The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05191992 - 2.7 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: PERFECTO VILLARREAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Costa CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY County DATE: MAY 19, 1992 SUBJECT: `CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER AT 2047 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY SPECIFIC REGUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS: A. With respect to the proposed permanent homeless shelter at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way in an unincorporated area of North Concord,, the Board of Supervisors: 1. Having considered the attached California Environmental Quality .. Act documents, including the Notice of Intention to Adopt a Negative Declaration, the initial study and supporting documents, the comments received from the public, the staff responses to the comments received, and the negative declaration, and on the basis of such. information,. F'NDS that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and APPROVES and ADOPTS the negative declaration of environmental significance for the project. 2. FINDS that the negative declaration of environmental significance reflects its independent judgment. . 3. AUTHORIZES and DIRECTS the Community Development Department, to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. B. In the event the County does not use, or is prevented from using, the premises at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way as a homeless shelter, the Board of Supervisors, in the alternative: 1. Having rconsidere.d the, ,California Environmental Quality Act docu- ments; including the initial study, FINDS that the County's use of said, premises as a warehouse and .administrative office space is a categorical exemption (Class lA (CEQA Guidelines, section 15301(a)) under the California Environmental Quality Act, in that the use consists of the operation and minor alteration of a private CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM TTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Fay 19 ' APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X '.` . The Board heard comments from the following persons : Mike McCabe, Ruth Huber, Merlin Wedepohl , :Anne Good, William Sabo , William Clark, Debra S .,. Pitts , John H. Patton. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X ___ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. May 19 , 1992 CC: County Administrator ATTESTED` County Couns-el PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Community Development SUPERVISORS,AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR General Services Housing Authority BY _DEPUTY M382 (101881 i..l Board of Supervisors May 19, 1992 Page 2 structure involving no expansion of use beyond that previously existing. 2. AUTHORIZES and DIRECTS THE Community Development Department to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. C. Persuant to Government Code Section 26227 and Board of Supervisors Resolution 91-608, the Board of Supervisors: 1. AUTHORIZES and DIRECTS the Director of General Services to execute on behalf of the County, a written lease with the Moran Family Trust for the premises at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, in the North Concord area, for use as a permanent shelter for single homeless adults, under substantially the same terms set forth in, and in substan- tially the same form as, the attached Lease. In the alternative, the premises will be used for warehouse and administrative office space. 2. AUTHORIZES and DIRECTS the Executive Director of the Housing Authority, on behalf of the County, to extend from June 1, 1992 through August 31, 1992, and modify the Contract Agreement #92-2 with Shelter, Inc. for services provided to homeless residents at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way pursuant to the project description. This will allow time for soli- citing a Request for Proposal for on-going operations of the Central County Homeless Shelter. 3. AUTHORIZES and DIRECTS the Executive Director of the Housing Authority, on behalf of the County, to extend the Memorandum of Understanding with the Sheriff's Department to supply three meals per day to homel-ess 'persons residing at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way for the period of June 1, 1992 through August 31, 1992. II. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The shelter operating costs for the next three months in the amount of $135,360 will be funded through state funds and general funds. III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors on November 19, 1991, directed that the Community Development Department commence a study of the proposed site under the California Environmental Quality Act for use as a per=manent shelter. The actions recommended above will make available the provision of at least 60 shelter beds for homeless single men and women. ATTACHMENTS .. ` CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER 1. NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3. STAFF RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. CEQA DOCUMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE USE OF SHELTER STRUCTURE 5. PROPOSED LEASE TO MORAN FAMILY TRUST NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROPOSED CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER NORTH CONCORD AREA February 25, 1992 The Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has conducted an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a proposed project that would convert an existing light industrial/warehouse building and temporary emergency shelter into a permanent shelter for homeless individuals. The shelter is being proposed by the County of Contra Costa. ,The proposed facility would provide shelter and training facilities for up to 100 individuals. The subject site is located at #2047 Arnold Industrial Way in the North Concord area (adjacent to the City of Concord) . Attached is the project description. Based on the initial study, staff has concluded -that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Attached is a copy of the initial study. Accordingly, a negative declaration of environmental significance is proposed for this project for purposes of compliance with CEQA. The principal purpose of this notice is to inform potentially interested parties of this finding. Lead Agency This notice is also intended to inform potentially interested parties that the Contra Costa County Community Development Departmen.t ,j.,ntends•.ao;.:.se.rve .as the lead agency for the purpose of this project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Public Comment Period Should individuals wish to have the County consider comments on the adequacy of the proposed negative declaration for thi-s project, the comments must be received by the Community Development Department office no later than 5:00 P.M. , Monday, March 30, 1992 at the following address: Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ATTN Bob Drake -1- Questions on the Project Should there be any questions on the proposed project, these questions should be directed to: Housing Authority County of Contra Costa 3133 Estudillo Street Martinez, CA 94553 Housing Operations Division (Richard Martinez or Pat Pinkston) (510) 372-5385 -2- t � � oa" 3 �REta ■ �. Q3ii7;�' ��i� f s.''�!ec.Y�3� '�J'tb�'`a.��`fid �►�i� �Q�`®�►.Si�:Rj�9 g3'�.A Rr *.v prn,w`�"�.'�.• �' ��'�� '"•� to�*�� .. �� 3r ' .�,o,�°��oo:,�aaj®�c � �t � r��,y'°'e 'q� '��► O,O,�s„��'�a �'"�°.;�° J ��,�+'r4.�0�' E�.��$` � ♦t ,� +�aI 9. �.��^"�� ®��c++�yns�3'`'�!y*d`� ,�"'y�' a� � '�a «�!*�► �°��!�`�^��,��v''�_�p'��yr'F�.,�'��®� e��'��s '��,`�Ri+',,�ia'�Fy� a�`�"� —ice ss �` ��.�+'� ®�`i�,r<M�fr6i► �,.� � ��„� WPB. �':�°v4 �,� �y©+°�' �C��;, �"��.�-�,�i► as d�lAAA * me ks i riw S rsp 9 p��_�t`� �► `�r'� �p F ��tU a� ��'�d��5�A'�ttFIRM ' � ,4 �' �!!� ,.��fl� :. �:�,tEiR� gy�,SF q,�'.'".4,�p0y�.® ♦ ��il{•�'F�p m�`�`' a fi °�' l�,a� �'� � i��v'�r'i,��F'��'�®y i•�k y "�"�"�"d 4h,�,Qo�F�, °k. +E�� +`"' `�� Qn°�♦��gra � °�R` ��a�� At / f r I an •:, O O� + ,,.+ ..: '�I� •.�-T \ \\ SOU �k-. � °°° P'? ,•�� ` ,•L �1� — � \'`• ,t \ ._zoo�O. �;. ° Filtra i •�, �\ Plant.ge r yi ooar I ...a�....�.. 7*..f Chene20 ry ? , V\ Ott R"es�4r�eolr A L L A R Deo water. ,. Aft I _ • - RE RVbIR ` z Y rG Sir _ -------.-.... SGo A ourse P 33'S ;:.,:.., .��, ... I. ; . x .• - "• ond�Cv r . E iAR D � , r..l Q O�� r • � �° '�l/� ( O ©702 );' 4� `• .•• /Trailer •.�'..Park :'I'`. �. •li '\rive-In " 1 i �, ' ��\� .� f I i Theater ' ,^ •• �_� V 7�L jo I , / . •r� /�./ �,�tll �y Sewage ��G BM•.,16 �+ �c��R , /• —� Ze Disposal. �� :• a Glenbroo % �^ Ir / •�/ !% j Sohn, �� ° seh j. ` Ele-*h 'Q � 'Trader :Parkivi / �• r / .f i i�,/ :�.5�, •�- : , � �. 1. : apo �` P'� •• •I••• L ��/�'��,�;� � i , I ry4• .i " \ � ,>�ski. 90• ,I \ . \� �,� - �Q. \ •I /~, n MtDiablch �' Wnitq e `'.) � � \� •.�\ i� y\\�-,./__ � .AVE- .�. �� ,� Q\Q .■ Urrve in y.—� < Ci icCent J •\ ��\\ GONG.r Theater-- �-� '� j •'I .;ib� 'I /� � , }.. �� r"` I` \ _ I I �• ' I �0 I .CONCORD ,. �•_ '/. =. '` �:?;; �... � '��e \ Oma ` �;� .. r• �_�� 2y \ \�4' �� :�.Sewa - at ! / yCt• -;y'�'. o �' \L• �.`_ � � _�.I��•••��'��•�. � r/� 0 '��°�� Off/ R St � � �/ � j r -•�:��- � `v- - � \ 0oi \y �� ti j t'`y�Ro f �!'" � t i �^�- � �• Imo.-_ � 3 Ior � � � � rr 0 •j - --�+-::', `:-��/ -\moi' a!agi!ng`-<! W \\:. :• , X y\•• � 1' 'ecO r '/ la:".::i`:;.a �.. icy _'. ✓/ �' • R\ sn •.•rr/l 3P /. . Ar- California EnvironmentalQualityAct. NOTICE OF Completion of Environmental Impact Report xx Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance CONTRA 'COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET NORTH WING-4TH FLOOR MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 2091 Bob Drake Telephone: (415) 646- Contact Person Project Description and Location: PROPOSED CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER The Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has conducted an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a proposed project that would convert an existing light industrial/warehouse building and temporary emergency shelter into a permanent shelter for homeless individuals. The shelter • is being proposed by the County of Contra Costa. The proposed facility would provide shelter and training facilities for up to 100 individuals. The subject site is located at #2047 Arnold Industrial Way in the North Concord area (adjacent to the City of Concord). Based on the initial study, staff has concluded that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Attached is a copy of the initial study. Accordingly, a negative declaration of environmental significance is proposed for this project for purposes of compliance with CEQA. The principal purpose of this notice is to inform.potentially interested parties of this finding. (L-1) (ZA:F-15) (CT 3200.02) (Parcel #159-080-036) The Environmental. Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for review at the address below: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, California Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: 226 z thru 3 2 By AP 9 R 12/89 Community Developmen partment Representative INITIAL STUDY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . Background 1. Name of Proponent: County of Contra Costa 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponents: Housing Authority 3133 Estudillo Street Martinez, CA 94553 (510) 372-7308 3. Date Checklist Submitted: February 24, 1992 4. Name of Proposal , if applicable: Central County Homeless Shelter II . Environmental Impacts Review based in part on Environmental Resource USGS Map Overlay System Contra Costa County Quad Sheet Port Chicago Parcel # 159-080-036 Date of Site Visit December 29, 1991 * * S I 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _x_ Outside designated special study zones and not subject to significant liquefaction potential ; Environmental Resource Overlay System, Map #3 b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _x_ The project would occur in an existing building. No development involving grading is proposed outside the existing structure. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? x * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. > -3 S* I* No grading outside the existing structure is proposed. Conclusion based on Site Inspection/Project Description. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _x_ No grading development outside the existing structure is proposed. Conclusion based on Project Description/Site Inspection. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _x_ Conditions that lead to wind or water erosion are usually associated with disturbance of existing natural terrain and vegetation. The project does not involve any significant alteration of existing exterior conditions. Therefore, there is no risk that wind or water erosion might result from this project. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x The project does not involve any gradi.ng�,:;acti.vities. Except for a proposed patio area, the proposed shelter operation and development will be confined to an existing structure. Therefore, there is no risk that the project might result in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a bay. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x Based on a review of Map #3 of the County Environmental Resource Overlay System, it is evident that the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone (near a documented active geologic fault), nor within an area subject to liquefaction potential . Based on a review of Map #2 of the Environmental Resource Overlay System and 12/29/91 site inspection, it is also evident that the site does not lie in proximity to any landslides mudslides, ground failure or other similar geotechnical hazards. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _xi * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -4- S* I* The project does not involve activities that would increase air • emissions to any significant degree. The project may generate only a handful of additional trips per day beyond traffic levels that would be associated with the building's use as a light industrial project. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. b. The creation of objectionable odors? _x_ The project does not involve any manufacturing or processing activities that would result in any objectionable odors. Project Description. C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _x_ The proposed shelter would be conducted within an existing building. The proposed conversion of this building to a permanent shelter would have no impact on neighborhood or regional meteorological conditions. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either _ — — marine or fresh waters? r^ , 1, x. No bodies of water lie in proximity to the proposed project. The project involves the conversion of an existing structure. There will be no significant increase in the amount of runoff generated from the project. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? x The project involves the conversion of an existing structure. No exterior structural additions are proposed. Therefore, the project will not generate any additional runoff, nor alter existing drainage patterns. Project Description C. Alterations to the course or low of flood waters? x The Federal Emergency Management Agency has mapped areas of the County that are subject to flood hazard. The subject site lies outside of the area where the agency has determined that flooding might occur (flooded conditions at least once in a 100-year period). The agency indicates that the subject site is in an * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -5- S* I* area that is subject to only minimal flooding. F.E.M.A. Flood Map - Panel 95 of 625 d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _x_ The proposed project is not proposing any new structures or additions to existing structures that would cause an increase in the amount of storm runoff. Therefore, the project will not change the amount of surface water in any water body. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _x� The project is not proposing any new structures or additions to existing structures that would cause an increase in the amount of storm runoff. Therefore, it is not likely to alter any existing discharges into surface waters. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _x_ The project is not proposing any new structures or exterior development that would alter existing,.- drainage patterns. Therefore, the project is not likely to cause any alteration to existing ground water conditions. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _x_ The project is proposed within an existing structure_ Therefore, _the project will not alter existing ground waters. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _x_ The site adjoins a water transmission facility (Mokelumne Aqueduct) of the East Bay Muncipal Utility District. The project is proposed to occur within an existing structure. Therefore, there is no risk that the project might result in a substantial reduction in the amount of public water supplies. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -6- S* I* i . Exposure of people or property to water O related hazards such as flooding or tidal — waves? x The Federal Emergency Management Agency has mapped areas of the County that are subject to flood hazard. The subject site lies outside of the area where the agency has determined that flooding might occur (flooded conditions at least once in a 100-year period). The agency indicates that the subject site is i'n an area that is subject to only minimal flooding. F.E.M.A. Flood Map - Panel 95 of 625 4. Plant Life. Will ' the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _x_ The proposed project would occur within an existing structure. There are no known protected plant species in the vicinity of the project. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. and U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 5. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _x_ The proposed project would occur. wi:thi,nA.Ian:.,existing structure. There are no known protected plant species in the vicinity of the project. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 5. C. Introduction. of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _x_ The proposed project would occur within an existing structure, therefore, the project is not likely to introduce new species of plants into the area, nor introduce a new barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. Project Description. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x The site does not contain any agricultural operations. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _x_ * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -7- S* I* The proposed project would occur within an existing structure. • There are no known protected animal species within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project is not likely to cause any change to the diversity of animal species in the area. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 5. b. . Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _x_ The proposed project would occur within an existing structure. There are no known protected animal species within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project is not likely to cause any change to the diversity of animal species in the area. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 5. C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _x_ The proposed project would occur within an existing structure, therefore, the project is not likely to introduce new species of animals into the area nor introduce a new barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _x_ The project would occur within an existing building. No additional runoff would be generated by the project. Therefore, it is unlikely that the project would cause any deterioration to the habitat of existing fish or wildlife. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _x_ The site is located in an area which is subject to ambient noise conditions principally generated by traffic along Highway 4 and Arnold Industrial Way. Nearby industrial operations (e.g. , auto wrecking yards) may also contribute to noise conditions in the neighborhood. A 1/28/92 report prepared by a licensed acoustic engineer, Charles Salter and Associates, found that noise conditions at the site range from 61 decibels to 69 decibels. The proposed shelter will have at most a marginal (insignificant) impact on existing noise conditions in the vicinity. Most of the activity associated with the shelter will occur within an enclosed building. A small patio area is proposed for only limited outdoor use. * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -8- S* I* Based on these considerations, it is unlikely that the project • would cause significant noise impacts on surrounding uses. Conclusion based on Project Description , Site Inspection, and Salter and Associates Noise Study. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x The proposed project is in proximity to State Highway 4. Existing and projected noise impacts from existing and projected traffic and aircraft operations on the proposed shelter have been analyzed by an acoustical engineering firm, Charles M. Salter and Associates. Their findings are contained in a report dated January 28, 1992. The report concludes that the existing shelter building will meet the State of California's requirements for multi-family housing projects, and that no mitigation is necessary in order to assure a livable environment. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _x_ Proposed outdoor lighting will be limited to low-level safety lighting and low-profile landscape lighting for the proposed patio area. The lighting will be designed so as not to glare or shine on adjoining properties. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a ._ :, ,,, substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? x The site is presently used as a temporary 'emergency homeless shelter. Insofar as the subject .project is a County project, the project is not covered by the County General Plan. Existing surrounding uses consist of light industrial activity, including a cemetery and at least two residences. The proposed shelter operation would not result in a substantial alteration of the use of the area. 9. Natural Resource. Will the proposal result in: .a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x No significant increase in the rate of use of any natural resource will result from this maximum 100-person homeless shelter. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I is for insignificant. -9- S* I* a. A risk of an explosion or the release of 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil , pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _x_ There are no known supplies of hazardous substances in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, there is little risk that the project might result in an accident that would threaten public. safety. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _x_ There are no known emergency response or emergency evacuation plans that have any direct relationship to activities on the subject site. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? —x The proposed project is not likely to induce by itself a trend to residential development in the area. Virtually all development that has occurred in the last 30 years in this area can be characterized as industrial or commercial as approved by bothl4he; County and the City of Concord. It is not likely that the pattern of development in this area will change from industrial to residential development since many factors encourage industrial development and discourage residential development in this area. Factors which encourage industrial development in the North Concord area include: (1) the prevailing industrial development pattern and separation from residential neighborhoods; (2) the presence of easily accessible transportation facilities (Highways 4 & 242 and I-680, and Buchanan Field Airport); and (3) the level terrain which is crucial for industrial development. The proposed facility is intended to accommodate homeless persons within Contra Costa County, not persons who reside outside the County. The proposed facility by itself will not significantly alter the distribution, density or growth rate of the population in the central county area. 12. }lousing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -10- S* I* The project would provide shelter to homeless individuals. The . project will not result in new demands on existing or additional housing. Project Description 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? x The project will generate similar traffic levels to that associated with light industrial activity. Project Description. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _x_ The existing development provides on-site parking for 27 vehicles. Six of these spaces are assigned to an industrial tenant who occupies the adjoining space in the building proposed for shelter use. The remaining 21 spaces_ would be assigned to the shelter operation. County experience in the management of homeless shelters is that few homeless individuals possess a car for which a parking space would be needed. Nearly all individuals who will be admitted to this shelter will be reliant on a program shuttle service and, to • a lesser extent, on existing public transit services in the area. The primary demand for parking facitjati:ess -will come from the needs of program staff and visitors. Eleven shelter parking spaces would be reserved for staff and support services; ten spaces would be provided for visitor parking. The proposed shelter parking would be comparable to the most restrictive County standards (e.g. , restaurants - 1 space per 3 seats). Based on these considerations, staff is satisfied that the proposed parking will be sufficient to meet the demands of the proposed shelter. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _x_ The proposed shelter would principally rely upon the local road system and public transit.. No significant impacts from the use of these systems would result. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 17. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _x_ The proposed shelter would principally rely upon the local road system and public transit. No significant impacts from the use of these systems would result. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 17 * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -11- S* I* e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air ® traffic? _x_ The proposed shelter would principally rely upon the local road system and public transit. No use of waterborne, rail or air traffic systems are proposed. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _x_ The project would have similar traffic levels to light industrial usage of the structure. Because the North Concord Area is principally industrial in character, there are few bicyclists and pedestrians. No County trails are designated along Arnold Industrial Way. Based on these considerations the proposed project is not likely to increase traffic hazards in the area. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 15 & 17. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _x_ The shelter lies within three miles of an existing fire station. A new station is planned that would onlyft�,be-half as far away. A transmittal from the Consolidated Fire District dated 2/5/92 does not identify any unmanageable fire safety concerns associated with the conversion of the existing temporary shelter to a permanent shelter. b. Police protection? _x_ The project description indicates that a number of security measures will be incorporated into the operation of the proposed shelter. The project will provide for at least two staff persons providing 24-hours a day supervision of clientele. Individuals will be screened by County staff and program staff prior to initiation of intake at the shelter. Initial transportation to the shelter will be arranged through the screening process. "Drop-ins" will not be granted admission. and will be transported to a suitable location outside of the neighborhood. All shelter resident activities are to occur on the shelter property. The proposed shelter operation rules will not permit loitering by shelter residents. The principal means of transportation of shelter residents will be by use of vans and other vehicles directly serving the program. • * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -12- S* I* It should be noted that the County has had good experiences in managing homeless shelter programs in Richmond and Walnut Creek. These programs have been well-received by the community and without any major community security concern having been raised. Based on these provisions, it is reasonable to conclude that the shelter will not generate any potentially significant public safety impacts on the neighborhood. Attached is a letter dated February 7, 1992 from the Sheriff-Coroner's office indicating that they anticipate being able to handle service requests which may result from the project. c. Schools? x The proposed shelter would serve adult homeless individuals only. Therefore, ' the project will have no impact on local schools. Conclusion based on Project Description. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x There are no major public park or recreation facilities within a half-mile of the site. Therefore, the shelter will not significantly impact local parks. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. e. Mai ntenance of publ i c. faci 1 i ti es, i ncl ud ,ngx roads? x The project will not place any significant impacts on public facilities such as roads, sewer lines, or water lines. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. f. Other governmental services? x The project is part of County programs to provide shelter to County homeless persons. No additional governmental services are anticipated. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ,x_ The project will not result in a significant increase in demand for energy supplies. The facility is intended to serve up to 100 persons which. is a small proportion of the County's total population base. The demand for energy caused by this facility in relation to the County's overall energy consumption will also * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -13- S* I*. be minute. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? _x, The project will not result in a significant increase in either electrical , natural gas or petrol supplies. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the utilities: x The shelter is proposed for an existing light industrial/warehouse building. The shelter operation will not result in a need for major new utility systems or alterations to existing utilities. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _x_ The project proposes to identify the health status of admitted persons and refer them to medical programs as appropriate. A temporary shelter program has been An p#Lace :at ache site for two months which has not resulted in the creation" of any major health hazards. In view of the success of the present health care program, it is reasonable to conclude that the project will not result in any new health hazards. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? x A few major industrial operations (e.g., TOSCO) lie within three miles of the site. There is no indication that these industrial operations cause adverse health impacts to individuals who work or live in the North Concord Area. During the 2-month term of the existing emergency homeless shelter, there is no evidence that these industrial .operations are adversely impacting the shelter residents. Based on these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that the project will not expose the shelter residents to potential health hazards. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -14- S* I* open to public view? _x_ State Highway 4 is designated a scenic highway by the . County. However, the project will not result in any exterior changes that would be noticeable to passing motorists. The facility will continue to appear as a light industrial complex, indistinguishable from other nearby uses of an industrial character. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No. 14. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _x_ Existing recreational facilities in the neighborhood (e.g. , Hillcrest Community Park) are not crowded. The proposed project is relatively small (maximum 100 people). Consequently, the project will not result in impacts upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _x_ No known archaeological sites lie within a half-mile of the site. The site is not located along side a river or stream embankment which is where archaeological sites are typically found. The proposed shelter is conf i ned . to_,, an, „;_exi;st ng structure. Therefore, there is little chance that any existing archaeological resources could be destroyed or damaged. } b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _x_ The nearest historic building (Ferdinand Pacheco Adobe) lies one mile from the site. The project involves the conversion of an existing structure (from a temporary to a permanent shelter). Therefore, there is no risk that any historic structures would be damaged by the project. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _x_ There are no known sites in the vicinity of the project site which are associated with unique ethnic cultural values. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the * Please note: "S" is 'for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -15- S* I* potential impact area? _x! There are no known religious buildings within a half-mile of the subject site.Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x The. project would merely convert an existing structure to a permanent shelter. There are no known endangered plant or animal species or historic structures in proximity to the site. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which�N occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of .time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) x There are no long-term environmental goals that would be jeopardized by the proposed shelter. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) x The project will not cause any impacts that would be cumulatively significant. Potential concerns reviewed in this study (e.g. , . traffic, public safety and noise) will have insignificant impacts when viewed either on their own or together. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. d. Does the project have environmental effects ® which will cause substantial adverse * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -16- S* I* effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project will not generate any environmental impacts which would cause adverse effects on human beings, direct or indirect. A security program has been proposed to maintain control of the operation and assure neighborhood compatibility. A noise study has been prepared that has analyzed acoustic conditions within and outside the proposed building and determined that the project meets State and County noise standards. There is no indication that existing industrial. operations in the vicinity are causing any significant health problems An the area, and there is no reason to suspect that the proposed project will be subject to any greater degree of health hazard from these operations. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. * Please note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. -17- III . Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Based on the foregoing review, the project will not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. IV. Determination On the basis of this initial . evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. —X— I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE .PREPARED. . I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _ February 25, 1992 Date Signa— Reviewed By: MH3:cchs/ins RD -18- CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (Contra Costa County) : CENTRAL COUNTY EMERGENCY SHELTER, 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord area. Applicants Name and Address: Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa 3133 Estudillo Street Martinez, CA 94553 Project Description: A proposal to convert an existing light industrial/warehouse building and temporary homeless shelter into a permanent homeless shelter. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary) : The proposed project involves the conversion of an existing building. No exterior improvements are proposed except for the conversion of a small storage area into a patio area. The project is not near any existing wetlands or riparian habitat. No known protected species lie within the vicinity of the project site. Accordingly, the project has no potential todamage any wildlife or natural vegetation. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711. 2 of the Fish and Game Code. Project Planner (Chief Planning "Official) Title: Chief, Land Development Lead Agency: Community Development Date: Section 711. 2, Fish and Game Code Contra Costa County Central County Homeless .Shelter PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location: 2047 Arnold Industrial way . North Concord, California PROJECT OVERVIEW The Central County Homeless Shelter Program is designed to provide housing and services for homeless indigent county residents under Government Code. Section 26227 and for homeless indigent county residents who are eligible for County General Assistance on a space and funds available basis. The Homeless Shelter Program will provide shelter program for up to 60 adults on a year-round basis, with an overflow/excess capacity of up to 100 adults. Shelter residents will be provided meals and be assisted with seeking employment, training, housing, medical services, drug and alcohol prevention education and other services. The County intends to initiate a Request for Interest and Qualifications from interested providers to operate the Central County Homeless Shelter Program. The Housing Authority of Contra Costa, on behalf of the County; will be responsible for contract management, coordination of homeless client referrals, and supervision of support services to the program. The shelter program will provide supportive services to help shelter residents achieve self-sufficiency. Support service staff will assist and monitor each individual in developing and carrying out a case plan aimed at ending such individual's homelessness and developing a self-sufficient life. The program is designed to serve 60 - 100 single homeless women and men in segregated sleeping areas of the existing structure. A kitchen and dining area will be added to allow for the production and serving of congregate meals. The facility currently has separate shower and bathing facilities, as well as a laundry area. • Central County Homeless shelter Project Description ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES Contra Costa County intends to enter into a five year lease with an option to purchase the structures at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way in North Concord, consisting of parcel #159-080-036. The plan includes moderate interior rehabilitation of the existing building to add a kitchen and dining area, changes to interior walls to create common area space for a reception/admitting area and addition of fencing and tables and chairs in the outdoor area. The preliminary floor plans for the Central County Homeless Shelter are attached as part of Attachment A. Upon executing the lease/purchase agreement, the Housing Authority will oversee the design planning and construction phases of modifications to the building and manage the selection of contractor who will conduct the rehabilitation. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS/LIGHTING/SIGNAGE No exterior changes to the existing building and no habitable additions to the exterior of the structures are planned. A solid six foot fence, as proposed (see Site Plan - Attachment B) will be constructed to completely enclose the northern perimeter and north eastern area of the property. Low-level, photo-sensitive lights are existing at the rear exits. The outdoor seating area will be lit with low profile landscape lighting which will be designed and operated in such a way as not to shine on other properties. Outdoor activities shall be restricted to the fenced area along the north eastern section of the shelter, as shown in the Site Plan - Attachment B. Such activities shall be limited to providing an outdoor smoking area which will include tables and chairs. Signs for the homeless shelter will be in keeping with the existing design for signage of the businesses in the complex. TRANSPORTATIONLPARKING The site plan allows for 21 parking spaces (see Attachment B) . Contra Costa County's experience in managing shelters indicates that a very small percentage of the homeless single persons who temporarily reside in .the shelters own automobiles. (The Brookside Homeless Shelter in Richmond houses 56 single men, operates on a 24-hour program design, and has 10 parking spaces. This amount of parking has exceeded the parking needs at the Brookside Shelter. ) In addition, parking will be limited to the designated spaces. The parking spaces for the shelter will be marked, as are parking spaces, for other tenants of the complex. Program staff will regularly check to ensure that parking of staff, residents and visitors to the homeless shelter is limited to the parking reserved for the shelter. • 2 Central County Homeless Shelter Project Description shelter. This includes the provision of a van shuttle/transportation service for the shelter residents which is provided by the program. It is anticipated that most of the transportation of shelter residents into and off the shelter property will be provided by the van shuttle service. A limited number of shelter residents, for specific purposes outlined in their case plan, will utilize public transportation as their mode of transport to and from the shelter. A public bus stop is available at the corner of Arnold Industrial Way and Industrial Way, within 1/2 mile from the entrance to the proposed Central County shelter. The County Connections bus Route #100 makes regular stops at this location. An existing walkway provides access to the shelter from the bus stop. PROGRAM OPERATIONS A. Services to be provided: 1. The program will provide a bed, blankets, linens, towels, toiletries, individual storage for personal property, and three meals per day to each resident. In the event that a resident cannot be present at a meal time (e.g. , away at a work assignment) , a bag meal will be provided., 2 . The shelter operator will provide the following services: a. Intake and initial Assessment; b. Personal assistance.and support to shelter residents, as appropriate; C. Access to washer/dryer on-site; d. Coordination with county departments, County Office of Education, Private Industry Council, Veteran's Services, etc. ; f. Coordination with the Social Security Department; g. Coordination with Housing Authority staff and Homeless Health Team in the development of a Case Plan for each resident. Case plans shall include specific steps towards resolving the person's homeless status within explicit time frames. h. Provide supervision .of follow-through of case plan. 3 . The Central County Homeless Shelter will provide a structured program that is designed to move the residents towards establishing self-sufficiency within a time-limited period (See Section on Support Services) . The program shall provide for the development of a Case Plan including, but not limited to: Money Management; Employment - Referrals to EDD, Job search training workshops, Veterans employment service, Employment Agencies/Temporary Agencies, Rubicon, Private Industry Council, Department of Rehabilitation, ROP, Adult • 3 Central County Homeless Shelter. Project Description Education, Second Chance Literacy Project, Referrals to Pre- employment Training, Resume Preparation, Interview Strategies, Job Search Strategies and Techniques, Housing Search, Participation in Substance Abuse Prevention Programs, Medical & Dental referrals. B. Supervision/Security: 1. The program operator will provide for on-site staff to operate the shelter 24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk. Staffing qualifications and scheduling patterns will be designed to ensure: a. A minimum of 2 staff persons on-site at all times; b. Supervision of residents to enforce program provisions and ensure that all activities of shelter residents are restricted 'to the shelter area and fenced outside area; C. Shuttle van/transportation service for residents to enable them to keep necessary appointments- such as for job interviews, medical treatments, Social Service appointments, etc. ; d. Provisions for screening, training and supervision of any staff and volunteers participating in the shelter program. . 2 . A copy of shelter rules and program requirements will be provided to and discussed with each individual at Intake, as well as posted at the Shelter. A copy of the Disqualification Policy will also be provided each resident. (See Attachment C for the rule violation penalties, and Attachment D for the Disqualification Process and Appeal Policy and Attachment E for the Notice of Action Form) . The program operator will comply with the County grievance procedure so that residents who are dissatisfied with an action can have an administrative review of the circumstances. Shelter rules will include, but not be limited to: a. Assault or threats of assault will be grounds for immediate disqualification; b. Theft of or damage to program property will be grounds for immediate disqualification; C. Persons who willfully and without good cause refuse to participate in case management services cannot continue to participate in the program; d. Persons who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol will not be admitted. The Central County Homeless Shelter will strictly enforce a policy of maintaining sobriety on the premises and surroundings. Use of alcohol and drugs will not be allowed on the premises and abuse of drugs and/or alcohol while a resident of the shelter will be cause for disqualification; 4 , Central County Homeless Shelter Project Description e. Persons who carry weapons will not be admitted; f. A curfew of 7 p.m. will be enforced, with exceptions given for valid work reasons. g. All shelter resident activities are to take place inside the shelter facility or the fenced outside area; no loitering outside of the shelter facility will be permitted. 3 . In the event that a shelter resident commits a crime or becomes otherwise disruptive and is considered by shelter staff to pose a danger to him/herself or to others, the shelter staff will take appropriate action_, such as calling the Sheriff's Department. 4. Admissions: Referrals to the Central County Homeless Shelter will be screened by County Housing Authority and program staff prior to the initiation of intake at the Shelter. Initial transportation to the shelter will be arranged through the referral screening process. The shelter will not admit drop- ins, as admission to the shelter is by referral only. Persons who arrive at the shelter who have not been pre-screened, or who are under the influence of - alcohol or drugs, or are otherwise disqualified for non-compliance with the rules of the shelter, will be refused admission and will be referred to the appropriate local or county service provider for continuing services. Program staff will arrange for the transporting of persons who are refused admission; such transport will be to a major transportation point out of the area, or to another appropriate facility. C. SUPPORT SERVICES Under the auspices of the McKinney funded Homeless Health Care and the Transitional Housing grants (and pursuant to the funding of these services) , a County-coordinated Supportive Services unit referred tows the Homeless Mobile Health Team will provide evaluation and assessment services to the residents at the Central County Homeless Shelter within the first week of their stay at the . shelter. They will consult with the shelter providers in the case planning activities, including evaluation of need for continued shelter housing; and assist with establishing referrals and linkage mechanisms for housing, employment and health service providers. At the initial intake, the staff of the program operator will meet with each resident who will be required to sign a case plan contract which outlines their objectives towards resolving their homeless, problem within 30 days. If the resident. demonstrates that he/she is following through with the plan, and there is specific evidence of the need for 5 Central County Homeless Shelter Project Description . extension of the contract, the case plan contract can be extended for specific periods. This plan will be reviewed weekly, evidence of lack of effort to perform activities as designated in the case plan contract will result in disqualification from the program. The case plan may involve: 1. Participating in programs provided on site or being referred to another service site that is more accessible and/or appropriate to the intended area for the permanent housing and/or employment search; 2. House/apartment hunting efforts; 3 . . Accepting referrals to housing resources (section 8 certification, public housing, shared housing, subsidized housing programs, revolving loan program) ; 4. Money management services; 5. Accepting referrals to public health/mental health/drug/alcohol treatment resources; 6. Accepting referrals to employment development and/or job training programs. The Case Plan will. outline full-day activities which will engage the residents either on-site, such as money management classes or job preparation classes, or involve the resident in specific activities in the community, such as medical appointments, job search, etc. Residents of the Central County Homeless Shelter shall be expected to be actively .participating in program-related activities throughout the course of their residency; loitering or panhandling or wandering in the community will be cause for disqualification due to lack of involvement in the program. D. NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT Arnold Industrial Way businesses and/or neighbors will be invited to participate in a Community Advisory Committee to monitor the Shelter and work with staff to resolve any problems that may arise. 6 ATTACHMENT A ,rr r r PRELIMINARY FLOOR FLAN j� w.u'Iw.MWMO +�6 drat u5+4 eec \ �' e�wewruu,..�aucrrnN /Ub/. yay yy I - rWrtO..CaMMM1Y 1. Jt 1T+M. Y� 94 I r"A WLM,M.CWM.wr. :LIQ 0 _....e..,n w►T x"11 1t"'1/ i , � �� ,crx.na+ai r.co..Ne. IL..� Y�t •�.� Y i_. ATTACHMENT B v 'I 0I' b J PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPH :x� \ $ Ev t LL m� h� r.. r we PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ATTACHMENT C CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOMELESS' SHELTER PROGRAM RULE VIOLATION PENALTIES: RULE VIOLATION PENALTY/DISQUALIFICATION PERIOD 1. UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY DO NOT ADMIT 2. . ARRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL * DO NOT ADMIT 3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ID BY '3RD DAY AFTER ENTERING SHELTER DO NOT ADMIT 4. ASSAULT * *INDEFINITE 5. THREAT OF ASSAULT * *INDEFINITE 6. PROPERTY DAMAGE *INDEFINITE 7. STEALING *INDEFINITE 8. USE, SALE, OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL OR ILLICIT DRUGS ON THE PREMISES *INDEFINITE 9. SALE OR SHARING OF .PRESCRIBED DRUGS *INDEFINITE 10. REPETITIVE PATTERN OF ALCOHOL OR DRUG ABUSE .1ST NOA*, 1-30 DAYS 2ND NOA*, INDEFINITE 11. ABUSIVE, LOUD OR PROFANE LANGUAGE/ 1ST NOA*, 1-30 DAYS RACIAL SLURS 2ND .NOA*, INDEFINITE 12. LOITERING,SOLICITING OR PANHANDLING IST NOA*, 1-30 DAYS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 2ND NOA*, INDEFINITE 13. CARRYING A WEAPON * 1ST NOA*, 1-30 DAYS 2ND NOA*, INDEFINITE 14. DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR * IST NOA*, 1-30 DAYS 2ND NOA*, INDEFINITE 15. UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE/ FAILURE TO ARRIVE 1ST NOA*, 1-15 DAYS BY CHECK-IN TIME 2ND NOA*, 16-30 DAYS 3RD NOA*, INDEFINITE 16. LEAVING THE SHELTER AFTER ADMITTANCE * 1ST NOA*, 1-30 DAYS 2ND NOA*, INDEFINITE 17. REFUSING TO LEAVE THE PREMISES 15 DAYS 18. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH SIGNED CASE PLAN 1ST NOA*, 1-30 DAYS 2ND NOA*, INDEFINITE *SEE DEFINITION OF TERMS • RULES 1/92 ATTACHMENT C CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER PROGRAM DEFINITION OF TERMS AND COMMENTS: ASSAULT: Intended to mean actual physical assault with some intent to do bodily harm (underlying hostility and anger apparent) THREAT OF ASSAULT: Specific verbal or physical behaviors which indicate the predisposition to do bodily harm. Before a disqualification for Threat of Assault is issued, staff procedure should include warnings from staff if tempers flare, use of "time-out" periods and separating shelter residents in order to prevent threats. WEAPON: Any instrument of offensive or defensive combat is considered to be a weapon. (Note: All shelter residents are to be asked at Intake if they carry weapons. All weaponry should be retained by staff in locked storage until the discharge of the shelter resident. If a. client does not voluntarily:_turn in their weapons, or another weapon is discovered at a later date which has not been turned in, the client will be disqualified. ) LEAVING THE SHELTER AFTER ADMITTANCE: Residents of the homeless shelter program are expected to be engaged in activities either within the shelter facility, or conducting business related to their case plan at off-site locations. Being outside of the shelter facility, or outside fenced area, is not permitted, except for conducting case plan activities. DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR: 1. Refusal to cooperate with staff in program expectations and/or requirements. 2. Abnormal physical actions or behavior * Loud communication * Interference, intimidation, and/or harassment of other residents * Aggressive physical behavior or movement NOA: Notice of Action - See Attachment E CASE PLAN: A written document, signed by each resident, that outlines specific activities within specific timelines that are to be accomplished by the resident. These activities are jointly determined by the resident and the program case manager and specify steps to be taken which lead towards self-sufficiency of the resident. RULES 1/92 ATTACHMENT D CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER PROGRAM DISQUALIFICATION AND APPEAL POLICY DISQUALIFICATION PROCESS A person is disqualified from the shelter program by a written notice (see Notice of Action form - Attachment E) from the program staff stating the grounds for disqualification, the facts supporting disqualification and the period of disqualification. Copies of the written notice are to be distributed as follows: 1 copy to the person disqualified; 1 copy to the Centralized Screening & Reservation Unit; 1 copy kept in the program files. The Centralized Screening & Reservation Unit will be notified daily when a person has been issued a Notice of Action. Copies of all Notices) of Actions, Disqualification Appeal requests and the outcomes of the appeals will be collated and summarized weekly by the homeless shelter program operators and delivered to the Centralized Screening & Reservation Unit. APPEAL PROCESS Disqualification may be appealed by a written request which is to be completed at the time of notice of disqualification or delivered to the Shelter Program Operator not later than the next day after delivery of the notice of disqualification. The appeal will be heard by the shelter director or his/her * designee. This hearing will be scheduled within three (3) working days from the date the appeal request is received. The appellant will be provided with a written copy of the outcome of .the hearing. Outcomes of the appeal will be communicated that same day to the Centralized Screening & Reservation Unit. Persons disqualified for fifteen days or less will be provided shelter for up to three (3) working days pending an appeal. Disqualifications due to rule violations which involve harm or threat to harm others and damage or theft of property, shall be effective immediately, and are not to be admitted until after the appeal determines a reversal of -the disqualification is ordered. Persons disqualified for shelter indefinitely may apply for reinstatement after 90 days upon their showing by clear and convincing evidence that the prohibited conduct is very unlikely to reoccur. The Director of Housing Operations or the Homeless Management Officer or their designee will consider the application for reinstatement. RULES 1/92 s ATTACHMENT E CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAM NOTICE OF ACTION TO: DATE BD SSN Case # Person # 1. ( ) You have been disenrolled from the Shelter Program because: 2 . ( ) You have been disqualified from the Shelter Program because: 3 . ( ) The period of disqualification is: ( ) From to ( ) Indefinitely Shelter Staff (signature) 4 . If you wish to appeal this action, please complete the reverse and give it to a staff person. 5. The Appeal Hearing is scheduled for (date) (time) (place) 6. (This section to be completed by the Supervisor/Director) Results of Appeal Hearing: ( ) The Appeal is granted j } The following other facts were determined at the hearing: ( ) It is found that the reasons given for the disqualification ar.e .true .and ..the action is upheld ( ) The period of disqualification is changed from . to (Signature of Supervisor/Director) (Date) APPEAL FROM SHELTER DISQUALIFICATION I, DISAGREE WITH THIS. ACTIlON AND I REQUEST THAT AN APPEAL .HEARING BE SCHEDULED WITHING THREE (3) DAYS OF THIS DATE. COMMENTS: (SIGNATURE) (DATE) • r Sheriff-Coroner Contra SHERIFF '•"Rainey HERI -C')RONER P.O. Box 391 Costa Warren E.Rupf Martinez, California 94553-0039 Assistant Sheriff 510)646-2231 County Gerald T.Mifa Assistant Sheriff Rodger L.Davis Assistant Sheriff February 7, 1992 Prefecto Villarreal, Executive Director Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa 3133 Estudillo Street Martinez, Ca 94553 Dear Mr. Villarreal, In response to your letter of February 3, 1992, we have reviewed the Project Description and related materials for the Contra Costa Central County Homeless Shelter. The new Central County facility is sufficiently different from those reviewed to make direct comparison impossible. Through interpolating available data, it is at least possible to forecast probable impact. It is the Department's belief that activity in the surrounding area will increase from 15-30%. This includes an assumption that at least 50% of the calls for service at the shelter would require an additional (cover) deputy from an adjoining beat. It is also anticipated that responses to the shelter would be higher in the winter months, during periods of higher occupancy. If actual experience falls within these parameters, the Sheriff's Department should have little difficulty meeting the expanded needs. Sincerely RICHARD K. RAINEY, S riff-Coro er Contra Costa County Sh riffs Dep rtment r by r . Rupf, Assistant Sheriff Chief Executive Officer AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY a FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2010 GEARY ROAD , PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523-4694 (510) 930-5500 BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION February 5, 1992 Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa P. O. Box 2759 ' Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Homeless Shelter 2047 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA Dear Mr. Villarreal: We have reviewed the subject project for fire code compliance. Existing emergency vehicle access and hydrants are acceptable to this office. It shall be necessary to submit improvement and sprinkler plans to this office for review and approval prior to renovation. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, /)AFrank J. Bo yl Supervising Inspector ChiefEngineering Services FJB:vw cc: Barbara Bunn McCullough File FJB/HOMELESS.92 CIT) CONCORD GTI COUNCIL 7a 1 +',u Pay ksidr Dricr G ncnrd.California 114519-25 7, Nand 6mv.Nh%,, \lark 11rSaulnii r.\iii \la+u on m B,r(:nllrtucGu) C. hlx 11 C.01 o u 1.11;i<1 h. . In T.It phone: (510) 671-3158Rlta li:nriinir. Cil, V.n:a�ri December 10, 1991 "R Supervisor Tom Powers D=7EE Chair County Board of Supervisors CLERK B651 Pine Street, Room 106 CONTRA COS . Martinez, CA. 94553 Dear Supervisor Powers: The City of Concord is concerned about the needs of the homeless and recognizes the necessity for a permanent emergency shelter. We support the establishment of a comprehensive shelter program,which would include meals, transportation, and mandatory participation in a case management program. The County has authorized the establishment of a temporary shelter at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way. The site is currently outside of the City limits in the unincorporated area of the.County.. The.City supports this location as an acceptable site for a permanent shelter subject to area-business support and the outcome of the environmental review. We,congratulate the County on its continuing efforts to meet and respond to the concerns of those who would be affected by a permanent shelter. Such efforts are important in building consensus and broadening public support for a much needed facility in this part of the County. We also appreciate the efforts made to keep the City informed of the County's progress in --locating--a-permanent-shelter an&look-forward to continuing that cooperative relationship. Sincerely, Nancy Gore Mayor cc: Board of Supervisors Perfecto Villarreal, Executive Director, Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa M c t'4� H hbrY+e less !-�dYao� (i.�c. • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION r , L eastern end of Arnold Industrial Way, and those buses frequently drive past the shelter on the way to their routes. There is no bus stop on Arnold Industrial Way within one-quarter mile of the shelter. The significant increase in pedestrian foot traffic attributable to the. shelter along and crossing Arnold Industrial Way, in areas without sidewalks, signals or crosswalks is a real concern to Memory Gardens, and I believe significantly increases the possibility for a serious accident. 6. Since the operation of the temporary shelter began, Memory Gardens has experienced an increased number of incidents, such as trespasses, littering, loitering, vandalism, disturbances of the peace, and attempted break-ins, which it believes is directly attributable to the shelter. On two such occasions, Memory Gardens has reported attempted break-ins of its premises to the Sheriff's Office, and was told-on both occasions that such incidents in the surrounding area, and reports of. same, have substantially increased since the opening of ,the shelter. Until the opening of the shelter, Memory Gardens experienced very few such incidents, which now occur relatively frequently. As such, I am informed and believe that the opening of a permanent shelter on a full-time basis at this proposed project site would substantially increase the number of such incidents and calls for the surrounding area, as well as the need for increased police patrol, calls and supervision. 7. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information. and belief, and as to. those matter I believe them to 193\plead\silva2.dec (- be true and correct. Executed on this 30th day of March, 1992 . WILLIAM A. SILVA 193\plead\siiva2.dec w A 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 3 I declare I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party 4 to the within action. I am employed in by the Law Offices of Jack C. Provine at 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 390, Walnut Creek, 5 California 94596, which is located in the county where the mailing described below took place. I am readily familiar with the business 6 practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. 7 Correspondence . so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of 8 business. 9 On the date stated below I served the following document by: 10 MEMORY GARDENS' COMMENTS RE ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RE PROPOSED CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER Z 11 o aM 12 2 W depositing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in �jQ 'mN 13 a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid in the � gg0) o ordinary course of business, in the United States mail at � 0.4 1,0, 14 Walnut Creek, California, addressed as set forth below. �II 15 x by having personally delivered by messenger a true copy > Uthereof to the person and at the address set forth w ° z 16 below. Q J H a 2 Q wQY3 17 w o Bob Drake O 3 18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor 19 Martinez, CA 94553-0095 20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 21 and correct. Executed on March 30, 1992, at Walnut Creek, 22 California. 23 24 25 26 JODIE STON 27 • 28 MCCABE, SCHWARTZ, EVANS, LEVY & DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ® TRACY D. ALEXANDER ONE CONCORD CENTRE TELEPHONE JOHN J. CAMOZZIt 1510) 687-3450 DEAN A. CHRISTOPHERSON* 2300 CLAYTON ROAD, SUITE 1500 JAMES N. DAWE CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520-2100 TELECOPIER BRIAN P. EVANS _ (510) 680-0129 BEVERLY J. LAVIN KENNETH H. LAVIN LEO J. O'BRIEN DAVID J. LEVY OF COUNSEL MICHAEL P. MCCABE ROBERT S. LEICHTNER A. CURTIS SAWYER,JR. OF COUNSEL MARCHMONT J. SCHWARTZ ARLENE SEGAL tALSO MEMBER HAWAII STATE BAR ALSO MEMBER WASHINGTON STATE BAR March 30, 1992 1-0 r.'5 �V By Hand Delivery := . I - Mr. Bob Drake - - � Community Development Department Contra Costa County -� 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor Martinez , CA 94553-0095 • Re: Taxpayers v. Contra Costa County Contra Costa Superior Court Action No. C91-05617 Our File No. 0785-003 Dear Mr. Drake: This office represents the Taxpayers of the Industrial Community of North Concord in Contra Costa County, Civil Action No. C91-05617. The Taxpayers, after review of the Initial Study done by the County, and the. Notice of Intention, to Adopt A Negative Declaration, find that the documents are wholly inadequate. As set forth in the attached "Objection to Proposed Negative Declaration, it is the Taxpayers' position that there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impact. As such, in, accordance with CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report is required. MCCnsE, SCHWARTZ, Evans, LEVY & DAwE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Mr. Bob Drake March 30, 1992 Page 2 Additionally, because of the substantial public concern and controversy regarding the proposed shelter project, public hearings before a decision is made are appropriate and are hereby requested. Very truly. yours, McCABE, SCHWARTZ, EVANS, LEVY & DAWE Professional Law Corporation Arlene Segal AS:klw encls. cc: The Honorable Peter Spinetta Perfecto Villareal; Executive Director of the Housing Authority Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Members of the Board of Supervisors Shadrick Small, Director City of Concord John Patton, Esq. Winton Jones 1 MICHAEL P. McCABE, ESQ. ARLENE SEGAL, ESQ. 2 McCABE, SCHWARTZ, EVANS, LEVY & DAWE Professional Law Corporation 3 One Concord Centre 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1500 4 Concord, California 94520 (510) 687-3450 5 Attorneys for Taxpayers of the Industrial 6 Community of North Concord in Contra Costa County 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ® 27 28 MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 0785-003/Ne9etive.Opp/AS:k1w 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 - 2 INTRODUCTION 3 Contra Costa County (the "County") has been faced with the 4 problem of sheltering the homeless for at least five years. The 5 most recent effort to house the homeless in Central County has 6 involved the placement of a "temporary" shelter at 2047 Arnold 7 Industrial Way (the "project site") on an "emergency" basis. The 8 County now proposes to locate a permanent, year-round, 24-hour-a- 9 day shelter for 100 adults at the same location. 