HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06032008 - C.100 I
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/ Contra,
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY i
Costa
FROM: JOHN CULLEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DENNIS BARRY, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR
CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SrA'cooKf County
DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 3, 2008
SUBJECT: Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point RedevelopmeLIL
Project Area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
As the Board of Supervisors:
• ADOPT Resolution,adopting written findings and responses to comments received in
connection with consideration of the adoption of the Sixth Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Project Area;
• ADOPT Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration; and
• ADOPT an Ordinance approving the Sixth Amendment to the Bay Point Redevelopment
Plan.
As the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency:
• ADOPT Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration; and
• ADOPT Resolution approving the Amended Five-Year Implementation Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
[!�'1E OMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO MENDATIO OF BOARD COMMIT E
APPROVE ❑ OTHER
Y
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO R ON
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
VOTE OF R-11-1 R€RVIS0 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT�/!_ `'— ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
AYES: NOES: SUPERVISORS/AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED
Contact: James Kennedy JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
(925)335-1255 SUPERVISO /AGENCY SECRETARY
orig: Redevelopment Agency
ccs GAO By: _D e PUIL
County Counsel
Community Development
Redevelopment Agency
Via Redevelopment:
• Goldfarb& Lipman
• RSG
C:\Documents and Settings\plam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLK62\BP'',Board RDA Order 6 3 08
draftl.doc
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Report on the Redevelopment Plan amendment has identified the potential effects of
revenue diversion to the County General Fund and to County controlled funds. Currently the
County General Fund and most County controlled agencies do not receive a pass thru
payment. The Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection Distri0 does currently receive a
100% pass-thru, which would be retained with this Sixth Amendment. Staff has
recommended that the Board of Supervisors elect to receive the ''statutory pass-through
allowed by California Redevelopment Law. The Sixth Amendment permits the Agency/
County to affirmatively continue to address the significant economic and physical blight that
act as a drain on County,Programs and resources.
BACKGROUND:
The Bay Point Redevelopment Project ("Project Area") is located in the unincorporated area of
east Contra Costa County, State of California. Neighboring cities include Pittsburg and
Concord. The Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") is comprised of an
existing residential area of approximately 23,000 people, and a light/heavy industrial
employment area, a waterfront area, and an area for transit-oriented development near a
BART Station. The area presents a significant opportunity for transit— oriented development.
Requirements for adopting, amending, and implementation of redevelopment projects are
established in the California Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL"), which is part of the
Health and Safety Code.
Response to Written Objections
On May 20, 2008 your Board held a joint public hearing with the Governing Board of the
Redevelopment Agency. At or before this May 20, 2008 hearing written objections to the
proposed Plan Amendment were received. Pursuant to the CRL !the Board of Supervisors
could not consider adoption of the proposed Plan Amendments without adopting written
findings and responses to the objections raised, and that consideration of a Resolution
incorporating said responses could not be considered for at least'',one-week after the closing of
the public hearing. The Board opened the hearing, took testimony, and closed the hearing on
May 20, 2008. The Board's consideration, including adoption of a Resolution responding to
the written comments and objections (which may be found in Attachment F), is occurring two
weeks after the May 20, 2008 hearing.
Report to Board of Supervisors
Section 33352 of the CRL provides that when the Agency submits a Redevelopment Plan (the
"Plan Amendment") to the Board of Supervisors for the joint public hearing required by the
CRL, the Agency must also submit a report on the Plan Amendment, entitled the Report to
Board of Supervisors ("Report"). The purpose of this Report is to provide in one report all
information, documentation and evidence regarding the Plan Amendment to assist the Board
of Supervisors in consideration of the proposed Plan Amendment and in making various
findings and determinations that are required to adopt the Plan Amendment. An Executive
Summary of the report has also been prepared and is incorporated herein as Attachment A.
This Report has been prepared in accordance with all the requirements of Section 33352 of the
CRL and includes the reasons for the adoption of the Plan Amendment; a description of
proposed projects and programs and how these projects and programs will improve or alleviate
blighting conditions existing in the Project Area; an implementation plan describing specific
projects and programs that will alleviate or improve blighting conditions; an explanation of why
the elimination of blight cannot be accomplished through private enterprise acting alone or
through other financing alternative other than tax increment financing; the method of financing
and economic feasibility of the Plan Amendment; the statement of conformation to the
County's General Plan; the Environmental Determination; and a summary of consultations with
affected taxing agencies.
Redevelopment Plan Amendment
The Plan Amendment has been prepared pursuant to Section 33000, et. seq. of the CRL, the
California Constitution, and all applicable laws and ordinances. Itljdoes not present a specific
plan for the redevelopment, rehabilitation and revitalization of the(,Project Area. Instead, it
C:\Documents and Settings\plam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK62\BP Board RDA Order 6 3 08
draftl.doc
' G'iaG
establishes a process and framework for implementation and the alleviation/elimination of
blighting conditions in the Project Area over a long period of time.
In general, the Plan Amendment is proposing the following amendments:
(1) Increase the limit on the amount of bonds secured by a pledge of tax increment from
the Project Area that may be outstanding at one time from $60 million to $220 million;
(2) Increase the limit on the total amount of tax increment that the Agency may receive
over the term of the Redevelopment Plan from $116 million to $689 million;
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration was posted for the proposed plan amendment on February 14, 2008.
The public review period ended on March 17, 2008. No comments were received. On April 22,
2008, the County Planning Commission voted to recommend to.the Board of Supervisors that
it:
1) Find the Negative Declaration adequate for purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); and
2) Find that the proposed plan Amendment conforms to the General Plan (CRL Section
33346, 33354.6(a), and 33453; and Government Code Section 65402)
The Planning Commission Resolution 13-2008 is included as Attachment B.
Resolutions/Ordinance
The actions of the Board are listed below. Adoption of these actions by the Board of
Supervisors and the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency will satisfy the
requirements of the CRL with respect to the approval of the Sixth!Amendment to the Bay Point
Redevelopment Plan.
As the Board of Supervisors:
• ADOPT Resolution adopting written findings and responses to comments and objections
received in connection with consideration of the adoption of the Sixth Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Project Area (Attachment F);
• ADOPT Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration prepared for the Adoption of the
Sixth Amendment to the Bay Point Redevelopment Plan pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment C); and
• ADOPT an Ordinance approving the Sixth Amendment to the Bay Point Redevelopment
Plan (Attachment E).
As the Governing Board of the Redevelopment Agency:
• ADOPT Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration prepared for the Adoption of the
Sixth Amendment to the Bay Point Redevelopment Plan pursuant to CEQA (Attachment
C); and
• Resolution approving the Amended Five-Year Implementation !'Plan (Attachment D)
C:\Documents and Settings\plam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK62\BP Board RDA Order 6 3 08
draftl.doc
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
BAY POINT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Gio 0
G . ? ��
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE BAY POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE "WEST PITTSBURG"
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA)
Adopted June 3, 2008
Ordinance No. 2008-19
I. INTRODUCTION
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa has adopted the Bay Point
Redevelopment Plan by Ordinance No. 87-102, adopted on December 29, 1987, as amended by
Ordinance No. 94-64, adopted on December 6, 1994, as amended by;', Ordinance No. 99-05,
adopted on February 23, 1999, as further amended by Ordinance No. 99-54, adopted on October
19, 1999, as further amended by Ordinance No. 2006-33, adopted on July 18, 2006, as further
amended by Ordinance No.2007-25, adopted on June 5, 2007 (the "Plan"). The Plan establishes
a redevelopment project area(the "Project Area"). The Project Area is shown on the boundary
map attached hereto as Exhibit A and described in the attached Exhibit B.
The Plan contains limits on(1) the amount of bonds secured by a pledge of tax increment
from the Project Area that may be outstanding at one time;and(2)the total amount of tax
increment that the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the "Agency") may
receive over the term of the Plan. This Amendment will increase the amount of bonded
indebtedness that may be outstanding at one time, and will increase the limit on the total amount
of tax increment that the Agency may receive over the.term of the Plan.
II. MODIFICATIONS TO PLAN
Part VII.C, page 31, paragraphs numbered 2 and 3, of the Plan are deleted and replaced
with the following language:
"2) No more than $689 million of tax increments may be divided and
allocated to the Agency without further amendment of this Plan.
3) No more than $220 million in bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole
or in part from tax increments may be outstanding at any one time without further amendment of
this Plan."
III. NON-SEVERABILITY
If any provision, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Amendment is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional,the remainder of the
provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
320\24\508144.2 1
N. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT
All provisions of the Plan not specifically amended or repealed in this Amendment shall
continue in full force and effect.
320\24\508144.2 2
EXHIBIT A
BOUNDARIES OF PROTECT AREA
320\24\508144.2 A-1
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area
Exhibit A-7
L
rP
� S
m
a
3
o
° 2
. Pb Aalle8
0
2
O
m m
.',
Q 3
V0AMH015V1Ln3J0d
Lu
O
0.
�- PAI9 00ieV4 Ues
Z
W
O
W c
> 0
0::
m
W
Cl) a
W a
a
� 7O Poo,H7,up
pZ 3y Q 'o 'a Z
d y N a a u
Q
Q J 'Z
m .
RSG
A /4
C:\Documents and Settings\plam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLKG2\BP" Board RDA Order 5 20 08
draftl.doc
�'La6
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
320\24\503144.2 B-1
West Pittsburg Redevelopment Project
W.O. #5509 - Boundary Description
EXHIBIT A
Real property in the unincorporated area of West Pittsburg, California .
Document and map references are to records oV Contra Costa county.
