VI. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY, MODEL ASSUMPTIONS, AND STRUCTURE The financial model had several purposes. Developed by CSG Advisors Inc. in concert with Strategic Economics based on input from the County, BART, and the developers, the model was designed to test the relative feasibility of various program alternatives proposed by the team during the Pleasant Hill BART . To assess the feasibility of alternatives, the model provided three ways of showing return: internal rate of return, cash on costs, and the debt coverage ratio for each land use. It also shows how much subsidy each use requires to meet the developer’s return expectations or the surplus each use provides after meeting such return expectations. The model informed the design team’s work with market reality and represented to Charrette participants the balance between the cost of public improvements and necessary office and residential revenue. The model also provided a starting point for negotiations between the key parties involved in the development of the BART site. Most importantly, the financial model and the economics team’s role in public presentations expanded public confidence in the Charrette process.

BACKGROUND AND KEY UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS Any financial model is only as good as its assumptions. Strategic Economics provided construction costs, rents and operating expenses from a survey of comparable developments in similar markets. Together, the economics team conducted sensitivity analyses of various development, income and expense assumptions to fine-tune the model. The team prepared a range of assumptions for each input, so that each scenario could be evaluated using aggressive, moderate, and baseline assumptions. (In practice, most final model scenarios were run with the aggressive assumptions in order to achieve target developer return.) Over the course of the Charrette and wrap-up meetings of February to April 2001, operating expenses were raised to partly reflect California utility cost increases.

Prior to the Charrette, CSG and Strategic Economics met with the entire Charrette team on several occasions to refine the model’s purpose and assumptions. Before the public meetings, the economics team used data from a Lennertz Coyle Associates draft scheme to test the instrument. The results were circulated and comments used to refine the model. During the Charrette, economics team members worked with the to test plans as they were devised, running several scenarios for use in a mid-point presentation with BART, the County and the developers. For the final Charrette public meeting on February 27, the economics team prepared model runs for two final alternatives. For the wrap-up meetings on April 9 and 10, the team ran four versions of the model, demonstrating various options of homeownership and rental components as well as office vs. residential on specific parcels. The designers further refined the plan after these meetings, and the final model runs reflect these refinements.

Each different design scenario from the Lennertz Coyle team was represented in the model as a series of inputs: gross square footages, number of units, configuration of parking, type of construction. The financial analysis, therefore, is dependent on the accuracy of these inputs provided

by the design team.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 76 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan MODEL STRUCTURE AND FORMAT The starting point for the financial analysis is the assumption of a threshold return to the developer. The underlying premise is that for the project to be built, regardless of the chosen, the developer needs a baseline feasible balance of office, residential and storefront land uses as well as desired public improvements to attract capital and investors. This model works well for illustrating the implications of a ground lease.

The model solves for a threshold developer return measured as Internal Rate of Return, which compares initial sunk costs to revenue streams over time. Each land use component of the plan was analyzed separately to test whether its return exceeded the threshold (meaning it could accommodate additional initial investment, such as funding some public improvements, and still reach the return target) or fell short of the threshold (meaning it required subsidy to achieve the return target). The results for each land use were then compiled on a summary sheet and compared to non revenue- producing public improvement costs for an overall snapshot of the scenario’s feasibility. Additionally, the model solved for the cash on cost (stabilized net operating income divided by cost) and debt coverage ratio (net operating income over loan payment) for each land use to measure the feasibility of proposed alternatives.

The format of the financial model separates the proposed project components first by land use, then by block. Each land use is considered separately so that construction and operating costs could be estimated for the specific use. The model summarizes the non-income producing elements of the plan including infrastructure costs and public improvement costs. For the purposes of this analysis, “infrastructure” is defined as major prerequisites to development with assigned funding sources, such as the replacement BART parking (to be funded by the County Redevelopment Agency) and the overall site work (to be funded by the developer). “Public improvements,” on the other hand, are elements in the development scenario that define the public experience of the Pleasant Hill BART station area. New streets and streetscape work, the signature plaza facing the BART station, architectural enhancements to the BART Station, new parks, as various public kiosks and structures are crucial to the new urbanist concept of the plan, and have significant costs, but do not generate revenue. Because they are not self-financing and not directly related to the residential, office, and storefront financings on the primary blocks, these costs were enumerated separately. The rough cost for such public improvements as estimated in this model is approximately $8 million.

The model analyzes three primary land uses (residential, office and storefront) looking at both their sources and uses (development budgets) and their cash flows. The sources and uses schedules calculate development costs per block for each land use, subdividing blocks that include varying products such as rental and for-sale housing or Class A and Class B office . In the development budget, the overall site work costs are pro-rated across land uses per relative square footage. The cash flow analysis of each land use calculates developer return based on an assumed sale of the asset in year five of operations. Sources and uses as well as cash flow models were also created for a hotel land use but were not used during the Charrette, as the design team did not formulate a design for this

option. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 77 The economics related to parking for the project was a handled in three different ways. The parking associated with the new development is incorporated into the financial model. Each proposed use had certain parking requirements. For each 1000 square feet of office space, 3.3 parking spaces need to be built. Residential calls for 1.35 spaces for each rental apartment and 2 for each for-sale town house. Retail or storefront space requires 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet. The cost of building the parking spaces required for each use were charged to each use in the development budget and is reflected in the return numbers. Street parking spaces were deducted from the retail space count and not deducted from the public improvement costs.

The 1480 surface BART parking spaces that need to be replaced first for the project to proceed were treated separately from the private development. The assumption is that the cost of this replacement parking would be paid for with public funds. The 581 parking spaces currently in the Iron Horse Trail were also treated distinctly from the private development. The fees charged to future users of these spaces would underwrite the cost of building the structure needed to house these spaces. Any

additional moneys from the parking fees would contribute to a station area shuttle.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 78 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan APPENDIX B: FREQUENTLY ASKED ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT

WHY INVEST PUBLIC DOLLARS? A development project at the Pleasant Hill BART station that replaces the 1480 parking spaces currently used by BART patrons, creates the pedestrian-oriented transit village that emerged during the Charrette, and meets the requirements of the area’s specific plan is economically infeasible without public subsidy. There are at least five compelling reasons why Contra Costa County should invest public funds to enable the proposed development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station.

¥ Increased tax revenues – the additional development on the site will generate significant property and sales tax revenues for the County. ¥ Generate lease revenues – over time, the proposed project will generate ground lease revenues for the County and BART. ¥ Create more housing and jobs – the proposed project promises to deliver at least 300 additional units of housing and approximately 1,500 new jobs. These new residents and employees will contribute significantly to the County’s economy. ¥ Utilize existing infrastructure rather than invest in new infrastructure elsewhere – by encouraging the County’s new developments to areas with existing infrastructure and services, the County reduces its responsibilities to provide such infrastructure and services to outlying, less accessible places; thus the costs to the County and the public for an infill project like the one proposed at the Pleasant Hill BART station is of a magnitude less than a similar project in a currently undeveloped area. ¥ Maximize the area’s location efficiency – creating a transit village will increase the “location efficiency” of the Pleasant Hill BART station, benefiting both current and future residents and employees in the area. The pluses of location efficiency include reduced transportation costs, fewer car trips, increased mobility options especially for children and seniors, and the other amenities related to a walkable, mixed-use environment.

Public subsidy for the proposed development of the Pleasant Hill BART Station should be limited to only the minimum amount necessary to enable the realization of the alternative that emerges from the Charrette process. Care also needs to be taken at each step in the process to maximize the County’s return on every public dollar invested.

