Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08261986 - 2.1 A" THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: August 26 , 1986 MATTER OF RECORD SUBJECT: West County Justice Center In response to the request of the Board on August 12, 1986 , Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, presented a report responding to the concerns of the Board. Richard K. Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner, advised of the need to move forward with the selection of the site for the West County Justice Center Project. He commented on the overcrowding conditions that exist at the Martinez Detention Facility and of the need to relieve the situation as quickly as possible. He expressed the belief that the sooner the Justice Center is constructed, the sooner the overcrowding situation at the Martinez Facility would be corrected. John Knox, attorney representing Pinole Point Properties, commented on and expressed reservations with certain statements in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. Lloyd Madden, representing Neighborhood House of North Richmond, expressed support for the Project and urged the Board to take the necessary action to acquire the site for the West County Justice Center. Board members discussed issues relative to noticing requirements, inmate population projections, and possible future expansion for the proposed facility. There being no further discussion, the Board proceeded to adopt the recommendations as set forth in the report of the County Administrator, attached hereto. TO: ` 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR Contra County Administrator Costa DATE: August 22, 1986 C""y SUBJECT: REPORT ON VARIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THE WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Accept Report from County Administrator on various issues related to the West County. Justice Center Project. 2. Appoint Marshall Wais, President, Pinole Point Properties, to the West County Justice Center Advisory Group. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND: A. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Early site development studies propose relocating a portion of both Atlas and Giant Roads to a right-of-way running along the Santa Fe railroad on Site A's eastern boundary. This new road alignment would change the current access to the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline parking lot and the Marwais steel plant. The preliminary plan for Site A shows the approximate location of the proposed road alignment, as well as the location of the existing roads. (This site plan was revised after publication of the draft EIR correcting the alignment of Giant and Atlas Roads. ) The road realignment and new access roads to the park and steel plant are part of the West County Justice Center project. Of major concern to the Park District is access from the new city street to the shoreline park, both the road access to the park parking lot as well as the altered views park visitors will have as they travel between the parking lot and the bridge crossing into the park. The new road access to the park parking lot can occur at any point along the new road between the edge of Parchester Village and the existing stand of eucalyptus trees. The actual placement will be determined after the project design team meets with the Park District's staff. The site area south of the eucalyptus grove will not have any buildings on it, thus leaving this area as an appropriate park entrance. The entrance to the WCJC will be located several hundred feet from the park entrance and north of the eucalyptus grove. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO MENDATIOF BOARD COMMITTEE _X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON August 26, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X Modified Item 2 to: Appoint Marshall Wais, President, Pinole Point Properties, or his designee, to the West County Justice Center Advisory Group. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD CAO-Justice System Programs OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Sheriff-Coroner ATTESTED 0%, 190* General Services-Att'n. Bob Rygh Phil Welor, Community Development Supefta 4W(',OWAyAdff)IfUSldK. County Counsel Marshall Wais Yfa'3/,F-A% MV '�� NCCIITV • 1 A 2 August 22, 1986 Access from the park parking lot to the railroad overcrossing is located along the western edge of the proposed WCJC site. The Park District proposed maintaining a broad buffer zone between their access road and the jail, including generous landscaping and placement of earth berms to screen the proposed project :from park users. Early design schemes are being shown to Park District staff, through the Advisory Group's Design Committee, for their review and comment. The Project Design Team is prepared to meet with the District's staff or Board members throughout the design process in order to develop a suitable and secure buffer zone. As an alternative to the existing entry to the Shoreline Park, the Park Board has proposed a new entrance to the park north of Site A. This alternative would require the structural strengthening of an existing bridge over the Southern Pacific railroad, the acquisition of a new right-of-way and road improvements across Pinole Point Property-owned land, and construction of a new park parking lot. The details of this proposed alternate entry are not yet defined nor has this proposal been evaluated by the County. The County staff is willing to study this proposal and suggests that it might be an agenda item for the Advisory Group's Design Committee. Ted Radke, Chairman of the East Bay Regional Park Board of Directors, is a member of this Committee. Access to the Marwais steel plant is currently proposed to be located along Site A's north boundary. The actual alignment of this private road can be adjusted somewhat based on the owner's needs. B. SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, INCLUDING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION The planning for a new detention facility in Contra Costa County has been accomplished with extensive public input over a four-year period. The Board of Supervisors held a workshop and public hearing on the Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan on .March 30, 1982. The master plan included a recommendation for a West County detention facility. A number of citizens, advisory groups and public and private organizations participated in the development of the Plan, including the County Justice System Subvention Program Advisory Group, the Police Chiefs' Association, CADSAC, Criminal Justice Agency Planning Board, and the Municipal Court Judges' Association. On December 14, 1982, the Board of Supervisors established a Correctional Facility Planning Task Force to provide policy oversight for the County's preparation of its application for County Jail Capital Expenditure Funds to constructa new detention facility. This group was comprised of the Technical Task Force for the Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan (Sheriff-Coroner, District Attorney, Public Defender, County Probation Officer, a Superior Court Judge, Municipal Court Judge, County Administrator's Office, Criminal Justice Agency and a representative, each, from the Mayors' Conference and the Police Chiefs' Association), augmented by representatives of the Planning Department and Public Works Department and four members of your citizens' Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission (CADSAC). Based on the findings of the Correctional Facility Planning Task Force and continuing jail overcrowding, the Board of Supervisors approved the application for Proposition 2 funds on November 8, 1983. Public meetings continued as .the County considered numerous sites throughout greater Contra Costa County for the jail facility. The Board discussed various jail sites at public meetings on July 7, 1983, August 2, 1983, August 16, 1983, September 15, 1983, September 27, 1983, January 20, 1984, February 27, 1984, June 5, 1984, March 4, 1985, and June 6, 1985. On June 18, 1985, after a public hearing, the Board identified the Atlas Road site in the City of Richmond as a proposed site for the West County Justice Center Project; authorized the County T 3 August 22, 1986 Administrator to negotiate with the property owner to obtain an option; and, authorized the Director of Community Development to conduct a review of the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. A Notice of Preparation was issued on July 16, 1985 with respect to the Atlas Road site. The notice was sent to over 150 interested citizens and local and statewide community organizations. The jail site issue continued to be before the Board where it was discussed on October 8, 1985, October 17, 1985, and November 19, 1985. Another public hearing was held on December 3, 1985 on siting of the West County Justice Center. Board members were in agreement to pursue acquisition of the Atlas Road site for construction of the West County Justice Center project, thus reaffirming the Board's decision of June 18, . 1985. The. Board of Supervisors received a resolution endorsing a West Contra Costa County site for the proposed detention facility from the San Pablo City Council on October 21, 1985. When.the Draft Environmental Impact Report was complete, a notice of completion and public hearing before the Planning Commission was mailed to the same broad-based list that received the .Notice of Preparation and to anyone else who had responded to the Notice. Full copies of. the document were widely distributed. A public hearing was held on June 17, 1986 before the Planning Commission. Thirteen written comments were received on the Draft EIR during the review period; only one, from the East Bay Regional Park District, expressed concern over the possible impacts of the project. (See preceeding section on Site Access and Circulation. ) In addition to the public hearings held, County staff met with numerous local agencies and organizations in West County to discuss the proposed project and project location. Staff met with the city councils in E1 Cerrito, San Pablo, Pinole and Richmond, the Mayor's . Conference, the 'EastBay Regional Park Board, property owners, local planning officials, and community organization representatives including Residents Against Crime, North Richmond/Iron Triangle Area Council, North Richmond Homeowners and Citizens Council, North Richmond.Baptist Church, Davis Chapel C.M.E. Church, Macedonia Baptist Church, North Richmond Neighborhood Council, Friends of North Richmond and Neighborhood House of' North Richmond. Staff is continuing to make presentations to service organizations in West County. Also', the 49-member West County Justice Center Advisory Group, established by the Board on April 1, 1986 to provide advice to the Board regarding the design and construction of the new facility, has met and established working committees. These committees which are already operational are: Design, Employment and Training, and Related Facilities and Services. The entire jail planning process has been described in many newspaper articles in the local and regional newspapers. This County has a long-standing commitment to community participation in corrections planning. This commitment is demonstrated by the successful planning effort to construct the Martinez Detention Facility. The planning process for the proposed West County Justice Center has followed and will continue to follow that model. 