4
B@ginning 'dt th@ riorthwa,t corn@r Uf S@ction 13, Tumollip 2 Horth, f0ogti I
West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (shown as the southeast corner of
Section 11 on the map of Bella Monte Subdivision No. 1 filed March 22, 1927
in Map Book 20 at page 546); thence along the west line of.Section 13, South
010 25' West 30 feet, to the south line of Willow Pass Road; thence along
said south line, East 1,466 feet, to the northeast corner of Lot 2 ,
Pittsburg Home Acres Addition recorded March 22, 1938 in Map Book 22 at page
662; thence along the east line of Lot 2, South 000 40' East, 12 feet, to the
north line of Triond parcel recorded February 1, 1985 in Volume 12168 at
page 412; thence along the north line of Trliond parcel and its easterly
prolongation, East 267 feet, to the northwest corner of Lot 16, Subdivision
4137, Willows Landing, recorded February 25, 1972 in Map Book 144 at page
14; thence; along the boundary of Subdivision ''4137, South 000 09' 26" :lest
477.46 feet, South 890 06' 38" East 384 feetl, and South 000 09' 20" West
781.89 feet, to the north line of Hanlon Way; ''thence along said north line ,
North 890 06' 38" West 651 feet, to the northerly prolongation of the west
line of Lot 252 (144 M 14); thence along said prolongation and west line,
South 000 10' 03" West 127.98 feet, to an angle point; thence South 000 09'
1
E
�ooK 141GOPG
24" West 599:63 feet to an angle point on the west line of Lot 231 (144 H
14); thence along said west line and its southerly,; prolongation, South 00u
69 30" West 825 feet, more or less , to the south line of State Freeway
Route 4; thence along said south line in a general €westerly direction 1,490
feet, more or less , to the east line of` Section 14 (172N, R1W); thence along
said east line, South OOo 30' East 780 feet, more or less , to the northeast
corner of Lot 57, Subdivision 5346, Hillsdale Unit 111 , filed September 22,
1978 in Map Book 217 at page 20, being a point on I:the south .1 i ne of Contra
Costa Canal ; thence along said south line, South 890 42' West 92 feet, South
400 39' West 138.5 feet, South 660 35' West 435.2 'feet, North 480 34' West
410.4 feet, South 890 42' West 28.8 feet, and North'480 34' West 535.7 feet,
to the most northerly corner of Subdivision 4731,. Hillsdale, filed April 19,
1976 in Map Book 183 at page 28; thence along their boundary of Subdivision
4731, South 120 47' 01" West 609.44 feet and North;' 890 25' 37" l•Jest 438.39
feet, to the northeast corner of Frank D. and Carolyn A. Briggs PARCEL TWO
recorded July 7, 1977 in Volume 8407 at page 531; thence along. the boundary
thereof, North 890 25' 37" West 270.65 feet and South 000 33' 32" East 90.70
feet, to the northeast corner of Pittsburg Terrace Unit Ho. 1 filed november
5, 1930 in Map Book 21 at page 604; thence along' the north line thereof,
South 890 46' West 245 feet, to the northeast corner of Lot 6 (21 M 604);
thence South 000 45' East 98.28 feet, to the northeast corner of Lot 4 (21 td
604) ; thence along the boundary of Lot 4, South 000 45' East 25 feet,
Southwesterly 39.27 feet along the arc of a 25 feet radius curve concave to
the northwest, and South 890. 15' West 75 feet, to the southeast corner of
2
0
0
Lot 3 (21 M 604); thence along the south line of Lot 3 and its westerly
prolongation, South 890 15' West 125 feet, to the centerline of Bailey Road C
(shown. as Dante Road in 21 M 604) being the (east line of the west half of
Section 14 (T2N, R1W); thence along said east line, North 000 45' West 1,475
L
feet, more or less, to the north line of State Freeway Route 4; thence along
said north line in a general westerly direction 7,250 feet,. more or less , to
the southeast corner of PARCEL C of Minor Subdivision 192-68 filed April 22,
1969 in Parcel Map Book 8 at page 12; thence along the east line of PARCEL
C, North 120 45' West 77.61 feet, to the easterly prolongation of the south
line of Bruce W. and Donna G. Farley parcel recorded August 5, 1974 in
Volume 7290 at page 737; thence along said; prolongation and south line,
North 770 13' 05" West 418.81 feet, to the southwest corner; thence along
the west line of said Farley parcel and its northerly prolongation, North
Opo 17' 20" West 120 feet, more or less, to the north line of Camino Andres
(8 PM 12); thence along said north line in a general northeasterly direction
900 feet, more or less , to the northeast line of Contra Costa Canal ; thence
along said northeast line in a general northwesterly direction 1,130 feet,
more or less, to the most southerly corner of Subdivision 4663 filed October
20, 1977 ' in Map Book 203 at page 31; thence along the boundary of
Subdivision 4663, North 630 37' 26" East 484'.20 feet and North 580 33' 46"
Nest 104.95 feet, to the south line of Riverside Drive (203 M 31); thence
along said south line, North 660 06' 32" East 2.89 feet, Northeasterly 57.39
feet along the arc of a curve concave to the northwest with a radius of 778
feet and a central angle of 040 13' 35" , Northeasterly 21.94 feet along the
3
BOOK 14100PUI 76
arc of a reverse curve .concave to the southeast with a radius of 722 feet
and a central angle of 010 44' 2911 , and North 630 37' 26" East 35,25 feet ,
to the northeast line of East Bay Municipal Utility District parcel recorded
August 30, 1926 in Volume 57 at page 69; thence along said northeast line,
South 580 33' 55" East 1,469.1 feet, to the north (line -of Camino Andres;
thence along said north line, North 890, 54' 26" East 49.36 feet, to its
intersection with the west line of Port Chicago Highway as shown on the map
of Subdivision 3885 recorded October 23, 1969 in Map Book 128 at page 29;
thence crossing Port Chicago Highway, Easterly 270 feet, more or less , to a
point on the north line of Willow Pass Road shown as the easterly terminus
of a 150 feet radius curve on the map of Minor Subdivision 11-84 filed
December 26, 1984 in Parcel Map Book 113 at page 42;1 thence along the north
line of Willow Pass Road , South 890 07' 28" East 669.98 feet and South 000
52' 32" West 4.87 feet, to the north line of "Will;, w Pass Road Widening"
parcel shown on the map of Subdivision 5696 filed March 20, 1984 in Map Book
277 at page 18; thence along said north line, Southl�890 05' 14" East 790.69
feet, to the north line of ,"Willow Pass Road Widening" parcel shown on the
map of Subdivision 5534 filed March 20, 1984 in Map Book 277 at page 11;
thence along said north line, South 890 05' 14" East 67.11 feet, South 890
12' 06" East 924.80 feet, and South 890 07' 21" East' 0.16 feet, to the east
line of Subdivision 5534; thence along said east line and its northerly
prolongation, North O10 10' 36" East 2,538.13 feet, to the northeast corner
of Subdivision 5354 filed March 14, 1979 in Map Book 223 at page 3; thence
along the north line of Subdivision 5354, North 88u 50' 18" West 2,633.04
4
a
c_-
feet,
feet, to the north corner of Lot 12 (223 11 3) thence along the west line of
Lot 12, .South 000 55' 16" West 160 feet , more or less , to the easterly C_
c
prolongation of the south line of Earl W. Smith Developers Ltd. .563 acre
parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 098-340-001) recorded January 6, 1969 in
Volume 5784 at page 611; thence crossing Port Chicago Highway along said
prolongation, North 880 58' 20" West 84 feet, to said south line; thence
along said south line, North 880 58' 20" West 145 feet, to the southwest
corner; thence along the west line of said .563 acre parcel , North 000 55'
East 170 feet, to the south line of Pacifica Avenue; thence along said south
line in a general westerly direction 5,100 feet, more or less , to the west
line of Driftwood Drive; thence along said west line, North 000 20' West
2,718.46 feet, to the north line of Section 9` (T2N, R1W); thence along said
north line, Easterly 1,390 feet , more or less , to the south line of
Sacramento Northern Railroad right of way; thence along said south line in a
general southeasterly direction 1,350 feet, more or less, to the east line
of Section 9; thence along said east line, North 000 54' 45" West 386.36
feet, to the northeast corner; thence along the west line of Section 3 (M.
R1W), North 000 01' 52" West 2,610.96 feet,, to the northwest corner of
PARCEL 1 filed may 22, 1985 in Licensed Surveyors' Map Book 77 at page 2;
thence along the north line of PARCEL 1, South 880 01' 52" East 1,255.98
feet and North 860 58' 08" East 750.18 feet, to the northwest corner of
PARCEL 2 (77 LSM 2); thence along the boundary of PARCEL 2, North 860 58'
08" East 650.87 feet, and South 000 06' 30" West 150.30 feet, to ..the
northwest corner of 99 acre American Dredging Company parcel recorded
5
Book 411 CON T8
Fe.¢ruary 24, 1961 in Volume 3811 at page 287; thence alongthe boundary of
said 99 acre parcel , North 850 11' 30" East 250.04 feet , South 770 53' 30"
East 132 feet, North 560 56' 30" East 122 feet, North 700 51' 30" East 139
feet, North 750 16' 30" East 201 feet, North 550 31' 30" East 191 feet ,
North 150 51' 30" East 196 feet, South 160 35' 52" East 534.37 feet, and
South 000 30' 45" West 3,708.74 feet, to the north line of Contra Costa
1'
County Water District parcel recorded February 179 1961 in Volume 3807 at
page 369; thence Southerly 300 feet, more or Jess, to the northeast corner
of Interlake Steel Corp. parcel as shown on Record of Survey filed June 1,
I'
1966 in Licensed Surveyors' Map Book 42 at page 45 (said northeast corner
being a point on the south line of Sacramento Northern Railroad right of way
recorded in Book 187 of Deeds at page 360); thence along the south line of
Sacramento Northern Railroad right of way 4 a general easterly direction
5 ,928.22 feet. to the northeast corner of Poinsettia Land Company West
Pittsburg Tract Unit No. 1 filed June 8, 1926 in Map Book 19 at page :506;
thence along the east line of said Tract, South 000 50' West 531.64 feet, to
the north line of Horace and Theresa Siino PARCEL TWO recorded October 24,
1944 in Volume 796 at page 488; thence along said north line and its
easterly prolongation, South 890 48' East 4,85.48 feet, to the northwest
corner of Bella Monte Subdivision No, 2 filedl'!, April 2, 1929 in Map Book 21
at page 584; thence along the boundary there of, South 890 43' East 847.87
feet and South 010 25' West 644.50 feet, to the northeast corner of Bella
Monte Subdivision No. 1 (20 M 546); thence !along the east line thereof,
South 010 25' West 455.11 feet, to the point off beginning.
6
I
k
i
Excluding therefrom: All of Willow Glen Subdivision 5064 recorded October C
25, 1978 in Map Book 218 at .page 31 except ' t,hat 55 feet .vide strip of land c
shown as "Bailey Road Widening" (218 M 31) .
C.t
LB:sj
DescWFitt
1/08/87
6/03/87
7/09/87
8/10/87
8/17/87
7
rA.JD or r.n.--r"T
c,�oa
f
6
D
1
ATTACHMENT A
Executive Summary, -
Bay Point Redevelopment - Plan Amendment
{
4
Executive Summary
Bay Point Redevelopment Plan Amendment
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (°Agency") has initiated a redevelopment plan amendment
process to amend the Bay Point Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan"). The proposed amendment to
the Redevelopment Plan ("2008 Bay Point Amendment") would accomplish the following:
1. Increase the total amount of tax.increment revenues the Agency; may receive in Bay Point from
$116 million to $689 million; and
2. Increase the amount of bonds that can be outstanding at any one time from $60 million to $220
million.
The 2008 Bay Point Amendment will enable the Agency to more effectively implement redevelopment projects
and activities eliminating blighting conditions within the Project Area. The 'proposed amendment does not
increase the territory of the Project Area, or alter the Redevelopment Plans eminent domain and property
acquisition provisions.
By receiving additional tax increment revenue and increasing the bonding capacity the Agency will be able to
substantially enhance its' ability to reinvest funds in Bay Point, enhance the job base .by revitalizing
commercial and industrial areas, and increasing, improving, and preserving the supply of affordable housing.
All redevelopment activities will be subject to future review and approval by the Agency, and/or Board of
Supervisors. The Agency has also established the Bay Point Project Area Committee to work with it in
establishing priorities, and developing projects and programs
Plan Amendment Process: A Report to the Board of Supervisors ("Report"): is one of several documents the
Agency is required to prepare during the amendment process. The Report is intended to provide the decision
makers with comprehensive information concerning the 2008 Bay Point Amendment. The Agency Report
contains all of the elements required by law(Health and Safety Code Section X33000 et seq).
Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan: Since its 1987 adoption of the Redevelopment Plan the
Agency has made progress in revitalizing the Bay Point. The Agency has made progress in eliminating blight
throughout the Project Area by actively pursuing revitalization opportunities{i"and assisting in redevelopment
activities such as:
• North Broadway Infrastructure Program;
• Bella Monte Apartments/Nantucket Cove homes;
• Elaine Null Apartments;
• Willow Pass Road improvement program
• Bailey Road/Willow Pass Road Banner Program
• BART Station land assemblage for Transit-Oriented Development(TOD); and
• Community Group Funding Program
Unfortunately, blighting conditions still remain within Bay Point and the proposed 2008 Bay Point Amendment
is necessary to continue the Agency's efforts in eliminating physical and economic blight and attracting private
investment to the community.
The benefits of the 2008 Bay Point Amendment would affect the immediate and long-range economic viability
of the entire Bay Point community. If implemented, the 2008 Bay Point Amendment would provide the needed
resources to the Agency to ensure that community revitalization and improvement goals are fully realized.
Redevelopment activities are subject to future review and approval by the Board, of Supervisors. The Agency
uses an annual budgeting process that includes local community input to determine goals and priorities, as
well as the projects and activities to be funded.
GfID�
infrastructure systems. Through these public investments the Agency hopes to further stimulate private sector
investment in Bay Point. These projects include, but are not limited to, the following:
Public Infrastructure and Facility Improvements
• Neighborhood Infrastructure Upgrades
• Port Chicago Highway/Pacifica Intersection Improvements
• East Willow Pass Road Improvements,
• Willow Pass Road (Bailey- Clearland)
• BART Area redevelopment and infrastructure enhancements,' including Bailey Road/Orbisonia
Heights
• Pacifica Avenue Extension Infrastructure
• Railroad Overcrossing To Waterfront
• Waterfront Improvements
• Park and recreation improvements
• Alves Lane Extension Infrastructure
• Pacifica Avenue Frontage Improvements
• Clearland Avenue Assemblage/Infrastructure
• Hertz Property Infrastructure
• Bike Lanes
• Delta De Anza Trail
Community Improvement Programs
Projects in the Community Improvement Program, such as, additional code enforcement support, a garbage
remediation program, and a community group funding program for projects such as graffiti removal and
vacant lot/yard cleanup, and the closure of trail gaps are all anticipated to indirectly reduce crime.
Low-/Moderate-Affordable Housing Programs
The Agency is required to set aside no less than twenty (20) percentof its annual revenue for the
creation/preservation of affordable housing. These funds are to be used to"increase, improve.and preserve
the supply of affordable housing in the community.
Administration and Operations
Revenues are needed to ensure that a sufficient level of staff support and equipment is available to operate
and maintain the Bay Point Program at an efficient level.
ell
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area
Exhibit A-1
z < eLL
L
a
r s
: r r
ix
Lf r°
-5
pb,%iieg
t �. r
Z
O rt
r
Lu
(� F ,CMH o eDM:)7!
Lu p
O d
P,I,a oo eW Ues
W ( u
� rl
W a a
W _$ m° a
D `!p POOM3;ua.., a
Q a`
h u oc .'
z �y z
s C a a
y n
Q J " Z
m
RSG
Af4
C:\Documents and Settings\plam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK62\BP Board RDA Order 5 20 08
draftl.doc
ATTACHMENT B
County Planning Commission
Resolution #13-2008
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2008
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, recommending to the Board of Supervisors and the Redevelopment Agency of
the County of Contra Costa adoption of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Findings and adoption of the Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay
Point Redevelopment Project (formerly known as the "WestPittsburg" Redevelopment
Project), and making various findings in connection with such recommendations.
I!
The Contra Costa County Planning Commission RESOLVES THAT:
The Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costal(the "Agency") has submitted
to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") the proposed
Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment Project
(formerly known as the "West Pittsburg" Redevelopment Project) (the "Plan Amendment"); and
'u
Part V of the Redevelopment Plan incorporates the General Plan land uses, land use
standards, development criteria, goals and objectives into the Redel�lelopment Plan; and
The effects on the environment caused by implementatiori of the Plan Amendment are
covered by the Negative Declaration; and
Sections 33346, 33354.6(a), and 33453 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health
and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq.) provides that the Planning Commission is to review the
proposed Plan Amendment and make its report and recommendation thereon to the Agency and
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (the "Board"), including a determination whether
the Plan Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the Contra Costa County (the "General
Plan"); and E
I
Section 65402 of the Government Code provides in part:
"(a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be
acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, squame, park or other public
purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall ;be
vacated or abandoned, and no public building odor structure shall be
constructed or authorized, if the adopted general; plan or part thereof
applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition
or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public
building or structure have been submitted to and li reported upon by the
planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part.
In
thereof...."
"(c) A local agency shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes
specified in paragraph (a) nor dispose of any real property; nor construct
or authorize a public building or structure, in any county or city, if such
county or city has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general
I
320\24\540014.1 1
c�
plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and
extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure
have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having
jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted "general plan or part
thereof...."; and
The above required Planning Commission report and recommendation, including matters
referred to in Health and Safety Code Sections 33346, 33354.6(a) and 33453 and Government
Code Section 65402, are to be made to the Agency and the Board within thirty days of the
Planning Commission's receipt of the Plan Amendment, for their consideration in acting on the
adoption of the Plan Amendment; and
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Contra .Costa. County General Plan, the .
proposed Plan Amendment, the Negative Declaration, and the staff report accompanying this
Resolution pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Report to the Board on
the proposed Plan Amendment; and
Part V. of the Redevelopment Plan incorporates the County's General Plan land uses and
land use standards into the Redevelopment Plan, and the Plan Amendment would facilitate
redevelopment of the Bay Point Redevelopment Project in a manner consistent with the General
Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that:
(a) All required public notices have been given in connection with the actions
set forth in this Resolution.
(b) The proposed Negative Declaration is adequate for the purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and recommends that the Board of
Supervisors adopt same.
(c) Pursuant to Sections 33346, 33354.6(a), and 33453 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, the proposed Plan Amendment conforms to the General Plan.
(d) Pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code, with respect to public
activities which may be undertaken pursuant to the Plan Amendment, and that are referred to in
Section 65402,such activities and undertakings conform to the General Plan.
