HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12211989 - 2.6 - 2.6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on December 21, 198 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 89/811
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING
WRITTEN. FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE
OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 .
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra
Costa (the "Agency" ) has prepared and submitted to the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa (the "Board" ) , for the
Board' s consideration, the Oakley Redevelopment Plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan" ) ; and
WHEREAS, in connection with consideration of the
Redevelopment Plan, the Board and the Agency conducted and
completed a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 1989,
pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section
33355; and
WHEREAS, at or prior to the joint public hearing, the Board
and the Agency received certain written objections. to the
Redevelopment Plan, which written objections are set forth in
Part II of that certain document entitled "Oakley Redevelopment
Plan: Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 3336311, which document is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference,
and hereinafter referred to as the "Findings" ; and
WHEREAS, Part III of the Findings contains the Board' s and
Agency' s written findings and responses to the above-described
written objections , which written findings and responses have
been prepared and considered by the Board and the Agency in
connection with consideration of adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan, all in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety
Code Section 33363 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby finds
and certifies that the. Findings have been prepared in compliance
with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363 ;
that the Findings adequately address the written objections
received by the Board and the Agency in connection with the
Redevelopment Plan; and that the Board has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Findings prior to
approving the Redevelopment Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Findings set forth in the
attached Exhibit A are hereby approved and adopted as, and shall
constitute, the written findings and responses of the Board as
required by Health and Safety Code Section 33363 .
#B027/B32009
1 hereby certify that this Is a Uue and oormd eW of
cc: Redevelopment an action taken and entered on the minUM of the
Community Development Board of Su sor°on th date shown.
County Administrator ATTESTED: e,p�P—� -� II
Auditor—Contro 1 ler PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
County Counsel
Supe and CounAdministrator
89/811 BY 'N°�
EXHIBIT A
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES PURSUANT
TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DECEMBER 21 , 1989
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION.
I . PURPOSE
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") has prepared, and the Board of Supervisors of Contra
Costa County (the "Board .of Supervisors" ) is considering for
adoptiorr, the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakley
Redevelopment Project` (the "Redevelopment Plan" ) . On December
12, 1989, the Agency and the Board of Supervisors conducted
and completed a duly noticed joint public hearing on the
Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the requirements of
Health and Safety Code Section 33355 . At or prior to the
joint public hearing, the Agency and the Board of Supervisors
received certain written objections to the Redevelopment
Plan. Those written objections are set forth in Part II of
this document.
Health and Safety Code Section 33363 states :
At the hour set in the notice required by Section
33361 for hearing objections, the legislative body
shall proceed to hear all written and oral
objections . Before adopting the redevelopment plan
the legislative body shall evaluate the report of the
agency, the report and recommendation of the project
area committee, and all evidence and testimony for and
against the adoption of the plan and shall evaluate
the report of the agency, the report and
recommendation of the project area committee, and' all
evidence and testimony for and against the adoption
of the plan and shall make written findings in
response to each written objection of an affected
property owner or taxing entity. The legislative
body shall respond in writing to the written
objections received before or at the noticed hearing,
including any extensions thereof, and may
additionally respond to written objections that are
received after the hearing. The written responses
shall describe the disposition of the issues raised.
The legislative body shall address the written
objections in detail , giving reasons for not
accepting specified objections and suggestions. The
legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned
analysis in its response and, for this purpose,
conclusionary statements unsupported by factual
information shall not suffice.
This document constitutes the written findings and
responses of the Board of Supervisors, as the legislative body
of Contra Costa County, prepared and adopted in accordance
with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section
33363. Specifically, Part III below contains the Board of
Supervisors ' written findings and responses to the various
written objections set forth in Part II .
-2-
Each substantive comment or objection in Part II has been
assigned a reference identification number in the margin next
to the comment or objection. The Board of Supervisors '
written findings and responses to each substantive comment or
objection are set forth and organized in Part III according to
those reference identification numbers.
Finally, Part IV below addresses comments received as
part of the Environmental Impact Report process and the Fiscal
Review Committee process for the Redevelopment Plan.
II . WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan were
received from the following persons and entities :
A. Jack Matlock December 8, 1989
Matlock and Associates on December 12 , 1989
behalf of Liberty Union High
School District, Oakley School
District and Brentwood School
District
B. Philip D. White December 12, 1989
Superintendent, Liberty Union
High School District
C. Frank J. Hengel December 12, 1989
Superintendent, Oakley Union
School District
D. Joel Keller, Mayor December 12 , 1989
City of Antioch
E. Jim Cutler, LAFCO October 4, 1989
F. Sierra Club October 19, 1989
The written objections are set forth in their entirety on
the following pages .
In addition, 6 letters of comment were received by the
Board of Supervisors at the public hearing regarding the
Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan. These comments
do not relate to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
Therefore, the Board of Supervisors , pursuant to Health and
Safety Codes Section 33363 is not required to make any written
findings regarding these comments .
-3-
e 4156461309
_ I, CG- 11 - 69 MON 0 : 24 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - •'--_-:_P :.4_s---'•
TEL No. Nov.27, 0 23:20 P .02
• AbtwaroCk XMD XSSOt"To ES
(7 4) 464-2491 .
December 8, 1989
Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency
ATTN: Jerry Rayeraft
VIA rAX 615 666-1309
Aear Jerry:
I have reviewed your fAX of December 7th wherein you do not feel
inclined to reach a compromise on a pass thru agreement. We strongly
A-10 believe that the districts should recaive an even greater share than
the 40% which we originally proposed. • However •we were and still are
willing to compromise at •30t plus the 2=.
The districts believe the project has vulnerabilities with regarding
to blight findings and we do not wish to be the agency which pointe
A-1 these out - thus opening the legal challenge to any and all concerned.
However your position is leaving "us no choice but to appear at the Dec
:2th meeting to speak in opposition. We hoped this could be avoided.
we Will forward material by PAX on Monday. Superintendents from the
districts will attend the public sweting in order to register our
concerns and to request that•a video be entered into the record.
we will also forward the required resolutions regarding the 2%.
However as you agreeds there will be no refusal on your part to
consider them valid should they arrive after the adoption of the
project.
Thank you for your continued. consideration.
S3 cerel�l'
ack Matlock
rAX 714 651-5106
ILL I4V �vl, .. 1 - .-4- r •'. .
_ MA6rMCj( XvE) ASSOClAOSs
• Ce.e o ay AA444" d Caaisk"b rvr &fool Vidrku
(714) 454-2491 •
RECEI ]ED
December 12, 1989
Contra Costa County DEC 13.