10 By Order of the Honorable Peter Spinetta, the temporary 11shelter may not operate beyond March 31, 1992 , unless the County 12 has complied with CEQA. The County has provided an "Initial 13 Study" and "Notice of Intention to Adopt a Negative Declaration. " 14 The County has concluded that there is no need for an 15 Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR") . 16 The Taxpayers of the Industrial Community of North Concord 17 in Contra Costa County object to the proposed "Negative 18 Declaration" and further object that the "Initial Study" (the 19 "Study") on which it is based. The Study fails to properly 20 consider either the nature or extent of significant environmental 21 impacts including, but not limited to, hazardous conditions in 22 the immediate vicinity, traffic and safety problems. 23 Additionally, the "heart" of the CEQA process is the 24 consideration of alternatives. The initial study and proposed 25 Negative Declaration is completely devoid of any consideration of 26 alternative sites. 27 28 MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS.LEVY &PAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 2 07a5-003/Negative.Opp/AS:k1w ONE CONCORD CENTRE 2300 CLAYTON ROAD - SUITE 1500 . CONCORD, CA 94580-2100 (510) 687-3450 2 THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS INADEQUATE AND MUST BE REPLACED WITH AN EIR. 3 4 A. There Is Substantial Evidence That The Proposed Shelter Project Will Have A 5 Significant Impact On Traffic and Pedestrian Safety. 6 7 A Negative Declaration is only proper where there is no 8 substantial evidence to _support the lead agencies' conclusion 9 that no fair argument can be made showing the potential for 10 impacts, Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 11 Cal.App. 3d 180, 187. 12 Christward Ministry owned a retreat near a landfill where a 13 change in use was sought to include solid waste management 14 facilities. Despite the fact that the project included a land- 15 use change, only a perfunctory initial study was done. "The 16 negative declaration also (used) a check mark format with a 17 series of possible environmental consequences and a choice of 18 'yes, ' and 'no, ' or 'maybe. ' Every possible environmental 19 consequence is checked 'no, "' at 197. As in Christward, the 20 County has used a "check mark" format. Similarly, every possible 21 environmental consequence has been checked "no. " 22 If the initial study is inadequate, the Negative Declaration 23 relying thereon must also be deficient, Christward at 197. The 24 initial study is deficient. It fails to even acknowledge a 25 single problem. 26 Neighbors of the project raised safety and traffic issues at 27 the first opportunity for public discussion of the shelter 28 project -- the Board of Supervisor's meeting on November 19, MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 3 0785-003/Negative.cpp/kS:k1w ONE CONCORD CENTRE 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687.3450 1 1991 , see Exhibit C to Declaration of Arlene Segal served 2 herewith and incorporated herein by reference. Even prior to 3 that meeting, communications to County officials alerted the 4 County to the traffic and safety problems at the shelter site 5 which is on .a two-lane, S-curved road, heavily travelled by 6 trucks, heavy equipment, buses and autos, see Exhibit A to 7 Declaration of Arlene Segal. 8 A year-round, twenty-four hour a day operation will 9 inevitably increase traffic and safety problems. Shelter 10 residents will be on a myriad of schedules with the need to 11 travel to jobs, job interviews, housing searches, and for 12 numerous additional services. The subject location affords 13 minimal access to public transportation. In fact, bus 14 transportation is at a distance and cannot safely be reached by 15 pedestrians because of discontinuous and inadequate sidewalks and 16 the absence of crosswalks, see Exhibits A, B, C, G, H, & I to 17 Declaration of Arlene Segal. 18 More obviously, the project is located in an industrial 19 area. The immediate area includes a cement plant with thirty to 20 forty cement mixer trucks in use; contractor, service and repair 21 yards and shops; auto and truck wrecking and dismantling yards; a 22 bus terminal and repair shop, a crane and heavy equipment 23 contractor and emergency response operation center, and numerous 24 other industrial operations, see Exhibits H & I to Declaration of 25 Arlene Segal. 26 The incompatibility of heavy traffic related to the existing 27 industrial uses with the proposed residential was brought to the 28 County's attention as early as November 1991 , see Exhibits A & C McCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 0785-003/Negative.Opp/AS:k1W 2300 CLAYTON ROAD - SUITE 1500 CON_ORD' CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 1 to Declaration of Arlene Segal. 2 The Initial Study and Negative Declaration make no effort to 3 estimate or project the number of trips that will be generated by 4 the shelter and its residents, and merely avoids the traffic and 5 safety question. Incredibly, the Initial Study only states: 6 The project will generate similar traffic levels to that associated with light 7 industrial activity. 8 The Initial Study completely disregards the fact that in 9 'excess of 100 people will be coming and going from one building, 10 serviced by a limited parking and driveway area. Additionally, 11 the support program is supposedly designed so as not to isolate 12, and warehouse the homeless residents, but to get them out into 13 the community, seeking housing, seeking jobs, and seeking other 14 off-site services as necessary, see Project Description. 15 Additionally, deliveries of goods and services to support the 16 twenty-four hour .operation will also increase, bringing more 17 traffic and requiring additional parking space. Again, none of 18 this is discussed. 19 The lack of on-site parking has resulted in street parking 20 on both sides of Arnold Industrial Way directly in front of the 21 shelter site,. see Exhibit A to Declaration of Winton Jones, and 22 see Exhibits B & I to Declaration of Arlene Segal . This is 23 during the period of time when the temporary shelter is only used 24 on an evening basis. The additional day-time use will not only 25 require increased transportation and. parking for shelter 26 residents, but also will require additional parking for all of 27 the support services and staff, as well as for the above- 28 referenced deliveries of goods and services. The Study MCCABE.SCHWARTZ, EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 5 0785-o03/Negetive.Opp/AS:k1w 2.300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 - CONCORD. CA 94520-2100 (510) 887-3450 1 disregards these significant impacts. 2 B. There Is Substantial Evidence That The Proposed Shelter Poses Significant 3 Environmental Hazards To Shelter Occupants. 4 CEQA not only permits, but also "encourages" the use of 5 earlier EIRs, Public Resource Code §21003 ; Christward, supra. at 6 197. 7 On or about September, 1988, an EIR was prepared by the City 8 of Concord on the North Concord Reorganization Project. The 9 shelter site is included in the area evaluated in said EIR, see 10 Exhibit H to Declaration of Arlene Segal. 11 The 1988 EIR was undertaken because the City of Concord 12 proposed to annex the subject North Concord area. Members of the 13 North Concord Community formed a group called PICNIC (Preserve the 14 Industrial Community of North Concord) and opposed the 15 annexation. The matter was resolved by way of settlement. The 16 City of Concord and PICNC agreed that annexation would not occur 17 until the year 2000. Until that time and pursuant to said 18 Agreement, no additional residential use was permitted. 19 After the year 2000, less than eight years from now, the 20 area is slated for annexation, and with annexation, the 21 "encouragement of new office, retail and other high density, 22 traffic intensive" uses, see Exhibit H to Declaration of Arlene 23 Segal. The cumulative impact of future development was ignored. 24 Safety issues were considered in the EIR in light of the 2.5 "potential hazards associated with pipelines, chemical plants, 26 refinery operations, tank farms, and gas wells" in the project 27 vicinity, see Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, 28 Exhibit H to Declaration of Arlene Segal. MCCABE.SCHWARTZ, EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 6 0785-003/Negat1Vf.Opp/AS:k1w 1300 CLAYTON ROAD ' SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 1 The hazards associated with the TOSCO refinery were found to 2 be "an unavoidable adverse risk." See Exhibit H to Declaration 3 of Arlene Segal. Despite this known risk, there is no 4 consideration of the refinery's accident history, releases of i 5 hazardous materials, or explosions. 6 There is simply no consideration of the proximity of the 7 Concord fault and related seismic activity, or of the hazards 8 posed by the various refinery operations, tanks, pipelines, 9 abandoned wells, or proximity to the 'Concord Naval Weapons 10 Station. Additionally, the close proximity to the Seimens 11 Laboratory, with its radioactive elements, is wholly disregarded. 12 The Study finds "no" exposure of people to potential health 13 hazards and merely states as follows: 14 A few major industrial operations (e.g. TOSCO) lie within 3 miles of the site. There 15 is no indication that these industrial operations cause adverse health impacts to 16 individuals who work or live in the North Concord area. During the 2-month term of the 17 existing emergency homeless shelter, there is no evidence that these industrial operations 18 are adversely impacting the shelter residents. Based on these considerations, it 19 is reasonable to conclude that the project will not expose the shelter residents to 20 potential health hazards. Conclusion based on Project Description and Site Inspection. 21 22 Apparently, the risks of the release of hazardous materials 23 and explosion are not considered health hazards. Placement of 24 100 residents plus staff in a area already replete with hazards 25 is treated as a non-event. No emergency response measures 26 sufficient to aide the over 100 additional residents or staff are 27 considered necessary. 28 Although the impact of noise on shelter residents is mcCABE,SCHWARTZ, -EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION '� 'ONE CONCORD CENTRE 0785-003/NegdtiVe.Opp/Ag:k1m 2$00 CLAYTON ROAD " SUITE 1500 CONCORD' CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 1 considered, air quality is never considered with respect to the 2 effect on shelter residents. The project site is downwind from 3 the TOSCO refinery, the Central Sanitary District operations, and 4 the Memory Gardens Crematory (next door! ) . Emissions from these 5 sites as well as treatment ponds and refinery operations are 6 well-documented, see Exhibit H to Declaration of Arlene Segal, 7 yet go unnoticed in the Study. 8 An Initial Study is inadequate if it omits necessary 9 information. An examination of the condition of the site, 10 including the hazards discussed above, is necessary to evaluate 11 the safety of the shelter residents. -Omission is fatal to the 12 Initial Study. See Christward, supra. at 197. 13 C. There Is Substantial Evidence That The Proposed Shelter Site Has Created 14 Significant Public Controversy Over The Incompatible, Highly Concentrated 15 Residential Use In An Industrial Area. 16 The shelter project changes the permitted use from light 17 industrial to. residential . Neither the County General Plan nor 18 the County Zoning Ordinance allow for residential use without a 19 use permit, see Exhibit C to Declaration of Arlene Segal . 20 Despite this, the only comments in the Initial Study merely 21 state that, "[t]he proposed shelter operation would not result in 22 a substantial alteration of the use of the area, " at p. 9. 23 The significance of the placement of 100 shelter residents 24 immediately adjacent to the Memory Gardens Cemetery and the 25 intrusion on the privacy and serenity of the cemetery and its 26 mourners is never considered, despite the fact that the County 27 has clear evidence of said intrusion, see Exhibit E to 28 Declaration of Arlene Segal . MCCABE,SCHWARTZ. EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 0785-003/Ne9etive.Opp/AB:K1w 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 CONCORD. CA - 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 _ . 1 Further, the influx of people since the opening of the 2 temporary homeless shelter -- people who may or may not be 3 shelter residents '-- has created concerns for the safety of 4 persons and property in the shelter vicinity. Increased crime 5 has been reported, as well as harassment of nearby business 6 owners and operations, see Exhibits G & I to Declaration of 7 Arlene Segal. 8 CEQA guidelines require. consideration of "secondary effects" 9 such as . social and economic effects, Christward, supra. at 197; 10 Cal Admin. Code Title 14, §15146(d) . In Christward, the impact 11 of locating a solid waste facility near a religious retreat had 12 to be considered in an EIR, supra, .at 197. Similarly, the 13 Shelter "neighbors" have testified to their . social and• economic 14 concerns and. the impact of the shelter on their businesses and 15 lives - increased crime, loss of insurance coverage, loss of 16 property value, interference with. business operations, 17 - harassment, etc. CEQA review must "address the secondary 18 effects, " Id. 19 There was very little, if any notice of the Community Forum 20 of March 11, 1992. Despite the notice problem, the meeting was 21 attended by some of the shelter neighbors. . The County was 22 presented with evidence of the issues of crime and safety and 23 quiet enjoyment of nearby businesses and neighbors. The project 24 site is located where there are no retail stores, no 25 conveniences, no customer services, no restaurants, no parks, no 26 recreational facilities -- and which is clearly ill-suited to 27 residential use. 28 The participation and comments at the Board of Supervisors' MGCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 9 0785-003/NCgnt1VO.Opp/A3:k1W 2300 CLAYTON ROAD 9U1TE 1'00 CONCORD, CA ' 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 1 hearing in November 1991 , the written communications with the 2 County regarding the shelter project, the filing of two lawsuits 3 to prevent the projects without full CEQA review, the testimony 4 at the community forum on March 11, 1992, and the numerous 5 newspaper articles concerning the shelter project all attest to 6 the controversy generated by the drastic change of use of this 7 industrial property. These factors have all been ignored in the 8 County's Initial Study. See Exhibits to Declaration of Arlene 9 Segal. 10 D. Contrary To The Requirements of CEQA, There Has .Been No Consideration Of 11 Alternate Sites. 12 A consideration of alternatives is the heart of CEQA. 13 Public Resources Code §21002. The County has avoided said 14 consideration by doing a perfunctory, inadequate "check mark" 15 initial study that overlooks all significant impacts. 16 The County, however, has. had two alternate site proposed to 17 it. One such site, at Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Way is County- 18 owned property,. An EIR has already been completed and the 19 shelter use is consistent with the permitted uses for the site. 20 The traffic and safety concerns are also absent. In addition to 21 the ready availability of the site, Bedford Properties has 22 proposed to build the shelter facilities and providea mechanism 23 for financing and leasing same to the County. See Exhibit D to 24 Declaration of Arlene Segal. The County's alleged CEQA review 25 completely ignores the proposal . 26 The County has also been advised that federally-owned 27 property at the site of the Veterans Administration Hospital in 28 Martinez is available as well, and that Bedford Properties is MCCA9E,SCHWARTZ, EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 10 0785-003/Negative.Opp/AS:k1w ONE CONCORD CENTRE 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SOITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 1 equally willing to participate in the construction project there, ® 2 see Exhibit D to Declaration of Arlene Segal. 3 The, County has also ignored this alternative. In refusing 4 to consider the proposed alternatives, the County has violated 5 CEQA and made a mockery of its intent. 6 E. The Initial Study Does Not Contain Supporting Evidence. 7 8 Initial studies must "contain supporting evidence and not 9 mere conclusions about environmental effects, " Leonoff v. 10 Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App. 3d 1337. 11 The Study is only "supported" by a noise study, see pp. 6-7. 12 This Initial Study considers the noise levels at the subject 13 site, i.e. , the effect of local noise on the shelter residents. 14 Apart from the project description, there is no other evidence, ® 15 only conclusions. The project description only provides the most 16 basic outline of what is proposed. For example, there are no 17 traffic studies or even estimates of trips that will be 18 generated. There are no projections of pedestrian "traffic" 19 along Arnold Industrial Way. The road is curving; the grade 20 changes; cars park along both sides and restrict sight; sidewalks 21 are not continuous; heavy equipment and trucks utilize the road 22 regularly; yet there is no consideration of the safety of those 23 pedestrians. 24 Similarly, the prospect of providing emergency aid to over 25 one-hundred people who may suffer from a release of hazardous 26 materials, fire or explosion, remains "unstudied. " 27 2s MCCASE.SCHWARTZ. EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1 1 0785-003 Ne &tiVe. ONE CONCORD CENTRE / 9 OPp/ )f:1N 2300 CLAYTON ROAD - SUITE 1500 - - CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 _ _ 1 III. 2 CONCLUSION ® 3 4 The proposed Negative Declaration is based on an inadequate 5 Initial Study, ignores the findings of the prior EIR, and fails 6 to consider proposed alternatives. There is substantial evidence 7 of significant health and safety concerns, traffic and parking 8 impacts, and other significant impacts from the drastically 9 changed use in this industrial area. 10 The County is aware of the depth and breath of the 11 controversy the proposed shelter has generated, and in particular 12 is aware of the significant impacts on traffic, safety of 13 vehicles and pedestrians, parking, security of businesses and 14 neighbors, increased crime. These are impacts generated by the 15 placement of the shelter at the proposed site. 16 The site itself encompasses hazards by virtue of its 17 proximity to the TOSCO refinery, pipelines, the Seimens 18 Laboratory, tank farms, gas wells, the Concord Naval Weapons 19 Station, the Concord fault, and various industrial uses. 20 Despite the proposed heavy concentration of shelter 21 residents subject to these hazards, the County has found no need 22 to provide additional emergency response capabilities, provide 23 any traffic controls, provide sidewalks, crosswalks, or lights, 24 or any safety measures, or do anything at all to mitigate the 25 significant impacts that have been brought to its attention. 26 27 28 Mc_CABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 12 - 0785-003 N ONE CONCORD CENTRE / egatiVe,Opp/A3:klr1 2.300 CLAYTON ROAD - $UITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 1 As in Christward, simply checking "no" will not suffice. 2 "CEQA is essentially an environmental full disclosure statute and 3 the EIR is the method [,of] disclosure . " (citation ,4 omitted) , Christward, supra. at 186. EIRs must even be prepared 5 even in "doubtful" cases, so that decisions are not made "without 6 the relevant data or a detailed study of it, " No Oil, supra. at 7 84 . There is no doubt here. None of the "detailed information" .8 of the effect of the project on the environment has been provided 9 by ,the County. The. CEQA process here has failed to function as 10 an environmental "alarm bell . " . It has totally failed to 11 "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry" that the agency has in 12 fact analyzed and considered any of the implications of its 13 actions, " see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles .(1974) 13 14 Cal.3d 68, 86. 15 "An EIR is required for any project where it may be fairly 16 argued a project will have a significant impact on the 17 environment, " No Oil, sera. at 75. The citizens of Contra Costa 18 County have "fairly argued" that the shelter project will have a 19 significant impact on the environment. An EIR is required, 20 Friends of B Street v. City .of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988 , 21 1000-1003 . 22 The County has the good faith obligation of making the 23 Negative Declaration as complete and comprehensive as possible, 24 Long Beach Savings & Loan Association v. Long Beach Redevelopment 25 Agency (1986) 188 Cal.App. 3d 249, 264 . The "check mark" 26approach,. the absence. of supporting evidence, ignoring the 27 previous EIR, and the substantial evidence of significant impacts 28 - all argue for preparation of an EIR to satisfy both the letter MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY - &DAWE PROFESSIONAL - LAW CORPORATION , .ONE CO NCORD CENTRE 13 - 0785-003/N@gdLiV@.Opp/AS:k1y 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA - 94520-2100 - - - (510) 687-3450 - 1 and the spirit of CEQA. 2 Dated: March 30, 1992 ® 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 McCABE, SCHWARTZ, EVANS, LEVY & DAWE Professional Law Corporation 5 Michael P. McCabe Ar 6 7 By: Michael P. McCabe 8 Attorneys for Taxpayers of the Industrial Community of North 9 Concord in Contra Costa County 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ® 28 MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 014E CONCORD CENTRE _ 1 0785-003/N@gatlVfl.Opp/AS:klw 2900 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 7- ARLENE SEGAL, ESQ. McCABE, SCHWARTZ, EVANS, LEVY & DAWE 2 Professional Law Corporation One Concord Centre 3 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1500 Concord, California 94520 4 (510) 687-3450 5 Attorneys for Taxpayers of the Industrial 6 Community of North Concord in Contra Costa County 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 DECLARATION OF WINTON JONES RE PHOTOS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ® 28 McCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 0785-003/Jonas.Dc2/as:k1w 2300 CLAYTON ROAD - SUITE 1500 CONCORD' CA - 94520-2(00 (510) 687-3450 1 I, Winton Jones, declare that: 2 3 1. I am the owner of that certain real property located at 4 1949 Arnold Industrial Way, Contra Costa County, California. I 5 have knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to 6 testify could and would competently do so. 7 8 2. I own and operate a construction company at the above 9 location and am also a long-time resident of the area. 10 11 3 . Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference 12 are true and correct copies of photographs I took in recent weeks 13 and since the temporary shelter was opened at 2047 Arnold 14 Industrial Way. 15 16 4. All of the photographs were taken along Arnold 17 Industrial Way and in the immediate vicinity of the subject 18 shelter or at the shelter itself. 19 20 5. I am familiar with the location and know that the 21 traffic, parking, and pedestrian conditions shown in these 22 photographs accurately reflect conditions along the subject 23 stretch of Arnold Industrial Way. 24 25 6. It is my experience and observation that the vehicles 26 parked along both sides of the two-lane road cause the road to 27 "narrow" -and restrict sight-lines. 28 MCCASE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ..ONE CONCORD CENTRE 2 0785-003/JOne8.Dc2/as:1[1W 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1S00 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 - 1 7. Arnold Industrial Way, near the shelter, is only two- 2 lanes, follows on "S" curve, and is on an incline. 3 4 8. Parking along and pedestrian use of the subject stretch 5 of road have both increased since the shelter opened. 6 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 8 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. A 9 Executed this day of March, 1992 at Concord, California. 10 f 12 Winton Tgbes 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 93 24 25 26 27 28 MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 3 0785-003/J0ne8.Dc2/aS:k1W 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 (510) 687-3450 ` l Aw �_�' j tom, �} ;i�s� ' , � �,.'. � ti k� z � :•a �{P.•k: }?r, ,�+4 � .l•s t �ti r 's.��4;ns_.•3�''�' '.�:t��_"�:� a * i • i 1 ��, 3 i � C tet." Y d �4 <•+t �'`�.. -1V tft y -r y -; •; i 1 / 1. 1 f it L.1 - lb r }_ • � fid' ,Y :�{ IAS L Y f II Jw} 7S{•YI� � j S.. ! f'` r tgry.. `....nl'4y +•c: "`4`�"'�a-.k I x� _ t r i' I re 33 s�' '�$'fir�y,x'• S,y�y,'sy'�� '�,"".�'�`' � -'. k 1 4 F 104, 0 G.,.,� L y�. h* `.�*'•' � -- -r -. fix,,,.+• PV N '� r..i5'1 7 til<4 '" •z ( L ,� sc y,.3`r Oki FF- aa `kF" `� `x x �' �i�. 'to,/r-ey 7s v'r,,�.^ � � � a�-�,-n• , • I I w x, h t • I• i Y , A W.Amw kfa y� 'v3. r fli i 04 Will Ml -��.j� a & a �ty/ o- .P�^_�'fe.5t� y.. qy r$t*�y[��p ,f .{, WS�S,4�Y�•'x-s''"'.y '`�� !:* .t)•'k p y t up "�.'t� ,�� L_ '-ter..tcc-,•a '�^'a z 1 -�� - . . .i�=�✓ *�'� '�y�'�'�''�`�rX^��.��'''�Yr.� -:`'� ' _moi *t `` ._..a�,c t �"'a� ,sts,.a-� sr'�`•� ''_•„t ?; •`t . �'d. ` fir.' � �,F- C�S;� ~��c•� �15 �t�' S 5" i i -•' _ rte. - ` Y 1�. ;.. ® tea. _• c••�.mt ro tz hl t v if N .f r S k ' Tile '' r �r✓ r i prA C rr� 77. ' 1 'K��_-_'o'�` r. ' "�'s �,:-a�`.d h �•"+4k' ''w' � .m;t-`rievfaay! i. } y � t ''�t�v►.i L� :�:''.Y."" t ;_ /..�`` .teaFA.. i v ,emit � � 11� _ ai``fir - it ort } _.Y"-..,..-_.----" �,,,, �„%r ►. ',I�,t'"""".......�:• tom, ";-% i-.--- t""� 1 i �.f.�; it .,^,�._r+'✓"�. :y - �x�`i 1,1'7 yt�.� t - �,'� ! � � �`�' � 1.-•� f -.� }} s ff Y v"fir .� ,j" �b• t� VOW "Ttl I G - 1 ti•_ a. a .� L � I , Vyy'hhY -,fir .t•C.i +r! � ._ r .x.. • �' zip � �,s'�{� 1'jl k - _ _�' ' g,7.-. � { ':+ � t_._;_� .,J tt".+.,�•„' �L t"c�,� rP�"��'C;y-'<4..4._ •J•,} �i. - .° ... ' i ' r_�• • I .' X1/-3 / '�. /f_ '�: ��j�/. C - Y I : l� y � ✓kms �i lrct Y'`,�� i 1 �{ ` � f/�, y P t ray/t �/• �j � c�'� Y .l. 1� 141! L J- AV, j ` 10 1 ARLENE SEGAL, ESQ. McCABE, SCHWARTZ , EVANS, LEVY & DAWE 2 Professional Law Corporation One Concord Centre 3 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1500 Concord, California 94520 ' 4 (510) 687-3450 i I i 5 Attorneys for Taxpayers of the Industrial Community of North Concord in Contra Costa County 6 i i 7 8 9 10 ` 11 j I 12 I 13 I 14 1 • 15 16 ' DECLARATION OF ARLENE SEGAL I. OBJECTION TO PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 17 . .18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 25 i 26 i • 27 28 I MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PRO PESSIONAL 'LAW CORPORATION 0785-003/Sege1.Dc2/as:k1w ONE CONCORD CENTRE - 2300 CLAYTON ROAD .- SUITE ISOO. CONCORD. CA. - ' 94520-2100 ,51(11 r�7.44=0 1 I , Arlene Segal, declare that: 3 1 . I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice 4 before all the courts .of this state and one of the attorneys of 5 record for the Taxpayers of the Industrial Community of North 6 Concord in Contra Costa County. I have knowledge of the facts 7 stated herein and as such, I would and could competently testify 8 to the matter stated herein if called upon to do so. 9 10 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct 11 copies of written communications submitted to Contra Costa County 12 at or about the time of the Board of Supervisors' consideration 13 of the proposed temporary homeless shelter in November, 1991 . 14 These written communications point out numerous concerns of • 15 neighbors and neighboring businesses, which concerns include 16 traffic and pedestrian safety, security, the proximity to the 17 Memory Gardens Crematory, and the basic inappropriateness of a 18• residential. use in.,an industrial setting. 19 20 3 . Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct 21 copies of the Sheriff's Report dated November 7 , 1991 regarding 22 the proposed homeless shelter. Said report points out safety 23 concerns related to the absence of continuous sidewalks, the 24 absence of crosswalks, the poor street lighting, the on-street 25 parking which contributes to congestion, and the disruption. of 26 surrounding businesses. The Sheriff's report raised significant 27 concerns regarding pedestrian safety, traffic safety, and basic j • I 28 security in the area. ` MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY _ &DAWE. PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION . 2 0785-003/Sege1.Dc2/6s:k1w ONE CONCORD CENTRE ' 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 15101 687.365(1 1 4 . Attached hereto .as Exhibit C are true and correct 2 copies of selected sections from the transcript of the Board of 3 Supervisors' meeting of November 19, 1991 . Said transcript I 4 includes evidence of significant problems related to pedestrian 5 safety, traffic safety, parking, general congestion, the 6 inappropriateness of a residential use in an industrial area, 7 security problems, and the problems. related to the proximity to 8 the Memory Gardens Crematory and Cemetery. 9 10 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct 11 copies of a letter dated February 18 , 1992 to Mr. Perfecto i 12 Villareal , Executive Director of the Housing Authority of ' Contra 13 Costa County from Timothy F. Preece, Senior Vice President for 14 Bedford Properties, Inc. Said letter contains .an offer by 15 Bedford Properties to locate an interested party to lease the 16 County property at Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Way from the 17 County, build an emergency shelter and training center to the 18.. County's specifi,cations, . finance it on a 20-year basis and- lease . 19 it back to the. County; a letter dated March 3 , 1992 to Timothy F. i • I 20 Preece from Perfecto Villareal in response to the above letter;. a I 21 letter dated March 3 , 1992 to Arlene Segal from Victor J. 22 Westman, County Counsel , responding to further development I 23 proposals atlthe same site;. a letter dated March 11 , 1.992 to Mr. 24 Perfecto. Villareal from Ti.mothy F. Preece related to development i 25 of a homeless shelter at the 'U.S. Veterans Administration land in 26 Martinez ; and a letter dated March 13 , 1992 to Victor J. Westman I 27 from Arlene Segal requesting information regarding concerns • 28 related to development of an alternative site. MCCABE,SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL ' LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE 0785-003/Se9O1.DC2/AS:k1w 2300 CLAYTON ROAD - - SUITE 1500 CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 15101 rR7-345!1 1 6 . Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy 2 of a letter dated January 21 , 1992 to Perfecto Villareal from 3 John Patton., attorney for Memory Gardens, describing problems 4 related to the establishment of the temporary shelter at 2047 5 Arnold Industrial Way, including intrusion on the quiet enjoyment 6 of the cemetery premises and the considerable foot traffic 7 generated by the shelter. 8 9 ' 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct 10 copies of, yarious newspaper articles illustrating the public 11 controversy generated by the shelter project. 12 13 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are true and correct 14 copies of selected sections of the transcript of the Community . 15 Forum meeting of March 11 , 1992 . 5aid ' selections testify to 16 problems related to vehicular traffic and safety, pedestrian 17 traffic and safety, increased crime, adverse effects on local . 18 business " operations, .address effects on. the" -industrial community. 19environment, and the proposal for the development of an 20 alternative site. 21 22 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit .H are true and correct 23 copies of selections from the Draft EIR, Comments to the Draft 24 EIR and final EIR undertaken in 1988 with regard to the City of 25 Concord's proposed reorganization plan for the North Concord 26 area. These selections point out significant impacts with regard I 27 to traffic, including trucks and heavy equipment and 28 approximately 100 buses stationed in the area; pedestrian safety MCCABE.SCHWARTZ, EVANS,LEVY i &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ONE CONCORD CENTRE - 4 0785-003/Sega1.DC2/AS:k1W 2300 CLAYTON ROAD - SUITE 1500 CON CORD, CA 94520-2100 15101 607-3450 9 1 issues where there are no are continuous sidewalks, no 2 crosswalks, . and poor lighting; parking problems ..where on-street 3 parking already restricts the ability to see along the dangerous, 4 curving road; hazards related to the surrounding uses which 5 include pipelines, chemical plants, refinery operations, tank 6 farms, gas wells, a medical laboratory using radioactive 7 materials, the Concord Naval Weapons Station, various other 8 industrial uses involving trucks and heavy machinery and the risk 9 of seismic activity. Exposure to air pollution, as well as the 10 risks of tank fires and explosions are considered as well . 11 _ 12 10 . The complete transcript of the Board of Supervisors' 13 meeting of November 19 , 1991 , the Community Forum meeting of 14 March 11 , 1992 , and the Draft EIR, comments to the Draft EIR, and 15 the final EIR, will be made available for more complete review if 16 requested by the County. 17 11 . Attached hereto as Exhibit I are true and correct 18 .copies -of .letters and petitions signed by neighboring business 19 and property owners, tenants and employees. These letters and 20 petitions express serious concerns over the placement of the 21 homeless shelter at 2047 Arnold 'Industrial Way. The individuals 22 expressing these concerns have now experienced the impacts of the 1 23 "temporary" shelter for three months.. These concerns include . 24 traffic and pedestrian safety, increased crime and security I 25 problems, significant negative impacts on business, and the i 26 hazards to which shelter residents will be exposed, including air 27 pollution, noxious. smells , and the risks of fire and explosion, 28 and earthquake. 1cCASE,SCHWARTZ, - - EVANS.LEVY &DAWE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION )NE CONCORD CENTRE 0785-003/Sege1.DC2/ds:k1w 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 1500 - CONCORD. CA 94520-2100 - 1510) 657.3450 CI 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 2 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 3 Executed this 30th day of March, 1992 at Concord, California. 4 5 �- Arlene Segal 6 7 8 9 10 11 . 12 13 14 0 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i i 26 27 28 McCABE:SCHWARTZ, EVANS.LEVY - &DAWE pROFESSIO NAL . LAW CORPORATIONC ONE CONCORD CENTRE V 0785-003/Segel.Dc2/as:k1W 2300 CLAYTON ROAD SUITE 15DO CONCORD, CA 94520-2100 lr--.7n1 Fi P.7-4d5n - �. � . ,1� n'. Otto and Mildred Erman 2101 Arnold Industrial Wav Concord, California 94520 November 13, 1991 Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director Contra Costa County Housing Authority 3133 Estudillo Street, P.O. Box 2759 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Villareal: We sympathize with the need for a permanent, year–round homeless shelter in this county. However, we have serious concerns about your proposal to establish such a facility in the warehouse across the street from our home of forty-r--,-,r years. We voiced these coi,;eras to Mr. Martinez when he came to our home two weeks ago-to announce your proposal, but your subsequent letter of November 6th, 1991, did not answer or address our concerns in any way. The inadequacies of the proposed site and the management problems that are.likely to develop due to these inadequacies are a major concern to us. The proposed warehouse is. in an unsuitable and unsafe location.. It was built with inadequate off–street parking at an abrupt, inclined, sweeping curye on a busy street. During business hours, vision is restricted and the street is narrowed and more dangerous due to cars parked on both sides. It is especially hazardous for vehicles stopping or turning into the warehouse entrance. One fatal head-on collision has already occurred in front of this warehouse. The warehouse has only a small parking area outside—no grass or shaded areas, no easily accessible parks or recreational facilities, not even a connecting sidewalk—only a small parking lot. The prospects of housing approximately 100 largely unemployed, possibly handicapped (see attached article) people in-such a facility are unrealistic and shameful. The difficulties of managing so many people in such a confined situation cause us to fear deeply for our own safety as well as the privacy and protection of our property.. We feel that in realiW you will not be able to guarantee control of your clients and ex-clients that may remain in the area. You ihave not provided for the natural need of your clients for time and space away.from the group and ® this will obviously result in encroachment on neighboring properties as weil as the street(which is. itseif, a hazard for your clients). Then there is the additional problem of substance abuse and other unacceptable behavior which may proliferate around the fringes of the facility. Your suggestion of an additional security guard to protect us is not a reassuring answer'. If this facility is approved, you will be forcing us; for our own.sa.fety, to leave our home. At the same time you will significantly reduce the value and salability of our property (see attached article). This is our family's home. We had hoped to continue living here for manv more vears. Your proposal will destroy,everything we have spent our lives to build and enjoy. Long—range vision is needed in planning a permanent homeless facility. It should be situated in an area that can provide for the needs of the clients without jeopardizing nearby residents, businesses and traffic patterns. It should be in harmony with the zoning and restrictions of the area. Residential development of any kind in this proposed area is in direct conflict with the September 1988 agreement between the City of Coricord and PICNIC (Preserve the Industrial Community of North Concord) property owners. The intent of this recorded agreement is to preserve the industrial nature of this area and restrict residential useidevelopment prior to annexation in the year, 2000. Since PICNC members are restricted from residential development, approval of this residential facility would constitute an unfair,selective relaxation of these restr._ti2.^.s, raising legal questions and possible liability for suit and damages. We feel your proposal is callous and poorly conceived. You seem determined to ignore the effects it would have on us, other neighbors and the homeless people involved. Your search for a simple, speedy solution to the county homeless problem is a disservice to all. How can you seriously ask us to support a project that endangers our safety;the value of our property, and the safety of those you are.trying to house? ' Sincerely, Otto and Mildred Erman Enclosures cc: Sunne Wright McPeak, Contra Costa County Supervisor Colleen Coll, Concord City Council William H. and Dorothy Moran • Richard J. Martinez, Director of Housing Operauons November 15, 1991 Mr. Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director Contra Costa County Housing Authority 3133 Estudillo Street P.O. Box 2759 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Villarreal: We appreciate very much your visiting our industrial plant on October 29, 1991 to discuss Concord's plans to attempt to change zoning on about 60% of our small light industrial park to allow for a permanent year-round shelter for the homeless. As I mentioned to you at the end of our meeting, we have a great deal of concern about the impact on our industrial park and on the safety (or lack of it ) of the individuals and families the government intends to house here. I- have now had two .Weeks to reflect on the proposal and, 'atthis time, I would like to. share with you some very valuable information. Information that should be made available to all . persons involved with this proposal. Our company, and every company on this street, appropriately named Arnold INDUSTRIAL Way, are completely opposed to such an audacious project. Our firm receives and ships thousands of tons. of steel every day from our complex. The movement of this material requires forty- foot semi- truck and trailer rigs arriving on Arnold Industrial Way a.11 through the day. The semi's block traffic and back into and out of the industrial 1 Milk MR. PERFECTO VILLARRREALIPAGE2\NOVEMBER 15, 1991 park's driveways. As you are very aware, Arnold Industriai \.Vav has unbelievable amounts of traffic. This traffic moves much faster than the posted speed limits. Not long ago a truck :vas pulling out of Pan Pacific'.s driveway (located between the Pan Pacific building and the proposed site for the shelter.) The truck was .blocking the street completely. A car travelling East was apparently travelling much to fast and could not stop. It also had no brakes. To avoid hitting the semi, the driver turned left into our driveway and to avoid crashing. into the crematorium next door, he decided to turn left into the interior of our building, at a speed of approximately twenty miles an hour. He crashed into a work station that had, only moments before, been occupied by two of our employees. I personally have had numerous close calls just pulling into and out of my driveway. ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL HIGHWAY is an unsafe street for housing. There is a very dangerous curve in front of your proposed project. There Nas a FATAL, I REPEAT FATAL head-on collision in front of your proposed site not long ago. Please, let's not make this ;another "BLOOD ALLEY." Let's not solve the homeless problem by killing them off! Two weeks ago, on November .3, -1991 , a window in our building was shot out with a high-powered rifle bullet. This is the second window in our building shot out within the year. It was sheer luck no one was hit. (There are reports on these incidents on file ,with the County.) To remark further on the desirability of your proposed location, we are within a few miles of several I,arge oil refineries: ..Refineries cause soot and oil to become airborne. During temperature inversions, this environmentally unsafe pollution drops down into this area. There are official reports on file with government agencies that state that the air quality in this area is .the worst in the Bay Area. iVIR. PERFECTO VILLARREAL\PAGE 3\1\11OVEMBER 15, 1991 Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of deficit dollars reconstructing an industrial warehouse on an unsafe industrialhighway in an environmentally polluted area, please consider better and safer environments for the homeless people more conducive to their safety and well-being. Let me tell you more about our company and how we came to locate in this industrial park. We own and operate a small manufacturing plant on Arnold Industrial Way. We supply the area oil refineries with replacement parts. We work long hours, and sometimes through the night and on weekends to keep our company going and our employees employed. Our company is on a twenty-four hour alert program with Chevron USA, Inc. , Shell Oil Co., Exxon, Tosco, etc. Our company was originally located in San Francisco. Due to poor management by city officials and lack of concern for industry, we, like thousands of other firms, decided to leave San Francisco. We began a search for a community that had a planned Industrial Park separated from public housing. Our search ended in "I 984 when we found our current location. We had Arnold Industrial Way's C. C. & R's checked out by. legal counsel. We, as taxpayers and property owners are governed by Concord's zoning restrictions and our industrial park's C. C. & R's. Apparently our elected government officials don't have, to abide by the same rules. This .park is zoned county. warehouse and light industrial. This zoning was recently challenged by the City of Concord, with issues being resolved in favor 'of existing zoning. The contents of the LAFCO Agreement, which is valid until the year 2000, govern. Please let our industrial park exist in accordance with the MasterPlan, the existing zoning and the recorded C.' C. &`R's and the terms of the LAFCO agreement. We know that more suitable and safer locations are available. Scott Alexander of Mobile Modular Housing in San Leandro can install his housing units on vacant property and have them ready for MR. PERFECTO VILLARREAL\PAGE 4\NOVEMBER 15, 1991 occupancy in ONE WEEK, at a cost of $5,000 per unit (given appropriate sites.) The county already owns lands in a number of areas that would be better and safer for the homeless; for- example: (1 ) The county owns sufficient land on Imhoff Drive for this purpose. (2) The county has land available adjacent to the Juvenile Hall's girl's building. (3) A wonderful, very desirable environment exists with plenty of available land, (again, already owned by the county), at the Rehabilitation Center on Marsh Creek Drive. Other less costly alternatives might be to use the Veteran's Building, soon to be vacant, we believe; or the Girl's Building at Juvenile Hall is vacant. Mr. Villarreal, we completely support the Contra Costa County . Housing program. .. But- we do not support putting men,_ women. and children in an unsafe location in an area NEVER INTENDED NOR DESIGNED FOR HOUSING-. We - are willing and anxious to help. If there is anything we can do to help solve the problem of finding shelter before the harsh winter sets in, please let us know. Sincerely, Richard N. Schulba and Nancy A. Schulba • NS:\0'B bus\homeless.doc 4 .�.v OFFICES OF C:i L. _ I_. � �SO1•L�>l1CNAL G„RPCRLTION _ACK C. PQOVINE 3CC "ONAC;.^. VA1ACY ROAO. S-1-C ];;C _AMES V. ,.CYcz IWA�N1" CRECK. CA 9&896 ..CMN M, PATTON -z-GPMONK 510-9&0-9700 •RRQCL W. PHµ.LiPB 'OC=:MILE SIO'944'9fl81 :Jovemner 13 , ::91 VIA HAND-„ELI`S ERY Mr. Perfecto Villareal Executive Director HOUSING AUTHORITY County of Contra Costa 3133 Estudillo Street Martinez , Ca 94553 Re: M,eMory Gardens Dear Mr. Villareal: Thank you for providing -e with a copy cf . your report - to the Board of Supervisors, on ::0',"Grber 15 , 1991 . • As you know, these offices represent Memory Gardens, IAnc. ("Memory Gardens") . I write on its behalf. concerning what appears to be an effort by the County Housing Authority to finesse approval by the Board of Supervisors for the proposed new shelter for the homeless at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, without properly addressing the serious and real concerns .my client has regard the. of such a shelter on all concerned. In your discussions with William Silva, General Manager for Memory Gardens, Mr. Silva explained many of these concerns. You represented that the upcoming November 19 presentation to the Board 'of Supervisors was merely preliminary and informational , leading him to believe that , no substantive action would be taken on the project. However, in reviewing the. Housing Authority' s report to the Hoard of Supervisors, lit. is now clear that you will be seeking authorization to enter into a. '_ease wit:: a purchase option to use this property as an emergency shelter, as well as taking further steps to establish a permanent 24-hour a day faci;ity at that location for 100 adults. Such action seems inconsistent with an informational presentation. • ;6p :;r. =er:scto V i:larGal `tovemter is , 1991 page Z `:our retort to the Board cr Sutery=stirs contains no factual basis for selection of this location as opposed to any others which are available in the County . T-ndeed, the report: is misleading and unfair, because it fails to take into account, �:r even mention, Memory Gardens ' cppositi:n to the .proposal , as outlined in Mr. Silva' s letter to you of November 1, !991, a copy of which is enclosed. As you know, Memory Gardens has operated a cemetery and crematorium in Concord for nearly 40 years. - Memory Gardens is forbidden to and cannot operate a crematorium in a residential area. That is one reason why it operates where it does , near an industrial park. Even with industrial use, Memory Gardens has had to make adjustments to accommodate its neighbors by using -.a crematorium at night atter business hours when otters are not present in the vicinity, due to the proximity of the buildings at Arnold Industrial Way, including the one which is the subject of your proposal.. As you also know, 'the shelter which the Housing Authori.t.y plans for the location would be oc:upied around the year (not just in the Winter) by some 100 persons for residential purposes on a 24-hour per day basis , Suc: occupancy at a location proximate to (and directly in the path of generally prevailing winds) the crematorium would effectively prevent same from operating at all, depriving Memory Gardens of a vested, lawful and proper industrial use which, it has enjoyed, and should expect to enjoy, 'for many years to co-me'. Such a loss would cause irreparable damage, as the operating value of this asset exceeds $1, 000, 000, and would leave Memory Gardens with little alternative other than to pursue legal remedies . Even if Memory Gardens could continue to operate its crematorium in the close proximity of 100 new residents , as a practical matter those residents are not going to happily co- exist with an operating crematorium in their vicinity, and the . location simply is not in their best interests. For these reasons, as well as those ,set for in Mr. Silva ' s letter to you , 1 urge the Housing Authority to reconsider -its reco.=endatien for this location. It is not in the best interests of Memory Gardens, the homeless, or the citizens of this County. At the very least, the project should not proceed without deliberate consideration of these problems, or without completion of an appropriate Environmental Impact Report. Y . l ',Sr. Perfecto vi: area', ® :lovember 18 , 1991 Page 3. Please understand that Memory Gardens _s sympathetic to t!;e problems of the homeless, and to the Housing Authority' s ,efforts to arrive at a solut .on'. However, forcing Memory Gardens to cease a major portion of its operations will only exacerbate this problem. I look forward to working •.rith you in a constructive way in exploring alternatives to the present proposal. Very truly yours, FICES CF 7ICK C. PROVI.JE Joh L. Patton JHP:js cc: Hoard of supervisors Thomas .M. Powers, ^h,irman Nancy C. Fanden, 2nd District Robert I. Schroder, 3rd District Sur.ne Wright .MePeak, 4th District Tom Torlakson, 5th District William Silva i ;hp r - Yovea�ar :, i991 Xr.. ?erfacto Villarreal Txeeuzive Director Mousinq authority County of Contra Costa 3113 Yatudillo 8t. PC Box 2739 Martizat, Ca 94533 Dear hr. Villarreal: Reference is made to your letter of October 25, :991 to the attics of the representatives of the owners of XGrory Cardona. The avners and owners' raprosentatives have asked me to reply to Your letter. YOM— nry Gardena has operated a crematorium arA cametary Ir. Concord for some 40 years. We take pride in our grounds and in the - paac8tul atmosphere we have created for the Comfort of the families who have relative% and/or friends in our cametery. cahsaquently, we ore vary concerned over the proposal to establish the Contra Costa County Emsrgancy Shelter and Training Cantor for tha homeless at 2047 A=old Industrial Way, Concord, PahiG: is i=Qdiatsly next to our camazery. 2n particular:. .a. Under current City of Concord laws, a crnmator_um cannot bs aperntad in a residential area; but, . by this action, the County is proposinq to place a residential facility within isa feet of our crsmatoriun. Cities and ccun%iss trroughout the united states have ltarned that residential units Cannot a*-Oxist ire such close proximity to a crematory. M%A t is why the City or Concord and other municipalities do not allow one to to located near the other. 2. Under .the current industrial park daad restrictions, residential use is banned. Consequently, wv do riot understand how the County can allow this proposed rasidantial use in this area. J 40 mr. Per_ecro. Villarreal November 1, 1991 Page 1 3. ;ha industrial zacility' which. the caunty propcses to use as a reaadentlal shelter and training center does not have any outside racrmational area. people cannot be confined to such buildings 14 hours a day, Particularly in warm weather. They will themselves seek outdoor recreational areas. since there is no Dark asaa available within a mile of the property, it is inevitable that they ,may be. tempted to go next door into our lovely Cametery, We -Can understand such, recreational needs, but thee* needs are at variance with the quiet solitude that griavinq families require on our grounds. The two groups gannot cc-exist in the same !caation and it is unrair to either party to propose mixing thasa two groups with dramatically different needs. 4. There is no public transportation available to this area and our understanding is that this should be one ol .ths county's requiremanta for such a facility. The users of the proposed facility, therefore, will ba forced to walk along reads vhers there are only intermitebt sidewalks. ror all of the above reasons, ore must oppose this proposal. We understand and are sympathic to the homeless problam and tra County's attempt to address this issue, but locatirq tris, facility_ at 2047 industrial Way is not the solution. very truly yours, William Silva General AA&gar 1Pslcw �ICCABE. SCHWARTZ. EVANS. LEVY 8c DAWE o00►ESSI0NAL LAW COMPONAT1ON --ACr O ALEXANDER ONE CONCORD CENTRE •ELEPNONE :OHM J CAMOZZI• - - ":]EAN A. CHRISTOPHERSON' '700 CLAYTON ROAD. SUITE 11300 "SIOI eeT•7450 JAMES M OA-C - ('ONCORD. 'CALIFORNIA 94520.2100 -[LEGOPIER SPIAN P EVANS _ :SIOI es0-0129 9EVERL♦ J LAVIN - - - KENNETH H LAVIN .. - LEO J. 0 ORICH OAVIO J. LEVY 'Jr COUNSEL MICHAEL P. MCGAOC AOOCRT 9, LEICHTNER A CUOTIS SAWTVO. JR 11 COUNSEL -ARCHMONT J SCHWARTZ ARLENE SEG.AL - 'ALSO I+I CHSCR NAWAII STATE SAO ••LSO MEMBER WASNINOTON STALE OAR - November 7 , 1991 . zoning Administrator Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez , CA 94553 Re: Application For Multi Family Residence of Contra Costa Housing Authority 2047 Arnold Industrial Way In Light Industrial District Dear Sir: This office represents Mr. and Mrs. Winton Jones who own real property zoned light industrial , that is located an _estimated 300 feet from the above described real property. Weare informed--, that --there is a proposal to establish a home for 100 persons in two warehouses located at the above address in the light industrial district. This will obviously be a use that requires a permit. You must be aware of the. recent expensive litigation between_ property owners in the District and the City of Concord. The suit resulted in .an, agreement that the land was in ,Concord's sphere of influence, would ' eventually be . annexed to Concord. As a light industrial area ,. it was agreed by the City and property owners that .the residential -use would -not be expanded.. It is requested that there be a . hearing on the proposed use and that Mr. and Mrs . Jones be furnished notice in care of this office. MCCABE. SCnWARTZ. Esti .vy Lac DAWE 'OOIC9SIONAL LA- COO.O0AT104 Zoning Administrator S November 7 , 1991 Page 2 If for any reason , there is to be no hearing, please let us know the status of the described application and whether there has been any decision that is subject to appeal at this time. Yours very truly, McCABE, SCHWARTZ , EVANS , LEVY & DAWE Professional Law Corporation David J✓ Lev DJL/car cc: Mr. and Mrs . Winton Jones • .. � e EXNig�Z � SH]ER1FF—CORONER' S DEPARTTViENT aCo�ztra Costa Cour�l.ty Administration Division 646-2402 Date: November 7, 1991 To: Lieutenant Scott Parsons Prom: Warrenp sistant Sheriff Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter - Concord Your memorandum of November 5, 1991 on-this subject was very well crone. I would, however, like you to provide me with a supplemental document. The supplement should address the specific question of impact on the Sheriff's Office and neighborhood from a public safety perspective. A suggested methodology is to establish a baseline of existing public safety called-for services and staffing levels. Compare those two baselines to information extrapolated from our professional assumptions, other situations where the same number of people are involved and, of course, experience of similar iac lines. ® 1 would like this as soon as possible, but no later than November 18, 1991. `VER:mjf . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER CUT.�� SCOTT DALY SERGEANT INTELLIGENCE UNIT 1980 MUIR ROAD TELEPHONE MARTINEZ.CA 94553 (41 5)313 2710 SHER�EF—CORONER•.S DEPAI�TIlJ.LEY�TT ® Coira.•tra Coss County - Administration Division . 646-2402 Date: November 7, 1991 To: Lieutenant Scott Parsons From: Warren p sistant Sheriff Subject: Proposed Homeless Shelter - Concord Your memorandum of November 5, 1991 on this subject was very well done. I would, however, like you to provide me with a supplemental document. The supplement should address the specific question of impact on the Sheriff's Office. and neighborhood from a public safety perspective. A suggested methodology is to establish a baseline of existing public safety called-for services and staffing levels. Compare those two baselines to information extrapolated from our professional assumptions., .other situations where the same number- ;;f peupie.are involved and, of .course, experience of similar facilities. I would like this as soon as possible, but no,later than November 18, 1991. WER:mjf . /; r - - -- All r - - .�,' tip: F,r:•s ,•--. _ . _ _ ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER ,o SCOTT DALY cons SERGEANT INTELLIGENCE UNIT 1 96G MUIR ROAD - 7ELEFn DNE - 1�nT.Ivr7 r-r. :} 8k`eriff-Coroner Richard K. Rainey Contra Costa County SHERIFF-CORONER P.O. Box 391 CONFIDENTIAL Warren t Sheriff "artinez, California 94553-0039 15 646- Gerald T.Mitosinka Assistant Sheriff . Rodger L. Davis Assistant Sheriff TO Assistant Sheriff Warren Rupf Date: November 5, 1991 Lieutenant Scott Parson From. Subject. . Proposed Homeless by Sergeant Scott Daly Shelter--Concord The following report is the result of an initial site survey and information analysis for a proposed homeless shelter to be located at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord. BACKGROUND The address in question is in a light industrial/warehouse district and is zoned for light industrial use. The complex is located on the north side of Arnold Industrial Way, between Industrial Way and Laura Alice Way, (Thomas Brothers 13E3--see attached landtrack map). It is bordered on the north by Memory Garden Cemetery and is very close to the Concord city limits. ® The proposed shelter would be a year-round facility, to house a maximum cf, 100 single males and females--no family groups. The projected population ratio is 60/65% male and 35/40% female. Stays at the facility would vary from one to 180 days, with a maximum stay of 90 days if the subject is not on General Assistance. Stays at the.facility will be by referral ONLY--through Contra Costa County Social Services Department. - No, drop-in guests will be allowed. The project will be administered, under contract; by a private non-profit group. Contra Costa County Housing Authority will oversee the contract and :'ill establish a community advisory commit-tee to act as a liaison and buffer. The facility itself would occupy the center two units of a four unit complex. Contra Costa`County Housing Authority, has planned to lease these two units and 'is ultimately hoping for a lease/purchase agreement for the entire four ur L complex. The facility will occupy 10,000 square feet and will be.staffed by five counselors during the day, and two or three at night. A well drilling contractor ,an-d a sign supply company currently occupy.the.two adjacent units. SITE SURVEY r Our initial site survey addresses only the exterior of the proposed location. Vti e were not provided with access or floorplans for modification of the existi-- warehouse.- CONFIDENTIAL AN EQUAL OPPOFITUNI TY EMPLOYER Proposed Homeless Shelter ® page 2 As previously stated, the area is zoned for light industrial use. Arnold Industrial Way is a through city street, with moderate traffic flow and a posted 35 MPH speed limit. The area is not conducive to pedestrian traffic, as the sidewalk alternates from the north/south side of the roadway without adequate pedestrian crosswalks. The nearest public-transit appears to be a County Connection bus stop at Arnold Industrial Way and.lndustrial Way_ (approximately .25 miles from the site). The shelter itself would occupy the center two units (B and C) of the complex. Parking is extremely limited and will have to be carefully regulated. There are approximately twelve spaces available for these two units. On-street parking is available, but would add to congestion and the previously mentioned pedestrian problem. Mr. Villareal indicates that they will make every effort to dissuade residents from bringing vehicles to the location. He hopes that with extensive use of vans and taxi cabs, that parking will not be a problem. A preliminary examination shows relatively poor street lighting. There are three street lights in front of the complex, but virtually no other lighting between Laura Alice Way and Industrial Way. There already exists a small homeless encampment in a vacant lot at the corner of Arnold Industriai Way acid Industrial Way. SITE SUMMARY The location in question offers some unique advantages. It is far removed from residential areas and the associated problems involved with that setting. The major problems with this site are: 1. FACILITY PARKING; It is unrealistic to believe that a facility of this size will be able to function with twelve parking spaces. Parking for staff and facility related deliveries will quickly congest the available spaces. If residents are allowed to park even a few vehicles in this lot it will be gridlocked: The well drilling contractor is located at the far end of the complex. His business requires that he move heavy machinery through the parking lot on a daily.basis.. This will not be possible if the lot becomes congested. 2. PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC; The pedestrian traffic created bythis facility will create a hazard for both the residents and passerbys. During the day, it is likely that residents will want to stretch their legs and take a walk. There are no parks or other facilities avail- able in the area. It is also unrealistic to believe that whenever a. res- ident has to arrive or leave, that there will be transportation available. Proposed Homeless Shelter Page 3 3. DISRUPTION OF, SURROUNDING BUSINESSES; The two units _ that this facility will occupy are currently vacant. Obviously; any tenant will.affect the existing businesses that have been previously mentioned. The addition of 100 people and their related services to this complex will be extremely stressful. RELATED CONCERNS The information provided by the Housing Authority raises more questions than it answers. It is necessary to address these concerns before we can adequately asses the impact that this facility will, have on Sheriff's Department services: CARE PROVIDER Who is the non-profit care provider? Have they (or are they currently) operated a facility of this nature? What is their track record? STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING' How will staff be selected, trained and supervised? Will the staff be trained in conflict resolution? How will staff deal with "drop-ins" or facility rule violations? * STAFFING LEVELS Mr. Villareal has provided anticipated staffing levels of.five during the day and two or three at night. How were these levels arrived at ? Are these staffing levels adequate to mitigate potential problems? * RESIDENT SCREENING Will residents be"screened to eliminate persons with; need of immediate psychiatric screening (5150W&I)? a history of violent behavior? an uncontrolled alcohol or substance abuse problem? What kind of training will screeners have to recognize such problems? DENIAL If an applicant is denied, will he/she_have appeal rights? To whom and on what grounds? Who will .have ultimate authority? ' SANCTIONS/PROGRAM STATUS Should the care provider violate program guidelines, are immediate sanctions a part of the contractual agreement? If the program proves to bea major problem, will it be possible to modify or disband it? Once in place, will it remain in,operation regardless of its' impact? � \ � , , 1 �'� �, ``,, f o: \, � r. a 7 �� `�� C- G� t` `', � � �. � G 1 -=t � � _ �. �� . ,Q � � c ,t' 1 �� 1 `. `` � . �i ,, �� _� �'i,' � r,N .� 1 \� � ` /l � // �\# i / � . \O � �J ` \\ �'. `\ 1 �\ i`�\ .� / � � �'� f •��Mfn ` y 1 @ 3 4 y - i n f sy = i rt p l r_ "jam -,: 1 S _•F' y'i ::::` s�� _ y:. LY �y I COMPLEX (ON RIGHT) SEEN FROM THE EAST _ ° _�� .+r'��:�1` rF1Y � k '�w��':•m yA"7� 'rq"n`�'M S�+„Y�t f. l f .a nor-«• �E� fes_ 1 ._: -, •II jz a .. COMPLEX (ON LEFT) SEEN FROM THE NEST tr 1�rJvA x i Ii W",i'Y"+•"�,,'f a7Y ` 1 a is i ate JJ,p t W n y,h ft.u+w. r ermm•,m aaec I i 4' x � �InZ $ M = fi t - _ K OVERVIEW OF COMPLEX LOT JZ UNITS "B,i.AND i,C'i ., - J. �XH�g�T C 70ARD RVIZ_OR� _.. �.J'l.� _ I 4 °ART_ F0RN___ 5 6 IN RE : ITEM 2 . 3 = REPORT :ROM ExECliT=VE DIRECTOR , HOUSING AUTHORITY , 7 I REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT- OF A WINTER RELIEF PROGRAM FOR THE ' HOMELESS . a � 9 i0 i 12 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS . 13 1A MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 15 . i , 5 17 1.8 19 PRESENT : TOM POWERS , Chairman 20 NANCY FAHDEN 21 ROBERT I : SCHRODER 22 SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK 23 TOM TORLAKSON 24 za Certinvo �iiorinjnG hctr>rwr, - d®rmjjs lll� '321 Stan"ed Dme•Cunccmi.CA y4320-4.�0', REPORTITVG SERVICE.INC. •••�•�-•• P.O. Box 110-•Concord.1:.1 94,524-4`� _ _ r 1 PROC EEDI: GS 2 ' 3 CHAIRMAN . POWERS : Okay. The next item, 2 , is zte i 4 report from the rousing Aut!:ority ' s Executive Director 5 regarding a winter relief program for the homeless . ,I 6 MR . BATCHELOR: Mr . Chairman , members of the Soard , 7 we have in the past year looked at , over 30 different sites i 8 to try to find a homeless shelter that appeared i 9 appropriate . It seemed that we had one that was oretty 10 well satisfactory to all parties concerned until we found l 11 a technical problem that kept us from being able to go 12 ahead. 13 We then were forced to try to find 'a site in a 14 shoat period of time to provide winter . relief . What is 15 before you today is a recommendation that we move forward 1.6 with a. temporary shelter .for'. the. winter. while necessary 17 studies take place to clow it to become permanent if _t ' s 18 appropriate . 19 And Perfecto here is to give us a report on _t . , 20 MR. VILLARREAL : Thank you very much , 21 Mr '- Batchelor . 