HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12291987 - T.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this. Order on December 29, 1987 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors/Commissioners Powers, Fanden and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisors/Commissioners Schroder and McPeak
ABSTAIN:None
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing On The West Pittsburg Redevelopment Plan
Supervisor Torlakson, Chairman, convened the joint public hearing
of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Contra Costa
County Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
West Pittsburg Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report
on the Plan.
The Clerk noted that Supervisors Powers, Fanden and Torlakson,
members of the Board of Supervisors who serve in dual capacity as
members of the County Redevelopment Agency were present. Supervisors
Schroder and McPeak who also serve in the dual capacity were absent.
Supervisor Torlakson introduced members of the Project Area
Committee (PAC) and others present who assisted in the development of
the West Pittsburg Redevelopment Plan. He spoke on the benefits a
community receives from a redevelopment plan.
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, introduced the County' s
Redevelopment Director, James Kennedy.
James Kennedy, Redevelopment Director, commented on the pass
through agreement with the Riverview Fire Protection District
indicating that the Fire District had demonstrated financial
detriment, and asked that the Board take action on that item prior to
the hearing.
Supervisor Fanden moved approval of the pass through agreement
with Riverview Fire Protection District. Supervisor Powers seconded
the motion. Resolution RA 87-29 was passed by a unanimous vote of the
Board members present.
James Kennedy spoke on the Redevelopment Plan for the West
Pittsburg Redevelopment Project Area. Mr. Kennedy noted that by
adopting this plan this year, the Redevelopment Project Area will be
able to receive its initial amount of tax increment (estimated to be
about $60,000) in December of 1988, a year earlier than if the plan
were to be adopted a few days from now. Mr. Kennedy gave a history of
the development of the plan and explained how the plan proposes to
utilize tax increments generated within the project area in five major
ways: ( 1) To strengthen existing neighborhoods by rehabilitating the
existing housing stock and infrastructure; ( 2) To stimulate the
construction of new affordable housing; ( 3 ) To construct major
infrastructure improvements within the community; ( 4 ) To expand the
tax base and create employment opportunities by revitalizing and
expanding the commercial base; and ( 5) To stimulate new industrial
development. Mr. Kennedy commented on the proposed budget and the
need to judiciously apply redevelopment systems, leverage resources
with other public and private funds, and focus and prioritize
activities to maximize positive impacts. Mr. Kennedy emphasized that
the redevelopment plan did not contemplate, as part of the plan being
considered today, the displacement of people from their homes or the
taking of property, and that property taxes would not rise because of
the plan itself.
Jerry Raycraft, Redevelopment Project Manager for the County,
commented on the plan contents and the potential for using
Redevelopment in the West Pittsburg area as a response to the
blighting conditions that exist in the area as well as to address the
1.
• economic stagnation that has prevailed in the area for many years. He
advised that while the area has seen some residential development over
the past few years, economic development has fallen behind other areas
of the County. He spoke on the potential of redevelopment to
revitalize and expand industrial and commercial development thereby
increasing employment resources, to strengthen existing residential
neighborhoods thereby improving the quality of life for area
residents, and to upgrade the deteriorated housing stock thereby
removing sources of blight and disincentives for investment. Mr.
Raycraft commented that the West Pittsburg area suffers from a .
combination of blighting conditions which make redevelopment
assistance imperative if the area is to meet the development potential
as outlined in the General Plan. He listed the five major goals and
objectives of the plan:
( 1) The plan calls for the construction of new affordable
housing;
( 2) The plan calls for the upgrading and strengthening of
residential neighborhoods;
( 3 ) The plan calls for major infrastructure improvements;
( 4) The plan calls for the facilitation of commercial
development;
( 5) The plan calls for the facilitation of industrial
development.
Mr. Raycraft noted that the Agency is authorized in the plan to
acquire real property by any lawful means including eminent domain.
However, he emphasized that the acquisition of real property is not a
primary objective of the Agency. He advised that as required by
Redevelopment Law, the plan does conform to the County General Plan.
Mr. Raycraft spoke on the work of the Project Area Committee (PAC) and
its report, and the establishment of a fiscal review committee to
allow the various taxing agencies to show the financial burden or
detriment that would be incurred as a result of adoption of the Plan.
He noted that the Riverview Fire Protection District would be impacted
by implementation, of the Plan and that the Agency has proposed a pass
through agreement to allow the District to receive those taxes that
would have gone to the Agency. He commented further on the funding of
the Plan.
Mr. Raycraft also commented on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) that had been prepared as required by law in conjunction with
the plan, the hearing on the draft EIR, and the final EIR being
reviewed by the East County Planning commission. He identified two
major negative impacts that may result from plan implementation that
cannot be totally mitigated at the present time: 1. The rate at
which industrial development may take place may result in unavoidable
degradation of air quality, noise levels, odor and soil contamination
and hazardous materials handling and storage risks; 2. The increase in
vehicular traffic would result in substantial traffic, air quality and
noise impacts. He noted that the EIR identified impacts in the areas
of municipal services, including police, fire, sewer and water and
schools. Mr. Raycraft advised that the East County Regional Planning
Commission has recommended in its Resolution No. 71-1987,
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and
adoption of the West Pittsburg Redevelopment Plan.
Polly Marshall of Goldfarb and Lipman, Legal Counsel to the
Redevelopment Agency, spoke on the legal aspect of adopting the
Redevelopment Plan and the Agency' s actions, and requested that the
plan, the report on the Plan and any other information that has been
presented by staff here today be incorporated into the record of this
hearing. Ms. Marshall commented on the noticing procedure to the
property owners in the area and to affected taxing agencies and
submitted into the record the proof of publication of the notice and
two declarations of mailing of the notice. Ms. Marshall also
submitted a resolution by the Los Medanos Hospital District regarding
their view of the fiscal effect of the plan and the Agency' s response
2.
to that, and additional written correspondence from residents of the
project area.
The Clerk administered the oath to all witnesses desiring to
present testimony at this hearing. The Chair then called on the
speakers.
Susan Statzell, 40 Ida Court, Pittsburg, Chair, West Pittsburg
Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC) , commented on the work and
discussions that had resulted in the development of the Plan. She
presented the PAC' s recommendations on the adoption of the Plan: that
the Project Area Committee shall remain in existence throughout the
life of the plan and will be consulted on all development proposals
within the West Pittsburg Project Area; that emphasis be placed on
rehabilitation efforts and that the use of eminent domain be
minimized; that day care facilities be established within the Project
Area; that a convalescent care facility be established within the
Project Area; that low-interest loans be made available to businesses
in the Project Area to allow them to upgrade and to expand; that the
Project Area residents be given priority to allow them to upgrade and
to expand; that the Project Area residents be given priority for
employment created through the Agency' s activities; that emphasis be
placed on transportation improvements within the area; that the Agency
obtain funding for transportation improvements from jurisdictions that
contribute to the traffic congestion; that an effort be made to
promote industrial development that is non-polluting within the area;
that commercial and industrial development that will create employment
opportunities for area residents be encouraged; that public utilities
be upgraded in conjunction with the Agency activities and that the
Agency coordinate with BART to develop commercial and/or retail
centers around future BART station within the Project Area.
Ro Aguilar, 11500 Skyline Boulevard, Oakland, representing East
Bay Regional Park District, advised of the District support for the
Project. Ms. Aguilar commented on the regional trail linkage going
through the Project Area and that the facility connecting Contra Loma
Regional Park to the Concord area would provide greater access to
recreational opportunities for the residents of West Pittsburg. She
advised that she would like to see the trail facility completed within
a time frame of ten to fifteen years. Ms. Aguilar requested that in
the report that the wording be more definitive about the Agency' s
participation. On page X 33 , she requested the wording to read they
"will participate" rather than "may" . She advised of her Agency' s
willingness to leave the amount requested open with a letter of
commitment from the Agency.