Redevelopment Agency cAo�w651 Pine Street �0 NTRACOSTMartinez , CA 94553 ti •Gi....._
RE: Proposed Oackley
Redevelopment Project
On behalf of our clients, the Liberty Union High School District,
the Oakley School District and the Brentwood School District, we
wish to include the following remarks into the public record for
the subject redevelopment project. In addition, we ask that our
A-1 report to the fiscal review committee, dated December 7, 1989 be
included in the public record. We also request that the record
include a video of the proposed area which the districts have
produced and which will be forwarded to agency staff under
separate cover. This video will establish that certain
properties have been included in the project which are not
blighted within the meaning of redevelopment law.
The districts are local agencies having both the responsibility
and expertise to provide public school services to residents and
taxpayers in the County of Contra Costa . We believe that there
will be fiscal burden and detriment to the Districts caused by
the project generating a demand for additional services which are
or will be beyond the ability of the Districts to finance. The
Implementation of the proposed project will create the need for
A-2 additional student housing at a time when district facilities are
already overcrowded and in need of rehabilitation.
We have stet on several occassions with county and agency staff to
discuss the impacts• of the proposed project on the districts.
The districts contend that accelerated growth will occur as a
result of redevelopment. Growth begets growth. Buildings to
house this new student growth is not included in the project.
Neither is funding to rehabilitate existing buildings. Buildings
within the districts are in serious need of rehabilitation and
will further deteriorate over the 40 year life of the project.
The clear intent of the legislature is to include schools in
redevelopment regardless of impacts. The following is quoted
from • Section 33250 of the Health and Safety Code which stresses
the need for educational facilities as s specific category of
public need.
"The legislature further finds and declares that there is a
serious need throughout the state for adequate educational
recreational, cultural and other community facilit est,theta k
of which threatens and adversely affects the health, safety ,
morals and welfare of the people of this state" .
TEL No . No5 .4- F- .n'
It seems apparent tht law intends that the agency has a
responsibility to in.:lude school needs as a part of the
redeveloment plan. Otherwise why would the state be willing to
assume a major part of redevelopment expense?
A-2
The proposed project is designed to revitalize existing
neighborhoods, expand available housing, increase employment
opportunity and to increase commercial and industrial
development. Directly and indirectly, it will create normal
housing growth as well as low and moderate income housing growth.
It is to be noted that the plan proposes to spend 20 t of the tax
increment for low and mDderate income housing development thereby
causing additional studeits to impact district schools.
The agency does not include a specific plan which identifies new
facilities, reconstruction, or jobs that will be created as a
result of the agency project. Therefore the Districts have not
been provided with sufficient specificity, as required by the
A-3 Health 6 Safety Code, to evaluate the impacts which will occur
over the 40 year life of the plan. As you know, an accurate,
stable and finite project description is an indispensable
requisite of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. (See
County of Inyo v City of Los Angeles, ( 1977) 71 Cal App 3rd 185,
193 and Title 14 of the California Administrative Code,
hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines" Section 15124)
The Plan does not .consider the cumulative impacts of the project
and other development in the area on district programs and
students. Although there will be additional development activity
In the County and in the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, no
analysis of potential development projects or consideration of
the impacts they may have on the districts have been included.
Both reasonably anticipated future projects and related
unapproved projects currently under environmental review must be
A-4 discussed. (See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v City and
County of San Francisco ( 1984) 151 Cal. App. 3rd 61, and
Guidelines Section 15130. ) The districts have made comment on
these cumulative secondary impacts in their report to the fiscal
review committee.
[—:
here is no discussion in the ziR or the social e1fe_ct on people
A-5 r groups of people, including students, resulting from the
rbanizing of their living environment. (See Christward Ministry
Superior Court ( 1986) 164 Cal App 180.
The agency does not address the use of assessment districts as an
alternative to the use of tax increment financings thus the
'10,-6 commercial interests, which will benefit from the projects being
proposed, will receive taxpayer support rather than paying for
needed improvements. The agency plan does mention that gas tax
funds will be used to fund street improvements. However no
schedule is included which would allow the districts to estimate
how the use of such funds would lessen or eliminate the adverse
Impact of diverting tax increment from the districts to the
TEL F. N 3.0 1` •4J F .�1a
No mention has been made of the need for adult education nor
other new worker skills within the project, yet the Liberty
district must serve the adult population as well as the K-12
�'7 students. The direct result of creating new jobs and residences
will be additional adult students who will look to the Liberty
High School District for adult education and job skill programs.
We have concluded that the redevelopment plan is generally
intended to facilitate the original development of land and
property which is not . blighted but simply underdeveloped or
undeveloped at the present time. We have concluded that
Insufficient evidence hag been presented to show that the
physical, social and economic conditions existing in the project
area are such that they cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone . The
following quotation is from Section 33220. 2 of the Health and
Safety Code and prohibits the inclusion of property simply to
capture tax increment.
A-8 "An unblighted, noncontiguous area shall be deemed not
necessary : for effective redevelopment if such an area is included
for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from such
area ---"
This section has been interpreted to mean "To establish proposed
redevelopment to be blighted, it is not sufficient merely to show
that the area is not being put to its optimum use or that land is
more valuable for ° other usest public agencies and courts should
be chary of the use of redevelopment act unless there is a
situation where blight is such that it constitutes real hindrance
to developmont of the city and cannot be eliminated or improved
without public assistance". Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn v City
of National City (1976) 233 Cal Rptr, 859, 555 P. 2nd 1099, 18
C2nd 270. "
Redevelopment is simply not intended for the purpose of financing
public improvements which can be remedied by private or
governmental action without redevelopment. We must conclude that
the primary purpose of this project is to capture the Districts '
tax increment in order to create incentives for private
enterprise. We believe that the proposed Lucky shopping center
is . sn example of how tax increment will be captured under the
guise of redevelopment when in fact, the shopping center. does not
need nor qualify for tax increment assistance, 'has no qualifing
blight and should not be included in the project.
Many redevelopment agencies contend that there "is no fiscal
burden or detriment to the Districts in the belief that any local
A-9 tax which may be diverted to the Agency will be "evade up" by the
State of California . This is not so and represents a
misunderstanding of the financing mechanisms behind public
education.
A review of the current state budget will easily attest to the
lack of a guaranteed funding source for California school
districts especially with regard to new housing and
rehabilitation of existing housing. The proposed plan also does
not consider that the State of California does not fully fund
special education, food services, student transportation,
deferred maintenance, adult education, and migrant, education as
well as the general operating fund of the districts. The plan
contends that the project will not impact the current finances of
A-9 the district whereas the districts contend that additional
students and jobs will create a significant financial impact on
the districts especially 'in terms of housing of students. The
districts have supplied the agency with reasonable estimates of
the number of new jobs being created, the corresponding number of
new housing units expected to be built and the resultant number
of new students who will require student housing.
The districts are therefore being placed in the position of
anti-redevelopment and anti-growth unless they have a firm
committment to assist with the capital facilities needs to house
additional students arriving in the districts.
The agency states that schools are levying developer fees in
order to build new schools as an answer to the growth problem.
Just as the county cannot fund its capital needs from developer
fees, neither can the districts. The developer fee of $ 1.56/sq.
ft. of residential housing and .25/ft for commercial and
industrial covers ' less that 25% of the cost of permanent
construction. This raises the question "Should students be
expected to go to school in portable classrooms while school tax
monies are being spent to promote more housing and commercial
interests?"
The project will generate approximately $184 million dollars with
only a 6-7t growth rate even though the true growth rate, for at
least 10-1S years, will most likely be 10% or more. The plan
requires approximately $120 million to fully fund the proposed
agency projects. We believe that a substantial eommittment to
area schools could be made without encroachment on agency
programs.
Finally, if the project area is blighted within the meaning of
redevelopment lav, then the lack of public school facilities to
serve the community is also a blighting condition. Communities
cannot have the best roads, the best parks and the best public
facilities and leave out the schools . Schools need to be
A-10 provided if a community is to be totally free of blight.
In the absence of a fair and equitable pass thru agreement, the
districts are placed in the position of opposition to the
project.
. TEL No . Nc,,. ,-.0 - !) 15 :45 F .,Jl:.
We do trot understand how the. agency can justify diverting over
$81 . 5 million dollars of school tax increement to the agency and
only want to allocate 15.3 million back for school projects. We
do not believe it is fair and equitable for the agency to derive
over 44 8 of the total agency funding from school taxes and only
wish to return less than 9% to the schools.
We do not believe tha agency should spend public school tax
monies to assist other private and public agencies in developing
the county at a time when new schools are badly needed or when
rehabilitation of existing schools is required.
A-10 We believe that if this plan is adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors, the age-icy should mitigate these impacts by
providing a capital source which could be used to construct new
facilities, rehabilitate existing facilities, purchase new school
sites and otherwise assist the districts in providing for this
expected student growth.
We will be happy to continue to meet with agency representatives
to arrive at a reasonable method of mitigation.
Singly,
Jack Ma tloY
f
850 Second Sheet, dunttood, CaGi jouid 94513 (415) 634-1166
December 12, 1989
RECEIVED
Contra Costa County DEC 12 1969
Redevelopment Agency
651 Pine Street 0%saw w,k e/t ow
Martinez, CA 94553 oo A
RE: Public Hearings On the Adoption of
the Oakley Redevelopment Plan
Dear Members of the Agency Board:
I am Phil White, Superintendent of the Ia'berty Union High School District, and I am here
today to speak on behalf of the parents and students.
We believe that our district will be financially impacted by the proposed project due to
additional growth requiring new classrooms and rehabilitation of essting ones. We believe
the agency should be as eager to assist the schools in developing the community as it is
in building new roads. We further believe that the citizens place a high priority on schools
B-1 - at least a priority equal to that of assisting private enterprise to develop commercial and
industrial projects.
We hope that the agency will direct staff to resume negotiations with the districts which
will address our concerns.
Sincerely,
� ,6'�
Philip . White •
Superintendent
PDW:dd
ff, -------------- --------- --
Y uyo�
i • THE BEST AND GE77ING BETTER
c
�� .•J ' r'OST OFFICEeOX 7
G OAZEY.GILIFORNIA 94561
D15,S�, tan 62"Vo
12 December 1989
RECEIVED
Contra Costa County DEC IX, 1989
Redevelopment Agency
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553 Maoi""�
01 TA Cp�S
Re: Public Hearings on the Adoption ofr
the Oakley Redevelopment Pion
Dear Members of the Redevelopment Agency Board:
/ am Frank Hengel, Superintendent of the Oakley Union Elementary School District,
and I am here today to speak on beholf of the parents and students.
We believe that our District will be financially Impacted by the proposed project.
We believe that the project is designed to promote growth by creating new jobs and
expanding housing - both will cause new students to be added to our District. We do
not hove financial resources to build new classrooms nor to rehabilitate existing ones.
We cannot depend on the State to fund student housing because there are no State
funds available.
C-1
We are of the opinion that unless a foir and equitable agreement can be reached with
the agency which will provide a source of funding for capital facilities, we must be
In opposition to the plan. We would, however, like to point out that we are not anti-
redevelopment or anti-growth. We simply are pro students and we must speak out
In their behalf.
We hope to resume negotiations with the agency which will address our concerns.
very truly yours,
T�
Fronk J. He I
Superintendent
FJH/o
cc: W. Bristow, Brentwood Union School District
J. Matlock, Matlock and Associates
P. White, Liberty Union High School District
BUSINESS OFFICE OAKLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL GEHRINGER SCHOOL
(41 S) 625-2249 (41 S) 625-2281 (41 S) 625-2293
il 1:•'f e 1 :•11 ':I TY OF Ah IT 10:H CSU: t
A!V I I OCP CA y�r)oU
-(415—) -7778-0b9 .CITY HALL THIRD AND 11 PO 130
- December 12 , 1989
Attn: Tom Torlakson
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DOARD Or SUPERVISORS
300 R. Leland Avenue, Suite 100
Pittsburg CA 94565
Dear Members of. the Board: • .
As a follow up to our discussion with Supervisor Torlakson re-
garding the Oakley General Plan and Redevelopment Plan hearing,
please be advised that we support the Last County Regional Plan-
ning Commission recommendation and we understand that the recom-
�ondation is to delete the area within Antioch's sphere of
influence from the Oakley planning area and proposed redevelopment
area.
D-1 9t is gay understanding that Supervisor Torlakson will support
Antioch's concerns. We would like to be in attendance at this
hearing, but unfortunately, it falls on thu same day as our City
Council vaeetinq. if there is any concern over the Last County
Regional Planning Commission recoemendation and the City of
Antioch's position, we would appreciate a continuance of the bear-
4ng to a day when our staff and elected officials would be avail-
able. We would like to point out that we have no objection to the
balance of the plan and proposed project area that is outside of
the City of Antioch's sphere of influence.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
cerely,
MAYOR JOEL FELLER
JX/ds e
f
DEC MM9
Nil .
LAFCO
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION McBrien Administration Building,Eighth Floor
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pint Street,Marlintz,CA 945S3
Teltphone (415) 646-4090
October 4, 1989 0"Ey E.MANSFIELO
EXECLMYE C>FFCLR
TO; jean G. Mesick, chief
Land Development 4< M C-1)
From. Jim Cutler
LAFCO Planning Advisor
Subject: Oakley-North Brentwood GPA Draft EIR
Thank you for the opportunity to review the
aforementioned Draft EIR. The document covers many issues
of concern to LAFCO; however, there are other subject areas
which require additional discussion.
our memo in response to the County's Notice of
Preparation asks that the document address any impacts this
project might have on the East Contra Costa Irrigation
District. if development is proposed on areas concurrently
in that District and receiving irrigation water, is
detachment from the Irrigation District anticipated
concurrently with annexation to the Oakley Water District?
Will this have any secondary impacts on the lands within the
District and on the District itself?
Pages 36-38 and figure 6 deal with growth management
and discuss "development status categories." The Draft EIR
fails to make clear how this Proposal will utilize these
categories. Will the "developing urban" category need to be
largely developed prior to the County (or LAFCO) considering
applications .1n "future urban" areas? The text of pages
48-49 doesn't add to the discussion of how this concept
works. It should be noted that there are substantial
inconsistencies between the eastern portion of this figure
and the draft plan map shown on figure Z. If the proposed
mitigation measures on land use change are adopted to keep
additional land agricultural, will the proposed urban
districts' spheres of influence be modified accordingly?
Mitigation measure B9 on page 56 does not recommend
intensification of the gontractors' yard. Should LAFCO
spheres of influence be amended to delete this area, if the
County adopts this measure?
Figure 4 shows A Proposed city sphere of influence
change which would make SR 160 the boundary between Antioch
and Oakley. Part of this area in within a County
redevelopment agency. Are there any redevelopment laws
pobr.ry Fsbde-k Cownt supe'vosw-thaft L"Phrow.Come"#Coy C"WO
Imo*MCNOYNOU Member-Too Torbkv04 Cff4mP Sabot-War-Qvir It Vdkeft&L&16W'u Coy Co-owd
X Wk Htyftmo,AharMsr,loa IL&Ihoft Coy C0~4 r 0"M"d~Klk AbMMK.Nbbe Member.R&MM Sehleftf,Afterftit,Cao"17 S.0-
-
2
which regulate Antioch's land use options, should the City
annex into an established redevelopment agency? The
B-1 discussions and mitigation on pages 56-57 don't clarify how
redevelopment law would affect annexation of this area into
Antioch.
OThe agricultural land discussions on pages 86 through
93 focus on the relationship between proposed land uses with
prime agricultural soils. LAFCO legislation requires
discussion of the conversion of agricultural lands,
including non-prime soils, to other than open space purposes
(see our scoping memo) . Figure 7 (view AI clearly shows
that this is an existing agricultural area and the Final EIR
should map those areas which are still in agricultural
production. The discussion needs to focus on what impact
the conversion from agriculture to urbanization of 2,600
acres south of Laurel Road will have on production in the
area. How will development in that area be phased? Are
there u-pick agricultural operations in this area? What is
the location of the proposed "green way" discussed on page
927 Are mitigation measures available to create such a
green way?
Qg It is suggested on page 96 that an agency be established
to provide park and recreation services. For what geographic
area is that suggested? Is a County Service Area or other
type agency proposed?
Figure 13 shows major wetland areas which infringe into
planned urban land uses on figure 2. Modifying the land use
plan map for portions of the DuPont lands from industry to
agriculture is suggested on page 141. I couldn't find a
mitioation measure which specifiCallY urged such a change or
for modifying the land use plan on other properties to reflect
wetlands. This should be considered as a mitigation measure.
Page 200 states "LAFCO should tie future annexation
approvals to increases in regional road capacities for cities
where development approvals prevent achievement of the
capacity • based on growth quotas in Table 26." This
proposal, and its legality, is not clear and needs to be
discussed more fully in the final EIR.
0The Final. HIR needs to discuss the issue of using leased
land for land sewage disposal (page 238). Flow long are the
leases7 what potential is there for new units to be built
and then the leases are lost? Would the future homeowners
then be required to pay for other disposal options or buying
other lands? flow can leased lands be considered "permanent
sewage Capacity?"
QThe fire protection discussion references the potential
need to convert from volunteer to paid staff, yet no mitigation
measures are listed to deal with this issue. Are there no
potential mitigations available?
JWC:th
cc: LAFCO Commissioners
Dewey E. Mansfield
zi
' CQ?,7�a 4r5T4
za Pt) tie
cit•
SIERRA
vCLUB6
Sanf—ciuo,Csti(Otnit94909 41S'77
r
amu.•+-� L�=�. l+� 6•L c{--Qg EG +�, .�t`nau1�
--
_SPect Cr
�tctr.j �.e.cr Joe Ct#
_6NO
Yt'{' _ .'_` .'�...
LIZ
t fie.R► i�.ce,� -G�.t nr.es n.`f- Cc L,ot --
.� L s o LA..t col a. - cz., n 4t,) p to v_....
rN'ti"l I'%Q
O N f3 A.C,.P i A-S P 4-a a rl
tit., ad-al ell.ev-%
qr
Ct ,Gr�e�� a�.,► �a C'�nrAA.� P avid aR�•�tS,P_�;_
L-L �-� CL Co
(�- • 77�c.�. �cid s.a.d �r� � �e�`�- �,� � �.e...-_-__
is t - -r-r,.�t t.�.� c.uz t z *�► _
',.a. T:>r" Co u.+*.
�, lit N • (19.a Q,p��G�d'r• W1,�'�'t Q, �-ch�. W,.�t.S�•'s.CS'
1-%crL Lo
fey .
: s
tel
U LCL 14
Ott
Joe
e
c:'I•e lave 1`•e 7!' �f
944
r al w s a Ptd_S Itc &'a
.. y1A`�- 5acu�eS . /
07� 7L
71
!_ tis• -- -
__
_ t y of,mak•` •crM S ' '... - ' cc1��E'r�- .
W,4 't7 +rA e5 *WYe
Co
------------------- ----- --
-------------------
-------------
--
_ ��::__ .C�ti .•._ . .��� .�:��-�� gid� ��/.�._��� --
. (
1 &-5`t 5 p-e a l es h e v-4,xq t it l 1
.7
GJ�/1. �-f �-(,.¢ CSN r� A Com-P a,r-e-a S lw u ec�
f cWel-P'<n4,.2v1 7"" D
zo
- r�GwL� c �S• s�Sss��✓1
co
44
-------------------- - ------------ - ------------------------------------ -----
r._. _ - • ( fir.
//(.
A-0
(�-� �. 1�- . t,�, to A"�`' ,� �•.�--� .�-.e.C,7 C.��xr- ��
4- .-sz,
a Yu
a'Jj
ry e C-- Y c&,i., 4e- tea.
41
- -- -------- ----------------------------------------------- -------------------------
int:K`r.
i/!'
rl
45
_ - - ,r,,l�. ._��-'�'��� ..... ._._}x"72 �• -c���-�u-SS��� c�'�
Lo
47 5
45
ac-
..� . `�= . ..'� 1�r-F.z� ,�� �l_ �.•�.e. mss" ..� � �..Q--
.
t o v&/Cly t c.L,, u
• G *1ure-
;S.L kx
io ..
F-� ` . '•'�.- -Lv c L -. ' �' _ .rte u,p.Gd,Po A;
cin c..
Aa)
Cc�Yr S��t� vtY D r
dlel-�-ed ref"b7mv
42,r fro C/
Go
Ct n le 40 .1,A Jel_ P4 5;,r i-o ex�
� �5 q ��d� �� ��Glc �1� H.► � . �-7
w �t `yrs
o sr
_ _ s leeslet e4 e et 15 0--�
�s
__________________________________________________ ________ _ ____________ ______________________________
..__. _. � �� `ZZs �' 1�2-i �5��"S � 7�•�x�z
13 r �✓�// .�} � G i�c��•r�c.r.'ea'S�c', t��ZrLP_. �-�tZ- f � -
- 't'S _ (} �? c.•�.+., !.�../ ria�C'• rx of CIO IL
- 4c&.-7, Ap
._ Q�L,',�-G".,L1.�5�
------------------------------ - ----- ------- - - - - ---------------------------------------------------
III . WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
A-1 Comment: The comment requests that the Agency include
the School Districts ' report to the Fiscal Review
Committee in the public record as well as a video to be
presented to establish that not all parcels in the
Project Area are blighted.
Response: The School Districts ' report to the Fiscal
Review Committee have been incorporated into the Report
on the Redevelopment Plan along with the Agency' s
response to this report. Thus, this report is already
part of the public record. The School Districts ' have
not presented the Agency with the promised video so it is
not part of the public record. The School Districts
allege that the video would establish that not all
properties within the Project Area are blighted. Without
the video it is impossible to determine whether this can
be established; however, it should be noted that a
project area may include non-blighted parcels if such
parcels are necessary for effective redevelopment.
Health and Safety Code Section 33321 . In selecting the
boundaries for the Project Area the Agency not only
considered blighting influences in the area, but also
determined which parcels were necessary for inclusion in
the Project Area in order to effectively redevelop the
entire project area . Thus, some parcels which do not fit
the legal definition of blight may have been included in
the Project Area to ensure that redevelopment of the
Project Area would be successful .
Findings : Based on the foregoing the Board of
Supervisors finds and determines that the School
Districts ' objections regarding properties within the
Project Area not being blighted is without merit.
Further, the Board of Supervisors finds that all of the
information presented to the Board has been included in
the public record. The Board of Supervisors hereby
disposes of the above objections by overruling the
objections .
A-2 Comment: The comment expresses concern that the
School Districts ' will be impacted by the Redevelopment
Plan due to new growth expected to be generated by
redevelopment activities in the Project Area . The School
Districts contend that this new growth will impact
schools already overcrowded and in need of
rehabilitation. The School Districts ' note that one of
the stated legislative purposes for the creation of
redevelopment agencies is to ensure adequate school
facilities . The School Districts also contend that the
-4-
Redevelopment Plan will encourage housing development
which will increase school enrollment.
Response: The Redevelopment Plan is primarily designed
to stimulate industrial and commercial development in the
Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan was formulated in
res,ponse to development trends occurring in the area
surrounding the Project Area . The areas surrounding the
Project Area have been experiencing rapid residential
growth in response to the need for affordable housing in
the bay area. However, industrial and commercial growth,
which could provide jobs to people residing in the area,
has not followed this residential growth due to the lack
of infrastructive improvements in the area as well as
the need for large parcels of land to accommodate this
growth. Thus , while the area surrounding the Project
Area has developed, the Project Area has stagnated due to
the lack of public facilities necessary 'to accommodate
development.
The Redevelopment Plan is designed to encourage new
industrial and commercial development to provide jobs for
residents of the Oakley area . The Redevelopment Plan
is in response to a currently existing development
trend. This trend is impacting the schools and
contributing to overcrowded school facilities . The
Agency and the Board of Supervisors are in agreement with
the School Districts that their current facilities are in
need of rehabilitation. However, this need is one that
is currently existing rather than a need which will
result from the redevelopment project. As Table 39 of
the EIR indicates, the schools serving the Oakley area
are either near capacity or already exceed capacity.
Further, the EIR indicates that although buildout of
the Oakley area in accordance with the Oakley/North
Brentwood Area Plan is expected to impact the schools
significantly by adding new students to the area, the
Redevelopment Plan is not expected to create significant
school enrollment impacts . Thus , it is unlikely that the
Redevelopment Plan will significantly contribute to
increases in school enrollment and impact the schools .
The school districts also contend that the
Redevelopment Plan will indirectly or directly create new
housing growth including the development of low and
moderate income housing as mandated by state law. While
it is true that the Agency will spend 20% of its tax
increment revenue on low and moderate income housing
development, this fact does not mean that the Agency' s
activities will increase housing development in the
area. As stated above and as established in the EIR,
residential development will occur in the Oakley area
regardless of whether there is redevelopment. The
Redevelopment Plan will not increase this housing
-5-
development but rather will ensure that some of the
housing that is developed is affordable to low and
moderate income households by providing subsidies. Thus,
as stated above, the limited housing development expected
to occur due to the Redevelopment Plan is limited and is
not expected to significantly impact the schools .
Additionally, it is not expected that the
Redevelopment Plan will indirectly increase the demand
for housing in the area . Although the goal of the
Redevelopment Plan is to increase employment
opportunities in the Oakley area, the jobs to be
created are expected to go to existing residents in the
area in an effort to rectify an existing jobs/housing
imbalance. Although residential development is expected
to increase in the Oakley area over the next 20 years,
the development is in no way attributable to the
redevelopment project. The EIR finds that the
redevelopment program will have little or no impact on
housing and population in the area. The population
increases expected to occur under buildout of the
general plan would occur regardless of whether the
redevelopment project goes forward.
Although the Agency and the Board of Supervisors
dispute the contention that the schools will be impacted
by the redevelopment program, the Board of Supervisors
recognizes that the existing school facilities are in
need of rehabilitation. As the School Districts point
out, the lack of adequate educational facilities is a
blighting influence on the Project Area. In an effort to
remove this blighting influence, the Agency has included
in its redevelopment program funding for school
improvements. , Additionally, the Agency has offered to
Liberty Union High School District, Oakley Union School
District and Antioch School District to pass through to
these districts a portion of the Agency' s tax increment
revenue in an effort to improve the quality of
educational facilities available to Project Area
residents .
Findings: Based on the foregoing, the Board of
Supervisors finds and determines that adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan will not significantly impact the
School Districts . Additionally, the Board of Supervisors
finds and determines that in order to provide adequate
educational facilities to the Project Area it is
necessary to provide the School Districts with financial
assistance necessary to eliminate blighting influences .
