the view of Mount Diablo; I'm worried about our Mount Diablo view from the Station ,
platform. We should see it from all along the platform, not just one little spot.
• Specific Plan policy/diagrams denote Mt. Diablo viewshed; concept plan is consistent with
Specific Plan. Expansive views will be preserved. S
E. PROGRAMMING ■
1. Either activate linear park (market, etc.) or give up for larger square.
• Denoted uses for the linear park are intended to be exemplary. Uses might include playground,
public art, stage, etc. The provision of additional space for a larger square is being further .
examined, preliminary indications are that it would compromise the ability to park adjacent
blocks.
2. Larger community Center on Larger Green.
• Siting of a community center within the complex has a number of alternative locations; use .
connotes operation and maintenance source of funds.
3. Mix office and residential on the same properties.
• Plan doesn't preclude; mixing can complicate building program, parking.
4. Plan should allow future air-rights; mixed development in future especially around Square and
Green to Iron Trail. i
• See D-1.
5. Have a post office annex.
• This type of use will be among the many potential arses considered by the BART developer. �
6. Better utilization of site-swap the daycare (with something else)?
• Will consider alternative locations.
7. Strong landscape feature or fountain.
• Will be considered;part of Final Development Plan.
8. Create an activity center at Treat/Oak west of grove of trees.
• Can be considered; See also C-12.
122-6.0 Appendices Pleasant H111 BART Station Area Community Flan
F. STATION GREEN
1. Green should be a bit larger.
• See E-1.
2. The small plaza east of Station Plaza seems awkward; it seems better used as part of the central
green. Or transformed into an active public site (playground, etc.) or anchored by retail
(restaurant)?
. Programming of uses along link road can accommodate mixed uses. Restaurant feature better to
site at Station Plaza (west) end of link road. Median green may be considered for playground,
but other locations exist— Greenspace or Station Plaza. See also E-1.
3. What is this building doing here? (the small public building on this green). Civic space is good,
move it elsewhere. Maybe a playground here? This building is too big.
• This building is not contemplated to be a community center. The concept was to create a
sheltered space that would provide benefit to users such as arts and crafts shows, etc.
4. This space is "not doing anything" - What about a playground?
• Play areas can be part of Station Plaza.
5. Put brass ducks for children to sit on in the public square (like in Boston Public Garden).
' • Can be considered.
6. Picnic tables, fountain, swing sets, larger destination park.
• Can be considered; see also E-1.
G. RETAIL
1. Retail mix should include drugstore/grocery store, Mom & Pop store.
• Definitely a desired use; operator will have to be determined.
.. 2. Preserve space along green for retail expansion.
• Provided for.
3. Maintain future retail around Station Plaza.
• Provided for.
4. Target immigrant entrepreneurs as retail tenants/building owners tap into their networks of
potential retail tenants.
• Operators to be determined.
■ 5. No fast food!
• Specific Plan precludes drive-thrit establishments; all restaurants would have to be walk-up.
Restaurants of all types desirable—sit down to convenience.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
■ Pleasant Hi//SART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 123
6. Steps (or elevator) to retail from bridge to the west.
• Would be provided.
H. HOUSING ■
1. More housing, more affordable housing - inclusionary, not segregated.
• Mixed income housing contemplated; some affordability required by Law. .
2. Market-rate housing: 300 plus units of housing with 45 plus for-sale units. Look beyond the site
for more long-term solution (look outside the box).
• Housing program includes some for-sale units; outside the Specific Plan area is substantially
built out, except for two smaller areas. .
3. Mix houses/office on same block.
• See E-3.
4. Like housing above retail.
• Provided for
I. WALDEN
1. Walden is the name of the area and the road to the South on Oak Road. It is a historic area, with ■
walnut groves, heritage oaks, and older homes (at least 3 are about 100 years old). Lets build on
this.
• BART, County, and Developer are open to evolving this concept to establish an identity.
2. Walden Center or Walden Square for name.
• Walden Center name is already used by shopping center at Treat/No. Main.
3. There is an adobe structure on Oak between Treat and Walden, and there are cottages and old _
homes on Cherry Lane and Walnut Blvd.
• Acknowledged.
J. POOL
1. Why not public "community"pool?
• Among the alternatives; City of Walnut Creek would have to agree to operate and maintain if a
"public"pool. City declined prior offer to operate Swim Club. ■
2. Agreed that use should be recreational.
• See J-1.
3. Pool becomes village pool.
• See J-1.
124-6.0A,opendices Pleasant H1/1 SART Station Area Community Plan
. 4. Corporate memberships for Swim Club.
• Not a design issate, but could be considered by Swim Club.
K. BUILT FORM
■ 1. West of BART; No higher than other buildings-maximum 10 stories.
• Specific Plan allows lip to 12 stories to be considered on Area 11 (west of BART platform).
2. Put seven-story tower on the West side of BART with the other tower.
• Both office arses would not fit without substantially increasing building mass or height, or both.
3. Need good codes to get this architecture; Need regulating codes to be available.
. • Coding document being prepared.
4. Is the Station Building included in financial analysis?
• All built forms are reflected in financial analysis.
5. Scale back 7-story building on Treat; Decrease to 4 stories or increase setback.
• Specific Plan allows seven; would impact project economics if FAR reduction required, or
increase mass of building.
L. BART STATION CHARACTER
■ 1. Lose the towers next to BART.
• See K-1.
2. How about an old-world-style clock that would be visible from the station platform instead of a
flagpole?
r Can be considered; idea reflected in concept plan.
3. Destination is key concept.
• Creating a.sense of place for residents, employees, and BART patrons is desired.
4. Architecture is superior to anything around-relates to history.
■ Architectural style rendered was a vernacular that reflects local area; other styles are possible
and will be evaluated with visual preference survey on April 9th and IOth.
5. Put drawings on the web.
■ Accomplished.
■ Pleasant 1-11113A R 7-Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices- 125