Arthur S. Chomor, 504 Shore Road, Pittsburg, Project Area
Committee, advised that the Redevelopment Project is a good project
for West Pittsburg, but noted that few citizens were aware of the
project until receiving the notice of the meeting. He suggested that
the Redevelopment Agency write letters or notices to all the property
owners as they did earlier this month and assure them that property
condemnation is the lowest priority on the objectives of the Agency,
and suggested that if there are any cases of condemnation that the
Project Area Committee make a recommendation before the Board of
Supervisors act on it.
J.E. Cunningham, 99 Anchor Drive, West Pittsburg, commented on
problems created by neighborhood redevelopment he had seen in areas
that he had lived in before and on the use of eminent domain. He
requested better communication with the residents of the area.
Darlene Collins, 572 Pacifica Avenue, West Pittsburg, spoke in
support of the project. She requested that the area be improved with
a quality type of home. She requested a definition of affordable
housing.
James Kennedy responded to Mrs. Collins ' concerns with respect to
affordable housing in relation to income and needs.
Jerry L. Foster, 487 Levee Road, Pittsburg, Project Area
Committee, expressed his concern with the West Pittsburg/Shore Acres
3.
decline in recent years, employment problems in the West Pittsburg
Area, and expressed his support for the program.
Jodie Brown, 130 Water Street, Pittsburg, inquired as to property
tax increases and potential annexation to the City of Pittsburg.
Supervisor Torlakson responded that almost all of West Pittsburg
is in the sphere of influence of the City of Pittsburg and that the
position of the Pittsburg City Council is not to annex anyone who does
not want to be part of the City.
Jerry Raycraft advised that the Project Area may experience an
increase in assessed valuation but not new taxes. He noted that
improvements and change of ownership can increase valuation.
T.W. Gibbs, 33 Madison Avenue, Pittsburg, requested material on
the project to be sent to him. He referred to the wrecking yard near
his property, and questioned if the Agency would be purchasing the
wrecking yard.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on code enforcement issues. He
advised that if someone knows of a party who is not keeping his
property up or if there is a problem with property to call his office
for help.
Jerry Raycraft responded that it is not in the Plan to eliminate
the wrecking yard right now. However he noted it is hoped that at
some time in the future the property owner would want to develop his
property. Mr. Raycraft advised the General Plan provided for a ,
multiple family residential land use for the wrecking yard and that at
some time redevelopment of the property would likely occur. He
commented on the role of the Agency in assisting the property owner
when that time occurs.
Gaird Wallig, 84 Canal, Pittsburg, commented on issues including
the widening of various roads, funding of the road improvements, the
high incidence of cancer in the West Pittsburg area, commercial
activity and clean air, the area where affordable housing would be
constructed, a definition of blight, frontage improvements and
potential for increased property taxes because of improvements to
property.
Supervisor Torlakson briefly commented on methods to fund road
improvements.
Jerry Raycraft responded that the Area of Benefit funds were
somewhat restricted as to their use whereas Redevelopment funds could
be used for curbs and gutters, lighting and landscaping where they
presently do not exist.
Supervisor Torlakson requested that Maurice Shiu, Public Works
Department, contact Mrs. Wallig and respond to her concerns.
Lillian Pride, 2311 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, representing Los
Medanos Hospital District, commented on issues including the
resolution formulated by the District which had been submitted to the
Board of Supervisors which is generally supportive of the efforts to
improve the West Pittsburg area; she stated, however, the resolution
details some concerns on the impact on the health care industry today.
Ms. Pride commented on the decline of revenue sources for hospitals,
the level of reimbursement by Medi-Cal/Medi-Care not covering the
costs of providing services, the District' s inability to raise rates
to cover the deficit, the level of service provided to West Pittsburg
residents, the budget of the District, capital needs, the need for a
pass through to relieve the financial impact on the District, and
disagreement with the fiscal review report. Ms. Pride advised that
the District is asking for a pass through of tax increments in the
Plan.
Lillian Pride then spoke as the Planning Director of the City of
Pittsburg. She spoke of the City' s plans to annex property south of
Highway 4 and east of the Ambrose Park District property and requested
4 .
exclusion of this property from the proposed Redevelopment Area. She
commented on the level of density that can be supported by the
property and inconsistencies with the City of Pittsburg' s General
Plan.
Anita Lund Moore, 99 Beach Drive, Pittsburg, questioned why Shore
Acres was included in the Redevelopment Plan when other subdivisions
around Shore Acres were not.
Supervisor Torlakson responded to Ms. Moore that inclusion would
make redevelopment tools available to the residents of Shore Acres.
Everett W. Fischer, 3061 Waterbrook Drive, West Pittsburg,
requested exclusion of his subdivision from the plan because of
development and increased density adjacent to his subdivision. He
expressed support for the Redevelopment Plan.
Milton Connor submitted a question on how to find out about
procedures and progress reports. Supervisor Torlakson requested staff
to contact Mr. Connor to answer his questions.
Michael S. Davis, 218 Bailey Road, expressed concern about
potential application of eminent domain. He questioned when people
would be notified of such action, which properties are earmarked for
this action, and if anybody was to be displaced ( such as renters)
would the RAP Program be initiated into this policy.
Supervisor Powers clarified that there was no plan to issue
notices to anybody and exercise the power of eminent domain.
James Kennedy responded to Mr. Davis that there was no intent in
the plan itself to implement a code enforcement effort among either
homeowner properties or rental properties, and that voluntary
upgrading and modernization of the properties would be encouraged and
facilitated by providing low interest rate financing.
Charles Cottrill, 440 Marina Road, West Pittsburg, commented on
issues including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service to East County,
taxes being increased, and funds being spent on roads and traffic
congestion.
Supervisor Torlakson responded on the issue of the Board' s
efforts on Bay Area Rapid Transit; and commented on the distribution
of West Pittsburg Redevelopment monies.
Rod Bizer, no address given, questioned the provision on
affordable housing.
Supervisor Torlakson responded to Mr. Bizer' s question on
affordable housing and James Kennedy explained the various types of
loans available to rehabilitate existing structures.
Walter Keiser, 1815 B 4th Street, Oakland, with the firm Economic
and Planning Systems, Oakland, representing Mt. Diablo Unified School
District, commented on the need to construct new facilities because of
increased population, the loss of property taxes to the District and
the delays in correcting maintenance problems. Mr. Keiser advised
that the District had identified approximately 4 . 6 million dollars
worth of needed improvements to buildings and grounds to bring those
schools to a serviceable standard, and that there is justification for
including these projects in the Plan. Mr.Keiser commented on errors
in the report, the District' s withdrawal from the Leroy Greene Act
Program, and the issue of the detriment resulting from the loss of
property tax base. He requested that the District be included in the
pass through of the two percent as provided for other agencies, that
school improvements that have been identified in the submittals to the
Fiscal Review Committee be considered a part of the projects to be
funded by the Redevelopment Project, specifically the 4. 6 million
dollars in projects. He recommended that the report be amended on
page 33 to include schools and that he would submit language to staff
concerning the addition and Table 3-1 on page 36 to reflect
5
infrastructure for schools with a cost attached to it of 4. 6 million
dollars.
Mark M. Manwill, Pittsburg, expressed opposition to the inclusion
of the eminent domain clause in the Plan.
Jerry Raycraft responded that the inclusion of eminent domain in
the Plan is a tool that can be utilized to prompt someone to make
improvements that are necessary and to eliminate structures that have
been abandoned, are vacant, and need to be abated.
Polly Marshall advised of potential tax advantages to property
owners with the inclusion of the eminent domain clause in the Plan.
Richard Sthalberg, 11 Canal Drive, Pittsburg, resident of Shore
Acres, commented on the need for refurbishment in Shore Acres and
expressed concern with the availability of funding for improvements
for people who are not destitute. He questioned the availability of
low interest loans.
Jim Kennedy responded to the inquiry on financial assistance to
homeowners who exceed income limits for current programs by indicating
that this is an area that the Agency would like to explore.
