Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06102003 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4ontra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 5 County DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF THE IRON HORSE TRAIL OVERCROSSING OF TREAT BOULEVARD AND THE OAK ROAD RIGHT-TURNLANE PROJECT, PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA, WALNUT CREEK SPECIFIC'REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND'AND JUSTIFICATION' RECOMMENDATIONS' 1. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed design of the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and the Oak Road right-turn lane, and CLOSE the public hearing, 2. FIND the Mitigated Negative'Declaration prepared for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-turn' lane is adequate and has been prepared consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines; 3. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-turn lane; 4. CONSIDER The County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Design of the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and ADOPT the preferred Arch Design; 5. ADOPT the Mitigation'Monitoring Program for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-turn lane project; and 6. DIRECT the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk, and 7. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to ADVERTISE the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-turn lane projects at his discretion. CONTINUED ON'ATTACHMENT: X YES : SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM ND TION OF ARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S),: ACTION OF BOARD ONJum APPROVED AS REC MENDED OTHER X **See attached addendum for Board action** .V- VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT. ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN **District III Seat VACE1Nr** Contact: Maureen Toms, Community Development-335-1250 ATTESTED .haze 10, 2003 JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Community Development Department AND COUNTY ADMININISTRATOR Public Works Department-Transportation Eng: Public Works Department-Design 70�&Itt& ,DEPUTY Redevelopment Agency BY June 10, 2003, Board of Supervisors Design of the Iron"Horse Trail Overcrossing of Treat Blvd; Page ' FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost of the Arch design overcrossing is $3.7 million. The project is fully funded by a federal transportation grant ($500,000), Measure C funds ($1.5 million), and Redevelopment Agency funds ($1`,7 million). The Agency funds are included in the Agency's adopted budget. BACKGROUNCf1REASONS'FOR RECOMMENDATONS The Protect: The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan contains policies regarding two pedestrian bridges across Treat Boulevard. One bridge was proposed to be aligned to cross Treat Boulevard on the east side of Oak Road. The other pedestrian bridge across Treat Boulevard is proposed one block to the east at Jones Road. The alignment of the Jones Road Bridge is on the Iron Horse Trail Corridor and is the subject of this design review. The proposed project involves the construction of a Class I Bicycle/pedestrian Bridge with ramps over Treat Boulevard at the intersection with Jones Road. The ramps would descend into the existing temporary BART parking on the north end of the overcrossing (to be converted to Greenspace in the near future) and would displace the Jones Road northboundright turn lane to Treat Boulevard on the south side.The bridge alignment within the northbound right turn lane provides separation from the John Muir Diablo Health Systems facility and preserves a stand of mature trees along Jones Road. Landing ramps would be constructed on Jones Road. The bridge overcrossing would connect with a realigned portion of the Iron Horse Trail on the north end and the existing trail alignment on the south end. A northbound right turn lane on Oak Road,located one block west of Jones Road,would be constructed'to. replace the dedicated right turn lane used to construct the overcrossing right of way on Jones Road. The Oak Road''right-lane project is proposed to be constructed under a separate contract and expected to be completed prior to the beginning of the bridge construction. Desi in Alternatives/Process: Determination of a preferred design has been undertaken through an extensive`multimedia public participation:process that began in 2000. Because the initial community design program did not conclude with a consensus design,the Redevelopment Agency created a web based preference survey to further inform decision makers on design options. The web based' preference survey which took place in January and February 2003, included four conceptual design options for the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing- the Railroad Truss,Cable-stayed Bridge,Arch Bridge,and Concrete Girder Bridge. Each of these options were described along with a summary of engineering issues in a Summary of Design Options, November 22, 2002 (included herein as Attachment A). Also attached hereto are the following: Attachment B- Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program: Feasibility Study Report, December 1, 2000; Attachment`C-Pleasant Hill BART Bridge Overcrossing Program Summary Report, June 24, 2002; Attachment D summarizes the comments received; Attachment E'-Comment`Letters; Attachment'°F-Mitigated Negative Declaration; Attachment G-Mitigation Monitoring Program. County Planning Commission: The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22,2003 to consider the design of the bridge. Following the staff'presentation, public testimony and Commission discussion, the Planning Commission recommended the arch design for the bridge. Specific Plan Policy: Policy 2 of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan states the following:' A pedestrian and bicycle overpass should be provided at Jones Road for the Iron Horse Trail, provided that the County Board of Supervisors,,in approving the project determine that, among other requirements, the form, height, mass, and setback of the Iron Horse Trail overpass is aesthetically and functionally consistent with its proximity to the existing office building at 1400 Treat Blvd. The convenience of pedestrian access to this building and the Treat Blvd. frontage June 10, 2003 Board of Supervisors Design of the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing of Treat Blvd. Page 3 ' shall be provided for in the design of the overpass. Location and design of the bridge shalt be reviewed and approved by County Planning Commission atter a public hearing. The design team met several times with 'representatives of the John Muir/Mt. Diablo Health Systems (JMMD)over the,past three years to discuss design of the overcrossing. The representatives of JMMD, included staff, their Board of Directors, the JMMD architect, and their legal counsel. These meetings included walking the site, the use of story poles to better understand views and reviews of alternative designs. In addition, the JMMD staff and advisors attended and 'participated in the various design meetings and related discussions (Charrette, Steering Committee, etc.).The total number of meetings held exceeds ten. The goal of the bridge architectural design;was to create a facility that presented the least visible impact on the surrounding area, particularly the adjacent property(occupied by the John Muir/Mount Diablo' Health Systems Building). The design program emphasized"'light and transparent"presence,so as to cause minimal visual impact on both the intersection and the John Muir Building. To achieve this desired effect, the design team found it essential to keep the piers out of the roadway system as well as minimizing the sloped ramps so as to>>complywith the American Disabilities Act(ADA). The structure's deck (which carries the bicyclists/ pedestrians) must be thin, while all other structural elements should be both thin and transparent in design where possible. Given these program limitations,which allow for minimal visual impact,the design team selected four bridge design schemes that would comply with the preceding design criteria. In three of the four cases, the schemes selected' would provide a light and transparent option. The first scheme- the railroad truss bridge option- reinforced the idea that the Iron Horse Trail was originally a railroad and provided the community/users with a'historical recall. In analyzing this design, the design team understood that there were limitations in reaching the desired lightness'through the use of cables, standard "I" beams, and the projectile barrier. The second scheme-the cable-stayed bridge option-utilizes a thin pedestrian/bicycle deck,fulfilling one of the above mentioned criteria. However, the 120-foot tower that supports the cable system did not promote the desired thinness and transparency. This bridge farm,however aided in alleviating some of. the long ramp dimensions, which led to the next scheme. Note that the tower was placed on the north side of Treat Boulevard to distance this prominent element from the JMMD property. The third scheme-the arch bridge option:-met the above criteria, achieving a design option that would diminish the structure's impact on the intersection and particularly the John Muir Building. The structural span of this particular scheme allowed for very thin deck. This thin deck consequently shortened the ramps-thereby decreasing the massing of the overall project. We utilized a steel arch that consisted'of numerous thin pipes, thereby creating a transparent structural arch member. This member- when painted in a dark green shade to mimic the surrounding foliage- will tie in with the tree canopy that surrounds part of the site. The arch,theme structure,in general,is a common natural form that picks up the surrounding hill shapes and is therefore very contextual in this setting. The thin cables will also contribute to an overall lightness in structure. These cables are basically vertical in form- blending in with the existing tree forms and perpendicular walls of the John Muir Building,;as opposed to the (non-vertical) angles evident in the cable-stayed option. The piers-which anchor the ends of the arch-are also unobtrusive to the eye. Small in farm, they make a very small "footprint"on each end of the bridge. The lighting will also offer the users maximum security,while keeping consistent with the design's low profile objective for the neighboring properties The lights will be hidden within the structure,causing low level illumination for the bridge users. Security lighting will be installed under both June 10, 2003 Board of Supervisors Design of the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing of Treat Blvd. Page 4 ' ends of the bridge-which will be controlled so as not to cause any glare impact on neighbors such as the John Muir Building The fourth scheme-the concrejUirder bridge option-will require a 4-foot deep deck.. This heavy deck line will lead to 45 additional''feet of ramp on each side of Treat Boulevard. Besides creating a thick, heavy line on the intersection, the concrete girder's form does not allow for transparency of any kind- thus preventing achievement of the main design objectives.The thick decks and longer on ramps would also position the users higher up and in the visualfield for a longer time. This height would also infringe upon the privacy of the John Muir Building occupants-since the bridge would allot full views into certain building areas. In conclusion, considerable efforts were made to explain the -many delicacies in the thinness, transparency and lighting of this structure to JMMD and their architect. The Design Team explained the project's aesthetics, received'public input and attended numerous meetings with JMMD present. The arch bridge option- colored to match its existing natural context- can appear as a lattice work, thus meeting both the transparency and minimal mass criteria to assure the lightest impact on the neighboring John Muir Building and intersection. Contra Costa Sanitary District: The Contra Costa Sanity District(CCSD)submitted a letter in response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The CCSD concerns'expressed in a letter focus on construction of the 'bridge within their'easement and adjacent to the existing 60-inch sewer line and the proposed 60-inch sewer line. The CCSD proposed three possible approaches to mitigating this potential'conflict: l)Land the bridge on the west side of Jones Road... 2)eliminate Jones Road... and 3) land the bridge 5 to 10 feet to the west. Landing the bridge on the west side of Jones would require the trail users to cross Jones Road at a curve. While the traffic on Jones Road is significantly less than Treat Boulevard, the introduction of a new at-grade crossing in this location would diminish;the opportunities to improve safety for the trail users, and would take trail users off the iron Horse Corridor to a non-contiguous area. The elimination of Jones Road was not considered as Jones Road provides access to the properties on the block bounded by Jones Road, Oak Road and Treat Boulevard'and is an alternative to bypass the Oak Road/Treat'Boulevard Intersection. Landing the south ramp of the bridge further to the west would require the elimination of an additional lane on Jones Road. This lane reduction would be in addition to the dedicated right turn lane that is to be:eliminated. Secondly,the shift to the west would potentially conflict with the transit easement that has been established in anticipation of'a future transit line, The CCSD's concerns will be addressed by the design of the Iron Horse Trail Bridge over Treat Boulevard. The CCSD's stated objective is to continue to safely operate and maintain the 60-inch sewer and build,operate,and maintain the proposed 66-inch sewer. These objectives can be met by designing the foundations of the bridge such that the existing facilities are avoided and the future excavations and maintenance of the existing and new facilities does not require extraordinary means on the part of CCSD. There are several possible solutions to this including,: 0 the use of bridge structure as opposed to retained embankment. This will concentrate foundations at single column locations and reduce the at-grade footprint of the bridge. 0 the use of single column continuous drilled shaft foundations that extend well below the current or proposed CCSD's pipes, thereby eliminating the need to``shore the bridge during trenching June 10, 2003 Board of Supervisors Design of the trop Horse Trail Overcrossing of Treat Blvd. Page 5 0 incorporate CCSD approved provisions in the construction drawings and specifications and provide on-situ supervision of the bridge foundation construction to prevent damage to CCSD's facility's.. The bridge design team will continue to work closely with the District during the design and development stage to assure that the District can maintain safe and uninterrupted operation of the existing sanitary sewer facilities and the;,anticipated new facilities in the Corridor. Other Comments. One of the property owners (Altman) adjacent to the south 'ramp has expressed concerns about privacy. The rear portion of their residence is adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail As proposed the at-grade sidewalk and landscape strip,totaling 20 ft.in width,would remain in place,while the bridge ramps will be constructed to the west of the sidewalk. Since the ramp will parallel the property approximately 20 ft.west for approximately 50 ft.at a 1:20 slope,the point of the ramp that is abreast of the'JMMD/Altman property line at 2.5 ft. above grade.' The existing screening is provided by a six ft. high masonryfence, tall equipment box on the JMMD property, an accessory building at the rear of the residential property and existing trees on the Altman property. The property owners desires additional screening at the corner of the property,where there is a'gap in the tree screening. Additional screening can be provided with the planting of another tree (approximately 24-inch box) in the rear of the residence's property or one—two ft.high addition to thetopof the masonry wall. It is recommended that staff work with the property owner to find a solution that provides the requested screening and is aesthetically acceptable for the area. The Sierra Club also submitted a May 12,°2003 letter concerning the alignment of the bridge and their desire for the bridge to be a straight line. The bridge has been designed to land in the most eastern edge of the planned Iron Horse Greenspace to make better use of the cgreenspace area, provide a more visible bicycle/pedestrian interface,and to eliminate blind spots on the east side of the bridge created by the landing. A: straight alignment would bisect the>greenspace'area and result in conflicts with pedestrians using the area. These conflicts are reduced by placing the landing and trail to the east. In addition, site planning of the landing and eliminating blind areas will be a'better deterrent for criminal activity than police patrols of the less visible areas. On May '14, 2003 the County Grand Jury issued its Report No. 0306, which, among other things, recommended that the County not proceed further with plans to build the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing of Treat Blvd., citing concerns regarding costs and the appropriateness of using redevelopment funds. The Board of Supervisors received the Grand Jury Report on June'3, 2003, and referred it the County Aclministratorfor response. The Sierra Club has provided an additional letter dated May 27,2003 stating their position that the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing should be built,and"strongly urge(d)"the Board:of Supervisors to reject the Grand Jury recommendation. The use of redevelopment funds for the overcross'ing is eligible under California law; CONSEgUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION If action is delayed, the Oak Road right-turn portion of the project would not be constructed and completed in advance'of the bridge. If action is negative, the entire project would not be constructed. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 & DA June 10, 2003 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered both the approval of the design of the iron Horse Trail overcrossing of Treat Boulevard and the Oak Road right-turn lane project and the adoption of the amendment to the Pleasant Hill Bart Station Area Specific Plan(SP2002-02) related to the Oak Road overcrossing of Treat Boulevard,Pleasant Hill Bart Station area. Jim Kennedy,Redevelopment Department presented the staff report and recommendations.Mr. Kennedy advised the Board that there was a modification to the itern#7 of the Bridge Design (D.3)to read "Authorize the Public Works Director to proceed with the final design a,f'the Ironhorse Trail<Overcrossing and the Oak Grove right turnproject and direct the Public Works director to return to the Board of Supervisors for approval of plans and authorization to advertise for bids for the respective projects."Maureen Toms, Community Development Department and John Eddy presented a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project. The Chair then opened the public hearing to receive testimony on both D.3 &D4. The following;persons addressed the Board: Gerard(last name illegible), 2657 Cherry Lane, Walnut Creek, Jean Watts,Valley spokesman Bicycle Club, 4087 Carson Street,Concord; Roger Goodwin, 515 Palms Drive,Martinez; Gene Demar, 1313 Gragg Lane,Concord; Peter Duncan, '112 Roble Road,Walnut Creek; Mark Armstrong,John Muir/Mt. Diablo Health System,P.O.Box 218,Danville; Stan Hansen, CCCIH Trail Committee, '1201 Monument Blvd,933, Concord David Gold,Contra Costa Centre Association,Morrison&Foerster, 101 Ygnacio Valley Road,Walnut Creek, Kathleen Nimr, Sierra Club,2204 Olympic Drive,Walnut Creek Pat O'Brien,Renaissance Club Sport,2805 Jones Road,Walnut Creek;` Robert Raburn,East Bay Bicycle Coalition, 3763 Woodruff,Oakland; Don Mount, Colony Park Neighbors Association, 1309 Gregg Lane,Concord; D . Yehda Sherman,East Bay Bicycle Coalition, 1158 Glen Road,Lafayette Ken Alm, Meyer&Nave Law Firm,on behalf of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, 555 12'h Street,'Suite 1500,Oakland; Jamie Perkins,East Bay Regional Park District, 2950'Peralta Oaks Court,Oakland The Chair then closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for further discussion. Supervisor DeSaulnier then moved to adopt staff s recommendations on D.3 with direction to staff to continue to work with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Jahn Muir/Mt.Diablo Medical Systems on developing the final design and regarding item DA, directed staff to return to the Board of Supervisors with the final proposal by Millennium. The Board then took the following action; Page 2 Item D3 &D4 June 10, 2003 D.3: CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND the MitigatedNegative Declaration prepared for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-turn lane is adequate and has been prepared consistent with State and County CEQA guidelines, ADOPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ironhorse Trail Overcrossing and Oak " Road right-tum lane; APPROVED the County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Design of the Iron Horse Trail; ADOPTED the preferred Arch Design and.DIRECTED staff to continue to work with Central Contra Costa Sanitary'District and John Muir/Mt.Diablo Medical Systems on developing the final design; ADOPTED the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Iron Horse'Trail Overcrossing and Oak Road right-tum lane project; DIRECTED the Community Development Department to file a Notice of Determination and pay the filing fees to the County Clerk; AUTHORIZED the Public Works Director to proceed with the final design of the Ironhorse Trail' Overcrossing in the Oak Grove right turn project; and DIRECTED the Public Works Director to return to the Board of Supervisors for approval of plans and authorization to advertise forbids for respective projects. D:4 CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted(November 5, 2002)for the Specific Plan Amendment(SP2002-02)and Approval of the Planned-Unit District Rezoning (RZ023116) and Preliminary Development Plan(DP023041)is adequate and has been prepared consistent'with State and County CEQA guidelines; and DIRECTED the Community Development Department to return to the Board of Supervisors for reconsideration the County Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and approval of the proposed Amendment related to the elimination of the Treat Blvd.Pedestrian overcrossing at Oak Road. Resolution No. 17—2003 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE' OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE TREAT BLVD//JONES ROAD (IRON HORSE TRAIL) OVERGROSSING AND THE RIGHT-TURNLANE ON OAK ROAD TO TREAT BLVD: IN THE PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA OF CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. WHEREAS, on March 17, 2003, the Contra Costa County Community Development 'Department issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Treat Blvd./Jones Road (Iron Horse Trail) Overcrossing and the Right-turn lane on Oak Road to Treat Blvd. Project; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, the project was scheduled for hearing before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 22, 2003; at which time an opportunity to provide testimony was given, and after having fully reviewed,considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that on April 22, 2003, the County Planning Commission: 1.) Has'considered the Mitigated:Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring prior to forwarding;'a recommendation; 2.) Recommended to the Board of Supervisors, the Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 3.) Recommended to the Board of Supervisors the approvalofthe Arch bridge design for the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road(Iron Horse Trail)Overcrossing,and 4.) Recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval the right-turn lane project at Oak Road and Treat Blvd. The decision of the County Planning Commission was given on Tuesday, April 22, 2003, by the following vote: AYES:' Commissioners— Terrell,Battaglia, Hanecak,Wong NOES:' Commissioners Gaddis ABSENT: Commissioners—Clark and Mehlman ABSTAIN: Commissioners—None I, Dennis Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, herby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on April 22,2003. ATTEST: i cam. Dennis Barry-Secretary of the County Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California, Agenda Item#2 CommunityDevelopment' Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY APRIL 22 2003 -7:00 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION CONTRA,COSTA COUNTY(Owneb and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY fAp2licanf), County File'#CP03-18: Treat Boulevard/Jones Road (Iron Horse Trail) Overcrossing and the Right Turn Lane on Oak Road to Treat Boulevard. The project site for the; overcrossing is located along Jones Road and the site for the northbound right-turn lane'onto Treat Blvd.is Oak Road at Treat Blvd.,near the Pleasant Hill BART Station,in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area of Central Contra Costa County. The project site is within the area of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. II. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the County Planning Commission; 'having considered the environmental documentation prepared for the project, forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as follows: A. Accept the environmental documentation prepared for the project as adequate, B. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program,'and C. Approve Bridge design for the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road(Iron Horse Trail)Overcrossing, and D. Approve the right-turn lane project at Oak Road and Treat Blvd. III. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN:The subject site is designated Public/Semi-Public and Office in the Contra Costa County General Pian:and Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. B. ZONING: The subject property zoned Planned-Unit (P-l)Zoning District. C. CEQA STATUS:A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the project on March 17,2003. The public review period ends on April'17,2003. D. NEPA STATUS: Information required for the completion of NEPA was forwarded to CalTrans on April 8,2003. Approval of the NEPA is pending. 1 IV. AREA DESCRIPTION The surrounding area consists of a mix of high-density housing, offices, hotel and neighborhood- serving retail uses. The project connects Subareas 13 and 16,as identified in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area is a unique area that provides many opportunities for achieving regional goals through the development of the site. The BART Station itself, which represents a substantial public investment, is an anchor for the area and is a people generator for a major public space and future housing, office and retail uses. fin additionto the regional transit access from BART,the site has excellent visibility and automobile access from 1-680 and Treat Boulevard,and pedestrian and bicycle access from the Iron Horse Trail. V. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site for the overcrossing is located along Jones Road and the site for the northbound right- tam lane onto Treat Blvd. is Oak Road at Treat Blvd., near the Pleasant Hill BART Station,in the unincorporated area of Central Contra Costa County. The project site is within the area of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. Surrounding land uses include the BART Station,office and medical administration buildings,parking lot for the Muller Veterinary Hospital,temporary BART parking lot(that is to be removed),and the Renaissance Club Sport Hotel and Health Club complex. The I-680 freeway is approximately two blocks to the west of the site. VI. PLEASANT HILL BART STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN: The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan contains policies regarding two pedestrian bridges across Treat Boulevard. One bridge was proposed to be aligned to cross Treat Boulevard on the east side of Oak Road. The Oak Road Pedestrian Bridge is included in Policy 4"(page 36)of the Specific Plan. Another pedestrian bridge across Treat Boulevard is proposed one block to the east at Jones Road.The alignment of the Jones Road bridge is on the Iron Horse Trail Corridor: The Jones Road (Iron Horse Trail Bridge)is included in Policy 7 of the Specific Plan. An amendment to the Specific Plan to eliminate the Oak Road pedestrian crossing from the plan was considered by the County Planning Commission in October 2002 and by the Board of Supervisors in November 2002. The Board deferred action on the Oak Road bridge until finther development proposals were brought forward. Staff intents to bring the,Specific Plan Amendment back to the Board with the design considerations for the Jones Road(Ironhorse)pedestrian overcrossing. VII. IRON HORSE TRAIL Following:the alignment of the former Southern Pacific Railroad corridor, the Iron Horse Trail currently extends 25 miles from Solano Way in Concord to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station bisecting the communities of Concord, Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek,Alamo,Danville, San Ramon, and Dublin. This paved multi-use regional trail provides a non-motorized transportation corridor,as well as recreation facility, linking parks, residential areas, businesses, school, and multi-modal 2 transportation centers,including a direct link into the Pleasant Hill,Dublin/Pleasanton BART,and is less than one-mile from the Walnut Creek BART Station. The trail function as the major spine trail in the Diable and San Ramon Valleys and provides direct links to three other regional trails,including the Contra Costa Canal Trail, the Briones to Mt. Diablo Trail, and the Las Trapas to Mt. Diablo Trail. These trails then link to additional extensive parkland and trail networks. Future extensions of the trail are planned through Pleasanton and Livermore to extend to the San Joaquin County line. The Iron Horse Trail is the East Bay Regional Parte District's(EBRPD)mostpopular facility. EBRPD estimates that the Iron Horse Trail carries one million user trips per year. In a Trail Use Study (Sumner 1997) conmmissioned by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, survey results indicated that more than 36% of trail users were utilizing'the trail for alternative transportation purposes while 54% specified using the trail for recreational uses. A similar study on the Delta De Anza Regional Trail(Summer 1998)in Eastern Contra Costa County,which serves the communities of Bay Point,Pittsburg,Antioch and Oakley(and will eventually connect with the Iron Horse Trail) indicated that 64% of trail users were utilizing the trail for alternative transportation purposes to shopping,recreation,school,work,friends,and links to transit. One quarter of those surveyed stated they use the trail to travel to school,work,or the Bay Point BART Station'. The Iron Horse Trail currently has a gap between Hookston and Mayhew Road,approximately a'half of a mile north of the Pleasant Hill BART Station. The Redevelopment Agency is presently in the process of clearing that portion of the Iron Horse Corridor cif improvements. The iron Horse Trail Gap Closure is expected to be installed in the summer of 2903. VIII.' IRON HORSE CORRIDOR GREENSPACE' An aspect of the land use program for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan is the creation of a public open space amenity on the eastern'edge of the Specific Ilan. This edge(a portion of the former Southern Pacific right-of-'way,now referred to as the Iron Horse Corridor),is presently used for temporary BART parking. The temporary parking':managed by BART was established in 1989 in the afters ath of the Lorna Prieta earthquake and later as a traffic mitigation measure for the Interstate 680/24 interchange project. Since the Interstate 584/24 interchange project is complete,the ternporary parking area is to be removed and the development of the planned greenspace/trail use of the property, as described in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan,is to proceed later this;year. The greenspace project's ect is located within the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way,from Treat Boulevard to the south'extending approximately 1,'100 north, adjacent to the 90-degree bend in Coggins Drive. The site is identified as Subareas 6 and 13 in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. The northern bridge alignment lands at the site planned for the development of greenspace. The greenspace is within the former Southern Pacific Dight-of-way,in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. The northern bridge alignment was contemplated and incorporated into the Greenspace design. IX. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project involves the construction of Class I Bicycle/pedestrian Bridge with ramps;over 3 Treat Boulevard at the intersection with Jones Road. Existing temporary BART parking on the north end of the overcrossing and the Jones Road northbound right,turn lane to Treat Boulevard would be removed. The bridge alignment within the northbound right turn lane provides separation from the John Muir Diablo Health Systems facility and preserves a stand of mature trees along Jones Road, Landing ramps would be constructed on Jones Road. The bridge overcrossing would connect with a realigned portion of the Iron Horse Trail on the north end and the existing trail alignment on the south end. A northbound right turn lane on Oak Road, located one block west of Jones Road, would be constructed to replace the dedicated right turn-lane used to construct the overcrossing right of wagon Jones Road. X. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Determination of a preferred design has been undertaken through an extensive multimedia public participation process that began in 2000. Because the initial community design program did not conclude with a consensus design,the Redevelopment Agency created a web-based preference survey too to further inform decision makers on design options. The web based preference survey which took place n January and February 2003,included four conceptual design options for the Ironhorse Trail overcrossing- the Railroad Truss,Cable-stayed Bridge,Arch Bridge,and Concrete Girder Bridge. Each of these options were described along with a summary,of engineering issues in a Summary of Design Options,November 22, 2002 (included herein as Attachment A). This summary of Design Options was part of the web-based preference survey. For reference, the proceedings of the 2000- 2002 Community Design Program are chronicled in Attachment B- Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program:Feasibility Study Report,December 1, 2000,and Attachment C-Pleasant Hill BART Bridge Overerossing Program Summary Report,June 24,2002. In addition to the Community Design process described above, the County sponsored a design Charrette for the Pleasant Hill BART Station:Property in early 2001. In addition to looking at the design of the BART property, the Charrette included the other planning issues within the BART station area. Several meetings were held to discuss the various aspects of the two overcrossings, including designs,alignments, and the need for two pedestrian overcrossings within a block of each other. Charrette discussions and a follow-up study determined that the Oak Road Bridge would not likely be used as much as the at-grade crossing. As discussed previously,the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors considered a request to remove the Oak Road Bridge from the Specific Plan. Several improvements to the at-grade crossing were examined for inclusion in the action,including the installation of a count-down signal at the intersection and changing the existing crosswalks to "ladder-style" crosswalks. These improvements have been incorporated into the Oak Road right-turn lane portion of the project. The web-based survey of the designs occurred from January 2, 2003 to February 28, 2003. Public announcements,including press coverage was provided. Individuals without access to the internet,or uncomfortable with this media were provided the option to express their preference in writing. All materials on the on the web-site were available and distributed in hard copy. Four designs were described and shown on photo simulations. Approximately 550 individuals provided their preference 4- of the designs and many included additional continents. Attachment D summarizes the comments received. Following is a tally of the preferences. Derr O hon First ChoiceF Second Third Choice Fourth Total Choice � Choice Points* Railroad Truss 155' 311 131 49 1:555 Cable-Stay 81 15611 86-11 3166][ 980 Arch — 16: 183 15511 26'' 1,557 ConcreteDI — 149' 77142 13K 1246 *Four points for each first choice,3 points for second,2 points for third,and 1 point for fourth.'' In addition to the process described above,the County received four expressions of preference from institutional entities-The City of Walnut Creek,the Walden District Improvement Association,the Contra Costa Centre Association, and the Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee. The City and Walden prefer the concrete girder design,while the Contra Costa Centre preferred the cable-stay. The Iron horse Corridor Advisory' Committee prefers the railroad truss design. Their<letters are reproduced in Attachment E. XI. STAFF DISCUSSION A. DesigLa Standards: Regardless of the bridge design ultimately selected for the bringe, it will be constructed according to California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)`standards. These standards set out the civil and structural engineering specifications and performance requirement of bridges in California. An independent engineering review will be conducted as is normally required for such structures in California. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will provide peer review of design specification. Seismic safety is an aspect of these specifications. The minimum vertical clearance to the underside of the bridge is taken as 16'-9" per Caltrans requirements for pedestrian overcrossing'structures over the traveled way of state roadways. Caltrans requires a screen with a minimum 8'-4":high on allpedestrian overcrossings to protect the roadway below. A combination pedestrian-bicycle railing is contemplated for the portions that are not above roadways. Consistent with the American with Disabilities Act(ADA),ramps with a continuous 110 slope(no landings)are incorporated in all four schemes. Some concerns have been expressed about the slope and bicycle speed. One way to address potential bicycle speed issues would be to require'bicyclists to dismount and walk across length of bridge'. Due to the length of the bridge overcrossing, bicyclists would find a requirement to dismount and walk difficult and an impediment to reaching their destination. Bicyclists would be unlikely to comply with this type of regulation. Enforcement'would'be very difficult for any public)agency, and is therefore not recommended by EBRPD', Trail users are not required to dismount on the Ygnacio Valley Rd. overcrossing. An appropriate trail width would allow for safe passing by trail.users utilizing the"call out ahead when passing"trail etiquette technique. With the proposed bridge crossing at 5%slope,speeding will be discouraged. A speed limit sign could be posted at either end with trail use information posted as well. The following design features have been incorporated to enhance safety for the public using the facility and the immediate surroundings. 5 • Embankments: the length of embankments have been minimized to reduce the amount of concealed areas created by the embankments. • Lighting:create a well-lit environment on the bridge and the areas under the bridge. • Handrails: conform to Caltrans specifications for pedestrians and cyclists, and incorporate screeningmaterial in as visually unobtrusive manner as possible.' • Pathway width:provide a wider path than the minimum requirement to permit a safe and comfortable pathway for cyclists and pedestrian users alike. • Permit passage of a maintenance vehicle(such as pick-up'truck)over the bridge. B. Alig=ent: The overcrossing roughly follows the current alignment of the Iron Horse Trail but also considers the proposed`Ironhorse Greenspace to be built on the north side of Treat between Jones Road and Del Hombre. The alignment is described below and is shown on Drawings SIS-1 to SK-4,pages 5,7,9,and 11 in Attachment A. • South of Treat Boulevard:the proposed alignment utilizes the existing right-tum lane of Jones Road The pathway and ramps have been pushed as far west as practicable. This location creates a buffer zone between the overcrossing and the properties on the east side of Jones Road. • Over Treat Boulevard:the pathway moves to the east by about 55 feet as one travels from the south side of Treat to the north side. Therefore,for all the options the main span is straight but with an alignment that angles to the east as it crosses Treat Boulevard. • North of Treat Boulevard:per the above discussion,this new angled alignment over Treat Boulevard places the overcrossing structure to the east of the planned Iron Horse Greenspace north of Treat Boulevard, consistent with the community's expressed desires and'incorporated into the final Greenspace design. In relation to existing conditions, the overcrossing is located east of the existing BART surface parking lot along Jones Road. The location of the north end of the ramp is consistent with the design'of the Greenspace pathways. The purpose of placing the north ramp easterly in the former Del Hombre Land alignment is twofold. First,this alignment reduces the amount of space within the Greenspace project that is not viable from public rights-of-way,thereby enhancing security;and second,the intersection of the Iron Horse Trail and the cross trail from Treat Commons/Honey Trail Condominium to the BART'property is placed in a location that can reduce trail congestions between BART patrons and through-trail users(a straight alignment would put the ramp landing very close to the location where pedestrian/bicyclists are waiting to cross Jones Road to enter the BART property). C. Utilities: In general, the four conceptual design options and their alignment avoid major underground utility relocations. Due to the new angled alignment that is consistent with the final Greenspace design, in the four options there is''a need to relocate a portion of the existing' overhead PG&E power lines that run along the Iron Horse Trail. The power lines would be re- aligned to be parallel with the proposed angled alignment such that they do not cross over the bridge structure. This is particularly relevant for the Railroad Truss, Cable Stayed, and Arch 6 structural options because the heights of their superstructures would conflict with the current location of the electric cables. D. Bridge:;Width: The width of the deck from inside face to inside face of railing is 10 ft. This is consistent with the typical width of the trail istelf when it is on-grade, and with that of similar overcrossings'such as the Yancio Valley Road Bridge in Walnut Creek. This width exceeds the minimum width required in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. From a trail and pathway capacity and level-of-service point of view,a I Oft.width consists of two 1.5 ft.wide clearance zones adj acent to railings,two 2 ft.wide pedestrian paths,and one 3 ft.wide cyclist path. In other words,a cyclist can pass two pedestrians walking side-by-side; The total capacity of the trail at level-of-service"C"is therefore estimated empirically at 2400 pedestrians per hour. Level-of-service "C" is normally defined as: "Sufficient area to freely select walking speed,!bypass othersin primarily unidirectional streams;; where cross'- and reverse-flaw exists minor conflicts occurs; walking speed is reduced". Given that in the best-case development scenarios for the area the expected pedestrian flows will be significantly lower than the calculated capacity at this level-of-service,it is expected that actual level-of-service will be higher than this. Thepathway provided can accommodate circulation of emergency and maintenance vehicles ifthe bridge is shut down for pedestrians'and cyclists during that time. Given that an alternate at-grade route exists along the same corridor(i.e.,the current at-grade crossing of Treat Blvd.),a temporary shut down can be accommodated,albeit with some inconvenience to facility users. The up-front cost to eliminate future occurrence'of such inconveniencies is proportional to the any additional pathway width to be considered. In addition, 'there may be aesthetic and planning impact considerations to accommodate any additional width. E. Existing At-Grade Crossing: The existing at-grade crossing'at the Treat Blvd./Jones Road intersection would be retained after completion of the overcrossing. Retraining the crossing would be more convenient for pedestrians originating from the office buildings close to the intersection. Some comments have suggested that direct access to the bridge be provided for at both ends of the overcrossing at the northeast and southeast corners of the Treat Blvd./Jones Road intersection. To provide such acess would vcompel the project to include ADA .Accessible access at these corners,which would mean both stairways and an elevator system. Inclusion of a elevator system would' have significant capital and maintenance cost implications. Elevators arenot recommended. The;physical space required for both a stair element and elevators was studied during the feasibility study portion of the process and determined to be too onerous for the project. P. Vandalism Protections: Protection against vandalism/graffiti/assault climbers is provided at the bridge;and surrounding areas by adequate,lighting. Vandalism'should'be minimized by the fact that the perpetrators would be highly visible to passing public who could notify local authorities. Anti-graffiti finishes to apply to the structure to allow the easy clean-up should the bridge be painted by vandals are being explored.The type of finish will likely be driven by the final choice of bridge structure(concrete vs.steel).Additionally the County Public Works Department runs a Graffiti Hotline where the public can call in and leave a message as to the location and type of graffiti, this message is forwarded to the County Public Works Maintenance crews to clean/replace'a signor paint over the graffiti. 7 Climbers will be hindered by the installation of standard,Caltrans chain link railing.This railing will be a minimum of eight feet above the bridgedeck and is comprised of a one inch diamond pattern as opposed to a standard two inch cyclone fence. This smaller mesh makes climbing the structure much more difficult: G.' Construction Impacts: Construction of the overcrossing:is likely to result n traffic impacts to commuters and noise impacts to the residents. To reduce noise impacts,the initial study recommended limiting construction to the hours of 7:30 AM—5:00 PM Monday-Friday and requiring construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: • All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition; • Use 'quief gasoline-powered compressors or other electric..-powered compressors wherever possible. ■ Retain a"disturbance coordinator to monitor construction activity and to identify'additional - mitigation measures as needed,consistent with the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The construction of first,the new right turn lane on Oak Road,and subsequently the access ramp and Iron Horse Trail overcrossing within the existing right turn lane on Jones Road,would result in short-term, temporary impacts on pedestrian and vehicular'circulation. On each of these streets, the temporary closure of at least one additional lane may required during the respective construction periods to provide space for the construction activities, staging of equipment, temporary construction vehicle parking,and storage of construction materials. For Oak Road,the temporary closure of the existing combination through/right turn lane may be four to six weeks in duration. For Jones Road, the through lane adjacent to the existing right turn lane may be temporarily closed for a considerably longer period. To mitigate circulation impacts,the initial'study recommends the following measures: Scheduling ■ Scheduling of construction shifts or lane closures so that the majority of construction related traffic/circulation disruption occurs outside of peak commuting hours; ■ Scheduling, to the maximum extent possible; delivery of construction materials outside of peak commuting hours: Public'Notification ■ Require construction contractor to give notification to public agencies and to the general public to alert them in advance'of lane closures; ■ Changeable Message Sign(CMS)boards or other appropriate notification devices shall be installed at least`3 consecutive days prior to a lane closure;'' ■ As needed, warning signs shall be 'placed''at appropriate locations in advance of the construction operation to alert traffic within the affected streets,and cones or other approved devices shall be placed to safely channel pedestrian and vehicular''traffic. Safe Crossings. 'Vehicular Access,'and Barriers ■ Prior to the construction of the dedicated new right turn lane on Oak Road,the construction contractor shall temporarily reroute pedestrian traffic to the west side of Oak Road,the east 8 side of Oak.Road shall be temporarily`,closedto pedestrian access, • At least three traffic lanes (northbound left, through or right turn) on Oak Road shall be maintained; • During construction of the access ramps and overcrossing of Treat Boulevard at Jones Road, the construction contractor shall temporarily reroute pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the west side of Jones Road, the east side of Jones Road shall be temporarily closed to pedestrian access; • At least one combination left turn/through northbound traffic lane on Jones Road shall be maintained; • The construction contractor shall place and maintain barriers and warning devices necessary for safety of the general':public': ■ Flagmen shall be provided as necessary to control the flow and circulation of traffic and pedestrian crossings. Maintenance of Existing Building Access ■ The construction contractor shall maintain'the existing pedestrian access to the Treat Btulevard/Jones'Road building entry to the Jahn Muir Health Center Administrative Offices at 1400 Treat Boulevard. The mitigation measures for noise and the measures for traffic circulation conflict. Each of the design alternatives require construction crews' to work on the actual installation of the overcrossing directly over Treat Blvd.during evenings and weekends to avoid closure of Treat Blv&during pear periods and other traffic'impacts. Staff recommends that the noise mitigation measure be modified'to allow work outside the listed hours,provided neighbors are notified with a schedule. H. 'PROJECT COSTS: :: According to design estimates,the cost ofthe project could varybetween$2.68 million and$3.$9 Million,depending on the design selected. The funding.earmarked for this overcrossing are not County General Fund Revenues,but rather are specific revenues(including Redevelopment'Tax Increments,developer fees,Measure C Transportation Funds, and federal transportation funds) which must be used for transportation and infrastructure projects. These funds are not available for the funding of schools,police, and other general governmental purposes. The Iron Horse Trail'Overcrossing,is provided for in the Adopted Specific Plan for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. The Overcrossing is a component part of the circulation element of the Pleasant Hill'BART',Specific Plan, which emphasizes activities and projects, which facilitate alternative mode(pedestrian,bicycle,transit,but,etc.)access to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area. The Environmental Impact Report'prepared at the time the County was considering the Pleasant Mill BART Specific Plan indicated that a significant fraction of vehicular trips could be %converted into alternative modes if a program of enhancements'such as the proposed Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing were provided.' I. ;COLOR; The choice of color is ultimately an aesthetic one. Lighter colors make the structure standout more from its surroundings, whereas darker colors tend to make the structure blend into its 9 surroundings. Public comment suggests a preference for,a preference for a darker color,however that was not unanimous. XII:, CONCLUSION The Community Development Department recommend the Planning Commission forward a bridge design recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors: In formulating its recommendation, the Commission may wish to consider the following staff observation/recommendations: 1. Design selections-Over 73%of the first place votes went to a design that makes a statement, i.e.,either the railroad truss,arch,or cable-stay options. This suggests that a strong majority if the public wants a design choice. The cable-stay received by far the lowest support and tended to receive the most negative comments. Therefore,the two design choices that would seem to be available are the railroad truss and the arch. Many commenters seemed to treat these two choices interchangeably,e.g.,comments were made in support of both the arch and the railroad truss because they"were similar"to the Ygnacio Valley overcrossing. Both the railroad truss and the arch design are suggestive of the railroad heritage,although the railroad truss may have a stronger connection in this area. Comments tended to be split as to whether the Treat Blvd.overcrossing should be different than the Ygnacio Valley Road overcrossing, some feeling the two are different places therefore the designs should be different, others feeling a;common theme was appropriate. Staff recognizing that the choice is ultimately an aesthetic one and not a technical one. Therefore subjective, not technical/objective considerations control. It is staff's recommendation that an arch design be selected,because the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area is characterized by high quality and distinguished design and has developed identity. 2. Costs—The bridge costs do vary among the designs; Based on best available information at this time,the County has sufficient funds to move forward on any of the four designs choices. Cost is not a constraint in design choice. 3. Color-The choice of color will be an important one. The predominance of opinion suggests a darker color so that the facility blends in to the surroundings to a degree. The street light and public signage program for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area is a dark forest green, which staff recommends be retained. 0 � �` - 10 W w d a04 0 + Sp Tc 001 LID SOS w a of ah w Z' m z' zm r= r T p o o cv n szn m ;< z rri m M �_ 0 O3c m v' Z z a m; a c a 0 m � ° ' 21 Z c w o z a CD Ch 4h C 40 H o o � i 08 3v t„ •,� A O QQ b v i o o � 'y ,, c a; a gid ' °0 So ' ' tII S, Me 1:$.t ' . T, At* S v tipW , ' .VA �' �+ Ila- 0 jo, i1h v o + c % v A,a � wt 1 �A 0,�' %A� • G1 � r G%' i '� 0 Iwolot a OQ Or "� ,,�-+� t►a r++�+ �y,,,�� e+ � co ren P� S'" t�' Or1o. O 5 �; �* S tf Ito n • -�' n ` ' Cf iD fir► FO dji' riw{y +C riga �, {, N " r , Utz. a W ID 100 voh 0 to w � c► . �� V7d 0 0 �. " g. v ;� Its f n ' s x 6 3 t- �� It 1. . p 30 ' P6tit IV UPI 01 car FU 1 114 �.� o ' < whoS aj z p C"� t ;i .�'� ' cis 00 IA cktoo og Pft 11, c� buts # � �+ yrs'. i•S� �"�.. 1 { k 4 $ f C! L.' A s ..r All IL . MQ ' roe Its tr 1 ts M W fl0 ' V4t k 3 3 1 � g w r in 0• . rx �• : to � t � " Ila SA an ria I- � Ks °# or wit o VOWtsl fi: 1 F d. i,il � f 4, th t3r �" • i • rA v ... y VA g QQ v 7, f. - ' OR ice FnH � w - tcl c Al. 3 � m40 ro a FL so Im t y'�. � � � �. � � � � '.•� ��T, v� �- a' fit, ' �. ,� � ��Q 4t - 11 Or 0 A 4y r � c € IN a } a k ! c 3 'W r .w � m7 € 7i o M e�km1L W • • go 00 ** sn w. fin' ... 54 fl uaP. ` v` s 2D' h3 1 a t "^"� ms's ca Q Prm m 1 NMIk N i coVal Sat ig la�. . w ..3 ..d Attachment B Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hilt BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program Feasibility Study Report December 1, 200 ARUP Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hits BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program Feasibility Study Report December 1, 2000 ARUP Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program Feasibility Study Report Ave Arup&Partners Callfornia Ltd 901 Market Street,Suite 250, San Francisco CA 94103 Tel+1415 957 9445 Fax+1415 957 9096 www.arup.com Job number 31646 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program CONTENTS Pa9e 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 INTRODUCTION 2 3 THE`PROGRAM 2 4 REPORT STRUCTURE 3 5 COMMONENGINEERING ISSUES 3 5.1 Vertical Clearance 3 5.2' Screening 4 5.3 Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) 4 6 JONES ROAD 5 6.1 Right-of-Way 5 6.2 Pathway Geometry 5 6.3 Ramps 6 6.3.1',' Ramp Structural Systems' 8 6.4' Utilities 8 6.5 Adjacencies 8 6.5.1 Property Owner Issues on the East Side of Jones South of Treat Boulevard 9 6.6 The Schemes 9 6.6.1 Rolling Hills 10 6.6.2 Railroad Arch 12 6.6.3 Cable-Stayed 13 6,7 Public Opinion 15 7 OAK ROAD 15 7.1 Visual Compatibility with the Jones Road Crossing 15 7.2 The Oak Road Scheme 16 8 THE PROXIMITY OF THE JONES AND OAK ROAD BRIDGES 16 9 COSTS 17 9.1 Iron Horse Trail Ramps 17 92 Iron Horse Trail Main Span 18 9.3 Iron Horse Trail Utility Relocations 18 94 Oak Road 18 9.5 Other Construction Costs 18 9.6 Total Costs' 19 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 19 11 NEXT ENGINEERING STEPS 19 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 ............. ........... ....... ........... .......... ............. .............. Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/.Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program 12 CONCLUSION 20 APPENDIX A-Public Meeting#1 APPENDIX B -Public Meeting#2 APPENDIX C-Public Meeting#3 APPENDIX D-Construction Cost Summaries Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART"Pedestrian/Bicycle Overerossing Community Design Program 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Two sites for pedestrian/bicycle over-crossings on Treat Boulevard were identified in the Pleasant HillBART Station Area Specific Plan'.at Oak Road and at Jones Road. The Oak Road crossing would provide a pedestrian link between the fully developed parcels within the block bounded by Treat Boulevard,Jones Road and Oak Street to the south and the planned development on the existing BART parking lot to the north. At Janes Road thecrossing will separate Iron Horse Trail cyclists and pedestrians froth the Treat Boulevard corridor. Contra Costa County's Redevelopment Agency appointed the design team of Ove Arup+& Partners,MacDonald Architects and Moore,lacofano and Goltsman,Inc.to undertake community design program aimed at gaining a consensus for the aesthetics and amenities of the overcrossing facilities. Three public meetings were held between June and October of 2000. The meetings progressed from soliciting the public's goals and general preferences to their commenting on specific designs and voting to establish a ranking of the final schemes. Meeting notes,comments cards,and wall graphics were converted into summary reports. As the developers formulate their plans on each side of Treat Boulevard,the environs around the proposed Oak Street crossing will undergo unknown but significant changes. These developers are expected to fund the design and construction of the teak Road Bridge. With the architectural unknowns and the eventual'direct involvement of the developers,the design team created an indicative scheme for the public and devoted the bulk of the design effort towards the Jones Road crossing. The indicative design at Oak is a steel vierendeel truss that spans from stair and elevator towers at each end to a center support in the Treat Boulevard median.,The rough construction cost of the structure is$1.09 million. The iron Horse Trail over Treat Boulevard requires ramps for cyclists and the disabled to reach the bridge deck. Long linear ramps were selected over corkscrew or switchback ramps due to the many utilities,easements,and space constraints in the area. The trail alignment was also moved west to provide greater separation from the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems Systems facility and to preserve a stand of mature trees along Jones'Road. This shift will take the right turn lane on Jones Road accessing eastbound'Treat Boulevard. As an alternative to taking the lane,the road could shift to the west by taking advantage of on easement on the property fronting the south side of Jones Road.'' Three designs were presented to the public;a two span concrete girder bridge known as "Rolling Hills",a single span steel bowstring truss referred to as the"Railroad Arch"and a single tower steel Cable-stayed bridge. Two votes were held with the audience in the final public meeting. The first vote was immediately after a presentation of the three designs;the second was after an open discussion of the designs amongst the audience and with the design team. The Railroad Arch von the first round of voting by a considerable margin over the second place Rolling Hills and third place Cable-stayed schemes. In the second vote the Rail option was still the,leader but the margin of victory shrank with the Cable-stayed corning in a close second and the Rolling Hills option sinking to a distant third. The Cable-stayed scheme attracted support as the public gained more information and comfort with the design. Rough design and construction costs were generated for the Railroad Arch and the Cable-stayed schemes. The rail bridge is estimated to cost$2.26 million and the cable-stayed is$2.43 million. There is some urgency to advancing the design as certain funding`;sources have sunsets. Recommendations for work that can start without selecting the final'scheme include site survey with utility locations,geotechnical exploration,'right-of-way`investigations,and some civil engineering tasks. Page 1 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December t,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program 2 INTRODUCTION In response to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan,the Centra Costa County Redevelopment Agency selected Ove Arup&Partners in association with MacDonald Architects and Moore,Iacofano'and Goltsman Inc.to complete the Pleasant Hill BART Overcrossing Community Design Program. This report summarizes the engineering findings and the community's input to establish the feasibility and form of pedestrian bridges crossing Treat Boulevard at Jones Road and at Oak Road. Figure 1 is a site plan showing the locations of both crossings.; 1 TR_At t 'tRE4T SL' 7REAFI LV c f' + E 1r y.r Figure I -�Site Plan 3 THE PROGRAM Solicitation of community input included meetings with representatives of Contra Costa County,citizens of Pleasant Hill,the consultants designing the Iran Horse Trail Improvement Plan, local property owners,BART, and the East Bay Regional Parks District. Page 2 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill SART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program Three public meetings were held to gain an understanding of the stakeholders preferences, goals and concerns. The meetings focused on the following: Meeting#1 The meetings goal was to educate the stakeholders on the geometric requirements of a pedestrian overcrossing and to document general preferences and concerns for the crossings''form. -'.The design team provided site plans depicting possible ramp configurations for bringing the Iron Horse Trail up and over Treat Boulevard. Indicative computer simulations were shown to provide the stakeholders with a sense of the bridges height over the roadways and the visual implications of the safety screening required for pedestrian crossings over roadways. Pedestrian bridge examples were displayed for generating discussions. Discussion points and comments were recorded. Meeting#2 Three cough concepts were presented for the Iron Horse Trail:Crossing at Jones Road: • the simple form of a concrete girder • reference to the rail heritage of the trail with'a steel truss • the visual statement created by a cable-stayed bridge Discussion paints and comments were recorded:' Meeting#3 Refined images of the three'options from Meeting#2 for the Iron,Morse Trail bridge and a new option at Oak Road were presented. The audience was initially polled following the presentation and once again following the open discussion. Discussion points and comments were recorded.' 