HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12031985 - T.9 T ( hf-
ac� C G
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on December 3, 1985 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT : Hearing on Siting of the West County
Justice Center
The Chairwoman convened the hearing on siting of the pro-
posed West County "Justice Center. The County Administrator and
Sheriff-Coroner submitted a report dated December 2, 1985 , (copy
attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein) , identifying
four potential sites in western Contra Costa County for the proposed
Justice Center, and submitting recommendations for the Board to con-
sider following the hearing.
Richard K. Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner, presented an overview
of the contents of the report and of assessment criteria applied to
the sites under consideration. He spoke on the need to identify a
site as soon as possible and expressed his preference for the Atlas
Road site located 'lwithin the City of Richmond.
The following persons spoke in support of the Atlas site:
Ali Alsokhari , President, Richmond Radio Alert,
120 13th Street, Richmond;
Michael °Vukelich, Color Spot Inc. , 191 Parr Boulevard,
Richmond;
Michael `'Vukelich Jr. , 191 Parr Boulevard, Richmond;
Flora Ninomiya, 506 Brookside Drive, Richmond;
Eiko Sugihara, 550 Brookside Drive, Richmond;
Victor Sasuga, 2206 Central Street, Richmond;
Don Christen, Executive Vice President, Contra Costa
Taxpayers Association; and
Lloyd G Madden, Executive Director, Neighborhood
House of North Richmond.
Don Bradley, City Manager, City of Pinole, expressed
opposition to the',Atlas site.
Board members discussed the recommendations of staff and
were in agreement�? to pursue acquisition of the Atlas Road site for
construction of the West County Justice Center Project.
Therefore, on motion of Supervisor Powers, seconded by
Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is
CLOSED and the recommendations as set forth in the attached report
are APPROVED.
1 hereby certify that M11,3=P A
an action taken and em:crod on a'
Board of 5upos nsomc on t1hW.!rhe &hots
ATTESTED:
Cc: CAO-Justice System Programs PHIL BATCHELC[1, Clark of the C-:ad
Cities of` E1 Cerrito, Hercules, of Supervisors and County FaG83".nistrator
Pinole, Richmond, and
San Pablo ,
Sheriff-Coroner ®Y , � p�ty
Public Works Director
Director, General Services
Director, Community Development
County Counsel
i
ry
TO: BOARD OF SlIVPERVISORS
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR,,; Contra County Administrator Costa
RICHARD RAINEY,''' Sheriff-Coroner
DATE: County
December 2, 1985
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SHERIFF-COR014ER AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR ON SITING OF PROPOSED WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT
i
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECiibMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Accept this report from the County Administrator and Sheriff-Coroner and proceed with
the hearing on siting of proposed West County Justice Center Project.
2. Authorize the following actions if, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board is in
concurrence with the staff recommendations in this report that the Atlas Road site in
the City of Richmond is still the preferred location for the proposed West County
Justice Center Project, as approved in the Board Order of June 18, 1985: .
a) Reaffirm the Atlas Road site in the City of Richmond as a proposed site for the
West, County Justice Center Project, to include a pretrial and sentenced detention
facility with a booking and intake component, a Sheriff's sub-station and
communications center, and a courtroom.
b) Authorize the Director of Community Development to prepare and process the Envi-
ronmental Impact Report for the proposed project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, such report to address the three North Richmond sites
in the review of alternatives.
c) Instruct staff to, seek indication of interest from owner for possible site
acquisition.
