HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07141987 - T.9 Or -7�:
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
and
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 14, 1987 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing on the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan
The Chair convened the joint public hearing of the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Contra Costa County
Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
North Richmond Redevelopment Project and the Environmental Impact
Report on the Plan.
The Clerk noted that all five members of the Board of
Supervisors who serve in dual capacity as members of the County
Redevelopment Agency were present.
Supervisor Powers spoke briefly on the ideology of the
Redevelopment Act and benefits to residents and the business com-
munity within a designated redevelopment area. He advised that he
supported the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan and expressed his
commitment to address the concerns of the community on this issue.
He noted that approval of the Plan is just the first step in the
process. Supervisor Powers advised that citizen input will be an
integral part in the implementation of the Plan.
Jerry Raycraft , Redevelopment Project Manager for the
.County, gave a verbal report on the history of the redevelopment
concept, the California Community Redevelopment Law, factors and
conditions that must be present to qualify as well as identify an
area for redevelopment, such as deteriorating buildings, houses ,
infrastructure, and other factors which constitute blighted con-
ditions. Mr. Raycraft reported on the role of the Project Area
Committee (PAC) in the development of the proposed redevelopment
plan for the North Richmond area. He commented on the specific
activities proposed within the Project area; land uses , methods of
financing and project feasibility, a brief outline of the signifi-
cant findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and proposed
mitigation measures. Mr. Raycraft noted that if approved the Plan
will enable the County and the Redevelopment Agency to eliminate the
physical, economic, and social blighting conditions that currently
exist in the North Richmond Project area so that the Project area
may be developed in conformance with the Contra Costa County General
Plan to the benefit of the North Richmond community and the County
as a whole.
Polly V. Marshall of Goldfarb & Lipman, Agency special
counsel, commented on the legal procedure used in the development of
the Plan. She noted that the noticing of this hearing was in accor-
dance with State Law through publication of a legal notice in the
West County Times and the noticing of affected property owners
within the proposed redevelopment area by certified mail. Ms.
Marshall requested the incorporation of the following documents in
the record:
a) The North Richmond Redevelopment Plan Report;
b) The final Environmental Impact Report;
e) The County General Plan;
d) The Affidavits of Publication for this hearing
and the two Declarations of Mailing.
The Clerk administered the oath to all witnesses desiring
to present testimony at this hearing. The Chair then called upon
the speakers.
Patricia Hackley, Chair, Project Area Committee (PAC) ,
PAC, 222 Chesley Avenue, Richmond, endorsed the Plan and presented
the recommendations of her committee: that the Project Area
Committee be consulted on proposed development within the project
area; that industrial development within the project area be of a
non-polluting service related variety such as research and develop-
ment and warehousing; that all industrial development within the
project area meet all requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) ; that a mixture of housing types be developed
within the project area and that housing affordability should be
maintained; that senior housing be developed within the project
area; that residents of the project area be given priority for
employment opportunities that are created through agency participa-
tion; and that priority be given to developing child care facilities
within the project area. Ms. Hackley requested that the Richmond
Neighborhood Housing Services be sponsor in doing the rehabilitation
within the project area.
Amos Adams Jr. , 1734 Truman Street, N. Richmond 94801 ,
expressed support for the Plan. He commented on the notice of the
hearing received by the residents and of the difficulty encountered
in understanding it. He suggested that future notices be drafted to
provide easier reading. Mr. Adams referred to the recommendations of
PAC and requested the inclusion of employment opportunities for the
people living within the redevelopment area. He also expressed con-
cern with the removal of the Post Office from the proposed
Redevelopment area.
Theodore R. Wooten, Chairman, West County Agency, (Joint
Powers Agency of the West Contra Costa Sanitary District and City of
Richmond Municipal Sewer District) , 540 Silver Avenue, Richmond,
requested that the proposed plan insures the integrity of both
existing and future industrial and commercial type uses , as well as
the residential uses in the North Richmond area. He noted that the
purpose of the Agency is to comply with State and Federal regulations
in the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and its by-
products. He advised that the Agency is planning expansion of its
facilities to handle the increasing growth of the area as well as
more ultimate treatment, handling and disposal of sewage sludge and
that these facilities will accommodate the intended redevelopment
upgrading of the North Richmond area. Mr. Wooten requested that the
Redevelopment Plan, General Plan, and zoning allow for the expansion
of his facilities and other types of industrial use in an area
bounded on the east by Third Street, north by San Pablo Creek, and
south by Wildcat Creek.
Larry Burch, P.E. , Director of Engineering, Richmond
Sanitary Service, 205 41st Street, Richmond, 94805 , advised that his
company currently operates the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill
in an area adjacent to the Project Area and is currently in the
planning process for a new facility to provide future solid waste
processing for the West County Area. Mr. Burch stated that the
location of the proposed Integrated Resource Recovery Facility is
at the intersection of Brookside Drive and Central Avenue which is
within the proposed Redevelopment Project area. Since a great deal
of planning effort has been expended in the development of the pro-
posed site for the new facility, Mr. Burch requested that construc-
tion of this facility be allowed to proceed in the designated
location once all permits from regulatory agencies have been secured.
William P. Braga, General Manager, West Contra Costa
Sanitary District, 2910 Hilltop Drive, Richmond 94806, requested
that the proposed plan insures the integrity of both existing and
future industrial and commercial type uses in the North Richmond
area as well as the residential area. He noted that the District
owns and operates a large water pollution control plant at Third
Street with plans for additional treatment and disposal facilities
to be constructed in the near future. He requested that this area be
planned with related industries and businesses amenable to the
District' s facilities for an area generally bound by Third Street on
the east, Parr Boulevard on the north, and Wildcat Creek on the
south.
J. Curtis Foster, Jr. , 5201 Verde Avenue, Richmond,
expressed reservations with a mix of industrial and residential
development for the proposed area. He requested that the develop-
ment that takes place be governed by the Environmental Impact Report
on the area.
Shawki Shabazz, 71 Alamo Avenue, Richmond, advised that
his mother did not receive notification of this hearing and
expressed concern that there may have been other residents who did
not receive notification of this hearing. He spoke on the dif-
ficulty encountered in trying to understand the intent of the
notice. He commented on the recommendation for clean industry and
expressed reservations about the likelihood of office buildings
being constructed within the project area.
Edward Hegarty, 400 West Gertrude Avenue, Richmond, stated
that he has an auto wrecking business in the North Richmond area and
expressed concern that he has not been contacted by anybody
regarding this proposed Project. He commented on the increase in
abandoned or wrecked vehicles and the need for the type of service
he provides in helping to dispose of them. He requested that the
auto wrecking operators be allowed to provide input in the develop-
ment of the Area.
Supervisor Powers apologized that he was not notified. He
noted that the County has to comply with State Laws which includes
the content of the hearing notice which in many cases are quite for-
mal. He noted that there is insufficient space to store abandoned
vehicles and the need for recycling businesses. Supervisor Powers
expressed an interest in working with the auto wrecking industry to
address their concerns as well as seek resolutions to problems to
the mutual satisfaction of all .
R. Carr, 1716 5th Street, Richmond, inquired as to the
availability of funds to improve residential property at a reasonable
rate. He commented on the importance of the residents being aware
of the various aspects of the project and how the project will look
when completed.
Supervisor Powers responded that even though the Board may
adopt the Plan today, it does not mean that the County can act on
the Plan. He instructed staff to continue to have a series of
meetings in the North Richmond area to insure that all residents
have information as well as be able to participate in the develop-
ment of the area. He thanked Mr. Carr for his comments.
Ben Tugbenyoh, 2201 Grovenor Lane, Concord, expressed
concerns that there may not be employment opportunities for the
people living in the North Richmond Redevelopment area. He noted
that many employees working at the Chevron plant do not live in the
area. He commented on the need for work training programs for resi-
dents living in this Redevelopment area.