FOR SALE VS. RENTAL HOUSING The issue of for-sale housing at any BART station reflects two legitimate interests: local residents living near a BART station and the region’s taxpayers who support BART. Any development at the Pleasant Hill BART station needs to reconcile these two interests. To date, BART has been willing to balance the local interests with the more regional interests by considering 50 units of for-sale house. This approach would allow for some housing diversity in the area, while still ensuring that BART will control enough of the site to ensure its long-term integrity as a regional transit facility.

Local residents who live around a BART station typically want new residential development in their neighborhood to be ownership housing. Ownership housing is perceived as providing more long-

term stability to a neighborhood as well as preserving and enhancing property values. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 79 The taxpayers who have paid for the BART system and who want transit to remain a critical part of the region's mobility network generally wish to ensure that the land uses around BART stations remain transit supportive and transit friendly. To support these constituents, the BART Board has adopted a strong policy to lease, rather than sell, land around BART stations. The four main reasons for this policy are as follows:

¥ Control over land uses: BART's continued ability to ensure that land uses adjacent to its stations support transit ridership and are transit friendly. ¥ Share in increased property values: BART's ability to share in additional revenue generated by increases in property values and revenues created by development will help support the cost of operating the train system and will enhance the public's investment in the BART infrastructure. ¥ Density: To take maximum advantage of the public's investment in BART's infrastructure, higher density at the BART stations is preferred. In general, ownership housing is built at lower density than rental units. ¥ Parcelization of ownership constrains Transit Oriented Development: To build the station and supporting infrastructure, BART and the County assembled many smaller parcels into larger parcel. Subdividing into smaller privately owned plots (condos or town homes) reverses this effort and may limit future options.

How to determine how much land to convert to private ownership and how much to preserve in public ownership to protect the public's interest is a difficult decision to make and one that should be made by elected officials with public input. The Charrette highlighted this issue and identified it as an issue that will need further discourse. People interested in ownership housing should work with the County Board of Supervisors and the BART Directors to evaluate a new policy and programming options.

The overall development program on the site, including the total number of residential units, does not change significantly based on whether or not the units are for-sale or for rent. Therefore, the planning process should focus on establishing a basic number of units to be built on the site. The ownership issue can be resolved at a later date and through a different process that reflects these diverse interests.

WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FEASIBLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS? According to the Specific Plan, the maximum number of residential units on the site is 60 units per net acre. To replace the surface BART parking to make room for new development requires building structured parking that takes up 4.3 acres, leaving 14.9 acres. Of these remaining acres, about 20% of the land would be required for roads and public access. Seven hundred and fifteen units could be

built on the remaining 11.9 acres assuming the maximum density.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 80 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan The economics team has not modeled this alternative because it does not create the village or town center environment emphasized during the Charrette process. For one, it does not recognize the importance of a mix of uses to support each other economically and create a sense of place. Second, it does not encourage a mix of housing types that also contributes to place-making. Finally, the

return on residential does not generate the additional income that would help fund the desired public ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 81 APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC COUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT BACKGROUND DATA

TRIP GENERATION The trip generation numbers for the “final” development plans are listed below. These numbers for the plan are estimates, based on ITE trip generation rates and assumptions in the previous EIR. The trip generation numbers for the various scenarios from the previous EIR are also listed for comparison.

Plan Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour w / 345 apts 6,170 627 739 w / 370 apts 6,414 634 749

Scenario

1 8,861 1,481 1,357

1B 8,869 1,482 1,359

2 2,767 218 269

3 14,434 829 1,513

4 10,631 698 1,408

4B 8,219 n/a n/a

5 11,962 903 1,391

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 82 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 83

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 84 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan APPENDIX D: LOG OF PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS Total Number of Participants: 522 Total Number of Hours of Open Studio Hours: 80 Total Number of Participant Hours: over 2,700 (length of events x number of participants)

Pleasant Hill BART Charrette Signed In Participants

April Closing Mtg (4/10/01) 54

April Drop-ins (4/9-10/01) 23

April Opening Mtg (4/9/01) 153

Charrette Closing (2/27/01) 135

Charrette Drop-ins (2/22-27/01) 57

Charrette Traffic Mtg (2/26/01) 49

Charrette Centre Mtg (2/26/01) 25

Charrette BART Mtg (2/26/01) 1 10

Charrette Sat. Workshop (2/24/01) 108

Charrette Neighbors Mtg (2/24/01) 50

Charrette Opening (2/22/01)

Transp. Focus Group (2/8/01) 25

Reception (1/31/01) 65

Bus Tour (1/18/01) 38

Kickoff Mtg (1/16/01)

0 50 100 150 200

Number of Participants ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 85 Pleasant Hill BART Charrette Signed In Participants Attending Multiple Events

350

295 300

250

200

# People 150

100 91

53 50 27 13 10 11 9 13 0 12345678>8

# Events Attended

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 86 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan APPENDIX E: DESIGN PROCESS ITERATIONS

FEB. 22 - SCHEME 1 A ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 87

FEB. 22 - SCHEME 1B

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 88 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan Not enough residential. Poor retail exposure on Treat.

FEB. 24 - SCHEME 2A ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 89 Provides more developable blocks for residential and good retail exposure

FEB. 24 - SCHEME 2B

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 90 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan Emphasizes the importance of a strong connection between the Iron Horse Trail and the Station.

FEB. 25 - PARTICIPANT’S SCHEME ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 91 Provides more residential and larger public open space

SCHEME 3B

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 92 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan APPENDIX F: PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE DURING EVENTS JAN 16TH, 2001 Ð KICKOFF MEETING (Public Comments grouped by Issue)

BUILT FORMS: • Human scale, sense of neighborhood & community • “Make it look like California, not Anywhere, USA” • Local serving uses, not a regional destination • Smaller blocks, walkable with mixture of uses (downtown Walnut Creek) • Building frontage on streets, not parking • Horizontal and vertical mix of uses to generate activities throughout the day and night • Village center, gathering place, town square feel • Higher activities closer to the station and parking further out, up to 1/4 mi. • Architectural variety, but with aesthetics that blend together buildings with character • No more high-rises • Tallest buildings West of the station lower buildings on East side • Roof top parks, elevated open space

PROGRAMMING: • Community center, gathering space, with meeting room facilities • Swim club/exercise facility, there are no close substitutes to losing the current club • Affordable housing near the station • Affordable office space • Bank/ATM • Small retail such as coffee shops, book stores, post office, bike shop, dry cleaner, florist • appeal to locals so we do not end up with more traffic • Grocery store • Restaurants, cafes, delis, bakery, serving local office space, close to BART • Day care, playground, small science observatory, and other services/spaces for kids • Dog park • Library • Concert hall, community theater • Smaller art-house independent theater, no cinema multiplex • A fountain, easy place to identify & meet (Walnut Creek example) • Senior facilities, housing/meeting space • Bowling ally or roller rink, some physical or social aspects • Healthcare component • Pleasant Hill redevelopment connect to Old Wards shopping center (North off map) and old Co- op building (West off map across freeway) • Hotel/motel is not a viable use for the property on the Northeast corner of Jones & Treat (demise

of Amerisuites) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 93 TRAFFIC & PARKING: • Provide parking that is not a “dead place” • Conflicting opinions regarding parking availability, majority requested adding more • More levels or entire buildings of structured/security parking • Parking demands of BART are not being met • Provide off-site BART parking, shuttle drivers onto site • Encourage using public transportation • Parking fees, carpool/vanpool preferences • Other nearby parking uses want access to BART lots • Traffic is congested on Treat Blvd., it’s a neighborhood divider but a necessary artery • Bad intersection at Treat & Oak, and Treat & I-680 • Its impossible to merge left and avoid being forced onto I-680 North • Connect Jones Road to Treat Blvd. • Pedestrians and traffic interacting • Bus lanes are too difficult to walk over • Oak Street is too wide for pedestrians • Traffic backs up (along Jones) waiting for pedestrians • Deadly intersection at BART tracks and Jones • Consider widespread traffic impacts from the design • Traffic flow from Bancroft—Mayhew—Las Juntas freeway • Clear local roads, keep non-residents on the main arteries • Jones Road between Oak and Treat Blvd. • Too many dead-end streets • Realignment of Jones Road, South of Treat Blvd. • Concerns about what parking would be available during construction • FHWA funded on site parking structure, it cannot be restricted to BART patrons only or be used to meet local parking zone requirements