The Board of Supervisors disposes of the objection by
overruling the objection.
A-3 Comment: The comment states that the Agency has failed
to prepare a specific project description to enable the
-6-
School Districts to accurately evaluate the impacts of
the Plan.
Response: The Agency has prepared a Redevelopment Plan
and a Report on the Plan which set forth the Agency' s
proposed program for the Project Area. These documents
set out specific activities that the Agency proposes to
undertake to eliminate blighting influences and encourage
new development in the Project Area . These activities
include specific road improvements, development of public
facilities including parks, school facilities and a
government center, infrastructure improvements including
drainage facilities, and promotion of commercial and
industrial development through land assembly and write
downs of land costs. The project activities will also
include assistance in development of low and moderate
income housing as mandated by State law. Although the
project activities are specified in the Plan, the Plan is
by necessity a flexible document. The Plan is designed
to serve as the guiding principals for redevelopment of
the Project Area for the forty year life of the Plan. By
its nature the Plan must provide the Agency with enough
flexibility to respond to changing circumstances which
will undoubtedly occur over the forty year life of the
Plan.
The inherent flexibility available to the Agency
under the Redevelopment Plan does not make the EIR
insufficient. The EIR is considered to be a program EIR
designed to analyze a program of activities rather than a
specific project as specified in Section 15168 of the
CEQA Guidelines . Additionally Section 15146 of the
Guidelines states that the degree of specificity required
in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity
involved in the underlying activity. "An EIR on a
construction project will necessarily be more detailed in
the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR
on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive
zoning ordinance" CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 . Thus,
the EIR, which analyzes the Redevelopment Plan with as
much specificity as is possible given the programmatic
nature of the Plan, is legally sufficient.
Finding: The Board of Supervisors finds and determines
based on the foregoing that the EIR is legally sufficient
and finds the objection is without merit. The objection
is hereby overruled.
A-4 Comment: The comment raised the objection that the
cumulative impacts of other development in the area was
not analyzed.
Response: Chapter 5 of the EIR prepared for the
Redevelopment Plan analyzes the cumulative impact of
-7-
various other project expected to occur outside the
Project Area in the future. The impact of these projects
on various aspects of the Oakley Area is analyzed.
According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines the
discussion of cumulative impacts need not provide as
great a detail as provided of the effects attributable to
the project itself. The discussion of cumulative impacts
in the EIR meets this standard by summarizing the
effects. The EIR provides an extensive list of the
present and reasonably anticipated future project which
were reviewed to determine these cumulative impacts as
required under CEQA.
Findings : The Board of Supervisors herby finds and
determines that cumulative impacts have been analyzed as
required by CEQA. Based on the foregoing the objection
is without merit and is hereby overruled.
A-5 Comment: The comment objects to the fact that there is
no discussion of social effect of the Project in the EIR.
Response: The EIR is not required to analyze social
effects. Rather Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines
provides that "Economic or social information may be
included in an EIR or may be presented in whatever form
the agency desires . " (emphasis added) . Section 15131
goes on to state that "Economic or social effects of a
project shall not be treated as significant effects on
the environment. " Thus, in no way does the EIR require
analysis of the social effect of the project.
Findings : The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
determines that the EIR need not discuss social effects .
Based on the foregoing, the objection is without merit
and is hereby overruled.
A-6 Comment: The comment expresses concern that the Agency
does not address the use of assessment districts an an
alternative to tax increment financing.
Responses : The Report on the Redevelopment Plan in Part
III .explores options for funding the project activities
other than tax increment financing. These options
include the use of assessment districts . Although
assessment districts may be used to fund some of the
project activities for the most part assessment districts
are inappropriate for the activities proposed.
Assessment districts are appropriate where the benefits
are of direct benefit to the property owners
participating. However, where the benefits of the
activities are more widespread and designed to impact the
community as a whole assessment districts are not
appropriate and may in fact not be legally valid.
-8-
The Agency may use gas tax funds to fund some of the
circulation improvements . If used these funds will make
up for any shortfall between the cost of the improvements
and the tax increment available. Thus, the use of gas
tax funds or other fund will not lessen or eliminate any
impact tax increment financing may have on the taxing
agencies since tax increment funds will still be used in
the same amount projected to meet project costs.
Findings: The Board of Supervisors finds and determines
that the above objection is without merit and the
objection is hereby overruled.
A-7 Comment: The comment concerns the fact that the
Redevelopment Plan and the EIR do not mention the impact
of the Plan on adult education.
Response: Although it is possible that the industrial
development proposed for the redevelopment area will
impact adult education, any discussion of this impact is
premature since the types and amount of industrial
development for the Project Area are unknown.
Additionally it is difficult to speculate as to this
impact since the provision of adult education is
voluntary on the part of the school districts . Thus, it
cannot be determined whether this development will have
any impact.
The Agency, in accommodating and encouraging
industrial development in the area intends to work with
employers to ensure that job training is provided by the
employers so that this burden will not fall on the school
districts . Finally, in the event that in the future when
the type and amount of industrial development for the
Project Area is determined the Agency will examine the
impacts of this development on the School districts. At
such a time that the impacts are not so speculative the
Agency may determine to assist the School Districts in an
effort to mitigate such impacts .
Findings : The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
determines based on the foregoing that the objection
is without merit and is hereby overruled.
A-8 Comment: The comment expresses concern that the Project
Area is not in need of redevelopment and that the private
sector alone can rectify any of the problems existing in
the Project Area.
Response: The Report on the Redevelopment Plan clearly
sets out the qualifications of the Project Area for
Redevelopment . The blighting influences that exist in
the Project Area include deteriorating and dilapidated
buildings, obsolete structures , lack of open space and
-9-
i
recreational facilities, inadequate parcelization and
the lack of public improvements. All of these blighting
influences are documented in Part II of the Report.
In addition to these blighting influences the Project
Area has experienced a lack of interest on the part of
the private sector which is both a cause and an effect of
the blighting influences in the area. While the rest of
the Oakley area has experienced a tremendous increase
in development the Project Area, the only area of
Oakley which has been previously developed has
stagnated. This stagnation is due in part to the high
cost of infrastructure necessary to develop the area.
This high cost has discouraged the development
community. Additionally, in order for the area to
develop land assembly will be necessary since many of the
existing parcels are misshapen or too small for
industrial development. In order for industrial
development to occur a private developer would be
required to acquire numerous parcels which most likely
would not be feasible without the Agency' s power of
eminent domain.
The Redevelopment Plan is not designed to merely pay
for public improvements. Rather, as discussed above, the
Plan is designed to encourage industrial development in a
stagnating area. The plan will also assist in
rehabilitating existing structures in order to improve
commercial and residential neighborhoods in the area.