4 August 22, 1986 'C. SITE SELECTION As indicated previously, your Board, on December 12, 1982, authorized the preparation of the County's application for County Jail Capital Expenditure Funds under Proposition 2 and directed staff to evaluate sites for a new detention facility. Since that time, site selection activity and evaluation have gone hand-in-hand with project planning. A minimum of. 29 alternative site locations were studied in detail, as well as many other sites throughout the County that were identified, reviewed, and screened in accordance with selection criteria (Section 9, Predesign Program). Numerous reports were submitted to your Board detailing site selection activities and recommending sites for study. Your Board, -in turn, has provided through various Board Orders directions to staff to evaluate a large number of potential sites for a new detention facility. A detailed summary of the site selection process is contained in.the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the West County Justice Center, dated May 1986. Pages 1-1 through 1-11 . review the site selection process, detail the alternate sites selected together with the location and evaluation results. This section lists in chronological order (starting with December 12, 1982 and proceeding through December 3, 1985) a series of reports to your Board, other reports, and issuances related to site selection, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report itself. In summary, your Board, on June 18, 1985, approved the Atlas Road.site in the City of Richmond as a recommended facility site and authorized' preparation of an Evironmental Impact Report. Subsequently, your Board requested that staff further evaluate alternative sites and report back whether other sites might be more feasible than the Atlas Road site. A detailed report to your Board, dated December 3, 1985 (DEIR, Appendix .B, pp. 44-47), was prepared and approved by your Board which,' based' on evaluation of site costs, operational and community and environmental. factors, reaffirmed the Atlas Road site in the City of Richmond as the preferred site for the project. In addition to the above-cited references to pages in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendix B of the DEIR, consisting of 47 pages, documents the process by including the various Board Orders and other reports relating,to site selection. At the recent Board hearing of August 12, some people testified- as to the inadequacy of maps contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The DEIR contains a number of maps that quite accurately describe the location of the Atlas and Giant.Roads site designated- as "Site A". Two of these maps (Figures 2.3 and 2.7) in the DEIR included an indication of alternate parking for the regional park which may have been misinterpreted by some readers. The intention was to highlight a possibility for relocation of the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline parking lot so as to provide a better ' entrance to the park. Some readers apparently misinterpreted that reference as future parking for the new jail and subsequently concluded that the. entrances to the park and to the new justice center would be right next to one another. This is decidedly not the intention. of County staff, and current maps have been corrected to remove this source of misunderstanding. As in above in Section A, the entrances to the new justice center and to the Point Pinole Regional Park will be some distance apart and quite separate with no joint parking facilities. , D. Environmental Impact Report Following the June 18, 1985 publichearing to review potential sites, in which 20 people gave testimony, the Atlas Road Site was approved as the preferred site and the Director of Community Development was. directed to review the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental. Quality Act and to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The .following schedule describes the EIR process: 5 August 22, 1986 July 16, 1985 Notice of Preparation circulated February 4, 1986 Consultant hired to assist County in preparing EIR documents May 12, 1986 Draft EIR circulated, Notice of Completion filed June 17, 1986 EIR public hearing held by Planning Commission June 27, 1986 EIR public comment period closed July 22, 1986 Final EIR, Response Document circulated July 29, 1986 Certification hearing by Planning Commission August 5, 1986 Planning Commission Resolution certifying the EIR including their findings, mitigation measures and overriding considerations forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their action. Throughout this process, public notices were issued and the public was -given the opportunity to help focus the EIR issues or to critique the circulated draft. In addition to the EIR public review process, including both written and oral comments, there were also a series of local meetings and public hearings throughout the site selection process. There were 13 written responses to the EIR and 9 individuals spoke before the Planning Commission. These comments are all contained in the Response Document along with the County's response to the substantive comments and responding mitigation measures. The EIR process followed established State and County regulations and guidelines, with all impacts seriously considered, including proper mitigation. In addition to technically satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the County has also shown good faith to the local community and surrounding landowners in their commitment to design excellence and a proper landscape buffer zone. A review of the comments to the EIR and responding mitigation measures demonstrates both the County's commitment to being a good neighbor as well as the general public acceptance of this project. In determining the sufficiency of the EIR, it should be noted that this is. only one step in the long project development process that started with the preparation of the Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan and ,the application to the State for County Jail Capital Expenditure Funds coupled with the extensive site selection process. Following the EIR and project approval, this process continues with project design in which the method of many mitigation commitments are determined. Each of these phases of project development results in a set of decisions and each builds on the decisions made in earlier phases. In reviewing the EIR for adequacy, the document should be considered in its entirety, including the EIR appendix, rather than limiting review to one section or the response to one identified impact. The EIR, to be complete, must address environmental, socio-economic and land use issues and resulting impacts. Because of the nature of a jail facility, there will be controversy on both its need and location. Objections based on the philosophical belief that jail and park use are incompatible or that the existing property owner has other land uses planned for the site are understandable responses in this process. The test of adequacy,. however, is not whether there are objections, but rather that these objections or concerns are properly addressed, and that reasonable measures be implemented to mitigate . identified adverse impacts. In the case of the West County Justice Center EIR, the project description is thorough, the impacts are identified and mitigation measures described. The EIR is both comprehensive and adequate. 6 August 22, 1986 E. FUTURE EXPANSION OF DETENTION SYSTEM . As part of the ongoing adult corrections planning effort in Contra Costa County,. the detention system population has been continually monitored. Population projections were completed for the Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan (Population Projections for the Contra Costa County Detention and Corrections System, December 1981). These projections were updated in 1982 (Master Plan Update, 1983) and included in the County's application for Proposition 2 funds. Projections were again accomplished in 1985 and included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, West County Justice Center (p. 3-9). The projections indicate that there will be 1,297 inmates in the detention system in 1990. This population can be accommodated with the completion of the proposed 560-bed West County facility. The Martinez Detention Facility will return to its rated capacity of 386 although the experience of overcrowding has shown that this facility can accommodate very limited double-bunking and function smoothly. The Work Furlough Facility will continue to house at least 100 minimum-security work furlough eligible inmates. The Marsh Creek Detention Facility will, in all likelihood, remain open and house special inmate populations (e.g. , drunk drivers and drug and alcohol-related offenders), and minimum-security inmates on work crews such as fire suppression. This facility is in the process of being upgraded. A new fence has been constructed and new modular housing units are being built. The facility will be able to accommodate up to 250 inmates. Staff is continuing to explore methods to accommodate detention system population past 1990. The criteria for allocating Proposition 2 and 52 funds was to meet current overcrowding needs. There are no financial resources either locally or at the State or Federal level to allow for any further expansion of the County's detention system at this time. The County is maximizing the .resources that are currently available. The design of the West County Justice Center should allow for expansion,up to approximately 960 inmates without major disruption or relocation of functions. Three approaches have been identified to accommodate future growth: 1. Oversize initial spaces that are expensive to expand later. 2. Organize the plan to permit the expansion of critical functions into adjacent, less critical "soft".areas or to adjacent portions of the site. 3. Organize the concept of the plan to permit the addition of major functions without interfering with the currently planned facility. The size of the housing rooms also allows for double bunking.. Expansion is not contemplated at this time and would be considered in the overall Countywide strategy for handling the growth in the detention system. The County has no plans to acquire more land at the Atlas Road site and will not modify the perimeter.buffer zone from what is described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. There is also no need to construct buildings higher than the one- to two-stories contemplated. The County continues to pursue alternatives to incarceration. The Work Alternative Program continues to expand, and has gone from 44 participants per day in 1985 -to 60 per day in August 1986. . The Probation Department is exploring approaches to expanding County Parole, and the Sheriff's Department continues to release the maximum number of prisoners possible under pretrial citation release and early release for sentenced prisoners. Maximizing the use of the current and proposed County facilities and use of alternatives to incarceration will continue to be the options explored in handling the County's detention population. ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT TO BOARD (8/21/86) ON VARIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THE WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT Section of Report Attachments A. Site Access and Circulation A B. Summary of the Planning Process, including Community Participation C. Site Selection B, C, & D D. Environmental Impact Report E. Future Expansion of Detention System 10 cA N ,J V� Q ° N x H ul 43) 49 CL 7 t � `" '1. � \�� '� t� r•� Y o 7 Z •.