Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 04061993 - 1.64
REc�i�Cr% /. (0 y City of Pittsburg APR 11993 Civic Center • P.O. Box 1518 • Pittsburg,California 94565 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Redevelopment Agency (510) 439-4850 FAX 439-0527 March 29 , 1993 Pursuant to the State Assembly Bill 1642 (which amended Section 21082 . 1 of, and added Section 21092 .5 to the Public Resources Code) we are transmitting to you the enclosed copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amendment, which includes the response to comments of the Draft EIR. As you have been previously notified the Redevelopment Agency and City Council of the City of Pittsburg will hold a joint public hearing on the proposed Third Amendment to the Los Medanos Community Development Plan on April 12, 1993, at the Pittsburg City Council Chambers , 65 Civic Avenue; Pittsburg. California at 7 : 00 p.m. If you have any questions on this information, please contact Ms . Lillian J. Pride, City Clerk at (510) 439-4850 . I 4 S. Anthony Donat Executive Direc or Enclosure I on League of California Cities Helen Putnam Award-1988 National Center for Public Productivity Exemplary Award-1989 City of NPw 14nri-7nnc N N< U 0 n n a RECEIVED MAR 2 91993 CLERK BOARD 5-F-SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA C.O. ru co u7 a 0 n- CL cc 0 � E Lo rn �o CL d C L7 N CL O y , � m i t+ C � 7 0 . E O 7KV o i U EU Dear Property Owner: It is a pleasure to send to you this information concern- ing the 1993 Amended and Restated Community Develop- ment Plan for the Los Medanos Community Development Project (the "Project"). Members of the City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff have been working on this program for over a year. Informational meetings and public hearings have been held to receive input from citizens, organizations, and businesses throughout the City. We are pleased to report that the planning process is nearing completion. If the Amended Plan is adopted, the City will be able to continue the work of the redevelopment program into the future. The activities of the Redevelopment Agency in Pittsburg have been very beneficial to our community over the last decade, and with this amendment, we plan to continue these programs. More information on this amend- ment to the Los Medanos Project and Plan is contained in the following Questions and Answers section of this booklet. A public information meeting on the Amendment to the Los Medanos Community Development Plan is scheduled for March 29 at 7:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 65 Civic Avenue, to provide an opportunity for you to learn more about the proposed Los Medanos Community Devel- opment Plan. Please` plan to attend this informational meeting if you have any questions about the Community Development Project. This booklet also includes a Public Hearing Notice on the Community Development Project, a Legal Description of the proposed Community evelopment area and a map of the proposed l;el- l�/I. Project S. Anthony Do Executive Dir c r QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT TO THE LOS MEDANOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT . Why was this notice sent by certified mail? State law requires that any amendment to a local redevelopment plan be noticed via a certified mailing sent to each property owner in the Project Area. This same type of expensive and time consuming mailing was done ten years ago when the Los Medanos Community Develop- ment Plan was first adopted. We wish that a less expen- sive and time consuming method of legal notification could be used, but State law mandates this type of certified mailing. What is the Los Medanos Plan? The Los Medanos Community Development Plan is the City of Pittsburg redevelopment plan. The Plan document sets forth the goals and resources of the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"). The Plan creates the foundation for all Agency activities. Why does the City wish to amend the Los Medanos Community Development Plan The current Los Medanos Community Development Plan contains some time limits and financial resource limits that must be increased if the Agency is to continue to improve the community. In addition, several major areas of land have been added to the City in recent years (such as the North Eastern Industrial Area where the POSCO/ U.S. Steel plant is located) , and this amendment will bring these areas into the existing Los Medanos Project Area. NO major changes in traditional Agency activities are planned, instead, this amendment provides for a continua- tion of the successful programs that have been undertaken in the last decade. What are the Goals of the Los Medanos Community Development Plan? • Promote the stimulation of sound economic develop- ment of Pittsburg. • Encourage actions that will maintain and enhance the quality of Pittsburg as a residential community. • Permit traffic to choose reasonably direct paths to destinations throughout the community, minimize intrusion of through traffic onto local roadways, and provide effi- cient routes for transit service, emergency and other service vehicles. • Build a mixed-use Downtown that will serve as both a visual landmark and a "place to go" for Pittsburg resi- dents. • Provide affordable housing. • Develop a high-quality public park system for Pittsburg that provides varied recreational opportunities accessible to all City residents. • Maintain maximum public access to the waterfront. • Strongly encourage the development of landscaped and dedicated open spaces, parkways, trail systems, and special recreational facilities. Why does the City need the Los Medanos Community Development Plan? As all long time residents of Pittsburg know, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Downtown of our community experienced some major problems. These problems were compounded when the federal government abandoned Camp Stoneman in the 1960s. Through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the City worked with the Federal, State, and County governments to obtain funding and accomplish programs that would improve the community, especially the Downtown, older neighborhoods and Camp Stoneman area. Though these efforts were somewhat successful, the instability of federal and state programs, as well as the very limited resources available, limited the amount of im- provement that could be accomplished. In 1978, as federal and state assistance began to be decreased even further, the City of Pittsburg determined that it was necessary to create a local improvement pro- gram that could help solve many of the problems in our community. This local improvement program was adopted with the 1979 Los Medanos Plan. In the early 1980s, the Los Medanos Community Development Plan was merged with the four older redevelopment areas in the Downtown Core. Over the last decade, the Los Medanos Community Development Plan has provided about $100 million dollars of funding for improvements in the community. Without the Los Medanos Community Development Plan, these im- provements could not have been undertaken. These iMtyovements have been possible with no increase in local taxes. Why do we need a Redevelopment Agency? For the City to receive the benefits that come from State redevelopment programs, a separate redevelopment agency must be created. Pittsburg has had a redevelopment agency since the early 1960s. In Pittsburg, most of the Agency work is performed by City staff, and hence there is not much additional or new staffing required for the Agency. The City Council sits as the Agency Board of Directors. The Agency Board, in adopting each Communi- ty Development Plan, identifies the Project Area (see the Los Medanos Community Development Project Area Map) in which the Agency focuses its revitalization, rehabilita- tion, and development efforts. This 1993 Amendment will add several areas to the existing Project Area. What does the Agency do? The Agency's major activity is to create programs that will improve the Project Area and Community. Some of these projects include major Downtown rehabilitation and revitalization efforts, building new public improve- ments, like the Railroad Avenue overcrossings, fixing up older public improvements, helping people rehabilitate their homes, helping businesses locate and expand in Pittsburg and improving the City park system. Each year, the Agency Board adopts a budget that sets forth the priorities for the next year of Agency activities. All of the Agency programs are coordinated with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Pittsburg. Agency activities are intended to complement and expand on the very limited resources of the City. The Agency helps carry out City policies. The Los Medanos Plan provides a way to plan and pay for comprehensive, coordinated, long-range improvements to both public and private property in the community. The Los Medanos Plan and Project provide the City with basic financing and administrative tools that would have not been available without the Los Medanos Plan. What tools does the Agency have? The Agency is authorized to receive a portion of the future growth of the property taxes collected within the Project Area. This does not mean that the Los Medanos Project can increase any property taxes or property tax rates. This is not allowed under Proposition 13. The Agency has no authority to raise any taxes or tax rates. Instead, the Agency is authorized to receive part of the future increases in property tax revenues resulting from property improvements or property sales within the Project Area. This share of the growth in future property taxes, resulting from privately initiated property improvements and property sales, is the Agency's principal financial resource, and has been used by the Agency to finance its project per the Los Medanos Plan. The Agency also has the power to acquire property and to help property owners improve their properties. While the City has always had authority to acquire private property anywhere in the community for public projects, the Agency has the power to acquire private property in the Project Area for either public improvements or for subse- quent private development. The Agency has had this authority since the 1960s and has exercised this authority only after lengthy consider- ation at public meetings. Many of the improvements undertaken in the Downtown have been completed with the Agency acquiring some private property. The Agency, by the same State law that pertains to all governmental agencies, must pay full fair market value, based on inde- pendent appraisals, and also pay appropriate relocation expenses if the property is occupied. What are some of the major accomplishments of the Agency The major Downtown improvements are all Agency projects. These include the waterfront and Marina im- provements, the street and sidewalk improvements and the many of the private property business improvements that have been completed. The Railroad Avenue under/over crossings and improvements to Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street are also Agency projects. The Agency has also spent substantial funding on sewer, water line, and storm drainage improvements required to maintain prog- ress. The Agency has also helped many businesses locate or expand in Pittsburg. Agency funding will bring several hundred new jobs to Pittsburg for the BART car assembly plant that is being located in the Eastern part of town. Agency activities have also helped with the major retail developments on the east side of town. In addition to these programs, the Agency is particu- larly proud of its accomplishments in the field of helping people afford good quality housing. The Agency has helped thousands of families afford to own or rent good quality new and rehabilitated housing. By providing more ' affordable financing, the Agency has made it possible for families located in every neighborhood of the community to live in Pittsburg. Who carries out the Los Medanos Plan? The City Council members, your elected repre- sentatives, serve as the governing Board of the Agency and _.�,::.ase-responsible;for_. 'lactivifies.�_ What about the City General Plan and Zoning Ordi- nance? The proposed 1993 Amended Plan fully conforms to the City of Pittsburg General Plan. No more requirements or procedures for development are created than already exist in the community. In other words, the procedures for reviewing andapproving-development are the-same as-they'.""'--'- now"exist"in Pittsburg. The present City Staff; Planning Commission, and City Council will perform the same roles as they do now in deciding whether a particular develop- ment is to be approved by the City. However, the finan- cial and administrative tools created by the Plan Amend- ment would give the City, through the Agency, the ability to help the private sector rehabilitate and upgrade existing development, promote additional low and moderate income housing, and undertake needed public improvements. Why should the Agency and City help private property owners? New development and the improvement of existing buildings in the Project Area makes the entire community a better place in which to live and work. At present, many property owners cannot afford to fix up their properties. Lower interest tax-exempt financing provided by the Agency can make it possible for some people to fix up their property by providing a more affordable improvement loan. The exact uses for Agency funds and qualifications for borrowers are to be established by the Agency for each financing project undertaken by the Agency on a case by case basis. If I own property in the Project Area,,will my property taxes go up due to the Amended Plan? No! The City has had redevelopment tax increment funding for nearly three decades and no property tax increases have been or may be caused by the program. Property owners in the Project Area continue to pay the same amount of property taxes on their property each year (calculated per the provision of State Proposition 13) whether or not the Los Medanos Amendment is adopted. However, if the Amendment is adopted, a much larger portion of the growth in the total amount of property taxes collected in Pittsburg is allocated to the Agency to finance community improvements in accordance with the Los Medanos Plan. At present the City of Pittsburg receives less than twenty five percent (25%) of the property taxes you pay each year. The majority goes to the County, schools and other public agencies that operate throughout the County and region. If the Los Medanos Amendment is adopted, more of your property taxes would be spent within Pittsburg for projects that directly benefit our citizens. If I live or own property in the Project Area, what does all this mean to me? The continued improvement and rehabilitation of the Los Medanos Project Area has had and will continue to have a positive benefit for residents of the Project Area and the entire community. Helping to bring about industrial and commercial growth, more affordable housing and public improvements will increase employment, provide a more stable economy, and improve the community's appearance. Sales taxes and other non-property tax revenues associated with development would increase, enabling the City to do even more for city residents and property owners. The Los Medanos Program is not a "quick fix", and visible improvements in the physical and economic condi- tions of the community will continue to occur gradually over time. However, by using the Los Medanos Program, Pittsburg will be able to improve its competitive position for attracting new jobs, provide better public facilities for our residents, and help homeowners and business-persons improve and expand their homes and businesses. This program is successful because it is totally controlled, administered and financed at the local level, using locally generated moneys for locally beneficial projects, and is not dependent on any State or Federal approvals or funding. Over 350 cities in California currently benefit from active community development programs. If you have further questions about the Los Medanos Plan, please call Lillian J. Pride, City Clerk, at 510/439- 4850. STATEMENT REGARDING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY In accordance with Section 33350 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, the following statement is being included in this Notice of Hearing, mailed to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area designated in the Amended Los Medanos Community Development Project Area ("Amended Project Area"), to be implemented by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pittsburg (the "Agency"). Notice is hereby given that the property of each asses- see described above is subject to acquisition by the Agency by purchase or condemnation under the provisions of the' Amended Plan. LEGAL NOTICE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AMENDED AND RESTATED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LOS MEDANOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pittsburg (the "Agency") will hold a joint public hearing on April 12 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California. The hearing may be continued from time to time until complet- ed. Any person desiring to speak will be given the opportunity to do so. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the amend- ments described below to the existing Los Medanos Community Development Plan. The amendments are incorporated in the proposed Amended and Restated Community Development Plan for the Los Medanos Community Development .Project (the "Amended Plan"). The Amended Plan authorizes the undertaking of a redevel- opment project within the Los Medanos Community Development Project Area as proposed to be amended (the "Amended Project Area") pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law. The Agency proposes to amend the existing Project. Area for the purpose of carrying out activities related to upgrading public facilities and improving the quality of life for residents and the business environment in the Amended Project Area. The Agency'.s goal is to provide a stable, diversified, and strong economic base for the Amended Project Area and the community by, among other things, providing assistance in installing, constructing, or reconstructing streets, utilities, landscaping and other on-site and off-site improvements; encouraging the development of land by private enterprise; rehabilitating existing structures; revitalizing the City's downtown area; and improving and increasing the community's supply of affordable housing. The purpose of the project is to provide the Agency with financial and legal resources to achieve these objectives. The proposed Amended Project will be an undertak- ing of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pittsburg. I / 4C S. 07 ul d '"••:?v ii •:.: W CL �. :: ' .:•::• W cc CL C LU a ; :' •::::::::: ::i:. . . _._i W W C!3 3 E LU .rr Q od : W LU N • �. 3'JNdk1 p oLLJ a J o j i •::� to u Z CL 0 0 3e *••. otj�3 X0'8 3 O � c� U p6 �b t7 4 The Amended Project Area is situated in-the City of Pittsburg, County of Contra Costa, State of California, and is more particularly described in the Legal Description which follows this Legal Notice and is shown on the z Amended Project Area Map which follows the Legal Description. Any and all persons having comments in favor of or objections to the proposed Amended Plan or who wish to substantiate or deny the existence of blighting conditions in the proposed Amended Project Area, or who wish to challenge the regularity of any prior proceeding may appear at the hearing and show cause why the proposed Amended Plan should or should not be adopted. In addition, at any time not later than the time set forth in the hearing on the Plan, any person may file in writing with the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Pittsburg a statement of comments on or objections to the proposed Amended Plan. If any person desires to challenge in court the adop- tion of the proposed Amended Plan, the proposed approval, or any proceedings in connection therewith, they may be limited to raising only those issues that they or someone else raised at the Hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the Hearing. In accordance with the California Community Rede- velopment Law, the Agency has prepared a Report on the Amended Plan and has adopted and made available for public inspection rules to implement operation of preferen- tial treatment for persons who are engaged in a business in ` the Amended Project Area, as well as rules to implement the requirements for. participation by owners of Project Area property in the redevelopment process. Furthermore, the Report on the Amended Plan will be open for discussion at the hearing. The Amended Plan, the Rules for Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participa- tion, and the Report on the Amended Plan are now avail- able for inspection in the offices of the Agency, located at City Hall, 2020 Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg, California. This notice is published pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Pittsburg and the Redevelop— ment Agency of the City of Pittsburg. Date: March 8, 1993 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG S. Anthony Donato Executive Director LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED LOS MEDANOS.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA The proposed Amended Los Medanos Community Development Project Area consists of 6,810±acres, all as more particularly described as follows. I a A i I I PARCEL TWO ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE'CITY OF PITTSBURG, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERID- IAN; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID SECTION 24, 2640 FEET, MORE OR. LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF SECTION 14, T2N, R1W; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID SECTION 14, T2N, R1W, 886.15 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHWEST- ERN CORNER OF PARCEL "B" AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED JULY 13, 1971 , IN BOOK 17 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 35, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 0'45' WEST, 782.42 FEET AND NORTH 89'33'47"EAST, 454.78 FEET ALONG THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN LINES OF SAID PARCEL B ( 17PM35) TO THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER THEREOF, BEING THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF PARCEL "A" OF SAID MAP ( 17PM35) ; THENCE NORTH 0'00'56'` WEST ALONG THE EASTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL A ( 17PM35) AND THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, 454 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF WEST LELAND ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF WEST LELAND ROAD, 4,130 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF SUBDIVISION 4732, FILED AUGUST 30, 1978, IN BOOK 217 OF MAPS AT PAGE 1 ; THENCE NORTH 17'34'24" EAST, 250.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION 4732, BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE CONTRA COSTA CANAL; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE CONTRA COSTA CANAL, 4,300 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 14, T2N, R1W; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 14, T2N, R1W, 790 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE STATE FREEWAY; THENCE EASTERLY, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE STATE FREEWAY, 1,500 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF SUBDIVISION 4137 AS SAID SUBDIVISION IS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED FEBRUARY 25, 1972 IN BOOK r 144 OF MAPS AT PAGE 14; THENCE NORTH 0'09'30" EAST, ALONG SAID EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF SUBDIVISION 4137, 200 FEET, MORE OR LESS,TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID STATE FREEWAY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE STATE FREEWAY, 5,300 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF 1THE 8.47 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM V. P. BAKER TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, RECORDED JANUARY 31, 1962 IN BOOK 4047 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 278; THENCE NORTH . 0'19'30" EAST, 87.5 FEET ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID 8.47 ACRE P G & E PARCEL, TO THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 89'30' WEST, 108.37 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERN LINE OF SAID 8.47 ACRE P G & E PARCEL TO THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE 1.939 ACRE PARCEL DE- SCRIBED IN THE DEED TO P G & E RECORDED JULY 18, 1969, IN BOOK , 5923 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 167; THENCE NORTH 11'27'30" EAST, 987.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHERN LINE OF POLARIS DRIVE; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERN LINE OF POLARIS DRIVE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 960 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 162.05 FEET AND NORTH 89'34' 13" WEST, 1 ,421 .50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF THE EASTERN 'LINE OF SUBDIVISION 4765, AS SAID SUBDI- VISION IS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED JULY 7, 1978, IN BOOK 213 OF MAPS AT PAGE 32; THENCE NORTH 0'25'47" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF THE EASTERN LINE OF SUBDIVISION 4765 (213 M 32) , Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amended Merged Project Area 2-Mar-93 Page 2 ALONG THE EASTERN LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 4765 (213 M 32) AND ALONG THE NORTHERN EXTENSION OF SAID EASTERN LINE 'OF SUBDIVISION 4765 (213 M 32), 1,320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERN EXTEN- SION OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SECTION 12, T2N, R1W; THENCE WESTER- LY ALONG SAID EASTERN EXTENSION AND ALONG THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, T2N, RIW, 5,300 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12, T2N, RIW; THENCE NORTH 1-11 ' EAST, 1,168.68 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERN LINE OF THE .695 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM C. A. HOOPER & COMPANY TO SOUTHERN. PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, RECORDED AUGUST 7, 1930 IN BOOK 252 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 40; THENCE NORTH- EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID .695 ACRE SOUTH- ERN PACIFIC RAILROAD PARCEL (250 OR 40) 520 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER THEREOF, BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, 100 FEET IN WIDTH, OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH- ERN LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, SOUTH 71-18' 16" EAST, 1869. 17 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY PARCEL "A" AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 7204 FILED MAY 21, 1990 IN BOOK 347 OF MAPS AT PAGE 27; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLINE OF PARCEL "A" SUBDIVISION 7204 (347 M 27), SOUTH 0*04' WEST, 791 .15 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE. OF WILLOW PASS ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF WILLOW PASS ROAD THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 89'06'35" EAST, 330-00 FEET, SOUTH 0-04' WEST, 12.00 FEET, SOUTH 89*06'35" EAST, 700.38 FEET, NORTH 88-39'21" EAST, 11.91 FEET, NORTH 87-24'18" EAST, 460.65 FEET, NORTH 6-56'35" EAST, 50.00 FEET, NORTH 87-24'18" EAST, 76.30 FEET, SOUTH 0-04' WEST, 49.92 FEET, NORTH 87-24'18" EAST, 288.33 FEET, 72-04-07" EAST, 138.31 FEET AND ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 175,04 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY _1JNE_0-F SAID SOUTHERN. PACIFICAID WILLOW PASS ROAD ,.RAILROAD COMPANY; THENCE CONTINUING TERLY ANA EASTER LY7_ 6,350 FEET,_M5'ffE_'5 -E—ESSTo �jfESOU LO�ITMF__ 'SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE 1.81 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL TWO IN THE DEED FROM C. A. HOOPER & COMPANY TO THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, RECORDED IN BOOK 1872 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 189; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID P G & E 1.81 ACRE PARCEL 783.80 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER THEREOF, BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SACRA- MENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH- ERN BOUNDARY OF THE SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, 1 ,400 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 83-42-30" WEST, 50.85 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE "HOPE SUBDIVISION" AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED APRIL 13, 1948 IN BOOK 34 OF MAPS AT PAGE 43; THENCE NORTH 16"45' EAST, 101 .69 FEET TO THE NORTHERN LINE OF SAID SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY; THENCE SOUTH 83'42'30" -_,NORTHERN, L-INE OF THE SACRAMENTO. NORTH ERN-R-A I LWAY-,"-TO-THE'�7ioUT-H-W,-ES—TE-,R"N-.I CORNER�--SHO.WN�ONTHE:MAP:FI.LED-NOXEMBER I _�k,_1,9.75_ IN. BOOK'-4,1_0,F,,JARCEL C "WESTERN SAID PARCEL "B" ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1298.57 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 485.13 FEET AND NORTH 5*04'39" WEST, 876.41 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "B" (41 PH 8); THENCE SOUTH 73'17'13" FAST, 498.91 FEET: Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amended Merged Project Area 2-Mar-93 Page 3 NORTH 16-45' EAST, 1,712.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73*15' EAST, 26.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16*45 EAST, 600 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62'57'24" WEST, 315.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88*53'42" WEST, 284.,74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1'06'18" EAST, 25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88'51'09" WEST, 219.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17'48'04" WEST, 16.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88*52'32" EAST, 751.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72*22'01" EAST, 663.78 FEET TO THE WESTERN LINE OF MONTEZUMA STREET EXTENDED NORTH; THENCE NORTH 16'45' EAST, 500 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE RANCHO LOS MEDANOS; THENCE NORTH 88*55' EAST, 52.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83'31' EAST, 160.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79'57' EAST, 540.1 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19*47' WEST, 128.8 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 0*231 WEST, 680 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PIERHEAD LINE IN NEW YORK SLOUGH, ESTABLISHED JANUARY 23, 1920; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID U. S. ENGINEER'S PIERHEAD LINE, 400 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID PIERHEAD LINE WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF YORK STREET EXTENDED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PIER- HEAD LINE, WESTERLY 1,900 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID PIERHEAD LINE WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF EAST STREET EXTENDED; THENCE CONTINUING WESTERLY ALONG SAID PIERHEAD LINE 3,500 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERN EXTENSION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE 1.47 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 5 IN THE DEED FROM HOWARD F. LAURITZEN, ET UX, TO THE UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 1954 IN BOOK 2441 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 215; THENCE NORTH 16*45' EAST, 400 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER OF NEW YORK SLOUGH; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER OF NEW YORK SLOUGH, 5,100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF MIDDLE SLOUGH; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF NEW YORK SLOUGH, 3,800 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE CONTRA COSTA CANAL SPILLWAY RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION,1,350 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE RANCHO LOS MEDANOS, SAID POINT BEING ON THE SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE CONTRA COSTA CANAL SPILLWAY NORTH 0-19' E, 1863.7 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WESTERLY LINE WITH THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPA- NY; THENCE SOUTH 44'45'30" WEST, 35 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED-IN THE DEED TO DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, FILED JULY 15, 1977 IN BOOK 8419 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AT PAGE 618; THENCE SOUTH 39'51'58" WEST,- 1,836.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0' EAST, 407.92 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; THENCE SOUTHERLY 100 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 14, T2N, RlE, MDB&M WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SECTION 14, T2N, . RlE, MDB&M, SOUTH 0'59'14" WEST, 2125.64 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID CONTRA COSTA CANAL SPILLWAY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CONTRA COSTA CANAL SPILLWAY, 1,530 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT AT ' THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WESTERLY LINE . OF THE CONTRA COSTA CANAL SPILLWAY WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY, 3,520 Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amended Merged project Area 2-Mar-93 Page 4 SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION 5086 (209 M 1 ) THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 1'44' 13" EAST, 282. 59 FEET, SOUTH 10' 29' 13" EAST, 65 .80 FEET, SOUTH 1'44113" EAST, 130.00 FEET, SOUTH 5'23'47" WEST, 80.60 FEET AND SOUTH 1'44'13" EAST, 391.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF LOT 252 OF SAID SUBDIVISION 5086 (209 M 1 ); THENCE SOUTH 1'44'13" EAST, 443.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF LOT 444 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 4201 FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 1972 IN BOOK 151 OF MAPS AT PAGE 17, BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTH- ERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 28, T2N, R1E; THENCE WEST- ERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 28, T2N, R1E, AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 29, T2N, RIE, 2,700 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF LOT 66 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 4549 FILED OCTOBER 23, 1975 IN BOOK 180 OF MAPS AT PAGE 26; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION 3549 THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 0'59'32" WEST, 242.61 FEET, NORTH 61'14'30" WEST, 7.59 FEET AND NORTH 0'59'11" WEST, 382.85 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERN CORNER OF LOT 219 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 5085 FILED NOVEMBER 17, 1977 IN BOOK 204 OF MAPS AT PAGE 33; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION 5085 (204 M 33) THE FOLLOWING COURS- ES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 44'29'35" EAST, 169. 32 FEET, NORTH 14'39'05" WEST, 79.07 FEET, NORTH 7'21 '45" EAST, 179.48 FEET, NORTH 60'51'25" EAST, 94.46 FEET, SOUTH 66'26'03" EAST, 173.24 FEET, NORTH 51'48'02" EAST, 237.00 FEET, NORTH 33'13'29" WEST, 36.00 FEET, NORTH 42'42'58" EAST, 222.00 FEET, NORTH 19'41'54" WEST, 38.36 FEET AND NORTH 47'17'02" WEST, 10.00 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERN CORNER OF LOT 71 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF 3400 FILED AUGUST 4, 1965 IN BOOK 106 OF MAPS AT PAGE 20; THENCE NORTH 42'58'20" EAST, 700.00 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERN CORNER OF LOT 78 OF SAID SUBDIVISION 3400 (106 M 20); THENCE SOUTH 48'01'40" EAST, 3.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41'58'20" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 48'01 '40" WEST, 3.00. FEET TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 78, SUBDIVISION 3400 ( 106 M 20) ; THENCE NORTH 41'58'20" EAST, 300.00 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERN CORNER OF LOT 81 OF SAID SUBDIVI- SION 3400 (106 M 20) , BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY. CORNER OF LOT 47 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 3079 FILED OCTOBER 24, 1962 IN BOOK 90 OF MAPS AT PAGE 5; THENCE NORTH 41'58'20" EAST, 403.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0'07' EAST, 100.00 FEET ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION 3079 (90 M 5) TO THE NORTH- EASTERN CORNER OF LOT 44 OF SAID SUBDIVISION 3079 (90 M 5), BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF BUCHANAN ROAD; THENCE WESTER- LY ALONG SAID SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF BUCHANAN ROAD 2,450 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE MOST WESTERN CORNER OF LOT 87 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 2327 FILED MAY 19, 1957 IN BOOK 67 OF MAPS AT PAGE 11; THENCE SOUTH 50'23'53" WEST, 249.91 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT .90 OF SAID SUBDIVISION 2327 (67 M 11 ), ALSO BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT '1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 2931 FILED JULY 27, 1961 IN BOOK 83 OF MAPS AT PAGE 31; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION 2931 (83 M 31) THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 50'23153" WEST, 310.58 FEET, SOUTH 6'55117" EAST, 865.00 FEET, SOUTH 18'52'43" WEST, 191.00 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERN CORNER OF LOT 16 OF SAID SUBDIVISION 2931 (83 M 31 ), ALSO Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amended Merged Project Area 2-Mar-93 Page 6 BEING THE MOST NORTHERN CORNER OF LOT t A I S. SAID LO I T IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 3064 FILED NOVEMBER 27, 1964 IN BOOK 101 OF MAPS AT PAGE 38; THENCE SOUTHERLY FOLLOWING THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION 3064 ( 101 M 31 ) THE FOLLOWING COURS- ES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 18'52'43." WEST, 207. 30 FEET, SOUTH 4*44.'48" EAST, 676.45 FEET, SOUTH 24-57'21" WEST, .306.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF LOT 15 OF SAID SUBDIVISION 3064 (101 M 31), BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 29, T2N, RIE; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 29, T2N, RIE, 873 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTERLINE OF KIRKER PASS ROAD; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF KIRKER PASS ROAD, 1,550 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERN EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF LOT A AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 4929 FILED AUGUST 29, 1977 IN BOOK 201 OF MAPS AT PAGE 38; THENCE SOUTH 84*28'02" WEST, 236 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID EASTERN EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF LOT A, SUBDIVISION 4929 (201 M 38), ALONG SAID SOUTHERN LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF TO THE CENTER OF VALLEY VISTA, A ROAD, AS SAID ROAD IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID SUBDIVISION 4929 (201 M 38); THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID CENTER OF VALLEY VIS*TA, 290 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER OF CASTLE- WOOD DRIVE; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER OF CASTLEWOOD DRIVE, 920 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER OF BUCHANAN ROAD; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF BUCHANAN ROAD, 930 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT THAT BEARS SOUTH 5*00'30" EAST FROM THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AS SAID LOT Is SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION 4268 FILED AUGUST 14, 1974 IN BOOK 172 OF MAPS AT PAGE 22; THENCE NORTH 5*00'30" WEST, 40 FEET TO SAID MOST EASTER- LY CORNER OF LOT 1, SUBDIVISION 4268 (172 M 22) ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBDIVISION 4268 (172 M 22) THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 17*32' WEST, 79.12 FEET, NORTH 4-07'05" WEST, 125.32 FEET, NORTH 30-13'31" EAST, 133-09 FEET, NORTH 1*15'21" EAST, 223.85 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION 4268 ( 172 M 22) ; THENCE NORTH 89'51' EAST, 538.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73'15' EAST, 25 FEET TO THE CENTER OF RAMONA STREET; THENCE NORTH 16'45' EAST ALONG THE CENTER OF RAMONA STREET 415 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER OF MARKS BOULEVARD; THENCE NORTH 89'51' EAST, 130 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID MARKS BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 139 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS UNIT NO. 1, FILED AUGUST 29, 1947 IN BOOK 33 OF MAPS AT PAGE 42; THENCE NORTH 16'45' EAST, 1,730 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF LOT 12 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF PITTSBURG HEIGHTS FILED JUNE 9, 1930 IN BOOK 21 OF MAPS AT PAGE 597; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID PITTSBURG HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF SUBDIVISION 4823 AS SAID SUBDIVISION IS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED MAY 14, 1976 IN BOOK 184 OF MAPS AT PAGE 26, 3,560 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION 4823 ( 184 m 26), SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE 19.23 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF PITTSBURG TO THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1952 IN BOOK. 1994 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 129; THENCE NORTH 0"19'30" EAST, ALONG THE EASTERN LINE OF SAID P G & E PARCEL AND THE NORTHERN EXTENSION THEREOF, 3,950 Los 11e.danos Community Development Plan Amepded Merged Project Area 2-Mar-93 Page 7 PARCEL THREE ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF PITTSBURG, COUNTY OF CONTRA. COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF BUCHANAN ROAD WITH THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 28, T2N, R1E, MDB&M; THENCE SOUTH 0'44' 15" EAST; ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 28, T2N, R1E, MDB&M, 2722.22 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE NORTH 88'52'11" WEST, 2642.65 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SEC- TION 28, T2N, R1E, MDB&M TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH- EAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE NORTH 88'38'53" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28; 128.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21'35'11"EAST, 46.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0'41'36". WEST, . 2185.92 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'06'36" WEST, 282.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0'19'04" WEST, 469.92 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BUCHANAN ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF BUCHANAN ROAD 3,029.