Although some parcels of the Project Area are not
blighted this does not mean that the Project Area does
not qualify for redevelopment. The redevelopment law
provides that e project area need not be restricted to
blighted structures, but may include non-blighted parcels
or structures if necessary for effective redevelopment.
The Agency, in selecting the Project Area, selected an
area which overall was in need of redevelopment
assistance. Some non-blighted parcels such as the
Lucky' s Shopping Center site were included because
redevelopment of parcels surrounding these non-blighted
sites will impact the entire area. Additionally
development of non-blighted parcels impacts blighted
parcels by increasing the need for improvement . Thus in
order to develop an effective redevelopment program that
is able to remove the blighting influences in the Project '
Area it is necessary to include some non-blighted parcels.
Findings : The Board of Supervisors finds and
determines based on the foregoing that the above
objection is without merit and is hereby overruled.
A-9 Comment: The comment raises the issue that the State
- funding system for schools does not hold School Districts
-10-
harmless . Thus , the School Districts are impacted by the
redevelopment program.
Response: The State system of school financing ensures
that each school is funded to a minimum level by
providing a state subvention to make. up for any shortfall
in local property tax revenues available to schools .
This funding mechanism ensured that all school children
receive equal educational opportunities throughout the
State. Due to this funding system changes in property
tax revenues do not effect School Districts in the same
way as other taxing agencies . Fluctuations in property
taxes for the most part merely change the amount of the
state subvention.
The School Districts also express concern that the
State funding may not continue in the same fashion,
causing the districts to be impacted by property tax
revenue changes . However, the Board of Supervisors notes
that the trend in school financing in California is in
exactly the opposite direction; that is, toward statewide
and away from local funding of education. It was in
response to the mandate of the landmark Serranoy.
Priest court decision that the State legislature
instituted subvention in order to equalize revenues among
school districts throughout the State. Even if the
legislature desired to return to local funding of
education, the same Serrano decision would prevent
such a policy reversal . Finally, if these changes in
State law somehow were to occur, Part VII of the
Redevelopment Plan permits the Agency to make payments to
the School Districts at a later date to alleviate any
burden which may occur at such time.
The School Districts also express concern that the
State system of funding does not fund all of the schools '
costs associated with increased enrollment, in .particular
costs of new facilities. The Districts ' costs are in
part mitigated by their ability to collect development
fees . However, these fees do not cover the full cost of
new schools . The Board of Supervisors recognizes that an
increase in student enrollment will increase cost and
that the School Districts ' will not be made whole for the
costs from the State. However, as discussed above in
response to comment A-2 the redevelopment activities are
not expected to generate significant new student
enrollment since the Redevelopment Plan is designed to
encourage industrial development in order to promote a
jobs/housing balance in the Oakley area. Thus, the
redevelopment program will serve residents that will move
to Oakley regardless of whether the Redevelopment Plan
is adopted.
Although the Redevelopment Plan is not expected to
-11-
have a significant impact on the schools, the Agency, in
an effort to mitigate any impacts the Plan may have and
in order to promote quality educational benefits for
Project Area residents, has agreed to provide Liberty
Union High School District, Oakley Union School
District and Antioch Unified School District with
financial assistance to mitigate these impacts.
The Agency has determined that in order to provide
the School Districts with this financial assistance it is
necessary to increase the total amount of tax increment
that the Agency can collect over the life of the Plan.
Only with this increase will the Agency be able to
accomplish the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment
Plan and provide the schools with the necessary financial
assistance.
Findings : The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
determines that, based on the foregoing, the objection is
without merit and hereby overrules the objection.
A-10 Comment: The comment expresses concern that the lack
of adequate educational facilities in the Project Area is
a blighting influence that should be removed as part of
the redevelopment program. The issue of the percentage
of tax increment revenue to be shared with the School
Districts is also raised.
Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the
School Districts that the lack of adequate educational
facilities is a blighting influence in the Project Area.
In order to eliminate this blighting influence the Agency
has provided for school improvements as part of the
redevelopment project activities. In addition, the
Agency has proposed to provide Liberty Union' High School
District, Oakley Union High School District and
Antioch Unified School District with financial
assistance in the form of a pass through agreement. The
pass through agreement will provide these three districts
with over 16. 5 million dollars over the life of the
Plan. This sum of money will mitigate in full the
minimal impacts that the Redevelopment Plan will have on
the Schools. Since the Plan is not projected to
significantly increase school enrollment, a conclusion
supported by the EIR, $16. 5 million should be sufficient
to mitigate the schools impact.
Additionally, the School Districts will be entitled
to collect development fees on the industrial development
projected to occur due to Redevelopment. Given that
without redevelopment, this development would not occur
it is unlikely that the Districts would be able to
- collect these fees without redevelopment.
-12-
The School Districts state that the Redevelopment
Plan will divert over $81 .5 million in property tax
revenues from the schools. This figure is erroneous and
misleading. Although in total all of the school
districts that are considered taxing agencies within the
Project Area do cumulatively account for 44% of the
property tax dollars, three of these districts do not
ser-ve the Project Area and will in no way be impacted by
any new development in the Project Area. The three
school districts which directly serve the Project Area
account for 36% of the property- tax revenues in the
Project Area.
Additionally, under the state system of school
funding any "diversion" of property tax revenues from the
schools to the Agency will be made up by the State
subvention. Although the School Districts are correct
that the State subvention does not account for all school
costs, the costs that are not covered by the subvention
are also not funded by property tax revenue. Thus, the
"diversion" of property tax revenue will not impact the
schools funding for items not covered by the state
subvention.
Finally, to assume that this amount of property tax
revenue is being diverted from the schools assumes that
all of the development projected under the Redevelopment
Plan would occur without redevelopment. However, as
demonstrated in Part II of the Report on the Plan,
without redevelopment assistance it is unlikely that the
Project Area will develop. Rather the Project Area will
continue to stagnate as in the past. Thus, it is
doubtful that the schools or any other taxing agencies
would realize ,the growth in property tax revenues
projected to occur in the Redevelopment Plan.
Findings : The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
determines based on the foregoing that the above
objection is without merit and the objection is hereby
overruled.
B-1 Comment: The comment expresses concern over the impact
of the Redevelopment. Plan on the schools and indicates
that a high priority should be placed on education.
Response: The Board of Supervisors is in agreement that
a high priority should be placed on education. To ensure
that this priority is met, the Agency has set aside a
portion of the tax increment revenues to be generated
from the Project Area for school improvements .
Additionally, the Agency has offered to provide Liberty
Union High School District with financial assistance to
ensure that adequate educational facilities are available
to Project Area residents .
-13-
With regard to the comments on the impact of the
Redevelopment Plan on the schools, the response to
comment A-2 is incorporated into this response.