Randolph Spears, (address illegible) , critized the notice
content. He expressed concern with the possibility of acquiring a
few real property parcels by eminent domain which could require
some residents to relocate. He cited the example of his elderly
mother who lives in .the North Richmond area and of her reluctance to
move from the area. Mr. Spears requested that known pollution types
of business industry be precluded from this area.
Fred Zatkoff, 455 Parr, Richmond, advised that he operates
a small business on Parr Boulevard and requested that he and other
representatives of the small business community be permitted to pro-
vide input in the development of the area.
Joseph Pulido, 1732 Sixth Street, Richmond, expressed
support for the Plan. He requested that the public be notified of
public hearings and recommended that these hearings be held in the
Senior Citizens Facility in the North Richmond area.
The Chair noted that a letter dated July 14, 1987, was
received from Oscar J. Erickson, President, Erickson Enterprises,
255 Parr Boulevard, Richmond 94801 , expressed support for the
component in the Redevelopment Plan that designates an area on
Parr Boulevard for industrial usage.
The Chair also noted that comments were received from
Harrison L. Williams, 1709 First Street, Richmond, inquired as to
the method of selection of members to serve on the various commit-
tees.
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, IT IS BY
THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED.
Supervisor Powers summarized the testimony presented and
expressed confidence in being able to address the concerns as noted
by the speakers . He commented on the benefits the community will
receive through the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and recom-
mented its approval.
Supervisors Torlakson and Schroder expressed their support
for the proposed Plan.
The Board expressed appreciation to all who participated
in the development of the Redevelopment Plan. Supervisor McPeak
commented on the need to comply with legal noticing requirements,
but requested that all notices be written in clear and concise
language to provide understanding of the issues to be considered.
There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that Ordinance 87-50 adopting the Redevelopment Plan
for the North Richmond Redevelopment Project to the Community
Redevelopment Law of the State of California is hereby ADOPTED.
The Board waived reading of the Ordinance.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that joint resolution 87/431 and
Ra 87-16 is ADOPTED certifying review and consideration of the
Final Environmental Impact Report , making findings required by the
California Environmental Quality Act, and stating overriding con-
siderations in the approval and adoption of the North Richmond
Redevelopment Plan.
1 hereby certify that this fc a true n,
cc: Director, Community Development an action taken and entered on t!jo r?-
County Administrator
Board of Supervisors on the date st ow' n.
ATTESTED:
i PHIL Sj% COBE OR, Clerk oft
Of Supervisors and County Administrator
i
By 0
, Deputy
1 hereby certify that this is a true and c•tsr*et copy of
an action taken and entered on the at im.,tes cat t;:e
Redevelopment Agency on the date shown.
ATTESTED: 11/' /.!Pp 7
P IL BACHELOR,Agency Secretary
By — =�" Deputy:
ORDINANCE NO. 87-50
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NORTH RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Section I . Preliminary Statement
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (herein
referred to as "Agency") has made studies of the location,
physical condition of structures, environmental influences,
land use, and social, economic and cultural conditions of that
certain area known as the North Richmond Redevelopment Project
Area, more particularly described on the attached Exhibit-A
and hereinafter referred to as the "Project Area" , and has
determined that the Project Area is a blighted area and is*
detrimental to the safety, health, and welfare of the users
thereof and of the County of Contra Costa at large because of:
a. Economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse
resulting from blighting physical, social, and economic
conditions.
b. The ineffective, uneconomic and unproductive use of
land due to the 'existence of lots of inappropriate size,
configuration or placement and inappropriate access to
vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, and utilities necessary
to allow private development.
C. The continuing problem of access, circulation,
congestion, and ,parking.
d. The existence of inadequate public improvements,
public facilities , open spaces and utilities which cannot be
remedied by private or governmental action without
redevelopment.
e. The existence of residential and commercial
structures characterized by age, obsolescence, deterioration,
dilapidation, and mixed and shifting uses.
f. The existence of excessive vacant land on which
structures were previously located, abandoned and vacant
buildings, substandard structures, vacancies, and
delinquencies in payment of real property taxes.
The Agency): has prepared and submitted to the Board of
Supervisors for review and adoption the Redevelopment Plan
(the "Plan") for the Project Area Redevelopment Project (the
"Project") . The Plan consists of thirty-three (33) pages, two
(2) maps, and one (1) exhibit and is incorporated in this
Ordinance by this reference. A copy of the Plan is on file
with the Clerk of the Board.
The Contra' Costa County Planning Commission, which is the
duly designatediand acting official planning body of Contra
Costa County, has submitted to the Board of Supervisors its
report and recommendation dated June 23 , 1987 recommending
approval and adoption of the Plan and has certified that the
Plan conforms to the General Plan for the County. The Board
of Supervisors accepted the recommendations and certification
of the Planning. Commission.
The Plan for the Project Area prescribes certain land
uses for the Area and may require, among other things, changes
-1-
87-50
'^Lip
in zoning, the vacating and removal of streets of record and
other public rights of way, and the establishment of new
street patterns, `the location of sewers, water mains, lighting
and utility lines and other public facilities.
The Agency has prepared and submitted and the Board of
Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Report on the Plan
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33352.
The Agency has prepared and submitted to the Board of
Supervisors a program for the relocation of individuals and
families that may be displaced as a result of implementing the
Plan.
The Board of Supervisors is cognizant of the conditions
that are imposed,; in the undertaking and implementation of
redevelopment projects under State law, including those
prohibiting discrimination because of race, color, creed,
religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
The Agency has prepared and submitted to the Board of
Supervisors fore-review and certification an Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR") prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended ("CEQA") , the
official State Guidelines as amended for the implementation of
the Act (the "State EIR Guidelines") , and the Contra Costa
County Guidelines for Administering CEQA (the "County
Guidelines") . A copy of the EIR is on file with the Clerk of
the Board.
By concurrent resolution adopted prior to the adoption of
this ordinance, ! the Board of Supervisors and Agency have
certified that the EIR has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines, and the County Guidelines;
that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues of
the Project an& the Plan; and that the Board of Supervisors
and the Agency have reviewed and considered the information
contained in the EIR prior to approving the Project and the
Plan. The concurrent resolution also identifies the
significant effects of the Project and the Plan, adopts
mitigation measures, and makes certain findings and statements
in compliance with Sections 15091 , 15092 , and 15093 of the
State EIR Guidelines.
Prior to adoption of the Plan, the Board of Supervisors
and the Agency 'have conducted a joint public hearing which was
duly noticed in accordance with the requirements of the
California Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et.seg. (hereinafter referred to
as the "Redevelopment Law") .
Section II. Findings & Determinations
Based upon the evidence contained in the Report on the
Plan, the EIR, ,, and other documents prepared in the Plan
adoption process and on evidence presented at the public
hearing, it is hereby found and determined that:
a. The Project Area is a blighted area, the
redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public
purposes declared in, and it qualifies as an eligible area
under, Redevelopment Law; and the Project Area constitutes a
designated blighted area within the meaning of
Section 144 (c) (4) of the Internal Revenue. Code of 1986 .
b. The Plan conforms to the General Plan of Contra Costa
County.