Marjorie Easter, 93 Poinsettia Avenue, West Pittsburg, inquired
of options available to a property owner relative to improving
property that already satisfies code requirements, and potential
negative consequences to property that meets code requirements located
among houses that do not.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that there was nothing in the Plan
to level whole blocks of areas and that the PAC insisted that that not
be the kind of program here.
Valerie Enos, no address given, questioned the infill housing and
the zoning staying the same.
Supervisor Torlakson advised that the land use categories set
forth in the General Plan is the guideline.
Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development, advised that
there will be public hearings in the spring for the rezoning of West
Pittsburg and that zoning will be consistent with the General Plan, so
that if it is Single Family Residential in the General Plan, it will
be Single Family in the rezoning.
Gary Dale, 487 Marina Road, Pittsburg, questioned the
availability of low interest loans and whether there is going to be a
cap on income available for those loans. He inquired if Shoal Street
would be extended to Pacifica.
James Kennedy responded to Mr. Dale that at this point there is
not a financial program established. He advised that there would only
be small amounts of money that could be used for rehabilitation for
people who do not meet the income criteria for the current program
that' s available. He advised that an attempt will be made to get
another funding program on line by working with the Project Area
Committee and other resources.
Supervisor Torlakson responded to Mr. Dale' s question on Shoal
Street that there are no immediate plans for extending the street.
Supervisor Torlakson noted that written comments were received
from the following people:
Mrs. Vida Carroll, 156 Alves Lane, Pittsburg, who questioned if
she was in danger of being homeless from the program.
Supervisor Torlakson assured Mrs. Carroll that the Plan would not
result in homelessness, and requested staff to respond to Mrs.
Carroll' s concerns.
6 .
. H. Barnette, 19 Seaview Drive, Pittsburg, submitted a comment on
current market values.
Mrs. R. Benz, 399 Levee Road, West Pittsburg, requested that
- attention be given to Shore Acres.
Supervisor Torlakson requested staff to also respond to Mrs.
Benz ' concerns.
Mrs. Sara Willis, 81 Beach Drive, Pittsburg, questioned the time
of the next meeting and the obtainability of a transcript of the
meeting.
Jerry Raycraft responded that there were no plans to .transcribe
the meeting and he would be more than happy to send minutes of the
meeting.
Someone (unsigned) submitted a question regarding houses in Shore
Acres development and if the roads in Shore Acres were to be widened.
Supervisor Torlakson responded that he would be happy to meet
with this person after the meeting to discuss this matter.
Polly Marshall submitted for the record two more letters, from a
property owner and a resident.
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, IT IS BY THE
BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED.
Prior to responding to the two requests by taxing agencies to
have more specific language included in the Plan, Mr. Kennedy prefaced
his response by advising that prescriptive language had been avoided
in the preparation of the Plan document to provide for greater
flexibility in responding to changing circumstances or conditions.
Mr. Kennedy then addressed the request of East Bay Regional Park
District to have the "may commit to future participation" changed to
"will" , and that if such language is deemed appropriate, "will commit
to the extent feasible to partially funding trail improvements" would
be an adequate response to the District' s concerns. Mr. Kennedy
commented on the request by Mt. Diablo Unified School District that if
in the future fiscal detriment or impact should result the Plan
provides for further review. He recommended acceptance of the amended
language on Page 33 of the Report on the Plan as suggested by the
MDUSD, with the proviso that all prescriptive terms such as "will" and
"shall" be modified to "may" . He also did not recommend inclusion of
the school' s 4 . 6 million dollar line item in the budget at this time
but advised that the Agency would desire to work with the District and
will make every effort to do so.
Jerry Raycraft responded to the City of Pittsburg' s request that
the 16 acres south of Highway 4 be technically deannexed from the
Redevelopment Project Area. Staff strongly encourages the inclusion
of this parcel in the project area because the parcel has been
included in the Agency' s plans for its affordable housing goals, and
the separation of that parcel would create a smaller island to the
west, a developed area which is currently blighted and needs
redevelopment. He referenced a letter from A.D. Seeno Construction
Company expressing satisfaction with the Plan, contradictory to the
letter just received today stating the opposite, and Mr. Raycraft
urged that that area be included in the project area.
James Kennedy responded to the Los Medanos Hospital District' s
concerns commenting that to put in language that would bind the
Agency' s hands in the future would be imprudent, and he would not
recommend any change in the Plan at this time as it relates to Los
Medanos Hospital District.
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification of the request of
the Los Medanos Hospital District for a two percent pass through and
the law.
7.
Polly Marshall clarified the issue of the two percent pass
through requests by the Hospital District and the School District.
Jerry Raycraft commented on the inclusion of the
Winterbrook/Springfield area in the Plan that the area is contiguous
to areas that need redevelopment and therefore, it was felt to be for
the effective redevelopment of that area to leave it in the Plan. He
urged that that area remain in the Project Area.
Supervisor Powers questioned leaving the one area in the middle
out of the Plan.
Jerry Raycraft explained the County policy of not taking in areas
that do not need redevelopment and that is why that area was excluded.
He commented on the reason for the exclusion of the island being its
stage of development at the time the project area survey was done.
Supervisor Torlakson commented that not all issues could be
resolved today, but action was needed to move forward to establish the
Plan at this level, that follow-up meetings needed to be scheduled
right away, that there had been a suggestion by Mr. Chomor to have a
mailing to explain some of the material in writing, and then
additional workshop discussions for people who want to meet with
staff. Supervisor Torlakson asked the Board to support his meeting
with the Agency staff, the City of Pittsburg and the Hospital District
in two separate meetings to pursue further the concerns that have been
raised in terms of land use and concerns expressed.
Supervisor Powers moved the staff recommendations.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution No. RA
87-29, authorizing the execution of a fiscal agreement with the
Riverview Fire Protection District and making certain findings in
connection with such agreement is ADOPTED.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that joint resolution 87/757 and RA
87-30 is ADOPTED certifying review and consideration of the Final
Environmental Impact Report, making findings required by the
California Environmental Quality Act, and stating overriding
considerations in the approval and adoption of the West Pittsburg
Redevelopment Plan.
IT IS FURTHER BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Ordinance No. 87-102
adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the West Pittsburg Redevelopment
Project Area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State
of California is hereby ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Supervisor Torlakson is AUTHORIZED to
meet with the City of Pittsburg and Los Medanos Hospital District
regarding their concerns raised today.
1 hereby Certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the mints of the
Board of Su weon on t date shown.
ATTESTED: 4� I q V
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of uperA and County Administrator
u
By Deouty
Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board
CC: Community Development Department I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
Redevelopment
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
County Administrator TERedevelopme gency on Ahe date shown.
County Counsel ATSTED: -P XVA g2J I CY I7
_
PHIL TCHcLOR,Agency Secretary
8. o
By .