• ul 0 (�.O S.. i -Z NQ c,) V W 3 I � l SITE 9.000 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA The process of site selection is extraordinarily complex , not only involving physical planning factors, but a vast range of political issues which are more difficult to pre- dict. The following list represents a summary of criteria that have been considered in the site selection process: I Program - Considerations . The site should be sufficiently large, or potentially sufficiently large to fulfill program requirements as prioritized by Contra Costa County. Social and Economic Considerations - Proximity to residential neighborhoods , schools , park , Ietc. The public perception of safety must be taken into consideration. - The selection of a site for development as a detention facility may limit other types of development. Accessibility - Site access mustibe evaluated in terms of the need for traffic signals , roadway median openings , curb cuts , street width and configuration. - The site should be convenient to related service centers: courts, existing jails, hospitals, social services, and law enforcement. : - The site should be within an appropriate distance of fire stations. - Access streets should be in good condition , capable of withstanding the necessary traffic density. ' - The site should be located within ready access of the County' s freeway and major road system. Zoning and Property Restraints - The facility should be compatible with, existing adjacent 1 land uses and zoning. Constraints with regard to easements should be considered in terms of their impact on design decisions affecting con- struction costs and operating efficiency. The Design Partnership 9.001 Y SITE 9.000 Site Shape and Size - The site must be appropriate in both acreage and propor- tions to support the facility with the necessary amenities and circulation patterns, both internal and external . - Space for buffer zones to separate the site from adjacent areas, and to contribute to perimeter security, is required. Topography/Soils - The site should be relatively level with sufficiently gentle gradients to minimize expensive cut, fill , or other site preparation measures. - The site should not have geologic faults running through it. ( If a fault does exist and the site is purchased, the site _must accommodate a design that will avoid locating habitable structures over the fault. The site's soil and geology should provide adequate stability and safety during earthquakes. A good site should allow for rapid drainage during and after construction. The water table must be considered as dewatering can add significantly to construction costs. ;i - Construction in flood plains should be avoided if con- struction costs are to be kept to a minimum. In addition to the obvious risks, construction of flood control measures , berms , retention ponds , diversion channels , etc . , can elevate costs and affect schedules. Soil conditions may dictate structural designs that have substantial cost impact (caissons or pilings instead of spread footings). Expansion - Site should have sufficient space to permit internal ex- I pansion within the established security perimeter. - Adequate site should be available to permit alternate means of expansion, both short and long term. Cost of Construction - While capital costs for building construction are j generally one-time expenditures that can be amortized over ) the life of the facility, operating costs such as utility, labor, transportation, and maintenance are rapidly escalat- ing expenses that continue to be incurred year after year. I By carefully considering certain operating aspects prior to site selection, some ongoing costs can be minimized or even eliminated, thus reducing overall facility costs. I :I The Design Partnership 9.002 SITE 9.000 - Factors to be considered when evaluating the site are ini- tial cost per square foot , cost of construction due. to soil/seismic conditions, and cost of construction due to im- posed building consolidation or distribution opportunities (i .e. , a multi-story plan versus a low-rise scheme) . Cost savings may also be found through utilization of existing facilities and services. Site Environs - The site should not be located in proximity to land uses which would endanger the facility or its inhabitants. Neighborhood Impact - The site design should be compatible with local visual en- vironmental patterns. - The-negative impact on parks and historic structures should be minimized. The negative impact on wildlife and vegetation should be minimized. a SAW 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared -in compliance with the i California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as �imended, and the State EIR Guidelines, California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. The purpose i, of this EIR is to identify significant impacts of the West County .Justice Center on the physical and social environment, to indicate how these impacts could be mitigated or a.w. avoided, and to identify and evaluate alternatives to the project. r In accordance with Sections 15080 and 15066 of CEQA, Contra Costa County, as Lead t' Agency, prepared an Initial Study (see Appendix A) and a Notice cif Preparation of an EIR that were circulated to local, state, and federal"agencies and other interested parties. The Initial Study determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project. It also identified the major environmental issues to be addressed in the FIR. In response to the Notice of Preparation, a number' of individuals and agencies expressed specific concerns about the project; those concerns have been addressed in this EIR. The County retained the services of EIP Associates, of San Francisco, to prepare this EIR. ' As background to the description of the project in the next chapter, this chapter discusses the role of the project in the context of the overall County detention system. The need j . for the project is described along with a discussion of the alternatives evaluation process 1 used to select a final site to accommodate the project. 1 1.1 OVERVIEW AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ' Contra Costa County, as mandated by Section 26605 of the Government Code of the State w of California, operates facilities to detain, for varying periods of time, adults who are waiting testifying, arraignment, trial, or disposition, or serving sentences. The proposed Justice Center has been designed to fulfill a critical need in current detention housing iif ,.; 85182 1-1 1. Introduction & Background options. At this time, the County has maximum security housing at the Martinez Detention Facility and minimum security at the Detention Facility at Marsh Creek and at the Work Furlough Center in Richmond. Prisoners requiring more than minimum security ki, housing must be held at the maximum security Martinez facility, which is 60% 1 overcrowded. Construction of the proposed West County Justice Center would eliminate the severe overcrowding in the Martinez Detention Facility and provide appropriate i housing and program opportunities for this medium security population. i In light of the severely overcrowded conditions described above, the West County Justice � i Center would serve the following purposes: 1. To relieve the severe overcrowding throughout the County's detention system. 2. To be the medium-security detention facility in the County, supplementing the minimum-security Work Furlough Center in the West County. agencies operating 3. Provide booking facility services for use by law enforcement ag c es in West Contra Costa County. 1.2 HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS'AND SITE ACQUISITION PROCESS kd As the basis for selecting the preferred location for the project, an extensive analysis of alternatives was conducted by Contra Costa County. Th'r`ough this process, nearly 30 alternative locations for the facility were seriously studied prior to selection of the preferred location. Documentation of this process is provided in a number of memoranda which are contained in Appendix B of this report. A detailed description of the preferred site location for the proposed project is contained in Chapter 2. ' I For nearly 3 2 years, an ongoing evaluation of proposed sites for locating the project in Contra Costa County has occurred. This effort has been conducted by the County Administrator's Office, the Sheriff's Department, the Community Development Department, the County Public Works Depalrtment, and the County General Services Department. Other departments who participated in this process included the Office of ! Emergency Services and the Environmental Health Division of the Health Services 85182 1-2 1. Introduction & Background i Department. The City of Richmond Planning Department provided site data and an outside consultant provided geologic data on several sites. r Table 1-1 lists 29 alternative site locations which were studied in detail along with a summary of the reasons why sites were eliminated from further study. Figure 1-1 illustrates the general location of all sites which were considered, including those sites which were studied in detail. 1 A general chronology of events leading to the selection of the Atlas Road site as the preferred site for the project is presented below. I Date Event/Action 1 1„ E December 12, 1982 o County Board of Supervisors established Task Force 1 to provide policy direction for County's preparation of its application for County Jail Capital Expenditure 4� Funds (Proposition 2), and to evaluate sites for a, 1 Proposition 2 funded facility. July 7, 1983 o Task Force reports to Board of Supervisors on status of Proposition 2 application and site search and ! recommends that County make application to Board of Corrections for County Jail Capital Construction funding of 560-bed medium-ininimum security ! facility to house pre-trial inmates and post-trial prisoners. Purposes are to relieve overcrowding at Martinez Detention Facility and replace the substandard Marsh Creek Detention Facility. o Recommendation made to site facility on land owned by County off Blum Road, near the intersection of Highway 4 and Highway 680. 1 August 2, 1983 o At Board of Supervisors hearing, public opposition expressed to Blum Road site because ofroximit to P Y residential neighborhood. o Board recommends study of alternative site on northern side of Waterfront Road, 1.5 miles east of intersection of Marina Vista and Highway 680. Matter referred to County Administrator for further study. �.. 812 5 8 1-3 i ., ° p y 0 Cin Q U G A G N U ais'" ., C7 Q p ttA A .. N N N O M > �+ t. U c0 cdLn cd G �y C 0 c En Cd G bjD co U co ° s. G t — 41 co 14 as :" m a 3 cd U o G 0 d a� p U W 4f p ty p c u p o }; o . ° O ; Ntn 3 d' 44 CO 'pbO' m no N (n t W •-+ U t > ' 4 N rte+ x3 ,G.+ U pU 0) 4+ 1. ° U co y 'O i p' d +1 U N U C3 c, W P4 w ai r' 4°, °�, o o w `' U x cr Y .� .— "tU 2© 00 C4 4 y Cd U ', > O p p ° ` w ° W Cd G NC3 oo� ^, CD E-' co °�' s tap t s �, A •° rp+ aT G G C: w 7+ ao ' 3 c. a� r 3, x w UH 3 4 x` En ox yd r! N a O 'Opt 10 U Cod 0 : 41 C.) Oto 10 :3 U t) co W +' p+�W t td i ° @ i+ N Q+ w ::3 N O p U to c° CS � v v 4-0 ° G UEn C4 U a� a � x � zap En °cc o ' tiQ U Ga W G y y En CL1 .:3iEnCid 00 C41 . 1_q I a ai vi cid w cd 0o c c a U w C cd p C7 N v In CII a a c ,.• c �, +, c Cd o o a0vi co^� d y E bD cm Z aa., -V p, aa. -� CD O CD� O p � O > cd a cd R' Z w 0 R: E � 'a• cd co In 'i, cd In Q In w a bD 0 Zco co cid C cd crd O O C O .