BART STATION CHARACTER: • Create a place to meet neighbors, not a nighttime wasteland, add uses across the tracks from the station, perhaps build on top • Improve the platform, longer length, connection from parking structure levels • Provide lockers for luggage, lockers and/or parking for bicycles, scooters

COMMUNITY SAFETY: • Must feel safe walking and bicycling • May increase crime, especially from Monument • Thieves brought via BART to local residential houses • 20 year vision, secure with low crime, safe area

PUBLIC TRANSIT: • Provide Incentives for public transit, alternatives to park & ride for to BART

• Ridership education needed

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 94 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan • Airport shuttles • Connect to neighboring communities, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill downtown • Light rail • Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, & Concord to feed the BART system • Alleviate traffic on Treat Blvd.

PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLES: • Make access to Pleasant Hill BART pedestrian friendly with a walkable community, provide “town square” feel. • Bike/pedestrian circulation is currently disconnected, unpleasant • Make a clear, safe route through the area, connect nearby housing and retail • Better lighting, white not yellow • Softer trails, not concrete • Handicap access sidewalks • Improve the dangerous intersections on Treat Blvd. • Bridge or tunnel at Oak and at Jones, the bridge idea was more favored • Bridge or tunnel across freeway towards N Main • Other dangerous areas crossing Jones, especially at the Northeast site corner • Improve bicycle facilities, trails and parking • Bike access not in traffic or pedestrian area, bike lanes on Treat and Oak • Any overhead bridges should be enough for a handicap bike to make it up and over

IRON HORSE TRAIL: • Continue and integrate the Iron Horse Trail through the site in a manner consistent with the Regional Trail system (ex: Colony Park). The Regional Trail connects swim club, buses, BART, hotel, fitness center, and historic buildings along side. • Improve the intersection between the trail and Treat Blvd. (underpass or bridge) • Provide a respite area along the East side, just North of Treat (named for Del Hambre) • Possible community garden space

ENVIRONMENT: • 20 year vision, deciduous shade trees, no palms, native and drought resistant, flowers, shrubs, park benches, bike parking, bike trails, human scale • Timing of green space implementation along trail • Improve the open and green spaces, but preserve the existing Oak trees, especially at the edges (Southwest corner of site, Northwest corner of site and the last open space along BART Tracks in the Northeast corner of site) • Save the beautiful view of Mt. Diablo from the BART Station tracks • Provide more views, not the East side blocking West side views • 20 year vision, neighborhood generates some of its own electric power • Block the Southwest wind, it is too windy

• Buffer the noise level of I-680 and the traffic through the site ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 95 COMMUNITY QUESTIONS & CONCERNS: • How to keep “new urbanism” from creating a stereotypical image of an urban area and contributing to the sameness of America? • I am very concerned about Bill saying “we solved this by bringing the buildings to the street.” • Will the green space be built to specific plan? • How will this development affect property values? • People are not familiar with what is already planned for the development South of Treat Blvd. off the BART Station site. • For future on-site meetings: It is too dark to walk at night to meeting from site and the walk from station to meeting was circuitous. • Project labor agreement with Contra Costa Building Traders for construction

FEB. 22ND-27TH, 2001 Ð CHARRETTE PUBLIC COMMENTS (Comments from Public Meetings grouped by Topic)

PARKING • There is a shortfall still on Iron Horse Trail replacement parking; 250 paid spots is not the same as 581 free spots. Add to parking tower. • Where are the 581 spaces of parking form the green space going to be? This plan does not show the promised parking. Look elsewhere! • 250 spaces from trail on-site (no need for parking at swim club). • Having 250 spaces violates the Specific Plan. • Expand parking structure first. • We need more parking not less. • Develop the expanded parking structure first before development of retail, office space, etc.. • Add another level to the structure-currently 7 floors plus basement, why only 6 floors in this design? • The northeast corner of the parking structure has the worst view-screen it! • How many stories? Make it low. • Place parking at North Concord stop • Where’s the parking garage? • New Garage parking space widths minimum 8 feet • Different size spaces for different size cars, alternate floors of large and small cars • If you charge for parking, you reduce parking demand (especially from nearby areas) and you will increase demand for bus, walking, and bike riding. • Don’t lose sight that this is a train station, needs more access, convenience. • Given current growth increases part. Bart ridership; today’s parking supply should be a baseline. • Is there space for buses? • Main street parallel parking doesn’t seem to work, instead, one since only 45 degree angle parking • Parallel parking will back traffic up onto Treat • Do we really need cars all the way around the green? • Drop offs and taxis?

• Where is the Kiss and Ride area?

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 96 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan TRAFFIC • Make sure there is enough room to the right of bridge for executing turns. • Traffic calming a priority (crossing Iron Horse Trail to Jones Road). This can be problem for traffic flow –cars in looking for non existent parking than backing out again will have a very adverse reaction on H/T (Honey Trial?) residents. • No cars around square; instead, Main Street to Park Street only. This works because of more service outlets at this end of Main and around Square. • Provide Class 1 trail along BART Row to Bancroft Road, to connect with potential trails in Concord. • Replace Iron Horse Trail Bridge with one at Oak Road • Need to incorporate fully funded direct Iron Horse Trail over crossing bridge at Jones and Treat and continue bridge design planning.

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES • Bad pedestrian crossing near I-680. • Make sure there is grass somewhere on Treat. • Need to incorporate safe Iron Horse Trail over crossing of Treat Blvd. at Jones Road. • Much concern about crossing Jones during evening rush hours to reach the bridge over Bart. There will be a continuous stream of people crossing a stream of cars. • It should be a true pedestrian center because if traffic circulates around it, it will not feel like a park. • The Square (Station Plaza?) should be pedestrian only, otherwise traffic circle only. • “Buffer” comfort for peds. • Pedestrian Tunnel below Treat. • Blinking light pedestrian /bike crosswalk form Iron Horse Trail across Jones Road (in the direction of the Station Plaza). • Bike storage for residents who don’t have covered storage.

ENVIRONMENT • Preserve air right for future greater density. • Is there an incorporation of solar energy? • Are the trees at the intersection of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd. sick? • Save the view of Mount Diablo • I’m worried about our Mount Diablo view from the station platform…we should see it from all along the platform, not just one little spot

PROGRAMMING • Either activate linear park (market, etc..) or give up for larger square. • Larger community Center on Larger Green • Mix office and residential on the same properties. • Plan should allow future air rights; mixed development in future especially around Square and

Green to Iron Trail. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 97 • Have a post office annex. • Better utilization of site-swap the daycare (with something else?) • Strong landscape feature or fountain.