22 Mr . Chairman, members of the Board, the Housing 23 Authority on April the is.t of this ' year was assigned the 24 responsibility by the County Administrator and' your Board 25 to assume the administration of homeless programs here in OIt6�B8' Certified Shorthand Reporters 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord.CA 9520-4hOh REPORTING SFRVIC£.INC. . P.O:sot 4 i 07•Concord.C 9452-1-4107 1 Contra Costa County . ® 2 One of the first . asks t.at we '.,;as to -- 3 as we took over the administrateion of - e homeless 4 programs was to begin to -- the process cf t_yi.•g. =o 5 identify a site for the winter program for the wineer of 6 ' 91 and ' 92 . 7 As Mr . Batchelor has already mentioned; the sousing '8 Authority has reviewed a number of sites in Central . =-nd 9 East .Contra ,Costa County trying to identify a temporary 10 winter shelter site , while at the same time zry- :g tz come 11 up with a facility that. would meet the needs of the County 12 and that would be cost effective . ® 13 We have reviewed a number of sites . The one that 14 we ' re recommending this morning for the winter shelter 15 program is a site located in the north Concord communit-, 1.6 at 2847 Arnold industrial way . =7 Richard Martinez , our director of housing 18 operations is up at the -- shows the aerial map showing 19 the location of the site . The .site i,s adjacent to 20 Highway 4 where Highway 242 intersects with Highway 4 . T_t 21 -- is. on Arnold Industrial Way ., It is a light industrial f 22 community . 23 There are two residences in the area . Across the 1 . 24 freeway on Highway 4 there are more residences , but with. 25 the Highway 4 and 242 being a buffer , the residential g Y g Cerutied Shorthand Herxmtrr ®Yggj�g 23-21 Stanwell Dri%e•Concord.C.4L 94530-4,Y)h REPORTIPtG SERVICE.IrC. P.O.Boa •Concord. 9)15'_-5-110- 15101 68 (5 683-6?"• Fax 1510)6h5-3529 1 communities are pretty -„uc �uf_erec =_ t_._s _ „sec 2 site . 3 This particular site we are _ roposing , after a 4 great deal of review, site review . One of t'_:e factsr= 5 that we ' ve looked at is what can we make available for i 6 this winter in Central and Bast Contra Costa C°ounty . 7 Currently the County of Contra Costa has a homeless I 8 facility that serves- single homeless adults , in west 9 County. That facility is a 56-bed facility . .-s `u11 10 to capacity and winter is not here yet . i 11 We also have two trailers to serve as temporary j 12 housing for single homeless adults in West County located 13 adjacent to the 56-bed facility. That facility is also 14 full to capacity . 15 There is a need this winter to have a facility �_n 1.6' : . Central: County that; will serve. the .Central ' and East Contr 17 Costa County homeless.. Last winter the County was 18 - located - the facility was located in walnut Creek at the 19 Siemens Building . 20 The County had proposed using the Walnut . Creek 21 armory at the request of the City of Walnut Creek . We 22 shifted from .that location to the Siemens Building, a 23 building that was bought by, the City of Walnut Creek to 24 eventually be converted into a corporation yard. At that 25 facility we serve_ _00 homeless . Certified Shorthand Reposer. zandorawla 2321 Stanwe.il Drier•Concord.CA 945_'0-+M)u SERVICE.II`iC. P.O.Box 410,-•Concord.CA 93524-4 10, REPORTING . _. _ _ _ _ _ 1 It s our esti .a7-- e Nil- 2 winter a facil_ty --.'-.at :ave 100 beds ___ a'er 3 serve the .homeless Of Central and East: ContraCosza 4 County . 5 One of the faci"ties that we had dent1f_ed j 6 earlier was a facility the Concord area , was Ln =he 1 7 Shary Business Park . Ana. when we located that facility , g we worked with the 'Homel_es.s Advisory Committee _z 9 contacting the property owners , the surrounding community . i 10 We were proceeding to use that facility when after 11 various meetings with the property owners we discovered 12. that there was a legal impediment in using that particular 13 site . So after, meeting with the property owners and with 14 the members of the city officials of the City of Concord, 15 the County withdrew from consideration .of that particular 16 . - site . ' 7 Since that time we have been very busy _ in working 18 with various departments of the County of Contra Costa a 1.9 trying to identify another site. in Central County . The 20 Lease Management Division of General . Services , Mr . Alan 21 Pfeiffer and his two staff members , Mr . Erickson and 22 Mr . Van Horn , have identified this site as a tentative 23 site that we are proposing. to the Board to be used as our 24emergency facility . 25 There has also oeen discussion about isn ' t there a �. andoIa6Th % *Con rShorthand Reporters -� "3.1 Stanwell Drier•Concord.CA 94530-4�0� RFDCIRTING .rT:MCF INC P.O. Box 4107•Concord.CA 94524-4107 Ike 1 site that you can select where t:ere _=_ ce ® 2 opposition . We have _poked anti ooked =_. 3 Contra Costa County. We :ravent identified _hat s_ . 4 There is controversy _ thin'; ;__ any part_^ :laY j 5 location that we recommend to this Board by -roperty 6 owners or by tenants in the surrounding community . � 7 One of the things that have become very clear to us i 8 as we operate these homeless facilities is that If we ' re 9 near any residential area , we ' re going to ' cet tremendous 10 amount of opposition . We saw t ham when wee Msec :e i t 11 armoriesinthe past . 12 As the Board knows , in the past four to five years 13 we have used the Concord armory , we have used the 14 Pittsburg armory, we have used the Richmond armory , we 15 have proposed to use the Walnut Creek. armory . And in eac:^ 1 16 instance,' the" cities ':.-_offacials have :rade it very'..c '_ea r 17 that they do not want . the .County to use thearmories . 18 Also the surrounding communities in those -- in 19 those armories tend to be residential . They have also 20 made it very clear that .they would not _like t-he County to 21 use the armories . 22 There ' s also an impediment in terms of the program 23 operation . The armories have a lot of limitations in 24 terms of the use of those armories .. 'he fi r cal' on t: e 25 first use of those armories is by the National Guard. In ��0_�*�_ _ l:rrUti n Shocord.C nd Hrpunrr> j�� `-1 x.21 Stanwell Drier•Concord.CA 9-35''_0-4tiU�+ I QF.PC�R IR SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107. •Concord.CA 94524-4107 r Ar and .,c 7,any _- _ - -e ceecle :,;hc are _ere _.,dav , :e i gong take sc �.e act_�r. ::day tc _eal �_t` -.e _Jsue . ' It may not ce perfect , ,u- eYve very '_':.,per t=..t 4}}human need. 6 I And I :ave 0 c Z cards here and = ave a i people who wish -o provide us some _..nfor.:,ati .n I :ave 8 much more t"-an _ could handle .f I `qer"e to _ . :e you -_free 9 im. inutes . we would be ::ere a ?cng time , _ _Ot _cnger =0 �e all want -_z) be , and perhaps not --e able to =monis- �1 that . 12 So 'I 'm going to limit the speakers to one minute to 13 speak , and I ' m " going to ask you if :you can do less than 14 that , to please do so . i 15 The issue is whether or not we ' ll go forward with 16 i.this winter- relief � program- and -n, this _oca—.cn and tt-= r- is what we ' re discussing here this morning . 18 so I am going to call the cards in the order that 19 have received them and ask . you to -- call at least two 20 people at a time and ask you tojust keep lining up here - . -21 Iand -g'o " through the testimony at no more than one minute . 22 John H . Patton , followed by Merlin Wedepoh.1 , 23 followed by Libby Collins . 24 MR. PATTON : Mr . Chairman , ladies and gentlemen of- 25 f25 the Board, I represent Memory Gardens , Incorporated . Certified Shorthana Nrnurtc rr ` ��® .3'1 Stanwell Drive•C:oncord.CA 94.5-20-41,'11, REPORT IT1G SEJ2VICE.JTVC: P.O.box 4 10. •Concord.C 94-524-4 i Et .rno-a =ndustr_aI ',-iay . the site cl ne :o me e s s S;e er , _ e _z _ cs _er . Memory Gardens ..as operated _ne ceme_�_ _ _r. _ 1`c_ematerium at zhat _ocat-4cn S_.:ce _9 _ _ ..e crematz _ _•a... itself as a valuab: e and income _ roducIng aSSet fc_ 7 Gardens . 8 The crematorium is located wit:in apzrcximately 20C 9 ( feet of the proposed shelter . Generally winds _0 dare _from the west , southwest and nort.wes _ney are 11 directly in the path of the proposed shel_er . 12 Prior to the fall of last year. or around the fall 13 of last year , Memory Gardens was operating as a 14 crematorium on a. day -- in the daytime and received 15 . numerous complaints forcing it to change _ts operations to i.6 the nighttime-- due to,_ the ..winds. and the odors from to 17 operation of the crematorium. 18 It is Memory Gardens ' position that the 19 establishment of this shelter at this loca.t_on will not 20 only be detrimental to the homeless people z:;at will be 21 asked to live there , but also will effect-vely shut down 22 Memory Gardens ' ability to operate this crematorium. 23 The proposed shelter is not consisten ,.gith t"e 24 local use around the area . There are other alternat_ves . 25 In speaking with the :lousing Authority yesterday , I was — �It�Uia6I�H Drive *Conjjled shorthand R20-4.1- - ^3'l Stam�eil Drier•Concord.C.�9a•i•'U-a•ti, REPOWMG SEMCE.1K. P.O. Box 4107•C:,�ncord.C.�915_' -a 1 ot_�_ed t_.at :..ere :as _:i a:- :e at • ! :•1 av a-� =p-se . i �t seems t3 -.e at __ this Is an isituaz:4-- , _s nct _ne = at fall_ J_t`_n .-e ti 21 -- 21060 . 3 of t':e _ubl_ .esources Cote :chic_. woof . 6 allow this project _o go =:sward wit1.0ut z 7 consideration by the Board. 8 Effectively , the complaints t::at are going tc enYue 9 from the proximity of the orcposed shelter to Memory :0 Gardens are going to shut down Memory Gardens ar_d -' e-ave us 11 with little recourse at that 'Joint . 12 CHAIRMAN POWERS :. We do have your letter of 13 November 18th from the Law Offices of Jack ?rovine . 14 MR . PATTON : Thank you , sir. 15 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Yes . Thank. you very much . 16 MR . PATTON-.: I - have more .to .say , but due to t`:e -7 time requirements , I ' m not able to . 18 CHAIRMAN POWERS : We appreciate it . 19 MR . PATTON : Thank you . 20 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Merlin wedepchl , followed by 21 Libby' Collins . i 22 MR . WEDEPOHL : Good morning. I ' m Meri,in Wedepohl , j i 23 the executive director of Shelter, Incorporated . = 'M I 24 speaking in favor of the opening of the shelter . i • 25 As you know, when Walnut Creek ' s shelter needed to i (:rrnued 5horthand Re�)rti r ^3^_1 Stsm%ell Dri%e•t.oncord.CA 94-320-4-SO, REPORTiTiG SEKVICE I?`1C. P.O. tiox 410"1 Concord.(:j ya•�-44 1i� =eccvery -:e . =_nc Valer-a . .;e ave cn cu __ .ries = a--= � ?lace dedicated to :.er . She died cr. -he _ztreecs ,to get on , --ntc the _ cgr : t_-c - - - i _ _ am and was o^: e •�a= -_ �. . 5 I A lot of our women are from Conccra' end are 6 homeless , and that could have been avoided -f -.,;e ::ad a 7 place . So I urge you to go ahead with this prcposal . 8 i Thank you . 9 ! CHAIRMAN POWERS : Thank you very :;nuc . i i i0 ! The next speaker is John 3,ecker , c-lowed tiv 11 Beverly West , followed by Jean Sir- . 12 MR. BECKER : My name is John Becker and. I ' m a 13 business owner on Arnold Industrial Way at 1950 Arnold 14 Industrial Way , which is approximately a quarter of a mile 15 as the crow flies from the proposed homeless center . 16 The characteristic'- - I believe that t_^e 17 _ characterisic of the businesses in that area are net , 18 consistent with the establishment of this homeless center 19 at this time in that' area . Most of us are -ndependent 20 businessmen . 21 Most of them can ' t be here today because they' re 22 busy tending to business . I feel this is an important 23 issue , I have to come and speak about it . i 24 It seems in talking to my neighbors that the major • 25 item of concern is that the homeless center will act as a Rmndormil Stanwell Drier•(:uncord. 94.520-4� 1FP07n?qG SERVICE.INC. P.U. Boy t10'•Cuncora.(:.1 94.524 .u' of . a :et z a var= y ,ecple -.aro —ay --alb e get ;_.to �he c^e�ess _-anter ceca1..se I ' -hey .curs , -1-71 ons .,f t7ei_ ani=_-y tc, _ rcvi e s �serl:_, ces , et cetera . .hese people will t:-:en. beforcec :,y -- e si tuat_ ns 6 of wintertime to wander about the area , whic- we think 7. will greatly negatively affect our ability to do business . 8 A lot of us. are struggling now because of the economy and 9 a lot of other reasons . We don ' t need anything else _0 help push us towards going out Of business . 1'- I think if. the Board was to take a look at most of 12 that area a.s fairly small units , 1 , 000 , 1 , 200 , 1 , 400 13 square foot shops , these are not large businesses that can 14 afford a 10 or. 15 percent drop in business , if that ' s the 15 case . -6 A lot of us. are involved in the auto repair 17 business , that ' s what = am, an auto service business , .:,edy. 18 shops that requires us sometimes to have customers ' cars 19 dropped off before we get there in the morning and to stay 20 there late at night . 21 If there are people that can ' t get into the 22 homeless center , these certainly will be attractive as 23 compared with sleeping wherever else they. can find a 24 place . • 25 I can understa e person taking nd a desperate d sp p q Crr Con Shorthand HvTx-520-r,O'.3_'1 Stanwell Drier•(bncord-C.� 9a.i?0--t1+ltRA_� P.O.Box 10'•Concord.C.� 94524-i 10 -E _= - =cke _are .__se =-_cc are an•rwav . r i -hat's:: •you .'e Yui c- • = I "W�I:=MAN :OWE=S -� _ ., �.... .. .ank :o'.: •,•erg -.-c ___ test_ ony . 7 :.each Angelc , followed by :fancy Schu_�a . S MR. ANGELO : Ladies and =entlemen , speakin_- =cr ymyselff. as a property owner . T own the crcoerty at 10 !Mcnument and Meadow lane . _1 I ' ve been going thrcugh a Ghastly =xperlence `3-- 12 the last two or three years with t::ese hcme_ess people . I 13 pity they and I feel sorry for them . We ' ve had an • 14 incredible amount of problems there . 15 Looking over at this area , I think ✓o ' re going to 6 run into .the same the r..g . The people a;re al. os t impos sibs 7 to control . You have .security problems . Je ' ve had 18 break-ins . I ' ve had to board up that vacant bowling alley 19 that I have there because we can ' t give a lease , the 20 buildings are going to be torn down . 21 I ' ve been through all kinds of negative 22 experiences , and the police will confirm that . And - 23 think you ' ll only compound that if you go over to that 24 area which was planned and is most' y aght industrial • 25 area . And that ' s where they seem to flourish because you zaffliftor"la2321 Stamwril Drive•Concord.(:A 9452()-4S4 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Bok 41 o conc•oru.c_.,94- - r t - ' there :,jouid be And so = oma_.. ct_ cnc�_ rye cu .c _eke _ �ock ac _.._— oecse = ' _ �.:re n C igett_nc _..to zhere . i I CHAT..MAN ?OWc.-:�S . okay . Tha::k .,q'' f :r _ -1-Ir 8 testimony . !Nancy Sc'.u'_�a , ___owed . y M- :{e :n-Cate . =c__ :et i i ck mag s . _ MS SCHULBA . Mr . Chairman , members c "- �..e :'cart, , 12 we have, a great deal of concern about the _-pact on this 13 industrialpark that you are considering for shelter . Our 14concern is on the safety or lack of it to the i:.dividuals 15 and families that you may house here . _ E we ' ve :had zwo. weeks to reflect cn e 7:)roposa and 17 at this time we ' d _Ike tc snare with you sc...e -,, aluab` e 18information . Hopefully the opposition will be given as 19 much time as the proponents . 20 Our company and every company cn t`:-S. street.- appropriately named .Arnold Industrial Drive s comp letel_r 22 opposed to such an audacious .project . 23 Two weeks ago on November 3rd, 1991 , a window in 24 our building was snot out with a high powered _ ifle • 25 bullet . '"his is the second i _ _ h 1 t ndow = n our ld�ng s:,,,t CerC. d ncHt-pirtr• _3_1 5Wm�eil Dri%e-(-ncmd.CA l4520-4>0• — ZBIdU h P.U. Bo\4 107•CC5_a- If)" REPORTNG SEVCE.IN � r ;.HAIRMAN OWE - ' -,e -ever beer: ;ncmeless peop'_e carr! q s . _ -ean , _::at e z 5 Are you blaming c"is cn -- � g o MS . SCHULSA: _ _ .: not _he -_cme_ess : at 7 guns . 3 CHAIRMAN PCWERS 9 MS . SCHULSA. We ' re :=-!-king abou_ ==e _0 that you ' re consider-- ng _ u� �_..g zhe 'nomeLes S _- .1 CHIARMAN POWERS : = see . 12 MS . SCHULBA: Our company was originally located in 13 San Francisco,: Due to poor management by covernmenz . 14 officials and lack of concern for industry , we like 15 thousands of other firms decided to leave San -ranc_Sc:, . 5 We: began, a searc:-: `or a community thaz ad 17 planned industrial park separated from publ_c ':ous_nc . 18 our search ended in 1984 when we found our current 19 location . We had Arnold Industrial Way. CC&Rs checked out 20 by legal counsel . 21 We as taxpayers and property owners are governed by . 22 zoning restrictions and by our industrial park CC&Rs . 23 There is a reason for the zoning. There is a reason for 24 the CC&Rs . • �5 the park that considering ,:,, "' you ' re conside_ _ng 'is a C.,Ln . pFzDl1aDTnTNd(:OCFnel1717iiQ (' 2321 Stanwell Drier#i(.on corci.C.an9 4K5r_0r---rn�ur- cl - P.Q. Box 4 107•concord.(,A y4.i^4-1In' garenouse and _ �-�� __ _a_ c�..ec s=ee . _ recent' v ::a_-enged by _ e �_ �� _ S --y ,oeing reso!vea . _.. _-vcr �x_s �_. Y :: . . _.:e cc-- -- - — :of - -i —'of the LAFCO agreement Vhi� �s :a ;:t__ _.e year - a govern . 5 Please .et _he _`ndustr�al car':. exist 7 with the raster plan , the existing zoning , _he recorded 8 CC&Rs , and the terms. cf t e. -:,,_,FCC agreement 9 CHAIRMAN POWERS : "hank Voll . Your _=:,,e _s :p . MS . SCHULBA. .f = cou_d ..ave anout a d d i ona_ 11 seconds , I ' d like to -- 12 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Yes , please go ahead . 13 MS . SCHULBA: -- I ' d like to comment on the site 14 thatou ' re considerin Y g . 15 One of the reasons that you wish to provide a shelter .for the homeless �s to. .get ::e.m ofr :he streets 17 and out of the elements . . 18 The warehouse that you ' re considering has no heat . 19 It has no windows , it has no bathrooms , it has no kitchen , 20 and. it has no sidewalks . The proposal -is . --o out the 21 kitchen acr'os-s the street from the shelter _tse_f , which I 22 will involve crossing a street that is incredibly i 23 dangerous . 24 The cost to renovate this building , to make .t • 25 habitable for these 100 homeless people , the costs are i i 4 �6V® * on Shorthand Arrwrt,1r. : m 321 Sta %ril Drive r•Cuneord.(:.�94-520-41,11SREPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Bot 4107•Concord.C a 94524-4 107 cns_derIn g = f i testimony . :11{e MCrabe , -o-_,-;wed . y :ic.. _agISs . 7 MR . McCABE : Good morning , members _ e card . I think the last speaker ` touc hea -coon perhaps t`:e 9 !most significant _ssue , and -'mat _s -: iat ..ne _^e 1v recommendation does not Suggest a temporar'.' = TerCeiiC:.' shelter , but the first sten toward establ_- — t__. a 12 permanent shelter . And that being done wlt:n.out this Board 13 or staff going through the appropriate ad:;tl.lstrati•7e • 14 steps to be sure that it is the right locatlon for the 15 shelter. 16 :"'his Board has for :years encourages the .-pro: :ctlsn 17 of the North Concord area as a light and ' eavy 18 industrial zone . Businesses have established in that 19 location which are dangerous to citizens at 'large . Now 20 (this proposal encourages the placement of residential 21 (housing in an area -that is simply not appropriate to that . l 221 i I have submitted. to each of you a copy of a letter 23 addressing our specific points of view. I ' d like to offer 24 la copy of that into the record of today ' s hearing by j • 25 submitting it to the clerk . i l i Cernhed 5horthana Henortrr, - Zalmd(ii ila .321 Stan%vell Drive•concord.CA 945''_6-4j.6� REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. so.416-•(:oncord.(.A 94524-4 rinl LL= c.'1 A.1. 4'.,v•Cln• ClG .soul c .._n ..r _ t on.or.,. .o ..e General ,-.r ., r � e _s not apprcpr___e v_t__out 'se :er-_t I here has been --c _amu vt. y an L` -. -s n_ -=n eame,...-.-_ `.. 3 under the terms Vf z.: C�QA .:ct . A1_ of t_.cse t::i::gs are lout!ined in moredeta- ' _n r ter I recognize t':at -t ' s not accepta—b_e tc s_. - _I 8 stand up and say no , you, can , thi..k _t ' s '-ere ., we ...ink 9 !Jt ' s also necessary to respond by be-, 7:g wi_=i::g t .0 cooperate in attemptinto rind a suitable - ccation . 11 And I have made that offer , on behalf of my 12 clients , make that offer . we have , for the short period 13 of time that we have had to respond to this , been engaged. • 14 in an effort to. find positive solutions . 15 And we ' re willing to work with the Boar df we are 16 given that cppo,rtunity , .and with members o -esta=: a.. . 17 certainly with the C_tizens Advisory Commi tee wit': .whom 18 we have had contact over the last week on several 19 occasions to pursue those -- those ends . 20 There are a number of sites that I ' d like to 21 discuss in more detail but :-ay time is up . :.r.d - rook 22 forward to the opportunity to work with you :o. `ind a 23 suitable site permanently when an alternative temporary 24 site is determined by the Board . • 25 Thank you . ndoIt6 %e- : n �horthAnti Reporter Stam�'ril Drnr•�:uncurd.(:A 9•i&_'0-a)n REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. Box 4107• :()n(-o (.1 94524-4I 1 _ 1 _ ,e ® _ fan ambu-ance dr �� er _ , a. . a _ e�_ . �we ve ac =ne -=s and cc_-., an: - .Is,: You ' re dea_ ..a wi t- -- man �e__ as . 7ean die we ' re going to get opposi t_cn =o these o And what = ' re seen , when Walnut creel _ an =-e 7 place , it was ran right , in other words =t ' s getting =he 8 person back to - if you :ry to get sometcdyt-:e 9 County Hospital :here , we nave t_-efi '_• ere _.t _.__ i st =.ne King , _ s , 20 people a -:`ere . And •::e ' re _1 you can ' t -- there ' s -- you ' ve got to have some place 12 get them temporary , to get them on their -- going . 13 That ' s all I have to say . Thank you . 14 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Thank very much , �•Tr .. Rea.dc- . �' Y _5 Okay , Winton , it ' s v our urn now , - ?ease . 6. Mr . ones Oh , _.;F in.e ... Yes , sir . . i8 MR. SULLIVAN : I 'm Tom Sullivan . I Work `or i9 Concord Crane right in that area . 20 I just wanted to -- it ' s already been said , but 21- it ' s a very dangerous corner and = ' m concern -- we ' re •:ery 22 concerned for the homeles's , but sae ' re vert' scared . We 23 . have heavy equipment , it gets foggy , we ' ve had several 24 near misses in that area and - -;ust wanted to one 25 more time . �S8Iad0.6p��8Crrton Jhurthana Hrrntttr; "3''i Stan�crll Drier•Cuncurd.(LA 94-520-41,1 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O. tt()x 4107•Concord.CA 94-524-4 1 _es t_-cny . Ckav , :r --3..e s . MR . JC.JES . _ _.an.K _'ou very .:�uC__ - 2__ a _ apprec_ate zae _our __ -y _ _ Scar-d _==Z p Ut l� . 7 hearing . 8 Unfortunate_y , •.ae :ear^ about tags =- om tyle 9 newspaper , `'.:at -his s'te .,as chosen public. .0 hearing . VaturallY t^is goo . s up '_. arms tecause we 11 happen to believe in the process of CEQA and toning and 12 hearings 13 We have 100 people approximately that have . • 14 petitioned o d she Board to not have this homeless shelter 15 here without public hearings . C _ CHAIRMAN ?0WER, S . 'u.s t set the:: _ g:. d own there , 17 Mr . Jones . We ' 11- come and get them from Y,C,: . 18 MR. JONES : The due process of law is good and we ' d i9 really like to believe - that this Board honors the zoning 20 ordinance , the process of public hearings , of which we 21 have not been notified, "and the concerns cf the residents . 22 We ' ve been there 37 years . We try :�o run a low 2 profile business , nighttime , heavy equipment . Many 24 accidents happen on this blco*' alley . And we ' re scared to • 25 death of these homeless people walking back and forth when Certitied Shorthand Heponer, aIldonwip 3.1 Stan.ell Drive•Concord.uN 945•_'0-4sw REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 41o,•Concord.C_A 945_4-41o* goes _ an ccwr_ We _ lead a n s _:e Soar so vela_ �:ate , gave some zublic ,ear _ - so you _an _-ave an 5 ' environmental impact , CEQA, and see azar 7:-e "-,e _ rccess 5 of law -s in this 7 Thank you very much . 8 CHAIRMAN POWERS :_ Thank you for your _es-simony , 9 'Mr . Jones . 10. 'Ars . Mildred 'Erma_- , :ollowed by Ginner 11 MS . ERMAN : Mr . Chairman and members of the ?oar,-; , 12 my name is Mildred Erman . My husband and I live across 13 the street from the proposed facility here that ' s 14 proposed. 15 We have very serious concerns about y o proposal to 1E establish such a ..fac�li ty .fn_.the warehouse across the 17 street from our Nome of 44 years . We voiced . ,:nese 18 concerns to Mr . Martinez and to Mr.. Villarreal , but they 19 have not addressed our concerns . 20 The adequacies of the proposed site and the 21 management problems that are likely to develop, and s'-:ese 22 inadequacies are a major concern to us . The croposed 23 warehouse _s in an unsuitable and unsafe location . It was 24 built with inadequate off-street parking in an abrupt , • 25 inclined sweeping curve cn a busy street . `a'i8I8�UIa6II8 tee 4 ied"on utti.(AShorthand Hrpnrter, '3'1 Stanwell Drnr•t.uncuni.(:.�y4S_'0-int} REPORTING SERVICE.INC. - - P.O.Box 4107•t A-)nvorcl.CA 9452=-4 I LiM alc Fnn.,. V.•o C� �-1ru r1c •.. - r_ ! r ring - @ _ -reeL -s _ arrcwea ore .a ="erO,. s Yoa r4 tz - - ihazardcus =c %,e:^-__-es st _ - -n7 f `warehouse entrance . The warehouse has, only. a sural_ par`ti'n7 area 7 outside , no grass er no shaded area , no eas -1 � :ccess_h1e 8 parks or recreation. facilities . Not even a _cnnect_- - 9 sidewalk , only a small parking 10t . .0 The prospec- of housing approximately - �0 peo;�a , 11 largely unemployed , possibly handicapped people in such a 12 facility is unrealistic and shameful . 13 The difficulties of managing so many people Ln suct • 14 a confined situation causes us to fear deeply for our , . 15 safety as well as for the privacy and protection of _6 property, =7 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Okay , ma ' am, you- _;:ae is up . 18 MS . ERMAN : All right . 19 CHAIRMAN POWERS : And if you could 'Just summarize 20 rather than -- 21 MS . ERMAN: Since Z don ' t have title _o read my 2 letter -- CHAIRMAN POWERS : Yes , ma ' am . 24 MS . ERMAN: -- may i give copies to you? • L5 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Oh , you sure can . ',we ' ll make _t ■ Crrtttted�horthanu Rt-tx,nrr- ZajadorlwIa. _3'_1 xwm.ell Drtce•Concord.CA 9-1.5_0--it REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Box 11Q_•Concord.c:.k y 4;_a-�:11 - r r �s . COUNTY OF CONTRA COS' T , JOHN k. ZANDONEELL., co ..ereby i That - am a Cert_-- sher :..and =epc_ter _ __e state of California ; 5 That on the 19th day :f November , =991 f"__-y 7 truly , and correctly took down in shorthand writing all of 8 the proceedings held and al' of the testinory given in 9 said matter ; 0 That = thereafter caused tae same tc be tr•.:'y , 11 fully , and correctly transcribed into typewriting , and 12 that the foregoing pages are a full , true , and correct 13 transcript of my said notes at the time and place therein 14 stated. 15 16 IN WETNESS -WHERECr. ,. l have _hereunto set ay :and .7 this 21st .day of November , 1991 . 18 19 20 _ - 21 22 JOHN A . ZANDONELLA Certified Shorthand Reporter 23 License No . C-795 24 • 25 Crrtitird shorthand Rgx)rti•r �;g�aQla6��$ 2321 $tanw•eil Drier•concord.CA 94520-ViO REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.O.Bo.4l0"•concord.CA 94524-4 11 I,1m RG S_R,.,.t• Fac 1;1M J .. EXN�B�t � BICC ABE. ScxwARrz, EVANs, LEvY DA,,vE =ROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION TRACY D ALEXANDER ONE CONCORD CENTRE TELEPHONE JOHN J CAM * 15101 687-3x50 DEAN A. CI-1RIST15TOPMERSON' 2300 CLAYTON ROAD. SUITE 1500 JAMES N. DAWE CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520-2100 TELECOPIER BRIAN P. EVANS '5101 680-0129 BEVERLY J. LAVIN KENNETH H. LAVIN LEO J. O'BRIEN DAVID J. LEVY OF COUNSEL MICHAEL P. MCCABE - ROBERT S. LEICHTNER A. CURTIS SAWYER, JR. 7F COUNSEL MARCHMONT J. SCHWARTI ARLENE SEGAL 'ALSO MEMBER HAWAII STATE BAR _ 'ALSO MEMBER WASHINGTON STATE BAR March 13 , 1992 Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Kevin T. Kerr, Deputy County Counsel Contra Costa County Office of County Counsel P. O. Box 69 Martinez , CA 94553 Re: Taxpayers v. Contra Costa County . Our File No. 0785-CO3 • Gentlemen: This is in response to your letter of March 10 , 1992 . With.-regard to the proposal -that a permanent homelessshelter be built at Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Drive in the Pacheco area, you have cited problems related to, the response of community organizations such as the Blum Road Alert. You have also mentioned concerns about locating a shelter near the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. This is to request that you provide this office with specific information regarding the concerns raised by the Blum Road Alert Group, as well as your opinion as to whether the current shelter proposal mitigates those concerns. In addition, please advise as specifically as possible as to the County concerns . about locating a shelter near the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District facilities. • MCCAs$. ScxwAmTz. E VANS. LEvY & DAwE PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Victor J. Westman and Kevin T. Kerr March 13 , 1992 Page 2 Also, this is to request that the County provide this office with detailed information including plans and specifications for a permanent shelter facility as quickly as possible so that costs and a time-frame for development of the Imhoff. site as a permanent homeless shelter can proceed expeditiously.. Very truly yours, McCABE, SCHWARTZ , EVANS, LEVY & DAWE Professional Law Corporation Arlene Segal AS:klw cc: . Members of the Board of Supervisors Bill Batchelor, County Administrator Perfecto Villarreal, Executive Director of the Housing Authority John Patton, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Winton Jones 0785-003/Wes6saII.Lt_r/k1W - RECEIVED M.S.E.I.& D. MAR 16 1992 March 11, 1992 �'9'�'llAIA3'�i5`� Mr. Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3133 Estudillo St PO Box 2759 Martinez, Ca 94553 Dear Mr. Villarreal: Further to my letter of March 9th, we noted the article in this morning's Contra Costa Times covering Contra Costa County Health Services Director. Mark FinucaneIs statement on the U.S. Veterans Administration land. As a result of a meeting he had with VA Assistant Secretary, David Lewis, the VA would be .interested in doing something with the County by allowing the County to build on eight acres of the 26-acre Martinez property. Mr. Finucane was quoted as saying Contra Costa County might consider using some of the VA acreage for "a County clinic, a nursing home or a parking garage to be used jointly by the. Federal Department and nearby County offices". It`-occurs to .us ..that this may well, be another .site and means whereby the County could erect' its homeless training and residential center. We would still be prepared to work with you on this. Perhaps if you could send us your plans and specifications, we could commence to examine what the costs might be and examine how it could bestructured. Very truly yours, Timothy F. Preece Senior Vice President TFP/cw cc: Scott Tandy, Contra Costa Administrator's Office bcc: John Patton / • Mike McCabe ✓ u V OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL DEPUTIES: f '`•, - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PHILLIP S,ALTHOFF •rk' ,y. SHARON L.ANDERSON y. ..... . .__ I�• ANDREA W.CASSIDY COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING VICKIE L DAWES �•_ '_„ a MARKS S.ESTIS P.O. BOX 69 MICHAEL D.FARR LILLIAMARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0116 DEEM T-FUJI) DENNIS C.GRAVES KEVIN T.KERR TELEPHONE (510) 646-2074 EDWARDV.LANE,JR. VICTOR J.WESTMAN FAX (510) 646-1078 MARY ANN M.MASON COUNTY COUNSEL PAUL R.MUNIZ - VALERIE J.RANCHE ` DAVID F.SCHMIDT SILVANO B. MARCHESI March 10 ,. 1992 DIANA J.SILVER ARTHUR W. WALENTA, JR. VICTORIA T.WILLIAMS ASSISTANTS Arlene Segal , Esq. Michael McCabe, Esq. McCabe, Schwartz, Evans, Levy & Dawe One Concord Centre 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1500 Concord, CA 94520-2100 John H. Patton, Esq . Law Offices of Jack C . Provine 500 Ygnacio Valley road, Suite 390 t'-ilnut. Creek, CA 94596 _ • Re: CEQA Settlement Meeting Dear Counsel : This responds- to Mr. McCabe' s proposal, at the January 29 , 1992 CEQA settlement meeting, that the County consider County land at Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Drive -in the Pacheco area as an alternative to 2047 Arnold Industrial Way as a site for a homeless shelter. We understand that the County previously considered the sito referenced by Mr._ McCabe, but faced opposition from the neighborhood and community, including Blum Road Alert, to the use of this site as a homeless shelter. The County was also concerned about locating a shelter near the facilities of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District . Nevertheless , if you can show that these barriers can be overcome and that the development of a shelter at this site would Arlene Segal , Esq.. ' -2- March 10 , 1992 John H. Patton, Esq. not be too costly, the County would be willing to further explore the development ofa shelter at that site. • Very truly yours , Victor J. Westman County Counsel By: Kevin T. Kerr Deputy County Counsel KTK/jh cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Perfecto Villarreal, Executive Director of the Housing Authority J-S:a:\ktk\ltzs\cega.f • MOUSING AUTHORIT t of the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA • 3133 Estudillo Street P.O. Box 2759 • Martinez,California 94553 FAX(510)372-0236 March 3, 1992 19 Central Administration (510)372-0791 Mr. Timothy F. Preece, Senior Vice-President ❑ Development/Modernization (510)372-7308 Bedford Properties .❑ Fiscal P.O. Box 1267 Acct-s Financial services . Lafayette, CA 94549-1267 (510)372-8134 ❑ Homeless Management Officer (510)372-5385 - Dear Mr. Preece: ❑ Housing Management Officer (510)372-0796 Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1992 concerning ❑ 'Housing Operations the offer from Bedford Properties to assist Contra Costa (510)372-7400 ❑ Purchasing County in developing and constructing an "Emergency Shelter (510)372-5327 and Training Center" on county owned land in the Pacheco area. ❑ Rental Rehab/Technical (510)372-7391 This site has been considered by Contra Costa County in the past for use as a homeless shelter. Contra Costa County has not pursued the use of this site for a homeless shelter because of a number, of difficulties which the County has encountered from neighborhood residents and community organizations including the Blum Road Alert. In addition, the County has concerns about siting a homeless shelter near the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District facilities which are adjacent to the county owned land. Because of these historical difficulties, this site has not been considered to be. feasible for development as a homeless shelter. However, if your company can show that these barriers can be successfully overcome and that the pursuit of this site would not be cost prohibitive for the County, the County would be willing to explore further the development of this site as a homeless shelter. Thank you for your offer to help Contra Costa County in this important and difficult .endeavor. Sincerely; Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors • County Administrator County Counsel r . TIMOTHY F. PREECE (415) 283-8262 . A i February 18, .1992 Mr. Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director Housing Authority County of Contra Costa PO Box 2759 Martinez, Ca 94553 Dear Mr. Villarreal: You will recall our letter of November 1, 1991 in which we requested details on the square footage you were seeking for a Contra Costa County Emergency Shelter and Training Center for the homeless. We stated that we could examine whether we have some viable situations. . We understand that the County has available land at the corner of Imhoff Drive and Waterbird. Way, next to a parking lot of the County Administration Building of your Public Works Department. We further understand .that this land was zoned Planned Unit District (P-1) in 1989 to be developed "to benefit other County departments (General Services) " . Consequently, it is already zoned for such a shelter and training center. Bedford Properties is prepared- to locate an interested party to .lease :the land from the County, build an Emergency Shelter and Training Center to the County' s specifications, ,finance it on a 20 year basis and lease it back to the County. As you know, aside from the County property, the proposed land is not contiguous to any existing developed property, even on the other side of Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Drive. We would be pleased to discuss this possibility with you. Very truly yours, . Timothy F. Preece Senior Vice President TFP%cw Bedford _ 4,,-0\!t. Di"!. B: ,i. !�1cFhone _ Deve!opme:.. ...,„ ;te, C.t!iform.. EXN1B�� E 1 LAW OFFICES OF JACK C. PROVINE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • JACK C. PROVINE 500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 390 JAMES,V. JOYCE WALNUT CREEK. CA 94596 JOHN H. PATTON TELEPHONE 510-944-9700 BRUCE W. PHILLIPS FACSIMILE 510-944-9981 January 21, 1992 Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY c/o Kevin Kerr, Esq. Office of County. Counsel P.O. Box 69 . Martinez, CA 94553-0116 RE: 2047 Arnold Industrial Way Dear Mr. Villarreal: I write because many of Memory Gardens' expressed concerns regarding the homeless shelter at 2047 Arnold ,Industrial Way have • been ignored, and few of the promises made by the County have been fulfilled. During the process leading to the establishment of a temporary shelter at the site, -it was repeatedly represented by you and other County officials that if a .shelter was.,established' . _ at this location., it would not be a drop-in program; that those persons using the shelter would do so on a referral basis and would be transported into and out of the facility; and that these persons would not be allowed to loiter, walk about or use the exterior of the facility, instead being sheltered inside. These assurances were given to allay Memory Gardens' concerns that unsupervised access and egress to and from the shelter, along with the use of the exterior areas surrounding it, particularly those immediately adjoining Memory Gardens' cemetery, would interfere with the tranquil, private and respectful environment whichis necessary .to_ properly operate a cemetery, .and serve Memory Gardens' clients. That is exactly what is happening. Contrary to the County's representations, the following has and is transpiring: 1) During the renovation process, a door and stairway were ' cut into the rear of the building, immediately adjacent to and . facing the cemetery. Since the opening of 'the shelter on 193\cor\v111a1.1et . 17 r' Perfecto Villarreal . January 16, 1992 Page 2 December 24, various persons are using that door for access and egress, creating foot traffic along the cemetery. Numerous occupants of the shelter have been seen loitering outside of the door. This activity, of course, takes place within . a couple yards of the graves, and in full view of those persons visiting the cemetery. Naturally, Memory Gardens' visitors are also in full view of those persons roaming or standing around the outside the shelter, totally destroying the privacy expected by those . visiting the cemetery. 2) Unsightly piles of garbage in clear garbage bags are being left outside of this rear door and along the chain-link fence facing the cemetery. On -December 30, garbage and garbage bags were tossed over the fence and onto the graves. A pickup. truck then trespassed upon the cemetery property without permission to do so, and used the property as a pick-up point for the garbage. Obviously, the shelter's management felt it more convenient to use the cemetery as 'a means of storing. and disposing its garbage than to make proper arrangements for same. Although this was brought to the attention bf the shelter's on-- site management, garbage continues to be piled up in this area, in full view of the- cemetery. 3) The rear of the shelter is being used as a smoking porch at various times throughout .the .day., indicating more: than "emergency" use of the facility. Up to 20 persons have been observed at one through the chain-link fence from the cemetery, milling about in full view. Chairs (approximately 10 or so) have even been set out for these persons to lounge outside next to, the cemetery. On December 30, some of these persons verbally harassed Memory Gardens' employees as they were preparing a site for a burial. It was only fortunate that these catcalls and obscenities took place before, not during, the attendance of the interment service. When informed of these problems, the shelter's manager stated that he could do nothing to prevent the. use of this outside area next to the cemetery as a lounge. Of course, this is directly contrary to the County's representations that the occupants of the shelter would remain inside the facility, and not be allowed to wander around on the outside. It is also contrary to the Superior Court's Order restricting .the use of the facility to only those uses necessary to' address the "emergency" requiring a temporary winter facility. 193\cor\villal.let i Perfecto Villarreal January 16, 1992 Page 3 4) There is considerable foot traffic coming and going from the shelter, contrary to the promise that access would be limited to supervised van pools. Occupants of the shelter have frequently been observed stumbling and crawling along Arnold Industrial Way, as well as on Memory Gardens' property. A hole has been cut in the chain-link fence on Arnold Industrial Way under Highway 4 to allow access through the culvert to downtown Concord. This hole is frequently used by occupants of the shelter on their way to and from the facility. Considerable foot traffic to the "shelter has also been observed on Arnold Industrial Way and surrounding properties to the east side of the facility. As you can no doubt imagine, this interference "is having a significant impact on" Memory Gardens' business. Memory Gardens have received complaints from persons visiting its facilities about these problems, and has lost potential clients because of legitimate concerns over interment in such an environment. Memory Gardens will no longer tolerate the continuance of these conditions, which so detrimentally. impact proper use of its property. If these problems are not promptly and adequately addressed, as the County represented would be done before the shelter was approved, Memory Gardens will have no choice but to further resort to legal processes, including applications to Judge :Spinetta . regarding- the County's"disobedience of the existing Writ, for appropriate injunctive relief and imposition of damages. I trust you will take appropriate measures to correct these problems at once. In particular, the use of the a outside areas 'along the cemetery by the occupants of the shelter, or for the storage of garbage, must be ,discontinued. •. 193 cor villal.let Perfecto Villarreal January 16, 1992 • Page 4 By copy of this letter to the Board of Supervisors, through the offices of County Counsel, I am notifying them of Memory Gardens' position. I trust they will take such action as appropriate as well. Very truly yours, LAW--QFFICES OF JACK C. PROVINE H. Patton JHP/js cc: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors (c/o Kevin T. Kerr, Esq. ) William A. Silva • 193\cor\vi11al.1et J i f �xN��"C f ,rr Nc-A',ghbors still uneasy SY • r about shelter In Concord, � .By Jan Ferris staff wrrer CONCORD — Once-homeless Erik Christensen faced the crowd in the stuffy conference room,spoke a few words,then picked up his guitar. i "It's inside you and me,the possibilities to make this world a brighter place," the Pittsburg house painter sang to about 75 people at a hearing this week on the north Concord homeless shelter. "I'm gonna help my fellow man I'm gonna do whatever I can." The lyrics echoed with irony, capping two hours of testy dialogue as shelter residents, pastors and others pleaded with business owners to visit the homeless cen- ter before criticizing the proposal to make it permanent. The forum,sponsored by the Contra Costa Housing Authority,comes less than three weeks before the Su- perior Court-imposed closure of the 100-bed winter shelter. County officials are completing required environ- mental reviews and hope to take plans for the perma- nent shelter to the Board of Supervisors in early April, said Richard Martinez,Housing Authority operations di- rector. But from the tenor Wednesday night,business own- ers and the two longtime homeowners in the industrial neighborhood north of Highway 4 are still resisting the i idea. The temporary site, open since Christmas, has brought vandalism to the area.some critics s&kL "Everybody is pretty polarize.I ac Lhink anybody changed their minds,"auto body repairman Tom Rob- • enson said after the meeting. Statistically speaking, since they have been here,our crime has gone ridicu- lous." Robertson's business has been broken into twice since December, he said. A car battery and some Porsche parts have been taken from his property. j There have been two arrests alottg Arnold Industrial 1 Way since the shelter opened there,according to Con- tra Costa Sheriffs Department senior crime analyst John Snell.One,for brandishing a weapon,occurred a block away.The second violation,disturbing the peace, was on shelter premises. I Snell said crime,documented in 34 police reports,is precisely what the county expected when the center opened.The figures reflect an increase in population. not the type of people there,he said. j Another business owner complained of increased traffic,loiterers and broken bottles. Still, critics were outnumbered by supporters of a permanent shelter in the onetime carpet warehouse. "Please open your hearts."said John Krajcir of Con- cord's St. Francis of Assisi Church. "You must all get together and work together." 'Several speakers reminded business owners the county had initially planned all-day job training and other classes at the shelter.That was struck out by the court.purring more-residents on.the streets during the da_v. "We have been more than open to dialogue.and all we have had is a battle back and forth."said Lisa Stein. volunteer coordinator at the facility. "We can't even find common ground on building a fence. How can we gain common ground on a vision'" • ;#0785-003 Contra Costa Times - March 20, 1992 (Friday) P RC Residents fight for shelter to stay open Help sought from i county and Concord J By Jan Ferris J St."�nir CONCORD— Residents of the north Concord homeless snelter be, -an a campalgn Thursdav to over- come a court order to close the 100- -ed factliry Marcn 31. I 'When we were told we nad to rove out,we sat around here for a .chile kind of like In a coma.'said J resident Billv Latham. 'Then we de- J _ be a to fight back. eo i s sot re HOMES BELOW Shell Ridge near the OW Borges Ranch In Wa Seaway we can keen this place ooen.^ grassy Hills that Ory f0 tini7er!n the summer.Spring rains profTlC Latham and other nomeiess or- ganizers have m.ited county oohn- Wet S�l ing YY ' o ll-v cians to visit the Amo id Industrial I v,/ • Way building. They also wf ask I Concord.City and chamber of coin. coerceofficialsto Intervene.he said. to fire ��`C� in Il L�� On Tuesday,residents willwillappeal to I {I. (vGJ the Board of Supervisors. j The Contra Costa Housing Au- thonry opened the homeless shelter By Donna Hemmila "I don't war In an abandoned carpet warehouse i sun.,w.. Chief Joe Rubl• Christmas Eve. The Intent was to ! Heaw Spnng rain wont spare tie Bav Area from Dlsmct."It's as keep it open permanently, but `ire hazards this summer. I !asl four veers neighboring businesses and Home• Bone-dry or ram-orencned sDnngs doth spell The dried owners sued. trouble for urenghters.tire officials say. fuels"—will Drought creates ON timber trial can duicidv turn Ruothi.The tau A Superior Court judge ruled I acres of wlldland Into cnaroroded.oarren ndlsides. :rom ground b: that the shelter could open for win- But heaw rams spur growth or weeds. grasses 'The rain r, ter.but that environmental reviews dna-underorusn.wnlcn an•.out and can mel blazes zerous. but it. were'required before approving a that destroy homes and lives. ,aid. permanent facility. 'We're Issuing the same warning we ve given out lust how da The housing authonty can not .`or 20 vears."said-Mike Macon.banalion chief for summer depen keep the shelter open after March 1 the Caldornia Department of Forestry in Sunol. two months.sc 31 without violating the court order. "Clear out the vegetation around your home.We're State Pati. said Operations Director Richard in California.Whether it rains or doesn't rain It's go- If April and Martinez. ing to be a bad fire season.' out later in tht There are no plans for an Interim Heaw rain provides moisture to trees and brush, season could s+ ther,he said.Efforts are Lo- making them less likely to bum when the dry sum. Typically r. center ei cured o opening a permanent she!- mer months hit. But at the same time. Ne rains district then of ter"as quickly as possible." cause grass and wildflowers to nounsn. The lush. "last year green vegetation now carpeting the hills%ill turn to was going to R Meanwhile. the homeless fear a dry.golden brown by summer,provimng a ready Martin of the they will be left on the streets.pro- supply of quick-burning fuel. _ drought.so I Q. test organuers said Thursday. of all fire seas) If they need to relocate us or ,omething.fine.But what's the logic 1 n ��(l p� .n. bottomask line. kicking ea lybody. Politicians _Still �1r}rp• asked Van Bourte. a IaidoK ..meet delivervman who has been at the shelter about amonm. By John King shelved at a general asst Bootie.a Vietnam*War veteran. sae 'Merger supporters h. Bald he has signed uD with three SAN FRANCISCO—Bav Area politicians March to validate their t v employment agenctes. But his ef- Thursday voiced fear and distrust of a new re- happened." said Sono torts to find a loo will be thwarted if gional government.out again stopped shoe of Brown."They keep tellu to hat no shelter. rejecting it ouinzht. ;dee, but there's nothin "I'm right on ine edge of getting ON offictais at the general assembly of the mism on.' I together."he said."!a nvo week. AssOCiation of Bav Area Governments cnied 'Xhile the vote has r,, r o ^.;s sheltewail be gone.sJ.OdsMal- Ove—helmlne v not to endorse a merger Of ..^.es enormous slgmlhca^� a jot twork 6 going D g t0 gdown -nelr ureanization w'iin ire Metroouman :ne Bav.Area s need .:[tubes.I m going i De a Io de as 'ransDOrtal1On iommasion. regional frovern meni. HOWever.a motion to Oppose the plan also To su DDoners.ine'sic �r as Iw•ould'De emniov'efsl are tailed The Idea tinaily was sent to committee .,of It.mere-s no wav in • :Jncemed." --n if the next assemoly later inis year.uesvite as air pollution and the The noun Concord group will be .pleas by supporters. Critics warn a new con. ninecl Tuesdav ny residents from "We've nad months.vears or debate on away nome rule.iorcmg me County s Richmond nomeless this.Let s move aneaci and make History.and ',a wismes of residents ti sneIter. Trailers at t.:at facility. actually do somemnq•"said L ifavene Court- Cnna also sav regior. oened temooraniv last June.are to iman Scon ialan. :umnz on Its own. .:vise March 31 because of county_ 3ut critics of the plan won ov arguing mal 'Local zovemmenis juaget woes. :ne merger is virtually the same as a oroposal .vav's to worK fogerner... Winter's over...Let's all get up and... � a+ • Wednesday.November 20.1991 OAKLAND TRIBUNE METRO'' EASTEAY IN BRIEF Concord warehouse OKd as shelter By Marina GoHwAsfk ter.Additional potential funding county not use its National repair business."Many customer Tah—stall.raw sources include 150.000 from the Guard Armory as a shelter.Last drop their autos off in the morn- MARTINEZ—Depsite strong -Federal Emergency Manage- year the Siemens Building was ing before the business is open. rts; used• but that site is no longer opposition from business, the ment Agency and solicitations The cars will be attractive to the Contra Costa County Board of from cities.Emergency rehabil• available. homeless to sleep in." Supervisors yesterday approved itation costs are expected to be "There is no site where there Keith Angelo,who owns prop. h - leasing a warehouse in a light $230.000. is no opposition."said Villareal. env at Monument Boulevard and r a.,, ..[;; ,••+- industrial park in Concord as a Additional mni, v will, be "µ'e have looked and looked.We ue,-dr o'ane.said he has had a "- temporary winter shelter for the sought from FEMA.Community haven t been able to identify a "ghaitly experience the last sev- ,z •,aas homeless. Development Block Grant fund- site.If it is near any'residenual eral years with the homeless. The warehouse is in the 2000 ing and other sources to make up area.there will be opposition. These people are almost impos- block of Arnold Industrial Way, the$378.511 needed for the pro- "The cities have made it clear Bible to control.There are securi- 7..�. 1 a mixed industrial area which gram. they don't want the county to use ty problems.I have had to board -.a. includes warehouses,auto repair The warehouse is adjacent to the armories. The residents up my vacant bowling alley." shops and retail businesses. Highways 4 and 242,noted Per- also."said Villareal. Nancy Shulba,another busi- "In the past year we have fecto Villareal.executive direc- The National Guard has first ness owner,noted that the ware- looked at 30 different sites.We for of the countv's housing au- priority on armories,which also house has no heat,bathroom or found one that was suitable. thority. "The freeways will act have limited use.he said.,Last kitchen and expressed concern k r Then,we ran into some technical as buffers from the residential year in the Siemens Building we about the families housed at the problems and were forced to areas." had a day program, case man- the shelter. ' � find another one in a short The county's other shelters for agement.The program operated Tom Sullivan said heavy ,i•aesdrLv=/0.kl.nd rrfeme time."said County Administra- the homeless. located in West more effectively." he said. "We equipment is moved in and out of for Phil Batchelor. Contra Costa County,are full to can't implement a day program the area and there have been ew mayor takes office "We are recommending leas- capacity. Villareal said. in an armory." several near misses with people.. y ing this site on a temporary ba- .'We need to serve East and Villareal also asked the board nearly being hit by the large .,bent Savage,left,was sworn in as the new mayor of sis until a more Permanent site Central Contra Costa County," to lease a site across the street equipment. .[eryville along with the new vice mayor, Walter can be found,"he said. said Villareal. from the homeless shelter for Merlin Wedepohl,of.Shelter :rtig.Savage is the first black man to bold the office The county has budgeted He.noted that the city of Wal- use by the housing authority as a Inc.,which manages the shelters. mayor in Emeryville. $300,000 for the emergency shel- nut Creek has asked that the Warehouse and office space. said the central county needs a ..This may not be perfect.but shelter. "I[is too difficult for r it is to serve a very important central county residents to go to Marine human need."said Supervisor west county." • - Tom Powers. "People were concerned about Continued from Page A-3 Carolina.Rivkin quoted a state- John Patton,an attorney rep- parking, vehicles driving ment Larsen made in court: resenting Memory Gardens. a around, increased crime." said y employee files Measure M challenge said the military initially 'With all the parades around cemetery and crematorium,said Walnut Creek police Lt. Dave �:ontending that Meisure M is unconstitutional, a Con- trumped up the charges because the country celebrating the mili- the warehouse site was not suita- Johnson.who was liaison for the city employee and his wife yesterday tiled suit against of the reservist's outspoken cri Lary success of Operation Desert ble because the crematorium is homeless shelter at the Siemens ticism of the U.S.role in the war. Storm.I've taken an unpopular 200 feet from the shelter and Building last year."There were he suit was filed by attorneys Rena B. Denham and During the court-martial.Riv- stance. But I didn't want to be prevailing winds blow in that di- no affects on the neighborhood. Aid K.Mullin in Contra Costa Superior Court on behalf of kin had sought to keep Larsen. involved in a war in which there rection. No.increase in crime. People Pe out of the'brig,while the prose- was such a loss'of life on both The cemetery has already had didn't wander around."he said. Jester•special events coordinator for the city and his cuting military attorney.Maj. sides.". to curtail some activity at the Jean Irish. William Hollerich, requested a Larsen was subsequently led crematorium because of com- "Properly managed,"he said. `he suit seeks injunctive relief and asks the court to one-year prison sentence.Rivkin out of the military courtroom in plaints about odors,Patton said. "the shelter can be a good neigh- are Measure M unconstitutional because it denies free- complained that combat veter- handcuffs, to begin serving his "The proposed shelter is not bor." of speech, violates the right of due process and equal ans from the Persian Gulf war sentence at the Camp Lejeune consistent with local use," said "It's getting cold,rainy.Peo- cction under the law. made up the entire sentencing Brig. He was also given a dis- Patton."There are alternatives. pie are dying on the street.West Mullin, a city council member whose term ended last panel. honorable discharge. In speaking with the housing au- County can't accept any more." :t.chose not to run for reelection. Larsen• who had applied for. Two weeks ago, a federal thority yesterday I.learned an al- said El Cerrito resident Jean 'Measure M was passed by a very narrow margin on conscientious objector status judge refused to order the Ma- ternative was the Concord Naval Siri. 5.The Contra Costa County Elections Office on Monday and was denied, refusedtto re- rine Corps to grant him consci- Weapons Station." Supervisor Sue was tar su• ;tic Peak ':tied the election results — 11.708 votes for and 11,666 port for duty when his Hayward- entious objector status.Rivkin Homeless people wandering said the warehouse ,-ist.a difference of 42 votes. based unit was activated in said he would file an appeal im. around the area will have a neg. perior to an armory. "he measure removes sexual orientation protections March. mediately upon his return to the ative effect on business, said The shelter is expected to n t v s human rights ordinance as well as city During a phone call to North Bay Area. John Becker,who owns an auto open Dec.15. .:ies idelines. ..es d his wife tiled amt, said Denham, ebecause eQ�.erS BEST DINING ROOM SELECTION wanted to.The 'rartery enough to subject themselves +K ` RE as process,this'type of case that is inviting tremendous ,Y .s attention." i { l lckarQdtte OIL �et for Miyor Manufartyrer imperfectS el b 1�� i 40 COMPLETE SETS ON DISPLAY I ` _J 'nil .idfill neighbors want property value study LCOVER CONTEMPORARY OAK '.'Atsbur residents o ed to the Keller Canyon landfill - t PYII ! 'i �' 1 T\"TT%T#- QT'T` R nDos It r - shelter 'y`1 AI.Prj FROM PAGE to homeless must be.he .sed and coon' A ' C C -- The lawsuits.filed last week,ac- i Lt(0 1'T ruse the county of violating its plan. ' ning and zoning guidelines,and of trying to bypass state environmental review laws.The first lawsuii,filed by nearbv homeowners and busi- nesses. usynesses.seeks a court order to pre• vent residential use of the 2047 Ar. • nold Industrial Wav site. The second suit,to,be heard Dec. 18,was filed by Memorial Gardens Inc.The cemetery's crematorium is r I about 200 feet from the warehouse and has been the subject of com• plaints when operated during busi- . ness hours,said attorney John Pat. ton. Patton said the cemeterys own- fear ers potential complaints from shelter residents about smoke and • fi� ct?:: - t odors might force them to close the crematorium. Grp ti'ct'r' } ""• The latest legal woes are yet an- other chapter in the ongoing strug- gle to locate a Central County shel- s 4" ter that would eventually be i "-• - art - converted into the area's first per- . t � �.e-r • �'': manent homeless facility. The housing authority's,first t�CtM,r't' .. - #y x "^•°"� choice, in central Concord, fell c l � •�, v •rf lt�tL t..�•yEi - -,..,,! - ;r..-. through mainly over a clause in-the tz' industrial park's deed prohibiting *:s-7 K aar. residential use. � .� ,✓ .gym � +,�, � i x � � County supervisors approved the * -x second location,in an unincorporat- ed area near highways 4 and 242. •'tl three weeks ago. Housing officials * °• have been focused since on ready ing the 10.000-square-toot ware- house for winter use. Two weeks ago,the building �,mxs ao�.code housed a single toilet, no heating MATT ANDERSON on Monday carries lumber across what will be the sleeping area of the new county homeless shefter. and light provided solely by sky- lights.The 5230,000 renovation calls for more toilets,13 showers and five gas-powered heaters. The ceiling Shelter suits Ij was insulated last week.Two emer- tense enc have been carved out of could slow site the serpent walls. Because the building has no for homeless kitchenwil .meals l be brought in by the Sheriffs Department.which al- t - ready cooks for the county's in- yt. 1 By Jan Ferrls mates. sun..roe •[( - MARTINEZ-A hearing on the j yThe shelter was initially set to ` d first of two lawsuits filed against he the Pen Sunda .But Richard Martinez.` the Contra Costa"Housing Authori- .• county's homeless shelter in north ty's operations director, said %ton- i ,- Concord will be Wednesday in Su- _i day he's:'hoping for sometime the 1 perior Court,just as the winter facr i' following week.' Iffy_ prepares to open. � • !: Despite the legal challenges.con. , "We knew it was going to be .r cery difficult to meet the deadline." ati - struction workers have been scram- i %IcEwan said.•we've been moving bling since the budding permit was ti and pushing our contractor, but. L • - _ issued last week to rum a barren I " :nere's a lot to get done. ± �.. .� warehouse tufo sleeping,dining and .! He called the renovation "vent' showering facilities for 100 men and • women. bare bones.'gn•en the snorta4e of •'We are moving ahead with the ! county funds.He and other housing . - shelter because we have been di- officials hope the community wid 4 rested to by the Board of Supervi- donate carpeting, bunk beds. pool ' sors.'said Robert McEwan, acting moles and other indoor recreau0nal ❑ems. development director for the Contra The shelter is expected 10 fill aY Costa Housing Authority. "M'e're - - �esBoo'vpomoq hoping and praying that the court most as soon as a opens. Contra will rule in our tacos" Costa's only other county-run DON DAVIS.left,and Matt Anderson lift up a wall frame as Tim Reves sweeps the area clean homeless facilities— 113 beds to at the homeless Shelter in north,Concord. Please see SHELTER.back Daae Richmond — are at capacity and -�� turning would-be lodgers away. � I � ,� dE �, mNveeoo� rdE � <,^., yam? =^� '-.�"c ��°• �•v _ �o� _� y'4 � _ :'- _ /Iq 4 cTi C ,� a m O L 7 p'•' m a C ,'�. C a n t;-_ ^'C j C} T= •:'y _..- !1� ;'m a a c�a = E•� - G a o 3u `aMm ^^ E3 � m �Cm�adF i_ -x � '�.a x: � Ema�- �•` 6�i=' ="ai V•G mmam��..�^.�L mG.= au !, fro s� u A � m �\��E'� E25FJt � �°,r'ffic c o �� c� v •= •• E � $�" � a` "' = m2.tW-p?� c m m,a p� � m O L •w. a m m r > a O G -�x'V E j a � /� r 00� a a L a >•�m T... m � V C 30 �6 G G o S y ° m +.gF mp�G, m._ ? >' �_=•-,� a•x, as e G,r�a �r•7 J N 9 - M"a G p }g u y O� ;q � E E p G � Y. } r O 4 a 'r L�'G v d m C >A 3q 1y Fya.'o v c•a .�-• 6m} m_s c e. m y ` ^' a 3 = o a;,•c.c-o E c o am 2 C A y a r G 'Q C o. ... a' C._., a ".0•q a.+t - - G .+ a PZ � � �7y CC3o ° $ E.ma L ° vEouNYmvS- .oE� ; dEa �'+� 8 "'Ecyv 3a3m - �- �1� -" W �.� omcsc °•,-V3 ,�• .a.�wo,calfl a} :�cv�npitz Y� r�a..y � 4wc - }'+E•- L,t�'..�_�-3 ... iso �C E r o E+ a C:^ C a >. t" � E L.�a�a�b'r .G-.•:�moi,a.3 a � G'�-' a°E� o`ao i O-L a 4.2 u�Oa o a rn� a��.�� ` ^ E 5.�or. 3a m qua v •� I�Cf b ab:: � e'c 3` g a E o �1�� f p►a -o m c'� a a v t 4^ � �� r.•y� E �y1_� } R•rp1oSE� � zm �4 � 3•co [ g6z oa m t 8;r a Gs m> g ac o- E > > c E ji4` a•" "s �.y'. ° _ f _�. ' •t' ��•5 ^ � k y v G a w im L $d •�'o'm v O. mF4 n� � y` y?. 'j•,.9 j.'� 7 ' .�G!-" �, �,o. Q"�5,,. . a 3 2'm Z 4.F+ ,o E3$�o a. E �3 E '05 fly. rs.a aa1•� 3it- I 'C7+ .°= $ m macs-a ��!s G � Eo s:s G.Q m�+-. !. j C14 oTe T5 a 73t a a Mm 44 fly � S.T. ��qa o e� 6� �Fi'h e�•� o a � a 1�..:� p;, a8� (I v 4 } it p -I m 0. > �t G Sam 0 E c��•�`� '1",ta c9+t'� CEaxcHj '� $y � . `�+ T�F y��'c c) W�'J` �.0 A ti R r1' �Ii e p>:w$ Lm••II z � ., S r� E' ,�-. �,4; a{g.+ St m .G a0 `� �'a7 � •II b v� �'O k"fl cC � 3 �^ o cyi� 5g 2I `amIt C tisC mm� > � p0er �3vm • sa �s E � C W o.,ep•g i`��y$ > g o,n� 3t �'�-gt3 a�$,d � $�� a Him. aIce � a�� oMm6 '��'^��;� om > 0�'" i p 'o.SOA x T �6s: '!� �°yam p�3 �•$'=.9 � � m ay G r- � a � �C3coo v�'mC a C�Gagg pCC Epq 660 ,� ., m:.�9 �• � ' Qpoma *{ C, m a� G,y '� OF'`� 7 0 a p G•`w � mE a E•o r�, t r d �,� iSw G �^y.�w Z Imainr]i�'�� c a' va w ao•C yii a a R E p"7 'a Q o a e m6 m a` a. 1cI cr3 c as to a rt's m•S C.s .3L3 s � 6•! v .. l lC y9 . •- � i _ U m i. •?'.2 711.1 a bo =; I fit" r. `� E e G�' E •� } ra. � p C.d is �i C;, C S � � di `1�R+� E•e m$ tn H C+ R-21 O a I �. .d yrs a Uam3 "gp� } R q� v m o i. Wam•'�wr�.9 •Q t t!! •^� L { a s -51 A O 41w�� O � a c, CL Q'. m s G a•- o:�` ..y� 116 di d � �d gmm $ � t1. �� y p�.9.m 25�; a � •.E n g :) 1 _ s � a � a3do t It! d Uo doro no o vm d ¢a C wo d , 6) mm4,cv� Cts � � � �' � TFd ?�3s=`o,��3 48 �r3�� `O..•�� .' } �� m`5�o,��°�� C C { ILS C4 1< =.0 �r 4' .�.• ,^,I ^'". OG$1 :✓ v O.�w a"'.