--• f O 11 :3 O =3 4+4+ � C a 4� +� E �' E a — 0 O E cilO O O C C O O r- C rn d /n ti ,c U rn C7 F cd U a •� U a a cd F. ,� 1. •� M L N rte+ 1 'M cc �z ., y +� -� cd E cCd c0CO °: c � co 9 r. coa vo `o � Via, c c O O C c O 0 U D U U E v� a v O � a O �-+ _V a O V C U C En Ij C p .v C U ,t � C 7, ycd C >, U Y U 0 D �+ O UEn a [ 0 , U O � v a In a 0 s, a. na a In u y o o E a U o u ? o Y. > _ cd a o a a ry X 0 N t- O x O 0 bD a bo n �+. bO a • a 0 a o oa bD a 0 w a, N co a w to a �' 1 O, I a ' w I a o cn ul I w O a •0 p T7 O C7 C C ' Q V O a ci O C s C a O v u n ,E u u v a a =, a a a a a a s -� X a ° a s O C ai a p N a s a a N O a O e cu 0 0 a 0 ' C a � cr fs; ca va cn bD u W 3t Cd > w 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 'O o C C 3 0 In vi x U O O 0 ... C U 0 • 41 »�... � C U y •p C n c a > E ate+ a ca Cd EW F, C Z _a V O h7 N N CZ G C C C C Y14 O O O O O a. �' C O C O ,,. 1 o CL) a co 3 0 .. U E E E E E cd U ❑. U Y }' r' C C X: C .0 C V C D N a •� Ccd cocILA V U U V V .a U a a cn Cd41 U a r cx c� iz rx a cco 3 a x ate. ° •" a a co > C C >_ Y E1 O L7 O cd �°, U o cd o .G o w a r- >) a ami C7 O 3 [ b w In z co r-1 -4 v;4 r-1 r••1 r--1 r-1 r-/ CV m... 1-5 cau D'0 '0 '0 ao lo, 04 Cr n. Crn. Iti Q) d) ai m co L o v, o In o C i, a y o04 osz oa a d n 41 c c a v oo o } ov C) r U � rn c0. e0 cU. c0. cd ° cd C ca c m c .,. U co U cc U N O O O O y `r"' C O Y C N N Li l cj m � 1 au 1 E E > z ;ti o0 00 o0 0 0 0 0 ao, vo �o �'0 b0 U bD U a m a w , ro I c y I G S I O C 1 I i I N 0 IU O N 0 Iv cc U U U U U U U U y ca U " cc U y co En � -@, a� 0) a� a� � C) bo 0 0 .14 v o .,' o o 1 CLid r 94 cd � uv aoo c4t) v w o O o 0 0 0 o O o ami ami v v fid Cd O ca M o 0 „ O O ° CL a coa a a e, 'b S. oca a ti r o 0 C o o co O G O 3 r ti o c c ca G c 0 oto an man `o E E E c E o c c � 9. a a c c 10 -0 .o 0 � V G V rx c YEn 41 a a a o 2s a� > . 41 v > �' 3 oo a� rn o i o w ti a (Z .� v I cn > a a� o, .. IL. �'> a cc41 0 ci cc Cd a ti 3 3 U 3 v rn M 3 .-; cV ri d� cn cp lam= 00 C' N N CV N N N N ' N N 1-6 . OL or 4 1< • %77-7� -1 --------- .oz ........... U u CL cc u Z ui 1. Introduction & Background t August 16, 1983 o County Administrator reports to Board of Supervisors on the viability of locating detention facility at Waterfront Road site. Site shown to have advantages for criminal justice operations because of proximity to Courts and Martinez Detention Facility. However, k site has geotechnical and seismic problems, and few a available utilities. o Information provided in same report on resale value Am of property at. Marsh Creek as a possible source of q funds for purchase of non-County-owned land for a - detention facility. o Board requests further study of Waterfront Road site r by staff. E: September 15, 1983 o Report submitted by County Administrator to Board of Supervisors recommending against further study of Waterfront site and defining eight additional sites (A- H) for further study. Based o.i evalurtion of criteria t related to buildability, ownership, environmental impacts, land use planning, and relationship to criminal justice system facilities, the 515-acre Shell Oil site at the intersection of highway 680 and Marina Vista was determined to have the best potential for siting new detention facility. i September 27, 1983 o Board of Supervisors action taken to (a) eliminate Blum Road property as a potential site for facility, 1 (b); authorize staff to begin discussions with Shell Oil concerning acquisition of site, (c) direct staff to begin EIR process and (d) pursue ways to fund acquisition of site. January 20, 1984 o Report by County Administrator to Board of Supervisors on status of discussions with Shell Oil. Determination made that only 40 or 50 acres of site is needed for facility, but that Shell interested in selling property as total parcel. Two other parties also have expressed interest in parcel. February 27, 1984 o Report by CountyAdministrator to Board of Supervisors stating that County did not receive funding for construction of facility in current allocation of Proposition 2 funds, but that detention needs continue. Competing proposal for acquisition of Shell property encountered significant opposition at Martinez Planning Commission. Petition opposing site for detention facility received and questions raised by public about traffic impacts. Further information provided on acquisition status. ( 85182 1-9 1. Introduction & Background November 8, 1985 o City of San Pablo endorses concept of locating a new Justice Center-1h West Contra Costa County. November 19, 1985 o Proposed site in North Richmond identified as site for a family-owned nursery which has been in business for many years. December 3, 1985 o Board of Supervisors approves staff recommendations (based on evaluation of site, cost, operational, community and environmental factors) to reaffirm the Atlas Road site in the City of Richmond as the preferred location for the project. Staff ordered to '^ proceed with EIR, negotiate with owner for possible site acgiusition and continue ongoing coordination arrangements with the City of Richmond, community groups, interested parties and other responsible agencies concerning the proposed project. 1 Based on the foregoing chronology of events, the Atlas Road site for the project is described in the next chapter as the subject of analysis for this EIR. The most feasible of the alternatives described above are assessed in greater detail in Chapter 5. i? r s f i� 1 Iq 85182 1-11 is REGIONAL AND LOCAL VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.1 Project Area `�• { 4~ }-1•, .r 1•. ` SITE P�IAPS FROM DRAFT chmOnC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: WEST COUNTY J }rr; •• � USTICE CENTER, MAY 1.986 i,• ■ Sen FrarNsco!'`•.\ ;•�'sTr (� � i i :1•�}t,t tj :f•�d j i rr ---------------------i j SEE SITE ALTERNATIVES PLAN (� •SAN''•PAb�•O E R C U L E S ! #t0lpMAi iARK ! �??:i�:�y .:{::}::}::::.::•;..:: I .r •rr' ! r" r. .F- t t ::E 7.• rrr>� ^A•TlA3'RO'"''':.� �. a-r: ,,'?`'` :?:; >;:: aCtai'i�:?':':;%2:: '>:i:r;;?•. 'n AO LY .......... .'�':i• 3 .......................................... art�E•rr :'!.'. x:::11=11:''`:L '::i;: # ;,:C 'c -c :'• ::' •'•N lL PO S A• s. CL ti r .t t'• •Y h rA ��..•• Q L AAKtT.A.Vt�'•:: :y.,`;:�:jk;. j Kt r WILOCA .fig.• CANYON .'•�,." ?^;• � 4:K REGION Ai PARK •,�,y. •� •:!:•:•:�:•:•:':•:-:•:•:• ,:,f '��a`a:�7.�t:lily' Q ' f' 1 l�• . ... i:,^.1.. •iC�:Vic:rY !: � ,1 � MOND. �...,..:.:�,_::::•.:....� C •�' t'L o ::CITY 'ftr Y:14 n C .t :Q 1 C� C j L. •'r K: Lr r :.� •3:�7`il::�`::}':f?ilii::;` at AIC C .� OONALO AYE: �S ..'7 • '0. ••1 7 d• 4 .. .BART t !. .o •D :V :Q a: :g m E• '4• •N ERAITO:" ��. :� c!► ':gym>: T: b;. I N SAN FRANCISCO SAY • op , 2-Z Z?t4q r 0 z� •r� Il CD ED ul cc 1 O u N O J o6\\` of Y s z g ices `A1•zt— O , to J u�• .s �<>- 1 � r � �'�'S � p �i r��erA•+ c.'0 vie .14 ul nno Iz ' �-��.-.ate c..: XV � •�' `r.��r ..: ..: ... . ..•.„', .;-�•1..: •'� ns•�•,y,..�.• �.. ,♦ Tis• ^l z,�r V1 �d FIGURE 3-1 EXISTING Lt ND USE S.A 'R•R. byE�P. I �P Pino a,-, 1 pJb QNo X14 SbP +----------- Monlalvin •Site 8 Manor a0000 o00 Site O8 00 0ay 0000 Tara mJill ------ M y .w.. 4a c --------------- C( rnon ^4� -Coo '� r _ � Q Parchester h :;ia `�►� 'Viltave `o`� �T �►i♦ 11110 ,Vol � LEGEND RESIDENTIAL RECREATION o a COMMERCIAL U, a o SCHOOL INDUSTRIAL PARK &RIDE noun CITY OF RICHMOND BOUNDARY OFFICE PARK VACANT 1 elp . m .I� 3-2 FUTURE LAND USE FIGURE 3-2 s. ;. . PS bg. Pt. Ino e tiPark � Dglo�,c � rbc e 3 Site B Monta-- Iv{_n.� f - Site A d a°o � a t 0a° aooc I - }iltls D ai yv R cfimon a vG°UnlFy r i Club Parchester :V!!!a a ..Qo> . . .•:�'•: '.1': � r LEGEND RESIDENTIAL RECREATION (5-13 Dwelling Unils/Acle) a 0 SCHOOL t,•,•,•,} COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL (20f Dwelling Unils/Acre) OFFICE PARK %''� PARK & FIDE VACANT ■s■ CITY OF RICHMOND BOUNDARY CHEVRON HILLTOP DEVELOPMENT fr QjpjN + 3-5 i .i FIG of 3.4 ,tlD.pt�P.AitlNiti.t^t M^P �, 141 AN1` t'I�C't.i^tfV nnY t.int♦2 [.r� Attt i ���0��� . QF CA -d- S- .10.10 �. J +��� M11es. 112 SIP En°ie P° 94 77 00 r,, r '+'\+ - t;/ v ,� '�: ` _�..fes'• �� �'< ti:. 4 IT 3 toiec\edit0 V, '• `, { moi :�.• • _ "/ ace i�:k •'�'. �. y_;�_.,<<:::_- ..:. ,,,; ...-_= (dvadEST,91e . .� I \; t 4; (`r-41 OE A ,�� : • ~•. ID IR 0 1Al ' yt!>"�� � X11? `, i`'� .�_ `• -_ � _��- _ _.�., � ,i ,•y,.�,," •1+•'�>\ . jes {� 411 '.' .. s.1,1:��\ • ( ~ld r'�. •, '/ �: ::Y. ,. ewe �_. •!'�' u a Zone go ckal S\udY Spe i� k uttsa pa\egkta\\Y kkme Active F a m µU\O°e� • dtttt s dace EuplUte d bee°acki�e �. c- oledloWNe` O\ettki�\ {O fa s ha`e a teka\ivelY k 9k)tm , `O ked �p ake Y ca ` \nke'ted .00 .000* Gp°Ceaied disP\acemer.\ `s`�•w?• • U°cetnace\°\b`skp7Qt posSbie creep, ec`ieP t 1 C causa,3s ed by rt 1 kis jet .0,f'S W C7 ♦ • • ♦ • • +• t cr W W = iF �.`«•.�*> CCt�•':e,•f' Z Z_ 3^� 079 a 3 J M C U f *�`{r� d Z•+ `,A t,+s«,• OUJ s Ntt (� .Q to 0. r r•`*{+• Z `� Ity�•• i U �i\ Wz h .� iilM : O o _ L7 d0 j W F` hW- U QQ 4 _ 'r ,+.,•t"~ ¢at U 'o \\ z W N a < Q Q d .A 2S U d • Z Z W t7 rdc { ; tl ` z f- zass\\\ y r , , o �: a r• 0 "N f \, g, 0. \\\ `a� a a O s J.l .:. us "� �• Z U c I+RZ O a = p �• � ZO f aN c " mid Q tST u;,?tt>Mn 7. -1 0 zao d 7G G Z Z :. `C.tiF Z U �diy co„i+n Z .. 'n•ty r y is Z us Z' 4� t�AE3t�':,'i�v��°•+ ,�'� `; °'�`rr�rh�_..s„ � } � x U3 z J d to �' . . �~ ✓s cc Yom: :Q' ,T r _ ui :1r�54 � •�?�����Si; Q a4 tt ,�ifjy�}Is ��17;�i '� e� ( lJ _ fA 43'p x. 7'7'' Sit°'i ' d O; ui (n o: a. ' if w CL CL *r0 1 3-3G 17.7 SITE PHOTOS REFERENCE MAP FIGURE 3-6 NI I 1+. Q \ Ro pD tz FIGURE . SITE 8 1 �S 3.12 n. FIGURE 3 8 FIGURE 3.13 ` FIGURE 3.9 FIGURE 3.7 1 SITE A' FEET k 0 400 800 1600 FIGURE 3.11 s FIGURE 3-10 1r� elp •� N m 3-73 i . . 1 lu 4 M• } 1� __ .... cx gigQ �y Y # o 0 v vJ o ,.. uw z LL _ tL ' o x lain } n- zz o loEWZ LU Y- oQ i } U 2: 9 I > W COElW Cl) �LU a n Q LL U- J ofI w } 00 �--- w N y. > T > W s �I It w Z2 Q tV co f r i antaa 3wme N � u} a N Q } �i CV w G •� J J y J * O 2 U _U a y SHANE _¢a DRIVE Qr cr fi 52 4/ t"NI � ll 3�'4d O lbs 0 3 0 tx V i q WW � C1� W 3-107 EXISTING AC TRANSIT ROUTES FIGURE 3-15 all NEAR PROJECT SITE } SOURCE. q!941.ti!EA!,5 tom'{ .;i'"�"*u'� •'St•.`..jti.t,. Y�r ,..��'i•Iv,• 5Q•t -•`� ,tl' `+tr� rtr°/r. fF�'1 •T` .(r�..:t�l�f':{�'!!'.J'St''.�'j�il�:ti•.r,� ff;!'� "err?- "� I•j.�' �.-. �.:.. {.�ti, 9 ~� J Y .:1':.;-'i'e k�t_:,•'j f. ,.,.f•..�,. � Project � Site low zi';iy[.7•':••,.�r.-1.t •'{;�'.rte!"1 r_21.k1 .y ��.' t r{:,. �� :.. ..I•,:�1 � 4�r�J,�\ .•lila`!,�'� �'� ; 1:;4`r%CC:1' C. , t :i.,� s _i : .1Z,'�`Y.. 'RlCNMOND•� ,: -Proposed North k�„;'•:: ;:;i,;;.`,`,'E. `;,`x;.7 itrf.�+, ;�':, q Richmond By-Pass Road �::a•{.;,; c..�;.�'.L'.�:� �I�1''�od,�sl�il�tf•{ � '..;,'_,`' ..UOCP'�' - •��'; 1:''--., ;.t., / �,f•Jtiy? J1 l�,F T. 1•':•> i r .'.+;I 70 nut Y :COUNTRY'•CCrn UO ?'i• •r•• •+.. W • CL is NOUS t�'t: IAM utCtttP4nC"1-1 ([t.�•�i o �� n .c 70 t� X I »1rAr!C'NCSTf1T y`r �y P tAK z JV,T�—...._ � ? o pA ♦ „ t. ri r Q�• �o o � ....•1{f N R/ k rJ�l {-" � ���a°r L o ,,� St} 7$ IIN n C� S i�4i �p 64t J04 i�r J R o� 4t6,p fAN a f N � �SA,f � PVttxt C�0 t4i4�y N �t PA{Ar�q. �_ P i►o4 0 1 `, `� • ids, p JrpAV, GAdty ,h ROVE } 10 srAAkr DA.10 OAf AV R . p. d keV f 4t 0A I L� .y wY, n µ' \ Cdr Op v uTr wo C t{r FIV R ti r Ayhf AxJ ��2 ky N - (�4�'joCD co"I a ,. ti A eX �. —* !4 a Et 1 r~ a 1r 0 xa !t2 t c 0 3-103 1. PROPOSED LOCAL STREET FIGURE 3- 7 REALIGNMENTS SOURCE' 01.41+1-VEa4S ,".�"r�- {,�l1J�!'(!��'+�5=;+ '(:.i•f. c -t,t. ':��'�"��yr�l�S\< r''�' .;-.t,.r�,tf.f""��.,, ..I ty I{�- >/•j tj�laj�:.: ,r'i_z�'.:.,I';.1,N��Ez.i,;.�G?ti'•�L.�.,b.,^,/�'ir,,i%a��.�,.,C�lt-i+:,'.{I'1�.tJ�'cJ-�.��.Ye,.t�l.flaJO7r��nR��'•?1y:kAnT�;Y.�L'�rl:a•..fir•,l�,f,',:'-yl.r�'A.i'•;•�{t�.�1ai:,..•"��s::,,rS1d.�';<,,O^i+Tj,,-,•:�:�Cs,/�.ti..;)+a•al".•���,'',t4.`ry��l?ft'�d)�t't:}�ifj,1.�,�t.y�4�1l•:f`I1,A.`JIs.S,`t�.St�./�;�".�.a>1�—'=+'a.�'.,':.�'J!>J.'j`�lF'fff='�1�.'.���t`��.���,ftj.',ISlIu,.+''ti:�t����:1.c•1r.,G�C-�..,1.