4 REPORT STRUCTURE This report will first address the engineering and site issues that were identified during the study both from research and from stakeholder input.. The evolution of schemes will follow and include select feedback from the meetings. Costs,recommended future work,and conclusions will finish the main body of the report. Appendices A through C contain the full text of the Public Meeting Summary Reports#1 through#3,respectively. Appendix D contains a summary of the construction cost estimates based on these very schematic designs. 5 COMMON'ENGINEERING ISSUES Pedestrian bridges at the Oak Road and Jones Road locations share some common issues that will impact their design. These will be discussed first followed by issues specific to each location. 5.1 Vertical Clearance The minimum vertical clearance over Treat Boulevard is taken as 1b'-0". This clearance is typical of main routes throughout the State. Figure 2 is a schematic representation of how minimum vertical clearance is defined. Page 3 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,'2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hitt BARTPedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design, Program 1 20 16 feet: 2U 150feet Figure 2—Elevation Showing Vertical Clearance Note that the 16'=0"is to the underside of the finished bridge. With an allowance for approximately 2''-0"of structure,the surface of the pathway will be 18'-0". This is truly a minimal clearance. Typically an additional few feet of vertical clearance would be added to allow for construction scaffolding. The profile shown accepts that the bridge superstructure can be erected during a short period when Treat Boulevard is closed to traffic or that a temporary reduction in headroom is possible should construction scaffolding be required. The intent is to minimize the height of the deck to reduce the visual:impact and minimize the height the trail' users must clirnl . Closure for a pre-assembled bridge might be 12 hours and reduced headroom durations for a bridge built on-.site would be in the,4 to 8 month range. 5.2 Screening The State of California Department of Transportation requires a screen 8'feet 4 inches'high on all pedestrian crossings to protect the roadway below. With holes no larger than one inch by inch,the screens prevent large pieces of debris from falling onto the roadway and traffic. incorporating high,visually dense screens into a bridge design such that it is not the main visual design feature is always a challenge on pedestrian bridges.' 5.3 Americans with disabilities Act(ADA) The Federal Government requires that public and private facilities open to the public are accessible by all members of the population.ADA access can be to the form of ramps and/or lifts and elevators. Within reason and particularly where the facility is new,the ADA has been interpreted to also require that the access location is similar for disabled and non-disabled members of the population. The assertion is that disabled users should not have to travel greater distances to> access the same spaces as none.-disabled users. For the Treat Boulevard Crossings,the issue of similar locations would suggest that a'stair from the Treat Boulevard sidewalk up to the bridge would have:to be accompanied by a ramp or elevator accessible from roughly the same sidewalk location. The Jones Road crossing location will be used as an example of an unacceptable ADA.access location. If a stair were constructed at the Treat sidewalk,but the disabled had to travel down Jones Road to a ramp along the Iron Page 4 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1;'2000' Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program Horse Trail,"satisfaction of ADA requirements would be questioned. The longer route for the disabled would cause this scenario to be met with resistance. 6 JONES ROA® The following sections discuss the basic engineering,issues fundamental to a pedestrian/bicycle crossing over an active roadway. 6.1 Right-of-Way The existing Iron Horse Trail occupies,a portion of the old Southern Pacific Railroad right-of- way.' Over the years the 60-foot wide right-of-way has been dedicated to a variety of utilities. There is also a placeholder along;the right-of-way for a future transit corridor. Figure 3 is a plan showing the numerous easements. tr � v 1 _� 3 Figure 3—Detail'of Utility Easements within the Right-of-Way Due to the congestion in this corridor,the addition of the bridge will require moving some of the right-of-ways and their associated utilities. With these current and planned uses,there is a distinct need to minimize the ramp width along the corridor. Relief of the constrained right-of-way is available through an existing agreement with the property owners on the west side of Jones and south of Treat;Urban West and Leisure Sports. The County has an offer of dedication for land'fronting Jones at this location that can utilized. Possible uses could be the transit corridor,utility relocation and moving the lanes of Jones to the west to accommodate the new bridge on the east side of the roadway. 62 Pathway Geometry The typical Iron Horse Trail width is 10 feet of pavement with 2 feet of soft shoulder on each side.' This cross-section does vary at several locations around the Treat Boulevard area. One specific location is the 8 feet of sidewalk along the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems property. The bridge deck width chosen for the Jones Road crossing is 10 feet from inside face of railing to inside face of railing. This is consistent with the width of a similar overcrossing on the Trail,the Ygnacio Valley Road Bridge in Walnut Creek. Page 5 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MO December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Kilt BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program 6.3 Ramps Access to the bridge over Treat Boulevard will be provided by ramps suitable for combined bicycle and pedestrian usage. The Americans with Disabilities Act limits the incline ofpublic ramps to either: • I foot of vertical rise for every 12 feet of horizontal run with level landings required every 30 feet. or I foot of vertical rise for every 20 feet of horizontal run with no landings. required. Various geometries were assessed for the ramps. The options shown in Figures 4 and 5 are consistent for ramps using switchbacks that have a steeper incline and the associated landings'. These configurations minimize the length of the overcrossing facility in the North-South direction. The cast in terms of space for the shorter facility length is a wide footprint in the east-west direction. Z ..'." { JONES ROAD JONCS ROAD ✓ Figure 4'—Ramp Plan with Steep Inclines and Landings Page 6 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1;2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hitt BART Pedestrian/B cycle Overcrossing Community Design Program ;® Z - ' t JONES;.ROAD. JONES ROAD �YY Figure 5—Ramp Plan with Steep Inclines and Landings Having the'switchback configuration requires considerable area and consumes the greatest right-of-way width. Figure 6 is a plan of the ramps on the alternative ADA geometry: shallower slope)and no landings. This geometry creates a long footprint in the North-South direction (parallel to the Iron Horse Trail)and a minimal width in the East-West direction that is more compatible with the right-of-way constraints. or �ow�s soca so RAW Pun= ON&W i=am 17MM Figure 6--,,Ramp Plan with Shallow Incline and No Landings Page 7 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 ................ Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program The ramp configurations using switchbacks were not pursued for reasons of space as discussed above and with due consideration of trail user convenience. Switchbacks for cyclists are awkward to negotiate and require a significant reduction in speed. With the inclusion of pedestrians,the turns become even more problematic, 6.3.1 Ramp Structural Systems Starting from the base of the ramps as the trail leaves the relatively flat existing grades and climbs to the main bridge over Treat.Boulevard.:the trail will start rising on earth embankment. After a rise of roughly.3 feet,retaining structures in the form of cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls or precast mechanically stabilized earth walls will carry the trail to about 10 feet above finished grade. The remainder of the climb will be on a simple concrete or steel elevated structure until the trail reaches 18 feet above grade at the curb of Treat Boulevard. The main spans will then carry the trail over Treat. The length of the elevated portion of the ramps is a function of the vertical clearance below the structure. For safety and comfort,the design team chose to maintain 8 feet of clearance on the underside of the elevated structures. When the down slope of the trail encroaches on that vertical clearance,the elevated structure changes to a retained earth structure. The length of the ramps on each end of the main spans will be 350 feet. Comprising this 350 feet will be 150 lineal feet of elevated structure, 140 lineal feet of retained earth structures and 60 lineal feet of embankment. The bridge structures are shown in green and the retained earth and embank are shown in red in Figure 6. 6.4 Utilities As mentioned in the right-of-way section above,the pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing at Jones Road will involve adjustment of the structural supports and foundations to avoid utilities and/or utility relocation. For taller bridge configurations,there is also an overhead PG&E high voltage power line that must be accounted for in the design either through adjustments to the structure or relocation of the lines. One other utility at Jones is a vault located west ofJones near Treat Boulevard. If Jones were to be shifted westward to accommodate the pedestrian/bicycle bridge,this vault may come into play. The vault's depth,accessibility and its structural capacity would have to be assessed before determining whether Jones Road can be routed over the vault or if the vault would have to be moved. 6.5 Adjacencies Properties bordering the east side of the current Iron Horse Trail at Jones Road include the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems Office Building on the south side of Treat Boulevard and private residences further south. The exterior abovergrade fascade of the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems facility is 25 to 35 feet east of the existing 8' wide path and the residences are separated from the existing trail by a landscaping wall. Immediately west of the existing trail and still south of Treat is Jones Road and the Urban West property. The office building is set well back from the curb of Jones Road. On the north side of Treat the path runs along a parking lot for the Muller Veterinary Hospital to the east and through the easternmost portion of the BART Parking. Current County plans are to rr relocate this parking and convert the land to a respite area as part of the Iron Horse Corridor Green Space Project. The existing land uses are shown in Figure 7. Page 8 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program i Y4 � 5 Commerciol Resid��tiol JONES,ROAD Comrerc�ol Commercial y 4 Figure 7—'Properties Adjacent to tyle IronHorse'Trail at Treat Boulevard 6.5.1 Property Owner ts.6.0es o»the East Side of Janes South of Treat Boulevard Early in the study concern was raised by the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems Building that an elevated trail would impact their building aesthetically as well as functionally. Any bridge would serve as a marker for the building and at the same time would obstruct portions of the lower floors when viewed from the south. ='Security is also an issue.The trail users will be elevated with views into the facility at varying heights while'walking up the ramp. The mitigation ofthese concerns was to push the alignment as far west as possible. This creates a buffer using bout distance and the mature stand of deciduous trees that currently flank the east side of Jones Road. As one moves south to north along the trail,the proposed alignment shown in figure 6 moves west into the existing right turn lane of Jones Road. While this does cause the path to take a large cut through the easements,exercising rights to the easement just west of Jones can restore the total easement width. Security concerns can be further mitigated with a screen on the east side of the elevated walkway alongside of the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems building. Similarly,the homeowners immediate to the south of the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems facility had concerns about trail heights and privacy. These properties are currently screened from the trail by landscaping walls. The up-slope of the ramp would start about 70 feet south of the property line separating the John Muir Mount Diablo Health Systems property from the first private residence. With a slope of 1 font of rise to 20 feet of run,the path will be 3'-6"higher at the property line and falls off to existing ground thereafter.' 6.6 The Schemes During the first public meeting the public had an expectedly;,wide variety of opinions as to the overall configuration of the bridge. Preferred designs ranged from simple,subdued to complex, and showy. When the public was asked for possible themes,the principal one was the railroad heritage of the trail. Three concepts were presented to the public that captured the range of views the audience expressed. Page 9 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG- December 1,2000 ............. Contra Costa County Redeveloprnent Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestriart/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design PrDgram 6.6.1 Rolling Hills The first scheme,modeled in Figure 8, is dubbed Rolling Hills'.. Satisfying the portion of the public seeking simplicity was the goal of this structure. The prestressed concrete airders that flank the concrete deck also act as the barrier railing and support for the security screening. The trail user will walk along the deck in a smooth path depicted by Figure 2. Figure 8—Rolling.Hills Model The 'rolling' look to the barrier is actually an engineering feature.: Conventional prestressed girders(without the'rolling' profile)have cables draped within the concrete along a bridge length. If the concrete were removed,the drape of the cable would look much:like the drape of telephone lines over telephone poles. The rolling hills concept would reverse this geometric n relationship by having the cables run straight and have the concrete rise and NJ:along the length of the bridge. To keep the depth of the structure as shallow as possible,a center,column is placed in the median of Treat Boulevard. The median,however,is offset from the north-south alignment of the trail. The result is a curve to the east as the trail crosses over Treat Boulevard as shown in Figure 9. Page 10 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 ............. Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcr©ssing Community Design Program z MULTI SPAN ALIGNMENT I PAW 4= jam 110ja 4 ° rixMW xas guar rtAWN Figure 9—Dolling Hills Trail Alignment Architecturw expression in the concrete can include reveals that give the exterior surface the lofo of lVge sterne blacks: The rendering in Figure 10 depicts this architectural treatment. Screening support posts can be placed perpendicular to the top of the concrete girder that will create a fan effect to accent:the rolling hills. Light tubes in the parapet and/or up in the screening can rise and felt to compliment the girder profile. u; M e , Ley d ti Figure 1d_Ioilirtg Hills Rendering at Jones Road Supporting columns will cavy on with the stone block finish. These reinforced concrete columns will be founded on concrete pile caps supported by cast=in-place drilled hole concrete shafts or driven concrete piles. Page I'1 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART PedestrianlBicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program r Successful:concrete coloring or tinting is a challenge. The variability of the materials that comprise concrete contributes to the difficulty in creating uniform color. faint technologies for concrete have improved greatly over the past few decades. As with all painted surfaces'though, there is a long term maintenance issue that does not exist with plain concrete. 6,6.2 Railroad Arch To capture the railroad heritage of the Fran Horse Trail,a steel truss design was put forward. Twin trusses that support the trail deck are a combination of steel beams and cables. The truss has an arch;shape that approximatesa standard`Bowstring' truss with cables for diagonal elements. The bridge is remodel is shown in Figure 11 and rendered in Figure 12 and 13. rr l Figure 11 -Railroad Arch Scheme Model 3Y d Figure 12-Railroad Arch Scheme Rendering at Janes Road-Gold' Page 12 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design, Program ' - 1 t Figure 13-Railroad Arch Scheme Rendering at Jones Road. Brick One unique feature of the truss is the cantilevered elements extending beyond the end of the main span supports. This gives the structure a smoother,more contemporary profile. Lighting can be very dramatic with concealed lummares projecting light along the surface of the truss elements creating a glow to the structure. Most steel is painted for corrasion protection. A variety of calors are available and there is the opportunity to use different colors for particular elements. Single reinforced concrete columns at each end of the span could take rectilinear:form with minimal architectural treatment as shown in the rendering. Another option couldbe a pair of smaller columns at each end to give more of a railroad trestle look to the supports. For both column configurations the foundations would either be continuous drilled shafts or pile caps on piles: 6.x,3 Cable-Stayed Creating a structure that would appeal to those'stakeholders seeking a balder statement lead to the Cable-Staged scheme.' The steel superstructure carrying the pathway would be supported over Jones road by cables fanning out from a center towner. Thi tower envisioned is actually offset from ate bridge alignment and is composed of three steel tubes configured much like lifting derrick. The cable-'stayed',computer model is shown in figure IA Page 13 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART PedestrianfBicycle©verarossing Community Design Program F4 e}`' i Figure 14-Cable-stayed Model Aside from the visual impact of the offset tower,there is a benefit to the travelling public. With the offset,the tower is setback from the intersection. -'.This setback reduces the visual obstructions for drivers on Treat Boulevard as they travel through or loots to turn from westbound Treat to southbound Jones. Tension supported bridges are structurally efficient which permits the use of slender load bearing elements. The result is a structure light in weight and in appearance. Figure 15 is a rendering of the cable-stayed scheme that places the bridge in context with its surroundings. tl `<m'•t.ice. Figure 15 Cable-stayer! Scheme Rendering at Jones Road Page 14 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hili BART Pedestrian/Bicycle bvercrossing Community Design Program Lighting and coloring can be very dramatic on cable supported structures.'Properillumination and color selection can accentuate the cable elements,i the towers,and the thin lige of the deck in daylight and after sunset. Columns at each end of the cable-stayed span are shown as a `T'shape in the rendering... These columns will be reinforced concrete either continuous'with a'drilled shaft below or on pile and pile caps. The tower foundation will beta combination of compression and tension concrete piles supporting a shared pile cap. 6.7 Public Opinion The three schemes were refined and presented at the beginning ofthe third public meeting. Immediately following the presentation'and a short question and answer period,the audience was asked to rank the schemes according to preference. The votes were tallied and the results are shown in Table 1. The Railroad Arch was the favorite. After,this initial vote the meeting was opened up to comments,questions and discussions. The audience offered opinions,asked'additional questions,and discussed the schemes amongst themselves. To gauge any new sentiments,a second vote was taken and the results are in Table L This second vote shouted the cable-stayed option was gaining considerable support although the Railroad Arch remained the leading'scheme. Scheme First Vote Seco;d Vote Rolling Hills 41 26 Railroad Arch 49 4$ Cable-Stayed 35 43 T�l�l� 1 —i/cling F�esults IL OAK ROC The bridge at Oak Road will serve as a Iink between theL fully developed WL OL&L bounded by .Tones Road,Oak Road,and Treat Boulevard and the planned development of the existing BART parking area as part ofthe Specific Plan. In all likelihood,the bridge will connect directly to an elevated plaza area or entryway of the future building at the corner of Oak and Treat. Therefore usage is hoped to be primarily pedestrian and not cyclists. Pedestrian only traffic enables the designer to adopt a narrower width than mixed'-use facilities. Bight feet would be an adequate width for good pedestrian flow over the flak Road crossing. The developers on each side of Treat Boulevard will Undertake actual design and construction ofthe Oak Road crossing: In this study,the design team focused on developing an indicative design and soliciting the public's opinion. 7.1 Visual Compatibility with the Jones Road Crossing`' When asked to comment on the need for similar bridge configurations at Jones and Oak,Roads, ' the public did not seem to be of a particular opinion. Their concern was focused on the visual impact of having three bridges in a two-block stretch of Treat Boulevard. The compatibility of bridge Ltypes was a much smaller concern. Page 15 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MT( December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART PedesirianBicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program 7.2 The Oak Road Scheme The pronounced rectangular shapes in the Urban West property's architecture suggested-a similar geometry for the Oak Road Bridge. A vierendeel truss has just these features.The all steel structure has the advantage of not only carrying the walkway over the traffic but providing posts for the security screens and support for a'roof if desired. Stairs and elevators are shown at each end of the bridge for access from street level. Another possibility would be to extend the trusses further south to take advantage of the existing stairs and ADA ramps that access the Urban West/Leisure Sports properties elevated plaza. To the north,the stairs and elevators might be designed directly into the new development. Extending each end as:described would maintain some of the open feeling to the Treat Boulevard corridor. The minor draw back would be a deepening of the truss structure to span the additional distances. The rendering in Figure 16 shows the center support landing in the existing median of Treat Boulevard. To show the most visually confining condition,the end supports and towers are shown roughly eight feet from each curb on the north and south sides of Treat Boulevard. Note that the rectangular theme of the,structure is carried through to the elevator and stair towers. Figure 16-Vierendeel Rendering at Oak Road 8 THE PROXIMITY OF THE JONES AND OAK ROAD BRIDGES Many hundreds of feet separate the proposed locations of the two crossings. The public, however,did express a concern for Treat Boulevard developing a constrained feeling with two crossings added to the existing BART aerial structure just west of the Oak Road/Treat Boulevard intersection. The challenge for the design team was to take a photograph that would lend itself to rendering both bridges. In fact,the distance between the bridge sites and the mature trees along the median of Treat Boulevard made this task difficult. Figure 17 is an attempt to show both bridges in context looking east along.Treat Boulevard. Although almost imperceptible in the background,the Jones Road bridge shown is the Railroad Arch'Scheme. Only the north end of the Junes Road Bridge is visible in the distance. The rail Page 16 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle tivercrossing Community Design Program truss scheme was selected for this illustration as it has the greatest structural height at the end' supports versus the other two schemes. 11 WINES 1111111111, Figure 17 -Vierendeel Scheme at Oak Road with Janes Road Bridge in the Background There are likely to be vantage paints where the two structures are more prominent than depicted in Figure 18. The main information gleaned for this rendering is that the two bridges are quite,a distance apart with considerable visual obstructions within that distance. The true character and feel of the area will be better understood once the architecture of the properties on each side of Treat Boulevard is decided. The opportunity to shape an Oak Road'Crossing design that complements the new corridor will be best undertaken at that time.` 9 COSTS Itemized quantities are listed in Appendix D. These quantities and the associated costs are indicative of the very limited design at this feasibility'stage of the project. As the design progresses,the list of quantities and the costs will adjust towards a more accurate cost estimate. The 10%contingency is used at this stage to protect against the many unknowns that will be eliminated by advancing the design. 9.1 Iron Horse Trail Ramps= To focus the design effort on the most visible portion;ofthe overcrossing,the span(s)over Treat Boulevard,the ramps were considered to be similar for all three main span schemes. Elevated portions of the ramps are likely to be concrete decks on steel'or concrete girders supported by reinforced concrete columns,footings,and piles. An estimated cost per square foot is roughly $233 The retained structure and embankments will be around $$2 per square foot. Applying the square foot costs to the known structural lengths gives a subtotal cost of$1.03 million for the ramps. Page 17 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program 9,2 Iron Horse Trail !Main Span Cost estimates were formulated'for the two preferred'alternatives:the Railroad Arch and the Cable.Stayed schemes. for the Railroad Arch,the cesst is estimated around $3 7 per square foot and tlxe cable-stayed brldge costs are$320 per squame foot The schemes are of the'same length and width so the subtotal fore maid spans is$737,{}00 and$76q,OQ0 for the Railroad` Arch andlale�stayed,respectively, 9 Iron Norse Trait Uttlit- Rlocation Accurate tnappitig of the overhead high voltage lines along the Iron Horse Trail will be required to determine ifthe proposed bridge schemes sire in conflict with the lines` Por this study and estimate,a conflict has been assumed for the taller cable-stayed scheme. Iliscussians with PG&t suggest a cost of$106,0410 to fnove too poles,one on each side of Treat Boulevard. Relocating two polls shtutd enough ti>provide adequate clearance. Underground utility conflicts are more diff6ult to establishwithont a complete survey of the area. Such surveys would occur in the next phase of the deign process. The number of foundations and utilities'in the corridor for both schemes suggests$ ",tlOt}would be spent either in structural modifications to avoid theifaciWes oft relocate the facilities. 