HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06111985 - 2.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
t
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, County Administrator
RICHARD RAINEY, Sheriff-Coroner C
Conra
osta
DATE: June 6, 1985 Couqy
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SHERIFF-CORONER
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ON SITING OF PROPOSED
WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT AND RELATED MATTERS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS: -
1. Accept this report from the County Administrator and Sheriff-Coroner.
2. Define the West County Justice Center project as consisting of a
pretrial and sentenced detention facility, including a booking and
intake component, and consider the feasibility of including a
Sheriff 's sub-station and communications center.
3 . Select sites 7, 8, 9, and 10 ( listed on Page 2) in the City of
Richmond as possible sites for the Justice Center project.
4. Set June 18, 1985 as the date for public hearing on the siting of the
proposed West County Justice Center project.
5. Direct staff to further review the four identified final sites and
recommend if one site is more appropriate than the others as proposed
site for the West County Justice Center project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Adult Correctional Facilities Master Plan identified the need for a new
detention facility to meet the anticipated bed space reqiuirements for
adult offenders. Your Board approved that report in July 1982 and
subsequently authorized the preparation of an application to the State
Board of Corrections for a 560-bed facility at an estimated cost of
$48,760,695, of which $36,570,521 would come from the County Jail Capital
Expenditure Fund and $12,190,174 would be County match. That application
was approved by the State, and Contra Costa was allocated the $36, 570,521
in Chapter 1133 , Statutes of 1984 (SB 50 - Presley) . The actions
recommended above are the necessary next steps that must be taken in the
process to build the facility and increase inmate bed capacity. The
current severe overcrowding only gives greater urgency to the need to
maintain progress toward this end.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
X -RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIO6 OF 80'ARO'COMMITTE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(SOL
ACTION OF BOARD ON .11inp 11 . IQRS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X 'OTHER
The public hearing is fixed for June 18 , 1985 , at 10 : 30 a.m.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X ----
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Sheriff-Coroner ATTESTED June 11 , 1985
CAO Justice System Programs J.R. OLSSON. COUNTY CLERK
AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
"O�/'7-it'Q BY -, DEPUTY
-2-
The budgeting of funds for site acquisition, environmental impact work,
architectural services, and related costs began in 1984-85 and will
continue in 1985-86. Approval of the recommendations will not result in
greater costs than those already anticipated. County funds expended for
these purposes will be counted as part of the required local match for the
State funds.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND:
On September 27, 1983, your Board designated the former Shell property
adjacent to Waterfront Road and 1-680 near Martinez as the site for the
proposed County Detention Facility project. A Notice of Preparation was
prepared and distributed, beginning the review of the project in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Subsequently, the
property was sold to a developer and the price deemed too high for the
County to continue pursuing it as a new jail site. In addition, some
comments submitted in response to the Notice of Preparation indicated
potential environmental problems that might be costly to mitigate.
Subsequently, the Administrator' s Office, working closely with the
Sheriff's, Public Works, and Community Development Departments, broadened
the search to also include privately owned sites and identified and
reviewed a number of sites that might be suitable for the new detention
facility. All but two of the properties that were subject to review are
privately owned. only one is County owned. (It had previously been
determined that all other County-owned properties were generally unsuitable
or unacceptable. )
It is noted that the County' s approved application for Jail Capital
Expenditure Funds was predicated on a Central County site in order to
maximize coordination with the Martinez Detention Facility. The decision
to look County-wide also dictated the need to somewhat enlarge the
project' s scope, since a detention facility in either East or West County
would have to serve as the booking and intake center for persons arrested
by local law enforcement agencies. Discussions with the State Board of
Corrections staff indicated that this could be accommodated within the
terms of Contra Costa's approved project. )
A number of sites were originally identified in the course of project work.
Some were rejected after initial screening. With the assistance of the
Real Property .Division of the Public Works Department sixteen potential
sites were selected for further review, as follows:
Approx.
Site Name Location Acres
CENTRAL COUNTY
1. Tosco Concord (unincorp. ) 400 Private
2. County Civic Center Martinez 6.5 Private
3. Waterfront Road Martinez 20 City
(old Mtz. city dump)
4. Land Sea Martinez 49 Private
5 . McEwen Rd. /Hwy. 4 Unincorporated 170 Private
WEST COUNTY
6. Giant Road Richmond 34.5 Private
7. Goodrich Avenue Richmond 20 Private
8. Stauffer Richmond 25 Private
9. Atlas Road Richmond 500 Private
10. Breuner Lands Richmond 75 Private
11. W side Filbert St. N Richmond (uninc. ) 60 Private
12. W end Market Ave. N Richmond (uninc. ) 31 Private
EAST COUNTY
13. Calif. Ave./Hwy. 4 Pittsburg 45 Private
14. Willow Pass• Road Pittsburg (uninc. ) 48 Private
15. Cal. Ave/Somersville Pitts/Antioch 500 Private
Road & unincorporated
16. Byron Byron (unincorporated) 50 County
-3-
The County Administrator' s Office, Sheriff' s Department, and the Community
Development and Public Works Departments formed the core of the review
team, and other County departments were consulted as needed--particularly
the Office of Emergency Services and the Environmental Health Division of
the Health Services Department. In addition, the City of Richmond Planning
Department provided site data. An outside consultant provided additional
geologic data on several sites.