d) Direct the County Administrator and Sheriff-Coroner to continue ongoing
coordination arrangements with the City of Richmond, community groups, interested,
parties, and other responsible agencies concerning the proposed project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The County':.s.Proposition 2 application for County Jail Capital Expenditure Funds, as ap-
proved, by your Board, requested $36,570,521 of State bond funds in order to build a 560-bed
County detention facility. , This application was subsequently approved by the State Board of
Corrections and the State funds have been allocated by Chapter 1133, Statutes of 1984. The
total estimated cost of this project is $48,760,095, of which $12,190,174 is required County
match. The actions recommended above are the necessary next steps that must be taken in the
process to build the facility. The match requirement was previously antici-
cipated and initial funds for site acquisition, environmental impact work, architectural
services, and related costs were budgeted in 1984-85. As previously directed, staff will
continue to explore funding options for the Sheriff's sub-station, communications center,
and courtroom. The State jail bond funds cannot be used for those urpas
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X' YES SIGNATURE:
ei
X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTRY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATI&N OF BOA COMMITTEE
x APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) qQ -91G` v
iq
,. Report & Recommendations on Siting
of West County Justice Center Project
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND:
On June 18, 1985, your Board identified the Atlas Road site in the City of Richmond as the
proposed site for the West County Justice Center Project and authorized preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report, Staff was also directed to explore alternatives to the Atlas
Road site that might be workable from a programmatic and construction viewpoint, and which
might be less expensive to acquire and/or develop and result in less delay. Since that
time, staff has identified and reviewed over 20 additional sites throughout the County. The
results of that process are detailed in our status report to your Board dated October 17,
1985 and considered at the October 22, 1985 Board meeting.
Based upon the direction of"'your Board, we have focused our site search for a new County
detention facility in western Contra Costa County. We indicated in the October 17 status
report that in addition to the Atlas Road site, the North Richmond area offered a number of
potential sites. We have further reviewed those sites and have arrived at the recommenda-
tions made above. The four sites discussed in this report are as follows:
Approx. Number of
Site Name Location Acres Parcels Owner
A. Atlas Road City of Richmond 35 1 Private
B. Simoni/adjacent unincorporated N Richmond 40 8 Private
C. 3rd Street unincorporated N Richmond 37 9 Private
D. Wildcat unincorporated N Richmond 43 2 Private
Site Criteria - The following criteria were used in this site review:
1. Geologic/Buildability/Environmental Factors:
a. Susceptibility to seismic failure.
b. Fill required due to flood potential.
C. Piles required due to unstable soil.
d. Dam failure/inundation.
e. Toxicity - hazardous waste.
f. Air quality.
2. Cost Factors: This includes items such as land acquisition, improvements on property,
relocation benefits, business good will, severance damages; added site development
costs such as engineered fill, added construction costs for piles, utility extensions,
road relocation; and estimated ongoing maintenance- costs.
3. Facility Operations Factors: This includes factors such as access to the facility for
law enforcement personnel and others, perimeter security design, and added security
staff required because of site configuration.
4. Community Factors: This includes factors such as relative isolation from residences
and degree of city, community, and other support or opposition to the facility and the
number of jobs at risk if the site is used for other than current purposes.
5. Complexity of Site Assembly and Potential for Delay: This factor relates to the diffi-
culties and delays that may be encountered in assembling a site suitable for the pro-
posed West County Justice Center Project.
Site Comparisons - Using the above site review criteria, staff comments on the four sites
are as follows: (See last page of this report for boundary descriptions of these sites. )
1. Geologic/Buildability/Environmental Factors
All four sites are workable in terms of the proposed project. Under the criteria, the
Atlas Road site ranks clearly as an excellent site, and the three North Richmond sites
are not as desirable, ,but adequate. The Atlas Road site is geologically sound and not
susceptible to flooding. This will permit straight-forward site development and con-
struction without the `need for costly engineered fill and building piles. The North
Richmond area sites are all undergirded by bay mud and are also susceptible to flood-
ing which will requirelengineered fill, both to compact the ground and to provide better
-2-
., Report & Recommendations on:Siting
of West County Justice Center Project
protection against flooding. (Although the proposed San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks flood
control project would mitigate the possibility of flooding, such a possibility must be
taken into account in designing the proposed facility. ) The three North Richmond sites
will also require pile ,,construction because of soil conditions. Because of the more
stable geology, the Atlas Road site possesses the least potential for damaging ground
undulations, surface rupture or subsidence due to an earthquake. While the possibility
of inundation due to failure of San Pablo Dam exists on all three of the North Richmond
sites, this is obviously not a likely occurrence. In addition, while the possibility
of toxicity and hazardous waste exists on all sites, currently available information
indicates this probably would not present an impediment to developing those sites.
With respect to air quality, the North Richmond sites present some problems, whereas
the Atlas Road site does not. There is some intermittant odor problem on the North
Richmond sites which would not appear to hinder project development.
