Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 07101990 - 90/454THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on JUTL 10 , 1 Q9n by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Torlakson, Powers, Schroder, McPeak and Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Bethel RESOLUTION NO. 90/454 Island Area General Plan Amendment There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 13-1990 adopted by the East County Regional Planning Commission recommending approval of the Specific Plan for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment. On March 6, 1990 this Board held a hearing on the General Plan Amendment as recommended by the East Contra Costa Regional Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-1990. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at the hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter, and numerous persons testified. Upon completion of the testimony, the Board closed the public hearing Ifor oral testimony, left the record open to March 9, 1990 at 5: 00 p.m. for written comment, and deferred its decision to March 20, 1990 at 2 : 00 p.m. On March 20, 1990 the Board declared its intent to approve the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, with modifications to and changes from the Planning .Commission:.recommendation, ..and.. directed staff, to..prepare. appropriate%d-ocuments- -for,":f inal Board .-consideration. On July 10, 1990, consistent with the staff report of that date from the Director of Community Development, the Board was presented with the following documents for its consideration: Addendum to the Final EIR for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Bethel Island Area General Plan and Specific Plan, Determinations and Findings Regarding Consistency of the Bethel Island Area. Specific Plan with the Contra Costa County General Plan and the East County Area General Plan through the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment, the General Plan Amendment for the Bethel Island Area, and the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan. Karl Wandry, Deputy Director of Community Development, advised that additional changes to the documents were required for purposes of consistency and completeness and to bring them into compliance with the intent of the Board. Additional comments on the documents and their contents were made by members of the Board. On the .motion of .Supervisor _Torlakson, seconded by Supervisor the -Board°Board . directed :staff to complete the necessary resolution., make : the=.necessary: changes "to-. the -documents, . and, contingent on such changes, certified the Final -Environmental 1 - RESOLUTION 90/454 l > i Impact Report, adopted the necessary findings and determinations, and approved the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, effective July 10, 1990. The Board finds that the General Plan Amendment will have a significant impact' on the environment and that an environmental impact report has been prepared and completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, and County environmental guidelines.An Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report has also been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and County environmental guidelines. Said Addendum is attached and marked as Exhibit A as revised. The Board finds and certifies as adequate the Final EIR and Addendum. In approving the General Plan Amendment, the Board adopts as revised the Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Said Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations is attached and marked as r' Exhibit B as revised. In approving the General Plan Amendment, the Board adopts as revised the Statement of Determination and Findings Regarding Consistency of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan with the Contra Costa County General Plan and East County Area General Plan through the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment. Said Statement of Determination and Findings is attached and marked as Exhibit D as revised. The Board, having fully considered this matter, has determined to approve the General Plan Amendment as revised and marked as Exhibit C. Said General Plan Amendment includes, among others, the following changes from the East County Regional Planning Commission recommendation: LAND USE MODIFICATIONS 1. Off-island area east of Jersey Island Road: From Residential Low Density (1 - 2 .9 du/net acre) to Off Island Bonus Area 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) except when significant recrea,tional.::faclites:.open to the ;public i°are:;developed,-then density,­of -to 2 .9­,,du.,/net ,.acre .is..,allowed. 2 . Off-island area west of Jersey Island Road: From Single Family Residential Low Density (1 - 2 .9 du/net acre) to Agricultural Land (1 du/5 acres) . 3 . On-island area just west of Park Lane: From Multiple Family Residential Low Density to Local Commercial. 2 - RES.OLUTION 90/454 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors CERTIFIES that the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum for the Bethel Island Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment (Exhibit A) have been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that the Final EIR and the Addendum were presented to the Board, and the Board considered the information contained in them, before the Board approved the following; ADOPTS the Statement of Findings and Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment (Exhibit B) and the General Plan Amendment (Exhibit C) and the Statement of Determinations and Findings Regarding Consistency of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan with the Contra Costa County General Plan and East County Area General Plan through the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment (Exhibit D) . cc: Director of Community Development County Counsel Vberelyy certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of SupeMsjZm on the date shown. ATTESTE F BAT LOR,blerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator BY Deputy 3 RESOLUTION 90/454 BETHEL ISLAND AND VICINITY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT r FRANKS TRACT i , " 14Str•fI • \____ i*i.•i„ >i • x .. . 3 `ij'Ct•, r r cS fK f, + ..; tip f`:3 yl' i d").';'i a l.r f R,F"q{.A jf .• 4 *^} K. itroff,pa T f r Q•Es j',4 :t9i'< '-r rrc k { rs.f; r••` "c```, •' 4 f i Yt lLc'i, ''f Y l^{.{ o +„ .r F'' ,} 1'(•yf-4:: l tc ASG!i`f s 7 yy, 3 Ysf,t tj FtJ >`k 1Y r f? J - ., • Yt Lill' r:Zz.4 4'` 4, y •'' r t S!-" t't h',f7,fSh'attts `af'.4. ,tch``h:•h} 7,. , l: .,x f t'. b. c'6;K Y-iTihi "G', t { ,t[ r Mir 4`C v tsU pCt+r r t l! t chi: JERSEY ISLAND NO ipr^ I• c 5+31'' .,i ,Sf- r a r Tf •, s Vit. tl r f'• j a t • s HOLLAND 6 TRACT I i J11 I I i'. -.I I i r '. r , 1. •\ DIY I T I S' C , V ATL 111 4 "L jx_` ri I :I 0 1000 2000 sal•in Feet i Single Family Residential- Low 1.0 to 2.9 DU/net acre Single Family Residential-High 5.0 to 7.3 DU/net acre Multiple Family Residential - Low 7.4 to 11.9 DU/net acre Mobile Home Park i Local Commercial W Waterfront Park Commercial Recreation C Community Park Agricultural Lands N Neighborhood Park Open Space s Parks and Recreation ® Off Island Bonus Area Marina Commercial I hereby certify that this Amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator. By Deputy Y ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT "A" ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN This Addendum addresses two aspects of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment") and Bethel Island Area Specific Plan BIASP") ("Bethel Island FEIR") . Section I addresses the impact development in the Bethel Island area may have on the circulation system in the Oakley area now that the 1989 Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan has been rescinded by the Board of Supervisors Board") . Section II clarifies responses to comments submitted on the draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") in light of changes made to the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP by the Board after the responses were prepared, some of which changes have further addressed concerns expressed in some of the comments. I. TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON OAKLEY A. Introduction On April 17, 1990, the Board took action to rescind the 1989 Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan ("ONBAGP") and declared its intention to adopt the ONBAGP as part of the Countywide General Plan. The Board did not rescind the ONBAGP because it believed in to be inadequate. Rather, due to the filing of a lawsuit by various environmental groups challenging the validity of the ONBAGP, the Board felt it economically advantageous to delay implementation of the ONBAGP until the Countywide General Plan is complete. The above action of the Board occurred after 1) the Bethel Island FEIR, consisting of the DEIR and the responses to comments on the DEIR, was prepared, and 2) the Board passed an intent motion to approve the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP. Portions of the traffic analysis contained in the Bethel Island FEIR assumed certain roadway improvements as described in the ONBAGP. This addendum analyzes whether those roadway improvements will need to be constructed and financed by Bethel Island developers given potential traffic impacts, in the Oakley area as a result of development under the BIASP and assuming development, with its related impacts, does not take place under ONBAGP. An addendum is appropriate to discuss and resolve this issue since: 1) a change in the project is not being made that will require important revisions to the final EIR due to the involvement of significant environmental impacts not previously considered, 2) a substantial change in surrounding circumstances has not occurred that requires important revisions to be made to the Bethel Island EIR due to the involvement of significant environmental impacts not previously considered, 3) no new information of 1 substantial importance has arisen that creates a significant effect that was not previously analyzed (the Bethel Island FEIR has incorporated by reference the ONBAGP EIR and draft County General Plan EIR) , 4) only minor changes or additions are necessary to make the Bethel Island FEIR adequate, and 5) the information contained in the addendum does not raise important new issues about the significant environmental effects of the project. (See, CEQA Guidelines §15164 . ) B. Analysis The Bethel Island FEIR assumed that certain road improvements would be in place, or provided for in the ONBAGP as analyzed in the EIR for that project. These improvements would be constructed with funds obtained from development under the ONBAGP. Now that the ONBAGP has been rescinded, with development thereunder no longer assumed and the funding for Oakley road improvements now uncertain, there may be different traffic impacts that are created by the development in the Bethel Island Area Planning Area. Without these Oakley improvements in place, existing traffic information should be analyzed to confirm whether or not unacceptable traffic congestion may develop in some locations. The following table provides a list of the proposed roadway improvement projects that would be required to support development in the ONBAGP. 2 Needed to Traffic Accommodate Roadway Improvement Projects Increment Traffic from From ONBAGP. from BIASPI BIASP Widening SR 4 to 6 lanes 14% Yes between SR 160 and Empire 8,200 trips) Avenue Widening the following facilities to four lanes: SR 4 Between Empire Avenue and 18% Yes downtown Brentwood 10,600 trips) Lone Tree Way 3% No Neroly Avenue 3% No Empire Avenue 3% No Laurel Road west of SR 4 21% Yes 12,400 trips) O'Hara Avenue 3% No Fairview Avenue 3% No Cypress Road east of SR 4 18% Yes 10, 600 trips) Proposed new roadways: Delta Expressway, two-lanes 16% Yes between SR 160 and SR 4 9,400 trips) southeast of Brentwood Laurel Road Extension between 20% Yes Neroly Avenue and Hillcrest 11,800 trips) Avenue (including Delta Expwy Interchange) Sunset Road Extension 3% No Rose Avenue Extension 3% No O'Hara Avenue Extension 3o No Lone Tree Way Extension 3% No 1 Percent of BIASP traffic on this route segment; number of trips on an average weekday. 2 An evaluation of whether this roadway improvement is needed in order to accommodate BIASP traffic at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better) . 3 As the above table shows, there are a large number of transportation projects that are required to mitigate development consistent with the ONBAGP. Of the projects listed above, many do not serve through traffic volumes and will be little impacted by development consistent with the BIASP. Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue are examples of this type of project. If a roadway would serve less than 3% of the BIASP traffic (about 1,500 vehicles per day) , then the impact of BIASP traffic would be insignificant, and the improvements would not be necessitated by the BIASP. The cumulative impact of BIASP would also be insignificant given that new development in Oakley is limited. If a road improvement serves 10 percent or more of the BIASP traffic (6, 000 trips per day) , then this project would quite likely be an important element in order to mitigate the impacts of the BIASP. Six of the projects from the ONBAGP highway improvement list fall into this category. These are as follows: REGIONAL ROADWAYS: 1. Widening SR 4 to 6 lanes between SR 160 and Empire Avenue--This highway mitigation has been designed and is being constructed in many areas as frontage improvements for adjacent development. Some sections have been completed, and others are currently under construction. Development consistent with the ONBAGP will complete the remaining sections. This regional roadway segment is currently a traffic capacity problem, with several intersections at unacceptable levels, and will continue to be without any development in the Bethel Island area. Through traffic has been growing at an average annual rate of about 8 percent. This state highway project is considered to be a regional improvement project beyond the ability of Bethel Island developers to pay for independently. 2. SR 4 between Empire Avenue and downtown Brentwood--The same comments apply to this regional roadway project as were noted above. Some sections of this project have been completed as frontage improvements by adjacent development, and others are currently under construction. Development consistent with the ONBAGP will complete .the remaining sections. Trips that originate or end within the Bethel Island area will amount to about 10, 000 vehicle trips per day on this segment of Highway 4 when the Bethel Island area is at full build out. This number would be somewhat less when the Delta Expressway/ Laurel Road interchange is constructed. 3 . Delta Expressway, two-lanes between SR 160 and SR 4 southeast of Brentwood--This project, which will be a new alignment of Highway 4 that would bypass Oakley and Brentwood, is currently planned, but has not been programmed for construction. A Joint 4 Powers Agreement (JPA) has been formed for the purposes of funding environmental studies, and to adopt a final alignment. The regional road is initially planned to be a two-lane expressway, with right-of-way to be acquired for an ultimate six-lane expressway.An interchange is planned for Laurel Avenue. Development pursuant to the BIASP shall contribute its fair share to this improvement by paying a regional traffic mitigation fee. OAKLEY ROADWAYS: 1. Laurel Road West of SR 4--The need for this project would be intensified by development consistent with the BIASP, which would contribute about 12,400 vehicle trips per day at full build out. This road, however, would not be impacted until the connec- tion to the Delta Expressway is complete. Its construction at that time should be financially assured by Bethel Island development. If the ONBAGP is adopted, then Oakley developers will accept this obligation and reimburse Bethel Island developers for any advanced contributions. Laurel Road currently carries very minor traffic volumes of less than 2, 000 vehicles per day, and would need to be widened at such time as traffic volumes approach 15, 000 vehicles per day. 2 . Cypress Road east of SR 4--This project is also an important part of the BIASP transportation mitigation plan, and therefore will be completed in conjunction with the BIASP. 3 . Laurel Road Extension between Neroly Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue (including Delta Expwy/Laurel Road Interchange) --This project would be constructed along with the Delta Expressway and is a part of the studies of the Delta Expressway. See the Laurel Road discussion above. C. Conclusion Of all the roadway mitigation projects in the list of needed highway improvements in the ONBAGP, the only one that would not have a potential source of funding as a part of the Countywide General Plan or from regional road improvement studies, would be the widening of _ Laurel Road . between Highway 4 and the Delta Expressway from 2 to 4 lanes. Funding for this improvement would be advanced by development consistent with the BIASP at the time that this road is required. This need will not occur until the Delta Expressway is completed and development pursuant to the BIASP is more than half completed. 5 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A. Introduction An addendum is appropriate to provide the below, supplemental responses to some of the comments submitted on the DEIR. The supplemental responses below are only minor technical additions to the Bethel Island FEIR which do not raise important new issues about the significant effects of the environment. (See, CEQA Guidelines §15164. ) The impacts and issues referred to in the supplemental responses have already been analyzed in the Behtel Island FEIR. The additional responses below have either been made for clarification purposes and/or to indicate how the Board has further addressed some of the comments after the responses were prepared. B. State Lands Commission The State of. California State Lands Commission (ffSLCn) submitted comments dated November 20, 1990 to the DEIR. The response to comment twenty-nine was a continuation of the response to comment twenty-eight. Comment twenty-nine was misunderstood to refer to impacts of marine facilities on archeological resources. The actual response to comment twenty-nine was inadvertently omitted from the text. The response to comment . twenty-nine is provided below: nThe EIR analyzed the vehicular traffic impacts from the proposed project and the alternatives that would result from the addition of new residents and recreational visitors to the Planning Area. The traffic analysis for the proposed project appears at pages V-169 through V-181 and the analyses for the alternatives appears at pages VI-2, -8, -14, -15, -18, -19, -25, and -26. The majority of the traffic that would be created by the recreational visitors contemplated under the proposed project would occur on the weekends and not during weekday peak hours. Such traffic has been taken into account in making overall traffic projections. The Specific Plan commits to make improvements to the Bethel Island Bridge and Cypress, Laurel and Bethel Island Roads. These improvements will allow acceptable operating conditions of LOS D or better within the Planning Area. With respect to boat traffic, the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department is responsible for patrolling the boat traffic along the sloughs and shall maintain the posted speed limit of five miles per hour and provide assistance to boaters when necessary. Provision of adequate patrol service in the Delta around the Bethel Island Area is included within the requirement for sufficient police protection to adequately mitigate police protection impacts. 6 The presently existing marine facilities are generally boat slips-and dry storage facilities. Additional marine facilities are contemplated by the Specific Plan under the Marine Commercial and Commercial Recreation land use designations. The permitted uses under these designations are marine facilities that would be constructed on the inside of the levee system. The DEIR analyzed the impacts of these marine facilities as any other facility or structure. As a result, all marine and waterfront facilities must comply with the mitigation measures and conditions applicable to facilities and structures generally, such as the requirement of no net loss of wetlands and compliance with the growth management standards. If an applicant proposes to construct a marine or waterfront facility on the outside or Delta side of the levee system, a special use permit must be obtained and additional environmental review would be necessary so that the environmental impacts of a proposed facility at a specific location could be fully analyzed, especially on aquatic resources. The DEIR generally analyzed (due to the fact that this is a Program EIR and no specific projects for marine facilities on the outside of the levee system have been proposed) the impacts of marine and waterfront facilities on aquatic resources at pages V-100 and V-100a. In sum, the DEIR concluded that dredging would cause the resuspension of sediment which would result in changes in water temperature, turbidity, a decrease in dissolved oxygen content and an increase in water concentrations of heavy metals. Additionally, impacts on water quality may occur from spillage of oil and gasoline from marina activity. To mitigate the above impacts, an inventory of the plant, fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of any proposed marina, including potential routes of boats to and from the marina, shall be completed prior to project approval and measures shall be developed to adequately mitigate any impacts mentioned therein. Further, dredging the connection between the marina basin and river shall be limited to times of least impact to fishery resources, and shall not occur during high flow periods. In addition, specific areas within the proposed marina will be designated for boat and engine repair which will confine and lessen pollution impacts from oil and gasoline contaminants. The appropriate marine facilities on the Delta side of the levee system will be determined on a case-by-case basis following site specific environmental review. (See also response to comment number 15 from the Greenbelt Alliance) . 7 In response to this comment (in addition to the other comments submitted by the SLC) the following mitigation measure has been added: "All development application shall be submitted directly to the State Lands Commission 888LC") . The SLC shall timely review all development applications to determine the extent, if any, of publicly owned lands and whether the applications are consistent with SLC policies and to establish a long-term leasing agreement between the applicant and the SLC, if necessary." Ownership or any other real property interest in any land within the Bethel Island Area of the SLC is uncertain and subject to dispute. The SLC's control or responsibility over any such land is best determined on a case by case review if and when actual development proposals are submitted. C. Comments Regarding Traffic Impacts Several comments specifically inquired into the extent of both local and regional traffic impacts that would be created by the proposed project and specifically asked how those impacts would be mitigated (see comments submitted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, State Department of Transportation, Greenbelt Alliance, Mt. Diablo Audubon Society and the Sierra Club) . The responses to those comments, and any other comments that generally address traffic impacts, shall be modified to include the following information in light of changes in the project referred by the Board (portions of the information below are already contained in some of the responses but are repeated herein for clarity) : Development pursuant to the Specific Plan will construct and finance roadway improvements on the internal roadways in the Planning Area to allow operating conditions of LOS D or better. Funding for these improvements are provided for in the financing plan which is contained in Chapter 5.2 of the Specific Plan. As explained in Section I of the Addendum, improvements will be made by the Bethel Island developers when necessary if development in Oakley does not proceed) to roadways within .the Oakley area to allow acceptable operating conditions. Regional traffic impacts shall be mitigated to the extent feasible through the 1) establishment of a regional traffic mitigation fee, 2) the continued implementation of Measure "C", 3) implementation of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance, 4) revenues from gasoline tax increases which was approved by the voters after the responses were prepared and 5) implementation of the jobs/housing balance requirement in the project's Growth Management Program. If regional traffic impacts can not be adequately mitigated to a tolerable level through the implementation of the above 8 measures then development in the Bethel Island area shall be limited to 2, 109 approved dwelling units and no new significant residential development in the East County area shall be allowed through subsequent General Plan Amendments. Additional development will only be permitted in the Bethel Island area and other East County unincorporated areas once the funding mechanism and reasonably anticipated funding is reconfirmed for the necessary East County regional roadway improvements. The foregoing restrictions will reduce future cumulative impacts within the reasonable control of the County pending the availability of financing for needed regional transportation improvements. " D. Comments Regarding Levee Breaching Several comments specifically asked if levee breaching would be allowed under the Specific Plan (see comments submitted by Robert Lacoss and Roger Foott, Hasseltine Best, and John & Patricia Walsh) . Some responses to certain comments addressing impacts in the Planning Area generally (e.g. , those prepared for the State Lands Commission and Hetty Watson) stated that levee breaching is prohibited under the Specific Plan. At the time the responses were prepared to the DEIR, the Specific Plan did not permit levee breaching in the Planning Area. The responses to those comments shall be modified to reflect the following information in light of the possibility that levee breaching may be allowed off-island: Levee breaching on-island shall not be permitted unless the entire perimeter levee system is approved to Army Corps of Engineers' standards. Levee breaching shall be permitted off-island on a project-by-project basis. Levee breaching off-island will only be allowed subject to approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is likely that the perimeter levee system will have to be improved before such breaching is allowed. The policy against levee breaching on-island is based on the fact that the on-island area consists of weak, organic soils; there are limited opportunities for evacuation of the island in the event of a levee failure; the island is generally below sea .level and subsiding; and .limited opportunities exist for safe disbursement of flood water because it is a small island enclosed by levees. On the other hand, in the off-island area, wetland areas are limited; the soil is sandy and less subject to subsidence; the elevation is higher; the levee system is in an improved condition and not as long; there are several evacuation alternatives; and it is part of the mainland and disbursements of flood waters is not artificially contained such that internal systems around new development will not adversely affect existing residents and structures on the flood plain. The projects impact 9 on the levee system and the condition of the levee system and soils is analyzed at pages V=1 through V-28 of the DEIR. " E. Comments with Respect to Wetlands Several comments specifically questioned the proposed project's impact on wetlands (see comments submitted by the State Lands Commission, the United States Department of the Interior, Environmental Development Group, Diane Maybee, Greenbelt Alliance, and Mt. Diablo Audubon Society) . The responses to those comments, and any comments that generally refer to wetlands, are modified to include the following information in light of a pending recommendation for wetland protection from the Water Committee appointed by the Board: The Specific Plan contains the County's current wetland policy which requires a no net loss in the quality or quantity of permanent or seasonal wetlands. The Board of Supervisors requested its Water Committee to provide recommendations for wetland protection.The draft recommendation calls for stricter standards for the protection and restoration of wetlands then the no net loss policy. This Committee is considering and will likely recommend to the Board, a 3 : 1 mitigation policy with respect to wetlands. Development pursuant to the Specific Plan will be required to abide by this new policy or any new stricter policy adopted by the County through text in the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. " 10 a f ' STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN f EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN The following statements summarize the potential environmental impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment (FEIR) along with the mitigation measures adopted or rejected and other facts and considerations affecting approval of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan ("BIASP") and General Plan Amendment. The mitigation measures adopted by the Board of Supervisors ("Board") are listed in Section XX (List Of Adopted Mitigation Measures) of these findings. The Board, in making the following findings, has considered, in addition to the information contained in the FEIR and BIASP and the testimony presented at the hearings, all relevant information contained in the Environmental Impact Reports prepared for the Oakley North Brentwood Area General Plan and the March 1989 Draft Contra Costa County General Plan and in the plans themselves. I. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS A. Impact: Seismic hazards in the Planning Area have the potential to cause damage and possible failure of levees, structures, and infrastructure facilities. (FEIR, pps. V-1 through V-21) . The project would add to the cumulative exposure of future residents and visitors in the Delta Area to hazards of flooding from levee breaching, liquefaction and seismic shaking. FEIR, p. VII-10) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-21 identifies the following summarized measure which is contained in the BIASP: A-1 A site specific geotechnical exploration shall be conducted prior to any development. The FEIR at pages V-22 through V-25 recommends additional measures which are summarized as follows: A-2, Seismic design of levees, structures and A-3 infrastructure facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with acceptable BIMID and RD-799 criteria and the Uniform Building Code. A-4 New levees shall be constructed incompliance with the Army Corps of Engineers' standards. A-5 A levee maintenance plan shall be developed for all new levees. 1 A-6 Development shall not be permitted until existing levees are raised to meet FEMA's standards and a funding mechanism is in place to accomplish such. A-7 The Delta Subsidence Study shall continue and the results incorporated into subsequent projects. A means to fund maintenance and continued monitoring shall be found. A-8 Prior to the lowering of groundwater, dewatering plans must be submitted and approved by the County. A-9 Prior to project approval and over the life of the project, the safety of occupants and structures must be guaranteed. The following are recommended to reduce such risks to an acceptable level: (a) levees in major subdivisions should be improved to Corps' standards, (b) a minimum 100-foot setback should be imposed on new development, and (c) a development fee should be established to improve levees. A-10, Prior to any construction, overexcavate A-11 liquefiable and weak compressible organic soils and replace with land fill. If overexcavation of organic soils is not feasible, relocate the project or design it for excessive settlement. A-12, Internal levees and structures shall be based on A-13 proper soils engineering design and construction methods. Internal levees should be designed so they could be raised in the future or require additional freeboard for new residential construction. Facts: The off-island and on-island areas consist of different soil types. Stricter development standards shall be imposed on-island -since, among other reasons, that area is comprised of loose sands and peat, organic deposits which have a high liquefaction potential and results in levee instability. On the other hand, the off-island area is comprised of loose to dense near surface sands and no organic soils. To mitigate the above impact on-island, new residential development has been limited to one unit per parcel. Additional development can be considered once a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter levee system See Mitigation Measure A-6) , BIMID and the Army Corps of Engineers have approved the levee improvement plans and subsidence impacts are adequately mitigated. To further minimize 2 this impact, levee breaches on-island are prohibited until the entire levee system is improved to Army Corps of Engineers, standards. The impacts off-island shall be mitigated by the implementation of Measure A-6 or by the construction of an internal levee system meeting federal standards (Mitigation Measures A-12 and A-13) or in the case of small projects, by requiring construction to follow FEMA standards. (If FEMA requires stilt residential structures, such development shall be limited to one unit per existing parcel to avoid aesthetic impacts. ) Levee breaching off-island will be allowed subject to approval of the Army Corp of Engineers. It is likely that the perimeter of the levee system will have to be improved before such breaching is permitted. The reasons for levee requirements and the levee breaching restriction on-island and off-island are set forth in more detail in the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. New development shall otherwise contribute to levee maintenance and improvements the same as current property owners. Additional obligations as set forth in Mitigation Measures A-7 and A-9 (c) are not within the control of the County and thus, the County lacks the ability to successfully implement them. Moreover, these additional obligations are not necessary since the above impact is mitigated, to the extent feasible, by limiting development on-island, restricting levee breaching, contemplating the construction of internal levees off-island or the improvement of the existing off-island levee, and by requiring compliance with FEMA construction standards. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures A-1 through A-5, A-6 (as modified above) , A-8, A-9 (a) and (b) , and A-10 through A-13. The Board rejects Mitigation Measures A-6 as stated in the FEIR, A-7 and A-9 (c) as infeasible and/or for the reasons stated above and/or because the County lacks the responsibility and jurisdiction to enforce or implement those obligations. The Board finds that the implementation of the proposed project, along with the adopted mitigation measures, will partially mitigate the above project and cumulative impact. Complete mitigation could only be achieved if the levee system and all structures in the Planning Area were constructed and guaranteed to withstand a Maximum Credible Earthquake. The Board finds that complete mitigation is not possible. B. Impact: Development in the Planning Area will make it slightly more difficult to explore and produce natural gas. FEIR, pps. V-8 and V-17) . Mitigation: The FEIR lists measures on page V-25 to mitigate the above impact which can be summarized as follows: A-14 If possible, development shall avoid natural gas resources and extraction facilities. 3 A-15 Loss of acceptable areas for drilling may be mitigated by use of alternative drilling sites and implementation of angle-drilling techniques. Facts: Development in the Planning Area will not prevent the exploration and production of natural gas. However, development may make natural gas acquisition more costly, since more sophisticated exploration and development techniques may be required such, as those proposed in Mitigation Measure A-15. The above mitigation measures shall be imposed throughout the development of the proposed project. Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures A-14 and A-15. The Board finds that the implementation of these measures will adequately mitigate this impact. C. Impact: Existing soil conditions have the potential to cause excessive total and differential settlement and seepage. FEIR, pps. V-17 and V-18) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-25 identifies the following summarized measure which has been incorporated into the BIASP: A-16 Overexcavate weak, highly compressible organic soils and replace with engineered fill prior to construction of levees, structures or infrastructure facilities. In addition, the FEIR at page V-25 recommends implementation of the following measure: A-17 Where overexcavation of organic soils is not feasible because of depth or proximity constraints, relocate the proposed development or design for excessive settlement. Pile support for some structures may be possible. Facts: Portions of the Planning Area (mainly the on- island area) consist of weak, organic, highly compressible soils. Levees, structures ..and infrastructure facilities constructed on these soils may experience total and differential settlements. Prior to constructing structures or facilities on these soils, they shall be stabilized. The soils shall be overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill. If this stabilization technique is not feasible, then the structures or facilities shall be relocated or redesigned. The mitigation measures adopted to mitigate this impact are similar to those adopted to mitigate seismic impacts, since both are related to unsuitable soil characteristics. These measures shall be implemented with the proposed project. 4 Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures A-16 and A-17. The Board finds that the implementation of these measures will adequately mitigate this impact within newly developed areas. D. Impact: Regional and local subsidence, in combination with the projected rise in sea-level (i.e. , the "Greenhouse Effect") , would increase the Planning Area's susceptibility to flooding. (FEIR, pps. V-12 through V-14, and V-18) . Mitigation: The FEIR at pages V-25 and V-26 suggests the following summarized measures to lessen this impact: A-18 Amend the BIASP to state, as a policy, that BIMID and RD-799 have the right to raise levees in response to changes in Army Corps of Engineers' or California Department of Water Resource requirements, subsidence or changes in sea level. A-19 Levees shall include additional freeboard. The levee setbacks for new construction shall be 100 feet and for existing lots that cannot attain a 100-foot setback, BIMID or RD-799 setback standards shall be followed. Facts: Mitigation Measure A-18 should be modified to accurately reflect the policy now contained in the BIASP. BIASP policy 3.5.2 calls for provisions to be made to allow the raising of exterior levees in the event of .a rise in sea level. In order to insure the safety of the Planning Area, engineering designs for new levees shall include additional freeboard of four feet. In response to the comment submitted by RD 799, the setback requirement in Mitigation Measure A-19 is modified to require new development to achieve a 100-foot minimum structure setback from the center line of the RD-799 or BIMID levee unless adequate substantiation for a reduction in structure setback is reviewed and approved by RD-799 or BIMID, respectively. The possible lowering of the levees through subsidence and the possible rise in sea level can be offset by 1) allowing BIMID and RD 799 to raise--levees, .-2) ..providing -four feet of additional freeboard and 3) by establishing levee setbacks. The above accepted measures shall be applied during project implementation. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures A-18 and A-19 (as both modified above) . The Board rejects the text of Mitigation Measure A-18 as stated in the FEIR for the reasons stated above. The Board finds that the project, including a limitation on on-island development, together with the planned setback and design requirements stated above and the adopted measures will partially mitigate this impact. Complete mitigation is infeasible at this time because the extent of the 5 Greenhouse Effect is speculative and unknown. The Board acknowledges that improvement of the entire perimeter levee systems now would be required to adequately mitigate this impact for current residents and structures. E. Impact: The FEIR recognizes that levees may be damaged while construction activities are occurring in the Planning Area. FEIR, p. V-18 and V-19) . Mitigation: To prevent damage to existing levees, the FEIR at page V-26 suggests the following summarized measures: A-20 A structural setback of a minimum 100 feet shall be required for new construction. A-21 Subsurface construction activities shall not be allowed within a minimum 250-foot setback from the toe of existing levees to be verified by a geotechnical study and BIMID. A-22 Improve existing BIMID and RD-79 levees as part of the proposed development. Facts: In response to the comments submitted by the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) and Reclamation District 799 (RD 799) and in order to effectuate the current policies of the Districts, Mitigation Measure A-21 is eliminated and replaced with the following new Mitigation Measure: Geotechnical reports for all grading projects shall require peer review and approval by a geotechnical engineer acting on behalf of the local reclamation district. The costs of review should be borne by the applicant." The imposition of structural setbacks, and the approval of geotechnical reports by the applicable District should prevent damage to levees during construction. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures A-20 (as modified by A-19) , and the new mitigation measure prepared in response to the comments raised by BIMID and RD 799. The Board rejects Mitigation Measure A-21 as stated in the FEIR as inconsistent with the policies of BIMID and RD-799. Further, the Board .rejects _.Mitigation. Measure A-22 for the same reasons it rejected Mitigation Measure A-6. The Board finds that the impact will be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. . F. Impact: Liquefiable soils that extend 10-to-20 feet below ground have the potential to cause slope failures or settlement of existing levees and structures, which may result in flooding. (FEIR, pps. V-14 through V-21) . Mitigation: The following summarized measures are recommended at page V-27 of the FEIR: 6 1 A-23 Densify liquefiable soils by vibration or dynamic compaction. Consider use of alternative foundation sites. A-24 If the risks of liquefaction cannot be eliminated, consider relocating the structure. Facts: Severe ground shaking can cause saturated fine sandy soils to become weak. In order to prevent this from occurring, soils with liquefaction potential shall be stabilized as recommended in Mitigation Measure A-23 . If the soils cannot be stabilized, then the structure may need to be relocated as recommended in Mitigation Measure A-24. Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures A-23 and A-24. The Board finds that the implementation of these measures will adequately mitigate this impact. II. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A. Impact: Potential levee overtopping or levee rupture are the major regional flood control impacts. The levees surrounding the Planning Area were not constructed in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers' standards and the stability of the levees is not precisely known. (FEIR pps. V-46 through V- 48) . Mitigation: The proposed project incorporates the following summarized measures, which are identified in the FEIR on page V- 52: B-1 The County shall record deed notifications for each new parcel stating the importance of maintenance of the levee system. B-2 The County shall modify the Zoning Ordinance to include a special combining district which shall include levee design standards. B-3 The County shall not allow non-conforming uses within levee setback areas and will assist in eliminating encroachments. B-4 The County shall request BIMID and RD-799 to raise exterior levees if sea levels rise. 7 The following summarized measures are recommended at pages V-53 through V-54 of the FEIR: B-5 Prior to approval of projects in flood hazard areas, developers shall prepare an emergency evacuation plan. B-6 The County shall revise its zoning code to allow the discharge of storm run-off, including groundwater, to open channels and request RD- 799 and BIMID to assume maintenance responsibility for open channel drainage facilities. B-7 Require non-emergency access roads to be elevated to 9.5 feet. B-8 The County shall request BIMID and RD-799 to develop a levee maintenance master plan for the Planning Area. B-9 Structures shall be constructed in compliance with FEMA standards unless protected by a certified levee system. B-10 Development shall comply with levee setbacks which will permit levees to be raised an additional four feet. B-11 The County shall work to eliminate encroachments in levee setback areas and adopt a levee setback ordinance. B-12 Same as B-3 . B-13 Developer plans for landscaping of levee slopes shall be reviewed by BIMID and/or RD-799. B-14 New levee roads shall be all-weathered or paved with 20-to-16 foot widths and turnouts. The new road shall provide good access to the Planning Area roadway system. (Clarified) . B-15 Request the appropriate entity to improve the northeasterly Bethel Island levees to protect against additional wave action. B-16 Levees shall not be constructed around cul-de- sacs adjacent to sloughs where the risk of rapidly rising water in the event of a levee overtopping or rupture would threaten lives. 8 B-17, Erosion control plans and dust mitigation shall B-18 be required as a condition of project approval. Facts: The risks of flood damage shall be minimized by 1) requiring development to comply with levee setback requirements so that levees can be raised and so as not to put added pressure on the levees, 2) requiring new development to comply with FEMA standards unless protected by a certified levee system, 3) requiring applicants for developments in the flood hazard area to prepare evacuation plans, 4) limiting new development on-island where the stability of the levees is not precisely known) to one unit per parcel, 5) by prohibiting levee breaching on-island under the existing levee situation, and 6) contemplating the construction of an internal levee off-island or improving the existing levee to provide adequate flood protection. In response to comments submitted by BIMID and RD-799, the following new mitigation measure shall also be imposed when warranted by future development: "The County and all special districts should waive permit fees for those parcels where a non- conforming house is removed from within the levee setback area and a new conforming house is constructed. Because this particular situation is no net growth construction, County fees for infrastructure improvements such as road improvements and parks should be waived. This would be an economic incentive for property owners to voluntarily remove non-conforming structures. The County and all special districts should also waive their permit fees for parcels where non-conforming structures are relocated or modified to a conforming condition." The obligation imposed on the County by Mitigation Measure B-2 is infeasible and unnecessary since the proposed project prohibits development on levees within setback areas and levee design is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers and the reclamation districts. Mitigation Measure B-7 is infeasible given the current elevation of existing roads and unnecessary since the proposed project limits new residential development in the on-island area to one unit per parcel and those units already approved but not yet built, contemplates the construction of internal levees on the off-island or fully improved existing levee--system -which will- provide .adequate flood protection, eliminating the need to further elevate the roads. The first aspect of Mitigation Measure B-11 is inconsistent with Mitigation Measures B-3 and B-12 and BIASP policy 3 .6.7 which all require the County to "help", not rework", to eliminate existing encroachments. The second aspect of that measure suggesting that a setback ordinance be adopted is not necessary since setback requirements are already contained in the BIASP. Mitigation Measure B-14 is hereby clarified to apply to the construction of new levee roads only. 9 T Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures B-1, B-3 through B-6, B-8 through B-10, B-12, B-13, B-14 (as clarified) through B-18 and the new measure prepared in response to the comments submitted by RD-799 and BIMID. The Board rejects Mitigation Measures B-2, B-7 and B-11 as infeasible and unnecessary for the reasons stated above. The Board finds that the implementation of the features in the proposed project, including a limitation on new on-island development, and the adoption of the mitigation measures identified above will adequately mitigate this impact. B. Impact: Development in the Planning Area may be susceptible to a rise in sea level (sGreenhouse Effects) which could significantly add to the flood hazards. (FEIR, pps. V-42, V-43 and V-48) . Mitigation: Mitigation measures have been identified in the FEIR at pages V-54 and V-55 and are summarized as follows: B-19, Structural setbacks for levee modifications B-21 shall be required of development to allow for additional freeboard (same as A-19) . B-20 Recent FEMA information shall be utilized to determine flood protection elevations. Facts: The potential rise in sea level will be offset by imposing levee setbacks to allow levees to be raised by an additional four feet and through the utilization of the most current information available to determine necessary flood protection elevations. The above measures shall be implemented as part of the project thereby allowing future improvements to the levee system to be accomplished with minimum cost and disruption in the event Delta water level rises. (Also see the analysis under Section I.D) . Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures B-19 through B-21. The Board finds that this impact will be partially mitigated with the implementation of these measures and the measures adopted in Section I.D. Complete mitigation is infeasible at -this -time-because .the extent of the Greenhouse Effect is speculative and unknown. C. Impact: Development pursuant to the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP would require major drainage improvements. (FEIR, pps. V-43 through V-45 and V-48 through V-49) . Mitigation: The following summarized measures listed on page V-55 of the FEIR have been made part of the proposed project: 10 B-22 Drainage of major roadways and all facilities constructed at existing grade shall be conveyed in a ditch system. Lake development areas constructed at new elevated grades shall be drained by a pipe system discharging flow to a lake, canal or slough. B-23 New development shall modify the existing drainage system by utilizing the basic system and upgrading the drainage facilities. B-24 Encourage on-island storm water retention along the spine of the main canal. The following summarized measures are suggested in the FEIR at pages V-55 through V-57: B-25, The County shall require developers to submit B-31 drainage operation and maintenance plans and require the impacts identified therein to be mitigated. B-26 If feasible, developers of lake facilities shall be required to (a) construct the lake as a detention basin and (b) obtain the commitment of a public agency to take over maintenance responsibility. B-27 Where appropriate utilize gravity drainage facilities. B-28 Locate pumping facility discharge points for storm drainage to create positive impacts on water quality and/or where pumping efficiency can be maximized. B-29 Same as B-22 . B-30 New development shall produce a drainage analysis for watershed areas and develop systems to convey flaws that is acceptable to BIMID or RD-799. B-32 Storm drainage facilities for public roads shall be located within storm drainage maintenance easements. B-33 Develop an emergency power supply for all pumps removing storm water from the Planning Area and discharging it to adjacent sloughs. Clarified) . 11 Facts: Development in the Planning Area will construct major drainage improvements to provide adequate drainage facilities and pumping capacity. The drainage system will consist of an open ditch system as presently exists. This type of system is most appropriate for low, flat areas as it can be more easily maintained. Lake and lagoon housing areas shall be drained by a pipe system which discharges by gravity to a lake or slough. So that the system will be developed in an orderly fashion, developers shall submit, and the County shall approve, drainage and maintenance plans. To assure that the system will provide adequate flood control and drainage facilities, all new conveyances are required to be constructed to meet the criteria of the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, BIMID and RD 799. Mitigation Measure B-26 (b) is infeasible since it is impossible to predict in advance whether a public agency will accept maintenance responsibility and unnecessary because it would be appropriate to require the homeowners to provide maintenance through their association or as part of a geologic hazard abatement district. Mitigation Measure B-33 is clarified to state that a developer need only provide an emergency power supply for its own project. Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures B-22 through B-26 (a) , and B-27 through B-33 (the latter as clarified) . The Board rejects Mitigation Measure B-26(b) as infeasible and unnecessary for the reasons stated above. The Board finds that the proposed project, in addition to the adopted mitigation measures, will adequately mitigate the impact on local drainage. D. Impact: Construction activities have the potential to create drainage impacts caused by increased sedimentation loading and water quality impacts caused by dredging activities. (FEIR, p. V-49) . Mitigation: The following mitigation measures, which have been summarized, are recommended in the FEIR at page V-57: B-34- Developers shall be required to utilize dust B-37 control measures, provide and implement erosion control plans, dispose of dredged materials in acceptable disposal sites, and oversize and design culverts to reduce maintenance in storm drainage facilities. Facts: The above construction techniques shall be implemented to reduce the impact of earthmoving and dredging activities on sedimentation and water quality. 