9.4 Oak Read Rough casts for the bridge structure as shown in the above rendering were calculated to be $677,000 which is$285,per square foot. This value assumes security screening but does not assume a roof. These costs do include the stairs and elevators at each end. 9.5 Other Construction Costs Smaller items that add to the cost include: • removing the curb and pavement in the right turn lane on Jones Road • rebuilding the curb for the new edge of Jones Road ► removing and reconstructing the curb in the median of Treat Boulevard • restriping the roadways • removing and reconstructing sidewalks after building the column foundations maintaining and protecting traffic during construction • relocating and adding signing and signaling • landscaping and irrigation • contractor mobilization The subtotal for these items is estimated at$123,004}for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge and $67,000 for the Oak Road Bridge. Page 18 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December i 2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program` 9.6Total Costs Further cost'breakdowns by construction item are listed in Appendix D. The following totals include S%escalation and 10%contingency for the very preliminary nature of the estimates. Iran Horse Trail Bridge $2,26 Million Rail $2,43 Million Cable-stayed Oak Road Bridge $1,09 Million Uierendeel 10 RECOMMENDATIONS Developing'consensus for something as subjective as'a bridge design is a challenge as demonstrated by the close margin between the Railroad Arch scheme and the Cable-stayed scheme. The democratic approach of ranking gave a slight edge to the Railroad Arch. Noteworthy is the fact that within the span of about one hour,the vote gap:',between these two schemes closed markedly. This trend would indicate that the public understands and is comfortable with the common steel truss and through;.discussion and education can develop the similarly strong attraction to the more unique cable-stayed design.' The decision as to which scheme is advanced is left to the BART Station Area Steering Committee and ultimately the Board of Supervisors. Positive reaction to both schemes and the public's willingness to listen and comment suggests that either scheme will be accepted and appreciated. t1 NEXT ENGINEERING STEPS There are several decisions,approvals and processes at the County level that must be completed in order to continue towards construction. Not the least of which is selecting the Iran Horse Trail Bridge Scheme. Some engineering work can begin prior to deciding the scheme and gaining all the approvals. The tasks include: • Complete site and utility survey resulting in detailed mapping of the project area • Geotechnical.investigations and Geotechnical Report to define'subsurface conditions and seismic hazard • Pre-schematic'design'of the transit line to assure sufficient right-of-way • Civil Engineering Design Following selection of the final scheme,all engineering and architectural efforts can move forward towards a final set of construction contract documents. Work towards that final bid package will include: • Civil Engineering Design • Bridge Engineering Design • Architectural Design, • Lighting Design • Utility easement re-negotiation Page 19 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 .......................... ...... ........... ....... ............... .......... Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Ricycle Overcrossing Community Design Program • Traffic Engineering for Construction Phasing and the final build condition 12 CONCLUSION Completion of this feasibility study represents thefoundation for a successful design project. That foundation is proactive community,involvement and the resulting community support. The public has been engaged and will continue to be engaged as the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing Project moves forward. With a close working relationship between the County,the Community, and the Designers,the Railroad Arch Scheme or the Cable-stayed Scheme can bring a recognized landmark to the Pleasant Hill BART Station area. By continuing n .1'ng this open design process,the finished crossing will be a positive reflection of the Community's aesthetic sense and design soP histication. Page 20 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program APPENDIX A - Public Meeting#1 Ands with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcro sing Program Community Meeting #! June 12.. 2000 ,summary Report Prepared by: Moore°lacofano Goltsman (MIG) Inc, 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 June 2000 Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BARTStation Bridge Overcrossing Program'' INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On June 12, 2000 Centra Costa County Redevelopment Agency held the first of two Community.Meetings to discuss plans and options for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program. The Specific Plan for the Pleasant Hill SART station area provides for overcrossings to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to the BART station, and to ether facilities in the station area. The locations of the proposed overcrossings are on TreatBoulevard at the intersection of Oak Road, and along the Iron Horse Trail alignment in the vicinity of Jones Road. The overcrossing at Oak Road will be for pedestrians use only, while the one at Iran Horse Trail will be designed for pedestrian and bicycle use. The Station Area Specific Plan provides for a community based design process for the"overcrossings. This Community Meeting was the first meeting in a series of two community workshops as part of this process. Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting, which was held at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Pleasant Hill. The meeting began with a welcome and introduction by Jim Kennedy, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Director. John Eddy of Ove ARUP and Don MacDonald of MacDonald Associates gave a presentation, which identified, options for the design of pedestrian bridges. After the presentation, there was a discussion of the major issues, opportunities and design elements related to the Pleasant Hill BART pedestrian bridges. Paul Tuttle of Moore, lacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc. facilitated the meeting, and Adena Friedman (also of MIG) recorded the discussion. During the discussion, the presentation was shown again, and meeting participants responded to the examples. This report summarizes the discussion at the Community Meeting and also captures the public input recorded during the meeting and from the Comment Cards. The summary is organized into the following sections, reflecting the discussion topics': • Bridge overcrossing issues • Opportunities • Design"Elements and Options ■ Image and Character Photoreductions of the wallgraphics from this meeting are;included in an appendix at the end of the report. Prepared by MIG, Inc Community Meeting 01 ♦ ,June 12, 2000 Page 1 Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Qvercross ng Program BRIDGE OVERCROSSING ISSUES Meeting participants identifiedissues related to the bridge overcrossing that should be addressed during the planning process and design of the facilities. Some prevalent themes emerged, including access to the bridges, safety and security, and the concerns of the neighboring residents and businesses. Additionally, meeting participants raised several questions related to the design of the bridges and the project schedule. Following is a summary of the major issues with the specific comments from the meeting participants: One or Two Bridges? Many workshop participants commented on the necessity of two bridges. Several participants suggested that the functions of the two bridges might be combined into one'bridge. ■ Construct only one bridge, at Jones and Treat. ■ Investigate the Y-design idea for combining the two bridges ■ One "great" bridge would be better for the community than two mediocre bridges ■ Allocate resources to build one bridge, rather than two ■ The bridge at Jones Road makes the most sense ■ There'Should be other more necessary pedestrian bridges'..in the area, such as a bridge to link Geary Road and North Main(rather than the one at Oak Road) ■ We are doing fine without any bridges Prepared by MIC, Inc Community Meeting#1 ♦,June 72 2000 Page 2 Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BART Stat>on Bridge Overcrossing Program Effected Residents and Businesses Nearbyresidents and businesses made several'suggestions and comments regarding minimizing the impacts of the bridges on their property. A major issue is maintaining the privacy and views of adjoining residents and offices. • The John Muir Center does not want direct access to the bridges • Do not remove the trees near the John Muir Center ■ Maintain the existing lawns, landscapes and sidewalks • The Jahn Muir Center is concerned with visibility and ti• privacy • Property owners are concerned with sightlines'and potential views into their rear yards • Safety and security are prime concerns Accessibility The purpose of the pedestrian bridge is to increase access to the Pleasant Hill BART station area. The second bridge is to provide safe bicycle access over Treat Boulevard along the Iron Horse Trail. Additionally, it is essential that everyone has comfortable, safe and easy access to the bridges.' ■ Ensure that the bridges are handicap accessible, including an elevator • Provide a pedestrian access diagram of the BART station • Recognize that the Iron Horse Trail does not just provide access to BART; it is also a regional trail • Provide essential pedestrian amass points from the street`level • Consider the number of stairs and the rise of the bridge in terms of accessibility Prepared by MIC, Inc Community Meeting 07 ♦June 12,;',2 00 Page 3 Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BARTStation Bridge Overcrossing Program Questions Raised ■ Do different bridge materialsaffect'noise'levels? • Not for pedestrians and bicycles ■ What is the timeline and construction schedule for the bridges? • A contract for construction will be in place in 2001, and construction will take place during 2002 ■ Will the existing pedestrian crossing be closed? • It is not yet decided, but if it does close hopefully the closing will positively alter pedestrian'and bike movement ■ Where is the access to the bridge from Treat? Is there a need for a signalized intersection at Jones Road? Additional Comments ■ Existing lighting will have to be moved to accommodate the bridges ■ The existing Treat/Jones crossing is dangerous ■ Not enough time has been allowed to design a bridge Prepared by MIG, Inc Community Meeting#1 ♦ lune 12, 2000: Page 4 Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BAR7'Stadon Bridge Overrrossing Program OPPORTUNITIES The bridge overcrossings in the Pleasant Hill BART station area present opportunities for creating a safe and accessible environment. Meeting participants discussed several ways to tape advantage of these opportunities, such as utilizing existing;rights-of-way on Jones, and considering using similar designs of other br dges;on the iron Horse Trail. Following are specific comments regarding bridge overcrossing opportunities: ■ Consider combining the functions of both bridges into one bridge ■ Pedestrian access on Treat Boulevard will encourage walking and BART usage ■ Utilize the right turn lame on Jones Road onto Treat for the bridge, this will take care of the concerns of views and privacyof the John Muir Center ■ Take advantage of existing rights-of-way on Jones, this will allow trees to remain ■ Provide ramps for access from Treat Boulevard ■ Consider using the design of the Iran Horse Bridge over Ygnacio Malley Road, rather than "reinventing the wheel"with a new design Prepared by M/4G, Inc Community Meeting#7 ♦June 72,'2000 Page 5 ...................................... ............ ............... ............ ............. ....................... ............................................... ............... Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program DESIGN CHARACTER After discussing issues and opportunities for the bridge overcrossings, meeting participants discussed potential design::elements for the bridges. Several thernes emerged from this'discussion.> Many meeting participants:emphasized a simple,: clean, elegant design that can be integrated into the existing,character of the area. Meeting participants also suggested the idea:of a design,that reflects a railroad image, which will help to make the bridges unique.to:this area of Pleasant Hill. The design team, John Eddy and Don MacDonald presented examples of pedestrian bridges that have been designed around the world. The design elements of some of these bridges can be applied to the designs for the Pleasant Hill BART station area overcrossings. Meeting participants responded to these examples, and identified the designs and design elements that are most appropriate to Pleasant Hill. Following are specific comments and suggestions related to design: Bridge Types Meeting participants discussed various bridge types, and their possible applications to Pleasant Hill. Many participants felt that a bridge type that would create a thinner deck and more simplified bridge was most appropriate, such as a single column cable stayed bridge, a simple span, or a truss. ■ Arch LW Truss • Cable stayed Box beam 2 Dodecahedron a Suspension Character Community members discussed the importance of creating a bridge that would fit in with the character of the community, and be suitable for the surrounding area. ■ Incorporate the railroad image with a steel or wood truss ■ Consider using the same design as other bridges in the area ■ Employ red brick tones to ensure continuity in color with the neighboring buildings Prepared by MIG, Inc Community Meeting#7 ♦June 72, 2000 Page 6 Contra Costa County Pleasant H#1 BARt 5tjtian Bridge Overcrossing Program The bridge should blend in to the environment, rather than call attention ■ A subtle, basic design is less expensive ■ design a bridge that says something great about the area, but without being outlandish ■ Follow the design similar to the bridge near Monument Boulevard; it's an "Iron Horse Bridge", and we should stay with that concept ■ In the Bay Area, there is a tradition of bridges that don't blend in, such as the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge Design Elements and Materials Meeting participants discussed the types of design elements and materials that would help to create a bridge with simple, clean lines that would fit in with the character of the community. • Use amiddle support to reduce structure depth ■ Single cable support with simples lines is a good design ■ If there is support along the span, the bridge can have a thinner deck ■ Use textured and colored concrete • Include architectural embellishments, but with-,a basic design • Use materials that will reduce the possibility of graffiti • Avoid heavy concrete • Do not use chain-link fencing • Consider cantilevered planters • Large concrete walls allow for a potential graffiti problem • Integrate lighting ,into the design of the bridge Site Design`Elements and Options The following are comments specifically related to the site design of the bridges in the Pleasant Hill BART station area. ■ Provide access closer to the street corner, with a ramp rather than stairs ■ Do not have staircases at street level ■ Ensure a safe design with adequate lighting and no places to hide ■ A bridge at Treat Boulevard and Jones Road will allow more pedestrian access Prepared by MIG; Inc Community Meeting 01 ♦June 12, 2000 Page 7' Contra Costa County Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program NEXT STEPS This meeting was the first in a series of the community based"design process for the Pleasant Hili BART station area bridge overcrossing program. The public input gathered''at this meeting will be used to help develop alternatives for the design of the bridge overcrossings. The next community meeting will be on July 17, 2000. At that time, there will be a discussion with the community members'about the design'alternatives. Prepared by MIG, Inc Community Meeting 01 + .June 12, 2000 Page 8 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hilt BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program APPENDIX B - Public Meeting#2 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December I,2000 Contra Costa County Pleasant Hi11 BART Station .Bridge Overcrossing Program Community Meeting #2' ,July 17 ,2000 SUM.MARYREPORT Prepared by: Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG) Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, California 94710 July 2000 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUN 7 On July 18, 2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency held the second of three Community Meetings to discuss plans and options for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program. The locations of the proposed overcrossings are on Treat Boulevard at the intersection of Oak Road,and along the Iron Horse Trail alignment in the vicinity of Jones Road at Treat Boulevard. The overcrossing at Oak Road is intended for primarily pedestrian use,while the one at Iron Horse Trail will be designed for pedestrian and bicycle use. This second meeting was a follow up to one held in Juane. The purpose of this meeting was to present three preliminary options for overcrossings,to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access. The options that were presented were based on community input received at the fust meeting in June. Approximately 35 members of the public attended this meeting,which was held at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Pleasant Hill.. The meeting began with a welcome and introduction by Jim Kennedy, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Director. John Eddy of Ove ARUP gave a presentation that identified'three,preliminary options for the design of pedestrian bridges: a truss,a concrete bridge,and a cable-stayed bridge. Don MacDonald Architect, of MacDonald Associates Architects presented drawings of these three options. Paul Tuttle of MIG Inc. moderated the meeting. Adena Friedman,also of MIC,graphically,recorded the meeting- Following the presentation, there was a discussion of the major issues related to the Pleasant Hill BART pedestrian bridges design. Meeting participants discussed the site location and design styles of three bridge"alternatives,and identified the positive and negative aspects of each. This report summarizes the discussion at the Community Meeting and also captures the public input recorded during the meeting and from the Comment Cards. The summary is organized into the following sections,reflecting the discussion topics: 0 Bridge'overcrossing options and issues, and ci Bridge Design styles • Truss • Cable-stayed • Concrete Photocopy reductions of the wallgraphics from this sheeting are included in an appendix at the end of the report. PJwo t Hid BART Sty 6m Brim 0m7wsi%Pqmm CbwwityMe #2 & J&617,2000 PVared byMIG'lnc Pie f BRIDGE OVER+CR©SSING OPTIONS AND ISSUES Meeting participants raised additional questions and issues that should be addressed during the planning process and design of the bridges. The major themes that emerged during the meeting are;accessibility,potential impacts to the neighbors and the surrounding area, funding and maintenance, and the number of proposed pedestrian bridges. Accessibility During the meeting,one of the main concerns that residents raised was that of accessibility. This issue includes accessibility of the bridges from surrounding areas, the impacts to the existingcrosswalks,handicapped accessibility, and accessibility to other facilities in the vicinity. Following are specific comments and issues regarding accessibility in the Pleasant Hill BART station area. ❑ Will there be a bridge west of BART at Oak Road? ■ No br e a prrpme;l in Mm locatri»z ❑ Some participants prefer a bridge at BART station level O How far down is the ramp along'Jones Road? The rang z zug cc&wd apex. scWh(tae rang um&bqn=T)6n tlae top Igrthe sdezeA app m unady 70'sa dh'efl&n Muir/Mount Diablo-south prep ty Zinc)ala Jowls Raid and rrar viib the pai6tmn s demlk' Is the Oak Road Bridge designed to connect with an office building? What is the purpose of this bridge? It is design*'f r pad stwn tr4k bwaeen the r5xb=d a se h akT Oak Rad t0 a d f6n'laeTw and the fi m spans dub • There cm&be dezaton and stains for pedwnwrs to ra%6 the at grade BART station eritra z4 irkp&zk&qfthefiewe pmpa ed BART de&Tnzrrt' ❑ Will the Oak Road Crossing be ramped? • It will be ranped)rADA (the n�is to use existing ranps on the l ?hm Mest Site Keith yrx ifzcdt cans, fmxssar and to vitpute the nuwhem and"uge and arress vto the BART site&uiop �,r prrrgra4. Bikes will be ecdud&)6n the Oak;,Road Cas b g it is btteracled to be a pedestriz*aiy b Clarify which existing crosswalks will be eliminated ■ The(numb-south)craswlk at Tn ut Bernd and Clerk wdd be elmmted ❑ A more viable connection to the Oak Road bridge would be better ❑ What is the interface of the ramp'and the Iron Horse Trail? The ran p z¢wU cwmea to the eeist%rrgsikz&&;gwa,�ia to be deter ® The design should allow for Iron Horse Trail pedestrian access (stairs} from Treat Boulevard ❑ The design should accommodate the future transit right of way along Jones Road Pl wxt Hill BART Maim Bride Ow=sirg Program CwwwzR yM #2 • July 17,2000 frexrl by MIG Irx Page 2 Impacts to Neighbors Some participants had concerns regarding the residents who live in the vicinity of the PleasantHill BART station and the potential impacts that the bridges will have on their homes and the,adjacent offices. Following are specific comments and questions related to the bridge impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. ❑ The Bridge design should maintain the residential character of the area ❑ Will barriers prevent dropping items off of the bridges? A 1"x1"grid is mydredas a htn er ❑ The proposed designs should mitigate any impacts to the trees on Jones Road ❑ The Oak/Treat pedestrian:'bridge must not disturb mature oaks on BART property ❑ For the Iron Horse corridor bridge,use the current right turn lane'on Jones Road to improve the location and reduce the impact on nearby trees,buildings and sidewalks Funding and Maintenance When trying to evaluate the alternative designs for the bridges,it is important to consider long terra maintenance as well as cost of the alternatives, ❑ What is the rough cast of the alternatives? 77k nitr a brie is the hut ercpmiw, floe&ws dlter nuw is u muddle rxV cras4 and the Vista*altett�xtiw is''dx mast txPemm to mmmid ❑ Which'alternative requires the least maintenance? ■ The am7ft brim m7mm tbe least rr wowv,- the aWe sw*brie rqxm nvm mmow and the bws bridge m7tum the nut numtewn ❑ Another consideration identified is whether it is worth it to spend more money to design and construct a bridge that makes a statement for the community' ❑ The design team should provide cost estimates for the different bridge types in the next analysis One or Two Bridges? Similar to the first community meeting,there was a discussion at this meeting regarding the need for two pedestrian bridges. Some meeting participants emphasized that the necessity of both bridges should be evaluated. While some community members prefer only having, one bridge,others stated that both bridges are necessary. The following are specific comments regarding;the need for two bridges in this area. ❑ The analysis should'reconsider the need for two bridges. Does the community need/want two bridges? ❑ Does the data support the use of overcrossings? PkasartHi11MRT Statim Br*Owr sirs AV= Conmv*y Mpg#2;'• J dy 17,20©l3 P> byMIGInC Page3'' Ll The crossings are going to be close to each other;is it possible to just have one? Do they serve different functions? ❑ It is difficult to justify the cost of two overcrossings on Treat Boulevard so close together 0 Would an alternative that accommodates both the Iran Horse pedestrians and the BART foot traffic,rather than two overcrossings succeed? ❑ One crossing would be visually simple,while two bridges could add to the visual clutter of the area How much demand is there for the Oak Road Bridge crossing? • TmA swdies mdiww dvt the zest sick-is used nrm with 130 paiso xry&mT the rrv=gpaA how,and 86 pelatmm duringan4wv=pwk hour,ubkb is expeaad to umue vith cera' vvr in the arm O The Iron Horse Trail bridge is a.priority for Bicycle and trail usersand necessary for safe crossing of Treat Boulevard. ❑ There is a concern about the area looking too commercial,and not fitting in with the residential character of the area Funding is separate for the two bridges ❑ Both bridges are essential Additional Comments Following are additional issues and comments that community members addressed during the meeting. ❑ ;What is the building code requirement for the,separation of the bridge from neighboring buildings? The bndWatJow zew&itm the haldirgcode sepetratm mqrirr rrts. ❑ Have design studies been conducted on the run-out of the bridges? ' The n,*ow hits grade and mr#f=to the ex mg sideuA ora jazz; Do the design proposals address power boxes?Will bridge placement affect utility lines? 7h,e prrpme d deigns fid a=vnx&te oddities in the suet 70t qCw. ❑ Provide a map showing bicycle lanes Pkusant Hilt BART StatiwBridge Ore vws rig Atgram C ww*yM 112 • Jade'17,2000 PmpamdbyMIGlnc Page 4 -... ..__ .. . ..._.... __._... _ _ _ BRIDGE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES To present bridge design alternatives,John Eddy of Ove ARUP and DonMacDonald:of MacDonald Associates,Architects presented photo simulations of the alternative bridge designs. Meeting participants discussed the potential designs for the bridges,and responded to three design examples: a truss, a concrete bridge and a cable-stayed bridge design. The participants identified positive and negative aspects of each design. There was no overall consensus regarding which type of bridge is more appropriate for the area. We sot a meeting participants supported the concept of a railroad type truss bridge design,ethers felt that flus is an opportunity for the community to create a more unique visual statement fox the area, Many meeting partid,iiis emphasized that the bridge,design shouldcl be unobtrusive,fit within the surrbundic g context and not be visually overwhelming Several meeting participants stated that it is important to consider the bridge in the context of the neighb6 do d through appropriate design style and elements. Use of colors and materials fitting the residential character was important to some,while'others felt a more contemporary design in keeping with the offices in the area would also be appropriate. Many participants requested to see a simulation of both bridge designs in context. Many felt that the impact of two pedestrian bridges cross Treat Boulevard in close proximity to one another would'create'a visual impact. When coupled with the existing BART bridge crossing,the visual impact of two additional bridges could be overwhelming and an environment that is too urban and less pedestrian friendly. Many participants were also unsure as to the image and design of two bridges. Should the two bridges be the same design or different? A:.visual`simulation of both bridges seen together may be helpful. Following are specific comments regarding each bridge design alternative. Pleasant Hill BART Stern B?*C)tprt=iig Pmgnvn C nmrrity M #2 • Idy 17,2000 Prl by MIG lnc Page 5 Truss Style Bridge Comments.' © This design adds continuity to the character of the community and fits with other pedestrian bridge designs in the area © Aesthetically pleasing Q Light design,can see the hills and trees through the bridge ® Best design for visibility © Railroad motif is a positive aspect of this design 0 This design is in keeping with the historic theme of the area © The flowing design of this bridge matches the hills © The bridge should be painted green Q This is the most appropriate design for the Iron Horse Trail 0 This is the ugliest design,and leaps out of the scenery 0 Since there are already bridges of this design in the area,we should pick something distinct 0 Matches the Ygnacio Valley bridge ni Min BAR rsr B Otmmsirg Prograrn G"a 4m� yM #z « Idy l7,2000 Pr v&by MIG Ire Page ... Cable Staged Bridge e y, Carrrrrmer M ❑ Eccentric ❑ With a single,cable,the view would be lost ❑ Too overwhelming and bald ❑ Is it financially feasible? ❑ This design is ungainly,and there is no flow ❑ More intrusive than other designs;particularly'the concrete`rolling hills design ❑ The cable-stayed design is;unique,and could help to'create a bold visual statement for the area pkwxt Hill BART St iBr*O=msirgPV= CamwztyMefiT##2 • July 17,2000' gwtd by MIG Inc pk�v, 7 Concrete Bridge -- l Comments ❑ Adequate design Least obtrusive of the three designs ❑ This design has the most blocked vision at street level It is possible to do-decorative designs on the concrete portion of the bridge ❑ The rolling hills motif is not necessary;the design could be straight u It would be helpful to evaluate this design from many different angles ❑ This design is continuous with the design of the BART bridge Ll This design has the most benefits:lower construction cost,lower maintenance cast and is the least obtrusive visually O The concrete bridge can be built with texture,tinting,tile,brick and architectural embellishment. Proper design can make it truly beautiful. Awsant Hall BART Sra w Bri&.e O e=sn Pvarrz C:t�wwzky Mwdrg#2 0 July 17,2000, I�byMIG Ire Aad NExr S rEps This meeting was the second meeting in a series of the community based design process for the Pleasant Hill BART station area bridge overcrossing program. The,public input gathered at this meeting will be used to help develop the alternatives for the Pleasant Hill BART station area overcrossings; The next community meeting will be held in the late summer or early fall,at which time members of the community will have the opportunity to discuss more fully developed alternative designs for the overcrossings. Comments from these meetings will be presented to the County Board of Supervisors for a final decision on the most appropriate direction. Ply Hill BART Sw6m Bri*Om m 4 AtWxn C.c nvilyM rg#2 • frit 17,2000 PqaredbyMIGItx Page 9 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program APPENDIX C -'Public Meeting#3 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hiff BART'Station .Bridge Overcrossr`ng Program Community Meeting#3 October 17, 2000 Summary Report Prepared by Moore Iacofano Gohsman (MIG) Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue $erkeiey,CA 94710 Oduber 2000' Introduction>>: On October 17,2000 Contra Costa County held the third in a series of three Community Meetings to discuss plans and options for the Pleasant F-U BART Station Bridge' Overcrossing Program The Station Area Specific Flan provides for a community based design process for the overcrossings.'This third meeting was the final meeting held in order to complete the design process.'rhe purpose,of this meeting was to present three refined design alternatives for overcrossings and for the community to express their preference for a preferred design. The alternatives presented were refined based on input received at the second meeting in July. Approximately 45 community members attended this meeting,which was held at the EmbassySuites z Hotel in Pleasant Hill.The meeting began with a welcome and introduction by Jim Kennedy,the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Director.John Eddy of Ove Arup&Partners gave a slideshow presentation that exhibited three bridge design alternatives: the Rolling Hills Bridge,the Railroad,Arch Bridge,iand the Cable-stayed Bridge.Don MacDonald of MacDonald Architects presented a fourth alternative bridge design,which is an unfolding arch design. Lou Hunter of Moore Iacofano Goltsman(lv]TG) Inc.facilitated the meeting,and Adena Friedman(also'of MIG) graphically recorded the public's discourse. Immediately following the slideshow presentation,meeting participants were given a scorecard on which they were asked to rank their bridge design preference.Once the scorecards were completed and collected,the meeting participants engaged in a discussion of the major issues related to the three Pleasant Ill.BART bridge design alternatives.During this discussion the community members voiced their opinions and preferences regarding each of the three bridge designs.At the end of the discussion,participants ranked their design preferences (on new scorecards) a second time.Both rankingsessions were tallied and recorded on the wallgraphic. This reportsumrnarizes the discussion at the CAmrnunity Meeting as well as additional opinions expressed on the Comments Cards,which were collected at the end of the meeting. The summary is organized into the following sections, reflecting the discussion topics: Bridge overcrossing,issues • Bridge design alternatives • Rolling Dills Bridge • Railroad Arch Bridge • Cable-stayed Bridge Community preference of bridge designs A photoreducton of the wallgraphic is included:in an appendix at the end of the»report. Plstiscrrbt Dill BA R T Shari Brice Cosi Program CawwityMeetig#3 00&tvr 17,2000 PqwrdIryM1G1tX page 1 ............. ...................... ..............................