2. Cost Factors
As indicated above, there are many factors that must be estimated with respect to the
cost of the site for the proposed facility. It is staff's estimate at this time, based
upon preliminary appraisal work done in the area, that there is not a significant
difference in the cost !of the four sites. We would estimate that the costs of acquir-
ing and developing any of these sites for the proposed project are reasonable, given
current market conditions and construction estimates.
3. Facility Operations Factors
Access to all four sites for law enforcement officers and others is good. When the
North Richmond Bypass is completed, access to all of these sites would be considered
excellent. Perimeter security is considered good on both the Atlas Road and the Wild-
cat properties, fair on the Simoni site, and difficult on 3rd Street. The problem of
designing a facility with adequate perimeter security relates to the configuration of
the site and the options available for buffering. The Atlas Road site is adjoined by
two open spaces and has a perimeter that can be more easily secured and defended on all
sides. Of all the four sites, the 3rd Street site, because it is more rectangular and
elongated, will present the most difficult problem in design and may also require some
additional staff for perimeter security, beyond that already planned for.
4. Community Factors
All four sites meet the primary criteria established by your Board for site selection,
i.e. , isolation from residences. Within an approximate one-half mile radius of the
Atlas Road site, there are no residences or schools and no commercial activity except
the continuing operation of the steel plant. With respect to the North Richmond sites,
there is some proximity to the residents of North Richmond toward the southern portion
of the area; however, the Wildcat Creek Flood Control Improvement Project will provide
a barrier.
There is some opposition to the Atlas Road site from some citizens of Montalvin Manor,
to the east, and Parchester Village, to the south, from the Richmond Unified School
District and the Richmond Golf and Country Club. At the June 18, 1985 public hearing
held by your Board prior to the designation of the Atlas Road site, a number of commu-
nity groups and interested citizens gave testimony supporting that site. As to the
three North Richmond sites, the Sheriff's Department has hosted two community meetings
with North Richmond citizens and has received an indication of qualified support for
such a facility. There is some concern among the citizens that they be involved in
jobs at the new facility. The Sheriff has indicated that he would develop a program
jointly with the North`Richmond community which, hopefully, will increase the ability
of interested residents to successfully compete for new jobs at the new facility.
It should be noted that support by the City of Richmond and by the North Richmond citi-
zens for a facility in the North Richmond area is predicated on the County also includ-
ing a Sheriff's sub-station as part of the project. (Your Board has previously
included a sub-station'las part of the project definition, and staff will pursue
required funding. )
There is some jeopardy to existing jobs in designating a site for a detention facility.
Currently, there are no employees on the proposed Atlas Road site and, thus, no jobs
are jeopardized. It is estimated that the Simoni site might affect 23 jobs, the 3rd
Street site - 22 jobs, ,,and the Wildcat site - up to 350 jobs.
-3-
.,Report & Recommendations on Siting
of West County Justice Center Project
The Cities of San Pablo, El Cerrito, and Richmond all support the North Richmond area
as a site for the proposed facility. The Cities of San Pablo and El Cerrito would also
support the Atlas Road site. With respect to Atlas Road, the City of Richmond has tak-
en no position, and the City of Pinole is opposed.
6. Complexity of Site Assembly and Potential for Delay
Continued delay in the acquisition of a suitable site for the proposed project not only
jeopardizes the $36.6 million State bond funds, but also escalates the cost of project
construction, etc. , due to possible increased cost of materials and labor. It is,
therefore, imperative that we consider in any site selection decision the possibility
for delay which could either terminate the project for lack of funds or increase the
cost of the project which would have to be borne by the County. Site acquisition in-
volves completion of the Environmental Impact Report process and other associated
factors. All of the proposed sites, and probably any others that could be identified,
have a potential for delay due to CEQA challenges and unpredictable occurrences. Staff
concludes that all four sites present approximately equivalent potential for delay.
Recommended Site - The above comparison of the four sites with respect to the factors listed
leads staff to conclude that the Atlas Road site should continue to be designated as the
proposed site for the West County Justice Center Project, as set forth in the Board Order of
June 18, 1985. This site is clearly the best in terms of geologic and buildability factors.
There is adequate isolation from residents, both to the south and to the east. There is no
current commercial activity on the site, and no jobs would be in jeopardy. The three North
Richmond sites are not as desirable in regard to these factors because of the soil and
building requirements described above which would present ongoing costs to the County to
maintain a facility built on ani? of these sites. The three North Richmond sites would also
require multiple acquisitions with the resultant displacement of several tenants, owners,
businesses, and homes.
