HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08281990 - H.3 trn� H . 3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa
z
DATE` August 24, 1990 *razouN' ` County
SUBJECT: PROBATION DEPARTMENT USE 'OF
2555 EL PORTAL DRIVE, SAN PABLO
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Consider comments from interested persons with regard to the
Probation Department lease of 2555 •E1 Portal Drive, San Pablo.
BACKGROUND:
We have been seeking a new location for the Richmond Probation
staff for over a year due to the unacceptable air ventilation
system and poor working conditions in the basement of the 100
38th Street location. We were able to locate fourteen potential
sites which we then thoroughly investigated. We selected the
office building at 2555 E1 Portal in San Pablo because of its
availability and cost-effectiveness. All sites were thoroughly
reviewed based upon the criteria of geographical center of
caseloads , availability of public transportation, near major
roadways and space requirements. Of the fourteen sites considered
the E1 Portal site best matches the requirements.
The selected site is 1 . 9 acres' with a 25,000 square foot office
building and 127 parking spaces. The building has been vacant
for over four years and subjected to vandalism, litter and use by
transients . The previous use by the Telephone Company was a
three shift . operation with up to 130 employees per shift. The
Probation Department use will generate approximately 100 office
visits a day, including the trips of up to 66 staff who may
eventually be relocated to the site. (The 66 staff include 38 who
will initially occupy only a portion of the building, and 28
Juvenile Probation staff who may be moved from E1 Cerrito later.
Of course, relocation of the additional staff is dependent upon
reaching agreement with the property owner. ) Thus, the number of
trips under Probation use will be consistent with last use as
well as current zoning.
A significant sum (approximately $100,000) has been spent by the
building owner to prepare the building for occupancy based upon a
letter of intent and the subsequent Board action in authorizing a
lease. When neighbors of the Rancho San Pablo development
adjacent to the site protested the proposed move, the County
placed the move on hold and took the following actions to
collaboratively identify community concerns and develop potential
measures to address them:
County Responsiveness to Date:
1. In response to the requests of the residents and the City,
the County postponed the original move-in date to meet with
concerned parties to identify and address their concerns.
2. Also in response to the City' s request, the Board extended
for 30 days the legal deadline for filing protest on the
environmental determination.
3. The City and the County hired a U. C. Berkeley municipal
dispute resolution specialist (Dr. David Steibel) to mediate and
assist with the resolution process.
4. Two fully-noticed public meetings have been held to discuss
community concerns. One meeting was in Richmond and one in San
Pablo, in response to the neighbors' written request.
5. Several meetings were held with homeowners, city staff,
merchants and the San Pablo Chamber of Commerce.
6. In response to the requests of neighbors and the City, the
County rereviewed an alternate site. (Former Fry' s Market on San
Pablo Dam Road) . The cost would be prohibitive and owner not
interested in leasing, only purchase.
7. In response to the requests of community members, the County
is considering relocating the West County Sheriff' s Substation
to the site to increase security.
8. In response to the request of the president of homeowners'
association, Supervisor Powers agreed to walk through the Rancho
San Pablo development.
9. In response to the request of the president of the
homeowners' association, the Board agreed to hold a public
hearing today to consider community concerns (though there is no
legal requirement to do so) .
10. In response to the mediator' s August 9 letter, the County
verbally and in writing expressed willingness to meet with
concerned parties to discuss implementing potential measures to
address their concerns in advance of today' s hearing.
11. In response to the request of the residents' attorney, the
County agreed to meet after today' s public hearing to discuss
potential measures to address residents' concerns.
Possible Future Actions
County Staff have a standing commitment to meet with any
interested parties, including the Rancho San Pablo Homeowner's
Association, the El Portal Merchants Association, and the City to
listen to community concerns and to improve communication on an
ongoing basis. After the public hearing today, County staff
remain ready to meet with interested parties to discuss
implementation of potential measures to address their concerns,
to complete the third phase of the dispute resolution process
described in the mediator' s August 9 letter.
SUMMARY:
There is a valid, urgent need to provide safe, healthy working
conditions for the Probation staff in West County. The building
at 2555 E1 Portal, San Pablo is the only site currently available
to provide such quarters. The use is consistent with the zoning
and land use. The Probation use will generate substantially
fewer trips than the previous telephone company use. The number
of peak-hour trips generated by Probation do not approach the
threshold. level requiring a traffic study. The building has
been vacant for some time resulting in vandalism, litter and use
by transients. The County has demonstrated willingness to work
with the community to address concerns and remains committed to
doing so in the future.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
- -,/I
-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE -OTHER
ACTION OF BOARD ON =290 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED,--Z OTHER
The County Administrator noted the need to move the
Probation Department employees to a better working environment. He
advised that staff has been working with Henry Clarke of Local 1, Jim
Hicks of of AFSCME and Supervisor Powers to resolve the concerns of
the members of the Rancho San Pablo Homeowners Association with
respect to relocating the Probation Department to 2555 E1 Portal
Drive. He noted that several alternatives had been explored. He
referred to the background information contained in the staff report
dated August 24, 1990 (above) .