-.................................................. ........ .................-.................................... ....................................... .............. .................... ................ Bridge Design Issues and Questions As part of the discussion of the alternative bridge designs,meeting participants raised additional questions and issues that should be addressed or considered during the final design process. The major issues and concerns that emerged during the meeting are: planning pmcess, -with surroundings and timeline for completion of lighting,surface materials,compatibility the bridge. Planning Process During the meeting,community members raised questions concerning their involvement in the final stages of the design program as,well as critiques of the overall process. Following are specific questions and comments regarding the Pleasant FE BART Station Bridge Overcrossing planning process. What are the elements of the final design pmcess? The Qw2ty Pk=rg Gwmsim and the Board cfSupawon baw muewandfiml m wrat x6arkympaxirdy Their comideration will'be subject to public xnm Ro and periodic mviwuiff be=r as thefiml design pngnssis. Who rrWws the final decision? The Board cfSk pawibn bz the fired awhonrym the dedsim mzkMPML s • There should have been a no build option Some residents are not content with any of the altematives The planning process was backwards;designs should have been finalized before they were presented to the public Lighting Many community members expressed suggestions and concems regarding appropriate lighting for the bridge.Following are specific comments and questions related to bridge lighting. It is necessary that the bridge be well-lit at night. • The structure should be dark and unobtrusive. The lighting model for the rolling hills concrete bridge design should be used as model for final bridge design Rolling hills bridge lights are aesthetically pleasing. They were not too bright or obtrusive Pleas Hill BART Swian Br*Oun=s4 Program Qmmoity Meatirg#3.0 17,2000 Page 2 PApimibyM1GInc ............................. .......... Bridge Surface Materials Many meeting participants''are interested in the type of surface material that willbe used for the find Bridge designs.Many of'concerns and suggestions were centered on how the surface will impact the safety of those using the bridge and motorists driving under the bridge.Following are specific comments regarding bridge surface materials. • The bridge deck should not be made of square mesh,since rocks and water will drip on cars and kids playing underneath the bridge. The>roadway noise would be much louder for people:using the bridge The surface would be dangerously slippery when wet. Thismaterial may also be dangerous for pedestrians because cyclists can move across this surface at great speeds. • The bridge deck should be made of concrete. Concrete is a better surface for in-line skaters and cyclists. - Will not be as slippery when wet. Smooth,stroller/bicycle wheels and skates are less likely to be caught • Use a solid,non-metal walkway or riding surface • Consider:.using monofilament screening. • Consider using a"living" bridge design,composed of landscaping elements and vines Compatibility of Design Suring the meeting and on the comment canis,community members expressed the importance of the bridge blending in well with the neighborhood and with the Iron Horse Trail. Following are questions and comments specific to the impact of the bridge on the surrounding area. • There is the concern that the bridge will interfere with use of Iran Horse Trail • The design should be consistent with the historical background of Iron Horse Trail. The bridge design should be subtle without taking away from the appearance of the surroundings. It is important that the bridge dues not dominate the appearance of the surroundings • How will bridge construction impact surrounding area and use of the Iron Horse Trail • Should Jones Road be preserved in its current condition? C~ nn4 it v an ams rid n i dwgvdfir 9=4 baA and the bre design mill r�r�xe t�iZs P1wt Hit,BAR "Sr i Brig O zssiYgYrgram Cbww*y M 3'-0-�17,20W 3?VamdbyMlGlm PW'3 Tfinefi ne Community members had several questions regarding the duration of the time necessary to complete the Bridge.It is expected that the design and construction of the bridge will take 2 Ih years,and the expected date of completion is 2004. Plwsa Dill BARTSutionBrio Ow wsingPrr = G'a+xrwityM # 17,200 Pqarai by MIG Ire Page :q dge, esign.A1'te.rt atr`ves After the presentation on the bridge design alternatives,the meeting participants discussed the different designs and commented on the advantages and disadvantages of each design. Y t As all of the bodge designs,the meeting participants had differing opinions regarding the concrete'bridge,design. While some of the participants felt that this was the least obtrusive design,ethers expressed that'this design is oppressive and heavy. Following are specific comments regarding the concrete bridge design. • What is the thickness of the deck - The ame-,e gWm1par is S • What are the Color options? • This is the least dominant design Lights are aesthetically pleasing and create a nice atmosphere Good design,without the center dip • Concrete realms the bridge appear balky and heavy Avant MW BAR?"Sudbn B2*OwrYmsi,,rgPVm Cwmvity Mat&g#3"-0` 17,2000 P m3dby fl lrx Pa 5 This bridge has the feeling of a sound wall on the highway This design has an oppressive feel This bridge has the heaviest appearance This design conveys a feeling of confinement Does not fit the tone of neighborhood This design appears to be too much of an intrusion into the horizon and view The cement walls are an invitation to graffiti The sides are too obvious,bring them down to the level of Cable stayed bridge Is there concrete in area,to have a feeling of continuity? Thecurving structure appears crooked to on lookers Raise the center of the bridge Incorporate a view of the surrounding hills; Pk asayt HW BART Sudw Bridge Cher.wsirg Pry QvwwrtyMeedrg#3-0-Oid -17,2000 Pqwd by MIGI?x Pune 6 .R�ta�rl.�:rcla Brrc�`�e S` v N a NI t9.=tsn 7 m N .., _..._. . 0.,..i s .. Meeting.. it its vie�v+ed two different versions of'th ra d a eh bridges a'bricl neutral' design(above)'And a'qghter gold design(below). Pl�xs"mill BART Sr :.By*Owmmsr'ag Program CmmoutyMatrrg#3¢ice 17,2000 I3qwmdiyMIG I= Page 7 �? � J Z 3 h a tin + Overall,meeting participants expressed the most positive comments reg this bridge design.'' Several participants commented that the bridge fit in well with the character of the neighborhood and with the Iran Horse Trail However,others felt that the structure is too large,and there were several questions about the lighting for this bridge. Following are comments and questions regarding the arch bridge. • Expands Iron Horse Trail"feel" and the character of the area This design seems lighter • This design appears more open at street level • Provides extra visibility at the ground level(compared to the other designs) • Graceful design • Most practical design • Brings historical significance to sterile area • Contemporary feel,modern • Nice because it blends in Plward Hill BART Swim Bridge Orer ws4 PV= CcnmwzkyMw6T#3.0.Oa ber 17,2000 Pnpzmd by MIG Inc Pae 8 The darker color has less visual impact Use a light neutral calor for this bridge design Reduce the size of the "footprint" of the structure The upper part of truss is overwhelming (drawn flat) This is a big structure,it looks like it should be over water Sitar in design to the'Ygnacio Bridge • The design is consistent with the historical background of Iron'Horse Trail • This design needs to be in a cheerful color;such as gold is the thickness of the deck. r Fl�w would lighting work for dais br d e� AM- ruff he agbWOM IOU PkwHW BA RT StationBr*O=m-&g PrVum Cwrrxrr*M #3 40ader 17,2000 P9tpvvd15,MIG1rc p 9 Cable-Stayed Bridge hT IF G:+ 'z r Y Many workshop participants commented that this is the most modern,h%tech design of the alternatives presented. However,there were also many comments that this is design is not aesthetically pleasing,and is too dominant in the area. Following are the comments and suggestions regarding the cable stayed bridge. Minimizes cement- good design (cable) • Good design—efficient a-tech design 'Phis design is the most modern,it feels like "year 2000" • 11iis design provides more visibility both for the street level and the bridge level Brings urban feel to a"suburb" • Center post is not aesthetically pleasing. Design is too busy(aesthetically) • Overpowers the intersection This is a sterile design,it needs color P&zw rHW BART Sutm Bridge Otermsug PM= C maity Maaarg#3-0.0advr 17,2000 Pry wai by MIG Inc Page 10' The cable poles look too much like the Concord"spirit-poles" How prominent is the centersupport? How larger are the cables? - 4 inch diameter Would the mast be lit? What will the visibility be at street level? Additional Quesdons and Cornments The unfolding arch is impressive The unfolding arch design is too modem,and does not really fit with the surrounding architecture The unfolding arch design could create complications in siting a future fixed guideway facility Is there a night light requirement for the bridge? • Would the bridge be closed at night? - It wxdd not bedam at For any of the bridge designs,the calor should be a light earth tone or a neutral unobtrusive color Provide stair access near the intersection as well as ramp access along the stretch of the bridge Aw, HW BART Swim lit Wisingimgwn Cam MO*YM #300 r f7,2000 P4ambyMlGlix Pawn Cornrrlunrty Preference During the meeting,participants had two opportunities to rank the bridge'designs in order of preference.''Participants filled out scorecards,where they ranked the designs in order of preference.The first ranking exercise took place after the slideshow presentation of the design alternatives,and the second ranking exercise took place after the discussion. The results of both sets of rankings were revealed after the second exercise. The table contains the community preference scores for the bridge design alternatives. 1'Ranking 2nd Ranking, Concrete Bridge 41 2 Railroad Style 49 4$ Arch Bridge Cable Stayed 35 43 Bridge Overall,the community preference was fairly consistent,with the railroad style arch bridge receiving the highest score before and after the discussion. However,votes shifted from the concrete bridge before the discussion to the cable stayed bridge after the discussion. Plarswr Hill BART Swibn Bric�"`.O�sirg Ptgmm Co»r unity M #3 0Ck r 17,2000' P�byMIG I Pam t2 Next Steps The next step after completing the community meetings is to finalize the bridge design.A report covering the community design process and the design conclusions will be prepared and delivered to the Pleasant Bill.BART Station Area Steering Comrrittee. Some refinements may occur as part of the BART Property Charette Program. Following Steering Committee Review and input,the report will be presented to the Contra.Costa County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors,for a decision.;,Final design would ensue. Periodic public review opportunities would be provided. It is anticipated'that the Iran Horse'frail Bridge could be completed by 2004. The Treat/Oak Bridge would be completed contemporaneously with development of the BART property. P&umt Hill BART Stades Brr'clge Ozar=4 Program Ccmrt iky M #3�Qser 17,2000 P 'byMIG Inc Page 13 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program APPENDIX D - Construction Cost Summaries PLEASANT HILL - IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE RAILROAD TRUSS OPTION Item No Description Unit Estimated unit Price item Total Quantity $ $ 1 Mobilization LS 1. $501000 $50,000 2 Demolition-curbs ft 430 $5.00 $2,150 3 Demolition -pavement & sidewalks CY 165 $75.00 $12,364 4 Curbs cy 21 $600.00 $12,613 5 Pavement-asphalt concrete cy 20 $150.00 $2,933 6 Sidewalks c 68 $250.00 $16,940 7 Pavement Striping ft 430 $2.00 $860 8 Backfill -PY 741 $30.00 $22,222 9 Landscaping LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 10 Piles ft 2,480 $130.00 $322,400 11Concrete ramp pavement cy 49 1 $250.010 $12344 12' Concrete -footing cy 492 $300.00 $147,689 13 Concrete -bridge cy 145 $450.00 $65,250 14 Concrete -retaining wall c 249 $400.00 $99,698 15` Reinforcing bar ' lbs 281,583 $0.70 $197,108 16' Structural steel- furnish&erect lbs 193;515 $4.00 $7741060 18' Chair(link RailingTyp2 7 - modified ft 800 $80.00 $64,000 19 Tubular handrailin ft 800 $35.00 $28,000 20 Signs LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 21 Cleary & Paint Steel LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 22; Lighting LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 23 Utilities LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 SUB- $1,965,632` TOTAL- 5% $98,282 Escalation 10% $196,563 Contigency TOTAL. $2,260,477' Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program PLEASANT HILL - IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE CABLE.-STAYED OPTION Item No Description Unit Estimated Unit''Price Item Total Quantity $ 1 Mobilization LS 1 $50,000 $50,000 2 Demolition - curbs ft 430 $5.00 $2,150 3 iDemolition'-pavement&sidewalks CY 165 $75.00 $12,364 4 Curls cy 21 $600.00 $12,613 5 Pavement asphalt concrete, cy 20 $150.00 $2,933 6 Sidewalks' 2y 68 $250.00 $16,940 7 Pavement Striping ft 430 $2!.00 $860 8, Backfill cy 741 $30.00 $2.2,222 9 Landscaping LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 10 Piles ft 2,640 $130.00 $343,200'' 11' Concrete-ramp pavement py 49 $250.00 $12,344 12 Concrete-footing Cy 540 $300.00 $1611911 13' Concrete-bride cy 145 $454.00 $65,250 14 Concrete retaining wall c 249 $400.00 $99,698 15 Reinforcing bar lbs 281,583 $0.70 $197,108 16 Structural steel-'furnish &erect lbs 157,527 $4.50 $708,872 17 Structural strand lbs 8,238 $7.50 $61,783 18 Chain link Railing jype 7-modified' ft 800 $80.00 $64,000 19 Tubular handrailin ft 800 $35.00 $28,000 20 Signs LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 21' Clem &Paint Steel LS 1 $15;000 $15,000 22 Lighting LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 28 Utilities LS 1 $175,000 $175,000 SUB- $2,097,249 TOTAL_ 5% $104,862 Escalation 10% $209,725 Contigency TOTAL=' $2,4'11,837. Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program r PLEASANT HILL -BRIDGE AT OAK ROAD TWO-SPAN VIERENDEEL OPTION Item No description` Unit Estimated Unit Price Item Total Quantity $ 1 Mobilization LS 1 $501000 $50,000 2 Demolition curbs ft 20 $5.00 $100 3 Demolition -sidewalks c 39 $75.00 $2,933 4 Curbs gy 1' $600.00 $587 6 Sidewalks Cy 20 $250.00 $4,889 9 Landscaping LS 1' $5,000 $5,000 10 Piles ft 720 $130.00 $93,600 12 Concrete-footing cy 94 $300.00 $28,333 13 Concrete - bride cy 30 $400.00 $11,806 15 Reinforcing'bar lbs 46,514 $0.65 $30,234 16 Structural steel-furnish'&erect lbs 114,385 $4.00 $457539 18 Chain link Railing Type 7 ft 360 $60..00 $21,600 19 Elevator towers LS 2' $100,000 $200,000 20 Signs LS 1 $3,000 $3,000 21 Clean & Paint Steel L5 1, $10,000 $10,000 22, Lighting LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 23 Utilities LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 SUB- $944,621 TOTAL 5% $47,231 Escalation= 10% $94,462 Contigency TOTAL= '$1,086,314 Arup with MacDonald Architects and MIG December 1,2000 Attachment C Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Pleasant.Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing .Program Community Meeting #4 June 24, 2002 Summary Report e. u Prepared by: Moore Iacofano Galtsman (MIG)Inc. 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 Introduction On June 24,2002 Contra Costa County held an additional Community Meeting, continuing a series of public meetings held in 2000,to discuss design schemes for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program. The Station Area Specific flan provides for a community based design process for the overerossings, The purpose of this meeting was to present refined design alternatives for overcrossings and for the community to express their preference on the designs. Approximately 35 community membersattended this meeting, which was held at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Pleasant Hill. The meeting began with a'welcome and introduction by Jim Kennedy,the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Director. John Eddy of Ove Arup &Partners gave a slideshow presentation that focused on two bridge design alternatives: the Railroad Truss;,Bridge and the Cable-stayed Bridge. A representative from MacDonald Architects observed the meeting.> Kristen Pickus of Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG);Inc. facilitated the meeting, and Paul Tuttle (also of` MIG) graphically recorded the public's discourse. Following the''slideshow presentation, meeting participants discussed specific preferences and concerns about the two alternative bridge designs as well as general'design issues that should be considered regardless of which design is finally chosen. This report summarizes the discussion at the Community Meeting. The summary is organized into the following sections, reflecting the discussion topics: • Issues and Questions • Bridge Design Alternatives Railroad Truss Bridge Cable-stayed Bridge • Other Comments and Concerns. A photoreduction of the wallgraphics are included in an appendix at the end of the report. Pleasant Milt BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program Communis Prepared by MIG Inc. Page 2 Issues and Questions As part of the discussion of the alternative bridge designs, meeting participants raised additional questions and issues that should be addressed or considered during the final design process. Members of the public expressed concerns about the way lights can be used to create both a safe and an aesthetic environment around the proposed bridge. Safety Issues Due to the perception that dark areas around a proposed bridge could create dangerous situations for pedestrians or lead to increased criminal activity, community members called for safety lighting to illuminate the bridge and areas underneath it. Even though the trail would close at 10:00 p.m., it is important to create;a safe, well-lit environment while the bridge is in use. Aesthetic Concerns Although safety is a'crucial concern, it is important not to overlook the aesthetic impact of lighting the bridge. Some community members requested low, pedestrian-scale lights, particularly at the edges of the bridge. Other design ideas were to put the lights on a' tower, along the pedestrian path,or on the cables of the bridge. The community wants to avoid a design similar to the Concord"spirit poles" and does not want to create an area that looks like it is illuminated by floodlights. Financial Questions Another key factor to consider is the cost of installing lights, as well as the cost to keep the area around the bridge lit up at night. Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program Communit Prepared by MIG Inc. Page 3 Bridge Design Alternatives The focus of the meeting was to discuss two design alternatives in greater detail. During the meeting,community members had the opportunity to express what they liked and what they did not like about the Railroad Truss Bridge design and the Cable Stayed Bridge design. Comment cards focused on the two designs were collected and tabulated. Railroad Truss Bridge The Railroad Truss Bridge design received a range of responses from the community, though in general the comments were more positive than negative. Negative Attributes Concerns included: a fear that the design is inconsistentwith the surrounding environment • the opinion that having a 10' trail would not be wide enough • the structure would block views of the John Muir Building. Negative attributes identified from the comment cards stated that the bridge is "ugly and too obvious"and displays a"lack of imagination." One comment stated that the proposal "looms over Treat"and is too similar to the Ygnacio Valley Bridge without being mindful of the area's history. Positive Attributes Most of the feedback for the Railroad Truss Bridge design was positive. At the meeting, community members voiced the opinion that they liked the similarity to the Ygnacio Valley Bridge,and supported the effort to achieve design consistency. Community members said that they thought impacts on Jahn Muir would be minimal, and that the impact on the construction area was equally distributed between the north and south sides. Other written comments included: More historically accurate, abutments father outside clear zones than cable stay. Span length appropriate for this location.' Constant width pathway'facilitates movement. If there has to be a bridge,go'for this one but make it blend into the area(light color), rather than stand out(darker color), Yes! This is the more pleasing design. It maintains regional consistency. The bridge crossing Ygnacio has a pleasing,light design that provides an attractive gateway; mirroring the design is acceptable. Consistent with Iron Horse Trail (historically and with other crossings). Less visual impact on area-'complements buildings in the area,better use of scarce resources. This bridge fits the Iron Horse Trail theme better and would cost less than the other design. This bridge is consistent with Iron Horse Trail and is a better design for the user. Prefer the truss style. Treat Blvd. is a dangerous intersection.The bridge needs to be built soon. This is the safest! Let's do it soon! Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcross ng Program Communis Prepared by MIG Inc. Page 4 Additional Connn+ents To improve the design of the Railroad Truss Bridge,some community members said that the overpass should be extended to the BART parking lot, a garden should be put on top, and parking should be available underneath the bridge. There was a suggestion to design the bridge with less metal columns, using thinner members that would require taller trusses. Some people would like to see an arch with cables,and others said that color was required. Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program Ccmmunt Prepared by MIG Inc. Page 5:' Cable-stayed Bridge Although some of the community members were very happy with the design of the Cable-stayed Bridge, negative attributes outnumberedpositive comments on the design proposal. Following are the comments and suggestions regarding the cable-stayed bridge. Negative Attributes;' Some of the community members are concerned that the modern design of the Cable- stayed Bridge is not consistent with the neighborhood environment. Additionally, the bridge could create a'safety;;hazard with a middle barrier,particularly a problem for bicyclists coming down hills in the area. The expense required to build a Cable-stayed Bridge seems prohibitive to some participants,and others feel that the bridge would be too narrow. Written feedback included. Split section not safe for two-way travel Too expensive. Don't like split feature in center of bridge. Reduces visibility,makes passing difficult,creates congestion and feeling of"crowednes's"on the bridge. Don't like open hole in the center of bridge -it seems dangerous and provides the opportunity for vandals to drop material on passing cars. Strongly disagree with the bike bridge split by the tower and the hole. Not safe, it's a change for bicyclists to navigate, even is the lane were 8' wide. Looks ostentatious at a time when there's no money even to extend the trail north 1'mile. Increased width will adversely impact the green space.The bridge should be moved to the eastern side of the green space.Does not fit area. No lighting.; Widening for safety increases impact below bridge! Not in favor of I would rather take my chances using the crosswalks than to tamish the landscape with this modern design. This could be unsafe and an eyesore! Bridge width is not appropriate for this length structure. 5' bike paths are a problem because bicyclists are supposed to dismount but this won't happen.''Narrow 5' lanes make it more passible for collision'. Interferes with Treat/Jones sight lines. Positive Feedback Some participants liked the fact that the bridge is consistent with the look of the more contemporary BART architecture. Some community members commented that they like that`°light"and"airy"feel of the bridge and see it as a unique landmark for the area: Some people also observed that the bridge fits the John Muir Building better than the Railroad Truss Bridge design. Written'feedback included; • Elegant, handsome—"build'it." • Design is a distinctive regional identifier. • Much more distinguished,lighter impression. Wider design preferred. I like the idea of the split walkway letting the light through. Pleasant Hitt BART Station Bridge Overcross ng Program Communit Prepared by MIO Inc. Paged Reserving one side for cyclists and one side for pedestrians would help the traffic problems. Additional Comments To improve the design of the Cable-stayed Bridge,community members recommended the bridge design feature a wider path and darker colors. Many participants may support this design if perceived safety issues are resolved. There was also some discussion about CalTrans minimum standards for bridge widths; the participants said that the minimum width of 10' should be increased for this project. The heavy pedestrian traffic warrants a wider bridge. Other community members made the argument that extending the width to 12' over a 10' length would increase the project cost by 20%and the existing Ygnacio Valley Bridge is only 10' wide. Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrnssing Program Communit' Prepared by MIG Inc. Page 7' Other Comments and Concerns Other comments made about the project,but not specific to a particular design, were also made. Some participants expressed an interest in connecting the bridge to the BART area,over Jones Road. The question of how much impact bridge construction would have on traffic was raised. Written comments included the fallowing: Club Sport(3000 members)is going into Renaissance Motel. Many will probably use the bridge form the north side of Treat, and gym members tend to walk or ride versus drive to the facility. Use ecologically sustainable building materials, the most cost effective. Safety lighting imperative -during winter the bridge will get much use during non daylight hours-safety for users is most important! Look up the requirement in the specific plan about aesthetic requirements:,and the John Muir building. Swing a fork of the bridge over Jones Road. Move forward with this project and get it done while fundingis still available. Like color blue to blend with the sky and less visual impact., John Eddy was an excellent presenter, in spite of his strong interest in the cable- stayed design. His answers elucidated the process architects must go through in working through design constraints. Excellent presentations - thanks for holding these open informative sessions! Thanks for the meeting! Pleasant Hill BART Station Bridge Overcrossing Program Communit Prepared by MIG Inc. Page 8 SAO - r �"4.� �;w ,�..--. +-1�.«w trstt�i°�i17"`'V�t*,w• �.�i�i�'r,.�:+c.: y -r .E t*— ..n ivlc'r Ne }SGY C' F A T lfi` uTt ) .. 1. t Y / Foam _t, ;. " f+ti �{ it 1 :a"�s,YVa t s rr.i r ift OkeM GA&' wi Ifterp ,it itsoorv/ Pleasant Hill Bart Station Bridge Overcrossing Program Community Meeting##4 June 24"' 2002 Prepared by MG,Inc. r ja Mli ::3W447 AOCVr .° '! It t YA. 1 r epr i'tc 4'' Pleasant Hill]Bart Station Bridge Overcrossi ng Program Community Meeting # 4 June 2e, 2002 Prepared by IvffG, Inc. R ' C �/ La #� woo O Pleasant Hill Bart Station Bridge Overcrossig Program Community Meeting # 4 June 24`x', 2002 Prepared&y AEG, Inc. cl U K X K X' X X X K K K X x fit' X X X X K X % X K X X x`K X X X X X K X X 'K X X X CIO et 46 0. a Cm m _ . . m o E �' 25 ' to a o cl . IW ai cm my � jc m y .� m 'a cazc u, w om m e rn c m m �, a - x'* , - is a ui m ar m._ p s Lo �} Ll c oB if# E n ro retic " °c xsz is m m � o .: ' e o Ct1 cE °'0H — 1) t c ttlH L ' mmvr '` m d o ykmrs mrom � m ° ° rsm ° > 'aE `� mcg acs3n assmi ccoas= ' mVwtcB � 'ro '� > YI� � es o. 4) cam_« ccEm � m� mmcc c m �' s~'i aca b c � S. 0zmr rn� aI ' +� a*p o cot 4- � PC o mc �, t� t_ncsc'"is meat m mcFE: , qc c ,N y m 'mgm o m � caa, rmcca nci'i8—+ � a� E ° E1.9 .a Emco tfi n ' o arHmur ccs ' cam rss8 "wm8 a mem wM In hom � $ 8oaoct Ito •�s � m,w a� c� G1 , X X X K 7C X X YC X X X X % X X X % X X Sf K X X X K x X X St X X X i c c a`r c� = a� 9G X x >< x X x'. x X x. x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x X I 1I O O caC y,w CCS m C a c � m °' c c E � ci, ca as .> ca3 Nuc h row `" ° c L- kcm ;A m m to ` ro n' °' -6 ca owcc ° �+ a $ c o � cdo .. Lt/ivs ri ca�aiSmrom0M. a9d � � � . I yt amocC* r0 c is .. cm F . >, 0 6 c c > va t u�, ro ! ° , 'is, �i'° �, J�]� � _ � c +'� E 8.5 6g�y .k t� .`r- c CIS . 4t �j S L G> r (Y _- E'. d CS 5 d w + C C. m -. - m �}a H E �r ��4 ((�ry} tib :3 Q L •nt L r _: 3'3 s6 tQ CA i6} C L 16 {3 •_� r.Y ,'Y (} tI� 4 1J �`5 4+1 _� m xa� yu ' `ur. ac � � r@ c sc' ttrm +- i ' c m Ex *uSu 'ta + -" b •. $ o °ascss Co ,t � m � t-U= a U 0 ca 8 x x x x x x x x xX X x x x X x x X x x x x X x x X x X x x x x X X x )C. x AIR _[HT I I I I I 6i e c N a x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x' x x x x x x x x x x ra •o ut sn W � _ C! z '.L M C SFrCL } o 0 L io ' rn m as m -ca °s °� �.. � C O .Q' C �' LD V Be tpLolpLa '. aro re} 3 .-g2 5j- .`' "` a chi o o `C. o- > r •�s '� _ E `� '' E CLL ° �tccy0E �� o' N •~ to at �- a I we µ � r " cc cv , $au c n m fit¢ >. ai ar .: � r s CD C cm sio a 8._ ami nuc s � * tri t- tl L� L� s cit m a fl 4®� C3 > J d `t _! U }- �i c= O� m f 'x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x t°a � x x x x x 'x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x us Lo E, u ,cn � co c f7� N N 44 0 06 �►` sr ami, d1 - m " E . , a N ,c ca su 0- 0o U) � �W ism n yr c c t- y ID AE � —ClL) 41MCI 4>1 > #am > G tE o 2 06 41 to ' E C� iri .y 3 is a. c s SRI c tai ccta� c c . ,� $ > a o a� ' its m L m cmE + ." iOfNa! N N N • y EgOw roti . 0 ` ° Ago a »• .� 6 C N 'i ,M. L--- C3 - 'W ..', '0 ,SAS, Sa vm� m � ' xxscxxacx x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x rc x x x x x xx x x x x x :r x ,c x x X '` x 116 d m Edi m o , W m A ' 1, tr tDt4 am� Svc ssm � , c 7� � wto too A x x x K -A c� x � N X X X x X x X x X YE X x X xx X x x X' X x X' x X x X x X x X: x X X X X X X Q (Dy M C y O M O ro Q! tit 'i3 ip a+ • � N R � m �' 'A' y 4tl LS 3 ad 0 `t _ x ,dc in ' ^ @CL to SS tittu N LA 46 o cmc t`u o � ri U! Yem m s atrotuciro3 ata aalI c a� .. r- 0— as at rig o � E IS e mar , a to c Ica 'm ' c c� ",4 m �" to a - ¢p , ,tm _ 0 E M :tE c e tam o ' m m to .«t >` G'7 ca cn t> h- ;a a .� ¢ rn a,. ac CL 0 in c <i o e " x x X x X Xx x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x X x x x x x x m �t vs X X yt yt yc '+t X X X X X X X A X X X X X 'A , % ytXyt Tr X X X'yE X yt 9 > C} E-6 44 th O {6 tiles r N 41 ccs , ul 110 xa X X XXyt N X X CS X X X X X i1 ; _ m x x x x' x x x x x x x x x x x IT x x x x x x x x x 'x x x x x x x x c ro AR x � Cfi m oG, w yIts .. E _ 2 aI i ox d �• $ m C in as CL P la ax m V �} 72 m ash > c CL Asa c c s m nm' in o so cc ._ cu a $ m v;emm n CL ga 1411 s3 c m min o x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xr x x x x x x x x x x x x c m m ; a x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x' x x x' x x x x x x x x x x 1XI pG co 32 N 0 D Z p w ol ? �g m �Fhh O L ' .�. coLT v Rp ¢g ry� co V) CIO 65 'II C 'CX ;77 ry' C ID tm co ��rr _ $ CL 0 j4d, fA C � � c � $ •cs as � •c cu � w- � ca.'c � �to ,� � } as : ca +nm — ti � E " css 'le CL acs 3 0 Aga 81 8L f -M 9 4 now 1XI su : x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x :a c m csi m � x Kytx � K coo r� t5 x X x x X x' X CD is 70 X x o' ,- C s jut CO � U) � �w� �' .sic � • � o � mc� � � � m :� �` `�' � �-`�� AD 51 b t3 Q to A 1� 16 'm 7;-, 'n �s �� '� u•�� � �� `"5 s'a "� �� � �acs m FA ` � �'� �? �s;c_sscJs,ry � c �, � ��•� � �a •c�+'ur,� '' m�� �� U �i'7CL ��� ? ODmr�+ tji a p is t- x x X X X x X 7C X x K X X X y{ K X >t K X x itC� „yam co r7 w x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7 x x X IxIX x x x x x x x x x x x x , C) w a cl cm r c , C 2s CL ```' ctl 0 msa >' a`7 u7 E ms ' v, � °� `� CL L 41 E OFY ^p vi �. tiS ill C47L G i�U m CL 0 Q c iu c 3 ami ID t47 .C7 85 xs �G y, h' ro 23' tTi dy 2h S CY jp - 5 _ •�'' ` � a`7 � c • � "` cam v7 £� � E � � y �" '�i�sto �vit7 ,. SOR Cc nFA CL t7 °c °c tam _ fit uaT Ho tsct c � �mCr ar fl3t13t3 �iELO '°SU �G ._ ito ' U �uS GClt1 � x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 7K x x 7z x xx x x II x x x x 7K x x x x x x x e ; o ct G7. 1W' tL' x x x x x x x x x � rn IN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c M c ' 5 v os *At , o. o, b ge .18 i6 .. ns b 0 46 Ca N N cxo sm 2 C _ 8 CL c m' X 13 : a u' 79 J% ' � ,' u > u, E . o t � te» � "- ` c sa t� w cu : ` e ' er + `—" 0 `3S � ccasot° c` ► � x azxm a u. ma. a. mt�s' r� st� �- € - t- : rte xxxxx'xxx'xxxxxx'xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx L5 I I ffl—L L: Attachment E Comment Letters c 1 T , Y o f 03 MAR - 4 FM h: 06 WALNUT , CREf-. 27''2003 "r , Mark DeSaulnier Chair,Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Room 146 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 Dear Chairman aulnier; Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the design options for the proposed pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing at Treat Boulevard and Jones Road. The City of Walnut Creek Design .Review Commission and the Transportation Commission discussed the four options at meetings on February 19''and 20`x'. Their recommendations form the basis of the following comments. Of the four options,the City of Walnut Creek favors the concrete girder bridge, closely followed by the railroad truss bridge. Both these options are clearly preferable to the cable-stayed bridge and the arched bridge, based on considerations related to cost and design. The successful execution of the concrete,girder design is dependent on minimizing the bulk of the column and deck elements ,careful'detailing,and attention to the design and placement of screening materials. In addition, if economically feasible, I urge you to consider a'12-foot wide deck in order to accommodate the increasing number of trail users, both on foot and bicycle. Recognition of the railroadlegacy of this corridor through some type of symbolic statement should also be considered. I also wish to point out that the overcrossing design is only part of the picture.The City also has an interest in the siting of the overcrossing and would like to see minimal disruption to existing sidewalks,open space and trees: Thank you for the your consideration. If you have questions, or require additional infonnation, please;,contact Janice Stern,'Senior'Planner,at(925)943-5899 x. 213,or Michael Vecchio, Transportation Specialist, at(925)'943-5899 x.216: Sincerely, Gwen Regalia Mayor, City of Walnut Creek C.C. James Kennedy, Redevelopment Director , Post Office Box 8039, 1.666 North Main Street,Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Wal D1str1ct,1oppTpypTeint Association 40 2632 Cherry Lane925.930.8381 Walnut Creek,CA 94597 khunt'!2 hotmai[. rn February 26, 2003 Mr. James Kennedy Deputy;Director-Redevelopment 651 Pine Street North Wing, 4t' Floor Martinez, CA'94553 RE: Bridge Design Preference for the Bridge at Treat and Jones Dear Mr. ` edy: The Walden District Improvement Association Board has determined the following order of bridge design preference: 1. Concrete Girder 2. Railroad Truss 3. Arch Bridge Option 4. Cable-stayed bridge Our preference for the Concrete Girder is fused on the constraints of the site. The bridge will be located in an area that is close to existing building and is adjacent to existing trees. In addition, the view of any bridge will be impacted by the build-out on the BART property. Given all these factors, it is not the location for anything approaching a signature bridge. As we have said in the past, this is a situation where "less is more." If you have any questions about our decision, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, -5-� Kristine S. Hunt President cc: Supervisor Mark'DeSaulnier 135C Treat Boulcr.irt! Suite 180 Wcilnut C:rck!k CA 94396 Tele 9Z5/9.35-6337 F;rs: 925(935 1307 coca+�ctrntrac�,,r.;ccntvc.r:�n June 20,2002 Mr.Jim Kennedy: Redevelopment Director Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Jim: At the Contra Costa Centre Association Annual Board Meeting held on June 19, 2002,the board discussed and reviewed the two bridge designsfor the Pleasant Hill BART PedestriawBicycle D'vercrossing of the Iran Horse Trail at Treat Boulevard'. The board unanimously supported the cable-staged bridge. The board feels it would be aesthetically pleasing as well as a signature"piece`for the;area: If you need any further comments,please let me know: Yours truly, Lynee Tanner-Busby Executive Director LTB/jf cc: Kris Hunt, 'Malden District Improvement Association President Community Contra Comic it Barry,Arcs Community Development Director Development Casty Department County County Administration Building 651 Pune Street 4th Flour,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 - Phone: (92'5) 335.-1201 April 14, 2003 Dear Planning Commissioners: The Iron Horse Citizens Advisory'Committee has participated in the public process:concerning the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing at Treat Boulevard and would like to offer the following comments: The Committee believes that this bridge is a critical link in the trail and is interested above all else in seeing that the bridge gets built without further delay. We,prefer the railroad truss design because it is evocative of the trail's railroad history. There are two genuine railroad bridges left on the northern part of the trail and we would like to continue this theme to give the trail an identity as the major facility it is. We dislike the cable stay design for two reasons. First, the split roadbed:, even at approximately eight feet per side, is likely to impede traffic. people unfamiliar with it will be confused, ethers will stop and gawk, and the additional fencing required to protect people from falling or dropping things into the split will give the area a confined. feeling. Second, this was already the most expensive and difficultalternative to build. However,we do support the idea of having a single 12-foot roadbed on any of the other designs to encourage the free flow of traffic and provide for future larger volume of use. Lastly, bids have come in lower than estimates for several similar projects recently. A prompt decision will allow this bridge to be built at a minimum of taxpayer expense. Sincerely, J tsley .'Hunt Chair, Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee LDH\JG\Ynik G:til'ransportation\Graitzer\Lettcr\DraftlTreat bridge.doc c: J.Greitzer,CDD' J.Kennedy,Redevelopment J.Lutz,District III office M.smith,District IV office Members,Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee Office Hours Monday-Friday: 8.00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the ist, 3rd'&5th Fridays of each month Central Contra Costal Sanitary District FAX:(925)372-7892 C9ARLES W.BA GeneratManager KENMNL. 4LlYI April 17, 2003 cau, eT(10)aoa`neo JOYCEB.MWHY File: 4717.5.1.12 Secretary oftheDistrict Ms. Maureen Toms Principal Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4t' Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Toms: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, COUNTY FILE#CP 03-18, TREAT BOULEVARDIJONES ROAD (IRON HORSE TRAIL) OUERCROSSING The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD)has no conceptual objection to a Treat BoulevardlJones Road overcrossing, project. The District, as a sister public agency,wishes to cooperate with the County to allow this project to go forward in a manner which will benefit trail users,while providing for appropriate mitigation to allow the current and future sanitary sewer facilities of CCCSD to be properly, constructed, operated and maintained. Nonetheless, CCCSD has existing sewers and sewer easements, which will be significantly impacted by the proposed Treat Boulevard/Jones Road overcrossing, that are neither mentioned nor addressed appropriately through the: mitigation set forth in the Negative Declaration. Put most simply, the overcrossing as planned without additional mitigation will interfere with or prevent CCCSD,from constructing, maintaining, and repairing existing sewer facilities within its easements. The north end of the overcrossing will directly interfere with an existing 30-inch sanitary sewer. The south end of the overcrossing lands within a CCCSD sewer easement,will interfere with an existing 60-Inch interceptor sewer therein, and will,potentially prevent construction of a planned 66-inch Interceptor sewer. Each of these sewers is an essential part of the District's sewage collection system and proper access for construction, maintenance and repair of each is necessary for the protection of the environment and public health. 30-Inch Sewer Conflict Construction of the overcrossing, based on current plans, will,require that the 30 inch line be taken out of service.and relocated to a new location acceptable to CCCSD. This is a significant trunk sewer and sewage service provided by the line will need to be 1ADesign\District Projects\4717\TomsLetter.doc @ RecgdedPaper Ms. Maureen Toms April 17, 2003 Page 2 maintained at all times. This relocation must be undertaken at no cost to the District. This issue as well as others within this letter have been previously presented to County staff. (See attached March 7, 2003 letter to Mr. Yee'.) Interference on South Side of Treat Boulevard The overcrossing as designed lands within our easement and unacceptably interferes with our property rights previously acquired from Contra Costa County. The easement states "Uses which are net compatible shall include, but not be limited to, buildings with foundations, multi-leveled parking facilities, embankments, or other permanent structures with foundations which would prevent reasonable access for maintenance and repair of the sanitary sewer facilities." The current design would violate these easement rights and therefore cannot be constructed without adequate mitigation to address this issue. More specifically, the overcrossing piers, buttresses, foundations, and landing are directly adjacent to our,existing 60-inch sanitary sewer on the south side of Treat Boulevard. This sewer conveys all of the sewage from the D!istrict's service area generally located south of Treat Boulevard, including sewage from Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Alamo, Danvllle, Blackhawk, and parts of.San Ramon. The location of this proposed overcrossing will prevent CCCSD from reasonable access for maintenance and repair of the 60-inch sewer, which provides the backbone of the District's'existing collection system. Any alternative overcrossing design must include protection of our existing 60-inch sewer during construction, post construction, and allow for excavation'of the 60-inch sewer for repair and maintenance. The current design would violate these easement'rights and therefore could not be conducted without adequate provisions to address this. The current design at the overcrossing also lands adjacent to our planned 66-inch sanitary sewer alignment that will be constructed within our existing easement. The current design will prevent construction of this fib-inch interceptor Within our existing property rights. Use of this landing location will require re-design of the future 66 inch interceptor to be located outside of our existing easement in'order'to allow for adequate space for construction, maintenance and repair. The availability of an adequate alternative sewer route is not assured and may cause an increase'in construction costs for that segment of:the llne,which increased construction costs will not be borne by the District. Any new sewer routes will require obtaining new easement rights from Contra Costa County, which must include the same property rights set forth in the 19:86 Easement Acquisition Agreement or the proposed location will be unacceptable. The Negative Declaration completely falls to address the significant environmental impacts noted above related to the current overcrossing project design.; 1ADesignl'District Projects147171TomsLetter.doc Ms. Maureen Toms April 17, 2003 Page 3 S1ecific Comments Comments to specific sections of the Negative Declarationare as follows: Page 2, Item 10: No mention its made of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. CCCSD has an existing easement from Contra Costa County in the area of the proposed overcrossing. Can the south side of Treat'Boulevard the overcrossing'is planned to land in this easement.. The'CCC D easement document specifically prohibits ... embankments, or other permanent structures with foundations which would prevent reasonable access for maintenance or repair of the sanitary sewer facilities." The approval of CCCSD is required for construction of the overcrossing and landing in its easement. The overcrossing will, if built as currently designed, affect CCCSD"s ability to maintain and repair the necessary sanitary sewer facilities. Page 14, IX LAND USE'PLANNING: The CCCSD easement was established to provide for necessary existing and planned major sanitary sewer Interceptor lines to protect the environment and public health. As the overcrossing is currently designed, the relocation of CCCSD's,existing 307inch and 60-inch sewers and planned 66-inch sewer would be required in order to maintain necessary sanitary sewer service to protect the environment and public health. Relocation of the existing and planned sewers must be required as mitigation for the construction of the overcrossing,or the overcrossing must be redesigned to avoid the need for relocation of the existing and planned sewers. Page 23 SUMMARY. Change "Central Sanitation District"to "Central Contra Costa Sanitary District' The District looks forward to meeting,with you to.attempt to eliminate these potential environmental impacts, In order that you can move forward with a successful Treat Boulevard overcrossing project. Sincerely, Oilliam Brennan' Capital Projects Division Manager i.\Design\District Projects\471 7\Torns Letter.doc Ms. Marueen Toms April 17, 2003 Page 4 Attachment cc: Chuck Batts Ann Farrel[ Julie BuerenCCC Ron Babst, CCC 1ADesign\District Projects147171TomsLetter.doc Mount Diablo regional Group Sierra Club - San Francisco Bay Chapter P.O. Box 4457, Walnut Creek CA 94596 oo ¢ o May 1..2, 26b ,. Mr. Jim Kennedy, RedevelopmentDirector, Redevelopment Agency County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wind Martinez California 4553.1296 RB : Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing of Treat Boulevard -eastward alignment of the north ramp Dear Mr. Kennedy, Thank you for your reply dated April 14 to Mr, Koellner's letter of February 21, 2003. It is unfortunate that our committee was unable to receive your information in time to formulate comment before the Planning Commission meeting about the Overcrossing: With respect to the eastward alignment of the north ramp, you replied: "First, this alignment reduces the amount of space within the Greenspace project that is not readily visible from public rights of way,'thereby enhancing security": This seems doubtful because were the ramp to be on the Iron Horse right-of-way, the western side is totally visible from Jones Read, and the eastern side is visible by police drivebys - from the south on Treat Blvd. and from the north end on Uel Hombre Lane. Moreover, from the drawings you sent us. the angled alignment of the bridge will create a triangular blind area between the ramp and the southeastern side. This blind area will not be visible by police on any drivebys. You also write:"The second'basis for this alignment is to place the end of the ramp in a location which minimizes conflict with other users of the pedestrian network" We do not understand this. Surely the cross traffic will be the same no matter where the end of the ramp is? So again, we suggest that the Trail Overcrossing should be straight line, as this will serve the functions intended Please ensure that this letter is entered into the public record for the Board of Supervisors meeting on this subject. Sincerely, Jiro Blickenstaff. Chair, Conservation Committee. Sierra Club, Mt. Diablo Group,' Cc Board of Supervisors, J Sweeten, Mr. Dennis M. Barry, 651 fine Street, Martinez CA 94553 Mount Diablo Regional Groin Sierra Club - San F�anczsco Bay Chapter P.O. Box 4457, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. May 27, 2003 p, N Beard of Supervisors cso Contra Costa County County.Administration Building 651 fine Street Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Iron Horse Trail Bridge over Treat Blvd: Honorable;Supervisors: The Mount Diablo Group of the Sierra Club has just become mare of the Contra Costa Grand,lura Report No. 0306. We are very surprised and extremely alarmed about the recommendation of the Grand Jury to not proceed further with plans to build the bridge over Treat Blvd- The Iron Horse TraR is a regional facility serer maple over a m0on times a year as a non motorized commute path, recreational facility, and a way to get to school without facing tram. The Sierra Club not only supports ongoing development and improvement of this wonderful'public facility but has urged that the Iron Nose Trail shall-be continuous acid not interrupted via a resolution previously delivered to you. The gap in the Redevelopment Area is the main blockage in this groat trail facility which, by the way, helps to reduce regional motorized traffic: one reason for creating this Redevelopment Area as is mentioned in the Grand fury;lie The foot-and-cycle bridge over Treat Blvd. is needed as part of the closure of this gap and now that the County has the plans,the public approval, and the money to close this gap, taking into consideration the safety of all trail users, plea complete this important link as soon as possible. The Sierra Club strongly urges your to reject the Grana furys recommendation that the Iron Horse bridge no built. Sincerely yours, Werner Koellner, Chair'' CC: James Kennedy,--Redevelopment Agency community Contra Dennis t Berry,AICD LJ Community Development Director Development Costa Department CounL ..ly County Administration Building Attachment F 651 Fine Street 4th Floor,forth Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 925 335-1250 .+ Phone: ) 'p March 17,2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File#CP 03-1$ Treat Boulevard/Jones Road(.Iron Horse Trail)Overcrossing and the Right Turn Lane on Oak Road to Treat Boulevard, Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the"Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: CONTRA C3STA C 1R TY Applicant & Owned, County Pile #CP03-18: The proposed project involves the construction of a ClassI Bicycle/pedestrian Bridge with ramps over Treat Boulevard at the intersection with Jones .Road. Existing temporary BART parking on the north end of the overcrossing and the Jones Road northbound right turn lane to Treat Boulevard would be removed. The alignment within the northbound right turn lane provides separation from the John Muir Diablo health Systems facility and preserves a stand of mature trees along Jones Road. Landing ramps would be constructed on Jones Road. The bridge overcrossing would connect with a realigned portion of the Iran Horse Trail on the north end and the existing trail alignment on the south.end.A northbound right turn lane on Oak Road,located one block west of Jones Road,would be constructed to replace the dedicated right turn lane used to construct the overcrossing right of way on Jones Road. The site is within the pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan area in Central Contra Costa County. Potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality,traffic,and noise have been identified in the initial study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated which reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents referenced be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department,and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building,North Wing,Second Floor, 551 Pine'Street,;Martinez, during normal business. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5.00 P.M., Thursday,April 17,2!?O J. Any cornrnents;shauld be in writing and submitted to the following address: Maureen Toms,'Principal Planner Contra Costa County Conumunity Development Department 551 Pine'Street,;forth Wing,4th Floor Martinez,CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting ofthe Contra Costa County Planning Commission can Tuesday,April 22,2003. The meeting is anticipated to be held at 7:04 pro at the Board Chambers at 651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA. It is expected that the Planning Commission will also conduct a hearing on the application at the same meeting, Interested parties may contact staff at the above number to confirm the time and date of the hearing. Maureen Toms,AICI? _ Prinrinal Planner Office Hours'Mondav- Fridav:8:00 a.m.- 5:00'p.m. I Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Treat Boulevard/Jones Road (IronHorse Trail) Overcrossing and the Right Turn Lane on Oak Road to Treat Boulevard. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact person and Phone Number: Maureen Toms (925)335-1250 4. Project Location: The project site for the overcrossing is located along Jones Road'and the site for the northbound fight-turn lane onto Treat Blvd.is Oak Road at Treat Blvd., ;near the Pleasant Hill BART Station, in the unincorporated area of Central Contra Costa County. The project site is within the area of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency 651 fine Street,4ffi Floor-North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Public/Semi Public(P/S)and Office(OF) 7. Zoning: Planned-Unit District(P-1) S. Description of Project: The proposed project involves the construction of a Class I Bicycle/pedestrian Bridge with ramps over Treat Boulevard at the intersection with Jones Road. Existing temporary BART parking on the north end of the overcrossing and the Jones Road northbound right turn lane to Treat Boulevard would be removed. The alignment within the northbound right"tum lane provides separation from the John Muir` Diablo Health Systems facility and preserves 'a stand of mature trees along,Jones Road. Landing ramps would be constructed on Jones Road. The bridge overcrossing would connect with a realigned portion of the Iron Horse Trail on the north end and the existing trail alignment on the south end. A northbound right turn lane on Oak Road, located one block west of Jones Road, would be constructed to replace the dedicated right tum lane used to construct the overcrossing right of way on Jones Road. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site of the proposed bridge overcrossing is within the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan Area. Surrounding land uses include the BART Station, office and medical administration buildings, parking lot for:the Muller Veterinary Hospital,temporary BART parking;lot, and the Renaissance Hotel and Health Club complex. The 2 ' I-680 freeway is approximately two blocks to the west of the site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval California:Department of Transportation(CALTRANS), is required(e.g.,permits, financing Federal Highway Administration(FH A), and East Bay approval.'or participation agreement): Regional Park District(EBRPD); ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ Land Use and Planning ✓ Transportation/ Public Services _ Papulation&Housing Circulation Utilities&Service ✓ Geological Problems ✓ Biological Resources Systems ✓ Water _ Energy & Mineral ✓ Aesthetics Air Quality. Resources ✓ Cultural Resources_ Mandatary Findings of Hazards Recreation Significance ✓ Noise DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant:effect on the environment, and a, NEGA'TI'VE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a ',significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed prof ect MAY have a significant effects)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached'sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An EN IRON1vIENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environunent,there WILL NOT be,a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are unposed upon the proposed project. 3 Prepared by: March 17,2003 Booker Holton,PhD. Date Approved by: t — March 17,2003 Maureen Toms,AICP Date CCCCommunity Development Department CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT' The Environmental Impact Report for the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station AreaSpecific Plan (certified on October 6, 1998)is a program EIR prepared in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Act(CEQA)Guidelines. CEQA'enables the EIR to serve as a tiering document for individual development projects proposed for the Specific Plan area. The program EIR addressed all of the significant cumulative impacts of the amendments to the Specific Pian. Subsequent activities(ie.,development plans)in the program-(specific plan) must be examined'in the light of the program: EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.' If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading either to a Negative Declaration or EIR. The EIR included the evaluation of a project to provide access between the East Bay Regional Park District's, (EBRPD)Iron Horse Trail,and the Specific Plan area,including a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Jones Road„at the signalized crossing. An overpass at Treat Boulevard that would meet Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)requirements was considered and provided'for in the Specific Plan. The EIR for the Specific Plan found potentially significant impacts and provided mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing project and are identified with an asterisk in the document(ie., Mitigation Measure*). The proposed project does not result in additional significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated by the County in that EIR. Project specific mitigation measures,which reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level,are also incorporated into the project. SOURCES' In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation,the following references(which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street 5th Floor-North Wing,Martinez)were consulted: I. The(Reconsolidated)County General Plan(July 1996)and EIR on the General Plan(January 199 1) 2. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan and EIR(October 1998) 3. Iron'Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Traffic Study(March 2002) 4. Pleasant Hill BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Community Design Program,Feasibility Study Report(December 1,2000) 5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report--Iron Horse Trail Crossing(July 30,200 1) 6. Northwest'Information Center Records'Search Results for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing—May 4 31,2001 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No impact. I. AESTHETICS'. Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?