��F^C - +tea i r . .Concord shelter. may open, but with limits on services -By Michael Hytha Stair writer MARTINEZ A homeless shelter can open in a north Concord warehouse Monday but not with many of the services intended to help the homeless find jobs and housing, a Superior Court judge ordered Wednes- day. Judge Peter Spinetta upheld the county's emergency decision to use a warehouse at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way as a homeless shelter through March. But Spinetta ordered the county not to take any steps that could lead to the site's becoming a permanent shelter until it com- plies with.state planning review laws. "I think that there is an emergency need for the shel- ter, but my decision is not to allow the claim of emer- gency action to be-used as a ruse to really effectuate something else—which is a permanent project," Spin- - -- etta said. Specifically,Spinetta barred the county from making . any renovations, setting up unrelated offices or estab- lishing services not directly related to protecting the life and health of people at the shelter on an emergency ba- sis this winter. The judge agreed with the attorney for neighboring homeowners and businesses who claimed the county must study the impacts of a shelter on the surrounding Please see SHELTER, back page ShelterShelter. She said she believes there largely because shelter residents -are many better sites in Central were occupied during the day, Ber- said. FROM PAGE to County. tenthal Segal said she is not sure what "There's no question that the community and comply with state immediate impact the shelter's Walnut Creek program with ser- -_ and county planning guidelines be opening will have on the area. The vices was better for the homeless fore it can open permanent shel- lack of sidewalks, parks and other people and the neighbors,' he said. ter. The property is zoned for light amenities of a residential neighbor- Segal said she was not familiar ._ industrial use. hood.will create safety and health enough with services proposed. at problems, she said. the shelter to comment on the issue. The.ruling also restricts the sup- The restrictions on services that The county is spending $230,000 — - port services the county can offer can be offered at the shelter might to convert the warehouse for shelter homeless people at the shelter. actually make it less desirable to use. Such services typically include drug neighbors, said Phil'Bertenthal of The county faces a second legal and alcohol treatment and job train- the nonprofit -Contra Costa Legal challenge to the shelter. That suit ing programs. Services Foundation, which joined was filed by a nearby cemetery, Me- Arlene Segal, the attorney for the case to defend the county. morial Gardens, which claims resi- shelter opponents, said the ruling There were fewer complaints dential use of the warehouse could -- ------- gives the county and the community about the emergency shelter in Wal- limit the operation of its crematori- a.chance to consider whether the nut Creek this past winter than at um.A hearing on that case is set for J site is appropriate for a permanent the Concord shelter the year before Wednesday. Homeless=- shelter receives go-ahead J A weekend opening possible in Concord By Michael Hytha sun.me. fMARTINEZ—A Superior Court judge cleared the wav Thursdav for I a new homeless shelterin north Concord to open Saturday. In two written orders.Judge Pe- ter Spinena confirmed his prior de- cision that the county can open the shelter on an emergency basis through March. He dismissed more recent assertions that the countv's development guidelines prohibited the shelter. The rulings mean the 100-bed shelter for single men and women may open Saturaay evening, if county building inspectors sign off today or the 5230.000 renovation of • the warehouse on Arnold Industrial Way. _ The county must also renegotiate its S20U.000 contract with the pn- vate organization selected to run the ` shelter because the court rulings prohibit the counry from creating-a permanent shelter and accompany- mg support services at the site. j Richara Martinez. the cuuwdy., • director of housing operations, h terpreted the ruling to mean the county may provide only foo4 and - lodging to the homeless. While pleased that the shelter can op:n on -1 an emergency basis, Martinez la-mented the lack of drug and alcohol treatment, job training programs, j and other services needed by the I homeless. "Without a service component. in essence vou're just warehousing .. - people."Martinez said. - iPlans are still being worked out with operator Shelter Inc. of Con- . Icord to bus homeless people to ser- vice centers elsewhere during the dav_ for such services,he said. John Parton, an artorney for one shelter opponent, the adjacent '• Memory Gardens cemetery,said he will consider appealing the decision. ••1 respect,the judge, but 1 dis- agree with his ruling."Patton said: Spinena ruled last week in an- other case filed by neighboring businesses and homeowners that the counry did not have to fury srudv the effects on the surrounding community to open the shelter-oh - - an emergency basis this winter.To open the shelter permanently though, the county would have to comply with state environmental re- view laws.Spinena said. But anonneys quibbled over pat,- . titulars of that ruling, andow Wednesday Spinena said during,8 hearing on.the cemeterv's case that even an emergency shelter might be blocked by the county's own zoning and development guidelines. But in his final written orders is. ,ued Thursday.Spmetta sided with the counrv,which argued that it is exempt from its zoning require- menti. The counry still hopes to open a permanent shelter on the site to ac. commodate homeless people from Central and East County, Martinez _aid.It is unclear whether the pro- •ect will be able to make it through the county's approval process by _rung.he said. EXN�B�T G b 1 2 3 4 5 6 HOUSING AUTHORITY 7 OF THE $ COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 HEARING IN RE : 10 PROPOSED CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER 11 Wednesday, March 11 , 1992 12 13 • 14 ---000--- 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 CERTIFIED COPY 24 25 C ... . 26 REPORTED BY : ' KRISTIE L. HUBKA, CSR NO . 5974 PkOCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 27 1 weighs a lot . We have large 40 foot semis that back in 2 and out of our driveways constantly all day long and they 3 are forever dodging people walking up and , down this 4 street . The other day, and I will be glad to write a 5 - letter, and have it notarized , we saw a car going sideways 6 trying to stop because one of the people going to your 7 facility was walking on the other side of the street where 8 there was absolutely no sidewalk. Now, if you. go -- if 9 you start on a sidewalk up Arnold Industrial . Way , sooner 10 or later you will leave a sidewalk_ because there ' s no more 11 sidewalk. If you. start on a sidewalk in front of our 12 building and walk down towards the cemetary or go up 13 toward the -hill , there will no longer be .any more 14 sidewalks , and I saw a car going sideways, so help me God , 15 trying to miss this poor fellow trying to get across the 16 street . 17 Now, we have semis that are backing in . and out 18 all day. long, what chance do we have? What ' s going to 19 happen to us if one of these poor folks get hurt? Now, I 20 think it ' s totally wrong and I moved to Concord in this 21 industrial park to be in an industrial park, not a 22 residential district, and this is what you have imposed on 23 us and I think it ' s wrong. 24 MR. MARTINEZ : In response to the first part of • 25 your question and getting back to what is being proposed 26 here , as part of the operation , it is the, intent-- PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 28 1 - UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I know what you ' re intent 2 is but it ' s not working that way . 3 MR. MARTINEZ : . I ' m going to get to that . -4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER.: All you have to do is 5 stand out front and watch . 6 MR. MARTINEZ :. I was going to get to that . The 7 intent is that , you know, transportation will be provided , 8 you know, through the vans .to and from, it is not a 9 drop-in center, it is not intended as "a drop-in center . 10 . UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But, you see , it hasn ' t 11 worked that way.. 12 MR. MARTINEZ : What has happened, to some extent, 13 during the winter relief period is, that there are -- there ® 14 have been people that have just showed up and they were 15 not admitted into the facility because it is by referral 16 only and , yes , you are absolutely- correct, there were some 17 people and there are some people -- 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: there ' s not some people, 19 it ' s an all day affair , constantly there are people 20 walking in and out . 21 MR. _MARTINEZ : Our intent ,is to work. to .establish 22 a program whereby the transportation is provided where the 23 word is clear to everyone that it is not a drop-in center 24 and we do . not want to have , you know , any situation where • 25 anybody ' s life is put in jeopardy because of traffic or 26 any other condition. , And ' if there are problems that come !I PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 29 1 up during the interim, we want to address those . 2 MR. JONES : We couldn ' t move. our equipment today 3 for that because cars are parked there , we have equipment 4 14 foot wide, we had to. have the sheriff help us get . 5 through . 6 MR. MARTINEZ : The other thing I tried tb 7 recommend, I just gave you a brief response but I also 8 tell you that you incorporate .those feelings that you 9 have , you know, those concerns that you have and submit 10 them as part of, you know, your formal response to 11 Mr. Drake before March 30th. Let me go back here . 12 MS . . SMILEY : Part of the -- 13 MR. JONES : What was the name? 14 MS . SMILEY : My name is Sage and I work at the 15 shelter. And part of the situation of the - lawsuit and the 16 conditions of that suit, as I understand it ,' and the fact 17 that we ' re a temporary shelter has tied our hands as to 18 what we can provide for people , and because of that 19 - situation, it is created that we cannot provide as much 20 services as we ' d like to so there may be more foot 21 traffic, more people not knowing_:what to .do. with 22 themselves , not that I experienced that very much , but if 23 that is your experience, I would say that that is partly a 24 result of the fact that: we are under conditions of a • 25 lawsuit and being prevented from providing the services 26 that we would like to provide and I think that -- I also . PROCTORS ' - REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 32 1 'And going back here and then here . 2 MR. ROBERTSON : . My name is Tom Robertson and I 3 am a business owner in the neighborhood . There . is 4 something that I would appreciate maybe Mr. Villarreal 5 could write down to check out . later, . something you might 6 want to factor into this little problem is we ' ve had a 7 serious increase in crime, facts , whatever ; this , that and 8 the other, but since it has opened , our complex 9 particularly has been hit. at least once a week . The 10 sheriff ' s department, you can check their reported crimes . 11 That ' s basically what I just -- what I want to say . 12 MR. JONES : Where do you live? 13 MR. . ROBERTSON: My shop is down on Arnold 14 Tndustrial a,bout , .I ' d say, a hundred yards . 15 MR. JONES : What address? 16 MR. ROBERTSON : 1909 , right about two buildings 17 down. Next door to you . 18 MR. MARTINEZ : I would also , as I mentioned to . 19 the other gentleman , in addition to what you ' re telling us 20 tonight, it would be helpful if you could submit the 2.1 formal written comments of the address onthe comments 22 right there . 23 MS . SEGAL: I ' ll stand up because my voice 24 doesn ' t otherwise carry very well . My name is. Arlene • 2.5 Segal , I 'm with the law firm of McCabe , Schwartz , Evans, 26 Levy & Dawe , I represent a number of the business and PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 5101935-6656 40 i . 1 MS . WELLE : But, I mean , isn ' t that our invasion E i 2 of our privacy? We have the right to be there any more .3 than you do. And I know that ' s an industrial area but i I f 4 there ' s no 'other place. for us to go . You want us' on the 5 streets? 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: , You see, you are - on the 7 streets , you are walking up and down on the streets , and 8 according to this sheet here , it states that you are not 9 to do that . It states that for your safety that you would . 10 be bused to and from but you see that is not a fact. 11 MS . WELLE : Can I .answer that? Some of us stay 12 in there because some of us have had surgery. People in 13 there have broken pelvises , they cannot walk . We have 14 jobs , we work, I work, I 'm an office manager, we work. 15 _ UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I ' m just talking about the 16 people that are walking up and down the street . 17 MS . WELLE : Yes , that ' s. how we get to 18 transportation . Some of us that walk . up and down your 19- streets, they ' re not aware o.f that . 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This was not supposed to 21. happen .. . 22 MR. .JONES : They ' re not . harrassing us? .23 MS . WELLE : And you ' re not harrassing us by , 24 jumping out and photographing us? • 25� MR. MARTINEZ : There' s still a lot of people that 26 would like to be heard and I ' m going to start here . . One , PROCTORS! REPORTING' SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 � I 41 1 two , three , four and go from there - 2 MR. HUGHES : My name is David Hughes and I ' m a 3 resident there , okay , we got two vans that take us to and 4 from places , okay, - we got to be out of there by 8 : 30 , 5 sometimes we got , you know, we got -- there ' s no bus stops 6 around there . We will walk down the street to get to the 7 bus stop because we have to be - somewhere . Our vans will 8 be full , you know, we have got to be at a certain place so 9 we take it on our own and walk down to the bus stop , they 10 give us tickets to go on there , you know , we can ' t hang 11 around there , we go out look for work and everything else . 12 Like if they shut this down, you ' re going to have 13 people sleeping right there anywhere , on the streets , • 14 sidewalks , wherever, . you know, eating out of garbage cans? 15 How would you like to be that way? One .day you may be 16 like that, you know, you don ' t know what it ' s like , you 17 know, until it comes down to it. 18 MR. MARTINEZ : rI think that let me just- try •to 19 respond to one of the concerns I ' ve heard and I believe 20 someone alluded to it earlier. At the present time , one 21 of the basic differences between what we have right now 22 and what is being proposed is that this is a 24 hour 23 facility , this because of the court order has limitations 24 and, whereas , under a 24 hour program operation tied to • 25 case management you have the flexibility to take people 26 where they need to go either for a referral , for PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 / � 43 1 one has come by, I go to the HAC meetings in Martinez , the 2 . Housing Advisory Committee , and this. was never - brought up . ® 3 until now, we ' re never informed , where we have our 4 in-house people about people walking or loitering 5 problems . 6 MR. MARTINEZ : Okay, thank. you . Now, here and 7 then here . 8 MARK: I ' m Mark, I ' m homeless . I just wanted to 9 address to the people walking up and down. the street , 10 Just like he said, the main problem is we have to. leave 11 the building at 8 : 30 and the nearest bus stop is Port 12 Chicago Highway or Solano. Other than that, the location , 13 I can.' t think of abetter location than in a light ® 14 industrial area . Where else are you going to put it, in a. 15 residential 'area? You ' d have a lot more negative response 16 in a residential area or build a freestanding building out 17 in a field someplace , where are you going to put it? 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It. would be a lot safer in 19 a residential area , people would have no semis to contend 20 with, you ' d have no cars driving at 50 plus or whatever. 21 MR. MARTINEZ : Could we ask the people to direct .. 22 their comments here? The purpose is for us to hear .the 23 concerns and .comments and `not to engage in individual 24 debates with each other because that really won ' t take us • 25 anywhere . . The gentleman here with the red hat and then 26 behind you . 1 , PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 44 1 MR. HOLT: My name is Dennis Holt , I live at the 2 residential shelter . There ' s some concern about their • 3 talking about people walking up and down the street and 4 getting into cars and someone mentioned before about the 5 invasion of privacy . I don ' t think that people actually 6 - come to the shelter, tell the people in the shelter what ' s 7 going on , . I think they just wait until they get here and 8 complain about it and I don ' t think they ' re doing anything 9 except they just want to kick people out on the street . 10 You kick us out on the street . Another thing, though , is 11 - you don ' t see people walking down the street with bats , 12 and there ' s this guy talking about people breaking into 13 his place, 'I really don ' t believe that ' s true, I _ want to 14 sort of challenge him on that, I don ' t think that ' s true . 15 I think it ' s a perfect time now to blame everything that 16. happened in your area on the. .homeless . 17 MR. MARTINEZ : Before we go .any further -- 18 MS . LUTHER: My name is. Jessica Luther, my 19 husband is . going to kill me for standing up . We are a 20 business owner right where he is on Arnold Industrial Way 21 and I.Im. sorry that', you people arehomelessbut you do not 22 . realize , you people are walking up and down our streets , 23 they are in our garbage dumps , they are stealing things 24 from the cars , they are breaking into the cars . Maybe • 25 it ' s not you people, but since people have found out that 26 there is a homeless shelter, it has brought in all kinds PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 x ` 45 1 of people and it is. a field day. 2 We have to -- you know, everybody thinks that you 3 own . a business- and you ' re rich . Well, we ' re not and our 4 insurance goes up, we have no security like we used to 5 have , they counseled us as soon as they heard we were 6 having the homeless up there , our insurance was canceled 7 by the company that we were leasing our business from. - .8 You know, my heart goes out to you but you have to ! I 9 realize, too , that it costs us a lot . You - know, when your 10 things are broken in and it ' s a customer ' s vehicle , we 11 have to turn that into an insurance -company and then our 12 insurance goes up, too . Who pays for that? We ' re not 1.3 getting rich . We live like everybody else.. And everybody 14 thinks because you own a business that you ' re wealthy. Y 15 Well , I got news for you , we ' re just like everybody else . - 16 MR. MARTINEZ : Thank you. Thank you. Again, I 17 just want to -- okay somebody congratulated us earlier. 1.8 I 'would like to personally congratulate everybody in this 19 room because what I ' m seeing is that , one , . all of us have 20 strong feelings one way or the other and I haven ' t seen 21 anybody go out of their way to discount the other person ' s 22 feeling and I think that ' s important . If a gentleman says 23 that he ' s been burglarized, I mean , that ' s what he 24 believes . If this gentleman says we ' re .not doing it , I • 25 that ' s what - he believes. So we ' re. not here to debate 26 that . Your feelings are your feelings and they ' re PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 47 1 permanent shelter so that we can assist these people and • 2 the county is getting thousands and thousands of dollars 3 worth of free services from people that are trying to help 4 these .people and they shouldn ' t discount that . If the 5 shelter is closed, how are we going to find these people 6 to offer them jobs , to work with them, to make resumes for 7 them and to try to help them network .and get back into the 8 mainstream where they want to be? I was very 'impressed 9 with all six men that I interviewed . 10 MR. MARTINEZ : Sir? 11 MS . ERMAN : I took the time to write a letter 12 and, of course , I was given one minute to read it or 13 present to the Board of Supervisors and , of course , I • 14 submitted it in a letter. May I read my letter what I 15 wrote and voice my concerns? 16 MR. MARTINEZ : Sure . 17 MS . ERMAN : We do sympa-thize with the need for a 18 permanent, year-round homeless shelter in this county . 19 However, we have serious concerns about -your proposal to 20 establish such a facility in the warehouse across the 21 street. from our home of 44 -.years_. .. ,W.e vo.ic.ed these 22 concerns to Mr. Martinez when .he came to our home two 23 weeks ago to announce your proposal , but your subsequent 24 letter of November the 6th, 1991 did not answer or address f • 25 our concerns in any way. 26 The inadequacies of the proposed site and the PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 UW 48 1 management problems that are largely to develop due to 2 these inadequacies are a major concern to us . The 3 proposed warehouse is in an unsuitable and unsafe 4 location . It was built with inadequate off-street parking 5 at an abrupt , inclined , sweeping curve on a busy street. 6 During business hours , vision is restricted and the street 7 is narrowed and more dangerous due to cars. parked on both 8 sides . When it ' s foggy, itis dangerous . It is 9 especially hazardous for vehicles stopping and turning 10 into the warehouse entrance . One fatal head-on collision 11 has already occurred in front of this warehouse . 12 The warehouse has only one small parking area 13 outside - no grass , no shaded areas , no easily accessible • 14 parks or recreartional facilities , not even a connecting 15 sidewalk - only one small parking lot . The prospects of 16 housing approximately 100 largely unemployed , possibly 17 handicapped people in such a - facility , is' unrealistic and 18 shameful . 19 The difficulties of managing so many people in 20 such a confined situation causes us to fear deeply for our 21. own safety as well as for as the privacy and protection of 22 our property . ' We feel that in reality you will not be 23 able to guarantee control of your clients and ex-clients 24 that may remain inthe area . You have not provided for • 25 the natural needs of your clients . for time and space away 26 .from the group and this will obviously result in an PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 :f v 49 l ,. encroachment on neighboring properties as well as the 2 street (which is , itself , a hazard to our clients) . Then 3 there is the additional problem of substance abuse and 4 other unacceptable - behavior which may proliferate around 5 the fringes of the facility: Your suggestion of an 6 additional security guard to protect us- is not a re 7 assuring answer! 8 If this facility is approved, you will be forcing 9 us , for our own safety , to leave our home . At the same 10 time you will significantly reduce the value and 11 salability of our property . This 'is our family ' s home . 12 We had hoped to continue living here for many more years . 13 Your proposal will destroy everything we have spent our • 14 lives to build and enjoy . 15 Long-range vision is needed in planning a R - 16 permanent homeless facility . It should be situated in an 1.7 area.-that can ,provide for .the needs of the clients without 18. jeopardizing nearby residents., businesses and traffic 19 patterns . It should be in harmony with the zoning and 20. restrictions of the area . Residential development of any 21 kind .in this proposed area is in direct conflict with the 22 September 1988 agreement between the City of Concord and 23 PICNC (Preserve the Industrial Community of North Concord) 24 property owners . The intent of this recorded agreement is • 25 to preserve the industrial nature of this area and 26 restrict residential use or development prior to PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 r 50 1 annexation to the City of Concord in the year of 2 , 000 . 2 Since PICNC members are restricted from residential 3 development, approval of this residential facility would 4 constitute an unfair , selective relaxation of these 5 restrictions, raising legal questions and possible 6 liability for suit and damages . 7 We feel your proposal is callus and poorly 8 conceived . You seem determined to ignore the effects it 9 would have on us , other neighbors and the homeless people 10 . involved . Your search for a simple , speedy solution to 11 the county homeless problem is a disservice to all . How 12 can you seriously .ask us to support a project that 13 endangers our safety , the value of our Droperty, and the 14 safety of those you are trying to house? 15 And I made a comment at the end of this today and 16 I say, "I still say it ' s not in the best interests of the 17 homeless or the taxpayers to spend money to renovate this 18 property which is so inadequate and is in such an 19 inappropriate location . " And I ' d like to submit this for 20 your record. r 21 MR. MARTINEZ : Thank. . you. I ' m seeing -some repeat 22 hands and before I get to the repeat hands , I really . want 23 to make sure that, you know, those of you that haven ' t 24 raised your hand , who haven ' t asked a question , I really 25 want to make sure that everybody -has an opportunity and , 26 you know, please , please ; I hope you feel comfortable , I i j PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 R� 59 1 only against the location. 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you have another 3 location in mind? 4 . MR. MARTINEZ : Again . -- 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a letter right 6 here , sir, that states , and I think it was written to -- 7 if you ' d like to look -at this letter . 8 . MR. MARTINEZ : . Sure . You want to enter that,. 9 also? .10 MR. JONES : They have a copy .. 11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay , I think Mr . Peter . 12 Bedford . has offered a situation here that might help . It 13 says , "Yoti will recall -our letter .on November 1 , 1991 in • 14 which we requested details on the square footage you were 15 seeking for a Contra Costa County emergency shelter and 16 training center for the homeless : . We stated that we could 17 examine whether we have some viable situations . We 18 understand that the county has available land at the 19 corner of Enhoff (phonetic) Drive and Waterburg Way next 20 to the parking lot of the county administration building 21 of your Public_ Works Department.. We .-further understand 22 that this land was zoned planned unit district P1 in 1989 i 23 to be. developed to .benefit other county departments, 24 general services . Consequently, it is already zoned for f I i25 such a shelter and training center . Bedford Properties is 26 prepared , ". and please listen to this , "Bedford properties PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 60 1 is prepared to locate an interested party to lease the j 2 land from the county , build an emergency shelter and r3 training center to the county specifications , finance it i i f_ 4 on a 20 year basis and lease it back to the county . " 5 Now, that ' s a pretty good deal . That would save j 6 you lots of money, the way I see it. 7 "As you know, aside from the county property, the j 8 proposed land is not contiguous to any existing 9 development property even on the other side of Enhoff 10 Drive and Waterburg Drive. We would b-e pleased to discuss 11 this possibility with you. " And it ' s from the Peter f 12 Bedford Properties . 13 MR. JONES : Have you answered that letter? j 14 MR. MARTINEZ : Yes . 15 MR. JONES : You have answered the letter? 16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And, believe me , we 17 support this in any we can .to help . But I think 18 putting this development here for the homeless is .in the 19 wrong spot . 20 MR. MARTINEZ : And it looks like we ' re now back 21 at the repeats . This lady here is going to be the first . 22 one , Mrs . Jones , is .that correct? And then .we ' re going to 23 go back to the comments . 24 MRS . JONES : What I was going to say, he just • 25 beat me to it . The homeowners have been presented here by 26 some of you as being not people of concern or interest PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 i 64 1 police have been there , they take care of it and they just 2 don ' t let it happen . And I can say honestly there area 3 lot of people in that shelter and they ' re not going to 4 harm you . 5 And for the people that have problems with 6 cigarette butts on your premises , I am free on Saturdays , 7 I will come down and pick up those butts , I will come down 8 and clean your premises . I ' m free on Saturdays , I don ' t 9 have a problem with that . I want to be able , like one of 10 the people said, we need to work together on this and I . 11 know a lot of people are saying not an industrial area , 12 there ' s traffic. Well , are we supposed to fly? We have 13 to walk. We walk this way, there ' s a problem; we walk 14 that way, there ' s a problem. 15 UNIDENTIFIED. SPEAKER: That ' s the whole problem, 16 you just said it . 17 MS . WELLE : Well , where are we supposed to walk? 18 MR. JONES : In another location . 19 MR. MARTINEZ : We don 't want to get into a . 20 debate . Thank you, Denise , for your comments . I want to 21 take this comment and then that comment here . 22 MS . HAVER: My name is Donna Haver, I ' m a 23 Martinez resident and I just have a couple of questions 24 and my first question is what happens, is this all . 25 supposed to be decided by March 31st.?. It ' s like that ' s 26 when the emergency shelter time is up . PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 68 1 permission , I ' d like to just takecomments , a couple of 2 closing comments fro.m people who have not said anything 3 tonight and then, you know , close the meeting and then 4 invite everybody to remain. We did have some refreshments 5 and I would hope that everybody -would take advantage of 6 them . But I would like again with your permission to just 7. hear a couple more comments from people who have not 8 spoken yet . 9 MR. JONES : I haven ' t spoken but I .would like to 10 make a comment . 11 MR. MARTINEZ : Let me recognize you. and I ' ll get 12 back to you. I ' ll start here. One, two , three, four, 13 five . Can you remember your number? Six, seven , eight , 14 nine , ten . ` We•'ve gotten eleven, eleven comments . 15 Remember your number now because I can ' t remember all 16 those numbers . Who was number one? Okay, yes , sir, go • 17 ahead. 18 MR. SHAW: My name is Bob Shaw and I am a 19 business owner on Arnold Industrial and I have had 20 confrontation with one of the homeless and I ' m out front 21 on the road, I see a lot of people walk up and down, most 22 of them are just walking up but there ' s a few that they ' re 23. marching like Hitler with motorcycle boots in a bathing 24 suit . We got another guy that ' s walking up the sidewalk • 25 talking to Harvey the rabbit . I had a woman the other day 26 walking down hugging and kissing every telephone pole on PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES (510) 935-6656 72 1 hell . Thank you . 2 MR. MARTINEZ : Okay . 3 JACKIE : My name is Jackie, .I 'm a resident of 4 Concord, I pay rent there and I 'm a Hope Center member and 5 I ' ve. been homeless and it ' s no picnic . And I went into 6 the shelter with my church to help , you know, maybe spread 7 the word to God, at least feed them or sort through 8 clothes and everything and I think it should stay . You 9 know , you just can ' t -- .I mean , you could . uproot all these 10 people , but as everybody is trying to point out , you know, 11 we really have needs and I think that, you know, for the 12 Industrial Way that we should like build sidewalks and 13 lamps , you know, so people won ' t be walking on the side of 14 the street and so that you can see in the fog and put, you 1 15 know, some trees and shrubs around so it would be more 16 home like and safe to walk around and so that if , like , 17 the trucks have to- have -a beep, beep, beep , beep that 18 they ' re going backwards , fine, so people can walk safely 19 in there because it ' s needed and we won ' t have to . run 20 around from place to place . 21 MR. MARTINEZ : All. right, thank you for your 22 comments . Number six. 23 MS . BRODY : I thought I was five so I might have 24 been four. My name is Erin Brody and I live in Pleasant • 25 _ Hil•1 and I didn ' t know about this until today and I don ' t 26 understand if this is industrial , I dont know, but there PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 j .8 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss . 2 ) ® 3 . I , the undersigned, . a Notary. Public of the State 4 of California, hereby certify that the foregoing 5- proceedings was reported by ., me, a Certified Shorthand 6 Reporter and a disinterested person, and was thereafter 7 transcribed_ under my direction into typewriting ; that the 8 foregoing is a full , complete and true record of said 9 proceedings . 10 I further certify that I am not of ' counsel or 11 attorney for ,either or any of the parties in the foregoing 12 proceedings and caption named, nor in any way interested 13 in the outcome of the cause names in said action . 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ave hereunto "set my hand 15 and affixed my seal this may of19 16 17 18 ,...: NFM SEAQ, KR TIE L HUDKA v NOTARY PUKX CAUFCRMA 19 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MY low UMRES NOV.111"4 _ NOT7Y PUBLIC 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 21 22 23 . 24 25 26 PROCTORS ' REPORTING SERVICES ( 510) 935-6656 EXHIBIT H ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION a DOCUMENTATION • RESTORATION 127 wesiem Dnve a Pt Richmond.CA"Wi • (415)236-2361 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE • NORTH CONCORD REORGANIZATION PROJECT PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF CONCORD PLANNING DIVISION CONCORD, CALIFORNIA SCH #87072811 9 NNE 1988 l • LAND USE primarily yard storage and heavier industrial uses Recent development trends 'in both the County and . City have tended to be light-industrial and wholesale commercial-related uses. Figure 8 indicates exdsting uses in the project vicinity. SAFETY Aspects of several of the existing or former uses in the project vicinity present potential safety hazards These include the Buchanan Field Airport,refineries,and natural gas fields. Buchanan Field Airport is located to the southwest _of the reorganization area. Much of the project area is located within the approach surface to Runway 19R. Figure 9 indicates the airport safety zone and clear area for Runway 19R, which extend to within approximately 150 and 1,200 feet of the southwestern portion of the project area, respectively. Portions of the reorganization area are located below the approach (50:1) and . transitional (7:1) surfaces to Runway 19R,indicated in Figure 9 as areas with structural height limitations The safety zones, clear areas. and areas with structural height limits were established by the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for planning purposes to reduce the risks associated with airport operations The project area is located outside of :he eesignated safety zone and clear area, and is therefore not subject to the safety element policies of the ALUC. Based on the Structural Heights Limit Map of the ALUC (Contra Costa County, 1984), at the most critical southwestern location of the project area, the. maximum permissible height of a structure would be approximately 48 feet above ground level. This portion of the project area is already developed with structure less than 35 feet in height. As one moves to the northeast.away from the airport,the maximum permissible height of structures increases r Although.the City of Concord has not adopted.safety- zones and clear areas, the Buchanan Field Airport Land Use Policies of. the General Plan contains provisions which prohibit certain uses within the area encompassed by the safety zones. In addition. Specific Policy B.I. of the General Plan regulates tbt maximum height for structures located within the Planning Area of the ALUC The refineries and related facilities also pose a hazard to adjacent and surrounding uses. Although seemingly remote. oil storage tank fires and explosions have occurred at refineries in several locations in the United States Distribution pipelines also represent a potential hazard, particularly during construction when grading operations within an established easement may accidentally expose or damage a pipeline- The approximate locations of oil pipelines in. the project vicinity are indicated in Figure 10. The project vicinity has historically been an area of oil and natural gas exploration. Several operational wells remain in the surrounding area. although most have been abandoned. Figure. 10 indicates the approximate locations of known well sites in the area. Although generally not considered a significant hazard, improperly abandoned wells have been known to create nuisance and at times hazardous condition% pardcularty in. southern California (Guerard. personal communication). 3.4 r W } L pry. � � ��"'. •-.,,,� .:.- ui Zuj - > sad � • '� �� ,'� ' .,- ''� y z p •^mak ••• LIJ � 1 aY tV uj LL . i ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE BM i gw,a s of t®�� r NAVAL. 'EAPO\ 4 Ok is SOU \ - �. ;./.,• � ,�? `""rte - `-• ---: � ;•�•� �?- \ �I PEPUERY 't : �. :e`:. 1� " _ •- 'pct l � - \ -! , .'•. Tcis •�. Jam:••"�• 1 �. N,. 'fx. a N. Cnenar.. ... i ? .. 20 Ui:Rese�:o. M A L L A R D __.... caner.N. • • ! RESERVOIR • a o sviurrt�».s �•� 4N s • :.o� • • PROJECT AREA • ` • i` 3} • 4 I. y .;_,�'� - .'L: . v - •- .ice• -i,: • APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS: O WELL ^ —PIPELINE SOURCE Contra Costa County 1977 State of Camom a. 1988 FIGURE 10. PIPELINE AND WELL LOCATIONS LAND USE POTENTIAL IMPACTS JURISDICTION As proposed. the City of Concord would assume jurisdiction of the project area, responsible for processing building and use permit applications. General Plan and zoning designations would change from those currently applicable under County jurisdiction to those of the City. Approximately 94 acres of the area would be annexed to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The boundaries of both annexations are.depicted in Figure 3. PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS The proposed reoganization would not directly change existing or potential uses in the project area. Development trends would most likely remain the same regardless of whether the project area were under County or City jurisdiction. The existing character of the project area and surrounding properties would most likely continue to change from vacant and primarily open storage-related uses to a more densely developed employment area. Significant open space features of the reorganization area and adjacent properties would be retained, including the Memorial Gardens Cemetery and Mallard Reservoir.- Tire baseball diamonds managed by the • Concord Athletic League would not be directly effected by the proposed project. SAFETY Provisions contained in the City Zoning Ordinance and General Plan would serve to minimize the potential hazard associated with the proximity of the reorganization area to the. Buchanan Field Airport As indicated in the specific sections of the City and County zoning ordinances contained in Appendix G the maximum height for structures in the area is generally 35 feet, well below the maximum permissible height designated :on the ALUC Structural Height Limits Map for the airport victity. Additional provisions contained in the Concord General Plan Would require review of building material, height. and location where there is a possibility of airport operation interfereact,particularly with regard to reflectivity. The hazards associated with the pipelines and wells in the area would ,be minimized through careful site design in proximity to pipeline easements, and adherence to proper well abandonment procedures, as required by Section 3208.1 of the Public Resource Code. To some degree, increasing the density of., development in proximity to the,Tosco refinery and storage tanks is an unavoidable adverse risk- Much of the property currently owned by Tosco Corporation, including the area immediately northwest of the project area, has been retained as undeveloped land to provide a buffer. around the refinery (Beasley, personal communication). In addition, nuisance conditions associated with the refinery and other heavy industrial uses, such as the concrete batch plant on Laura Alice Way, may eventually lead to conflicts with sensitive light industrial uses, such as'computer and manufacturing equipment operations. However, these issues are not contingent upon the ultimate jurisdiction of the project area. 3-8 ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE o NAVAL s"' WEAPONS STATION 4 • •f �uu.Rp O RESERVOIR l G w ` vacs � c ATE ' c PROJECT AREA 'pNOt0 40C . gpvTE rte Rp Tf 4 MELD C `, •-Colic OPD AV BART TRANSIT ROUTES ® ROUTE 117 • a®= ROUTE 100 SOURCE DKS ASSOCiates �c98 FIGURE 12. TRANSIT ROUTES t� TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Buses run every 35 to 40 minutes. No service is provided on Sundays. Route 117 follows a loop which includes the Concord BART station, downtown Concord, and Solano Way and Olivera Road on the south side of.State Route 4. . Buses operate in both directions around the loop, with service in each direction every half hour. Saturday service operates every hour in a clockwise direction only,and no service is provided on Sunday. PARKING Most of the existing uses in the North Concord area provide off-street parking for employees and visitors Generally, on-street curb parking is not permitted within the reorganization areal On-street parking is permitted on Arnold Industrial Way east of Peralta Road and west of Industrial Way. Trucks are often parked on Peralta Road under the freeway. When trucks are parked in these areas. vehicle maneuvering room is reduced on the relatively narrow right-of- ways,and sight distances are sometimes impaired at intersections PEDESTRIANS . There is little existing pedestrian activiry in the project vicinity. Most of the businesses provide parking on-site, so employees generally walk between the buildings and the parking lots. There- are few retail services in the area, such as restaurants and convenience stores, although this may change as the area continues to develop. Most of the new streets serving the area have been developed without sidewalks, including Laura Alice Way, Nelson_ Avenue, and Bates Avenue. There.are sidewalks .on limited segments .Arnold Industrial Way. POTENTIAL IMPAC'T'S TRAVEL DEMAND Travel demand for the project vicinity was evaluated by determining the potential development levels within the study area, applying appropriate traffic generation rates, and using travel survey data to determine the directions of travel. To establish the travel demand for the uses, y both existing and future. the development areas were divided .into land.use zones. as .indicated in Figure 4. Appendix B includes a detailed description of the land use and traffic generation assumptions for each traffic analysis zone and development area. Land Use Assumptions Assumptions for land use changes within the North Concord Reorganization Area were developed with staff of the City. of Concord. For parcels with specific development proposals, the approved or proposed land uses were included in the evaluation. Parcels with no specific 3- 14 AIR QUALITY processes vary greatly depending on the specific uses planned for project area. The BAAQMD has developed generalized emission factors for selected industry groups which are included in Appendix D for reference- Emissions from new vehicular sources would contribute to the regional air pollutant totals. The BAAQMD has established its significance level for new vehicular sources at 1 percent of the 1983 Contra Costa County total vehicular emissions (BAAQMD, 198Sa). In comparison to these thresholds, emissions associated with full development in the project area would not be considered significant. Local Effects Future background_ CO concentrations would be affected by changes in area-wide vehicular travel and by the amount of CO emitted by the average vehicle. The BAAQMD has prepared contour maps of CO background concentrations for the year 1987 (BAAQMD, 1985). By adjusting background values obtained from these maps in consideration of regional emission projections for future years, background levels of 8.1 ppm and 5.2 ppm for- one-hour and eight-hour averaging times, respectively, are obtained for the year 2000. Additional traffic in and around the project area would change the local spatial and temporal distributions of ambient CO. Local air quality effects were estimated using the CALINE4 air quality model. Table 16 indicates the :anticipated worst-case curbside CO concentrations at six iniel�ccnons where project traffic is expected to have the greatest impact,. and compares CO concentrations under existing, future no-growth (termed Baseline), and future with project development cases. No violations of one-hour, or eight-hour CO standards are projected for any of these scenarios. EXPOSURE TO CRITERIA AND TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS Due .to of: their. Proximity 'to, established- MEF's. employees and visitors to the project. area would be routinely exposed to levels of SOz and toxic. air pollutants at least as high as those registered at the Concord monitonng station. Although Benzene. Carbon Tetrachloride. Chloroform, and Trichlor6ethylene have been identified as toxic by either the EPA or CARB, no Federal or State ambient air quality standards governing long-term exposure to low concentrations of these toxic agents have been established. Individuals would also be subject. to higher levels of exposure to these agents should a large-scale accidental release ever occur at nearby facilities. MTnGATION Construction-related dust emissions could be reduced by approximately 50 percent by watering exposed earth surfaces during excavation, grading and construction activities. All construction activities should require watering in late morning and at the end of the day; the frequency of watering should be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Conditions of approval should also require daily cleanup of mud and dusi carried onto street surfaces by constmccion vehicles. Throughout excavation activity, haul trucks should use tarpaulins or other effective covers. Upon completion of construction, contractors should take measures to reduce wind erosion, and 3-50 PICNC Traffic 1 . DOT and effects of traffic on older existing on ramps to Highway 4 at Olivera Road and Solano Way interchange . 2. Flea market at Drive In Theater Saturdays and Sundays. 3 . Frontage Road 40 , wide and too narrow for truck traffic and wide load cranes and bulldozers When cars and trucks parked both sides and 45 miles per hour speed limit. 4 . Effects of slow moving long funeral processions in and out of Memory Gardens on item 3 . 5 . Anticipated heavy traffic of newly projected Price Club and closure of Port Chicago highway and Waterfront road . 6 . Projected apartments and condos at Clyde on Port Chicago Highway . 7 . Effect of 100 plus buses CCC Connections and Bart parking lot on Port Chicago Highway . 8 . Effect of light industrial developments Zocchi and Garaventa with fifty garbage trucks traffic plus estimated thirty to forty new warehouses for these developers . Air Traffic Buchanan Field main jet runway - landing and take off patterns only one remaining with increased traffic proposed by PSA and Air Cal . Increased private ano corporate jet traffic . Air Pollution Adjacent Tosco refinery and Chemical plant'. Downwind of CCC Sewage plant , IT hazardous liquid waste evaporation and ~ ,aeration ponds , Acme - aounty sanitary and solid waste fills . H2S gases have overloaded air basin now . Area Problems A. Adjacent to enlarging cement redi mix plant with 30-40 mixer trucks running . B. Contractor service and repair yards and shops . C . Two large auto and truck wrecking and dismantling yards. D. Solid waste and garbage drop ,box and truck terminal (Garaventa) . E. Central Contra Costa Sewage plant and proposed county . hazardous waste incinerators . F. Lumber and Truss Manufacturing plant . G. . Hazardous waste and PUC truck terminal and heavy equipment repair shops . H. Winery press and processing plant . I . Cemetery J . Bus terminal and repair shops . K . Run water run off and storm drainage systems at capacity • now. Y COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) • NORTH CONCORD REORGANIZATION PROJECT CHAPTER is SUMMARY Project Description (p. 1-1) The Project Description summary should briefly discuss other purpose and goals of the proposed reorganization, related to City of Concord, Contra Costa County, and LAFCO goals and policies. The project is presented in a vacuum, without a context of land use issues and goals. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation (p. 1-1) CEQA Guidelines 15123 (b) (1) require an EIR summary to identify "each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would release or avoid them." Page 1=1, paragraph 4 of the DEIR, states that "Table 1 summarizes the significant environmental effects and recommended mitigation measures described in Chapter 3 of this EIR." In fact, Table 1 summarizes the findings of Chapter 3, and includes impacts not considered as "adverse" in the DEIR. The table does not clearly distinguish "significant effects" as defined by CEQA Guidelines 151261(a) and-(b) from other, non-significant effects. Only Chapter 5 of the DEIR clearly presents those conclusions.. Thus, the summary does not provide the reader with key conclusions that are the heart of the EIR: potential significant effects. The summary also does not identify "areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and.the public. ..," as required by CEQA Guidelines 15123 (b) (2). Those issues are well-known to the City of Concord and are found in Appendix A, Scoping Session-Information, which includes information presented by PICNC, and Graham and James,attorneys for Winton and Nathalie Jones. Finally, the Summary omits a discussion of "issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or not to mitigate the significant (emphasis added) effects," as required by CEQA Guidelines 15123 (b) (3). • DEIR Comments i I Page 1 ,,...,:.... Table 1, Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Findings. This purpose of the "Findings" column is not clear, as those findings generally discuss how proposed or assumed mitigation measures would reduce adverse impacts. or why impacts were not considered adverse. That information would more reasonably be combined with the Impact or Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures identified in Table 1 are not differentiated by responsibility for implementation; or.by:-relationships to ro'ect versus cumulative impacts. Several specific deficiencies of Table 1 information are presented below. In addition, other comments in this submission on Chapter 3 of DEIR, Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation, may result in changes in the Final EIR that should be reflected in a revised Table 1: Land Use (p. 1-2) Land use changes are "not considered adverse". That conclusion does not consider potential displacement of existing businesses that could be accelerated by the proposed reorganization. It does not discuss the role that those businesses, particularly .emergency response operations, play in.the economy of the region, as well as maintaining the health and safety of residents and businesses in the region. • It does not acknowledge that annexations and implementation of city policies have historically discouraged those uses. The statement that "development trends would most likely occur regardless of jurisdiction, City or County," is a conclusion that omits any discussion of differences in general plan goals and policies between the City of Concord and Contra Costa County that could result.in different development scenarios in North Concord. Further, it does not discuss the fact that many of the uses in North Concord would be considered "non-conforming uses" by the city, which will reduce the long-term potential for those uses in the North Concord area. The statement that no mitigation is required is also inaccurate; it does not discuss where in Contra Costa County or the Cita of Concord such uses would be appropriate. Potential hazards associated with pipelines, chemical plants, refinery operations, tank farms, and gas wells in the project vicinity are found to require no mitigation. This is not consistent with "Findings" that site design and other measures would minimize potential hazards. The DEIR does not discuss the fact that keeping emergency response capabilities in North Concord would be a partial mitigation for those hazards. DEIR Comments Page 2 rte. ,t _: . Potential risk of explosions associated with proximity to the Tosco refinery is "considered an unavoidable and adverse" impact. Consistent with Chapter 5, Required Considerations, of the DEIR, that impact should be noted in Table 1 as a significant unavoidable adverse effect. The absence of discussion of mitigation measures for that impact, such as emergency response or evacuation plans for the large potential future employee population in North Concord, is notable in Table 1, and in Chapter 3. Further, there is no discussion of a buffer zone of open space or low density uses as a mitigation measure for that impact. Traffic and Circulation (pp. 1-2 to 1-3) Overall, the Table 1 summary of Traffic and Circulation issues is unclear, and does not reflect the organization and conclusions of the Chapter 3 traffic analysis, which distinguishes between project area and twolevels of cumulative development in surrounding areas, and the need for roadway, intersection and signalization improvements to mitigate effects of those scenarios. The last finding is that "Traffic generated by future development would result in an unavoidable and adverse change in character of roadways in project vicinity. To some degree, recommended improvements would alleviate this change, and all intersections would operate within acceptable levels established by the City of Concord." That finding • is not consistent with Chapter 5, that states traffic generated by future development would contribute to conditions that "would result in potential adverse impacts which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance" (p. 5-1). Table 1 should likewise identify that impact as significant, and also briefly define the "character of roadways" that would be adversely affected: Air Quality (pp. 1-3 to 1-4) Table 1 should state that construction-related dust emissions would adversely affect the community of Clyde, the Jones' residences, and residence of others, and may generate local exceedances of the federal 24-hour average FM10 (dust) standard. DEIR Comments Page 3 Table 1 should also note that future CO levels at three intersections along Port Chicago Highway would approach the 9 ppm eight-hour standard, with cumulative traffic conditions (p. 3-51) and that construction equipment may create spot violations of CO standards. Services (p. 1-5) Fire and police protection impacts omit any discussion of emergency response or evacuation plans related to the potential increased employee population of North Concord, the use of hazardous materials at future industrial operations, and the potential for explosion or other hazards at the Tosco refinery. Utilities (p. 1-5) a Table 1 should note that, while the proposed North'Concord reorganization would annex 94 acres to the Central Costa County Sanitary District, development of the North Concord area could still proceed with annexation to that district on a parcel-by-parcel or project-by-project basis. • CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Location (p. 2-1) This should note that the-reorganization area is-near the cities of Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill and Pittsburg, the unincorporated towns of Clyde and Pacheco, and the community of Vine Hill. Project Area and Vicinity Description (p. 2-1) Specific uses should describe Winton Jones Contractors, Inc./Concord Crane and Rigging Co: as a crane and heavy equipment contractor yard and emergency response operations center, rather than (apparently) "equipment and material storage." A reference to Figure 8, p. 3-5, would be helpful. • DEIR Comments Page 4 mil.. .. PICNC Traffic 1 . DOT and effects of traffic on older existing on ramps to Highway 4 at Olivera Road and Solano Way interchange . 2. Flea market at Drive In Theater Saturdays and Sundays. 3. Frontage Road. 40' wide and too narrow for truck traffic and wide load cranes and bulldozers when cars and trucks parked both sides and 45 miles per hour speed limit . 4 . Effects of slow moving long funeral processions in and out of Memory Gardens on item 3 . 5 • Anticipated heavy traffic of newly projected Price Club and closure, of Port Chicago highway and Waterfront road . 6 . Projected apartments and condos at Clyde on Port Chicago Highway . 7 . Effect of 100 plus buses CCC Connections and Bart parking lot on Port Chicago Highway. 8. Effect of light industrial developments Zocchi and Garaventa with fifty garbage. trucks traffic plus estimated thirty to forty new warehouses for these developers. Air Traffic Buchanan Field main jet runway - landing and take off patterns only one remaining with increased traffic proposed by PSA and Air Cal . Increased private ana corporate jet traffic . Air Pollution Adjacent Tosco refinery and -Chemical plant. - Downwind of CCC Sewage plant , IT hazardous liquid waste evaporation and aeration ponds , Acme - county sanitary and solid waste fills.. H2S gases have overloaded air basin now. Area Problems A. Adjacent to enlarging cement redi mix plant with 30-40 mixer trucks running . B. Contractor service and repair yards and shops .. C. Two large auto and truck wrecking and dismantling yards . D. Solid waste and garbage drop box and truck terminal (Garaventa) . E. Central Contra Costs Sewage plant and proposed county hazardous waste incinerators . F. Lumber and Truss Manufacturing plant. G. Hazardous waste and PUC truck terminal and heavy equipment repair shops . H. Winery press and processing plant . I. Cemetery J . Bus terminal and repair shops . K. Run water run off and storm drainage . systems at capacity now. ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION • DOCUMENTATION • RESTORATION 127 Weswn Drive 6 PI Richmond,CA 94W1 • (415)236-2361 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT jON THE NORTH CONCORD REORGANIZATION PROJECT PREPARED FOR THE CTTY OF CONCORD PLANNING DIVISION CONCORD,CALIFORNIA SCH #87072811 23 SEPTEMBER 1988 SUMMARY • TABLE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACM,MTIIGATION MEASURES,AND FINDINGS IMPACTS° MITIGATION MEASURES FINDINGS LAND USE Character of project area would continue No mitigation required Impact is not considered adverse. to change from vacant and primarily Development trend would most likely storage-related uses to a more densely occur regardless of jurisdiction, City or developed employment area.(1) County. Perceived hazard associated with No mitigation required Review by County Airport Land Use proximity of project area to Buchanan Commission and provisions of City Feld Airport.(1) Zoning Ordinance and General Plan would serve to minimize putential h:>zard. Potential hazard associated with natural No mitigation required Potential hazard would be minimized gas wells and oil pipelines in project through careful site design and vicinity.(1) construction practices,and adherence to proper weU abandonment procedures. -Potential risk of explosion associated Unavoidable adverse impact inherent to Fisting and future development would with proximity to Tosco Refinery.(3) development in project vicinity,regardless be located in proximity to storage of whether the area is annexed to City of' tanks of the Tosco Refinery. Impact is Concord considered unavoidable and advarse. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: Future anticipated development would basting traffic operations should be Recommended improvements would generate additional traffic volumes on improved through signalizadon of mitigate potential traffic operation local and regional routes. aggravating intersections of State Route 4 westbound deficiencies: Intersections of concern emoting problems with circdadoo and ramp w4h Arnold Industrial Way, Laura would operate at a level of service"C" turn movements Signalized intersections Alice Way intersection with Arnold or better with signalizatlon. would experience no significant Industrial Wry, and Peralta Road operational problems. Significant delays intersection with Arnold Industrial Place. for certain lett turn movements would Traffic operations of currently signaiiaed be experiences at several unsignahzed intersections should be monitored as intersections.(Z) development occurs and signal timings adjusted accordingly. 6- 6 r SUMMARY bus pullouts, shelters, and sidewalks leading to bus stops. Proposed developments in the project area .would be subject to the terms of the Concord Transportation Systems Management Program,contained in Appendix B of the Draft EIR Parking All new development in the North Concord Reorganization Area should conform to City of Concord parking regulations Project sponsors should identify the highest level .of activity which would occur at proposed buildings and size the parking supply accordingly. For example, parking at all sites should be designed to accommodate the parking demand based on the maximum amount of office space versus industrial space. Allowing for the maximum parking demand will eliminate the potential for off-site parking impacts. Parking provisions for individual sites should be reviewed on a case by case basis Current on-street parking on roads, such as Arnold Industrial Way, tends to reduce vehicle clearance and restricts sight distances at driveways and intersections. This is particularly true if trucks are parked along the curb. On-street parking should not be allowed in locations where parked trucks would restrict sight distance, or would reduce the lane ' width for through vehicles to less than 12 feet. The City should monitor speeds on Arnold Industrial Way and mere r. enforcement or install traffic control measures. as Pedestrians Pedestrian activity would not be significant in the North Concord Reorganization Area However, street and site design should- not preclude the possibility of installing sidewalks as conditions change. At a minimum, right of way should be reserved for sidewalks on all major collector streets - Sidewalks should be installed._at bus stop locations, and on -paths leading to and from bus stops, The City could consider a development agreement which includes a review period for sidewalk installation along streets . Pedestrian conditions could be observed during the review period. At the end of the review period, a decision would be made regarding whether to install sidewalks based on observed conditions Transportation Systems Management Proposed developments in the project area would be .subject to the terms of the Concord Transportation Systems Management Program. The program specifies. requirements' for Transportation Systems Management (TSM) plans and establishes a TSM fund for City- sponsored activities. The program would be applicable to all non-residential projects with 100 or more employees As required, an applicant would enter into a TSM agreement with the City, preparing a Preliminary TSM plan A Final TSM plan would be prepared one year after initial occupancy of the development. The TSM plan would contain strategies to reduce traffic impacts, including but not limited to matching services and preferential • parking for ride-sharing employees, sale of transit tickets and passes, and encouragement 6- 14 REC�N� AUG 2'-' 1988 ' mon iT C0�^� l OONCORD C.Ty _., *UNN►N� nem. FroNc Le,r,i Svbsecj No,-;k Ca"(ord Rcor�Q.,,Lctf,on I'`'of ocr — tfrr (�t aa !j# Th t lUor;-k Cn�c:�rc tlErrva V'' z'S p✓o i 7'be co 1nplain``1 &'-ere rn F--rYurlry r Marrch and �'tay , tt{spcu�pnttf �-�+c r2SJlf e� c1nQ��fcZu n��s��-4 ! u�Se -1. G'oM�t�Iaf� dPs �-rbeae o�/vrJ mo�� o�fer rxs G�iet�titrtC, sulfur rctf:�r�� -�S A•tid In{ e,rna fro n� TctinaCcgY �1 r�eacyEC>� <r r;,'lgh��'rI a v� 4 �► + t-e Q w4 f � c orYrp�red �a �1 e Nora, Ca�Gord 'Pro;e c,f `J r l 3 ty+r'it ra4054' crYi c e cCam i7la"'4j fie a�tep�a�e� ort infi�us�►-r41 c�aSfe wliS s�a�pe�, to 19�� So+rre OCL4e com(2l0inrs ark volcGc:, ro 4:1V YeGr. 1 G o M p (4M+ d esc r r p��o ns ,n c 1 u.,a e ma �-a.1i c � ch Pm 14,z'1 ; Sul-�v r- [xr�dratfEv� a�jYS, l Mori V*('&I �or- ane :ot i"(�.0 CL,n,�;ta;rt aczJQ>, h y d.va q�n is rQgµ Fred o os co, end 1 rerenHy of r.; rr11Dr7iror 1S azou� dorac,►r, - y t 4 e. w l+..d C,.h a n a+el . f4 of a e cr . $a�+� QQ1�"'r -TKQ �('A,�QG�" /eCpi ► QS 4�Pr'oYirna..t4?ty t71Q 14rne hydt'L:?c=, sul rc��t 1Qvalt Lif dc;je: +.At Ci 02r. #' ^y I !>)or;' r, d.0-T r *A �ydroYc� f� 1 7 - 8 I n 1985 �-h.e FAA t2 Pl �,% r h nr c t t rr' 5*t2t,14ars �6© p ar+J o� hydrogen sv{{:de per (�;'lttcn ,.}orfs a � vii } cc.1�; r; E'Y.ceea once, 1.T3 ( y�'o rr vies ; off ceded ZSf►mE�.l �''•a !r. t � �'!, ?s� tr'.:,:;;, So gar �/� t9�� 6 f%�e-r .Sov ✓'cjzS 0 e-XCP1Ses' rnclvd-e TDSC�, Cen�rtt( Crri�rn Ccshx :xr��-�yior, Dir�rrc . p-rom 44re preeee4 inti r,;�or�aftof� rtrie u�r�ter Conc/va'e� l duS�ridl Sour't2f r.Jjll impac-r a Nor¢h L'an c o r less frtga4?/? ff► an e'n f+mcs pass , tuf fie rrr,�ac urEl! cc vie. The CverQn.i' 6 L4W e-e Z-one Gp/o'na -rorce /Ij 11 r: eJt%y 7h e p r e s axe- z on,ncl c-t= L'q t� - In d.<cc frcdJ cf-e.Sirc 61.x: ,an Agrioul�urer!, con b`e, ccon,pz4r'bfe . TQ encroach vpch �:evtvv r�dusrry tt'J: rF:�r�'cfir�' woninq iS ervt-rorav>; 4✓+ a11y vnlov�d. . ro r'. ;.n�ra dut lnq :ir 0•,r7'ic-e �p r k Jn;io a zo,7-e 1.r c- ,-c .1 4c a ir'rr:, < < ::r voopin;nfr . 771� Gt� ri�-Gir �lt'c� S ter �onC�rd G �� CoJtfGl� �o Pra✓s?.r �" -e tmr.Ctc oT indu -r-rrcti Concord raroject by bu77=r .—cC�i:F . f�r+Y r'ezar{irti� 1n111� i{)j.. bK` er S�c7v(fi bE r.eS�r;�fe� T� tlSP. .+�i fir wily` Nn�win�ly a.ccej;% AQ inr�c�c' 0f exIsfirt� rndusrral Pn.;ssioit �- 4 Ir 1� �/rnb4Ly o' .Can%;:412�nfr r'ec�rvee by FnAQN(D , Traced -o Tosco Z`aJyt P"S#.) Odor PucFjptto#n of Odvr ..y}, CoMFlorna r - Sw►o Ta tai ! O l l ` 3 Z 9o;sy, ?,v ell t - - i— -- - -- ro rQi ( 4 1987 67 -6 1 oily I � 1 svlT�r ams roR - �7 9 / ?-2? gex. d,�/er*K* �bxit_c.�trle • 3-Z9 1 na4-wrest qas, Sf�o �rxel/ at odor, roY'',a Qggs, gas- terri5(i, dierel4d/ 7 ro�t�� rrrt�4t, 94f/r d07 Coe f;r-ed e.cf g? 4t I�PiI 4� •ti 42 70.! NVM`6/ of Rec,eived by E,4AGMP- `rrdced to Tosco �ot� Odor D¢scr�Nt=ago Door ;(,r Co,i 1p ains,�-t'� I 5-20 , :5 ovrni oily- brr�r� i/ ctit�k+ / .gatAro lventt oiyckem/_eal 7-20 � gassy, P""ge�a' S-n ! f T040i 2 S4 - -- - --7 i I i ' t i i 7 - 11 4;.363 N un 4w Received by 1.%4A QMH Traced +0 In 4'1 T-ex OtLor DeSCrtpf�on� Odor, by_Co lwnc tt 198 - T�l z-28 i acrd ( 3-27 ;- �l- 7 ti�� ' really bad --;- 10- 1 $ che. ,i Al , vd,rv;4ar1 ac d . /ylCtil/�f, farlSalFur, h Y deoY,Cn scf�rae . { 10-2 6 cAejricgJ,. roeen� ratJw �, I Svc#ter Sul t-VdI fich(y swea�; Dov! oir to-7 10-2 4 2 h�/d rsge+; sc'l frd e ,s.✓ez� - 10 t 3 Ayca"en svl�d e , MefQ(/ic Tata I 39 1 Con�inc.aed �►ert pa9� . 7 - 12 i w A 's a ?ad 1�Un,bQr of ComplAlr,ts 'ReGe�✓td 6yP,AA�M+�, Traced fo Inf'I. 'r�Gh. Da4-e Od o✓ perc rip�;Orn of odor, byoi» binQk�s Co a't i 1987 : —.- ----� - - 1-/S 2 to x tc46 - — - -- zz usual 0 , ratter,Sour 1 ehemicw; /netal(iGL_�sweQfotiticecl 1- 9-,9 / c h eft. ;401 ; `t- 9-20 2 c hiw+ ca 1, '�eta-(tle 9-Z7. cr --- ----- --- -- 17 1988 3.-.3a- 1 bad odor i 46-Z9 P-O ds - - - - - 6-30 dirty eiaq-c-r c hem' 1�i +a 8� PF 7 - 13 , - Local Street Improvements (p. 3-37) The EIR should acknowledge that keeping Port Chicago Highway open is not an 96 option. The EIR should state when the City of Concord plans to widen Arnold Industrial Way and how it would be funded. AIR QUALITY (p. 3-38) Setting (p. 3-38) A scoping comment from PICNC requests that the emissions of H 2 S from Central 97 Sanitary District, treatment ponds and refinery operations in the area be addressed; this issue is not specifically addressed in the Air Quality analysis. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is first mentioned in passing in a discussion of local monitoring stations in paragraph 3, p. 3-38. Its role in air quality e management is not mentioned in the first two paragraphs on that page, though the 98 roles of EPA and ARB are discussed (the role of the BAAQr-iD is discussed in Appendix D). Given the prominent role of BAAQMD in local air quality management, the EIR should devote a few sentences in the main text to an explanation of the agency's role. The policies and implementation strategies .of the 1982 Air Quality Plan, although 99 briefly mentioned in Appendix D, are not described in the air quality discussion, nor is the project's consistency with the. Plan addressed. Consistency with established plans and policies is a CEQA issue. Air Quality Trends The text of the DEIR states,,in paragraph 2, p. 3-38, that toxic air,contaminants are "relatively uncommon" is a generalization that is undocumented and somewhat speculative. While ambient concentrations are usually found to be relatively low 1()0 where monitoring efforts have been undertaken, to date the.monitoring of these contaminants has been far from comprehensive. The EIR itself (Table 15) provides information that seven common toxic air contaminants are present in measurable DEIR Comments Page 19. 