-2-
87-50
•
C. The Plan would redevelop the Project Area in
conformity with ,the Redevelopment Law and would be in the
interest of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and
the implementation . of the Plan would promote the public peace,
health, safety and welfare of Contra Costa County, and would
effectuate the purposes and policy of the Redevelopment Law.
d. The adoption and implementation of the Plan is
economically sound and feasible.
e. The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent
with the sound needs of Contra Costa County, as a whole, for
the redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise.
f. The Plana and the program for the proper relocation of
individuals and families displaced in carrying out the Plan in
decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings in conformity with
acceptable standards (as set forth in Part IV of the Report on
the Plan) are feasible and can be reasonably and timely
effected to permit the proper prosecution and completion o'f
the Plan; and such dwellings or dwelling units available or to
be made available to such displaced individuals and families
are at least equal in number to the number of displaced
individuals and families, are not generally less desirable in
regard to public utilities and public and commercial
facilities than 'the dwellings of the displaced individuals and
families in the ,Project Area, are available at rents or prices
within the financial means of the displaced individuals and
families , and are reasonably accessible to their places of
employment.
g. The Board of Supervisors is satisfied that permanent
housing facilities will be available within three years from
the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced and that
pending the development of such facilities there will be
available to such displaced occupants housing facilities at
rents comparable to those in the community at the time of
their displacement.
h. The Project Area contains property suitable for low
and moderate-income housing.
i. The Project Area includes approximately 94 .6 acres,
and there are no noncontiguous areas contained in the Project
Area.
j . The inclusion of any lands , buildings, or
improvements which are not detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare are necessary for the effective
redevelopment of the Project Area of which they are a part and
are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation
of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section
33670 without other substantial justification for their
inclusion.
k. In orderlto implement and ^facilitate the effectuation
of the Plan hereby approved and adopted, certain official
action must be by this Board of Supervisors with
reference, among other things, to changes or modifications in
zoning, the vacation and removal of streets, alleys, and other
public ways , the establishment of new street patterns, the
location of sewer and water mains, lighting and utility lines
and other public facilities and other public action, and
accordingly, this Board hereby (i) pledges its cooperation in
helping to implement the Plan; (ii) requests the various
officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the County
having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area
likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their
respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with
-3-
87-50.
r
the Plan; (iii) stands ready to consider and take appropriate
action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the
Plan; and (iv) intends to undertake and complete any
proceedings necessary to be implemented by the community under
the provisions of the Plan.
1. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of
the Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the
aid and assistance of the Agency.
M. The condemnation of real property is necessary to the
execution of the Plan and adequate provisions have been made
for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law.
n. The effect of tax increment financing will not cause
significant financial burden on or detriment to any taxing
agency deriving ,revenues from the tax increment Project Area.
o. The development of the public improvements set forth
in the Plan are of benefit to the Project Area and to the
immediate neighborhood in which the Project is located; no
other reasonablemeans of financing such improvements are
available to the: community; and, based on these findings, the
Agency is authorized to pay all or a part of the value of the
land for and the; cost of the installation and construction of
the public improvements set forth in the Plan, as permitted by
Health and Safety Code Section 33445 , and as limited by the
implementation guidelines for the use of redevelopment funds
set forth in the� Plan.
p. The Designation Percentage (as hereinafter defined)
of the Project Area, when added to the Designation Percentage
of all other County redevelopment project areas, does not
exceed twenty percent. For purposes of this subsection,
Designation Percentage means the percentage (as of the date of
this Ordinance) which the assessed value of real property
located in the Project Area is of the total assessed value of
all .real property located within the unincorporated portion of
Contra Costa County.
Section III. Overruling of Objections
All written and oral objections to the Plan are hereby
overruled.
Section IV. Approval of Plan
The Plan for the Project Area, having been duly received
and considered, is approved and adopted, and the Clerk of the
Board is hereby ',;directed to file a copy of the Plan with the
minutes of this meeting. The Plan, which contains among other
elements, the statement of the purpose and intent of the Board
of Supervisors with respect to the Project Area, is
incorporated in ;this Ordinance by reference. The Plan is
hereby designated as the official Redevelopment Plan for the
Project Area. It is the purpose and intent of this Board that
the Plan be implemented in the Project Area.
A copy of this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the
Agency and the Agency is vested with the responsibility of
implementing the Plan.
Section V. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from
the date of its passage and adoption. Before the expiration
of fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, this
Ordinance shall be published once in the West County times , a
-4-
87-50
newspaper of general circulation published and printed in Contra
Costa County.
Passed on July 14 , 1987 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson and McPeak
NOES: None :
ABSENT: None S
ABSTAIN: None :
ATTESTED: PHIL 'BATCHELOR, CLERK
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND BOARD CHAIR
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ( seal)
fij
By
Dep ty
ORDINANCE NO. 87-50
Illy.,
North Richmond Redevelopment Project
Boundary Description - January, 1987
EXHIBIT A
Real property in the unincorporated area of North Richmond, California.
Document and map references are to records of Contra Costa County.
Beinning at the intersection of the south line of Chesley Avenue (Road No.
25? with the east line of Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, shown on
Map of Wall's Second Addition to the City of Richmond filed March 2, 1912 in
Map Book 6 at page 140; thence along the south line of Chesley Avenue, South
890 5v' West 2,588.6 feet, to the centerline of York Street (6 M 140);
thence along said centerline, South 000 04' East 100 feet, to the easterly
prolongation of the north line of Lot 15 (6 M 140); thence along said
prolongation and north line, South 890 561 West 125 feet, to the northwest
corner; thence along the west line of Lot 15 and its southerly prolonga-
tion, South 00004' East 125 feet, to the centerline of Gertrude Avenue (6 M
140); thence along said centerline, North 890 56' East 125 feet, to the
centerline of York Street; thence along the centerline of York Street, South
000 04' East 1,310 feet, to the easterly prolongation of the north line of
Block 2, Map of the Andrade-Gularte Tract filed in Map Book 7 at page 175;
thence along said prolongation, north line, and westerly prolongation. North
890 45' West 970,9 feet, to the northwest corner of Block 1 (7 M 175) being
a point on the 'south line of City of Richmond PARCEL THREE recorded April
21, 1978 in Volume 8803 at page 828; thence along the boundary of said City
parcel, North 880 51' 40" West 5.10 feet and North 120 51' 10" East 21 feet
to the southwest corner :t. of Lot 18, Block 237, Wail's Second Addition (6 A
140); thence along the boundary of said Addition, North 110 45' S0" East
7.65 feet, North 600 34' East 196.92 feet, North 130 02' 10" East 1,006.29
feet, North 540 East 224.4 feet, and North 010 45' West 98.16 feet, to the
north line of Gertrude Avenue; thence along said north line. North 880 54'
41• West 2,293.06 feet, to the southwest corner of Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
(formerly known as Standard Oil Co. of California) parcel recorded April 26.