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 174.47 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. f 1�'� e.� 9.3�•JY j 'F.CP,LIF��'. . i. Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amended Merged Project Area 2-Mar-93 Page 9 I COMMUNITY MEETING NOTICE The Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency has prepared a proposed amendment to the Community Development Plan for the Los Medanos Community Development Project: The Los Medanos Project is designed to improve the quality of life in Pittsburg. The project has helped finance. home and business rehabilitation programs for the Downtown and also assists the City with housing rehabilitation through- out the older parts of the community. Recently, the Project assisted with bringing PACE and Service Merchandise to Pittsburg and is also working with Morrison Knudson to produce 300 jobs at the old U.S. Steel and Pipe Mill, building railcars for BART. DATE, TIME & PLACE Monday, March 29, 1993 .7:00 P.M. Pittsburg City Council Chambers 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA Please join City staff and community members at a citizen's forum to discuss the Plan Amendment. For more information, please contact Lillian J. Pride, City Clerk at (510) 439-4850. i NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AMENDED AND RESTATED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LOS MEDANOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pittsburg will hold a joint public hearing on: Monday, April 12, 1993 7:00 P.M. Pittsburg City Council Chambers 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA The Hearing may be continued from time to time until completed. Any person desiring to speak will be given the opportu- nity to do so. RECEIVED APR 1y/�/93 ' 19.93 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. ATTACHMENT: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT E/R FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IM PACT 1 REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED Los MEDAMOS COMMUNITY DID EVELOPM15NT PLAN AMENOME!HT ' SCH # 92051036 Prepared for the City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency �I by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in association with DKS Associates, Transportation Planners and Engineers Charles Patterson, Consulting Biologist Donald Ballanti, Consulting Meteorologist March 1993 ' 511IFEIRICOVER.517 i Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency I. Introduction March 18, 1993 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amendment consists of two volumes: (1) the Draft EIR, which was distributed for public review and comment on September 15, 1992, and (2) this Final EIR attachment. In conformance with Section 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines (1992), this attachment includes the following additional components which, together with the Draft EIR, comprise the Final EIR for the plan amendment: (a) A list of persons, organizations, and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period and an index of their comments; (b) Copies of written comments from public agencies and the public received on the Draft 1 EIR during and after the 45-day public review period; (c) The responses of the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency (the Lead Agency) to all significant environmental points raised in these written comments pertaining to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and (d) An Errata section which includes EIR text revisions made in response to public comments on the Draft EIR. All such revisions to the Draft EIR are indicated with an r in the left margin adjacent to the revised line. All of the revised pages supersede the corresponding pages in the Draft EIR. A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held by the Redevelopment Agency on October 5, 1992. No comments were made regarding the Draft EIR at the hearing. Therefore, there are no oral comments to respond to in this document. .� Certification of this Final EIR by the Redevelopment Agency must occur prior to any final action on the proposed project. If the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council were to approve the proposed plan amendment, selected mitigation measures suggested in this Final EIR would be required as conditions of project approval. �1 517IFEIRIF-1.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency I. Introduction March 18, 1993 Page 2 M 517IFEIRIF-1.517 t Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Li March 18, 1993 Page 3 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Under CEOA guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR.the Redevelopment Agency (i.e., the Lead Agency) is required to consult with and obtain comments from other public 1 agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the general public with opportunities to comment on the Draft EIR. The Agency is also required to respond in writing to substantive environmental points raised in this Draft EIR review and consultation process. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was distributed for public review and comment on September 15, 1992. The required 45-day public review period on the DEIR ended October 30, 1992. During the public review period, comments on the DEIR were received in the form of seven (7) letters submitted to the Agency. An additional three (3) comment letters were received �I after the 45-day public review period. No comments were received at the public hearing on the Draft EIR held on October 5, 1992, I� This Response to Comments chapter includes the following subsections: ■ An Index to comments (section ILA), which lists the persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR, identifies the significant environmental points addressed in their comments, and indicates by code where the written responses of the Lead Agency (Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency) to these comments are provided in this chapter. ■ A responses to written comments section (section 11.6), which includes copies of all letters and memos received during and after the public review period pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR, and the written response of the Lead Agency to these comments. Each pertinent written comment is coded in the right margin of the letter or memo. Responses of the Lead Agency to the various coded comments follow each letter. A. INDEX TO COMMENTS The following index is provided to assist readers in identifying (1) what DEIR issues were commented upon by whom, and (2) where responses to these comments can be found in this document. 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 4 Name/Agency Date Code Issues and Concerns ' 1. John Hendrickson, 10-1-92 1.1 Project impacts on the Contra.Costa Deputy Superintendent, County Office of Education , Contra Costa County, 1.2 Discuss these impacts in EIR - Office of Education 1.3 Project significantly impacts the Contra Costa County Office of Education 2. Stephen L. Berger, 10-20-92 2.1 Relationship of project to the Regional it Associate Engineer, Board California Regional 2.2 Groundwater pollution remediation Water Quality Control authority Board 2.3 Wetland loss mitigation 3. Deborah L. Herrmann, 10-20-92 3.1 Identify project impacts on prime farm Environmental Program •land Coordinator, State of 3.2 Location of agricultural preserves California, Department 3.3 Williamson Act contracts of Conservation 3.4 Impacts on agricultural preserves 3.5 Effects of Williamson Act contract cancellation 3.6 Requirements for Williamson Act contact cancellations 3.7 Public improvements on agricultural preserve lands 4. Ray Borton, Senior 10-21-92' 4.1 No discussion regarding change in Agricultural Economist, agricultural preserve land and change in 9 - Agricultural Statistics tax structure Branch, Department of 4.2 No references to current agricultural Food and Agriculture income in the No Project Alternative 4.3 Initial Study checklist states no reduction in acreage of agricultural crops, ignoring grazing ' Although the date o/ this memorandum is 10-21-92, it was received by the State Clearinghouse on November 23, 1992, 24 days after the close of the 45-day public review period. 5. Ray Waletzko, 10-21-92 5.1 Increase in population exposed to Administrative mosquitos Assistant, Contra Costa 5.2 Increase in service requests Mosquito Abatement 5.3 Marshes bordering project area are of District concern 5.4 Increase in service requests 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 5 5.5 Growth-inducing, cumulative impacts 5.6 Increase in level of service required 5.7 Increase in runoff 5.8 Mitigated wetlands will increase maintenance requirements 5.9 Increase in level of service required 5.10 Clogged drainage areas result in increased mosquito production 5.11 Consultation requested regarding construction of drainage improvements 5.12 Consultation requested regarding newly created wetlands 5.13 Air quality impacts 5.14 Increase in population exposed to mosquitos 5.15 Consult with the Mosquito Abatement District 5.16 Creation of ponds or lakes 6. Gary F. Adams, District 10-27-92 6.1 Kirker Creek drainage problem CEOA Coordinator, 6.2 Interchange construction approval California Department authority of Transportation 6.3 Flooding of SR 4 at Loveridge Road 7. Kerry E. Kemp, Public 10-28-92 7.1 Growth would not occur without Economics, Inc., on redevelopment behalf of the Antioch 7.2 Project consistency with General Plan Unified School District 7.3 6,603 versus 6,935 housing units 7.4 Anticipated commercial development 7.5 Additional quantification of land use impacts within existing area 7.6 Provide zoning densities for Area 1 7.7 Provide zoning densities for Area 2 7.8 Additional development potential in Area 2 7.9 Foreseeable land use changes in Area 3 i 7.10 Area 4 development clarification 7.11 Future development in Area 1 and/or Area 4 understated . 7.12 Amendment area acreage 7.13 More substantive analysis of growth- inducement needed 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 6 7.14 Residential densities and Baker project ' commercial square footage questioned 7.15 Potential development in Amended Merged Redevelopment area not adequately assessed 7.16 Detailed description of Table 4 calculations and map overlays showing TAZ boundaries requested 7.17 Identify disposition of underutilized parcels referred to in Table 4 _ 7.18 Provide land use basis for employment increases 7.19 Revise Table 4 to indicate growth for each amendment area 7.20 Include the East Contra Costa County Travel Model as an appendix in the EIR 7.21 Job projections in Table 4 are underestimated 7.22 Quantify multiplier effect 7.23 Additional job projection analysis needed 7.24 Impacts on the Antioch Unified School District (AUSD) 7.25 Contra Costa Community College District (CCD) impacts 7.26 CCD mitigations inadequate 7.27 Program-wide mitigations needed 8. Marcus D. Magness, 10-29-92 8.1 Growth-inducement cannot be mitigated Ir Lozano Smith Smith to less than significant levels Woliver & Behrens, on 8.2 EIR housing numbers inconsistent with behalf of Pittsburg General Plan Unified School District 8.3 Quantify housing growth outside the project area and related impacts on public facilities 8.4 Incorrect table reference (p. 104) 8.5 Incorrect table reference (p. 110) 8.6 Incorrect table reference (pp. 112-113) 8.7 Incorrect descriptions of Figure 15 and Table 15 8.8 DEIR housing growth and student enrollment projections are underestimated 511IFE/RIF-11.517 1 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 7 8.9 Change MDUSD to PUSD on page 157 8.10 Draft report on school facility impacts 8.11 EIR fails to identify significant impacts 8.12 School mitigation measures inadequate 8.13 Mello-Roos Facility Districts will not mitigate impacts 8.14 Payment of additional fees invalid 8.15 Establishment of school sites violates government code 8.16 Coordination with school district will not mitigate to level of insignificance 8.17 Increase in school impact fees illegal 8.18 Rearrangement of grade configuration and student assignment, conversion to I year-round education 8.19 Mitigation not specific 8.20 Pass-through tax increment is only feasible mitigation 8.21 Cumulative PUSD impacts 8.22 Impacts on the Contra Costa County Office of Education 8.23 Limiting enrollment does not mitigate impacts 8.24 State financing for school expansion not an adequate mitigation 8.25 Increased fees not adequate mitigation 8.26 Additional mitigation needed 9. Mary Griggs, 11-17-92' 9.1 The State Lands Commission is a Environmental Review Responsible and Trustee Agency with Section, Division of current leases in the project area Environmental Planning and Management, State Lands Commission 1 1 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 8 t of DEIR comment letters 11-18-92' 10.1 Late receipt ' 10. Christine Kinne, Acting p Deputy Director, Permit Assistance, Governor's Office of Planning and Research ' This comment letter was received after the close of the 45-day public review period. r 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 9 B. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following section includes reproductions of letters received during and after the DER public review period.' Each letter is immediately followed by the Lead Agency's written responses to substantive comments therein pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR. Comments and responses are correlated by code numbers added to the margins of each letter. r' 'The public review period began September 15, 1992 and ended on October 30, 1992. 5171FE1RIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 10 1 517IFEIRIF-11.517 _-���� ncneld L. Stewar. cd.D. JU+srr•Icndenf • • 77 Sarre Barbara Aoad • PtQasani Hill, Canfornia 9.15, • jJ15)942•?388 :':TY MANAGER OCT 0 1992 October 1, 1992 Mr. S. Anthony Donato City Manager City of Pittsburg Civic Center P. O. Box 1518 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Mr. Donato: RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Third Amendment to the Los Medanos Community Development Plan ' On behalf of the Contra Costa County Office of Education, I have read the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Third Amendment to the Los Medanos Community Development Plan (Report). The Report was sent with your September 1C, 1992, letter. The Report is inadequate and deficient in reporting envircnnental I• consequences concerning public service impacts. The report fails to consider impacts of the Development Plan on the County Office of Education student programs. The County Office is responsible for student programs, serving approximately 1 to 2 percent of the total K-12 student population in Contra Costa County, including the areas served by Pittsburg and Antioch Unified School Districts. Specifically, the County Office is responsible for students assigned by the Court or referred by the Probation Department to community schools, handicapped students placed in special day classes and vocational education offered through the Regional Occupational Program. Educational service and facility demands caused by residential and employment growth in the redevelopment area should be a part of the Environmental Impact Repert. r� Mr. S. Anthony Donato �^ Page 2 October 1, 11992 The County Office of Education is significantly impacted b growth caused by the Development Plan. The Environmental impact Report fails to recognize these impacts and is thereby deficient. ' Verry.,truly ndyour John E. Herickson Deputy Superintendent JEH/yp or,: Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg GW/MISC.CITYOFPITTSB Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency Il. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 13 1. John Hendrickson, Deputy Superintendent Contra Costa County, Office of Education 1.1 The pian amendment impacts on the County Office of Education would be less than significant and are therefore not discussed in the EIR. The County Office of Education states that it is "..responsible for student programs serving approximately one to two percent of.the school population in Contra Costa County." The project could encourage or facilitate development that would result in an estimated increase of approximately 1,023 students in the Mount Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) and 1,666 to 1,944 students in the PUSD. Therefore, from ten to 20 students attending schools in the MDUSD may require-special education, occupational programs, or "community school" facilities. From 17 to 39 students from the PUSD would increase the demand for space in these programs. This amounts to a total of approximately 27 to 59 students from both districts over an 18-year period, or an average of approximately two to three students per year, representing a less than significant impact on the County Office of Education. 1.2 Because the impact on the County Office of Education would be less than significant, such impacts are not discussed in the EIR. 1.3 For the reasons stated above in the response to comment 1.1, the project impacts on the County Office of Education would be less than significant. 5 t 7iFE/RIF-11.5!7 1 1 ,",TATE Of CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor ._ALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Phom: 1610)464.1256 SAN FRANCISCO 8AY REGION FAX: (510)464.1760 2101 WEBSTER STREET, SUITE 600 OAKLAND,a.44612 October 20, 1992 File No. 2118.04(SLB) ''TY '1='4A. R Lillian Pride OCT 2 :2 1992 City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency �'- 2020 Railroad Avenue , Pittsburg, CA 94565 SUBJECT: LOS MEDANOS REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL McACT REPORT SCR# 92051nz5 Dear Ms. Pride: We reviewed the Draft EIR for the above project and have the following comments: 1. Thee relationship of the project to the Regional Board on pages 238-239 should be ' expanded. �• The Regional Board's Wetland Fill Policy requires no net loss of wetland acreage and no net loss of wetland value. For this project, mitigation will be required to compensate for the destruction of wetlands. The Regional Board must certify that a U.S. Corps of Engineers permit will comply with water quality standards, or waive such certification. If not waived, the certification can be granted or denied. If two or more acres of wetlands are affected, the certification must be voted on by the Regional Board in a public hearing. Less than two acres can be handled administratively. 2. Any soil or groundwater pollution detected at the project sites must be remediated to the /) satisfaction of the Regional Board, the State Department of Toxic Substances and the •f•• Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. 3. Construction of above ground drainage culverts, as mentioned on page 186, may not be I� suitable or adequate as a mitigation measure to compensate for wetland loss. i•�� If you have any questions, please contact me at (51 0) 286-0846. ' Sincerely, 5ePk e kt Stephen L.-Berger Associate Engineer cc: Michael Chiriatti, State Clearinghouse Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 15 2 Stephen L Berger, Associate Enalneer; California Regional Water Quality Control Board ' 2.1 In response to this comment, the discussion of the relationship of the project to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board has been expanded on page 239 of the EIR. (See the section V errata in part III of this FEIR Attachment.) 2.2 Page 224 of the. EIR has been revised in response -to this comment regarding soil and groundwater pollution remediation. 2.3 In response to this comment, page 186 of the EIR has been modified to clarify that provision of above-ground culverts is not adequate mitigation for creek habitat impacts. i 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 5171FEIRIF-11.517 1 State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA M E M O R A N D U M ' To: Mr. Douglas P. Wheeler Date: October 20, 1992 Secretary for Resources Ms. Lillian Pride Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency 2020 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg, CA 94565 From: Department of Conservation Governmental and Environmental Relations Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Los Medanos Community Development Plan. BCH 492051036 The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide basis and administration of ' the Williamson Act. The Department has reviewed the above DEIR and has the following comments. The program DEIR addresses amendments to the 1983 Los ' Medanos Community Development Plan, e.g. , boundary changes and expansion to include 2, 195 additional acres, financial changes, new public improvement and facilities projects, extension of redevelopment agency eminent domain power and other amendments for consistency with the Pittsburg General Plan. The DEIR notes that the project impacts range land and that development would eliminate the potential for future agricultural uses. The Contra Costa County Subvention Act Lands map also indicates prime farnland in the vicinity of the project. Loss of Prime Farmland The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should identify and treat the loss of any prime agricultural land as a significant environmental impact of the project. The California Code of Regulations (Section 15000 et seq. , Appendix G (y) ) states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. We also recommend that the FEIR provide the .following information. Agricultural Preserves • A map which identifies the location of agricultural San preserves in the project area, the number of acres and type of land in each preserve (i.e. , prime/non-prime) . 1 ' Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Pride October 20, 1992 Page Two Figure 14, showing agricultural preserves, could be modified to include this additional information. • The location of Williamson Act contracts on lands within and�� adjacent to the project area. • • The direct and indirect impacts of the project on lands in agricultural preserves or under WilliamsoniAct contract. �• • A discussion of the effects that cancellation of any Williamson Act contracts would have on nearby properties •� also under contract. �• / • A discussion of the specific requirements for contract (�A/ cancellations (Government Code Sections 51282 and 51284 ; attached) . The FEIR should also consider the provision for public �•� improvements on lands in agricultural preserves (Government Code Sections 51290-51294) . The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. We hope that the above issues are given adequate consideration in the FEIR. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at (916) 445-8733 . Deborah L. Herrmann Environmental Program Coordinator Attachments cc: Ken Trott Office of Land Conservation Contra Costa RCD Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 18 3. Deborah L. Herrmann Environmental Program Coordinator; State of California ' Department of Conservation 3.1 The issue of loss ofP rime farmland in the southwest area is limited in this case to the San Marco and Alves rangeland sites in the Southwest Area. The EIR recently prepared by the City for the proposed San Marco Subdivision Final Subsequent EIR for the San Marco Subdivision, (October 6, 1992) found that: Conversion of the project site from rangeland to urban use would not constitute a significant adverse environmental impact, because: (1) none of the project site is classified as prime agricultural land; (2) the project site represents a small portion of the overall rangeland inventory in Contra Costa County; and (3) the project would not contribute to a significant countywide cumulative decline in agricultural productivity. This finding also applies to the adjacent Alves property, and provided the basis for the Los Medanos Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR Initial Study determination that the plan would not result in significant impacts on prime farmland. 3.2 Figure 14 shows that agricultural preserve land in the project area is limited to the Southwest Area. There are approximately 200 acres of agricultural preserve (Williamson Act contracted) land in the Southwest Area. 3.3 Figure 14 has been revised in response to this comment (see page 87 in the errata , section, part II, of this FEIR Attachment) to illustrate the location of Williamson Act contracted land in and adjacent to the project area. There are approximately 151.98 acres of Williamson Act contracted land in the project area and approximately 154.8 acres adjacent to the project area. 3.4 The Williamson Act-contracted lands in the project area are located on the San Marco Subdivision site. The San Marco project is currently in the final stages of environmental review. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Marco Subdivision.(October 1992) found that the project would not constitute a significant adverse impact on the state's agricultural resources for the following reasons: Conversion of the project site from rangeland to urban use would not constitute a significant adverse environmental impact, because: (1) none of the project site is ' classified as prime agricultural land; (2) the project site represents a small portion of the overall rangeland inventory in Contra Costa County; and (3) the project would not contribute to a significant countywide cumulative decline in agricultural productivity. 517IFEIAIF-11.517 ' Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 19 Also Development of the site, including the construction of project roads (e.g., (Also) P 9 Leland Road), may not occur on those portions of the site covered by Williamson ' Act contract until February, 1997 when the current agricultural preserve contract expires. The nearby property under Williamson Act contract consist of the remainder of the San Marco site, lands outside of the city limits located south of the San Marco site, and land along Bailey Road adjacent to the Oak Hills area. The effects of the San ' Marco project (which would be facilitated by the redevelopment plan amendment) on surrounding contracted land are assessed on page 105 of the Final Subsequent ' Environmental Impact Report for the San Marco Subdivision (October 6, 1992). Additional land under Williamson Act contract is located outside of the city limits south of the existing redevelopment area on Bailey Road. The effects of the Oak Hills ' South project are assessed in the Environmental Assessment for the Oak Hills South Residential Subdivision (July 1992). The Environmental Assessment did not find that the Oak Hills South project would affect Williamson Act contracted lands. 3.5 Please refer to the response to comment 3.4. ' 3.6 Page 107 of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Marco Subdivision (October 6, 1992) includes a discussion of Williamson Act contract cancellation requirements. ' 3.7 Page 99 of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Marco Subdivision (October 6, 1992) states that: Development of the site, including the construction of project roads (e.g., Leland Road), may not occur on those portions of the site covered by Williamson Act contract until February, 1997 when the current agricultural preserve contract expires. ' 5171FEIRIF-11.517 1 �as"411 CON— ; M * ?" OrdndUon T, ldcrAel Ch:riatt i cow : Octabor 21, 1002 ow3t, scu 1400 10th Street Ploy fscrame2to 8acraaanto, G. 95814 : � 'i:� lboes: �llE� 6�4.08l7 s 4 ma 1 Oe/er*emo of Peed wW As*wbam - RaX bort.4p, lir. AgrI '.IturLl 3Cfltl3Ce Ac S i►grtt„vit k4t arLics trench &A00, craft 2Cviz0=nent4l za�,acc Report [or 'tae Crc pmod Lois loedanco Comauvaitr ae".1 opawnt KOn Amzdiwmt sea #02451434, tept. isl9 + a The Ptod onh' ZThe loss culttuni Opportunity" is of considerable concern and c-,r cowarn means to tau #00-1.400 acres of graawing land that would be duplazed ter the ultimo dovtlago nt of the areas rithin this report. The acooaVannying mare show eme of - the Acwtbmn as•ea tQ bre currently in agricultural r+atrve. Rotraw:s, no casames aro =A* axe how t2h-is will be changed and the champ is tax struatwre that will e i take place. Tbore is no refareace to current agricultural ina: it thio :310 arojoat Alternative' . Xleo, the tUackliot at Appemidix i ahaaaa no reductica in acreage of any agricultural crop•, .9wsyleg the value " i•� of the grazing trat now takes plicae in the oras. Won preparing aR 212 of this progartias, as rem castaecing the Cauaty AOziculLwMI Comissics ares rspwt wwId grovida oseded data an currebt +rWcultural Lim*. '!'bio Coatissime: would &I" be sCit to pra►idf LnrocRltiaa as the 't restrictions of -he Williamson Act Agriatatusal ftaa" and �'..s«e the writsra an existing *Right To !"asst" �aeae grit may apply. I i 1 � f t BILA � rf i r 1 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 21 4. Ray Borton Senior A ricultural Economist Acirlcultural Statistics Branch Department of Food and Astriculture ' 4.1 Pages 80, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98 of the DEIR provide an adequate discussion of the foreseeable land use changes in the Southwest Area. In addition, pages 99 through 108 of the Final Subsequent EIR for the San Marco Subdivision (October 1992) includes a detailed discussion of related agricultural impacts. This discussion was incorporated in the Los Medanos Redevelopment Plan EIR by reference on pages 98 and 99 of the plan EIR.' The redevelopment plan amendment EIR does not include an analysis of the change in the tax structure that would take place as a result of development of land currently in agricultural reserve because no such analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As explained on page 6 of the Draft EIR, the fiscal aspects of the proposed redevelopment plan amendment are evaluated under a separate fiscal review procedure by the Agency. 4.2 There is no discussion of current agricultural income in the No Project Alternative because there is no such requirement under CEQA. Please also see response to ' comment 4.1 above. 4.3 The City determined that the project would not result in a reduction in the acreage of ' any agricultural crop because there are no agricultural crops farmed in the project area. Please refer to the response to comment 3.4 herein regarding the impacts of the project on agricultural resources. 'The Final Subsequent EIR for the San Marco Project (October 1992) is available for public review at the Department of Community Development, Pittsburg City Hall, 65 Civic Drive, Pittsburg, California. 511VEIRIF-11.517 CONTRA COSTA A tt,OF TRUSTIES MOSOUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT ANAINISTWiON 155 MASON CIRCLE fl Wheple., PhD CONCORD. CA 94520 (5101685-9301 -'RE51DENI 1800)331-83221 FAX: 685-0266 ;I[TANY Ft Hildcks en October 21, 921992 �C�- 1 -.T'CX' H �-C-,e,T. I•NTIVOOD Ms. Janis clover —*10N Planning Aide ..r H-Cnhpy City of Pittsburg :)K'0RD 2020 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg, CA 94565 '4'%A �OSU Co. SUBJECT: DRAFT E14VIRONMEIITAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LOS HEDANOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLXN AMENDMENT Dear Ms. Glover: �ed;-Jck Mead Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District (CCMAD) staff have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Los Ko4ko Medanos Community De.velopment Plan Amendment and we have some concerns that should be addressed in the EIR for this project. Winy Our first c6mynetit whan..'.reviewing -thirs,', report is regarding buildout. Some of the amended - areas- --incorporated into the current plan consist mainly of' vacant range land which will be :-*S Lupsho developed very quickly. —,� The Draft EIR forecasts that the project area as a whole, when built out, will have an additional 6,935 residential units, 18,100 more people than 1990 and create 8, 260 new jobs, with many of those employed ;s-AG coming from outside the,area. This, inpending growth, and the �Vssey proportionate increase 'in mosquito sources requiring regular Masa inspection, ' raises a number " of concerns that should be addressed in the. E.I.R. W-BLO PUBLIC HEALTH: Our first concern is the potential for' public health problems. -�.%UT CREEK This dramatic buildout will significantly increase the number "!7, L-OwM,4-10 of people who will be exposed to mosquitoes. The Culex tarsalis mosquito is found in a surprising variety of sources . in the project area and this species will readily enter hones and businesses. In addition, Culex tarsalis is a potential vector of two viral diseases, Western Ecriine Encephalitis and St. Louis Encephalitis. Over the past 40 years there have been over 500 Cases of Western Equine Encephalitis in California and over 600 cases of St. Louis Encephalitis. 1 ' 23 PUBLIC SERVICE: The level of public service is also a major consideration of CCMAD. District procedure is to divide Contra Costa County into zones, • each being monitored and treated by a single vector Control . Inspector.. Recent history, which already shows an intensive level of maintenance required in and around the Project Area, required CCMAD to make this zone the smallest in Contra Costa County. Our studies indicate that service requests will rise by over 50% and sources requiring inspection will increase in excess of 37% because of this project. The marshes bordering the project area raise special concerns because of the difficulty of monitoring and treating an • environmentally sensitive area. These marshes produce large numbers of Aedes and Culiseta mosquitoes including Aedes dorsalis, Aedes squamiger and Culiseta inornate, all of which are within easy ' flight range of the Project Area. These mosquitoes are vicious biters, both day and evening. This project will also increase the amount of time CCMAD staff ' spend travelling to and from the area, the number of people • responsible for the zone, as well as the amount of administrative time recurred to track all the service calls and complaints. It is important to note that on pg. 96, the draft EIR states that the proposed improvements in the project area can be expected to • induce additional growth in the surrounding hillside open space areas. This growth, while not in the project area, directly effects CCMAD and will lead to increased service demands from this district. This is all attributed to the redevelopment project. In addition, during construction, and after homes and businesses are built, you can expect numerous potholes, clogged storm drains, •� rain gutters and artificial containers which will be excellent breeding grounds for Culex piplens mosquitoes. You can bg assured that 18.000 new residents in such a sensitive mosauito area will lead to a substantial increase in the level of service required from Contra Costa Mosauito Abatenent District, DRAINAGE: New construction on previously vacant pasture land will lead to increased runoff. The natural flow of this runoff will take water 67 to the nearby marshes on a regular basis. This increased flow will transform seasonally wet marshes to marshes that are inundated year round. This in turn will drive up mosquito breeding frequency, as ' well as the number of times treatment will be required. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: Generally, proposed mitigation to compensate for the loss ;,f F-8wetlands is required. If new wetlands are required because of this (2) 1 24 project, the mitigation should inclade the necessity of monitoring �. to determine necessary corrective measures to remedy undesirable trends in the establishment of the wetland. It is our experience that mitigated wetlands created because of projects such as the Los Medanos project increase the maintenance required from CCMAD. History shows that the required source inspections will rise 25� 0%-er previously natural , unharmed wetlands. auggested_.Comments to Draft Env ronmental Report: 1) Section D. pg. 143, FUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES: The report does not contain an acknowledgement of the substantial impact on services required from CCMAD because of the project. It is important to note that this district already spends an inordinate amount of time in the project area and that the level of service required can be expected to rise 50% under this proposal. This should be noted in the E.I .R. 2) Section 6. pg. 167,. DRAINAGE: The project area will be CIO , undergoing an extensive drainage improvement program. when !� new construction occurs, you will experience increased problems with absorption and runoff to marshes, catcr, basins, storm drains and creekbeds. When drainage areas are clogged with debris pools of water form, leading to adult mosquito production within two weeks. This in turn leads to additional source inspection requirements and public service calls. When new drainage ditches, channels, creeks or basins are I ' r built they should be as deep as possible and have steep sides • to minimize mosquito production, and water levels should he kept as constant as possible to avoid production of floodwater Aedes mosquitoes. whenever possible, emergent vegetation should be minimized, as this provides a protective and nutritive habitat for immature mosquitoes. CCMAD should be , consulted rgoardina any further questions during construction of catch basin6 and flood control channels in the nrg ect area. 3) Section E. pg. 175, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: If now I wetlands are constructed, monitoring will be required to ensure proper results. CCMAD needs to have access and be able to monitor for potential mosquito production. This office has extensive experience in designing wetlands to maximize their habitat value while minimizing mosquito .production. wg strongly recommend that this ooffice be consulted should any new wetlands be created in the grrQiect area. ' 4) Section G. pg. 203, AIR QUALITY: P. project of this magnitude requires a significant increase in machinery �•I� operations, drive time to and from the treatment areas, as well as chemical spraying to control mosgtito populations. All of these factors will contribute to a deteriorE;tion of air quality. (3) , . 2,S 5) Section H, pg. 217, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY: The Draft E. I.R. does not nention arthropod-bc rne diseases in the public health and safety section as a concern in the project area. However, the Jarge increase, in _human trate[c can have a i n' icant imbact on pub lic_hg. IthbecausP of ro ential exposure to mosquito borne disea2es (as explained previously) . 6) Section IX, pg. 263, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED: The Los Medanos Redevelopment Project is unprecedented in e respect to both the effect that a project will have on our ability to provide services, .and the consequences ofsuch a large influx of people and businesses into a mosquito sensitive area. It is imperative, for both public health and public services reasons, that Contra costa Mosquito Abatement District be consulted on this project. Additiobal Recommendatiors: 1) If ponds or lakes are created during construction of the numerous parks detailed or, pg. 67, they should have minimal ' emergent vegetation and steep sides to reduce mosquito production. _ Therefore, we at Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District feel that our comments on the above areas of public health, public services, drainage, and vegetation and wildlife should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report. In closing, this office has the expertise, and should be consulted, regarding mosquito control in the project area. Please call our office should you have any comments or questions. Sincerely, 4 41-41/ Ray Waletz o Administrative Assistant RW ' CC: Los Medanos EIR ' wp: letters'.plttsl Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 26 5 Ray Waletzko, Administrative Assistant, Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement ' District 5.1 The project would facilitate and encourage residential and commercial development ' that would lead to an increase in the number of residents living and employees working in Pittsburg. ' According to the Contra Costa County Health Department, the incidence of Lyme disease countywide has ranged from three to four cases per year and the rates of ' Encephalitis are similar, with two cases being reported in the six-month period from January to June of 1992.' Other data provided by the Mosquito Abatement District indicate that there were 20 cases of Lyme disease reported in Contra Costa County from 1989 to 1991 and one case of Encephalitis reported statewide to date in 1992. There were 803,732 people living in Contra Costa County in 1990.2 Data from the County Health Department indicate that the rate of Lyme disease is less than one per , 200,000 people in Contra Costa County. Data from the Mosquito Abatement District indicate that the rate of Lyme disease in Contra Costa County is less than one per 120,000 people (assuming 6.66 cases per year between 1989 and 1991). Even assuming that Lyme disease and Encephalitis cases would increase in non- drought years, it is reasonable to assume, based on these statistics, that Lyme , disease and Encephalitis are not significant public health problems in Contra Costa County and that the increase in residents and employees attributable to the project would not result in a significant increase in the incidence of these diseases. ' 5.2 The project would not be expected to significantly increase the areas that would have to be serviced by the Mosquito Abatement District. While additional runoff would ' result from new development that would be facilitated by the project, the net effect of the project on mosquito production would be less than significant. In fact, the anticipated net effect of the project in facilitating the redevelopment of currently dormant, underutilized, dilapidated, and/or poorly maintained properties would be to reduce, not increase, the incidence of potholes, clogged storm drains, clogged drain gutters, artificial containers, ponding, etc. More importantly, the extensive drainage improvements identified on pages 58 and 59 of the DES would reduce the amount of flooding and ponding, thereby decreasing the breeding area for mosquitos and corresponding needs for service from the Mosquito Abatement District. In addition, �. the road reconstruction projects identified on pages 59 through 61 would also reduce mosquito breeding areas (potholes, etc.) 'Sirlura Taylor, Public Health Nurse/Epidemiologist, Contra Costa County Health Department, personal communication, December 4, 1992. 2Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections '92, July 1992. 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 27 5.3 The project would not significantly affect the need for monitoring of the marsh areas bordering the project area. 5.4 For the reasons stated in the response to comment 5.2 above, the project would not significantly increase mosquito production or the level of services required of the ' Mosquito Abatement District. The reverse may be true. 5.5 Please refer to the response to comments 5.2 and 5.4. 