Chair Fanden invited members of the Public to comment. The
following persons appeared:
Kay Carmignani, Vice Mayor, City of San Pablo, commented
generally and advised of the City' s position in opposition to the
location of the County Probation Department at this site.
Leonard McNeil, Council. Member of the City of San Pablo,
commented that he felt the proposed location of the Probation
Department at this site was a very serious problem and he would like
to see it worked out amicably for all parties. He requested more time
to address the problems of the City and the Rancho San Pablo
Homeowners Association.
Shirley Wysinger, 2593-C E1 Portal Drive, San Pablo,
representing the Rancho San Pablo Homeowners Association, appeared in
opposition to the proposed relocation of the Probation Department.
Henry Clarke, Local 1, commented that the union had been
working for some time with Supervisor Powers to find a another place
for the Probation Department to move. He advised that the Department
has to move out of its present location for health and safety reasons.
He assured the Board that staff had spent a considerable amount of
time looking for a new location.
Patricia L. Dolfen, 2571-D El Portal Drive, San Pablo,
expressed concern for the quality of life of the residents of the
Rancho San Pablo complex, citing increased traffic, trespassing and
lack of privacy as some of her concerns. She also expressed concerns
that the Probation Department would be moving the juvenile division to
this location.
Cecile Earle, 2587 E1 Portal Drive, #1C, San Pablo,
representing self and Rancho San Pablo Homeowners Association,
complained about the process of public hearing, stating that the
Probation Department was already there. She stated that this site is
in a residential area and Probation would be better in a commercial
area. She spoke of her fear of danger to women alone, children and
old people.
Betty Edgar, 2589 El Portal Drive # 0, San Pablo, advised
that she was definitely opposed to the Probation Department moving in
next door to her.. She objected to the County doing something the City
does not want. She expressed her concern about safety, traffic and
property values.
Steven Weil, _ 3240 Stone Valley Road, #202, Alamo, Attorney
for the Rancho San Pablo Homeowners Association, commented that the
meetings set up by the County only addressed the impact and
mitigations of the move, that not one meeting was held on the question
of whether there should be a move. He stated that he had a letter
from the owner of the shopping center across the street saying he is
opposed to the proposed move ( letter not submitted) . He objected to
the County taking the position that this is exempt from CEQA,
commenting that this is an expansion of the present use. He declared
that there is a need for at least a preliminary CEQA investigation.
Jim Hicks, representative of AFSCME, commented that Mr.
Clarke had covered most of the position of AFSCME. He objected to a
statement by a previous speaker that employees were being pitted
against citizens, advising that this is not the case. He noted that
the meetings held to discuss this matter were open meetings, that he
o /
was not asked to be there, but that as a private citizen who 'has lived
in San Pablo for over 30 years he was entitled to be present. He
advised that he had looked at many alternative sites and vacant lots,
and there had been much staff effort expended looking at alternative
sites. He stated that he is 'in favor of the El Portal site.
Ann Holmes, 2575 E1 Portal Drive #A, San Pablo, appearing
for herself and for the Rancho San Pablo Homeowners Association,
expressed her concerns about the Probation Department moving in next
door to her. She commented on the traffic problem, about increase in
the crime rate, and devaluation of her property value.
The announced that all those who had asked to speak had had
the opportunity and requested a recommendation from staff.
The County Administrator requested that a summary of' the
testimony be provided to the Board members who are not here and that
staff be given instructions to try to mitigate to the extent possible
the concerns expressed this day.
Supervisor Powers advised that he would happy to move that
recommendation, but first he wished to comment. He address the
concerns and the fear of the unknown expressed by the residents, and
noted that never in the history of Contra Costa County had there been
a complaint about such a problem with a Probation Office.
He reviewed the process staff has gone through in addressing
concerns and mitigation measures. He advised that the City of San
Pablo had suggested the services of a municipal dispute resolution
mediator who is present here today and, based on his suggestion, the
County has gone through the process of discussing this issue and the
mediator called the meetings, met with all the parties and that he,
himself, as Supervisor of the District, had met with all the parties,
met with all the merchants, and noted that the merchants association
does not object to this. He noted that the staff of the City
Manager' s office of the City of San Pablo yesterday indicated to
County staff that they are satisfied with the process the County has
gone through. He assured the residents that the Board would address
the concerns regarding safety, traffic, and appearance. He noted the
additional protection and safety that would be introduced by the
presence of law enforcement officers.
Supervisor Powers noted that he was dedicated to resolving
the issues and hopefully, at some point in time in the future, all
parties can sit down and address the specifics of this and that he was
sure they would find, like the other Probation Offices throughout the
County, that this will be an addition to the community that is
positive, both to the residents and the commercial folks.
He thereupon moved to accept the report and ask staff to try
to resolve these issues.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Torlakson.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_A UNANIMOUS(ABSENT_-riz �_TIE ( AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. C
CC: Probation ATTESTED d8 , /ya
County Counsel - PHIL BATCH R,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator (D. Bell ) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY