Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 01012003 - 2003-444 a THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 8,2003,by the following vote: AYES: WMVIM Gioia, Vilkema, and Glover NOES: N= ABSENT: St3PwISt)R Desminier ABSTAIN: NMM **District III Seat V.CANr*** Resolution No.:2oo3j444 SUBJECT: Resolution adopting written findings and responses to comments or objections received in connection with consideration of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Montalvin Manor Redevelopment Project Area in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363 The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES THAT: The Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the "Agency")has prepared and submitted to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (the"Board of Supervisors"), for the Board of Supervisors' consideration, the Redevelopment plan for the Montalvin Manor Redevelopment project Area(the "Plan"); and In connection with consideration of the flan, the Board of Supervisors and the Agency conducted and completed a duly noticed public hearing on June 17, 2003, pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 33355; and At or prior to the joint public hearing,the Board of Supervisors and the Agency received certain comments or objections to the Plan, which comments or objections are set forth in Part II of that certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the Montalvin Manor Redevelopment Project Area: Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33363," which document is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference,and hereinafter referred to as the"Findings"; and Part III of the Findings contains the Board of Supervisors' and Agency's written findings and responses to the above described comments or objections,which written findings and responses have been prepared and considered by the Board of Supervisors in connection with consideration of adoption of the Plan, all in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363; and The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors that the Board of Supervisors 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 comments or objections received by the Board of Supervisors in connection with the Plan; and that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings prior to approving the Amendment; and 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 of Supervisors with respect to the written objections to the Plan required by Health and Safety Code Section 33363. 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 date shown. ATTESTED: _... JOHN SWEETEN, _I+vr Board u ery sorb' d Wstrator 3201171189879.2 gyy } # EXHIBIT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MONTALVIN MANOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra.Costa July 8, 2003 3201171189883.1 I. PURPOSE The Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the "Agency")has prepared, and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors(the "Board of Supervisors" or"Board")is considering for adoption the Redevelopment Plan for the Montalvin Manor Redevelopment Project Area(the "Plan"). On June 17, 2003, the Agency and the Board of Supervisors conducted a duly noticed joint public hearing on the Plan in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 33355 and 33361. At or prior to the joint public hearing, the Agency and the Board of Supervisors received certain written comments or objections to the Plan. Those written comments or objections are listed in Part II and set forth in full in Appendix I 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 Plan, the legislative body shall evaluate the report of the Agency, the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, 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 taking 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 the County of Contra Costa,prepared and adopted in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33363. Specifically, Part III below contains the Board of Supervisors's written findings and responses to the written comments or objections set forth in Part II and Appendix 1. Each substantive comment or objection listed in Part II and set forth in Appendix I has been assigned a reference identification number in the margin next to the comment or objection. The Board of Supervisors's written findings and responses to each substantive comment or objection are set forth and organized in Part III according to those reference identification numbers. These findings incorporate other documents,which are part of the record of adoption of the Plan. These documents are listed below and are incorporated within these findings as supporting evidence by this and subsequent references: A. The Plan; 320\17\169683.1 B. The Preliminary Report on the Redevelopment Plan dated March 2003 (the "Preliminary Report"); C. The Report to the Board of Supervisors, dated June 2003 (the "Report"); D. The resolution prepared for consideration on June 17,2003 concurrently with this resolution(including attached Exhibits) entitled: "A Concurrent Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa and the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa 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 Redevelopment Plan for the Montalvin Manor Redevelopment Project Area" (the "Concurrent CEQA Resolution"); E. The Environmental Impact Report("EIR")prepared for the Plan, consisting of: (1)the Draft EIR("DEIR"), and (2)the Final EIR("FEIR"), which includes the responses to comments on the DEIR and(3)the mitigations and analysis set forth in Exhibit A of the Concurrent CEQA Resolution; F. Documentary and oral evidence received by the County of Contra Costa Planning Commission,the Agency and the Board of Supervisors during public hearings and meetings on the Plan and the EIR including,without limitation, staff reports submitted to the Board of Supervisors and Agency at the June 17, 2003 joint public hearing on the Plan; and G. Matters of common knowledge to the Board of Supervisors and the Agency which they have considered, such as the County General Plan, any applicable Specific Plans and prior resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the County of Contra Costa(the "County"). II. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS Written comments or objections to the Plan were received directly by the County or Agency from the following persons: 1. Letter from Dody Colwell,dated June 14, 2003 2. Letter from Lura Foster The above letters are set forth in their entirety in Appendix 1 to this Exhibit A. In addition, comment letters were received by the County and the Agency regarding the DEIR during the comment period on the DEIR To the extent those comments related to the EIR, those comments have been responded to and disposed of in the FEIR. Those responses are 820\171169863.1 hereby adopted by the Board of Supervisors; constitute the Board of Supervisors'responses to the DEIR comment letters; and are incorporated by reference in these findings. III. WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1. Dody Colwell,dated June 14, 2003 Comment 1.1 Comment: The commenter expresses concerns about the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Rezoning Plan for Montalvin Manor, and does not want to see changes to the Montalvin Manor neighborhood, which is a unique residential area, with long-term residents who are tolerant of their neighbors. Response: The Board acknowledges the commenter's desire to maintain the existing quality of the area. The Plan's goals expressly seek to maintain those qualities,while alleviating those clearly evident adverse physical and economic conditions that detract from the positive qualities of the Project Area. It is not the intent of the Board to encourage residents to move from the area,which is why Part VI.B. of the Plan prohibits the Agency's use of eminent domain for occupied residential properties. The Board has taken these issues into account in considering adoption of the Plan, and believes that,through the safeguards in the Pian and the Redevelopment Law,the positive qualities of the community can continue to be preserved and enhanced while adverse conditions in the Project Area are eliminated. Findings: The Board hereby finds that the Plan expressly prohibits the use of eminent domain over occupied residential properties and there is substantial evidence in the incorporated record to qualify the entire Project Area for redevelopment under the CRL, and that the entire Project Area can benefit from programs and assistance that will only be available to the County through adoption of the Plan. On this basis,the Board respectfully overrules the objection to the Plan contained in the above comment Comment 1.2 Comment: The commenter likes Montalvin and likes being unincorporated and " ff ungoverned Response: The Board acknowledges the commenter's desire to remain unincorporated and "ungoverned". The Redevelopment Plan does not incorporate the Project Area into a city; the Project Area will remain an unincorporated area of the County if the Plan is adopted and implemented. The Board does not intend to provide more regulation of the Project Area through the adoption of the Plan. As set forth in Part V of the Plan,the County's General Plan and the County's typical land use,planning and zoning ordinances and procedures will continue to govern.the Project Area. The purpose of the Plan is to provide additional revenues to serve the Project Area. Such assistance may take the form of upgrades to the public infrastructure in the Project Area and rehabilitation loans to homeowners. 