5.6 Please refer to the response to comments 5.2 and 5.4. ' 5.7 Again, as discussed in the response to comment 5.2, the net effect of the project would not represent a significant adverse impact on public health or related services required of the Mosquito Abatement District. ' 5.8 Although not required since no significant impact has been identified, page 186 of the EIR has been modified in response to this comment to recommend consultation with ' the Mosquito Abatement District regarding methods of minimizing any additional mosquito production that may result from the creation of new wetlands. ' 5.9 For the reasons given above in response to comment 5.2, the project would not result in a significant increase in the need for services from the Mosquito Abatement District. 5.10 For the reasons given above in response to comment 5.2, the project would not result in a significant increase in the need for services from the Mosquito Abatement District. 5.11 Although not required since no significant impacts have been identified, page 171 of the EIR has been modified in response to this comment to recommend consultation with the Mosquito Abatement District regarding the planned drainage improvements. 5.12 Please refer to the response to comment 5.8, above. 5.13 The project would not require an increase in Mosquito Abatement District machinery operations, vehicle trips, or chemical spraying of a level that would result in a measurable, if any, deterioration in air quality. 5.14 As stated above in the response to comment 5.1, Lyme disease and Encephalitis are not considered to be significant public health problems in Contra Costa County. ' While the project would facilitate and encourage growth that would result in an increase in the population, the project would not measurably increase the breeding grounds for ticks or mosquitos. In fact, the project would probably decrease the ' 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 28 extent of breeding grounds as a result of the proposed storm drainage and other project-facilitated improvements. 5.15 As stated in the responses to comments above, project impacts on the Mosquito Abatement District would be less than significant. No further consultation is required. 5.16 There are no current plans for ponds or lakes in the parks that would be funded by the project. 512VEIRF-11.517 i 29 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND MOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON. Go einor r 'ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ;;IT'/ ) OCT CT � 199 �• OAKLAND,AND9"23-06WCA 9b2J-06 (510) 286-"" ` TDD (510) 286-AA54 `?ECEiUEG October 27,1992 ' CC-GEN-GEN SCH# 92051036 CC000062 ' Ms. Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency City Hall 2020 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg,CA 94565 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the LOS MEDANOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. The proposed ' plan amendment is intended to authorize and finance continuation and eventual full implementation of agency efforts to improve those physical, social, and economic conditions in the project area that cannot be reasonably ' be expected to be improved by private enterprise alone. The 4,250-acre !— redevelopment area is located in the City of Pittsburg in central Contra Costa County, between the cities of Antioch (to the east) and Concord (to the west). Primary regional access to the project area is provided via State Route (SR) 4. Dear Ms. Pride: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed the above-referenced document and forwards the following comments: In the winters of 1982 and 1983, SR 4 at Loveridge Road was inundated under more than five feet of water. Cars were trapped and the highway had to be closed. The flooding was caused by overflow from Kirker Creek, located 0.4 mile west of the interchange. It was apparent that the increased urbanization within ' the Kirker Creek watershed, had caused increased runoff to the existing 72-inch culvert crossing SR 4. With the capacity of the culvert exceeded, the water overflowed toward the depressed section of SR 4 at Loveridge Road and caused the flood. ' On page 59 of the Los Medanos Plan DEIR, under section B of table 1, we ��l suggest that the City implement one of the alternatives called for in the 1987 Kirker ' Creek Drainage Management Plan (KCDMP). This alternative would help us solve a drainage problem on our highway, which is caused by an.inadequate drainage system outside of our right-of-way. 30 P-ide/CC000062 ' October 27,1992 Page 2 The reoccurrence of the flooding is very likely if nothing is done. The severity of the flooding will also increase as development continues within the Kirker Creek watershed south of SR 4. Therefore, we would like to get this project implemented as soon as possible. On pages 60 to 62 of the Los Medanos Plan DEIR, the construction of ��l.• interchanges at Range Road and Standard Oil Avenue is subject to approval by the , California Transportation Commission and the Federal Highway Administration. On page 167 under Subsection 2 of Section 6, Existing Flooding and Storm G.3 Drainage Problems, the document should acknowledge the flooding of SR 4 at 1 Loveridge Road, the cause of the flooding, possible mitigation measures, possible funding sources, priority, and scheduling. , We look forward to reviewing the FEIR prior to final certification. Please send two copies in advance to the undersigned contact person for this agency at the following address: GARY F. ADAMS District CEQA Coordinator ' Caltrans District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland,CA 94623-0660 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and wish to continue close correspondence on its development. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Joe Aguilar of my staff at (510) 286-5591. Sincerely, ' PRESTON W. KELLEY District Director L/ GAR F. ADAMS District CEQA Coordinator cc: Mike Chiriatti, State Clearinghouse Susan Pultz, MTC Sally Germain, ABAG ' Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 31 6 Gary F Adams, District CEGA Coordinator, California Department of Transportation 6.1 The drainage improvements included in the list of projects to be funded by the redevelopment plan amendment (pages 58 and 59 of the EIR) were selected from all four of the alternatives contained in the 1987 Kirker Creek Drainage Management Plan, with an emphasis on those contained in Alternative 2. The drainage improvements included on the project list will improve drainage and reduce flooding problems within the Kirker Creek watershed south of SR 4. 6.2 Page 78 of the EIR has been revised in response to this comment to indicate that ' the proposed construction of interchanges at Range Road and Standard Oil Road is subject to approval by the California Transportation Commission and the Federal Highway Administration. 6.3 This is a program EIR that describes the general flooding problems in the project area on page 167 and illustrates the extent of flooding problems on Figure 20. This figure shows that flooding is a problem on Highway 4 at Loveridge Road. As stated in the response to comment 6.1 above, the project-facilitated drainage improvements will improve drainage and flooding problems on Highway 4 near Loveridge Road. The project would provide a portion of the funding for these improvements, with the remainder funded through the City's general fund or other sources. No schedule has been finalized for construction of these drainage improvements. However, it is ' anticipated that they would be implemented within one to ten years. 5171FEIRIF-11.517 PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. 2100 E. Katella Avenue 07 ' Suite 195 Anaheim, California 92806 October 28, 1992 CITE MANAGER i OCT 29 1992 Ms. Lillian Pride,Assistant City Manager City of Pittsburg RECEIVE,) 2020 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg, California 94565 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amendment--SCH#92051036 Dear Ms. Pride: , The following is a review by Public Economics, Inc. ("PEP')of the Draft Environmental Impact ' Report("EIR") for the proposed Los Medanos Community Development Plan Amendment ("Project"). This review has been prepared on behalf of the Antioch Unified School District ("AUSD")and the Contra Costa Community College District("CCD")--collectively "Districts." The Districts provide services and collect property taxes within the Project area, and arc therefore "affected taxing entities" as defined in Section 33353.2 of the California Health and Safety Code. The review analyzes the treatment of school service impacts of the Project as proposed by the , City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency("Agency"). ). In particular, the review evaluates the extent to which the EIR projects development and anticipates population and employment ' growth created as a result of the Project,and the adequacy of the EHUs estimation of school facilities impacts resulting from the Project. The analysis is divided into five sections: A. Proposed Amendment B. Growth Potential C. Land Use D. Demographic and Employment Impacts ' E. District Impacts and Mitigation r" Phone: (714).937-0806 Facsimile: 17 141-93 7.1804 ' 1 33 _ Draft Environmental ImpactReport , Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment ' October 28, 1992 ' A. Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment to the Project includes: 1. Increasing the Tax Increment("TI") limit from$400 million to$1.714 billion, exclusive of payments to affected taxing agencies under Section 33401 and 20 percent low/moderate housing set aside funds. 2. Increasing the bonded indebtedness limitation from 5150 million to $624 million. 3. Extending the duration of the redevelopment plan from the year 2028 to 39 years from the effective date of the proposed amendment(i.e., 2030-31), as indicated in a phone conversation with Katz Hollis. 4. Adding four amendment areas("Amendment Areas")with a total of 2,195 acres to the Project, including the Southwest area("Area V), the Willow Pass area("Area 2"), the Northeast area("Area 3")and the Chevron/Pebble Creek arta("Area 4"). ' B. Growth Potential The EIR implies that the redevelopment process will stimulate growth both within and �, I ' outside the Project area, and that this growth would not occur without redevelopment, as shown by the following excerpts(emphasis added): ' 1. The overall purpose of the Project is to"prevent. . . economic decline . . . of the existing . and. . . amendment areas by encouraging new private sector investment. . . " (p. 50). 2. As a basic Project objective, "the Agency currently seeks to continue and expand its ' efforts towards. . .stimulating economic development. . ." (p. 40). 3. To paraphrase the E1.R, general goals of the Project include attracting businesses to the ' planning area,encouraging new office development, retaining and expanding industrial uses,encouraging employment-intensive industry to locate in the City,providing a stable and stronger local economy,and providing additional jobs(p. 51). '. 4. "[G]rowth inducement is an inherent impact(i.e.,a goal)of the redevelopment plan amendment" (p. 96). This paragraph of the EIR further states that while most impacts will be in the Project area,the Project is expected to induce additional growth in ' surrounding hillside open space areas, resulting in significant adverse impacts. 5. "[T]he plan and amendment would serve to encourage and facilitate development. . ." and"improve the economic base of the project area and the community as a vs-hole." An page 2 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 Proposed Los Mcdanos Pian Amendment October 28, 1992 , "economic development program is also proposed to provide additional entplayment. opportunities in the Amendment Areas"(pp. 55, 57). 6. The EIR states that"approximately 6,935 additional housing units would be developed in the proposed amended merged[area] between now and buildout with or without the plan ' amendment" and the Project"could. , .encourage and facilitate(but not directly cause) development of commercial and industrial space. . . " (p. 91). These statements are inconsistent with other statements in the EIR. Commercial, industrial and residential development (primarily in the Amendment Areas but also.in the Existing Area)will not occur without the powers of redevelopment. The EIR states that the proposed amendment would improvc Agency efforts to alleviate blight by"correcting inappropriate land use patterns," "improving affordable housing opportunities," and "providing increased employment and economic growth," and that the Agency "has determined that the improvement programs and financial resources established in the original 1983 redevelopment plan will not be sufficient to meet the physical, social and economic blight elimination goals of the community" (pp. 9,40). The EIR also states that"similar to residential growth, planned redevelopment activities . . would. . . increase. . . employment(commercial and industrial)growth" (p. 91). , The EIR also states that buildout(estimated at 18 years)would be promoted by activities proposed by the Project(p. 3). For example, page 55 of the EIR states that redevelopment would"undertake public projects. . . to encourage and accelerate revitalization and private investment, [which] the City needs but cannot afford alone nor rely on the private sector to provide." The only conclusion that may be drawn from the references indicated above is that redevelopment is necessary for growth to occur in both the Existing and Amendment Areas. Conversely, if growth will occur without the powers of redevelopment,then redevelopment is not necessary. 7. The EIR declares that the Project may be inconsistent with the Pittsburg General Plan. The EIR states that the General Pian"endeavors to retain. . . hillsides over 30 percent wZ slope,and major ridgelines,: ."and that"development projects that would be facilitated by the redevelopment plan would be inconsistent with the. . .general plan policy [regarding residential subdivisions and grading]due to the proposed mass grading of hillsides"(pp. 235,236). The EIR then states that". . . future individual private developments facilitated or encouraged by the [Project] may also be inconsistent with general plan policies,and would need to be reviewed [individually] . . ." (p. 236). Considering i)redevelopment lav"requires that the redevelopment program be consistent with the general plan" (p. 235), ii) "the [Project] may have to be . . . modified to ensure compliance with the . . . [general plan]" (p. 235), and iii) the advantages of a Program EIR are to provide a mom substantial consideration of impacts than would be Page3 t Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment October 28, 1992 practical in a Project EIR and ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in case-by-case analysis(see page 9 below), it appears that the Agency is not conforming to redevelopment law and not considering the benefits of a Program EIR ' Either the proposed redevelopment plan amendment must be changed to be in conformity with the General Plan or the General Plan must be amended in addition to the proposed redevelopment plan amendment in order to ensure compliance with rcdevelopment law. C. Land Use 1. The EIR projects 4,896 units in the Amendment Areas and 1,707 in the Existing Merged 711�Redevelopment Area("Existing Area"), for a total of 6,603 units(Table 2,p. 82). In another section the EIR specifies 6,935 housing units(p. 90). The Agency has informed us that 6,935 is the correct number of housing units. Please provide consistency in the EIR by adding 332 units to Table 2. 2. As noted previously,the Project would encourage commercial and industrial -74 development, but the EIR identifies only approved and pending commercial and { industrial development in the Project(Table 3). In order to properly assess impacts of the Project,anticipated co mmercial/industrial development should be included in the EIR, similar to Table 4 which identifies approved,pending,and anticipated residential development. In addition, please provide maximum development limits for both residential and commercial development based on current zoning laws(e.g., housing densities, floor arta ratios,etc.). 3. The EIR states that the land use section of the£IR focuses on the amendment areas since most impacts are expected in these areas(p. 79).' The EIR then states that the existing merged project area and other areas of the City of Pittsburg or its sphere of influence may be significantly impacted by the Project. As examples,the EIR states that the Project would encourage intensification of residential construction in the existing merged project area(p. 94),could induce additional growth in surrounding areas which would result in significant adverse impacts(p. 96), and would increase housing growth within the Project and the city and its sphere of influence(p. 103). The EIR should therefore provide additional quantification of land use impacts within the Existing Area. 4. Area I includes 644 acres,of which the"vast majority is vacant" (p. 79). Potential development identified for Arca 1 includes the development of 3,228 residential units as indicated on the following table: Page 4 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment ' October 28, 1992 Implied , roe jjr t_�1 Acres= nit San Marco 2,728 447.3 6.1 Alves Ranch im 146.5 1.4 Totals 3,228 593.8 5.4. ' 'from Table 2 2approximately 70 percent of 639-acre San Marco property and approximately , half of 293-acre Alves Ranch(p. 79) Based on the above table, docs the 50.2 acres not accounted for(644 acres- 593.8 acres) , include parcels in Area 1 which arc designated as either open space or agricultural preserve in the General Plan land use map(Figure 14,page 81)? In order to evaluate implied densities,please provide zoning densities for Arca 1. 5. The 185 acre Arca 2'includes mostly vacant land(p. 84). A 344-lot mobile home 07,7 development is proposed for a vacant 46.3 acre parcel, and an industrial subdivision of 352,174 square feet on 22 acres is proposed for Builders Circle(pp. 83, 84). The above ' developments imply a density of 7.4 mobile homes per acre and a floor area ratio ("FAR")of.37 for the industrial development. In order to evaluate densities implied by these developments,please provide zoning breakdowns for Area 2. In addition, please describe potential development and assess impacts for the disposition of the remaining ' 116.7 acres in Area 2. 6. Area 3 includes approximately 1,130 acres of mostly heavy industrial uses, underutilized ' industrial properties,undeveloped open space and wetlands. The vast majority of the 7. 8 arca is designated industrial,with a commercial corridor south of the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway(p. 85). According to the EIR, the only"foreseeable" land use changes ' resulting from the Project aro a new 5,000 square foot addition of industrial space and rehabilitation of an existing industrial facility. It is difficult to comprehend such limited potential development within Area 3 considering both the range of redevelopment powers and the size of Area 3. A thorough evaluation of potential development, based ' on zoning considerations, is required if redevelopment of Arca 3 is in fact necessary. 7. Area 4 includes approximately 174 acres, a majority of which was previously part of the 7. 9 Chevron tank farm(p. 86). Proposed development includes construction of 1,324 ' residential units and a 5.62 acre commercial office development(Tables 2 and 3). The text on page 86 indicates current development proposals consist of 1,324 residential units, 5.52 acres of office/commercial use, and a 5.7 acre park First, is the office development 5.52 acres or 5.62 acres? Second,please provide the FAR for the office development. Third, please provide gross land area and housing densities for the Pebble Creek Apartment Project,the Highlands Ranch Project, and the Sky Ranch Project. ' Page 5 1 1 3� Draft Environmental Impact Re _ P Port Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment ' October 28, 1992 ' 8. Considering that the Project involves the mass grading of hillsides,and that the 7, 10 topography of Area 1 and Area 4 appears to include hillside areas(EIR Figure 4 and Figure 7), and considering that other future individual private developments may be ' inconsistent with General Plan policies regarding topography and hillsides(see paragraph B.7 above and EIR pages 235 and 236), it seems that the Agency is understating future residential development in Area 1 and/or Area 4. ' 9. According to the land use section of the EIR, of which certain components are identified 7. 11 in paragraphs 4 through 7 above,the size of the four amendment areas equals approximately 2,133 acres(644+ 185 + 1,130+ 174). The EIR states elsewhere that the size of the Amendment Area is either 2,195 acres or 2,560 acres(pp. 1, 39). The Agency has stated that the correct size of the Amendment Areas is 2,194.70 acres. Please ensure consistency throughout the EIR and other Agency documents. 10. As mentioned previously, the EIR states that the Project could have significant impacts on surrounding areas outside the Project area. The EIR states that"the project could also7-12 be expected to have a. . . growth-inducing impact on outlying areas of the City . . ." (p. ' 256). The EIR does not estimate what potential impacts may occur in other areas of the City, however. More substantive analysis of growth potential is needed since the existing surrounding land uses for each amendment area as identified in the EIR include large ' expanses of vacant land(pp. 80 through 86). 11. The Existing Area includes approximately 4,250 acres, covers over 50 percent of the 7. City, is primarily urbanized, contains residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses, and has 357 acres of sizeable vacant parcels(p. 87). Much of the Existing Area is surrounded by undeveloped space(p. 87). New development includes the construction of 1,707 housing units, development of the Baker property into predominantly retail uses, ' and construction of 42,829 square feet of commercial and warehouse space(Tables 2 and 3). The 499 unit South Oak Hills project is on 211 vacant acres and the Baker property is 146 acres. Please provide residential densities for the 1,707 units and commercial ' square footage of the Baker project. 12. Based on our analysis of the land use section of the EIR,which is reflected in our Q specific comments outlined above, PEI believes that the EIR does not properly nor ' adequately assess potential development in the Amended Merged Redevelopment Area ("Merged Area"). In its School Impact Analysis submitted as a part of the legally required fiscal review proceedings, PEI evaluates potential development resulting from ' the Project since the EIR fails to properly quantify these impacts. Please incorporate this or a comparable land use analysis into the EIR 1 Page. 6 1 1 38 _ Draft Environmental Po Impact Report ' P Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment October 28, 1992 , D. Demographic and Employment Impacts , 1. Estimated household and employment increases by Traffic Analysis Zone("TAZ")for the Merged Area are projected in Table 4 (p. 90). The footnotes for Table 4 indicate that '- 15 the Merged Area contains all or a portion of 51 of the City's 400 TAZs. While we ' understand that TAZs aro probably not of equal land area, Merged Area TAZs account for approximately 13 percent of the total TAZs in the City. As mentioned previously, the Existing Area covers morn than 50 percent of the City. If , we assume minimum land area of 2,133 acres in the four amendment areas, the Merged Area accounts for roughly 75 percent of the City's total area. Since the 75 percent land area figure is vastly greater than the 13 percent TAZ figure,we request a detailed description of Table 4 calculations and map overlays showing the TAZ boundaries in relation to the Merged Area boundaries. 2. Based on Agency projections, the Project will add approximately 6,935 housing units and 167 8,260 new jobs(Table 4). The EIR states that"an aerial photograph was studied to identify underutilized and vacant land to determine the amount of growth. . ." (Table 4, ' Footnote 1). On the other hand,text describing the methodology for estimating residential growth assumes"LLet new development will be primarily a result of the development of vacant land(rather than as displacement of existingd_evelopment)" (p. Q ' 91). Given footnote 1 in Table 4,please identify disposition of"underutilized" parcels to p which the EIR refers. In addition,please provide a description of land use assumptions based on land use densities and maximum development for the Existing Area and Amendment Areas and employee yield ratios(per square foot or per acre)used to estimate the net increase of 8,260 jobs in the Merged Area. In order to adequately assess household and employment impacts on the Districts,we request Table 4 be revised to indicate additional household and employment growth for each of the four amendment ' areas and the Existing Area. 3. The East Contra Costa County Travel Model("Travel Model")apparently "drives" assumed potential demographic impacts resulting from the Project,and the Travel Model is referenced repeatedly in the EIR. Please include the model as an appendix in the EIR , for reference purposes. Since job creation estimates for the Project are ostensibly derived 2� from the Travel Model,which undoubtedly did not anticipate redevelopment of the Amendment Areas nor contemplate potential changes in the General Plan resulting from the plan amendment(see paragraph B.7 above),job projections for the Project identified in Table 4 are understated. Job creation must be quantified based on potential growth in , the Project which occurs as a consequence of additional Agcncy activities resulting from the proposed amendment,especially considering the immediate or future possibility of amending the General Plan. Page .7 ' 1 39 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment ' October 28, 1992 4. The.EIR states that "project-induced increases in local primary ("basic")jobs could be 07 expected to have a"multiplier"effect, increasing overall employment totals and housing '(r• IM demands in the subregion" (p. 256)and the Project"would have a significant, indirect, t citywide growth inducement effect" (p. 257). However, the EIR does not estimate or assess any of these potential multiplier or indirect effects on outlying areas or the Districts. These impacts need to be quantified. ' 5. In its School Impact Analysis submitted as a part of the legally required fiscal review proceedings, PEI evaluates potential jobs resulting from the Project since the EIR fails to properly quantify these impacts. Please incorporate this or a comparable job projection analysis into the EIR. ' E. District impacts and Mitigation 1. The EIR states that"a small portion of the project area is also located within the i• ?A boundaries of the Antioch Unified School District. However, because any additional ' residential development in this portion of the project area would be unlikely, project impacts on the Antioch Unified School District are not discussed" (p. 152). ' Potential impacts of the Project may result from residential and non-residential development. Non-residential development creates new jobs, which lead to an increase in households. Based on the proximity of the USD to the commercial/industrial areas in the eastern part of the Project, many of the employees working in this area may actually reside in Antioch, therefore creating impacts on the USD. The EIR is probably correct in stating that residential development in this portion of the Project will not occur, since this area of the Project is zoned for industrial and commercial uses. This area includes the east corridor of the Existing Area north of State Highway 4(containing the 146-acre Baker property), and the southeast and northeast sections of Amendment Area 3. All three sections appear predominantly vacant when reviewing the aerial photograph in the EIR(Figure 3), and both the Baker property and southeast section of Amendment Area 3 presumably have significant development potential. ' (The eastern section of the Existing Area is zoned commercial and industrial and is parallel to major traffic thoroughfares. The southeastern section of Amendment Area 3 ' is zoned commercial and is also near major thoroughfares., The northeastern section of Amendment Area 3 is just south of the New York Slough, consists primarily of wetlands and is not readily accessible). ' Page 1 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment October 28, 1992 ' 2. The CCD has three campuses in the County: Los Medanos College in the City of Pittsburg and Contra Costa College and Diablo Valley College located elsewhere in the �'♦ County. As noted in the EIR(p. 155), "some Pittsburg residents who work in other parts of the county may attend one of the other two CCCCD campuses." (p. 155). Likewise, some County residents who work in Pittsburg may attend any of the three colleges. ' According to the EIR, "The project would encourage and facilitate new residential, commercial, and industrial development,which in turn would increase the number of Pittsburg residents and employees working in the City." (p. 158). As mentioned , previously,potential impacts of the Project may result from residential and non-residential development. Non-residential development creates new jobs,which lead to an increase in households. The EIR does recognize the significant impacts of new development on enrollment and capacity of Los Medanos College,but does not recognize ' impacts of new commercial and industrial development on the CCD system,even though new employees who work in new jobs created as a result of the Project may attend any of the CCD campuses. , On page 160, the EIR states that mitigation measures for the CCD include limiting enrollment,obtaining state financing for school construction, or raising funds through ` other means(e.g.,development fees or increasing student fees). There are inherent problems with each of these alternative measures. First, by limiting enrollment,the CCD would not be able to provide educational services to many residents desiring them,even though the demand for these services would increase as a result of the Project. Second, , based on state cutbacks and budget problems,obtaining state financing for school construction is extremely difficult, since state bond proceeds for community college district facilities have fallen far short of demand. Third, community college districts ' cannot implement developer fees to offset costs of new construction. Finally, increasing student fees transfers the financial burden created by the Project from the Agency,which is responsible for mitigating financial burden under state law,to students and their families. This is not acceptable to the district. ' Section 15180 of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")states that 7�� redevelopment plan EIRs will not require any subsequent EIRs for individual ' components of the redevelopment plan unless required by Section 15162 or 15163. CEQA also states three advantages of a Program EIR in Section 15168: i) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and , alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, ii) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a cast-by-case analysis, and Page. 9 , 1 . 1 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Proposed Los Medanos Plan Amendment October 28, 1992 ' iii) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and programwidc mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts. The mitigation measures currently identified in the EIR do not sufficiently consider "programwide mitigation measures. . . to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts." The only programwide mitigation measure which deals with basic problems or ' cumulative impacts is a negotiated pass-through agreement which sharks sufficient tax increment revenues to mitigate these impacts. In conclusion, the Districts support the Agency's efforts to redevelop the City of Pittsburg to improve the quality of life for residents,employees, and visitors, but not to the financial detriment of each District. On behalf of the Antioch Unified School District and the Contra Costa Community College District,we respectfully request that the Final EIR for the Project be changed to accommodate our concerns and to fully comply with the requirements of CEQA. ' In addition, Antioch Unified School District received a letter dated September 30,1992 regarding a public hearing to be held on October 5,1992 to receive comments on the EIR. Unfortunately, the district did not receive this memorandum until October 5, 1992 and was therefore unable to prepare written comments or attend this hearing. We believe it's entirely inappropriate to hold a public hearing on a project as significant as this plan amendment and not allow interested parties adequate time with which to prepare a response. ' Sincerely,yours, 1 Kerry E. Kemp_J Associate cc: Mr. Jim Patton,Antioch Unified School District Mr. Chuck Ely, Contra Costa Community College District m:\pirtsbrg\cir_cva1.saM Page 10 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ' March 18, 1993 Page 42 7. Kerry E. Kemp; Public Economics, Inc. 7.1 While the goal of the redevelopment plan amendment is to encourage and facilitate ' growth in the redevelopment area, the EIR does not state or imply that no growth would occur without the project. The following excerpts from page 91 of the DEIR make it clear that growth would occur with or without the project: ' "...it is estimated that approximately 6,935 additional housing units would be developed in the proposed amended merged redevelopment area boundaries ' between now and buildout with or without the plan amendment. The program of infrastructure, services, and parks and recreation improvements proposed under the subject redevelopment plan amendment would be expected to increase the potential for such growth to occur, and would be expected to increase the rate of such development. For example, housing development which is currently planned and anticipated (Table 4) could be stalled due to inadequate roadways, sewer, ' water, storm drainage and/or other needed infrastructure improvements. In other cases, provision of such improvements could provide an incentive to developers to advance new housing proposals in the redevelopment area. Similar to residential growth, planned redevelopment activities and redevelopment-funded improvements would be expected to encourage, facilitate, and increase the rate of such employment (commercial and industrial) growth." ' While growth would be expected to occur eventually with or without the ' redevelopment plan amendment, it might require over 40 or 50 years to take place without the amendment. The Agency has determined that redevelopment is necessary to facilitate and encourage development in a shorter period of time to 1 alleviate existing problems. 7.2 As discussed on pages 235 of the EIR, the plan amendment could be modified to ' achieve compliance with the City's general plan, thereby complying with redevelopment law. Page 236 of the EIR has been revised to make it clear that there is nothing in the ' proposed redevelopment plan amendment that would lead to approval of private development projects such as San Marco or Regency Mobile Home Estates that may t be inconsistent with the Pittsburg General Plan. The intent of the discussion on page 236 was simply to point out that "...future individual development projects facilitated or encouraged by the redevelopment plan amendment may—be inconsistent with general plan policies, and would need to be reviewed on an individual basis to determine compliance with the general plan prior to Agency or City approval." 7.3 As explained on page 80 of the DEIR, approved, pending, and anticipated additional ' residential development figures are itemized in Table 2. The 6,244 units shown in revised Table 2 (see the Errata section of this document for the revised table) are , 5171FE1RIF-11.517 ' ' Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 43 ' approved, pending, and anticipated residential development projects, including projects that the City of Pittsburg has specific knowledge of. Most are projects for which an application has been approved or is pending. As explained on page 89 of the DEIR, Table 4 "...identifies the expected number of additional households (residential units)...between 1992 and buildout (2010)." Table 4 includes all of the residential development expected to occur under the policies of the Pittsburg General Plan. Table 4 includes 691 additional units that are not included in the revised Table 2. The 691 additional units are expected to be constructed sometime in the future under currently adopted general plan policies. However, at the present time, the City has no formal documentation of an intent to develop any of these anticipated additional units. As explained on page 89 of the DEIR, "The maximum buildout figures in Table 4 have been used for impact assessment purposes throughout this EIR." Thus, the higher 6,935 figure is used in the DEIR to provide a "worst case" development scenario for purposes of conservative environmental impact assessment. 7.4 As explained on page 89 of the DEIR Table 4 identifies the expected number of 'obs P P9 P 1 that would be added between 1992 and buildout. Jobs are the principal indicator of commercial and industrial growth and as such, are used for impact assessment purposes throughout the EIR. It is the opinion of the EIR author that the impacts of the project have been properly assessed in the DEIR (a "program" EIR, as explained on EIR pages 2 and 3) and that the additional information requested in comment 7.4 (future commercial/industrial development square footage and maximum housing ' density and floor area ratio limits) is not needed for an adequate assessment of the plan amendment impacts. 7.5 This comment requests' "...additional quantification of land use impacts within the Existing [merged redevelopment] area." The information regarding anticipated development in the existing merged redevelopment area has been quantified to the extent possible based on existing available information and to the extent necessary for an adequate assessment of impacts. Table 2 on page 82 of the DEIR identifies approved, pending, and anticipated residential development in the amendment areas and the existing merged redevelopment area. Table 3 on page 83 of the DEIR identifies approved and pending commercial and industrial development in the proposed amendment areas and existing merged redevelopment area. Table 4 ' identifies estimated residential units and commercial and industrial jobs expected at buildout in the amendment areas and the existing merged redevelopment area. 7.6 The remaining 50.2 acres not anticipated to be developed with residential units would instead be expected to contain parks, roadways, detention basins, or open space. For example, the proposed San Marco residential development contains a 36-acre 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 44 detention basin/community park area and 49 acres of other uses including internal rights-of-way and small parks and recreational facilities. The San Marco property currently has a temporary Study zoning designation. The applicant has requested to change this current zoning to Planned Development District (PD). The PD zoning would allow residential uses consistent with the proposed underlying general plan designation, provided the City finds the proposed development plan to be consistent with the objectives, regulation, and standards outlined.in Chapter 18.62 of the City of Pittsburg Zoning Ordinance. As shown on Figure 14 on page 81 of the Los Medanos Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR, the San Marco site is designated primarily for residential use, with a small amount of land designated Parks and Recreation. The residential designation signation on the San Marco site include Rural Residential (0.05 to 0.2 units per acre), Residential Estate (0.2 to 3.0 units per acre), Residential Low Density (3.1 to 5.0 units per acre), and Residential Medium Density (5.1 to 14.0 units per acre). The City's General Plan land use map also identifies an Agricultural Preserve overlay land use classification which is applied to those lands still under Williamson Act contracts. The Alves property currently has the following General Plan land use designations: Open Space, Residential Estate (0.21 to 3.0 units per acre), and Residential Low Density (3.1 to 5.0 units per acre). The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RS), Residential Estate (RE), and Open Space (OS) with a Master Plan Overlay Zone, which requires a future developer to submit a master plan with a map showing the proposed land use and circulation system concept for approval by the City. The total number of residential units permitted on the 293-acre site ranges from 243 to 765. 7.7 As shown on Figure 5 on page 46 of the DEIR, at least half of Amendment Area 2 is actually developed with industrial development or contains utility lines, railroad tracks, or roadways. Page 84 of the EIR has been modified to indicate that approximately half of the amendment area is vacant. Table 4 on page 90 of the DEIR identifies the additional households and employment that would o- ccur.due to buildout within the total redevelopment area. A subtotal by each of the four amendment areas was not calculated; such a breakdown would not substantially change the impact or mitigation findings contained in this EIR. , Approximately 95 percent of Area 2 is zoned Industrial Park ( IP) or Limited Industrial (IL). There is one small area zoned Open Space (OS) and a smaller area zoned Service Commercial (CS). 7.8 Table 4 identifies future growth between 1992 and buildout by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), expressed in conventional terms of new households and jobs. The Northeast Amendment Area (Area 3) includes TAZ 61, 62, and a portion of 80. As indicated in Table 4, 2,000 additional jobs are expected to be added by buildout in TAZ 61. No 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment ' Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 45 additional job growth is anticipated in the other TAZs within this amendment area. This information provides an adequate basis for program EIR analysis purposes. The job figures from the travel model were derived based on development potentials assumed from current, adopted General Plan designations. 