(Source 2,4) b. Substantially damage scenic resources,; including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source 2,4) C. Substantially degrade the existing visual: ✓ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source 2,4) d. Create a new source of substantial light or ✓ glare, which would adversely',affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source 2,4) SUMMARY: The proposed Iron Horse Trail overcrossing area is located northeast and southeast of the intersection of Treat Boulevard and Jones Road. The overcrossing would intersect Treat Boulevard and extend approximately 300 feet north and 300 feet southof Treat Boulevard.Two bridge design concepts--a railroad truss and a cable stay system,along with two options,a low profile arch bridge supported by cables and a pre- engineered structure -- are being,'considered. The bridge structure over Treat Boulevard requires a 16-foot clearance and a maximum 5-percent slope to be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements of public facilities for the disabled. The Specific Flan provides for a community based design process for the overcrossing. During various community meetings convened by the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency,the public expressed.a range of opinions about the compatibility of design alternatives with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition,the County conducted a survey in January and February 20013, where the four design options were available for review on the County's website. Members ofthe public were invited to vote on their preferred design option.' Some landscape trees will be removed as part of the construction of the right-turn lane on Oak Road. The street trees will be replaced as part of the project(see Mitigation Measure#Ne). bn act Ie): The proposed project has the potential to be insensitive to the aesthetics of the surrounding areas. Mitigation Measure(1c) The Specific Plan.Policy 2,Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation,,provides a process that would minimize the potential aesthetic effects of the pedestriawbicycle bridge overcrossing. "A pedestrian and,bicycle overpass should be provided,at.Tones Road for the Iron Horse Trail,provided that the County Board of Supervisors, in approving the project .......... 5 determine that, among other requirements,rements, theform,height, mass, and setback of the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing is aesthetically and functionally consistent with its proximity to the existing office building at 1400 Treat Boulevard. The convenience of pedestrian access to this building and the Treat Boulevard frontage shall also be provided for in the design of the overpass. Location and design of the bridge shall be reviewed and approved by the County Planning Commission after a public hearing." Regardless of the ultimate design selected,due to safety concerns,it is very probable that the bridge and areas underneath the structure would be illuminated at night.The importance of a well-lit environment may conflict with the community desires to minimize the visual intrusion of night illumination. lm 'act(1 d): For pedestrian and bicycle safety additional exterior lighting may be incorporated into the overcrossing bridge design,which may result in intrusive light and glare to passing motorist and surrounding offices and future land uses proposed for The Specific Plan Area. The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed project: N gation-Measure*-(ld): 30 days prior to the issuance of a construction permit the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a Lighting Plan. Light standards shall be low-lying.Exterior lights on the bridge shall be deflected so that light shines onto the bridge platforin or access ramps and not toward adjacent properties or passing motorists. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Potentially significant Impact Potentially Unless Len than significant Mitigation Significant impact hicorponited Impact No Impact AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept OfConservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland or Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source 2) b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract?(Source 2) C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or 6 : nature, :could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use?(Source 2) SUMMARY: The site of the proposed footings and ramps of the Iron Horse Trail Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge is currently within a right-turn lane of a paved surface road. Since the site is not associated with any agricultural uses, the proposed use will not impact agricultural resources. Potentially significant` Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution controldistrict may be relief upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan(Source:2) b'. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected airl quality violation? (Source 2) C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria;pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source 2) d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source 2) e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?(Source 2) SUMMARY: The EIR prepared for the Pleasant Dill BART Station Area adequately addressed air quality; impacts resulting from proposed development of all Specific flan Subareas,including ancillary construction such as the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing. The following mitigation measures adopted for the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan will be incorporated into the proposed project: Potentially Sil?riificant Environmental Effect(IIIc).' Construction activities would result in exhaust emissions and particulate. 1Vlitiaton Measures*(Incl: During construction require implementation of B AAQMD construction dust control measures such as the following': 1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 2. Water or cover stockpiles of debris,soils,sand and other materials that can be blown by the wind daily. 3. Cover all trucks hauling soils, sand and other loose material or require all material- hauling trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. -toxic soi4. Pave,apply water 3 times daily or apply nonl stabilizers on all unpaved'access 7 roads,parking lots and staging areas at construction sites. 5. Sweep street daily,preferably with water sweepers,if soil is carried onto adjacent streets. Potentially significant Impact,' Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact'' Incorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,' or special status species in local or regional plans, polices, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source 2) b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural' community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California:.Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source 2) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defrried by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means?(Source 2) d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species'' or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source 2) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ✓ protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?(Source 2) f. Conflict with any provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved>s local, regional, or statehabitat conservation plan?(Source 2) SUMMARY: The project site contains paved surfaces,lawns,and urban landscaping along Oak Road and Jones Road. Valuable wildlife habitat and native vegetation is absent from the site. Landscape trees are located along the east sides of both Oak Road and Jones Road.'The alignment ofthe'proposed Iron Horse'frail access ramps and overcrossing is proposed west of a stand of mature trees along Jones Road. The alignment would avoid the removal of trees. Trees along the east side of Oak Road would be removed to construct the new right turn lane to Treat Boulevard.' The Pleasant Hill BART"Station Area Specific Plan, contains a policy that relates to the landscaping in the area: "A unified street planting pattern shall be maintained for all streets as diagrammatically indicated with a formal tree planting designation in the Urban Design Policy Diagram, Figure 7.4. The street tree shall be Platanus acerfolia (London Plane Tree). Other tree specimens may be appropriate for street tree use, and may be appropriate and encouraged. Spacing between trees shall be generally between 22 and 30 feet except where vehicular circulation requirements preclude it or underground utilities interfere."( 4NDSCAPING, POLICY 3). Potentially Significant Environmental Effect fIVeI. Landscape trees along the east:side of Oak Road would be lost. Mitigation Measures*(IVe): Landscaping Policy 3 would direct the replacement oftrees removed by the construction of the right turn lane on northbound Oak Road.Tree planting will be integrated with open space,landscaping and pedestrian circulation plans as adopted by the Specific Plan to unify the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area design. Implementation ofthis mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than significant. Potentially significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impactincorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a._ Cause a substantial adverse change'in the significance of a historical resource as defined in,§15064.52 (Source 2,6) b. Cause a substantial adverse change, in the ✓ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?(Source 2,6) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or -.unique geologic feature? (Source 2,6) d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?' (Source 2,6) SUMMARY: A review of records and literature at the Northwest Information Center(NIC), Sonoma State University,indicates that the proposed project area contains no recorded Native American or historic cultural resources. There is a low potential for Native American sites in the project area. Review of historical literature and maps on file with the NIC indicate no historic archaeological sites or historic strictures in the prof ect area. There is a low possibility,of identifying historic cultural resources in'theproject area. If cultural resources were to be encountered during construction, the EIR for the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment adopted mitigation measures sufficient to reduce the identified impacts of future construction on cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. 9 . Potentially Simificant Environmental Effect(Vbl: Construction activities requiring excavations and earth movement could uncover and impact significantcultural resources. Mitigation Measures*622h Since the site of the proposed Iran Horse Trail Overcrossing is covered with pavement obscuring the ground surface, the following measures would be implemented to evaluate the presence or absence of cultural resources. • For parcels presently covered by pavement or landscaping that may obscure the original ground surface,a program of mechanical subsurface testing shall be conducted to determine the presence of buried or obscured cultural material. In the event that any such material is discovered, additional testing shall be conducted to determine the aerial extent and depth below surface ofthe deposit area ant to determine the extent of impacts any planned development would have. The above mitigation is intended to demonstrate only the presence or absence of cultural resources on the project'site, and us not meant to demonstrate the scientific importance of any deposits. If a qualified archaeologist determines that cultural resources are likely to be present, the following components of the mitigation measure shall be implemented; • If cultural resources'have been identified on the site,and the extent of potential impacts to them have been determined in by the presence or absence survey, a qualified archaeologist shall determine if the impacts would be significant enough to require evaluation of the scientific importance of the resources. If it can be demonstrated'that prehistoric cultural resources are "unique" or "significant",';further mitigation to reduce or eliminate the impact shall be recommended. Mitigations will be implemented prior to granting site and construction permits. • The archaeological testing shall be undertaken when the Final Development flan is submitted. • When and if subsurface borings are done,the work shall be scheduled during a period that does not disrupt the use of the surface parking lets serving commuters in the Station Area. Boreholes shall be 4-10 inches in diameter,depending on the depth needed to extract a reliable sample. • The archaeological investigators shall use hand augers or quiet mechanical equipment to minimize the noise disturbance of boring on nearby residents,commuters,and workers. • All boreholes' shall be filled (using Quick Patch Asphalt or similar substance) and flattened immediately after the core sample is extracted so as to maintain the safe use of the parking lots. Potentially significant' Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project? a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, iniury,or death involving: 1 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquis Priolo Earthquake' Fault'' Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault? Refer to Division of Mines 10 and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source 2) 2 Strong seismic ground shaking?(Source 2) ✓ 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?(Source 2) 4. Landslides?(Source 2) b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source 2) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially,result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source 2) d.' Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ✓ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?(Source 2) e. Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting, the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source 2) SUMMARY: The geological and seismic conditions of the BART Station Area,an area that includes the site of the proposed Iron Horse Trail overcrossing of Treat Boulevard,was described in the 1982 EIR on the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan,as summarized and updated in the 1998 Specific Plan Elk. The following mitigation measures adopted for the Specific Plan are incorporated into the proposed overcrossing project and will reduce these impact to less than significant. Potentially Si Wficant Environmental Effect (Ula). Strong to violent earthquake ground shaking on active fault zones in the region could cause significant damage to improvements,and in extreme cases, loss of life. Mitigation Measures* Maj: Require geotechnical investigations to mitigate effects of engineered fills, settlement and liquefaction. 1. Engineered fills in the planning area shall be properly designed and adequately compacted(i.e. minimum 90% relative compaction as defined by ASTI D1557) to 'significantly reduce both seismically induced and natural fill settlement. 2. All roads, structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure. 3. Final design of improvements shall be made in conjunction with a design level geotechnical investigation submitted to the County for review. The investigation shall include deep borings and evaluation of liquefaction potential and the report snail estimate the magnitude of differential settlement. If a high liquefaction potential exists, the report shall include measures to control' drainage, including measures aimed at controlling damage to buildings, buried pipelines and ll surface parking. Potentially SigW ficant Environmental Effect(VI dl:Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations,slabs and pavements. Mitigation Measures* (VIM: 1. The recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be followed. Design-level geotechnical investigation for individualprojects shall provide criteria for foundation or pavement design developed in accordance'with the Uniform Building Code(UBC)and County Code requirements on the-basis of subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. 2. Foundation design shall include drilled pier-and-grade beam foundations,reinforced'slabs and thicker pavement sections designed using criteria provided by the design-level geotechnical investigation. Potentially, significant' hnpact, Potentially Unless Lcss than significant Mitigation Significant impact Incorporated impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a. " Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,' use, or disposal of hazardous materials?' (Source 5) b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the _ ✓ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(Source 5) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,'substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?(Source 5) d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant' to Government Code Section 65862.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(Source: 5) e. For a project located within an airport land use ✓ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public'.airport or public use airport,would the project result in 'a safety hazard for people resisting or working in the project area. (Source 5) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the 12 project area? (Source 5) g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source' 4) h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent'" to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?(Source 4)' SUMMARY: The project has the potential to release hazardous substances, such as accidental petroleum spills;during construction. These potential impacts are minimized to a'less than significant level with standard safety practices (i.e., installing sufficient signs warning about construction and detours, marking of underground lines before trenching, etc.). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(Jonas&Associates 2001) identified no hazardous substances,: petroleum products, solid waste/non-hazardous waste, polychlorinated biphenyls,asbestos-containing materials,storage tanks,herbicides or pesticide conditions on the project site. However,Idue to automobile emissions along Jones Road and Treat Boulevard,there is a potential for lead to be present in the soil at the study area.Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the impact to a'less than significant level. Potentially 'Significant Environmental Effect NUN. Lead contaminated soils uncovered during excavation and construction of the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing and access ramps could present a potentially hazardous condition to the public and release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measures(VUb): If contaminated soils or groundwater are encountered during construction activities,.work shall cease until appropriate worker health and safety precautions,as specified by Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 5194)promulgated by the California Occupational Safety and Health.Agency (Cal OSHA), are implemented. A qualified hazardous materials specialist shall be notified for an immediate evaluation. ■ The appropriate regulatory agency shall be contacted. If deemed necessary by the appropriate agency,remediation shall be undertaken in accordance with existing local,state and federal regulations/requirements and guidelines established for the treatment of hazardous substances. Work shall cease in the contaminated area until the nature and extent of contaminations have been established,and proper disposal or remediation has occurred. ■ Any contaminated soils and/or groundwater encountered during construction will require proper disposal This would likely require removal from the site and transportation to an EPA-approved disposal facility by a Department ofTransportatlon(DOT)certified hazardous waste transporter. • The ultimate disposal of encountered contaminated;soils will be based on the chemicals present and chemical concentrations detected through laboratory analysis. Based on the analytical results, appropriate disposal of the material in accordance with, as appropriate, EPA, Department of Substances Control, and Regional Water ;Quality Control Board guidelines shall be implemented. 13 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?(Source: 2) b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially,' with groundwater' recharge such that there would be a net deficit'' in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production` rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?(Source: 2) C. Substantially alter the existing drainage,' pattern of the site or area, including through'' the alteration of the course of a stream or river,' in a>manner,which would resultin substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?(Source:2)' d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which .would result in flooding on-or off-site?(Source: 2) e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(Source: 2) f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2) g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard: ✓ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard .Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source:2) h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area. structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?{Source: 2} i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss injury or death involving flooding,' including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?(Source..2) j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source:2) ........... ........... ............ ...... .... ...................... .......................... ... ......................................... 14 SUMMARY: The site of the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing and access ramps is not located within a floodplain or located near a body of water where water-related hazards to people or property could result. The nearest surface water body is Walnut Creek,approximately one quarter mile east of the project site.The Contra Costa Canal is approximately one-quarter mile south of the intersection of Treat Boulevard and Jones Road. The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system during construction. The following mitigation measure reduces this impact to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant impact(V The proposed project could result in the discharge of silt from the project site into the storm drain system durin9 construction. Mitigation Measure*(Vffle): At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a.grading permit an erosion control plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Grading See tion of the Building Inspection Department. The erosion control plan shall provide for the following measures: All grading,excavation and filling shall be conducted durin9 the dry season(April 15 through October 15) only, and all areas of exposed soils shall be replanted to minimize erosion and subsequent I erosion sedimentation. After October 15, the grading permit shall allow only erosio control work. Any modification to the above schedule shall be subject to review by the Grading Section ofthe Building Inspection Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to lessthan significant. Potentially Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? (Source:2) b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or, regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Source:' 2) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?(Source: 2) SUMMARY:The approved and adopted Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan called for The Iron Horse Trail overcrossing to integrate bicycle and pedestrian movements from the trail to and from surrounding land uses: "A pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing at Treat Boulevard in the vicinity ofJones Road for Iron Horse Trail circulation is included as part of the Specc Plan. The county,through its Redevelopment Agency,will pursue proceeding with construction to address safety concerns, and subject to funding availability. Redevelopmentfunding shall be combined with other funding to achieve financial leverage," (POLICY 7,PEDESTRL4N. BICYCLE. AND 15 TRALS—IT'CIRCULATION) "Apedestrian and bicycle overpass should be provided at hones Road for the Iron Horse Trail,provided that the County Board of Supervisors, in approving the project determine that,among other requirements, the farm, height, mass, and setback of the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing is aesthetically and functionally consistent with its proximity to the existing office building at 1400 Treat Boulevard. The convenience of pedestrian access to this building and the Treat Boulevard frontage.shall also be provided for in the design of the overpass. Location and design of the bridge shalt be reviewed and approved by the County Planning Commission after a public hearing.'" (POLICY 2,BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN C?RCULATIC7Nl "Undertake a community design program for both pedestrian and bicycle overcrossings as soon as feasible given availability of funding and reasonable defined site geometrics. The community design program would result in preliminary design(s)for the overcrossing sufficient to secure competitive funding." `(POLICY 7, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION) One of the major design concepts embodied in the Plan included an emphasis on enhancing pedestrian access to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area(SPECIFIC PLAN,URBAN DESIW: "Emphasize Treat Boulevard as the major entranceway to the Station Area and visually identify this role by the placement of'...the pedestrian/bicycle overpass at Jones Road " The Pleasant Pull BART Station Specific Plan identifies the Iran Morse Trail as an appropriate use of the Utility/Open Space Corridors identified at the site of the proposed Treat Boulevard overcrossing as Subarea 13 and'Subarea 16: "The Iron Horse Trail would include a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing of Treat Boulevard between Subareas'13 and 16 in the immediate vicinity of Jones Road." Potentially sip fieant impact, Potentially Unless Less than sigrfficant Mitigation significant X. MINERAL RESOURCES . Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of'a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?(Source: 2) b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local;general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.? (Source:2) St3MMA.R"Y: Due to the nature of the prc j ect and the site description,the proposal will not result in impacts to mineral resources.' to Potentially significant Tmgsct,' Potendaliy Unless Less than significant Mitigation significant;, Impact Incorporated Impaot No Impact XI. NOISE. would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standardsof other agencies? (Source:2); b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?(Source: 2) C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source:2) d A substantial temporary or periodic increase sn ✓ ambient'noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing' without the project? (Source: 2) C. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plait has not been adopted, within two miles of'a publio airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Source: 2) f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Source: 2) SUMMARY: Short-term noise levels would be expected to occur during construction of the Iron' Horse Trail overerossing and access ramps. Sensitive noise receptors include the nearby office building at 1400 Treat Boulevard. However,standard conditions of approval that include restricting construction hours, traffic flow and heavy equipment usage will reduce the noise effects. Incorporation of the following mitigation measures will rice noise impacts to a less than significant level: potentially Environmental Effect Xld). Short-terzn'noise level irscreases at sensitive locations in and surrounding the Specific Plan area would be expected during periods of heavy construction. Miti� ag�rion Measures*'(Md-1): Implement County construction noise policy limiting construction to the hours of 7:301 AM -- 5:00 PM Monday-Friday. Require construction contractors to include measures to reduce equipment noise such as: All internal engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with:mufflers that'are in good condition, 17 • Use'quief gasoline-powered compressors or other electric-powered compressors wherever possible. • Retain a disturbance coordinator to monitor construction activity and to identify additional mitigation measures as needed;consistent with the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures (XId-2): If concerns are raised about potential vibration from project construction,the construction contractor shall respond by informing those individuals about the nature and schedule of construction,and by minimizing vibration-causing construction activities to the extent practicable: Potentially significant Impact, Potentially unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No impact' XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the project: a. Induce substantial population'growth in an ✓ area, either directly (for example, by proposing; new homes and businesses) or directly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(Source:2) b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Source: 2) C. Displace substantial numbers of people' necessitating the construction of replacement' housing elsewhere?(Source:2) SUMMARY: The proposed overcrossing of Treat Boulevard would separate users of the Iron House Trail from heavy vehicular traffic at the crossing of Treat Boulevard and the intersection with Jones'Road.'The project area is mostly paved,with some gravel ground cover. As such,the project would not induce population growth or displace existing housing,or people.:. Potentially' Significant' Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation: Significant Impact Incorporated Impact, No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project a. Would the project result in substantial adverse' physical impacts associated with the provision' of new or physically altered governmental facilities,;need for new or physically',altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to 'maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other i'8 performance objectives for any of the public services: (Sources: 2) 1. 'Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other Public facilities? SUMMARY: The Iron Horse Trail overcrossing will have no effect on public services. No adverse effects on schools,parks, and other public facilities are anticipated. Potentially. significant impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact .XIV. RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing'„ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial`.' physical deterioration of the facilitywould occur or be accelerated?(Source:2,4)' b. Does the project include'recreational facilities' .