Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06181996 - D2 D.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: June 18, 1996 Matter of Record SUBJECT: Public Comment On this date, the Board of Supervisors heard comments from: The Reverend Curtis Timmons. P.O. Box 8213, Pittsburg, regarding recent decisions made by the Board regarding Black children in Foster Care; Len Newmark, 131 Easy Street, Alamo, and Patrick Abbott, 130 East Street, Alamo regarding Livorna Park. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN Request to Speak Form " 2 ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place It in the box near the speakers' nostrum before addressing the Board. I am speaking for myself_or organization: Alo -s Cs�� oww ofsm-lutimo ONCK ONE: ! wish to speak on Agenda Item fl. : Date: My comments wi{l be: Beneral _tor__,wgaiy_. wish to speak on the subject of /aZOR,4Y4 I do not wish to speak but {rave these comments for the Board to consider: t Update on Livoma Park and the Possible Re-open' The concerns expressed are as follows: 1. Livorna Park: We residents agreed to a passive park two years ago and are now faced with a park containing a 38 ft diameter, 1000 square foot gazebo, sport court, activity lot and sand volleyball court. Additionally,the R7A Committee is recommending that the park be reservable for any group wishing to do so. Because of this, the park now has the potential for attracting large gatherings of people. The result will be the creation of significant parking overflow problems and significantly increased traffic onto Easy Street. Livorna Park was to be passive because of the local resident's desires and the fact that the park is completely surrounded by housing. Saturday,June 15 ten Valley Oak Trees and one Almond Tree bordering Easy Street and the park were cut down and removed! No one in the neighborhood had any notice or information concerning this action. The response from Supervisor Bishop's staff as to why this happened was that the R7A Committee did not include these trees in the park plan!!!!!! We feel that the R7A is not communicating with us nor making any reasonable attempt to incorporate our views or recommendations and is acting arbitrarily. The removal of indiginous trees can only be described as negligent and significantly impacts the neighborhood in a deleterious fashion. Our Proposal: 1. Replace the R7A. Delineate an effective communication program. 2. Stop the construction of the park until the residents have reviewed the plans. 3. Remove the gazebo. 4. Remove the sport court and volley ball court to Alamo School Park which is designated an Active Park. 5. Do not allow the park to be reserved by any group. 6. Post Easy Street as "No Parking" 2. Re-opening of Easy Street. Gail Bishop's staff is to contact me next week but assure me that there is no intention or plan to open the street. Contact me with any questions. Patrick Abbott } y Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The CIosing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools. Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing.The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident,non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. i Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its"out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children.Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5.Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations r associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and_stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan. The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large'gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court" is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these . expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land.This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work,proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park?And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement,none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant, impact on our immediate environment. Name Address Alamo Residents Enclosed is the letter I will forward to the County concerning Easy Street and the Alamo Park as we discussed on Saturday. I will persue this via direct conversation with the supervisors and will keep you updated. Please sign your copy and return it to me. I will forward all copies to the county. Patrick Abbott 130 Easy Street Alamo, California 94507 510 938 8001 v� 1 ® �P ter, 'l _ /--a-d/ f Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I.The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street, it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing.The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. J 1 Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic.Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2. Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural - with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its"out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue. Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property. This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. H Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park.We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park. These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design.Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response.and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impactKon .r'i"`mmedi nvironment. Name Address I UU 131 EASY STREET ALAMO, CALIFORNIA 94507 MAY 11, 1996 TO: PAT ABBOTT DEAR PAT, THIS NOTE IS YOUR AUTHORIZATION TO INCLUDE OUR NAMES ON THE REQUEST,THAT EASY STREET REMAIN CLOSED AND THE FUTURE PARK REMAIN AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED(NOT TO INCLUDE A GAZEBO OR A TENNIS COURT.) WE WILL BE OUT OF TOWN FOR A FEW WEEKS AND WHEN WE RETURN, WE BOTH WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY HELP THAT YOU MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT EASY STREET REMAINS CLOSED. THANKS MUCH, LEONARD NEWMARK BONNIE WALL 131 EASY STREET ALAMO,CALIFORNIA 94547 MAY 11, 1996 TO: THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS AS AN 18 YEAR RESIDENT OF THE COUNTY, I AM APPALLED AT THE NEW RUMOR FLOATING AROUND THAT EASY STREET WILL HAVE TO BE WIDENED AND REOPENED TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED PARK AT IT'S NORTH END. WE THE RESIDENTS OF EASY STREET ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT A PASSIVE PARK.AND THE CLOSING OF OUR STREET WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE DEAL,ALLOWING THE BUILDER OF THE NEW HOMES,TO BUILD ON LESS THAN 1/2 ACRE. I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER MAY HAVE BEEN INFLUENTIAL IN REQUESTING A FANCIER PARK,IT WILL HELP THEM SELL HOMES. HOWEVER, THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GENERATED WILL CREATE A SEVERE PARKING PROBLEM AND WILL REQUIRE EASY STREET TO BE WIDENED AT AN EXORBITANT COST TO THE COUNTY. PLEASE,ALLOW EASY STREET TO REMAIN CLOSED AND DO NOT APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF A GAZEBO OR TENNIS COURT TO THE PARK. RESPECTFULLY, `1P LEONARD NEWMARK C Alamo Residents Enclosed is the letter I will forward to the County concerning Easy Street and the Alamo Park as we discussed on Saturday. I will persue this via direct conversation with the supervisors and will keep you updated. Please sign your copy and return it to me. I will forward all copies to the county. Patrick Abbott 130 Easy Street Alamo, California 94507 510 938 8001 Ab-C— p�p a.--- J D Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I.The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident,non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. I Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents, Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic.Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side. The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way" appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4. Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property. This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. I1 Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park. These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly, to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street, Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as'the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on thepublic record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name Address >P_� 4 Do Se- and Nam C- 8isho la-O EA sh � l Afonmol A 7� -Q7 Alamo Residents Enclosed is the letter I will forward to the County concerning Easy Street and the Alamo Park as we discussed on Saturday. I will persue this via direct conversation with the supervisors and will keep you updated. Please sign your copy and return it to me. I will forward all copies to the county. Patrick Abbott 130 Easy Street Alamo, California 94507 510 938 8001 r ry� ASO OQ12,. of 9nedZo y .7 A�191"o l ?qae 97 i� � �//`fie%u�r ��, NA-rr�fS G.✓ �� 12 fIlA 77A7� � Lvlas A��o% �o7i�c 7�, 0/-z A s /so s,;d i�J,45 l 7 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I.The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools. Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street, it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident,non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. =P. I Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools. There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural - with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,,create a significant threat to safety,ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park.We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced"Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a "Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design.Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work,proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park?And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities. The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes.We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate env' •onment. Name L)" o ��u-� Address 0 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez,California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools. Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools. There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its"out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3.Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5.Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations / w 1 associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park.The inclusion of a "Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents. Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land.This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design.Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities. The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate a me or Name Address Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. L)e- ak�to GJ c C s Su ;� �� �vte�nnS-F-�-nc��• s Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side. The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its"out of the way" appeal,rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3.Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4. Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing, include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt. Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park.We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations i associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan. The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features" and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park?And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street, Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response.,and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immelate environment. Name Address 42Z .St/ S% _9 c�✓�U� 4 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez,California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer. Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: 1. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street, it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident,non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. ;r �t Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic.Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its"out of the way"appeal,rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3.Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue. Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property. This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations y associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land.This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name<ts1 Address E Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street, it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. v� Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents, Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools. There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic.Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would A axe" absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope yn of with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement PMI vu-, 5J,ge� of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth T _ high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 Ml:) „^,� _] mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the L removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now n ,, line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street'` e, &Z-t L�J As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the -k0d) ' expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat �'f'W 1 7 to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic 5 1 t� problem at two intersections. ( ` LTJ II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: S When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become rte_ Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations r associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park. We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan. The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park.The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more "active features" and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land.This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work,proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street, Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions c ave a significant impact mediate enn e� Xiro � �c [rPlj� )VO �tv-¢-- Name Address .V ` Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools. Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality. Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue. Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4. Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing, include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 1S mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property. This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park.We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations f associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan. The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use,by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park.The inclusion of a "Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities. The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name ,uP,,6 _ Address_ /Y L D�C Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: 1. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing,bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long, one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations �r associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park. We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review.Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from ° the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use,by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design.Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park?And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. 1 �_ 4444 Name Address 160 1 UIIITED AIRUnes May 71h, 1996 MA, And2ew Young Alamo Palk R7 P. O. Box 1062 Alamo, Ca. 94507 =- - Deal (72. young: In 2ega2ds .to the Alamo Palk l2ojec.t, Cd and I aee 2es.i.dent,3 at 111 Eazy S.t2eet and aee opposed .to ANY and ALL accezz .to .the pa2k th2u Lazy S.t2ee.t. Out conce2ns .include pa2k.ing .involving Lazy S.t2eet as an aiie2native X02 .thoze who chooze not .to uze .the p2ov.ided pa2k.ing lot on L.ivo2na. A.izo, we aee faced with .inc2eazed u-6e o/ a z.t2ee.t which .iz ai2eady impacted and .ih a z.t2ee.t which .i.3 na22ow with aiAeady dange2ou s z ide d.i.t the,6. 