CEQA Review - Authorizing the Director of Community Development to prepare and process the
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA requirements is
an essential step. This process has already been started, pursuant to authorization in the
June 18, 1985 Board Order, and a Notice of Preparation has been prepared, issued, and re-
sponses have been received. It should be noted that for a project of this size, a relative-
ly small number of opposing comments have been received. At this point, staff is prepared
to proceed with the development of the Environmental Impact Report. A time frame of approx-
imately six months to certification is expected, given the preparation time for the report,
the required notice and comment periods, the necessary public hearings to provide for input
of citizens and other interested persons and agencies, and the required preparation of re-
sponses to the comments received. In addition to providing the Board with pertinent envi-
ronmental information and fulfilling a legal obligation, the process of preparing the Envi-
ronmental Impact Report will enable the West County Justice Center Project to be developed
with public participation in a public forum.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Failure to adopt the above recommendations would, in effect, bring planning for the new
County detention facility to a halt. With your Board's approval, staff has proceeded with
pre-architectural programming and with selection of an architect. Further significant work
cannot be done without a proposed site. It should also be noted that State bond funds as
allocated to counties are insufficient to fund all approved county projects. Late projects
will depend upon further bond issues and/or appropriations of State general funds by the
legislature. Failure to take the recommended actions can only exacerbate the problem of
funding for Contra Costa County, since all of the other major county projects have sites and
are further along in planning and design.
-4-
MARBN
�«�� 1 ...r.... AOAD
RAILROAD
• ISMALL BUILDING
LARGE BUILDING
61TE
• t• « ;e:;i; j ALTERNATIVEG
EGIC?N�ll
"e�•„ t# ,�, • ;•:f' SAN PA13LO 13A
-- 'fit yp` !'+''�.t • l�j i',','x +1'1 ..n; 4 , '•':1•�I�`'•�
�.�"l• � .=r +y; "# �I' ,,� ! �' 14':, ��•�'•`t=«'fir:
gig'?,f`,�•(j�}'�' i,y .,'irr�.l+YNt•� AtF�'T�.j`y� y
47
1 • lfyy 41 iii r'o• :i •o:::i:.
�y !� x'.Fr�r= "� OINlAij•}AGinG`PrKTjO rtwr
AIT •'•'fMAp*Q • •s •
ATLAS ROAD t �; �� r ,. ,. � «.. • +• .
MUN rALVIN1-7!6 ,
ri r' :� ti 1 t : MANOR
'• 4 16 "0 +'" � •• 1. t��`�`t� •.••+J
F"C"MOND CITY BOUNDARY
O ' f •
1 P+•e•.+i
i
'•r ^•f y . , ' ATEA/ROAD •• ••
AIWIMOND GOLF AND CJ.evrtou rttond#41
SAN PA 8 L O SAY '�::°. 't''! couNttar cNlKue "+ti+ lit _
• .:,.t,h:,;•sir � 1 �• •{� t�� s �',•
,...«..PINOl6 POIN? PARK bOU •*'!�.%'{ I' t�''i
r.t t� �j }� f,"' � : .;?; �a,.��'.,•'� i�1d>'s ...'�y�. T•..r,,. _ "f� •fi Q ,��:3 �,."�j�dr�,'a� � �'V�"f 1��r'�''.°,,,�r'•�'n,� i" � ��• ' i<`
WA
d.4 A"Woma
I . .�• , •� • T ' mac+ .f .
I MON I I; ADJAt&T ; _ s q0
1
for _
• �,�,� is 3RD! STIII
r+..r
ff ,' t •Ge tr 121
t "j, Me/.110•I+1 �rrrr....���� !+ r.. ge
w , •
40
let• • : on - I
Vrt.t+s.rey•
WILDCAT
It 4-75
:1
._ . � �. p+». • �. � +dry.
• . M.V.Dd .wti. i cNc. i � .q,1 •
�► Po t.
' � tts_so�
t1o•tl1"{ +100 1`_`- { t►1
� 7 its Jo0
li
K Srp '
"�"" �• �1 22 f 23 241 m
I r
v