� or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an:. adverse physical'effect on the''environment. (Source:2,4) SUMMARY: The proposed Iron Horse'Trail overcrossing provides a safe crossing of Treat Boulevard and avoids pedestrian/tricycle conflicts with the high volume and relatively high speed of that major thoroughfare. The overcrossing would enhance the regional importance of the Iron Horse Trail to users of all age groups and skill levels. .' The;.East Bay Regional Park District's completion of the Iron Horse Trail will span the distance from Livermore in Alameda County to Suisun Bay in Contra Costa County, a distance of over 40 miles. The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan provides for connections between the BART Station and the Iron Horse Trail. The design of the Treat'Boulevard overcrossing will be coordinated with East Bay Regional Park District regarding the planning and completion of the alignment of the Iron Horse Regional;Trail. The Iron Horse Trail overcrossing will enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to regional recreation. 19 Potentially significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XV'. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFICv Would. the project: a.. Cause an increase in traffic, which is ✓ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacityratio ,,on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2,3) b. Exceed,eithx r individually or'cumulatively,;a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(Source:2,3) c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?(Source:2,3) d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves'' or dangerous intersections)or incompatible'uses(e.g.,fu equipment)?(Source: 2,3) e. Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source:2,3) f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source:2,3) g. Conflict' with 'adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 2,3) STTNl116R'Y': The current lane configurations for Jones Road(south'of Treat Boulevard),Oak Road(south of Treat Boulevard), and Treat Boulevard(Westbound and eastbound to Jones)are as follows: Northbound Janes Road: There are three traffic lanes,a dedicated left turn lane to westbound Treat Boulevard, a combination right tuin/through lane, and a dedicated right turn to eastbound Treat Boulevard. • Southbound Jones Road: There are two southbound lanes; one a dedicated right turn,the other a through lane. Northbound oak Road: There are four trafllc lanes;two dedicated left turn lanes to westbound Treat Boulevard,'a dedicated through lane,and a combination through/right turn lane to eastbound Treat Boulevard. 20 * Southbound Oak Roach There are two southbound through lanes. ■ Westbound Treat Boulevard, There are five traffic lanes; one left turn lane to southbound Janes Road,three through lanes,and a right turn lane to northbound Jones Road. ■ Eastbound Treat Boulevard: There are six traffic lanes; two left turn lanes to northbound Janes Road, three dedicated through lanes, and one combination through/right turn/through lane to southbound Jones Road. Iron Horse Trail overcrossing structure and access ramps would be constructed within the existing right turn lane on northbound Jones Road to eastbound Treat Boulevard,thereby removing that lane from vehicular traffic. The existing"at-grade'crossing of Treat Boulevard at Jones Roadwould remain. The alignment of the access ramps and bridge overcrossing would be outside the easement of future transit corridors within the former Southern Pacific right-of way (Policy 3. Pedestrian. Bicycle, and Transit Circulation): "A minimum 20'wide right-of-way shall be maintained within the former Southern.Pacific Railrc7ad'right-of=way to Monument Boulevard to provide fog~regionalpedestrian and bicycle circulation. Right-of-way shall also be preserved far future fixed guideway use within the corridor. A transit use maybe elevated or at grade, and may share right-of-way with vehicular roadways. Additional environmental review of a fixed guideway proposal will occur. The County shall prepare a management plait that demonstrates how temporary uses of f"the right-of-way will be established in a manner that does not obstruct or otherwise adversely impact the construction and operation of the,famed guideway transit, "en a fixed guideline line is proposed far the Southern Pack right-of-way, it shall be sited and designed in a manner that minimizes conflict with trail users, does not create safety hazards, is aesthetically compatible with'open space use and does not reduce the trail width available for walkers anchor bicyclists.'With in one year of adopting the proposed Specific Plan, the County shall in tiate preparation of a management program to show how fixed guideway transit and trail use can be safely accommodated in an aesthetically pleasing manner. This may involve a change of alignment'in the;Southern Pacific right-of-way. Determining a future,fried guideway station location should include consideration o,f an inter-connection with the BART system given opportunities andlor limitations imposed by technology,costs, land use and safety. The construction of the landing ramp from the overcrossing on the north end of the structure would eliminate some temporary BART parking spaces located in the former Southem Pacific Right-of-may, No permanent parking spaces would be eliminated as a result of this project.The development of Specific Plan Subareas l 1 and 12,on the northwest corner of Treat Boulevard and Jones Road,would replace the displaced temporary parking resulting from construction of the overcrossing ramp on the north end of the structure.As part of the development of Subareas 11 and 12,'permanent parking available to BART patrons (1,337 spaces in the existing parking garage and 1,477 surface lots spaces) would be expanded by an additional 581 spaces (relocation oftemporary parking spaces oathe former Southern Pacific Right-of-Way To replace the right turn at the intersection of Jones and Treat Boulevard,a new;northbound right hand turn only lane on Oak Road to Treat Boulevard would be constructed.Construction.of the Oak Road right turn lane is:to be completed prior to the beginning of construction of the overcrossing at Jones Road and Treat Boulevard. Because of this additional right turn lane on Oak Road (one block west of Jones Road), the` elimination of the right turn lane on Jones Road is not expected to negatively affect traffic flow in the project area. 21' The construction of first, the new right turn lane on Oak Road, and subsequently the access ramp and Iron HorseTrail overcrossing within the existing right turn lane on Jones Road, would result in short-terra, temporary impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation. On each of these streets,;the temporary closure of at least one additional lane may required'during'the respective construction periods to provide space for the construction activities, staging of equipment,' temporary construction vehicle parking, and storage' of construction materials. For Oak Road,the temporary closure of the existing combination through/right turn lane may be four to six weeks in duration.'For Jones Road,the through lane adjacent to the existing right turn lane may be temporarily closed for a considerably longer period. Potentially Sia diicant Environmental Effect(XIVa). Short-term,temporary disruption ofpedestr an and vehicular access and circulation would be expected during periods of construction of the new right turn lane on Oak Road,and the access ramp and overcrossing at Jones Road and Treat Boulevard. Mitigation Measures(XIVa�. Significant long term traffic and circulation impacts are not anticipated as a result ofconstruction of the right turn lane on Oak Road,and the construction and operation of the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing of Treat Boulevard. Several mitigation measures, however, may available to minimize potential transportation and circulation impacts during construction of the proposed structures,including: Scheduling ■ Scheduling of construction shifts or lane closures so that the majority of construction related traffic/circulation'disruption occurs outside of peak commuting hours; Scheduling, to the maximum extent possible, delivery of construction materials'outside of peak commuting hours. Public Notification ■ Require construction contractor to give notification'to public agencies and to the general public to alert them in advance of lane closures; • Changeable Message Sign (CMS)boards or other appropriate notification devices shall'be installed at least 3 consecutive days prior to a lane closure; • As needed, warning signs shall be placed at appropriate locations in advance of the construction operation to alert traffic within the affected streets,and cones or other approved devices shall be placed to safely channel pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Safe Crossings,Vehicular Access, and Barriers ■ Prior to the construction'of the dedicated new right turn lane on Oak Road;the construction contractor shall temporarily reroute pedestrian traffic to the west side of Oak Road,the east side of Oak Road shall be temporarily closed to pedestrian access;' ■ At least three traffic lanes (northbound left, through or right turn) on Oak Road shall be maintained; ■ During construction of the access ramps and overcrossing of Treat Boulevard at Jones Road, the construction contractor shall temporarily reroute pedestrian and bicycle'traffic to the west 22 side of Jones Road, the east side of Jones Road shall be temporarily closed to pedestrian access; • At least one combination left fitrr1lthrough northbound traffic lane on Junes Road shall be maintained; The construction contractor shall plane and maintain barriers and warning devices necessary for safety of the general public. • Flagmen shall be provided as necessary to'control the flow and circulation of traffic and pedestrian crossings.. IViaintenance of Existing Building Access The construction contractor shall maintain the existing'pedestrian access to the Treat BoulevardIJones Road wilding envy,to the John Muir Health Center Administrative Officesat 1400 Treat Boulevard. Potentially significant impact, Potentially Finless Less than significant Mitigation Significant'. impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI, UTILITIES ANIS SERVICE SYSTEMS-Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source:2,4) b. Require'or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facili#res, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects?(Source: 2,4) C. Require'or.result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion o existing facilities, the:construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source.2,4) d have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources,or are new or expanded entitlement needed? (Source: 2,4) e. Result in a determination by the wastewater '! treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity;to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?(Source: 2, 4) f Be served by a landfill with 'sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?{Source: 23 2,4} g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes V( and 'regulations 'related to solid waste? (Source: 2,4) SUMMARY:`, The proposed Iron Horse Trail overcrossing is within existing urban boundaries, served by various utilities, including PG& E Telephone companies, Contra Costa Water District, Central Sanitation District,and Flood Control District. Since the proposed project is within the service boundaries,the project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the utilities. The proposed project will have no effect on wastewatertreatment requirements or facilities. The project will not result'in any increased generation of wastewater or change in effluent water quality. The overcrossing structure and access ramps will have no effect on the demand for water supplies or change the demand for solid waste disposal capacity. Potentially, significant Impact, Potentially Unless Less than significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVII:: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish' and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to;; eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce' the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Source: 2,4,6) b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are:considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Source:2,3,4,5,6) C. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause'substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source:2,3,4,5,6) SUNfMARY: The project does not have the potential to degrade the'quality-ofthe environment,significantly impact biological resources(see#IV-Biological Resources)or eliminate major period ofCalifornia history or prehistory(see#V-Cultural Resources), 24 No impacts that would be cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed project have been identified. Mitigation measures identified under I-Aesthetics, III-Air 'Quality, IV Biological Resources, V-Cultural Resources, VI - Geology and Sails, VII-Hazards and Hazardous Materials, VIII - Hydrology;and Water Quality,XI'-Noise,and X V-Transportation/Traflic mould ensure that adverse effects on hart beings will be reduced to insignificant levels. •�a y,4,,�a•' a� ' �,• ;'•.<>f. "� '�' � s�:}c•,• # �,� w v "•:sa ' �, � •yaxr �x%'�•,a }.# e�s��.,, ;,�, },��}"�'�'vr '�a s „` e} 1< a {'�..}� ^Sfn a�-£� ' �y��,�x X5�' �, �•�kk''}''`y c'^s � / �fi t.}S�,:t'it f�2�.x �t'_:k�. '�'{�`C�''}, '' 4 �•:..� -:�R�F �� {S.•"'6�"2.7f}�{ �x'•.z�s�' �{2 :. :..•'4's r•,�`_' r�? . f '�5....'}``,�, r{< .?_4µ�� � �' .�.�r'`fY '� s^" "4Wrr"� ;� Yt`x! �:'} i.r {'?i�s'.`'•}' .1',:'i%'.,k:'+: "•�. S y ��4i i'. v. 'Ki., .: �„ ,rraf ." ..y+a t{ �;, :} ;"��� :c ,,}�, �. ''�`;c *, .z S 8+r?- '++n•�r.7'�� ���1'tr ruq `,'�'ra� -`.f":;.}; „+t'"�,�.. ..z.. ..'+?',"',..� ..,,cs,t,k+`�,.� k" ,•}a �:�,.•.t. �•..,•s,r... b.o-.. ...k.,..<f ..<d s{>s'k•}. ..�z..: .•,, r. ..3:. .< �� aNrrirrrrr y de It t� Con, Are' C�*1 on �d i rt�y�,r sera CONCORD s F'LEASAN7 HILL to a Boyd Rd z Hooks or+< Oak Park Blvd in .�'`�•MM ��. � rPl� WALNUT CREEK } Pi� Gallery Rdrt+t r 9p, . x STUDY AREA a ' Wallkli'IVt f us,Q t , -•r kms' :r;••aa^'. _ � ;{,.x�r};�?+,;'{.� �r ,��'�.{,�{ ���,' `Y^�j•#>` '{ w .,w'"}r:...t�{•�a rt ��. t r.�• t*..'x. yngr .ykts t ,5�tj,. 1{,.> { t „�,o-5.,,w r a tis �: R;+-h.<`a t.Jxtx tt� :;:"�f.,�.4<�`ya.2.x°n, r'�,'�`' ,,x+F`�"�z c: {�r „. ,�.s.. z"{' z: fir'`f',��•�$��+.;;Y y .$�,r: .x..�..-:,c;s :a, 3'�S,.o•.�• F +.,•. {�'�•"� ti's•,���'�r' � .•,�q� s :.. ��'�t�S � } s ti ,+�'+ �£� f s+ :-}}�`i $ { ..,�, _���•:, �k'� ��� � ''' r "'1.2* a}a �' r }'> r' +�•. }$ `{rr'id htsc• i j y h. $,r,``," n `" {# ': a is{.; � ra,�"�rs{ w.�.s ; �. �%.. r�' �{�}S.ay ` ''�� �x J.t�•.£�-. �fi+�.•�.ti'` :�:':� �'' ��k=-; •a�,�;?r�a� .,s� �`• Lr,1 r,�^�. .�r- { t� � y�' �}'-� ,a��; ,, �.;{ ���•..;+�'�,,,•.s; .; st.. � 3. „r ?n+. ,•s"J.�$. �;,.�..r•.•'�5,�¢f v�. `. '�', ^: {�h^+50-= •wt � ,y�,. v s ,�-w .t?.•.•. {st R�;••,� h*. -•k ,...•,,.,..:�#{•�tr;5w<:`, Szt ';:,?.�fs.$r�.rr:,fx.��:;.},: ?:o'?,x?�r5``".+�,w7v,,.•.sw�s•�.•�F'�nn•,.;''"-4a.•.�fi.{.t• S^i'���:-as.+"a':�::z`?;aCt :s•:'�''; sj3r:tk,{�: i'�. rr.'�r"�,',���r...+..�?s{,a�ri�:CRs:.3 'qua`fs:�•e��s:.rhr,..{•.z�•a. 8C CONCORD PLEASANT 8$p tifLl g WALNUT _ CREEK 24 .. ...».,� OAKLAND d8 FRANCISCO SI2 8837 •r � �� ••h $ ......i{. .,..,•Y•.t�n''vA',c'h's. .o-£.5�;.+�.nv'A.a'?:tS,'w. .�v3,, .z�`.�.:. ft Mvxt tiff }f"ft.. r i� {y. i Y,.c wr' 1`•a.vZ F, .�4N ''�� t s_w S; - 3A � 4N 1B ........... .. LAS JUNTAS WAY AJ JdNSB'RIS � 16 J2 tA �,�„ v � �• U a a. C1 a to a •id. ' '16 'agsaga yy y. cn TS In U acs ° °'mcwc �a ° ry bC � v o o ° cyi ° ° oa nh u v • t'y �'vx' a .� w CS C3 tl > C Ca G q4 ° off 04 tla •cs oa `y L acai tl o' e€sa t ecE. SGC oU a -S b v i a, �a d co �s 1 � Cs" R 'Q' ✓�b� G i7 so o o o yG G } O G G d to o o 0 c t 410 Ow. 'X. rUN.. 'y7CS• , fir C��D.G, ,.... y ✓ ' ave CS G ts .♦ � �:r � as� rri � v,.� G M � � � '�'�:.:.j r N ,fit. y r v' y CynS� G sG p y y � DO c y U M n tsa 0 a � � Y U z` e7 w O o ac ro �+ N as �rp N' 7-, U c<S a' tss d '� tl ✓'.�.7 �4 �.^C5 L,:` N ,-„ .-+ tl N o7 ,yj rr� �' a'tl-� :C+✓ ''`V v to T tho:. y.... 't"A ^ • IL) 0+ tl� :+ pA �sbnNr � . v OR tl b4 C C t�3 `o� fl N n Atli +�t U1 U G G p 'v+' Edi y"f C N g (jUS U w te 4) 0 63 F a+ :U yC' Cd : .= U Ld *" ':C .i� A �p O ca ty "' C% o , y U T cf G C 'in it bA; G G * j C G J7 ~ 9 + �O °� rs "' d q 0 d> s I>5 w r N � Un• O � bn G:L3 idny7 U 3 0. 0 .- v > s ' ova ", a °��' Awtl �t ,y a°� 'c c - c ss o �te a w n c C, - 41 0 ,y Uo o N o ss y v y U 18 ``cs N y �Ol - wa.. v tl sa. U N G `as NU chi : at a�'d :tl n1 .C+ • • tn ctla o G K7 4` 0 � p � 'p .n G c�i v a �? c� a G - �P• ^� w yU+ r+ As N o b3° C) s 00 bit)6,,U�•u,, .° y ° w. a a sp' Ger �G Y OR v cmc c a °G'aq' vG. .tC C O �F Koy cai C O o� b o' Y r. 10X ' a L? ' v o •� > G N ;» �.G � N'ra^C � � � yGj � «� j �'"G �G � 'fl � ...✓ ,G '_ca o a •r. -'i Ab.y N 0•,P4vo as 'z: a C ce G Q7 oa "� caa ° G G G 't+ O B` �.G °' v:.o•-rs t,7.:� to '��+,�•,. �e•�'� o!,..� ,... f��.�rrrr }4+ t•„.vj lrt bb.."`"". tl} N i.) '.� ,,... y V!•+�+'Y ed��y',. y"t G+�� �^, ° t,j �i a A+ � ..+�'„�. r��• Y {� � � '�..'� � .� � � '� �1 � a�� � eY. � � r •�,,,,�`.� Qom} f„^. U�1.:� � Ld � U3~°d). '�' ,� "� �� �' � � �++' H.W �. �'�••V � 0 U G. � �.:� �(.� cSS .a ��., � � a N^t'i � ,ty hu�✓ � rG � G 3 U a� G G,C��°�'`"� � e� � � �i+n p a7a"i G C C U•ie woul cd en C d a th TA ol U 'r rs r ao a, on 0 �,as 'GJ •a „Q r VCS •�" L� L' s {, 06. bG G J •rj �,, .. yt, N Q `i7 �ry0.� �v Cy•N � � � .�J u Q G v v r"' . J G td ✓ �J `ate Jf d� v r � 7 y � �-°•*' td fl td Q �W.:w y N � N O .ter,, by y �.'� O eGss'� v A ca o ° �6 cmc 4'dG G Q "C3 7fl r yG y b d 6+ Y¢ ��:y S4 s U r r N q-y"�,�°v ffa '' " "'' J 7' c�"+'¢+Jd `+' w.,i °G�' Q p N '~ ,�.+ p. 13 '.f •,'3. csQ, J N �..C� �j �•G ��y.C� � � btS) Cr��: �„ Sd y::•p +'�.�f' J ,Ly .,.+ '.�d �'ltd .;�5 flO° N ` r�•y N �.+ c I •;, - y3 r °/ G y y sG S s� N N G �+�� �✓c N � 06 A G G °N vs U, w G Ull.nQ ° lJ+ P +O t? N fl. d. t"` U •J cd 'O f O •rr.. J a.+. N y i K7 •v N N ':.s.'� +'' ,'Y• . +^ J `r' 0 J Ld On Q G v xG �G Q ✓ �, J J G NO y C� ,� '+ '-'`..J C1 � r� oA G G Ncs * Q N G N J "� �s � y o � 7 �.. 4 u o i; ' C � � o m �a a �•c'ss a � o'� � 'F'�'�y � .�o, ,,� o .o o o �'� .so's ° � ' o Q ° o �' � , 5 ° 1'� 8 s csw ° o ooh do A rq :y S+cTN O v73 All C.1 ^ ni...O Q. : ' d1 M(r� 'Yy - G7 s`� ai -Il (� G bt C} d � l+ yt � � � '� c`��'V G'c« ttS�tN C� ° �« � o'� Ct '. O . c., p :.:0 TI.•�'.} itt V .�.+ a y ° "� hi:»'.. p . :�O,g 9 O y bA ts .G C ,,, 'P zyp '.�� O ° ,• p � � �� �'.u3 �'F'CS ca � � ° U ,t> as ea z)"GG fl •Yi ai cz� U " '� 6 W ":�"+:. +-.-� 01,4 V y 0 Dota' d c '_ G r • JS � o � �s yG 6-03-203 8: 15AM FROM JONAS AND ASSOCIATES 925 374 0021 �. r MA U JCI` AS JUN 10 '2003 4090 Treat Boulevard, Concord, California 94518 * 925/825-7801 ho .` ork' May 28, 2003 Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Contra County County Chair, Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110 Concord, California 9452(} Subject Request to Refect the Grand Jury 2002-2003 Report No. 0306 Conclusion and Recommendation Concerning the Bridge Over Treat Boulevard. Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier During yesterday's (May 27, 2003) meeting of the Iran Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee it was announced that the Contra Costa County Grand Jury, 2002.-2003,=Report No. 0306' made the following statements concerning the proposed bridge over Treat Boulevard: "Conclusions: 8. The expenditure of some$4 million for a bridge over Treat Blvd. is improper. Whatever the increase in pedestrian or bicycletraffic, the building of the bridge is not an appropriate used of redevelopment dollars. Recommendations: 4. Do not proceed further with plans to but7d the bridge over Treat Boulevard." I recommend that you and the Board of.Supervisors reject these conclusions and recommendations. The bridge over Treat Boulevard is integral to the continuity of the Iron Horse Trail and is,absolutely necessary. I understand that redevelopment monies can be used to alleviate safety concerns. As stated in the Contra Costa County'Redevelopment"Pleasant Hill BART, Site Specific Plan" under Policy 7: "A pedestrian and bicyclist overcrossing at Treat Boulevard in the vicinity of Jones Road for Iron Norse Trail circulation is included as a part'of this Specific Plan. The County, through its Redevelopment Agency, will pursue proceeding with construction to address safety concerns,... As stated in the Contra Costa County Redevelopment"Pleasant Hill BART, Major Projects": "The overcrossing will provide a safe crossing over Treat Blvd. for users of the lion Morse Trail.•, Construction of the bridge over Treat Boulevard is essential for the safety of our citizens and its necessary for a contiguous Iron Horse Trail. Time is of the essence to correct these'statements';by the previous Grand Jury. Thank you for your time and support. Sincere `U1A••� Mark as Mem r— Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee 6-03-203 8: 15AM FROM JONAS ARID ASSOCIATES 925 374 0021 P. 2 MA-PUKJONAS 40,90 Treat Boulevard, Concord,California 94518 + 925/825-7801 home • 925/374-0020 x-12 work' May 28, 2903- Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Contra County County Chair, Burd of Supervisors Supervisor, District 4 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110 Concord, California 94520 Subject: Request to Refect the Grand Jury 2002-2003 Report No. 0306 Conclusion and Recommendation Concerning the Bridge Over Treat Boulevard. Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier During yesterday's (May 27, 2003) meeting of the Iron Horse Corridor Management iProgram Advisory Committee it was announced that the Contra Costa County Grand Jury, 2002-200. 3, Report No. 0306 made the following statements concerning the proposed bridge over Treat Boulevard: "Conclusions: 8. The expenditure of some$4 million for a bridge over Treat Blvd: is improper. Whatever the increase in pedestrian or bicycle traffic, the building of the bridge is not an appropriate used of redevelopment dollars. Recommendations: 4. Do not proceed further with plans to build the bridge over Treat Boulevard." I recommend that you and the Beard of Supervisors reject these conclusions and recommendations. The bridge over Treat Boulevard is integral to the continuity of the Iron Horse Trail and is,absolutely necessary: I understand that redevelopment monies can be used to alleviate safety concerns. As stated in the Contra Costa CountyRedevelopment"Pleasant Hill BART,' Site Specific Plan", under Policy 7; 'A pedestrian and bicyclist overcrossing at Treat Boulevard in the vicinity of Jones Road for Iron Norse Trail circulation is included as<a part;of this Specific Plan. The County, through its Redevelopment Agency, will pursue proceeding'with construction to address safety concerns,...' As stated in the Contra Costa County Redevelopment"Pleasant Hill BART, /Major Projects "The'ov rcrossing will provide a safe crossing over Treat Blvd. for users of the Iron Horse Trail." Construction of the bridge over Treat Boulevard is essential for the safety of our citizens and is necessary for a contiguous iron Horse Trail. Time is of the essence to correct`these statements by the previous,Grand Jury. Thank you for your time and support, Sincere ''r hM" Mark as Mem r-- Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee 6-03--203 8: 15AM FROM JONAS AND ASSOCIATES 925 374 0021 P. 2` MAM<JON. . 4090 Treat Boulevard,Concord,California 94,518 + 925/825-780 .home ► 925/374-0020 x-12 work r May 28, 2003 Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier< Contra County County Chair, Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District 4 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110 Concord, California 94520' Subject: Request to Reject the Grand Jury 2002-2003 Report No. 0306 Conclusion and Recommendation Concerning the Bridge Over Treat Boulevard. Dear Supervisor DeSauln.ier [luring yesterday's (May 27, 2003)meeting of the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee it was :announced that the Centra Costa County Grand Jury, 2002.2003,!Report No. 0306 made the following statements concerning the proposed bridge over Treat Boulevard: "Conclusions: 8. The expenditure of some$4 million for a bridge over Treat Blvd.is improper. Whatever the increase in pedestrian or bicycle traffic, the building of the bridge is not an appropriate used of redevelopment dollars. Recommendations: 4. Do not proceed further with plans to build the bridge over Treat Boulevard." I recommend that you and the Board of'Supervisors reject these conclusions and recommendations, The bridge over Treat Boulevard is integral to the continuity of the Iron Morse Trail and is,absolutely necessary: I understand that redevelopment monies can be used to alleviate safety concerns. As stated in the Contra Costa County Redevelopment"Pleasant Hilt BART, Site Specific Plan", under Policy 7: °A pedestrian and bicyclist overcrossing at Treat Boulevard in the vicinity of Jones Goad for Iran Horse Trail circulation is included as a part of this Specific Plan, The County, through its Redevelopment Agency, will pursue proceedin+c with construction to address safety concerns,..." As stated in the Contra Costa County Redevelopment"Pleasant Hill BART, Major Projects": "The overcrossing will provide a safe crossing over Treat Blvd'for users of the Fran Horse Trail." Construction of the bridge over Treat Boulevard is essential for the safety of our citizens and is necessary for a contiguous'Iron Horse Trail. Time is of the essence to correct these statements'by the previous Grand Jury. Thank you for your time and support, Sincere '1J1/1.•� Mark as Mem r- Iron Worse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee REQUEST TO SPEAK P01M PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Complete this forrn and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board, r Name �}, tk Phone Address: s' U' j``� t � ' "r iZip Code: , I am s :�itlg for myself__- -�—or organization 1$ - €' 1 Y (name of organizatiotl) CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Datea ° ` , x � My Comments will be general for —against I wish to speak on the subject of Ido not ash toASODAkon the'sub}ect but leave sec for the board to consider: AL rk > w EAST B A Y REGIONAL , . PARK DISTRICT..-- i �1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS JUt 1 0 2003 Ted Ra;dke President Ward 7 CLBP i..rf ^? wi:PFP�1S+ i 6 Doug Sidon vONu I-pqk COSTA CO. Vice-president June 5, 2003 Ward 4. Jean Sir! Treasurer Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Ward, Contra Costa County Senear Lane Secretary Chair, Board of Supervisors Ward 6 Supervisor, District 4 Carot Severin Ward 3 2425;.Bisso Lane Suite '110 � John Sutter Concord, CA 94520 Ward 2 Ayn Wieskamp; RE: Grand Jury 2002-2003 Report No. 0306 ward 6 Conclusion and Recommendation Concerning the Bridge over Treat Blvd'. Pat O'Brien General Manager Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier: I am writing on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District to express our agency's concern with the position presented by the Contra Costa.County Grand' Jury in their 2002-2003 Report No. 0306 regarding their recommendation to oppose the constructionOf the pedestrian/bicycle bridge at Treat Blvd. and the use ofRedevelopment funds for this project, The Iron Horse Trail Bridge over Treat Blvd. at Jones Road is a vital component in the non-motorized circulation for Contra Costa County and an important feature of the BART Station Area Specific:Plan. This project and the completion of the Iron Horse Trail in the BART:station area has been planned for years to address improving non-motorized access to the BART station, improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing Treat Blvd., and as a means to reduce impact on vehicular traffic congestion in the BART station area. The overcrossing will improve safety and will reduce traffic delays significantly on Treat Blvd. by allowing pedestrians and cyclists to bypass the road crossing. There is a great deal of high density housing in and many people use the Iron Horse Trail to access the BART station. In fact, 11%of BART'riders`walk to the station. Use of Redevelopment funds for this project is absolutely consistent with the intent of redevelopment law and meets the criteria of the policy language of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan under Policy 7: "A pedestrian and bicyclist overcrossing at Treat Boulevard in the vicinity of Jones Road for Iron Horse Trail circulation is included as a part of this Specific Plan. The County,through its Redevelopment Agency, will pursue proceeding with construction to address safety concerns..." ry R 3 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 F Tet 510 635-0135 FAx 510 569-4319 TOD 510'633-0460 www.ebparks.org r, The overcrossing project has had an extensive review process and needs to move forward to address the safety of pedestrians and cyclists as well as to improve traffic circulation in the BART station area. Further delays could threaten the approved funding for the project and'diminish its ability to be constructed. The Park District encourages the Board of Supervisors to reject the position of the Grand Jury, approve the'final design of the Jones Road overcrossing of Treat Blvd., and direct staff to,begin the process of construction of'this important transportation facility. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Sincerely, Steve Fiala Trails Development Program Manager CC:' Board of Supervisors Jim'Kennedy, Contra Costa County Redevelopment Pat O'Brien, EBRPD Bob Doyle, EBRPI Robert Rayburn,'East Bay Bicycle Coalition Iron Horse Trail' Corridor Management Advisory Committee' 1350 Treat Boulevard _ Suite 180 E `' Walnut Creek CA 94597 p Tet: 925/9.35.6337 JUN Pax: 925/935.1407 ccc�3�conrracosr��entrc.ti�cxn CLEMI, „ www.uTurx�sta entre.cnt3C fIViS01t$ ' June 9, 2003 Chairperson Mark DeSaulnier and Members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Support for Elimination of Oak Road Overcrossing Dear Chairperson De Saulnier: On behalf of the Contra Costa Centre Association,I wanted to join in supporting County Staff's recommendation amending the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan to reflect the elimination of the Oak Road overcrossing of Treat Blvd. After carefully reviewing the Staff Report's discussion of this issue, including the findings of the traffic study commissioned by the Redevelopment Agency that the overcrossing would be underutilized, we concur with the Staff and Planning Commission recommendation to the Board. Thank you for considering the Association's position as you deliberate on this matter. Yours truly, - )6"Alr L nette Busby Executive Director cc: Jim Kennedy-Redevelopment Director Maureen Toms Patrick O'Brien-President, Contra Costa Centre Association