7.9 The correct figure for the office/commercial land area is 5.62 acres. Page 86 of the EIR has been revised to correct this error. The FAR for the office/commercial space would be expected to be 0.4 (a conservatively high ratio), resulting in a total of 97,923 square feet of commercial space. The gross land area and housing densities for the Pebble Creek apartments, Highlands Ranch project, and the Sky Ranch project are presented below: The original Chevron project, proposed in 1987, which includes the Pebble Creek Apartments and Highlands Ranch, included 1,438 units on 173.09 acres. This density would have yielded 8.3 dwelling units per gross acre. (An additional 11.32 acres would contain park and office/commercial uses.) The 126-unit Pebble Creek Apartment project has been approved for a 6.96-acre portion of the Chevron site resulting in a gross density of 18.1 units per acre. As of September 24, 1991, the project applicant revised the proposed Highlands Ranch project to include 698 units on 170.5 acres, or a gross density of approximately 4.1 dwelling units per acre. The City commissioned a consultant to prepare a revised plan for the Chevron property. This plan includes 664 units on 170.5 acres, or a gross density of approximately 3.9 units per acre. The consultant's plan for the Sky Ranch project (which is located south of the redevelopment area) involves 179 units on 159.5 acres, or a gross density of approximately 1.1 units per acre. 7.10 The EIR authors disagree with this statement. In fact, the converse may actual) be 9 Y Y true, and development estimates for areas 1 and 4 may be overstated in the EIR. It is likely that both the San Marco and Chevron property projects will ultimately include fewer units than a simple calculation of General Plan designations would yield. The San Marco project was approved for 2,938 units, while the general plan would have allowed up to 4,545 units. As described above in response to comment 7.9, it is anticipated that the number of units in the Chevron project will be reduced. 7.11 Page 39 of the EIR has been revised to reflect the accurate project amendment area acreage of 2,195, representing a rounding off of the 2,194.70-acre figure. Pages 39, 84, and 85 have been revised to reflect the accurate acreages for each of the four amendment areas (174.47, 208.03, 1,168.00, and 644.20 acres). r_ 5171FEIRIF•11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 46 7.12 The EIR presents an adequate analysis of the growth-inducing and cumulative impacts of the proposed plan amendment. It would be overly speculative to try to quantify the specific levels of development that would occur outside of the redevelopment area as a result of the redevelopment plan amendment. (CEQA Section 15145 discourages further evaluation where an answer to such an impact question would remain highly speculative.) 7.13 Information regarding the residential densities of the 12 residential projects in question (the 1,707 units in Table 2) is on file with the City of Pittsburg Department of Community Development. The 146-acre Baker property currently contains approximately 425,800 square feet of retail commercial space on Parcel 1, a 50.1 acre parcel of land. An additional 64,200 square feet of retail commercial space is under construction or planned on Parcel 1, indicating that at buildout of Parcel 1 it will contain approximately 490,000 square feet of retail space. Assuming an employee yield factor of one employee per 450 square feet of space,' there are 945 jobs in the existing 425,800 square feet and there will be an additional 143 jobs in the remaining 64,200 square feet planned or under construction on Parcel 1. At buildout, the 50.1-acre Parcel 1 will contain approximately 490,000 square feet of retail space, indicating site coverage of 22.44 percent. There are three remaining parcels on the Baker property that are vacant and for which there are no specific development plans. However, as discussed on page 88 of the DEIR, it is expected that the site would be developed for retail use. Assuming that the remaining 96.09 acres of the site were developed with retail buildings covering 22.44 percent of the 96.09 acres (the same as the 22.44 percent site coverage on Parcel 1), there would be approximately 939,267 square feet of retail space, which would provide space for approximately 2,087 employees (assuming 450 square feet of space per employee). In summary, there are currently an estimated 945 employees in the existing space on Parcel 1, an additional 143 jobs are anticipated on Parcel 1, and approximately 2,087 jobs are anticipated on the remaining 96.09 acres of the Baker property. There are an additional 2,230 jobs anticipated on the Baker property which is lower than the 3,000 jobs projected in the DEIR. 7.14 The EIR properly and adequately assesses the development potential in the plan amendment *merged redevelopment area." The commentors have submitted their own analysis of project development impacts, which differ from those contained in the EIR. While this may represent a disagreement regarding the quantity of potential 'Association of Bay Area Governments, 1987 Input-output Model and Economic Multipliers to the San Francisco Bay Area, September 1991, page 19. 5171FEIRIF-I1.517 :1- Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment 1 Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 47 development in the redevelopment area, it does not represent an inadequacy in the EIR. As stated in section 15151 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, "Disagreement among experts does not make and EIR inadequate." Furthermore, the EIR found that the redevelopment plan amendment would have a significant impact on the Mount Diablo Unified School District, the Pittsburg Unified School District, and the Contra Costa County Community College District. The EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Even if an argument could be made that more students would be generated by the project than the totals identified in the EIR, an increase in the number of students generated by the project would not result in a substantial change in the basic impact conclusions and associated mitigation needs identified in the EIR. 7.15 Footnote 1 on page 90 of the EIR has been corrected to indicate that there are approximately 100 TAZs in the Pittsburg vicinity (including the City of Pittsburg, the Pittsburg Sphere of Influence, and West Pittsburg). There are 427 TAZs in the entire East Contra Costa County area, which includes the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and Brentwood, and the unincorporated areas of the east county, including the communities of West Pittsburg, Oakley, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, and Discovery Bay. 7.16 The TAZ map is on file with the City of Pittsburg Department of Community Development. The redevelopment area boundaries are shown on Figure 2 on page 42 of the EIR. 7.17 This comment represents a misunderstanding of footnote 1 in Table 4 and the basic s p g text on page 91 of the EIR. The note regarding underutilized and vacant land in footnote 1 in Table 4 refers to a special evaluation of those TAZs that are partially within the redevelopment area to determine to what degree the growth projected in the particular TAZ would occur inside or outside the redevelopment area. Footnote 1 in Table 4 does not contradict the statement on page 91 regarding net new development resulting primarily from development of vacant land rather than a displacement of existing development. 7.18 A new appendix to the EIR, Appendix I, has been added in response to this (and similar) comments; i.e., to provide information regarding the land use density assumptions and employee yield ratios utilized in the East Contra Costa County Travel Model. I 7.19 For environmental impact purposes, the information provided in Table 4 is adequate. A breakdown of growth by amendment area would not substantially change the impact or mitigation findings of the EIR. The information contained in the EIR provides an adequate basis from which to assess the impacts of the project on the school districts. 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 48 7.20 The assumptions for the East Contra Costa County Travel Model are included in the technical traffic appendix to the Draft EIR, which is on file with the City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency. 7.21 The Travel Model includes buildout of the City based on General Plan densities and land supply. The assumptions made in the Travel Model and the redevelopment EIR are consistent, since they are both based on reasonable assumptions made regarding buildout under the General Plan, as identified by City staff. The redevelopment plan amendment would implement, not change the General Plan. This comment requests that job creation should be quantified based partially on possible amendments to the General Plan. . Since no such amendments have been proposed or suggested, such an analysis would be speculative and inappropriate in an EIR. 7.22 The multiplier effect could increase employment in the San Francisco Bay Area and � could cause enrollment increases in the Antioch Unified School District and the Contra Costa Community College District. However, the school enrollment impacts of employment created as a result of the multiplier are difficult to accurately quantify. As stated on page 256 of the DEIR, the direct, or primary project-related job growth impact would also result in the creation of indirect, or secondary jobs due to the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect on areas outside the City was not quantified in the DEIR, due to the uncertain and highly speculative nature of such secondary regional job growth computations (CEQA Section 15145 discourages further evaluation where the answer to such an impact question would remain highly speculative). The regional multiptier effect and related computations are usually based on a number of speculative assumptions about job growth that may not always come to fruition, such as full occupancy of commercial space and the assumption that the business occupying the space is a new business, not a business relocated from elsewhere in the Bay Area. Nevertheless, in response to this comment, an academic estimate of secondary employment impacts is provided below. These highly approximated secondary employment figures should be reviewed with caution and recognition of the uncertain, highly speculative nature of the estimates. Based on the Association of Bay Area Governments 1987 Input-Output Model' the EIR-identified project-related primary job increment total of 8,260 for the 1990-2010 period could result in the creation of 2,432 to 14,948 additional, secondary jobs that could locate in Contra Costa County. The following excerpt from page 18 of the 1987 ABAG Input-Output Model explains the multiplier effect at the county level: 'Association of Bay Area Governments, 1987 Regional Input-Output Model and Economic Muftipliers for the San Francisco Bay Region, September 1991. 5171FEIRiF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 49 At the county level, the multipliers will be substantially less than at the region, and at the city level even less. Why? The smaller the area; the greater the economic leakages. Therefore, the range of impacts of the multiplier might be only slightly greater than the direct employment impact for a small community to a point somewhere between the Type I and Type 11 multiplier. Let's look at our ` retail trade sector example. The Type I and Type ll multipliers generate a secondary employment impact between 2 and 42 employees at the regional level. For a county, one might use the mid-range between the Type I and Type Il multiplier. In this case 21 employees or less. If we are looking at a large city (100,000 or more) within a county which still has land available for development or redevelopment, the secondary impact within the community would be the Type I multiplier or slightly reater, but no more than 50% of the midpoint calculated as P g Y9 P the average between the Type I and Type 11 multipliers. In communities that are less than 100,000, the Type I multiplier might be the most appropriate multiplier to measure the maximum local secondary impacts. It is likely that the actual secondary impacts will range from the direct employment generated up to the �f Type I multiplier. Based on the methodology prescribed by ABAG's Input-Output Model, the secondary job growth induced by the project in Contra Costa County would range from 2,432 to 14,948 jobs. Also, it could take 20 or more_years for all secondary lobs to develop as a result of the primary job growth. Since the primary job growth would occur over 20 or more years, secondary job growth could take 40 years or more to occur. Therefore, average annual secondary job growth countywide by the project could range from approximately 61 to 374 jobs per year over a 40 year period. A computation of secondary job impacts by economic sector is summarized in tables F-1 and F-2. An example computations follows. The first step in determining secondary employment impacts is to identify the economic sector within which the primary jobs would be created. There are 38 sectors identified in ABAG's Input-Output Model. Table F-1 assumes that the primary jobs created as a result of the project would be distributed proportionally in the sectors that reflect the citywide job distribution projected for 2010. 1. Retail Jobs. This analysis assumes that the project would facilitate or encourage the development of retail space that would generate up to 1,598 jobs, assuming no vacancies. Actual employment may be substantially less. The direct and indirect Type I multiplier for the retail sector is 1.07 and the number of induced, secondary jobs is 112 (1.07 x 1,598 = 1,710 direct and indirect jobs, or 1,598 direct jobs and 112 indirect jobs). The direct and indirect Type II multiplier for the retail sector is 3.56 and the number of induced, secondary jobs is 2,605 (2.63 x 1,598 = 4,203 direct and indirect jobs, or 1,598 direct jobs and 2,605 secondary jobs). The midpoint 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 50 U E v, ami C C CZ ` 0 O la> a> 3 Cz Cn N � >, (a _ N AU r (D (D r- 00 M N O O O O a C C "It a) `p N N N r-I0 O (0 d 2 0 CO Ln W (D In Ln Ln LA N C O aj E m a? vi m •c � a> a> y � cv d U > > E O O (rD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = p C O O CO CD C? 000• 000 C? C? C? C ? d O L 0 o ry ry rn rn o) to (D (D g OD X m a °' rn (1) N O d t N � N c 3 a> (CO E c N (' LU o w o T � Ln N O a) (n — M � L N 0) Q � a` cn c� a N o M o E 0 In � � E Q laic) ayi � � p CL Uc c c o (fl LL p� QM r-, � Z c Ea c=o v � � � oa,Nc � a) c (° (4 c' c G 8 v N is N O c) Lit ai E .0 c m a� 2 c) cv c W " c m — occ N .. � c � N E N •5 Q U cc dmW um i- 00 C) Uo N NCL O CT Cn C r N N C7 V Ln LO Ln to p p (� N '0U C 2: (d O 'C C O O` O U CIDO j y OIn cc 0 0 0 0 o O Vj E '2 V C 0 = CO ((D• � O O C p C C 0 a) a U = o -- o SHO_ O r LO C Ev) ba) 6L clr 6 044 O C (C . W •0 Lo r CO C71 T C d d c — N N y -0 Ln a Q > " (O L(') N L O C O a 0 d O V d O p c � Em — � � U =ot o c+� ivv $ 0u '7: W .0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 o Qo c � mcU U � � o C) o LTn rn M.9 a> cn � � (ec5 W Fp d O LA O (D N U] C h C `) C O F-- da N O � C N O � N O Ir COM — (CLD > d C O c = O ca >,O 0 „ (C (0U) C U) CU .0 (9 M c rn y o o � °� fn E -p °'� Q O _ ^ D W O, O 0 0 0 A c lL (A � y y E0Zc' � O v >� a> _ c> (n � c) cd> (oac ILL (� c p (e a> to uJ a`� (►° .v_ (ri (n '• (o a) W (�aE � c (st a> c> L Q CC c (Zo � E, � a� y. 4 c o Q� � � cc � O � = o, � a> a> 2: ca (ti r m U 0 0 Q � � CO v O �, , Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR , Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 51 c .E 5._ CUl � viccad a) >,_ Ln NOo0N (ON Cl7 COLna) V C Q NC)a y T N Ln T O T T r� Q Q � � � 2 � r nOf?ln Oh () lA (C G1 O d C T T T T T N (O m O U An — — cc � T TNNNr- Ln 00 00 '-* NN � C E CV) Cn r- N N Cn f` - CV) LL U y N a= N C C/) 7 Q U) a) t_ O C C 0r- NLnN V r` M (O N � 0) (O W 00 0 ti M 0 rn c) a) �.Crl r N ('') NTT MN f7 Ln N � � mH camel 751 E T7 c°)on0Wr- V c� c (Ln CC a= N VLnVNN U-) C6 Lo M V H T W C C CU T O N NUDNOT 0V V V OI O H a a) y W O a W all O C N rV Or` W (Or� 00M NO OO TO O qT V0V VN NN T (D(O W Ln (O W Ln Ln Ln Ln N coaD a) E 0 m r- T CD T' v N E cc C 'U F \ \0 \ \ e \ \ ee \ -.00 C o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O - C Co � N M M00 0 0 0 O O 0 ►UH O 00000 (`) 00 00 ('') MM TO > W O Or` r` Ci) On ai (O 6 (D 60T 0 :3 N yy V CU U V W Q O >, O O aZi (n is W t CU m d � y N U Z c°aN 7P � W o UJ °' Qo � aiva) l° C_ Co a) LL v oma~ �' � Z Lll O LL p> r- l,- r- a- 0 0 0 L C C 0 p� to � C d (p C a) a) — a) p N M a) W � = mca Na`> � Li (`oaiE QT £ _ r N U_ N ~ _ C > N J U V u C E D N C C y 0 7 y .N lL a) u` d E �c tta) a`> > coocr- 0M -� UE (ti 8 o O O aai Q F- W T NM .44LnW rl� 0o 0T H V) U) i Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment. Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 52 between the number of secondary jobs from the Type I and Type II multiplier would be approximately 1,358 jobs, indicating the maximum for Contra Costa County. Therefore, the maximum number of secondary jobs that would result from the project facilitated retail space in Contra Costa County would range from 112 to 1,358 jobs, or three to 34 jobs per year over a 40-year period. The impacts of secondary employment generated by the project through the multiplier effect on the Antioch Unified School District are similarly uncertain. While it is likely that some of the secondary jobs created would be located in Antioch or that some secondary job-holders would live in that District, there is no reliable method of quantifying such impacts; it would be highly speculative to quantify such impacts and it is unlikely that the project would result in associated significant impacts on the Antioch Unified School District. The impacts of secondary employment generated by the project through the multiplier effect on the Contra Costa Community College District (CCD) are uncertain. However, since the District covers the entire county, it is possible that the multiplier effect could affect CCD enrollment. Page 159 of the EIR has been modified to reflect these potential impacts. 7.23 This comment represents a disagreement regarding the adequacy of the job projection analysis contained in the EIR. In the opinion of the EIR authors, the EIR properly and adequately assesses project impacts on future job growth. The commentors have submitted their own analysis of job projections, which differ from those contained in the EIR. While this may represent a disagreement regarding the quantity of potential development in the redevelopment area, it does not represent an inadequacy in the EIR. As stated in section 15151 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, "Disagreement among experts does not make and EIR inadequate." 7.24 Figure 19 on page 154 of the EIR has been revised to reflect the correct boundaries of the Antioch Unified School District (AVSD). The revised Figure 19 illustrates that with the correction, an even smaller portion of the redevelopment area is located within the AUSD boundaries. While new jobs in Pittsburg could result in a demand for new housing in Antioch, a potential growth-inducing impact of the redevelopment plan amendment, it is expected that such an impact would be less than significant for two reasons. First, the percentage of employed Antioch residents that work in Pittsburg is not substantial. In I� 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency III. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR January 5, 1993 Page 53 Figure F-1. College Enrollments, Fall Semester, First Census 0 CCr. -o.OVC LMC 25,000 22,253 2Z227 2290A 22,000 29.52520,087 18.929 18,915 18,719 19,092 19,000 18,148 17,US 17.u7 7.1A7 Ir'U3 G'OCO E 13,OCO 10,000 659 8.535 8,9�U 8.730 Uj 7,41SA 7.9A4 8.055 7 7,00�76.915 6.U9 ,000 � 6,24�7 0........ • C6 6,22S 6,5CA 163 7.1C$ 7.7-79 4,000 93 A,ni 4,373 5,= 5.457 4,618 5.011 6, 1978 1979 1980 1-081 1982 1983 1984 1985 19E6 19$7 1988 1989 1920 1,991 THE FIGVRES;'or Contra Costa College run on top of thou for Los.Wedanosfor the 1988.9!year:.Through:he 1984s,the cities of West Contra Costa(Richmond.El Cerrito.Hercules,Pinole,San Patio)gained 32-368 residents. The cities of East County(Pittsburg,Antioch,Brentwood)gained 37.219 resident. Soume:Canna Co,2 Communirt College Disaic.F"1111, 517FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 54 1980,' 2,021 or 11.3 percent of the 17,893 employed residents of Antioch worked in Pittsburg. This indicates that almost 90 percent of employed Antioch residents worked at locations other than Pittsburg. Job growth in other portions of the Bay Area and the affordability of housing in eastern Contra Costa County are thus F� substantial factors affecting the continued housing development in housing-rich, job- poor eastern Contra Costa County. n Antioch plans to add 57 667 new households (housing units to their cit Second, t p ( 9 ) Y between 1990 and 2010.2 Given that Antioch already anticipates the development of a very substantial number of new housing units by 2010, the relative effect of the addition of 8,260 new jobs citywide in Pittsburg by 2010 on the number of new dwelling units in Antioch (and by extension the AUSD) would be less than significant. 7.2 This comment argues that the project would significantly impact Contra Costa College 5 9 P 1 9 Y P 9 in San Pablo and Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill. The EIR found that the project would significantly impact Los Medanos College in Pittsburg. The EIR authors believe that it is reasonable to assume that the number of additional non-Pittsburg residents working in Pittsburg as a result of.the project that would attend the Contra Costa and Diablo Valley Campuses of the Contra Costa Community College District (CCD) would be limited. However, as discussed herein, in response to comment 7.22, the multiplier effect could affect CCD enrollment at these other campuses. Page 159 of the EIR has been modified to reflect this impact. , 7.26 The EIR authors disagree with this comment. The EIR-recommended mitigation measures are viable options for reducing impacts on the CCD. The mitigation measures discussed on pages 160 through 161 are reasonable for reducing impacts on CCD capacity, particularly in light of the following information that has become .available since the DER was published on September 9, 1992. First, enrollment declined at Los Medanos College between Fall of 1991 and Fall of 1992. The September 18, 1992 issue of the Los Medanos College "Experience" states that there were 7,355 students enrolled as of September 14, 1992, down from 7,779 in the Fall of 1991. These figures indicate a 424-student, 5.5 percent decrease in enrollment. Second, as shown in Figure F-1, review of historical enrollment figures at Los Medanos College and the two other campuses in the District indicate that there has �. been no direct relationship over time between increases in population, housing, and employment growth and increases in enrollment at Los Medanos College. Figure F-1 'The most recent US Census data regarding journey-to-work is from 1980 (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1980 Census Journey-To-Work, Data Release #5, June 1986. 2Association of Bay Area Governments, Proiections '92, July 1992, page 135. 5171FE/RIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 55 shows that enrollment at the three colleges has fluctuated from 1978 to 1991 in a pattern that appears to be largely independent of ABAG-documented population or employment increases. Third, the district fee structure will change beginning January 1, 1993 increasing the fees for students with a Bachelor's Degree or higher from the current fee of $6.00 per unit to $50.00 per unit. It is anticipated that this fee could decrease enrollment and increase revenue. 7.27 The EIR authors disagree with this comment. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR to address project and cumulative CCD impacts would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. �r �1 5171FE/RIF-11.517 SG �. LOZANO SMITH SMITH WOLIVER & BEHRENS �JCT 3 0 1909 AT TOY V : f' S .AT LAW RECEIVED October 29, 1992 Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency 2020 Railroad Avenue -.. Pittsburg, California 94565 Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed third amendment to the Los Medanos Community Development Plan Dear Ms. Pride: This firm has been retained to represent the interests of Pittsburg Unified School District ( "District" ) with respect to the proposed third amendment to the 'Los Medanos Community Development 'Plan (the "Project" ) . This letter is submitted to address the District's concerns regarding the sufficiency of the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated September 9, 1992 (the "dEIR" ) which has been prepared for this project. - The ,following represents the District's concerns: 1. Land Use - Growth Inducement: (p. 99) It cannot (� be assumed that the additional growth in the VAI surrounding hillside open space areas induced by redevelopment would be reduced to less than significant levels simply by requiring additional environmental impact documentation. There is clearly the possibility that such impacts could not be reduced to less than significant levels, even with mitigation measures. For example, as discussed below, there is no guarantee that any future proposed measures would mitigate to a level of insignificance the impact upon the Pittsburg Unified School District caused by the increases in student population from such growth. As a result, the growth inducement impacts of this Project are significant. The only way that such impacts could be reduced to a level of insignificance would be for the Agency to adopt the additional mitigation measures described at number 11 below. 2. The dEIR is internally inconsistent in its estimate of the tctal housing units projected to result from the redevelopment activities. At 1 Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg RDA October 29, 1992 Page 2 pages 82, 105 and 107, the dEIR estimates that the residential growth will be approximately 6603 units. But at pages 90-91 and 103-104, the dEIR estimates 6,935 residential units. All of these numbers are inconsistent with the growth projected by the Pittsburg General Plan. The General Plan, in providing a medium estimate, states that 7394 non-senior citizen homes are expected to be constructed within that portion of the redevelopment project area which are within the Pittsburg Unified School District's boundaries by build-out. As significant growth is expected both inside and outside of the Pittsburg Unified School District boundaries as a result of this Project, the numbers contained in the dEIR are inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan is the basic land-use charter that embodies the fundamental land use decisions and governs the direction of future land use in the City's jurisdiction. (City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 532. ) In effect, the General Plan is the " 'constitution for all future developments' within the city. " (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara ( 1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 570. ) By law, the redevelopment plan must conform with the City's General Plan in so far as the General Plan applies to the Project Area. (Health and Safety Code, § 33331. ) Therefore, the housing projections in the dEIR must be changed to conform to the General Plan. 3. The dEIR acknowledges that the redevelopment o!5 o2 project will induce housing growth outside of the Project Area as well as inside the Project Area. (dEIR, p. 99. ) However, the dEIR fails to provide any estimate of this growth. These estimates are critical in determining the impact upon public facilities and, in particular, the impact upon the schools. Such estimates must be provided. As provided by Public Resources Code sections 21002.1 and 21081, it is the responsibility of the lead agency (Redevelopment Agency here) to identify any and all environmental impacts which the project may have. The lead agency must then determine whether the project Could be changed or altered to reduce the identified impacts below a level of significance. Here, the agency S$ Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg RDA October 29, 1992 Page 3 identified one impact, but failed to even address the effect that this impact will have upon public facilities. 4. Pittsburg Housing Needs. (p. 104) This section Qd refers to Table 10 to show the ABAG-projected WPT total housing needs. The correct reference is Table 9. 5. Estimated Existing and Projected Employment in" the Q Project Area. (p. 110. ) This section refers to (� Table 11 to show the employment estimates for the Project Area. The correct reference is Table 10. 6. JOBS/HOUSING RATIO: Setting. (p.112-113) This section refers to Table 12 to illustrate the anticipated Jobs/Housing Ratio for the Pittsburg sphere of influence. The correct reference is Table 11. 7. Existing Traffic Volumes; Intersections. (p. 118) In this section, reference is made to Figure 15 and Table 15 to illustrate the 30 intersections that were included in a traffic count study. Neither the Table nor the Figure contain the information which this section says. Table 15 lists the level of service for approximately 19 intersections. Figure 15 merely delineates the broad areas in which the traffic study was conducted. The report should be changed to reflect that information which is actually contained therein. 8. Public Services and Facilities - Schools: (p. 157) R.S The dEIR indicates that the Agency estimates v project stimulated growth in student enrollment for the District to be between 1, 666 and 1,944.. These numbers, however, do not calculate the estimated growth outside of the redevelopment project area which are induced by the Plan's public improvement projects. Moreover, these numbers are based upon the estimated growth in �. residential housing stated in the dEIR. Both the General Plan and the City's planning department estimate the housing growth to beisignificantly greater than that estimated in the dEIR. The District has commissioned a demographic study to estimate the enrollment increases which will occur as a result of the redevelopment project. i� 59 Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg RDA October 29, 1992 Page 4 �- This study indicates that approximately 4,158 students are anticipated to result from the redevelopment project. As this number was derived from the Pittsburg General Plan housing forecast, the dEIR should be changed to reflect the estimated increase of 4, 158 students within the District's boundaries as a result of the I� redevelopment project. 9. Public Services and Facilities - Schools: (p. 157) The last paragraph of page 157 of the dEIR states, 16A "Under the current MDUSD impact fee structure, . . " "MDUSD" should be changed to read "PUSD." . 10. Public Services and Facilities - Schools: (p. 157- 158) . The entire section labeled "Pittsburg •�O Unified School District--Project Impacts" is based upon generalized information. The District has conducted intensive studies to determine the number and types of facilities which will be required to house the students expected to be generated by the redevelopment plan, as amended. The District's report to the Fiscal Review Committee sets forth, in detail, the impact upon the District's facilities which is caused by redevelopment. A draft copy of this report is attached to this letter. The information contained therein should be utilized to identify the impacts upon the District as a result of the - project. The Agency must note, however, that its failure to �rfl identify these impacts in the first instance makes the dEIR incomplete. As pointed out above, the "purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on 1� the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." (Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.1, subd. (a) . ) By rfailing to identify significant impacts, the dEIR does not fulfill its intended purpose. n 11. Public Services and Facilities - Schools Mitigation Measures: (p. 159-161. x` The proposed mitigation measures set forth in the dEIR will not mitigate the impacts caused to any of the school districts affected by the Plan. The inadequacy of each of the proposed mitigation measures is discussed individually below. t Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg RDA October 29, 1992 Page 13 which will reduce the impacts found below a level of significance. We look forward to receiving the Agency's response to the above comments. Very truly yours, LOZANO SMITH SMITH W/O/ VER & 5gX7ENS Marcus D..-Magness MDM/gjs Encl: Draft Report to the Fiscal- Review Committee . CC: Bob Padilla �IY P27758URG\30219211.!4OM Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 69 8 Marcus D. Magness; Lozano Smith .Smith Woliver & Behrens 8.1 Pages 99 and 256 of the EIR have been modified to indicate that, at this time, it is not known whether growth-inducing impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels. 1 This comment states that "...the only way such impacts [growth-inducing impacts on schools] could be reduced to a level of insignificance would be for the Agency to adopt the additional mitigation measures described at number 11 below." For the reasons discussed herein in the responses to comments 8.13, 8.15, 8.18, and 8.19, the EIR authors believe that the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR would reduce school impacts to a less than significant level. 8.2 The DEIR is internally consistent. As explained on page 80 of the DEIR, approved, pending, and anticipated additional residential development figures are itemized in Table 2. The 6,603 units shown in Table 2 are approved, pending, and anticipated residential development project, including projects that the City of Pittsburg has specific knowledge of, primarily including projects for which an application has been approved or is pending. As explained on page 89 of the DEIR, Table 4 "...identifies the expected number of additional households (residential units)...between 1992 and buildout (2010)." Table 4 includes all of the residential development expected to occur under the policies of the Pittsburg General Plan. Table 4 includes 332 units that are not included in Table 2. The 322 additional units are expected to be constructed sometime in the future. However, at the present time, the City has no formal documentation of an individual intent to devolop any of these anticipated units. As explained on page 89 of the DEIR, 'The maximum buildout figures in Table 4 have been used for impact assessment purposes throughout this EIR." Thus, the higher 6,935 figure is used in the DEIR to provide a "worst case" development scenario for purposes of conservative environmental impact assessment. The DEIR is consistent with the General Plan. The DEIR simply presents more up- to-date, detailed information regarding residential development potential. There are several factors that have resulted in a refinement of the General Plan residential development projections. First, four to five years have passed since the projections were made in the 1988 Pittsburg General Plan and new housing has been constructed since that time. The City of Pittsburg 1990 Draft Housing Element reports that 456 dwelling units were constructed between January 1988 and April 1990. Second, while the General Plan projected certain estimates for residential development, actual development proposals may include fewer units than that 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 70 anticipated under the General Plan. For example, the general plan would have allowed up to 4,545 dwelling units on the San Marco site when 2,938 were ultimately approved for the site. n plan m EIR could have simply The redevelopment p amendment a a e p y relied on the information contained in the Pittsburg General Plan and EIR. However, it was determined that a more specific, updated analysis was warranted. Therefore, the redevelopment EIR analysis is based on more recent data regarding future development under the General Plan and a more detailed, updated analysis of school impacts. If the commenter wishes to rely on the General Plan projections, they should also rely on the findings of the certified General Plan EIR. The discussion of school impacts and mitigations from page 53 of the General Plan EIR is as follows: "The amount of development that would be permitted under the proposed plan would require the equivalent of 12.5 new schools, 10 in the Pittsburg Unified School District, and 2.5 in the Mt. Diablo School District. Sites for 11 additional schools are shown on the Plan, and the addition of classrooms to some existing schools would provide the necessary additional capacity. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required." 8.3 It would be speculative to try to quantify the number of housing units outside of the project area that would be developed as a result of the plan amendment. The discussion of growth-inducing impacts in the EIR has been detailed to an extent that is reasonable. Moreover, a quantitative estimate of the number of dwelling units developed outside of the project area as a result of the project would not lead to any substantial difference in the EIR impact and mitigation findings. Pages 157 and 158 of the DEIR state that project and cumulative development would significantly impact schools. Pages 159 and 160 identify mitigation measures to reduce project and cumulative school impacts to a less than significant level. 8.4 The last paragraph on page 104 of the DEIR has been corrected to change the reference from Table 10 to Table 9. This change is included in the errata section (section.11l) of this attachment. , 8.5 The first paragraph on page 110 of the DEIR has been corrected to change the reference from Table 11 to Table 10. This change is included in the errata section (section III) of this attachment. 8.6 The last paragraph on page 112 and the first paragraph on page 113 of the DEIR have been corrected. The reference to Table 12 has been changed to Table 11. This change is included in the errata section (section III) of this attachment. 8.7 Table 16 lists the 19 signalized intersection studied and Table 17 lists the 11 unsignalized intersections studied. The second paragraph on page 118 of the DEIR 5171FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 71 has been modified to refer to both tables 16 and 17 instead of just Table 16. Figure 15 shows the location of the 30 intersections studied. Figure 15 in conjunction with tables 16 and 17 and the supporting text provide adequate information regarding the studied intersections. 8.8 The housing units that could be facilitated or encouraged by the project have been quantified to the extent feasible and reasonable. Growth-inducing impacts were identified, but not quantified due to the highly speculative nature of such an exercise. This comment states that "Both the General Plan and the City's planning department estimate the housing growth to be significantly greater than that estimated in the EIR." First, as discussed in response to comment 8.2 above, the DEIR simply presents more up-to-date, detailed information regarding residential development potentials. Please see the response to comment 8.2 regarding the factors that have resulted in a refinement of the General Plan residential development projections. Second, the source of the housing figures contained in the DEIR is the City's planning department. The EIR authors disagree with the estimate of project-generated students provided by the school district because the DEIR housing unit estimates are more accurate than those contained in the Pittsburg Unified School District's Draft Report to the Fiscal Review Committee Regarding the Proposed Third Amendment to the Community Development Plan for the Los Medanos Community Development Project (November 5, 1992). A comparison of the yield factors used in the DEIR and the yield factors contained in the PUSD report indicate that the DEIR probably overestimated the student yields. As indicated in footnote 1 on page 157 of the DEIR, student yield factors used in the EIR were provided by Robert Padilla, Business Manager for the PUSD. The EIR could be revised to reflect the student yield factors referred to in this comment, which are lower than the yield factors used in the DEIR. The yield factors are compared - below: Comment Letter DEIR Yield Factors Yield Factors'_ Elementary 0.33 per unit 0.25 per unit Junior High 0.17 per unit 0.07 per unit High School 0.10 to 0.20 per unit 0.07 per unit Total K-12 0.60 to 0.70 per unit 0.39 per unit 'These yield factors are weighted averages calculated from the yield factors for the sample of single-family units, townhomes, and non-subsidized and subsidized apartment units. 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR , March 18, 1993 Page 72 n generated b development facilitated or encouraged b While the number of stude is ge y p 9 Y the project would be lower using these generation factors, the impacts and mitigation identified in the EIR would not change as a result of the changed figures. The impacts of the project on the PUSD would remain significant and the proposed mitigation measures would still be required as described to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8.9 The last paragraph on page 157 of the DEIR has been corrected. MDUSD has been changed to PUSD. 8.10 Please refer to the response to comment 8.8, above. 8.11 The DEIR meets the requirements of CEQA by identifying significant impacts and recommending mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid such impacts. This comment states that the EIR has failed to identify significant impacts. This statement represents an incomplete reading of the EIR. Paragraph two on page 158 of the EIR clearly states that "...the project would be expected to result in a significant adverse impact on the PUSD." 8.12 The EIR authors disagree with this comment. The mitigation measures included on pages 158 and 159 would reduce school impacts to a less than significant level. A detailed response regarding the feasibility of each mitigation measure challenged in this letter is provided herein in the responses to comments 8.13 through 8.18. Senate Bill 1287 was signed into law by Governor Wilson on September 30, 1992, after the DEIR was published (September 9, 1992). The EIR has been revised to ■ reflect limitations on mitigation measures imposed by SB 1287. i 8.13 Mello-Roos Facility Districts can be required as a condition of approval for new residential development. Contrary to the statement in this comment, the City and the Agency fully support formation of Mello-Roos Districts as a way to provide school facilities and have and will continue to condition the approval of new development on the formation of Mello- Roos Community Facility Districts. This comment states that the formation of Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts is difficult because two-thirds of the property owners in the potential district would have to vote in favor of creating a district and that the likelihood that "...such an election would be marginal, at best." The EIR authors disagree with this comment. Formation of Mello-Roos districts as a condition of approval for large-scale residential developments under one ownership is a common practice in Pittsburg, and is not stymied by the two-thirds vote. requirement. 