|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Ramon City Council on Tuesday selected two design concepts to pursue for the planned Iron Horse Regional Trail overcrossings project.
The council members provided positive feedback about the cable-stayed and tied-arch bridge styles (shown at right), which also ranked highest among residents who responded to the community outreach efforts for the safety project at the trail’s intersections with Bollinger Canyon and Crow Canyon roads.
“This thing has got to be right, because I’m already hearing from some people that they are not thrilled with this bridge and I’m sure I’m going to hear about it all the way to the end,” Councilman Dave Hudson said during the approximately 30-minute discussion at regular council meeting Tuesday evening.
The overhead bridges aim to improve safety for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists at the two thoroughfares’ junctions with the trail. The project is a collaborative effort among the city, Contra Costa County and the East Bay Regional Park District and is funded through Measure J, the half-cent transportation sales tax approved by county voters in 2004.
Lisa Bobadilla, city transportation division manager, gave a presentation to the council in February showing 21 bridge renderings and indicating she would come back at a later time to ask the council to select its top three choices.
In the council chambers Tuesday night, Bobadilla instead asked the council to choose only two types to proceed with for preliminary design.
“Three months ago I was hoping for three suggestions,” Bobadilla said. “Tonight, what I would like is two options. Two options really starts to help our consultant team hone in on putting together cost estimates and a number of visual renderings that we want to put together.”
Councilman Scott Perkins said it’s important for the Bollinger Canyon bridge to be aesthetically compatible with the new city hall building, which will be right next to it.
“I’m really pleased with what’s going forward, and I think we’re on the right track with these two designs,” Vice Mayor Harry Sachs said.
Mayor Bill Clarkson suggested taking a site walk to get a better visual idea of how each bridge style will look at the location and how each bridge would fit in relation to the neighboring power lines at the site.
The councilmen discussed bridge designs for Bollinger Canyon and Crow Canyon although they expect construction for Bollinger Canyon to occur first.
Bobadilla said it would be more cost-effective to move into the environmental phase of the project for both projects at this time.
“Once we have the environmental document adopted and approved — which is about 12 to 18 months, unless there are some significant land-use changes around Crow Canyon Road — that document will be valid for at least 10 to 15 years,” she explained.
The council directed city staff to proceed with initial designs for the cable-stayed and tied-arch at both locations. Staff plans to return to the council on June 28 to present cost estimates and visual renderings for each design.
In other business
* The council approved a resolution declaring the city’s intent to establish the new San Ramon Valley Tourism Improvement District.
After nearly a decade, the city opted to end its affiliation with the regional tourism marketing effort through Visit Tri-Valley.
The proposed new tourism district would be governed by an independent board of directors and tasked with the specific goal of helping enhance six large hotel operations in San Ramon.
The city has received petitions from hoteliers representing 89.29% of the 1,128 hotel rooms in San Ramon in support of forming the new tourism district — which would be funded by a $2 fee per overnight stay at local hotels.
San Ramon planning commissioner Donna Kerger took to the podium to express some of her concerns about the new district, asking the council how other local businesses would be affected by the new district, how the district’s governing board would be overseen and if the city would have a seat on the board in an advisory capacity.
“While I personally have some reservations about this new district, I also believe that our lodging community needs to have an opportunity to be successful and to charter their own destiny,” Kerger said.
The resolution of intent approved by the council schedules an informational meeting on the proposed district set for June 9, with the public hearing before the council on June 23.
* The council adopted the city’s Housing Element update and associated General Plan amendment with suggestions for some language changes, updates to graphics and fixes to grammatical errors within the document. Tuesday marked the council’s third and final public hearing on the topic.
* The council approved contracts with four companies for landscaping services, each with an initial five-year agreement with options to subsequently renew on a year-by-year basis until 2025.
The agreement with Novato-based Cagwin & Dorward is not to exceed $9.379 million for the first five years. San Jose’s Jensen Landscape will receive up to $3.436 million for its initial five-year deal.
The initial five-year agreement with Fremont-based New Image Landscape is not to exceed $7.845 million, and the same term for ValleyCrest Landscape, based in Southern California, is worth a maximum $1.774 million.
* Clarkson presented a proclamation in honor of the 125th anniversary of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs and the 50th anniversary of the Dublin San Ramon Women’s Club.