7 - 35 RESPONSES May, apparently the result of unexpected industrial upsets. Complainants described the odors most often as chemical,sulfur,natural gas and rotten eggs. International Technology's nearest citizen neighbors are 0.25 mile away, compared to the North Concord Project's 2 to 3 mile range. Most citizen complaints of odors were in 1984 numbering 38. Although the acceptance of industrial waste was stopped in 1988, some odor complaints are voiced, 5 so far this year. Complaint descriptions include metallic, chemical, sulfur and rotten. Monitoring for one of the complaint gases, hydrogen sulfide (rotten eggs), is required of Tosco, _and recently of L T. Tosco's Chenery monitor is about 1.25 miles east of Tosco and is frequently downwind as the. North Concord project is also frequently downwind. When the wind changes toward the south east, the project receives approximately the same hydrogen sulfide levels as does the Chenery monitor. To some degree the monitor is an indicator of hydrogen sulfide in the project In 1985 the BAAQMD short term standard (60 parts of hydrogen sulfide per billion parts of air) was exceeded once. In, 1986 it was exceeded 25 times and in 1987, 30 times So far in 1988, 6 times Sources of the excesses include Tosco, LT. and the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District. From the preceding information, the writer concludes industrial sources will impact at times upon the North Concord Project The impacts may be more or-less frequent than in times past, but the impact will occur. The current buffer zone of Light Industrial, while less desirable than Agriculture, can be compadible. To encroach upon heavy industry with less restrictive zoning is environmentally unsound. Introducing an "office park" into a buffer zone is to create a climate for complaints. The writer urges the Concord City Council to prevent the impact of industrial emissions upon the North Concord Project bFp retaining an adequate industrial buffer zone. Any rezoning into the buffer shaild be restricted. to .uses which will'ka~ accept the impact of existing industrial emissions." R=g Comment noted The Draft EER states on.page 3-50, that persons in the project area would be exposed to criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants from the numerous industrial umma in the area Some of these pollutants, particularly hydrogen sulfide are odorous As noted in the comment, there is an established history of complaints regarding odors from these facilities. Increasing, the number of people in the project area would contribute to the_potential for increases in odor complaints and may contribute to conflicts with casting heavy industrial uses in the area. It should be noted however, that the period of greatest potential for oda complaints is evening and night hours when winds are light and atmospheric stability is high,. and the evening population in the project area would most 10cely be a small fraction of the daytime population, No rezoning to allow other types of uses are' anticipated by the City of Concord at this time. 8. 4 PRESERVE THE � N DUSTRIAL March- 26 , 1991 COMM N Y IN Contra Costa Housing Authority and Board of Supervisors 11 ORTH Martinez , CA As service and response and industrial CONCORD support businesses , we organized PICNC ( Protect 'Industrial Community North Concord) for the small business and property owners , tax payers and kESemployers in our area . We protest and object to 4lex L4Ss the intrusion of 160 permanent resident homeless people into our industrial area . This invades our TFUMMM.vested rights after 3$ years of -historical light John M industrial planned and approved zoning . We have e � 0�: accepted and assisted to maintain this historical WI��Dn �Of1G3 buffer zone to protect the residential community south of Highway 'U fr-om the industrial hazards North of the freeway . • This old converted w a r e h o u s e i s inadequate and unsafe' to house and train and feed and treat the unfortunate and transient people . The hazards upsets , fires , spills , explosions , catastrophes , earthquakes , etc . on this narrow curved steep frontage road is unworkable and not easily mitigated . We object to government monies in this industrial area . Local business people have offered to construct a new facility , well planned to house - feed - train - educate and the homeless people on county property . Volunteers from, the community have offered re- training - education- food - clothing - counselling and support for a newly constructed permanent shelter . This would save taxpayers and create a partnering program to assist the homeless in our area. Forcing 160 permanent residents into a patched-up warehouse -is unsafe and unsound , and disturbs the long established business community . SIS—�82-1�70 Mq ARNOLD INDUSTAIAL WAYS (;ONCpRp C'A q_"TW421 page -2 P ICNC As taxpayers and business people we request a full EIR with professional studies and public hearings to adeq.uately evaluate the environmental impact on the homeless and the business community in this area . Contempt for authority and for government has been bred in our growing industrial community of North Concord by the county ° s disregard for the very rules that apply to the rest of us . The winter temporary shelter for 100 people has significantly increased the harassment and loitering of the homeless in our community . The homeless people should not be forced into a warehouse adjacent and subject to the odors of a crematorium, operations of refinery and chemical complexes with storage ana production of hazardous materials and the use of radioactive materials nearby . Foot traffic on a narrow curved steep arterial is extremely dangerous for pedestrians ,. the travelling public and movement of trucks and heavy emergency equipment . There are inaaequate street lights , sidewalks , public transportation , and emergency facilities to . accommodate 160 permanent homeless residents . Please authorize the housing authority to enter partnership with the local industry and the business and residential community to have this shelter constructed in ? eafPr and more protected location on public lands . • Thank Jou , Winton 3one 510-682-1870 1949 Arnold Industrial 1-7ay, Concord, CA94521 i ., "N FRANCIsC0 SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE CONCORD SAN CARLOS - CHICO FRESNO EUREKA 13 * 9'1857 Arnold Industrial Way • Concord, Ca. 84520 • (415) 671.0800 .3 47- V2, l� J /1 YLQ. 6L ,� n ,11.-f2•tyv Lt�I' ' C, "c-e. � ..e. -t- - G „'It,tt`X. G�.�i� ✓Y�l .✓�.C'f�rcP._ c.�LG�/1.,1.-b�<..� ��LC�-- .�ricYriL1�-� ��,e- a_ "td� U EjfCC.K�� !'�(,�'�(.�'" *..�!__ _V ..+ !/►" W"�+'�"�— �/J�J "a�%v�;�D�.�iti�r �/{�/{r�"1/.� �l ...^!_"�� /�;1�IR�!��,lp:aC�� GC 7lewxt rtiu c�uin ciJ�1 - C WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS OF: PLUMBING • HEATING • COOLING • SOLAR • VENTILATING • APPLIANCES Y WJ & NJ & Tenants We are a 24 hour emergency response industry available to support the public and petro chemical plants and railroads for de-rails - aemoiition ( i . e . SF Apt house on hillside) hazardous waste - spills - fires ( i . e . Oakland Hills - Mt Diablo and Shell Oil.) - explosions aria upsets ( i . e . Chevron) accidents iriaustr•ial and public earthquakes ( i . e . Loma Prieta) - disasters - ( SF sewage plants) and catastrophes . We assist in liquid aria solid waste disposal ( i. e . Acme Fill and Keller, Canyon) , recycling , harbor and river dredging . We furnish emergency equipment ( i . e . Highway 680 and Benicia bridge Widening) We repair damagea inaustriai tanks , roads , levees , ponds , fences , briages , warehouses and operating units ( major shutdown aria turnarounds) . Jones Sand Cc supplies sand aria dredge material for road and asphalt paving , P G & E - Public works filter , . and ready mixea concrete . McHugh clean up crews remove wrecked and abandonea • vehicles - trash- aria garbage . Historically for almost 40 years this light industrial area has been a buffer between heavy industry north of Hwy 4 aria residential areas south if' Hwy 4 . The ,Bucharran f:ieid flight pattern and the earthquake faults .endanger concentrated groups of unprotected people like the . 160 homeless in a convertea warehouse next door . This hazardous location is a adi, gerous low pocket for fog - freeway smog temperature inversions - emissions - vapors , acid rains and frequent zero visibility . ' The heavy truck ana emergency response crane aria equipment exposes pedestrian, traffic to dangerous conditions with no street lights or sidewalks . Pubic_ .-transportation is riot now available for hospitals , schools , -Libraries , public facilities for aid to needy and unemployed ana disabled - Our 38 years in this location to dispatch , protect , repair , store and supply heavy equipment has been without unravorabie problems . Our contractor family has respondea continuously since 1923 to the public and private ana industrial community . • We request aelay of federal funds for the permanent shelter for horneless until a complete . EIR and professional studies ana hearings have been mace . We ask for the opportunity for comments and remarks D r)ei; hbors ana the community - We are very conchriled over the gas ana oisweils , refineries , chemical plants , pet : oieum pif eiinEs ana ;,ail KS , radioactive arca haza.ra waste storage aaj.acent to this site . The increased traffic and freeway noise and odors , industrial vapors and emissions , the crematorium , sewage plant , garbage dump all increase the poor air quality in this area . . We desire continuation of neighboring Clyde , NWS , trail routes , public water supply , Memory Gardens. , wet lands , flood water controls and industrial satellite business to service the public and industry. Since the homeless moved in we have been vandalized , burglarized and harassed . In .fact as senior citizens we are fearful for our security due to shortage - of funds for the . Sheriff Dept . Our neighbors are specialty and support and service people for adjacent industries . . Minority and women business support Federal and State .quotas for construction . The Buchanan airport flight pattern could be affected by this extra 160 people and their cars and traffic . We do not now have elbow room to exr)and. and improve our industrial response and services. • The county has thus far refused to consider available alternative locations . Please help us to locate these unfortunate homeless people in public lands in another now available location with a planned permanent building as proposed :-by. the: industrial communit.y . 2 Than* you --- -) . I non N t ali Jonesw i e t L one Cy thia Lion ��t/ 421 ze, /��G zstlsc.�'2�'' .✓IGL r,�� 7 ' �Lyr:�;��:� �a��jam'` .�:��:G•,.,v �,,�� °� 74 4 7t/I/- %, 7�cce ,. 0�-�- - - RO�bAEIR'S QV 5 WC_E 1939 t r 4 ROMER'S RV CENTER, INC. CONCORD - SRC nTo 2295 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, CA. 94520 (510) 689-5300 Fax(510) 680-7069 Housing Authority and Board of Supervisors March 26, 1992 To whom it may concern:. In 1975 when the State of California informed me that my property in Walnut Creek would be condemned to relocate the current Highway Patrol truck scales off Hwy 680, 1 spent almost two years looking for a suitable site to relocate my business. I spent countless hours looking from Concord to San Ramon and discovered that my business was not welcome *On most areas due to zoning • restrictions and citizen groups not wanting to look at trailers on asphalt. I was desperate, and pater relieved to find my current location in this industrial area. 1 fail to understand how a residential shelter can be located in an industrial area even though the cause is very noble. It seems more and more everyday that laws are not applicable on a consistent basis. The location of this shelter is not fair to the homeless by jeopardizing their safety and health and is not fair to citizens who have abided by the zoning laws. I'm sure their were many reasons for the current zoning of this area. What . has changed to allow residential use? It seems "necessity" has blinded the decision makers and created an untenable situation. Myself and an. employee leaving within five minutes of one another, after working late one evening, both came very close to running over a homeless person, wearing all black clothing, walking in the middle of the westbound lane of Arnold Industrial Way. I have been panhandled several times and so have my customers by homeless people. I have lost several customers, who had stored their trailers here, as a direct result of the shelter and the homeless. I have witnessed homeless people • Equal opportunity Employer 1 RV SWCE1939 t ROMER'S RV CENTER, INC. Concom — SRC To 2295 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, CA. 94520 (510) 689-5300 Fax(510) 680-7069 desecrating the landscaping of the business next door to mine. I've had to spend extra money to clean up the trash and beer bottles off the front of my property since the shelter opened. It is counterproductive to allow residential use in an industrial area. If someone is hurt, the ensuing legal problems could bankrupt a business, especially in this fragile economy. Businesses, like mine, will continue to lose revenue due to this mixing of zoning. Either scenario most certainly will adversely affect and deteriorate the county's tax revenues. V would hope we could get some disinterested outside professional studies and • public hearings to determine the environmental impact of residential use in this industrial area. I believe in the concept of right and wrong, and appeal to you to do the right- thing for both the homeless and the taxpayers. Sincerely,- . D. R. Romer President Equal Opportunity Employer 2 OPBRIEN IRON WORKS INC. 2043 Arnold Industrial Way • Concord,California 94520 . (510)685.5300 FAX(510)685.2894 March 26, 1992 Mr. Perfecto Villarreal Executive Director Housing Authority County of Contra Costa P. 0., Box 2759 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Villarreal: Well, we have now had a chance to see our government at work. We have now had a chance to see our hard-earned and paid taxes at work. We are truly disgusted. Let me give you a brief synopsis of who we are. This is from our hearts. We are 53 and 51 respectively. We have worked since we were 18 years old. We have never, in our life, collected unemployment or state disability or Medical or Aid to Dependent Children. We have, instead, owned a business, employed people, paid our taxes, and worked our hearts out. After thirteen years of saving, we have purchased a small 6700 square foot building on Arnold lndustrial.Way,- from_ William Moran. We believed his bill . of goods about a nice.environment, a nice "industrial" park site, etc. etc. During .the second week in March, we contacted a real estate appraisal expert regarding the "impact" on the value of our building, of your "temporary" shelter. We are told it is from $100,000 to $150,000 dollars less than before your "temporary" shelter was in place. So, let us offer you an involuntary contribution of $150,000. Now, as to our government at work( We'had no awareness of the recent forum meeting. Our officials did not notify us in time to make written comments. The negative declaration provided to us after the fact does not adequately determine the environmental impact of a remodeled "warehouse" for, we are now told, 160 permanent homeless residents. We can only assume that you have chosen this location, not for its suitability for the homeless, but rather for its lack of population able to contest your choice. You are not interested in hearing the TAXPAYER's opinion. Mr. Perfecto Villarreal March 26, 1992 Page 2 There are far better sites available for the homeless shelter. There are numerous volunteers waiting to train and assist the homeless. We ask you to take advantage of this and set up a program to assist the homeless. Goodwill groups and churches have volunteered to help with a permanent facility, in a better location, conducive to housing. Your current facility can not offer adequate street lights , public transportation, parks, recreation facilities, sidewalks, telephones, classrooms, public conveniences, like restrooms, first aid facilities, libraries, clinics, a kitchen to prepare food, etc. - You are expending hardworking taxpayer's dollars to patch up an industrial warehouse. You are already $100,000 over expectation. You have been offered a far better alternative by Bedford Properties. (Please read and CONSIDER the attached letter from Bedford Properties dated February 18, 1992.) We find the following problems with your choice of location, separate and apart from the previously mentioned items. . THIS IS NOT A DESIRABLE LOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. The master plan prohibits residential use This .area is zoned industrial, and is next to a major oil refinery and a storage building for radioactive. materials. It is adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station. It is in front of a crematorium which burns human bodies on a very regular basis. The location of this shelter is to be on a very heavily traveled street. There have already been two instances of a near fatality observed by workers at the neighboring businesses.. There is parking in evidence on both sides of the street which is very dangerous to heavy trucks and cranes and equipment movement on the • steep S curve. The road is not wide enough to pass with permit loads when cars are parked on both sides. Mr. Perfecto Villarreal March 26, 1992 Page 3 ' Our government has not lived up to its representation of the facts and terms of this shelter arrangement presented at public hearing. The ruse of a temporary shelter was used when all involved knew it was to be a permanent shelter. The representation of a 100 bed temporary shelter is now changed to a 160 bed permanent shelter. The facility was not to be a drop-in facility. It is a true walk in and out at any time of the day facility. Residents are free to walk the streets and parking areas of nearby businesses. They are free.to Iounge on our grasses and to smoke behind our buildings. They are free, in fact, to do as they please, at all times of the day and night. Should you choose to read the court reporters notes from the hearings, you will find that a very different picture was painted. We have people laying on our grass. Debris is evident everywhere. rn March • 25, a shelter resident was seen eating off the sidewalk, like a dog. Conditions inside the shelter are not healthy or sanitary. There are no established programs.. There is inadequate, unlawful multiple housing here, in a light industrial zone. Egress is inadequate for 160 homeless. A car belonging to.a shelter resident was hit 'by a tow truck. The owner of the car left h;s driver's side -door open while he and his friends were working on the car. You have not protected the property owners or the homeless with completion of a proper professional draft EIR, nor have you conducted public hearings regarding extra traffic and effect on local environment, habitat, land use, future expansions, property values, permanent dormitories, alterations, changed zoning and changed general plans, business development and continuity. . r r Mr. Perfecto Villarreal March 26, 1992 Page 4 You have not done your jobl Which one of you is going to-take responsibility when someone is killed? We are angry. We would truly like to move this facility right next door to your home or business 7Sincely, Richard N. & Nancy A. Schulba O'Brien-Iron Works,_ Inc. cc: Board of Supervisors nsh%wordlltrprsnflahelter.doc CR AO/ me/d .lam ,�2•Q�i , .ltc1 Q. .C�►Ltrio=-t4rrns..� t�dC,ta�s-�;�i,� -�a �a�.ir+-•; �zn,�L c�s,G.La�ss-t� •�o�t.u�:f.�.,.�.Q� ,�D.�-�Ly��.�.t.G. ��i�• 7Zss-��.G z°LI � �, � . r��'-.�.�-kms,:-�.+�..► �--j ;�...�•• ,1.1.x.,0-,�.�..C. �•t...a-.4�..� �-.��. JV,_ Z • I own and operate a 24 hour 3 A emergency towing service and abandonment vehicles pickup on county roads . I also operate a, dismantling auto parts service and repair shop at 2297 Arnold Industrial Way , Concord . The homeless shelter people have bothered us by loafing around and hurts my business . This warehouse is industrial and why do you want to put 160 homeless here for food and housing . It violates our rights and ideas as long time business people and taxpayers in a good area for business . I have worked long and hard and pay taxes and hire local people-. Looks like these homeless don ' t want - to hustle for working jobs and only want a handout . your negative report is not correct or complete . We cannot afford this giveaway . The traffic here is horrible and worse since these guys moved in with fancy cars and vans and park on this bad S turn . They drive too fast and run all over the double lines . They act like panhandlers and walk carelessly on the roadway . Why do we taxpayers have to put up with 160 residents in our industrial area . Why don' t they get in a Civilian Conservation • Corp and work for their room and board like me and my employees do . I don ' t ask for handouts or free taxes or free food and housing . I do ask for equal treatment as a citizen and taxpayer . J hn McHug March 26 , j92 CONCORD TRUCK A EQUIPMENT CO. 1949 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL HIGHWAY S Z CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 . Contractor Licence No. 124716 • Phone (415) 682-1870 Day or Nits State Liquid Waste Hauler#91 • Bay Area Industrial Services Since 1923 March 10 , 1992 Contra Costa Housing Authority 1355 Willow Way Concord, CA Directors: I am part owner of a WBE/MBE trucking and equipment rental company. Our equipment works on freeways and industrial • complexes. Our heavy machinery is in grave danger of accidents , (especially in tule fog and rain ) on our frontage road since the homeless people moved in. They loaf around and harass our drivers .going back and forth on emergency call outs, day and night. Please move them out of this industrial area. Sincerely, an 1 Christensen CABLE: PANPAC (510)685-2292 FAX (510)685-4017 PAN - PACIFIC Supply Co. • MARINE & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 2045 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY CONCORD, CA 94520 March 27 , 1992 TO: Housing Authority and Board of Supervisors SUBJECT: Homeless Center .As a neighbor of the nearby County Homeless Center I must question the viability of the continued operation of this shelter in our area. I do not oppose the concept or the need for homeless shelters, however, I do oppose the selected site for the following reasons : • Zoning: This area was selected by our company as a light Industrial zone . How can the county simply override established zoning restrictions? Safety: Traffic from tractor trailers , heavy equipment , etc. makes this area . dangerous .for ani pedestrians Parking along- Arnold Industrial Way has already increased the risk of a major accident . Economics : It has come to my attention that a more suitable shelter in a nearby location could be provided at a significantly lower cost to the county and the taxpayers . Such a facility would also be much . safer for the residents of the shelter . A facility for the homeless is needed. This is the wrong site for the residents and the wrong site for the homeless . Thank you. O • lTo #dM. Smith , Vice-President / General Manager PAN-PACIFIC Supply Company BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE, INC. • 1861 Arnold Industrial Way #1 Concord, Ca. 94520 March 27, 1991 TO: The Housing Authority & Board of Supervisors Re: Homeless Shelter on Arnold Industrial Way Our firm has been doing business at this location for the last four years. We have twelve employees involved in the rental and sales of safety supplies. We have five trucks going and coming many times each day. Traffic has increased greatly in the four years we have been here with speeds over 50 MPH. With the increase in traffic we see no reason why the area should be reioneu from "light industrial" to residential to accomodate .the homeless shelter. • The majority of the property located on the north side of Highway 4 is occupied by commercial business and should remain so. Since the shelter opened we have had two people come into our yard a little disoriented, ask questions and then proceed to partially disrobe on their way out. This has never happened prior to the opening of the shelter. This has made our .employees- who work late -appreshens.ive about doing so especially with inadequate street lighting in front of our building. A proper home is needed to shelter the homeless but a site that will be able to grow with the needs of the community - proper facilities for people who need help - not-an inadequate building that is already too small to meet the demand for it and one that was constructed hastily. arbara JtgW President • R. M. HARRIS CO. ' t ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR 1923 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL HWY. CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 • TELEPHONE 15101 687-9160 FAX 15101 686-0704 March 26, 1992 To Housing Authority and Board of Supervisors For the past 20 years R.M. Harris Company has been pleased with our location while conducting a business primarily involving the construction of heavy highway structures. We are quite anxious about the.possible addition of "residents" into the area as it would be impossible for us to remain at this location if transformed to a residential area with the introduction of multiple housing. Can this county afford to lose more industry at the present time. Obviously a change involving the possible transformation of "light industrial" to residential would make it impossible for us to remain at this location - forcing this company and some 50 plus employees to go elsewhere. This company does not want even the remote chance of a zoning change in the area. On-street parking has been encouraged in this industrial area even with the lack of street lights and sidewalks. Auto traffic would be increased by the everyday coming and going of'a large number of people, along with foot traffic on the roadway due to the lack of sidewalks. Due to the nature of this company we operate heavy trucks and cranes and because of this there is a real concern with the safety factor - a factor adding even more vehicles and pedestrians using an already too narrow roadway. A "light industrial" area Is not appropriate for the proposed-multiple housing as the use of chemicals, wipleasant air emissions and frequent releases of odors are experienced on a daily basis in the area. No matter how careful a business Is in the supervision of it's employees and the use of various materials, vehicles, equipment, etc., there is always the chance of an accident resulting in a potential harmful situation. Supervising the personnel of a company Is a full-time job with no time left to supervise "residents" in an industrial area. R.M. HARRIS COMPANY David R. Harris �resiuent l Alta Fence Company 40 HILLTOP ROAD MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 94553 TELEPHONE: (415)228-2240 • MARCH 26, 1992 TO HOUSING AUTHORITY AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE RECENT FORUM MEETING IN COUNTY CONFERENCE ROOMS WAS NOT WELL ADVERTISED OR PUBLICIZED AND NO COPIES WERE SENT TO US. WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE MEETING UNTIL TOO LATE TO MAKE WRITTEN COMMENTS. WE FEEL THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY ONE PERSON WAS HASTY AND NOT ADEQUATE TO FULLY DETERMINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF A REMODELED WAREHOUSE FOR 160 PERMANENT HOMELESS RESIDENTS. THE LOCATION IS ON A DANGEROUS NARROW FRONTAGE ROAD ON A STEEP S TURN. THE NEW RESIDENTIAL SPOT ZONING IS DOWN WIND OF. THE SEWAGE, CHEMICAL AND REFINERY PLANTSp GARBAGE DUMP, LARGE CRUDE OIL TANKS AND PIPELINES. IT IS ADJACENT TO MEMORY GARDEN CREMATORIUM AND • CEMETERY AND SIEMENS RADIOACTIVE MEDICAL FACTORY FOR X- RAY MACHINERY. CAN WE PLEASE GET OUTSIDE PROFESSIONAL STUDIES AND PUBLIC ':HEARINGS .TO:. DETERMINE THE EFFECT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT IN THIS AREA. WE OBJECT TO A MILLION DOLLAR REMODEL JOB TO PUT 160 HOMELESS PEOPLE INTO A PATCHED UP WAREHOUSE WITH AN INACCESSIBLE ENTRY OFF A NARROW. STEEP CURVED FRONTAGE ROAD. VERY ARULY YOURS, WILLX J ON ES OWN ER R & S ERECTIG" )F CONCORD, INC. i 1925 ARNOLD IN6 TRIAL HWY. CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 PHONE (415) 671.7606 FAX (415) 671.7621 Cont. Lic. No. 342888 • Date 3/26/92 To Housing -Authority and . Board of Supervisor3 The recent forum meeting in county conference rooms was not well advertised or publicized and copies to us . We did not know about the meeting until too late to make written comments . We feel the negative declaration by one person was hasty and not adequate to fully determine the environmental impact of a remodeled warehouse for 160 permanent homeless residents. The location is on a dangerous narrow arterial frontage road on a steep S turn . This new residential spot zoning is down wind of the sewage plant , garbage dump, chemical arid refinery plants , large crude oil tanks arid oil pipelines . It is adjacent- to Memory Garden Crematorium and . cemetery arrd Siemens Radioactive • medical factory for X ray machinery . Such a change in the general plan is counterproductive and improper for the working people and businesses in this light industrial zone . Local industrial and, education and business leaders have volunteered executives arid teachers and public facilities to train and retrain arid upgrade unemployed and homeless people . Now we ask you to set up a partnering program run by the community and housing authority for the homeless . Numerous local goodwill groups and churches have volunteered to help run a well planned permanent t'ac ility in a better location with street lights public transportation , parks , recreation facilities , sidewalks ,telephones , classrooms , public conveniences ( restrooms) , hospital and first . aid facilities , libraries , clinics . It would Anclude ' counselling and job placement centers . Can we please get outside professional studies and public hearings to determine the effect on our environment in this area . We ob,j.ect to a million dollar remodel ,job to put 160 homeless people into a patched up warehouse with an inaccessible entry off a narrow steep curved arterial frontage road . 4' A permanent residential shelter is not desirable in our light industrial zone next to a major oil refinery and a storage building of radioactive materials ,and our primary water plant . As your supporters, constituents and taxpayers , we request a well planned program and location for the homeless utilizing community cooperation - working together for a better. future . Our red ink budget deficits and community health problems on top of a depressed economy warrants thorough proper planning and input from the community . Please continue to protect and support our light industrial community (PICNC) . This overcrowded dormitory would be a potential problem for IIIV - TB - Flue and infections diseases . SINCERELY, GENE GAUVREAU GENERAL MANAGER GG/bs • Ang DRILLING 1927 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY • CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520•TELEPHONE (415) 825-4212 FAX (415) 685-2080 March 25, 1992 Pier foundation Drilling Test & Sump Drilling Housing Authority and Belled Caissons Board of Supervisors Ladies/Gentlemen: The recent forum meeting in county conference rooms was not well advertised or publicized. We did not know about the meeting until it was too -late to submit written comments . -We feel the Inegative declaration by- one person was hasty and inadequate to fully determine the environmental impact of a remodeled warehouse of 160 permanent homeless- residents . - ,--_The .location- is on a dangerous, - narrow, arterial frontage road on a. steep S turn._ This new residential spot zoning is 'down wind of the sewage plant, 'garbage dump, chemical and refinery plants, large crude oil tanks and- oil pipelines ... It is adjacent to Memory Garden _ Crematorium and cemetery and Siemens Radioactive medical factory. for X-ray machinery . Such a change in the general plan is counterproductive and improper- for the working peop.le. .and- businesses in this light, industrial zone. - A permanent residential shelter is not desirable , in our light industrial zone. Please. continue to protect and support our light industrial community. Ve my your , L, W. 'Barry'Kc no President WBK/br Y CA LIC, 255167-A AZ LIC. 075712-003 NV LIC. 0012913 HOUSING AUTHORITY MARCH 25 , 1992 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE RECENT FORUM MEETING HELD AT THE COUNTY CONFERENCE ROOM WAS AWFUL, WE WERE GIVEN ONLY A THREE DAY NOTICE WHICH WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS. WE WERE ALSO LED TO BELIVE THIS MEETING WAS TO INVITE THE BUSINESS OWNER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PLANNED TO DO WITH THE HOMELESS SHELTER. INSTEAD THE ROOM WAS PACKED WITH HOMELESS PEOPLE AND DIFFERENT CHURCH GROUPS. NOT ONE OF THEM HAVE A BUSINESS IN THE AREA. THE INTEREST OF THESE PEOPLE IS UNDERSTANDABLE BUT , THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE DAY TO DAY OPERATION OF THIS SHELTER. BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE THIS SHELTER IN A INDUSTRIAL AREA IT IS CLEAR THAT THE POWERS THAT BE DO NOT HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY AT HEART , SPECIFICALLY THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE. IT SHORT CHANGES BOTH THE • HOMELESS AND THE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO HAVE STRUGGLED TO BUILD UP A WORTHWHILE ENTERPRISE OFF THE BEATEN PATH. THIS LACK OF CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IS A BLATANT MOVE TO TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT OF A DIFFICULT SITUATION. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME TAKEN TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF A NON-PERMANENT HOMELESS SHELTER FOR. 100 PEOPLE, LET ALONE A. PERMANENT FACILITY FOR 160 PEOPLE IN AN AREA THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL. WE REQUEST THAT THERE IS MORE STUDIES DONE ON THE IMPACT THIS WILL HAVE ON THE HOMELESS, THE BUSINESSES, AND THE AREA IN GENERAL. WE FEEL THAT IF . THIS IS DONE IT WILL BE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS NOT THE LOCATION FOR A FACILITY OF THIS TYPE. THE VOLUNTEERS THAT HAVE STEPPED FORWARD TO HELP A FACILITY OF THIS TYPE SHOULD HAVE THEIR EFFORTS REWARDED WITH A PROGRAM THAT BETTER MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THE SHELTER HAS BEEN LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT IS NOT SUITABLE. BESIDES THE FACT THAT IT. IS LOCATED ON A STEEP ROAD THAT HAS NO 'SIDEWALKS, IS _-ADJACENT TO A FACILITY HOUSING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, DOWN WIND FROM OIL REFINERIES, A CREMATORIUM, AND A GARBAGE DUMP, HAS NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION , IT DOES NOT GIVE THE "RESIDENTS" THE SENSE OF BELONGING. BEING LOCATED SO FAR FROM ANY AVAILBLE PUBLIC SERVICES MUST FURTHER THEIR SENSE OF ISOLATION FROM SOCIETY. THIS LACK OF PLANNING SPEAKS NOTHING OF THE BURDEN PLACED ON THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ALREADY AT LARGE. PAGE 1 ® WE DO NOT FEEL THAT OUR RIGHTS AND WISHES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY ANYONE IN PLANNING A PERMANENT FACILITY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN. ONLY TEMPORARY. "RESIDENTS" OF THE FACILITY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO. LOITER IN THE AREA DURING THE DAY, THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LEAVING CARS ALONG THE SIDES OF A ALREADY NARROW ROADWAY FOR WEEKS AT A TIME, OR TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THEIR LACK OF RESPECT FOR THIS AREA ALREADY BEING OBVIOUS, HOW WILL THEY ACT IF THE SHELTER IS MADE PERMANENT WITH MORE "RESIDENTS"? ' NO ONE FROM THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER AGENCY HAS TAKEN THE, TIME OR INTEREST TO FIND OUT HOW WE FEEL` ABOUT THE SHELTER. PERHAPS THEY DON' T WANT TO GIVE A VOICE TO THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS SHELTER, THEY PREFER TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO DONT LIVE AND WORK IN THE AREA, AND VIEW THE SHELTER WITH ROSE COLORED GLASSES FROM A DISTANCE. THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE RISE IN THEFTS AND VANDALISM THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE SHORT TIME THE SHELTER HAS BEEN OPEN, OR- THE PEOPLE WANDERING ABOUT AT . ALL TIMES OF THE DAY .AND NIGHT., WE DEMAND_ THAT THE AUTHORITIES ACT RESPONSIBLY AND IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL INVOLVED. THAT THEY TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY THE SITUATION IN A PUBLIC FORUM, AND CONSULT THOSE DIRECTLY INVOLVED. THE ISSUE OF HELPING THE HOMELESS IS A COMPLEX' PROBLEM, AND WE. DONT ® FEEL ISOLATING THEM IN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH ALL ITS HAZARDS IS GOOD FOR ANYONE. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS BEING DONE IN SECRETIVE AND CLANDISTINE FASHION THAT BENEFITS NO-ONE. � ► Ro bi F,,7�e'r�t,, 7` ------------ - ------------ PAGE 2 March 10 , 1992 Housing .Authority of Contra Costa County Attention : Richard Martinez We have just received your notice sent to Winton Jones about a meeting March 11 tomorrow nite . This really is NOT enough advance notice for us to have a meaningful response . We got this note- from Winton Jones in person . There is NOT enough information herein about this. shelter . We have been told that there will be a big meeting about March 30th for public comments . Is this a CEQA hearing or what goes on? Winton Jones YOUR NAME/ ADDRESS 9 .3�O 7 � ZJ ® Z RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in 4PINDUSTRIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . .0 1 . This is a very dangerous . traffic ONIMU_NI�'Y IN location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and NORTH visibility. 2 . As taxpayers" in a red ink deficit �N�+�R� situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . 3 . 0 t h e r sites or public land are Nick IS!LA available , and Mr . Bedford has offered g to custom build to order a new shelter A there on . - mgmm John N 4 . This warehouse is down wind of 11- - � � industries and crematorium and freeway WIA M JWrA smog . NAME ADDRESS . Yo /1 &4 zi bl�N vv 1 r �S•b�z•i�7� 1q" ARNOLD WouSTRIAL WAY, CoNcoRDCAg45a! RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRIAL a taxgovernment free food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . IN COMMUNITY 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic OIC location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very NORTH poor in and out access and egress and visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in. a red info deficit ®NC�RD situation can we afford this welfare home in .a light industrial zone . 3 . Other sites or publ is land are NICK IS! available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter TFUMM:U there, JAM M C"Curli4 . This warehouse is down wind of L � O�: industries and crematorium and freeway wits( t1 300ts smog . NAME ADDRESS �u 415-692-1970 IVA ARNOLD tN®uS-.tRIAL WAY* CONCORD.CA q4521 RESERVE THE ��VS�R�� We ob,jec& to 160 permanent. residents i dD a tax free ov.ernment food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY 1N 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very N. poor in and,- out access and egress and ORTH visibility , 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit UONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in. a light industrial zone . �� 3 - 0 t h e r sites or public land are available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a' new shelter ,' FWASM O there on . Jahn H 4 . This warehouse is 'down wind of .� industries and crematorium and freeway `-t W iA6" JeAts smog . NAME ADDRESS 1 xe Tole 7 = S' J7�nr� � G'vG G t t Iznik RESERVE THE NDUSTh y+ We object to 160 permanent residents in 'RIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . GOMMUNITY IN 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very ®RU poor in and out access and egress and visibility. 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit CONCORD situation can we afford this wel fare home in a light industrial zone . SotP1T:. 3 . Other sites or public land are NickLLg1ss available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter there on . John N CXUUTI�epti . 4 . This warehouse is down wind of � pu industries and crematorium and freeway �1h6 Jft%2 smog. NAME ADDRESS A p o 4, ; (mac. 9 yr (oLctw q,, 5-2y� aM C1d-4V/z5 � szo 416-692-1270 IVA ARNOLD INDUSTAIAL WAY, CoNCOEZc),CA g45z1 RESERVE THE t We object to 160 permanent residents in N®USTRIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY tN 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic N t[� location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and ®RTU visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit UONCORD situation can we afford this wel fare home in a light industrial zone , SSIDEN�, 3 . Other sites or public land are utCKls SSS available , and Mr . , Bedford has offered 9 to custom build to order a new shelter 'TFWXMMB there on . !Jlahm He ' 4 . Thus warehouse is -down wind of industries and crematorium and freeway Wtntbn ,00t2 smog . 01 Y1 2 w c7l ec.a{ - L�'o�► C'A2 D- ��1 9'f�.�Z d 415-622 1970 lv4q ARNOLD INOUSTAIAL. WAYe CONCORD(70Aa7! RESERVE THE �r p We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRBAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY' IN 1 . This is a. very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very. poor in and out" access and egress and NORTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red i.nk deficit ®N,�DR® situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . PRUIDENT 3 . Other sites or public land are UlexI39 available , and Mr . Bedford. has offered `� to custom build to order a new shelter .'T there on . JAM M 4 . This warehouse . is down wind of 1 _GDwrmow. industries and crematorium and freeway 11�I Awn . 1tS smog . NAME ADDRESS 10 � 2 ( 8 Peprer+roe Wadr �� C17 .0, ( 3o J� -�cic�xzc�N 01 SYi � � ge-C /IAJ C. gel_ 2D Oro 415-622-1970 044 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAS, COPdCORD,(;A q4521 RESERVE THE e We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY IN 1 This is a very . .dangerous traffic location on a busy , frontage road for Highway 4 on asteep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and NORTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red, ink deficit CONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in alight industrial zone . 510�� 3 . Other sites or public land are Nie-K. Li s available , and Mr . Bedford has offered 9 to custom build . to order a new shelter there on . viomC,Mt 4 . This warehouse is down wind of industries and crematorium and freeway W1AW JwitA smog , NAME ADDRESS �A-or,�'4 Lx-I 4 rcL t ��-��a•e�?� iq 6TWO D eNOUS- er M AY, C SRw1%. q�5�1 t RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY I 1 This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy . frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and 11ORTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers Ln a red ink deficit CONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . 3 . Other sites or public land are available and Mr . Bed ford has offered NICKt391��, to . custom build to order a new shelter there on . Jahn N 4 . This warehouse is 'd.own wind of ��: industries and crematorium and freeway WIIN tl ,1a 0 smog . NAME ADDRES'S 7 1(-2o g �' COQ , X031 �� 416-692-1970 , IVA QR?40LD iNOUS-tRIAL WAY, CoNwan On Qdg7I RESERMTHE �V�S�®®+ �� a tax We object to 160 permanent residents in V free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY 1N 1 . This is' a very dangerous traffic location on a. busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very � �� poor in and out access and egress and Nvisibility - 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit CONCORD ' situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial Zane . 3 • other sites or public land are Ulf-K � tS! available , and Mr . Bedford has offered g . to custom build to order a new shelter 7"`, there o n . Jahm M U This warehouse is down wind of industries and crematorium and freeway �tt►�ort .�OtiG9 smog. NAME ADDRESS 5 , ` x' /( -t4aoa �'T"bbs ' J -��x•1�7a 14 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY) CONCORD "A g4521 e, RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRiAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY IN 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and NORTH visibility . 2 . As -taxpayers in a red ink deficit CONCORD situation. can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . 3 . Other s t e s or public land are tJiGKls��asl available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter John N '�FiEF#' USM there o n . 4 . This warehouse is 'down wind of industries and crematorium and freeway W Mft JOflCA smog . NAME ADDRESS �y RESERVE THE C• w We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRIALa tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNITY IN 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very poor in .and out access and egress and NORTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit CONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone ., �f�`DE pIT, 3 . Other sites or public land are �S� b11CKls available , and Mr . Bedford has offered 9 to custom build to order a new shelter `T there on . John N 4 . Thi s war ehouse i s down wind of uGtu�rdeDn 'tet: industries -and crematorium and freeway W 1 t*6VI Jottta smog . NAME ADDRESS i9/S F Ty JJ5+114 ` �✓y (^"4 � his-dga-i�?o 14� ARNOLD INOVSTRIAL WAY) CON' oRD,CA q4521 ' q M A P-No t-jD 7-- j LOO-y t 9 a 6 AR uo t b 00L 6 L 11 6 ,rJ p-/V 0 -TA)jl- .ii RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUST'RIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . UOMMUNITY IN I . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve With very poor in and out access and egress and NORTH visibility. 2 . 'As taxpayers in a red ink deficit ��v®Rd situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . 3 . Other sites or public land are Ni�Ktf �s' available , and Mr-. Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter . there on . John N 4 . This warehouse is down wind of industries and crematorium and freeway with" .61 CA smog . NAME ADDRESS Q12, ZDl Q,voc,oDq �o n AR,�nc d ,TNd�S7RiA L L''� 0'A AMOLD - INDusraIAL WnY. CWe'!narj On 0A91I RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in NDU STRIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our -neighborhood . COMMUNITY tit 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic i1� location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and NORTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit CONCORD situation can we afford this wel fare home in alight industrial zone . 3 . Other si tes or publ is land are Nick li 1Js available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter there o n. Mahn N 4 . This warehouse is down wind of facurl4G �MO�L: industries and crematorium and freeway W114" u6+ts smog . NAME ADDRESS nc I�IZf lv44 ARNOLD' INDUSTRIAL WAY% CONCORD-0-0 a0571 RESERVE THE ®UST�� a tax object to 160 permanent residents i xfree overnment food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . �1'1��NHT� �� 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic Clocation on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very 11MM poor in and out access and egress and 0RTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a ' red ink deficit OMCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . 30 Other si to s or publ is land are available , and Mr . Bedford has offered NICKL►gtss to custom build to order a new shelter ,' amm% there on . Jahn N • 4 . This warehouse is down wind of _-, in,dustries and crematorium and freeway _ W146" .rontA smog. NAME ADDRESS 410-1119- 0�,V,�tw r �is•{�AZ•Ig?o 14 ARNOLD 1NOUSTRIAL WAY, CONCORD-(1_04d�,� rRESERVE . ,THE NDUSTRIAL We objecg to 1-60 permanent residents ia tax free overnment food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . ®MMUNoT1 IN 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very ORTH poor in and out access and egress and visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit CONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone , Awl PE 3 . Other sites or public land are I�IcKl ALOT� available , and Mr . Bedford has offered 4os�s� to custom build to order a new " shelter ! Mn'�' : there on J�ahm M 0 4 . This warehouse is 'down wind of industries and crematorium and freeway Wln6M Sboa smog . NAME ADDRESS i 416-692-11TO 044 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY) CONCORv,CA 9¢521 ._. RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSIROAL a tax free . government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . ®MUNOTY IN 1 . -This is a very , dangerous traffic . 0 me location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very 11®RTH poor in and out access and egress and visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit IJ ®N�®�® situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . �� 3 . Other sites or public land are VickL"lls available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter .-T there on . John N 4 . This warehouse is - down wind of u v� DO= industries and crematorium and freeway 1�Ih{DM .lOf1G! smog. NAME ADDRESS ke C-0 ki 4"a 4qq ' q r"moo/q/ + =—Ll O>? . v nv C" r ( / (( Lc Com( �IS•�92-I�?O {4yq ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL JAY, CONCORD,CA g4521 RESERVE - THE ®US i �lQ� We ob�ecg to 160 permanent residents ig a tax free overnment food and housin shelter in our neighborhood . OMMUNlTY IN 1 . This is very dangerous traffic Clocation on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep .curve with very poor in and out access and egress and. NORTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red "ink deficit CONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . Other sites or public land are available , and Mr . Bedford has offered Rick to custom build to order a new shelter H - mum* there on . John N 4 . This warehouse is down wind of L [�4R 'oR: industries and crematorium and freeway Win(" awls smog . NAME ADDRESS 4K-692 27o 141A ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY, CONCORP,CA W21 RESERVE THE IL We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRIAa tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood COMMU:LAITY IN 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic ® location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very 11®RTN poor in and out access and egress and visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit 'CONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . 3 . Other sites or public land are NickIss available , , and Mr . Bedford has offered "'� to custom build to order . a new shelter there on !Jahm a.-� N 4 . This warehouse is down wind of �tDIRWORs industries and crematorium and freeway MIIr1�Df1 JOfiL! smog . NAME ADDRESS �y L,,0 wey e'OXcorwl G rJ � >,r) �- z I�?o IVA AMOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY, CoNcoR®,CA 9¢521 0 RESERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in NDUSTRIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in our neighborhood . COMMUNIT, Y IN 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 . on a . steep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and NORTH visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit ®NCR® situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . P4 s1D�NT= 3 . Other sites or. public • land are u1CKl.� �� available , and Mr . Bedford has offered 9 � to custom build to order a new shelter there on . Jahn N 4 . This warehouse is 'down wind of CDIRTOM `industries and . crematorium and freeway 1�t�►�Dlt �t1td smog NAME ADDRESS 9'2_3 A/ NO. G✓�f. 416-6924870 IVA ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY) CONCORD,CA g4521 , J_ R'E' SERVE THE We object to 160 permanent residents in 1ADUSTRIAL a tax free government food and housing shelter in .our neighborhood . � � TY 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on a steep curve with very poor in and out access and egress and NORTH visibility . MrM 2 . As- taxpayers in a red ink deficit UONCORD situation can we afford this welfare home in a light industrial zone . 3 . Other sites or public, land are N4CKL► ! � available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter n 11w4 me there on . Jahn H -U . This warehouse is -down wind of industries and - crematorium and freeway Win�en �a1e� smog. NAME ADDRESS JUDD DRILLING _ 1927 Arnold Industrial way Concord, CA, 94520 r G 4'16-6921970 I ' 11 ArNOLD INOUST IALe WAY.s (!cwrA fan 4 n 0AA-71 RESERVE THE VV hdt � fA1t�� We object to 164 permanent residents in a tax free government food and housing shelter in, our neighborhood COMMUNITY 1N 1 . This is a very dangerous traffic location on a busy frontage road for Highway 4 on _a steep curve with very 110RTH poor in and out access and egress and visibility . 2 . As taxpayers in a red ink deficit CONC OIRD situation can we afford this ,welfare home in a light industrial zone . 3 - Other sites or public land are Mickhg1ss available , and Mr . Bedford has offered to custom build to order a new shelter .'jj �; there on , Jahn N U . This warehouse is down wind of with" �� industries and crematorium and freeway smog . NAME ADDRESS Id , ri CA col CdrO L ARNOLD 1NDU&-tRIAL WA CoMCo�D,�A g�5z1 • STAFF RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ® COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • i TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: May 15, 1992 i FROM: Hary Ee Bra do�ect r Y 9 - By: Dennis M. Barry i SUBJECT: Response to Public. Comments on the Notice of Negative Declaration for Proposed Central County Homerless Shelter Attached is the staff response to the public comments received on the Notice of Negative Declaration for the proposed Central County Homeless Shelter. i After reviewing the public comments and confirming our understanding of environmental conditions with expert and knowledgeable public agencies, staff concludes that a negative • declaration of environmental significance remains the appropriate determination for this project for purposes of compliance with the California;Environmental Quality Act and related County .Guidelines. i f • I RHD/aa j B5/NegDec.RD j cc: Housing Authority - Perfecto Villarreal ! County Counsel - Kevin Kerr I STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE NOTICED REVIEW PERIOD NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER NORTH CONCORD AREA I. INTRODUCTION On November 19, 1991 the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Develop- ment Department to conduct an initial study of a permanent homeless shelter proposed for an existing warehouse at #2047 Arnold Industrial Way in the North Concord area. After receiving a project description, the Community Development Department conducted an initial study which reviewed the project for possible environmental impacts including geotechnical, air quality, biotic, traffic, human health, and traffic. The study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. On February 26, 1992 a "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration" was issued and circulated pursuant to the State CEQA guidelines. The Notice provided for a comment period extending to March 30, 1992. • Letters were received from the public in response to the Notice. All of the letters received which objected to the proposed Negative Declaration are from private parties •� (groups or individuals); no public agencies have indicated any objection to the Negative Declaration finding. Attached is Table I which identifies the subject areas discussed in each letter for each commentator. Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the decision making body for this project, the Board of Supervisors, must consider the proposed negative declaration, together with comments received during the noticed review period. Although preparation of responses is not required by the CEQA Statute or Guidelines, staff has prepared these written responses to assist the Board in evaluating the proposed negative declaration in light of the comments received. In brief, staff does not find that any substantial evidence has been submitted which supports a fair argument that the project as proposed will result in any significant effect on the environment. Moreover, based upon the information received in connection with the conduct of the initial study and the expert opinion of the County traffic engineer and Sheriff's Office relative to traffic, parking and public safety, respectively, staff finds that clear and convincing evidence has been presented to refute the unsupported opinions of commentators requesting preparation of an EIR. This is not a marginal case; no conflicting expert opinion has been presented contending that any significant effects on the environment will occur from approval of the proposed homeless shelter. 2 • II. MISUNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT It is apparent that a number of individuals who are objecting to the project have a misunderstanding of the scale of the project. As the project description indicates, the proposed permanent shelter is intended for a maximum occupancy of 60 residents year-round, with an overflow capacity of up to 100 residents. (The primary purpose of the overflow is to accommodate additional occupancy during winter months.) The "Notice of Intent" also indicates that the permanent shelter is intended to accommo- date up to 100 individuals. Notwithstanding this declaration of the operational scale of the proposed shelter, eight letters and a.dozen petitions inaccurately assert that the shelter would accommodate up to 160 individuals. Staff believes that this misunderstanding of the scale of the proposed operation is contributing to unsubstantial fears and concerns about what impacts of the shelter are likely to be. III. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW PROCESS Listed below are the steps that were considered before staff completed the initial study: A. A project description including a noise analysis was received and reviewed. • • B. A site inspection of the property was conducted, including an examination of the nearby properties. The inspection included an examination of the building interior and exterior areas, a review of nearby activities, road system and access to nearby bus stop. C. Staff completed the initial study utilizing in-house resources. The environmental resource map overlay system; this system contains resource information on 21 categories of environmental characteristics such as soils and geotechnical noise contours, dam inundation areas, transmission pipelines conditions, rare and endangered animal and plant species, historical sites, etc.; these characteristics are overlaid on a 7'/z minute United States Geological Survey Base Map upon which the project site is depicted. Attachment C is a list of the overlay maps that were reviewed for this initial study. Review of the Federal Emergency Management Administration Flood Hazard Map. Review of the Alquist-Priolo (seismic safety) Special Study Zone base maps to determine if the site might lie within a special study zone. 3. IV. 1990 NORTH CONCORD REORGANIZATION PROJECT EIR Some comments make reference to the North Concord Reorganization Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City of Concord served as lead agency for that EIR. The project involved a proposal to annex 225 acres on the north side of Highway 4 to the City of Concord. The current shelter site is located in the study area of that EIR. The study area adjoined the Tosco refinery and tank storage farm, gas wells, and Concord Naval Weapons Station. The Final EIR (responses-to-comments document) was issued on September 23, 1988,three years before the shelter proposal was made. by the County. Hence, the Concord EIR makes no reference or investigation into any impacts concerning the subject homeless shelter nor homeless shelters in general. The Concord EIR also does not specifically discuss nor reference the site where the homeless shelter will be located. A. EIR Findings The differences between the proposed North Concord Reorganization Project and the proposed Central County Homeless Shelter are marked and show that the Concord EIR is not significantly relevant to the subject homeless shelter proposal. The Final Concord EIR determined that with.two exceptions all of the identified • ® potential environmental impacts were either found to be insignificant impacts or impacts that could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Air quality, police and fire services, and public utilities were all determined to have insignificant impacts or impacts that could be mitigated. B. Refinery and Traffic/Parking Hazards The two impacts which the North Concord Reorganization Project EIR determined could not be mitigated were (1) the identification of a potential risk of explosion associated with proximity to the Tosco Refinery, and (2)traffic and parking impacts. These impacts were identified as unavoidable relative to the proposed annexation project area. With regard to the reported traffic impacts, the EIR indicated that development ,as permitted under City policies could be fully mitigated such that roads and intersections would operate in accord with City standards. The only unmitigat- able traffic and parking impact was associated with the change in the "character" of the use of the roadways. The EIR does not make clear what is meant by the impacted "character" of the use of local roadways. 4. . As discussed below, the only traffic expert to review the proposed shelter and shelter site has concluded that the shelter operation will not pose any significant traffic hazards. Attached is a 4/15/92 memorandum from LeRoy Vukad of the Public Works Department. Mr. Vukad has been a registered traffic engineer with the State of California for 15 years (License #0829) and has 33 years of experience in traffic safety matters as an employee of the County of Contra Costa. The only concern expressed in the Public Works memorandum regarding traffic safety pertains to the loading of passengers of the van shuttle serving the shelter on the opposite side of Arnold Industrial Way. The shelter project manager has indicated that the proposed permanent shelter will utilize the shelter's driveway for loading of shelter-residents. See Attachment I. With regard to the Tosco Refinery impact, the Concord EIR considered a large (225-acre) study area. Portions of the study area were within 500 feet of the Tosco oil storage tank farm. The portions nearest the tank farm could be argued to be at some risk from an explosion at the tank farm or refinery (located further to the north). However, the subject shelter site is at the southern extreme of the North Concord EIR study area, located approximately 4,000 feet from the nearest storage tank. It is reasonable to gauge that the risk of danger to the proposed shelter,residents from the potentially explosive tanks is- reduced to a level of insignificance due to the nearly one mile of • separation of the site from the potentially explosive tank farm and approxi- mately 9,000 feet from the Tosco Refinery. V. DISCUSSION The following discussion summarizes the public comments on the Negative Declaration by subject area and presents the staff response. A. Earth (Seismic) Summary of Public Comment: The initial study did not discuss the Concord Fault. (Clyde group; Taxpayers' Objections.) Response: Section 2697(a) of the Public Resources Code (Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act) only requires that geotechnical investigations be conducted for sites within designated seismic hazard zones. The purpose of the investigation is to determine the location of any active or potentially active fault trace crossing the property. If a site is not located within a seismic hazard zone, then there is no reason to believe that any active or potentially active fault crosses the site. Therefore, State law does not require any geotechnical investigations for sites outside a seismic hazard zone. •5. As the initial study notes, no portion of the subject property lies within a designated Alquist-Priolo seismic hazard (Special Study) zone (including that encompassing the Concord Fault). The site is Located approximately 1 ,600 feet to the east of the seismic hazard zone for the Concord Fault. The conversion of the building from warehouse use to human occupancy will include seismic safety improvements. The commentators introduce no evidence that the project will be subject to potentially significant seismic safety impacts. B. Air 1 . Summary of Public Comment: The prior Concord EIR stated that people in this area are exposed to levels of sulphur dioxide and toxic air pollutants at least as high as those at the Concord monitoring station, and to higher levels if there is an accidental release. (Segal declar., exhibit H, p.3-50.) Response: The Concord EIR does not indicate, and there is no evidence, that the emission levels which might affect this area are potentially ® harmful to human health. Therefore, the comment that the site may be subject to significant air pollution levels may be regarded as conjecture, • and an unsupported non-expert opinion. There is no evidence that ambient air pollution has caused health impacts to residents or workers in the area, many of whom must have been in the area over a long-term. By contrast, shelter residents will generally be in the area for a short- term period and, therefore, less susceptible to any adverse air pollution conditions. 2. Summary of Public Comment: The Concord EIR also stated that some pollutants in the,area, especially hydrogen sulfide, are odorous. There is an established history of complaints about odors from facilities in this area. More odor complaints and conflicts with industrial uses will result when more.people come into this area. The greatest potential for complaints is at night when winds are light and atmospheric stability is high (but the population smaller). It is environmentally unsound to increase the evening population in this area. (Segal declar., exhibit H, p. 8-4; Memory Gardens, paras. 10 and 11 .) Response: No such complaints are anticipated from the client popula- tion. Normal operation of. the building's heating, ventilating and air conditioning system should keep odor levels in the shelter to a minimum. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District monitors the adjoining Memory Gardens crematorium and has recently inspected the facility. • 6. i The District last inspected the crematorium in January, 1992 at which time no violations were found. See Attachment K. The District has concluded that the facility is not generating any air emissions that would be hazardous to human health. 