5171FE/RIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 73 The formation of Mello-Roos districts has occurred on a widespread basis to provide school facilities and other public facility improvements in California. The Pittsburg City Council recently determined that a Mello-Roos district could be formed to finance a new fire station to serve the planned San Marco Subdivision. The EIR recommendation regarding formation of Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts can be implemented/monitored by requiring the creation of such districts as a condition of project approval. Contrary to this comment, development agreements would not be required for future residential projects prior to adoption of the redevelopment plan amendment. This is a Program EIR. Future individual development projects proposed in the redevelopment area would be subject to additional future environmental review and future mitigation I measures would be based in part on those identified in this Program EIR. The mitigations identified in this EIR could be implemented as a condition of approval on future individual, large-scale developments in the redevelopment area that would adversely affect school facilities. Contrary to the claims made regarding the prohibitive nature of SB 1287 on the ability for the City to require formation of Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts or to implement Pittsburg General Plan Policy 5.1A to mitigate school impacts, leading school finance experts have concluded that such mitigation measures remain vital components of a strategy to mitigate school impacts. On first reading, SB 1287 may appear to preclude all local government regulation on school impacts as follows: "The Legislation finds and declares that the subject of the financing of school facilities with development fees is a matter of statewide concern. For this reason the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development requirements for school facilities finance to the 1 exclusion of all local measures on the subject." (Government Code Section 65995(e)) [emphasis added] However, in further analyzing SB 1287, a number of law firms expert in the area of school finance and local land use controls have reached the emphatic conclusion that SB 1287 does not preclude local measures to mitigate school impacts. Detailed analyses of SB 1287 prepared by three prominent firms in this field are included in Appendix J of this Final EIR Attachment. A brief synopsis of these analyses conclusions is provided below. ' The central conclusion of these analyses is capsulized in the title of the October 13, 1992 report of the firm of Lozano Smith Smith Woliver & Behrens (the "Lozano 5171FORT41.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 74 Analysis"): "Senate Bill 1287 Does Not Repeal Inherent Police Powers of Zoning t Agencies to Regulate and Control Growth to Minimize Adverse Impacts on School Districts." The Lozano Analysis proceeds to state (on page 1): "Our firm believes, and we have so advised our clients, that school districts should continue to seek general and specific plan language to control or regulate new construction to minimize the adverse impacts on schools. In other words, notwithstanding [Government Code Section] 65995(e), local governments still have residual police powers to regulate land development even though stripped of the ability to require...fees above the statutory lid." Relevant to the Pittsburg General Plan Policy 5.1.A cited in the DEIR as a mitigation measure, but challenged in the PUSD letter as being rendered invalid by SB 1287, the Lozano Analysis concludes (on page 3): "Also, general plan controlled growth language requiring mitigation of the adverse school impacts should be grandfathered[i.e., permitted to remain in effect despite passage of SB 1287] unless the text itself intends that the general plan incorporate all prospective legislative amendments." Thus, the Lozano Analysis supports the continuing viability of Pittsburg General Plan Policy 5.1.A. With respect to the continuing viability of Mello-Roos districts as a school mitigation measure following passage of SB 1287, the Lozano Analysis recommends (on page 6) that school districts: "Require consent to Mello-Roos formation as a condition of project approval. S.B. 1287's amendment to [Government Code Section] 65996 specifically lists a CFD formed under the Mello-Roos Act as one of the 'exclusive methods of mitigating environmental affects related to the adequacy of school facilities'.... There has been considerable comment regarding whether subsection (b) of [Government Code Section] 65996 limits the Mello-Roos special taxes to the statutory lids for school fees. We believe such an interpretation would be an implied repeal of special taxes under the Mello-Roos Act and would not be persuasive in the courts. S.B. 1287 limits fees, not "special taxes" as defined under Mello-Roos." This recommendation directly supports the Mello-Roos mitigation measure outlined in , the DEIR and contradicts the assertion in the PUSD letter, cited above, that "neither 5171FE/RIF-11.517 rLos Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 75 the City or the Agency have the authority to require Developers to consent to formation of CFD's" as a result of SB 1287. The Lozano Analysis is also strongly supported by an October 1992 memorandum ' prepared by the firm of Bowie, Arneson, Kali, Wiles & Giannone (the "Bowie Analysis") for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing ("CASH"). Of direct relevance to the DEIR's proposed mitigation measures, the Bowie Analysis concisely concludes (on pages 9 and 10): "In summary our opinion of SB 1287 includes the following: (a) Until the 1993 Legislative Session produces a clean up bill ('Son of SB 1287) or a final judicial determination is made to the contrary, general plans which contain wording that requires denial of zone changes or specific plans for lack of schools, are valid. (b) We believe mandatory denial language prospectively may still be included in general plans by cities and counties if applicable only to Legislative Approvals of a city or county. (c) In spite of SB 1287 it remains permissible for a city or county when granting Legislative Approval to require a Mello-Roos community facilities district for funding of schools in an amount in excess of statutory school fees under [Government Code] Section 65996(a)(6)." Through the term "Legislative Approvals," the Bowie Analysis is referring to a broad range of land use approvals that would typically be involved in many future residential developments in Pittsburg, including general plan amendments, zone changes, specific plans, development agreements, and annexations. The City and the Agency did not unilaterally rule out formation of Mello-Roos Districts as a mitigation. However, the EIR author has recently learned from Marcus Magness, attorney for the PUSD, that the PUSD made an agreement with Seecon Corporation, the developer of several large proposed projects in the City, that prohibits them from requesting formation of Mello-Roos Districts for some of Seecon's projects in Pittsburg. Thus, the limited ability of the PUSD to mitigate using Mello-Roos would be due to agreements made by the school district, and would not be due to limits under SB 1287. This comment argues that the creation of a Mello-Roos Community facilities District is a mitigation measure that 'cannot be monitored." This is not true, the City and Agency could place creation of such a district as a condition of approval on future projects and could be readily monitored through the development review process. 517iFE1RIF-11.517 p Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 76 8.14 SB 1287 was signed by Governor Wilson on September 30, 1992. At the time that the DEIR was published (September 9, 1992), payment of additional fees was a viable mitigation measure. If ACA 6 is defeated in June 1994, this would again be a viable measure. Mitigation 1b. on page 159 of the DEIR has been revised to reflect changes due to SB 1287. 8.15 This comment represents a misunderstanding of the mitigation measures language. The comment states that "..this mitigation measure will not reduce the impacts caused to the school district below a level of significance." Page 160 of the DEIR indicates that a combination of mitigation measures, not any one measure, would be needed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Also, SB 1287 does not prohibit the City from requiring that developers of large , projects establish school sites. The City of Livermore, for example, has determined that such a mitigation could be included in a development agreement. The City of Livermore's position is stated in a memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney to the Assistant City Manager dated October 28, 1992. The section of the memorandum regarding development agreements reads as follows: Because development agreements are voluntary in nature, and assume a trade-off between the. City and the developer, we believe mitigation measures which exceed the statutory limits may be included within such agreements. This is reflected in the City's Development Agreement Procedures (Resolution No. 305- 88), which state in relevant part: "The consideration of a development agreement assumes a trade-off of objectives between the City and the developer. The City commits that the land use and standards of development will remain constant over an extended period of time. The City, however, forfeits its ability to respond to practical and/or political considerations during that time.. In return, the developer is proposing extra community benefits for that commitment. In the application for a development agreement, these benefits should be clearly explained and the City benefit documented." I This conclusion is supported by the legal analysis contained in Appendix J of this Final EIR. 8.16 This comment states that "...this mitigation measure will not mitigate the impacts of redevelopment on the District to a level of significance." Page 160 of the DEIR indicates that a combination of mitigation measures, not any one measure would be needed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This comment states that "...assuming all school impact fees are collected for all new residential development, there would still be a shortfall of approximately million 517iFE1RIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 77 dollars (current dollars). This is clearly significant." This comment is incomplete (the dollar figure has been left blank) and does not provide information to support the contention that there would still be a shortfall if the maximum fees of $2.65 per square foot of residential construction and $0.27 per square feet for commercial construction were collected. 8.17 Mitigation 1b on page 159 of the DEIR has been revised in the context of SB 1287. The measure regarding payment of additional fees could become legal again in the future, if ACA 6 is defeated in June 1994. The current district fees are $1.50 per square foot on residential development, not the $1.58 per square foot stated in this comment. No school impact fees are levied in the district on non-residential development. The district is considering raising the fees to the maximum allowed of $2.65 per square foot for residential development and $0.27 for non-residential development. As of December 17, 1992, no such action had occurred. 8.18 The EIR mitigation suggesting rearrangement of grade configurations and related student assignments was identified by the PUSD Director of Student Services as a possible method of accommodating more students in the district. Many school districts in the state are shifting to year-round calendars. This is an important measure for increasing space. Furthermore, when the state evaluates candidates for matching funds for new facilities or rehabilitation, the presence of a year-round calendar can be an important asset. Both of these measures should remain in the EIR as potentially viable methods of providing additional school capacity. Again, as discussed in the responses to several 1 comments above, page 160 of the DEIR indicates that a combination of the various identified mitigation measures, rather than any one measure, would be needed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The measures described on DEIR page 160 to increase PUSD school capacity are two of several suggested in the EIR and could be implemented in combination with one or more of the other identified measures to effectively mitigate school impacts. 8.19 This comment represents a misunderstanding of the mitigation discussion on pages 159 through 160 of the EIR. Policy 5.1.A. of the General Plan, which is the subject of this comment, reads as follows: "Ensure that sufficient school classrooms will be available before approving residential development projects." There is no. stated or implied language in the EIR that supports the statement made in this comment that: 'The second paragraph of this section acknowledges that the likelihood of funding school facilities via Mello-Roos Community Development Districts is slim." The intent of policy 5.1.A. is to provide a mechanism to make sure that measures are implemented to provide adequate school capacity. Compliance with 517FEIPIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 78 this policy could be monitored by prohibiting residential development from proceeding unless it can be demonstrated that sufficient classroom space would be available. 8.20 For.the reasons stated above in response to comments. 8.12 through 8.19, the EIR authors disagree with the statement in this comment that "..the only feasible (legal) means of mitigating this impact is for the Agency to pass-through tax increment ' monies to the District in sufficient amounts to meet its facilities needs or to construct the required facilities on behalf of the District." The-mitigation measures identified on pages 159 through 160 of the EIR would reduce project impacts on the PUSD to a less than significant level. 8.21 Please refer to the response to comment 8.8 regarding cumulative PUSD Impacts. 8.22 The County Office of Education provides services to one to two percent of the school population in Contra Costa County. The project could encourage or facilitate development that would result in an increase of approximately 1,023 students in the Mount Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) and 1,666 to 1,944 students in the PUSD. Therefore, from ten to 20 students attending schools in the MDUSD may require special education, occupational programs, or "community.school" facilities. From 17 to 39 students from the PUSD would increase the demand for space in these programs. This amounts to 27 to 59 students from both districts over an 18- , year period, or an average of approximately two to three students per year, representing a less than significant impact. 8.23 The mitigation measures discussed on pages 160 through 161 are reasonable for reducing impacts on CCD capacity, particularly in light of the following information that has become available since the DER was published on September 9, 1992. ' First, enrollment declined at Los Medanos College between Fall of 1991 and Fall of 1992. The September 18, 1992 issue of the Los Medanos College "Experience" states that there were 7,355 students enrolled as of September 14, 1992, down from 7,779 in the Fall of 1991. These figures indicate a 424-student, 5.5 percent decrease in enrollment. .Second, as shown in Figure F-1 on page 53 of this FEIR Attachment, review of historical enrollment figures at Los Medanos College and the two other campuses in the District indicates that there has been no direct relationship over time between increases in population, housing, and employment growth and increases in enrollment at Los Medanos College. Figure F-1 shows that enrollment at the three colleges has fluctuated from 1978 to 1991 in a pattern that appears to be largely independent of ABAG-documented population or employment increases. Third, according to the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, the fee structure changed on January 1, 1993, increasing the maximum permitted fees for 517)FEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment ' Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 79 students with a Bachelor's Degree or higher from $6.00 per unit to $50.00 per unit and for students without a Bachelor's Degree or higher from $6.00 per unit to $10.00 per unit. It is anticipated that this fee could decrease enrollment and increase revenue. Additional fee increases are anticipated in the future. However, no specific increases have been set. 8.24 While there is no guarantee that state funding would be available for expansion (if needed) at Los Medanos College, it is a viable option that should be pursued by the District if the need for expansion arises. 8.25 While development fees are currently not permitted, there is the potential that fees may be permitted in the future. This potential was mentioned by a District official in a phone conversation with the EIR authors. Regarding school enrollment fees, since the DEIR was published on September 9, 1992, the District has decided to raise fees for students with Bachelor's Degrees from the current $6.00 per unit to $50.00 per unit beginning January 1, 1993. 8.26 For the reasons stated in the responses to comments 8.23 through 8.25, the analysis •� of CCD impacts and mitigation measures contained in the EIR are adequate. 5171FE1RIF-11.517 t TO r fTf tV{=N Gomer+no, c'LTE OF CALIF LFt1JIA _ _ _ __� —_ STATE LANDS COMMISSION V ExEcuTrvEOFFICE 1947 t 3th Street EO T.McCARTHY, SacrOmento.CA 95814.7137 1,Y DAVIS,Conrrolre, CHARLES WARREN JMAS W.HAYE3.C.,at.v,i,r,nenpe Executive Officer Novembu 17, 1942 1TY No i 2 1.992 He Re:.: SCH 92051036 Ms. Lillian Pride City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agenc% 2929 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg, CA 9rt565 Dear Ms. Pride: r r �. SUBJECT: Draft Enn virorenta.i Impact Report (E1R) for Las Medanos Community Development Plan Amendment, Suisun, Bay, New YorL- Slough, Contra Costa County, SC14 92051036 Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the subject document and apologizes for the lateness of these comments. The rwop75e.d prnjert involvac both cnvereien !idelan& and submerged lands granted in trust, by the Legislature, to the Cin• of Pittsburg, pursuant to Chapter 214, i Statutes of 1937, as well as sovereign lands under the jurisdiction of the State.. Lands Commission. The SLC is, therefore, a Responsible and Trustee Agency under the California Erzironmental Q>uaity Act (CEQA:. Additionally, the SLC has current leases within Amendment Area #3 that may be affected by the proposed project. The applicant should, ;herefore, contact Duncan Simmons at (916) 327.3303 regarding the SLC's jtuisdiction. Sincerely, MARY RIGGS EnN iron ental Review Section Division of Environmental Planting and Management cc: Duncan Simmons `r OPR Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency Il. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 81 9 Mary Griggs, Environmental Review Section, Division of Environmental Planning and Management, State Lands Commission 9.1 Page 2 of the EIR has been modified to indicate that the State Lands Commission is a Responsible Agency and a Trustee Agency under CEQA. Also, page 239 of the EIR has been modified to acknowledge and describe State Lands Commission jurisdiction in the project area. r 5171FEIRIF-11.517 T2_ 'TAI EOF Ck.,r-AI,4iA. PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1-:-7o TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO.CA 95814 Nov 18, 1992 LTL'_IAN PRIDE CITY OF PITTSBURG REDEVELOP-HENT AGENCY CITY HALL 2020 RAILROAD AVEIMIE P-TTTBUPG, CA 94565 Subject: LOS MED; NOS CO M_ TNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN M-*TDMEIZT SCH * 92051036 Dear LILLIAN PRIDE: The enclosed comments on your draft environnental documents were � received by the State Clearingho�ase after the end of the state rcview period. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. Lead agencies are n'ot rpeluirAd tn rp.gpmrvi to iAtp. nn-mp.ntm. However, you ray wish to incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental docunient. Please contact Tcm Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions. concerning the review process. lernen you contact the Clearinghouse in t.hic natter, please use the night-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, Christine Kinne Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Enclosures cc: Resources Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 83 10 Christine Kinne, Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance, Governor's Office of Planning and Research 10.1 This OPR letter simply informs the Lead Agency that they have forwarded two comment letters received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the 45-day review period. These letters are from the Department of Food and Agriculture and the State Lands Commission, and are included in this response to comments document as letters 4 and 9. No further response by the Lead Agency is required. r i 1 - 1 t r r 5171FE1RIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR March 18, 1993 Page 84 517IFEIRIF-11.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency Errata March 18, 1993 Page 85 i 1 ERRATA 1 5171FEIRIERRATA.517 Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR Final EIR Attachment Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency Errata ' March 18, 1993 Page 86 r r r r r r r r r r r i 517IFE/RIERRATA.517 tCity of Pittsburg I. Introduction Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 2 additional, noncontiguous redevelopment areas that were established in 1983. The term "amendment areas," as used in this EIR, is defined to mean the following four additional areas of the city proposed to be added to the redevelopment project area: (1) the Southwest Area, (2) the Willow Pass and Affinito Del-Monte Area, (3) the Northeast Area, and (4) the Chevron and Pebble Creek Area. The terms "project area" and "amended merged project area," as used in this EIR, are defined to mean the existing merged redevelopment project area and the four proposed amendment areas combined. The term i 'Agency," as used in this EIR, is defined to mean the City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency. The term "City," as used in this EIR, is defined to mean the City of Pittsburg, acting through its legislative body, the City Council, and its administrative departments. As stipulated by the state's Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), this report is intended to serve as a public disclosure document that identifies those environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that are expected to be significant, identifies possible mitigation measures that could minimize or eliminate identified significant adverse impacts, and identifies and evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. ' This EIR is intended to serve as the CEQA- and Community Redevelopment Law-required environmental documentation for Agency use in consideration of the proposed redevelopment plan amendment. As the Lead Agency, the Agency also intends that this EIR shall serve as the CEQA-required environmental documentation for consideration of this r project by the City (as a Responsible Agency under CEQA)', Trustee Agencies, (including r the State Department of Fish and Game and the State Lands Commission),' and the r affected taxing entities.' r 'Under CEQA Guidelines, the term "Responsible Agency" means a public agency other than the r lead agency which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The State Lands r Commission may also be a Responsible Agency. r 'Under CEQA Guidelines, the term "Trustee Agency" means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural.resources affected by the project that are held in trust by the people of California. r 3Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33333.3, this DEIR will be distributed to each affected taxing entity and to the Fiscal Review Committee for the redevelopment plan amendment. "Affected taxing entities" are defined in Health and Safety Code Section 333353.2 as those governmental taxing agencies which levy a property tax on property in the project area. 517iFEIRII-R.517 City of Pittsburg I. Introduction Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR 1 March 15, 1993 Page 2-A B. GENERAL APPROACH ' 1. Program EIR This document has been formulated as a "program EIR" under the authority of Section Y 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. A program EIR is an EIR that addresses the environmental consequences of a series of related actions that can be characterized as one project. The CEQA Guidelines stipulate that the series of actions addressed in a program EIR must be related either: (1) geographically, (2) as logical parts of a sequence of contemplated - r 517�FE/PIl-P.517 ' City of Pittsburg II. Summary Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 13 y U — C C 1 cn V O L LU -J R CL U) ti — E T O C N C C C a) C O CO Cc �cc a ¢ Ud ¢ E a) N C C C 3 O ' — CcC tN C •a)� a L (nO C U c H vU a) O" w U caO GidON od 0 -0 aN Q N 0 -a o cc 2 u) L U C N o E C Q _-ca N E N E -0 COID c ``° U � N aEi 'v C6 '=O � C' 0 0 a� 0 E 0) °' 0 C c—ca W m s a CS —N °) C - " C a " O C E Q W (D N C C E0 — C CoO a3: CL= E3 is �, c � E C N a� vi U N U N > nsa) CO U aD > cn p- z N is u1 C- cCa -O o € > CO o' `-`° a)CC n c E > L M E ` E > o c c c p Cn M0 CD o ° Ecao � � Ccv 0- Eo0aw0N �, � 0 0 t"' o U N Q O N O C CA Q C 0 N c a, o 0 'cc " -0 � o � C Q c � � _ a) V (� E co N ' 3 c > o °' o o E is (n o N m Co o v 3 a� c Q c •— d• E TO p G a) Q) O C T CL'a a) > C N c0 M O C E c a• (D Q y O (D d O N U M C C G Q ca o f a o U m c vca N ca as o M U _ fC U f O O a c~.0 ca= e7 M a) C t. _ N G O1= «. U VU (L U) C E M CL (n U) Na) N a`) a0i C in = E - _ o > N E C L c4 Q_ -0a) C v L c a) N � m c ' O a) U Q y Q D c' v a is `-° Q•0 -0 M Q a ate, s Coo cs 'c 0 5 E a O N D E U c U 0 o v c 0 vi Z F C ° C o N (D cC .'� C O C _ � y (n O N Of O (J f4 - �CQ 'D T V V aUj (L) j C V N '` (M v Q 0 —L N 0 c N c in c a� _ c ca a >, �' vi cLi Co Q m 0 o E _ ED c cc U.Q Q L ' CO O 5 UN N Lh - C C U cc O N C OL ~ o 3 E E v > aa) aa) c N 3 'a Z> cc L N E } 3 o c 'D > N M c 0 C ti c W a�ci L w a) U m cc in 0 �v c C � m a��i c y 'c a C N a(n a to cts (D a) co vi •C 'O co C a C6 J D c o m Y w a� E �' a, o u u n u 4 r d CU a •o, E •� rn a >i o cn h- yO -0 U O J N U C9 N U (n J CO (n i City of Pittsburg11. Summary M Los edanos Redevelopment EIR Redevelopment Agency Page 14 March 15, 1993 -R CU9 0 C;-_, (D 0 CL Fn Cz CC to E 'EV as O E (D Y 0 A- '4 0 — 0 C1 =3 — CY—z 0 >- = 'a 0 0 0 . 5 a) a, a) 54>) -0 76 — 0 �0 "D to Z D -.— > 0 CU CL 0 15 m > (D E 2 0 76 0 -6 ;-- - >, — " t2 U) co C �D = Ln :3 0 Cc -0 0 (n — (D 4) r- 0 a) r- M CL LO > 0 0 E = = '0 0 -0 M 0 a 0 M 0 (D 0 CL 0 (D RS to Cz - Q) 6: m > & > 0 0 E cc co OL 0 Cz M CL C CL 0) W CL a = I O (n a 0 cu 0 .0= Q>) E E LU .0= M TO CU 0 0 0 ra = ;-- — 0 w E CU C — -a CU a) �0 OI CI 0 to q? "E cc E ,j > Z5 L E 0 D -j W CU L 0 Q. 0. CL 0 2 > 0 r x E - 6 E - 10 a) .— M CL a C8 w 'R CU .0 .0) cc w 0 > 0 cz W 0 C;) 0 -E 0 v w 0 -a — (D 0 — " D M E (n 0 E 6 x,0E v ca N (D Q ami 5, Cc, CL 0 0) 0 0 0 0 -M .0 W 0 C: 0 .0 0 a) 70 Q) r_ .0 :3 CL C > E a) 70 �D — 0 -0 0 cc M Z C 4 — — cz a) E 1B 0) w 75q— CO > a) 0 0 — C\, 0 0 E > E t: '0 o -6 .2 1 �b 0 (D .0 M C ) — < co i cC 0 C cc 2 c' co r- Q 0 0 0 0 0 (D a) > " .2 W = 3: .2 E E 4 5 0 as w 0 U 75 C-0 COO E Cz CL > CL C: 0 a) :3 LO m E w 6 w C 0 E x to Cj 0 w 0 M a) M m OL 2 > Q) a) - t� := 'n azo ors 2 S2 to 0 1) V) 10 — Q Cz — — 0 'E 0 -0 M U -E CL (D 0 (D 0 a) M -0 5 > P (n C tm CL E E E. 0 05 05 E 0 0 0 0 V 0 U) > 0 > > -1 CL r t E 4> u(D) 00 G CL E c> D -j 0 M 11 " — ui 10 Z5 0 2 0. w > Q) It "I ca (D 0 (D to CU 0 Cz Cz 0 6 Lz) 2 V (D 0 > a) 0 a) 0- a) D M "0 "0 � (D 0 — — — U) C/) 20 -0 0 (D (1) (D CL E 21) —0)Z - " C: -0 M C;) City of Pittsburg 11. Summary Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 16, 1993 Page 21 C= 7B CU .=.0 *2- 0 C: S? C: .0 CCCL CL 4) ia y 'D 0 CZ = CU 4) Q) C: t5 75 0 w Z as C- CU 0) - CU 0 ca t 0 a) E 0 C Z 0L Y C: CL 0 CQ E J5 N > 0)— 2.1 E CP 0 0 CU E EF .6- C 0 E .- - LL Ca a) 0 Co M CU C: CU u- 0 t5 o w -O E 0 L> 0 -5 0 16 Z5 - 0 a) Q> E a) Z5 0 -0 — — 0 — 0 W Co 0 0 Z5 E E a CC a) w ci 0 0- �j "D �: 0 CU a E c 0 a E Z) 0 - z (n z 6 0 -6 C: C: Q) Cr a) v) E '- C- — -§ Z .0 < 0 w a) C CM CL 0 w > 0 > < a) q 0) . = - a) 0 a) r >,'a 0 (n io — 0) ~ 0 W 0 0 0 CO Z5 CC Co W ,C: 0) E o �5 -L:> CU E: ca E cu V > Cr -FU B t , - Ln Q) C 0 0 C 8 0 CD Z5 0 o C 0 cu 2 0 0 E z 76 LU CC 0 9 — C: 0 -E > — 0 0 0) :3 a C1 U 0 CL C — �5 &= C'U w CU 0 0 OL 'D E ~ 00 <;& M CB L CO W- 0 3: M 0) w C C -rz 0 W 0 Cn cn 0 75 VS a Q) E -5 0 0 ca > C: 0 -5 C C 0 C '0 Z5 - 'E m 0) 0) 0- Z T. E E T5 2 in in cul 0- 11 11 11 11 E W 0 0 CC IM 1, Jumma Los Meda Redevelopment Et Page 2 City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency September 9, 1992 N ca � o CD :� T r°iin3� U C: + RS p a ° a gc U U dCL. py nci U U � cc ;.: •- a) > WO o w'� r O � d co Q U i0 � Q) Q t1 > N to G O C O L ° °0 O't6 N C O E 0 co CL G ` O Ot3 CO CDD cz >OL O > 'EO 3 _aWn 6l 0 U ocvn � N ' U CO y d ca .. TdzU � N ecu `4Oc° c � co -° � caci M ° U .r o 2 0 ° 0 o 0 ° - C 0 ° M $ H u o U CM� - N m ° c ca 3 c o Ec yo0 y ° "" o ° �" � � a, Ego. N b O D w O 0 C G CO r cdp� OQGN dO NtjD > '0 C G 0 a; °' ° 00 RX0O rnaa r� v 0 152w D. > ° c >a� EE � caDNEn. a c"a v S 2 N O OaG D�TCD GO cm VOCOUN° N � c_ ca °' > cCca s N i y _U 0- _j >a 0c0 aauQ.aE a .. ce c to f �° a 0r- ate . E ad° of O � d ° Nl 0 j ad 01 d V U O tGC C�4 to '0 O t6 d .5 'p u C c6 ce i N w r U cC O a-0 O V G CAD O N r t4 D E d N T U d _ 'r tC Lr � 0dy 0CO .0O U �«- VOU CJOoy � � r-'. cP c�o p� . ya t� cc O ° urnOG aQ oo °o >,U a. w RO « �h° o 0 � Nu - U1 N J E o a ° c o E ° O w Q "i m co OC V EO L .CA a y = > > wE ° °' N C v E E E nom- ►L— ° L v ' City of Pittsburg il. Summary Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 16, 1993 Page 24 ° U C C U ° C;� f6 J ,- a co T US c� U rU � cr C ` C - ° ca O U (D Cd C .r C) 'p 6 75 E 05 o p) aci c E ai N a? vi U 3 0 0 c r w E is a E a> o N aci ai u°, � a> i' ° v y iu o a U E CL E 3 E v w N v > .Cz 'n E m ° o U ° �, 0 N a O �, E m o °' c o ° O :01 m > E � � a' CI awi " (n c > o (n � U o o a �n E m a� - w m E E " a> U 3 v> 2 is L E .0 .- m ¢ o U d (4 O (C U (C Oa owccaO E �2 � � ate' ` sy � 005E ° ccocmm iv o m a� i� ° a� o v°� m E 6)CO ED E CU a� > a) v' a> c m " .� > Z ' cn o « ° a> �- ao wN c ' E oav m (D 'D U ;n ` ° Eo _ ac ° vo o UO 0 a) U > C ° a a) o UEa c o im °' °N � 75CU avtNEc co Lmo0 0 W O l a Z° Lm o wOoN moa Efm 6 5 U C C 'CU a-C/) 'c ° > g °' mLin y >, 3 CD U) W �_ ami C (C .V r Cr75 Cz O Q o � N E � CN (�4 p O C C O ECL (� N C N R1 O N h U O a O '@ C O 7 > L C O E > E1 C E in 'D o a, 0 N E o N N (c a� U) 75 Q) t5 o ° 'o 3 o E u u u n 16 ooa6a'� v � 0 art E a aE o E � (ca C imU) -iU) n eaa�'os R�eye�oPa9e 24P \-os M t P�t�sb��g Agency e Je\oPm gg3 ,,Maar 16, tb U cb �O 'cb N dN _ G 0 ? X00 d D ' •dv O V � � d t� 7 G '0 d R E 0 0 6) t�6 �p J pcl- O ON N d —co d y N O O c6 t.- !p O 'Op E 9 E CO W e r .- v 'G �7 O cab G O W o O 9 tb N O � � d ✓ —co cb is G a� N 7 3 7O N ca N 0 ✓ G E � N o �, �b d� V G d E N G c Q o o N . 0 0 co", c? � N fl-Eo d N �'a,�•.O � � `cab p'E G� ow _ '✓nye � N �O O- U � d co • N a, -p ,, .. is v 'ca y o • S'cb T iia ,; NS CO cd d cb mN o 3p � vQ � s- o_ o H � ios3 d � � y a rGG6co G6N ° c m floc 40 U3 U. i7 N cb Q p `' G br?. i CO V to \\ \\ N� p N a 3 c6 NI:. 3- 3 7 U N N d E -S 5. p %O Q- 0) fl; 3' Z d t66 0 O� d O E � 6 O� 0 a N9 ov z 2 "d..3 a� Ul N 1.L1 cb r � y @ •� N E` � city of Pittsburg 11. Summary Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 16, 1993 Page 25 U) B CL U) t5 .9 CO 0 4) CL 0) 0 0- 0 CL a < < 0- < < 0 0 (D E2 CL 0 0 a C CO = = C 0 '0 0 a, Z: U) 0 .- CL C: CO M �: E E — = CEOoOq- w - - WTOO .G 0 cc "0 0 0 0 = (z = =) '0 (D -FU E w u --r- (D o .0 a w E z 0 a LL w Z3 M -0 M 0 M > 2 75 .2 0 0 -0 a 1: -0 0 �O — C 0 M M = 0 CM 0 C 0 — a r- — -- U 0 MD 0 a - 0 r - . wn = wow — ow L .9 , 2? w 'E (D C E n B 0 w cL E 0 0. -0 r E LI) 0 0 (n > X D Cr " CU 0 — 75 0) L5 0 C, M a 0 0 E E '0 > > C = " CO 0 >, V) >, 0 0 M 0 — M W (D W C C 0 r- CL 0 C — 0 0 0 a) a) Cc > (D CU 'D Im.— 0 0 CZ .0 W 70 0 C) — — = .2 Cz �O E -o 5 "0 C,3 CL a C: (M Q- 75 0 > < M :3 0- z =3 C's w E Er 4) m cI5 E Cn _0 0 3: 0 Cn OL (D 'n a a 0 C (V 3: UL 0 0 M 0 Q > W C) 0 Cz W — Cz -6 E a b -0 > w M 0 0 < 0 M C a CL CL M -a '0 CD - > '0 0 C Z5 " w ;; a) W C C -C 0 C a M 0 " 0 w CA - C: 0 C 0 -- t� a > W :3 M 0) E > X 0 0).E �O 0 0 CD 0 0 LU q U n � 0 = 0 w 0 C - - 9 M — U) .- 0 (V 0 0 0 E C8 —:3 =E CL a 0) C CO 0 -6 -5 E 'E 0 U) (z 0 C .21 (n >, 0 W 0 T C C 0 .0 cc *Ui 0 m t: E 0 cc) 4.0 0 CL r :3 C E C: M C Cz -0 > C 0 8. >0 00 Cw 0 w z OL E E E C n w _2 E v -m E E 0 M C CO 0 -6 u .- E cL 0 *0 CI a 0 E M C p 0 M 0 0 4-- 0 0 C M > M (n CD 0 M 'E r- .0 0 0 M > w — M 0 M M C�"D C: *E M > 0 CL 0) C -Fn =3 (n -0 F Cz 2 .9L 0 'E C 'E :3 a 0 'D w u E *0 (n C C: CD C M M M .0 Cc >, 0 a- CU > Cz w D r- Cz 0 Cd 0) w 0 -E U) CZ 0 C>U —0 - 0) 4) E5 .E W cc U CQ 0 C 0 Cz (D '& 0 E .0) 0 8 K 0 (D Ca 0 (Q D >, x t5 Z3 00. (D .(D E cc 0 w 0 E 75 0) U) D CC a 0 :3 Q) CL 0 P F 0 0 w 0 -j LO U) El (0 Ch & CO C& w Q 0 .0 0 City of Pittsburg II. Summary 1 Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 16, 1993 Page 25-A ' a> U C C U O c'= io Cn a> Cs 01 J CLW� �I > vi U C V> C U) O d N SCC n. ¢ Q C N � (O 2 d C CU -C0 = _ , �C O C 0 a> > U a) O U C O Co L > O C to O y C> !n a) R a) E Q = to O y p y O O O O dN OL C ` E E � ' ;? ° ` r >cu a in �I O � t 0 _- . = o E _ c g U U 3 a> 0 3 Vi a, rn i4 'O (o � - V _ d U O (O C a> a'j N a b ami o c0 a U Q a s a> U C C C= O Co C O C L_._ C U C7>= •C C C d O O U > O L (n (n 2 O U U Cz a CL (O 16 N Y D E r E > O - > j O W C 3 d ICO OCU CO E Q a) Q U Cn C t0 z Q O y 7 in > o a CIn 'CM L � '3 >. 0 a (, a a oD . y > a> > 05In : = a) O H II II II y c° o= cExa C a�Ui .0E > 3 m v> i0 (O i(n U) cn i mvaN \\. S st E\R M�a�os Redeye\O page 32 \-os G N o\ �\ttsb�9 P9en�`i Rede nAro, A G O d O 4 r tS�•" ' O cb o a CO CO 'G a $ C6 $ o N 'O O G G G d O 4C? N N d y 0 OO N N - c it N N N O Cn E p G 0 U C6 + UG w G s N *s 'O r U CO l d ? ✓ O c4 47 OO H Cf. 6 r O d O N �p ✓ 'N0) i t.- G `L r� O O y cGa G N E 'yc Y O' 'O 3 G r o 9 Y + G 0 0 ,0 ca co7G �' a �y � E c 'b coit 'o O c0 0 4 Ui O N U (d O ''0 'aN N O O 0 G G y q O p N m 1 N � oG Go� prp No mm � 03 � 67 N O N d 4? ` U O• c4 r�'Oca U GC4 U Of c6 U N6 N -O N o m G .00 w w i0 d 0 t0 N r to N i OA r r- .� o o V -� O c0 N OV N OS V 61? ' cob co U fl o Y � = 9 N V4 N� d Oo Gcb � y'G�' 0 7 T O G t 0 $ G G U N co fl cd a°-N� 0 N 0. air d o d N r � 0Gco 1 T 0 Eby .0- N � aN d cC 0 E G N N N U ✓ O N G a G G9N vi ib O d `�0. t4 G y N O y V i O > N G d Y 0- N G co c6 cp 0- N .— co G �, � -O coo O w co r C- 0 UO `0G900 j0 Q G O d m O OO t6 ��. —4) N G G 0 co N 3 r 2 iss 0 G 4 N G `Z 0 O p y N Nnr � RC6 � ad aca � o�- 04Nt3 2 Q m 7 G � - J C i d' N CO O •• N Oct Z Y Y Y C9 of Pittsburg m Summar Redevelopment Agency Ls Ue a« Redevelopment D R March lR 4993 . Page 32-A o � \ \ 2 __\ / a.U) oC n . Rr � � ƒ 0- a . ° § 0 Cq§ � E 1 - - a 7 E G FU a a) © . \ 7 \ \ 2 ? E " 7f $ / @ e@; § 0 S G o % F C o = R = $ & = o 0 2 / 2 2 - j \ M / E k / § / o G f k > 3 / / / / � Q) \ � � . o0 • mo E 2 = c 3: ( \ <8 £ Lu o � k\ 2/ m k ƒ�\k E 2 / c § 5 B - S S k a [ K k t § 5 a � ? a•- $ 2(D ,± G « ° 2 ° k 2 k ƒ 2 § S \ o ° 2 7fUeE.� E/ U E E _ - E \ 3 � E cc)) 0 f . o . E � « @ £ § f o E m = � a = / � 00t ) " C § kf 2 £ � t � � ■ 25f � o E 0 : U E £ E 2 E » e 2 c o 3. p G p CL QcL£ \ �� \g � bumf 2 § > ƒ a &ƒ / k i / 7f kL2 § m E _ _ _I 0 = L._ _ o = mumm � � City of Pittsburg 111. Project Description Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 39 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' This chapter describes the proposed actions or "project" addressed in this EIR. The project description is based primarily on the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency's Preliminary Report on the Proposed Third Amendment to the Community Development Plan for the Los Medanos Community Development Project (July 1992). Where appropriate, text from this document has been either used verbatim, or paraphrased and summarized as necessary to provide a clear and adequate project description. As stipulated by the CEQA Guidelines, the project description that follows has been detailed to the extent needed for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. In accordance with section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter describes the following: (a) the location and boundaries of the project area, (b) the basic objectives sought by the proposed redevelopment plan amendment, (c) the specific redevelopment plan changes proposed to achieve these objectives, (d) the official approvals required in order to implement the project, and (e) the intended uses of the EIR. ' A. PROJECT LOCATION 1. Regional Location ' Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed post-amendment Los Medanos Community Development Project area (hereafter referred to as the redevelopment area or the project area) in both the regional and local context. The proposed project area is located in the City of Pittsburg. The City of Pittsburg is located in central Contra Costa County, between the cities of Antioch (to the east) and Concord (to the west). Primary regional access to the project area is provided via State Highway 4. 2. Local Setting As shown on Figure 1, the project area encompasses the existing approximately 4,250-acre Los Medanos Community Development Project area (also referred to as the existing merged r redevelopment area) and four proposed amendment areas totalling approximately 2,195 r additional acres. These amendment areas include (1) the Southwest Area (644.20 acres), r (2) the Willow Pass and Affinito Del-Monte Area (208.03 acres), (3) the Northeast Area j r (1,168.00 acres), and (4) the Chevron and Pebble Creek Area (174.47 years). The entire project area, consisting of the existing merged redevelopment area and the four amendment areas is also referred to in this EIR as the amended merged project area. 51 TiFE/R 111-R.517 City of Pittsburg III. Project Description Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 40 As shown on Figure 2, the existing merged redevelopment area covers much of Pittsburg north and south of State Highway 4. The Southwest Area (Amendment Area 1), as shown on Figures 2, 3, and 4, is generally bounded by State Route 4 on the north, steep hillsides on the south and west, and Alves Ranch Road on the east. The Willow Pass and Affinito ' Del-Monte Area (Amendment Area 2), as shown on Figures 2, 3, and 5, is generally bounded on the north and west by Willow Pass Road, on the south by North Parkside Road, and on the east by Beacon Street. The Northeast Area (Amendment Area 3), as shown on Figures 2, 3, and 6, is generally bounded on the north by New York Slough, on the south by Southern Pacific railroad tracks, on the east by the Contra Costa Canal, and on the west by Columbia Street. The Chevron and Pebble Creek Area (Amendment Area 4), as shown on Figures 2, 3, and 7, is generally bounded on the north by Buchanan Road, on the south by undeveloped hillsides, on the east by the remainder of Chevron's former oil ' tank farm site, and on the west by Springhill Drive. These existing and proposed redevelopment area boundaries have been determined by the City of Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency based on the existence of blighting factors which, as required by Section 33030 of the State Community Redevelopment Law, ". . . constitute[d] either physical, social, or economic liabilities, requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of such communities and the State." B. BASIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1. Proiect Background Figure 8 provides an illustration of the history of redevelopment activity in the City of ' Pittsburg. The Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency adopted its first redevelopment plan, the Marina View Redevelopment Proiect, in 1962, followed by The Riverside Mall Redevelopment Project in 1969, the Area 1 and Area 2 Neiqhborhood Redevelopment ' Programs in 1972, and the Los Medanos Community Development Project in 1979. The 1979 Los Medanos Community Development Plan has been amended twice: the "First Amendment" was adopted in 1980 and the "Second Amendment" was adopted in 1983. Since 1969, the Agency has focused its redevelopment activities on critical infrastructure and community facilities needs as well as on general neighborhood, housing, downtown, , marina, outlying commercial, and industrial area public improvements. In summary, substantial improvement has occurred in the Los Medanos redevelopment area since it was established nearly a decade ago. The Agency currently seeks to continue and expand its efforts towards eliminating blight conditions and stimulating economic development In the Los Medanos redevelopment area, and has determined that the improvement programs and financial resources established in the original 1983 redevelopment plan will not be sufficient to meet the physical, social and economic blight elimination goals .of.the community. 5171DE/R1111.517 o T (/1 O> L o ct ; (1 LL L r 44+44+++• L O E FI Y4if 4444?++++U C �+4444.++++4♦p 4444+++++ d r. c. ++44+++4++44+4 �..' o E C•. ++44++4++++f i+`� U7 / ++f+4++446f�f+ 1 L�''I })+++++++++++x+ 44 1 /� C L a if44+++4+++f4+f +t 1%+4 �I 1 1:+++++++++++++++++++.++++++'6 •++ �',�lS V/ E -^.I r+4 •• ��� LU + ++444+++4•� ,1.44 — — a 5'•• a LI 1 ++4+4++f++++4,�d +,1•+ .Cp I•. . .....:.\ •••' . c ; . +++4+4+++444+ +1:+ �. \ ... . W ,..+ �.' + 2 U 44+44+44+++4+ 44 ..Q • �• ••••' rC.t :•• t l d v E N � 4++++fffi444, 44+, � �2 �•:t�`�5.•�.�G.�CCC c c U 4444++4444+4 `+•• G `�L•,j.. 7' � V/ D.o Cil '• +444♦+++i++/' +e�.�/• = I • \ �•!'6 (•.�:r•:,'r'r �•• �.� tl! f44++44444 ' +4♦4S ••: U I �^'Rf i=�.�i�k(t.1;;� �:�� O %1+; ;++++++++CL �: cc c: ++++4444* +++++, +f no) • l.'4S`'.. 'ti•':"�.t d m c 4+ 44+, 444 _ < t; ' ,/F: "i C ++ .. ++.� �,4,C �:c,.�c,....« . �;c m G 4444+ +++2 ...... I :.f.r''\ r.��:,•1•r,cL�: y o CS a i > Jc c Co ozcm +W• i .. t•q, c ;z +y .4 . Encu r � ++CL s +. ♦+: rt ff GG�ljj r. r. iu E E� • � �; W O H o +, 3?NVU N Y44444� �' •+++444 - +++4+4+0 •4444+♦+� . � . . .. � ri co 4+iff♦4♦3 r•. • p . T E _ � �,• �E /-++++ , +, P a 1n < n c C_i V d� J.= C L 3 L 1C '0 E �� .V T N C V C Z UW< v) z5 C U c fi a G G L •0 uj Cj i+.. W m ++ I e I r cv ri v a i+_t E^ 0 V) City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors , Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 82 Table 2 APPROVED, PENDING, AND ANTICIPATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOS , MEDANOS REDEVELOPMENT AREA Proposed ' Amendment Areas Units'_ 1. Southwest Area 3,2282 2. Willow Pass/Affinito Del-Monte Area 344' ' 3. Northeast Area 0 r 4. Chevron and Pebble Creek Area 965 r Subtotal 4,537 ' Existing Merged Redevelopment Area 5. Oak Hills Single Family Homes' 66 , 6. Oak Hills South Single Family Homes 459 7. Oak Hills South Townhomes 40 8. Village at New York Landing Single Family Homes 114 9. Marina Park Townhomes' 240 10. Leland Village Townhomes 108 11. By the Waterfront Townhomes 16 12. Rolling Hills Congregate Care Facility 180 13. Parkside Apartments 32 14. Atlantic Avenue Apartments 192 ' 15. Stone Terrace Senior Apartments 24 16. The Chatmor Senior Apartments 100 17. Stoneman Village II Senior Citizen Facility 60 18. California Seasons Single Family Homes 76` Subtotal 1,707 ' r Total 6,244 ' Unless otherwise noted, this "Proposed.Units" category includes approved, pending, or anticipated units that have not yet been constructed. ' 2 This includes approximately 2,728 units proposed on the portion of the San Marco site located within the Southwest Amendment area, plus the approximately 500 that may be developed on the portion of the Alves Ranch property located within the area. ' Mobile home lots. ' Approximate number of unoccupied units or remaining units to be constructed. SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, based on consultation with the City of Pittsburg Department of ' Community Development, April and July, 1992. 