Deputy
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on December 29 , 1987 by the following vote:
AYES : supervisors/Commissioners Powers, Fanden and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisors/Commissioners Schroder and McPeak
ASTAIN: None 87/757 and
Resolution No. RA 87-30
SUBJECT: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION
OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
STATING OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL AND
ADOPTION OF THE WEST PITTSBURG REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS , an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on
the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the West
Pittsburg Redevelopment Project (the "Project" ) was prepared
by the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency")
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., hereafter "CEQA") ,
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15000
et seq. , hereafter the "State EIR Guidelines") and the
County' s Guidelines for Implementing CEQA ("Local
Guidelines" ) ; and
WHEREAS, on November 2 , 1987 , the Agency forwarded the
Draft Environmental Impact Report to the State Clearinghouse
for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by
law with respect to the Project and to other interested
persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons
and agencies; and
WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies of
the completion of a Draft EIR for the Redevelopment Plan was
published in the Pittsburg Post Dispatch on November 5,
1987; and
WHEREAS, the East County Regional Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report on November 23 , 1987 pursuant to
the County' s Local Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
thereafter reviewed and supplemented to adopt changes
suggested and to incorporate comments received together with
the Agency' s response to those comments , and as so revised and
supplemented, a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final
EIR" ) was submitted to the Redevelopment Agency of the County
of Contra Costa (the "Agency") as a part of the Report of the
Agency accompanying the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on December 14 , 1987 , the
East County Regional Planning Commission recommended to the
Board and .the Agency the certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the Board and
Agency on December 29 , 1987 on the Redevelopment Plan and
Final EIR relating thereto, following notice duly and
regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons
expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto
-1-
87/757 and RA 87-30 '
having been heard, and the Final EIR and all comments and
responses thereto having been considered; and
WHEREAS , the Final EIR consists of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (dated October 27 , 1987) , the
Addendum (dated December 11 , 1987) , which contains the
comments received on the Draft and the Agency' s responses to
those comments , and any additional comments received at the
joint public hearing together with the Board and the Agency
responses to those comments set forth in the record of the
public hearing, and the Addendum 2 (dated December 14 , 1987)
which consists of a letter from Wagstaff & Brady
(environmental consultants on this project) to the Agency;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board and Agency
hereby find and certify that the Final EIR has been completed
in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and the
Local Guidelines; that the Final EIR adequately addresses the
environmental issues of the Project and the Plan; and that the
Board and Agency have reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project and
the Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board and Agency hereby
identify the significant effects, adopt the mitigation
measures, make the findings, and declare the statement of
overriding considerations set forth in detail in the attached
Exhibit A which is incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference. The statements, findings and determinations set
forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified Final EIR
and other information available to the Board and Agency, and
are made in compliance with Sections 15091 , 15092 , and 15093
of the State EIR Guidelines.
12/21/87
#B002/B32006
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the¢ate shown.
cc: Redevelopment Agency ( _ V �� lin
County Counsel ATTESTED: �1-t:Q:[dMt4•CA T 1
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of tho Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
0O
By , Deputy
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Redevelopme Agency on he date shown.
ATTESTED: .
PHIL BATCHELOR,Agency Secretary
e
By 00Deputy
-2-
87/757 and RA 87-30
EXHIBIT A
WEST PITTSBURG REDEVELOPMENT PLAN:
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. General Information and Description of the Project
The Project under consideration by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ("Board") and the
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is the
Redevelopment Plan for the West Pittsburg Redevelopment
Project ("Redevelopment Plan") . The Redevelopment Plan has
been prepared pursuant to the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000
et. seq. ) to enable the County and the Agency to eliminate
the physical, economic, and social blighting conditions that
currently exist in the West Pittsburg Project Area ("Project
Area") so that the Project Area may be developed in
conformance with the Contra Costa County General Plan to the
benefit of the West Pittsburg community and the County as a
whole.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Redevelopment Plan has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , the State CEQA
Guidelines , and the Contra Costa County Guidelines for
Administering the California Environmental Quality Act
("County Guidelines") adopted by the Agency. The process
began in April, 1987 with the preparation of an Initial Study
and the mailing of a Notice of Preparation to all interested
and affected agencies.
On November 5 , 1987 , the Notice of Completion of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in the
Pittsburg Post Dispatch. The Draft Environmental Impact
Report was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review on
November 2 , 1987 (SCH #87042111) . The Agency' s request for
a 30-day comment period was granted and the comment period
closed on December 10 , 1987.
The East County Regional Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on
November 23 , 1987 in accordance with the requirements of the
County Guidelines. Following the completion of the public
hearing and the receipt of written comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, the Agency prepared an Addendum
to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which sets forth all
comments received on the Draft and responses to those comments
and serves as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Redevelopment Plan.
-1-
Following a public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan on
December 14 , 1987 , the East County Regional Planning
Commission recommended that the Board and Agency certify the
Environmental Impact Report and that the Board adopt the
Redevelopment Plan.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report was submitted to
the Board and Agency on November 10 , 1987 and the Final
Environmental Impact Report was submitted to the Board and
Agency on December 17 , 1987.
The Redevelopment Plan came before the Board and the
Agency on December 29 , 1987 . The Board and Agency certified
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Plan, approved
the Plan, and adopted the following Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations .
II. The Record
The record of the Board and the Agency relating to the
Redevelopment Plan includes:
A. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan, approved by the
Planning Commission on January 12 , 1987;
B. The Redevelopment Plan for the West Pittsburg
Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan") ;
C. The Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the West
Pittsburg Redevelopment Project ("Report on the Plan") ;
D. Documentary and oral evidence received by the East
County Regional Planning Commission, the Contra Costa
County Redevelopment Agency and the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors during public hearings on the West
Pittsburg Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Plan
Environmental Impact Report;
E. The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR")
prepared for the Redevelopment Plan, which includes: 1)
the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") , dated
October 27, 1987; 2) an Addendum, dated December 11 ,
1987 , containing the comments received on the DEIR and
the Agency' s responses to those comments; and 3) Addendum
2 , dated December 14 , 1987 , in the form of a letter from
Wagstaff and Brady to the Redevelopment Agency.
F. Matters of common knowledge to the Board and Agency
which they consider, such as:
1 . The Contra Costa County General Plan (including
the West Pittsburg Area General Plan Amendment, the
Tener General Plan Amendment, and the Snow General
Plan Amendment)
-2-
2 . The Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance
3 . Other formally adopted policies and ordinances of
Contra Costa County.
III . Significant Adverse Impacts
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the West
Pittsburg Redevelopment Plan, certified by the Board and
Agency, identified 14 potentially significant adverse impacts
attributed in part to the Redevelopment Plan. These
potentially significant adverse impacts , as well as proposed
mitigation measures, are discussed in detail in Section IV of
the DEIR, and summarized in Section II of the DEIR. Sections
II and IV of the DEIR also provide an analysis of whether the
proposed mitigation measures will avoid or substantially
lessen each of the significant adverse impacts identified in
the FEIR.
Each potentially significant adverse impact identified in
the FEIR, the proposed mitigation measures for that impact,
and the Board' s and Agency' s findings with regard to that
impact are discussed in Section IV below.
IV. Findings
Notwithstanding the identification of the significant
adverse impacts of the Plan, the Board and Agency have
approved the Plan, as authorized by Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and California Administrative Code Sections
15091 , 15092 , and 15093 . As required by the aforementioned
references, the Board and Agency make the following findings
for which there is substantial evidence in the record.
A. Land Use Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Project-
induced expansion of industrial development in
the West Pittsburg Project Area can be expected
to result in corresponding increases in nuisance
and hazard factors typically associated with
industrial activities, which can result in
significant adverse impacts on nearby residential
areas and other sensitive land uses.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Buffer new industrial
development from adjacent residential areas
outside the Project Area boundary through
reservation of adequate acreage to separate
industrial and residential land uses, and utilize
the reserved acreage primarily as parkways to
enhance surrounding developments; (ii)
incorporate an open space component into the
Redevelopment Plan to provide mini-parks and tot
-3-
lots within residential areas; (iii) consult
with City of Pittsburg regarding elimination of
inconsistencies between the City' s general plan
and the County' s general plan/redevelopment plan
land use designations .
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency adopt the
above mitigation measures; however, based on the
information and analysis contained in Part IV.A
of the EIR, the Board and Agency find that the
significant environmental effect identified in
A(1) (a) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened at this time; this impact will therefore
be discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and
VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations) of
this document.
B. Circulation Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Project-
accelerated buildout in combination with
cumulative development in the West Pittsburg area
will result in corresponding increases in local
traffic volumes which can be expected to exceed
the capacity of most local arterials in 15 to 25
years , even with completion of the various
proposed widenings and interchange improvements
that are proposed redevelopment activities.
Levels of service would be reduced to F on many
of these roadways over the projected 25-year
period between now and buildout.
Project-assisted local growth would have the most
impact on Port Chicago Highway (13 percent of
total future traffic volumes) and Bailey Road (7
to 12 percent of future traffic) . Project-
related contributions to future traffic levels on
Willow Pass Road and State Route 4 would be less
(2 to 4 percent on Willow Pass; 3 to 4 percent on
State Route 4) . These estimates do not assume
closure of portions of Port Chicago Highway at
the Naval Weapons Station as recently proposed by
the U.S. Navy. Additional impacts caused by
closure of this roadway would depend on the
precise plan for closure and the locations of
proposed access to the Naval Weapons Station.