12 Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures B-34 through B-37. The Board finds that through the implementation of these measures, the sedimentation and water quality impacts relating to construction activities shall be adequately mitigated. E. Impact: The proposed project has the potential of negatively impacting water quality on the intake to the Contra Costa Canal at Rock Slough and on the drainage canal system and potential lake facilities. (FEIR, pps. V-50 through 52) . Development in the Planning Area could significantly add to Delta-wide input of additional nutrients and urban runoff contaminants which could degrade local water bodies and increase the area's problems with excess aquatic plant and algae growth. FEIR, p. VII-11) . Mitigation: The FEIR at pages V-58 and V-59 suggests the following summarized measures to mitigate the above impact: B-38 Developers shall divert storm water runoff away from Rock Slough. B-39 Developers shall provide and implement erosion control plans. B-40 Developers shall install sediment traps where feasible. Prior to construction, plans should be reviewed by BIMID, RD-799 and the Mosquito Abatement District. B-41 Same as B-31. B-42 The County shall consider mosquito reduction criteria for lake development. Facts: Developers in the Planning Area shall abide by the present regulations which prohibit the discharging of storm water runoff into the canal. So that impacts on water quality can be further minimized, developers shall submit erosion control plans to the County. In addition, sediment traps shall be installed to reduce- construction•-related stormwater- contaminants from reaching the sloughs. Since lakes may contain algae and water plant growth which are conducive to mosquito development, the County shall consider imposing mosquito reduction techniques (e.g. , stocking lakes with mosquito fish, minimizing vegetation conducive to mosquito breeding) on lake development plans. The above measures shall be imposed on future development as warranted. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures B-38 through B-42. The Board finds that implementation of those 13 measures shall adequately mitigate the above impacts that may result from the proposed project. III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: Development in the Planning Area will impact the area's wetlands and could result in a loss of rare plant communities and other habitat types. In addition, marina development could directly impact aquatic resources. (FEIR, pps. V-97 through V-102) . Development will also add to the cumulative loss of open space habitat. (FEIR, p. VII-11) . Mitigation: By way of summary, the FEIR at pages V-105 and V-106 identifies specific measures to minimize the above impact: C-1 Prepare a wetland mitigation plan that will not result in the loss of the quantity or quality of wetlands in the Planning Area. C-2, Set aside preserves to protect rare plant C-3 communities and wildlife refuge. C-4 Surveys for certain sensitive species shall be conducted for each development proposal. Impacts of proposed specific projects shall be addressed in new environmental documents. Clarified) . C-5 All proposed project activity shall avoid wetland, woody riparian and tidal areas. When impacts cannot be avoided, wetland values or acres lost shall be replaced. C-6 Opportunities for improving aquatic resources shall be addressed in the environmental review of specific water-related projects. C-7 Areas adjacent to proposed projects shall be inventoried for significant plant, fish and wildlife resources. The County shall design and implement procedures to acquire or protect areas that contain significant plant, fish and wildlife resources. Facts: The proposed project incorporates the Contra Costa County's current wetland policy which requires a no net loss of the quantity or value of permanent or seasonal wetlands. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan require that new development in the Bethel Island Area comply with a new County wetlands policy to the extent it is even more restrictive than the current policy. The General Plan Amendment prohibits 14 additional residential development on-island (beyond what is permitted in the Specific Plan) , unless, among other things, the impacts on wetlands are adequately mitigated. In addition, the Specific Plan requires the imposition of a Protection Fee on each new residential unit to be used by the County, in part, to acquire wetland areas for the preservation thereof. Priority shall be given to acquisition on-island, which consists of more valuable wetland areas. In addition, the Specific Plan has set aside open space areas which shall serve as wetland mitigation, riparian use and rare plant preserve areas. In response to the comment submitted by Hasseltine Best, Mitigation Measure C-1 is replaced with the following: "Each project which impacts wildlife and/or wildlife habitat areas will develop a Wetlands Mitigation Plan, utilizing opportunities available for mitigation, incorporating the results of a Habitat Evaluation Study where required and incorporate natural preserve areas where appropriate. If the mitigation plan proposes to create wetlands or habitat for special interest species, then it shall contain a monitoring component. The success of the mitigation should be evaluated after a monitoring period of three to five years. If the original mitigation is unsuccessful, then additional mitigation would be required such that any impact is negated." This new measure requires each new development to prepare a wetland mitigation plan. Separate plans for each development are necessary to address the geographic and biological differences in each project area. In addition, an overall wetland mitigation plan will be prepared for the entire Planning Area as required by Mitigation Measure C-5 with which the wetland mitigation plan for each development must be consistent. To eliminate any confusion, the last sentence of Mitigation Measure C-4 as stated in the FEIR is deleted. The law only requires the preparation of subsequent Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) if new impacts are identified or new mitigation measures are needed for a subsequent project. It is anticipated that all subsequent projects and their circumstances will be essentially the same . as .identified in this FEIR. Therefore, it is contemplated that subsequent development projects will rely on and utilize this FEIR, Only if new significant environmental impacts are identified for individual projects that are not adequately mitigated will a new EIR be prepared. In response to the comment submitted by the United States Department of Interior, Mitigation Measure C-5 is modified to require the following: "Wetlands. All proposed project activity shall avoid seasonal and permanent wetlands, woody riparian, and tidal areas because of their high value to wildlife. When impacts cannot be avoided, all proposed project development shall 15 replace wetland values or acres lost due to development. Appropriate mitigation areas shall be identified in advance by using information gained from studies (such as the Habitat Evaluation Survey study discussed above) . This must assure that an adequate amount and quantity can be replaced or enhanced in response to loss of wetlands on project sites. To minimize or avoid impacts to sensitive habitats, houses and other buildings shall be clustered when appropriate. Initial wetland surveys may be necessary for projects proposed in the Planning Area. Wetlands should be delineated in accordance with the 1989 Unified Federal Method. This wetlands delineation effort should be coordinated and developed in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. To promote the County's policy to protect wetland resources, and the California Department of Fish and Game's policy of "no net loss of wetlands", all proposed developments shall result in no net loss of wetlands, or offer means of replacing wetlands affected by the proposed development." This measure is more feasible then the Mitigation Measure C-5 as stated in the FEIR, since this measure requires wetland delineation efforts to be coordinated and developed by the governmental agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands. Mitigation Measure C-7 is not practical and most likely will not be feasible since off-site mitigation is difficult, if not impossible, to implement as part of a specific project. In response to the comment submitted by the Mt. Diablo Audubon Society, the following new mitigation measure shall be implemented: "For any proposed wetland mitigation areas, the applicant shall submit a management plan and guarantee the maintenance and survival of plantings for five years. The plan shall be subject to review and approval of the County, after reviewed by the COE and CDFG." In response to the concerns expressed by the State Lands Commission (SLC) , the BIASP has been clarified with respect to what is required for the development of marine and waterfront facilities. The BIASP requires a special use permit for any marine or waterfront facility that is proposed on the Delta side of the levee system. Additional environmental review would be necessary so ..that .the -environmental impacts of such a facility at a specific location could be fully analyzed, especially with respect to aquatic resources. The FEIR generally analyzed (due to the fact that this is a Program EIR and no specific projects for such facilities on the outside of the levee have been proposed) the environmental impacts of these facilities at pages V-100 and V-100a. On the other hand, marine and waterfront facilities proposed on the inside of the levee system are permissible uses and have been fully analyzed in the FEIR as any other facility or structure. 16 Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures C-1 (as modified pursuant to the comment submitted by Hasseltine Best) , C-2, C-3, C-4 (as clarified) and C-5 (as modified pursuant to the comment submitted by the Department of Interior) , C-6 and the new measure prepared in response to the comment raised by the Audubon Society. The Board rejects Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-5 as stated in the FEIR and Mitigation Measure C-7 as infeasible for the reasons stated above. The Board finds that the proposed project, in addition to all the adopted mitigation measures, will adequately mitigate the above project impact. The cumulative loss of open space habitat will be partially mitigated. Complete mitigation of this cumulative impact cannot be accomplished through this project along since this impact is created by several projects in the East County Area. Effective or complete mitigation can only be accomplished on a regional level. The Board finds that the cumulative impact has been mitigated to the extent feasible through the adoption of the above measures. IV. LAND USE Impact: The General Plan Amendment and the BIASP permits the development of 3, 000 new residential units in the off-island area (includes the 91 already approved but not yet built units) and limits new residential development in the on-island area to one unit per parcel and the 886 already approved but not yet built units. In addition, the proposed project designates the Planning Area for the development of 100, 000 square feet of recreational-related commercial uses and 500 hotel rooms. Implementation of the proposed project will permanently convert agricultural and open space areas into residential, commercial and recreational uses and may increase potential conflicts between agricultural uses and development. (FEIR, V-112a through V-119) . Implementation of this project will add to the conversion of agricultural land in the East County Area to residential and commercial uses. (FEIR, p. VII-11) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-119 recommends mitigation measures which are summarized as follows: D-1 The County shall evaluate development plans against criteria established in the BIASP to maximize compatibility of adjacent land uses. D-2 Development applications in wetland areas shall provide the means to retain or replace wetlands in kind that are of equal or greater value. Clarified) . Facts: In recognition of the above impact, the proposed project contains an overall goal to preserve and enhance the rural and recreational qualities of the Planning Area while providing opportunities for more residential and commercial 17 growth which will be tied to water-oriented recreation. In addition, the proposed project incorporates goals and objectives that limit gross density and future population uses, require residential development to complement the natural features of the Planning Area, and protect and enhance recreational resources, preserve the rural/semi-rural nature of the area, enhance open space and agricultural areas, and require a no net loss of wetland and upland areas. Moreover, the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP limits new residential development on-island by retaining its existing agriculture designation and by limiting new residential development to one unit per existing parcel. Additional residential development may be considered in the on- island area provided, at a minimum: 1) a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter on-island levee system and, 2) the levee improvement plans are approved by BIMID and the Army Corps of Engineers and, 3) subsidence, as well as impacts on wetlands, are adequately mitigated. To maximize land use compatibility among residential, commercial and agricultural uses, the BIASP contains design guidelines for all development. The guidelines require among other features, open space buffers between land uses and restricts residential development in commercial areas. They provide for a 100-foot buffer between residential and agricultural uses. The General Plan Amendment and the BIASP also preserve and enhance the existing agricultural, open space and other environmentally sensitive (i.e. , wetlands) areas. For instance, commercial development on-island is restricted to the perimeter of the island. The remaining portion of the island shall remain in its present agricultural state. Commercial and residential development is allowed on the perimeter of the off- island and the center has a base designation of agriculture. Increased residential development shall be permitted in the off- island bonus area, east of Jersey Island Road. Landowners in this bonus area may increase the allowable density of their property by purchasing development rights from agriculturally designated lands in the County and/or developing a recreational development. Further, the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan encourages the clustering of residential development .in agricultural areas not designated as bonus areas which permits residential development in concentrated areas while leaving areas of environmentally sensitive land undisturbed. The proposed project further calls for a complete system of public parks and open space corridors in order to retain some of the open space feeling of the Planning Area. Mitigation Measure D-2 is clarified to accurately reflect the wetland policy contained in the BIASP which requires a no net loss in either quantity or value of permanent or seasonal wetlands. 18 In response to the comments submitted by' the State Lands Commission, the following Mitigation Measure shall also be imposed as warranted by future development: "All development applications shall be submitted directly to the State Lands Commission (SLC) . The SLC shall timely review all development applications to determine the extent, if any, of publicly owned lands and whether the applications are consistent with SLC policies and to establish a long-term leasing agreement between the applicant and the SLC, if necessary." The State's potential property interest in the Planning Area has not yet been determined by the State. Since the State's interest is uncertain at this stage, such shall be examined at the time a specific development application is submitted. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures D-1, D-2 (as clarified) and the new measure prepared in response to the comments raised by the State Lands Commission. The Board finds that the proposed project (in addition to the above mitigation measures) will partially mitigate the project's impact and the cumulative impact on land use. Complete mitigation of the project's impacts could only be accomplished if no new development was allowed which would contradict the purpose in preparing the BIASP (to allow for the orderly development of mixed housing of reasonable cost in a water-recreation setting) . Complete mitigation of the cumulative land use impact cannot be accomplished through this project alone since this impact is created by several projects in the East County Area. Effective or complete mitigation can only be accomplished on a regional basis. The Board finds that the cumulative impact has been mitigated to the extent feasible through the implementation of the above adopted measures. The Board further finds that further reduction in the number of housing units proposed under the General Plan amendment and the BIASP would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the law that instructs public agencies not to reduce the proposed number of housing units if other mitigation measures and alternatives could produce a comparable level of mitigation, as those made part of this project. Public Resources Code § 21085; CEQA Guidelines § 15041(c) . V. AGRICULTURE Impact: Development under the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP will result in the loss of agricultural land in the Planning Area and in the East County Area. This loss will not have a significant effect on the cumulative reduction of productive agricultural land because the agricultural land in the Planning Area does not consist of prime agricultural soil. FEIR, pps. V-128 through V-131, and VII-11) . 19 Mitigation: To offset this impact the FEIR at pages V-131 and V-132 identifies the following summarized mitigation measures: E-1 Encourage agricultural land owners to preserve such lands through Williamson Contracts or Farmland Trusts. Develop a "Right-to-Farm" Ordinance. E-2 Encourage agricultural uses in locations which buffer wetlands. E-3 Discourage applications for major subdivisions and require all agricultural lands to deed development rights to the County. E-4 Cluster residential development to the maximum extent feasible on agriculturally designated lands. E-5 Provide for the subdivision of agricultural land to an extent compatible with surrounding land uses. Facts: The BIASP and General Plan Amendment retains a majority of the Planning Area in agricultural use. Further amendments to the Specific Plan may modify the agricultural designation on-island if infrastructure levee safety and wetland impacts are mitigated. In order to further minimize the loss of existing agricultural lands; the proposed project discourages large subdivisions and encourages the clustering of residential development on agriculturally designated lands in the Planning Area not designated in the bonus area. (See discussion under Land Use) . With the clustering approach and other mitigation measures referenced above and incorporated into the BIASP, a Right-to-Farm" Ordinance is not necessary and as a result, that aspect of Mitigation Measure E-1 is rejected. The proposed project contains programs wherein development rights can be purchased on agricultural lands and that require a fee from new development to permit the County to acquire development rights for selected, -.important agricultural land or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. These programs will permit some agricultural lands to remain in their present undeveloped state. These programs, and the fact that the project already discourages major subdivisions, make Mitigation Measure E-3 unnecessary. As a result and in order to avoid a conflict, Mitigation Measure E-3 is rejected. To minimize the conflicts between agricultural and residential areas, the proposed project requires buffers including setbacks, berms, greenbelts, and open space areas be located between the two uses. 20 TZ goTgM pableanooue sT quautdoTanap paaagsnjo 'ppagsul •pabuinoosTp sT saTgaadoad abapl 3O uOTSTntpgns aqg 'pagleubTsap ATTleangTnOTable pule Tleana pup uado ATgupuTutopead spupT uo quauidOTanap TpTguapTsaa Mau 3o gopdutT TpnsTn aqg aonpaa OZ •satuagg TleangoagTgoale guagsTsuoo pup 'suoTgOTagsaa ggbTaq 'saa33nq Main 'sxopggas za33nq asTOu aO3 TTleo sguautaaTnbaa asagq •guautdoTanap TRToaaunuOO PUP TpTquapTsaa aO3 sguautaaTnbaa edpospupT pup sauTTapTnb ubTsap suTleguoO goaload pasodoad aqq 'guautdojanap buTggTutaad aTTgM leaav buTuuleTd aqg 3O aagolealegO Tleana aqq uTlegaa OZ :s40E,3 spuleT pagpubtsap ATTleangTnOTable uo guautdOTanap paaagsnTO abpanooug (q) T-3 • 3 sAleMppoa buOTP '£-3 pup guauzdOTanap TPT018MMOO pule TleTguapTsaa aO3 'Z-3 pagsTTgpgse eap sauTTapTnb ubTsap pup adeospupq ' (le)T-3 • AgTTlenb TlensTn UO gopduiT aqg gas33o oq seanglea3 pazTaleututns bUTmOTTo3 aqq pagpaodaoouT spq goaCoad pasodoad aqq 'TVT-A Pup OVT-A sabpd qp 2iIg3 aqq uT POT3T4u9pT sv :uotgs TgTx TT-IIA 'd '2iIg3) 'leaav Aqunoz) gsleg aqg uT goedutT TpnsTn anTgpTnuino p anleq OsTp Aleut paap aqq uT guautdOTanaa OVT-A gbnoagq LET-A 'sdd 'gig,3) •gueuidoTanap 3o gTnsea P se peaegTp aq Osle TTTM coeds uado pup puleT TpangTnoTable 3o MaTn aqs •quauidoTanap JeTOaaunuoo Mau pule quautdOTanap TpTguaPTsaa ulegangns 3o uaagged Mau P 3o uOTgonpoaguT aqq ggTM p9T3Tpout aq pTnoM paaV buTuuuTd aqq 3O AgTTpnb TpnsTn Tleana aqs :god AlIqVnO gVfISIA 'IA o)1v05T S sauTTapTno v6g, :SsOTZ S apoo saoanosag oTTgnd sbuTpuT3 asagq uT pagdope pup goaCoad aqq uT pauTpquoo asogg sle uOTgPbTgTM 3O TanaT aTgpapdutoo le apTno.zd pTnoM gpqq 'qno paTaaleO cap sanTgleuaagTle pup saanspaut aaggo 3T sgTun buTsnoq 3O aaqutnu aqq eonpaa oq you saTouable sgonagsuT gpqq MPI aqg 3O quaguT pule asodand aqq ggTM guegsTsuoo sT pasodoad se goaCoad aqq gpqq spuT3 aeg4an3 papog aqs • (spupT TpangTnOTable 3O ssOT anTgelnutno uo sbuTpuT3 pule uOTssnosTp aO3 UOT409S asn PUPq oq a939g) •buTggas uoTgleaaoaa-aagleM le uT gsoo aTgpuospea 3o buTsnoq paxTM 30 guautdoTanap ATaapaO 3o suleaut p apTnoad oq ATautpu 'upTd oT3Toeds sTgg buTaledead uT esodand aqq gOTPpaquOO pTnoM gOTgM leaaV buTuuleTd aqq uT paggTmaed sem quauxdOTanaP Mau OU 3T pagsTTdut000le aq ATuo pTnoo gopdMT goeEoad sTgq 3o uOTglebTgTut agaTduto, sgopdMTasagq egEbtgtut ATTgigand TTTM saanspaut pagdople-anogp aqq 3O uOTgpquautaTdutT aqq gbnoagq goaCoad aqq gpqq spuT3 Paleog aql •anoge pagegs suospea aqq Jog £-g aanspaK uoTglebTgTH pup aouleuTpap mMap3-04-ggbTH. aqq Og 894RTaa gT se ATuO T-g aanseeN uOTglebTgTK sgoaCaa paeOg aqs 'S-g Pup V-g 'Z-g ' (TeTgaed) T-g saanspaK uOTgpbTgTH sgdopp papog aqs :s UTPUT-9 will leave a major portion of the agricultural land visually open. In addition, the proposed project calls for landscape features between roadways and residential clusters on agriculturally designated lands to buffer the close range visual impact of the height and appearance of the clusters on adjacent roadways and land uses. The proposed project also limits the use of stilt (elevated) structures because they are not aesthetically pleasing. If proposed development is not protected by a certified levee, the development must comply with FEMA standards which may require stilt development. Stilt residential structures shall be allowed only on the basis of one unit per existing parcel. Such stilt structures shall not be allowed in any new subdivision. Consequently, certain developments may have to improve conditions in the flood plain before proceeding. The above measures have been incorporated into the project and shall be implemented with the project as warranted by future development. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-4 . The Board finds that through implementation of these measures and provisions incorporated into the project, the visual project and cumulative impacts will be partially mitigated. Complete mitigation is not feasible since the development of any structure would introduce urban and vertical elements into the current flat pastoral landscape. In addition, this project alone cannot completely mitigate all cumulative impacts on visual quality, since such impacts are a result of several projects in the East County Area. The Board finds that cumulative impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible through implementation of the above adopted measures. VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact: Development in the Planning Area may impact archeological resources due to land alteration activities. There are known archaeological sites in the Planning Area and it is possible that other such sites exist. (FEIR, pps. V-151 through V-155) . Mitigation: The FEIR. identifies on pages V-155 through V-157 the following measures which are summarized as follows: G-1 If archaeological or cultural resources are uncovered during construction: a. The sensitivity map in Chavez and Desgrand Champ (1984) shall serve as a guide in developing survey strategies. It is recommended that project site specific field studies consisting of "mixed strategy reconnaissances be employed. 22 b. High sensitivity areas should utilize smaller transect grids during surface reconnaissance. C. Detailed anthropological research and archaeological testing will likely be required to fully determine the significance of cultural sites. d. Archaeological investigations should be coordinated with the Native American Community. G-2 The following mitigation alternatives would likely address adverse impacts on specific cultural resources: a. Preserve cultural resources in their present condition by requiring an adjustment of development plans to avoid the site locations. Significant cultural sites could be covered with a protective fill and be designated as an open space area. b. Design development in such a manner so that archaeological sites can be covered with an adequate amount of fill so that development could occur. C. Implement a data recovery program through archaeological excavation. d. If archaeological resources are uncovered on a specific project site, Native American representatives and archaeologists shall monitor all subsurface activities to properly mitigate all burial discoveries during project construction. Facts: Development activity in the Planning area shall avoid -cultural -resources by conforming to the criteria for protection of such resources, including work stoppage in development areas if resources are found, pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist and/or Native American observer and mitigation of impacts. Development shall also conform to the criteria in the above-mentioned mitigation measures. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures G-1 and G-2 The Board finds that these measures will adequately mitigate the potential impact on archaeological resources. 23 VIII. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Impact: Development under the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP will create both regional and local traffic impacts. Potential traffic impacts were particularly noted at Cypress Road, Sellers Avenue, Bethel Island Road, major Highway 4 intersections, including Cypress Road which feeds into the Planning Area, the Delta Expressway at Laurel Road and in the Oakley area. Project implementation will affect road safety conditions and create the need for transit accommodations. In addition, short-term traffic impacts may result from construction activities. (FEIR, pps. V-169 through V-175, and VII-11 and VII-12) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-175 suggests the following summarized measures to reduce traffic impacts in the Planning Area: Classify Cypress Road east of Bethel Island Road, and Sellers Avenue, as arterial. Install a dual right turn lane at the east Cypress Road approach onto State Route 4 to improve the LOS to acceptable standards. Construct a grade separation at the Cypress Road crossing of the ATSF Railroad tracks to eliminate congestion caused by train movement. The FEIR at page V-175 recommends the following summarized measure to reduce traffic impacts on Oakley: Upgrade the Delta Expressway to a four-lane freeway north of Laurel. Construct a partial-cloverleaf interchange at the Laurel Road connection to the Delta Expressway. The FEIR at pages V-175 through V-177 recommends the following summarized measure to reduce impacts on regional roadways: Establish a maximum allocation for residential growth based on regional roadway capacity. The FEIR at page V-177 recommends the following summarized measure as an alternative to some of those contained in the Specific Plan (which includes the widening of Cypress Road to four lanes west of Sellers and the SR-4/Cypress Road intersection) : Extend Laurel road as a four-lane roadway east of SR-4 to Cypress Road. 24 The FEIR at pages V-179 and V-181 recommends the following summarized measures to enhance safety: Install guardrails along roadways adjacent to drainage ditches or levees. Provide separate bicycle lanes along roadways. Convert the T-intersections of Bethel Island Road/Stone Road and Bethel Island Road/Taylor Road as a single four-approach intersection. The FEIR at page V-181 recommends the following summarized measure to encourage the use of transit: Provide Park-n-Ride lots at one or more locations in the Planning Area. The FEIR at page V-181 recommends the following summarized measure to mitigate construction traffic: Prior to the development of specific parcels and the upgrading and/or construction of specific levees and roadways, develop measures to reduce construction traffic impacts. The FEIR at page V-181 recommends the following summarized measure to mitigate additional traffic impacts: Prepare the financing plan to cover improvements for Sellers Avenue, Cypress Road/ATSF grade separation, SR-4/Cypress Road, SR-4/Northbound freeway ramps and the Delta Expressway. Facts: An acceptable LOS in the Planning Area and Oakley area can be accomplished by requiring the following roadway improvements (these improvements are consistent with the analysis in the FEIR) : 1. -Construct Cypress Road as a four-lane roadway. 2 . Reconstruct the Bethel Island Road bridge with two travel lanes and separate bicycle and pedestrian path. 3 . Construct the Laurel Road-Cypress Road connection as a two-lane roadway within a four-lane right-of-way with a grade separation at the crossing of the AT/SP railroad tracks. 4. Extend Bethel Island road to Rock Slough as a two-lane roadway within a four-lane right-of-way. 25 5. Extend and upgrade Laurel Road to 4 lanes between SR-4 and the Delta Expressway. Construct a partial cloverleaf interchange at Laurel Road/Delta Expressway. In response to the Addendum to the FEIR, this improvement has been added to the project. This improvement will be required of Bethel Island developers .if development in Oakley pursuant to the Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan (ONBAGP) , or a similar plan, does not occur The need for its construction will not arise and shall not be required until the Delta Expressway is completed and development pursuant to the BIASP is more than half complete. If development occurs in the Oakley area, the Oakley developers will be responsible for these Laurel Road improvements. ) To the extent the above measures differ from those specifically recommended in the FEIR, these measures accomplish substantially the same LOS results and are more appropriate for the residential/rural appearance of the Planning Area. To avoid future traffic problems in the event of additional growth, rights-of-way shall be dedicated for an ultimate four-lane width on the following arterial roadways: 1. Bethel Island Road 2 . Laurel Road 3 . Cypress Road The local roadway improvements identified above shall be financed by new development consistent with the BIASP's financing plan. In response to the comment submitted by the Department of Public Works, the following new mitigation measure shall be considered as an alternative to the mitigation measure recommending the conversion of the T-intersections of Bethel Island Road/Stone Road and Bethel Island Road/Taylor Road as a single four-approach intersection _ (the third measure recommended to enhance safety) : "An alternative mitigation measure involves keeping the present alignment of the two "T" intersections of Bethel Island Road/Stone Road and Bethel Island Road/Taylor Road and modifying timing of the proposed traffic signal. Prior to implementation, an operational analysis of each alternative should be conducted to determine which mitigation measure maintains the Level of Service Standards more efficiently." The ONBAGP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Bethel Island EIR studied the same intersections to determine how each development may impact regional traffic (the Bethel Island EIR 26 has incorporated by reference the ONBAGP EIR) . The EIRs concluded that growth in the Oakley and Bethel Island areas, in conjunction with growth in other East County areas, would contribute to regional traffic impacts on portions of SR-4, Vasco and Kirker Pass Roads and the Byron Highway (ONBAGP EIR, p. 194 and Bethel Island EIR, p. V-173) . The Bethel Island EIR assumed development consistent with the ONBAGP. The EIRs found that even with planned roadway improvements (the widening of SR-4 over the Willow Pass Grade, addition of truck climbing' lanes on Kirker Pass Road and the extension of BART to Pittsburg) , given cumulative traffic projections for the year 2005, the operating conditions of the above mentioned regional roadways, with the exception of Byron Highway, would exceed Level of Service F. The ONBAGP EIR listed the following regional transportation improvements that may be necessary to alleviate the above mentioned regional traffic impacts: e Upgrade Delta Expressway to a four- lane freeway. s Construct a four-lane freeway to replace Vasco Road. Widen SR-4 to eight lanes from Railroad Avenue to the Antioch Bridge. Extend BART from Railroad Avenue to Hillcrest Avenue. Development in Bethel Island without development pursuant to the ONBAGP may not create the extent of regional traffic impacts to necessitate the improvements listed above. The above regional improvements could not be financed solely by developer fees, but would require a significant increase in the gas tax or funding from other sources beyond its current level. (ONBAGP EIR, p. 194) . The December 1989 Draft County General Plan EIR (the Bethel Island EIR has incorporated by reference the information provided in the Draft County General Plan EIR) recognizes that the most significant increases in traffic congestion in the County will occur in East Contra Costa. (Draft General Plan EIR, p. IV-12) . To mitigate these impacts, the draft General Plan EIR recommends placing a cap on development in the East County Area (Oakley to 4, 300 units, Bethel Island to 2, 100 units and West Pittsburg to 250 additional units) and in conjunction therewith, recommends that the County work with cities and other interested parties to establish regional mechanisms to fund regional transportation improvements and to attract state and federal highway and transit revenues. The Draft General Plan EIR suggests that funding 27 mechanisms may include sales tax, gas taxes or impact fees on new development. (Draft General Plan EIR, pps. IV-20 and IV-21) . With respect to the development in Bethel Island, regional traffic impacts shall be partially mitigated to the extent feasible through the establishment of a regional traffic mitigation fee to help fund the above regional improvements, the continued implementation of Measure C, the adoption and implementation of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance and revenues generated by the gasoline tax increases passed by the voters on June 5, 1990) and implementation of the jobs/housing balance requirement contained in the projects Growth Management Program. If a sufficient amount of funding is not made available for regional improvements by the above measures, the local contribution shall be increased, at least in part through an increase in the per unit regional traffic mitigation fee. If the financing for regional (East County) traffic improvements necessary to address cumulative impacts at that time to a tolerable level is not reasonably assured, then development in the Bethel Island Area shall be limited to 2, 109 dwelling units (the FEIR prepared for the Specific Plan at page V-176 recommends development of 2, 109 units until additional regional roadway capacity is provided then what is currently planned) and no new significant residential development in the East County Area shall be allowed through subsequent General Plan amendments or changes. Additional development may be permitted in the Bethel Island area and in other areas of East County via General Plan amendments or changes only if the financing mechanism and reasonably anticipated funding is confirmed for necessary regional roadway improvements to accommodate cumulative development of which Bethel Island is a part. Regional traffic impacts may only be partially mitigated with development of 2, 110 residential units in the Bethel Island Area. The regional traffic impacts that may result from this partial mitigation will be limited and tolerable. Findings: The Board adopts the new mitigation measures discussed in this section (including the measure prepared in response to the comment submitted by the Department of Public Works) , -in addition to thosemeasuresrecommended in the FEIR that do not conflict with the new measures contained herein e.g. , the measures recommended to enhance safety, encourage the use of transit, mitigate construction impacts) . For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the adopted mitigation measures will adequately mitigate traffic in the Planning Area and are more feasible than the measures suggested in the FEIR. In addition, the Board finds that the adopted mitigation measures will partially mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts (LOS E or worse) on the regional roadway network. . Even without the development of Bethel Island, regional traffic impacts would exist in the East County Area. Cumulative traffic impacts are 28 regional in nature and can only be adequately dealt with on a regional basis. The Board finds that the cumulative traffic impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible. IX. AIR QUALITY Impact: The transportation-related air emissions generated at build-out would add to regional air quality impacts causing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) significance thresholds to be exceeded for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and reactive organics. Increased boat use will also add to this impact. Construction of the proposed project will also create impacts on air quality by generating approximately 2,700 tons of dust. (FEIR, pps. V-191 through V- 196, and VII-11) . Mitigation: The FEIR at pages V-196 and V-197 recommends mitigation measures to offset the impact on air quality and are summarized as follows: I-1 Transportation control measures and transit improvements shall be integrated into a comprehensive Bethel Island Transportation System Management (TSM) program and incorporated into major subdivisions as a condition of approval. I-2 Require a portion of each major subdivision to provide units and features that might appeal to the retired person. I-3 Plan and design development to include: a. Dust control measures during construction; b. Phase construction so that new construction is downwind from finished sites; C. Route construction vehicles to prevent queuing near pollution-sensitive receptors; d. Provide for expansion of bus transportation; and e. Insure safe pedestrian and bicycle linkage from residential to commercial sites. Facts: The adoption of any one of the alternatives identified in the FEIR, including the "No-Project" Alternative, would exceed the BAAQMD significant thresholds for emissions given there cumulative impacts. There is only a limited potential 29 for effective mitigation of this impact since the majority of the project's impact on air quality results from cumulative impacts and transportation sources beyond the control of project applicants and local regulatory agencies. The most effective mitigation measure is the implementation of a TSM program. The proposed project incorporates the above measures as requirements and guidelines to which future development must adhere. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures I-1 through I-3 . The Board finds that the implementation of these measures will adequately mitigate project air quality impacts and partially mitigate cumulative air quality impacts. Complete mitigation of cumulative air quality impacts cannot be accomplished by the development of Bethel Island alone since the impacts are a result of several development projects in the East County Area. Thus, effective or complete mitigation of this impact can only be accomplished on a regional level. The Board finds that the cumulative air quality impacts have been mitigated to the extent feasible. X. NOISE Impact: Upon completion of the proposed project, traffic would increase noise exposure along some roadways by a maximum of 10. 0 dBA. Noise created from a major concentration of boat traffic may impact nearby residents. Construction activities, especially the operation of heavy equipment, will create temporary noise impacts. (FEIR, pps. V-200 through V-204) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-204 recommends the following summarized measures to mitigate the noise impact: J-1 Construction and maintenance activities should be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays. J-2 The operation of machines, mechanism devices or contrivances with a noise level greater than 95 dB within 50 feet of the observer should be prohibited. J-3 Same as I-1. J-4 As a condition of development require acoustical barriers along sensitive receptor sites on Bethel Island and Gateway and other heavily travelled roadways. Facts: The BIASP contains a circulation network that protects existing neighborhoods from the noise and hazards of traffic and imposes adequate setbacks for noise-sensitive residential land uses and erection of walls or other noise 30 attenuation barriers, to create a noise-compatible environment and to obtain acceptable dBA (CNEL) requirements. Construction activities shall be controlled so as to minimize, to the extent feasible, the noise generated from such activities. The significant noise impacts that arise from construction activities are caused primarily by the use of heavy equipment and activities and thus, in response to the comment submitted by the Chartered Land and Cattle. Co. , .Mitigation Measure J-1 is modified to reflect the following: "All heavy construction activities should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. No weekend outdoor construction is allowed. More stringent noise mitigation measures may be required as a condition of approval for specific project approvals." Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures J-1 (as modified above) , through J-4. The Board finds that the implementation of these measures will adequately mitigate noise impacts. XI. PUBLIC UTILITIES A. Water Systems Impact: Development of the proposed project would increase water demand within the Planning Area and require the expansion of existing or development of new, water supply and distribution facilities. (FEIR, pps. V-214 through V-219) . Cumulative withdrawal of groundwater could potentially accelerate regional subsidence. (FEIR, p. VII-10) . Mitigation: The FEIR at pages V-219 through V-221 lists the following mitigation measures: K-1 Develop non-groundwater sources. Treated water may be obtained from the Oakley Water District and untreated water from the Contra Costa Water District. K-2 If untreated water is purchased, a treatment plant would need to be constructed. K-3 If a regional public water district system is not immediately available, then on an interim basis allow expansion of and hookup to CCCSD-15 well water system. K-4, Water transmission facilities shall be sized for K-7 maximum day flow and provide adequate storage for minimum fire flows. 31 s K-5 Existing water supplies that meet State standards will not be required to connect to a new system. K-6 Prior to project approval, the developer shall: a) Connect to a public, treated water system. b) The area of development shall be annexed to a public district which will provide treated water service. A hydrogeological investigation should be prepared- to evaluate the impacts on the water table and existing wells and to examine and suggest measures to reduce the impacts of subsidence from increased water use. Prior to issuance of building permits: 1. Connect to CCCSD-15 if that district has adequate pumping capacity and water quality to serve the Project. 2. Construct transmission and distribution lines and appurtenant facilities to the public water treatment plant for the non- groundwater source. (Clarified) K-8 Facilities shall be constructed with materials and construction practices which reflect the special Delta environment. K-9 Conduct a comprehensive water quality study prior to approval of any marina activity in the vicinity of Rock Slough or the southerly portion of Sandmound Slough to determine potential impacts on the CCWD Rock Slough intake. K-10 Camouflage water storage with mounding, trees and shrubs. Facts: The water supply concept in the BIASP contains Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-5 and K-7. The development of a non-ground water system and the conducting of hydrogeological investigations on the water table and existing wells will mitigate the impacts on subsidence that may result from the extraction of groundwater. In response to the comment submitted by the Chartered Land and Cattle Co. , the following language as it appears on p. V-220 with respect to the opening partial 32 sentence of Mitigation Measure K-6 is deleted: "Prior to approval of projects under the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan the developer shall:". It is replaced with the following opening partial sentence: "Prior to approval of projects under the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, the developer shall submit will serve letters that assure that adequate capacity is available for existing development and the subject project for a period equivalent to the effective period of the approval, and, prior to filing of the final map, parcel map, or development the developer shall:". In addition, Mitigation Measure K-6 is clarified to reflect that as a general rule, discretionary development project approval is usually required before LAFCO and service agencies will consider annexation or connection to their services. Also, consideration shall be given to new interim wells in addition to the existing wells in CCSD-15, provided a satisfactory hydrogeological investigation is completed, evaluating and confirming that the impact of additional, short-term withdrawal of well water is insignificant. In response to the comment submitted by the Oakley Water District, the following mitigation measure shall also be implemented: "All water supply facilities constructed for the ultimate water system are to be constructed to the standards of the Oakley Water District for future acceptance and maintenance by that District." An adequate public water supply will be assured through these mitigation measures. If an adequate system cannot be provided consistent with the Specific Plan's Growth Management Program, development cannot proceed. Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures K-1 through K-5, K-6 (as modified above) ; K-7 through K-10 and the new measure prepared in response to the comment submitted by the Oakley Water District. The Board finds that through the implementation of the proposed project and these measures, the project and cumulative impact identified above will be adequately mitigated. B. Electric Service Impact: The existing transmission lines and substation have adequate capacity to provide service for the proposed project. However, if the load generated by new development exceeds 1.7 mega watts, additional electrical capacity would .be required. (FEIR, pps. V-225 and V-226) . The project would add incrementally to the cumulative increase in electrical demand in the East County Area. (FEIR, p. VII-12) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-226 recommends the following summarized measures to mitigate the above-mentioned impact: K-11 Developers shall finance and install a new 21 KV underground distribution line and expand the existing parallel 21 KV distribution line east of Sellers Avenue to Bethel Island. 33 K-12 Developers shall be required to underground all distribution lines. K-13 Install PG&E cables and relatively water-tight conduits and bolts. Facts: As part of their normal planning process, PG&E will conduct a study to determine the extent of reinforcement of existing lines required and the need for additional equipment and new lines. Where the need arises, new lines, reinforcement and equipment installation will be provided and shall be financed by the developers and PG&E in accordance with Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulations. In order to minimize health and visual impacts and as an additional mitigation measure, new high- voltage power lines shall be located parallel to existing lines, consistent with Policy 8-98 in the March, 1989, draft County General Plan. Implementation of this requirement, along with the measures suggested in the FEIR, will provide sufficient electrical capacity without substantial secondary visual and health impacts. Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures K-11 through K-13, in addition to the new measure stated above. The Board finds that the project and cumulative impacts will be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the above measures. C. Natural Gas Impact. A natural gas distribution system does not exist and is not needed in the Planning Area. If natural gas is to be used, a system would have to be provided. FEIR, pps. V-230 and V-231) . The project could add incrementally to the cumulative increase in natural gas if it is utilized. (FEIR, p. VII-12) . Mitigation: In sum, the FEIR at page V-231 suggests the following measures: K-14- The impact on natural gas can be remedied by K-16 1) using propane to serve individual units, 2) connecting to existing PG&E regional gas network, or 3) using all-electric utilities. Facts: The FEIR identifies the project impact as insignificant and the cumulative impact as possible if natural gas is to be utilized. Interested major developers may investigate the feasibility of connection to PG&E's regional gas network. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures K-14 through K-16. The Board finds that no mitigation is required, at this time, but endorses connection to PG&E regional gas network if feasible 34 D. Telephone Service Impact: Development of the proposed project will require modification or replacement of the existing Bethel Island switching system and the extending of telephone lines to proposed development sites. (FEIR, pps. V-234 through V-235) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-235 identifies measures which can be summarized as follows: K-17 Coordinate development plans with Pacific Bell. K-18 Place distribution lines underground. K-19 Phase development to allow the maximum utilization of the existing switch and additional time for planning. K-20 Install telephone cables and relatively water- tight conduits and bolts. Facts: The FEIR finds that required switchboard modifications and installation of new feeder lines does not constitute a significant impact. However, the above measures shall still be incorporated into the project. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures K-17 through K-20. The Board finds that no mitigation is required, but still requires that the above measures be implemented with the project. E. Solid Waste Impact: At build-out the proposed project would generate a maximum of 3,467 pounds of waste per day which would require modification of the existing refuse collection system. : (FEIR, p. V-236) . The project would add to the cumulative impact on solid waste. (FEIR, p. VII-12) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-236 identifies a measure which may be summarized as follows: K-21 Roadways shall provide adequate and safe access for collection trucks. Facts: Brentwood Disposal has informed that it has the capacity to provide solid waste service to new development. It is anticipated that new development will be substantially occupied after the new landfill site(s) have been constructed to serve East Contra Costa. The County is under a mandate from the state to approve and complete a landfill site in the immediate future. Two landfills have been approved by the Board, although they are subject to litigation and/or initiative. Mitigation of cumulative impacts is dependent on operation of at lease one of 35 the landfills. The FEIR identifies this project impact as insignificant. Finding: The Board adopts Mitigation Measure K-21. The Board finds that no mitigation is required but still requires that the measure be implemented. The Board further finds that cumulative impacts will be adequately mitigated upon construction of a new landfill for the County. F. Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal Impact: The proposed project would have significant impacts on the waste water collection, treatment and disposable systems if appropriate mitigation measures are not imposed. (FEIR, pps. V-245 through V-248, and VII-12) . Mitigation: The FEIR at pages V-248 and V-249 suggests measures to mitigate the impact on sewage collection, treatment and disposal, which can be summarized as follows: K-22 Construct new collection systems as required for each unit of development. K-23 Determine the viability of direct discharge to the marsh area near the treatment plant, Big Break or the San Joaquin River. If feasible, use a combination of land disposal and direct discharge in a manner acceptable to the RWQCB. K-24 Acquire property rights for land disposal of the Oakley-Bethel Island Waste Water Treatment and Reclamation Facility. K-25 Final development approval should be contingent upon demonstration of adequate land disposal area. K-26, The County shall request the Oakley-Bethel K-27 Island Waste Water Management Authority to plan and implement waste water treatment and disposal capacity expansion. Approval of new develop- ments should be contingent upon demonstration of adequate capacity in the gravity sewer collection system. Facts: The proposed project calls for the expansion of the existing treatment plant and land disposal systems to accommodate projected growth. It calls for the construction of a new separate collection system and additional pumping capacity at the main pump station and pump station WEB-14 along with the installation of a new force main from the main pump station to the treatment plant. 