517IFEIRIIV-A-8.517 City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 83 ' Table 3 APPROVED AND PENDING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOS MEDANOS REDEVELOPMENT AREA ' Floor Space (SF)/ Amendment Areas Acreage Location Use Status ' 1. Southwest 0 SF/0 ac. n/a n/a n/a 2. Willow Pass/Affinito ' Del-Monte Builders Circle 352,174 SF/22 ac. Builders Cl. Lt. Industrial/ Site partially ' Industrial improved, stalled 3. Northeast a. Dow Hygiene Building 5,000 SF Loveridge Rd. Industrial Approved ' b. Morrison Rehab. of existing Pittsburg-Antioch Industrial Approved Knudsen Facility bldg. Highway/ Loveridge Rd. 4. Chevron and Pebble Creek 5.62 ac. Buchanan Rd. Office/Commercial Pending Existing Merged Area 1. Baker Property • 146 ac. Century Blvd. Commercial Pending 2. Burger King 2,645 SF N. Park Plaza/ Commercial Approved Loveridge Rd. 3. California Improvement ' Center 10,164 SF 625 California Commercial Approved 4. Kelley Court Warehouse 30,020 SF 2143 Kelley Ct. Warehouse Approved SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, based on consultation with the City of Pittsburg Department of Community Development, July 1992. ' 5171DEIRIIV-A.517 City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 84 ' within the boundaries of the Southwest Area. There is also the potential for similar ' residential development on the 293-acre Alves Ranch property. Based on a recently- approved general plan amendment to allow 243 to 765 dwelling units on the 293-acre property and discussions with City staff, it is conservatively assumed that up to approximately 500 additional residential units could be anticipated on the Alves portion of this amendment area. As shown in Table 3, no industrial or commercial development is anticipated in the , Southwest Area. r 2. Willow Pass and Affinito Del-Monte Area. This approximately 208-acre Willow Pass/ , Affinito Del-Monte Area (Amendment Area 2) includes the 22-acre Affinito Del-Monte r property which was annexed to the City in 1987, plus the approximately 186-acre area that ' was annexed to the City in 1991 under the "Willow Pass Road Boundary Reorganization, Annexation 114." r Existing Internal Land Use. As shown on Figure 5, approximately half of the land within the Willow Pass Area is vacant. Existing land uses include undeveloped open space, wetlands, heavy industrial development (JM Enterprizes Auto Wrecking and Sonoco Fibre Drum), a construction company operations facility (equipment yard, etc.), utilities (the Pittsburg Transmission Corridor), and the Affinito Del-Monte property at the eastern end of the area, also known as Builders Circle, which has been partially improved for light industrial use with roadways and other infrastructure improvements. Further improvements to the Builder's Circle area were recently suspended. Water service to this amendment area has been inadequate to support additional development. Many existing land uses in this amendment ' area are poorly maintained and are exhibiting signs of deterioration.' Existing Surrounding Land Use. The Willow Pass and Affinito Del-Monte Area is ' surrounded on the north by open space; on the south by industrial uses, residential uses, and open space; and on the east and west by industrial uses and open space. ' General Plan Land Use Designations. As shown on Figure 14,2 general plan land use designations in the Willow Pass and Affinito Del-Monte Area include Industrial and Open Space. Foreseeable Land Use Changes. As shown in Table 2, a 344-lot mobile home ' 'Katz Hollis, Preliminary Report on the Third Amendment to the Community Development Plan for the Los Medanos Community Development Project, July 1992. 2This map represents a generalized version of the Pittsburg General Plan Land Use Map. For , example, the map only shows one general Residential land use designation. It does not show the City's five separate residential designation breakdowns, which range from Rural to High Density residential. 517IFEIRIIV-A-R.517 ' City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 85 development, the Regency Mobile Home Estates project, is proposed for a vacant 46.3-acre site within the western portion of the Willow Pass Area. As shown in Table 3, the Builders Circle industrial subdivision is eventually expected to accommodate approximately 352,000 square feet of additional industrial space in the Willow Pass Area. r 3. Northeast Amendment Area. The approximately 1,168-acre Northeast Area (Amendment Area 3) was annexed to the City of Pittsburg in 1990 under the "Northeast Industrial Boundary Reorganization, Annexation 110." Existing Internal Land Use. As shown on Figure 6, most of the Northeast Area consists of ' existing heavy industrial uses, including the USS-POSCO Steel Plant, Dow Chemical Plant, and the Linde Division of Union Carbide Industrial Gases Production Plant which are the predominant land uses in the area, plus several large vacated, or underutilized industrial buildings (Thomas Short Company, Continental Can, etc.), a construction company operations facility, other vehicle and equipment storage areas, limited office space, a few residential units,.undeveloped open space, and wetlands. Many of the buildings in the area ' are deteriorated and some of the property is poorly maintained.' The building survey recently undertaken for the redevelopment effort found that of the 55 buildings surveyed in the Northeast area, 23 were in sound condition, seven were in need of major rehabilitation, and eight were in need of extensive reconstruction. Existing Surrounding Land Use. The Northeast Area is surrounded by New York Slough to the north; industrial uses, residential uses, and undeveloped open space to the south; the Delta Diablo Sanitary District sewage treatment plant to the east; and industrial and residential uses to the west. General Plan Land Use Designations. As shown on Figure 14,2 the vast majority of the Northeast Area is designated Industrial on the City's general plan Land Use Map. There is also a small area of commercially-designated land south of Pittsburg-Antioch Highway. ' Foreseeable Land Use Changes. As shown in Table 3, Dow Chemical Company is proposing to construct a new 5,000 square-foot industrial hygiene building on their property. In addition, the Morrison Knudsen Company is proposing to rehabilitate an exiting industrial facility located at the northeast corner of the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway/Loveridge Road intersection. This facility will be used to manufacture BART railcars. 'Katz Hollis, Preliminary Report on the Third Amendment to the Community Development Plan for the Los Medanos Community Development Project, July 1992. 2This map represents a generalized version of the Pittsburg General Plan Land Use Map. For ' example, the map only shows one general Residential land use designation. It does not show the City's five separate residential designation breakdowns, which range from Rural to High Density residential. 51 T FOR IV-A-P.517 . City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors ' Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 86 4. Chevron and Pebble Creek Area. Approximately 0.7 acres of the approximately 174- r acre Highlands Ranch Area (Amendment Area 4) were annexed to the City of Pittsburg in ' 1991 (Annexation 117). A proposed annexation of the remainder of the area is currently pending. Existing Internal Land Use. The existing land use pattern in the Chevron and Pebble Creek t Area is shown on Figure 7. The majority of this approximately 174-acre amendment area was previously part of a larger 350-acre former Chevron tank farm which operated from 1913 to 1980 as a crude oil storage facility. All of the tanks in the portion of this former tank farm which is located within this amendment area were removed in 1981.' A construction company also occupies a smaller portion of this area. The only occupied land uses on this portion are a small office building and recreational vehicle storage. ' Additional buildings that were once occupied by the construction company are vacant and are poorly maintained! Existing Surrounding Land Use. The Chevron and Pebble Creek Area is surrounded on the , north by residential uses and Los Medanos College, on the south by undeveloped hillside open space, on the east by the remainder of the abandoned oil tank farm which is located ' in the Antioch Sphere of Influence, and on the west by residential land uses. General Plan Land Use Designations. As shown in Figure 14,3 the Chevron and Pebble Creek Area is designated Residential, Park, Commercial, and Public on the City's general plan Land Use Map. Foreseeable Land Use Changes. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, there are two private development projects currently proposed within the Chevron and Pebble Creek Area. The Meadowlands West mixed-use project proposed by North State Development Company , r consists of 965 residential units, 5.62 acres of office/commercial use, and a 5.7-acre park. r The 965 residential units include (a) the Pebble Creek Apartment project, proposed for a r 6.96-acre site at the northwest corner of this amendment area, with 126 multi-family units ' r and (b) the Highlands Ranch project with 589 single-family units and 250 multi-family units.° 'Duncan & Jones, Meadowlands Project (Meadowlands West) Environmental Impact Report, March 27, 1989. 2Ibid. 3This map represents a generalized version of the Pittsburg General Plan Land Use Map. For , example, the map only shows one general Residential land use designation. It does not show the City's five separate residential designation breakdowns, which range from Rural to High Density residential. , r °The Highlands Ranch project is being revised and is expected to ultimately yield fewer units r than reported here. 5171FEIRII"-R.517 ' City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR ' March 15, 1993 Page 86-A r The Sky Ranch project with 283 single-family units and 76 multi-family units is located south r of the amendment area boundary. 1 5171FEIRIIV-A-R.517 City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 89 use-related deficiencies and blighting influences identified above, would reverse current land ' underutilization trends, and would stimulate intensification and buildout of the project area within the framework of the Pittsburg General Plan (Figure 14). It is assumed that buildout in the existing merged redevelopment area would be encouraged and facilitated by activities proposed under this plan amendment as well as activities already authorized under the existing 1983 redevelopment plan. Since it is not known whether all of the activities authorized in the 1983 plan could be funded without the proposed plan amendment, this EIR considers the combined effects of continuation of the existing 1983 redevelopment plan and the proposed plan amendment. ' Although the anticipated term of the Agency's proposed redevelopment plan financing program is 36 years (1992 to 2028), it has been assumed in this EIR for purposes of ' conservative, "worst case" impact assessment, that the major portion of the redevelopment activities proposed would be successfully implemented over the next approximately 18 years, or by 2010, stimulating buildout of the project area over that 18-year period to the ' maximum extent permitted under the City's current general plan. Although the actual extent of development that takes place by 2010 in the redevelopment area could be substantially less, the maximum allowable extent under the general plan is assumed in this analysis to take place by 2010, in order to examine the "worst-case" scenario from an environmental impact standpoint. The estimated maximum allowable buildout capacity (i.e., "worst-case" scenario) of the project area ("amended merged redevelopment area") that may result from the redevelopment plan amendment implementation is indicated in Table 4. The table identifies ' the expected number of additional households (residential units) and jobs (the principal indicator of commercial and industrial growth) between 1992 and "buildout" (2010).' The maximum buildout figures in Table 4 have been used for impact assessment purposes throughout this EIR. 1 'Please note that the general plan buildout development scenario used in this EIR was developed for "worst case" environmental impact purposes, and is therefore different from the development estimates on which the fiscal analysis in the project Preliminary Report are based. The fiscal analysis assumes a more conservative development scenario so that resulting revenue ' - projections are also conservative; i.e., are not overstated (i.e., a 'worst-case" environmental scenario would involve a shorter buildout period and associated greater degree of annual environmental impact, while a "worst-case" economic scenario would involve a longer buildout period and slower tax increment growth). 5171DEIRIIV-A.517 City ofPittsburg |V.A. Land Use Factors Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Rodeve|opmentBR W1anoh 15, 1993 Page 90 Table ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT INCREASES BYTRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE JAZ), 1990-BUILDOUT--AM ENDED MERGED REDEVELOPMENT AREA Additional Additional TAZ2 Households Employment 11 see subtotal below 0 12 see subtotal below O 13 _ see subtotal below U 14 see subtotal below O 15 see subtotal below 0 Subtotals 2.793' 0 31 45 7 34 15 0 43 4 13 47 39 8 48 O 78 49 31 0 -- 5u 104 O 53 281 O 55 D 38 56 173 210 57 16 O 59 298 821 61 O 2.000 m� 66 D 72 87 181 D 68 U ' 24 70 U 15 -- 71 U 13 73 171 706 76' 1.324 245 /S ' 346 270 81 O 123 82 Q 3.000 430 D 694 431 _114 _138 Totals 6,935 8.260 SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates and DKS Associates, 1992. r ' As part of the City's overall traffic planning prognam. Pittsburg has been divided into approximately� 100 traffic analysis zones (TAZa) The amended merged redevelopment area contains all o, a portion of51 ofthose TAZs. Thirty-two zones of these 51 zones are totally within the amended merged redevelopment area and 19 contain some land within the area and some land outside of the area. An aerial photograph was studied to identify underutilized and vacant land to determine the amount of growth projected for each TAZ within the project area. For the Southwest portion of the redevelopment area (TAZs 11-15) and the Chevron and Pebble Creek Area (TAZ 76), more specific available data regarding development potentials was considered in determining estimated buildout. vThis table only includes those TAZS that would experience an increase in housing and/or employment between 1990 and buildout. Many ofthe S1 TA2ovvou|d not expohenceany substantive be�---en 1990 and buildout. ---� ^ This subtotal is based on anticipated development of the San Marco site (2'728 units) Alves Ranch (500 units), and the Oak HU� area (5GS units), ' ^ Based ondevelopment anticipated onthe Chevron and Pebble Creek properties. N� ' City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 99 impacts. Recommended mitigations include confining development to the lower elevations ' of the San Marco site, and preservation of the character and appearance of natural land forms on the Chevron site. d Commercial and Industrial Land Use Pattern Impacts No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 1 e. Land Use Compatibility Impacts City and Agency review procedures prior to approval of individual projects within the redevelopment area should emphasize the need to avoid significant land use conflicts ' between industrial, commercial, and residential development.. Review procedures and conditions of approval should include assurances of adequate land use separation, scale transition, noise buffering; protections against light, glare, and shadow impacts; adequate offstreet parking provisions, and so on. Adherence to these standards would be expected to reduce land use compatibility impacts to less than significant levels. f. Growth Inducing Impacts Any precedent-setting or growth-inducing impacts of the project would occur in the form of individual, separate residential development proposals and applications for nearby properties. Each such action would require applicant submittal and City approval of individual development plans, and would involve similar environmental impact documentation ' and public review procedures to ensure that associated significant adverse impacts are adequately addressed. These City requirements and procedures would be expected to r reduce such growth-inducing impacts. However, at this time it is not known whether such ' r impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels. g. Cumulative Land Use Impacts ' No significant adverse cumulative land use impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 1 5171FEIRIIV-A-R.517 City of Pittsburg N.A. Land Use Factors ' Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 100 1 517IDE1RIIV-A.517 City of Pittsburg W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 103 .l 18,100 people from 1990.' Expected population growth in the project area by buildout represents approximately 64 percent of the population growth expected in the Pittsburg SOI at buildout. b. Project Impacts The project would tend to facilitate and encourage an increased and accelerated rate of housing growth and, by extension, population growth within the project area and, indirectly, the city as a whole. The redevelopment activities proposed under the subject plan amendment, including circulation system, and other infrastructure improvements, would be ' expected to increase the attractiveness of the project area and as a result, would tend to increase the likelihood that projected residential and population growth would occur in the near future. Such growth within the project area, in turn, would be expected to stimulate the rate of housing and population growth throughout the City's Sphere of Influence. These anticipated project impacts on population would not constitute a significant direct adverse environmental impact. The indirect environmental effects of this project-related increase in the rate of population growth are described in the Traffic, Noise, Public Services and Facilities, and Air Quality sections of this EIR. c. Mitigation Measures No significant adverse population impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 2. HOUSING a. Setting 1 Existing and Projected Housing Units in Pittsburg. As shown in Table 6 (section IV.A), _ there were an estimated 16,968 households, or housing units, in the City of Pittsburg in 1990. By buildout of the City, it is estimated that 17,346 households will be added for a 1 total of 34,314 housing units.2 'Based on DKS Associates travel model data, assuming an increase of 6,935 housing units in the project area by buildout and an average household size of 2.61. 2These figures were developed by DKS Associates based on land use data developed in 1992 for the East Contra Costa County Travel Model. The growth increment figure of 17,346 is slightly higher than the U.S. Census data figure of 16,709 housing units, and substantially higher than the ABAG Projections '92 figure of 10,002 units. The recently-released ABAG Projections '92 report includes 1990 and 2010 household totals for the Pittsburg SOI of 21,728 and 31,730, respectively. r 5171V-B.517 City of Pittsburg W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment ' Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 104 2 Existing and Projected Housing Units in the Project Area. There were an estimated 12,500 households (housing units) within the project area in 1990.' The City expects an increase of approximately 7,000 units in the amended merged redevelopment area by buildout for a total of approximately 19,500 units. The number of units to be added to the project area represents approximately 40 percent of the estimated 17,346 total units expected to be added to the entire City of Pittsburg Sphere of Influence (SOI) by buildout. The existing merged redevelopment area contains a substantial inventory of housing (12,500 units). However, there are currently less than ten residential units located in the four amendment areas (four in the Southwest Area and three in the Northeast Area). There are, however, approximately 4,896 additional units currently approved,_pending or anticipated in three of the four amendment areas, and another 1,707 added units anticipated in the existing merged redevelopment area (see Table 9). An estimated 3,228 units are 1 anticipated in the Southwest Area, 344 in the Willow Pass Area, and 1,324 in the Chevron and Pebble Creek Area. 3. Projected Housing Needs. Under Section 65581.4 of the California Government Code, cities and counties are required to make a sustained, serious effort to provide for their appropriate share of regional housing needs, as determined by local councils of governments. In pursuit of this mandate, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which is the council of governments for the nine-county San Francisco Bay region, periodically makes housing needs determinations for each city and county in the region. The determinations are based on anticipated employment opportunities, commuting patterns, and site availability for residential development in the planning area.2 Housing Needs by Income Level. State law also requires ABAG to determine housing needs for each city and county in the region in terms of four specified income levels, so that each jurisdiction can make plans to provide for its "fair share" of regional housing needs by income group. To describe these housing needs, ABAG uses the conventional income categories of very low for household incomes of up to 50 percent of the median income for the region, low for 51 to 80 percent of the median regional income, moderate for 81 to 120 percent of the median regional income, and above moderate for household incomes greater than 120 percent of the median regional income. Pittsburg Housing Needs. ABAG-projected housing needs for the city of Pittsburg planning r area are shown in Table 9. The City of Pittsburg 1990 Housing Element (a state-required component of the city's General Plan) reports that the ABAG-projected total housing need for Pittsburg between 1990 and 1995 is 1,908 units, as. shown in Table 10. 'Based on land use data for the East Contra Costa County Travel Model (DKS Associates, 1992). 2San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Determinations, January, 1989, page 20. 5171FEIRIIV-B-R.517 uIry Or t-In5ourg Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 109 types due to funding from the mandated 20 percent housing set-aside and the inclusionary housing requirements (15 to 30 percent of the units constructed or rehabilitated would have to be affordable to low- and moderate-income households). These housing stock impacts of the project would be beneficial. 4. Impacts on Meeting Housing Needs. Implementation of the project housing component would assist the City in meeting its ABAG-estimated share of regional housing needs. The project actions are expected to result in financial assistance to approximately 1,230 housing units affordable to lower-income households. In addition, from 991 to 1,981 units constructed by private developers in the project area would be required to be affordable to very-low to moderate-income households. The project would also accelerate the overall rate at which all types of housing are developed in the project area and, indirectly, the City as a whole, as a result of public facility and infrastructure improvements. These housing impacts would be beneficial. c. Mitigation Measures 1. Housing Unit Assistance Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 2. Housing-Displacement Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 3. Housing Stock and Location Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 4. Impacts on Meeting Housing Needs. No significant adverse impact have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 3. EMPLOYMENT a. Setting 1. Estimated Existing and Projected Employment in Pittsburg. There were an estimated 10,885 jobs in the City of Pittsburg in 1990. Employment projections based on buildout of vacant commercial- and industrially-designated land indicate that an additional 10,965 jobs are expected to be added, for a total of 21,850 jobs within the city limits at buildout.' 'Data from East Contra Costa County Travel Model Land Use Data, 2010, provided by DKS Associates, July 1992. 51711V-8.517 City of Pittsburg W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 110 2. Estimated Existing and Projected Employment in the Project Area. The project area includes several large employers, including USS-POSCO, Dow Chemical, and Union Carbide (all in the Northeast Amendment area), as well as the. Manville Corporation, Impulse Manufacturing, and Merit USA (all in the existing merged redevelopment area). As r shown in Table 10, there were an estimated 9,600 jobs in the project area in 1990, representing approximately 88 percent of the total jobs in the City. At buildout, approximately 8,260 jobs are expected to be added to the project area for a total of 17,860 jobs by 2010, representing approximately 75 percent of the anticipated total citywide job growth. b. Project Impacts 1. Proiect-Related Temporary Employment Impacts.. Additional construction jobs would be created by the project-assisted infrastructure, economic and real estate development. The actual number of temporary jobs created by the project activities would ultimately depend on the actual construction dollars spent. These jobs would represent a beneficial, temporary employment and economic impact on the City and region. 2. Project-Related Permanent Employment Impacts. The project would encourage the development of additional retail, service, office, and industrial space in the project area, and indirectly, in the City as a whole. One of the specific goals identified in the proposed redevelopment plan amendment is as follows: "The Agency shall undertake to expand the City's employment base by encouraging new office, retail, and industrial development. For conservative ("worst case") environmental impact assessment purposes, this EIR assumes that the project would facilitate full absorption ("buildout") of the remaining general plan designated inventory of vacant commercial, industrial, office, and institutional land in the project area. 'Any increase in employment in the project area would constitute a beneficial direct employment impact. However, the increased jobs would also result in significant, indirect, adverse impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, public health and safety, cultural resources, etc. These impacts and associated mitigation needs are discussed in corresponding, subsequent sections of this EIR (sections IV.0 through IV.1). 3. ,Proiect-Related Business/Employment Displacement Impacts. The redevelopment amendment would extend the Agency's ability to employ the power of eminent domain. The power of eminent domain would be in effect for 12 years from the plan adoption date. The Agency has already been involved with a limited land assembly and disposition program in 5171FEIRIIV-B-8.517 • City of Pittsburg N.B. Population, Housing, and Employment Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 111 Table 10 EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES, 1990-BUILDOUT' Project Area City 1990 Employment 9,600 10,885 Employment 17,860 Buildout . 21,850 Increase 1990-Buildout 8,260 10,965 Data from East Contra Costa County Travel Model Land Use Data, provided by DKS Associates, July 1992. SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, 1992. the existing merged redevelopment area on the west side of downtown Pittsburg. This program is almost completed. At this time, the Agency has not identified additional properties for acquisition. However, with the proposed amendment, the possibility would remain for another. 12 years that property occupied by existing businesses could be condemned for blight elimination purposes, thereby displacing businesses and jobs. In such instances, relocation assistance would be required by California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL).' Section 6032 of Title 25 requires the Agency to develop and implement a relocation assistance advisory program to ensure that any persons displaced from their place of business (or farms) would be assisted in reestablishing similar activity "with a minimum of delay." As required by CRL, Agency rules for business participation would be required to be implemented which would reduce the employment displacement `. Impacts of the project. As mandated by CRL, the rules would require that the Agency extend reasonable preferences to persons who are engaged in business in the project area which are dislocated by Agency actions to re-enter in business within the area if they otherwise meet the requirements of the redevelopment plan. CRL and associated Agency 'Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines, Subchapter 1, in Chapter 6, Department of Housing and Community Development Programs of Title 25, Housing and Community Development Law. 517iv-s.517 l� City of Pittsburg W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 112 rules would further provide that the owners of an acquired property be given the reasonable opportunity to participate in the project, provided that such participation is consistent with the requirements and goals and objectives of the plan. These CRL and Agency rules would be expected to reduce the potential adverse employment impacts of the project resulting from possible business dislocation to less than significant levels. c. Mitigation Measures 1 Project-Related Temporary Employment Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 2 Project-Related Permanent Employment Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 3 Project-Related Business/Employment Displacement Impacts. No significant adverse impacts have been identified; no mitigation measures are required. 4. JOBS/HOUSING RATIO a. Settinq An optimum local jobs-to-housing relationship or "jobs/housing balance" is generally �. characterized by an equal number of local jobs and local employed residents. If there is a general balance in between the number of local jobs and the number of local employed residents, there is a greater opportunity for local residents to work close to where they live. Such a balance tends to reduce regional traffic congestion, noise, and air quality impacts. r Table 11 illustrates the current job-housing ratio trend for the Pittsburg Sphere of Influence or Planning Area in comparison to Contra Costa County as a whole. The table indicates that in 1990, Pittsburg and the county as a whole had substantially more employed residents than jobs. For Pittsburg, there were 13,040 local jobs and 29,108 employed residents in 1990, or 0.50 jobs per employed resident. This 1990 Pittsburg jobs-per- employed-resident ratio was about the same as it was in 1980. 5171FEIRIIV-8-R.517 City of Pittsburg W.D. Public Services and Facilities Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 153 Enrollment and Capacity. The 1992 enrollment and capacity figures for the MDUSD schools that serve the western portion of the amended redevelopment area indicate that these facilities are operating within their current capacity. Bel Air, Rio Vista, and Shore Acres elementary schools are operating at 94, 98, and 81 percent of capacity, respectively. Riverview Middle School is operating at 90 percent of capacity, and Mount Diablo High School is operating at 59 percent of capacity. The MDUSD recently conducted a study that concluded that a new elementary school would be needed in the District to accommodate projected future enrollment increases in the number of elementary school-age children. To date, no specific plans to construct a new elementary school have been prepared by the District. School Impact Fees. Development Impact fees of $0.75 per square foot of new residential construction and $0.25 per square foot of new commercial construction are currently levied by the MDUSD to help finance new school facilities. These fees, which are lower than the state's maximum allowable limits for school impact fees, are the result of an agreement between the Building Industry Association (BIA) and the school district.' The agreement and current fee schedule will remain in effect until 1994. The District is currently conducting a study to determine whether the present fee structure adequately mitigates development-generated school impacts. Future fee increases are likely, but will depend upon the results of the study. lid 2. Pittsburg Unified School District. As shown in Figure 19, the central and eastern portions of the project area are located within the boundaries of the Pittsburg Unified School District (PUSD), with the exception of the small aforementioned area in the northeastern portion of the redevelopment area which is located within the Antioch School District. The PUSD operates seven elementary schools (grades K-5), two junior high schools (grades 6- 8), and one high school (grades 9-12). Enrollment and Capacity. Elementary and junior high school enrollments in the PUSD were close to capacity in 1992. The District projects that elementary and junior high school enrollments will be at or exceed capacity in the 1992-1993 school year. The high school is expected to have adequate capacity available in the 1992-1993 school year.Z 'Paul E. Allen, Associate Superintendent, Mount Diablo Unified School District, letter to Wagstaff and Associates, March 30, 1992. 2Robert Padilla, Business Manager, Pittsburg Unified School District, personal communication, July 22, 1992. 517iv-0.517 �i- � � T W cc C O = ruQ r) O IM E fi. milkaglijul Bill go III III go Z i V L) F.. cc CD i c b 1p] ....... cc; O V J�r• .. 3 �ri• _� •IJJ 2 'i d ci �1 i cn gi a .¢ ............ — — — — tm ate. °6 I 'Loll) A:: I:'a �.:..:::'. .. ....... r I Q -.-. o Y a 0 c :.:: ::. .::.......... j 2 o U L a ya .0 Q - i } - o a = C I D = a N a c c < E E a 2 O _ 02i 0 o —' N E o O 'l�' �. Uwacn ZU LU LU i` v•. I N cn V) City of Pittsburg IV.D. .Public Services and Facilities Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 159 6. CCCCD--Cumulative Impacts. Increases in the rate of citywide residential, commercial, and industrial development due to the project would also be expected to result in significant r cumulative impacts on the enrollment and capacity of Los Medanos College. Secondary r employment resulting from the multiplier effects of the project (see page 256 of this EIR for r a discussion of the multiplier effect) could increase enrollment at Los Medanos College as r well as the other two CCD campuses (Contra Costa College and Diablo Valley College). C. Mitigation Measures Unless stated otherwise, the individual sponsor of future Agency-assisted development projects should be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures identified below. As part of its individual project assistance activities, the Agency should strongly advocate implementation of these measures. 1. Protect MDUSD Enrollment Impacts. In accordance with Pittsburq General Plan policy 5.1.A, which requires the City to "Ensure that sufficient school classrooms will be available before approving residential development projects,"the City should withhold approval of new residential development facilitated or encouraged by redevelopment in the project area unless adequate school facilities (new, permanent, and portable facilities) could be provided by the time of project occupancy. Specific measures required for individual projects should be determined by the Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency and Planning Department. The following types of mitigation measures should be required for those future individual J. development projects within the redevelopment area that create significant school impacts: 1a. Establish Mello-Roos Facility Districts. Require residential developers to establish Mello-Roos Facility Districts to finance new school facilities. r r 1b. Establish School Sites. Require developers of large projects to provide land for new school sites. r 1c. Coordinate with the School District. The Agency should coordinate its housing, commercial and industrial development assistance activities with the school district to ensure that potential school impact fees which may be applicable at the time of project-assisted construction are paid to the district. r 1d. Increase School Impact Fees. As mentioned above, the MDUSD is conducting a study to determine whether the present fee structure adequately mitigates development-generated school impacts. Based on the results of similar studies in other school districts, it is likely that these fees do not adequately mitigate impacts. For example, in the Morgan Hill Unified School District south of San Jose, fees of $1.58 per square foot of residential construction and $0.26 per square foot of commercial and industrial construction were found to only 5171FORN-0-R.517 City of Pittsburg IV.D. Public Services and Facilities Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 159-A cover approximately 25 percent of the cost of providing new facilities for students generated by new development. r SIB 1287, which went into effect on January 1, 1993, permits school districts to raise r residential development impact fees to $2.65 per square foot. 511VEIRIV-0-R.517 City of Pittsburg IV.D. Public Services and Facilities Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 160 It supported by the findings of the MDUSD study, school fees should be raised to help finance new facilities and help mitigate project impacts on MDUSD schools. 2. Cumulative MDUSD Impacts. Mitigation measures la, 1b, 1c and le, above should also be required for future residential development projects citywide in order to reduce school impacts to a less than significant level. If Mello-Roos community facilities districts or some other appropriate additional funding mechanism is not established to provide the needed school facilities, the City should adhere to Policy. 5.1.A of the general plan which requires the City to "Ensure that sufficient school classrooms will be available before approving residential development projects." Adherence to this policy should limit cumulative school impacts to a less than significant level. r 1-_ Proiect PUSD Impacts. Mitigation measures. la, 1b, 1c, and 1d, above should be required for residential development projects proposed in the redevelopment area in order to reduce project-associated PUSD school impacts to a less than significant level. If Mello-Roos community facilities districts and/or some other additional funding mechanism is not established to provide the needed school facilities, the City should adhere to Policy 5.1.A of the general plan which requires the City to "Ensure that sufficient school classrooms will be available before approving residential development projects." Adherence to this policy should limit school impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, the PUSD should consider implementation of other measures to increase school capacity where needed, such as the reassignment of students from over-crowded schools to schools with remaining capacity where feasible. Another idea being considered by the District is future rearrangement of the grade configuration at the junior high and high school levels. Assuming that one additional junior high school is constructed in the future, ninth-grade students who currently attend high school could be reassigned to the three junior high schools (which would then include sixth through ninth graders) when the high school becomes over-crowded. 4. Cumulative PUSD Impacts. Mitigation measures identified above under "3. Project PUSD Impacts" should also be required for future residential development projects citywide in order to reduce school impacts to a less than significant level. If Mello-Roos community facilities districts or some other appropriate additional funding mechanism is not established to provide the needed school facilities, the City should adhere to Policy 5.1.A of the general plan which requires the City to "Ensure that sufficient school classrooms will be available before approving residential development projects.' Adherence to this policy should limit cumulative school impacts to a less than significant level. 5. Project Impacts on the CCCCD. To mitigate the capacity impacts of increased enrollment due to development facilitated or encouraged by the redevelopment plan amendment, the CCCCD would have to either: (a) limit enrollment, (b) petition the state to provide financing for school expansion, or (c) raise funds through other means (e.g., 517IFEIRIIV-D-R.517 City of Pittsburg W.D. Public Services and Facilities Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 171 As part of its individual project assistance activities, the Agency should strongly advocate these measures. 1 1 Impacts of Proposed Proiect-Assisted Storm Drainage Improvements. No significant adverse public service impacts have been identified. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. While no significant adverse public service impacts are anticipated due to the project, the Agency should coordinate its drainage improvement assistance activities with City roadway improvement planning so that storm drainage construction projects are r scheduled to precede or coincide with road construction activities. The CCCFCWCD and r Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District should also be consulted regarding planned drainage improvements. Please see the Vegetation and Wildlife, Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality sections of this EIR for mitigation measures that would reduce project-associated storm drainage impacts related to those topical areas. 