Section 2. Report and Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends to
the Board of Supervisors the approval and adoption of the Plan Amendment and in the event that
prior to its adoption of the Plan Amendment, the Board desires to make any minor, technical, or
clarifying changes to the Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission hereby finds and
320\24\546614.1 2
determines that any such minor, technical, or clarifying changes need not be referred to it for
further report and recommendation, and hereby Nvaives its report and recommendation under
Section 33455 of the Conlmunit_y Redevelopment Law concerning any such change; and
Section 3. Transmittal. The Planning Commission's Secretary shall transmit a copy
of this Resolution to the Agency and the Board for consideration as part of the Agency's Report
ID
to the Board pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, and this
Resolution shall be deemed the report and recommendation of the Planning .Commi.ssion
concerninU the proposed Plan Amendment and contemplated public projects and activities
thereunder. as required by applicable provisions of law.
The instructions by the County Planning Commission to, prepare this resolution were .
given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 22, 2008, by the
following vote:
AYES: Cornmission.ers Wong, Terrell, and Snyder
NOES: Commissioner Murray
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Battaglia, Clark and Gaddis
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the ,County Planning Commission
shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the
Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Planning Laws of the State of California.
Michael Murray, Chair
County Planning Commission
Count), of Contra Costa
State of California
ATTEST:
Dennis M. Bang, Secretary
County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa
State of California
320\24'\5466 14.1 ,
ATTACHMENT C
Board and Agency Resolutions Certifying the Negative
Declaration
i
�/orD
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 3, 2008,by the following vote:
AYES: i O i 2 i ICern2j
NOES: A Vv-e—
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: v n¢
Resolution No.: 2008/338
i.
SUBJECT: Resolution of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Making Findings
and Approvals required by the California Environmental Quality Act in
Connection with the Negative Declaration Prepared for the Adoption of the Sixth
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment Project
Area(formerly known as the "West Pittsburg" Redevelopment Project)
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency RESOLVES THAT:
The County of Contra Costa(the "County"), serving as "lead agency" under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the applicable!,state and local implementing
guidelines, has prepared a negative declaration (the "Negative Declaration")that has evaluated
the Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area
(the "Plan Amendment");
The Redevelopment Agency of the Contra Costa County(the "Agency ") has served as a
"responsible agency" under CEQA in connection with the processing and consideration of the
Negative Declaration;
The Negative Declaration, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board and
Agency Secretary, has served as the CEQA documentation for consideration and approval of the
Plan Amendment, and for the Agency's subsequent actions to implement the Plan Amendment;
The Agency has reviewed the Negative Declaration and the Proposed Plan Amendment;
By staff report accompanying this Resolution and incorporated,into this Resolution by
this reference (the "Staff Report"), the Agency has been provided with additional information.
upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based;
i
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Agency certifies its review and
consideration of the Negative Declaration, and any public comments received thereon, in
accordance with CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Agency hereby finds and determines that the
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the environmental issues pertaining to the Plan
Amendment and property concludes that the Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Agency approves and adopts the Negative
Declaration.
s
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Agency Executive Director is hereby authorized
and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with 14 Cal. Code of Regulations,
Section 15075, evidencing the Agency's use of the Negative Declaration in connection with the
Plan Amendment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its
adoption.
320\24\555857.1 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 3, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: (5 t`o"2 . UC J(f e m a � i`e P k p i G cr rt; ba _N-J &(a V e r—
NOES: PILd t%.e_
ABSENT: ALo lye—
ABSTAIN: n e.
Resolution No.: 2008/337
SUBJECT: A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Making
Findings and Approvals Required by the California Environmental Quality Act in
Connection with the Negative Declaration Prepared for the Adoption of the Sixth
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment Project
Area(formerly known as the "West Pittsburg" Redevelopment Project).
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES THAT:
The County of Contra Costa(the "Board"), serving as "lead agency" under the California
Environmental Quality Act and the applicable state and local implementing guidelines
("CEQA"), has prepared a negative declaration (the "Negative Declaration") that has evaluated
the proposed Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment
Project Area(the "Plan Amendment");
The Redevelopment Agency,of the Contra Costa County(the`"Agency") has served as a
"responsible agency" under CEQA in connection with processing and consideration of the
Negative Declaration.
The Negative Declaration, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board and
Agency Secretary, has served as the CEQA documentation for consideration and approval of the
Plan Amendment;
The Board has reviewed the Negative Declaration and the proposed Plan Amendment;
By staff report accompanying this Resolution and incorporated into this Resolution by
this reference (the "Staff'Report"), the Board has been provided with additional information upon
which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based,'including any public
comment received on the Negative Declaration.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board certifies its review and
consideration of the Negative Declaration, and any public comments,received thereon, in
accordance with CEQA, and states its intention that the Negative Declaration serve as the
environmental documentation for the Board's consideration of the Plan Amendment in
compliance with CEQA._
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby finds and determines, based on the
whole record before it (including the Negative Declaration, the initial study and any comments
received) that there is no substantial evidence that the Plan Amendment will have a significant
effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent
judgement and analysis.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.that_the.Board approves and adopts the Negative
Declaration.
I her certify.that this is a true and correct
copy of antaction taken and entered on the.
minutes ofthe Boa of Supervisors on the.
date shown.
ATTESTED.
JO LEN,Clerk of the Board
320\24\.555847.1 l of Su sors n dministrator
B e uty,
Clio
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board shall be the custodian of the
record upon which the Board's findings and approvals herein are based;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is hereby authorized and
directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with 14 Cal. Code of Regulations,
Section 15075, evidencing the Board's use of the Negative Declaration in connection with its
consideration of the Plan Amendment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its
adoption.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
copy of an action taken d entered on the
minutes of the Board' Supervisors on the
date shown.
ATTESTED
JOH N,Clerk of the Board
of Su rv' and C u i ator
By
3M24\555847.1 2
ATTACHMENT D
Agency Resolution Approving the . Amended Five-Year
Implementation Plan
�/off
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order oil June 3, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: : �� ti ICCt►�� Il l e �oon� l jd 5nc� 7(tlJer
NOES: ar
ABSENT: A(6 n
ABSTAIN: N v Y, '2
Resolution No.: 2008/339
SUBJECT: A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County Approving
an Amended Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment
Project (formerly known as the "West Pittsburg" Redevelopment Project)
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency RESOLVES THAT:
The Board of Supervisors (the "Board")of the County of Contra Costa has adopted a
redevelopment plan for,and the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa(the .
'Agency"), is implementing the redevelopment program for the Bay'Point redevelopment project
area(the "Project Area," formerly known as the "West Pittsburg"Redevelopment Project Area),
all in conformance with the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment,Law
(Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.; the "CRL"); and
On January 17, 2006,the Agency adopted the current five-year implementation plan for
the Project Area covering the period from 2004/2005 through 2008/2009, in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 33490 (the "Current Implementation Plan"); and
The Agency has now prepared and submitted for the Board's"consideration an
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area(the
"Plan Amendment"); and
Health and Safety Code Section 33352(c) (as made applicable to the processing of the
Plan Amendment by Health and Safety Code Sections 33354.6(a) and 33457.1) and Health and
Safety Code 33451.5(c)(7)require that the Agency prepare an amendment to the Agency's
implementation plan in connection with the processing and consideration of the Plan
Amendment; and
The Plan Amendment, if adopted by the Board, would provide additional financial
resources to the Agency for the Project Area; and
To comply with the requirements of Health and Safety Code',Sections 33352(c), 33451.5
and-33490, the Agency has prepared an amendment to the implementation plan for the Project
Area (the "Amended Implementation Plan"), which amends the Current Implementation Plan,
and is intended to take effect if and when the Board adopts the Plan Amendment and the Plan
Amendment becomes effective; and
A copy of the Amended Implementation Plan is set forth as Section C and Appendix A of
the Report to the Board for the 2008 Amendment to the Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area,
dated May 7, 2008, and is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference; and
On May 13, 2008, the Agency conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on
the mid-term review of the Current Implementation Plan and the Amended Implenientation Plan
in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33490; and
The Agency finds that the Amended Implementation Plan,with any modifications as
considered and approved in connection with the public hearing, constitutes a statement of the
320\24\555956.1 1
d 3•d�'
Agency's goals and objectives'for the Project Area, a summary of the specific programs and
estimated expenditures proposed to be made by the Agency during the applicable five-year
planning period, including programs contemplated as part of the P1an,;Amendment, and an
explanation of how the goals and objectives, projects, and expenditures will eliminate blight
within the Project Area and implement the affordable housing requirements of the CRL; and
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490, approval of the Amended
Implementation Plan does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), and therefore no environmental documentation is required pursuant to
CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that-the Agency hereby approves and adopts
the Amended Implementation Plan for the Project Area, and directs the Agency Secretary to
maintain on file a copy of the Amended Implementation Plan in the form hereby approved by the
Agency. The Amended Implementation Plan shall be come effective if and when the Board
adopts the Plan Amendment'and the Plan Amendment becomes effective in accordance with the
CRL.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its
adoption.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
copy of an action taken and entered on the
minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
date shown.
ATTESTED: Zeno V_e_ S
JOH ULLEN, Clerk of the Board
of Sup sors dministrator
By eputy
320\24\555956.1 2
ATTACHMENT E
Ordinance
Recording Requested by and
When Recorded Return to:
Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 190
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Redevelopment Director
NO RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
ORDINANCE NO. 2008-19
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BAY POINT REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California(the
"Board"), ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Recitals and Background Information. Pursuant to the California
Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) (the
"Redevelopment Law"), the Board adopted the Bay Point Redevelopment Plan by Ordinance No.
87-102, adopted on December 29, 1987, as amended by Ordinance No. 94-64, adopted on
December 6, 1994, as amended by Ordinance No. 99-05, adopted on February 23, 1999, as
further amended by Ordinance No. 99-54, adopted on October 19, 1,999, as further amended by
Ordinance No. 2006-33, adopted on July 18, 2006, as further amended by Ordinance No. 2007-
25, adopted on June 5, 2007 (the "Plan"). The Plan established the Bay Point redevelopment
project area (formerly known as "West Pittsburg")(the "Project Area"), within the County of
Contra Costa (the "County").
Pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California(the
"Redevelopment Law"), the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa (the
"Agency"),has prepared and submitted to the Board for review and consideration of adoption a
sixth amendment to the Plan (the "Plan Amendment") that would (1) increase the limit on the
amount of bonds secured by a pledge of tax increment from the Project Area that may be
outstanding at one time; and (2) increase the limit on the total amount of tax increment that the
Agency may receive over the term of the Plan. A copy of the Plan Amendment is on file with
the Clerk of the Board and is incorporated in this Ordinance by this reference.
320\24\556076.2 1
The Plan Amendment is necessary to provide the County, the Agency, and the
community with additional financial resources to complete the program of redevelopment
initiated under the Plan in,order to remove remaining blighting conditions in the Project Area.
The additional financial capacity will enable the Agency to promote the revitalization of the
Project Area through stimulation of economic development activities; support the overall
revitalization and improvement of the Project Area through a wide-range of redevelopment
activities, including blight removal,building rehabilitation, public infrastructure improvement,
economic development; and promote the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of
affordable housing in and.of benefit to the Project Area and its residents.
The Project Area is situated in the County, and is more particularly described in Exhibit
A and Exhibit B of the Plan Amendment. The boundaries of the Project Area are not modified
by the Plan Amendment and remain the same as those established by the Plan.
The Agency has made studies of the impact of the Plan Amendment on the physical
condition of structures, environmental influences, land use, and social, economic, and cultural
conditions in the Project Area, and has determined that the program of redevelopment to be
continued and completed pursuant to the Plan Amendment will promote the proper.
redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the goals, objectives and policies of the
County of Contra Costa's General Plan (the "General Plan"), the Plank and the Redevelopment
Law.
By resolution of April 22, 2008, the Planning Commission of the County(the "Planning
Commission"), which is the duly designated and acting official planning body of the County,has
submitted to the Board and the Agency its report and recommendation (the "Planning
Commission Report") regarding the Plan Amendment in which, among other matters, it
recommends adoption of the Plan Amendment, and finds that the Plan Amendment conforms to
the General Plan.
The Bay Point Project Area Committee, appointed by the Agency to provide input on
redevelopment matters in the Project Area, including the Plan Amendment, conducted a
community meeting on the Plan Amendment on May 14, 2008, and has submitted its report and
recommendation in favor of adoption of the Plan Amendment.
The Agency has prepared and submitted and the Board has reviewed and considered a
Report to the Board on the Plan Amendment dated May 7, 2008 (the "Report"), as may be
supplemented by a Supplement to the Report to the Board on the Plan Amendment (the "Report
Supplement" and, together with the Report, the "Plan Amendment Report")pursuant to Section
33352 of the Redevelopment Law, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board. The
Plan Amendment Report is hereby incorporated in this Ordinance by this reference.
On May 20, 2008, the Board and the Agency conducted a joint public hearing on the Plan
Amendment and related documents, which was duly noticed in accordance with the requirements
of the Redevelopment Law.
The County and Agency staff have prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission
and the Board for review a Negative Declaration which has served as the documentation for
320\24\556076.2
review of the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan Amendment. The Negative
Declaration was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended ("CEQA"), and the Official State Guidelines as amended for the implementation of
CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is on file with the Clerk of the Board.. The Negative
Declaration is hereby incorporated in this Ordinance by this reference.
The Planning Commissionby Resolution on April 22, 2008 found the Negative
Declaration adequate for the purposes of CEQA, and recommended('adoption. Prior to
introduction of this Ordinance, by resolution dated June 3, 2008, the'Board and the Agency
approved and adopted the Negative Declaration for use in consideration of adoption of the Plan
Amendment.
At or prior to the joint public hearing on the Plan Amendment, the Board and the Agency
received certain written';comments on the Plan Amendment. Prior to the introduction of this
Ordinance,by resolution dated June 3, 2008, and pursuant to Section 33363 of the
Redevelopment Law, the Board prepared and adopted its responses and findings (the "Written
Findings and Responses") in writing to all written comments it received in connection with
consideration of adoption of the Plan Amendment.
Prior to introduction of this Ordinance,by resolution dated June 3, 2008 (the "Amended
Implementation Plan Resolution"), the Agency adopted an amended five-year implementation
plan for the Project Area (the "Amended Implementation Plan") in accordance with Sections
33451.5(c)(7) and 33490 of the Redevelopment Law.
SECTION II. Findings and Determinations. In accordance with Sections 33354.6(b),
33367 and 33457.1 of the Redevelopment Law, and based upon the evidence contained in the
Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission Report, the Plan Amendment Report, the Negative
Declaration, the Written Findings and Responses, the Amended Implementation Plan, and other
documents prepared in the Plan Amendment adoption process and on evidence presented at the
public hearings of the-Board, the Agency, and the Planning Commission on the Plan Amendment
and related documents (collectively, the "Record"), it is hereby found and determined that:
a. The above recitals and background information are true and correct.
b. In connection with the initial adoption of the Plan in i+1987 and based on
information and analysis contained in the Report originally submitted with the Plan, the Board
found and determined pursuant to Ordinance No. 87-102 that the Project Area was a blighted
area, the redevelopment of which was necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in,
and the Project Area therefore qualified as an eligible area under; th'e Redevelopment Law.
Significant blight remains in the Project Area at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendment,
and such blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt and the
increase in the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to'the Agency pursuant to the
Plan Amendment. This finding is based on information and analysis set forth in the Record, with
particular reference to Sections A. B, D, and E of the Plan Amendment Report, and as briefly
summarized below. The Project Area continues to exhibit conditions of physical blight and
economic blight recognized under current Redevelopment Law standards, as detailed in Section
B of the Plan Amendment Report.
320\24\556076'2 3
The effects of the identified remaining blighting conditions are pervasive throughout the
Project Area. As shown throughout Section B of the Plan Amendment Report, the Project Area
suffers from buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy to persons to live or work such as
deteriorated and dilapidated buildings and buildings with serious code violations. In addition,
factors that prevent the viable use of buildings or lots are evident, such as defective and obsolete
design. Economic blighting conditions such as depreciated or stagnant property values, a high
business vacancy rate,-and high crime rate, are equally prevalent in the Project Area_ These
characteristics inhibit the viability of individual affected lots and structures, as well as the
economic vitality of the entire Project Area.
The remaining significant blighting conditions found in the Project Area are not new,but
the product of decades of social and economic struggle. The private sector has had ample
opportunity to improve the area through parcel assembly or structural rehabilitation, but has not.
The physical and economic conditions continue to deter private investment. Correspondingly,
the projects identified in the Plan Amendment Report to eliminate remaining blighting conditions
require millions of dollars of investment, and the County would not be able to apportion these
resources to the Project Area without redevelopment. Section D of the Plan Amendment Report
offers additional information and analysis about the historic and anticipated future inability of
the private sector and government to eliminate the documented remaining blighting conditions
without the continuing availability of redevelopment resources that can only be made possible
through adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan Amendment.
C. The time limitations and the limitations on the number of tax increment dollars to
be allocated to the Agency that are contained in the Plan Amendment are reasonably related to
the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to
eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is based on information and analysis set
forth in the Record, with particular reference to Sections A, B, D, and E of the Plan Amendment
Report.
Section A of the Plan Amendment Report sets forth a series of additional redevelopment
projects and activities (the "Redevelopment Projects") that are directly linked to the elimination
of the identified remaining blighting conditions in the Project Area (as documented in Section B
of the Plan Amendment Report). Because the Agency is about to reach the cap on receipt of tax
increment revenue under the Plan; the proposed blight-eliminating Redevelopment.Projects can
not be undertaken without the proposed increase in the limits (or "caps") on tax increment
receipts and outstanding bonded indebtedness under the Plan Amendment. As further detailed in
Sections D and E of the Plan Amendment Report, the increased caps on receipt of tax increment
and issuance of bonded indebtedness will generate sufficient additional revenue to enable the
Agency to undertake a significant portion of the Redevelopment Projects.
d. The Plan Amendment would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the
Redevelopment Law and would be in the interest of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare;
and the implementation of the Plan Amendment would promote the'public peace, health, safety
and welfare of the County and would effectuate the purposes and policy of the Redevelopment
320\24556076.2 4
Law. This finding is based on information and analysis set forth in the Record, with particular
reference to Sections A,-B, C, D, E, and M of the Plan Amendment Report.
e. The Plan Amendment conforms to the General Plan including,but not limited to,
the Housing Element of the General Plan. This finding is based on findings, information and
analysis set forth in the Record, with particular reference to Sections H, and J of the Plan
Amendment Report, and the Planning Agency Report.
f The adoption and implementation of the Plan Amendment is economically sound
and feasible: This finding is based on information and analysis set forth in the Record, with
particular reference to Section E of the Plan Amendment Report:
g. The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and
persons which may be displaced from the Project Area if the Plan Amendment may result in the
temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area.
This finding is based on information and analysis set forth in the Record, with particular
reference to Sections F and M and Appendix B of the Plan Amendment Report.
h. There are, or shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally
less desirable in regard to public utilities.and public and commercial facilities and at rents or
prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the
Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number,to'the number.of, and available
to, such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment.
Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to
Sections 33411 and 33411.1 the Redevelopment Law. Dwelling units housing persons and
families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a
replacement housing plan pursuant to Sections 33334.5, 33413, and 33413.5 of the
Redevelopment-Law. These findings are based on information and analysis set forth in the
Record, with particular reference to Sections F, M and Appendix B of the Plan Amendment
Report.
i. Pursuant to Section 33367(e) of the Redevelopment Law,the Board is satisfied
that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time occupants of
the Project Area, if any, are displaced and that pending the development of such facilities, there
will be available to such,displaced,occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents
comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement.• This finding is based on
information and analysis set forth .in the Record, with.particular reference to Sections F, M and
Appendix B of the Plan Amendment Report.
j. The Project Area contains approximately 900 acres and 1,202 contiguous parcels.
The Project Area does not contain any noncontiguous areas; therefore, the finding that all
noncontiguous areas of the Project Area are blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment,
and are not included in the Project Area for the purpose of obtaining tax incrementrevenues
from the area pursuant to Health and Safety Section 33670, is not relevant. This finding is based
on information and-analysis set forth in the Record,with particular reference to Sections A and B
of the Plan Amendment.Report.
320124\556076.2 5
k. The inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project
Area of which they are a part; and these lands, buildings or improvements are not included for
the purpose-of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for their inclusion.
This finding is based on information and analysis more fully set forth in Sections A and B of the
Plan Amendment Report.
1. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Plan Amendment
hereby approved and adopted, certain official action must be taken by this Board with reference
to, among other things, the establishment of new street patterns, the location of sewer and water
mains, lighting and utility lines and other public facilities and other public action, and
accordingly, this Board hereby:
1. pledges its cooperation in helping to implement the Plan Amendment;
2. requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the
County having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such
end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the Plan
Amendment;
3. stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and
measures designed to effectuate the Plan Amendment; and
4. intends to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be
implemented by the community under the provisions of the Plan Amendment.
in. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not
reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and
assistance of the Agency. This finding is based on information and analysis set forth in the
Record, with particular reference to Sections A, B, D, and E of the Plan Amendment Report. As
detailed in Sections B and D of the Plan Amendment Report, private sector activity and
investment in the Project Area has seriously lagged activity and investment elsewhere in the
vicinity of the Project Area, and the documented needs for elimination of blight far surpass the
reasonably foreseeable levels of private investment, leaving redevelopment as the only viable
alternative to help fill the investment shortfall to overcome the documentedremaining adverse
physical and economic conditions in the Project Area.
n. The Plan Amendment does not alter the Agency's power of eminent domain
(condemnation) set forth in the Plan. On June 5, 2007 the Agency adopted Ordinance No. 2007-
25 which contained a description of the Agency's program for the acquisition of real property
using eminent domain. The Agency at that time also recorded on all properties within the
Project Area a new statement of institution containing a general description of the Plan's eminent .
domain provisions.
320!24\556076? 6
o. The development of the public improvements set forth in the Plan Amendment are
of benefit to the Project Area and to the immediate neighborhood in which the Project is located;
no other reasonable means of financing such improvements are available to the community; and
the payment of funds for the acquisition of land for and the cost of such improvements will assist
in eliminating one or more blighting conditions in the Project Area or provide housing for low-
or moderate-income persons, and is consistent with the Agency's Amended Implementation Plan
adopted pursuant to the Amended Implementation Plan Resolution and Sections 333 52(c),
33451.5(c)(7) and 33490 of the Redevelopment Law. Based on these findings, the Agency is
authorized to pay all or a part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and
construction of the public improvements set forth in the Plan Amendment, as pennitted by
Section 33445 of the Redevelopment Law. These findings are based on information and analysis
more fully set forth in Sections A, B, C, D, and E of the Plan Amendment Report.
P. The Project Area is predominantly urbanized as defined by subdivision (b) of
Section 33320.1 of the Redevelopment Law. This finding was initially made in connection with
adoption of Ordinance No. 87-102 adopting the Plan, based on information and analysis fully set
forth in original Report that the Project Area was predominantly urbanized at the time of initial
adoption of the Plan in 1987. This finding is further supported by the information and analysis
fully set forth in Section B of the Plan Amendment Report documenting that the Project Area
remains predominantly urbanized within the current Redevelopment Law definition. _
q. The implementation of the Plan Amendment will improve or alleviate the
physical and economic conditions of blight in the Project Area, as described in the Plan
Amendment Report. This finding is based on information and analysis set forth in the Record,
with particular reference to Sections A, B, D and E of the Plan Amendment Report, and briefly
summarized as follows. As detailed in Sections A and B of the Plan Amendment Report,
significant blight remains in the Project Area that cannot be addressed without the additional
financial and legal tools made possible by the Plan Amendment. For instance, as explained in
Section E of the Plan Amendment Report, the increased cap on tax increment revenue made
possible by the Plan Amendment will enable the funding of a significant portion of the
Redevelopment Projects. In turn, the Redevelopment Projects are expressly designed to improve
or alleviate the identified remaining physical and economic blight conditions in the manner
described in Sections A, B, D and E.
SECTION III. Overrulin4 of Objections. All written and oral objections to the Plan
Amendment are hereby overruled. In accordance with Section 33363 of the Redevelopment
Law, the reasons for overruling all written objections are more fully set forth in the Written
Findings and Responses.
SECTION IV. Approval of Plan Amendment. It is hereby found that the amendments
to the Plan embodied in the Plan Amendment are necessary and desirable. The Plan, all
amendments and restatements and all ordinances adopting or previously amending the Plan are
hereby amended in accordance with the Plan Amendment.
The Plan Amendment is hereby adopted and approved and the Plan, as amended by the
Plan Amendment, is designated as the official redevelopment plan for the Project Area. The
320V24\556076? 7
Plan Amendment, consisting of two pages and two exhibits,.is incorporated in this Ordinance by
reference and made a part of the Ordinance as if set out in full in the Ordinance. The Clerk of
the Board of the County is hereby directed to file a copy of the Plan'�Amendment with the
minutes of this meeting. The Agency is vested with the continuing responsibility to implement
the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendment.
SECTION V. Severability. .If any provision, section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the Plan Amendment is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
portions of the,Ordinance or the Plan Amendment.
SECTION VI. Recordation. The Executive Director of Agency is hereby directed
to record the Plan Amendment and related documents in compliance with the provisions of,
Sections 33373 and 33456 of the Redevelopment Law and Government Code Section 27295.
SECTION VIL. Publication, Effectiveness. This Ordinance or a summary thereof shall
be published once in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and
published in Contra Costa County and circulated in Contra Costa County, within fifteen (15)
days from and after its adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty(30)
days after its adoption.
PASSED on June 3rd, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: o i z, (.- -a A--( 6Ac ,,re-c—
NOTES: JAL ur.�-
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: /pct ✓% e--
ATTEST: John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By:
/ eputy Federal D. Glover, Board Chair
320\24\556076.2 $
ATTACHMENT F
Resolution Adopting Findings and Responses to Comments or
Objections to the Adoption of the Sixth Amendment to the Bay
Point Redevelopment Plan
G1�0
G .7• a�'
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 3, 2008, by the following vote:
• �
AYES: 6 id i a, (,� KKc,-,,tV-1 1'n
i e f/lei (3--1-
N 0 E S:
3a/-.NOES: 14 eq-e--
ABSENT: b,-.e—
ABSTAIN: v►
Resolution No.:
SUBJECT: Resolution adopting written findings and responses to comments or objections
received in connection with consideration of the adoption of the Sixth
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment Project
Area (formerly known as the "West Pittsburg" Redevelopment Project Area) in
accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES THAT:
The Redevelopment Agency of the Contra Costa County(the "Agency")has prepared
and submitted to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (the "Board"), for the Board's
consideration, the Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point.
Redevelopment Project Area (tile "Plan Amendment"); and
In connection.with consideration of the Plan Amendment, the Board and the Agency
conducted and completed a duly noticed joint public hearing on.May 20, 2008,pursuant to the
requirements of Health and Safety Code'Sections 33355; and
At or prior to the joint public hearing,the Board and the Agency received certain
comments or objections to the Plan Amendment, which comments or objections are set forth in
Part 11 of that certain document entitled "Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area: Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33363", which document is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A,
incorporated herein by this reference, and hereinafter referred to as the "Findings"; and
Part III of the Findings contains the Board's and Agency's written findings and responses
to the above described comments or objections, which written findings and responses have been
prepared and considered by the Board in connection with consideration of adoption of the Plan
Amendment, all in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby finds and certifies that
the Findings have been prepared in compliance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code
Section 33363; that the Findings adequately address the written comments or objections
received by the Board and the Agency in connection with the Plan Amendment; and that the
Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings prior to approving
the Plan Amendment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A are
hereby approved and adopted as, and sliall constitute, the written findings and responses of the
Board with respect to the written objections to the Plan Amendment required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33363.
BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its
adoption.
120\24\562817.2 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct
copy of an action taken and entered on the
I minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
date shown.
ATTESTED: X
JOHN CULLEN,Clerk of the Board
of Sup isors and C �istr� ator
geputy
F
EXHIBIT A
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
BAY POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE "WEST
PITTSBURG" REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT)
WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES PURSUANT
TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363
Board of Supervisors of the Contra Costa County
June 3, 2008
320\24\562817.2
I. PURPOSE.
The Redevelopment Agency of the Contra Costa County (the "Agency")has prepared,
and the Board of Supervisors of the Contra Costa County (the "Board") is considering for
adoption the Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment
Project Area (formerly known as the "West Pittsburg" Redevelopment Project) (the "Plan
Amendment"). On May 20, 2008,the Agency and the Board conducted a duly noticed joint
public hearing on the Plan Amendment in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety
Code Sections 33355, 33451, and 33361. At or prior to the joint public hearing, the Agency and
the Board received certain written comments or objections to the Plan Amendment. Those
written comments or objections are listed in Part II and set forth in full in Appendix I of this
document.