* The mayor also gave special recognition to Brian Lindblom, neighborhood preservation officer in the community development department, commending his 42 years of city service.
* The Contra Costa Tobacco Prevention Coalition presented the city with its Award for Outstanding Contribution to Tobacco Prevention and recognized the teen council for its contributions to the tobacco prevention effort among the youth of San Ramon.
-
San Ramon transportation division manager Lisa Bobadilla presented community input on the Iron Horse Regional Trail overcrossings project during Tuesday’s regular city council meeting. (Photo by Cierra Bailey). -
The cable-stayed bridge was one of the top two designs chosen by the San Ramon City Council and ranked the highest among residents for the Bollinger Canyon location. (Image courtesy of city of San Ramon). -
The tied-arch style bridge was also one of the top two choices by the city council. It ranked the highest among residents for the Crow Canyon Road location. (Image courtesy of the city of San Ramon).
I think I like the cable-style bridge. It looks more modern than the other one.
It kind of reminds me of the new Bay Bridge. Hopefully it won’t cost as much to build … and won’t be built with defective bolts & rods like the Bay Bridge.
A word of advice: Don’t put Caltrans in charge.
The arch design reminds me of the monstrosity over I-80 at University Ave in Berkeley. That structure is remarkably ugly. If there has to be a bridge, I guess aesthetically I like the cable in preference to the arch. The drawback is it requires a piling in the middle of the road. I’m not sure if there would be any liability for the City with a huge pillar there.
MLO
How can any proper narrowing decision be made without considering the relative costs of the 23 designs? I absolutely do not know — but would guess that, between the finalists, the arch design would be cheaper to buy and build.
So — mlo, how much are your aesthetics worth — a cost factor of 1.5, 2 or 3? And why isn’t cost front-and-center in the article, rather than some throwaway about sales tax funding?
2 Wheelers,
You are so right!
Obviously “cost” is not an important variable at all for government and politicians.
Just tax it! Or bond it!
San Ramon,
There is a huge difference between having a middle support and not having a middle support. Big consequences to the roadway below! I think middle support is a problem forever.
I think the Bay Bridge design is terrible. Bad aesthetics. Overly tall. Looks like an Electric Tower.
Can’t say the Arch looks that much better, but somewhat!
I think you should have opted for a THIRD design choice!
Long and sleek would have been good…with high sides to prevent throwing or jumping or toddlers falling.
Needs to be wide enough for electric wheelchairs, etc..
A high priority should be to consider Earthquake stability. We live in earthquake country!
It’s hard to watch these TRAIN WRECKS happen, right before your very eyes!
And, yes, COST matters!
And COLOR/Materials matter too!
Look at the sketches carefully people; you will see where the road is cut into the earth (depressed slightly). There is no pillar in the middle of the road. The center support of the cable-stayed bridge is to the left of the road.
Both designs are ugly monstrosities that cost millions. Not to worry, it’s “free money” i.e. from some government grant or such—its not really our money (in the view of the city). Good way to highlight the S.R. government’s love affair with a so-called city center; which is really a business venture of Sunset development consisting of a strip mall beneath a parking structure & a next-door, high density (rabbit hutch style) housing development & hotel, all of which will block the view of Mt. Diablo & greatly increase traffic congestion.
Both efforts total waste of money. Tourism in San Ramon – really? And flagrant waste of money on over the top bridge over crossing. Should have evaluated better traffic considerations and options. Hoping this eventually falls by the same wayside that the high end shopping mall (turned into Target) and the ‘new’ downtown plan.
The new City Center will start this summer with demolition of 2 story office group BR2. The tenants are almost all gone. They will be out by middle of June.
Bridge options include having no pillars in the center median.
In my opinion, the cable bridge is more modern and attractive.
I like the cable-stayed bridge.
Where were all of you complainers during the multitude of meetings and online queries? You had plenty of chances to voice your preferences and concerns.
Roz
Many of those commenting here did fill out the online feedback, but as usual, the city ignores the residents, and as usual, Roz falsely accuses all the above as simply complainers that did not already express their views to the city, so what else is new?
Actually the city DID pay attention to the 60 or so residents that completed the survey. You may not agree with the decision but the council DID go with the majority.
The Majority was listened to.