STATION GREEN • Green should be a bit larger. • The small plaza east of Station Plaza seems awkward; it seems better used as part of the central greed…or transformed into an active public site (playground, etc..) or anchored by retail (restaurant)? • What is this building doing here? (the small public building on this green) Civic space is good, move it elsewhere. Maybe a playground here? • This building is too big. • This space is ‘not doing anything’-what about a playground? • Put brass ducks for children to sit on in the public square (like in Boston Public Garden) • Picnic tables, fountain, swing sets, larger destination park.

RETAIL • Retail mix should include drugstore/grocery store, Mom & Pop store. • Preserve space along green for retail expansion • Maintain future retail around Station Plaza. • Target immigrant entrepreneurs as retail tenants/building owners-tap into their networks of potential retail tenants. • No fast food! • Steps (or elevator) to retail from bridge to the west.

HOUSING • More housing, more affordable housing-inclusionary, not segregated. • Market-rate housing: 300 plus units of housing with 45 plus for-sale units. • Look beyond the site for more long term solution (look outside the box). • Mix houses/office on same block. • Like housing above retail.

WALDEN • Walden is the name of the area and the road to the South on Oak Road. It is a historic area, with walnut groves, heritage oaks, and older homes (at least 3 are about 100 years old). Lets build on this. • Walder Center or Walden Square for name. • There is an adobe structure on Oak between Treat and Walden, and there are cottages and old homes on Cherry Lane and Walnut Blvd.

POOL • Why not public “community” pool? • Agreed that use should be recreational.

• Pool becomes village pool.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 98 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan BUILT FORM • No higher than other buildings-maximum 10 stories • Put seven-story tower on the West side of BART with the other tower. • Need good codes to get this architecture • Need regulating codes to be available. • Is the Station Building included in financial analysis? • Scale back 7-story building on Treat: decrease to 4 stories or increase set-back.

BART STATION CHARACTER • Lose the towers next to BART • How about an old-world-style clock that would be visible from the station platform instead of a flagpole. • Destination is key concept. • Architecture is superior to anything around-relates to history. • Put drawings on the web.

FEB. 8TH, 2001 - TRANSPORTATION FOCUS GROUP MEETING (Questions with responses in italics underneath)

1. Re-establish existing conditions (not 1997 LOS) - need new baseline for comparison (incl. unbuilt but approved development) • The daily and peak traffic volumes were just counted this year (2001). Both the existing and existing plus Charrette project traffic volumes fit with the counts and projections from the 1997 Traffic Study. The 1997 Traffic Study forecasted traffic by adding to existing traffic the new trips from unbuilt but approved development, future development of the BART property, plus a certain amount of regional growth based on growth forecasts for areas outside the Specific Plan boundaries. The 2001 traffic counts reaffirm the data and assumptions of the 1997 Traffic Study, which found that future development in the Specific Plan area will not cause traffic conditions on Treat Boulevard to violate the standards for congestion that were established by central county jurisdictions and adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for the Measure C Growth Management Program. An update to the traffic service objective (TSO) monitoring for Treat Boulevard (considered a Route of Regional Significance) was completed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority in 1999. The measured speeds and delay index values ranged from 21 miles per hour (mph) to 28 mph and 1.35 to 1.75, respectively. These values are well above the average speed TSO requirement of 15 mph and well below the Delay Index TSO requirement of 2.0.

2. Specific Plan limit on growth based on certain traffic levels - (Spec. Plan p. 33) • Traffic Service Objective (TSOs) apply for regional and local routes. As noted in the Specific Plan, "In the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, Treat Boulevard is designated as a Route of Regional Significance. The remaining streets in the area are Basic Routes and are subject to traffic service objectives defined in local general plans. The Contra Costa County General Plan

(1991) designates the land use in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area as 'central business ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 99 district.' The traffic level of service (LOS) for this type of land use is defined as low E (volume- to-capacity ratio of 0.90 to 0.94)."

3. Based on maximum parking ratio of 3.3 (spaces) / 1000 (sq. ft. office) would result in 2,600 vehicles. • Comment noted.

4. Can parking for office be less than 3.3/1000 sq. ft.?-This is max in plan. • Yes, parking studies would be required for less than the maximum. Lending institutions tend to prefer as much parking as can be achieved, particularly in suburban areas.

5. Through the Charrette process can less than the 600,000 sq ft. minimum development be proposed? • The minimum is based on legally vested development rights, set forth in the Development Agreement.

6. John Muir has higher employee density that exceeds the parking supply 2.7-2.8 (spaces) / 1000 (sq ft. office) - resulting in valet parking and bank parking in the temporary lots. • Comment noted.

7. Bicyclists have to pay for bike lockers at BART, whereas parking is free, incentives for alternative modes need to be increased. • The Specific Plan requires that a Bike Station will be included in any development plan.

8. Need to look at regional transportation planning. • This work has been done, particularly in the 1997 Traffic Study for the Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Roadway and other improvements were required and were built through an Assessment District in the Specific Plan area.

9. Cannot eliminate the through traffic on Treat. • Comment noted.

10. Integrate into a regional master plan the impacts of this project with the impacts of other developments in the county. • See 8 above. Also note there is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (a congestion and growth management agency) which fosters cooperative transportation planning through the local planning groups in each area of the County, including TRANSPAC in central county, TRANSPLAN in east county, WCCTAC in west county, SWAT in the Lamorinda area and TVTC in south county. The 1997 Traffic Study was managed by staff from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was reviewed by the central county cities through TRANSPAC and the Plan was changed based on their review.

11. Solutions will work better if there is more cooperation and collaboration among regional projects.

• See 8 and 10 above.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 100 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 12. Time of day is an important element to consider -focus on peak commute ingress and egress to BART parking. • Comment noted and was considered.

13. Improve overall accessibility to the development. • Part of the process.

14. Develop uses that don't attract as much traffic from the region. • Part of the process and included in the "final" plan from the Charrette.

15. Focus on TDM incentives to use alternative modes. • Part of the process.

16. Need to take into account traffic from bicyclists' and pedestrians' perspectives, especially 6:00- 8:00am. Improve ped. & bicycle environment (also 4:00-6:00pm) • Issues for bicyclists and pedestrians have been and continue to be an important part of the process.

17. Crossing Coggins is difficult for pedestrians. "Blind" corner at BART access. Island w/ Oak tree. Lanes narrow from 2 to 1 • Improvements are part of the process.

18. Difficult access to Canal Trail--- must go through temporary parking. • Improvements are part of the process for the Iron Horse Trail.

19. Unclear whether bicyclists should use streets or Iron Horse Trail. • Comment noted and part of the process.

20. Confusing intersection at Treat and Jones where trail crosses Treat for Iron Horse Trail users. • Comment noted and part of the process.

21. Accessing BART in a.m. Treat-left turn when going north on Coggins. • Part of the process.

22. Better channelization of traffic into BART parking lot---keep traffic moving and minimize conflicts between flows. • Part of the process.

23. Area acts as park & ride. Look at area to north-west (N. Main St. area/old Co-op location) as alternative park & ride. Consider Sun Valley Mall in Concord (utilizing excess parking). Montgomery Wards parking lot (to be served by shuttle). Consider park & ride at future hotel/ office site (former AmeriSuites site) • Outlying Park and Ride lots examined by the PH BART Steering Committee and can be

considered in the process. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 101 24. At the Bike/Ped overcrossing at Jones, consider closing the south side of Treat and east side of Jones to provide a direct connection to the Trail. • These are details that will be considered in the design of any overcrossing.

25. Improve access through the BART lot to office buildings. • This is a part of site planning, and is a policy of the Specific Plan.

26. Consider Church parking lots as park & ride lots (Orinda model). • Similar to 23, part of process.

27. How can we attract employers who value alternatives to SOV, and give their employees incentives to do it? • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) issue was considered in the 1997 Traffic Study. The County is pursuing the Study's recommendations to promote the use of alternate modes of access to the Specific Plan area and these activities are part of the process.