Each site was reviewed and analyzed according to a comprehensive set of
criteria as follows:
A. Program Factors
1. Isolation from residences - distance and separation from
residences
2. Accessibility of site - ease of access by (a) law enforcement
agencies, including access to the Main Detention Facility and
courts in Martinez, and (b) the public, by means of private and
public transportation.
3 . Size/adequacy for program — adequacy of the site to support a
facility that will include unsentenced and sentenced prisoners.
The size must be sufficient to provide for the different needs of
short-term, medium security inmates who will be more confined and
longer-term, minimum security inmates who will be more involved
in vocational programs and will have more mobility throughout the
facility.
B. Cost Factors
1. Purchase cost - land value.
2 . Site development cost - costs of providing utilities (sewer,
water, gas, electricity, telephone) ; grading/filling; foundation
and structural work required because of specific geologic
factors.
C. Availability
1. Ease of acquisition - ownership of property (County/private) and
its market status.
2. Legal/regulatory obstacles - legal prohibitions against facility
siting; jurisdiction of regulatory agencies who would be involved
in land use decisions.
D. Site and Environmental Factors
1. Geologic suitability - type of soil, topography, and adequate
drainage.
2. Seismic safety - proximity to earthquake faults.
3 . Air quality - extent of airborne pollutants and odors.
4. Site contamination - chemical toxicity of soil.
5. Susceptibility to flooding - proneness of site and access roads
to flooding.
Recommended Site for Further Consideration - In the initial screening
process, sites were rejected if there were critical deficiencies in one
criterion. Special attention was given to the issue of isolation from
residences, as directed by your Board.
-4-
Initial screening eliminated all but four sites. All these sites are
relatively undeveloped areas in the City of Richmond. They are:
7. Goodrich Avenue
8. Stauffer
9. Atlas Road
10. Breuner Lands
At your Board' s request, staff is prepared to submit a more detailed report
on these four sites for a final review decision. There are differences
between the sites. that are capable of further elaboration. It is not
suggested in this report that each of the four proposed sites meet the
selection criteria equally.
All the other sites had significant shortcomings that would tend to
preclude their use as sites for a detention facility: environmental
considerations such as air quality problems or proximity to use of
dangerous chemicals excluded sites 1, 4, and 15; proximity to residences
excluded sites 2, 6, 11, 12, 13 , and 14; geologic conditions excluded sites
3 and 5; and distance from courts and other justice agencies excluded site
16. In addition, all the aforementioned sites have other problems which
prevented staff from recommending them as the primary site for CEQA
consideration.
Subsequent to staff completion of a substantial portion of the site review
work, two additional sites were suggested: the Harry Ells School site in
the City of Richmond, to be sold by the Richmond Unified School District,
and various parcels on Bailey Road south of Highway 4. The former was
attractive because of its very close proximity to Bay Court, but rejected
because of its closeness to residences. The latter was rejected because of
its geology and terrain which would make for costly construction.
Definition of Project - The project has been given the name West County
Justice Center to indicate that uses in addition to an adult detention
facility might be considered. The primary component is, of course, the
detention facility, approved by your Board as part of the Proposition 2
application to the State Board of Corrections for County Jail capital
Expenditure Funds. This application, as approved by the State, is a
$48,760,695 project to build 560 medium and minimum security beds for both
pretrial and sentenced offenders. Its purposes are to allow for growth in
the County's inmate population, to relieve the serious overcrowding at the
Martinez Detention Facility, and to permit the transfer of sentenced
prisoners from the dilapidated Clayton Rehabilitation Center. In addition,
a booking and intake center is proposed so that West County police and
other law enforcement agencies can book directly into a facility close to
the point of arrest rather than transport to Martinez. This will save
these agencies considerable transportation expense, as well as enable
police officers to spend more time patrolling the streets of their cities
rather than transporting prisoners to jail. Thus, police protection in
West County cities would be increased. The City of Richmond would also be
able to completely close its antiquated jail (now used as a temporary
holding facility) for an estimated savings of $300,000 per year. It may be
possible to include the booking component in the overall detention facility
design, within the funding constraints of the project as approved by the
State. Further staff work is being done on this issue.
In addition, two other components are recommended for inclusion within the
project. A Sheriff' s sub-station would provide patrol service for the
unincorporated portion of West County and permit the Sheriff to provide
other services to citizens from a convenient location. The sub-station is
now located in the Work Furlough Center, but inmate overcrowding is forcing
a move to rented space. The second component is a communications center
for West County fire, police, and other emergency services, similar to the
one currently serving East County from Antioch. The possibility of such a
center has been the subject of some informal discussions. Its feasibility
has yet to be determined. Neither of these two uses require much space.
Staff is not' recommending that a commitment be made to include them within
the initial construction project, but only that they be included within the
defined project for the purposes of CEQA review and other evaluations.
-5-
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Failure to adopt the above recommendations would, in effect, bring planning
for the new County detention facility to a halt. With your Board's
approval, staff has proceeded with pre-architectural programming and with
selection of an architect. Further significant work cannot be done without
a site. It should also be noted that State bond funds as allocated to
counties are insufficient to fund all approved county projects. Late
projects will depend upon further bond issues and/or appropriations of
State general funds by the legislature. Failure to take the recommended
actions can only exacerbate the. problem of funding for Contra. Costa County,
since all of the other major county projects already have sites and are
further along in planning and design.
WCJUSCEN.BO