320\1n169883.1 Findings: The Board hereby finds that Redevelopment Plan will not incorporate the Project Area into a city,that the Redevelopment Plan will not add additional land use regulation over the Project Area and that the Project Area can benefit from programs and assistance that will only be available to the County through adoption of the Plan. Can this basis, the Board respectfully overrules the objection to the Plan contained in the above comment Comment 1.3 Comment: The commenter indicates that it is sad to see the one-sided Redevelopment report,with its photos of each extremely neglected home, and no pictures of those that are exquisitely maintained by owners who are above criticizing their neighbors. Response: Sections A,B, C, and D of the Report(which are incorporated in this Response by this reference) carefully document the reasons for selection of the Project Area and the adverse physical and economic conditions that are prevalent throughout the Project Area and that qualify the entire Project Area for redevelopment under the CRL,. The Board is satisfied, based on the substantial evidence in the record, that the entire Project Area does qualify as having the types of physical and economic conditions that would benefit from a coordinated redevelopment program. Findings: The Board hereby finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to qualify the entire Project Area for redevelopment under the CRT,, and that the entire Project Area can benefit from programs and assistance that will only be available to the County through adoption of the Plan. On this basis,the Board respectfully overrules the objection to the Plan contained in the above comment. 2. Lura Foster Comment 2.1 Comment: The commenter expresses concern that as a community and property owners the Project Area should not be invaded by the government. Response: The Board respectfully disagrees that adoption of the Redevelopment Plan constitutes an invasion of the community. The Board acknowledges the commenter's concerns, however,the Board does not intend to provide more regulation of the Project Area through the adoption of the Plan. As set forth in Part V of the Plan,the County's General Plan and the County's typical planning and zoning ordinances and procedures will continue to govern the Project Area. The purpose of the Plan is to provide additional revenues to serve the Project Area. Such assistance may take the form of upgrades to the public infrastructure in the Project Area and rehabilitation loans to homeowners. Findings: The Board hereby finds that Redevelopment Plan will not add additional land use regulation over the Project Area and that the Project Area can benefit from programs and assistance that will only be available to the County through adoption of the Plan. On this basis, 320,171169883.1 the Board respectfully overrules the objection to the Plan contained in the above comment Comment 2.2 Comment: The commenter lives in Montalvin Manor over 30 years and indicates that "blight" comes and goes. The commenter also expresses concern with the possible condemnation of homes. Reaponse: Sections A,B, C, and D of the Report(which are incorporated in this Response by this reference) carefully document the reasons for selection of the Project Area and the adverse physical and economic conditions that are prevalent throughout the Project Area and that qualify the entire Project Area for redevelopment under the CRL. The Board acknowledges the commenter's concerns with eminent domain over homeowners. However,the Plan expressly prohibits the Agency's use of eminent domain for occupied residential properties in Part VI.B. of the Plan. Findings: The Board hereby finds that the Plan expressly prohibits the use of eminent domain over occupied residential properties and there is substantial evidence in the incorporated record to qualify the entire Project Area for redevelopment under the CRL, and that the entire Project Area can benefit from programs and assistance that will only be available to the County through adoption of the Plan. On this basis,the Board respectfully overrules the objection to the Plan contained in the above comment Comment 2.3 Comment: The commenter is concerned about maintaining the affordability and diversity of the Project Area. The commenter is also concerned about what will be required of home owners, for instance will they be told they have to build, add peaked roofs, etc. Response: The Board shares the commenter's concerns with maintaining the affordability and diversity of the area. The Plan prohibits the use of eminent domain over occupied residential properties, so the Agency cannot force people to move. The Plan does not require more regulation of the Project Area. As set forth in Part V of the Plan,the County's General Plan and the County's typical planning and zoning ordinances and procedures will continue to govern the Project Area. The purpose of the Plan is to provide additional revenues to serve the Project Area. Such assistance may take the form of upgrades to the public infrastructure in the Project Area and rehabilitation loans to homeowners who may not otherwise be able to afford to maintain and upgrade their homes. Indeed, the Plan and the CRL require that twenty percent (20%)of all revenues generated by the Plan be used to improve the supply of low and moderate housing in the Project Area. Through these assistance programs,the Board intends to maintain the affordability and diversity of the Project Area. Findings: The Board hereby finds that Redevelopment Plan will not add additional land use regulation over the Project Area,that the Redevelopment Plan prohibits the use of eminent domain over occupied residential properties and that the Project