1961 in Volume 3854 at page 360; thence along the west line thereof. North
854.07 feet, to the northwest corner; thence along the north line thereof
and its easterly, prolongation, North 860 25' East 620 feet, more or less. to
an angle point in the east line of Edward J. Hegarty PARCEL ONE recorded
March 26, 1962 in Volume 4083 at page 364; thence along the east line
thereof. North 000 01' 24" West 171.94 feet, to the south line of Golden
State Sanwa Bank parcel recorded June 18, 1985 in Volume 12365 at page 62;
thence along said south line, South 890 45' West 72.22 feet to the south-
west corner; thence along the west line thereof and its northerly prolonga-
tion. North 1.214.4 feet, to the south line of Garden Tract Road granted to
Contra Costa County and recorded September 28. 1956 in Volume 2852 at page
423; thence along said south line. West 30 feet, to the southwest corner;
thence along the west line of Garden Tract Road. North 000 11' East 1.937
feet, to the southeast corner of West Contra Costa Sanitary District parcel
recorded July 17,, 1953 in Volume 2162 at page 82; thence along the boundary
thereof, West 580.70 feet and North 733 feet, to the south line of Section
35. Township 2 North, Range 5 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence
1
a
North 60 feet; thence West 3,300 feet to the west line of Section 35; thence
West 1.770 feet, more or less, to a point on the boundary of State of
California parcel recorded April 30. 1981 as EXHIBIT C in VolLwe 10304 at
Page 217; thence along said boundary the following courses: North 120 52'
08" West 132.38 feet. North 160 48' 58" East 329.01 feet. North 310 01' 19'
East 94.34 feet. North 760. 42' 32" East 195.26 feet. South 880 02' 57" East
485.64 feet. South 850 41' 40" East 910.51 feet. South 890 27' 21' East
375.13 feet. North 410 37' S1" East 135.88 feet. and North 646.04 feet;
thence East 4,370 feet, more or less, to the most western corner of State of
California parcel recorded July 18. 1978 in Volume 8928 at page 164; thence
along the boundary :of said State parcel. North 640 30' East 105 feet more or
less, North 330 00' East 290.4 feet. North 030 East 99 feet, and North 630
30' East 58.74 feet, to the north line thereof, being also the south line of
Subdivision 5754 filed June 18. 1982 in Map Book 264 at page 36; thence
along said south line and its easterly prolongation. South 890 01' 12" East
2.007 feet, to the east line of 600drick Avenue (264 N 36); thence along
said east line, South 010 02' 18" West 704.96 feet, to the northwest corner
of Minor Subdivision 758-84 filed August 24. 1984 in Parcel Nap Book 111 at
page 30; thence South 840 48' 42' East 25.07 feet to the northwest corner of
PARCEL D (111 PM 30); thence along the west lines of PARCEL 0 and PARCEL C
(111 PM 30). South 010 02' 18" West 618.81 feet, to a tangent curve, concave
to the northeast with a radius of 50 feet; thence along the arc of said
curve, Southeasterly 90.12 feet, thru a central angle of 1030 16' 200, to a
point of reverse curvature (a radial to said point bears North 120 14' 02"
West 1,040 feet); thence along the arc of said reverse curve, being also the
( north line of Parr Boulevard. Easterly 607.91 feet, thru a central angle of
320 29' 280, to the southeast corner of PARCEL B (111 PM 30); thence along
the east line of PARCEL B, North 050 11' 18" East 647.61 feet, to the
northeast corner thereof, being also the most southeastern corner of PARCEL
A filed January 24. 1973 in Parcel Nap Book 26 at page 12; thence along the
east line of PARCEL A. North 040 06' 30" East 1,071.05 feet, to the south-
west corner of PARCEL C filed October 3, 1984 in Parcel Nap Book 112 at page-
17; thence along the west line of PARCEL C, North 040 06' 30" East 203.78
feet, to the northwest corner; thence along the north line of PARCEL C and
its easterly prolongation. South 850 53' 30" East 1.230 feet, more or less,
to the east line of Southern Pacific Railroad 125 feet wide right of way;
thence along said' east line. Southerly 2.245 feet, more or less, to the
north line of Parr Boulevard; thence Southerly 82 feet, more or less, to the
south line of Parr Boulevard at its intersection with the east line of
Southern Pacific Railroad 100 feet wide right of way; thence along said east
line, Southerly 2,300 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of
Southern Pacific Railroad Company parcel 872-7-9E Pel 15; thence along the
boundary thereof the following courses: South 670 15' East 23.1 feet. South
480 30' East 52.W feet. South 710 45' East 37.6 feet. South 030 45' West
609.14 feet. North 860 15' West 6.5 feet, South 030 45' West 537 feet. and
North 890 57' West 100 feet, to the east line of Southern Pacific Railroad
100 feet wide right of way; thence along said east line. South 040 06' 10"
West 630 feet and South 030 45' West 507 feet, more or less, to the point of
beginning.
Excepting therefrom all of 8.43 acre City of Richmond parcel recorded August
{. 40 1972 in Volume 6717 at page 145.
2
ai
T. b.
t
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 14 , 1987 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors/Commissioners Powers , Fanden, Schroder , Torlakson
and McPe,ak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ASTAIN: None
Resolution No. 87/431 and
87-16
SUBJECT: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION
OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
STATING OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL AND"
ADOPTION OF THE NORTH RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on
the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the
North Richmond Redevelopment Project (the "Project" ) was
prepared by the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Sections 21000 etsect. , hereafter
"CEQA") , the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15000
et sem. , hereafter the "State EIR Guidelines") and the
County' s Guidelines for Implementing CEQA ("Local
Guidelines") ; and
WHEREAS, on April 13 , 1987 , the Agency forwarded the
Draft Environmental Impact Report to the State Clearinghouse
for distribution to those agencies which have jurisdiction by
law with respect to the Project and to other interested
persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons
and agencies; and
WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies of
the completion of a Draft EIR for the Redevelopment Plan was
published in West County Times on April 13 , 1987; and
WHEREAS , the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report on June 9 , 1987 pursuant to the
County' s Local ;Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
thereafter reviewed and supplemented to adopt changes
suggested and to incorporate comments received together with
the Agency' s response to those comments, and as so revised and
supplemented, a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final
EIR" ) was submitted to the Redevelopment Agency of the County
of Contra Costa (the "Agency" ) as a part of the Report of the
Agency accompanying the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on June 9 , 1987 , the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission recommended to the
Board and the Agency the certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the Board and
Agency on July, 14 , 1987 on the Redevelopment Plan and Final
EIR relating thereto, following notice duly and regularly
given as required by law, and all interested persons
expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto
-1-
Resolution No. 87/431 and RA - 87-1-6
having been heard, and the Final EIR and all comments and
responses thereto having been considered; and
WHEREAS , the Final EIR consists of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (dated April 7 , 1987) , the
Addendum (dated °May 29 , 1987) , which contains the comments
received on the Draft and the Agency' s responses to those
comments, and any additional comments received at the joint
public hearing together with the Board and the Agency
responses to those comments set forth in the record of the
public hearing; ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board and Agency
hereby find and certify that the Final EIR has been completed
in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines , and the
Local Guidelines; that the Final EIR adequately addresses the
environmental issues of the Project and the Plan; and that the
Board and Agency have reviewed and considered the information '
contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project and
the Plan.
. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board .and Agency hereby
identify the significant effects, adopt the mitigation
measures, make the findings, and declare the statement of
overriding considerations set forth in detail in the attached
Exhibit A which is incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference. The ' statements, findings and determinations set
forth in Exhibit A are based on the above certified Final EIR
and other information available to the Board and Agency, and
are made in compliance with Sections 15091 , 15092 , and 15093
of the State EIR Guidelines .
06/30/87
#A02/A32006 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an actlon taken rand onlercd on tho rninulasa of the
Board of Superylsors on the crate chov✓n.
ATTESTED: ` L l 4 IL 1 9 E `7
PHIL BATCHELOP, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
BY , Deputy
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Redevelopment Agency on the date shown.
ATTESTED: -f r- 19 � 7
PHIL BAT `HELOR,Agency Secretary
BY --,v--�. �--_ Deputy
cc: Redevelopment„ Agency
County Counsel
-2-
Resolution No. 87/431 and RA 87-16
EXHIBIT A
NORTH RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN:
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, 'FINDINGS OF FACT,-
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. General Information and Description of the Project
The Project under consideration by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ("Board" ) and the
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is the
Redevelopment Plan for the North Richmond Redevelopment
Project ("Redevelopment Plan" ) . The Redevelopment Plan has
been prepared pursuant to the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et.
seq. ) to enable the County and the Agency to eliminate the
physical , economic, and social blighting conditions that
currently' exist' in the North Richmond Project Area ("Project
Area") so that the Project Area may be developed in
conformance with the Contra Costa County General Plan to the
benefit of the North Richmond community and the County as a
whole.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Redevelopment Plan has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , the State CEQA
Guidelines , and the Contra Costa County Guidelines for
Administering the California Environmental Quality Act
("County Guidelines") adopted by the Agency. The process began
in January 1987 with the preparation of an Initial Study and
the mailing of a Notice of Preparation to all interested and
affected agencies.
On April 13 , 1987 , the Notice of Completion of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report was published in the West County
Times. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was submitted to
the State Clearinghouse for review on April 13 , 1987 (SCH
#86123008) . The Agency' s request for a 30-day comment period
was granted and the comment period closed on May 15 , 1987 .
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report on April 12 , 1987 in
accordance with the requirements of the County Guidelines.
Following the completion of the public hearing and the receipt
of written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
the Agency prepared an Addendum to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report, which sets forth all comments received on the
Draft and responses to those comments and serves as the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the redevelopment Plan.
Following' a public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan on
June 23 , 1987 , ` the Planning Commission recommended that the
-1-
•r
t
Board and Agency certify the Environmental Impact Report and
that the Board adopt the Redevelopment Plan.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report was submitted to
the Board and Agency on April 11 , 1987 and the Addendum was
submitted to the Board and Agency on June 9 , 1987 .
The Redevelopment Plan came before the Board and the
Agency on July 14 , 1987 . The Board and Agency certified the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Plan, approved the
Plan, and adopted the following Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
II . The Record
The record of the Board and the Agency relating to the
Redevelopment Plan includes :
A. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan, approved by the
Planning Commission on November 18 , 1986 ;
B. The Redevelopment Plan for the North Richmond
Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan") ;
C. The Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the North
Richmond Redevelopment Project ("Report on the
Plan") ;
D. . Documentary and oral evidence received by the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission, the Contra Costa
County Redevelopment Agency and the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors during public hearings on
the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan and the
Redevelopment Plan Environmental Impact Report;
E. The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR")
prepared for the Redevelopment Plan, which includes:
1) the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR") ,
dated April 7 , 1987 ; and 2) an Addendum, dated May
29 , 1987 , containing the comments received on the
DEIR and the Agency' s responses to those comments .
(Please note that the environmental consultant who
prepared the addendum has entitled that document:
"Final Environmental Impact Report for the North
Richmond Redevelopment Plan. " For purposes of these
findings, the document containing the comments and
responses to comments is hereinafter referred to as
the "Addendum" and the FEIR is defined to include
both the DEIR and the Addendum and the FEIR is
incorporated into these findings by this reference. ) ;
and
F. Matters of common knowledge to the Board and Agency
which they consider, such as:
1 . the Contra Costa County General Plan
2 . the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance
3 . other formally adopted policies and ordinances of
Contra Costa County.
-2-
r►
III . Significant Adverse Impacts
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the
North Richmond Redevelopment Plan, certified by the Board and
Agency, identified 19 potentially significant adverse impacts
attributed in part to the Redevelopment Plan. These
potentially significant adverse impacts, as well as proposed
mitigation measures, are discussed in detail in Section IV of
the DEIR, and summarized in Section II of the DEIR. Sections
II and IV of the DEIR also provide an analysis of whether the
proposed mitigation measures will avoid or substantially
lessen each of the significant adverse impacts identified in
the FEIR.
Each potentially significant adverse impact identified in
the FEIR, the proposed mitigation measures for that impact,
and the Board' s and Agency' s findings with regard to that
impact are discussed in Section IV below.
IV. Findings
Notwithstanding the identification of the significant
adverse impacts of the Plan, the Board and Agency have
approved the Plan, as authorized by Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and California Administrative Code Sections
15091 , 15092 , and 15093 . As required by the aforementioned
references, the Board and Agency make the following findings
for which there is substantial evidence in the record.
A. Land Use Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact.
Project-induced expansion of industrial
development in the North Richmond area can be
expected to result in corresponding increases
in nuisance and hazard factors typically
associated with industrial activities,
including air pollutant emissions, odors,
soil contamination with toxics, hazardous
materials handling and storage risks, and
noise. Such factors could result in
particularly adverse impacts on nearby
residential areas and other sensitive uses .
In general, many of these impacts typically
associated with industrial activities would
be alleviated to insignificant levels by
regulatory procedures now in place under the
purview of other local, state and federal
agencies. Nevertheless, Project induced
increases in these impact factors, although
insignificant alone, could still be expected
to contribute to cumulative adverse impacts.
Such Project-induced effects are considered
-3-
4:
to be unavoidable.
(b) Mitigation. None proposed. Adverse impact
is considered unavoidable.
(c) Finding. The significant environmental
effect identified in A(1) (a) above cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened. This
impact will therefore be discussed in
Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement
of Overriding Considerations) of this
document.
(2) (a) Significant Adverse Impact.
Project-stimulated increases in local
industrial land values could be expected to
contribute to the eventual conversion of
existing, land-extensive, "low end"
industrial uses (auto wrecking yards , open
storage facilities, etc. ) to high quality,
more capital intensive industrial uses.
(b) Mitigation. None proposed. Impact is
considered unavoidable.
(c) Finding. The significant environmental
effect identified in A(2) (a) above .cannot be
avoided or substantiallv lessened. This
impact will therefore be discussed in
Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement
of Overriding Considerations) of this
document.
(3) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Construction
of the North Richmond Bypass initially at
two-lane rural collector standards and later
to a four-lane divided arterial configuration
could contribute to the Project Area' s
"substandard" stigma.
(b) Mitigation. None proposed.
(c) Finding. Mitigation of this impact is
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies. Such mitigation can
and should be adopted by such other agencies,
unless such changes are infeasible for
economic or other considerations.
(4) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. The current
General Plan designates a 31-acre
single-family residential expansion area
adjacent to the east side of the new Bypass.
The route is expected to experience very high
-4-
3
traffic flows,* including heavy truck
traffic. Single-family development along
this corridor could, be highly incompatible
with anticipated levels of noise and air -
pollutant emissions. If Project assistance
is directed in the future to residential
development in this subarea, the Project
could become a contributor to these potential
incompatibility problems.
(b) Mitigation. Avoid future redevelopment
assistance activities which could directly or
indirectly induce development of incompatible
land uses near the North Richmond Bypass
right-of-way; give the North Richmond area
top priority in the General Plan update
process; advocate that the location and
extent of the designated single-family
residential area north of Wildcat Creek be
carefully reconsidered.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency adopt the
above mitigation measures; however, the Board
and Agency find that the significant
environmental effect identified in A(2) (a)
above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened at this time, as mitigation of the
impact will require a General Plan amendment
which must be adopted pursuant to
statutorily-mandated procedures. This impact
will therefore be discussed in Sections VI
(Alternatives) and VII (Statement of
Overriding Considerations) of this document.
(5) (a') Significant Adverse Impact. The
. Redevelopment Plans calls for infill
construction of affordable housing. The
feasibility evaluation prepared by the Agency
(Report on the North Richmond Area
Redevelopment Project) suggests that to have
a meaningful impact on the existing
residential neighborhood, the Agency should
focus its resources on assisting in the
construction of fourplexes and larger
multifamily buildings . Such a focus would
raise questions of .consistency with the
General Plan which calls for residential
development at densities "in the 5 to 7 units
per net acre range . " On the other hand, a
number of residential fourplexes and
multifamily buildings have been constructed
in the area over the past 10 years. A
typical fourplex represents a net density of
between 8 and 12 units per net. acre. Typical
-5-
multifamily buildings of the type which -
currently exists in the area (two-story
apartments) represent net densities of 10 to
20 units per acre .
(b) Mitigation. Require that all Agency
activities conform with the General Plan in
existence at the time of such activities .
(c) Finding. The Board and the Agency hereby
adopt the above mitigation measure and find
that the mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen the environmental effect
described in AM (a) above.
B. Findings - Circulation Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Project Area
buildout will contribute to future traffic on
the North Richmond Bypass. In particular,
Bypass segments adjacent to the Project Area
are expected to eventually reach level of
service F with or without the Project.
(b) Mitigation.
(i) Bypass design is the responsibility of
other public agencies. The Agency
should advocate that in developing
Bypass construction plans , these other
agencies should anticipate a future
need for a 6-lane widening phase, if
and when cumulative daily traffic
volumes on the route approach 30 ,000
trips.
(ii) . Require as a condition of Agency
assistance that all developer-owners
of Agency-assisted industrial and
"Employment" projects incorporate an
aggressive transportation system
management (TSM) program to reduce
Project Area contributions to
cumulative traffic volumes on the
Bypass.
(iii) Include increases in turning radii at
intersections, plus sidewalks, curbs,
and gutters to Agency plans to
reconstruct and widen local collector
streets.
(iv) Include increases in bend radii along
reconstructed Brookside Drive route if
-6-
parcelization and land uses near the
roadway can be modified to make this
feasible, in order to increase the
road' s capacity and travel speeds:
(v) Coordinate with AC Transit to
integrate transit improvements into
the redevelopment effort.