28. Reward the behavior that you want to encourage (e.g. amenities for bikes, pedestrians) - El Cerrito Station example of bike lockers. • See 7 above, Bike Station, part of the process.

29. If you want more people to use BART, consider increasing amount of BART parking to keep traffic off the regional streets. • Want "transit-oriented" development. The BART Board policy is currently set for the number of parking spaces at each station. The BART Access Plan for PH BART suggests greater use of alternate modes, not more parking.

30. Retain existing number of parking spaces at BART (3,450) • Part of Specific Plan. Permanent BART parking has been set by the BART Board and was incorporated in the Specific Plan at 2806 spaces. The additional spaces identified in the comment include the temporary parking spaces. Providing additional permanent BART patron parking beyond the 2,806 spaces was considered in the Charrette.

31. BART lots are empty on nights and weekends, so may consider evening (complementary) uses. • Part of process and previous studies.

32. Is BART going to replace the parking in the park ROW? • The Steering Committee is acting on a variety of measures, and the Charrette "final" plan includes some replacement parking.

33. Reducing BART parking encourages land use patterns that generate more traffic. • No plans to reduce BART parking below the established 2806 permanent spaces. Additional

BART patron parking was considered in the Charrette (see 32 above).

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 102 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 34. Don't just focus on the commute times- need retail or other off-peak uses. • Comment noted and was considered.

35. Consider parking structures with retail on the ground floor (e.g. Horton Plaza). • Comment noted and considered as part of process.

36. Can you put a swimming pool on top of a parking garage? • Technically possible, but economically difficult. Considered as part of process.

37. Dual turn lanes are difficult for bicyclists… like at Treat & Oak • Considered as part of process, but may be difficult to change due to traffic volumes.

38. "Pass through" traffic from Bancroft to Mayhew to Las Juntas is a problem for neighbors (also Las Juntas to Bancroft to Buskirk - neighborhood impacts). • Traffic calming may be appropriate and is provided for in the Specific Plan (Automobile Circulation Policy #5, page 34.

39. Develop Buskirk as four-lane all the way to Monument Blvd. • Previously considered as part of the 1997 Traffic Study. Widening to four lanes was not needed to mitigate traffic impacts from the Specific Plan. With redevelopment of the Contra Costa Shopping Center (Wards, Century Theater), the City of Pleasant Hill is expected to re-examine.

40. Pedestrians "do not have the right of way" in the crosswalks. • See 38 above under Traffic Impacts. Traffic calming may be appropriate.

41. What is Oakland's mode split? How can we increase Centre's mode split? • Part of the process and with TDM, see 27 above.

42. Can we predict mode split of new development going in? • Previously considered in the 1997 Traffic Study.

43. Increase development rights in lieu of parking. • "Density bonus" was removed from the Specific Plan. Can be considered as part of process.

44. What is this area going to look like in 20 years? • The Charrette process was planned to answer this question, and hopefully has done so.

45. We need better transit service. How can we pay for it? • The process considers /land uses that are expected to emphasize transit use. TDM will be a consideration in evaluating the alternatives. It is Important to match the design with the

available transit. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 103 46. We don't want traffic to be any worse than it is today, but we want it to be a vital area. • Studies indicate the traffic will increase, even without any additional development on the BART property. Property owners of vacant parcels in the Specific Plan area have already funded and built significant upgrades to roads in the Specific Plan area to accommodate traffic generated from development on these parcels. The Charrette "final" plan seems to balance traffic generation and vitality.

47. Opportunity to create a transit village. • Yes, important consideration for the process.

48. Will Fehr & Peers focus at the Charrette be on BART transit or on the car? • Fehr & Peers is focusing on transportation and traffic, with Nelson-Nygaard focusing on transit and buses.

49. Last EIR and traffic study projections re: modal splits that were not accurate. • Higher alternate mode splits were identified as potentially achievable in the 1997 Traffic Study. However, the Traffic Study work assumed current levels of alternate mode splits, which are relatively high for a suburban location. This process emphasizes actual mode splits.

50. Different things affect number of people who will walk, ie: weather, hours worked, other things they have to do, etc. • Comment noted.

51. Envision Iron Horse Transit Corridor - Light Rail, etc.- We need to plan for the connections to it whether walking/bicycle trail or light rail. • Yes, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access issues are important considerations for this process. This access includes access to and from the BART Station and to and from the trails.

52. This is our last opportunity to do it right. • This is important consideration for the Charrette.

53. We need to think 20 years out and put the infrastructure for it in now. • This is also an important consideration for the Charrette. This was the philosophy of the Specific Plan when it was adopted in 1984. Property owners were assessed over $40 million for road and other infrastructure upgrades to serve their development. These infrastructure upgrades were completed in the late 1980's.

54. Transportation system in London works because stop spacing is short - we need a light rail system with frequent stops. • It is important to consider transit operations and usage as part of the Charrette. These considerations should not be done in isolation, but considered with other issues.

55. Quit thinking temporary solutions and think long term.

• This was also an important part of the process.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 104 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 56. Would County consider changing the streets, light rail, etc. ? How far can we go? • This Charrette process began with few "absolutes." The BART tracks, the columns, the actual station location and trees may be considered "givens." On-site roadways can be changed. It would be difficult to make major changes to Treat Boulevard, Oak Road and Jones Road. Internal roadway changes and other minor changes are considered.

57. Can the streets in the area be modified? • See 56.

58. Can we consider one-way streets? • One-way streets are possible, particularly for internal roadways. Major streets such as Treat would not be included.

59. How will parking at BART for airport be handled? • BART is developing policies for airport parking separate from this Charrette process.

60. Flex hour spaces • These BART policies are not specifically a part of the process, but these issues have been considered and have been brought to the attention of BART by the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Steering Committee.

61. Parking is never temporary. • Comment noted.

62. Parking = Traffic • Comment noted.

63. Need improved walking entrance thru BART parking lot to the station. • Access is an important part of the process, for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorized vehicles.

E-MAIL AND FAX QUESTIONS (Note issues covered in the 2/8/01 Focus Group meeting issues list are not repeated here. A total of 9 e-mails, 1 fax, 1 letter were received, with 1 personal conversation.)

• Leisure Sports Inc. (now Renaissance ClubSport Hotel & Fitness Resort ) gained approval for a project in subarea 15 of the Specific Plan Area. A condition of approval was offers of Right of Way dedication on Jones Rd. and Oak Rd. The purpose of these dedications were to mitigate loss of the right turn lane from Jones to Treat to accommodate a pedestrian overcrossing of Treat for the Iron Horse Trail. • Promote future development that encourages living, service and recreational usage. Providing feeder mini buses that run to and from various neighborhoods in a timely synchronizing their timetables to those of BART would greatly reduce current and future traffic congestion. • The Specific Plan for the Redevelopment Area contains excellent instructions about trails and

paths as a means of getting people to the BART station and through the area on foot or on bikes. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 105 They have not yet been implemented. • Primary need for area is enormously more free parking and free or extremely low-cost (10 cents) transportation to downtown Pleasant Hill main shopping area, downtown main shopping in Walnut Creek on an every 10 minutes or less basis. • Small stores are having trouble recruiting staff as they cannot pay a living wage in this area. So putting in more "strip mall local shopping areas" does not make sense. Groceries, small bookstores, coffee shops already proliferate in this general area. We do not need to compete with these. • Parking in two subterranean levels and on street level. Shops on the second level flanking the train platforms. Shops on the third level, and restaurants on the top level. This is to be in a terraced design providing greenspaces and plazas about the periphery. • Parcels 11 and 12 are public assets that should not be used for speculative development. • Provide local services, avoid becoming a regional mall. • Need improved access for the handicapped, particularly along the roadways to the north, some without sidewalks.