����Ii-.Ir�i�\t,C.-i•�-�.rE�,:`�:t':�',(�'+'��.-a,'�(.•r.J:-�:?:1fl','tt•l_:L••irr•r;.2,j-,,:�..•vu!t�.;\i./;'`3��=S•i-e.:"�','.r'tt�aP;�r��.,.�;,-'..s.—,\1:Twt�7..-'�s,;1.i�,�•t=(';tt't;;.4;!`�'(�r !'• �.�t'. , ti rT 41. )k(�:••.:'_... .:.: C� t. \• .rr.J,1 ��ri;,•v.:�� t,�,^I..,`y, ;ter,:, .t,1F,,,`,U(i+�,`'c.�'•'•�; ';,� 1• ' ,7,.L.r'r7,•'tii ,I�:r.:J.,.,:. +\. ly �` Z:iirr ,S' •l) �� �1<. ti(l;'iI�L�,t (�r�1 �r(1yLlr� ,Lj. �..d•�E..t_: �. � r•=i.1 Lf :4l' `/:..tl�'"/< <.I".�� fir' fir'•+•it _^....;,:,:�;,'L;hY'��y!��}:1��' Ifto :��;,��;i.;,,�•r'�- ,,. ;,rte>,;�� ; � /. Proposed Access To -�� .'�' •�:: n,t:�y <►—Existing Industrial �, L �\fk:i: �: +lti^';jh�S::/i?`:� Qv �� ♦ Site &5'F n.R• p pc i �J �: i�.+fit.- jf,� ♦ A1. r l r .\1 �7'�'� Ali rh�� ♦ATEA t Projbct Propos d Atlas Road Site Reali nt PO Proposed Giant Highway Realignment AICffJUONO :':i.y ` - j<,� Planned North Richmond • �, r +tt 1 y; L _ .!• By-Pass " '.�1';:.':�;=;r�•-•.lt"�r'>!• ��ay I+�rtr�l', + 1 ;•.���-._ ....TJOCP'6 •'''�:'•'-�r.•:"�:" . Proposed ti ccess To " ''CLUD :COUNTRY Pt. Pinole C I u► ?, .,, Shoreline CLUB )40 vs. O J v P 1 ♦ pV� pa \ PARR, (V.: ♦A nCP4 at � — PAAr( H f�♦ _ • e, r� p a 3 y N q j K (J'� � 0" L 1P 3; 3 O v1NfR AV'r, n Q Jo y!r > ? o TAHTOH V !JP Y[l� PU(nr 2 t1( PA \�tk ,QUfI ' JtOp hV, �(0 ylst t �RO.1EIarc 1. C C •N• lCVT AV '40nOh( L �Uth� Ay Or µ-�/,\1,�- ► �•• t•,,/ noo RT.— ' A a 7100 A r c ■ 0 j!� 112 t 3-114 NORTH RICHMOND SITES FIGURE 5-1 AS O �• o 0 y J I_ .i M5 3 - :i 1 l• nT I ATLAS OAD IT S 'Y / I _ r ^c, r r v r - 4 1/ Z. %:•: L/ r lF � r� c a: U r..::........::. w. erg II � �0.. • CJ O l O' „ x •� e I' I - :�;�t I o '`r`.�\�i`:��.K�`�.'•: t`�-:{;rift:a• +::� ,��: �: ` �p f0 v iii:,:: - --- -- _ ---- ...............:..:.:....:..... .oma ............ .r � ate• \ \�/ eem I • y . r Me' ���-s -lam- — - .r.: '"-:•=u... I' \�\ �" .I vk 4h Sir: fm 01-10 MR r p Par P e >r - -_-I ol Whir I / I e HNOND j BDY I ,Beacon - � �1 ,, �• n :1 ��.•\• r -� 1 —CAL ORN � AV V� � _ 1 5 f/ •IaYp ound I t t I r` ` , CITY --- C ( SAN PAB ITY •. �� INV eip 5-4 . W r2 .Z , 00 a � d d t � •i )..- � CD o � �o � 2 � ;• �.n m ` m .,.-•--iii• 4 r - ((("""j � � � -�• tits ,,,� � ..:. . / t 4 Z 04 V � cc rYQ N 0 w 3 . • zs�ss Z W t `• ~ IOL ui 09 2 2 a W tt• _y g o 0 m � } o CL i �` c"�♦a 4 Q 1iii. O m 1 a CDro at �ca a ~�`,� ��" ::fir i � �;i _ ='f : •a• �"+-s_.¢ _ -�C. �- i0 • ;�r r c �• �- ��7� o- LL / r {•` — too y-♦ r �, V .. Cd uj H y w UVOU SV71V 1SIX3 -� � z w 1 2 CE ft 1�I V / tJ a z O � Vr V ' Vl _ W . L9159 � 4600_ 0 41, CD s t a ` N Ne` V 1 r �l qr�r. 4 t of o1*7'+n r � a . o (� I At V! P 1 Y" Fes" THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on ' August 26, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanderi, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: APPROVING THE FINAL EIR, APPROVING THE PROJECT, RESOLUTION AND AllTI1ORTZTNC STTT ACQIITSTTTON FOR THE WEST NO. 86/510 COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA. BUDGET LINE ITEM NO. 4411-4101, AUTHORIZATION NO. 0928-WH101B The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: PART I GENERAL The California Government Code authorizes the County to purchase property (Sec. 23004) and construct buildings for a. jail• (Sec. 25351), and requires the Sheriff to take charge and keep the county jail and the prisoners in it (Sec 26605); and Contra Costa County has provided a system of. criminal justice facilities in accordance with its responsibilities under California Law and its own desire to provide adequate programs and facilities to protect the public and provide services to those who have been detained; and Existing County adult facilities in Martinez, Richmond, and Clayton have become overcrowded, thus resulting in a Superior Court order to take the necessary steps to relieve this problem; and On December 14, 1982, the Board issued an order establishing the Correctional . Facility Planning Task- Force to provide policy oversight for the County's preparation of its application for County Jail Capital Expenditure Funds (Proposition 2) in accordance with the following guiding principles: 1. Support the adult correctional and detention goal of using alternatives to incarceration, consistent with public safety (Board Resolution No, 79/909, 9/11/79). 2. New facility planning must be oriented to maximizing the use of the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) for the long. term, consistent with its original design goals. This includes developing a solution to its current overcrowding problem. 3: The application should be based on the data and findings of the Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan. 4. Replacing the antiquated Marsh Creek minimum facility should be explored, together with any possible cost tradeoffs. 5. A new facility's staff requirements and operating costs (such as transportation and inmate services) should be considered during the planning process. 6. The detention and booking needs of all County law enforcement agencies should be studied; and . On November 17, 1983, the County made application for a grant of $36,570,521 to the California Board of Corrections in accordance with the County Jail Capital t Expenditure Bond Act' proposing construction of a 560-bed minimum-medium correctional facility with a total 'project budget of $48,760,695; and From the creation of the Correctional Facility Planning Task Force in December 1982 until December 1985, the County conducted a comprehensive site selection process in which 29 sites were seriously studied (and many others reviewed) prior to the selection of the preferred location for the new jail; and The Board approved on December 3; 1985 (reaffirming the earlier decision of June 18, 1985), the County-recommended selection of the. Atlas Road site; and Contra Costa County has undertaken a number of studies to plan for the- West County Justice Center including a Predesign Program begun in November 1984 (described in Part III) and Environmental Impact Report (described in Part II). PART II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Procedure WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, together with the State CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports for certain public projects; and The County is considering building a project known as the West County Justice Center; and The County determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation on July 16, 1985; and The County issued a draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse, interested jurisdictions, public agencies, organizations and individuals for review and comment and also filed a Notice of Completion with the Office of Planning and Research; and On June 17, 1986, the County Planning .Commission, in its capacity as.the County's hearing body for Environmental Impact Reports, according to the County's- adopted processing procedures, held a public hearing on the Draft EIR , at which time all wishing to speak were afforded the opportunity; and, at its conclusion closed the hearing-to oral testimony, continued the open hearing for the receipt of written comments to June 27, 1986, and continued the matter to July 22, 1986 for decision on the adequacy and completeness of. the Final Environmental Impact Report; and The County evaluated the comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and caused to be prepared.a document entitled "Final Environmental Impact Report, Response Document" which included a transcript of oral testimony, copies of all written comments received and responses to such comments, and transmitted said document to the Planning Commission on July 22, 1986, and thereafter made it available to those interested; and On July 22, the Planning•Commission' continued the closed public hearing to July 29, 1986 in order to have sufficient time to review the Response Document; and On July 29, the County Planning 'Commission determined that the Environmental Documents described above constituted an adequate Final Environmental Impact Report and certified that it .was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State guidelines, and County processing procedures and instructed the Director of Community Development to transmit its Resolution No. 42-1986 (attached hereto) to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation as to the merits of the project. State guidelines and recent court decisions provide that the deciding body should not merely consider the Environmental Impact Report in taking action on a project but should justify its choice in view of its significant impacts and should account for the disposition of identified mitigation measures as well. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors. hereby approves the certification of its hearing body, the County Planning Commission, that the Environmental Documents described above constitute a Final Environmental Impact Report, that it, was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality'Act, the State's Guidelines, and County processing procedures, that the Final EIR was presented to the Board, that the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR before approving the proposed project, and that it is an adequate basis for making a decision on the project; and FURTHER, that the Board, having studied the impacts of the project and possible mitigation measures, as. described in the Final Environmental Impact Report, accordingly, makes the, following findings and gives the following directions: SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO BE MITIGATED FURTHER, t-he Board concurs with the County Planning Commissi'on's findings that the following significant impacts would result from implementation of the project and adopts the associated mitigation measures and incorporates them into the project to minimize those impacts to non-significant levels: 1. SOILS A. Impact: . Expansive and loose soils could disrupt or severely damage foundations. B. Mitigation Measure: These poor soils should be replaced with non-expansive engineered fill or derive foundation support from dense, non-expansive subsoils. C. Supporting Rationale: A geotechnical investigation, including several soil borings, was conducted as part of the site evaluation process. The geologist's report (Appendix D) recommends removal of three to five feet of .soft soils to expose the stiff, underlying materials required to adequately support one- and two-story structures. 2. SEISMICITY A. Impacts Earthquake-induced ground-shaking could cause differential compaction of surface soils and structural damage either from vibration or from settlement of loose soils. B. Mitigation Measure: Include in the design detailed geotechnical engineering studies leading to foundation and structural designs that resist seismic vibration and earthquake-induced settlement. C. Supporting Rationale: The above-referenced Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazards Study determined that the site was not subject to damage resulting from fault rupture, flooding and seismic waves (tsunami's), major landslides or soil liquefaction. The site is subject to ground shaking with .a likely maximum magnitude earthquake intensity of VII to VIII'on the Modified Mercalli scale. Although. this level of intensity would result in strong ground shaking; buildings can be engineered to withstand such shaking. 