Future operational conditions at each of the
principal intersections in the Project Area with
'the addition of cumulative traffic and buildout
of the Project Area without the closure of Port
Chicago Highway are as follows:
- Planned relocation of the westbound on-ramp
at the Willow Pass Road/State Route 4
-4-
intersection should eliminate most
operational problems; however, traffic
signals may be needed at the ramps.
- Construction of an additional left-turn lane
will be needed by the year 2005 on Bailey
Road at Willow Pass Road; additional measures
may be needed towards Project Area
buildout.
Traffic signals may be needed at the Canal
Road/Bailey intersection to reduce potential
conflicts with the Bailey Road/State Route 4
interchange.
The Willow Pass/Range Road/North Parkside
Drive intersection will need significant
improvements to accommodate projected future
traffic levels , with or without
Project-related traffic.
Local streets which serve as alternative
routes to congested primary and secondary
routes can be expected to experience
increased traffic volumes .
Planned transit system improvements ,
including BART plans to extend service to the
Pittsburg/Antioch area, plus anticipated
transportation systems management (TSM) and
high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV) , may
reduce future local peak period traffic
levels by 20 percent, and ADT levels by 15
percent.
By accelerating the rate of development,
redevelopment activities may increase the
expected time lag between the need for
transportation improvements and the
availability of funds to finance such
improvements.
(b) Mitigations.
1 . Establish plan lines to accommodate and
facilitate the following improvements to area
road links and intersections : (i) widening
of the portion of Port Chicago Highway within
the West Pittsburg area to 6 lanes , with
median left-turn lanes between Pacifica
Avenue and Willow Pass Road; (ii) widening of
Willow Road to 5 lanes between State Route 4
and Port Chicago Highway; (iii) widening of
Bailey Road to 6 lanes , with left-turn lanes
-5-
in the median, between Willow Pass Road and
State Route 4 ; (iv) construction of double
left-turn lanes at a number of intersections,
as listed in the EIR; (v) utilize techniques
in Agency street improvement program that
will encourage through traffic to stay on
major arterials and off neighborhood streets
(i.e. design arterials with appropriate
width, medians , access limitations and
traffic signal spacing and coordination) , and
utilize neighborhood traffic diverters if
other options are not effective; (vi)
advocate widening of State Route 4 to 8 lanes
(this mitigation is a regional improvement
need and funds should be provided by
Caltrans , and/or through a system of
regional allocation) . If this measure proves
to be infeasible, cumulative impacts to State
Route 4 are considered unmitigable; (vii)
to reduce overall construction costs and
provide adequate capacity, consider partial
cloverleaf interchanges as near-term
improvements at the Willow Pass/State Route 4
and-Bailey/State Route 4 interchanges;
(viii) extension of Range Road to provide a
continuous link between Willow Pass and State
Route 4 , and advocate construction of a Range
Road/State Route 4 interchange; (ix)
widening of Willow Pass Road east of the
Project Area to 4 lanes with separate left
turn lanes.
2 . Coordinate the timing of future
development projects with the adequacy of
transportation improvements , including
consideration of future transportation system
improvement needs in administering future
redevelopment assistance activities.
Coordinate redevelopment programs with County
and Caltrans transportation planning to
ensure that adequate transportation impact
mitigation measures are implemented as needs
develop.
3 . Establish plan lines to accommodate and
facilitate fixed-route transit service
improvements , including future transit
stations and BART or light rail transit
extensions .
4 . Establish regional and local TSM measures
and transit service improvements to reduce
future traffic volumes . Require TSM measures
and improvements for all Project-assisted
-6-
industrial, commercial, and residential
development.
5 . With respect to the proposal by the U.S.
Navy to close portions of Port Chicago
Highway, require mitigation by the Navy of
adverse effects on the West Pittsburg area
circulation system, including fair-share
contributions towards the cost of
improvements to the local network of
arterials and streets , and local transit
systems.
(c) Finding. The Board and the Agency adopt the
above mitigation measures. Based on the
information and analysis contained in Part
IV.C. and Addendum 2 of the FEIR, the Board
and the Agency find that the significant
environmental effects identified in BMW above
will be avoided or substantially lessened by
adoption of these mitigation measures, with the
exception of cumulative traffic impacts discussed
in Section G below. The Board and the Agency
additionally find that certain of the mitigation
measures listed above are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the State of
California, and can and should be adopted by the
State of California. Traffic impacts are also
discussed in Sections VI and VII below.
C. Municipal Service Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Law
Enforcement) Project-induced buildout of the
area will increase demands for law enforcement
services , but not out of proportion to the amount
and type of development proposed.
(b) Mitigation. Coordinate Agency' s Project
Area activities with the Sheriff' s Department to
ensure that the Department is kept apprised of
actions which might affect ongoing law
enforcement operations in the Project Area.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measure and based upon the
information and analysis in Section IV. D of
the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that the
adopted mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in C (1) (a) above.
(2) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Fire
-7-
Protection) Project-induced buildout of the
Project area will substantially increase demands
for fire services, will require extension of
water mains and installation of fire hydrants in
some subareas, could require the addition of
special equipment, and could ultimately require a
new fire station.
(b) Mitigations. Coordinate Agency-assisted
infrastructure improvements with the installation
of additional water main extensions and fire
hydrants as necessary to meet fire protection
requirements, with new development "paying its
own way" with respect to these improvements .
Coordinate Agency activities with the Riverview
Fire Protection District and, if a new station in
the area becomes necessary, assist the District
in identifying and acquiring an adequate site for
this facility. (In order to aid in the
mitigation of the implementation of the Plan, the
Agency has executed an agreement with the
Riverview Fire Protection District whereby the
Agency shall pass through 100% of the District' s
share of tax increment from the Project Area each
year the Plan is in effect. )
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and based upon the
information and analysis in Section IV. D of
the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that the
adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in CM (a) above.
(3) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Sewer and
Water Service) Project-induced buildout of the
area would not appear to present significant
sewage treatment capacity problems, but would
require extension and/or upgrading of some sewer
mains in the Project Area. Similarly,
Project-induced new development would require
extension and/or upgrading of various water lines
in the area. Project-assisted development will
be required to "pay its own way" to mitigate
these sewer and water service impacts.
(b) Mitigations. Coordinate Agency planning
and assistance activities, including Agency-
assisted residential construction, with the Delta
Diablo Sanitary District and California Cities
Water Company to identify when and where
improvements will be needed and to ensure that
sewer and water improvement construction
scheduling is coordinated with Project-assisted
-8-
road construction activities. Incorporate water
conservation devices in Agency-assisted
residential, industrial, and commercial
construction and landscaping.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and based upon the
information and analysis in Section IV. D of
the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that the
adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in CM (a) above.
(4) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (School
Impacts) Project-induced residential growth could
require some expansion of school facilities over
the long term.
(b) Mitigations. (i) Coordinate Agency housing
assistance activities with the Mt. Diablo
Unified School District and the Pittsburg Unified
School District planning activities . (ii) Assess
SB 2926 school impact fees on all new
construction in the Project Area.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the mitigation measure set forth in 4 (b) (i) above
and, based upon the information and analysis in
Section IV. D of the FEIR, the Board and
Agency find that the adopted mitigation measure
will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in
C (4) (a) above. The Board and the Agency
additionally find that the mitigation measure set
forth in 4 (b) (ii) above is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the affected
school districts and that such mitigation measure
can and should be adopted by the school districts .
D. Drainage Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Project-
induced intensification of development and
related substantial additions of impervious
surface area will increase the volume and rate of
stormwater runoff in the Project Area.
Project-assisted drainage improvements, as
delineated in the Contra Costa County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District
(CCCFCWCD) Drainage Area 48A Drainage Plan,
will provide the trunk lines needed to provide
adequate flood protection.