(vi) Improved rail crossing devices at
Kelsey Street and Brookside Drive.
(c) Finding. , The significant environmental
effect identified in B (1) (a) above cannot be
avoided of substantially lessened. This
impact will therefore be discussed in
Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement
of overriding considerations) of this
document.
(2) (a) Significant Adverse Impact.
Project-assisted improvements to Parr and
Goodrick are intended to implement Bypass
alignment Alternative A. This alternative is
not consistent with the alignment shown in
the current General Plan; Alternative A would
carry both regional and local traffic, and
would require stringent limitations on access
to abutting properties. In addition, the
Parr Boulevard segment of Alternative A would
require major redesign of the 3rd St. /Parr
and Goodrick/Parr intersections to provide
one -4-way intersection.
(b) Mitigation. Consider modification of Plan
implementation to support Bypass Alternative
B. If Bypass Alternate A is constructed,
redesign intersections of 3rd Street and
Goodrick Avenue with the Parr Boulevard
segment of the Bypass to combine the two
intersections into one 4-way facility.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measure and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV.0
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in B (2) (a)
above.
C. Municipal Service Impacts
-7-
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Law
Enforcement) Project-induced buildout of the
area will increase demands for law
enforcement services, but not out of
proportion to the amount and type of
.development proposed.
(b) Mitigation. Coordinate Agency' s Project
Area activities with the Sheriff' s Department
to ensure that the Department is kept
apprised of actions which might affect
ongoing law enforcement operations in the
Project Area.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measure and based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV. D
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in C (1) (a)
above.
(2) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Fire
Protection) Project-induced buildout of the
Project area will substantially increase
demands for fire services, will require
extension of water mains and installation of
fire hydrants in some subareas, could require
the addition of special equipment (aerial
truck) , and could ultimately require a new
fire station.
(b) Mitigation. Coordinate Agency activities
with the County Fire District and, if a new
station in the area becomes necessary, assist
the District in identifying and acquiring an
adequate site for this facility. (The
infrastructure improvement program proposed
in the Redevelopment Plan includes water
mains and fire hydrants necessary to provide
adequate fire protection to the area. )
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measure and based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV. D
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in C (2) (a)
above.
(3) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Sewer and
Water Service) Project-induced buildout of
-8-
J-
the area would not appear to present
significant sewage treatment capacity
problems, but would require extension and/or
upgrading of many sewer mains in the Project
Area. Similarly, Project-induced new
development would require extension and/or
upsizing of various water lines in the area.
Project-assisted development would be
required to "pay its own way" to mitigate
these sewer and water service impacts.
(b) Mitigation. Coordinate Agency planning and
assistance activities , including Agency-
assisted residential construction, with the
West Contra Costa Sanitary District and EBMUD
to identify when and where improvements will
be needed and to ensure that sewer and water
improvement construction scheduling is
coordinated with Project-assisted road
construction activities.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measure and based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV. D
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in C (3) (a)
above.
(4) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (School
Impacts) Project-induced residential growth
could- require some expansion of school
facilities over the long term. All
Project-assisted housing construction will be
subject to associated school impact fee
assessments.
(b) Mitigation. Coordinate Agency housing
assistance activities with the Richmond
Unified School District to ensure that all
applicable school impact fees assessable to
Project-assisted projects are paid to the
District at the time of construction;
consider allocation of portion of future
tax-increment funds to the District to
provide for Project-related necessities .
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section D of
the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that the
adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
-9-
environmental effect described in C (4) (a)
above.
D. Drainage Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Stormwater
Runoff) Project-induced intensification of
development and related substantial additions
of impervious surface area will increase the
volume and rate of stormwater runoff in the
Project Area. These increases could result
in localized flooding or ponding due to the
inadequacy or absence of. existing storm
drains. The central and northern portions of
the Project Area will be most susceptible to
such impacts.
(b) Mitigation. Advocate adoption of Drainage
Area 19A by the Contra Costa County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District as a
means of providing an adequate storm drainage
system for the central portion of the area
(i.e. , between the two creeks) ; advocate that
additional study of the area north of San
Pablo Creek be undertaken to determine the
area' s drainage needs based on designated
land uses and the feasibility of
incorporating this northern subarea into a
new Drainage Area as a method of providing
adequate storm drain facilities .
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measure and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV.E
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the .adopted mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen, the significant
environmental effect described in D (1) (a)
above.
(2) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Water
Quality) In addition to increased siltation
from soils exposed during Project-induced
construction, water quality could also be
impacted by post construction runoff carrying
urban debris and petroleum wastes from paved
surfaces. Water pollutants collected on
paved -surfaces, roofs, and landscaping during
dry seasons could. be transported into local
streams via surface runoff from storm events
and irrigation.
(b) Mitigation. Minimize short term
sedimentation impacts resulting from
-10-
Project-induced construction activities by
requiring individual projects assisted by the
Agency to incorporate the following measures:
temporary on-site sedimentation traps to -
reduce intrusion of construction sediments
into the creeks and salt marshes; conduct
construction and grading activities during
the dry season to avoid erosion of disturbed
soils; stage construction to minimize the
amount of bare soil erosion during
construction; include fast-growing
groundcovers to stabilize soil after
construction. Minimize long-term discharge
of pollutants and nutrients related to
Project-induced increases in urban uses into
the creeks and salt marsh by requiring
projects assisted by the Agency to
incorporate the following measures: on-site
oil and grease traps; proper disposal of
contaminated and/or nutrient-loaded run-off;
maintenance practices such as street
sweeping, catch basin cleaning and pavement
repair.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV.E
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in D (2) (a)
above.
E. Noise Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Ambient Noise
Level) Project-induced buildout of the area
would result in incremental increases in
ambient noise levels due to overall increases
in traffic and land use activity.
(b) Mitigation. None proposed.
(c) Finding. The significant environmental
effect identified in E (1) (a) above cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened. This
impact will therefore be discussed in
Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement
of Overriding Considerations) of this
document.
(2) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (North
Richmond Bypass) Noise levels adjacent to the
projected Bypass will exceed state and
-11- .
federal standards for residential areas ,
creating significant noise impacts within the
residential area proposed in the General Plan
for the east side of the Bypass corridor.-
Elevated noise levels along the Bypass could
also conflict with activities permitted under
the proposed Commercial Recreation
designation along the west side of the
Bypass .
(b) Mitigation. Avoid redevelopment assistance
to development in those areas which would
result in adverse noise impacts; advocate
that the Residential and Commercial
Recreation designations along the Bypass
corridor be reevaluated in future General
Plan update efforts and the Bypass corridor
be reevaluated in future General Plan update
efforts and that consideration be given to
more compatible uses, such as Light
Industrial; if the existing land use
designations are retained, incorporate major
noise mitigation provisions into the General
Plan for these two areas , such as extended
building setbacks, sound walls, and earth
berms.
(c) Finding. The - Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV.E
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in D (1) (a)
above.
F. Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. "(Disturbed
Grassland Habitats) Buildout of the Project
Area would eliminate the majority, of the
disturbed grassland habitat and cause
associated wildlife species to shift their
activities to other undisturbed areas.
(b) Mitigation. Encourage wildlife species now
inhabiting existing disturbed grassland areas
to remain in the area, by requiring
Project-assisted nonresidential development
to provide a minimum amount of landscaping in
underutilized areas; emphasize native plant
species in landscaping to increase its value
as habitat.
-12-
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV.F
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in F (1) (a)
above.
(2) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. (Riparian
Habitats) The General Plan proposes a
substantial parkland/open space corridor
along San Pablo Creek which will help protect
the riparian area from Project-induced urban
encroachment. No such protection is provided
along Wildcat Creek. Project-induced
intensification of residential development
along Wildcat Creek could increase human
presence in and near the corridor which could
disturb sensitive riparian species.