3 3. BIOTIC RESOURCES A. Impact: Increased siltation of marshlands during construction could damage fauna and flora habitat, as could later runoff containing oil, grease and other contaminants. B. Mitigation Measure: During design, develop and implement an approved detailed erosion control plan prior to onset of construction and schedule earth-moving operations during dry periods. If necessary, control contaminated runoff with the installation and maintenance of a grease trap in the storm drainage system and clean paved surfaces prior to October 1 every year. C. Supporting Rationale: Portions of the-site drain in different directions, a portion draining north to the bay through a portion of the Shoreline Park wetlands area and the remaining draining south into the Bay south of the Shoreline Park. Most drainage in this area flows- in surface drainage swales. If the drainage system remains as is, there is a potential for the storm water runoff to contain silt and chemicals, a portion of which could be deposited in the nearby marshlands. 4. VISUAL A. Impact: Construction of an institutional building on undeveloped land. B. Mitigation Measure: Limit development to low-scale, one and two-story buildings. Group project buildings into small-scale cluster units to reduce the overall mass of the project. C. Supporting Rationale: The project site and surrounding land is clear of structures, except for two major industrial structures. Although the site - has a land use designation of General Industry, such development would visually impact the surrounding park and recreation uses. Low structures would most easily be screened from existing and proposed landscaping in order to minimize the impact on surrounding view corridors. 5. AESTHETICS. A. Impact: Design of facility could be visually prominent from public access areas and in a style conflicting with the character of the nearby residential .and open space activities. Impacts may include intense security lighting during nighttime hours, security barriers and institutional appearance. B. Mitigation Measures: Locate major portions of the complex on the siteaway from public access. The maid public entrance to the si.t.e, woulcl Im mnrknd with landscaped elements. The approach to the public reception areas would be defined by a formal landscaped layout. The perimeter of the site adjacent to road's and access areas would be bermed and .planted with trees and other vegetation. 4 Provide low-level intensity exterior lighting at the perimeter security fence. High-intensity security lighting would be operational only at times. of emergency_. Develop individual building units with textured wall surfaces and residential scale facades, select varied and low-profile roof designs, use earth tones and natural colors for the exterior color scheme. . . C. Supporting Rationale: Given the nature of the project setting, the County has as one of its objectives-to design a facility that is in character with surrounding uses and activities while maintaining security and operating in an efficient manner. The site shall be of adequate size in order to achieve this objective. 6. TRAIN &,TRAFFIC .NOISE A. - Impact: ~ Existing 'railroad noise would adversely affect the residential aspect of the jail facilities; this would be more difficult to mitigate for Site A than Site B. California law states that rooms, where people sleep should.have no greater than Ldn 45 dBA. Railroad noise would also have an adverse impact on outdoor areas, more so in Site A than in Site B. Cumulative traffic, the result of development throughout the area, would increase noise levels on arterial streets to approximately Ldn 75 dBA, which would sound like a doubling of existing noise to City residents. This would be annoying at the roadside but substantially mitigated indoors with windows closed. B. Mitigation Measures: Design acoustical treatment of walls, roofs and windows to reduce interior noise to the appropriate levels. A berm would . substantially mitigate the effect of railroad noise on outdoor areas by reducing noise by 20-23 dBA. Construction of noise walls at roadside homes and inclusion of mechanical ventilation in new roadside homes would further mitigate the noise impact caused by cumulative increased traffic. C. Supporting Rationale: Train and traffic noise varies in intensity with very loud noise of short duration. Nevertheless, this type of noise causes an adverse impact to those nearby. Architectural and landscape design and detailing can effectively reduce this noise impact experienced in both nearby buildings and outdoor yards or play areas. 7. OPERATIONS NOISE A. Impact: A facility public address system may be disruptive to nearby golf course and park activities. B. Mitigation Measure: Design communication system to direct and limit the sound to areas within the facility. 5 C. Supporting Rationale: Omni-directional outdoor public address systems can be disruptive to surrounding activities. This problem occurred at another County facility which has since been corrected through the careful placement of directional speakers. 8. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION A. Impact: Cumulative traffic volumes reduce intersection levels of service to E at two intersections and F at two other intersections. (This impact will occur without the project and regardless of which site is chosen.) B. Mitigation Measure: Incorporate the project into the County's Transportation Systems Management (TSM) •program for County facilities. This may include revisions to existing bus routes, bus stop turnouts and shelters, and various incentives to promote bus ridership. C. Supporting Rationale: The development of Hilltop (Chevron Land and Development Company projects) and other nearby development is increasing traffic, resulting in congestion at certain intersections. Construction of the North Richmond Bypass will alleviate a good deal of this. . traffic problem, but not at all intersections. As development occurs, there is an ever increasing opportunity to improve public transportation service and other related programs such as organized car-pooling efforts. 9. AIR QUALITY - CONSTRUCTION -A. Impact: Construction equipment and vehicles would generate significant amounts of dust during clearing, earth-moving, and other site preparation activities. Construction activities could cause violations of TSP standards in the vicinity of the project site. B. Mitigation Measures: Water exposed earth surfaces nt: lenst twice daily; t},v. frequency of watering should .be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Haul trucks should use tarpaulins. Erosion-control measures should be implemented upon completion" of site preparation; these include replanting, repaving, spreading soil binders and repeated soaking of soil, as needed, to maintain a crusty surface. The project sponsor should designate a person to monitor the dust-control program. C. Supporting Rationale: Construction-generated dust can be controlled to minimal levels when established dust control measures are implemented. 10. ENERGY A. Impact: Project construction would consume about 95 billion Btu's of gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas and electricity. Project operation and project-generated transportation would consume about 145.7 billion Btu of non-renewable energy resources annually; this would be the energy. equivalent of 26,000 barrels of oil. The project would not include electrical air cooling for 6 the detention housing, thereby reducing by one-third the potential electricity consumption. B. Mitigation Measures: As part of designing the building and selecting building systems to minimize operational costs of the facility, the architect shall make recommendations for incorporating energy conservation systems as part of the design. The energy conservation objectives shall be consistent with California's Title 24 standards where not in conflict with maintaining acceptable levels of security and safety. C. Supporting Rationale: Recent regulation and code requirements for energy-efficient buildings have resulted in improvements to building mechanical and electrical systems, building operating controls and passive solar designs. ,.This.new technology and design discipline has resulted in cost-effective building design for most building types that meet the new energy standards. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED 1. CONSTRUCTION NOISE A. Impact: Construction on the roadway and on the project would sometimes result in a significantly adverse noise impact (78 dBA and 72 dBA, respectively). B. Mitigation Measure: Limit construction activity to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. Maintain and muffle construction equipment; turn idling equipment off when not in use. C. Supporting Rationale: Construction noise has short-term impact, especially those activities generating the high noise levels. Although construction noise cannot be eliminated as an impact to those working, living or recreating in surrounding areas, certain mitigation measures can be implemented to minimize the duration and timing of such noises. 2. AIR QUALITY - TRAFFIC A. Impact: Although the project provides a minimal amount of vehicular traffic, cumulative development in the area would increase vehicular traffic to the extent that State standards for 8-hour average CO levels could be violated at the intersections of Atlas/San Pablo, Hilltop/San Pablo, and Hilltop/Blume. B. Mitigation Measures: institute mitigation measures for traffic impacts, described above. Further, the City should support the extension of local bus routes to serve the project site. C. Supporting Rationale: Vehicle emissions increase and decrease in proportion to the miles driven. Overall, increased mileage generated by employee, visitor and Sheriff/Police Department trips to and from the WCJC will be ,partially offset by mileage saved when West County Police Departments will no longer have to transport prisoners to the County detention facility in Martinez. These partially offsetting miles driven will, however, not reduce the level of emissions resulting from increased cumulative traffic at the above-referenced three intersections. An aggressive public transportation and car-pooling program, if successful, can effectively reduce vehicular emissions at these intersections to acceptable levels. 3. PUBLIC SAFETY A. Impact: The project would introduce a minimal potential for escape of inmates from the facility and unknown public safety impacts if escape is accomplished. B. Mitigation Measure: Have .the retained criminal justice facility expert review and advise on project security systems during the design phase. C. Supporting Rationale: There have been a number of electronic and barrier security systems installed throughout the County that have successfully stopped escapes. In addition, there are a number of new systems and designs currently being tested and evaluated for their effectiveness as part of an overall security program. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Notwithstanding the disclosure of the significant impacts and their mitigation measures described above, the Board of Supervisors has determined, pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts, and that the project should be approved. The.Board of Supervisors .specifically finds and makes this statement of overriding considerations that there are special social, economic, and other reasons for approving this project, notwithstanding the disclosure of substantial adverse impacts disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Report and described above as Significant Impacts Not Fully Mitigated. The reasons are as follow: 1. The Environmental Impact Report concluded that occasional noise at Site A would continue to be significant at,times, even with proposed mitigation measures implemented. A similar level of building construction noise would occur at all alternative sites with similar adverse impacts on.surrounding neighbors. Road relocation construction, however, would not occur. Construction noise is generally accepted in urban areas so long as efforts are taken to muffle these sounds and the hours of construction are controlled. 