Health and Safety Code Section 33363 states:
At the hour set in the notice required by Section 33361 for hearing objections, the
legislative body shall proceed to hear all written and oral objections. Before
adopting the Plan, the legislative body shall evaluate the report of the Agency, the
report and recommendation of the project area committee, and all evidence and
testimony for and against the adoption of the Plan and shall make written findings
in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing
entity. The legislative body shall respond in writing to the written objections
received before or at the noticed hearing, including any extensions thereof, and
may additionally respond to written objections that are received after the hearing.
The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The
legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for
not accepting specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall
include a good faith, reasoned analysis in its response and,for this purpose,
conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information shall not suffice.
This document constitutes the written findings and responses of the Board, as the
legislative body of the County of Contra Costa, prepared and adopted in accordance with the
requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33363. Specifically, Part III below contains the
Board's written findings and responses to the written comments or objections set forth in Part II
and Appendix 1.
Each substantive comment or objection listed in Part II and set forth in Appendix I has
been assigned a reference identification number in the margin next to the comment or objection.
The Board's written findings and responses to each substantive comment or objection are set
forth and organized in PartIII according to those reference identification numbers.
These findings incorporate other documents, which are part of the record of adoption of
the Plan Amendment. These documents are listed below and are incorporated within these
findings as supporting evidence by this and subsequent references:
A. The Plan Amendment;
1
B. The Preliminary Report on the Plan Amendment, dated February 13, 2008 (the
"Preliminary Report");
C. The Report to the Board of Supervisors, dated May 7, 2008 (the "Report");
D. The Supplement to the Report, dated May 15, 2008 (the "Supplement")
E. The resolution prepared for consideration on June 3, 2008 concurrently with this
resolution (including attached Exhibits) entitled: "A Resolution of the Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County and A Resolution of the Redevelopment
Agency of Contra Costa County Making Findings and Approvals Required by the
California Environmental Quality Act in Connection with the Negative
Declaration Prepared for the Adoption of the Sixth Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Bay Point Redevelopment Project Area(formerly
known as the "West Pittsburg" Redevelopment Project)";
F. The Negative Declaration prepared for the Plan Amendment;
G. Documentary and oral evidence received by the County of Contra Costa Planning
Commission, the Agency and the Board during public hearings and meetings on
the Plan Amendment and the Negative Declaration including, without limitation,
staff reports submitted to the Board and Agency at the May 20, 2008 joint public
hearing on the Plan Amendment; and
H. Matters of common knowledge to the Board and the Agency which they have
considered, such as the County General Plan, any applicable Specific Plans and
prior resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the County of Contra Costa
(the "County").
II. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
Written comments or objections to the Plan Amendment were received directly by the
County or Agency from the following persons:
1. Letter from John Charles Stoneking, dated May 14, 2008
2. Letter from Norma and Dorothy Siegfried, dated May 17, 2008
The above letters are set forth in their entirety in Appendix 1 to this Exhibit A.
No comment letters were received by the County and the Agency regarding the Negative
Declaration during the comment period on the Negative Declaration.
2
C�a6
III. WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1. John Charles Stoneking, dated May 14, 2008
Comment 1.1
Comment: Mr. Stoneking's letter urges the rejection of the (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART
Station Area) Specific Plan for his neighborhood (Orbisonia Heights). Specifically, Mr.
Stoneking expresses his frustration over the process of acquiring property under the
Specific Plan and states that he does not believe that a private developer should be able to
use tax payer money to finance their endeavors.
Response: Although Mr.'Stoneking's concerns address frustration over the process of
acquiring property under the implementation of the Specific Plan and not necessarily the
Plan Amendment, this response will be,included in the record for the Plan Amendment.
The Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Area Specific Plan was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors in 2002. Land assemblage of the Orbisonia Heights properties, in order to
implement the Specific Plan, began in late 2005 with several voluntary sales to the
Agency. In mid 2007, the Agency initiated the appraisal and offer process with the
remainder of the property owners in the area. The process provides that the Agency will
review, value, and authorize staff to make an offer to purchase the properties, and
property owners are invited to obtain their own appraisal, paid for by the Agency.
The Agency has adopted policies that require that the Agency's activities be carried out in
a manner which minimizes relocation and hardship. In the event of acquisition of any
property, the Agency will follow all state and local laws regarding acquisition of property
and will pay fair market"value for any properties acquired. , In addition, the Agency is
required by state law to pay relocation benefits to eligible displaced persons. While the
Agency has developed and implemented programs to promote redevelopment of blighted
properties and alleviate blighting conditions that remain in the Bay Point Project Area
(the "Project Area"), and is conducting economic analyses on how best to implement the
goals and objectives of the Bay Point Redevelopment Plan and leverage public dollars to
receive the greatest possible benefit, the use of eminent domain remains necessary as a
last resort to address these remaining blighting conditions.
Findings: The Board hereby finds that the above comment does not constitute an
objection to the Plan Amendment but instead address property acquisition as part of the
Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Area Specific Plan. The Board finds that the above
response demonstrates that the Agency has a process in place for property acquisition
under the Specific Plan and no further findings or actions are required concerning this
comment.
3
G� rL
2. Norma and Dorothy Siegfried, dated May 17,2008
Comment 2.1
Comment: If there were more emphasis on public/private partnerships, would it be
necessary to increase the amount of tax increment revenues or increase the amount of
bonds that can be outstanding at one time? Or as much?
Response: Although the Agency does already work to stimulate private reinvestment in
the Project Area, and will continue to leverage any private funds available, this private
investment alone is inadequate to fund the necessary redevelopment of the Project Area
without an increase in the limit on the amount of tax increment and bonded indebtedness
that can be outstanding at one time. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33352(d), the Agency has provided a detailed explanation in the Report as to why the
elimination of blight in the Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise
alone, or by the use of governmental financing alternatives other than tax increment
financing. Specifically, Sections D and E of the Report (which are incorporated into this
Response by this reference) set forth the relevant information. The cost of the Agency's
redevelopment program, as described in the Report, will total over $217 million in 2007
dollars. Of this total amount, $136.5 million will be funded through tax increment
revenues. When all costs are included and the impact of inflation has been added in, the
costs for redevelopment will reach over $692 million. Neither the County nor private
enterprises has historically been able to finance a redevelopment effort of this type. Thus,
the Agency must look to tax increment financing as a major source of funding for the
Agency to complete its program of redevelopment.
Findings: The Board hereby finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the above
comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully overrules the above
objection.
Comment 2.2
Comment: It was stated at the PAC meeting that increasing the increment will not affect
property taxes? How about increasing the amount of bonds outstanding at one time?
Who pays the interest on those bonds? Property owners?
Response: The Agency does not have the power to raise property taxes. Tax increment
revenue is property tax revenues that have been reallocated to the Agency for use in the
redevelopment of the Project Area. Neither increasing the amount of tax increment that
the Agency can collect nor the bonded indebtedness limit will affect property taxes paid
by homeowners. Tax allocation bonds are an obligation of the Agency, not the County,
and are repaid with tax increment revenues generated from the Project Area.
4
Cita
Findings: The Board finds that the Plan Amendment will not affect property taxes paid
by homeowners and that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the above comment is
an objection to Plan Amendment,the Board respectfully overrules the above objection.
Comment 2.3
Comment: Does the $22 million pass through that goes to the County have any strings
attached? Or is it merely to help the Board of Supervisors reduce their budget deficit
because they can?
Response: Currently, the County General Fund and most County controlled agencies do
not receive pass through payments from the Project Area. None of the affected taxing
entities have objected to the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The Agency has
recommended that the Board elect to receive the statutory pass through payments
provided for by Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). The statutory pass through
payments represent a proportionate amount of the Project Area's incremental assessed
value from the Project Area above the FY 2007-08 assessed value total. The Agency's
pass through payments to the County may be spent at the County's discretion. A
description of how the statutory payments are calculated can be found in Section E of the
Report.
Findings: The Board finds that any pass through payments received by the County may
be spent at the County's,discretion. The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in
the record to support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the
extent the above comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully
overrules the above objection.
Comment 2.4
Comment: How much of the 22 million pass through to the General Fund money will be
taken from other redevelopment areas?
Response: The monies that are passed through, as identified and analyzed in the Report,
represents the amount paid from the Agency to the County solely from the Project Area
and does not involve any other redevelopment areas. A description of how the statutory
payments are calculated can be found in Section E of the Report. The Plan Amendment
only addresses tax increment and bond indebtedness limits for the Project Area.
Findings: The Board finds that the Plan Amendment only addresses tax increment and
bond indebtedness limits for the Project Area. The Board finds that there is substantial
evidence in the record to support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis,
and to the extent the above comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board
respectfully overrules the above objection.
5
Comment 2.5
Comment: Are the General Fund pass through funds taken only when incremental
increases take place? Are the monies taken in the pass through to the General Fund by
the Board of Supervisors only spent in areas where the funds are taken (example: Bay
Point being one where funds are taken)?
Response: General Fund pass through payments will be allocated in every year that the
Project Area assessed value exceeds the FY 2007-08 assessed value total. The tax
increment monies that are passed through to the General Fund may be spent at the
County's discretion. A description of how the statutory payments are calculated can be
found in Section E of the Report.
Findings: The Board finds that any pass through payments received by the County may
be spent at the County's discretion. The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in
the record to support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis,and to the
extent the above comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully
overrules the above objection.
Comment 2.6
Comment: Is the pass through money a one time thing or will the increases take place .
every year or with each increase?
Response: The pass through payments will likely take place every year and the amounts
are proportionate to the incremental tax increment that the Agency receives in the years
following the adoption of the proposed 2008 Bay Point Amendment. A description of
how the statutory payments are calculated can be found in Section E of the Report.