7he2e .iz no additional pa2k.i.ng anywhe2e. _ Out z oiui ion, a-6 .i s many 2e s.iden.t s he2e, .i s to dead end Ea,3y S.t2ee.t at .the No2th end. It wa,3 out unde2h.tand.ing when we pu2cha,3ed out home to.6y S.t2ee.t would 2ema.in cloned .to pzgven.t ho22.i/ic .t2a//ic l2om L.ivo2na, o� which had been expe2.ienced .in p2ev.iou6 yea2,3. Ve have a ve2y acce,3zagie easement .in the gack,6 o� ou2 homes which makes .the h.t2eet acce.6zaUe .to people who could have va2.iou,6 pe2ve2,3e 2eazonz /02 walking .hack .thele. 7he2e aee no .3iAee.t .i.igh.tz .to enaP 2e,6.i.den-z to mon.i.to2 .the .hack zection on the wept gide o� the z.t2ee.t. Rad ou2 2es.iden.tz known that .the wo2k we did with NA, K.i..t.t.i,6 2 y2.6. ago wan all .in vain, I"m zu2e the zzzaiY-6 would have &een homes on that hill and not some "Not .so vegy, /ga3-6 ive Palk. l ai-2.ic-ia & tdwa2d Sullivan 111 £asy St2ee.t Alamo, Ca 94507 510-939-7152 San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California 94128 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer. Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools. Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street, it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing.The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street anti other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents, Safety of School Children -Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools. There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality. Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2. Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue. Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5.Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing, include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt. Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property. This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long, one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park. We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park. These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan. The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court" is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents. Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more "active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street, Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities. The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes.We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name i Address 'le�v J Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez,California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer. Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident,non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to.traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. �r y j2 Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality. Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side. The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its"out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4. Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing, include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt. Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park.We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park. We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park. These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo". The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park. This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park.The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features" and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design.Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement,none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact o r immediate environment. Name Address Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez,California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing.The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents, Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation. The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3. Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property. This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations 4 associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park. The inclusion of a"Sport Court" is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work,proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly, to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response_and explanation of the changes.We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name IILLI-Address 0 So-7 S�, Ale ,,a 'Mb 7 it Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer. Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I.The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools. Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing.The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. 4. Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools. There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality. Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3.Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5.Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt.Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. H Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park.We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park. These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan. The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use,by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly.contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park.The inclusion of a"Sport Court" is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents. Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design. Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities. The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name Address t G,4 S Y ST t 2�. ZZ,,� A4� °i c4 �To 7 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: �0 Q• It has recently come to our attention that 'rt b tecliff Properties has recently been sold to anothe vfF 1f,,, 6_ lack of information on the development we wish t car Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted 1 We are also asking for a formal response to the question c :sy Street ,nd secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of ae b..A:Ed as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I. The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools.Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street, it is regarded as a very relaxing, bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing.The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic. The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic. Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. .:r Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools. There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side.The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural - with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere.This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3.Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4.Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5.Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing,include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt. Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property.This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. H Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park. We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park. These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use,by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park.The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design.Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work, proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park? And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement, none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes.We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name Address v e` Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California May 14, 1996 Dear Supervisors: It has recently come to our attention that the Post Property being developed by Whitecliff Properties has recently been sold to another developer.Because of uncertainty and a lack of information on the development we wish to re-iterate our position on the closing of Easy Street to through traffic and the area allotted to the park. We are also asking for a formal response to the question of re-opening Easy Street and secondly,to the apparent changes in the intended use of the land designated as Alamo's first park. Our concerns and views follow: I.The Closing of Easy Street to Through Traffic: Nine years ago the County initiated the move to close Easy Street to through traffic. Since the closing,there has been an enormous improvement in the quality of life for all the residents of the street and the significant number of families whose children use the street for daily access to Stone Valley and Alamo Schools. Additionally,judging from the number of joggers,strollers and cyclists using the street,it is regarded as a very relaxing,bucolic and pastoral pathway free from any danger of high speed traffic. We wish to convey our sincere gratitude for the County's action in this regard and have to convey to you the enormous improvement experienced as a result of the closing. The street has retained its uniquely rural nature and is now very safe for the growing number of youngsters on the street and other non-resident, non-vehicular traffic.The closing of the street by the County is the type of decision which has enormously benefitted residents' quality of life and a was decision which we heartily commend. We are now concerned that the closing was not permanent and that Easy Street could be re-opened to traffic.Our objective is to re-convey our unanimous support for the permanent closing of Easy Street such that we can be assured that there will not be future attempts to open the street and seriously degrade the environment which has been so effectively improved. l Arguments Against Re-opening: 1. Safety of Residents,Safety of School Children-Easy street is the sole path for schoolchildren walking or bicycling south to Stone Valley School or north to Alamo Schools.There is no alternative pathway except for the bike path on Miranda Avenue which is combined with high use traffic. Mixing vehicular traffic on Easy Street with the large number of pedestrians and bicyclists would inevitably result in a fatality.Easy Street is narrow with restricted vision and bordered by ditches on either side. The heavily tree-lined street is ideal for pedestrians but completely inadequate for any traffic beyond resident use and simply out of the question for combined vehicular and foot traffic. 2.Preservation of Rural Nature of Street-Easy Street is delightfully rural with 40 years of mature growth trees and vegetation.The residents are on the street largely because of its "out of the way"appeal, rustic appearance and rural atmosphere. This character would be completely destroyed by any move to increase traffic usage of the street. 3.Miranda Intersections hazardous-If Easy Street were opened it would create two partially blind intersections with Miranda Avenue.Having lived on Easy Street prior to the closing I can attest that opening the street would create two streams of traffic moving to the schools and create two intersections which would have an enormously high potential for an accident. Opening Easy Street for its 400 yard length and creating a traffic problem like this is simply not rational nor in any residents or driver's interest. 4. Property Values-These would most certainly decline as a result of the vehicular threat to residents and their children. Several of the residents have valuations pre and post closing and the increases post closing are noticeable. The re-opening would have noticeable, negative financial impact on the residents. 5. Economic-If the street were to be re-opened we,as residents,would absolutely demand upgrades to the street so that the street could safely cope with the heavy increase in use. Current county standards for a high use road would dictate widening to 50 feet from its current 25, require the replacement of ditches with curbing, include bicycle paths and be resurfaced to a smooth high grade asphalt. Upgrades would require the removal of approximately 18 mature growth Redwood,Larch,Pine and deciduous trees,as well as,the removal of the majority of decorative or border bushes and hedges that now line each property. This would absolutely destroy the rural aspect of the street. As the street is only 400 yards long,one would have to seriously question the expenditure of public funds to allow high use traffic,,create a significant threat to safety, ruin the street's rural appearance and create a significant traffic problem at two intersections. II Dedicated Land for Use as a Park: When the Post Property was slated to be developed,several acres were dedicated to become Alamo's first park.We,as the most affected residents,were active in all negotiations associated with the park and conducted two specific surveys of the 40 to 50 immmediate residents concerning the design and intended use of the park.We were resolutely and unanimously adamant in the park's design as a passive area and our consent and agreement for the park was conditional upon the development of the park as a rural and passive park.These views were recorded in the R7A Committee's Minutes of Meeting and should be available for review. Subsequent voting is also available in these minutes and part of the public record of our support for the park. Our reasons for this are also recorded and stand with the same significance for our concern for the neighborhood and Alamo. We have since learned that the park has been re-designed with substantial changes from the original agreed upon plan.The park now includes a fenced "Sport Court"and "Gazebo".The apparent inclusion of the Gazebo is for use, by reservation,of any party wishing to stage a large gathering at the park.This is explicitly contrary to our prior expressed wishes and is a breach of all of our prior agreements on the intended use of the park.The inclusion of a"Sport Court"is clearly contrary to a passive use and was not approved by the local residents.Additionally,the planned expenditures on the park have escalated substantially because of the inclusion of more"active features"and these expenditures are being approved contrary to our agreement on the park's intended use. The developer,the R7A and the local residents were engaged in a significant and civically responsible process for arriving at a final design to the park and this process resulted in an agreement between the parties on the intended use of the land. This effort was a model of civic participation and as residents we were proud to have been able to work cooperatively with the developer and county to arrive at a final design.Why is the county making a travesty of all of our prior work,proceding with a design which is contrary to our agreements and which abrogates all of the co-operative and responsible discussions on the park?And why is the county now committing significant taxpayer money for non-passive facilities beyond the need for the original passive design park? Secondly,to our amazement,none of the residents of Easy Street,Miranda or Acacia were aware of subsequent meetings or notified of any potential changes or progress on the park. In our recent meeting of residents Saturday May 11, 1996 none of the twenty plus attendees were aware or had received any notices concerning the park. Since this is not the first such occurrence,we formally request that each of the undersigned be placed on mailing and notification lists. From initial concept to approval by the immediate residents our views on the park are part of the public record and have been resolute and clear. Our acceptance of the park was strictly on the condition that the design be passive,consistent with the rural nature of the area and devoid of active facilities.The county now appears to be acting contrary to our agreements and incurring expenditures unreasonable for the passive design which had been set. We,as the impacted resident are asking for a response and explanation of the changes. We find it unfortunate that established agreements on the public record are being ignored and that we are not being encouraged to participate in the decisions which have a significant impact on our immediate environment. Name,:. L, C'� Address A// L2,4=,