2. The need to relieve severe overcrowding throughout the County's detention system combined with a policy for the County to provide booking facility services for use by law enforcement agencies operating in West Contra Costa County requires the proposed facility to be located in an urban area where all alternative sites considered would have similar or greater resultant violations of air quality resulting from cumulative increased traffic at nearby intersections, as are identified with the proposed site. Even the no-action alternative currently generates traffic between the County's Martinez Detention Facility and West County Police Departments. As with the proposed project, this alternative currently minimally contributes vehicular emission in a variety of locations that violate the State standards for 8-hour average CO levels. 8 3. In addition, regardless of alternative location, there is an extremely remote potential for injurious behavior by escaped inmates. This same potential exists with the no-action alternative, i.e., inmates escaping from existing, overcrowded detention facilities. The project as proposed will provide needed inmate housing to reduce severe overcrowding, and can provide for additional related facilities, such as a Sheriff's substation, a communication center, and a municipal court. These .facilities, once completed, will serve the County well into the next century. As indicated earlier, many individual physical impacts studied are not significant, and those with the potential for significant adverse impact will be Mitigated to non-significant impacts. Given the nature of the significant impacts, the similar significant impacts occurring at alternative sites, and the urgent requirement for additional detention inmate housing in the County, the Board finds that these overriding social needs outweigh the few unavoidable adverse effects on the environment attributable to the project, which are identified in the final EIR and described above. PART III PROJECT PROPOSAL Procedure The County Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1982 established the Correctional Facility Planning Task Force- to provide policy oversight for the County's preparation of its application for County Jail Capital Expenditure Funds (Proposition 2). The work of. this Task Force resulted in developing program criteria for a 560-bed detention facility; and On November 27, 1984, the Board authorized a Consulting Services Agreement for preparation of the West County Justice Center Predesign Program; and On July 8, 1986, the Board approved the Predesign Program; and On August 8, 1986, the Richmond Planning Commission reported to the County that the project is in conformity with its General Plan designation of General Industry for the proposed site (Sites A and B as described in the EIR) in response to the County's June 273, 1986 referral under Government Code Section 65402; and On August 5, 1986, the Board received a certified final project Environmental Impact Report from the County Planning Commission that provided an adequate environmental basis to make a determination on the project. Project Proposal Description The proposed Contra Costa County West County Justice Center will consist of a detention facility housing 560 unsentenced and sentenced inmates, plus other future criminal justice functions. The detention portion of the complex will occupy about 264,700 square feet of enclosed space, and include a booking and intake -area, housing units, medical support, programs areas, indoor and outdoor recreation, public areas, administration, staff areas, service areas, and overall support. Provisions for the future addition of housing modules, expansion of programs and services space, and the addition of single story industrial buildings -for vocational training and work programs are considered in the current planning. Other criminal justice functions that may be located at the West County Justice Center in the future include a Sheriff's substation (about 2,000 square feet), a communications center (about 6,000 square feet), a community center, a supervisor's office, and municipal courts of currently undefined scope. The Predesign Program approved by the Board on July 8, 1986 defines the detention component only; programs for the other components will be developed in the future. 9 The project is .estimated to be ready for initial occupancy in late 1990. The total project budget is $48,760,695, of which approximately $33,000,000 is estimated for construction. The Board of Supervisors intends that the above-referenced program is to be used as a general .policy guide by project personnel in further refining the project and in preparing .construction plans and documents. In addition to the mitigations described in Part II of this Resolution, the Board directs that i project modifications identified in' the Environmental Impact Report be considered in the design process as well as modifications that the Board may direct or that. staff may suggest. The Board additionally understands that it will consider subsequent,modifications in the course of approving construction plans and other actions. PART IV ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FURTHER, the Board believes that citizen input in the design and construction phases of the West County Justice Center is important in order to assure that the new facility will address the County's detention and corrections needs and also serve the community in which it is located. In order to assure for this input and communication, on April 1, 1986, the Board established the West County Justice "Center Advisory Group to provide, through a collaborative effort, advice to the Board of Supervisors regarding the design and construction process. On July 8, 1986, the Board appointed 49 members to the Advisory Group representing local and County governmental agencies, organizations, businesses, homeowner associations and surrounding property owners. FURTHER, the Advisory Group is now operating, having had its first meeting on August 4, 1986. In addition to working with the Advisory Group, County staff and project consultants are also available to meet with surrounding property owners to resolve design issues related to the WCJC project's impact on their respective property. PART V DETERMINATIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the West County Justice Center project is approved, and the Director of Community Development is instructed to file copies of a Notice of Determination on the project with the State Office of Planning and Research and the Contra Costa County Clerk; and FURTHER,, the Director of the Real Property Division is INSTRUCTED to take the necessary action to acquire the West County Justice Center site referred to as Site A in the Environmental Impact Report. FURTHER, County staff shall COOPERATE in mitigating the impacts identified in the East Bay Regional Park District's letter of July 22, 1986, pertaining to building setbacks, buffering zone screening of earth berms and landscaping, the public address system and separate parking areas and entrances to the WCJC and Park. FURTHER, County. staff shall CONSIDER, from the Advisory Group, the Park District, or .other affected parties, other design measures that could mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 1 hereby certify tE.at this is a true and correct copy of an taction taken and entered on the minutes of`the Originating Department: Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ' CAO-Justice System Programs ATTESTED: August 26, 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board cc: Auditor-Controller of Supervisors and County Administrator Community Development CAO, Att'n: D. Bell County Counsel By -v' , Deputy General Services Department Public Works Department, Att'n: Real Property Division Sheriff's Department Pinole Point Properties, c/o Nossamen, Guthner, Knox & Elliott 10 Resolution No. 42-1986 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COtIMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, S'1'A'fE OE' CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 14EST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, INCORPORATING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. WHEREAS, in order to relieve overcrowding of existing jail facilities, the Contra Costa County Administrator and County Sheriff-Coroner determined the need to develop a 560-bed minimum/medium jail facility; and, WHEREAS, after spending approximately three years considering 29 potential project sites throughout the County, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County selected the "Atlas Road" site in .Richmond on December 3, 1985; and, WHEREAS, on July 16, 1985 the County issued a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed West County Justice Center; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, the County issued a draft EIR to the public for review and comment and also filed 'a Notice of Completion; and, . WHEREAS, on June 17, 1986, The County Planning Commission held a hearing on the Draft EIR, at which time all wishing to speak were afforded the opportunity; at its conclusion, closed the hearing to oral testimony; allowed ten additional days for written comment to June 27, 1986; and continued the matter to July 22, 1986 for decision on the adequacy and completeness of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, the County caused to be prepared a document entitled "Final Environmental Impact Report, Response Document" which included a transcript of oral testimony, copies of all written comments received and responses to such comments, and transmitted the document to the County Planning Commission on July 22, 1986 and thereafter made it available to those interested; and, WHEREAS, on July 22nd the County Planning Commission continued the closed public hearing to July 29, 1986 in order to have sufficient time to review the response document; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, having reviewed the. Draft Environmental Impact Report, and having considered the written replies to comments received, finds that the environmental documents constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report and are complete and adequate and provide an environmental analysis suitable for decision making on the projects and FURTHER, that pursuant to its responsibilities as a hearing body for Environmental Impact Reports for County Projects, the County Planning Commission certifies to the County Board of Supervisors that it finds the Final Environmental Impact Report to be adequate and that it has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State guidelines and local processing procedures; and, 1 Resolution No. 42-1986 FURTHER, that the County Planning Commission concurs with the findings of the Final Environmental Impact report that there will be significant adverse effects on the environment, but finds that the project may be justified by the following statement of overriding considerations: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Environmental Impact Report concluded that occasional construction noise at Site A and that violations of air quality resulting from cumulative increased traffic at nearby intersections would continue to be significant even with proposed mitigation measures, implemented. The need to relieve