Area can benefit from programs 320117\169883.1 and assistance that will only be available to the County through adaption of the Plan. On this basis, the Board respectfully overrules the objection to the Plan contained in the above comment 3201171163883.1 APPENDIX 1 LETTERS OF COMMENT 3201171189883.1 LETTER #1 June 14,2003 supervisor Gioia. Thank you for meeting with us. I am concerned by the Proposed Redevelopment and Rezoning Plan ofthe County for Montalvin Manor. Montalvin Manor is a unique residential area in part because there is a live and tet live mentality. Nobody dictates what color or size your house can be, People live according to their own preferences and ifthey are rigidly concerned about how their neighbors live they leave Montalvin.The(until now) freedom from excessive regulation is a freedom we value despite its obvious downside. Montalvin Magor claims many homeowners who chose the location because oFaffordability, expecting to be here for a short time. We oRen stay. The campground by the water illusion is 1.1 powerFul, and the safe, practical flovrplans are unbeatable. Within a block oFmy house i know two families that have been here since the building ofthe subdivision. The parents, who were the original owners, bought the houses new in the 1950's, have now died and their offspring own and live in the houses. I doubt that anyplace else besides agricultural zones could claim roots like that among its Inhabitants. We like Mortllvin. We like being unincorporated, "ungoverned' ifyou will. Those who are threatened or disapproving ofsuch'anarchy"and want to call it ghetto or 1.2 blighted would best keep minding the people and the rules in their own (preferably gated) communities. It was sad to see the one-sided Redevelopment report,with its photos or each extremely neglected home, and no Pictures offhose that al-e exquisitely maintained - by owners who 1.3 are above criticizing their neighbors. ' off to-those diligent owners, whose motto seems to be, "To each his own". body Col it 786 Christine Drive 758.4801 PS Most ofthe problems oFthe area would be alleviated iF affordable 4umpsters were available. LETTER #2 To: My Board Of Supervisors—Montalvin Manor - CCC My Naim is Lura Poster; I live at 71 Bonnie Drive in the redevelopment area of Montalvin Manor_ When we bought our home, we never thought we would be required to be a public speaker, have to stand in front of board of supervisors in.a room full 2.1 M ac 0 try—"C—ab a-CUMMUrrrty 'pmem _ owner should not be invaded by our government? Having lived in Montalvin Manor over 30 years, I have seen the"blight" (as you call it) come and go. Many of the home owners have done much improvement to their properties, many just cannot, others look forward to if 2.2 and when they can. THIS IS STILL AMERICA ISN'T 1T? How can government come in and steam roll over a community—tell us we have to "'SHOW CAUSE"why they shouldn't. Who are these people? We voted for yowl A mistake you can be sure won't happen again. As many who live in this area, we chose here because we could afford it, bought our homes and own them, we will do what we can, when we can,yes 23 there are many that rent here as well, for the same reason; and yes we are . very diverse, believe it or not, diversity is a goad thing, because we are low to middle income is not a good reason to force a community out. It is obvious your looking formore monies.... 'Where do these investors• think this money is going to come from, and if only 11 per cent of the taxes are going to the county, how can that be good. It could only be good if those are some really big taxes... We feel we know the long term Islas is to flatten Montalvin Manor and build new expensive homes or to force people that cannot afford it to put big monies into their homes now and if they can't, be 2.2 forced to sale before you say to "condemn" therm for your eminent domain clause ruin peoples lives so you can get more tax dollars. Doesn't mare sense to invest big into a lowers income residential community and say it won't hurt us (the residents)... of course it will. No one has said What exactly is expected of us. 'There are many besides myself that have had 30+years here, bath low and single income house holds, as well as seniors with fixed incomes whose homes are paid for we 2.3 can exist because we no longer have loans to pay off and anally not prepared to start new loans, low interest or not, again---what is going to be required of us,what do you consider blight? Will we be told we have to build, add peaked roofs etc.? & reloc `oaa have been discussed in every meeting except the last,, (Apr 28h 03)not iust"early on" as was stated by Mr. Kennedy at the.Tune 3d meeting in Martinez. As you will probably understand,this is a big concern for us. The redevelopment team states over and over again that it will not affect us (Montalvin.residents) now; but continue to go over it as �'� if having an;agenda to complete, also letting us know(and is in the paper work)that anything decided now can and is subject to change anytime in the next 45 years. Not much, security in what is happening to us with such statements.