3. Summary of Public Comment: The crematorium at Memory Gardens started operating at night in the fall of 1990 when complaints from neighbors (primarily from 2045 Arnold Industrial Way) were received by the Bay Area Ai'r Quality Management District. Crematorium odors are distinct and some find them unpleasant. BAAQMD issued citations against Memory Gardens. Shelter occupants will be exposed to crematorium emissions. The crematorium is within 200 feet of the shelter. (Memory Garden, para. 11 .) The prevailing winds blow east. Fumes are worse in warmer months. (Memory Gardens, para. 6.) The crematorium should not be near residential uses. (New Silva declar., para. 6; Old Silva declar., para. 4; Segal declar., exhibit C [pp. 9-101.) Response: No claim is made that the crematorium emissions exceed any state or local standards, or otherwise present a significant risk to the health and welfare of shelter residents. No evidence is presented ® that the odor levels in the area will constitute a significant adverse • effect. Judged against the alternative of homelessness, intermittent odors are a minor irritant, if they are noticed at all. 4. Summary of Public Comment: The shelter is downwind of the sewage plant and garbage dump. (Segal declar., exhibit I.) Response: The shelter site is nearly 1-1/3 miles from the sewage plant of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The site is over two miles from the Acme Landfill. See Attachment F. There is no evidence to conclude that being downwind from those facilities constitutes any health risk. 5. Summary of Public Comment: The initial study is silent regarding emissions from the Tosco Refinery, the sanitary district, and treatment ponds. (Taxpayers' Objections, pg. 8.) Response: There is no evidence that the emissions cited constitute a threat to the health of shelter residents. The shelter site is 1-1/3 miles from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District sewage plant and treatment ponds; and 1-3/4 miles from the Tosco Refinery. See Attachment F. Given the distances between these sources and the site, and taking into account the prevailing winds in the area, dispersion can be expected to occur to such a degree that residents will not be more affected by these sources than existing residents and employees located • in proximity to the project site. No evidence has been presented, and 7. ® i none is available in the project record that such residents and employees who have been subjected to long term exposure to these conditions have been negatively impacted by being downwind of these sources. In contrast, shelter residents will be even less affected, if at all, since their stays at the shelter will be short-term, rather than long-term. Attachment M is a 9/17/91 Board of Supevisors Resolution pertaining to the shelter operation including restriction that limits the stay of any resident to a maximum of six months (180 days). 6. Summary of'Public Comment: The area where the shelter is located is a low pocket for fog, smog, and acid rains, and sometimes has zero visibility. (Segal declar., exhibit I.) Response: The comment is not supported by evidence that this site is dangerous as to air quality and meteorological conditions. C. Water Summary of Public Comment: The shelter is within CCWD, not EBMUD, so the Mokelumne Aqueduct should not have been discussed. (Clyde group.) Response: The project does lie within the service district of the Contra Costa i Water District. However, the comment does not challenge the validity of the "no significant impact" finding. D. Noise Summary of Public Comment: The initial study's noise study is inadequate because it studied a temporary, not permanent, shelter, and gave no details of mitigation to bring noise down to 45 decibels. (Clyde group.) Response: The noise study report was merely mislabeled. The report was based on the proposed permanent shelter. The. noise study indicates that the exterior and interior noise levels for the shelter are not significant and that no mitigation is necessary. E. Land Use 1 . Summary.of Public Comment: Placing 100 persons in a shelter in an industrial area is a substantial alteration of existing uses. The Concord EIR stated that prudent planning would ensure that sensitive uses (e.g., for residences) be separated and buffered from industrial area. (Memory Gardens, para. 15.) 8. • Response: Staff disagrees with this comment. The subject site is bordered on two sides by a cemetery. Other nearby uses consist of an aqueduct right-of-way and light industrial warehouse uses. No heavy industrial operations lie within the immediate vicinity of the project. The shelter rules and regulations preclude loitering. All resident activities are limited to the shelter building and patio area. Further, there are at lease two residences in the vicinity of the shelter site. The only use that is being changed is the one affecting the subject warehouse site. The change represents,less than A of 1 % of the area studied in Concord's EIR. Staff does not consider this a substantial alteration of land use in the area. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the proposed shelter would cause other existing uses in the neighborhood to change., 2. Summary of Public Comment: The initial study did not consider the intrusion on the privacy and serenity of mourners at Memory Gardens. (Taxpayers' Objections, pg. 8.) Response: This is considered a social impact. As such, the California Environmental Quality Act does not require that the privacy and serenity • of mourners be considered unless such disruption might generate a potentially significant (physical) impact. (See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)). ,The comment fails to identify any such impact that might result from the project. Therefore, the comment is not relevant for the purposes of determining this project's potential to create a significant effect on the environment. Still, the permanent shelter will provide for an outdoor patio area adjacent to Arnold Industrial Way as shown on the site plan accompany- ing the initial study. Use of the sideyard adjoining the cemetery operation will be converted to strictly an emergency access route to and from the structure. All shelter resident activities shall be confined to the patio area or the interior of the.shelter. Shelter rules and regulations prohibit loitering elsewhere. F. Risk of Upset - (Proximity to Industrial Uses/Lack of Emergency Plan) 1 . Summary of Public Comment: Large industries are in the area: I.T., Tosco, Monsanto Chemical Plant, and the Siemens medical lab (manufacturer of radioactive equipment). The shelter has close proximity to other -hazardous facilities such as Southern Pacific Transportation Company, RMC Lonestar, the Concord Naval Weapons Station (including railroad storage), American Gas, Lesher's newspaper printing facility, a cement plant (with 30 to 40 mixer trucks), wells and 9. abandoned wells, gas wells, pipelines, chemical plants, and tank farms. The prior Concord EIR discussed such facilities as potential hazards. (Memory Gardens, para. 5; Taxpayers' Objections, pp. 4, 6, 7, and 12; Clyde group.) Response: The Concord EIR addressed a project that is considerably different from the present one. The North Concord Reorganization Project involved an area encompassing 225 acres, some of which was directly adjacent to the described industrial activities. By contrast, the subject site is less than one-half acre. None of the described industrial activities adjoin the site and most are a mile or more away. The uses adjoining the subject site consist of cemetery and light industrial uses. The comments fail to provide evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that the project would create any potentially significant impacts to project residents, or otherwise. No evidence of any significant potential hazards from neighboring properties, or activities has been presented. Despite an abundance of similarly situated residential areas throughout the industrial rim of Contra Costa County (Richmond, Hercules, Rodeo, Martinez, West Pittsburg, Clyde, ® Pittsburg,Antioch, Oakley), no evidence is presented to demonstrate the • alleged dangers, let alone any danger on this site. Even if we assumed that there may be significant hazards associated with industrial operations in the area studied for the Concord EIR (there is no substantial evidence), which we do not assume, that document does not represent that those hazards are equally significant throughout the North Concord area, nor that they would pose any threat to the shelter operation. The County is familiar with the Siemens operation's use of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials is so limited that no special monitoring of the operation by the County or other public agency is required beyond the standard annual inspection. 2. Summary of Public Comment: The Concord EIR expressed concerns about allowing residential development in the area because of incompati- bility with industrial uses such as.truck terminals, auto dismantlers, and heavy construction. (Memory-Gardens, para. 8.) Response: Please refer to preceding response. The uses in the immediate vicinity of the shelter consist of a cemetery, aqueduct right- of-way and light industry. There is no evidence to suggest that shelter ® residents would be subject to any significant hazard associated with existing neighborhood activity.. 10. 3. Summary of Public Comment: The Concord EIR stated that annexation may alter the area's historical operation as a buffer zone between industrial uses and uses where many people are present. (Memory Gardens, para. 8.) Response: The comment does not pertain to identification of a potentially significant environmental impact and, therefore, has no relevance for calling into question the CEQA determination for this ro'ect. 4. Summary of Public Comment: The Concord EIR found that an explosion at the Tosco Refinery associated with proximity to the refinery was an unavoidable and adverse environmental impact. Issues arise concerning emergency response time, the control of such a risk, and the mitigation of risks (such as an alternative shelter site). The initial study did not consider the refinery's history of accidents, releases of hazardous materials, or explosions. (Memory Gardens, para. 12 and exhibit D; Taxpayers' Objections, p. 7; Segal declar., exhibit H.) Response: Again, the subject site involves only a fraction of the area studied as part of Concord's EIR. Furthermore, unlike the project area • studied by Concord, no portion adjoins the Tosco Refinery. In fact, the shelter site is as remote as it could be from the refinery, and still be within the formerly proposed annexation area. There is no substantial evidence that an explosion at the refinery would subject project residents to any risk. It seems to staff ironic that some commentators (Segal declar., p. 3, Taxpayers Objection, p. 10) have suggested as an alternative site for the shelter the County owned property at the corner of Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Way. That site is much closer to the refinery oil storage tanks, and presumably subject to greater damage from refinery accident than the subject site. In a memorandum dated April 20, 1992, the Community Development Department reviews the results of an investigation as to the hazard potential of toxic chemicals and radioactive materials within 2,000 feet of the site. Refer to Attachment H. The investigation involved contacts with the County Health Services Department, State Clearinghouse and the California Environmental Protection Agency. While there are some uses generating hazardous wastes in the vicinity, these activities are subject to the rules and regulations of the State of California and the County Health Services Department. The memorandum concludes that these operations are being regulated and monitored, and that they do not pose a serious health hazard to the residents of the project, and can • be served by the safety operations currently in place for the area. 11 . 5. Summary of Public Comment: Oil storage tank fires and explosions have occurred in the U.S. (Segal declar., exhibit H.) Response: The project site is three-quarters of a mile from the nearest oil storage tank; see Item IV. B above, regarding the Tosco oil tanks. 6. Summary of Public Comment: The exposure of a large number of human beings, without an Emergency Response Plan is not consistent with Federal laws regarding the use of federally-funded projects. (Clyde group; Taxpayers' Objections, p. 7.) Response: The comment pertains to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) not CEQA. For purposes of compliance with the NEPA, the Community Development Department has also conducted an Environ- mental Assessment of the proposed shelter. The assessment consid- ered possible historic preservation, flood plain management, wetlands protection, endangered species, air quality, noise abatement, explosive and flammable operations, and toxic chemicals/radioactive materials impacts. Consistent with the Negative Declaration issued for the CEQA analysis,the NEPA Environmental Assessment determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact was appropriate for the shelter project. The allegation that many people are being exposed to hazardous materials and substances is not supported by any evidence. G. Transportation/Circulation 1 . Summary of Public Comment: Arnold Industrial Way is a dangerous road since it's always busy; has two lanes; is on an incline; has an S- curve in front of the shelter; and is heavily traveled by fast-moving trucks, heavy equipment, buses (from nearby yard), and autos. (New Silva declaration, para. 5; Taxpayers' Objections, pg. 5; Jones declar., p. 3; Segal declar., exhibits A and G {p. 48].) Response: A County traffic safety expert has investigated the site; reviewed the proposed project; and has reviewed the exhibit submitted by Winton Jones. See attached 4/15/92 memorandum from Leroy Vukad of the Public Works Department. Mr. Vukad has been a Registered Traffic Engineer with the State of California (License #0829) for 15 years, and has 33 years of experience with traffic safety matters as an employee of the County of Contra Costa. He has concluded that the project will not result in any potentially significant traffic safety � i 12. problem. The commentators have not introduced any substantial evidence (expert or otherwise) that would lead one to conclude that the project might result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the alignment of Arnold Industrial Way poses any significant dangers to shelter residents. The Jones photos are not substantial evidence because among other things, circumstances surrounding the taking of the photos are not provided. The statements in the Jones declaration are merely vague, overly general opinions and fears without a proper factual.foundation. 2. Summary of Public Comment: A fatal head-on collision once occurred in front of the shelter site. (Segal, exhibit A.) Response: The comments do not constitute substantial evidence that project residents would be placed in any significant danger due to nearby traffic conditions. No relationship of the referenced traffic accident to the proposed shelter operation is established. 3. Summary of Public Comment: The prior Concord EIR said development ® would create additional traffic volumes and aggravate existing problems. • (Memory Gardens, exhibit D.) The shelter will increase traffic. (Taxpayers' Objections, p. 5.) Response: The project description indicates that few homeless persons drive or possess cars; and transportation needs of the project residents will be satisfied by the use of a van shuttle/transportation service. To a lesser extent, residents will also utilize nearby bus services. The initial study indicates that on this basis, the project is likely to have similar traffic generating characteristics as would warehouse or light industrial operations. While the project may increase the traffic levels on existing nearby streets, no substantial evidence is presented to suggest that there is either a significant congestion problem affecting the local streets or that one would be created by this project. 4. Summary of Public Comment: The County did not conduct a traffic study, a safety study, or volume analysis. (Memory Gardens, para. 13.) The initial study is silent as to the number of trips to be generated. (Taxpayers' Objections, pg. 5.) 13. Response: Contrary to the concern of the comment, the proposed shelter is not expected to significantly increase either traffic volumes or pedestrian activity in the neighborhood. The transportation needs of project residents will largely be met by a van shuttle operation which will come directly to the site. There is no evidence that residents will be relying to any significant degree on private automobiles or wandering about the area. The shelter rules and regulations prohibit loitering. Further, there is no substantial evidence that local streets are incapable of handling any additional traffic resulting from this development 5. Summary of Public Comment: The prior Concord EIR noted that on- street parking on Arnold Industrial Way reduces vehicle clearance and restricts sight distances at driveways and intersections, especially if trucks are so parked. Lane width should not be reduced to less than 12 feet. Speed monitoring needs to be increased and traffic control measures need to be installed on Arnold Industrial Way. (Memory Gardens, para. 13; Jones,declar., p. 2; Segal declar., exhibit H, pg. 6- 14.) Response: A County traffic expert has inspected the subject site, and • reviewed the project description and-comments in the Winton Jones declaration. See attached 4/15/92 Public Works memorandum. He has concluded that the proposed project would not pose any traffic impact to project residents or the community. No evidence has been submitted connecting any on-street parking with operation of the shelter. 6. Summary of Public Comment: The shelter has caused an increase in street parking, including illegal parking. The shelter lacks on-site parking. The change to a 24-hour shelter, deliveries to the shelter, and the need for parking for support staff mean that additional parking will be required. (Taxpayers' Objections, p. 5; Jones declar.) Response: The site plan attached to the project description indicates that there will be 21 spaces available to the proposed permanent shelter on-site. Six additional part-time spaces for a total of 27 spaces assigned to the shelter are also available in the evening. The six part- time spaces are assigned during the day to a light industrial (drilling) tenant who occupies the adjoining space in the building proposed for shelter use. Few homeless persons possess cars; and because transportation services are to be provided for shelter residents, none will have need for a car while at the shelter. The County Off-street Parking Ordinance does not apply to the shelter project. But were the County to apply the • standards of the ordinance applicable to private development as a 14. guideline for determining the requirements for the shelter operation, then it is apparent that the proposed shelter parking will be adequate. The proposed parking to shelter capacity ratio (27 spaces/100 persons; or 1 +:4 persons) exceeds the ratio which the County would require for more car-dependent uses (auditoriums, theaters-min. 1 space/4 seats). The comments provide no substantial evidence that cars on the street are associated with the existing temporary shelter operation. These vehicles may be associated with,other activities in the area. 7. Summary of Public Comment: There has been a significant increase in foot traffic on Arnold Industrial Way to and from the shelter. People (five to ten people a day [new Silva declar., para. 41) are seen constantly going in and out of the shelter. (Segal declar., exhibit G, pp. 28, 44; new Silva declar., para. 4.) Response: The comment fails to show that an increase in foot traffic would adversely affect the environment. In staff's view, an increase in foot traffic does not constitute a significant effect upon the environ- ment. 8. Summary of Public Comment: Shelter occupants must walk along the • road because sidewalks are intermittent and inadequate. There are no crosswalks. (Old Silva declar., exhibit A; Taxpayers' Objections, p. 5; Segal declar., exhibit H, pg. 3-14 and exhibits B and G [p. 271; new Silva declar. para. 5.) Response: Most shelter residents will use the shuttle van which will deliver and pick-up residents on the shelter site. For those occasions when residents do use the Local transit (bus) system, there is an existing unobstructed path adjacent to Arnold Industrial Way between the shelter site and the bus stop, one-quarter mile to the east. The only street crossing would occur at the 'intersection of Industrial Way which is a minor street and posted with a stop sign. There is no evidence that existing pedestrian access to the bus stop will constitute a hazard of any kind. 9. Summary of Public Comment: A hole was cut in the fence below the highway after the shelter opened. Persons cross Arnold Industrial Way at this point, which poses a serious risk. (New Silva declar., para. 4.) Response: There is no evidence that the cut in the fence was caused by the shelter residents, nor that crossing Arnold Industrial Way poses a significant environmental impact. Most transportation needs of shelter ® residents will be satisfied by an on-site van shuttle service. Shelter , 15. residents will also be able to access local transit services without having to cross Arnold Industrial Way. Moreover, the sight distance situation of Arnold Industrial Way, including that section between the referenced State Highway 4 undercrossing and the shelter site, has been examined by a registered traffic engineer who has concluded that sight distance is adequate. See Attachment G. 10. Summary of Public Comment: The bus stop is at some distance from the shelter (more than a quarter-mile from the shelter). It cannot be reached safely because of the discontinuous and inadequate sidewalks and lack of crosswalks. Sidewalks are needed to and from the bus stop. Because the vans are full, shelter occupants are led to use public buses. (New Silva declar., para. 5; Taxpayers' Objections, pp. 4=5; Segal declar., exhibits B, G [p. 411, and H [p. 6-14).) Resnonse: The project description indicates that vans will be the principal mode of transportation for residents of the permanent shelter. Local transit services will also be used to a lesser extent. A bus stop lies within one-quarter mile to the east of the corner of Arnold Industrial Way and there is no substantial evidence that pedestrian access between the shelter and the bus stop.will be hazardous. The stop is on the same side of the street as the shelter and contains no barriers that would block pedestrian access. A County traffic safety expert has examined the access to the bus stop and in his opinion it does not pose any hazard. See Attachment G, memorandum from a registered traffic engineer of the Public Works Department. 11 . Summary of Public Comment: Arnold Industrial Way has poor street- lighting. (Segal declar., para. 3, and exhibit B.) Response: There are several points to be made in response to this comment. First, shelter rules provide for a night-time curfew so shelter residents will not be wandering off the shelter site. At night, transporta- tion to and from the shelter will be limited to the van shuttle, shelter service vehicles and private vehicles (involving shelter employees and volunteers). Second, there are three street light standards along the section of Arnold Industrial Way immediately in front of the shelter site, providing adequate lighting for the shelter area. Third, no substantial evidence has been presented (e.g., history of night time traffic accidents) that the establishment of the permanent shelter operation will result in any traffic hazard along Arnold Industrial Way ® because of existing street lighting conditions. 16. 12. Summary of Public Comment: Shelter occupants will wander in the area and disrupt surrounding businesses, panhandle,and negatively affectthe cemetery's business, interfering with quiet mourners. (Old Silva declar., para. 6 and exhibit A; new Silva declar., para. 5; Segal declar., exhibits B and l.) Response: The comments constitute unsubstantiated conjecture about the operation of the shelter. The project description indicates that rules and regulations will be enforced to prevent loitering or other disturbance of neighboring properties and individuals. Shelter residents will be confined to the premises (either within the shelter itself or the proposed exterior patio area). 13. Summary of Public Comment: The County does not offer, traffic controls, sidewalks, crosswalks, lights, or any safety measures (Taxpayers' Objections, p. 12.) Response: A County traffic expert of the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed project, the subject site and environs, and is satisfied that existing improvements are adequate for the proposed ® operation. See attached 4/15/92 memorandum from the Public Works Department. The proposed operation will be conducted such that shelter residents will never have need to cross Arnold Industrial Way. Residents will be confined to the shelter premises. Van shuttle transportation will allow residents to be picked up and returned on the shelter property. A bus stop is located on the same side of the street, one-quarter mile to the east. H. Public Services/Police Protection 1 . Summary of Public Comment: Crime has reportedly increased since the shelter opened and is believed to be attributable to the shelter. Memory Gardens claims that trespasses, littering, loitering, vandalism, distur- bances of the peace, and attempted break-ins (two reported to the Sheriff) have occurred. The Sheriff's Department allegedly claims that crimes have substantially.increased since the shelter opened. Nearby businesses (such as at 1909 Arnold Industrial Way).have been harassed and the targets of crimes. (New Silva declar., para. 6; Taxpayers' Objections, p. 9; and Segal declar., exhibit G [pp. 32, 44].) Response: No evidence has been submitted that establishes any linkage between any 'purported criminal activity and the operation of the temporary homeless shelter. The Sheriff's Department has indicated that existing staff and facilities will adequately serve the site. 17. Attachment N is a letter from an owner of property in the area indicating that criminal activity was present in the area long before the temporary shelter commenced operations. The referenced 11/5/91 Sheriff-Coroner's Office memorandum was prepared prior to that Department's review of the project description describing the program for the proposed permanent shelter. The 2/7/92 letter from the Sheriff-Coroner's Office should be regarded as the informed position of that office based on a more complete understanding of how the shelter will operate. 2. Summary of Public Comment: The permanent shelter will substantially increase crimes in the area and the need for police patrol, calls, and supervision. (New Silva declar., para. 6'.) Response: No evidence has been presented that supports this allega- tion. The project description indicates that rules and regulations will be enforced to control resident behavior. Further, the Sheriff's Department has reviewed the project and has indicated that it can adequately serve the project and the neighborhood. • I. Miscellaneous 1 . Summary of Public Comment: Operations from Buchanan Field may endanger shelter residents. (Segal declar., exhibit I.) Response: The County Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed Buchanan Field Airport operations and determined that the only areas subject to significant aircraft accident hazard are at the ends of the runways. The Commission has designated safety zones at each of these locations. The subject site is at least one-quarter mile away from the nearest airport safety zone. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the shelter is not subject to a significant hazard from airplane accident. 2. Summary of Public Comment: The County should be required to consider alternatives to the proposed site including development of the shelter at the County-owned property at Imhoff Drive and Waterbird Way and the Martinez Veterans Hospital site. 18. Response: The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines only require alternatives to be considered if an environmental impact report is prepared. Alternatives are not required if a project qualifies for a Negative Declaration. Because of the staff conclusion on the Negative Declaration for the CEQA determination for this project, alternatives are not relevant to the environmental review of this homeless shelter project. At the same time, it should be noted that the County has considered and rejected a number of other sites for development of the proposed shelter. To the extent that alternatives are considered, the equitable consider- ation of the affected homeless persons should not be ignored. Attachment 0 is a memorandum from the Housing Authority reporting on the high occupancy levels associated with the existing temporary shelter operation. Should the proposed permanent shelter not be approved, then there are few alternative facilities to accommodate the individuals whose needs would otherwise be addressed by the Concord ® shelter. RHD/aa b5/Shelter.RD 5/14/92 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. TABLE I -Cross-Tabulation of Commentators to Initial Study Including Areas of General Concern and Specific CEQA Subject Area. B. Excerpt from City of Concord, 1988 North Concord Reorganization Project Environ- mental Impact Report. C. List of Overlay Maps, Environmental Resource Map Overlay System. D. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Hazard Map, Panel 95 of 625,7/16/87. E. 1/28/87 Noise Study, Charles Salter Assoc. F. Industrial Operations in North Concord Area. G. 4/15/92 Memorandum from Public Works. H. 4/20/92 Memorandum from Community Development Department regarding Potential for Hazardous/Toxic Wastes in Proximity to Shelter. I. 5/11/92 Memorandum from Housing Authority Stipulating that Van Shuttle Drop-offs and Pick-ups will Occur on Shelter Site. J. 5/11/92 letter from Charles M. Salter regarding a correction to the 1/28/92 noise study. K. 4/15/92 memorandum from Megan Ryan (Contra Costa County Community Development Department) concerning Bay Area Air Quality Management District inspection of the Memory Gardens Crematorium. L. Transmittal from Bay Area Air Quality Management District on Results of 1/15/91 Inspection of Memory Gardens Crematorium. M. Board of Supevisors Resolution No. 91/608 pertaining to Establishment of the Shelter Program including Limitations on the Stays of Shelter Reesidents (9/17/91). N. 3/26/92 Letter from William H. Moran concerning the history of criminal activity in the shelter vicinity. 0. 5/11/92 memorandum from the Housing Authority concerning the occupancy rate of the temporary shelter operation. d d d d O U Z O Q U �y Z 7p� vaJ Z Q F`� 4,p ~ � d QU ow o � O Q. , _ o cs d � cr, � Q `t'Wgd d d U a X X d a 0 a A � X XX x x X X X X X k XX Q::4 d TMTM'' X X d P Q Q w a' ee k X Q k X X X Q a X kk X w: M ro x _ X X X 'k 0 N 'O y •r> 'O � C cO v's � c.� �s �, a � O : o• � woNa s o a I NN a cel O c0 µ Gayt`T w N NG OO N GNTI rNn' Nq'3 4M ,GNMM_ 'Q = „�,,, O O d � C+w �' � � � y � w ^� •u `O N M y O` � w y O <"� M � �cct � � W� 8d � o � Na, « imcw " Uc� apav x d Q C`� 8 F d o ,. o � U o Mo � � N � v � = at as U U � H U oc 1 0M i ce • O H q c •V N > `pUC aatdU �U UoaU r x. 0ai ? o C % b� W= m a yY GJ, `� w po M Ogy�� aoZU•'"�" �b"'+ x� UaQ y �O °ol Id ,� vp UAO"oa t73E�-3 $ 3 47 o c 3 � UOU vC33 � 3zQixpE° r� cx � 4) .. 0 o p, p U cd a - vy U d C? c, °° � ° Cd a U ri U r d U x w 0 F z x x O U U 1 P7 A. Wx x x x x x x x x x d W< z � 'v a w: U: a w> as - � o aa:w H ��II yr,II x x x yU1 U N k x F . ix U w: O: 'a Q N C O O O O, M L a y V U y I I N 'r. j.. F z d T O 'C M d 2 C7 O O w O w p q[Q U p p� �Yr a .� v N a N T a p d > o Z " pp I Cd N o .I ZM N Deva I N O C 7 cd �. 7 eco M NNi N N 0 7 r ti o.« p �$ I C I I C `� M I N I _ w .-w m .y `p 0 U d O r n air, d c cqo, ^ yah y N C ro V ° a c � � o I I a c ow yUc%> > o y > d I I x M o N c ❑ y C a ~N C p ed id C O by�y w. U 1 L :d ty y M y �. : p °� y C7 C C IL Ud g ad � d a .« oU o � I ai b H U U U U v� d _ wQHqwQyQ ONHq yaya � M _ 8v� .oa , � $ c d x y C -C d V F U V ~O, „ "-, ' N z �" � '-+ c n co N y b U b .�.. N �. •O cd 'C c0 C C C p .O b p cd O W '= a .5 �U a = n ° $ v ° � �l � � cc cl a � [ .� E � 33 cts 0 Q O P. O U ca Q ., O 3 0 d "� b ¢" N c~�d o .= cn .� ° U �_ ••°o �. C G CL rU C�Q c•i 4U v U dU ao � o eOq; 2000 oU o� vi3ZC ago raa: � C73F3 ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION • DOCUMENTATION • RESTORATION 127 Westem Drive • Pt Richmond,CA 94801 • (415)236-2361 j RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT �. ON THE NORTH CONCORD REORGANIZATION PROJECT PREPARED FOR THE I CITY OF CONCORD PLANNING DIVISION CONCORD,CALIFORNIA SCH #87072811 i 23 SEPTEMBER 1988 • ' C� ER_ CHAPTER 6 r, FINAL EIR SUMMARY PROJECT AREA LOCATION . The proposed reorganization project area is located in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, immediately north and west of the current limits of the City of Concord. The project area is generally encompassed by State Route 4 to the south, Bates Avenue to the north, Solano Way to the west, and the southern portion of Industrial Way to the east. Teatures in the surrounding area include urban development to the south; Mallard Reservoir and undeveloped land to the north; oil storage tanks and refineries to the west, and the Diablo Creek Golf Course (City of .Concord) and the Concord Naval Weapons Station to the east. Figures 1 and 2 from the Draft EIR show the regional location of the proposed reorganization area and features in the project vicinity. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of (1) annexation of approximately 225 acres to the City of . Concord,.and (2) annexation of approximately 94 acres to the service boundaries of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary .District. As the proposed action involves annexations by two local ( agencies, the project is termed a "reorganization" under Government Code Section 56073 of the L Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. Figure 3, from the Draft EIR, depicts the reorganization boundaries, delineating areas proposed for annexation to the City of Concord and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. As indicated in Figure 3, the Bates Avenue right-of-way between Port Chicago Highway to Mallard Reservoir is also proposed for annexation to the City of Concord. The right-of-way has been considered as part of the annexation to the City by the Local Agency Formation Commission during the reorganization process, but was inadvertently omitted from the description contained in the Draft EIR. Upon annexation, the City of Concord would assume .improvement and maintenance responsibilities of Bates Avenue. No other changes in the environmental analysis described in the Draft EIR would result from inclusion of the Bates Avenue right-of-way into the reorganization area. IDENTIFIED N PROJECT ISSUES AND IDENTI CONCERNS ERN S The scope of the Draft EIR was based on information provided by City staff, responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and input received during two scoping sessions for the project. The scoping sessions were conducted on 24 July and 7 August 1987. During the sessions, property owners, their representatives, and staff from Contra Costa County and the City of Concord discussed the issues and concerns associated with the proposed project. Identified issues included: land use, traffic and circulation, air quality, hydrology and drainage, geology 6- 1 4 � Go�`ARpRA " � - a, fes^,. a_ �,... r;• < '� � _ -�- - - -�r�- � �,t��''3�5V `ttc'� - f0:• .,f ,r:f s c.+, tot. - i�i • �.�. 't`o� ��t,�i_ �• � j# ^a` � _ .r .tip' ..` 1 o ° � �- L "�- fA et - rz� ♦art ••i..te��. *� Y •.. wh 1- I i L '• 1 l�att01>t �.'� .. 1 ` Q�4•fi ..�..c;�., s+► r •eoY' ... C„•_ ��'?~`�c.'-J \ �= i. r �� ."'' + ,>�-y � -�•r. •►♦•gyp ..tto�ao �'. S.. �*•' t ' � fit.M\ � *'.`\ _ .SII o�(' � � _ Ia •�•• ` ••`_�,�;�,`' � �'+•Cq S1. l _ �a-w',., � -� .;�� " ' a '° .:,�,..•..,'!�"�'.••Jam. °,.rr,^'.j i •� ��.':.t/J t. + ati� •�-„ t; ' `�}�f,,�.1 �'Y s•^ r�1:r.•;��i"•'f � J'� .S•—h—:�f'f� V ',�N 1 ted'+ms`s •��• ''c'':;4 ��• i.�. -..;t .,-.vY-�.st' �i -#�f •.:;. 4 •��Vii. j }- '"• 'att14�4 7 r. J(a;•`i {�43 ...n I �.�` .O '" sonar' � `�.~• ♦tt •� �1.'`�• 13�'j+j'•+.�.�•,..:.�?''.�C."i �,'I"•.y •' ' �.cd�+•X�,,..�{ 't ,•f.es `�;� `'`.�!».•' :�:t�~4;�y^,.iJt"�-`- \ .� �M-T•r'r""'.,l�}t!J,�;�C+ 'r.."3'�`•ryj•!- yI r.. '.,fib'_ -;-.=•-- „,...•-'t�f. \ `� � _ VOU 2. o 2Q o t� rn Q. ., _r1• W Q - i1. rl\" .v `�5z`,,'`"„ns'� t3':� `�r4'"`��,.�\'�.�►\\`\ \-.>.,`� �v+ *•3�a QN ??ll 0- ♦ rte" ,^ ?• tx iTATE FREEWAY 24 f' 53 '�A iroS}''7{ 1 \'`r `♦t`""V,- .tel .r L}ivy�r (rt,a�. `.L.1,i 3.;':r 4,��F��'CSS •'•• : :. .. �/. ��; j .Y• , GZ ��' O SUMMARY and seismicity, services and utilities, biotic resources, archaeology, and visual quality. A copy of the summary of issues.prepared for the scoping session and concerns expressed by property owners in the area are contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Several property Yowners and residents have expressed considerable opposition to the proposed' reorganization. Primary concerns appear to relate to assumed differences in the plans and policies of the City and County, and the fear that existing heavy industrial uses in the reorganization area will be displaced. As discussed in the response to comments received on the Draft EIR, review of relevant plans and policies of the City and County do not indicate different objectives with regard to future development in the, area. Representatives of the City of Concord have indicated that the City is generally not opposed to existing uses in the area and does not anticipate that existing uses will be displaced as a result of the proposed project. The proposed prezoning of the reorganization area to Planned District (PD) is considered by the City to be most amenable in accommodating existing uses, current applications before the County,and anticipated future development. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION The Draft EIR provides information on the ramifications of the proposed reorganization and potential growth in the area, assessing the environmental impacts associated with future development in the project vicinity. A land use inventory was conducted during preparation of the Draft EIR to determine the existing uses and potential for growth, providing a conservative basis for estimating the impacts of future development, generating higher traffic volumes, greater employment densities, and generally more intensive development than many of the existing uses in the area. The environmental assessment identified the potential impacts associated with development in the reorganization area specifically, and the impacts associated :... with cumulative development in the surrounding area as well. Table 1, modified from the Draft EIR, summarizes the potential environmental impacts and recommended . mitigation measures associated with the proposed reorganization and future development in the area, described in Chapter 3 of the report. For clarification, the i significance of identified impacts and areas of controversy have been designated with a qualitative "level of significance" rating. Table 1 also presents findings which substantiate the significance of identified impacts of the project and the effectiveness of recommended mitigation. The following measures have been recommended to mitigate potential adverse impacts of the proposed reorganization and the anticipated effects of future development in the project area. Specific information on the existing conditions (setting), the effects of the project on these conditions (potential impacts), and measures to alleviate_ identified significant impacts (mitigation) are presented in the each of the respective sections in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. Where appropriate, the measures which follow have been modified in response to input received from the public and interested agencies during circulation of the Draft EIR. Additions and modifications to the Mitigation Measures recommended in the Draft EIR are denoted in bold 1 face type. 6-5 I SUMMARY 1 TABLE'l ENVIRONMENTAL DeACM,MITIGATION MEASURES,AND FINDINGS i IMPACTS° MITIGATION MEASURES FINDINGS : LAND USE: Character of project area would continue No mitigation required. Impact is not considered adverse. to change from vacant and primarily Development trend would most likely storage-related uses to a more dens Icly occur regardless of jurisdiction,City or developed employment area.(1) County. Perceived hazard associated with No mitigation required Review by County Airport Land Use proximity of project area to Buchanan Commission and provisions of City Field Airport.(1) Zoning Ordinance and General Plan • I would serve to minimize potential hazard Potential hazard associated with natural No mitigation required. Potential hazard would be minimized gas wells and oil pipelines in project through careful site design and vicinity.(1) construction practices,and adherence to proper well abandonment procedures. Potential risk of explosion associated Unavoidable adverse impact inherent to Existing and future development would with proximity to Tosco Refinery.(3) development in project vicinity,regardless be located in proximity to storage of whether the area is annexed to City of tanks of the Tosco Refinery. impact is Concord considered unavoidable and adverse. I TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: Future anticipated development would. Existing traffic operations should be Recommended improvements would generate additional traffic volumes on improved through signalization of mitigate potential traffic operation local and regional routes, aggravating intersections of State Route 4 westbound deficiencies. Intersections of concern existing problems with circulation and ramp with Arnold Industrial Way, Laura would operate at a level of service"C" turn movements. Signalized intersections Alice Way intersection with Arnold or better with signalization. would " .experience no significant Industrial Way, and Peralta Road operational problems. Significant delays intersection with Arnold Industrial Place. for certain left turn movements would Traffic operations of currently signalized be experiences at several unsignalized intersections should be monitored as . intersections.(2) development occurs and signal timings adjusted accordingly. 6-6 i f SUMMARY TABLE 1(Continued) IMPACTSo MITIGATION MEASURES FINDINGS Public transit service to project area Public transit service should be extended Expansion of current public transit would most likely be underutilized and through project area, and future service and implementation of City TSM , would not serve to alleviate traffic development should- be designed to program would alleviate traffic impacts impacts unless current btu routes were encourage potential transit use. of future development, encouraging modified.(2 Development sites and roads should be alternative means of transportation in designed to accommodate transit service, project area. including bus pullouts, shelters, and sidewalks leading to bus stops. Large developments would be subject to Concord Transportation Systems Management(ISM) Program, which .would also serve to alleviate traffic impacts Pedestrian activity in project area would Sidewalks should be installed at bus stop Provision of necessary sidewalks and not be significant, but future locations, and on paths leading to and other improvements, would serve to development should not preclude the from bus stops At minimum, right-of- encourage pedestrian activity in a safe possibility of installing sidewalks in the ways should be 'reserved for sidewalks on.. and controlled fashion. future.(2) all major collector streets. Traffic and parking impacts would Recommended improvements to specific Traffic generated by future development dramatically alter the character .of intersects,expansion of public transit,and would result in an unavoidable and project roadways.(3) implementation of TSM program would adverse change in character of WWOO' serve to allcviate change in character of roadways in project vicinity. To some roadways in project vicinity. degree, recommended improvements would alleviate this change, and all intersections would operate within acceptable levels established by City of Concord. AIR QUALITY, Construction-generated dust would ca Cate To a large degree dust would be controlled Implementation of effective dust control primarily nuisance conditions.(1) through watering and routine cleanup of measures and construction site construction sites, maintenance would alleviate potential impacts of dust. l_ 6-7 l_ , 1 J SUMMARY TABLE 1 (Continued) i IMPACTS° MITIGATION MEASURES FINDINGS Vehicle emissions associated with future Measures recommended to facilitate traffic Vehicle emissions would not be development would affect air quality.m movement on local streets would reduce considered significant on a local or local CO concentrations regional level. I ' OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACPORS: I Grading activities may contribute I to Erosion-control plans would be required Implementation of erosion-control plans sedimentation and erosion in project for future development in project area. would minimize potential for erosion area.(2) and sedimentation. Adverse soil conditions may lead to Soils studies would be require for future Implementation of required soil studies differential settlement, damaging developments which describe the soil would alleviate potential adverse structures and other improvements(2) characteristics of each site and provide conditions associated with • specifications for foundation design and characteristics of soils in project area. other improvements Development in vicinity of active trades Detailed geotechnical investigations would Implementation of required of Concord fault may result in adverse be required for developments proposed investigations would alleviate potential seismic-related hazards.(2) I within Concord Fault Zone,in accordance adverse seismic-related hazards in with the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo vicinity of Concord fault. Special Studies Act and City policy. Potential for flooding in project area is No mitigation required Required drainage improvements would low.(1) convey runoff from future developments in project area to adequate drainage facilities Future development in project area No mitigation required. Potential impacts to vegetation and would not affect significant biotic wildlife would not be significant. resources(1) I 4 I, Future development would alter visual Future developments would be subject to Adherence to provisions of City Zoning character of project area.(1) provisions of City Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance would serve to provide visual minimizing nuisance conditions such as continuity to project area and would ! unwanted light and glare, requiring minimize nuisance conditions. screening of outdoor storage areas, and creating visual continuity between developments with landscaping, 6-8 SUMMARY TABLE 1 (Continued) IMPACTS• MITIGATION MEASURES FINDINGS Potential for prehistoric cultural If cultural resources are encountered,a If cultural resources are encountered resources within project area is low. If qualified archaeologist should be retained during future grading and construction buried materials were present,resources to examine the find and make any activities,potential adverse impacts to could be inadvertently damagcd I by necessary recommendations. unknown cultural resources would be grading activities.(1) alleviated. ~ SERVICES: Fre protection services would continue Future development proposals should be Review of specific development plans to be provided by Contra C" reviewed by CCCFD to alleviate possible would ensure that concerns of Fire Consolidated Fire District (CCCFD). concerns of District District are addressed District representatives anticipate�no difficulties in servicing future development in project area.(1) Police protection in project area would Boundaries of Concord Police Department Police protection services to project C � Pi be provided by Concord Police would be adjusted to encompass project area would be adequate. Department Department representatives area,currency served by the Contra Costa anticipate no d!Mculties in servicing County Sherifrs Department future development in project area.(1) [�. UTILITIES: (,. Sewer service in project area wOuld'be Portions of project arca outside boundaries Adequate sewer service would be provided by Central Contra Costa of CCCSD should be annexed by the provided to costing and future Sanitary District (CCCSD). District Sanitary District to permit future service. development in project area. i representatives do not anticipate major difficulties in providing sewer service to future development in project area.(1) Water in project area would continue to Portions of project area located outside Adequate water service would be be provided by Contra .Costa Wator boundaries of Improvement District #1 provided to existing and future District (CCWD). District should be annexed by CCWD to permit development in project area. representatives do not anucipaIte future service. significant difficulties in providing service to future development in project area.(1) • S , 6-4 l SUMMARY TABLE I(Continued) IMPACTS' MTTIGATION MEASURES FINDINGS Gas and electric service would continue None required. No adverse impacts are anticipated. to be provided by PG & E. Company representatives do not anticipate any difficulties in providing service to future development in project area.(1) ' t l v:. ' Level of Significance of the identified impacts,assuming implementation of recommended mitigation measures,are defined as follows: 1=Insignificant - Potential impact or area of controversy determined to be insignificant 2=Mitigated - Potential impact mitigated to a level of insignificance 3 =Significant - Potential adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance f. 6- 10 1. HUD .Flood Hazard Areas; USGS Flood-Prone Areas; Dam Failure Inundation Areas; Tsunami Potential. Inundation Areas. 2. State Special Study Zones (Major Faults) 3. Landslides (Photointerpreted); Liquefaction Potentials. 4. SCS Soils; Rainfall Isohyetes. 5. Rare and Endangered Species; Natural Areas (California Natural Areas Coordinating Council). 6. Vegetation 7. Petroleum Pipelines; Electric Transmision Lines; Oil and Gas Wells. 8. Completed E.I.R,s; Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites; San Francisco Bay Wildlife Habitat Boundary; San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta Boundary. 9. City Boundaries and Spheres of Influence Supervisorial Districts. 10. Fire Districts, Spheres of Influence, and Stations; School Districts and Sites; Park and Recreation Districts and Spheres of Influence. 11. Water Districts and Spheres of Influence; Sanitary Districts and Spheres of Influence. 12. Flood Control Zones; Drainage Zones; Major Watersheds. 13. Existing Open Space: Major Parks, Watershed Lands, State and Federal Lands, Agricultural Preserves. 14. Scenic Routes Plan; Historic Sites and Structures . 15. Interim Trails Plans: Bicycle, Hiking, Riding. 16. Noise Contours (1990). 17. Major Roads L(e,-r D F wEZ L" �PS 18. Public Works Base Map Grid. f*10VVPJkL MOUR4E 19. Assessor's Parcel Books 20. Census Tracts �,p�.Ctn.pt W f't COUM 21. Geology (Brab) 22. Geology (Dibblee) 23. Geology (Wagner) Information not applicable in this quadrangle Work in progress (Check with Dale Sanders or Art Sprecher) KEY TO MAP ter— 500-Year Flood Boundary _ f 100-Year Flood Boundary ZONE B�` �z VLZone Designations . 100-Year Flood Boundary ZONE B 500-Year Flood Boundary } Base Flood Elevation Litre- 573- With Elevation In Feet** P b Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) •.,�ji� ,C►�I �� Where Uniform Within Zone** REACH Elevation Reference Mark RM7X Zone D Boundary.. • River Mile- *M1.5 **Referenced to•the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1920 EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS ZONE, EXPLANATION A Areas of 100-year,flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. . AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between one.0) and three(3)feet;average depths of inundation are showr;;-but no flood hazard factors are determined- AH Areas of. 100-year shallow flooding where depths " are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors 1( are determined. _ At•A30 Areas of 100-year flood;' base'flood elevations and j( flood hazard factors determined. . . A99 Areas of 100-yearflood to be protected by flood F Our,HF,9/V jf protection system" under construction; base flood )� elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. �qC/A_ `\ B Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500 Q wear flood;or certain areas subject to 100-year flood- ing with average depths less than one(1)foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile;or,areas protected by levees from the base flood. S (Medium shading) II C Areas of minimal flooding.(No shading) it D Areas of undetermined; but possible, flood hazards. V Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors 1I not determined, IIII V1•V30 Areas. of.100-Year coastal flood with"velocity (wave action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors t determined: i l l NOTES TO,USER II Certain areas not in the special flood hazard areas(zones A and V') �: (I may be protected by flood control structures. t II This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance } II• ' Program;it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flood `.Go HIGHWAY i ing, particularly.from local drainage sources of small size, or all .p lanimetric features outside special flood hazard areas. Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of the shoreline shown on this map. For adjoining map panels, see separately printed Index To Map Panels,. INITIAL IDENTIFICATION: S NOVEMBER-1, 7974 HAZARD HOU- DARN--IAP RIA'1S10NS:FLOOD SEP7EMHERfi 19?7 �* r:. _ rV. � i 1.' s MALLARD �) y10 RESERVOIR _ =1 I sA?EORPORATE n I � City of o —_ Concord AREA NOT I C 1 \� INCLUDED T Il ZONE C A I� II 1N24 o�sia TAO a Q • 0 a JOINS PANEL 0285 NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST AND TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, R/ AND RANCHO MONTE DEL DIABLO LAND GRANT r , 1 t . NOISE STUDY FOR TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER AT 2047 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY NORTH CONCORD, CA CSA PROJECT NO: . 92-021 Prepared for: ° - Barbara Bunn McCullough/Pat Pinkston Housing Authority of the County,of Contra Costa 3133 Estudillo Street P.O. Box 2750 Martinez, CA 94553 Prepared by: Michael D.Toy, P.E. Consultant 28 January 1992 Y C h a r l e s M S a l t e r" A s s o c i a t e s I n c 130 Sutter Street San Francisco CaNfomma 94104 Tel:4'5 39' 0442 'rax:415 39 0454 J _® INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our acoustical analysis for the temporary homeless shelter located along Arnold Industrial Way in an unincorporated section of Contra Costa s County, north of Concord. The project site is north of the State Route 4 and 242 interchange and approximately 1-1/4 miles northeast of the Buchanan Field Airport. It is our understanding that there is a plan to eventually expand the existing shelter into adjacent warehouses: At this time, the space located east of 2047A Arnold Industrial Way will be designated an outdoor passive activities area. In this report we quantify the existing noise environment at the project site, estimate the future noise environment, and assess the potential noise impacts based on the County and.,: State guidelines. In summary, we find that,the noise levels inside the existing homeless . shelter generated by future traffic and aircraft activity will meet the State's requirements for multi-family housing projects. We also find that the future noise levels at the proposed passive activities area will meet the County's requirement for outdoor use areas of residential projects. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for the project. ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA utdoor The Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 includes a recommended noise standard for outdoor use areas of residential projects in terms of a Charles M Salter Associates Inc 130 Su!!er S!ree! San F,anc!5co Caoorma 94104 Te!: 5 397 0442 Fax:415 397 0454 Page 2 Average Sound Level DNL 1 of.60 decibels or less. The Noise Element states Day-Nightg ( ) that the outdoor noise standard may not be achievable in all residential areas due to either economic or aesthetic constraints. The.County Noise Element also contains exterior noise and land use compatibility guidelines for land uses including transient lodging. For these types of projects, an on-site DNL of 65 decibels or less is considered "normally acceptable" and a DNL between .60 decibels and 70 decibels-is considered "conditionally acceptable." "Conditionally acceptable'-'.is.interpreted as: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Therefore, a project exposed to a DNL between 60 decibels and 65 decibels could be interpreted as either "normally" or"conditionally acceptable." The County Noise Element also contains a modification to the noise and land use compatibility guidelines to address aircraft noise for projects within three miles of either of the County airports. These recommended compatibility guidelines in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Levels(CNEL) are 5 decibels.-lower than those in the previously mentioned County guidelines. A CNEL is typically less than.1/2 decibel greater than a DNL value. Therefore, a site exposed to a CNEL or DNL of approximately 60 decibels or less due to aircraft noise is considered "normally acceptable." 1Readers not familiar with the fundamental concepts of environmental acoustics are ® referred to Appendix A of this report. All noise levels presented in this report are A- weighted and are adjusted to a height of 5-1/2 feet to represent a standing receiver. C h a r l e s M S a l t e r A s s o c i a t e s I n c 130 Sutter Street San Francisco Cainorn a 54 04 Tel ':"E 397 0442 ;ac 415 3;7, o454 Page 3 ® Indoor The County Noise Element includes the.indoor noise standard set forth by the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part II for multi-family housing projects. The standard requires that if a project site is exposed to a DNL of 60,decibels or more, then the building shell must be designed to provide a DNL of 45 decibels or less in habitable rooms. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The primary noise source-at the project site is vehicular activity along State Route 4 and Arnold Industrial Way. Other-noise sources include occasional general aviation overflights. On 20-22 and 28 January.1992, we conducted acoustical measurements at the project site to quantify the existing noise environment. Figure 1 indicates.the on-site noise measurement locations, 1A, 1B, 3, and 4. Noise measurement location 2 is in-the.center of a warehouse located at 2099D Arnold Industrial Way, approximately 200 feet closer to State Route 4 than the shelter. The warehouse is of comparable size and.construction to the homeless shelter except that walls are not furred out at the roll-up doors..This additional measurement was performed to determine the diurnal variation of the highway noise that would be present inside the shelter since it was . not possible to perform an accurate 24-hour measurement within the homeless shelter. The measured on-site DNLs range from 61 decibels near the existing homeless shelter's east facade (location 1B) to 69 decibels at the property line nearest Arnold Industrial Way. From our simultaneous measurements conducted at locations 1A and 4, we determined that the DNL at the proposed passive activities area is approximately 57 decibels. From Charles M S a Iter Associates Inc 130 Sutter Sreet-Sar Francisco Gaufom a 94104 Tet:415 397 0442 Fax:415 397 0454 't - r .K P r Ii Q Z LLIW + � i Y 1 V j zia ( z w P� m �+ W W C) m l v, z 10, 14 A, LL I 1 .•II Charles M Salter Associates Inc 130 Sutter Street San Francisco Cantornia 94104 Tel:415 397 0442 Fax 415 397 0454 Page 4 ® our simultaneous measurements conducted at locations 1A, 1B, and 2,we determined that the DNL inside the existing homeless shelter ranges from 42 to.44 decibels. . FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT Project site noise levels are expected to increase approximately one and.a half decibels by the year 2015 due to "buildout' traffic volumes2 along State Route 4. A.one and a half ..decibel increase in noise.is,not a noticeable increase. The future noise level within the homeless shelter would be no more than a DNL of 45 decibels. The future noise level at the passive activities area would be approximately a DNL of 58 decibels. The year 2010 noise contours for the Buchanan Field Airport indicates that the project site • is more than a quarter mile outside the CNEL 55 contour and is closer to the CNEL 50 contour. IMPACT ANALYSIS Outdoor The future noise levels in front of the existing temporary homeless shelter would range from a DNL'of 62 to 70 decibels and would be considered"conditionally acceptable"when compared to the County guidelines. The future noise level at the project generated by 2The future noise analysis is.based on traffic volumes provided by Mark Wagner at Wilbur Smith Associates from that firm's yet unpublished State Route 4 corridor study. The traffic volumes are for a segment of S.R.4 located east of the Port Chicago Highway, one ® junction east of the subject project. To our knowledge, this is the best available traffic data for our "worst-case" analysis. Charles M Salter Associates Inc 130 Sutter Street San Francisco Calitorma 94104 Tei:4.5 397 0442 Fax:415 397 0454 Page 5 aircraft flyovers would be less than a CNEL of 55 decibels. This noise exposure is considered "normally acceptable." The one.proposed outdoor use area for:the project is the passive activities area located at the northeast corner of the project. We determined that the future noise level at this area would be less than a DNL of 60 decibels due to the acoustical shielding provided by the terrain and retaining wall. The County's recommended noise standard for outdoor use areas of residential projects is in terms of a DNL of 60 decibels or less. Therefore, no mitigation is required for the proposed outdoor use area. Indoor - ® The future noise level within the shelter would range from a DNL of 43 to 45 decibels. Since these noise levels in the existing shelter meet the State's requirement for multi-family housing, no mitigation is required. However,when the shelter is expanded into the adjacent warehouses,walls,will need to be furred out at the.roll-up doors, as in the existing shelter,to control outdoor noise intrusion into the habitable rooms. ja28mdt.do.c Charles M Salter Associates Inc 130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 415 397 0442 Fa. 415 39 0454 C h a r t Aft S a. 1 ter A s s o a t e s I n c APPENDIX A 't)NDA2�ENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical .aspects of this report. Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are: a) The intensity or .level of the sound; b) The frequency spectrum of the sound; c) The time-varying character of ,the sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) , with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold ,of hearing. The "frequency" of- a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz) . Most of the sounds which we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum -for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000. Hz) into ten segments. Many rating methods have -been devised-- to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra. Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range. The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated ."dBA." In practice, the sound level is . conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. • All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry are shown in Figure A-1. "�::,alu• :L•<:nl :.du 1•.•h,aCO l:.•c'urnri.c. .;a 'r.: 4`S:]5'f1447 (ur 5 197 4454 . C .iari M 5aif er Assa � ates Inc ® Page 2 Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously., Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant _from,moment, to,moment,. ,_.As naturgl .forces change or as human activity follows`•its -daily oycle, 'the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identif iable-noisy events of brief , duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle - passbys, aircraft flyovers,` etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. To describe the time-varying character of environmental, noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L14" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The LlO is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "L50" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents the median sound level. The "LgO" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is usedto describe the background noise. As it .is often cumbersome to quantify the noise ..environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level. or "Leg" is now widely used. . The term "Leo" originated from the concept of a so-called 'equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same .time period. in simple but accurate technical language, the Leg is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic .are examples of .this kind of situation. in determining the daily. measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep. at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the DNL (Day/Night Average Sound Level) which represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The DNL computation • divides the 24-hour day into two periods: daytime (7: 00 am to 10:00 pm) and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) . The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the DNL. r C h a r ! M 5 a i i e r a l s o s a t e s I n c Page 3 The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories a) Subjective effects...of.._annoyance.,_:..nuisance,- dissatisfaction; b) Interference with activities .such as speech, sleep, and learning; c) Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss. The= sound levels `associated"with environmental noise usually produce. effects only, in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of. noise_.nor,. of_ the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. . This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation.to noise over time. Thus, an important factor `in .assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment.. in general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged. With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report; ae) .Except in carefullycontrolled laboratory_ experiments, a change of only 1 dB`-in_ sound level cannot be perceived. b) - Outside of the laboratory, a 3.rdB change is..considered a just-noticeable difference. c) A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. d) A la dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and. would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. FNDAlDNL May 1987 ,:,rrar:;r•....r .,,.n .., .:a� f'is — ,3A7+).s C•harl g M Salter ASso fates Mnc A--WEIGHTED SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL, IN DECIBELS 140 130 THRESHOLD OF PAIN CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN .(100') JET TAKEOFF (200') 120 OF RIVETING MACHINE 110 ROCK_ MUSIC BAND DIESEL BUS (151) 100 PILEDRIVER (50) AMBULANCE SIREN (100') BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT 90 BAILER ROOM ' TRAIN PA5S8Y (10') PRINTING- PRESS PLANT PNEUMATIC DRILL (50') " s® GARBAGE DISPOSAL IN THE HOME SF MUNI LIGHT'RAIL VEHICLE (35') 70 INSIDE SPORTS CAR, 50. MPH FREIGHT CARS (100') VACUUM CLEANER (10') 60 SPEECH (1DATA PROCESSING .CENTER ') . AUTO TRAFFIC NEAR FREEWAY 50 DEPARTMENTSTORE. PRIVATE BUSINESS OFFICE LARGE TRANSFORMER (200') AVERAGE RESIDENCE 40 LIGHT TRAFFIC (100 ) TYPICAL MINIMUM NIGHTTIME 30 LEVELS---RESIDENTIAL AREAS - - SOFT WHISPER (5') 20 RUSTLING LEAVES RECORDING STUDIO 10 THRESHQLD OF HEARING MOSQUITO (3') 0 (100) = DISTANCE IN' FEET BETWEEN SOURCE AND LISTENER " TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT FIGURE Al 134 to/tim AND INDUSTRY 1'30 Sutler Sweet San Francisco Cal.torn,a 94104 r(..1.415 197 o4A2 f;is-415'317 0454 #- .S�•r,. �'RF-'tlt/�"`�``t��.