(b) Mitigation. Advocate during the upcoming
General Plan update process that an open
space riparian corridor be designated along
Wildcat Creek; require as a condition of
Agency assistance to development along both
creeks that appropriate measures be
incorporated to avoid adverse impacts on the
stream corridors; situated trails along the
outer edges of the stream corridor to
decrease conflict between pedestrians and
sensitive riparian species.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV.F
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measures will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in F (2) (a)
above.
G. Archaeological Impacts
(1) (a) Potential Significant Adverse Impact. The
Project Area is known to be the location of
prehistoric habitation, and sensitive
archaeological material still exists within
the area. Project-induced intensification of
development under the current General Plan
could disturb known archaeological resources
as well as unearth currently unidentified
archaeological sites .
-13-
(b) Mitigation. Advocate maintenance of the
current County agreement with the California
Archaeological Inventory ( "CAI") to review
project applications; require that all
Agency-assisted projects within the Project
Area be reviewed by the County for possible
impacts to archaeological resources before
any building or grading permits are issued;
stipulate in Agency agreements with
developers and landowners that, in the event
that subsurface cultural resources are
encountered during approved ground-disturbing
activities , work in the immediate vicinity
must be stopped and a qualified archaeologist
contacted to evaluate the finds; report the
discovery or disturbance of any cultural
resources to the American Indian Council , San
Pablo and the CAI; undertake mitigation
measures prescribed by these groups and
required by the county prior to resumption of
construction activities.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency hereby adopt
the above mitigation measures and, based upon
the information and analysis in Section IV.H
of the FEIR, the Board and Agency find that
the adopted mitigation measure will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in G (1) (a)
above.
H. Growth - Inducing Impacts
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. Growth
inducement in an inherent impact, i.e. a goal
of the proposed redevelopment effort. The
rate of industrial and housing development in
the area is now stagnant. Population and
housing totals have been declining. If
Project objectives are successfully achieved,
redevelopment activities are expected to
reverse the decline and induce a new period
of economic development. The FEIR
conservatively assumes that Project-induced
development may result in Project Area
buildout under the current General Plan
within 25 years. If the Project does
effectively induce buildout, the following
local growth effects can be anticipated_:
Total occupied dwelling units would
increase from 721 (1986) to an
estimated 1 ,670 units, an increase of
949 units;
-14-
Total population would increase from
the current estimate between 1 ,950 and
2,350 people to an estimated buildout
total of between 4 , 300 and 5 , 300
people, a 2 ,350-2 ,900 increase;
The total industrial development area
would increase from 229 acres now to
300 acres at buildout, a 30 percent
increase;
In addition, 131 of the existing 156
acres of industrial development which
are now under-utilized would be
redeveloped; and
The estimated Project Area job total
would increase from 2 , 110 (1986) to
4 ,880 (buildout) .
In addition, Project induced completion of
the North Richmond Bypass can be expected to
have a significant growth-inducing impact on
vacant and underutilized industrial lands
north of the Project Area. In addition,
Project-induced increases in local primary
("basic" ) jobs could be expected to have a
"multiplier" effect, increasing employment
totals in the region by a total (primary and
secondary) of between 4 ,608 and 5 , 900 jobs.
(Current ABAG multipliers for the area range
from 1 .8 to 2 .3)
(b) Mitigation. None proposed. Impact is
unavoidable.
(c) Finding. The Board and Agency find that
the significant environmental effect
identified in M (1) (a) above cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened. This
impact will therefore be discussed in
Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement
of Overriding Conditions) of this document.
I. Cumulative Impacts.
(1) (a) Significant Adverse Impact. In addition to
the proposed Redevelopment Plan, a number of
other current and anticipated projects in the
Project Area vicinity will also contribute to
local environmental change. These other
projects include:
-15-
The City of Richmond Redevelopment
Program which is currently inducing
.development activity in nearby
locations to the south of the Project
Area;
(ii) The City of San Pablo Redevelopment
Program which is inducing similar
development activity at nearby
locations east of Rumrill;
(iii) Other segments of -the North Richmond
Bypass project;
(iv) The 1-580/Hoffman Corridor highway
construction program to the south;
(V) Development activities and urban
intensification of the Richmond Marina
area to the south; and
(vi) Development activity in the Hilltop
commercial and residential area to the
northeast.
The cumulative effects of these other
projects, in combination with the
proposed North Richmond Area
Redevelopment Plan, are considerable
and are discussed in the FEIR and
these findings under Land Use Impacts
(resultant market pressures on Project
Area underutilized industrial lands) ,
Circulation Impacts (effects on Bypass
and Rumrill traffic volumes) , Drainage
Impacts (cumulative runoff increases) ,
and Noise Impacts (the noise
implications of cumulative traffic
volume changes) .
V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects
The following significant adverse effects of the
Redevelopment Plan are identified in the FEIR and these
- findings as unavoidable:
1 . Project-induced increases in the rate of industrial
development could be expected to result. in
unavoidable contributions to cumulative air quality
degradation in the region, as well as such localized
impacts as odor, soil contamination by toxics, and
hazardous material handling. and storage risks;
-16-
t ,
2 . Project-induced industrial development would result
in an increased rate of escalation in local
industrial land values, which in turn could be
expected to result in the eventual displacement of
"lower end" industrial activities (auto wrecking,
open storage, etc. ) ;
3 . Project-induced residential development adjacent to
the proposed North Richmond Bypass, as designated by
the current General Plan, could be incompatible with
anticipated levels of noise and air pollutant
emissions;
4 . Approximately 12 ,000 vehicular trips per average day
would be added to the regional circulation system;
5 . Project-induced buildout of the area will result in
incremental increases in ambient noise levels due to
overall increases in traffic and land use activity;
6 . The project would contribute to cumulative losses of
open-field and disturbed grassland habitat in the
region resulting from urban growth;
7 . Project-induced construction could be expected to
create; temporary increases in flotation and water
pollutants carried into local streams via
construction runoff, as well as localized air
pollution emissions and noise from construction
equipment and processes; and
8 . Growth`-inducing impacts and cumulative impacts (see
Sections IV.H and IV.I above.
These significant adverse impacts may occur despite the
adoption by the Board and Agency of all mitigation measures
related to these impacts that were identified in the FEIR. No
mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have been rejected
as being infeasible due to specific economic, social, or other
considerations.!
VI. Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan
The FEIR discusses three alternatives to the
Redevelopment Project, the adoption of which would-, in some
cases, avoid the significant environmental effects listed in
Section V above,. Each alternative is discussed in this
section, and findings are made regarding their feasibility.
A. No Project Alternative
Under the no project- alternative, .the proposed North
Richmond Area Redevelopment Project would be rejected and the
f
-17-
level of public assistance to the Project Area would continue
along present trends .
On the one hand, pursuant to this alternative, the
Project Area would be expected to experience a substantially
lower rate of economic development than with the Project, and
thus would represent a much less significant contribution to
cumulative traffic, air quality, and noise problems in the
subregion.
On the other hand, economic stagnation and decline in the
Project Area would be expected to continue. Although it is
assumed in this analysis that the North Richmond Bypass would
ultimately be completed as planned, the construction schedule
may be delayed without Agency assistance on the Parr and
Goodrick segments. In addition, without the proposed internal
-collector road and infrastructure improvements to the
industrial areas, private sector interest in these areas would
remain low. Without these and other proposed measures to
facilitate industrial development in the Project Area (land
assembly and write-down, etc. ) , the rate of industrial
development could be expected to remain stagnant. Without the
anticipated economic effects of the various
industrial-oriented redevelopment activities, and without the
direct neighborhood improvement effects associated with the
housing rehabilitation and infill components of the Project,
physical and social conditions in the residential area would
continue to decline. The number of total residential units
and the area' s population would continue to decrease.
Finally, with continuation of existing conditions , the FEIR
and other Agency data indicate that the area' s severe
unemployment and household income situation could not
reasonably be expected to change.