36 In response to the comment submitted by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) , Central Valley Region, Mitigation Measures K-26 and K-27 are modified to read as follows: "If adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal capacity is not assured prior to development approval, then adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal capacity shall be assured prior to final parcel or map approval for subdivisions or building permit approval for other development." Pursuant to the Specific Plan's Growth Management Program, if this condition and the other mitigation measures are not satisfied, development cannot proceed. The proposed project incorporates the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR and modified herein as requirements and guidelines to which future development must adhere, thereby assuring the availability of adequate capacity. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures K-22 through K-27, the later two as modified herein above. The Board finds that the impact on sewage collection, treatment and disposal will be adequately mitigated with the implementation of the proposed project and above accepted mitigation measures. Required compliance with the water quality standards of the RWQCB will avoid any substantial secondary impacts on water quality. XII. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. Police Protection Impact: Development pursuant to the proposed project will cause an increased need for police protection services. (FEIR; pps. V-250 through V-252) . Mitigation: The FEIR at pages V-252 and V-253 recommends measures which are summarized as follows: L-1 Subdivision applications should be reviewed by the sheriff's department for maximum security design. L-2 The sheriff's department should conduct a crime prevention education program in the community to deter crime and .lessen service calls. L-3 If sheriff's services decrease to a level unacceptable to the community, special taxes could be instituted to provide additional support. (Clarified) Facts: Pursuant to the Growth Management Program that is part of the proposed project, a sheriff protection standard of 1.5 patrol officers/1, 000 shall be applied to the Planning Area. If this standard cannot be achieved, then development cannot proceed. The financing plan for the BIASP requires a fair-share 37 payment toward the cost of the rehabilitation of the Oakley Police Station. This payment would be generated by the first 500-units of development. Mitigation Measure L-3 is clarified to state that to achieve the minimum current police protection level in the off-island area and/or on-island areas, funding may be provided through a special tax for part or all of the Planning Area. Private, gated communities will minimize police protection requirements. Mitigation Measure L-2 is a suggestion only. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures L-1 through L-3 (the later as clarified) . The Board finds that the proposed project, along with the implementation of the above measures shall adequately mitigate the impact on police protection. B. Fire Protection Impact: Development in the Planning Area would increase demand for fire protection and create a need for additional fire fighting personnel. Further, it would necessitate the expansion of the existing on-island station to a full-service facility and the establishment of one or more sub- stations to meet the goal of five-minute response/1.5 miles maximum between development and station. (FEIR, pps. V-255 through V-257) . Mitigation: The FEIR on pages V-257 through V-259 identifies measures which may be summarized as follows: L-4 The immediate needs of the Bethel Island Fire Protection District for an expanded station and equipment is provided for in the financing plan. Fees on development are expected to generate funds for stations and equipment. L-5 The fire district shall review all development plans. If the response time is more than five minutes, special building design features may be imposed. L-6 All new construction shall pay its fair share toward providing the necessary facilities. Adopt a fire fee ordinance prior to final development project approval. L-7 All new construction shall conform to the requirements of the appropriate district, in concurrence with the Contra Costa County Uniform Fire Code. s L-8 Fire flows supplies shall be provided to all premises according to local law. 38 L-9 Limit new building heights to those which can be adequately serviced with the fire district's equipment. L-10 Fire hydrants shall be spaced at a minimum of 500 feet apart in residential areas and 300 feet apart in commercial areas. L-11 Provide full service facilities. Facts: The BIASP recognizes that if development takes place, the Ranch Lane facility will need to be expanded to a full service facility. In order to expand this facility, approximately 3.5 acres of land adjacent to the facility would need to be purchased. The BIASP indicates that possibly two additional substations, one in the northern and one in the southern portion of the Planning Area, may need to be established. As an additional mitigation measure and in order to promote uniform fire protection, off-island developers and/or the County shall petition LAFCO to change the Bethel Island Fire Protection District (BIFPD) boundaries to include the entire Planning Area. Pursuant to the Growth Management Program, appropriate fire districts shall review all development plans to assess the adequacy of fire protection services. If the response time is more than five minutes, special building design features may be imposed. If this condition cannot be satisfied, then development will not be allowed to proceed. Mitigation Measure L- 4 is modified to confirm that any new facilities or design improvements necessary to meet fire protection standards shall be paid for by new development. The proposed project incorporates the measures as recommended in the FEIR as requirements and guidelines to which future development must adhere to assure compliance with County fire protection standards. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures L-4 through L-11 and the new measure stated above. The Board finds that the proposed project, along with the implementation of the above measures, will adequately mitigate the impact on fire protection. C. School Impact. The proposed project would add approximately 1,989 elementary and middle school students and 597 high school students. (FEIR, pps. V-262 through V-265) . Mitigation: The following measure is included in the project and identified in the FEIR at page V-265 to offset that impact: L-12 Developers shall be required to pay applicable school fees. 39 The FEIR at page V-266 identifies an additional measure to reduce the above-impact which can be summarized as follows: L-13 The County should incorporate the following recommendations: a. Implement the East County Educational Facilities Plan which is part of the community facilities element of the County General Plan. This Plan is a statement of goals and policies for the future provision of schools. The Plan proposes existing facility expansion and new facility construction, estimates typical costs of new facility construction and potential revenue sources, and specifies an implementation program. b. Work cooperatively with school districts for delivery of quality services. C. Seek joint resolutions with districts for funding from school agencies. d. Encourage phasing of large projects to spread impacts of schools over a period of years. Facts: The proposed project calls for the expansion of schools for the Planning Area. As a condition of project approval, the applicant shall pay applicable school impact fees to fund school construction costs and otherwise comply with the East County Educational Facilities Plan. School impact fees on new construction, along with state bond monies and other revenues are expected to be adequate to fund school construction costs. The proposed project and implementation of the above-mitigation measures shall adequately address this impact. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures L-12 and L-13 . The Board finds that the impact on school facilities will be adequately mitigated through implementation of the proposed project and the above measures. D. Health Care Impact: Development in the area will not create a significant demand for new public health care facilities. (FEIR, p. V-268) . Mitigation: The FEIR does not suggest any mitigation measures. (FEIR, p. V-268) . Facts: The majority of new residents in the Planning Area are expected to be employed persons with private health insurance. Nominal demand for public health facilities is 40 expected. Private health care facilities in the County are adequate to handle the private health care needs of new residents. Findings: The Board finds that no mitigation is required since the proposed project will not create a significant impact on public or private health care facilities. E. Recreational Resources Impact: The development of Bethel Island as a recreational area will increase the number of visitors to the area. Increased vehicular and boat traffic and noise can be expected as a secondary impact which may result from the development of recreational resort areas proposed by the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP. (FEIR, pps. V-268 and V-269) . Mitigation: The FEIR at page V-269 recommends measures which can be summarized as follows: L-14 Increase the acreage allocated to community parks to meet the County General Plan standard of 2.5 acres per 1, 000 population. (Clarified) . L-15 Development applications should be reviewed by the County for security and safety design, including water weight maneuverability. L-16 Boat speed shall be limited and such limitations enforced to provide safety. L-17, To minimize congestion and boating accidents, L-18 major boat launching and berthing facilities should be located adjacent to sloughs and/or open water ways. Facts: A major objective of the proposed project is to enhance the Planning Area as a regional recreational destination. As a result, additional recreational resources will be provided under the Plan compared to current levels, resulting in a positive impact on these resources. Mitigation Measure L-14 is clarified to reflect the actual standard in the 1989 Draft County General Plan for community parks which is 1.5 acres/1, 000 population. The Specific Plan calls for 3 neighborhood parks (minimum 8 acres each) and a community and waterfront (minimum 15 acres each) , for a total of a minimum of 54 acres. At full buildout there will be approximately 9, 000 residents. With the standard of 4.0 acres/1, 000 people, only 36 acres of park land would be required. Refer to Section III (Biological Resources) for discussion of impacts resulting from the development of additional 41 recreational resort areas on biological and aquatic resources. Refer to the Section VIII (Traffic and Circulation) for discussion of traffic impacts resulting from the development of additional recreational resort areas. Refer to Section X Noise) for discussion of noise impacts resulting from the increase in vehicular and boat traffic. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures L-14 (as clarified) through L-18. The Board finds that implementation of the proposed project, along with the above adopted mitigation measures and those identified in Sections III, VIII and X as indicated above, will result in a positive impact on recreational resources. F. Other Service Impact: The Bethel Island Chamber of Commerce has recommended that commercial uses be encouraged in the Planning Area to discourage future residences and visitors from traveling outside the area to obtain goods and services. FEIR, pps. V-269 and V-270) . Mitigation: To make the area more economically attractive to business, the FEIR suggests measures on page V-270 which can be summarized as follows: L-19 Implementation of the Specific Plan Commercial Design Guidelines. L-20 Provide an adequate circulation system. L-21 The public works department shall continue evaluating signage of public roads and report to the board of supervisors. Facts: Development under the BIASP and General Plan Amendment will make the Planning Area more economically attractive to business. The BIASP contains commercial design guidelines and commits to providing an adequate circulation ' system. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures L-19 through L-21. The Board finds that the Chamber of Commerce concerns can be adequately mitigated through the implementation of the proposed project and the above measures. XIII. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Impact: The proposed project would substantially increase both population and housing in the Planning Area and East County Area. (FEIR, pps. V-278 through V-282, and VII-12) . Impacts associated with increased population (e.g. , traffic, population, 42 community services, conversion of agriculture) are discussed in other appropriately titled sections of these findings. Mitigation: The FEIR does not suggest any specific mitigation measures. Rather, mitigation measures associated with this impact are discussed in other appropriately titled sections of these findings. (FEIR, p. V-282) . Facts: The match-up of employment opportunities and the new population may not be compatible under the proposed project and some local residents may have to leave the area to find satisfactory employment. However, this is not considered a significant impact in itself given the availability of jobs in the region. Nonetheless, prior to approval of substantial residential projects, the project requires that the County evaluate the impact of that project on the jobs/housing balance for the region as required pursuant to the Growth Management Program contained in the proposed project. The impacts associated with increased traffic, air pollution levels, community service needs and utilities are discussed under those sections. Findings: The Board finds that the accepted mitigation measures in these findings will adequately mitigate this project impact for the reasons set forth above through mitigation measures set forth in other titled sections. If development occurs in the Oakley area, this impact may evolve into a significant cumulative impact. This foreseeable, future cumulative impact shall be mitigated to the extent feasible by this project through the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures in these findings. XIV. ENERGY CONSERVATION Impact: The proposed project would result in short-term consumption of a considerable amount of energy for construction of roads, structures and infrastructure. In addition, ongoing energy use would result from heating and day-to-day use of homes and commercial facilities and from vehicles associated with traveling to and from the Planning Area. Site design and building construction techniques would affect the energy efficiency and conservation of the project. (FEIR, pps. V-284 and V-285) . Mitigation: The FEIR at pages V-285 and V-286 recommends measures to offset the above potential adverse effect and can be summarized as follows: N-1 Protect solar access through zoning and regulatory requirements such as restrictive covenants which encourage solar energy use and solar skyspace easements. 43 N-2 Encourage bicycling and walking by providing safe and buffered trails. N-3 Protect solar access through site design and building orientation. Facts: The proposed project contains means to provide and assure safe pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle paths. In addition to the requirements contained in the BIASP, the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR shall also be imposed on future development. Findings: The Board adopts Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 . The Board finds that the proposed project will not significantly impact energy conservation, but still requires that the above measures be imposed on development as warranted. XV. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts attributed to implementation of the proposed project are discussed at pages VII-5 through VII-13 of the FEIR, and further, in other appropriately titled sections of these findings. Except as specifically provided for under each identified impact under the appropriate titled section of these findings, no specific mitigation measures for cumulative impacts are set forth in the FEIR. The cumulative impacts and applicable, adopted measures to mitigate those impacts are summarized below: A. Geology. Seismicity, and Soils: Fact: The project would add to the cumulative exposure of population in the Delta area to hazards of flooding from liquefaction and seismic shaking. This would place additional demand on local and regional emergency services. Cumulative withdrawal of groundwater resulting from area-wide development could potentially accelerate regional subsidence. Mitigation: The hazards of flooding that may result from liquefaction shall be adequately mitigated and those resulting from seismic shaking shall be partially mitigated in the Planning Area through the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures identified in Section I (Geology, Seismicity, Soils) and Section II (Hydrology and Water Quality) of these findings. The impact on subsidence which may result from the cumulative withdrawal of ground water shall be adequately mitigated through the development of non-ground water sources as discussed in Section XI.A (Water System) of these findings. 44 B. Hydrology and Water Quality: Impact: Development of the Planning Area could significantly add to Delta-wide input of additional nutrients and urban runoff contaminants. This could incrementally degrade local waterbodies and increase the area's problems with excess aquatic plant and algae growth. This is controlled by the magnitude and duration of natural (and regulated) flushing flows from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, upstream inputs of contaminations and nutrients, and withdrawals of water from the system. Additionally, potential flooding resulting from levee breaching could add to similar cumulatively significant problems throughout the Delta region. Mitigation: The impacts on water quality shall be adequately mitigated in the Planning Area through the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures in Section II Hydrology and Water Quality) of these findings. The impacts that may result from levee breaching shall be adequately mitigated in the Planning Area through the implementation of the proposed project which prohibits levee breaching on-island until the entire levee system is improved to Army Corps of Engineers' standards. This impact is further mitigated by requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to approve levee breaching off-island. It is likely that the perimeter of the levee system will have to be improved before such breaching is permitted. ) C. Land Use• Impact: The proposed project would add significantly to ongoing large-scale conversions of agricultural land from residential to commercial uses in the East County Area. Mitigation: The proposed project has partially mitigated the above impact to the extent feasible by retaining a majority of the Planning Area in agricultural use. This impact will also be mitigated to the extent feasible by the implementation of the adopted measures in Section IV (Land Use) and Section V (Agriculture) of these findings. Complete mitigation can only be accomplished if no development was allowed to occur in the Planning Area which would contradict the purpose in preparing this Specific Plan (namely, to allow for orderly, well-planned development with reasonable cost housing in a water- recreation setting) . D. Agriculture• Impact: Development of the proposed project would result in the cumulative reduction of non-prime agricultural land. 45 Mitigation: Refer to the explanation under Land Use directly above. E. Visual Quality: Impact: Development in the Planning Area would cumulatively contribute to a visual character change of the East County Area from primarily agricultural to a mix of suburban residential and commercial uses. Mitigation: The cumulative visual quality impact will be partially mitigated by development in the Planning Area through the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures identified in Section VI (Visual Quality) of these findings. F. Traffic and Circulation: Impact: Development in the Planning Area will contribute to cumulative regional traffic impacts. Mitigation: Development in the Planning Area shall partially mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts through the implementation of the adopted measures identified in Section VIII (Traffic and Circulation) of these findings. G. Air ualit : Impact: The project would add incrementally to emissions in the Bay Area air basin. Mitigation: Cumulative air quality impacts shall be partially mitigated through the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures identified in Section IX (Air Quality) of these findings. H. Public Utilities: a. Electricity and Natural Gas: The project would add incrementally to the cumulative increase in electrical and natural gas demand in the area. Mitigation: The above cumulative impacts shall be adequately mitigated by development in the Planning Area through the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures identified in Section XI.B (Public Utilities-Electric Service) and Section XI.0 (Public Utilities-Natural Gas) of these findings. b. Solid Waste: Development in the Planning Area will incrementally add to the demand for additional landfill sites. 46 Mitigation: The cumulative impact on solid waste shall be adequately mitigated as discussed in Section XI.E (Public Utilities-Solid Waste) of these findings. Findings: The Board finds that the adoption of specific mitigation measures identified in these findings will have the cumulative effect of partially mitigating some cumulative environmental impacts and adequately mitigating others that may arise from the implementation of the proposed project. Complete mitigation cannot be accomplished by the development of Bethel Island alone, since cumulative impacts are a result of several projects in the East County Area. Effective mitigation could only be accomplished on a regional basis. I. Population, Employment and Housing: Impact: The population increase that would occur from the project, when added to the new residence proposed for the Oakley area at buildout, would constitute a cumulatively significant increase in population and housing and could adversely affect the area's jobs/housing balance. Mitigation: After the preparation of the DEIR, the Board rescinded the Oakley North Brentwood Area General Plan. As a result, the above impact would not occur in the short term. However, it is anticipated that development in the Oakley area will occur in the future. This impact may evolve into a significant cumulative impact once development in Oakley occurs. This foreseeable, future cumulativeimpact will be mitigated to the extent feasible by development in the Planning Area as discussed in Section XIII (Population, Employment and Housing) of these findings. XVI. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Impact. The projected high rates of population growth in rural East Contra Costa County may occur notwithstanding growth in the Planning Area. Development in the Planning Area may encourage additional development in the surrounding open space and agricultural areas. (FEIR, pps. VII-13 and VII-14) . mitigation: No specific mitigation is identified in the FEIR. Facts: The BIASP and General Plan Amendment have designated the most intense development in areas that are physically separated by either sloughs or agricultural buffers from rural lands outside the Planning Area. As a result, development in the Planning Area will not be so obvious and enticing for further growth. Furthermore, the areas surrounding the Planning Area suffer from infrastructural constraints which may have the effect 47 of discouraging development. The Growth Management Program that is part of the proposed project, similar to that anticipated to be adopted as part of the new Contra Costa County General Plan, has the effect of limiting growth in the region. This policy requires developers to finance or construct all infrastructure improvements. Funding for necessary regional transportation improvements must be available before new development under General Plan Amendments or changes can proceed. In the absence of such willingness or ability, growth will not occur. Findings: The Board finds that this impact is partially mitigated by the project as approved for the reasons set forth above. Complete mitigation could occur if this project was not implemented or no new development was permitted in the Planning Area. This would contradict the purpose in preparing the Specific Plan, which is to allow for orderly planned development of mixed housing at a reasonable cost in a recreational setting. The Board finds that complete mitigation would not be feasible. XVII. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES Impact: Future development as would be permitted under the BIASP and General Plan Amendment would irrevocably commit portions of the area to residential, commercial and recreational uses. The commitment of financial resources, energy, raw materials and labor for future development would deplete certain non-renewable resources and would lead to irreversible foreclosure of a portion of the agriculture use within the Planning Area. (FEIR, p. VII-14) . Mitigation: Except as specifically provided for in each of the applicable identified impacts, no specific mitigation measures for this impact are identified in the FEIR. Substantial mitigation of irreversible changes is not required under CEQA Facts: Development in the Planning Area will not irreversibly commit prime agricultural lands to urbanized uses. The Planning Area does not contain agricultural core lands comprised of Class I and Class II prime soils, but only lands of marginal agricultural productivity. However, in order to minimize the above impact on these marginal agricultural lands, the Specific Plan limits development to a low overall density. The majority of the Planning Area will remain in its present agricultural state. The Specific Plan further minimizes the impact on agricultural land by encouraging the purchasing of development rights, imposing a Protection Fee and by clustered development on agricultural lands. Findings: The Board finds that the mitigation measures provided under each identified impact will substantially or partially mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the respective titled sections, but that certain 48 existing conditions will be irreversibly changed. Complete mitigation could only be accomplished if no new development was permitted which would contradict the purpose in preparing the BIASP, namely to provide a means of orderly, well-planned development of mixed housing of reasonable cost in a water- recreation setting. The Board further finds that complete mitigation would not be feasible. XVIII. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. Impact: The cumulative and long-term effects of implementation of the proposed project which may adversely affect the state of the environment are specifically delineated in each of the sections of these findings, as appropriate. Various impacts which particularly narrow the range of beneficial existing uses of the existing environment, but which are believed by the Board to be justified at this time, are summarized on pages VII-14 and VII-15 of the FEIR. Mitigation Measure: Except as specifically provided for in each of the applicable identified impacts, no specific mitigation measures for this impact are identified in the FEIR. Facts: Each identified alternative, which would result in future growth on implementation of the General Plan Amendment and BIASP, would adversely impact the short-term uses and long-term productivity of the resources and land uses identified in the FEIR. Findings: The Board finds that the impact is partially mitigated through the implementation of the proposed project and the mitigation measures adopted in these findings. Complete mitigation could only be achieved if no new development was permitted which would contradict the purpose in preparing this Specific Plan, namely to provide a means of orderly, well-planned development of mixed housing of reasonable cost in a water- recreation setting. The Board finds that this impact has been mitigated to the extent feasible. XIX. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The FEIR evaluated the "No-Project" Alternative, as required by CEQA, along with a 2, 500, 4, 000, 5,500 and 9, 000 residential unit alternative. The FEIR at pages III-8 through III-16 and VI-1 through VI-30 provides a detailed description and environmental analysis of the alternatives and is incorporated herein by reference. The feasibility of including an off-site alternative was evaluated, but given the water-recreation orientation of the project and the capability for expansion of utility facilities that are needed to meet projected growth, no 49 other feasible sites in the County were located that could serve as an alternative site. Other Delta-oriented locations would have similar if not more significant environmental impacts and infrastructure constraints. Most importantly, the purpose of the BIASP was to improve the quality of life in the Planning Area. An off-site alternative would not accomplish any changes in the Planning Area. Under the circumstances, the No-project Alternative is the .same _as the off-site alternative. An additional alternative, the sWest Off-Island Alternatives, was submitted by way of comment to the DEIR. Since this alternative was submitted by way of a comment, it became part of the EIR. This alternative seeks to urbanize 350 additional acres on the west side of the off-island area which would increase the density of the proposed project by 900 residential units. This alternative was considered and rejected by the Board. The Board rejected this alternative because it was not satisfied with the degree of environmental analysis that was provided on this alternative after the Draft EIR had been prepared and the Specific Plan had been under consideration for over two years. Before the Board will consider additional development in this area (Cypress Road corridor) , a more detailed environmental analysis must be conducted. This environmental analysis must adequately analyze and mitigate all possible substantial environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , taking into account and interrelating with development already contemplated in Oakley and the Bethel Island Area. Moreover, any additional development in this area and for that matter any portion of the Planning Area, must demonstrate compliance with the Financing Plan and the Growth Management Program contained in the BIASP. Other alternatives submitted by way of comment to the DEIR are generally analyzed in one or more of the alternatives discussed below. A. The "No-Projects Alternative Under this alternative, development would be limited to existing uses and to residential developments that are proposed or have . already been approved by the County. Facts: This alternative fails to address inevitable piecemeal growth in the Planning Area, fails to protect the integrity and independent character of the area in the face of rapid growth due to recent and expected future land use decisions made for and housing demand in Oakley and other surrounding areas, and fails to provide Bethel Island with its fair share of development opportunities and the opportunity to improve the quality of life for its residents. The community has made it clear through public meetings that it wants additional, reasonable development and related infrastructure and amenities. 50 Some development will still occur under this alternative as provided for in the East County Area General Plan. Infrastructure and amenities will not be provided in an integral manner. Stilt residential structures may proliferate throughout the Planning Area, with adverse aesthetic consequences. Recent experience suggests that well-planned development under the existing General Plan for Bethel Island Area is difficult to achieve. Findings: For the reasons set forth herein the "No-Project" Alternative is unacceptable. B. 2 ,500 Unit Residential Alternative This alternative would include 2,500 primarily single-family detached, residential units within the Planning Area. Of these units, 1,500 would be constructed in the on-island area, while 1, 000 would be constructed in the off-island area. The amount of commercial space for this alternative would remain the same as for the proposed project. Facts: This alternative proposes to develop more residential units on-island than the proposed project, which is the most hydrogeologically hazardous portion of the Planning Area given the condition of on-island levees, the lower elevation and the fact that it is an island. This alternative would also create more severe impacts on biologic resources than the proposed project since it does not make a commitment to provide a no-net loss of wetland acreage. In this sense, the proposed project is more sensitive to geologic and seismic hazards and biological resources. Biologic resources on-island are more significant than off-island. Findings: For the reasons set forth herein, the Board finds that this alternative in unacceptable. C. The 4, 000 Residential Unit Alternative This alternative would include 2,400 units on the on-island and 1, 600 units on the off-island along with 220, 000 square feet of-commercial development and a 650 room hotel. This alternative would permit levee breaching for the creation of interior lakes. Facts: This alternative proposes more development on-island than the proposed project, which is the most hydrogeologically hazardous and difficult portion of the Planning Area to develop. This alternative also permits levee breaching on-island for the creation of interior lakes which could create greater safety and flood hazards than the proposed project and which is disfavored on policy grounds. Since more residential and commercial development would be allowed under this alternative, more traffic would be generated, which in turn would create greater project 51 and cumulative impacts on noise and air quality. The large amount of commercial and residential development proposed on- island under this alternative would take away from the rural/semi-rural character of the Planning Area. This alternative would result in the loss of valuable wetland acreage since it does not make a commitment to provide a no-net loss of wetlands. Further, this alternative would cause greater water quality impacts than the proposed project since it would create greater surface runoff. Findings: For the reasons set forth herein, the Board finds that this alternative is unacceptable. D. The 5.500 Residential Unit Alternative This alternative would permit 2,750 units on-island and 2,750 units off-island. This alternative would further permit levee breaks on-island to create interior lagoons with residential development placed on finger levees surrounding the lagoons. An additional 150 units would be allowed for the first development that includes a hotel located near Delta waters. Commercial development would remain the same as for the proposed project. Facts: This alternative would allow a higher level of residential development than is set forth in the BIASP and under the General Plan Amendment. To accommodate this additional development, more agricultural and open space areas would be permanently converted to urban uses. This alternative does not devote any on-island acreage to heavy or general agricultural uses. Development under this alternative would result in the loss of the rural agricultural character of the Planning Area. This alternative would also pose greater flood hazards for the Planning Area since it allows levees to be breached on-island for the creation of interior lakes. In addition, development would result in a loss of wetland acreage. Traffic impacts would double under this alternative which in turn would create greater noise and air quality project and cumulative impacts. Findings: For the reasons set forth herein, the Board finds that the 5,500 unit residential alternative is unacceptable. E. The 9, 000 Residential Unit Alternative This alternative would maintain the same level and type of commercial development as the proposed project, but would permit increased residential densities. Residential development would consist of 5,400 units on the on-island and 3, 600 units on the off-island. Facts: This alternative would allow a much higher level of residential development that is set forth by the proposed 52 project. To accommodate the additional development, this alternative would allow 4, 500 more units on the on-island, which is the most geologically hazardous area in the project area. As a result of such intense development, this alternative would pose greater flood hazards and in addition, create even greater impacts on traffic, noise and visual and air quality than the 5,500 unit alternative. This alternative would result in the direct removal of -all -the ruderal wetlands/upland areas and removal of 97% of the permanent/seasonal wetlands, compared with no net loss for the proposed project. Consequently, only few biological values would remain intact under this alternative. Findings: For the reasons set forth herein, the Board finds that the 9, 000 residential unit alternative is unacceptable. In light of the above, the Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed project possess qualities superior to the above- alternatives in creating a Bethel Island community consistent with the underlying intent in authorizing the Specific Plan, and therefore, the Board approves the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP along with the summarized mitigation measures as set forth herein and as clarified, modified or expanded (excluding rejected, infeasible measures) . XX. LIST OF ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES The Board has adopted the following mitigation measures in approving the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. I. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS Adopted Mitigation Measures: A-1 through A-5, A-6 (as modified) , A-8, A-9 (a) (b) , A-10 through A-19 (the latter two as modified) , A-20 (as modified by A-19) , A-23, A-24 and the new mitigation measure which states: nGeotechnical reports for all grading projects shall require peer review and approval by a geotechnical engineer acting on behalf of the local reclamation district. The costs of review shall be borne by the applicant.ff II. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Adopted Mitigation Measures: B-1, B-3 through B-6, B- 8 through B-10, B-12 through B=14 (the latter as clarified) , B- 15 through B-26(a) , B-27 through B-33 (the latter as clarified) , B-34 through B-42 and the new mitigation measure which requires the following: NThe County sand all special districts should waive permit fees for those parcels where a non-conforming house is removed from within the levee setback area and a new conforming house is constructed. Because this particular situation is no net growth construction, County fees for infrastructure improvements such as road improvements and parks 53 should be waived. This would be an economic incentive for property owners to voluntarily remove non-conforming structures. The County and all special districts should also waive their permit fees for parcels where non-conforming structures are relocated or modified to a conforming condition." III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Adopted Mitigation Measures: C-1 (as modified) , C-2 through C-4 (the latter as clarified) , C-5 (as modified) , C-6 and the new measure which requires the following: "For any proposed wetland mitigation areas, the applicant shall submit a management plan and guarantee the maintenance and survival of plants for five years. The plants shall be subject to review and approval of the County, after review by the COE and CDFG." IV. LAND USE Adopted Mitigation Measures: D-1, D-2 (as clarified) , and a new measure which states: "All development applicants shall be submitted directly to the State Lands Commission (SLC) . The SLC shall timely review the development applications to determine the extent, if any, of publically owned lands and whether the applications are consistent with SLC policies and to establish a long-term leasing agreement between the applicant and the SLC, if necessary." V. AGRICULTURE Adopted Mitigation Measures: E-1 (partial) , E-2, E-4 and E-5. VI. VISUAL QUALITY Adopted Mitigation Measures: F-1 through F-4. VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES Adopted Mitigation Measures: G-1 and G-2 . VIII. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Adopted Mitigation Measures: Construction Cypress Road as a four-lane roadway. Reconstruct the Bethel Island Bridge with two travel lanes and a separate bicycle and pedestrian path. 54 Construct the Laurel Road-Cypress Road connection as a two-lane roadway within a four-lane right- of-way with a grade separation at the crossing of the AT/SP railroad tracks. Extend Bethel Island Road to Rock Slough as a two- lane roadway within a four-lane right-of-way. Extend and upgrade Laurel Road to four lanes between SR-4 and the Delta Expressway. Construct a partial cloverleaf interchange at Laurel Road/Delta Expressway. Require rights-of-way for an ultimate four-lane width on Bethel Island Road, Laurel Road and Cypress Road. Convert the two T-intersections of Bethel Island Road/Stone Road and Bethel Island Road/Taylor Road as a single four-lane approach intersection or as an alternative keep the present alignment of the two T-intersections of Bethel Island Road/Stone Road/and Bethel Island Road/Taylor Road and modifying timing of the proposed traffic signal. Prior to implementation, an operational analysis of each alternative should be conducted to determine which mitigation measure maintains the level of service standards more efficiently. Establish a regional traffic mitigation fee. Continue implementing Measure OCR. Adopt and implement a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ordinance. Utilize revenues generated by the gasoline tax increase. Implement the jobs/housing .balance requirement contained in the Growth Management Program. If required, limit development in Bethel Island to 2, 109 dwelling units and do not allow new significant residential development in the East County Area through subsequent General Plan Amendments or changes until a financing mechanism and reasonably anticipating funding is confirmed for necessary regional roadway improvements. 55 Install guardrails along roadways adjacent to drainage ditches or levees. Provide separate bicycle lanes on roadways. Provide Park-n-Ride lots at one or more locations in the Planning Area. Prior to the development of specific parcels and the upgrading and/or construction of specific levees and roadways, develop measures to reduce construction traffic impacts. IX. AIR QUALITY Adopted Mitigation Measures: I-1 through I-3 . X. NOISE Adopted Mitigation Measures: J-1 (as modified) through J-4, and the new measure which states: "All heavy construction activities should be limited to the hours of 7: 00 a.m. to 7: 00 p.m. on week-days. No week-end outdoor construction is allowed. More stringent noise mitigation measures may be required as a condition of approval for specific project approvals." XI. PUBLIC UTILITIES A. Water Systems Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: K-1 through K-6 (the latter as modified) , K-7 through K-10 and the new measure which states: "All water supply facilities constructed for the ultimate water system are to be constructed to the standards of the Oakley Water District for future acceptance and maintenance by the District." B. Electric Service Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: K-11 through K-13, and the new mitigation measure which requires that new high-voltage power lines be located parallel to existing lines, consistent with policy 8-98 in the March, 1989, Draft County General Plan. C. Natural Gas Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: K-14 through K-16. 56 D. Telephone Service Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: K-17 through K-20. E. Solid Waste Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measure: K-21. F. Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: K-22 through K-27 (the latter two as modified) . XII. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. Police Protection Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: L-1 through L-3 (the latter as clarified) . B. Fire Protection Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: L-4 through L-11 and the new measure which states: "Off-island developers and/or the County shall petition LAFCO to change the Bethel Island Fire Protection District (BIFPD) boundaries to include the entire Planning Area." C. School Impact: Adopted Mitigation Measures: L-12 and L-13 . D. Recreational Resource Impacts: Adopted Mitigation Measure: L-14 (as clarified) , L-15 through L-18. E. Other Service Impacts: Adopted Mitigation Measures: L-19 through L-21. XIII. ENERGY CONSERVATION Adopted Mitigation Measures: N-1 through N-3 . XXI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Following a determination that substantial impacts remain following the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, approval of a project must be accompanied by a Statement Of Overriding Considerations. CEQA requires the benefits of a proposed project 57 e to be balanced against its unavoidable . environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. The Board of Supervisors has determined that the benefits of this project outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project impacts that have been only partially mitigated) . In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits, among others, were considered and comprise the Statement of Overriding Considerations for each and every impact that has not been substantially (adequately) mitigated as hereinabove set forth: 1. The project will provide mixed housing of reasonable cost for Contra Costa County in a water-recreational setting. The County has been and continues to experience steady and rapid population growth. Such housing is in strong demand. The central cities of the County are near buildout and can no longer fully accommodate the County's housing demands. To complicate matters, the communities surrounding the Planning Area are also experiencing rapid growth and fail to supply an adequate amount of reasonably priced housing to accommodate that growth. Development under the General Plan Amendment and BIASP will alleviate some of the pressure on these areas by providing mixed housing at reasonable cost in an area of limited agricultural value. The requirement for an effective jobs/housing balance for any new residential development under the BIASP will help to assure that housing is of reasonable cost and the type to address demands from the job market. Moreover, development under the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP, as opposed to an amendment or plan that contains fewer housing units, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the law that instructs public agencies not to reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative whenever another feasible measure or alternative could provide a comparable level of mitigation as those adopted in these findings and contained in the proposed project. Public Resources Code § 21085; CEQA Guidelines § 15041(c) . 2 . The proposed project will also help provide needed mixed, reasonably priced housing for the Bay Area Region. ABAG projections of job growth in the 1989-2005 period in the Region suggests that the number of jobs will increase to 881, 000. The production level of housing in the Region is projected at 442, 000 new units through 2005, given current housing policies. By the year 2005, the job demand is expected to exceed the employed labor force in the Region by more than 202, 600 workers, requiring one-third of the new workers to commute to their jobs from outside the Region. Such commuting from outside the Region will seriously impact the County's regional and local road network and degrade air quality without providing local funds to mitigate such impacts or to improve the quality of life for County residences. To reduce such commutes through the County, adequate 58 housing opportunities such as those consistent with the BIASP must be provided. 3 . The proposed project will provide needed and desired recreational opportunities for the County. The Planning Area is almost entirely surrounded by Delta waters and has been used by many people as a source of water-oriented recreation. The increase in population that the County is experiencing necessitates the need for an increase in water-oriented recreation to maintain and improve the quality of life for many County residents. 4. The implementation of the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP will provide additional employment opportunities in commercial and recreational projects. Such opportunities will eliminate the need for some residents to travel to areas outside the Planning Area for employment. In addition, short-term employment in the construction industry will be provided as a result of development under the proposed project. 5. Cumulative regional roadway impacts will be only partially mitigated as a result of the project. However, despite this impact, development in the Bethel Island area is necessary and appropriate at this time in order to 1) provide local funding for the necessary improvements, 2) provide a mix of housing to accommodate growth in the County, and 3) decrease commuting distances. If needed housing (including attractive, reasonably priced single-family housing) is not provided in the County, commute trips from outside the County will increase. As a consequence, existing regional traffic impacts will escalate and no additional funding sources will be available to assist in eliminating those impacts and existing traffic congestion. 6. The General Plan Amendment and the BIASP provides various social benefits to the current and future residents of the Planning Area as well as the residents of other portions of the County including, but not limited to, the preservation and enhancement of wetland areas, rare plant communities, wildlife refuge, archeological sites and recreational resources. 7. The General Plan Amendment and the . BIASP will provide infrastructure improvements that will benefit existing residents in addition to new residents, including roads, parks, trails, library and improved public water supply. It provides the Bethel Island community with a reasonable share of the new growth in the County to enhance the community, as requested by community representatives and committees. Bethel Island will be able to retain its independent and special character under the proposed project. 8. The General Plan Amendment and the BIASP provide for some development in the area, without adversely affecting the 59 safety of existing residents through on-island levee breaching. The requirement that a new perimeter levee system be assured before new development on-island is considered has the secondary benefit of providing an incentive for developers to come up with a plan to improve the levees for all residents, not just those in new development. 9. The General Plan Amendment and the BIASP avoid piecemeal growth and stilt residential development that might eventually occur in the Planning Area under the old plan and protect the integrity and special nature of the Planning Area in the face of rapid growth due to demand and recent land use decisions made for surrounding areas. 10. The General Plan Amendment and the BIASP protect and enhance the rural character of the Planning Area by providing planned and limited growth, leaving substantial open space both on-island and off-island. The planned growth will encourage the orderly provision of infrastructure and avoid piecemeal development which may burden facilities and services. 11. Development pursuant to the General Plan Amendment and the BIASP will substantially increase the assessed valuation of the Planning Area and beneficially impact property values, which in turn will create additional revenue for the County. 12. Approval of the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan establishes an important precedent for the County and a good example for East County cities for future planning decisions. For the first time, the County has required compliance with a strict growth management program such that all project infrastructure and community facilities requirements (including a library) must be met before development may proceed. The Board has refused to authorize any new development on-island unless fundamental levee safety improvements are assumed in advance. The Board has also limited for the first time, new residential development throughout East County until the financing for necessary, costly regional transportation improvements is made available. For the first time, a no net loss of wetlands policy has been implemented on an area wide basis and an agricultural, wetland and open space Protection Fee has been adopted. Mandatory clustering of homes on agricultural land has also been required for the first time. In addition, a bonus program has been implemented for the first time, assuring that recreational and project amenities be included in specific development if lower density residential uses are to be allowed. For the first time, new development is required to demonstrate that it will help achieve an effective and meaningful jobs/housing balance. Approval of the project by the Board demonstrates its commitment to apply similar policies and requirements on any new development elsewhere in East County and the County in general. It will also provide an important 60 precedent by which LAFCO may judge proposed development under requested annexations by cities. It demonstrates to cities the Board's commitment to regional and sound planning policies. XXII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires this Board to adopt a monitoring or reporting program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these findings. This Board adopts the following program in fulfillment of this requirement: 1. The County Community Development Department shall Prepare an overall plan to implement the mitigation measures adopted in these findings by incorporating them as policies within the projects, or by preparing implementing regulations, ordinances, standards, programs and plans, or by incorporating them into future development approvals as appropriate to the particular mitigation measure, and shall take such action as necessary to effectuate the plan. 2. The County Community Development Department shall file a written report with the East County Regional Planning Commission ("Planning Commissions) within 3 months from the date this project is approved by the Board of Supervisors on the implementation plan. Thereafter, the County Community Development Department shall report annually to the Planning Commission on the implementation status of the mitigation measures. Where appropriate and feasible the report shall also provide a projected timetable for the implementation of each mitigation measure. 