2 Storm Drainage Impacts of Project-Facilitated Development. The specific drainage impact mitigation measures to be required for each future development project proposed in the redevelopment area would be determined on a location-specific basis during the environmental review process for each individual project. It is reasonable to assume that storm drainage impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level through this normal review and mitigation process, given existing City and CCCFCWCD drainage requirements, and the existing techniques available to mitigate such impacts. Also, as discussed above, the CCCFCWCD would assess drainage fees on individual new developments in the project area and would review drainage plans. Compliance with NPDES regulations, rules, and procedures would also be required. Additionally, depending upon the location and characteristics of future individual developments, some may be subject to requirements of the Department of Fish and Game, the US Army Corps of Engineers (please refer to the Vegetation and Wildlife section of this EIR for more information on these requirements), and the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance #90- 118. The specific mitigation measures identified to reduce the storm drainage impacts of the San Marco project proposed in the Southwest Area, the Regency Mobile Home Estates project proposed in the Willow Pass Area, the Meadowlands West project proposed in the Chevron and Pebble Creek Area, and the Baker Property project proposed along Century Boulevard in the existing merged redevelopment area, are described in the individual EIRs for those projects.' 'These documents are available for public review at the City of Pittsburg Planning Department, �• located at 65 Civic Drive in Pittsburg. 517IFEIRIIV-D-R.517 City of Pittsburg W.D. Public Services and Facilities Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9. 1992 Page 172 7. PARKS AND RECREATION a. Setting 1.- Existing Services. Parks and recreational services in the project area are provided by the City of Pittsburg Leisure Services Department. The Department operates a system of neighborhood- and community-serving facilities. The District's neighborhood parks are intended to serve the needs within a one-half mile radius of the park and are usually primarily oriented towards the recreational needs of children. Community parks are meant to serve the community-wide needs of all age groups. A community park may also serve as a neighborhood park for the area In which it is located. The City of Pittsburg has approximately 390 acres of parkland, including eight community parks, four neighborhood parks, and one mini-park.' 2. Existing Park Standards. The Pittsbur-q General Plan Parks and Recreation Element sets a standard of two acres of community park and three acres of neighborhood park per 1,000 residents. 3. - Park Dedication Ordinance. The City has also adopted a Park Dedication Ordinance which requires parkland dedication or payment of in-lieu fees to compensate for the parkland needs generated by new development. The current requirements are 1.42 acres of public parkland per 100 single-family units and'11.00 acres per 100 multi-family units. Applicants have the option of dedicating land or paying in-lieu fees or a combination of the two to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Additionally, some credit is given for private recreational facilities provided in a development by an applicant.2 b. Proiect Impacts 1. ---Proiect-Assisted Parks and Recreation Facilities Development. The preliminary list of project-assisted park and recreation improvements that would be funded by the project includes the following: • Develop new park near the intersection of Third and Harbor Streets; ■ Develop new park south of Highlands Park subdivision near the intersection of Kingsley and Suzanne Drives; ■ Develop new park south of the Chevron site; 'Pittsburg General Plan, 1988. 2 Joel Summerhill, Park Planner, Pittsburg Public Services Department, personal communication, August 5, 1992. 5117111/-D.517 City of Pittsburg IV.E. Vegetation and Wildlife Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 186 (COE, DFG) approval of wetland fill would be difficult to achieve unless substantial mitigation were provided. Such procedures would reduce impacts on wetlands. However, it is not known whether all impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level. r Although not required, the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District should be consulted r by the Agency or the sponsors of future individual projects requiring wetland mitigation r regarding any warranted methods of minimizing mosquito production. b. Sensitive Plant Impacts Parcels proposed for development that are primarily vacant, that have not been filled or graded, and that have any significant natural or naturalized vegetation should be documented as to: (a) the actual composition and character of the property, and (b) the potential to support sensitive plants. Preparation of this specific documentation and, if such species are in fact discovered, completion of the required mitigation coordination with the CDFG, would be expected to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. c. Creek Habitat Impacts All future development and improvement projects that would affect existing creeks and/or drainageways would be required to comply with COE and CDFG policies and regulations. r One measure that could be implemented includes restoration to compensate for creek r habitat impacts. Construction of above-ground drainage culverts is preferable to r underground culverts wherever possible. d. Wildlife Impacts Although most areas of the City no longer support significant wildlife resources, the possibility remains that there may still be small isolated pockets of habitat for such species as the salt marsh harvest mouse. Therefore, adequate biological documentation should be required for all proposed Agency-facilitated projects with any natural habitats left. In particular, formal protections should be sought for any remaining pockets of marsh or other significant natural habitats (mature native oaks, sand dunes, etc.). e. Summaries by Amendment Area (1) Southwest Area. The mitigation measures identified in the San Marco EIR should be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with project facilitation of the proposed San Marco development to a less than significant level. The only biotic impact that would remain unavoidable would be the contribution to significant regional cumulative losses of open wildlife range. 5171FEIRIIV-E-R.517 City of Pittsburg IV-E. Vegetation and Wildlife Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 186-A Mitigation measures identified in future environmental documentation prepared for future development of the Alves Ranch property should also be implemented to reduce significant impacts. (2) Willow Pass and Affinito Del-Monte Area. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR prepared for the Regency Mobile Home Estates EIR should be implemented to reduce 5111FORN-E-R.517 City of Pittsburg W.H. Public Health and Safety Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 223 i construction of residences over abandoned wells; and testing and cleaning as necessary of the soil around the fuel storage tank. (2) Alves Ranch Site. No significant impacts have been identified at this time. Therefore, no specific mitigation measures have been identified. Future development proposals on this site would be subject to City-mandated individual environmental review. It is reasonable to assume that any significant future public health and safety impacts associated with development proposals for the Alves site would be identified, and that associated mitigation measures necessary to reduce those impacts to insignificant levels would also be identified, during this normal City environmental review process. b. Willow Pass and Affinito Del-Monte Area 1 Regency Mobile Home Estates Site. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified on pages 4.8-21 through 4.8-24 of the Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Regency Mobile Home Estates would be expected to reduce public health and safety impacts associated with this individual project-facilitated development to less than significant levels. These measures include a 150-foot setback from the 230 kV line easement edge to avoid EMF exposure and disclosure of potential health risks to future residents; testing and cleaning/removal (if necessary) of soils and groundwater that may be contaminated; setbacks from the railroad ROW; and City coordination with the County EHD to ensure that businesses in the site vicinity that use acutely hazardous materials in amounts over "threshold planning" quantities prepare a Risk Management and Prevention Program. (2) Remainder of Affinito Del-Monte Area. For future individual development facilitated by the project in this area, it is reasonable to assume that mitigation measures would be identified, as needed, through the City's normal environmental review process for individual projects. �. c. Northeast Area Mitigation needs for future projects in the Northeast Area would be determined through the City's normal environmental review process for individual projects. d. Chevron and Pebble Creek Area Full implementation of the proposed mitigation plan to remove contaminated soil from the Chevron site, which is summarized on page 119 of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Meadowlands Proiect General Plan Amendment (1989), would reduce public health and safety impacts associated with hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Chevron's plan includes measures such as proper removal and disposal of lead- contaminated soil; use of oily soil as roadbed material onsite; provision of a ten-foot cap below final grade of soil with less than 200 parts per million (ppm) of oil; provision of vapor 51 NV-H.517 City of Pittsburg IV.H, Public Health and Safety Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 224 barriers under all buildings with concrete Slab foundations; and removal and treatment of wax pond material at a licensed recycling facility. e. - Existing Merged Redevelopment Area For individual private development projects facilitated by the project, mitigation needs, if any, would be determined through the City's normal environmental review process for individual projects. f. Amended Merged Redevelopment Area--Temporary Construction Impacts For individual private development projects facilitated by the project, mitigation needs, it any, would be determined.through the City's normal environmental review process for individual projects. Potential impacts associated with excavated contaminated soil during construction of project- facilitated infrastructure improvements should be reduced to a less than significant level by following state- and county-mandated removal and disposal methods. r g. General Regulatory Requirements r Any soil or groundwater pollution detected on development sites in the project area must be r remediated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State r Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Environmental Health Division of the r Contra Costa County Health Department. 511IFEIRIIV-H-R.517 City of Pittsburg V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 235 ■ Continue to support programs to improve the mobility of the elderly and handicapped, remove existing architectural barriers, and require that new development be accessible to those with physical impairments. (Guiding Policy 6.5E, p. 51.) ■ Ensure that new and rehabilitated developments comply with the handicap access requirements of Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code. (Implementing Policy 6.5K, P. 51.) b. Proiect Inconsistencies. The proposed redevelopment plan amendment would also fund or facilitate certain public improvement and private development actions which may be inconsistent with some general plan policies. Since CRL requires that the redevelopment program be consistent with the general plan, the proposed redevelopment plan amendment may have to be refined or modified to ensure compliance with the following Pittsburg General Plan policies: ■ Endeavor to retain existing creekway patterns, hillsides over 30 percent slope, and major ridgelines; make open space more accessible to the public with a park and trail system that takes advantage of surrounding open space. (Implementing Policy 2.1K, p. 6.) ■ Preserve natural creek corridors of significance to the City. (Guiding Policy 3.5B, p. 27.) ■ Preserve and enhance Pittsburg's creeks for-their value in providing visual amenity, drainage, and wildlife habitat. (Guiding Policy 8.1A, p. 61.) ■ Discourage culverting of creeks of significance to the City. (Implementing Policy 8.1F, p. 62.) In order for the project to be consistent with these general plan policies, the mitigation measures identified in the Vegetation and Wildlife section of this EIR should be implemented. Unless the police, fire, and school facilities and service needs described in section IV.D and the additional transportation system improvement needs described in section IV.0 of this EIR are adequately provided for, development facilitated and encouraged by the project may also result in inconsistencies with the following policies: ■ Allow urban development only in accord with a plan for full urban services (police, fire, parks, water, sewer, streets, and storm drainage) to which all providers are committed. Areas lacking full services are deemed outside the urban-service area and are unsuited for urban development regardless of Plan designation until services are assured. (Implementing Policy 2.2F, p. 9.) ■ Provide adequate capacity on arterial roadways to meet LOS standards and to avoid traffic diversion to local roadways or the freeway. (Guiding Policy 6.2C, p. 47.) 5rnv5» City of Pittsburg V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 236 Also, various recent project-specific EIRs for individual private developments that would be , facilitated by the proposed project indicate that those individual developments may be r inconsistent with many general plan policies. There is nothing in the proposed r redevelopment plan amendment that would lead to approval of private development projects r that may be inconsistent with the general plan. However, future individual private r developments facilitated or encouraged by the redevelopment plan amendment may be inconsistent with general plan policies, and would need to be reviewed on an individual basis to determine compliance with the general plan prior to Agency or City approval.. B. PITTSBURG DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN The Pittsburg Downtown Specific Plan dictates permitted land uses and planning policies for downtown Pittsburg. The specific plan encourages development of the downtown as a mixed-use area, including retail, residential, and recreation-related uses. The redevelopment project would be consistent with, or would help implement, the various goals and objectives �. of this specific plan, including the following: ■ To recognize the existing pattern of development and encourage its revitalization. ■ To encourage and enhance neighborhood residential development ■ To enhance the amenities that the waterfront provides. ■ To encourage investments from both internal and external sources. ■ To assist the private sector in achieving a viable, thriving downtown Pittsburg. It does not appear that the redevelopment project would be inconsistent with any of the policies, objectives, or development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. However, future individual development projects in the downtown area that may be encouraged or facilitated by the redevelopment plan amendment would need to be reviewed on an individual basis by the City or Agency to determine compliance with the specific plan. 51 TiFEI RI V-R.517 City of Pittsburg V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 239 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Effective October 1, 1992, the NPDES program will require permitting of individual developments that disturb more than five acres of land. Developments of this size will be required to address non- point source pollutants from sheet runoff, as well as construction-related impacts, The RWQCB's 1991 Water Quality Control Plan is a document that contains policies to control water quality, including urban runoff management and construction activity control. To implement this plan, the Regional Board is currently developing guidelines identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing non-point source pollutants. These practices are expected to encourage increased street cleaning, oil and grease separators for large parking areas, infiltration areas, and trash racks. Development facilitated by the redevelopment plan amendment should either: (a) incorporate some of these BMP and facilities into storm drainage designs, (b) design storm drainage systems in a way that will easily facilitate the future installation of non-point source pollutant control devices, and/or (c) set aside funds to comply with future regulatory requirements. r The RWQCB has a wetland fill policy that requires no net loss of wetland acreage and no r net loss of wetland value. Future development facilitated or encouraged by the plan r amendment that would adversely affect wetlands would be required to provide mitigation r measures to compensate for wetland losses. The RWQCB must certify that a US Army r Corps of Engineers permit will comply with water quality standards, or waive such r certification. If two or more acres of wetlands are affected, the certification must be voted r on by the RWQCB in a public hearing. Less than two acres can be handled r administratively. r 4. State Lands Commission r Portions of the project area may be subject to State Lands Commission {SLC) jurisdiction. r The SLC has current leases within the Northeast Area (Amendment Area 3) that may be r affected by the project. The SLC is a state agency that has exclusive responsibility for r administering ungranted and unpatented public lands owned by the state or under its r control, including tidelands, submerged lands, swamp, and beds of navigable rivers and r lakes. Development which directly affects such lands requires an SLC permit, Before r issuing permits authorizing such development, the SLC must find that the development will r cause no impact, harm, or hindrance to the public trust of resources in trust (minerals, r lands, waters, fish and wildlife and their habitats, etc.), and that adequate mitigation or r compensation measures are provided as conditions of the permit. 517IFEIRIV-8.517 City of Pittsburg V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies =� Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 240 5171V.517 City of Pittsburg VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR September 9, 1992 Page 255 ' VII. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS This section summarizes report findings in term of the various assessment categories suggested by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for EIR content. The section includes report findings with respect to "growth inducement," "unavoidable and irreversible" adverse impacts, "short-term vs. long-term environmental productivity," and "effects found not to be significant." A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 21100(g) of CEQA requires that an EIR include information regarding the growth- inducing impact of the proposed project. Section 15126(g) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the discussion should include the "...ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." Growth inducement is an inherent impact; i.e., a goal of the proposed Los Medanos Redevelopment Plan Amendment. If project objectives are successfully achieved, the continued and expanded redevelopment activities are expected to facilitate and encourage private commercial, office, residential, and mixed-use development. This EIR conservatively assumes that project-induced development may result in project area buildout under the policies of the City's current general plan within approximately 18 years; i.e., by the year 2010. 1. Internal Growth-Inducement If the project does effectively induce such buildout, this EIR indicates that the following growth effects can be anticipated within the project area (i.e., within the amended merged redevelopment area): ■ a substantial amount of existing, vacant or underutilized land would be developed as a result of project assistance; ■ total dwelling units would increase from approximately 12,500 (1990) to approximately 19,500 units at buildout, a net increase of approximately 7,000 units; ■ the total population would increase from the current estimate of approximately 36,100 (1990) to an estimated total of approximately 54,200 persons at buildout, an increase of approximately 18,100 persons; and 517 01.517 CityPittsburgof Pittsbur VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 Page 256 , ■ the estimated job total would increase from approximately 9,600 (1990) to approximately 17,800 jobs at buildout, an increase of approximately 8,200 jobs. 2. External Growth-Inducement Most of the growth-inducing impacts of development directly assisted by the project would be expected to occur in the redevelopment area. However, the project could also be expected to have a moderate, indirect growth-inducing impact on outlying areas of the City surrounding the project area. In particular, project-induced increases in local primary ("basic") jobs could be expected to have a `multiplier" effect, increasing overall employment totals and housing demands in the subregion. B. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS Section 21100(b) of CEQA requires that the EIR discuss "any significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented." Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that could not be reduced to less than significant levels by the mitigation measures recommended in this report. Such impacts are excerpted below from the impact findings of this EIR: • At this time, it is not known whether significant impacts on roadways of regional significance could be reduced to less than significant levels. Unless the Congestion Management Plan process results in adoption of a mechanism to improve the seven regional roadway segments projected to operate at deficient levels (see Table 20), impacts on roadways of regional significance would remain unavoidable. ■ The project would encourage or facilitate development and public improvements which could result in significant adverse wetland impacts. At this time it is not known whether such impacts could be reduced to a less than significant impact. ■ Project-related construction noise impacts would be temporary but significant and unavoidable. ■ The project would contribute substantially to unavoidable, significant regional air pollution impacts. ■ The project would encourage or facilitate development that could expose residents and workers to unavoidable, significant public health and safety impacts. r ■ The project would cause growth-inducing impacts which may not be able to be r reduced to less than significant levels. 517IFEIRIVII-8.517 City of Pittsburg Appendix I Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 j. r APPENDIX r SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE INFORMATION 517iFE/RIAPP-1.517 City of Pittsburg Appendix I Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR March 15, 1993 5171FEtRAPP-1.517 EPS - Berkeley P.81 I Land Uses and rox he CCFA LUIS Land Use Land Use Land Use Uefaalt fq.N Employment Dist. ' Code Description Category Density ee Retail Service Other IFAR AL Agricultural Open Space I'rtscrvC DP Business Park Cpm>111CrCW A 250 0% 100% 0% I CC Congregate Re7si&mtial 40 Dire CO Comnlercial Commercial 3 450 7096 2075 10% CR ReaftLion Commercial -35 350 5055 5099 09v Commercial I3MPOTI11IR Other Reverse Engineering EMMET Retail Reverse Engineerin8 EMM13RV Service Reverse . 13:�ginccrill� ' I-111 Household Reverse 1'srlgince:ing ' Ill Industry. Industrial .2 1A W 0% 5% 9596 LI Light Industrial 3 800 0% 20% 80% Industry &07VL Muld-Family Residential 5.6 Very Low MH Multi4lamlly Residential 21.6 High ML Multi-Family Residential 8.8 Low MM Multi-Fantily Residential 15.2 Medium MS Multi-Family Residential 70 Very High MV Multl-I�anily Residential 36 Very High OF Office Commercial 5 250 5% 65% 3096 R-94% 5108419208 08-19-92 03: 59PM P001 U1 08/19/92 15,59 a 518 841 9288 EPS - Berkeley P.82 ! 'v Land Uses and Land Use Proxies Used In the OCTA LUIS Land Use Land Use Land Use Default sq.ft/ Employment Dist. Code Description Category Penalty to Retail Service Other MAR OS c4neral open OPM Spacc Sia 1'S Public and Inotitutional z 1,000 0% 0* 100% Semi-rublic kC Regional Comunerdal .3 450 W% X% 20% Commercial SH Sipple Family Residential 5.25 - Iit&h SL Singe Family Residential 2.25 LOW 5M Single Family Residential 3.75 Medium 5V Single Family P%cbidcntial .75 Very Low 1 1 a94op 5108419208 08-19-92 03: 59?M P002 rift 1 City of Pittsburg Appendix J Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR IMarch 15, 1993 r APPENDIX J r SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING SENATE BILL 1287 1 1 i' 1 t 5171FEIRIAPP-J.517 City of Pittsburg Appendix J Redevelopment Agency Los Medanos Redevelopment EIR ' March 15, 1993 l 1 i 1 5171FEIRIAPP-J.517 , LOZANO SMITH SMITH WOLIVER & BEHRENS October 13, 1992 SENATE BELL 1287 DOES NOT REPEAL DMRENT POLICE POWERS OF ZONING AGENCIES TO REGULATE AND CONTROL GROWTH TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE-IMPACTS ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS NEW STRATEGIES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE WAKE OF SENATE BILL 1287 by JEROME M. BEHRENS LOUIS T. LOZANO :010 d)1,111 >.w Do J.—Aj,", C.4 ),IQOI Td iii 'j1Q.lood T.41 F,ff 600 oj0.;4:( -4,64 M41- )t'llf )tf 900 f1two CA 0.1-at. r,&Oivw 100 J/1-rt f ).at 100 m.,-- C.j a1g40. Ir4ewm j0z OAD-0, IF THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO WIPE OUT ALL LOCAL AGENCY CONTROL TO MINIMIZE AVERSE IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS BY NEW GROWTH, IT FAILED TO DO So On January 1, 1993, Senate Bill (S.B. ) 1287 addi Government Code section 65995 which states a "development project" is any project defined in section 53080 "whether by administrativ or legislative action. ' In 65995 (b) the Legislature established the same fee lids as in previous legislation, i.e. , $1.50 fo- residential development and $.25 for commercial or industrial development (Plus cost of living adjustments) . Subsection (e) appears to I state the Legislature' s intentl for state law to "occupy the field" or preempt all local government regulation on school impacts as follows: " (e) The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of the financing of school facilities with development fees is a matter of statewide concern. For this reason the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development requirements for school facilities financing to the -exclusion ofall local measures on the subject. " (Emphasis added. ) Our firm believes, and we have so advised our clients that school districts should continue to seek general and specific plan language to control or regulate new construction to minimiz thd adverse impacts on schools. In other words, notwithstanding 65995 (e) , local governments still have residual police powers t regulate land development even though stripped of the ability to require Mira super-developer fees (fees above the statutory lid)I The basis of our opinion is a previous court' s interpretation of this same language (65995 (e) ) . In a footnote the appellate court in Murrietta Valley Unified School Dist. v County ofRiverside (1991) 228 Cal .App.3d 1212, 1234, interpretsl 65995 (e) to mean that the state occupied the field only in the f inancing of school facilities, and nothing more: "As alluded lluded to in Hart (226 Cal.App.3d 16121 , subdivision (e) of section 65995 is limited to prohibiting public agencies from imposing fees as a condition to approval of a development- project in order to reduce the project's negative impact on overcrowded schools. it states that financing (court' s emphasis) of school facilities with development fees is preempted by the state law. This is a far r- from stating that a (local) public agency include cannot in a general plan amer=ent land use and development objectives and standards to mitigate the amendment' s potential negative effects on adequacy of school facilities. " 228 Cal .App.3d at 1234 , fn. 16; emphasis added. In interpreting statutes, the Legislature is "presumed tc have knowledge of California' s judicial decisions and to enact and amend statutes with those decisions in mind. , Murrietta Valley, 228 Ca1.App.3d at 1233 . Since the same preemption language is used in the new version of 65995 (e) , school districts should argue that the Legislature did not intend to wipe out all police power in land use regulation. Our opinion is turther reenforced by the fact that the Legislature failed to adoptthe suggestion of the Mur -4 --tta Valley court by incorporating a more global definition of "project" under section 21065 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA cr, California Environmental Quality Act) . The Murrietta court stated that "if the Legislature had intended the Public Resources Code definition of 'project' to apply to section 65996, it could have worded the final paragraph of 65996 as follows: 'No public agency shall, pursuant to Division B (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this Code deny approval of a project, as that term is defined - in Public Resources Code section 21065, 1 on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. ' Murrietta, 228 Cal .App. 3d 1212 , 1231, fn. 14 . The Legislature ignored Murrietta. Instead, the Legislature used the lesser included term "development project" by adding the modifying language "development project, as defined in Section 53080 , whether by administrative or legislative action, for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. " Emphasis added. "Project means the following: (a) activities directly undertaken by any public agency, (b) activities undertaken by a person which are supported in whole or in part through contracts , grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one C.- more public agencies, (c) activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. " Pub. Res . 21065 . 2 S .B. 1287 was hastily drafted. Because of this , t I,e Legislature did not fully appreciate judicial interpretations of Mira - Development Corm gyraticn v. City of San Qieco (1988) 205 Ca1 .App.3d 1201.2 Not only is the preemptive language exactly the same in 65995 (e) , which was narrowly interpreted in Murrietta , but also the Legislature failed to redefine the term "development project" in section 65931 or 65928 of the Government Code, the section which led to the Mira decision in the first place. Our belief is that the courts are not likely to interpret the Lecislature' s preemption language as a wholesale elimination of the basic police powers upon which all local land use decisions are based. Accordingly, it is wrong to assume that S.B. 1287 delivers a knockout punch to school districts in their efforts to control the adverse effects of growth on school facilities . Ii. T74E RIDDLE OF "PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION" . Government Code section 65996 (c) states that the section, shall have "prospective application only and shall not affect any action taken by a local agency prior to the effective date of thisi section. " This section references Mello-Roos and other very limited statutory measures as the exclusive means for offsetting the adverse impacts of a development project. I The "prospective application" lang,-,age in 65996 is extremely vague. Accordingly, districts should maintain tha existing development projects conditioned on mitigation factors including Mira developer fee agreements remain in place. Also, general plan controlled growth language requiring mitigation o adverse school impacts should be grandfathered unless the text itself intends that the general plan incorporate all prospectiv legislative amendments. Assuming the courts accept the residual police power-i analysis above, the *prospective application, language would only apply to wiping out super-Mira fees if an existing agreement incorporated such prospective amendments which is highly unlikel in any such agreement. All super-Mira development agreementi should be grandfathered as well as conditions imposed on tentative maps before January 1, 1993. Only attempts to condition development project by requiring super-developer or Mira fees ate January 1, 1993 should be affected by the "prospective application language of 65996 (c) . Mira was decided in November 1988; Hart (226 Cal .App- 3d 161" in January 1991; and Murrigtta in March 1991. 3 THE CEQA CA-RD Although litigation is an option of last resort , and emergency legislation may clear up the ambiguities of S .B. 1287, for bargaining purposes with developers the CEQA litigation cart should be a part of the bargaining process. Where the developer argues S.B. 1287 wipes out all local control, the district can counter that there remain residual police powers which local agencies may still exercise to control or lessen adverse impacts to schools. Thus, where local land use controls , such as general plan criteria, require mitigation, the developer has the opportunity of "voluntarily" consenting to a Mello-Rocs Community Facilities District (CFD) , of voluntarily consenting t: Mira fees to avoid a CFD, or voluntarily consenting to Mira fees to avoid the necessity of an EIR under CEQA. Where the developer contends that a CFD cannot be A'o4;.ste--: on his project, or a council is unwilling to impose such a condition, the district could still sue on the grounds that adoption of such a development project is (1) inconsistent with the general plan and (2) the project causes an adverse impact -whit- cannot be mitigated and therefore an EIR must be prepared wit:: findings of overriding considerations. The CEQA strategy is rooted in the fact that many EIRs are avoided through the "mitigated negative declaration process. " Ln other words, once an initial study is prepared, and the adverse impacts associated with a project are identified, methods are usually available to mitigate such impacts so that a miticated negative declaration may be adopted. Such mitigation measures enable the developer to bypass the lengthy and expensive process of an EIR. In situations where a condition is not mitigated, CEQA appears to mandate preparation of an EIR and a statement of overriding considerations . (CEQA Guidelines 15091, 15093 ; Pub. Res. Code sec. 21002. ) There is no case authority which supports the mitigated negative declaration process where mitigation cannc: occur because of legal prohibitions such as S.B. 1287 on super- 4eveloper fees. Assuming adverse impacts on school facilities , if the developer plays hardball, the district can push the CEQ; process to require an EIR since S.B. 1287 prevents mitigation c-,: adverse impacts. Support for this argument is found in Ranches v. -Su--e:'ic-- ourt (Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District) 92 D.A.R. 1266 (September 16, 1992) . Although this case involved the unlawful exercise of eminent domain powers, it serves as a basis to support :he use of the CEQA litigation card. In Ranches, the Flood Co-ntrc-* 4 District condemned property beyond its boundaries in order to mitigate an adverse impact on the project . The court of appeal reversed because the district was lecally prohibited from condemning property beyond its boundaries . The court concluded that DQ mitication was "feasible" because of statutory constraints . Therefore a statement of overriding considerations would have to be made if the project was to go for-ward. This case supports the point that an EIR would have to be prepared where the Legislature deprives a local agency of an ability to offset adverse environmental impacts with super- developer Mira fees. A developer having to prepare an EIR would delay his development project which in turn could serve as a basis for a developer "volunteering" to join agree to a Mello-Roos CFD or volunteering for a super-developer fee agreement, notwithstanding S.B. 1287, to avoid the CEQA card. The -advantage of the EIR process is that it ccmpels a public agency to adopt overriding considerations. This forces a council or board of supervisors to face its constituents. A political confrontation between a council and its constituents may force a local agency to back down and decide not to adopt overriding considerations stating that development should be at the expense of schools. This is precisely one of the articulated policies of the EIR process which is to *enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree. " (Cf . Guidelines 15003 (e) . ) IV. RECOMMENDATIONS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS NOW THAT_$_.B- 1287 IS SIGNED INTO LAW In order to give legislative effect to S.B. 1287, it is prudent for school districts to concede after January 1, 1993 that, except for the $1.00 increase, local agencies cannot compel the collection of super-developer fees which Mira, and related cases , have allowed on quasi-legislative actions such as rezoning an, general plan amendments, on future projects. However, school districts should still pursue the following: 1. Continue efforts to add language to general plan policies, and any new specific or community plans which controls or limits growth, in order t minimize adverse impacts on school districts . Thij is based upon the residual police power analyzet above. 5 2 . If local agencies do not support the exercise of such residual police power, consider the initiative process to accomplish the same. 3 . For annexation issues arised before L-AFCO' s (Local Agency Formation Commissions) , seek conditions on annexations which will offset any adverse -4-Pacts on schools. The definition of "development project" does not include annexations . 4 . Require consent to Mello-Roos formation as a condition of project approval . S .B. 1287's amendment to 65996 specifically lists a CFD formed under the Mello-Roos Act as one of the "exclusive methods of mitigating environmental affects related to the adequacy of school facilities" 65996 (a) (6) . 5 . Since local agencies cannot ccrnpel super- developer fees, persuade developers to voluntarily pay such fees to avoid lengthy reviews or CFD' s under Mello-Roos . There has been considerable comment regarding whether subsection (b) of 65996 limits the Mello- Roos special taxes to the statutory lids for school fees. We believe such an interpretation would be- an implied repeal of special taxes under the Mello- Roos Act and would not be persuasive in the courts. S.B. 1287 limits fees, not "special taxes" as defined under Mello-Roos. In any event, developer Mello-Roos CFDs are validated by the public agency as a part of the formation of such districts . The issue of maximum special taxes would be addressed at that time. 6. Draft agreements prospectively assuming ACA6 is not passed and the Mira super-developer fees are restored. One of the effects of the failure to pass ACA6 is to restore the super-developer fees under NiZA. 7. Impose the $1.00 fee if nexus study justifies the additional fee. where districts are not unified, and both districts desire to impose a $1 . 00 fee, escrow the fee in excess of $1 . 06. J NoMS8 1 2V 6 BOWIE, �U ESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE A PARTNERSHIP DXIUDDC A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1920 CANOVS DRIVE NEWPORT BEAcx cwroRNu 92660 ALEXANDER BONE' AREA CODE 714 1.1 )OAN C ARNESON TELEPHONE 9:l•I lOG VALL►AM I.►CAD► FAX(11�)851,014 . %SNDY H.%ILES PATRICIA B GLA-NNONE W as r" ROBERT L ANSLOW DARLFT.E L KING ERIC R DOERING ' KENNETH S.LEVY ARTO).NULMNEN MARY K DENNIS •A ppCFCMXX4AL OATEN COALITION FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOL HOUSING OCTOBER, 1992 FALL LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE SB 1287 NO, MIRA DIDN'T GO! I By Alexander Bowie Wendy Wiles Eric Doering I. BACKGROUND Ttie 1986 School Facilities Legislation ("AB 29260) responded to efforts of the home building and development community through the California Building Industry Association ("CBIA") to relieve their industry from paying for the cost of school facilities for new development. On behalf of our school district clients, in August and September of 1986 our law firm attended numerous meetings of the Conference Committee of the Assembly and the Senate which resulted in the enactment of AB 2926 in the last hours of the 1986 Legislative Session. At no time during such deliberations was specific legislation discussed or proposed to limit the legislative authority of cities and counties to deny general plan amendments or zone changes ("Legislative Approval") for new development. The discussions in the Conference Committee and the testimony presented related only to how much the State of California would have to fund ("State Funding") to meet its obligation to provide for education of its residents, leaving the remainder for school fees to be levied on development projects ("Development Projects") . The term Development Projects as used in the resulting legislation, AB 2926 was later construed by several judicial decisions as inclusive of approval of tentative tract maps ("Administrative Approval") but exclusive of general AB/0416 Bouu, AP-NESON, KADi, WiLEs & GiAN,,NoN-E Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11 , 1992 Page 2 plan amendments and zone changes. The approach embodied in AB 2926 was to assume 100% future State Funding for such school facilities, less the collection of statutory school fees on building permits, presently in the amount of $1. 65 per square foot (authorized by SB 1287 to be $2 . 65 and $3 . 65 per square foot) and $0.27 per square foot respectively on residential and commercial development which already has received the requisite Legislative Approval such as a general plan amendment and/or a zone change. The enactments in 1986 to empower school districts to levy and collect these statutory school fees were Sections 53080, 65995 and 65996 of the Government Code. (All further references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated) . Subsequently, our firm and other law firms representing school districts proceeded to raise the distinction between applying statutory school fees to Development Projects, requiring only Administrative Approval and requiring mitigation of school impacts in amounts -greater than statutory school fees when Legislative Approvals were being considered by cities and counties in proceedings for approval of general plans, amendments to general plans or changes in zoning. These efforts and several resulting judicial decisions, Mira Development Corporation v. City of San Dieqo (1988) , 205 Cal.App. 3d. 1201 (252 Cal.Rptr. 825) , William S. Hart Union Hiah School District v. Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles (1991) , 266 Cal.App. 3d. 1612 (277 Cal.Rptr. 645, and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 279 Cal.Rptr. 421, Cal.App. 4 Dist. 1991 (collectively, 'Mira Decisions") were affirmed by the California Supreme Court. Our Firm was the legal counsel for the school districts in the Hart Decision. As a result, cities and counties, including the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, eventually responded with mandatory school- mitigation procedures to be applied to requests for Legislative Approvals of new development. The Mira Decisions, subject to the effect, if any, of SB 1287, are the present authority for requirements for new development at various stages in the entitlement process to be required to fund the full AB 0416 .i $owEE, ARNESON, KADI, WiLEs & GiANNoNE Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11 , 1992 Page 3 cost of school facilities. The provisions of SB 1287 appear to have been an ill defined, incomplete effort to impact the Mira Decisions. The following is the legislation that was adopted in 1986 construed by the Mira Decisions: A. Section 53080 provides in part as follows: (a) (1) The governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication or other requirement against any development project within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, subject to any limitations set forth in Chapter 4 .9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7. This fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement may be applied to construction only as follows: (2) For purposes of this section, "development project^' means any project undertake purpose of development, and includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate. (b) No city or county, whether general law or chartered, may issue a building permit for any development absent certification by the appropriate school district of compliance by that develo ment ro 'ect with any fee charge, dedication or other requirement levied by the governing board of that school district pursuant to subdivision (a) , or of the district's determination that the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement does not apply to the development project. w l AB/0416 Bowra, ARNESON, KkDi, WrLEs & GiANNoNE Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 4 B. Section 65995 provides in part as follows: , , (a) Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant to Chapter 4 .7 (commencing with Section 65970) , no fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a local agency aqainst a development 2roject, as defined in Section-53-080, for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. (c) (2) Any develo2ment project for which a final map was approved and construction had commenced on or before September 1, 1986, is subject to only the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement prescribed in any local ordinance in existence on that date and applicable to the project.,v C. Section 65996 provides in pertinent part as follows: 'The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating the environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined in Section 53080, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17,870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Article 2 .5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code. (f) Chapter 2 .5 (commencinq with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. AB/0416 Bowrm, ARti-EsON, KADi, Wins & GLkNNoNE Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 5 a Chapter 4 .7 commencin with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school ace 1 les." From the quoted portions of the foregoing statutory provisions, it can be seen that the operative provision is Development Project. Statutory school fees in the manner prescribed, subject to the limitations specified, can be levied upon and collected from Development Projects prior to issuance of building permits. The question of what is a general plan, what is zoning, and how such are established, approved or denied is found at Section 65000, a separate part of the Government Code. The Mira Decisions clearly defined Development Projects as those matters subject to Administrative Approval as opposed to general plans, amendments to general plans or changes in zoning which require Legislative Approval. The latter were held by the Mira Decisions to not be impacted by Sections 53080, 65995 and 65996. The Mira Decisions further held that consideration and denial of Legislative Approval for lack of school facilities is proper. The following are examples of what are Legislative Approvals which we believe a city or county may, and in some instances must, deny if Legislative Approval will result in a significant adverse impact on school facilities of a school district and what are Administrative Approvals which absent a condition imposed when Legislative Approval was taken are subject only to statutory school fees: 1. Legislative Approvals (a) General Plans/Amendments (b) Zone Changes (c) Specific Plans (d) Development Agreements (e) Annexations Aaf0416 Bowra, ARsEso,,, KkDi, Wu-Es & GLA.NNoN-E Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 6 2 . Administrative Approvals (a) Tentative Tract Map Approvals (b) Final Tract Map Approvals The items listed in paragraph 2 above were held in the Mira Decisions to involve Administrative Approvals and, absent a carry forward condition from a prior Legislative Approval, were subject only to statutory school fees. By contrast, the Legislative Approvals listed in Paragraph I above may be, and in some instances must be denied for lack of school facilities. 11. WHAT IS THE WORDING OF SB 1287 AND WHAT DOES IT DO? A. Section 1. Subject to passage of ACA 6, it provides that school districts have the primary responsibility to fund schools and that the State of California only has a supplementary role. B. Section 2. Subject to the passage of ACA 6 as of January 1, 1996, N repeals the Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976. No substitute mechanism is provided. C. Section 3. Suspends Section 65995 on January 1, 1993 until ACA 6 fails, and provides that it will again be operative if ACA 6 fails. D. Section 4 . Readopts Section 65995 effective January 1, 1993 but adds wording to the effect that a Development Project by administrative or legislative action shall not be subject to a fee or charge other than the statutory school fees. The words "whether by administrative or legislative action" are the changes which need to be addressed in this portion of SB 1287. Please note that nowhere in SB 1287 is the definition of Development Project changed to include other than Administrative Approvals such as tentative tract maps, final tract maps and conditional use permits. It is assumed that if other than what had previously been determined to be a Development Project (i.e. , tentative tract maps, etc. ) was intended to be affected by this language, different words or a new definition of Development AB/0416 BowiE, ARNEsON, KA.Di, WiLEs & GLANNoNE Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 7 Project would have been specified. Hence, these words Can be reasonably construed to not relate to general plans and zone changes, but only Development Projects such as of tentative tract maps, etc. Section 4 also provides that the provisions of Section 65995 effective on January 1, 1993 are repealed if ACA 6 fails. E. Section 5. Adds Section 65995. 3 which is a separate authorization for school districts, following the specified legal procedures identified in Section 66000, to each levy an additional $1.00 per square foot on residential development ($2 .65 and $3.65 when the school districts are not unified) . The new Section 65995.3 is repealed if ACA 6 fails. F. Section 6. Readopts existing Section 65996 and suspends its provisions on January 1, 1993 until ACA 6 fails. G. Section 7. Adopts present Section 65996 effective January 1, 1993 and again uses- the opqrative words Development Project. It sets forth the existing specified mitigation measures applicable to Development Projects when the city or county is acting "administratively or legislatively" as to a Development Project. It should be noted that these provisions change the reference from Section 66410, the Subdivision Map Act, to Section 65000, the Planning and Zoning Law, in specifying that school facilities shall not be considered relative to denial of a project, which presumably remains as referring to a Development Project. This section also contains a subparagraph (c) providing that this section is prospective in nature only . It reads: ff (c) This section shall have prospective application only, and shall not affect any action taken by a local agency prior to the effective date of this action., Section 7 in subparagraph (d) of the new or interim Section 65996 provides it is repealed if ACA 6 fails. AB/0416 Bwku, AR.NiSON, KADi, Wins & GLAN N o,,,,E Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 8 H. Section 8 . Repeals Section 34 of Chapter 1209 of the 1989 Legislative Session, which provided that the present definition of a development project was declarative of existing law. I . 'Section 9 . Purports to again make a finding relative to portions of Section 53080 and 'Section 65995 being declarative of existing law, but states it is effective only if ACA 6 fails. J. Section 10. Provides that the placement of the burden of future school facilities on school districts and repeal of the Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Law in Section I and 2 of SB 1287 are effective only if ACA 6 passes. Ill. WRAT DOES SB 1287 DO? SB 1287 creates uncertainty in the planning process relative to the responsibility of new development to fund school facilities when seeking entitlements to develop. Certainty had resulted from the Mira Decisions and several years of effort by school districts in resolving such issues with developers, cities and counties. These efforts had resulted in general plans being amended to include language requiring denial of general plan amendments and zone changes where unmitigated school impacts were identified in the EIR process or review of a request for Legislative Approval of new development. We do not believe SB 1287 repeals the Mira Decisions. We are seeking to verify that prior versions of SB 1287 contained specific references to the Mira Decisions by name and that the specific repeal of the Mira Decisions was deleted from the subsequent versions of SB 1287. It would seem, in light of the uncertainty, that has been created, that law firms that also represent developers and property owners will have difficulty in aggressively pursuing on behalf of school districts a resolution of the issues raised by SB 1287 when dealing with future new development that is seeking Legislative Approvals. AB/0416 :r r Bouu, ARNESON, KA.Di, WII.Es & GLANNONE Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 9 1 School districts prior to January 1, 1993 , should have legal counsel review all existing mitigation agreements to evaluate any possible increased payments required to be made to school districts after January 1, 1993, by developers that previously have executed agreements with school districts providing for increases if statutory fees were increased by the Legislature. Also, school districts that are in a match period should consider establishing the $2 . 65 or $3 . 65 per square foot through a community facilities district ("CFD") to exclude such amounts from the match requirements as allowed by Education Code Section 17705. 6. Assuming, after January 1, 1993 , the effective date of SB 1287, the definition of Development Project remains unchanged, the effect of SB 1287 is only to protect Development Projects from Legislative Approvals as well as Administrative Approvals in excess of statutory school fees. An example of the foregoing might be an ordinance of a city or county enacting an overlay zone requiring mitigation payments prior to issuance of building permits in excess of statutory fees. This would be questionable under SB 1287 . In summary our opinion of SB 1287 includes the following:, (a) Until the 1993 Legislative Session produces a clean up bill ('Son of SB 1287) or a final judicial determination is made to the contrary, general plans which contain wording that requires denial of zone changes or specific plans for lack of schools, are valid. (b) We believe mandatory denial language prospectively may still be included in general plans by cities and counties if applicable only to Legislative Approvals of a city or county. (c) In spite of SB 1287 it remains permissible for a city or county when granting Legislative Approval to require a Mello-Roos community facilities AB/0416 ' i BowiE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GiANNoNs Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 10 district for funding 'of schools in an amount in excess of statutory school fees under Section 65996(a) (6) . It remains to be seen whether the 1993-1994 Legislative Proposal referred to in Governor Wilson's approval of. SB 1287 which is to be generated by Maureen De Marco, Secretary of Child Development and Education, will fairly posture school districts in the land use approval process or attempt, as SB 1287 does, to erode the posture of school districts in seeking to have new development fairly respond to prospective unfunded school needs created by such new development. IV. WEERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? A. We believe that as Legislative Approval of new development is considered by cities and counties, school districts should communicate in analysis of the provisions of SB 1287 to the city, cities or county in which a school district is located pointing out that the provisions of SB 1287 are prospective and deal only with legislative and administrative exactions on Development Projects and not general plans, amendments to general plans, changes in zoning or other legislative acts. B. Each school district should continue to respond to any correspondence relating to negative declarations, an EIR, general plan amendments, zone changes, specific plans, development agreements or annexations analyzing the school impacts, the cost thereof, revenues to be generated and the shortfall. Similar comments should be made to the appropriate Local Agency Formation Commission (OLAFCOO) when it is considering annexations. No where in SB 1287 are the powers of a LAFCO in any way addressed or inhibited. These responses should indicate the following: 1. Present seating capacity, the portion that is temporary housing and needs that are not yet present from previously approved development. 2. Loading of school sites consistent with or in excess of State Standards and use of Year Round Education, if applicable. AB/0416 Bo,Au, ARNESON, KA.Di, Wins & GlAN-NoNE Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11 , 1992 Page 11 3 . Efforts, if any, or proposals for local bond elections should also be detailed. 4 . The cost of school facilities for the students to be generated in excess any school fees to be paid ($2 . 65 or $3 . 65 per square foot) . 5. On the basis of such facts, adoption of a negative declaration should be opposed by school districts, and an EIR should be required to specify a known, definite source :of timely funding to mitigate the adverse impact on the school facilities prior to the development occurring. C. If such, Legislative Approvals are granted without requiring mitigation, consideration first should be given to the referendum process to set aside such Legislative Approvals and subsequently litigation to invalidate any such Legislative Approval. As this right of referendum is granted by the California Constitution, we believe the provisions of SB 1287 , if applicable, would be impotent against such a referendum effort. The signature requirement for a referendum to set aside such a Legislative Approval is only 10% of the voters of a city. If organized in advance in some instances it may be a cost effective alternative to litigation. D. The CBIA is believed to have distributed a different opinion as to the legal consequences of the enactment of SB 1287 . A copy of their differing opinions is enclosedinorder that school districts may be aware of these differing views. E. Also, we believe school districts should actively support enactment in the 1993 Legislative Session of legislation providing for inclusion of a school facilities element in the general plan if a school district requests such inclusion as well as legislation similar to AB 1846 (Gotch) , which some school districts and their lobbying organizations opposed in 1991 and, AB 2460 (Hannigan) , which in 1989 and 1990 also did not have strong school district support when previously considered by the Legislature. These efforts should be proposed separately, but also efforts should be made to have the provisions included in the legislative proposal to be formulated as requested by Governor Wilson. AB/0416 Bove, AiLN-EsoN, KADi, WiLEs &.GIANNoN-E Coalition for Adequate School Housing October 11, 1992 Page 12 Enclosed is a copy of correspondence to an unnamed person or organization from Assemblyman Jack O'Connell who it appears played a major role in bargaining away the Mira/Hart/Murrieta Decisions for his ACA 6 (O'Connell) . The 'tremendous news" he refers to in his letter has a "tremendous adverse impact' on school districts and local taxpayers absent future State funding. On the other hand, the elections on November 3, 1992 will bring many new members to the Legislature who may not share Assemblyman O'Connell's views as to the need to concurrently address not only road, water and sewer capacity but school facility needs when additional new development is given Legislative Approval. The first issue is planning, followed by when development should occur in relation to existing or assured adequate public facilities including schools and lastly a fair sharing, of the financial burdens. If SB 1287 was a result of either misinformation or school district's lobbyists reacting too late or without a clear message from the school districts that they represent, 1993 represents an opportunity to clean up the unfortunate uncertainties created by the enactment of SB 1287. If you have questions or need assistance in responding to proposals for general plan amendments, zoning, development agreements or annexations relative to property in your school district and the uncertainties enacted by SB 1287 or the referendum process, you may contact Alexander Bowie, Wendy Wiles, Bill Kadi or Eric Doering of our Firm at (800) 423-6054 or (714) 851-1300. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE By 1�- " Alexander Bowie AB/0416 SUMMARY OF "C$IA" CPINIO# , ,SU' NJAR OF 4ZR 1287 1. Effective January 1, 1993, the Mira court case is ovem--tied. Aftcr this date, school districts cannot collect fees higher than the statutory cap and cities and counties cannot deny a project due to inadequacy of schools. 2. School districts are given the authority to collect a fee up to , S1.00 per square foot more than the current S1.65 per square foot for each single family residential unit. Tae district, however, must make a need and nexus finding pursuant to AB , 1600 criteria. 3. A fully executed development agreement with a city, county or , school district that specifics schools fens that am either greater or less than $2.65 per square foot thu was signed by all parties prior to January 1. 1993, may be binding. 4. Building permiu pulled after January 1, 1993 tray be subject to the maximum $2.65 per square foot fee even though • tcntWve or final map approval related to those permiu was obtained prior to thu date- 5. ataS. 1f a ,general plan or zoning ordinance has language which requtru mitigation for school impacts, and that language has not been made a specific coaditiord of approval for a general plan amendment, zoning change or other legislative act. such language will not be enforceable after January 1, 1993. , 6. The current state school building program will be terminated in 1996. If voters approve ACA 6, a new stare program will be , developed before the termination lots to meet the nerds of districu with low assessed valuations, that are boaded to capacity or. unable to pass a bond measure with a simple majority vote. This is the so-called safety-net program. 7. SB 1287 becomes effective on January 1, 1993 and will remain ' in effect if the ACA 6 wins voter approval in June 1994; if ACA 6 is rejected by voters, SB 1287 is repealed, school districts lose , the authority to collect the additional S1.00 and, Elia Mira case is reinstated. SAGiAAJFWM Cr== !TATS:.kPTC%. 6A4P,yOfTO.Gxa8.dC..r06 ode Y1�Z � w�qu.c IAMFA-�.o,.,a California Td z5iSlzt1= wAvfl Argy_ to Wv R G+�SJTT/ L&WTA aAMAnA CA e,a, 'sm".WM JACK O'CCNNE'_L c_wino cr.'ce .�:9Mrw c sT+c:. SU'rc. ASSCMGlr4AH.TMdFTV.nFTM 015'AdCT 0:I4A00 CA l:.W Mom yr�� r�t."37 Apra Mrr ;J � ra Z&vtvQrr ' October 3, 1992 r . Last week. the best news of all cars. Sena:e Dill lZa7 as sig-ed iata lav by GO-Or--= Feta xilsoa. T's is t:es:endcus news for our state's DuildiaQ c---t•*++fir, as yr-,u may recall, Seance Dill 1287 is a c- ice me&vu--'a to ry AG`. 6 (Whi:h would allow local heads for scacol e,;:a=.jc_ic:m to baappravad by a aajori:f vote, rat-har t=ars the currant 2/3rds vote) . Swats Bill 1287 will exact i=P0rt=z rafar_s to the building of new hcree as wall as tha Cms=jC-"m of sew schools. Senesce Bill 1287 now overr*=s the M"- Decision prospectively, which allows ' carr-i-t scz=l distL.ccs to levy fees is exeass of Who $1.30 per square foot on maw dsvelc;=eat. S: aCii:tica. aha hill repeals the existing stats school buL�mq aid lav by 1996. All of these reforms will go inter eftact on Jaauasy 1, 1993. whi-a we received as impor-ram: victor, vit` =a signature of SB 1287, our work is still not e.--plated. As you know, for SB 1287 to ren-Lz L: eflac=, AG 6 must be appr=ved by t!%a vorters. Also keep is m,^rf that AGS 6 itaslf sepsals our state's ' 651ov-up clause. • whit:; prrvidas that is a statav%de school ccns=uct_.on bead is defeated at tha polls, the S1.S0 hap is rmwsd. u wall as raise the 52.50 per square :cot 'caa to $2.30. ;wsrztore is is cuca.: that vs persuade =a voters to apprays A= 6 m t:a J=s 1994 D.a-:lot. ' :fie passage of A= 6 and Seneca Bill 1287 has been a lmq, hard-fought Even 'tough Saaca Bill 1287 was met With oppositim ats f $ome eduaLca t a. grm:Ps, we ware 5uece48t:s1 is makimq the muds-needed relzrms whiff ars cereal to =a haal-.: ' of our atata's buildi:q r_ =t-f. Z: you have ary fur-.her quescims or cmcar=s regaxd;Lmq those tvc legzalac:ve msasu_-es, please do not hesi:ata to cmtsct me. sincerely, C':t=... •w-,e a nK,o,,,ren.. • ,ts�+ S •�.r. • D..� KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN S GIRARD --QCs _ -,E.E_ •. COw•oC ,-C.r••.. • •.O [tt.Ow• CO•p.•..pw S.:S•'+ B C•DLSCN ,:. LC•O --Nw[...•� •77OnNCvS AT LAW ANNCT-. S L•NNAN DG CLirr COO W :sC-...Z TT ToCCT fv�TC :Zoo --C SlooC_LC r.N•N ro•Nw • rw•.•• O f 1C-•C. 8 '-CS-ANC .•� J•-05 C •-C._ SCS ■•- • IJOIC s • •NZ•NC'71 •( nODCo- C w.�.OD-. 9•C ONTO. C•urpew•. 6561..»67 L•VoiC . SOarE J T- W COCS PAVL�ANI _ aJD'C[ ' o09C a' 5 S-CLSu-NC TC.[•-ON[ 1061 . .•66tC o•wVC o J•..•[S - BC'C JD TC.[C0�1Co 16.6• ••••56's D rreM OSS J•NCT ■ GZL=S1M JC C• r 57.05.. .O.11 -ES.•C S'Cw• =CS S_OT '•DSC._ OOB[D• B MILLED M•r L -[rT[O NILLY••. • Cos— POSED. ooCNG••W �•..NS POSED. • ou%JSTDC- DONNA MATT-CS ' J•w1C5 C CSN Eo J[rrD[r • W.TC-ELL au7-•NN GES ZED L•LC w COO- o•' w TCZCD M•O71N VINE OGN• O W ► - 3CD•_C GCODOC C -OLL'S'ED -0--S C .. JCN•T-AN o CD.S— O-N L 8.:•-;G-CS C-Q-S-Oo.-C0 a G=CSS:,+ M-C-•CL • GoOe D •:=50� CCE Or Ccu+15C_ T-C-AS W a,o.NG-•- C RCNCCL•- J•VIS ,•N . D•w.[5•N LCON•oD - ro1CO-AN'.. g-[oo. •••=.0 .i ow C-•PEES • B•oR[-� •NN01+ ro[[a5 Cr October 14 , 1992 "'•DG•D[T -•STINGS•-•LC ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 1287 ' (CHAPTER 1354 , STATUTES OF 19923 On September 30, 1992, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 1287 , cited as Chapter 1354 , Statutes of 1992 . SB 1287 authorizes school districts to implement an additional , fee on certain residential construction of up to $1. 00 per square foot of assessable space. Additionally, SB 1287 imposes restrictions on the ability of school districts, cities and counties to impose conditions on development for the mitigation of school impacts. what follows is an analysis of the changes to the existing law brought about by SB 1287 as well as a brief discussion of the procedures to implement the additional fee. , I . BACKGROUND A. The 1987 School Facilities Law (the Stirling Bill) In 1986, then Governor Deukmejian, signed into law Chapters 887 and 888 of the Statutes of 1986 (hereinafter "The 1987 School Facilities Law or the 1987 Law") . By way of , Subsection d of uncodified Section 7, Chapter 887, Statutes of 1986, the Legislature stated: . a comprehensive school facilities finance program based upon a partnership of state and local governments and the private sector is required to ensure the availability , of school facilities to serve the population growth generated by new development. " (Emphasis. added. ) 1 , The Legislature continued by stating at uncodified Section 1: "It is the intent of the Legislature that the State share with local governmental entities the financial burden of school facilities construction, of which the State's share is to be funded from such revenue sources as general obligation bond proceeds and specified tidelands monies and other revenues as specified in Assembly Bill 1926 of the 1965-86 Regular Session. Subject to the approval by the electorate of State general obligation bond measures, the -State intends to stand behind that funding commitment." (Emphasis added. ) It should be noted that uncodified Section I of SB 1287 describes a shift in the express intent of the Legislature and states: "It is the intent of the Legislature to enact a new program for the financing of school facilities in accordance with the following principles: (a) inary financial responsibility for school facilities should rest with school districts. (b) School districts should be authorized to raise a sufficient amount of revenue locally to finance a majority of their school facilities needs. (c) The role of the State should be limited to: (1) Using State funds to supplement the local revenues of those school districts having low assessed valuation. (2) Using State funds to finance needed school facilities for those school districts that have met or exceeded their debt capacity. 2 Using Stale funds to f provide interim school facilities for those school districts that are Unable to supply the expected level of local revenue. " (Emphasis added. ) This policy change outlined above indicates an apparent intent on the part of the Legislature to shift the' burden of school finance from the State program over to local school districts and local communities. As a result of the 1987 School Facilities Fee Law, school districts are now authorized to levy a fee Of up to $1 . 65 per square foot of residential development and certain residential reconstruction (Government Code Section 65995 (b) (1) ) . To assist in implementing the fee, cities or counties are prohibited from issuing a building permit for any development absent proof by the appropriate school district of compliance with the school district fee (Government Code section 53080 (b) ) . To further the Legislature's intent for a State and local sharing of the cost of school facilities, the Legislature also enacted by way of the 1987 Law, Education Code Section 17705 . 5 which provides that reimbursement to a school district of the costs of a state funded school building project will be reduced by the amount of revenues collected by the local school district pursuant to its fee levying authority under the 1987 Law. In regard to this so-called "local matching share, " Section 17705. 5 provides in pertinent part: " (a) The total building cost portion of any state funding for any project approved under this Chapter for the new construction or the rehabilitation of one or more school facilities shall be reduced by the amount of the local matching share requirement . . . "f Education Code Section 17705.5, enacted by way of the 1987 Law, is contained in that Chapter of the Education Code cited as the "Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976, 11 (Education Code Section 17700 through 17758) . As is mentioned below, SB 1287 repeals the Leroy F. Greene Lease- Purchase Law as of. January 1, 1996, unless another statute is enacted prior to January 1, 1996, deleting or extending the date. At Government Code Section 65995 (e) , enacted by way of the 1987 Law, the Legislature imposed additional limits on local control over development by stating: "The Legislature finds and declares that the AA: ,au subject of the financing of school facilities with development fees is a matter of State- wide concern. For this reason, the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all local measures on the subiect. 11 (Emphasis added. ) This statement by the Legislature of its intent to reserve to itself the exclusive ability to establish requirements for school mitigation in development projects is contrary, however, to Government Code Section 65996 also enacted by way of the 1987 Law, which contains a laundry list of "exclusive methods" of mitigating the environmental effects relating to the adequacy of school facilities. The list includes but is not limited to the Leroy F. Greene Lease-Purchase Program, interim school fees (known as SB 201 fees) , development fees under the 1987 Law and the establishment of special taxes and bond programs under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. This apparent contradiction in the 1987 Law led to several reported California decisions in which the Court of Appeal attempted to resolve the discrepancies created in the 1987 Law. A brief discussion of these decisions follows. B. Case Law: The Mira , Hart and Murrieta Decisions of the Court of Appeal After the enactment of the 1987 Law, challenges to either municipal requirements imposed on development projects, or the failure of municipalities to impose adequate conditions on development projects for school mitigation resulted in several published' decisions of the 'California Court of Appeal including Mira Development Corporation v. City of SanDiego (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning ComIn of County of LosAngeles (1991) 226 Cal .App. 3d 1612, and Murrieta Valley- Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App. 3d 1212. In Mira, Hart and Murrieta the Court of Appeal reviewed the current status of California development law and, in all 3 cases, determined that cities or counties were not precluded from imposing requirements for school mitigation above and beyond those established by way of the 1987 Law. In Mira, the Court of Appeal held that the city council of the City of San Diego did not abuse its discretion in denying the rezoning application of a developer since the record before the council established that the proposed development would outstrip the provision of needed public services and improvements in the area. During the project approval process, the high 4 school district forwarded a letter to tie planning department , indicating that .the proposed development project would have an adverse environmental impact and indicated that the district's school board had adopted a resolution requesting a building moratorium in the area because of already overcrowded schools. 1 In addition, the City Council was presented with evidence that there was a need for a park in the area but that there was inadequate funding to purchase a site for the park. In response, the city council voted to deny the developer's rezoning ' application citing "infrastructure problems. " At the Court of Appeal, the developer, Mira, argued that the city council could not rely on school overcrowding as a basis for denying the rezoning application as a result of the provisions of the 1987 Law barring local measures on school mitigation. In response, the Court of Appeal held that a , rezoning decision is not a development. project and is legislative in nature. The Court stated: of a zoning decision - which makes land- use policy and-usepolicy - is legislative in nature even if. made in the context of specific, relatively small parcels of private property. In ' contrast, subdivision approvals, variances, and conditional use permits - which apply established policies to specific projects are adjudicative in nature . . . The Landi , holding and the Arnel analysis are applicable here. That is, Section 65996 by its terms refers only to approval of development proiects and makes no reference to zoning ' decisions although from a developer's perspective a zoning decision may have the same impact as a decision on a development ' permit, nevertheless there is a long recognized historical distinction between zoning and other land-use decisions. Zoning decisions are afforded more deference than an 1 agency's adjudicative decisions . . . We conclude the city was not restricted by the terms of Section 65996 when making the zoning decision, and could deny the application ' based on the lack of school facilities. " In Murrieta, the Court of Appeal confirmed the prior decision in Mira and stated that Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 did not preempt or otherwise interfere with local government's legislative acts in connection with control over zoning and land-use policy, as opposed to administrative acts ' related to other land-use decisions such as subdivision approvals, variances and conditional use permits. The Court 5 1 stated that there is no doubt that a general plan amendment is a legislative act. In Hart, the Court of Appeal reached a similar decision . holding that the Legislature was concerned about development projects and the requirements imposed against them, not about zoning decisions, when the Legislature imposed limitations on the ability of local agencies to mitigate school impacts. The Court further held that the Legislature did not intend tc limit a local agency's decision to grant or deny a zoning change. The Court of Appeal stated: it. . . (w)e believe the. Legislature clearly set out in Section 65995(e) exactly what it intended to preempt - the requirements for school facilities finance that a local agency will impose on a development.project. That is, the Legislature, in effect, said 'We will tell you what you can and cannot require of a developer when you are seeking to have him or her mitigate the impact of the development project on school facilities. , Mira, on the other hand, involved a totally different aspect of future development. &Lra addressed the question of legislating land-use policies, i.e. , zoning ordinances . . . we therefore conclude that the County was not limited by the provisions of the 1986 School Facilities Legislation with respect to its decision to grant or deny the zoning chances requested by real parties (the developers) . If the County, based upon erroneous legal advice, believed that it had no choice but to grant such zoning changes, and therefore did not sufficiently consider the impact on school facilities that the proposed zoning changes would, have, or what mitigation measures, if any, might be required, then it (the County) has not discharged its responsibilities under the DMS [Development Monitoring System] and the general plan. " Il . SENATE BILL 1287 (Chapter 1354 , Statutes of 1992) Senate Bill 1287 is intended to be a companion measure to Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6, which, if approved by the voters statewide, will result in a lowering of the vote necessary to approve a local school district general obligation bond measure from the current two-thirds requirement to a simple majority. 6 In addition to repealing the Leroy F. Greene program , effective January 1, 1996, as mentioned above, SB 1287 amends. Government Code Section 65995 and 65996 effective .January_ 1 , 1993 . Prior to its amendment by SB 1287 , Government Code ' section 65995 (a) stated in part that no fee could be levied by .a legislative body of a local agency against a development project other than the $1 . 50 per square foot fee authorized under , Government Code Section 53080. No distinction was made between the administrative approval of a development project and the legislative approval of a development project. As amended, Government Code Section 65995(a) now provides that its prohibition against additional fees applies to both administrative and legislative action taken by a local agency in approving a project. Presumably, this is an attempt by the ' drafter of SB 1287 to eliminate- the impact of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Mira , Hart, and Murrieta , which found a distinction between administrative approvals and legislative approvals of local agencies; the latter approvals carrying the I authority to implement supplemental school mitigation requirements according to the Court of Appeal . Nowhere within SB 1287, however, does the bill expressly overrule the holdings of the Court of Appeal in the three cases. Without the ' Legislature having expressly overturned the holdings of the Court of Appeal in these three decisions, it is unclear at this time how a court would rule in regard to this issue. , Government Code Section 65996 is also amended by way of SB 1287, effective January 1, 1993 . As originally enacted by the 1987 Law, Section 65996 prohibited a public agency from denying a , development project on grounds of inadequate school facilities under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . (110EQA'1 contained at Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. ) or the Subdivision Map Act (contained at Government Code ' Section 66410 et. seq. ) . As amended, Section 65996 will now prohibit public agencies from denying projects on grounds of inadequate school facilities under not only CEQA and the , Subdivision Map Act but also under Government Code Section 65000 et. seq. , cited as the Planning and Zoning Law, which contains the underlying authority for the exercise by local agencies of.,. , planning and zoning powers, general plan enactment powers and subdivision approval powers. In other words, by amending Section 65996, the Legislature has apparently expanded the scope of its prohibition against additional mitigation requirements on ' development projects. It will likely be argued by development based interests that local agencies no longer have the ability to deny the approval of a project based on the project's failure to comply with a general plan or to deny a rezoning application,for ' a project as a result of school facilities shortages. 7 ' Despite the above, notwithstanding the amendment to Section 65996 precluding local agencies from denying approval of development projects when exercising planning and zoning powers, general zoning law continues to. require that any zoning decision be consistent with the provisions of the local adopted general plan and that inconsistent zoning decisions are subject to being invalidated (Government Code Section 65860) . (See also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal-App. 3d 1176; Tonancia Association v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506. ) In light of this discrepancy in the law, school districts facing overcrowded conditions should continue to respond to requests for comments on proposed development projects and continue to establish a record which could lead to an administrative or legal challenge of a development project on grounds of inconsistency with local planning or zoning policies. Additionally, as mentioned above, it should be noted that SB 1287 does not expressly overrule Mira,' Hart or Murrieta by statute, and as a result, the decisions in these cases provide additional s,jpportfor action by a local agency, upon request by a school district, to either deny approval of a development project or impose additional conditions on a development project to mitigate school facility impacts. Government Code Section 65996 as amended by SB 1287 and effective January 1, 1993 states at subsection (c) that it has prospective application only and does not affect any action taken by a local agency prior to January 1, 1993. Accordingly, it appears clear that any action by a city council or board of supervisors conditioning the approval of a development project by imposing school mitigation requirements above and beyond the $1. 65 per square foot fees remains a valid condition on and after January 1, 1993 . Similarly, any local city or county ordinance establishing school mitigation requirements above and beyond the statutory fees, if adopted prior to January 1, 1993 will remain valid after January 1, 1993 . It could be argued that any development project that was denied approval prior to January 1, 1993 on grounds of inadequate school mitigation should not simply have such grounds for denial waived after January 1, 1993 because of the prospective application of the Government Code Section 65996 amendments. It should also be noted that nothing in SB 1287 impacts upon the authority and responsibility for a city council or board of supervisors to deny approval of a development project as a result of inadequacies unrelated to schools. For example, in the event a development project as proposed -would have an adverse environmental effect upon transportation in the area or other public facilities or services, or in the event such a project, if approved, is inconsistent with any element of an existing general plan other than a school facility element, such a fact would support grounds for denial of the project. Accordingly, these ' facts provide further justification for school districts to continue to respond to requests for comments on proposed development projects and to continue to oppose projects when such projects are proposed in a form in which they do not provide ' adequate mitigation of their impacts upon the public. Failure to create an administrative record challenging a development project may prevent a school district from successfully challenging the project in a legal setting at a later stage. , The Additional $1 Dollar -Fee In addition to amending Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996, SB 1287 also enacted Government Code Section 65995. 3 , effective January 1, 1993 , authorizing school districts to impose an additional fee of $1. 00 per square foot of assessable space on , new residential construction. This new statute, as well as the amendments to sections 65995 and 65996 remain in effect only until the date that ACA 6 fails to receive the approval of the voters voting on the measure, and in the event of failure, is ' repealed as of that date. The establishment of an additional fee of $1. 00 per , square foot of assessable space by a school district must be preceded by a finding of the governing board of a nexus between the need for the additional $1. 00 fee and the cost of providing school facilities to the project for which the fee is charged. ' In addition, the statutory exemption from the requirements of CEQA applicable to the $1. 65 per square foot fee may not expressly apply to the additional $1 . 00 fee. As a result, school districts may wish to conduct an initial study leading to the approval by a governing board of a negative declaration to ensure compliance with CEQA when establishing the additional $1. 00 fee requirement. For more detailed information on this issue, please , request a copy of this office's memo entitled "Procedure for Establishing or Increasing Development Fees after January 1, 1993 . " Please feel free to forward any questions or comments ' regarding SB 1287 in general or this memorandum in particular to our offices to Bob Rundstrom or Addison Covert. M92.1 , 9 ' ...... .......... 1