The Board and Agency therefore conclude that adoption of
the "No Project" Alternative would not meet community
development goals for the North Richmond area and find this
alternative to be infeasible pursuant to California
Administrative Code Section 15091 (c) (3) .
B. Alternative Two: Early Emphasis on Housing
Activities
The Redevelopment Plan as now proposed would focus
initial actions on improvement of local access routes and
infrastructure, and on other measures to facilitate industrial
development. Then, with the tax increment derived from
Project-stimulated industrial development, later neighborhood
improvement phases of the program could be implemented,
including residential rehabilitation and construction of new
housing, as well as provision of park, open space, and
neighborhood commercial facilities.
This alternative to the proposed action would reverse the
redevelopment sequence . Initial program efforts would be
directed to neighborhood improvements, i.e. housing
rehabilitation, infill residential construction, parks, and
neighborhood commercial improvements; industrial development
programs would be postponed until later years.
A shift in early programs focus toward neighborhood
improvements would provide a more immediate, direct response
to the severe housing deterioration and dilapidation rate in
the North Richmond area. The earlier scheduling of Project
rehabilitation activities could also be expected to partially
reduce the level of near-future abatement (clearance) activity
currently anticipated by the County.
The early emphasis on residential improvement would also
serve to defer the adverse impacts associated with industrial
development, including associated air quality, toxic materials
handling, and noise impacts, to a future time when more
stringent regulatory techniques and/or improved technologies
will exist to reduce the level of these impacts.
The moderate degree of residential intensification and
population increase projected in the FEIR as a direct result
of Project-assisted housing activities will contribute much
less added traffic to the surrounding street system than will
near-term industrial growth. On the other hand, the lack of
early Agency participation in the Bypass construction (one of
the proposed early, non-housing activities) could prolong its
completion, with local adverse traffic impacts that far
outweigh the traffic benefits of this alternative.
The proposed Project near-term emphasis on industrial
development is 'scheduled to occur as the Bypass is being
completed. Thus , although the early industrial development
will generate more traffic than would the residential
improvements, traffic volume projections in this report
indicate that the Bypass-associated reductions in traffic
volumes on local streets will substantially offset any
Project-related traffic increases.
Differences in the long-term buildout implications of
this alternative in comparison to the proposed Project; i.e. ,
the implications for land use, population and housing,
circulation, municipal services, drainage, and noise impacts
would not be significant.
Project non-housing components are projected to cost the
Agency approximately $12 million. . Although more than the
housing total, ' this expenditure is expected to stimulate a
substantial increase in the rate of local industrial
development. In comparison to low and moderate income
residential development, industrial land uses generally
require substantially less annual public service expenditure,
-19-
and can be expected to generate significantly more tax revenue
increment. It is anticipated that the tax increment from a
moderate increase in the rate of local industrial development
will be adequate to cover the Agency' s initial debt service
costs, as well as provide substantial additional revenues for
use towards implementing and sustaining later housing
improvement components of the Redevelopment Project.
The housing improvement component of the Project is
projected to cost the Agency about $8 .5 million (1987
dollars) . Early implementation of housing improvement
activities as suggested with this alternative would probably
require debt financing, with principal and interest to the
retired in the future with tax increment revenues . However,
increases in tax increment revenues anticipated from housing
rehabilitation and new construction are expected to be
substantially less than associated debt and public service
costs. For this reason, the Board and Agency conclude that
early emphasis on housing activities are infeasible pursuant
to California Administrative Codes Section 15091 (c) (3) .
C. Alternative Three: Modified General Plan
The proposed Redevelopment Plan is required by law to be
implemented in a manner consistent with current General Plan
policies. The FEIR has noted that the location and extent of
the current General Plan designated single-family residential
expansion area north of Wildcat Creek should be reconsidered
for a number of reasons, including potential land use
incompatibilities with anticipated noise and air emissions
levels in the vicinity of planned North Richmond Bypass .
Under this third alternative , Project-induced buildout of the
area would be governed by a modified General Plan land use mix
for these northern subareas. The single-family residential
designation shown on Figure 5 of the FEIR would be changed to
a land use mix, including light industrial uses within the
Bypass corridor, in combination with residential expansion in
the internal area. All other aspects of the buildout land use
mix would remain in the same.
Assuming that the General Plan residential designation
retained in analysis zone H would still be "single-family"
(i.e. , 7 units per average acre) , the Project Area housing
total with buildout would be reduced under the modified
General Plan from approximately 1 ,670 units (the current
General Plan figure) to 1 , 260 units, a 24 percent--reduction.
On the other hand, the industrial acreage total (light
industrial, heavy industrial and employment designations)
would be enlarged by 58 acres (from 314 acres to 372 acres) ,
an 18 percent increase.
With this land use scheme, the residential expansion area
north of Wildcat Creek, although significantly reduced in
area, would be separated or "buffered" from Bypass-related
-20-
4
` noise and air-quality impacts by the light industrial uses.
In addition, the larger and more prominent light industrial
area adjacent to the Bypass would attract more industrial
development and', thus, would serve the Redevelopment Plan -goal
to facilitate near-term industrial development within the
redevelopment area boundary and use of resulting tax increment
revenues to rehabilitate existing housing, construct new
housing, and generally improve the North Richmond communitv.
Adverse impacts of this Alternative 3 appear to outweigh
the beneficial effects discussed above. First the 18 percent
increase in Project Area industrial land could be expected to
result in corresponding increases in the adverse environmental
impacts associated with industrial development; i.e. , point
source air pollutant emissions, noise, soil contamination by
toxics, other hazardous materials handling impacts, etc. The
land use change could also ultimately result in a slight
increase in total peak hour external traffic generation by the
Project Area. The affected analysis zones (E and I) would
generate a total of approximately 410 external trips in the PM
peak hour under, the current General Plan scenario, as compared
to 655 trips for the Alternative 3 land use mix (an increase
of 250 trips) . As a result, the peak-hour external trip
generation total for the Project Area would increase from
4,534 to 4 ,784 , i.e. , about a 6 percent increase.
Finally, the designated residential land area and related
opportunities for expanding the Project Area housing stock
would be reduced by about 24 percent, while the extent of
industrial land area would be increased by 58 acres or 18
percent. Thus, Alternate 3 would tend to further exacerbate
the local imbalance between jobs and housing in the subregion.
State law requires all redevelopment plans to conform to
the area general plan. The Board and Agency therefore cannot
at this time adopt a Redevelopment Plan that utilizes the land
use designations proposed in Alternative Three, as these
designations do not conform to the County General Plan. For
this reason, as well as the fact that the significant
environmental effects of Alternative Three appear to be
greater than those of the proposed Project, the Board and
Agency find that Alternative Three is infeasible at this time
pursuant to California Administrative Code 15091 (c) (3) .
VII . Statement of Overriding Considerations
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the unavoidable adverse
effects of the 'Redevelopment Plan which are summarized in
Section V above, the Board and Agency have determined,
pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 15093 , that
the benefits of the proposed Plan outweigh these unavoidable
adverse environmental effects , and the Plan should be
approved.
�L
-21-
The Board and Commission approve the Redevelopment Plan
for the following reasons based upon the record:
1 . The Redevelopment Plan will operate to revitalize- and
expand industrial and employment related development
in the Project Area in order that it may become a
productive and attractive economic center, providing
job opportunities for community residents and
enhancing the local tax base.
2 . The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to
strengthen the existing residential neighborhood in
the southern portion of the Project Area through
development of a neighborhood commercial district,
park and open space development, street improvement
and landscaping, and expansion of community
facilities.
3 . Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will improve
and upgrade deteriorated housing stock in the Project
Area and will stimulate the construction of new
affordable housing, thereby improving and expanding
the supply of housing affordable to low and moderate
income families .
4 . The Redevelopment Plan enables the County and the
Agency to eliminate the blighting influences present
in the Project Area so that the Area may be of
physical, social and economic benefit to the North
Richmond environs and to the County as a whole.
06/26/87
#101/A32006
-22-