FEB. 26TH, 2001 - CHARRETTE EMPLOYEE / EMPLOYER MEETING (Comments from local area employers and employees)

What special things do you want here? • Day spa, Restaurants, Bank/ATMs, Pet Store, Dry Cleaners, Post Office, Sheriff’s Annex, Small drug store, Small gift or Hallmark store, Barber, Shoe Repair, Bakery, Yogurt Shop

• Coffer Shop: Peets? Or Starbucks?, Lunch Places, Breakfast Places, Jamba Juice or something like that, Shopping/Window Shopping, Nail Salon, Good Dinner Restaurant, Movies (crossed out, marked “OK”), Any Night Life, Theater (ones here need to be entirely renovated), Togo’s, Greeting Card Store

• Brewery/Brew Pub, Flower Shop, Dress Shop, Gym/Health Club (there’s one going in), Day Care, Jazz Club (place to get a away on Friday and unwind before hitting the road), Place to go to eat your lunch and get out of the building…somewhere to sit, benches, etc.., Bookstore.

• Public gathering place, not necessarily green space (Redwood Park examples), Rooftop park like in the city, Adolescent-friendly design (lot of schools in the area where parents would like their

kids to be able to use BART), Make it welcome for people of all ages.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 106 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan APRIL 9TH, 2001 Ð ISSUES AND CONCERNS (Comments and Issues from Public Meeting and Studio Drop-Ins)

What people liked • Public greens • Local-serving retail uses • Overall sense of place • Parking garages wrapped in nicer uses • Main Street environment • Better bus access • Better pedestrian access • How views of the platform and within the project were respected • How it reaches out to the Iron Horse Trail • (Some liked) the balance achieved between those who wanted more parking and those who wanted less • Like uses across from like uses (i.e. - office across from office, residential across from residential) • How height steps down from high buildings next to freeway, to lower buildings by the trail • Creation of entrance/gateway to the Iron Horse Trail • Creation of a real place • Eliminated the need for parking on Swim Club site

Concerns/Issues Outstanding • Ultimate uses of the Las Juntas Swim Club site • Bike/pedestrian overcrossings • Parking: Some want more for access to BART and BART-to-airport parking • Parking: Some want less because more parking = more traffic • Parking: Construction staging and how it will affect parking • Parking management • Building use and building mass: people prefer more residential and lower towers... but office is what funds all the other positive things about the plan • Traffic • How bus, taxi, kiss & ride will work • Paid parking in BART structure --- consider change in BART policy? • Traffic flow, circulation to and from parking structures • What public benefits come from the investment in this project? • The needs of the 600 people who drive in and use BART everyday and don’t have other options • Coding changes to the Specific Plan • Drawings/sketches are not to scale or true-to-life and are misleading • The trees shown in the green space on the Iron Horse Trail cannot be put there because of underground utilities • Use of adjacent streets for parking • Difficult to access station

• Signal timing: difficult to cross the street ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 107 • Mix of uses • Different figures from those presented at Feb. 27th meeting and now • Lodging seems to have snuck in the plan. We don’t want more hotels. • “Underground parking has no limits” --- what does this mean? • Decision about block size - considered things “out of the box?” • No one asked for a 12-story office building • We asked for market-rate housing • Remember the original intent: form needs to follow function and people need to be able to get to work • We have parkland all around and we have a downtown - in Walnut Creek • Will the economic analysis look at the “no project” alternative? • Only 10% of the people who work here ride BART • How does the project affect/benefit people who live within 1/2 to 3 miles of the station? • Parking garage frontage along Oak Road - concern about safety for people who walk past there • Drawings don’t show parking on-street • Include a view with the surrounding buildings within a block or two on each side • In architectural standards: “human habitation” and “not less than 450 square feet” are not compatible. Others say this may be okay. • Range of sizes is best, with percentage of each type • 12-story building with horizontal lines: would that be typical of the 12-story tower? • Circulation plan: may not need all the parking on-site if you have amenities for people who bike or walk • Efficiency of bus bays for buses coming from all 4 directions • Do not show parking on Oak Road - not possible • People crossing Jones Road from the Iron Horse Trail to access the site --- show a gap in the parked cars at the intersection • Show where the bridges might come down in the site plans • Take the same amount of care in planning the Oak Road side • “Parking Placement” just shows parking for autos and not for bikes • Specify bike parking: the number of spaces and where they’re located • Address management issues • Hercules’ Charrette --- what’s happening and why? • As write changes to the Specific Plan, plan so that if back-sliding occurs, the community can live with the result

Written Comments: • The code is far too complex to cover in this forum. There is a real fear that someone will think it is okay when it isn’t understood.

• “Parking - some want more; some want less” --- this is a misleading statement. The DVCA and commuters just want to maintain current parking levels which include the 581 “temporary” spots

being displaced by the Iron Horse Trail.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 108 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan • The DVCA will contact Steve Coyle to thoroughly review work being conducted with the planning consultant.

• The County and BART should be very concerned about the safety of pedestrians crossing Jones Road at the entrance to the site. Doubling the number of cars along Jones going into the parking garage will make crossing the street very difficult in the am and pm commute hours.

• Why have retail along Treat Blvd. - as you are driving west along Treat, there is no time to be looking at retail stores or window displays. This could cause problems is the retail windows had interesting displays.

• Are you conscious of earthquake movement here? This ground can go in waves... so no brick frontage, etc.

• The bike station is for commuters mainly. It needs to be close the fare gates (what about on the southwest corner of Block C, or moving it to the west end of the residential green next to the plaza?). Reward the access modes you want to encourage! Access from the bike station (where it is currently located) will require crossing two roadways and be further than for people walking from most ground-floor parking spaces.

• Where will expanded BART on-demand bicycle racks be located?

• We want the same number of parking spaces as in the present configuration (including the 581 spaces in the Iron Horse Trail alignment).

• I do not patronize retail establishments where I have to pay for parking.

• RE: Iron Horse Trail bridge: John Muir Building people are concerned about users seeing into their windows. They say they replaced their windows that had a sun-ray coating because it was peeling. Why not replace the old coating (that disallows people seeing in) with a coating that is more durable? Have the cost be born by the bridge project cost.

• Free replacement parking for all current spaces (including the “temporary” 581 spaces) is essential!

• BART costs $7/day (expensive). Parking costs on top (of that) tilt the balance toward driving to San Francisco and the resulting flexibility.

• Current suggested parking alternatives are impractical. They’re only easy for those who don’t have to use them. Ten spots here off-site and 20 more somewhere else off-site won’t work as alternatives. Bus needs massive improvement before it’ll work. Until you’ve provided workable, low-stress alternatives to driving alone, we need parking! To punish people who take public transit (by taking away BART parking access) is unconscionable. The current planned

“transit village” benefits the Walden area residents with higher property values at the expense of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 109 • I request a circulation plan to not less than 5 miles around the BART station, including the costs of user-free, zero-emission buses and user-free refreshment buildings (of bathrooms and eateries) maybe not less than 200 feet apart, and unbundling of commercial and residential units from minimum tenant and user-free parking spaces so far as government is concerned. The number of user-free parking spaces BART-commercial-residential per acre should be limited and BART government should not be permitted to give away land use at tax expense or BART ticket-payers expense to selected few against good planning. It is a prostitution of civic planning and capitulate suppression of exploration of ideas with constraint of current BART “policy.”