-� "",iy,'�' , r"rr �f,t• a�� ,E..� 3x.��'�•�$.a,.,� "� .. 'r. '�31 'g..: ih ,�:#' u�" � ��. yya�,c. c�' T :�rli 1�YM- -+Yt-a 1.y;• mil•-*a'�"w"r^+Y-.� , yr� .t�F,r ,� '# �«tl� '�All4�'S`.' t'rY w4 r —�`y�°»"`r,-._te!• a t j •" '•-+F�: ��' ''4�.'->,�?�..'�� '�I.'kF.:' _ ''Yv4j'` � _�yt -�.-..,. -'r' f T �.:. < ',;U' x.6��""►'�y,zro,-;,s�� +..rte`• '"' j� � 110 �t � /'/� f � ��z � •� �•_. �- r��t ..Wr�-�{�"'-o.�'z�.q��.w� Fri �`�L' ��\\►6 � 1 i.N�\r�� k'�'-�w--�,�' "�' ,ly xtY!:.'}-+ti-�c'�;t j,' +`-�+,�,./p.p`lws-4 "�'��•+^ #- , � •'\ I -us- - .` e._. -'�`. i ryf.,v.�„ �'f.'+Y►� k.,tly~+Wn• Ab-.. „!W,{ /\ .,,:�4F �. Tf' - II• rai1 aoa .'>�"�i �--W!•,yF .� �.r. "'fie- � -Ws- yI i i -�,.' ''�`' •-ti+ 'tom^,yy. .�. -^t--__-'"'. #. _ /j "��:' -{✓f:*F�• �. -'1lS' � w1@�r�-.�-�� -� �- -- -ice— i _�, -+t9- �_.,,�,. "kS- t.�� .. i �-.._ ,�'_-+�"' .tlt,.t_.utr-��:' -.ts• ' 'v"' ''""�� - Zvi- -,-e�..-+�-�`-:;.-�•- �..•,..., �� ..y�--yr I/r C`< _ • :.-�t9 ,�-.. ! -"�-� .-,�- r -�-"+k`r--�-i -+4r _.�.�v- -es..-"�`- —� r r '_ �;tr • "�' ati l` 3 a � -�•-�.+y"� ,�-1�-'.ew-�.�'g � -�-.•.-� -1-_..i,•�,_ � ��rrJr f k i ",`> ,Y*s "* * \ to '- n', 5 F ..•F -r 'yer::: ',$. ..'. 4'�y�,'•.L.`\`fl'3WWI TM �\ ' =i I J ,� - r�-•�-'i.,i. 1 ," - - .. }.:. ;�t'�. '�- .: - '/ • _,rr ` t<,+irt� -t. ,41»♦ .'r� 3{ I �.- x 'y� ,, V� ' "'"'.; '.-,µ'ms- °ar �%' "vr.�"�- x r '` i�;. >',y k,. O• $ a r � 4 �.�`'sY 6p � i T.- '� �`--� � �`-:� -'•`"e"=#_'ip„ 1� a r `. -'� ��`^ � }*`",�;a t+rS• •1 c • �� :D { � z?Y` C3 -� :,.:-. Z ��+r r��i .�I_.w.f �a .r ,}', e•5h 1 �•s' f - f� o.' •.r 4*• ,� ;,� .`f t J� � �-' - jL�: ��_j -e:-r n ,L-� F \a ' tl�` � �tt, f7 �fi \,�o1 • '•o. � �••io ,•'�•. � �• -#I ->�•'. '�-i -�-- _ •� 11 \ti- ��k �: �t�. 'a� �'"T.. ',,,� ��, �10 x- ,. .t � iR'"}? -Jl-.., i�:.i r .• ,.1 �l f� s;. �x ] � ��°0 J�3- � � `-: n � k a:,,�'..r s+` �i Jr...r .na..'- t �S7.rr I 1'•',\ i \ \- � k'p kyr r t t '"a. i _ ,• O s ' `Fa ; s r.. ;\ { z' zr #h 1 a 1 0 R.c,C'a.a}[ij,}f-, F u L.° 7',y+ TOWe�S�.+• ��} 7 r• .Q. »Ir}ri i �Gd�t.,\ y.�� \ r''v-ft + r� 9\ � c111 Y t 1,�� .\\ ��. s. \w> '{ 6r#�sy t •* 0, _`.'.,�of N '�/ s.£.-�� C; 1(tratiOtt .a f 4 � l Cts i i 5. \-trY r� •�� .r it :.< �, ca` �\�:. r� a � "blas t 1 , �* 9 r� �,\ ♦e •♦ s, �`�,��,,,��gay,i,�,,f� - � �"t' !f,*\ a"-�t tY �3 "� ''° t # � +X +�;. rbr r's"r�t Zp '. !�• r r''i i�-t� d,, �"""�c 3 d��i�i� �� hR� ',.. �`dt$. "�3� '� t Jd _?, S,ld �'tC'4`�•F� ;iw -: � � r,� aar�. 1��>'.1d��•�r \� � :7 r,� , s -�1' .�ifi �, ±Oit�e IR % t � ��'� '� r � ,Ar$,�j; 1 f „20. � Water.•. :. �0 Tc�.. z tin h' 1-4d � s,,* ,"� ''.�-4�''r � r- �; !.- .t{3 d,�'3�. r-�{x a�'''�'•._. � i��-. � - r': t Yn r r t+'�i' -a•- 'rt :.•. '`� �; _ �= t ��•`'at- , t�,,-vT'� + .,�,. '6 .i„ s{ -,\,;„ a` "`- f b.a'•'\ y.. ...Yf e"�'"`� s �1\ t\x i� rk� 6. � j " > 'b": "�`� ie,�a �-i!'•'��q�(fi`, L 1°�:' k far' � - ,"w+\`>�'.� y�/ •'int + ks 14 x �� t; ,�*�.`� "t ^��'f '{' .F �'�*�'. �, \. \ a that' •i.. i�` #' 11 A. t cl`" a ac ar,�A� :, o411 ... I 1 T E , r k Z-,�, ay >a {.q .s, :": r� \ •y. 1 •.. t, it !y:.s �� r 3:,4a ,y,•..�,,}SY ,\'.. s✓tt �r fi tl "��:.:>.. �� r' .� u.'E -.s t'"! '+, F7K,-Y ate �}xt ."\\F \ wail �,t� :'r�'�`�>�� t- .«.\ &'�a; "'�J" , �'• � �,� } �,' rr� 1`y " i f + i, r�li �{R e.r .rr, a II,6M f�. a...-'� {zt rk' ��/. 2�+£"}' � r 4 v��ty,��, ;:.,�',� �»" 'sh*�a,�}r s fl1�, �t�,. di,•7 1 ri,�re t i:. 4„ ,, � " P� +ws; s � „*k^,• �• tea• >4RD `� .4„ «X >�'sI`�y �f,}}1 *"r�� '�'`�`�,',` ,.�� ,,,,�14�s.� t •.S.i �: t� a t 7�'-r f •1!+ Jf��w, O ty �y }},,�alt c �i T":t R �6.� �.�� ti✓r,x.. i C �' �-' � ri s 1-. t \�l9Q�.s r:rM: Tl;�, i .,nw�,,,, x•L�x-� * A..7; ..'.f �� eai;F C sl... i�'U .ync 4 � '"` .`� i.• "�� ~d < . �a.� i+ j i �/ .• �'Vi 1 \4 a i* \ a+ da • � s� C �3 ,; •� ' a K >:\ � .�' a 9� ,.•, y« i,a 'Y.� '%.�.. e o it� .;� r` r Ct�'aFI�' ,y 7 ti :r P i s,r,4 It ` t•.�/�i � �,a s,�°-� �{p �; � fi C.�ts ,k � ,+• , � f.�.'�`/ r! 1 s .- -' Q'e �\ y� '' �t�rfiU u � I`�:- O � „�;.,'l .i N ♦ •1�4' $?" a r £ � ,,• ,�_. "C � •f• Ri= .,� 7' ^S..u'lr4a t.. T29 ir3r2't'7i Tf8118r i - .A yy. Pdrk r � �� e ,,,�� ! ��"�� rd�a s a �• max,. � d RVeifi�� t4��us1 '7 a�S aE •. �r .� Seh }J17 r0 C meteryc , s a .. ;t ° kl eatery} `. Vfi . i., AtNW'.4~REELU i',< { f 4 MI:r;TO;%NTERSTATE'80 2�`3Q�` n`< + a" w1 G R.2tW "'1:56G ,�,"C„`�- �'�ir"1.?z'rfi r..,4VA�'N T-'f f2 .Mt.,•',•. t.��'. .�'�aa'r "ps rd. J2lCNMOMD21:'M/x'+.'J• '�c,..=. .�.:�*•�� c iCt i,::w<. ;� s�n.,�: ;s:..., .7 � ;�., i{ k: � +.ice`. i' ... �* .r.`_ '-i ��,`",a.^ �' !e''Cy, u•1 �. :a, t�.�, ;�`^ •. :• ,..c1x3x. Y ft'"iy+ e,°'rn \zrr'.`t's<,r``: _ c r..y § ;s` en„. "•. x tA;<r.v....-i' F lt. .yt §.v ..`:- 'k*Z C `k �r .3` ..a.xi "�i,'$ ,,t s"a,}��§+' ;.+;.-i�;•s,�. 'r n� n"�� fft_x--£z�r t �r�- ,w.z>;�s c�' k;�is 3+re5w ,,yam �' .+;,+'?• x t �. ;.� yh; „° , �`-= �- '!('q.'fit x-.� r,`e;;: , i.;*f ,,.'`�Z., :�,��« �;r..a CALF; 240Q0•t tt S �.qtr ,s'-.T:�' 'r�rr...�.r,¢`k� .;.�x.. `Y3a .�v�`"''ht•i,r.r .1r .'�• at +.r ?ltl ;f3§ t a.c �5;• 1 ,y Etur;.' v6s ,a4xtAg I'M , , }'�' >r< - .u•«' r r Sx- _ ,14,r-� Lei S•(.z» e a '" i.,,,g ` A �� 4''F'; "iL �' 000_•K�af;s f0 �,rS? 1000.' �.„ 000 yt` r;3000, ,r4' 5!1',04 �3�'nf1,K*.a ��•s "4,t�,.u'!s'�r'�,�t-; ^i�',�,t(,r•�>�•5�'��. '> a 'it grr 'C1 n.� 4x:. c a t ;t �h s9 `a# b �t.aY ice• ya51*t . ,» � }�'r..' �,r,�'�r:�2 :fit z'a� �.,-s t.., •'cs. -�a� k4"�';+.� i e±,r,e-a; �N.}.p;rv��.•tt�3.+ak a�.+fi' t�^' y;. u 41` CJ7 V .4, 4-i- I, F wE Fn t / 1: x to• .r s � 5 :• .{ t, iti'�:„ 5,} L psi,G ,-�' ks �+�, :��. r+✓;}'H�t ��: M v :�.;'S�vv�>. . *s-,i. ,\ *n.T i� ta�,� � ia ,r ,,,�> '„.�.{y, r.$.•_ rf t5.. ;�'zF• «1 t 4.y+y F 1; �ih,�X e. �r.3r ,r�'i { s.�f t x:4,• i t., •��a� ,t..:� T ��.�.� ;. �� NTOUR INTERHi4L.r�Q FEE,,. � c '� �� ,s�,t�<s, ,�. � ,a��.w � S a t- .•,t �: �:,��`�� .„• " r�� i#DOTTED L1NESREf?RESENT,5:F OTCONTOURS * ^ } AT IS MEAN SEA° EVEI DEPTH''CURVES IN FEET—DATUM IS MEAN LOWER"LOW WATER, - - SHORELINE SHOWN RGoa�c Ca Tc Tur •� -., . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT c9 � ® ,� I Y ;._ ._; •y ;. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: April 15, 1992 TO: Rob rt Drake, Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Leroy L. V ad, Traffic Engineer Traf:Rd#3884 SUBJECT: Proposed CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way - Concord Per your request I recently reviewed the transportation section of the "Notice of Intention to Adopt a Negative Declaration" that you sent me for this project. I also reviewed the existing traffic conditions on Arnold Industrial Way in the vicinity of this site. First,,I agree with your staffs assessment that the proposed shelter should only generate a minimum of vehicular traffic and that it should have little or no impact on the existing road system. Second, I only reviewed existing traffic conditions on Arnold Industrial Way, during one mid-afternoon at this proposed site. However, I tried to pay particular attention to the points relating to traffic which were mentioned by Mr. Winton Jones. Also, in the past I have routinely reviewed traffic conditions on Arnold Industrial Way in the normal course of my work, so I am familiar with traffic conditions on this road. Based upon my observations I have the following comments: 1. Traveling from west to east along Arnold Industrial Way the road is on a small incline and it is not a very steep grade as one approaches the shelter site. The roadway is also on a long radius horizontal reversing curve in the vicinity of the proposed shelter site. 2. I observed numerous vehicles parked along both sides of Arnold Industrial Way in the vicinity of the shelter site. However, I found that.all of these vehicles were there because the drivers were conducting business at properties adjacent to the shelter site: Arnold Industrial Way is 38 feet wide and with parking on both sides of the road it is a bit tight and may be uncomfortable to some motorists. However, even with the curvelinear alignment of the road and the parked vehicles, sight distance through the curve appears to be adequate. To the best of my knowledge the road has been operating with these same conditions for quite some time without any significant traffic safety problems. If parked vehicles become a serious ® problem in the future the County could prohibit on-street parking in selected areas. Proposed CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER Page -2- April 15, 1992 3. I also observed a couple of large semi trucks and trailers that blocked both lanes on Arnold Industrial Way while the drivers jockeyed and backed their rigs into driveways at adjacent businesses. I mention this to point out that the existing industrial use of properties along Arnold Industrial Way create more potential traffic hazards than would the proposed Homeless Shelter. 4. I do foresee a potential pedestrian/vehicle conflict if the shelter shuttle van loads or unloads passengers on the south side of Arnold Industrial Way opposite the shelter. This would require pedestrians to cross the roadway at a mid-block location to go to and from the shelter and this type of operation could be unsafe. For this reason I recommend that the shuttle van enter the shelter driveways and load and unload passengers off street. The driveway access to this site is good and it should be easy for the shuttle van to enter and exit at the property. This would eliminate the need for these passengers to cross the public roadway. LLV:cl C:Drake.t4 cc: J. M. Walford, Public Works Director f M. Shiu, Road Engineering f4 ATTACHMENT H CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: April 20, 1992 TO: Project File FROM: : Megan Ryan, Planner II SUBJECT Hazardous/Toxie Wastes Central County Shelter - Further Documentation N Per HUD, toxic chemicals or radioactive materials within 2,000 feet of the project site must be investigated to determine if they pose a serious health hazard to the project.. Staff again contacted the following people in regards to examining the area: 1. Catherine Kutsuris (646-2091), Community Development Hazardous Waste Planner, referred to Hazardous Waste Management Plan 1989, for County's response to State .Toxic Legislation. 2. Barbara Masters (345=5014) of the County Health Department, referred to Hazardous Materials Area Plan 1988 as County's response to Emergency Response plans. 3. Betty,Pierce, Sandy Holvenback,.Eric Johnson(646-2286)of Health Services Department Hazardous Materials Division regarding Underground Tank Permits, Business Plans, RMPP (Risk Management Protection Plan) advise that their office issues permits and monitors the use and generation of hazardous materials in.the County. Each firm in the area submits a business plan (that includes emergency response plans) to the County for inspection and approval. Attached is a list of businesses that are operating under permits in the project area. Business plans and the RMPP are on file at the Health Services Department. This office accepts the Health Services Department jurisdiction over the safe operation of these facilities. 4. Christen Kinney, (916/445-0613) State Clearinghouse 5. Bonnie Hautz (916/327-1848) of State Toxics/CAL EPA has provided.this Department with a list of all superfund sites in the County. The Concord Naval Weapons facility is listed as an area high in plant and animal contamination but cleanup has begun in the area. The Weapons Station is outside the 2,000 foot study area for this project. Parcels ownership maps,were also consulted and another field visit was made to the area. . This research did not:bring any new material to light.on toxic.`operations within the area. The attached listing of business within 2,000 ft of area, (Attachment A), and maps, which were previously part of the ERR are attached here. County Staff confirmed that some of the uses generate hazardous waste but these were operating under permits and are subject to the rules and.regulations of the. State of California and the County Health Services Department. Neither..County`nor State agencies were aware of any radioactive activities of any hazardous, significant amounts at Siemens Corporation at 4040 Nelson Avenue. The Company manufactures x-ray equipment forthemedical industry and some radioactive materials are associated with this manufacturing process. According to County Health Services, staff, Eric Johnson, the amount of radioactive materials used are so small that the company does not'have to register;with the Nuclear Regulatory.Committee and no radioactive materials are stored on the site. A Radiation Officer is employed by Siemens to monitor employee health concerns.. The Environmental Health Services Department indicated,that the proposed project would be part of the Community Alert Network (operated by the County Office of Emergency Services) that is currently in place to help residents and businesses respond to emergencies that may occur in the area. If problems arise in the area appropriate response measures are communicated to residents and employers in the area via a computer operated message dialing system that can place 500 calls within three to five minutes. ® The Draft EIR conducted by the City of Concord in 1988 for the proposed incorporation of the project area,was also reviewed.by this office. No additional information,in regards to toxic and radioactive activities were identified in this report. Based on this Department's original investigation;plus the additional investigations and inquiries conducted-following receipt of Clyde Civic Association's March 25, 1992 letter, we conclude that while there-are some hazardous material operations in the area they are regulated, monitored and they do not pose a serious health hazard to the residents of the project or the other nearby residents and can be served by the safety operations currently in place for the area., Lre&VIMVt0Xk,mem HOUSING AUTHORITY I of the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3133 Estudillo Street • P.O. Sox 2759 • Martinez,California 94553 FAX(510)372-0236 ❑ Central Administration (510)372-0791 May 11, 1992 ❑ Development/Modernization (510)372-7308 Bob Drake ❑ Fiscal Contra Costa Count Department of Acct.&Financial Services y p (510)372-8134 Community Development ❑ Homeless Management Officer 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor (510)372-5385 Martinez, CA 94553 ❑ Housing Management Officer (510)372-0796 14 Housing Operations (510)372-7400 Dear Bob: ❑ Purchasing (510)372-5327 The Central County Emergency Shelter for the ❑ Rental Rehab/Technical (510)372-7372-7391 Way,Homeless at 2047 Arnold Industrial Concord has a mini-van service which picks up shelter residents at the Social Services offices in Antioch and Martinez and at the Concord BART station each • afternoon and drops them off at these same locations each morning. This shelter operated van service parks in the parking lot in front of the shelter to drop off and pick up shelter residents , not on the street . This has been the practice since the shelter opened on December 24, 1991 . Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding operations at the shelter. Sincerely, Richard Martinez Director of Housing Operations C r i m t „a a Charles M Salter Associates Inc A 4 Al {e Y Consultants in Acoustics 11 May 1992 � 3 Audio/Visual System Design Bob Drake A� 130 Sutter Street Community Development Department of Contra Costa County San Francisco 651 Pine Street California 94104 Tel:415 397 0442 Martinez, CA 94553 Fax:415 397 nese (fax: 510/646-1599) Subject: Homeless Shelter, North Concord Charles M Salter,PE CSA Project No: 92-021 Anthony P Nash,PE David R Schwlnd Dear Bob.: Eva Duesler n C Freytag,PE This letter provides a clarification for our noise study dated 28 January 1992 written r_"'labeth A Cohen.PhD for Barbara Bunn McCullough and Pat Pinkston for the subject project. Alan T Rosen Thomas A Schindler The noise.analysis was prepared for.the proposed permanent homeless shelter, rather Steven J Thorburn.PE than for the existing temporary shelter that was inaccurately referenced in the Harold S Goldberg beginning of our report. _ Rachel V Murray Osnat Amon,PhD Please call with any questions. Claudia Kraehe Barbara J Leary Sincerely, Timothy M Der Thomas J Cornett Michael D Toy F.nc L Mucris �� v Kenneth;ti Graven iehael D. Toy, E. Eric L Broadhurst Consultant Katherine M Leavy Manor,G Miles MDT/ck - riav,ah fAustata .'erry L Lie myllmdt.doc Uatbara S'Nlay nada J Walsh ul F Viceral Eva von Mullen Sherry R Sweet MEMOPJMUK TO: Project File FROM: Megan Ryan, Planner II SUBJECT: . . Hazards and Nuisances - Odors Central. County Shelter Further Documentation On 4-15-92 I spoke with Rochelle Walker of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in regards to the operations of the Memory Gardens Crematorium located adjacent to the proposed shelter site. Ms. Walker informed me that the plant is inspected and monitored on an annual basis for emissions conformance. The plant was last inspected in January of . 1992..and no violations of . emissions standards were found. • Ms. Walker also informed me that no complaints had been received by the BAAQMD in 1991 for odors or hazardous emissions. Twelve complaints were issued over a two week period in 1990 due to a incinerator overload. The BAAQMD issued a violation to the crematorium who in turn corrected the violations. Ms_: Walker also informed me that the emissions standards that regulate the Crematorium are in place to provide air quality levels that are considered safe for citizens of the area. s MAY-14-1992 15:39 B A A 0 M D i ENF. SVCS. P.01 / Bay Area Air Quality Management District ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FAX Message / Transmittal Sheet DATE: E5 14 -cj-z, TO: jj e FROM: ROCHELLE WALKER BAAQMD Voice phone: (415) 749-4784 MESSAGE: AV,ten 5e-r,6'kvt% dour Via. C�OT%o a-r Its '�^�'S C6 U-9- Ula fi, T Ls PAGES TO FOLLOW: TO FAX Replies to this Message, Breakd-owns, Excesses, �Qil, Tank and Asbestos Notiflcatlons : (415) 928-0338 (FAX) ALL OTHER BAAQMD BUSINESS : (415) 928-8560 (FAX) MAY-14-1992 15:40 B A A Q M D i ENF. SVCS. P.02 Aga J, t INSPECTION FORM. • (>4 COKP"ANCE VIMMCATtos! ( ) COS ( ) A/C START UP ( ) COMPLIMICB VIMIFICATZON LXPIUD VARIANCZ DIT.i C W(Y c. Plt • 0. 53 To Instone Address city C Zip ae ES Contact 1' ' v PS Yes No W5 �3 Briefly describe operation Of this plant: nl-or- 4or �cexnaiiax►9, Regulatlon(s) .applicable to this plant: ( 6, Section(s) 301 i ) 9, Rule ( ) 8, Rule(s) ( ) 10, Rule Cooplete` attach VW Imp Fore (u ) 11, Rule ( ) Other: Source Information: List source /•e visually inspected: In Camplianca: Sarre 3�;,, ._ , i. . Not in cavlix". Sources not inspected (include sources not operational at time of inspection); Sources removed or charged:, No ( ) Yes (coWlete anti attacn Source Data S;jeet) New Sources: ( No ( . ) Yes; VN issued? (yQ No ( . ) Yes Permit Conditions; ( ) No ( Yesi Are conditions tieing met? ( ) W) d() Yes -- Source Test Requested: SI Date rN HISTORY: Q a-ne. ipecg'4 VARIANCE HISTORY: Variance in effect? ( ) No ( ) Yes Docket No. 'Are conditions being met? p) No ) Yes `;� C011PLAINT HISTORT: ABATENENT ORDER: ( No ( ) Yes Docket N I �. Cato.Date of Irep I- Date of Report i- S �-- I2/l486 8itab DDI approvsd v MAY-14-1992 15:40 B A A 0 M D / ENF. SVCS. P.03 ' ,pATB_ f7V`L.O wrw 9Y t February-19, 1991 • :.. - �,t/O �j pp Sharon L. j"kson . ._ Ute'Slf47 . Bay Area. Air Quality Manaaftatlt District 939 91145 str..st=- San Francisco, CA 94109 Rat Notice of Violation Nos. 6736 and 4347 Dear ms. Jackson: I an writing to you on behalf of Memory Cardens, the operator of u a► crematory located at 2011 Arnold Industrial. way, Concord, California. we received notice of violation no. 6726 on•Septem ber 19, 1990, and notice of violation no.. 4347 on September 26, 1990. 46 As you may be aware, durinq the last year we had bum experisnc- ing some problems with the operation of the crematory at Mamory Gardens, and since have undertaken extensive rehabilitation meas- ures in order to alleviate the problems associated with operating a crematory in a heavily populated area. we have some questions with respect to the civil penalties associated with the above-referenced notices of violation. The civil penalty associated with notice of violation no. 6726 was $385.00. Is there some schedule wherein these civil penalties are net forth? The invoice sent to us (a copy of which is enclosed) does not indicate the basis for assessing a civil Pena- lty in this particular amount. We stand ready to pay whatever we are obligated to pay in the way of civil penalties, but are .somewhat confused as-to how this payment amount was arrived at. With respect .to notice of violation no, 4347, it is not clear to us what 06 confirmed complaints odors" on the notice of violation means. The crematory is located in an industrial area of Concord, C d ifornis. In addition to the various odors generated by industrial users in the neighborhood, there are also odors generated by the nearby sewage treatment plant. we are concerned that we are being blamed for odors that may not be caused by our 0opsrations we assums that "6 confirmed complaints odors" means tct your office confirmed that six 6199*sent in4tvidusis cow- plainscl of odors, and that y6ur office oonfirssd that these VnVIV 'r:nflhf'VS mr— 11.11 ARM11f h imni15Tkin1 WAY r 1) )ION %_Nf' f:(J\t OVn CA11VOUNln VO-)l MAY-14-1992 15:41 B A A 0 M D i ENF. SVCS. P.04 .: Sharon L. Jackson February 380 1901 papa 2 Yr:, • Individuals Aad indeed Complained. it is loss clear to us how , :;• the Say Area Air' Quality Management District oonfires that we ars the Cause Of ffuch odors., other than based, upon.the statements of • . the aomplainants. Does Say Area Air Quality Management District attempt to independentlyoonlirm the source of odors that have caused complaints? Once again, ve are ready and willing to pay whatever civil penalties are assessed as a result of our actions, but ve are concerned about paying a penalty of $I,goo.00 vithout some verification that we were indeed the cause of the odors . giving rise to these complaints. t: Thank you for you kind attention to this matter. Yf you bays any questions or comments, plea" do not bssitate to call eon directly. I Can,be reached at (415)746-8374. very truly yours, �U�F► 7latthew P. Shippey 7mgal Counsel ASPS/lk cc: William Silva • L. TOTAL P.04 }Ll y LUUIVJI_l. THE WARD OF SUPER VXSORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALXFORNIA Adopted this Order on Sept. 17 , 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Schroder, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:None SUBJECTz Shelter Program for Homeless. ) Adults adopted pursuant to ) Resolution No. 91/608 Government Code section 26227 ) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolves: In addition to the aid and care which it must provide under Welfare and Institutions Code section 17006, or any other aid and care which is mandated by law, acting under the authority of Government Code section 26227 to establish discretionary county programs to meat the social needs of the population of the County, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts and establishes the following program. ® Program: Shelter for homeless single adults. a. Subject to available space, the County, acting through the Contra Costa County Housing Authority will provide food and shelter benefits for homeless single adults. b_ An applicant for shelter benefits must clearly establish the applicant's identification; that the applicant is unable to obtain shelter through the applicant's own efforts; and that the applicant has not been paid a General Assistance cash grant within that month on account of the County's inability to provide shelter. c. The provision of shelter benefits, is contingent upon: i. The recipient's continuing eligibility for 1shelter. ii. The recipient's acceptance of shelter or housing facilities assigned by the County or, its agent. iii. The recipient's compliance with the rules and regulations of the shelter prograul to which the recipient is assigned. iv. The recipient's abstinence from drugs and alcohol. V. The recipient's participation in case management activities and available directed activity assignments, including but not limited to work, alcohol, and drug programs. d. The County or its agent will assign shelter eligibles first to County-sponsored shelters, and second, to private ' shelters. Resolution No. 91/_6QB ...�v ii �i� �.��.� ,,,,- e. General Assistance eligibles shall receive priority in shelter assignments. f. The County Agency respon3ible for managJng the shelter program shall consult weekly with the Social Service Department and reserve such number of vacant shelter places for General AssistanC3 eligibles as the department may direct. Fg. Persons eligible for General Assistance may be afforded County provided shelter on a space available basis for up to 100 days in 29 months, so long as they remain General Assistance eligible, participate in the development of a case plan, follow the case plan, and conform to the rules and regulations of the shelter. A case plan must be developed and implemented within the first 30 days, and sholter. eligibility will be reviewed not less than every 30 days thereafter. J1. Persons not eligible for' General Assistance may be afforded County provided shelter on a space available basis for up to 90 days in 29 months, so long as they participate in the development of a case plan, follow the case plan, and conform to the rules and regulations of the shelter. A case plan must be developed and implemented within the first fifteen days, and shelter eligibility will be reviewed not less than every 30 days thereafter. i. Persons who fail to fully cooperate with shelter programs or who violate shelter rules or regulations shall be disqualified for shelter benefits. j. Apart from any other grounds for disqualification, persons who wilfully fail tq participate in the development of a case plan or to follow the case plan shall be disqualified for shelter benefits and shall be ineligible to re-apply for shelter benefits for 60 days. 4 k. Actions denying shelter benefits or terminating shelter benefits shall be expressed in writing, stating the reasons) for the action, and Are effective immediately, subject to appeal. Pending appeal, the applicant or recipient may request in writing an administrative review. Such review shall be conducted within three working days after the request is received, by tie County's designated Reviewer. The appellant shall have an opportunity to meet with the Reviewer and to offer evidence and argument. The Reviewer shall affirm, reject, / or modify the action, which- decision shall be final. 1. These provisions supersede all inconsistent existing provisions of county shelter programer. Orig. Dept: Cc: 1 to*by Ow"Out Oib N a trees and eorrmol oopy of an mown Eelam" "A" an V* mWAM of ft sold of 8400w! we wr rw.n , ArTEdTM.. /Z, /n f PHIL BAT�C•MAc o1 RN DOW of eupw%%=and Ooumy AdwJr. n:or By ..D*Wy -2- Resolution No. 91/bDfL t Housing Authority 3-26-92 Contra Costa Countv 3133 Estudillo Street Martinez CA 94553 ATTN: Mrs . Pat Pinkston Re : Homeless Shelter Dear Pat : Thi s is to follow up on cur conversation regardirng t;_e accusation of increased _rime in our area due to the Homelaos Shelter . As a matter of record I have been located in this area for approximately (11 ) years . The first year my air compressor • was broken into and ( 3 ), jack hammers were taken . The second time I was hi t (1983) the 2099 ,building was under construction and my yard was located about where the 2045 building is now located. I had an office and tool trailer , both of which the siding was torn off and over S 3000 . 00 in tools and equipment were taken . The third time, in the same area, they dug under the alarmed cyclone fence and took trailer wheels , building jacks and tools . The fourth time, same area , they took the batteries out of ( 2 ) of my trucks . The fifth time, same area , they shot out the headlights , mirrors and windshield of one truck and a window in the office trailer . The sixth time, at the 2099 building site, they took the batteries and supercharger blower from a large diesel soil compactor on the fob site . Building materials i . e . lumber, rebar, etc. were taken during the construction of all ( 4) buildings . After construction was completed, 2099 had windows shot out , computers taken out of the Ansul offices , fuel and miscellaneous items out of the Motheral yard, and windows shot out of- the 2043 building . Page 1 of 2 All of the above .happened well prior to the Homeless Shelter. The point is that crime in this area has been a major concern for a long time. An increase of incidents seems to happen in the winter months because of extended darkness and increased unemployment . I also attribute an increase in crime due to the development of the area and increased population in general . It is possible that some of the homeless people could have been or are involved in crime in this area, but I don ' t feel that thev have contributed to any significant increase because of their presence . Sincerely , William H. Moran - Trustee Moran Family Trust Page 2 of 2 u � MEMORANDUM H 0 May 11 , 1992 Date: To-: Bob Drake, Community Development Department Ri� Martinez, Director of Housing Operations From: _ Subject: Homeless Shelter Occupancy Rate Winter Relief Program: December 1991 - March 1992 During this period, we have had 214 emergency shelter beds for homeless single adults available in county operated shelters. The demand for these beds has remained high, with facilities full on a number of evenings and waiting lists of 10 to 25 persons. The average occupancy rate during this period was 89% . April and May 1992 Since April 1st, the demand for shelter beds has remained steady and the shelters have remained full with waiting lists for many of the facilities . The occupancy rate in April was 93% . The Central County Shelter has reduced its available beds to 60 over the course of the month. The Temporary Trailers in Richmond ( 46 beds ) has remained open as part of a 90 day emergency extension proposal; the Trailers will close at the end of May if the community match is not met and the city of Richmond does not donate funds for operation expenses for the month of June. Likewise, the one month extension with the VOA Family Support Center for 12 beds for single women only provides space through the month of May. This will leave the county with 56 beds for homeless men at the Brookside Shelter in Richmond and 60 beds in the Central County Shelter. CEQA DOCUMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE USE OF SHELTER STRUCTURE Contra General Services Department Costa Couly Initial Study OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FII+N1 tap Nor.l a A....., s. 1. tap Nolecl N+m+ Housin uthorit Tal.p �::��jiietiii-iiiet �rtt 2047 Arnold IndustriaI ay, Units B & C, Concord NIP red by Tim Erickson Lease Manaoerrent Date March 24, 1992 R+vl+w+d by t, Date z RECOMMENDATIONS: (X)Categorical Exemption (Class 1A )( )Negative Declaration ( )Environment Impact Report Required ( )Conditional Neg.Declaration The Project (May)(Will Not) Have A Significant Effect On The Environment The recommendation is based on the following (List all items identified as significant): Coeration of existing private structure, involving no expansion of use beyond that previously existing. What Changes To The Project Would Mitigate The Identified Impacts (List mitigation measures for any significant impacts and Conditional Negative Declaration). NA I 1 i USGS Quad Sheet Port Chicago Base Map Sheet/ F15 .parcel/ 159 080 OR GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Location- 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Units B & C, Concord 2. Project Description Lease of existing warehouse building for use by Housirg Authority of the County of Contra Costa as a warehouse. I� 3. Does it.appear that any feature of the project will ❑yes ©no ❑maybe generate significant public concern? (Nature of concern): 4. Will the project require approval or permits by other ❑yes Milo than a County agency? Agency names(s) 5. Is the project within the Sphere of Influence of any city? (Name) Concord 1. t r • `" \\111 tPtlt�tt�\� .... � i � t i t 1 t�� —"` �•–._,�---;.^ r�� it tt \\k t 11 tilln r i max• !' ltti i\ \It\ ttii It Ilii • •S S Itt iii bili M q it t 1 �* a it i It41 1 iii!!t iiIt t till it I` it :;;.,r•:ct..' i \`iia:ifAt t I if ydtt tli � r hil tit I �r / I t t f- ?:c fi I Itt _ t! ,a T it tt ' +;tit,.•? .+, 1 I Y I&W t� '� � � .4. �� "'�� .�ice- �� .►� +'*>ti �R..� :'-� .1�ya' {I rd DETAIL L dVw33S NOIJV17N/1NO,? YOV , 7v C** �, r•. 10 P r � a �� fi SP}►� 'i�py�,y,S,' � �by � .^p Q�.1,�� b y x .y', i;:q� s ^ t1\ I .acJ�� t<�' 1 b 3' � _ � y/ °? C'• c~ x y CJI Vd I�.�W^ �d,� 6 4 p� Cly pQ' 5 1pL '' W �T Q �a 6 y,1 bs Q `t"c '' N b•?) 1L�� v L..o 4 M;q: p�o� 1 b^ ySt,W,a�' y `,, *�, 1LIN�.��'•axy (;� Jib u's Nr'� f .-,.•- U .4` tsem 1R N � ASQN :.t�y..�:•;: 1 , b tJ t rp`.. a OR SA`1� �`�ti 1S f. yY aQo r2 R n �0 WOb altr r r" °� R 4tt8 H/bjty4y �! A l 4k�� triC>.5M3 cT 0.?gj bg pMVTI 1 A Z z C.` too :.,. a�-.::'.•� q nv CUs � —.� vtit litoa o p�° trV Q d llva3d c 1 + e Lbjr ..t p e. 7. �¢ do Sp1 CO c+� O 0 .r yN3 �OZ`Wx ,i `SALLY RID y°a ,2>0 I} r t 8 Nsuvvv 1\fiTI<I;p�MJ t74 h.7iwi 0-al t ! CD AQ, „�$ba;v"'t�i i wr`,r ry. °Uq j13+Va+"4% Yw Ly:VN4 iY PC p AC IIC� > 1: = b'J I VVIGo �� • t etr d 't , NJnB � e 1 alga cf A I CL a z z�2>2 a s op 17 a A , v8 �AYN1 Will. 'a m ALUM 0 AD 0005 d r'Ir r O .-�� ray � -� �+ w0¢��t+.•'. A1rb ui .} 00. / ••� +ywlw T a Community Contra Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Development Costa epartment County Administration Building County uI ILy 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 3 Phone: 646-4202 -� April 1, 1992 W. County File NCP 92-24 Attention: General Services Department Tim Erickson - Lease Management Division Dear Applicant: j The Contra Costa County Community Development Department has completed an initial study of the environmental significance of the project represented by your pending application bearing County File Number CP 92-24(Lease for Housing Authority at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord). In conformance with Contra Costa County ' Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970(CEQA), it has been determined that your project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Your project falls within the following category: (x) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) IS NOT REQUIRED. • (x) The project is categorically exempt (Class 1 a). ( ► The CEQA requirements are accommodated by the EIR previously prepared for 1 1 A statement that an EIR is not required (Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been filed by the Community Development Department (unless appealed). ( 1 Other: ( ) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) IS REQUIRED. 1 1 The complexity of your project requires your submission of additional special reports or information (as outlined on the attached sheet) (which will be outlined in a forthcoming letter). ( ) A consultant will be hired to prepare the environmental impact report. This procedure is explained on the attached sheet. Preparation of the EIR cannot be started until the fee and additional information requested is received by the Community Development Department. If you have questions concerning this determination or desire additional information relative to environmental impact report regulations, please call (415) 646-2031 and ask for Dennis Barry. Sincerely yours Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development t By: :o� ehl,t CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT P%lTotice ®f Exemption Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - North Wing, McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Telephone: (415) 646-2031 Contact Person: Dennis M. Barry Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: LEASE FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AT 2047 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY UNITS B & C CONCORD County File #CP 92-24: Project involves a lease of an existing warehouse for use by the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa as a warehouse. Subject project is located at 2047 Industrial Way, Units B & C, in the Concord area. This project is exempt from CEOA as a: Ministerial Project (Sec. 15268) _ Other Statutory Exemption, Section _ — Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269(a)) General Rule of Applicability(Section 15061(b)(3)) — Emergency Project (Sec. 15269(b) or (c)) xx Categorical Exemption, Class 1 a Section 15301 for the following reason(s): ! The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Operation of existing private x- structure involving no expansion of use beyond that previously existing. Date: By: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21 152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Department of Fish and Game Fee - Exempt • County Clerk Fee $25 Due Receipt # • PROPOSED LEASE TO MORAN FAMILY TRUST • LEASE TABLE OF CONTENTS 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Units "B" and "C" Concord, California SECTION A: BASIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS PAGE A.1. PARTIES AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 1 A.2. USE OF PREMISES. 1 A.3. LEASE OF PREMISES. 1 A:4. TERM. 1 A.5. CANCELLAT'ION. 1 A.6. RENT. 2 A.7. EXTENSION. 2 A.8. UTILITIES AND JANITORIAL. 3 A.9. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. 3 A. 10. SERVICE BY LESSOR. 4 A.11. NOTICES. 5 A.12. EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS. 5 A. 13. WRITTEN AGREEMENT. 6 A.14. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. 6 • A. 15. SIGNATURE BLOCKS. 6 SECTION B: STANDARD PROVISIONS B. 1. HOLDING OVER. . 7 B.2. HOLD HARMLESS. 7 B.3. ALTERATIONS, FIXTURES, AND SIGNS. 7 B.4. DESTRUCTION. 8 B.5. QUIET ENJOYMENT. 8 B.6. DEFAULTS. 8 B.7. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. 8 B.8. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. 9 B.9. SEVERABILITY. 9 B.10. WASTE;NUISANCE. 9 B.H. WAIVER. 9 SECTION C: SPECIAL PROVISIONS C.1. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. 10 C.2. OPTION TO PURCHASE. 11 C.3. INSPECTION. 13 C.4. SUBLETTING. 13 C.5. TAXES AND INSURANCE. 13 C.6. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. 14 C.7. DEMOLITION OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS. 15 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A: PREMISES. LEASE 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Units "B" and "C" Concord, California SECTION A: BASIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS A.I. PARTIES: Effective on the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "COUNTY," and the MORAN FAMILY TRUST, hereinafter called "LESSOR," mutually agree and promise as follows: A.2. USE OF PREMISES: A, The premises shall be used during the term and any extension thereof for the purpose of warehousing and protecting various improvements and facilities of the COUNTY. B. Provided the COUNTY is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the premises may, at the sole discretion of the COUNTY, be used during the term and any extension thereof for the purpose of developing a homeless shelter. A.3. LEASE OF PREMISES: LESSOR, for and in consideration of the rents, hereby leases to COUNTY, and COUNTY leases from LESSOR those certain premises described as follows: Approximately 10,000 square feet of warehouse and office space and 10 parking spaces, commonly known as 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Units "B" and "C", Concord California, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. A.4. TERM: The term of the Lease shall be four (4) years, six (6) months, commencing June 1, 1992 and ending November 30, 1996. A.5. CANCELLATION: In the event COUNTY is unable to develop the premises as a homeless shelter, then COUNTY shall have the right to cancel this Lease at any time after December 1, 1992 by giving LESSOR ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) days prior written notice. In the event the premises or the site on which the premises are located is found to have been contaminated with a hazardous substance, as defined in section C.6. , and the COUNTY is unable to use and occupy the premises for the primary purpose then COUNTY shall have the right to cancel this Lease at any time by giving LESSOR THIRTY (30) days prior written notice. -1- A.6. RENT: A. Base Rental : COUNTY shall pay to LESSOR for the use of said premises a monthly base rental as follows: 1. FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,500.00) per month from June 1, 1992 through November 30, 1992. 2. FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,500.00) per month from December 1, 1992 through November 30, 1993. 3. FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,725.00) per month from December 1, 1993 through November. 30, . 1994. 4.1 FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($4,950.00) per month from December 1, 1994 through November 30, 1995. 5. FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,175.00) per month from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1996. B. Monthly Payments: The total monthly rental shall be payable in advance on the tenth day of each month during the term of this Lease to: MORAN FAMILY TRUST 2099 "B" Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520 A.1. EXTENSION: This Lease may, at the option of the COUNTY, be extended upon the same terms and conditions, except the rental shall be adjusted as follows: A. First Option: For TWO (2) year term, commencing December 1, 1996 • and ending November 30, 1998, at a monthly base rental as follows: 1. FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED. AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,400.00) per month from December 1, 1996 through November 30, 1997. 2. FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,625.00) per month from December 1, 1997 through November 30, 1998. -2- B. Second Option: For a TWO (2) year term, commencing December 1, 1998 and ending November 30, 2000, at a monthly base rental as follows: 1. FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,850.00) per month from December 1, 1998 through November 30, 1999. 2. SIX THOUSAND SEVENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($6,075.00) per month from December 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000. C. Third Option: For a TWO (2) year term, commencing December 1, 2000 and ending November 30, 2002, at a monthly base rental as follows: 1. SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($6,300.00) per month from December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001. ® 2. SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($6,525.00) per month from December 1, 2001 through November 30, 2002., It is understood and agreed COUNTY shall give LESSOR ninety (90) days prior written notice of its intention to exercise any option to extend this Lease. However, in the event COUNTY does not give such written notice, its right to exercise any option before termination of the Lease shall not expire until fifteen (15) working days after receipt of LESSOR's written demand to exercise or forfeit said option. A.8. UTILITIES AND JANITORIAL: COUNTY shall pay for all gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, refuse collection and janitorial services provided to the demised premises. A.9. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS: A. LESSOR shall keep the roof and exterior of the building in good order, condition, and repair and shall maintain the structural integrity of the building, including but not limited to the foundations, exterior, perimeter walls, supporting columns, and the roof system. LESSOR shall repair damage to the interior caused by failure to maintain the exterior in good repair, including damage to the interior caused by roof leaks and/or interior and exterior wall leaks. -3- B. COUNTY shall keep and maintain the interior of the premises in good order, condition, and repair, including the alterations, fixtures, signs and tenant improvements identified below in paragraph 6.3: , "Alterations, Fixtures, and Signs", or installed at COUNTY expense. COUNTY shall repair damage to the roof, exterior of the building, and the structural integrity of the building caused by failure to maintain the interior of the premises in good repair, including damage caused by windows, doors, electrical , lighting, water systems, plumbing systems, gas systems, hot water heaters, duct work and the heating ventilating and air conditioning systems. C. COUNTY shall maintain and repair the windows, doors, electrical , interior lighting, water and plumbing systems gas systems, hot water heaters, duct work, heating, ventilating, and air—conditioning systems located in the premises in good order, condition, and repair. D. LESSOR shall maintain the fire sprinklers, alarm system, exterior lighting system, parking lot, landscaping and sprinkler system in good order, condition, and repair. COUNTY shall reimburse LESSOR its prorata share of the above costs. Said prorata share being equal to the percent of total building space leased by the COUNTY. E. COUNTY shall not suffer any waste on or to the demised premises. F. LESSOR shall be responsible for the correction of any code violations which may exist in the premises, provided LESSOR shall not be liable for correction of code violations which arise out of and are directly related to a change in COUNTY's occupancy or use of said premises. A.10. SERVICE BY LESSOR: It is understood and agreed LESSOR shall provide maintenance, remodeling or like services as requested by COUNTY from time to time during the term of this Lease or extension thereof. COUNTY shall pay to LESSOR as additional rental one hundred percent (100%) of the costs of said service. —4— LESSOR shall consult with COUNTY and select either licensed, insured contractors or employees of LESSOR to provide the service. LESSOR shall obtain COUNTY's prior written approval . on the scope, term, and cost of the contracts. COUNTY shall. have the right to change the level of service from time to time by giving LESSOR thirty (30) days' prior written notice, including the right to terminate any or all service, or to require different contractors to provide said service. A.lI. NOTICES: All notices given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given if personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, dnd addressed to the other party as follows or as otherwise designated by written notice hereunder from time to time: To Lessor: Moran Family Trust 2099 "B" Arnold Industrial Way Concord, CA 94520 To County: Contra Costa County General Services Department Lease Management Division 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 100 Martinez, CA 94553 A.12. EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS: Section B, Standard Provisions, Section C, Special Provisions, and Exhibit A, Premises are attached to this Lease and are made a part hereof. -5- t A.13. WRITTEN AGREEMENT: Neither party has relied on any promise or representation not contained in this Lease. All previous conversations, negotiations, and understandings are of no further force or effect. This Lease may be modified only by a writing signed by both parties. The headings of the paragraphs are for convenience only and are not a part of this Lease, nor shall they be considered in construing the intent of this Lease. A.14. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE of each and all of the terms and provisions of this Lease. A.15. COUNTY LESSOR COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political MORAN FAMILY TRUST subdivision ,of the State of California By By Director of General Services William H. Moran, Trustee RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By Dorothy J. Moran, Trustee By Deputy County Administrator By Assistant Director of General Services By Lease Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: VICTOR J. WESTMAN, County Counsel By TE:dp Deputy 2047arn5.14 -6- • LEASE 2041 Arnold Industrial Way, Units "B" and "C" Concord, California SECTION B: STANDARD PROVISIONS B.1. HOLDING OVER: Any holding over after the term of this Lease or extension thereof as provided hereinabove shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month, subject to the terms of this Lease so far as applicable. B.2. HOLD HARMLESS: COUNTY agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the LESSOR from of any and all claims, costs and liability for any damage, injury or death of or to any person or the property of any person, including attorneys' fees, arising out of negligent acts, errors or omissions of the COUNTY, its officers or employees. COUNTY shall not be liable in the case of any structural , mechanical or other failure of equipment or buildings owned and maintained by the LESSOR or for other liability which is attributable, to the i negligence or, willful misconduct of LESSOR, which results in damage to any person or property. LESSOR agrees to indemnify and hold COUNTY harmless from any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, injury or death of any person or the property of any person, including attorneys' fees, arising out of negligent acts, errors or omissions of the LESSOR, its agents or employees. LESSOR shall not be liable for any claims for damages attributable to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of COUNTY, which results in damage to any person or property. In the event LESSOR is sued in a lawsuit arising out of or relating to an action of the COUNTY Board of Supervisors for approval or operation of the Homeless Shelter, the COUNTY will defend and indemnify LESSOR from any loss resulting from such lawsuits. 6.3. ALTERATIONS, FIXTURES, AND SIGNS: COUNTY may make any lawful and proper alterations, attach fixtures and signs in or upon the premises, which shall remain COUNTY property and may be removed therefrom by COUNTY prior to the termination of this Lease. Any such alterations, signs or fixtures shall be at COUNTY's sole cost and expense, and all signs shall meet with existing code requirements and LESSOR's approval . -7- • In addition to the above, the following fixtures shall remain COUNTY property and may be removed therefrom by COUNTY prior to the termination of this Lease: Gas fired space heaters, Gas fired water heaters, Toilet fixtures, Shower units, Drinking fountains, Light fixtures, and any other fixtures installed at COUNTY expense. B.4. -DESTRUCTION: A. In the event of damage causing a partial destruction of the premises during the term of this Lease from any cause, LESSOR shall repair said damage promptly and within a reasonable time, but such partial destruction shall not void this Lease, except that COUNTY shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of rent while such repairs are being made, such proportionate reduction to be based upon the extent to which the portion of the premises unusable by COUNTY bears to the total area of the premises. B. A total destruction of the premises or the building in which the premises are located may terminate this Lease at the option of the County. B.5. QUIET ENJOYMENT: LESSOR covenants that COUNTY shall at all times during the said term peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the demised premises without suit, trouble or hindrance from or on account of LESSOR as long as COUNTY fully performs hereunder. B.6. DEFAULTS: In the event of COUNTY's material breach of any of the covenants or conditions herein, LESSOR may re—enter and repossess the premises and remove all persons and property therefrom after giving COUNTY written notice of such default and in accordance with due process of law. In the event of such a breach by LESSOR, COUNTY may terminate the Lease and quit the premises without further cost or obligation or may proceed to repair the building or correct the problem resulting from the breach and deduct the cost thereof from rent payments due to LESSOR, provided. that COUNTY has given LESSOR written notice of said breach and provided that LESSOR has not made a substantial effort to correct said breach. B.1. SURRENDER OF PREMISES: On the last day of the said term, or sooner termination of this Lease, COUNTY will peaceably and quietly leave and surrender to LESSOR these premises with their appurtenances and fixtures _g— (except fixtures and signs referred to in B.3. herein) in good order, condition, and repair, reasonable use and wear thereof and damage by earthquake, fire, public calamity, by the elements, by Act of God, or by circumstances over which COUNTY has no control excepted. B.B. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The terms and provisions of this Lease shall extend to and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, and assigns of the respective parties hereto. B.9. SEVERABILITY: In the event that any provision herein is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any such provision shall not materially prejudice either the LESSOR or COUNTY in its respective rights and obligations contained in the valid provisions of this • Lease. 8.10. WASTE; NUISANCE: COUNTY shall not commit, or suffer to be committed, any waste upon the Teased premises, or any nuisance or other act or thing which may disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other Lessee or occupant of the complex in which the leased premises are located. B.11. WAIVER: The waiver by COUNTY of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by LESSOR shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by COUNTY of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of COUNTY to pay the particular rent so accepted, regardless of LESSOR's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. -9- LEASE 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Units "B" and "C" Concord, California SECTION C: SPECIAL PROVISIONS C.I. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: If, during the term of this Lease or any extension thereof, LESSOR or his successor in interest offers to lease Unit "A" and/or Unit "D" as shown on Exhibit "A", LESSOR must make said offer to COUNTY prior to any other party. Upon COUNTY's refusal of said offer, it may be made to others. COUNTY shall have thirty (30) days in which to meet the terms and conditions of such offer. If COUNTY does not act within said 30-day periqd, LESSOR shall be free to lease the premises in accordance with the terms and conditions of said offer. In the event Unit "A" is leased by County, then COUNTY shall pay to LESSOR as rent, TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,500.00) per month under the same terms and conditions of this Lease, so far as applicable. Said rent shall be paid as follows: 1. TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,500.00) per month from June 1, 1992 through November 30, 1992. 2. TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,500.00) per month from December 1, 1992 through November 30, 1993.. 3. TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,625.00) per month from December 1, 1993 through November 30, 1994. 4. TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,750.00) per month from December 1, 1994 through November 30, 1995. 5. TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,875.00) per month from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1996. First Option: 6. THREE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,000.00) per month from December 1, 1996 through November 30, 1997. 7. THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,125.00) per month from December 1, 1997 through November 30, 1998. -10- • Second Option: 8. THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,250.00) per month from December 1, 1998 through November 30, 1999. 9. THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,375.00) per month from December 1, 1999 through November 30, 2000. Third Option: 10. THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,500.00) per month from December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2001. 11. THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($3,625.00) per month from December 1, 2001 through November 30, 2002. In the event LESSOR is unable to lease Unit "A" as shown on Exhibit "A", then COUNTY shall pay to LESSOR as rent, THREE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($3,000.00) per month until said Unit is leased to another party. However, the total of said payments shall not exceed EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($18,000.00) . C.2. OPTION TO PURCHASE: A. As part of the consideration for this Lease, LESSOR hereby grants to COUNTY or its assignee the exclusive right and privilege to purchase the real property during the period between June 1, 1992 and November 30, 1996, consisting of: 23,759 square foot industrial/office building on a 1.26 acre site, known as 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord. Assessor's parcel No. 159-080-036. Purchase may be made at any time prior to December 1, 1993 for ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,475,000.00) . Purchase may be made at any time from December 1, 1993 through November 30, 1995 for ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,550,000.00) . Purchase may be made at any time from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1996 for ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY, FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,625,000) . -11- I B. To exercise the purchase option, COUNTY shall give ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) days prior written notice to LESSOR. C. LESSOR shall deliver to COUNTY an executed grant deed in recordable form conveying the premises. Title to the premises shall be conveyed by LESSOR to COUNTY free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, easements, and rights of way of record, leases with a term exceeding five (5) years, and other matters of record, except utility easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, current taxes, a lien not yet delinquent, and those portions of current assessments not yet due and payable. D. Tile sale shall be consummated through an escrow to be opened after the option notice has been given to LESSOR. Escrow shall be deemed to be opened under this paragraph on the date the escrow instructions, are drawn. The parties shall execute all documents required by escrow holder as long as they are consistent with the provisions of this paragraph. Escrow shall close approximately sixty (60) days after the option notice has been given to LESSOR. Escrow shall be deemed to be closed pursuant to this paragraph on the date the grant deed is recorded. E. At the close of escrow,, escrow holder must be prepared to issue a CLTA Standard Coverage Policy of Title Insurance in the amount of the purchase price insuring title to the premises vested in COUNTY, subject only to the matters set forth in paragraph. F. Rent and taxes shall be prorated as of close of escrow. G. Transfer taxes and recording fees on the .deed, the cost of the title policy referred to in paragraph- E, charges of escrow, and all other closing costs shall be paid by COUNTY. H. If the premises are partially destroyed between the date COUNTY exercises the option to purchase and the date set for the close of escrow, LESSOR shall restore the premises. The partial destruction shall not affect this option, the date set for the close of escrow or the purchase price of the premises.. If the Lease terminates, this option shall also terminate unless COUNTY otherwise agrees in writing to complete the purchase. -12- I. On close of escrow, this Lease shall terminate and the parties shall be released from all liabilities and obligations under this Lease. C.3. INSPECTION: The LESSOR reserves the right to enter the premises by prior appointment only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. , Monday through Friday, holidays excepted, and to employ the proper representative or contractor in order to see that the property is being reasonably cared for, that no waste is being made, and that all things are done in the manner best calculated for the preservation of the property, and in full compliance with the terms and conditions of this Lease. C.4. SUBLEITING: Except as provided below, COUNTY shall not assign this Lease or any interest therein, without the prior written consent of LESSOR, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. COUNTY shall have the right to sublet any part of the premises to contractors, consultants or other persons or entities providing services to the COUNTY but shall not sublet to non-related private parties without written consent of LESSOR, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Sublessee or Assignee, if any, shall obtain and maintain during the course of their agreement, comprehensive liability insurance with a minimum combined single-limit coverage of $1,000,000 for all claims or losses due to bodily injury, sickness or disease or death of any person, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof arising out of each accident or occurrence, and to name Moran Family Trust, and its trustees, and Contra Costa County, its officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds thereunder. Said insurance shall provide for a thirty (30) day written notice of cancellation or lapse. C.S. TAXES AND INSURANCE: A. TAXES. COUNTY shall pay to LESSOR within thirty (30) days after being requested to do so by LESSOR, as additional rental , its prorata share of the City and/or County taxes levied against Assessor's Parcel #159-080-036 in any year during the term of this Lease or extension thereof. Said prorata share being equal to the -13- percent of total building space leased by the County. Except COUNTY shall not pay any increase resulting from a change in ownership of the property. B. INSURANCE. COUNTY shall pay to LESSOR within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice to do so from LESSOR, as additional rental , its prorata share of the LESSOR's cost of fire, vandalism, malicious mischief, and extended coverage insurance for the building in which the premises is located. Said prorata share being equal to the percent of total building space leased by the COUNTY. In the event of any damage to or destruction of any part of the demised premises covered by said insurance, -the proceeds shall be utilized by LESSOR for the repair, reconstruction, or replacement of the damaged or destroyed portion of . the demised premises to the same good order, repair, and condition as it was prior to the damage' or destruction. COUNTY shall insure COUNTY's equipment and fixtures. LESSOR shall have no interest in the insurance upon COUNTY's equipment and fixtures and will sign all documents necessary or proper in connection with the settlement of any claim or loss by COUNTY. C. PRORATION. It is understood that during the first and last year of occupancy, said taxes and said insurance shall . be prorated between LESSOR and COUNTY according to the number of days the COUNTY shall have possession of the demised premises. C.6. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES: LESSOR warrants that the building and premises are free of any hazardous substances or contamination. LESSOR acknowledges that hazardous substances may permanently and materially impair the value and use of the real property. LESSOR agrees to defend, save, protect, indemnify and hold COUNTY harmless from and against all liabilities, claims, actions, foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential -damages, costs, and expenses (including sums paid in settlement of claims and all consultant, expert and legal fees and expenses of COUNTY's counsel) or loss directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from the presence of any hazardous substance in or around any part of the property or in the soil , groundwater or soil vapor on or under the property, including those incurred in connection with any —14— investigation of site conditions or any clean-up, remedial , removal or restoration work, or any resulting damages or injuries to the person or property of any third parties or to any natural resources. COUNTY agrees to defend, save, protect, indemnify and hold LESSOR harmless from and against all liabilities, claims, actions, foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages, costs, and expenses (including sums paid in settlement of claims and all consultant, expert and legal fees and expenses of LESSOR's counsel) or loss directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from the COUNTY'S placement of any hazardous substance in, on, or around any part of the property or in the soil , groundwater or soil vapor on or under the property, pursuant to its activities under this Lease including those incurred in connection with any investigation of site • conditions or any clean-up, remedial , removal or restoration work, or any resulting damages or injuries to the person or property of any third parties or to any natural resources. A "Hazardous Substance" is defined to mean any substance, material or waste, including asbestos and petroleum (including crude oil or any fraction thereof) , which is or becomes designated, classified or regulated as being "toxic", "hazardous", a "pollutant" or similar designation under any federal , state or local law, regulation or ordinance. C.7. DEMOLITION OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: In the event COUNTY exercises its cancellation right as stated in A.5. above, COUNTY shall pay for cost of demolition and removal (and repairs required as a result of said demolition) of COUNTY tenant improvements including but not limited to those tenant improvements listed in paragraph B.3. "Alterations, Fixtures, and Signs" above and installed at the expense of the COUNTY, as required by LESSOR. TE:dp 2041arn5.14 -15- EXHIBIT A , :r ' I j t N f F Al 3Q r o z O�cr w q-• U / oU o ,i o cz) LL.N U- ►-- O NQ �. O UC) _c) cy- tY 1 O - LO f- 3 OCX �O 1 / C CC C ! WO O F- .__1 V1 U / UJ ui O N LL.j / ! cn - ..r U J ,M. tn� O a o ti- z� 3 CLz Rv a _ c�J ►-- LL- C) �� C3- > cwt U COO CV Q`� QU U- -. / g LLJ M 'SX+ U C*3 ats+^ LLJ Lt) s 4 C7 C-' 1. <K Ui ID N N L/'1 J - LD to U N C'V 1 . cx 1 j C1 CD LLJ <c z LLJ N z• .'t CflR COSTA Paul and Rhonda Santen 1848 Debra Lane `"r.7r"=` `=. Concord . California 94521 % (510)682-0967 March 20, 1992 Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street_ Fourth Floor Martinez , California 94553-0095 At-tention: Bob Drake Dear Mr. Drake, I am contacting you in sunnort of the proposed permanent Central County shelter. There is a. definite need for a central county shelter. The "not in my backyard", syndrome has gone too far. • The way the current shelter operates , does not impact the neighborhood. The program is beneficial for both the individuals and our county. We have been involved and will continue to be involved in the shelter as long as it is there. Sincerely, Paul and Rhon Santen An V_e CD � VAX , . UN CONS" oj_�\_D yet SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK ♦ Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District Four Contra 2301 Stanwell Drive Costa 'fit W 26 P4:U Concord, California 94520 10){44646-5763 County (5101 k-4i&646-5767(FAX) March .25, 1992 Louis and Patricia Doll 3910-F Northwood Drive Concord, CA 94520 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Doll: Thank you for contacting this office with your concerns about the homeless shelter on Arnold Industrial Way in Concord. I appreciate the compassion you have for those who are homeless. The County is mandated by the State to provide housing for those who have none; however, the County must also institute a homeless policy that is equitable for all involved. • Because input is needed from the community, your letter will be forwarded to , Bob Drake in Community Development to be included in the CEQA process . The process .is the best avenue to insure constituent participation. Please contact my staff With any future concerns. Sincerely, Sunne Wright McPeak SWM:tmn N �' tn v CO -C Sunne WitLght-Mc%eah RECEIVED Supenv:Laon, Contra Cvata County Concond, CalL�onnLa 94520 MAR 23 1992 march 2.1, 1992 Am'd............ Dean lea. W&Lght-Mcl eak, %h La letter La Ln neganda to the hUmeleaa ahelten that opened thLa yea/ on 4nnold InduatnLal Way Ln Concond. Both my wL�e and I bel Leve that people, eapecLally �amLlLea, have a baa Lc night to hvuaing. We ane however, oppoaed to the ahelten being open �on the aummen montha �on the following neaaona. We live acnoaa �nom the ahelten Ln the neaLdentLal anea Ln Nonthwovd townhouse complex. ✓/Lghway 4 and a tamp leading to highway 242 aepanatea ua �nom the ahelten. There La a tunnel and road that connects {4nnold InduatnL.al Way and Nonthwvod. lhene La , a ALx �vot fence on the 41tnold aLde, but no complete /ence on the Nonthwovd ALde. %he Aiznold �ence �nequently has a hole Ln Lt. . Some people • that .uie the ihelten uae thLa -route as _a ahont. cut. Oua chLldRen, as well .aA many chLldnen Ln this anea, platy Ln the ataeet as homeleaa people head �oit the ahelten. My concern Lan 't that the people who use thLa route ane bad people_. I yuat don 't know who they ane on where they came, ,zom. I don 't know L� they will harm my chLldnen. When My �amLly moved into the Nonthwovd anea, we did not ,have this hind oaf pedeatnLan tna��.Lc. When the cunnent location oaf the ahelten was -ielected, -I don not believe that thLa was u known Route loft the patnona to take. I do bel Leve that thLa Laaue should be addneaaed. I thank you agaLn, �va youn`cv,ncenn Ln thLa matter. yo ns %nuly, yy ouLa (f tnLcLa Doll 3910-F Nonthwwod DnLve Concond CA. 94520 AD SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK Contra Board of Supervisors Supervisor, District Four 2301 Stanwell Drive Costa 72 no.26 p Concord, California 94520 County O1 U'n}` , -4415)-646-5763 `Y (510)- -`*646-5767(FAX) March 24, 1992 Patrick King, Jr. 1381 Shakespeare Drive Concord, CA 94521 Dear Mr. King: Thank you for contacting this office with your concerns about the North Concord Homeless Shelter. I assure you that the process in establishing the present shelter as a permanent site is being conducted • properly. For your input, this office will submit your letter to Bob Drake in Community Development in order that your statements are apart of the CEQA process . Please .feel free to contact my staff with any future concerns. Sincerely, Sunne Wright McPeak SWM:tmn - i • 1381 Shakespeare Drive RE C E I V E D Concord California 94521 March 15, 1992 MAR 8 1992 • Dear Sunne .McPeak; Pad This is a letter urging a great deal of caution of the Shelter Inc. project in Concord. I have just today been asked by my Church to make an appeal for your vote in favor of a permanent shelter in North Concord. Until last week I had almost no information on this issue other than a very good speech by the magnetic Mr. Jon Creek at our church. I have a great deal of interest in the subject. The experiences of a lifetime in urban areas convinces me that this is a positively HUGE issue for Concord. The fact that I am raising two children in the amazingly fine community of Concord impels me to pay attention. I was at a Community forum on Wednesday, March 11 , under auspices of the County Housing Authority. The community forum was a roomful of mainly well . wishers, perhaps a majority who live or work at the shelter. The point was made by a few Concord people that there was no notification on the forum being held, or .at least less notification than was required of me when I built a 7 foot fence. This smacks of lack of due process, and of a great desire to rush through the deal. • Having presented its no-impact statement.- to a roomful of Shelter advocates and "clients" , the County now only has to wait until March 31 for the end of the "public discussion" phase. Mr. Creek of the shelter has been taking the obvious and. direct route with the Church groups of gaining acceptance on humanitarian grounds. What .disturbs me about his approach is that he has called on the church groups to pull out all the stops now just a few days before the phase ends. No one knows Mr. Creek that well, and no one at all is qualified on the other issues here. What I am asking is a maximum of due process, and due diligence. Concord must not be treated like a bumpkin town with a carnival, not on an issue this tremendous. The problems I as a resident of Concord want answered are too big to be N ='= handled relying on Mr. Creek's working the Churches. I am finding that Church people find the problems surrounding the facility to be very tiny and non existent. This requires burying ones head in the sand. There is supposed to be plenty bad going, on right now in North Concord, while the shelter has its best behavior. I have neighbors in Walnut Creek who say the shelter there last year was too anti-social to remain where it was. r'. w- ca -{ :2t cov The upshot of the meeting was that I learned there has been an explosion in crime and the atmosphere of crime. A lot of the statements were directly confirmed by people at the shelter, who of course take the attitude that the crime is somehow caused by society and the hostile people all around them. This is the classic drug and alcohol psychology. Could it be that the shelter is a "flophouse" for alcoholics? If so, we can rely on losing a few neighborhoods at time to this social project year by year, so that in only a little time we will be running out of police, our children will have no school funds, our tax base will be moving away in all directions. So what are we getting for that sacrifice! ! The attitude is nothing for us. This is being done here in Concord without even touching all the bases of due process ( even technically ). No citizens of Concord have enough information to make any decisions. The citizens of Concord are not in on the decision on any level. We do pay the bills though. I am worried. I am asking you to put a block on this until ALL QUESTIONS have been answered. I think you will agree that this is not a tiny issue, for our families. There has to be a turning point some time where what hurts families is given equal consideration. In summary, I suppose I am not- at all nearly as nice as people who strike a sympathetic chord on the poor among us. But this is nothing against the poor, or the homeless! Several generations worth of no-strings programs to help the helpless have left less, and less, and less for working class family life in all the major cities and urban areas. There just has to be a turning point. Please at least see that we are not being hustled like fools here. We love our town. Respectfully, Patrick E. King Jr. CLYDE CIVIC IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. 140 Norman Avenue • Clyde, CA 94520 rnt'7 C' March 30, 1992-- ' ; - Community Development Department Contra Costa County 551 Pine St. 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 L a Cit c1t Attention: Bob Drake Dear Mr. Drake: Re: Notice of Intention to Adopt a Negative Declaration & Intial Study for the Central County Homeless Shelter Enclosed you will find a letter addressed to HUD dated March 25., 1992 which should be entered into the environmental record under CEGA compliance. 'Additionally, our organization feels that numerous inadequacies exist in the Initial Study. A Negative Declaration is not acceptable. A combined EIR/EIS should be prepared for this project. We would also like to have entered into the record for this project, the following Environmental Record: The Draft and Response to Comments Document (Environmental Impact . Report) on the North Concord Reorganization Project, SCH # 87072811 Prepared for the City of Concord. . In addition, a Land Use Permoit should be required for the permanent siting of this shelter. Issues such as lack of adequate recreational area, traffic hazards, inadequate parking, excessive noise levels, poor air quality, and lack of an emegency response plan must be addressed in addition to those concerns raised in our letter dated March 25 and contained in the North Concord Reorganization EIR. Si cerely, ee Kilcoyne Chairman of t Board Enc: Letter cc: Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak Dave Golick, City of Concord • n CLYDE CIVIC IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. 140 Norman Avenue Clyde, CA 94520 March 25, 1992 Jimmy Prater, Program Manager 9CMA HUD P. O. Box 36003 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisca, CA 94120 Dear- Mr. Prater: County Project: Contra Costa County Homeless Shelter aka Central County Homeless Shelter 2047 Arnold Industrial Way Concord, California Project No. 92-021 This letter is submitted in response to the "Notice of Intention to Adopt a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Proposed Central County Homeless Shelter in the North Concord Area. " The County of Contra Costa (and the cities of Antioch, Concord, and Walnut Creek) have not reviewed this Project in a manner which would be • consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) . A copy of this letter is being sent as an objection in accordance and .pursuant to. 24 CFR Part 58 to HUD at: P. O. Box 3E003, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 by FAX in timely filing by the deadline of March 25, 1992, so the objection will be considered by HUD so that funding from the cities of Antioch, Walnut Creek and Concord and the County of Contra Costa from Federally funded monies will not be released without proper and legal environmental review. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to Contra Costa County prior to their deadline of March 30, 1992 for acceptance of public comment regarding CEQA conformity. A copy of this letter is also being sent to the cities of Concord, Antioch and Walnut Creek. The County of Contra Costa, acting as Lead Agency, has failed to properly review this Project in a manner consistent with CEQA and NEPA. This Project should not receive a "Negative Declaration" and the County of Centra Costa should be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") due to the following inadequacies contained in the environmental record for the above mentioned Project: Mr. Jimmy Prater March. 25, 1992 Page Two • According to State of California CEOA Guidelines (Section 15064 (d) : "In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary and secondary or indirect consequences. 1. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and the traffic. . . 2. Secondary consequences are related more to effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself. " Indirect or secondary effects may include according to Section 151353 (a) (2) : ". . . . growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or .growth rate. . . " . An EIR/EIS must be prepared since there exists obvious and significant public controversy concerning the project. CEPA guidelines (Section 15064 (h) (1), (2) state: "1. If there is serious public controversy over . the • environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare and EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require. preparation of an EIR. 2. If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. " The following illustrates a few of the inadequancies contained in the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Format III document: Historic Preservation: Letter dated 1 -27-92 Attachment B is not adequate since the State Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, obviously was not informed that the project site will be adjacent to the proposed routing of the Delta-DeAnza Trail (a national historic .trail, Public Law 101-365, August 15, 1990) . The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation should review the determination in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6 (e) . Reference: Delta-DeAnza Trail Alignment and Feasibility Study, Phase 2 prepared for Contra Costa County, March 1991 by Arbegast Newton & Griffith, Landscape Architects, 1647 Hopkins Street, Berkeley, CA .94707. Mr. Jimmy Prater March 25, 1992 Page Three • Sole Source Aquifers and Safe Drinking Water: #2 Appendix A Inadequate. See Initial. -Study prepared by Contra Costa County dated 2-25-92, #3 (h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies which states that the site adjoins a water transmission facility (Mokelumne Aqueduct) . . . no risk that project might result in a substantial reduction. . . " While it is true the site is located near the aqueduct, that facility services the East Pay Municipal Utility District (EPMUD) ; the project site is located within Contra Costa Water's District (CCWD) boundary and therefore, receives its water supply from CCWD. Reference: Page 11-6 EPMUD Urban Water Management Plan dated February 1991. (Note: 24 CFR 58.5) HUD Environmental Standards: Noise Abatement and Control (24 CFR 51B) Inadequate. The Noise Study prepared is for a temporary shelter, not a permanent shelter. Mitigation is not spelled out for adequate insulation of the facility in order to bring the noise level inside to a DNL of 45 decibels. Explosive and Flammable Operations (24 CFR 51C) : Attachment D dated January 17, 1992 is inadequate. The project site is located in close proximity to two large Petroleum Product . Distribution pipelines and wells. (Reference: Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005, Figure 10-9b and Draft EIR for North Concord Reorganization Project dated June 9, 1988 SCH #87072811, pages 3-4 and 3-8 and Figure 10: Pipeline and Well Locations) . (Note: Public Resource Code Section 3208. 1) ASD (Acceptable Separation Distince) was not calculated for these facilities. The only hazardous facility mentioned in .the EA was Tosco Refinery Company, when in fact the project site is located in close proximity (within one mile) of numerous hazardous facilities. These include, but are not limited to, the following: Monsanto Chemical, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, RMC Lonestar, Naval Weapons Station Concord railroad storage, and American Gas. . The potential hazards associated with pipelines, chemical plants, refinery operations, tank farms, and wells in the project vicinity are found to require no mitigation. The exposure of a large number of human beings, and without an Emergency Response Plan is not consistant with Federal laws regarding the use of federally-funded projects. Toxic Chemicals and Radioactive Materials (HUD Notice 79-33) . Telephone call with Department of . Environmental Health is not adequate. Project site is located in close proximity to Siemens Medical Laboratory, manufacturer of radioactive equipment and Lesher Communication, Inc. , a newspaper printing facility. • Mr. Jimmy Prater March 25, 1992 Page Four Federal Block Grant funds should not be used on activities supporting new development for habitation when affected by toxic • chemicals or radioactive materials. Hazards and Nuisances, Including Site Safety. Inadequate since the EA fails to discuss the relevance of the Concord Fault line. Reference:. Contra Costa County General Plan, Figure 10-1, Page 10-13. i Conformance with General Plan: Inadequate. The County is not exempt from their General Plan. Failure to require a Land Use Permit and public hearings. Reference: Contra Costa General Plan 1990-2005 adopted by the Hoard of Supervisors. The Housing Element of the General Plan has a section on Sites for Homeless Facilities, , Pages - 6-61 through '6-65. To place a permanent shelter in ,a Light Industrial Zone requires a Land Use Permit. Reference: Table 6-15, Page 6-64. Our organization requests that all Federal funding be withheld until proper environmental review is conducted on this project. Because of the significant adverse impacts to the environment and to the people who are affected by this project, an EIR/EIS should be prepared for this project. Sincerely. CLYDE. CIVIC IMPROVEMENT AS OCIATION, INC. • / ..az2 O ee Kilcoyne, �Ch firman of the Board of Directors cc: Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak James Kennedy, Community Development, Contra Costa County Rita Hardin, City Manager, City of Concord Shadrick Small, Director, Housing & Community Services Helen Kim, Housing Specialist, CommunityDevelopment Dept. City of Walnut Creek Ron Ward, Planning Dept. , City of Antioch • s 1 `JV MEMORY GARDENS' COMMENTS RE ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RE PROPOSED CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER I, John H. Patton, declare: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California, and practicing of counsel for the Law Offices of Jack C. Provine, attorneys for Memory Gardens, Inc. ("Memory Gardens") , which is the owner of real property located at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, California. Memory Gardens operates a cemetery and a crematorium at this location, and has done so for many years. This location is immediately adjacent (to the west, northwest and north of) to certain real property and warehouse located at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, which is the site for the proposed central county homeless shelter ("the proposed • project") , which is the subject of the initial environmental study ("the initial study") conducted by the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County ("the Department") , and the subject of the Department's intended negative declaration ("the declaration") that said project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. 2 . Memory Gardens is the petitioner and plaintiff in the pending action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa, entitled Memory Gardens. Inc. v. Contra Costa County, et . al. , Action No. C91-05729. The Taw,; , Offices of Jack C. Provine is acting as attorney of record n1rpr'l: Memory Gardens in said action. c f -rs :X 193\p1ead\negative.dec a 3 . Memory Gardens and I have read and reviewed the initial study,. and all documents on which its conclusions are based. I make this Declaration on Memory Gardens' behalf and as its comment upon the adequacy of the proposed negative declaration. 4. Based upon our review of the initial study and supporting documents, Memory Gardens' presence and conduct of business in the surrounding area, personal observation and knowledge concerning facts and conditions at the site :of the project and surrounding areas, communications with landowners adjacent to or in the area of the project, review of other resource materials and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requirements, and review of the initial study itself, we have concluded that the project will have significant impacts on the environment, and will itself be subject to significant environmental impacts. As such, we conclude that a • full and adequate environmental impact report ("EIR") should be prepared in accordance with the comprehensive environmental process contemplated by CEQA, including consideration of mitigation factors and available alternatives, such as alternative locations for the proposed central county shelter. 5. The proposed project contemplates a long-term lease and/or purchase by the County from private citizens, for the establishment and operation of a permanent, full-time, 24-hour a day residence for up to 100 adults, 365 days per year. The site of this project is zoned as light industrial under the County zoning ordinances and General Plan. Residential uses, including homeless shelters, are not permitted in areas zoned as light-industrial . without a use • 193\p1ead\negative.dec 2 1 permit, according to County zoning ordinances. Virtually all of • the land surrounding or within a mile (to the west, northwest and north) of the project is zoned industrial (light or heavy) , with the exception of a portion of Memory Gardens' cemetery which is zoned general agricultural. There are only two single family residences in the vicinity of the proposed project. Generally, the surrounding properties are used for various industrial and/or warehouse purposes. Among the larger industries in the area are International Technologies ("IT") , the Tosco Refinery, the Monsanto chemical plant, and the Siemens Medical Laboratory. 6. The proposed project is located within 100 yards of Memory Gardens' existing crematorium. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference, is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of William A. Silva, signed under penalty of perjury, and filed in Action No. C91-05729. As pointed out in said Declaration, Memory 'Gardens previously operated its crematorium during normal business hours, but due to complaints about noise and fumes (resulting in citations from the Air Quality District) from adjacent and downwind properties (such as the proposed project site) , it discontinued that practice and began operating the crematorium in the evenings, when workers in the nearby warehouses and industries had gone home from work, and the area for the most part was deserted. As noted by Mr. Silva, when Memory Gardens made this adjustment, these complaints about the noise and fumes ceased. However, the proposed central county shelter would have up to 100 people residing at the project site, immediately adjacent to Memory • 193\p1ead\negative.dec 3 4 ' Gardens, and at all hours of the day, not just during business • hours. Further, if a permanent shelter is located at the proposed site, this residential use will occur in the warmer months when fumes and odors are worse, and when people will want to be outside. I am aware of no study or analysis that has been made or done in connection with the initial study for the proposed project which has even considered this potential impact, even though this concern was communicated to the County, its officials and attorneys,. months ago. 7. Memory Gardens maintains that the initial study does not , properly consider the potential impact of placing up to 100 persons on a round-the clock permanent basis in the middle of an existing industrial area. There are potential impacts from a project in this area which are significant and require analysis, according to a previous EIR that was done for the City. of Concord covering the area including the proposed shetler, in connection with the proposed annexation of 225 acres of property in the Arnold Industrial Way vicinity by the City of Concord ("the proposed annexation project") . This EIR (SCH No. 87072811) , dated September 23 , 1988, and the draft of which was commented on by the Department by letter July 12 , 1988 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference) , concluded that several environmental issues and concerns existed which were studied for the proposed annexation project in this area, including land use, traffic and circulation, air quality, hydrology and drainage, geology and seismicity, and services and utilities. True 193\p1ead\negative.dec 4 r. and correct copies of that EIR's maps (Figures 2 and 3) , showing the location of, the proposed annexation project studied therein, are attached hereto, marked Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference. The site of the proposed central county shelter is within the boundaries of the proposed annexation project studied, as shown by its maps (Exhibit C) . 8. Not surprisingly, one of the chief environmental concerns running throughout the EIR for the proposed annexation project was the potential for conflict between existing industrial uses and other uses which would draw more people into the area studied, such as more light industry or residential uses. According to the EIR and its appendicies, these concerns were raised because of fears about the compatibility of industrial uses such as chemical plants, truck terminals, auto dismantlers and heavy construction with the presence of growing numbers of people in the area, and fears that the proposed annexation might work to alter the area's historical operation as a "buffer zone" between heavy industries and areas of other uses, . where greater numbers of people would be present. The initial study for the proposed central county shelter does not even mention this area of concern, even though the proposed project here would create an island of very dense permanent residential use (up to 100 single adults, plus support staff) in the center of this existing area of industrial uses. 9. As an example of these kinds of concerns about significant environmental impacts which were previously raised regarding a proposed project in the same area as the proposed central county 193\p1ead\negative.dec 5 shelter, the following are direct quotes from the draft EIR (dated June 9, 1988) for the proposed annexation project which quotes address only the issue of air quality, a topic of prime concern to Memory Gardens and others within the surrounding project area: "Regionally, the most severe and complex air quality problem is the relatively high level of ambient ozone experienced during warm, meteorlogically stable periods in the summer and autumn. " "Air quality in northern Contra Costa County does experience significant degradation due to the presence of many large industrial sources and because it is susceptible to many of the conditions which contribute to the occurrence of high pollutant episodes, such as a high frequency of light winds, frequent inversions, and plentiful sunshine. " "The area to the north and west of the project area, extending to the Carquinez Strait and the City of Martinez is heavily industrialized. The BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District] has classified many of the industrial facilities, waste treatment plants, and public utilities in this area as Major Emitting • Facilities (MEF) . . . " "Due to their proximity to established: MEF's, employees and visitors to the project area would . be routinely exposed to levels of SO2 and toxic air pollutants at least as high as those registered at the Concord monitoring station. . .Individuals would also be subject to higher levels of exposure to these agents should a large- scale accidental release ever occur at nearby facilities, particularly at locations adjacent to refining and processing activities. " 10. These concerns about air quality were also raised in the Response to Comments Document which was part of the- EIR for the proposed annexation project. Included among the lead agency's comments were the following: "Response. Comment noted. The Draft EIR states on page 3-50 that persons in the project area would be exposed to criteria .pollutants and toxic air pollutants from the numerous industrial sources in the area. Some of these 193\p1ead\negative.dec 6 pollutants, particularly hydrogen sulfide are odorous. As noted in the comment, there is an established history of complaints regarding odors from these facilities. Increasing the number of people in the project area would contribute to the potential for increases in odor complaints and may contribute to conflicts with heavy industrial uses in the area. It should be noted however, that the period of greatest potential for odor complaints is evening and night hours when winds are light and atmospheric stability is high and the evening population in the project area would most likely be a small fraction of the daytime population. No rezoning to allow other types of uses are anticipated by the City of Concord at this time. " 11. The above response from the lead agency with regard to the proposed annexation project makes it clear that the City was justifiably concerned about the exposure of persons to "criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants" and about the "potential for odor complaints, " and that its approach to mitigating such problems was not to allow other types of uses which would increase the • evening population in the area which would be the most exposed to : those problems. As noted in the public comments to the draft EIR for the proposed annexation project (at page 7-9) , "to encroach upon heavy industry with less restrictive zoning is environmentally unsound. Introducing an 'office park' into a buffer zone is to create a climate for complaints. " Of course, the proposed central county shelter would be located within the same project area (the "buffer zone")., would introduce a significant number of additional residents to the area, and would do so in the evenings as well, when "winds are light and atmospheric stability is high, " as well as at the very time when Memory Gardens presently operates its crematorium, directly adjacent to and upwind of the project site. • 193\p1ead\negative.dec 7 r, Permanent residential use within 200 feet of the crematorium is likely to "create a climate for complaints. " Instead of analyzing the potential for such significant environmental impacts, the initial study. for the proposed project simply concludes that the "project does not involve any manufacturing or processing activities that would result in any objectionable odors. " While such may be true, it ignores the significant issues of the environmental. impacts created by exposing 100 or more adults on a regular basis to toxic air pollutants and industrial odors. The issue is not even broached in the initial study. 12. The exposure of persons to "criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants" is not the only area of potential significant environmental impact ignored by the initial study for the proposed central county shelter. For example, the EIR for the proposed • annexation project concluded that a "significant impact" existed from the "potential risk of explosion associated with proximity to Tosco Refinery. " It further concluded that this impact was "unavoidable and adverse" and was "inherent to development in (the] project vicinity. " The initial study for the proposed central county shelter does not even look into the impact of this risk, or the issue of response time and control of such risks, on the 100 persons who are to become residents of the shelter, or consider ways of mitigating that risk (such as alternative shelter sites not exposed to the risk, or less directly exposed) . Certainly, this risk is avoidable as to locating a homeless shelter elsewhere in Contra Costa County. A true and correct of copy of Table 1 from . 193\p1ead\negative.dec 8 r• the summary for that EIR demonstrating the extent of this • significant environmental impact, is attached hereto, marked Exhibit D, and incorporated herein by reference. 13. Another area of potential impact raised by the EIR for the proposed annexation project was that of pedestrian activity, and traffic and parking impacts, which "would dramatically alter the character of project roadways. " As indicated in the accompanying Declaration of William A. Silva, there has been a dramatic increase in pedestrian traffic in the area around Arnold Industrial Way (which is a heavily-traveled road with many large trucks and industrial equipment, and limited sidewalks for pedestrians) , since the temporary homeless shelter was opened in December of 1991. By way of example, Page 6-14 of the EIR for the proposed annexation project states that. "current on-street parking • on roads, -such as Arnold Industrial Way tends to reduce vehicle clearance - and restricts sight distances at driveways and intersections. This is particularly true if trucks are parked along the curb. On-street parking should not be allowed in locations where parked trucks would restrict sight distance, or reduce the lane width for through vehicles to less than 12 feet. The City should monitor speeds on Arnold Industrial Way and increase enforcement or install traffic control measures. " Nevertheless, no traffic or safety study, volume analysis or inquiry was even made for the initial study in this case, where a significant number of new residents might be added to the project area. At the same time, if a school was being built on Arnold • 193\p1ead\negative.dec 9 Industrial Way, one could be sure that such a study would be made. 14. No detailed analysis has been provided as to the effect of the central county shelter on existing land uses. The initial study merely states: "The site is presently used as a temporary emergency homeless shelter. Insofar as the subject property is a County project, the project is not covered by the County General Plan. " "Existing surrounding uses consist of light industrial activity, including a cemetery and at least two residences. The proposed shelter operation would not result in a substantial alteration of the use of the area. " 15. This statement ignores the fundamental distinction that a project which seeks to introduce 100 or more persons into an industrial area, as residents, is a substantial alteration of the existing uses (whether allowed by law or not) .. Residential use of • property is totally different than industrial use. Further, the two existing single family residences in .this area, which undoubtedly pre-existed the industrial planning and development of the area, do not change that fact, nor do they justify adding a significant number of people to the area as residents. The City of Concord's previous EIR for the proposed annexation project noted the following (at Page 6-11) : "Aspects of several of the existing and former .uses in the project vicinity present potential safety hazards or have been identified as issues of concern during the environmental review process; these include the Buchanan Field Airport, refineries, and natural gas fields. Provisions contained in the. City Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and review by jurisdictional agencies such as the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) , would serve to minimize the potential hazard associated with the proximity of future development in the reorganization • 193\p1ead\negative.dec 10 r' area to the Buchanan Field Airport. The hazards associated with pipelines and wells in the area would be minimized through careful site deign in proximity to pipeline easements, and adherence to proper well abandonment procedures. To some degree, increasing the density of the development in proximity to the Tosco refinery and other heavy industrial features in the vicinity is an unavoidable risk. To a large extent these risks are inherent to industrial activities, and prudent planning policies would ensure that sensitive uses and receptors (such as residences, schools, and hospitals) are restricted and separated from areas designated for industrial development. Typically, light-industry has functioned as a buffering use between heavy-industry and other land uses. . . " (Emphasis added. ] 16. The initial study for the proposed project was conducted without any input from other property owners in the vicinity, and certainly without the knowledge, participation or input by Memory Gardens. No scoping sessions were held to receive input or discuss issues and concerns before the Department made its decision to recommend adoption of the intended negative declaration. Further, • to Memory Gardens knowledge only one formal study was conducted as part of the initial study, for noise impact. No copy of . any study was furnished to Memory Gardens, and it is therefore informed that no independent traffic, safety, air quality or other specific written study was conducted, or data collected, rendering the initial study itself largely conclusionary, without any documentation of the underlying basis for the Department's conclusions. 17. The initial study is for the large part conclusionary, and simply the completion of a standardized checklist. While such a checklist would be appropriate if supported by studies, data or evidence, in this case it is not. A proper initial study should 193\p1ead\negative.dec 11 completely disclose the data and evidence upon which the lead agency staff personal relied in preparing that study, so as to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to learn the environmental consequences of the project. If there exists substantial evidence that the project, as finally proposed, may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency is required to prepare an EIR. In this case, the initial study is not accompanied by any data or evidence disclosing the basis for the Department's conclusions that the project will not have a significant effect. 18. The initial study contains no discussion of any sort regarding the acquisition or leasing of alternative sites to the subject location, or the feasibility of doing same. Memory Gardens submits that the Department should have considered alternative • sites in areas properly zoned for residential uses, and without exposure to some of the significant environmental impacts discussed above with regard to the proposed project site. 19. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and of my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information and belief,. and as to those matters I believe them to be true and correct. Executed on this 30th day of March, 1992. JOHN yP �TON • 193\plead\negative.dec 12 John H. Patton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK C. PROVINE ; A Professional Corporation 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 390 3 ` Walnut Creek, California 94596 QED _ 6 1991 (510) 944-9700 4 � s Attorne for Petitioner and S.L. WEIR County Clerk Attorneys -ONTRA COSTA COUNTY 51 Plaintiff MEMORY GARDENS, INC. 3y ,CHRISTIAN,Deputy 6 1i 7i( SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 81COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA t i 91 i MEMORY GARDENS, INC. , ) No. to ( a California corporation, ) C ` 9 3 0 5 7 0 9 z 111 ) Petitioner and Plaintiff, ) DECLARATION OF WILLIAM A. ' 1211 ) SILVA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONS Z vs. ) FOR ALTERNATIVE AND PEREMPTORY ° ) WRITS OF MANDATE; APPLICATION 13 � CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ex rel ) FOR STAY; AND FOR APPLICATION ° aT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ) FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF z ° Q Vz a 141 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, and ) STAY REQUESTED W a i THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ) s „ 15 , HOUSING AUTHORITY, ) Date: To Be Assigned 161 ) Time: To Be Assigned - a ? 3 Respondents and Defendants, ) , Dept: To Be. Assigned 171 ) i vs. ) n 181 ) i ) , 19I WILLIAM H. MORAN, individually) and as Trustee, DOROTHY ) 20 MORAN, individually and as ) Trustee, DERITH D. MOTHERAL, ) 21 individually and as Trustee ) of the MOTHERAL. FAMILY TRUST, ) 221 NADYNE D. MOTHERAL, ) individually and as Trustee ) 23 . of the MOTHERAL FAMILY TRUST, ) and Does 1-50, inclusive, ) 24 ) Real Parties in Interest ) 25 and Defendants. . ) I 261 27 • 28 = PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT . 193\plead\silva.dec j i I, William A. Silva, declare: 211 1. I am the Vice President-Manager of petitioner and • 3l plaintiff Memory Gardens, Inc. ("Memory Gardens") , and the person 4ij Primarily responsible for Memory Gardens ' operation of a cemetery 511 and crematorium at 2011 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, Contra Gil Costa County, California ("the cemetery") . I have held this 711 position at Memory Gardens at all times since 1981. 2 . Memory Gardens has operated a cemetery at the above- 8 ii 911 described location since 1953 , and a crematorium there since 1956. 1011 Memory Gardens' property at this location is zoned as General l ll �l Agricultural (A-2) , and the surrounding property is an industrial 121 Park zoned Light Industrial ("L-I") . None of the properties _ Qoo 131" adjoining Memory Gardens is zoned as residential. o a m c - ? oa 14 i1 3 . Prior to the Fall of 1990, Memory Gardens operated its U 15 i crematorium on weekdays during normal business hours. The r. o 16iI crematorium ._is. an essential element of Memory Gardens ' overall l Z 7 SZ Q 1i _ Q ; 3 17i1 cemetery operations at the site, and .by itself produces a 18ji significant amount of revenue to Memory Gardens, approximating 19 !` $60, 000-$70, 000 each year. Of course, the existence of the 2011 crematorium also increases and enhances the cemetery' s revenue, 1 211� and vice-versa. Revenues for the crematorium have been increasing 221 yearly, as the percentage of cremations to burials is, increasing i Z31 annually. In short, the crematorium has at all times been an 241 integral part of Memory Gardens ' operations, and is becoming more i 251 so with each year. 261 4 . In 1990, Memory Gardens received complaints about 27i emissions from its crematorium from neighboring property owners, 281 through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (the "Air 193\plead\sitva.dec 2 !I i 1 Quality District") . These complaints mostly came from an industry � 1 located at 2045 Arnold Industrial Way, which is directly adjacent I to and east of Memory Gardens, within approximately 200 feet of 3 ! I� 411 the crematorium, and directly in the path of generally prevailing 5 `i winds, which blow from west to east through the crematorium air I( space. The operations of the crematorium necessarily result in a 61 71 distinct odor, which some people find unpleasant and/or offensive. 8il While Memory Gardens ' operations of the crematorium have at all ii times met and continue to meet the minimum standards of the Air 91 101 Quality District, citations were issued to it as a result of these "i z 11i complaints. As a result, and in order to accommodate its 121 neighbors and avoid the risk of being declared or charged as a � Z 13 public or private nuisance, Memory Gardens changed the operating � Q 7 coQ 14 ' hours of its crematorium to after business hours, when workers in � " rn ` W LJ a 15i adjoining properties would not be present and exposed to these Q S r. Wo � 16i emissions. Memory Gardens now operates its crematorium in the U11 z c z3 17 evening hours on weekdays. o 18I 5. The property at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Contra Costa 191 County, California ("the subject property") which is the site of i 201 the homeiess shelter approved by the respondent Contra Costa I 21 County Board of Supervisors ("the Board") , is a warehouse located 22 immediately adjacent to and east of the cemetery and crematorium. 231 The subject property is located next door to the 2045 Arnold Z4I Industrial Way property, from which most of the complaints about 251 Memory Gardens ' crematorium previously originated. The subject 261 property, and its existing structure, which has been approved for i 271 use as a homeless shelter, is located approximately 200 feet east 28 ' of Memory Gardens ' crematorium. Since November 19, 1991, I have I 193\plead\s Rva.dec 3 i r observed construction work at the subject property, including the construction of two doors and a walkway on the side of the 2 i! 3i, warehouse which is closest to and faces Memory Gardens ' cemetery. 411 6. In the event the subject property becomes a 24-hour per 5 day shelter for 100 single persons, as recommended by the Housing I 6 Authority of Contra Costa ("the Housing Authority") and as approved by the Board, and given its proximity to Memory Gardens ' 811 1 crematorium, it is virtually inevitable that the persons entering, : occupying and exiting the shelter will become exposed to and 10 j) detect emissions from the crematorium when it is in operation, and ! z 111 that some of these persons will find the odors therefrom 121 unpleasant and/or offensive. Because of the peculiar nature of 131 Memory Gardens' business, and based on my experience in the ,n Z 0 14 'i aindustry, it is also inevitable that some of these persons will u T � 15 ; register complaints against the operation of the crematorium, 1611 exposing Memory Gardens to further citations, charges. and claims i - 3.Z 171 as a public and/or private nuisance, regardless of its compliance 181 with the law, all of which are likely to force Memory Gardens to i i 19i discontinue its valuable and established business of conducting i 201 cremations, causing it considerable financial loss, the exact 211 amount of which will be virtually impossible to establish. It is 221 also likely that the existence of a homeless shelter next door I 231 will negatively impact Memory Gardens ' cemetery business in other i 24 i ways. I i 25 � 7. In late October of this year, Memory Gardens first became 261 aware of interest on the part of the Housing Authority in possibly 2V establishing a homeless shelter at the subject property. The only 281 information provided by the Housing Authority to Memory Gardens 193\plead\silva.dec 4 was general informational materials and newspaper articles about � j past administration of the homeless program in Contra Costa ii County, and oral statements about the County' s interest in the i 4 �1 subject property as a proposed site. On November 1, 1991, I sent a letter to Perfecto Villarreal, the Executive Director of the 5 ! 611 Housing Authority, registering some of Memory Gardens' objections 71 to the proposed use of the subject property as a homeless shelter. �1 ( A true and correct copy of my letter is attached hereto, marked 8 ) 9I1 Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. 101 8. Subsequently, I met with Mr. Villarreal and Richard z 11i Martinez, Director of Housing Operations for the Housing 121Authority, to again discuss the County's interest in the subject J i 1 QV� n 13 �I property. While our meeting was cordial, I again .expressed Memory Gardens' opposition to the use of the subject property as a ; oa 14 � P Y _ � I _ x homeless shelter, in lar 151 large part because of the likelihood that r. c ; 1611 such a use would interfere with Memory Gardens ' operations of its _ Q ; 3 171 cemetery and crematorium, and because such use is completely s 18 I. inconsistent with the present non-residential light industrial 19 I uses which predominate and conform to the zoning for the 201 surrounding area. Messrs. Villarreal and Martinez mentioned that 21I a meeting concerning the proposal before the Board was to be held 221 on November 19, 1991, but only explained that this meeting would 231 be informational and for purposes of "discussing" the proposal. 24 � They, in no stated, implied or gave any impression that the 251 Board would be asked to take any action or to approve the use of 26 ; leasing of the subject property as a homeless shelter at this 271 meeting. Indeed, Messrs. Villarreal and Martinez left me with the • 28i distinct impression that several public hearings, and substantial 193\plead\silva.dec i f' L governmental consideration, would take place before any decision was made as to this or any site, and that alternative sites were ` I' 3 l being considered as well. 4 11 9. Prior to the meeting of the Board on November 19, 1991, 5 Memory Gardens itself received no written notice as to anything 61' which was to transpire at the November 19 Board meeting, other 7 1 than the mere fact that a Board meeting was to occur. The written 81� agenda for said meeting merely states: it 112 . 3 REPORT from a Executive Director, 9 ') Housing Authority, regarding 1011 establishment of a winter relief program for the homeless. CONSIDER r lll� ACTION TO BE TAKEN. " Zy 12 `i 10. On Friday afternoon, November 15, and virtually on the 1311 eve of the November 19 Board meeting, Memory Gardens ' counsel = � Q 141 _ ,3 ) received a copy of the Housing Authority's written recommendations W W 7 Q 1511 to the. Board for an emergency winter relief shelter for 100 single 0 J 7z 2 adults at the subject property ("the project") . These Z4 ^ 171 recommendations contained no factual basis or explanation at all, 18 � and none for any of the following specific items: for the 191 recommendations themselves; as to why the subject property was 201 i appropriate for use as a winter relief shelter or as a permanent 21 �Ishelter; as to why the Board should declare that approval of the 221 i project was necessary to mitigate any "emergency" ; as to why 231 proper procedures, including the applicable provisions of the 24 General Plan, zoning laws and CEQA should not be followed; as to 25 why the subject property should be chosen over other alternative 26 II4sites ; or as to what consideration, if any, had been given to 27 • ! alternative sites. In short, the Housing Authority' s 28 ! !I 193\p1ead\silva.dec 6 I Ii! recommendations provided no real useful informaLion as to the 2 � basis for the recommendations. Further, they made no mention of !i 3 II any opposition to the use of the site as a homeless shelter, including that of Memory Gardens. 4i 51 On November 18 , 1991, Memory Gardens ' counsel sent a 1 letter to Mr. Villarreal by hand-delivery, a copy of which was 6 i1 7 - also hand-delivered that day to each member of the Board. A true g and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto, marked Exhibit ' 91 B, and incorporated herein by reference. This November 18 letter 10 1, (Exhibit B) set forth some of Memory Gardens ' concerns about the z 11 i� project. !4 1211 12 . On November 19, 1991, the Board met and approved the 13 l' project, notwithstanding objection by Memory Gardens and others. - � r J 14 ) Memory Gardens was unable to present much of its evidence and ° a x u m = Q a 15 �j arguments against the project, because the Board limited each c.� n 15 speaker to one minute of time. - - ? 3 171 13 . To my knowledge, the .Housing Authority' s .recommendations 1 ° 181 and the project itself, were never submitted for approval or 1911 reviewed by any local planning or zoning agency, nor was any 2011f` application for amendment or approval of the County General Plan, } I� 21j zoning ordinances, rezoning, variance and/or a land-use permit I 22j made in connection with the project. To my knowledge, no t 231 environmental impact report has been requested or prepared in 24 connection with the project. To my knowledge, no timely, formal 25 ; or adequate notice of the intended actions of the Board and/or the i 261lHousing Authority was provided to Memory Gardens, or to any other 271 person, with regard to actions taken at the November 19 Board i • 281 hearing. The notice given to Memory Gardens was certainly 193\plead\silva.dec 7 1 inadequate to allow it to timely and fairly address the project at 1 it 2 ii the November 19 hearing. I 311 14 . Based on the Board's approval of the project, and the 411 statements made by the Board and the Housing Authority at the li 5j1 November 19 hearing regarding the alleged urgency of preparing and it 61 opening the shelter as soon as possible, and to avoid injury to 71 the interests of Memory Gardens and adjoining landowners, it is necessary that this Court act immediately to stay, enjoin and i 9 ! invalidate any action to give the Board's approval effect, to 10 II implement the project, or to commence use of the subject property z 11 � as a homeless shelter at least pending full review of the facts at - i 12j hearing, and judgment herein. Accordingly, Memory Gardens aNLn 13 � respectfully requests the Court to issue an alterative writ of - z Q = a � Q 141 mandate, stay, and/or injunction prohibiting implementation of the U m ' Qw 15 j) project and/or its use as a homeless shelter pending entry of 1611 Judgment herein. Memory. Gardensagrees to and will expeditiously U Z e - ; ? 3 17prosecute its petition for writ of mandate. i J 181 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and of 191 i 201 my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon I 211 information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to 2211 be true and correct. 231 Executed this day of December, 1991. 24 251 WILLIAM A. SILVA i 26 27 281 193\p1ead\si1va.dec 8 i i i i Npvenu:er =, 1991 • :sir. ?erfecto Villarreal Execut2ve Director Housirq Authority Ccunty of Contra Costa 3133 Estudillo St. PO Box 2759 mart--.oz, Ca 94553 Dear -*Er. Villarreal: Reference is made .to your letter of October 25, 1-991 to the office of the representatives of the cwners of Xemory Gardens. The owners and owners' representatives have asked me to reply to your letter. Memory Gardens has operated a cramatorium and cemetery in Concord for some 40 years. We take pride in our grounds and in the peacef, atmosphere we have created :or the comfort of the families who have relatives and/or friends i--v our cemetery. consequently, we are very concerned over the proposal to establish the Contra Costa County Emergarcy Shelter and Training Center for' tte -homeless at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, which is immediately next to our cemetery. 1n particular: 1. Under current City of Concord laws, a crematorium cannot be operated in a residential area; but, by this action, the County is proposing to place a residential facility within 150 feet of our crematorium. Cities and counties throughout the United States have learned that residential units cannot co-exist in such closa prcximity to a crematory. That is why the City of Concord and other municipalities do not allow one to be located near the other. 2. Under the current industrial park dead restrictions, residential use is banned. Consequently, we do not understand how the county can allow this proposed residential use in this area. , c PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT F mr. Perfect: v'illarreal November 1, 1991 Page 2 3. The industrial Sacili4y which the County proposes to use as a residential shelter and training canter does not have any outside recreaticnal area. People cannot ke confined to such buildings 24 hours a day, particularly in warm Weather. They will, themselves seek outdoor recreational areas. since there is no park area available within a mile of the property, it is inevitable that they may to tempted to go next door into our lovely cemetery. We can understand such. recreational retds; but these needs are at variance with the quiet solitude than grieving families require on our grounds. The two groups cannot ca-exist in the same location and it is unfair to either party to propose mixing these two groups with dramatically different needs. 4. Thera is no public transportation available to this area and our understanding is that this should be one of they County's recur ements fer such a fac*14 ty: The users of the proposed facility, herefore, will be forced to walk along roads where there are only intermitent:-sidewalks. For' all of the above reasons, we must oppose this proposal. was understand and are sympathic to the homeless problem and the Count-fts attempt to address this issue, but locating t::s, facility at 2047 Industrial Way is not the solution. very truly Yours, William Silva Ganeral Manager WS/cw T AW OFFICES OF -J_3CH C. PROVIti E A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JACK C. PROVINE 500 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD. SUITE 330 JAMES V. JOYCE WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 �JOHN H. PATTCN TELEPHONE 510-944-9700 RUCE W. PHILLIPS FACSIMILE 510-944-9981 November 18 , 1991 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Mr. Perfecto Villareal Executive Director HOUSING AUTHORITY County of Contra Costa 3133 Estudillo Street Martinez, Ca 94553 Re: Memory Gardens Dear Mr. Villareal: Thank you for providing me with a copy of your report to the Board of Supervisors, on November 1:. , 1991. As you know, these offices -represent :Memory Gardens , Inc. ("Memory Gardens") . T_ write onits behalf concerning what appears to be an effort by the County Housing Authority to finesse approval by the Board of Supervisors for the proposed new shelter for the homeless at 2047 Arnoid Industrial Wav, Concord, without properly addressing the serious and real concerns my client has regarding the impact of such a shelter on all concerned. In your discussions with William Silva, General :Manager for Memory Gardens, Mr. Silva explained many of these concerns. You represented that the upcoming November 19. presentation to the Board of Supervisors was merely preliminary and informational, leading him to believe that no substantive action would be taken on the project. However, in reviewing the Housing Authority' s report to the Board of Supervisors, is now clear that you will be seeking authorization to enter into a lease with a purchase option to use this property as an emergency shelter, as well as taking further steps to establish a -ermanent 24-hour a day facility at that location for 100 adults. Such action seems inconsistent with an informational presentation. PLAINTIFF'S • Shp EXHIBIT Mr. Perfecto Villareai November 18 , 1991 Page 2 Your report to the Board of Supervisors contains no factual basis for selection of this location as opposed to any others which are available in the County. indeed, the report is misleading and unfair, because it fails to take into account, or even mention, Memory Gardens ' opposition to the proposal , as . outlined in Mr. Silva' s letter to you of November 1, 1991, a copy of which is enclosed. As you know, Memory Gardens has operated a cemetery and crematorium in Concord for nearly 40 years. Memory Gardens is forbidden to and cannot operate a .crematorium in a residential area. That is one reason why it operates where it does, near an industrial park. Even with industrial use, Memory Gardens has had to make adjustments to accommodate its neighbors by using the crematorium at night after business hours when others are not present in the vicinity, due to the proximity of the buildings at Arnold Industrial Way, including the one which is the subject of your proposal. As you also know, the shelter which the Housing Authority plans for the location would be occupied around the year (not just in the Winter) by some 100 persons for residential • purposes on a 24-hour per day basis. Such occupancy at a location proximate to (and directly in the path of generally prevailing winds) the crematorium would effectively prevent same from operating at all, depriving Memory Gardens of a vested, lawful and proper industrial use which it has enjoyed, and should expect to enjoy, for :^any years to come. Such a loss would cause irreparable damage, as the operating value of this asset exceeds $1, 000, 000, and would leave Memory Gardens with little alternative other than to pursue legal remedies. Even if Memory Gardens could continue to operate its crematorium in the close proximity of 100 new residents, as a practical matter those residents are not going to happily cc- exist with .an operating crematorium in their vicinity, and the location simply is not in their best interests. For these. reasons, as well as those set for in Mr. Silva ' s letter to v_ ou, I urge the Housing Authority to reconsider its recommendation for this location. It is not in the best interests of Memory Gardens, the homeless , or the citizens of this County. At. the very least, the project should not proceed without deliberate consideration of these problems, or ;ithout completion of an appropriate Environmental Impact Report. • ,hP Mr. Perfecto Villareal November 18 , 1991 Page • Please understand that Memory Gardens is sympathetic to the problems of the homeless, and to the Housing Authority' s efforts to arrive at a solution. However, Forcing :•'.emory Gardens to cease a major portion of its operations will only exacerbate this problem. I look forward to :corking with you in a constructive way in exploring alternatives to the present proposal. Very truly yours , OFFICES OF JACK C. PROVINE Johu' H. Patton JHP: js / cc: Board of Supervisors Thomas M. Powers, Chairman Nancy C. Fanden, 2nd District Robert I. Schroder, 3rd District Sunne Wright McPeak, 4th District. • Tom Torlakson, 5th District William Silva bhp Community Contra Harvey oE.f Bragdon D�ret:tor of Community Development Development Costa Department County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street Krmrvea 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945510095 JUL 1968 Phone: , DONC0RD 646-2035 dery Zama July 12, 1988 t i Por. David Golich Concord Planning Department 1950 Parkside. Drive Concord, CA 94519 Dear David: The Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Concord Reorganization Project correctly points out the similarity between adopted Concord and County policies in the area. If the area is annexed to the 2 City, development projects in the area will receive very similar treatment from either jurisdiction. The document is very complete and accurate. • r Sincerely yours, James W. Cutler Chief of Comprehensive Planning JWC/jb jcl/golich.ltr I PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1 7 - 3 I f � BC)RA��U� COLLA ' MVD': • 4 _- - . - � -'^J'• / � y � [i;�` li.0•. �' � �,`l•�11�,\•Ly ':a •�. . •� - _ '� ."r "�`*•. •�:"`: s +r< 7ra.So �...?t '�,:.,,;�t. F j'' :i�^•'!Y,�,,,,,•%•� � �''•'...• f-' `°� '`M _ ..?^fie- —. _ .�.f\K}�'�� -��,-,-•n,.t,,."t,• �.'1'"^ui'"!s't�:�� ` ...•� �' `+�'\.��+�`� '� '�, ,:• -=�. �; •`"fit`--" =.=.�--nc`=/ ..'`1 -- �;�., �� 'SSS tK�O�r,� _.J\. `, •'*`' .i r' �f� '.d•� �..r�T L-�ry,,,J�i� "��:.:-...��. t �� '` !.`V.� ;• � �✓. � ' f �•�. .�.`•�� •-•.: i� moi"' � :�.. /�� •�```.-.. LCL,_�'�.��`C 1• 7.' ��/�11�• . :e syr• .w� � •' •i* ,l j,"h```�-^. "egjr'S� • 7+� if_��i \ �►�'i ��+`I"� G'CAREP' r'"tt'~ sir T g • -�.!•° I..r ---....]. . .'�'�• •; / � '�•:`'�'••�y iii I• �. �fE=�... � ."'.i�,Y �' �� J �„/'1l �♦'��••� � � we�-' �`� r��' ..,�.r f��4-. . -t..9Dlt''- ..✓/'.. � � '.S • :- *!'..ra•�...a".T 1" I �-'� iL•..'�r :t'ttt0��•...� 1 e '••=.:!-•,r�..rt � "mow. .,y: r''"�� i.;•' ,,,, �_ �F �4 �,, .�' ••ns,:'- j .� rV .i r►T.. .yr�� i' l .Ya.o/� ��•� it1 / a , ' 1 4 �} .1 F:. 1:M.. *., t! .. it • � .i .- �' AC AV � 1-t1 � '/..(. ...••` � Q' s• .� `!' .~St '` , ` � .- �' •.°. ,:.'fir !M} t t:L�'• '- �, � � \. l �•�N.J.r�.. (.fir jr�•_ '`�t r ti� .. .�.' %f P►},SRA :i'y •� ' }.; �f.'� '� -r ,i=i. `' �' • - �'"jtr 1 ya r .. � -'r r�C•`�S�=moi 'Z '•!r%',.-� Q '<♦ •. .r!.�,� •''.moi.„�.�. .c' •:.. -i••�.�+. .al � ..i„' y 1,,Vit` r ✓i+!,�•v�':,l�-. \ - ” t J job J pao�Ec ,1 _. , .y11�i •�''� cel'�� 11U �.�%�•►�^�X.'.: �.�� _lr`_,.. ko •1�� e � NIM..5. �+ � � .47'x, .4 '� ;: r" .,,,,a•Nr �/ 4. �I,' .. i � �� ,)�, ate.� �$ •:.� ..�:. va AVM33Ui 31b1. cc ^`�.A `�• Z5 ,1 N ccW a. d Ct cli i ,, SUMMARY I TABLE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL P"ACTS,MITIGATION MEASURES,AND FINDINGS IMPACTS• MMGATION MEASURES FINDINGS LAND USE Character of project area would continue No mitigation required. Impact is not considered adverse. to change from vacant and primarily Development trend would most likely storage-related uses to a more densely occur regardless of jurisdiction,City or developed employment area.(1) County. ,1 Perceived hazard associated with No mitigation required. Review by County Airport Land Use Proximity of project area to Buchanan Commission and provisions of City 1 Feld Airport(1) Zoning Ordinance and General Plan • would serve to minimize potential hazard. Potential hazard associated with natural 'No mitigation required Potential'hazard would be simonized gas wells and oil pipelines in project through careful site design and vicinity.(1) construction practices,and adherence to proper well abandonment procedures. Potential risk of explosion associated Unavoidable adverse impact inherent to Existing and future development would with prummity to Tosco Refinery.(3) development in project vicinity,regardless be located in proamity to storage of whether the area is annexed to City of tanks of the Tosco Refinery. Impact is Concord considered unavoidable acid adverse. TRAMC AND CIRCULATION; Future anticipated development would E-Asting traffic operations should be Recommended improvements would generate additional traffic volumes an improved through signalization of mitigate potential traffic operation local and regional rvtraea6 aggravating intersecmioaxt of State Route 4 westbound deficiencies. Intersections of concern existing problems with circdatioo and ramp wah Arnold Industrial Way,Laura would operate at a level of service"C" turn movements. Signalized intersections Alice Way intersection with Arnold or better with sgnalization. would egerience no significant Industrial Way, and Peralta Road ; operational problems Significant delays intersection with Arnold Industrial Place. for certain lett turn movements would Traffic operations of currently signalized be experiences at several unsignahzed intersections should be monitored as intersections.(2 development occurs and signal ti:inns • adjusted accordingly. 4 6-6 2 9 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 71) I • f MEMORY GARDENS' COMMENTS RE ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION RE PROPOSED CENTRAL COUNTY HOMELESS SHELTER I, William A. Silva, declare: 1. I am the Vice President/Manager of Memory Gardens, ,Inc. ("Memory Gardens") , and the person primarily responsible for Memory Gardens' operation of a cemetery and crematorium at 2011 Arnold Industrial. Way, Concord, California. �I have held this position at Memory Gardens at all times since 1981. I make this Declaration on Memory Gardens' behalf and as part of its comments upon the adequacy of the proposed negative declaration that the proposed Central County homeless shelter project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. It is Memory Gardens' position that this project will have significant impacts on the environment, and will itself be subject to significant environmental impacts. 2. Memory Gardens has operated a cemetery at the above- described location since 1953,, and a crematorium there since 1956. Memory Gardens' property at this location is zoned as General Agricultural (A-2) , and the surrounding property is an industrial park zoned Light Industrial ("L-I") , including the site of the proposed project located at 2047 Arnold Industrial Way. None of . the properties adjoining Memory Gardens is zoned as residential, nor are any properties in the general vicinity. 3 . The proposed project is located immediately adjacent to Memory Gardens' cemetery and crematorium. The crematorium itself iis approximately 200 feet from the warehouse which serves as the 193\p1ead\silva2.dec shelter for the temporary project, and for the proposed permanent project. The project opened up as a shelter, on what was supposed to be a temporary basis, in December of 1991. 4. As Manager of Memory Gardens' operations, I am present at the facility on a regular basis, and have had considerable opportunity to observe many of the activities on the exterior of the temporary central county shelter, as well as the surrounding area. I have personally observed a significant increase in foot traffic on a daily basis on Arnold Industrial Way, consisting of persons coming and going to the shelter. Since the opening of the shelter, I typically see 5-10 persons a day walking to and from the shelter in the evening and morning. Frequently, these persons exit and enter Arnold Industrial Way from a hole which has been cut into the fence around a culvert, which runs under the Highway • 4 freeway, toward downtown Concord. This hole is across the street from Memory Gardens' property, and was made after the temporary shelter opened. The persons accessing the shelter from this hole in the fence must cross Arnold Industrial Way to reach the shelter. There is no crosswalk, stop sign or traffic signal in the vicinity of the shelter, and these persons are at serious risk in crossing the street. 5. Memory Gardens is concerned about the pedestrian traffic approaching the shelter. Often, these persons wander onto Memory Gardens' grounds. More of concern is that Arnold Industrial Way is a busy and dangerous street, largely without sidewalks, and during business hours experiences fast-moving traffic from trucks and heavy equipment which are common to the area. In addition, the County operates a transit yard for its buses nearby at the 193\plead\silva2.dec