-9-
(b) Mitigation. Coordinate redevelopment
planning with the CCCFCWCD. The storm drainage
plan developed for the Project Area by the
CCCFCWCD will be considered as a basis for this
coordination. To ensure that the proposed trunk
lines serve their purpose, the storm drainage
plan will incorporate a system of collector storm
drains.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measure and, based upon the
information and analysis in Section IV. E of
the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that the
adopted mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in D(1) (a) above.
E. Noise Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Some existing
and future land uses in the Project Area could be
exposed to noise levels in excess of those
recommended in the county Noise Element,
including residential developments along State
Route 4 and Willow Pass , and
commercial/industrial development adjacent to the
railroad tracks. The impacts of construction
noise on existing and future land uses would
depend on the types of equipment used and the
distances from existing residential
developments.
(b) Mitigations. Include in the County' s
General Plan update process appropriate noise
mitigation provisions to protect existing noise
sensitive uses from future noise-generating
transportation system improvements and industrial
development. Noise mitigation provisions will
include extended building setbacks, installation
of earth berms, residential insulation,
construction of soundwalls, and traffic
diverters on residential streets. Include
noise-related performance standards as part of
Agency assistance agreements for industrial
activities adjacent to residential areas to
minimize potential for noise conflicts. Control
hours of construction activity of Agency-assisted
developments and ensure adequate muffling and
maintenance of construction equipment.
(c) Finding. The Board and the Agency hereby
adopt the above mitigation measures and, based
upon the information and analysis in Section . IV_E
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that the
-10-
adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in E (1) (a) above,
except as discussed in Section G below with
regard to cumulative noise impacts.
F. Air Quality Impacts .
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impacts .
(i) Project-induced buildout of the area can be
expected to contribute slightly to cumulative
regional air pollution emissions levels.
Projected cumulative regional emissions levels
are expected to exceed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District "best available technology"
thresholds by the year 2010 . No significant
local air quality impacts are expected to occur
due to Project-related increases in vehicular
traffic in and around West Pittsburg; (ii)
industrial point sources may generate air
contaminants; (iii) construction activities
will generate air pollutants intermittently in
the vicinity of the Project Area. Such emissions
would be temporarily noticeable at adjacent land
uses.
(b) Mitigation. (i) Although the traffic
mitigation measures recommended under Circulation
would be expected to reduce vehicular air
pollutant emissions, Project-related
contributions to cumulative regional air quality
impacts are an adverse impact which cannot be
fully mitigated; (ii) the Agency will
incorporate particulate control requirements into
its agreements with individual developers and
contractors to reduce potential construction
phase pollutant emissions; (iii) the Agency
will permit construction of stationary emissions
sources only if "Authority to Construct" permit
is obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
(c) Finding. The Board and the Agency hereby
adopt the mitigation measures set forth in
F(1) (b) above. Based on the information and
analysis in Section IV.F of the FEIR, the
Board and the Agency find that the adoption of
the mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the environmental effect
described in F (1) (a) (iii) above. However, based
on the information and analysis contained in
Section IV.F of the FEIR, the Board and the
Agency find that the significant environmental
effects described in F (1) (a) (i) and (ii) above
-11-
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened.
Therefore , these significant effects will be
discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII
(Statement of Overriding Consideration) below.
G. Cumulative Impacts .
(I) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. In addition
to the proposed Redevelopment Plan, a number of
other current and anticipated projects in the
Project Area vicinity will also contribute to
local environmental change. These other projects
include: (i) the County-approved residential
developments west and south of the Project Area;
(ii) the proposed development of the Southwest
Hills area (with possible annexation to the City
of Pittsburg; and (iii) the proposed extension of
BART rail service.
The FEIR states that the cumulative effects of
these other projects , in combination with the
proposed West Pittsburg Area Redevelopment Plan,
are considerable (i.e. , resultant market
pressures on Project Area vacant and
underutilized lands, effects on area traffic
volumes, cumulative runoff increases , air
quality, and the noise implications of cumulative
traffic volume changes) .
(b) Mitigation. A number of mitigation
measures have been proposed in the FEIR and
adopted by the Agency and Board to reduce
significant adverse impacts of the Redevelopment
Project, as set forth above. No additional
mitigation measures to reduce cumulative impact
are proposed in the FEIR.
(c) Finding. Based on the information and
analysis found in the FEIR, the Board and the
Agency find that the significant adverse impact
described in G(1) (a) above cannot be avoided or
substantially lessened at this time; this impact
will therefore be discussed in Sections VI
(Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) of this document.
V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects
The following significant adverse effects of the
Redevelopment Plan are identified in the FEIR and these
Findings are unanimous
A. Project-induced increases in the rate of industrial
development are expected to result in unavoidable
-12-
contributions to cumulative air quality degradation in
the region, as well as such localized impacts as
increased noise levels, odor, soil contamination by
toxics , and hazardous material handling and storage
risks;
B. Approximately 16 , 000 vehicular trips per day will be
added to the regional circulation system resulting in
substantial traffic, air quality and noise impacts;
C. Project-induced industrial development will result in
an increased rate of escalation in local land values,
which in turn are expected to result in the eventual
displacement of "lower end" industrial activities (auto
wrecking, open storage , etc) ;
D. Project-induced commercial and residential
development are expected to eventually increase local
property values; and
E. Project-induced construction is expected to create
temporary increases in air pollution emissions and noise
from construction equipment and processes.
F. The following growth-inducing impacts are expected to
occur: an increase of 723 occupied dwelling units; an
increase of approximately 1 , 694 in the Project Area
population; an increase of 210 acres in industrial land
use acreage (non-wetland) ; an increase in Project Area
jobs from 798 in 1987 to 2809 at buildout; an increase in
development on vacant lands west and south of the Project
Area, and an increase in employment totals in the East
County region.
G. The following long term impacts may result from
adoption of the Redevelopment Project: loss of
agricultural potential on lands west and south of the
Project Area, with possible eventual displacement of
ranching activities by residential and light industrial
uses; increases in air pollution; and increases in
demands for water and nonrenewable energy sources for
operation of added urban uses.
H. The Project is expected to contribute to cumulative
impacts of market pressures on vacant and under- utilized
land in the area, cumulative runoff increases, and noise
impacts associated with cumulative increases in traffic
volume.
These significant adverse impacts may occur despite the
adoption by the Board and Agency of all mitigation measures
related to these impacts that were identified in the FEIR.
No mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have been
-13-
rejected by the Agency and the Board as being infeasible due
to specific economic, social , or other considerations .
VI. Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan
The FEIR discusses four alternatives to the
Redevelopment Project, the adoption of which would, in some
cases, avoid the significant environmental effects listed in
Section V above . Each alternative is discussed in this
section, and findings are made regarding their feasibility.
A. No Project Alternative
Under the "No Project" alternative, the proposed West
Pittsburg Redevelopment Project would be rejected and the
level of public assistance to the Project Area would
continue along present trends .
Denial of the proposed Redevelopment Plan would
result in the preservation of the Project Area in its
present state , at least until such time as one or more
other development or redevelopment actions might be
proposed for various portions of the Project Area in the
future .
On the one hand, none of the adverse Project-related
increases in traffic flows , demands for expanded public
services and utility infrastructures, etc. , would
materialize in the immediate future. However, in light
of county planning policies to concentrate urban growth
within the Project Area in future years , it is likely
that many of these impacts would still eventually occur
in the Project Area, regardless of whether or not the
proposed Redevelopment Plan is adopted. Without the
Plan, some development would still occur. However,
development would follow a more haphazard pattern and
could create more adverse impacts than with the Plan.
The "No Project" alternative would not provide the
significant benefits of the Redevelopment Plan; i.e. ,
mechanisms to finance many public improvements needed to
enhance the safety and welfare of West Pittsburg
residents; elimination of nonconforming and incompatible
land uses; revitalization of commercial and industrial
areas of the community; facilitation of new investment
and expansion; improvement of housing conditions and
opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents;
improvement of the aesthetic appearance of West
Pittsburg; and elimination of blighting influences which
have constrained proper development of the area to date.