APRIL 10TH, 2001 Ð ISSUES AND CONCERNS (Comments and Issues from Public Meeting)

A. PARKING 1. There is a shortfall still on Iron Horse Trail replacement parking; 250 paid spots is not the same as 581 free spots. Add to parking tower. • The Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan provides for the Iron Horse Corridor to be converted to a Greenspace use. In order to implement, the Pleasant Hill BART Steering Committee has been evaluating measures to mitigate removal of temporary BART spaces. Multiple mitigations for temporary parking removal include enhancements to alternative modes (146 spaces), BART operations (230 spaces), relocation of Route 70 stop (40 spaces), and replacement temporary parking (250 spaces). The 250 net new BART patron spaces on the BART property are over and above mitigations previously identified by Steering Committee. Cost to develop 250 net new spaces is over $3.5 million. Additional parking for visitors to shoppers to the new projects will ensure that parking spaces are available throughout the day, including BART patrons.

2. Where are the 581 spaces of parking from the green space going to be? This plan does not show the promised parking. Look elsewhere! • See A-1

3. 250 spaces from trail on-site (no need for parking at swim club). • Two hundred fifty spaces will not be on line for at least two years; temporary parking mitigations are still being pursued.

4. Having 250 spaces violates the Specific Plan. • If parking is part of joint development program, an amendment to Specific Plan would be needed.

5. Expand parking structure first; Develop the expanded parking structure first before development of retail, office space, etc. • Phasing program not yet firmly established; preliminary indications are that BART patron

replacement parking would likely occur first.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 110 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6. We need more parking not less. • BART access planning policy and County policy encourage alternative mode enhancement, not the development of more and more parking. Just as many people argue that there should be less parking, since providing parking results in more congestion. The recommended 250 spaces represents a compromise between competing interests. BART’s new parking policy would allow for consideration of new paid parking facilities and public/private partnerships to construct additional parking facilities.

7. Add another level to the structure-currently 7 floors plus basement, why only 6 floors in this design? • Expansion structure is same height and has the same number of floors as the existing structure.

8. The northeast corner of the parking structure has the worst view-screen it! • We concur. Liner buildings and other exterior/interior modifications can be developed to enhance the neighborliness of this corner.

9. How many stories? Make it low. • The proposed number of stories is needed to fully provide for our replacement parking obligation. All building heights throughout the project have been designed to be lower on the east side near residential uses, and higher adjacent to office uses on the western perimeter. Further, the costs of building parking further below ground is significant given the areas high watertable. In addition, we have made sure to preserve views of Mt. Diablo from the Station platform.

10. Place parking at North Concord stop. • BART enhancements to N. Concord service among the temporary parking mitigations. Currently there are over 400 unused spaces at N. Concord. Hopefully running additional trains to this Station will encourage about 100 BART patrons at Pleasant Hill to use N. Concord.

11. Where’s the parking garage? • BART replacement parking proposed to be west of existing structure. Private uses all provide for their parking needs in the back of the buildings.

12. New Garage parking space widths minimum 8 feet. • BART specifies minimum of 8.5 foot width.

13. Different size spaces for different size cars, alternate floors of large and small cars. • Compact and full spaces to be provided. A parking consultant has been engaged to optimize parking program. BART has recently estimated that an additional 80 spaces are achievable from restriping the existing garage.

14. If you charge for parking, you reduce parking demand (especially from nearby areas) and you will increase demand for bus, walking, and bike riding.

• Pricing has a strong effect on demand, and encourages alternative modes. BART policy requires ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 111 that BART-dedicated parking be provided free to BART patron’s only. We assume that all additional BART and project parking within the project will be priced at market rates. Revenues received may be able to help cover costs to construct, and to operate the parking facility.

15. Don’t lose sight that this is a train station, needs more access, convenience. • We have worked to significantly improve pedestrian, transit and bicycle access to the Station, while still providing for significant auto access. There will be safe, comfortable, interesting pedestrian routes from all sides of the project to the Station. There will be a strong connection for bikes and pedestrians to the Iron Horse Trail, with a Bike Station placed next to the BART Station. Access for transit will be greatly improved, with additional bus bays, improved passenger amenities and room for expansion. Management of taxis will also be improved, eliminating queuing on surrounding residential streets. Further, the Specific Plan and the Concept Plan acknowledges the importance of this regional facility by providing for a concentration of uses conveniently located within easy walking of the BART platform.

16. Given current growth increases part. Bart ridership; today’s parking supply should be a baseline. • See A-6 above.

17. Is there space for buses? • Bus queuing and loading areas provided for at west end of property. Also, see A-15.

18. Main street parallel parking doesn’t seem to work, instead, one since only 45 degree angle parking. • Parking consultant is examining on and off street parking. Our experience with parallel parking on main streets all over the country is generally very positive. In addition, 45-degree angle parking can pose hazards for bicyclists.

19. Parallel parking will back traffic up onto Treat. • On-street parking will not be allowed during times when it might back up traffic onto Treat. During off-peak times, it will provide extra parking spaces, will act as a traffic-calming device, and will improve the pedestrian environment on the sidewalks.

20. Do we really need cars all the way around the green? • On-street parking helps provide buffer for safety; issue can be further examined.

21. Drop offs and taxis? • See A-17.

22. Where is the Kiss and Ride area? • Kiss and Ride opportunities are around the Station Plaza, and just north of the station.

B. TRAFFIC 1. Make sure there is enough room to the right of bridge for executing turns.

• The bridges will be designed to accommodate turning motions/site lines at intersections.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 112 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 2. Traffic calming a priority (crossing Iron Horse Trail to Jones Road). This can be problem for traffic flow – cars in looking for non-existent parking rather than backing out again will have a very adverse reaction on H/T (Honey Trial?) residents. • The existing setting on Del Hombre is to be improved as part of Greenspace projects. Adequate turning areas are to be provided.

3. No cars around square; instead, Main Street to Park Street only. This works because of more service outlets at this end of Main and around Square. • See A-20. To be examined.

4. Provide Class 1 trail along BART Row to Bancroft Road, to connect with potential trails in Concord. • A connector trail to the David/Minert area is suggested in the Specific Plan, and is being examined. A public process to discuss alternative alignments to be conducted.

5. Replace Iron Horse Trail Bridge with one at Oak Road. • The two bridges serve entirely different populations. One bridge for both pedestrians along Oak Road (south) and Iron Horse Trail users not functionally feasible.

6. Need to incorporate fully funded direct Iron Horse Trail over crossing bridge at Jones and Treat and continue bridge design planning. • Iron Horse Trail overcrossing is fully funded. Final design process/determination to proceed to be undertaken.

C. PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES 1. Bad pedestrian crossing near I-680. • Acknowledged. Future alternative mode enhancements may address, and is suggested in the Specific Plan.

2. Make sure there is grass somewhere on Treat. • Grass can be provided in appropriate locations. Water conservation ordinance discourages small areas of grass.

3. Need to incorporate safe Iron Horse Trail over crossing of Treat Blvd. at Jones Road. • Part of Specific Plan; design alternatives, siting, and localized impacts need to be assessed and considered in final siting decisions.

4. Much concern about crossing Jones during evening rush hours to reach the bridge over Bart. There will be a continuous stream of people crossing a stream of cars. • Safe pedestrian access alternatives to BART property from Iron Horse Trail are being evaluated. Potential improvements include a pedestrian refuge/median on Jones; raised crosswalks, in-

pavement, pedestrian-activated crosswalk beacons; and/or a pedestrian activated stoplight. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 113 5. It should be a true pedestrian center because if traffic circulates around it, it will not feel like a park; The Square (Station Plaza?) should be pedestrian only, otherwise traffic circle only. • Size of square, and use of parked cars to buffer from traffic lanes is concept being employed. See also A-20.