Findings: The Board of Supervisors hereby finds that,
based on the foregoing, the above objection is without
merit and the objection is overruled.
C-1 Comment: The comment expresses concern over the impact
of the Redevelopment Plan on the schools and the lack of
State funding to meet these impacts.
Response: The response to comments A-2 and A-9 are
incorporated herein.
In addition, it should be noted that the Agency has
offered the Oakley Union School District financial
assistance in the from of a pass through agreement in an
effort to ensure that adequate educational facilities are
available to Project Area residents. This financial
assistance will mitigate any impacts that the schools may
suffer as a result of redevelopment.
Findings . The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and
determines, based on the foregoing that the above
objection is without merit and the objection is hereby
overruled.
D-1 Comment: The comment supports the recommendation of
the East County Regional Planning Commission to delete
the property west of Bridgehead/Neroly Road from the
Project Area since the property is in. Antioch's sphere
of influence. .
Response: In selecting the Project Area the Agency
determined that the property that the East County
Regional Planning Commission proposes to delete from the
Project Area is integral to effective redevelopment of
the area. However, the Agency' s plans for industrial
development on the Project Area do not currently require
this portion of the Project Area. The Agency does have
plans to make certain traffic improvements to SR4 in
the area. However, in the event that the portion of the
Project Area in Antioch's sphere of influence is
deleted from the Project Area, the Agency can still make
the improvements to SR4 since they are designed to
benefit the Project Area.
Findings: The Board of Supervisors, based on the
foregoing, hereby finds and determines that the above
objection is meritorious and the Board hereby accepts the
objection and proposes to delete the portion of the
-Project Area in Antioch' s sphere of influence from the
Project Area.
-14-
E-1 Comment: The majority of the comments in this letter
relate to the EIR and have been responded to in the Final
EIR which responses are incorporated herein. Comment #4
requests information regarding annexation of the portion
of the Project Area in Antioch's sphere 'of influence.
Reaponse: Health and Safety Code Section 33216 contains
provisions for transferring redevelopment powers from a
County redevelopment agency to a city agency in the event
of an annexation of a portion of the county's project
area. Under Section 33216, redevelopment powers are
transferred to a city agency from a county agency in the
event of annexation under the following conditions:
a. the city council of the annexing city declares
the need for are development agency to function in
the city.
b. the city council of the annexing city adopts the
redevelopment plan for the project area previously
adopted by the board of supervisors .
C. the city and the county enter into an agreement
specifying among other things, the territory to be
transferred to the city agency and the division of
tax increment revenue between the city and the county
agencies .
Upon meeting these conditions the city redevelopment
agency has jurisdiction over the portion of the Project
Area affected by the annexation and can exercise its
redevelopment function as it sees fit in compliance with
the Redevelopment Plan.
Findings: Based on the foregoing, the Board of
Supervisors hereby finds and determines that the
objection is without merit and the objection is hereby
overruled.
F-1 Comment: The majority of the comments raised in this
letter relate to the EIR and were responded to in the
Final EIR, which responses are incorporated herein.
Comment 8 requests information on the standards of blight
used for determining the Project Area ' s qualification for
redevelopment. The comment also questions whether
development within the Project Area will be exempt from
assessment fees or be subject to the same growth
management policies as other development.
Response: The standards for blight used for determining
the Project Area's qualification for redevelopment are
those contained in Health and Safety Code Sections 33031
- and 33032. Pursuant to these sections an area is
_blighted if it contains buildings exhibiting signs of
-15-
defective design, faulty interior arrangement,
overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, and deterioration
or dilapidation. Additional blighting conditions are
irregular lot shapes and sizes ',,,inadequate public
facilities, and the prevalence'*of ,depreciated values. It
should be noted that a project area need not exhibit all
of-these characteristics in order to be considered
blighted for redevelopment purposes .
The Project Area was studied to determine whether it
met these conditions. As Part II of the Report on the
Plan sets out, the Project Area was found to suffer from
a number of these blighting conditions . Buildings in the
Project Area were found to be deteriorating and
obsolete. Many lots in the Project Area were of such
irregular size and shape as to be undevelopable unless
combined with other parcels. The Project Area exhibited
a severe lack of public improvements with large portions
of the Project Area accessible only via dirt roads. For
these reasons, the area was found to be blighted.
Tax increment financing will be used in part to
assist in development of industrial commercial and
residential development in the Project Area. Although
redevelopment assistance will be necessary to attract
this development to the Project Area, new development in
the Project Area will not be exempt from County land use
policies including growth management policies. Thus,
although the Agency will provide assistance to
development in the Project Area that will not be
available to development outside the Project Area, this
development will in all other ways be required to comply
with County policies including the payment of fees.
Findings: The Board of Supervisors finds and
determines, based on the foregoing, that the above
objection is without merit and the objection is overruled.
IV. EIR AND FISCAL REVIEW COMMENTS
In addition to considering the six comment letters
addressed specifically to °the County's consideration of the
Redevelopment Plan, the County and Agency participated in two
related statutory processes: (a) the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000
et. seg. ) , and (b) the conduct of a Fiscal Review
Committee ( "FRC") review pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33353 et. sea. Comments were elicited and
responded to in accordance with the statutory procedures
established for those processes, as described below.
A. - EIR Process
-16-
Twenty-one written comments were received on the Draft
EIR. Eleven additional oral comments were received at two
public hearings on the Draft EIR. Those comments, and the
County's responses to suchI-comments, are set forth in the
Final EIR, dated November ' '989. The Board of Supervisors has
considered the comments and responses in certifying the EIR by
resolution of even date herewith. That EIR certification
resolution and the Final EIR comments and responses (including
the disposition of such comments) are incorporated by
reference herein.
Based on the incorporated resolution and Final EIR
sections, it is found that, to the extent the comments
received in the EIR process constitute objections to the
Redevelopment Plan, such objections have been properly
mitigated as provided in the EIR or are without merit.
Consequently, any such objections are hereby overruled.
B. Fiscal Review Process
The report of the FRC, including attached comments from
various taxing agencies, is included as Part 10 of the
Report. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33352(m) ,
Parts 10 and 12.0 of the Report contains the Agency' s detailed
response to the FRC report, addressing the comments and
concerns of the various taxing agencies. Parts 10 and 12.0 of
the Report are incorporated by reference herein.
Based on the incorporated material, it is found that
adequate mitigation measures have been or are being taken
within the Redevelopment Plan or pursuant to fiscal agreements
to overcome any objections raised in the FRC Report and, as
a result, adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment
Plan will not cause a significant financial burden or
detriment to any affected taxing agency. Consequently, to the
extent the FRC report contains objections to the
Redevelopment Plan, such objections are hereby overruled.
-17-