severe overcrowding throughout the County's detention system combined with a need for the County tc provide booking facility services for use by law enforcement agencies operating in West Contra Costa County requires the proposed facility to be located in an area where all sites considered would have similar resultant significant impacts identified with the proposed site. The no action alternative currently generates traffic between the County's Martinez Detention Facility and West County Police Departments. As with the proposed project, this alternative currently minimally contributes vehicular emission in a variety of locations that violate the State standards for 8-hour average CO levels. In addition, regardless of location there is an extremely remote potential for injurious behavior by escaped inmates. This same potential exists with the no action alternative, i.e., inmates escaping from existing, overcrowded detention facilities. Given the nature of the significant impacts, the similar significant impacts occurring at alternative sites, and the urgent requirement for additional detention facilities in the County, the County Planning Commission finds that these overriding social needs outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects on the environment attributable to the project which are identified in the Draft EIR and Response Document. Many individual physical impacts studied are not significant, and those with the potential for significant adverse impact will be mitigated. The project as proposed will provide needed detention facilities and can provide for additional related facilities such as Sheriff's substation, a communication center and municipal court. These facilities, once completed, will serve the County well into the next century. The County Planning Commission finds that the following significant impacts could result from project implementation and adopts the associated mitigation measures, which the Commission finds will reduce the impacts to non-significant levels, except as indicated in the above Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1. SOILS Expansive and loose soils could disrupt or severely damage foundations. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Replace with non-expansive engineered fills or derive foundation support from dense, non-expansive subsoils. 2 Resolution No. 42-1986 2. SEISMICITY Earthquake-induced ground-shaking could cause differential compaction of surface soils and structural damage either from vibration or from settlement of loose soils. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Require detailed geotechnical engineering studies leading to foundation and structural designs that resist seismic vibration and earthquake-induced settlement. 3. BIOTIC RESOURCES Increased siltation of marshlands during construction could damage fauna and flora habitat, as could later runoff containing oil, grease and other contaminants. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Develop and implement an approved detailed erosion control plan prior to onset of construction and schedule earth-moving operations during dry periods. If necessary, control contaminated runoff with the installation and maintenance of a grease trap in the storm drainage system and clean paved surfaces prior to October 1 every year. 4: VISUAL Construction of an institutional building on undeveloped land. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Limit development to low-scale one and two-story buildings. Grouping of project buildings into small-scale cluster units to reduce the overall mass of the project. 5. AESTHETICS Design of facility could be visually prominent from public access areas and in a style conflicting with the character of the nearby residential and open space activities. Impacts may include intense security lighting during nighttime hours, security barriers and institutional appearance. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Locate major portions of the complex on the site away from public access. The main public entrance to the site would be marked with landscaped elements. The approach to the public reception areas would be defined by a formal landscaped layout. The perimeter of the site adjacent to roads and access areas would. be bermed and planted with trees and other vegetation. 3 Resolution No. 42-1986 Provide low-level intensity exterior lighting at the perimeter security fence: High-intensity security lighting would be operational only at times of emergency. Develop individual building units with textured wall surfaces and residential scale facades. The selection of varied and low-profile roof designs. The choice of earth tones and the use of natural colors for the exterior color scheme. 6. CONSTRUCTION NOISE Roadway. construction would generate instantaneous noise levels of 78 dBA outside the Parchester Village residences and on the four golf greens nearest construction activity (Site A). Construction of the project itself would generate instantaneous noise levels of 72 dBA at the nearby golf course (Site A) and 60 dBA outside nearby residences (Site A). For Site B, construction noise impacts would reach as high as 68 dBA at the four northernmost greens on the golf course. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Limit construction activity to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. Maintain and muffle construction equipment; turn idling equipment off when not in use. 7. TRAIN & TRAFFIC NOISE Existing railroad noise would adversely affect the residential aspect of the jail facilities; this would be more difficult to mitigate for Site A than Site B. California law states that rooms where people sleep should have no greater than Ldn 45 dBA. Railroad noise would also have an adverse impact on outdoor areas; more so in Site A than in Site B. Cumulative traffic, the result of development throughout the area, would increase noise levels on arterial streets to. approximately Ldn 75 dBA, which would sound like a doubling of existing noise to City residents. This would be annoying at the roadside but substantially mitigated indoors with windows closed. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Design acoustical treatment of walls, roofs and windows to reduce interior noise to the appropriate levels. A berm would substantially mitigate the effect of railroad noise on outdoor areas by reducing noise by 20-23 dBA. Construction of noise walls at roadside homes and inclusion of mechanical ventilation in new roadside homes would further mitigate the noise impact caused by cumulative increased traffic. 8. OPERATIONS NOISE A facility public address system may be disruptive to nearby golf course and park activities. 4 Resolution No. 42-1986 ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Design communication system which directs and limits the sound to areas within the facility. 9. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION Cumulative traffic volumes reduce intersection levels of service to E at two intersections and F at two other intersections. (This impact will occur without the project and regardless of which site is chosen. ) ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Incorporate the project into the County's Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program for County facilities. This may include revisions to existing bus routes, 'bus stop turnouts and shelters, and various incentives to promote bus ridership. 10. AIR QUALITY - CONSTRUCTION Construction equipment and vehicles would generate significant amounts of dust during clearing, earth-moving, and other site proparation activities. Construction activities could cause violations of TSP standards in the vicinity of the project site. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE Water exposed earth surfaces twice daily; the frequency of watering should be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Haul trucks should use tarpaulins. Erosion-control measures should be implemented upon completion of site preparation; these include replanting, repaving, spreading soil binders and repeated soaking of soil, as needed, to maintain a crusty surface. The project sponsor should designate a person to monitor the dust-control program. 11. AIR QUALITY - TRAFFIC Impact: Although the project provides a minimal amount of vehicular traffic, cumulative development in the area would increase vehicular traffic to the extent that State standards for 8-hour average CO levels could be violated at the intersections of Atlas/San Pablo, Hilltop/San Pablo, and Hilltop/Blume. .ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures that would reduce vehicle trips would also reduce pollutant emissions. The City should support the. extension of local bus routes to serve the. project site; this support could include requiring local developers to provide financing to AC Transit for expanding local bus routes. 5 M,nolutloii No. h2-1986 12. PUBLIC SAFETY The project would introduce an inmate population to the project vicinity, with minimal potential for escape, but unknown public safety impacts if escape is realized. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE As part of project design, the services of a qualified criminal justice facility expert were retained by the sponsor to review project security systems. 13. ENERGY Project construction would consume about 95 billion Btu's of gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas and electricity. Project operation and project-generated transportation would consume about 145.7 billion Btu of non-renewable energy resources annually; this would be the energy equivalent of 26,000 barrels of oil. The project would not include electrical air cooling for the detention housing, thereby reducing by one-third the potential electricity consumption. ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURE As part of designing the building and selecting building systems to minimize operational costs of the facility, the architect shall make recommendations for incorporating energy conservation systems as part of the design. The energy conservation objectives shall be consistent with California's Title 24 standards where not in conflict with maintaining acceptable levels of security and safety. FURTHER, in addition to the above-described mitigation measures, the County Planning Commission adopts the additional mitigation measures to reduce other impacts not considered significant. FURTHER, that the County Planning Commission hereby instructs the Director of Community Development to prepare the'necessary transmittals and submit them to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation as to the merits of the project. FURTHER, that the Chair and Secretary of this Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instruction by the Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion on Tuesday, July 29, 1986, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Accornero, Aiello, Best, Feliz, Nimr, Whitney, Davis. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. 6 Resolution No. 42-1986 I, Leslie K. Davis, Chair of the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of, California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance . with the law on Tuesday, August S, 1986, and that this resolution was duiy and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: Commissioners - Best, Aiello, Accornero, Nimr, if'hitney, Feliz, Davis. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Chair of the Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California ATTEST- S e ry o e ann ng Commission of the of )ntr osta, State of California i 7