Consequently, the "No Project" alternative would be
expected to maintain the status quo situation, and
-14-
preserve the site for future development options.
Because of the blighting conditions in the Project Area,
further decline could be expected to occur. At some
point, if ameliorative actions continue to be delayed,
the costs of blight elimination could become exorbitantly
high, in which case the Project Area could become a
permanent liability to Contra Costa County.
The Board or Agency conclude that adoption of the "No
Project" alternative would not meet community development
goals for the West Pittsburg area and therefore find this
alternative to be infeasible pursuant to California
Administrative Code Section 15091 (c) (3) .
B. Alternative Uses
Under the proposed Redevelopment Plan, future land
uses in the Project Area would be determined by the
County General Plan. The land use descriptions expressed
in the County' s General Plan allow for a diversity of
land use intensities and/or housing densities on specific
sites within the Project Area, providing adequate
flexibility for meeting the demands of new growth in the
West Pittsburg vicinity in an orderly fashion. Except
for projects awarded density bonuses , land uses
inconsistent with the Area General Plan would not be
permitted in the Project Area without appropriate General
Plan amendments , and could not be adequately served by
existing and planned urban service and utility
infrastructures designed on the basis of the currently
planned land uses. Therefore, it is unlikely that such
alternative land uses would be physically, economically,
or politically feasible in the foreseeable future.
The Board and the Agency conclude that adoption of
the "Alternative Uses" alternative would require
amendment of the County General Plan and would contradict
established goals for development in the Project Area and
therefore find this alternative to be infeasible pursuant
to California Administrative Code Section 15091 (c) (3) .
C. Alternative Timing of Redevelopment Actions
The timing of various actions to implement the
Redevelopment Plan would depend on a myriad of unknown
factors , including: availability of public and/or
private sector capital; financing methods or sources
employed (impact fees, various types of bonds , special
purpose assessment districts, intergovernmental grants or
loans , developer participation, etc. ) ; perceived demands
for various private development types and public
improvement needs; and, population growth rates , etc.
For these reasons , and to ensure flexibility to respond
to changing circumstances over time, the proposed
-15-
Redevelopment Plan does not set forth a specific
timetable or schedule for implementing its proposed
actions, but rather, provides for maximum flexibility in
the timing of implementation actions. Obviously, certain
drainage, roadway, public facility, and utility
improvements should precede or be provided in conjunction
with the new development generating the demands for such
improvements to avoid adverse impacts relating to the
exceeding of system capacities. The ongoing review and
reevaluation procedures of the Redevelopment Agency and
Contra Costa County ensure that such adverse effects
would be avoided to the maximum extent feasible, and
would not exceed the general level of impacts defined- in
this EIR.
The Board and the Agency therefore conclude that
adoption of the "Alternative Timing" alternative would
decrease Agency flexibility and find this alternative- to
be infeasible pursuant to California Administration Code
Section 15091 (c) (3) .
D. Alternative Sites
Alternatives in this category could involve a
smaller, larger, or reconfigured Project Area.
(1) Smaller Project Area. Blighting influences
affect all portions of the proposed West Pittsburg
Redevelopment Project Area, and failure to treat
conditions in one subarea of the Project Area (by
excluding it from redevelopment actions) would
jeopardize and undermine the effectiveness of
redevelopment efforts in the remainder of the Project
Area. Also, the effectiveness of a comprehensive
redevelopment program would be reduced by having to
delete certain needed activities, or portions of
activities , to compensate for reduced revenues
accruable to the Redevelopment Agency from a smaller
Project Area. The environmental effects attendant to
a smaller project area would be similar to those of
the current proposal (albeit within a smaller
geographic area) . However, it is unlikely that
similar levels of mitigation could be provided under
this option because of the reduced revenues available
for such purposes.
(2) Larger Project Area. The Redevelopment
Agency has determined that blighted conditions within
the current Project Area boundaries meet the
prerequisite blight criteria of the state
redevelopment law for establishment of a
redevelopment Project Area. The Board of Supervisors
and the Planning Commission have carefully delineated
the boundaries of the Project Area to include only
-16-
blighted and predominantly urbanized areas, in order
to comply with state law and to minimize the fiscal
and other impacts of the proposed Redevelopment
Plan. Given the nature of land use patterns in the
West Pittsburg vicinity, a larger area would include
either: (a) undeveloped lands that are not
predominantly urbanized or blighted; or, (b) 'lands
containing relatively new development that would not
meet the aforementioned blight definitions . As such,
a larger area would not conform to state law, or to
the Board of Supervisors' policy of minimizing fiscal
and other impacts of its redevelopment proposals .
For these reasons, a larger Project Area in the West
Pittsburg vicinity is not considered to be a viable
alternative.
(3) Reconfigured Project Area. Minor shifts of
the Project Area boundaries would be possible;
however, given that the Project (the Redevelopment
Plan) is general in nature, significant differences
in impacts would not be anticipated with minor
differences in Project Area boundaries.
The Board and the Agency conclude that the
"Alternative Site" alternative would not meet the
County' s community development goals or the
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and
therefore find this alternative to be infeasible
pursuant to California Administrative Code Section
15091 (c) (3) .
VII . Statement of Overriding Considerations
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the unavoidable adverse
effects of the Redevelopment Plan which are summarized in
Section V above, the Board and Agency have determined,
pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 15093 , that
the benefits of the proposed Plan outweigh these unavoidable
adverse environmental effects , and the Plan should be
approved.
The Board and Commission approve the Redevelopment Plan
for the following reasons based upon the record:
A..V The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to
provide infrastructure improvements to the Project Area,
including, but not limited to, street and intersection
improvements , freeway interchange improvements, frontage
improvements, drainage improvements , grade crossings ,
undergrounding of utilities , and lighting.
- B. The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to
strengthen the existing West Pittsburg residential areas
by assisting in rehabilitation of the housing stock,
-17-
promoting new infill housing construction, providing
neighborhood open space , improving drainage facilities,
and constructing street and frontage improvements.
C. Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will improve
and upgrade deteriorated housing stock in the Project
Area and will assist in the construction of new
affordable housing, thereby improving and expanding the
supply of housing affordable to low and moderate income
families.
D. The Redevelopment Plan will enable the Agency to
facilitate the redevelopment of parcels designated for
commercial and industrial development in the General,
Plan, in order to revitalize the stagnant economy of the
Project Area.
E. The Redevelopment Plan enables the County and the
Agency to eliminate the blighting influences present in
the Project Area so that the Area may be of physical,
social and economic benefit to the West Pittsburg
community and to the County as a whole.
12/16/87
EXA/WP/B32007
-18-
ORDINANCE NO. 87-102
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WEST PITTSBURG REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Section I. Preliminary Statement
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (herein
referred to as "Agency") has made studies of the location,
physical condition of structures, environmental influences,
land use, and social, economic and cultural conditions of that
certain area known as the West Pittsburg Redevelopment Project
Area, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A
and hereinafter referred to as the "Project Area" , and has
determined that the Project Area is a blighted area and is
detrimental to the safety, health, and welfare of the users
thereof and of the County of Contra Costa at large because of:
a. Economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse
resulting from blighting physical, social, and economic
conditions.
b. The ineffective, uneconomic and unproductive use of
land due to the existence of lots of inappropriate size,
configuration or placement and inappropriate access to
vehicular traffic, and utilities necessary to allow private
development.
c . The continuing problem of poor traffic and
circulation patterns.
d. The existence of inadequate infrastructure, public
improvements , public facilities, neighborhood open spaces and
utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental
action without redevelopment.
e. The existence of residential and commercial
structures characterized by age, obsolescence, deterioration,
dilapidation, vacancy of buildings and mixed and shifting
uses.
f. The existence of excessive vacant land on which
structures were previously located, abandoned and vacant
buildings, substandard structures, vacancies, and
delinquencies in payment of real property taxes.
g. The existence of inadequate drainage facilities
resulting in localized flooding.
h. The existence of abandoned and/or deteriorated
buildings due to lack of maintenance and upkeep.