6. “Buffer” comforts for peds. • Trees along the curb and parking part of buffering.

7. Pedestrian Tunnel below Treat. • Viability as an alternative is being evaluated for April 9th meeting. Potentially constrained by underground utilities, cost, and safety/security concerns of users. Most pedestrians feel unsafe walking in a long tunnel.

8. Blinking light pedestrian /bike crosswalk from Iron Horse Trail across Jones Road (in the direction of the Station Plaza). • Need for/type of signalization is to be determined when project level traffic studies are completed. See also C-4.

9. Bike storage for residents who don’t have covered storage. • Can be provided for in residential projects similar to requirements of commercial projects in area.

10. Better coordination of traffic signals to accommodate pedestrians. • Signal time now controlled by Walnut Creek for Treat Corridor; pedestrian overcrossings designed to address.

11. Pedestrian flow from Oak (south of Treat) to platform is too convoluted. • Shortest route would have pedestrians continuing north along Oak to BART viaduct and into the Station; this movement is provided for. Pedestrian overcrossing design will need to accommodate a staircase to come back to ground level to facilitate multiple directions for desired pedestrian movements.

12. Area west of grove of trees at Oak/Treat doesn’t have uses that would provide observation/ security for pedestrians. • Uses can be considered for the area, so long as trees are not impaired. Observation from street does occur.

D. ENVIRONMENT 1. Preserve air right for future greater density. • Development over BART facilities is technically possible, but difficult to accomplish in a

financially feasible way given need to protect BART operational requirements.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 114 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 2. Is there an incorporation of solar energy? • Energy conservation features encouraged by County General Plan policy and implementing ordinances. Energy costs bode positive for energy considerations in site design and equipping.

3. Are the trees at the intersection of Oak Rd. and Treat Blvd. sick? • No recent arborist reports exist. May be part of Final Development Plan special studies.

4. Save the view of Mount Diablo; I’m worried about our Mount Diablo view from the Station platform. We should see it from all along the platform, not just one little spot. • Specific Plan policy/diagrams denote Mt. Diablo viewshed; concept plan is consistent with Specific Plan. Expansive views will be preserved.

E. PROGRAMMING 1. Either activate linear park (market, etc.) or give up for larger square. • Denoted uses for the linear park are intended to be exemplary. Uses might include playground, public art, stage, etc. The provision of additional space for a larger square is being further examined; preliminary indications are that it would compromise the ability to park adjacent blocks.

2. Larger community Center on Larger Green. • Siting of a community center within the complex has a number of alternative locations; use connotes operation and maintenance source of funds.

3. Mix office and residential on the same properties. • Plan doesn’t preclude; mixing can complicate building program, parking.

4. Plan should allow future air rights; mixed development in future especially around Square and Green to Iron Trail. • See D-1.

5. Have a post office annex. • This type of use will be among the many potential uses considered by the BART developer.

6. Better utilization of site-swap the daycare (with something else)? • Will consider alternative locations.

7. Strong landscape feature or fountain. • Will be considered; part of Final Development Plan.

8. Create an activity center at Treat/Oak west of grove of trees.

• Can be considered; See also C-12. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 115 F. STATION GREEN 1. Green should be a bit larger. • See E-1.

2. The small plaza east of Station Plaza seems awkward; it seems better used as part of the central green. Or transformed into an active public site (playground, etc.) or anchored by retail (restaurant)? • Programming of uses along link road can accommodate mixed uses. Restaurant feature better to site at Station Plaza (west) end of link road. Median green may be considered for playground, but other locations exist – Greenspace or Station Plaza. See also E-1.

3. What is this building doing here? (the small public building on this green). Civic space is good, move it elsewhere. Maybe a playground here? This building is too big. • This building is not contemplated to be a community center. The concept was to create a sheltered space that would provide benefit to users such as arts and crafts shows, etc.

4. This space is “not doing anything” - What about a playground? • Play areas can be part of Station Plaza.

5. Put brass ducks for children to sit on in the public square (like in Boston Public Garden). • Can be considered.

6. Picnic tables, fountain, swing sets, larger destination park. • Can be considered; see also E-1.

G. RETAIL 1. Retail mix should include drugstore/grocery store, Mom & Pop store. • Definitely a desired use; operator will have to be determined.

2. Preserve space along green for retail expansion. • Provided for.

3. Maintain future retail around Station Plaza. • Provided for.

4. Target immigrant entrepreneurs as retail tenants/building owners tap into their networks of potential retail tenants. • Operators to be determined.

5. No fast food! • Specific Plan precludes drive-thru establishments; all restaurants would have to be walk-up.

Restaurants of all types desirable – sit down to convenience.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 116 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6. Steps (or elevator) to retail from bridge to the west. • Would be provided.

H. HOUSING 1. More housing, more affordable housing - inclusionary, not segregated. • Mixed income housing contemplated; some affordability required by Law.

2. Market-rate housing: 300 plus units of housing with 45 plus for-sale units. Look beyond the site for more long-term solution (look outside the box). • Housing program includes some for-sale units; outside the Specific Plan area is substantially built out, except for two smaller areas.

3. Mix houses/office on same block. • See E-3.

4. Like housing above retail. • Provided for.

I. WALDEN 1. Walden is the name of the area and the road to the South on Oak Road. It is a historic area, with walnut groves, heritage oaks, and older homes (at least 3 are about 100 years old). Lets build on this. • BART, County, and Developer are open to evolving this concept to establish an identity.

2. Walden Center or Walden Square for name. • Walden Center name is already used by shopping center at Treat/No. Main.

3. There is an adobe structure on Oak between Treat and Walden, and there are cottages and old homes on Cherry Lane and Walnut Blvd. • Acknowledged.

J. POOL 1. Why not public “community” pool? • Among the alternatives; City of Walnut Creek would have to agree to operate and maintain if a “public” pool. City declined prior offer to operate Swim Club.

2. Agreed that use should be recreational. • See J-1.

3. Pool becomes village pool.

• See J-1. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○○○○○○○○○○ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan 6.0 Appendices - 117 4. Corporate memberships for Swim Club. • Not a design issue, but could be considered by Swim Club.

K. BUILT FORM 1. West of BART; No higher than other buildings-maximum 10 stories. • Specific Plan allows up to 12 stories to be considered on Area 11 (west of BART platform).

2. Put seven-story tower on the West side of BART with the other tower. • Both office uses would not fit without substantially increasing building mass or height, or both.

3. Need good codes to get this architecture; Need regulating codes to be available. • Coding document being prepared.

4. Is the Station Building included in financial analysis? • All built forms are reflected in financial analysis.

5. Scale back 7-story building on Treat; Decrease to 4 stories or increase setback. • Specific Plan allows seven; would impact project economics if FAR reduction required, or increase mass of building.

L. BART STATION CHARACTER 1. Lose the towers next to BART. • See K-1.

2. How about an old-world-style clock that would be visible from the station platform instead of a flagpole? • Can be considered; idea reflected in concept plan.

3. Destination is key concept. • Creating a sense of place for residents, employees, and BART patrons is desired.

4. Architecture is superior to anything around-relates to history. • Architectural style rendered was a vernacular that reflects local area; other styles are possible and will be evaluated with visual preference survey on April 9th and 10th.

5. Put drawings on the web.

• Accomplished.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 118 - 6.0 Appendices Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community Plan