Findings: The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the above comment is
an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully overrules the above objection.
Comment 2.7
Comment: Can additional Code Enforcement personnel be provided with redevelopment
funds? For Bay Point only?
Response: Yes, additional code enforcement personnel can be paid for by tax increment
revenues received from the Project Area. Section 33020 and 33021 of the CRL
establishes that redevelopment funds can be used for the purpose of paying for employee
or contractual services of any local governmental agency as long as the services are
directly related to redevelopment purposes, that is, are aimed at eliminating physical
blighting conditions related to exterior code violations that impair property values and
discourage private sector reinvestment in surrounding properties that are affected by such
violations. The Agency's Community Improvement Program has indentified the need for
6
G�/OD
such expenditures. The Community Improvement Program will also have an indirect
effect of reducing crime, which is a prevalent economic blighting condition in the Project
Area.
Findings: The Board finds that additional code enforcement personnel may be paid for by
tax increment revenues received from the Project Area provided it is for a legitimate
redevelopment activity. The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record
to support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the
above comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully overrules the
above objection.
Comment 2.8
Comment: Garbage remediation and vacant lot yard clean-up should always be at the
owners'expense, not redevelopment.
Response: In many cases, garbage remediation and vacant lot yard clean-up is not the
fault of the owner. Illegal dumping is a prime example where, through no fault of the
owner, a property may contain hazardous substances or waste where the health, safety,
and welfare of residents and workers may be severely.at risk. In order to remediate such
risks to residents and workers in an area, an agency may need to spend redevelopment
dollars to implement programs and/or projects to facilitate the clean-up process.
Furthermore, a property owner may not have the financial capacity to remediate garbage
and debris and in order to curb further diminishing property values in a project area,
agency assistance is required. In addition, the Agency intends to provide funding for
additional code enforcement personnel in order to ensure that property owners are held
accountable for cleanup of trash, debris, and any other physically blighting condition that
is not the responsibility of the Agency to remediate.
Findings: The Board finds that garbage remediation may be a legitimate
redevelopment activity. The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record
to support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the
above comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully overrules the
above objection.
Comment 2.9
Comment: Since Bay Point has already exceeded the requirements for such housing for
foreseeable future, can that be factored against the 20%stated as a requirement.
Response: Housing production in the Project Area through FY 2003-04 obligated the
Agency to produce 83 affordable units, of which 38 units were required to be reserved for
very low income households. Due to its excellent past performance, the Agency produced
a surplus of 103 affordable housing units including a surplus of 3 units with occupancy
restricted to very low-income households by the end of FY 2003-04. Since the existing
Implementation Plan was adopted, the Agency has incurred an additional inclusionary
7
G • 30�
obligation of 41 affordable housing units of which 17 units must be affordable to very
low income households. Due to the Agency's surplus in units, the affordable unit
requirement has been satisfied and a 63 unit surplus remains. The Agency's 3 unit surplus
in very low income restricted units was not enough to fully satisfy the 17 unit obligation.
Thus, the Agency is working towards satisfying the 14 very low-income restricted unit
deficit prior to the end of the planning period in FY 2013-14. To satisfy the remaining
deficit in low-income restricted units as well as provide affordable units that will be
required over the remaining life of the Project Area, the Agency must continue to set
aside 20 percent of tax increment from the Project Area for affordable housing purposes.
Findings: The Board finds that the Agency is required to set aside 20 percent of tax
increment from the Project Area in order to satisfy its statutory affordable housing
production requirement. The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the above
comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully overrules the above
objection.
Comment 2.10
Comment: Was that % (percent) an increase? Does the State still require 10-15%?
Since Bay Point has already exceeded the requirements for such housing for the
foreseeable future, can that be factored against the 20%stated as a requirement.
Response: There are two major requirements that an Agency must fulfill as required by
CRL, which pertain to the question stated above. First, the Agency is required to set aside
20% of the tax increment it receives from the Project Area into a fund to increase or
improve low and moderate income housing per Section 33334.2 of the CRL. An
additional requirement of the Agency is to ensure that it meets its inclusionary housing
requirement. Section 33413 of CRL requires that at least 30 percent of all new and
substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed by an agency shall be available at
affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income. Furthermore,
Section 33413 states that' 15 percent of all new and substantially rehabilitated dwelling
units developed within the Project Area by public or private entities or persons other than
the agency, shall be made affordable and available to persons and families of low or.
moderate income.
Findings: The Board finds that the Agency is required to set aside 20 percent of tax
increment from the Project Area in order to satisfy its statutory affordable housing
production requirement. The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the above
comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully overrules the above
abjection.
8
Comment 2.11
Comment: If there are more public/private partnerships, does the 20%still hold?
Res onse: Yes, the Agency is obligated, under CRL Section 33334.2, to set aside 20
percent of the gross tax increment revenue that is received each year from the Project
Area into a separate fund to be used for increasing, improving, and preserving the
community's supply of low and moderate income housing.
Findings: The Board finds that the Agency is required to set aside 20 percent of tax
increment from the Project Area in order to satisfy its statutory affordable housing
production requirement. The Board finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the necessity of the Plan Amendment. On this basis, and to the extent the above
comment is an objection to Plan Amendment, the Board respectfully overrules the,above
objection.
Comment 2.12
Comment: How can we ensure nonprofit agencies don't use credits from other
geographical areas in the State to build low rent projects in Bay Point?
Response; From the comments given, it is not clear what non profit agencies are being
referred to nor what "credits" are being moved from one geographic area to another.
However, Article 34 of the California Constitution provides certain limitations where a
"state public body" may build low rent projects. Article 34 of the California Constitution
also states that voter approval must be obtained before any "state public body," including
redevelopment agencies,'develops, constructs or acquires a "low rent housing project."
As a result, if a redevelopment agency participates in development of a "low rent housing
project" and that leads to a level of development, construction, or acquisition of the
project by the agency, approval by the electorate pursuant to Article 34 is required for the
project unless the project falls under one of the recognized exceptions to Article 34.
Findings: The Board hereby finds that the above comment does not constitute an
objection to the Plan Amendment and no further findings or actions are required
concerning this comment.
Comment 2.13
Comment: How can we ensure that cities outside of Bay Point don't dump their low-
moderate or affordable housing in Bay Point?
Response: Cities are required by State Housing Element Law to adequately plan to meet
their existing and projected housing needs, which includes their share of regional housing
needs. State Housing Element law also mandates that a city assist with the development
of low-moderate income households within their own jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, a
city would not serve its best interest by developing low-moderate income housing in Bay
9
a
Point without satisfying any outstanding housing obligations within its own jurisdictional
boundaries. Additionally, cities that also have redevelopment agencies may not spend
their 20 percent housing set aside funds outside of their jurisdictional boundaries.
Findings: The Board hereby finds that the above comment does not constitute an
objection to the Plan Amendment and no further findings or actions are required
concerning this comment.
Comment 2.14
Comment: All projects of this nature, especially the new ones, have resulted in
increased crime as a result of benign management and lack of oversight of section 8
(eight)participants. Only developments that have hired outside security companies have
turned that around. Let's make it a requirement.
Response: Comment noted.
This is a general comment that is unsupported by any real evidence and unrelated to the
proposed 2008 Bay Point,,Amendment. A response is not warranted.
Findings: The Board hereby finds that the above comment does not constitute an
objection to the Plan Amendment and no further findings or actions are required
concerning this comment:
10
G;LoO
APPENDIX 1
LETTERS OF COMMENT
11
GOIN TPA04K-q- 7zl�-
mae MAY ru P is ni
�ouA c
127- eodl)eaw
Cyt ;r� o� �✓-� �.�� �..�
12
ae-
ool�
13
C160
May 17,2008
RE: Redevelopment Plan Amendment
1. If there were more emphasis on public/private partnerships, would it be necessary to
increase the amount of tax increment revenues or increase the amount of bonds that
can be outstanding at one time? Or as much?
2. It was stated at the PAC meeting that increasing the increment will not affect
property taxes? How about increasing the amount of bonds outstanding at one time?
Who pays the interest on those bonds? Property owners?
3. Does the $22 million pass through that goes to the County have any strings attached?
Or is it merely to help the Board of Supervisors reduce their budget deficit because
they can?
-How much of the 22 million pass through to the General Fund money will be taken from
other Redevelopment areas?
- Are the General Fund pass through funds taken only when incremental increases take
place? Are monies taken in the pass through to the General Fund by the Board of
Supervisors only spent in areas where the funds are taken(example:Bay Point being one where
funds are taken)?
- Is the pass through money a one time thing or will the increases take place every year or
with each increase?
4. Community Improvement Program
- Can additional Code Enforcement personnel be provided with redevelopment
funds? For Bay Point only?
- Garbage remediation and vacant lot yard clean-up should always be at the owners'
expense,not redevelopment.
5. Low/Moderate-Affordable Housing Programs
- Since Bay Point has already exceeded the requirements for such housing for the
foreseeable future, can that be factored against the 20% stated as a requirement.
Was that%(percent) an increase? Does the State still require 10-15%?
If there are more public/private partnerships, does the 20%still hold?
How can we ensure non profit agencies don't use credits from other geographical
areas in the state to build low rent projects in Bay Point?
How can we ensure that cities outside of Bay Point don't dump their low-
moderate or affordable housing in Bay Point?
Comment: All projects of this nature,especially the new ones,have resulted in
increased crime as a result of benign management and lack of oversight of section
8(eight)participants. Only developments that have hired outside security
companies have turned that around. Let's make it a requirement
Norma and Dorothy Siegfried
Private Citizens and
Members of the MAC/PAC respectively