The Agency has prepared and submitted to the Board of
Supervisors for review and adoption the Redevelopment Plan
(the "Plan" ) for the Project Area Redevelopment Project (the
"Project") . The Plan consists of thirty-two (32) pages, two
(2) maps, and one (1) exhibit and is incorporated in this -
Ordinance by this reference. A copy of the Plan is on file
with the Clerk of the Board.
The East County Regional Planning Commission, which is
the duly designated and acting official planning body of
Contra Costa County, has submitted to the Board of Supervisors
its report and recommendation dated December 14 , 1987 recommending
-1-
'1-`
approval and adoption of the Plan and has certified that the
Plan conforms to the General Plan for the County. The Board
of Supervisors accepted the recommendations and certification
of the Planning Commission.
The Plan for the Project Area prescribes certain land
uses for the Area and may require, among other things , changes
in zoning, the vacating and removal of streets of record and
other public rights of way, and the establishment of new
street patterns, the location of sewers , water mains, lighting
and utility lines and other public facilities.
The Agency has prepared and submitted and the Board of
Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Report on the Plan
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33352 .
The Agency has prepared and submitted to the Board of
Supervisors a program for the relocation of individuals and
families that may be displaced as a result of implementing the
Plan.
The Board of Supervisors is cognizant of the conditions
that are imposed in the undertaking and implementation of
redevelopment projects under State law, including those
prohibiting discrimination because of race, color, creed,
religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
The Agency has prepared and submitted to the Board of
Supervisors for review and certification an Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR" ) prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended ("CEQA") , the
Official State Guidelines as amended for the implementation of
the Act (the "State EIR Guidelines") , and the Contra Costa
County Guidelines for Administering CEQA (the "County
Guidelines") . A copy of the EIR is on file with the Clerk of
the Board.
By concurrent resolution adopted prior to the adoption of
this Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors and Agency have
certified that the EIR has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and the County Guidelines;
that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of
the Project and the Plan; and that the Board of Supervisors
and the Agency have reviewed and considered the information
contained in the EIR prior to approving the Project and the
Plan. The concurrent resolution also identifies the
significant effects of the Project and the Plan, adopts
mitigation measures, and makes certain findings and statements
in compliance with Sections 15091 , 15092, and 15093 of the
State EIR Guidelines.
Prior to adoption of the Plan, the Board of Supervisors
and the Agency have conducted a joint public hearing which was
duly noticed in accordance with the requirements of the
California Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et.seq. (hereinafter referred to
as the "Redevelopment Law") .
Section II . Findings & Determinations
Based upon the evidence contained in the Report on the
Plan, the EIR, and other documents prepared in the Plan
adoption process and on evidence presented at the public
hearing, it is hereby found and determined that:
a. The Project Area is a blighted area, the
redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public
purposes declared .in, and it qualifies as an eligible area
under, Redevelopment Law; and the Project Area constitutes a
-2-
87-102
ti
designated blighted area within the meaning of
Section 144 (c) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
b. The Plan conforms to the General Plan of Contra Costa
County.
C. The Plan would redevelop the Project Area in
conformity with the Redevelopment Law and would be in the
interest of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and
the implementation of the Plan would promote the public peace,
health, safety and welfare of Contra Costa County, and would
effectuate the purposes and policy of the Redevelopment Law.
d. The adoption and implementation of the Plan is
economically sound and feasible.
e. The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent
with the sound needs of Contra Costa County, as a whole , for
the redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise.
f. The Plan and the program for the proper relocation of
individuals and families , if any, displaced in carrying out
the Plan in decent, safe , and sanitary dwellings in conformity
with acceptable standards (as set forth in Part IV of the
Report on the Plan) are feasible and can be reasonably and
timely effected to permit the proper prosecution and
completion of the Plan; and such dwellings or dwelling units
available or to be made available to such displaced
individuals and families are at least equal in number to the
number of displaced individuals and families, are not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
public and commercial facilities than the dwellings of the
displaced individuals and families in the Project Area, are
available at rents or prices within the financial means of the
displaced individuals and families , and are reasonably
accessible to their places of employment.
g. The Board of Supervisors is satisfied that permanent
housing facilities will be available within three years from
the time occupants of the Project Area, if any, are displaced
and that pending the development of such facilities there will
be available to such displaced occupants housing facilities at
rents comparable to those in the community at the time of
their displacement.
h. The Project Area contains property suitable for low
and moderate-income housing.
i. The Project Area includes approximately 1550.. acres,
and there are no noncontiguous areas contained in the Project
Area.
j . The inclusion of any lands , buildings, or
improvements which are not detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare are necessary for the effective
redevelopment of the Project Area of which they are a part and
are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation
of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section
33670 without other substantial justification for their
inclusion.
k. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation
of the Plan hereby approved and adopted, certain official
action must be taken by this Board of Supervisors with
reference, among other things, to changes or modifications in
zoning, the vacation and removal of streets, alleys, and other
public ways, the establishment of new street patterns, the
location of sewer and water mains, lighting and utility lines
and other public facilities and other public action, and
-3-
87-102
accordingly, this Board hereby (i) pledges its cooperation in
helping to implement the Plan; (ii) requests the various
officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the County
having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area
likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their
respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with
the Plan; (iii) stands ready to consider and take appropriate
action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the
Plan; and (iv) intends to undertake and complete any
proceedings necessary to be implemented by the community under
the provisions of the Plan.
1. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of
the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the
aid and assistance of the Agency.
m. The condemnation of real property is necessary to the
execution of the Plan and adequate provisions have been made
for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law.
n. The Agency has agreed to enter into a fiscal
agreement with the Riverview Fire Protection District
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401 (b) (the
"Fiscal Agreement") . The effect of tax increment financing,
as mitigated by the Fiscal Agreement, will not cause
significant financial burden on or detriment to any taxing
agency deriving revenues from the tax increment Project Area.
o. The development of the public improvements set forth
in the Plan are of benefit to the Project Area and to the
immediate neighborhood in which the Project is located; no
other reasonable means of financing such improvements are
available to the community; and, based on these findings, the
Agency is authorized to pay all or a part of the value of the
land for and the cost of the installation and construction of
the public improvements set forth in the Plan, as permitted by
Health and Safety Code Section 33445, and as limited by the
implementation guidelines for the use of redevelopment funds
set forth in the Plan.
p. The Designation Percentage (as hereinafter defined)
of the Project Area, when added to the Designation Percentage
of all other County redevelopment project areas, does not
exceed twenty percent. For purposes of this subsection,
Designation Percentage means the percentage (as of the date of
this Ordinance) which the assessed value of real property
located in the Project Area is of the total assessed value of
all real property located within the unincorporated portion of
Contra Costa County.
Section III . Overruling of Objections
All written and oral objections to the Plan are hereby
overruled.
Section IV. Approval of Plan
The Plan for the Project Area, having been duly received
and considered, is approved and adopted, and the Clerk of the
Board is hereby directed to file a copy of the Plan with the
minutes of this meeting. The Plan, which contains, among
other elements, the statement of the purpose and intent of the
Board of Supervisors with respect to the Project Area, is
incorporated in this Ordinance by reference. The Plan is
hereby designated as the official Redevelopment Plan for the
Project Area. It is the purpose and intent of this Board that
the Plan be implemented in the Project Area.
-4-
87-102
A copy of this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the
Agency and the Agency is vested with the responsibility of
implementing the Plan.
Section V. Effective v&ce
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from
the date of its passage and adoption. Before the expiration
of fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, this
Ordinance shall be published once in the Pittsburg Post
Dispatch, a newspaper of general circulation published and
printed in Contra Costa County.
Passed on December 29, 1987 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Schroder and McPeak
ABSTAIN: None
ATTESTED: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK
1'4s
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND BOARD CHAIR
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR (seal)
BCLo
Y
Deputy
12/16/87
ORD/B32007
87-102