3 . The Planning Commission shall review the written report and determine whether there is any unusual and substantial delay in, or obstacle to, the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures which requires further action. If a developer or interested party requests it, the result of this review will be provided in writing. 4. If the Planning Commission determines that such further action is required, it shall direct staff to consult with the developer(s) and they shall together, if possible, agree upon additional actions to be taken to ensure the implementation of such mitigation measures. If, and only if, the staff and the developer(s) are unable to agree upon the additional actions to be taken, then either staff or the developer(s) may bring the matter before the Zoning Administrator for decision whether any action should be taken and what that action should be. Staff and the Zoning Administrator shall be limited to imposing reasonable actions as permitted by law which will implement the existing mitigation measure. 61 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA I hereby certify that this Amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 1 o q 10 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator. EXHIBIT "C" By Deputy GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA EXHIBIT "C" TABLE OF CONTENTS for the General Plan Amendment For the Bethel Island Area PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I- II. BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . 4- III. LAND USE ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- IV. HOUSING ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9- V. CIRCULATION ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- VI. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT . . . . 15- VII. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT . . . . . . . . 16- VIII.GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 18- IX. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21- ti GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA I. INTRODUCTION This amendment pertains to various sections and elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan and the East County Area General Plan. The amendment area consists of approximately 3, 500 acres of land located on Bethel Island and approximately 3, 000 acres of land located south of Bethel Island, more commonly referred to as Hotchkiss Tract. The description of the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough Area as set forth in the East County Area General Plan on pages 23 and 31 shall be deleted and replaced with the following text: The Bethel Island Area includes both the on- island land and the off-island land south of the island (Hotchkiss Tract) which are bordered on the north by Franks Tract, the northwest by Taylor Slough, the northeast by Piper Slough and Franks Tract, the south by Rock Slough, the southwest by Dutch Slough and the Contra Costa Canal and the southeast by Sandmound Slough. The approval of new development shall be limited to 2,909 primarily recreation-oriented units in the off-island area (i.e. , 3,000 additional units, including the 91 units already approved, but not yet built) . In order to address the safety concerns with respect to the questionable stability of the current on- island levee system, new residential development in the on--island area shall be limited at this time to approved development and one dwelling unit per parcel. Additional residential density in the on-island area may be considered through subsequent amendment at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, provided at least the following is accomplished: 1) a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter on-island levee system; 2) the levee improvement plans are approved by BIMID and the Army Corps of 1 Engineers; and 3) subsidence, as well as impacts on wetlands, are adequately mitigated. To address safety concerns and for policy reasons as discussed above, levee breaches on- island are prohibited unless the entire perimeter levee is improved to Army Corps of Engineers' standards. Levee breaching is not prohibited off-island, which is part of the mainland with different levee, geographic and topographic conditions than on-island. Levee breaching off-island shall be permitted on a project-by-project basis and shall only be allowed subject to the Army Corps of Engineers. It is likely that the perimeter levee system will have to be improved before such breaching is allowed.Any internal levees must meet Army Corps of Engineers' standards. New construction must be set back from levee centerlines a minimum of 100 feet unless adequate substantiation for reduction is approved, by RD-799 or BIMID. New construction not protected by certified levees must meet FEMA standards. The foregoing minimum prerequisites to consider additional residential development on-island are included for the following, among other, reasons: weak, organic soils underlie the perimeter levee system; there are limited opportunities for evacuation of the island in the event of levee failure; the island is generally below sea level and subsiding; limited opportunity for safe disbursement of flood water because it is a small island enclosed by levees; and stilt residential development would be necessary to meet FEMA standards, absent improvements to the levee system, which is aesthetically unpleasing. The policy against levee breaching is based on the foregoing, among other reasons, including that a levee breach and resultant new levee system protecting only a portion of the island will further limit the area of flood water disbursement in the event of a failure in the remaining, unimproved levee, increasing the flooding, health and safety hazards to residents on properties in the remainder of the island. 2 In the off-island area, on the other hand, wetland areas are limited, the soil is sandy and less subject to subsidence, the elevation is higher, the levee system is in an improved condition and not as long, there are several evacuation alternatives, it is part of the mainland, .and .disbursements of flood waters is not artificially contained such that internal systems around new development will not adversely affect existing residents and structures in the flood plain. Stilt (elevated) structures designed to meet FEMA standards in a floodplain are aesthetically unpleasing and are not preferred. Stilt residential structures shall only be allowed on the basis of one unit per existing parcel. Such elevated structures shall not be allowed in any new subdivisions. Consequently, before certain developments may proceed, it may be necessary to improve conditions in the flood plain. The off-island and on-island areas can also develop 100, 000 square feet of commercial development and 500 hotel rooms, consistent with FEMA standards. The concept for the Bethel Island Area is to preserve and enhance the rural and recreational qualities of the unique area, while providing opportunities for additional residential and commercial growth tied to water-oriented recreation. Marine and waterfront facilities on the Delta side of the levee system will require a special use permit to address site specific aquatic and other issues. New development must comply with an approved financing plan for infrastructure improvements. Existing residential .areas in the Bethel Island Area shall be preserved. In addition, improvements shall be made to the existing local commercial centers and to the circulation system. Opportunities shall be made available for new major recreational resort areas and additional rural and recreational housing. Expanded public facilities, parks and permanent open space shall also be provided. In order to retain the characteristics of Bethel Island which make it a unique place in the Delta with its 3 own separate identity, development shall be limited to a low overall density and open space buffers shall be required. In addition, G agricultural, open space and wetland areas, along with rare plant communities, shall be preserved and protected. Residential development.on Agricultural Lands, to the extent permitted beyond one unit per parcel in the off-island area, shall be clustered with development rights on the undeveloped land dedicated to the County. In addition, development in the area shall comply with the County's current wetland policy of no net loss in the quantity or value of permanent or seasonal wetlands and any further avoidance or replacement requirements subsequently adopted by the County. The Army Corps of Engineers shall be responsible for determining the existence of wetlands. A Protection Fee shall be imposed on each new residential unit in the Bethel Island Area to acquire development rights on agricultural lands, open space or wetland areas, or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production. Priority for the acquisition of open space and wetlands shall be given to the on-island area. Additional funding sources shall be explored to supplement or replace the Protection Fee. These General Plan policies shall be implemented by the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan approved concurrently with this General Plan Amendment. " II. BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING The following language shall be inserted as the last paragraph in the text under the heading "POPULATION GROWTH" at page four of the East County Area General Plan: Between the years of 1980 and 1985, the population for the East County area increased by 6.85%, whereas population for the entire county increased by 1.48%.Contra Costa continues to experience growth and it is anticipated to have a population of 901, 000 by the year 2005. In 1985 the population was 709, 100. (Source: Association of Bay Area Governments' Estimate, "Projections 1870) . 4 Housing along the Highway 4 corridor has been more moderately priced than much of the Central County and its greater affordability has attracted many families." III. LAND USE ELEMENT This amendment changes the land use designations, the densities allowed in the existing designations, and locations of land uses in the Bethel Island Area. The new land use designations are shown on Map "A" attached hereto which map shall replace the "Bethel Island-Sandmound Community Plan" map of the East County Area General Plan (this is the same as the Specific Plan Map) . In addition, the following changes shall be made to the East County Area General Plan: The following shall be inserted at page 14 at the end of the text under the subheading "Agricultural Core" and before the subheading "Agriculture-Residential": Agricultural Lands This designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area includes lands of marginal agricultural productivity. It does not include agricultural core lands comprised of Class I and Class II prime soils as shown in the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Contra Costa County: 1973 . Under the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan as approved, this designation in the on-island area does not permit more than one dwelling unit per parcel; however, the Plan may be amended and additional density may be considered in the on-island area, in the discretion of the Board of Supervisors provided at least the following is accomplished: 1) a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter on-island levee system; 2) the levee improvement -plans are approved by BIMID and the Army Corps of Engineers; and 3) subsidence and wetland impacts are adequately mitigated. This designation in the off-island area allows the density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Clustering of residential development off- island on agricultural land in exchange for development rights on the balance of the property is required with appropriate planning and design standards through a planned development rezoning." 5 The following shall be inserted as the second paragraph under the subheading "Single Family Residential-Low Density (1-3 Units/Net Acre) " at page 19: sThis land use designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area allows a range of 1.0-2.9 dwelling units per net acre and provides flexibility for designing projects to reflect naturally occurring constraints, and the ability to provide facilities and services, provided various bonus criteria are satisfied. The Planned Unit Development P-1) approach shall be utilized for this area, so that development at lower densities can take place around naturally occurring constraints, primarily wetland and upland areas." The language at the end of the last sentence under the subheading "Single-Family Residential - High Density 5-7 Units/Net Acres at page 19, which states ". . .after granting of a Land Use Permits shall be deleted and the following text shall be inserted: sThis land use designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area allows a range of 5-7. 3 dwelling units per net acre and provides flexibility for designing a project which reflects a more intense development as a buffer between single-family and commercial areas. The Planned Unit Development (P-1) approach shall be utilized for this area to assure provision of reasonable outdoor living areas and common open space and/or recreational areas and facilities." The following shall be inserted as paragraph two under the subheading "Multiple-Family Residential-Low Density 7-12 Units/Net Acres at page 19: sThis land use designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area allows a range of 7.4-11.9 dwelling units per net acre and provides flexibility for designing a project which reflects more dense and affordable development." The following new land use designations shall be inserted at page 20 after the text under the subheading "Multiple-Family Residential-Medium Density (12-21 Units/Net Acres and before the heading "Urban Density": 6 Mobile Home Park This designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area allows for mobile home parks with an allowable range of 12 to 20.9 units per net acre. This designation reflects existing land uses in the area and also permits a greater range of housing. Off-Island Bonus Area A bonus density is identified in the off- island area of Bethel Island east of Jersey Island Road. The base density for this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. This density shall be increased through the bonus program if the applicant participates in one of the following programs: Recreational Projects. Residential projects that include a distinct, identifiable recreational character by including substantial recreational facilities shall be allowed a density of 1-2.9 units per net acre. Recreational amenities may include marinas or launching areas off the project site on Sandmound or Rock Sloughs, a lake community, a sailing/boating club on a project lake, an equestrian facility, a tennis club or golf course. Purchase of Development Rights. The development rights for one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Land designation may be purchased and dedicated to the County to increase the base density up to 1/2 dwelling unit per net acre. Acquiring development rights in one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Core designation will increase the base .density up to a maximum of 3 dwelling units per net acre. A program for acquisition of agricultural land development rights shall be implemented by the Community Development Department (see also Open Space and Conservation Element definition of Agricultural Lands) . " The following new land use designations shall be inserted at page 20 at the end of the text under subheading "Commercial" and before the heading "Office": 7 Local Commercial The local commercial designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area allows for the continued maintenance and expansion of the existing commercial core along Bethel Island Road, at both ends of the bridge. Land uses under this designation shall support existing businesses and further the variety of services and retail products available to the residents and visitors. Limited local commercial may be considered in other portions of the off-island area if incorporated within a residential community. Marina Commercial Land uses with a Marina Commercial designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area shall be tied directly to water-oriented activities such as boat sales, repairs, storage, fishing supplies and water skiing." The following text shall be inserted as the second paragraph under the heading "Commercial Recreation" at page 21: Land uses with a Commercial Recreational designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area shall be integrated with adjacent public recreation uses, including boat ramps, marina facilities,sports facilities, waterfront parks, fishing piers and nature areas." The following recreational land use designation shall be inserted at the end of the paragraph under the heading RECREATION" at page 31: Park and Recreation N-Neighborhood parks in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area shall be a minimum of eight acres in size and located in areas of the highest potential population density. The general location of these parks are shown on the land use map for the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area. 8 C-Community parks are planned for the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area and shall consist of a minimum of 15 acres. One park shall be in a mid-island location adjacent to the town center and another park (waterfront park) shall be located at the northern end of the on-island area." The following new land use designation shall be inserted at page 33 at the end of the text under the heading "Riding and Hiking Trails and Bicycle Paths" and before the heading INDUSTRY": OPEN SPACE This land use designation in the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area shall serve as wetland mitigation, riparian use and rare plant preserve areas, as well as for trails and paths (see also definition of Open Space in the Open Space and Conservation Element) ." IV. HOUSING ELEMENT The following updated housing information shall be inserted at the end of the text under the heading "HOUSING ELEMENT" at page 34 of the East County Area General Plan: Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough Area. Since 1979 there has been a boom in residential development in a path extending eastward from Central Contra Costa along Highway 4 towards Bethel Island, Oakley and Brentwood. This area has been increasingly accepted as a place of permanent residence, within reasonable commute range of job centers. Housing in this area has been more moderately priced than much of Central Contra Costa County and its greater affordability has attracted families and will continue to do so. Source: Environmental Impact Report prepared for Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, January 1990 at p. V-278. ) The last comprehensive census (Census Tract 3010) performed for the Bethel Island area was conducted in 1980. Census Tract 3010 included the unincorporated areas of Oakley, Sand Hill, Discovery Bay, and Bethel Island. In Census Tract 3010, there was an estimated 1, 543 9 housing units with an average size of 2 .26 persons per household. Of the units listed, 1,406 were reported in use year-round and only two were reported as "seasonal and migratory" units. Of the year-round units, 83 .6 percent were occupied at that time and 16.4 percent were reported vacant. Of the total occupied units, 889 (75.7 percent) were owner-occupied and 286 (24. 3 percent) were rented units. The year-round housing units were of the following types: 874 single-family homes; 117 were duplexes, triplexes, or four-plexes; 45 apartment units; and 381 mobile homes. Source: Environmental Impact Report prepared for Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, January 1990 at p. V-276) . Proposed development for the Bethel Island area will increase the population of the area and diversify the housing stock. Additional reasonably priced housing is needed in the County to accommodate the population increase. Development in the Bethel Island area will assist in providing reasonably priced mixed housing for the County in a desirable water recreation setting. " V. CIRCULATION ELEMENT This amendment incorporates the attached Circulation Map (Map B" attached hereto) into the Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan and East County Area General Plan. This map reflects the updated regional road network system in the County. This amendment also adds additional arterial and collector streets to the East County Area General Plan Circulation Element Map in the Bethel Island Area and Oakley Area as shown on Map "C" attached hereto. Said revised .map .hereby .replaces the Circulation Element Map of the East County Area General Plan, reflecting an updated Bethel Island Area road network. The alignments for new roadways in the Bethel Island Area through areas of potential residential development are schematic; actual alignments and circulation patterns will be determined at the time zoning and development plans for residential projects are considered. The following heading and paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph six on page 36 of the East County Area General Plan: 10 BETHEL ISLAND AREA CIRCULATION CONCEPT As the Bethel Island Area is developed, the roadway network will evolve from a system of rural roads to a network of improved arterial and .collector streets, capable of handling the traffic in the Bethel Island and Oakley Areas of its residents and recreational visitors. The following major roadway improvements shall be made with funding from development in the Bethel Island Area: 1. Construct Cypress Road, east of Bethel Island Road, as a four-lane roadway. 2. Reconstruct the Bethel Island Road bridge with two travel lanes and separate bicycle and pedestrian paths. 3 . Construct the Laurel Road-Cypress Road connection as a two-lane roadway within a four- lane right-of-way with a grade separation at the crossing of the AT/SP railroad tracks. 4 . Extend Bethel Island Road to the Rock Slough as a two-lane roadway within a four- lane right-of-way. 5. Extend and upgrade Laurel Road to four lanes between SR-4 and the Delta Expressway. This improvement shall be constructed and financed by development in the Bethel Island Area if development does not occur in the Oakley Area pursuant to the proposed Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan ONBAGP) , or a similar plan, with construction to take place only if the Delta Expressway is constructed -and -Bethel Island is - more than half developed. If new development occurs in Oakley through a revised General Plan, or any other plan, then Oakley development shall finance construction of this improvement. ) The planned improvements on the internal roadways in the Bethel Island Area and Oakley Area will allow operating conditions of Level of Service D or better. New development in Oakley will require additional improvements. In the event development in the Cypress Road 11 corridor within Oakley and the off-island area west of Jersey Island Road is considered, additional transportation improvements financed by that development to mitigate traffic impacts shall be required. Such new development must mitigate other infrastructure and service impacts consistent with the growth management program and facilities element for the Bethel Island Area. In the event new development is considered, Oakley, the Cypress Road corridor and Bethel Island Area shall be planned as integrated communities. The ONBAGP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Bethel Island EIR studied the same intersections to determine how each development may impact regional traffic. The EIRs concluded that growth in the Oakley and Bethel Island areas, in conjunction with possible growth in other East County areas, would contribute to regional traffic impacts on portions of SR-4, Vasco and Kirker Pass Roads and the Byron Highway (ONBAGP EIR, p. 194 and Bethel Island EIR, p. V-173) . The Bethel Island EIR assumed development consistent with the ONBAGP. The EIRs found that even with planned roadway improvements (the widening of SR-4 over the Willow Pass Grade, addition of truck climbing lanes on Kirker Pass Road and the extension of BART to Pittsburg) , given cumulative traffic projections for the year 2005, the operating conditions of the above mentioned regional roadways, with the exception of Byron Highway, would exceed Level of Service F. The ONBAGP EIR listed the regional transportation improvements in addition to the foregoing local improvements that may be necessary to alleviate the above mentioned regional traffic impacts: r .Upgrade Delta Expressway to a four-lane freeway; Construct a four-lane freeway to replace Vasco Road; Widen SR-4 to eight lanes from Railroad Avenue to the Antioch Bridge; Extend BART from Railroad Avenue to Hillcrest Avenue 12 Development in Bethel Island without development pursuant to the ONBAGP may not create the extent of regional traffic impacts to necessitate all of the improvements listed above. The above improvements can not be financed solely by developer fees, but will require a significant increase in the gas tax or other funding beyond its current level. ONBAGP EIR, p. 194) . The March 1989 Draft County General Plan EIR recognizes that the most significant increases in traffic congestion in the County will occur in East Contra Costa. (Draft General Plan EIR, p. IV-12) . To mitigate these impacts, the draft General Plan EIR recommends placing a cap on development in the East County Area (Oakley to 4, 300 units, Bethel Island to 2, 100 units and West Pittsburg to 250 additional units) and in conjunction therewith, recommends that the County work with cities and other interested parties to establish regional mechanisms to fund regional transportation improvements and to attract state and federal highway and transit revenues. The Draft General Plan EIR suggests that funding mechanisms may include sales tax, gas taxes or impact fees on new development. (Draft General Plan EIR, pps. IV-20 and IV-21) . With respect to the development in Bethel Island, regional traffic impacts shall be partially mitigated to the extent feasible through 1) the establishment of a regional traffic mitigation fee to help fund the above regional improvements, 2) the implementation of Measure C, 3) the adoption and implementation of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance, 4) revenues generated -by-gasoline tax increases (passed by the voters on June 5, 1990) and 5) the implementation of the jobs/housing balance requirement contained in the project's Growth Management Program. If a sufficient amount of funding is not made available for regional improvements by the above measures, the local contribution shall be increased, at least in part through an increase in the per unit regional traffic mitigation fee. If regional traffic impacts still cannot be adequately mitigated through lack of funding or otherwise 13 to a tolerable level, then development in the Bethel Island Area shall be limited to 2, 109 approved dwelling units (the FEIR prepared for the Specific Plan at page V-176 recommends development of 2, 109 units until additional regional roadway capacity is provided then what is currently planned) and no new significant residential development in the East County Area shall be allowed through subsequent General Plan amendments or changes. Additional development shall be permitted in the Bethel Island Area and in other areas of East County via General Plan changes or amendment once the financing mechanism and reasonably anticipated funding is reconfirmed for necessary (East County) regional roadway improvements to accommodate reasonably foreseeable cumulative development at that time of which Bethel Island is a part. With development in the Bethel Island Area of up to 2, 109 approved units, regional traffic impacts may only be partially mitigated. The traffic impacts that may result from this partial mitigation are found to be tolerable and acceptable. By so limiting cumulative development, the regional transportation system levels of service will be tolerable. Even though cumulative regional roadway impacts will be only partially mitigated, development in the Bethel Island Area is necessary and appropriate, in order to 1) provide local funding for the necessary infrastructure improvements in the area, 2) provide a mix of housing to accommodate growth in the County, and 3) decrease commuting distances.If needed housing including attractive, reasonably priced single-family housing) is not provided in the County, commute trips from outside the County will increase.As a consequence of such failure to meet housing demands within the County, existing regional traffic impacts would escalate as a result of an increase in commuter trips to job centers in Contra Costa and the Bay Area region, with no additional funding sources available to assist in eliminating those impacts and existing traffic congestion. n 14 VI. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT The following categories shall be added to the list of open space categories in the "OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT" at page 38 in paragraph two of the East County Area General Plan: Open Space Agricultural Lands Park and Recreation" In addition, the entire sentence comprising paragraph three which reads, "[t]ogether the above Open Space/Conservation categories contain approximately 5, 660 acres of land and water area in the Planning Area" shall be deleted. The following heading and text shall be inserted after the text under the subheading "WATER AREAS" at page 39 of the East County Area General Plan: OPEN SPACE The Open Space designation appears on the land use map for the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough area. The land uses in this area shall serve as wetland mitigation, riparian use and rare plant preserve areas, as well as for trails and paths. A Protection Fee shall be imposed on each new residential unit to be used by the County to acquire open space and wetland areas this Protection Fee shall also be used to protect agricultural lands as discussed below) . Priority shall be given to acquisition on-island with emphasis on acquisition near the waterfront park and sloughs. Additional funding sources shall be explored to supplement or replace this Protection Fee. This Protection Fee and Acquisition -Program shall be implemented by the Community Development Department. AGRICULTURAL LANDS This land use designation appears on the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough land use map. The areas with this land use designation are less conducive to urbanized development and serve to maintain the rural character of the Bethel Island/Sandmound area. Limited clustered development is permitted in the 15 off-island areas: A Protection Fee shall be imposed on each new residential unit to be used by the County to acquire development rights for selected, important agricultural land or provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production (this Protection Fee shall also be used to acquire open space and wetland areas as discussed above) . Additional funding sources shall be explored to supplement or replace this Protection Fee. This Protection Fee and Acquisition Program shall be implemented by the Community Development Department (see also Land Use Element definition of Agricultural Land) . PARK AND RECREATION This designation appears on the Bethel Island/Sandmound Slough land use map. This designation includes three neighborhood parks, a community, and a waterfront park. Neighborhood parks will be a minimum of 8 acres in size and shall be located in areas of highest potential population density. The community park shall be a minimum of 15 acres. The waterfront park shall be located at the northern end of the on-island area and shall consist of a minimum of 15 acres." VII. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT The maximum running time of three minutes and/or 1.5 miles contained in Objective 1. 1 at page 48 of the Fire Protection Plan contained in the Contra Costa County General Plan shall be deleted and replaced with a maximum running time of five minute/1.5 miles. This reflects updated policies of the local fire. departments - working in -cooperation with the County to develop county-wide response standards. The following shall be inserted in the East County Area General Plan at page 41 at the end of the text under the subheading "Schools": Impact of Development in Bethel Island Development in the Bethel Island Area, pursuant to its Specific Plan, will add 16 approximately 1,900 elementary and middle school students and 590 high school students. The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan addresses the expansion of schools in the affected school districts to accommodate the proposed development. If new school construction is needed, it is likely that such construction will take place outside of the Bethel Island planning area and outside of the flood hazard zone. The Liberty Union High School District has recently received funding for the Liberty Union High School's expansion and acquisition of a second school site in Oakley.In providing for school facilities, the East County Educational Facilities Plan which is part of the Community Facilities Element of the County General Plan, shall be followed. School impact fees will be imposed on new development in the Bethel Island area. The fees on new construction, along with State bond monies and other revenues are expected to be adequate to fund the needed school construction costs as a result of the proposed development. (Source: Environmental . Impact Report prepared for Bethel Island Area Specific Plan at page V-264) . The Financing Plan prepared for the Specific Plan confirms funding for school construction and/or expansion through school impact fees and other sources based on projected student generation rates per unit." The following text shall be inserted as paragraph six under the subheading "Parks" at page 42: The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan proposes neighborhood parks, a community park and a waterfront park. Neighborhood and waterfront parks may -include the - following . recreation features:equestrian trails, play areas, wading pools or other water play features, baseball and soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts, sport walls, general purpose lawn areas, picnic and barbecue areas, putting greens, paddle tennis courts, picnic tables, horseshoe pits, and boccie ball courts. A community park may include the following recreation facilities: community meeting building with kitchen, amphitheater with stage, multi-purpose paved area for large 17 group use, gardens; promenade, water features and any other facilities recommended for neighborhood parks." The following paragraph shall be inserted at page 43 at the end of the text under subheading "Marinas": The Bethel Island Area is virtually surrounded by sloughs that are part of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. Much of the area's character and history has been formed by this relationship to the Delta. There are numerous marinas along the perimeter of Bethel Island and much of the area's commercial base is tied directly to water- oriented activities. Development consistent with the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan will provide additional opportunities for new major recreational resort areas and marinas." VIII. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The following shall be incorporated into the East County Area General Plan at page 50 as a new element: GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR THE EAST COUNTY AREA." Measure C, the Contra Costa County Transportation and Growth Management Program adopted by the voters in November of 1988, requires local jurisdiction to adopt growth management programs to ensure that future residential and commercial development pays for the infrastructure that is required for that development. Consistent with Measure C, the following Growth Management Program has been prepared and shall be enforced in the Bethel Island Area (this program is similar to the Growth Management Program contained in the March 1989 Draft County General Plan) . A similar growth management program shall be enforced throughout the entire -unincorporated East -County -Area and encouraged within cities. Growth Management Program Development consistent with the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan shall be managed by requiring developers to finance and/or construct major infrastructure features within the Bethel Island Area as they are needed.Such development shall not impose capital improvement financial burdens on the existing community 18 and shall be consistent with the Financing Plan prepared for the Specific Plan. Development within the Bethel Island Area shall conform to the follow growth management standards: Transportation Local - A roadway network system shall be provided capable of handling the traffic of the residents and recreational visitors. Traffic at intersections in the Bethel Island Area shall operate at acceptable levels low level of D or lower) . Service levels into the Oakley Area shall not be degraded as a result of traffic from the Bethel Island Area. Regional - Prior to approval of the 2 , 110th dwelling unit, the financing mechanisms and funding for regional East County) roadway improvements created by the development in Bethel Island and cumulative development must be reasonably assured. Cumulative regional traffic impacts may be mitigated through a regional traffic mitigation fee (and reasonable increases thereto if needed) , the implementation of Measure C, the adoption of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ordinance, revenues generated by gasoline tax increases and the implementation of the jobs/housing balance requirement contained in this program. If financing mechanisms and funding cannot be reasonably assured , development under the Land Use Element shall be limited to 2 , 109 approved dwelling units. This limit, and a limit on new development in the East County Area as a result of amendments or changes to the General Plan, shall remain in effect until financing for the regional (East County) circulation system is reasonably assured to accommodate cumulative development. The scope of necessary improvements to the regional (East County) circulation system shall be specifically determined following approval of the 2 , 110 unit or any request to change the East.County-.Area General Plan when reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts may be updated. Water Non-ground water sources shall be developed for the area. New public wells may be utilized only on an interim basis, provided a hydrogeological investigation is completed. All water supply facilities developed for the ultimate water system shall be constructed to the standards of the Oakley Water District. 19 Sewer Adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal capacity shall be assured prior to final parcel or map approval for subdivisions or building permit approval for other development. Fire Protection The _appropriate fire district shall review all development plans. If the response time is more than 5 minutes, special building design features may be imposed. Police Protection A sheriff protection service standard of 1.5 patrol officers/1, 000 residents shall be achieved. Parks and Recreation A minimum of 2 .5 acres of neighborhood parks and 1.5 acres of community park (which includes a waterfront park) per 1, 000 population shall be provided. Flood Control No new residential development beyond already approved projects and one unit per parcel shall be allowed in the on-island area. New development in the off-island area shall comply with a setback of a minimum 100 feet from the centerline of levees unless adequate substantiation for reduction is approved by RD-799 or BIMID. In addition, new construction shall be constructed in compliance with FEMA standards unless protected by a certified levee system provided however, stilt residential development shall be limited to one unit per existing parcel to avoid aesthetic impacts. Prior to approving any new development in a flood hazard area, the applicant shall prepare an emergency evacuation plan. An amendment to consider new development on-island may be considered provided a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter levee system, following approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and BIMID of the levee improvement plans and, if ..subsidence impacts are adequately mitigated. Drainage Prior to approval of specific development projects, adequate drainage operation and maintenance plans consistent with the Specific Plan shall be submitted to the County. Applicants shall be required to mitigate the significant impacts identified in the plans. 20 Jobs/Housing Balance Prior to approval of substantial residential projects, the County shall evaluate and consider whether there is a beneficial impact of that project on the jobs/housing balance for the region. This evaluation shall take into consideration growth in housing units and employment and housing and employment availability,relative affordability and commute patterns, price of the units and wage levels of the jobs added. IX. CONCLUSION Planning staff is hereby directed to incorporate this General Plan Amendment into an updated East County Area General Plan. As part of that process, staff is instructed to update the administrative information contained in the 1978 Area General Plan including, but not limited to, the number and location of hospital services. Staff is further directed to make the appropriate modifications to the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan as presented to the Board to maintain consistency with the General Plan Amendment. 21 BETHEL ISLAND AND VICINITY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FRANKS TRACT Or? fps- •••• • ••, 1 P • i t C F o frJ s(; ••(r•••••• • \ iii••i y' r{F^'s e`•, •sten ` i l 3 t cr(''S f'rLAyf w j' r3 ( X ` 7 la, oa) Syb a ' i fE crjrr Ff if y"¢" pi {,j',U.i,>1 r Ji'' µa+` JJ ,', y: fY.fF}: rfrrrcr°'_ k •x PF r 7s' Y ` K f,tn•. i 7`•''lsa 5r'''b. Y . i ._ i. '° 7''!,y " 4F tx 4FE .?'F. r! tl' 4S` r: a, ` Y, ` r • ;r,i ^ 'J'1 1F 8y .3. ,1 v a ::,t it ,3•' •r.,,. 1++ sr e(.' k') FFi"'` t f` . r, 3' , 'l aT p"S =iys • j•1'rY . !¢t'y ( 'l' '` , tv « fi,, , , r * zr. IVYi .•J' T. 4)-!I k" F;tl'R.t.( l}.•( V t 2y g6.0 \11 v:,w;C'e+;',..nrerly-!•.:.:..; ::.1:'. d. f',} v .,}is„iR:.4•;. t 3. QiC:C :.cp. cT 4.'r rt:' J, l ` .....tt tr` Cti 1, ,: T tfj F",•tE r TnE.I,--FY rr a+'{1. q;,rE tra tcF' A41 r .sic ,r.C{c ` ' l'. :`S E t€ F. i n'",:r'F = I xg rr x ,t - i it t f`ti r.,ini.. :''"::;.:, k irar EC 'P71€e a" a *.• r'Rd,, `t a r--•• ` ' 4.r W` , ° t 4i et i E,r J 8 iiQik; k 'e: + rF r t1'`: t>' 6a1tM+ `c w y•: t4 ki t h *ft rf, t r' r i r§et'ro .FF'f1 ,t f ;,fit ,-.r< x'—' ctf r.4- .`Y t'{`tt.y.,E6,y .. t..: + `. ^ hT + ,.x !r ntr.k;# ° .r•E r . r. t r'..::l • GLv< r`t. k .. t; • 4. t c Fx€ h }fw:t+tiClylI_ ••• ,. i ' l• Ce s,4^. . c CKo4.e>;:: C r +5:•h >r ..., 2 tit.'4 c}4'L !`il •'ft'-t.c t.''' LIpyc,!•'' ` e^ ' ti .. if lAsf3r' +C• f1`xC,`r, t E". 4cl4dy.Gi+.•G°E: c}'•C''" 4c w't :+c[?:'%:p,n•' .'+,c o;F' r a"' cc..:tom, .`d:. 3tks Y. :.G;, '!4,,,ityy: \,it<: t..,,F''of'*' ,y:. lio`.. t. '`£ . iii '<{•qa} °G'Cii:' br'% :.:. t c yr• '!„ i''~•iti;{c;tic,':"rE;,. c l,HldN v ri£.ar 1..F yy..^1Q2;6. j.`, ' , ,• st{• :e`.r!r 1..hR Cry 1`,ik!6•1 y+c.<.1C ,,_ g 1, <<:' ,Via:. .a,, •".,'• , r ' T isc + JERSEY ISLAND q: il. •.t, in;;. y•• ii: 1 9. it r.;.• •. / l:-, x: iii`.+f:2e i:72'':,.1•':w•:•;•r'•,lt r' m d 7 I ','y1 nybl•- L'E.1 j ! Sti' $ :,t,`. ., „' 3/'r'%;7.f.''.•'' ' ! ! `s";r^,'{• 9,',> , Ser at.. 1't- i ' r'!' h s• ?•.: .; c..+2a. ii. 8 a Y, ti'-Ys-s 7'n}. A! , Y : S:.t'iii: •`.•Si:: 3.• -,;f 1 i.1 .7. y.! ..,, {' j`% iii' Z%>. g:;;'. t, 1 } i'g -'3',",, ?! a . $ . ; Y e' ', • tr' t4 4..: t zj rl X2,,1)}-S ri • , C Sf) ' sr * A•• • ,, . ti' Y'l.'•''C:.: 4:'.: i t 7-'lt, ti S';y,,r5 5,., °, 5:' ,. Jig sr ,^ rt ... s' 2 , l Xy{ 3. •' s • s ' 1 s' ry^4"1-'`,r171+ e(2;' y2> ti• } {'.=' % { e S .i ) ; i • \., 1., XJ 1 is 4l +, r Yr' rl. } 4 > f " i f$7-'l Jill 2 :-L.2.- T a •.+', f jf, I 2'..'2 ''2'l''o'7+ a '? Y'1 4 7+ s • :' I. z ! i " f• s a••EI a rl e,• { v a t f i f' 1 is n a'x Er F t HOLLAND TRj Ll r Y gt " 1.= NORTHc3\ U U- 1 0 ,aoo Zoe Scale in Feet t- Single Family Residential - Low 1.0 to 2.9 DU/ net acre MAP A Single Family Residential - High 5.0 to 7.3 DU/ net acre Multiple Family Residential - Low 7.4 to.11.0 DU/ net acre Mobile Home Park Local Commercial W Waterfront Park Commemial Recreation C; Community Park 2 Agricultural Lands N Neighborhood Park Open Space E..,.. -' Parks and Recreation v -,'I Off Island Bonus Area Marina Commercial t N rx sxirrrt CNMCN I riitl 1 ir111111:i:ii l 2 I i t rna b r,VYh ty b a } a x 3 w 2 w wd a a LL LL } X Q w N o i:, o a o w a w a a Y t Y Y r s MAP "B" y Tact c e i ee G eJ Rem Island Q e4 t- C gyp l.4•t V- e y one ) fess . J r~ 9 wellss K*94 SIP IL 2 o s• OL e Dcj v rr It r-'` aY Q ' two S40. soxgo mT` s 0 0 STATEMENT OF DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA SPECIFIC PLAN WITH THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED BY THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Exhibit "D" STATEMENT OF DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA SPECIFIC PLAN WITH THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND THE EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED BY THE BETHEL ISLAND AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I. BACKGROUND A. The 1978 East County Area General Plan (1978 Area General Plan) specifies, as an implementation measure, that a specific plan should be prepared for the Bethel Island Area to guide its future growth. B. In 1987, the Board of Supervisors (Board) directed the Community Development Department to begin preparation of a specific plan for the Bethel Island Area. C. On February 12, 1990, the East County Regional Planning Commission (Planning Commission) recommended to the Board approval of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan (BIASP) , as presented by staff but with specific, substantive modifications. D. After providing notice as required by law, the Board reviewed and considered the recommended BIASP, the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Bethel Island Area (General Plan Amendment) , the Contra Costa County General Plan (County General Plan) , along with the 1978 Area General Plan, staff reports prepared by the Community Development Department, the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , consisting of the draft EIR and the responses to comments on the draft EIR, exhibits presented at the public hearings and written and oral testimony received at the hearings. The Board on March 6, 1990, declared its intention to approve the BIASP and the General Plan Amendment (with modifications to the Planning Commission recommendation) , and-.directed staff to revise the approval documents to be complete and consistent with the Board's direction. E. Effective the date of this Resolution, the Board hereby approves the BIASP, and makes the following findings. 1 II. FINDINGS A. State Planning & Zoning Law requires specific plans to be consistent with the applicable general plan. Government Code 65454. The general plan for the County, as it relates to the Bethel Island Area, is comprised of the County General Plan as modified by the 1978 Area General Plan. The 1978 Area General Plan revised certain elements of the County General Plan as it pertains to the easterly portion of the County. Unless otherwise indicated in the 1978 Area General Plan, the elements contained therein govern the Bethel Island Area, as more specific to East County then the provisions in the County General Plan of which it is a part. In addition, the elements of the County General Plan adopted after the 1978 Area General Plan (e.g. , Housing Element, Fire Protection Plan, East County Education and Facilities Plan) apply to the Bethel Island Area, in conjunction with the same elements in the 1978 Area General Plan. B. The Board finds that the 1978 Area General Plan is consistent with the County General Plan as it relates to the Bethel Island Area and, in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment, that the BIASP is consistent with the 1978 Area General Plan and the elements of the County General Plan relating to Bethel Island as set forth below. Descriptions of the County General Plan or 1978 Area General Plan refer to the plans prior to this General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment may modify such descriptions. 1. Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan as it relates to the Bethel Island Area was revised pursuant to the 1978 Area General Plan and is now contained solely therein. The 1978 Area General Plan identifies Bethel Island as a recreation community and plans the area to accommodate uses primarily oriented toward a recreational opportunities. The 1978 Area General Plan applies five land use designations to the area. The majority of -the Planning- Area _ is designated as Agriculture- Residential. This designation applies to areas of low agricultural value and permits low-density development (5 acre parcels) . The 1978 Area General Plan states that existing extensive agriculture operations within the Agriculture-Residential designation should not be required for development during the planning period (1978- 1990) , but should be encouraged to continue. single Family Residential-High Density, which includes marine and recreational uses, is permitted along the perimeter of the Planning Area. single Family Residential-Low Density is permitted in the southeastern portion of the on-island area. The 1978 Area General Plan also designates portions of the Planning Area as Multiple 2 Family Residential-Low Density. Commercial development is allowed along the Bethel Island bridge and in various areas on the perimeter of the Planning Area. The planning concept of the BIASP is to preserve and enhance the rural and recreational qualities of the Bethel Island Area while providing opportunities for more residential and commercial growth tied to water-oriented recreation. The BIASP limits development to approximately 3, 000 new dwelling units off- island (which includes 91 already approved but not yet built units) , one unit per parcel on-island (in addition to 886 already approved but not yet built units) , 100, 000 square feet of commercial development, and 500 hotel rooms. In recognizing the marginal agricultural value of the land in the Planning Area, which consists of non-prime soils, the land use designation for the majority of the area has been changed from Agriculture-Residential to Agricultural Lands (1 unit/5 acre) with the following development limitations and possibilities. Due to safety and subsidence concerns, new residential development on-island on land with the Agricultural Lands designation is limited to one unit/parcel and already approved but not yet built units. In the off-island area west of Jersey Island Road, any development on land with the Agricultural Lands designation must be clustered with the development rights for the balance of the property dedicated to the County. If development off-island east of Jersey Island Road (Off-Island Bonus Area) participates in a bonus program, development density shall be increased from 1 unit/5 acres to 1-3 units/acres. In order to participate in the program, the participant must either develop a project of a distinct recreational character or purchase development rights from agricultural land in the County. The BIASP permits Local Commercial development along the Bethel Island bridge and in areas off-island if such development is incorporated within a residential community. Recreational/resort development (i.e. Marina Commercial and Commercial Recreation) is permitted along the perimeter of the Planning Area with a special use permit required for marina or waterfront facilities on the Delta side of the levee. Further, the BIASP provides for Open Space -uses to - serve as wetland -mitigation, riparian use and rare plant preserve areas, in addition to neighborhood, community and waterfront parks (Park and Recreation) . Any inconsistencies that may have existed between the 1978 Area General Plan and BIASP have been eliminated by the General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment has incorporated into the 1978 Area General Plan a detailed description of the planning concept for the Bethel Island Area and has provided a land use map depicting the new land use designations for the area. The General Plan Amendment has eliminated the Agriculture- Residential and Commercial land use designations from the area and 3 has added the following new land use designations: Agricultural Lands, Mobile Home Park (reflects existing uses) , Off-Island Bonus Area, Local Commercial, Marina Commercial, Park and Recreation and Open Space. In addition, the General Plan Amendment has modified the definitions -of Single Family Residential Low and High Density, Multiple Family Residential Low Density (to reflect existing uses) and Commercial Recreation as they relate to Bethel Island to better reflect the planning needs of the area. 2. Circulation Element. The Circulation Element of the County General Plan as it relates to the Bethel Island Area was revised pursuant the 1978 Area General Plan, and is now contained solely therein. The 1978 Area General Plan calls for a transportation system that will provide for the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Planning Area and that will provide East County with links to the surrounding region. The 1978 Area General Plan provides the following information on the roadways that will be impacted by development pursuant to the BIASP: 1) designates Gateway Boulevard and Bethel Island Road as arterials, 2) extends Bethel Island Road, as a proposed arterial, to the Byron Highway between Delta Road and Cypress Road, and 3) extends Laurel Road, as a proposed arterial, between Neroly Road and Hillcrest Avenue. The BIASP commits to develop a circulation system capable of handling the traffic of its residents and recreational visitors. So that traffic in the Bethel Island and Oakley areas can operate at an acceptable level, the BIASP modifies some roadway improvements in the 1978 Area General Plan and provides for additional improvements: To avoid any inconsistencies and further, to provide an updated, overall conceptual picture of the County roadway network, the General Plan Amendment has incorporated a regional circulation map into the Circulation Element of both the County General Plan and 1978 Area General Plans. In addition, the General Plan Amendment has eliminated any inconsistencies with respect to the local . .circulation network. by. ..incorporating the following major roadway improvements into the 1978 Area General Plan that will provide a Level of Service D or better in the Bethel Island and Oakley areas: a. Extend Bethel Island Road to Rock Slough as a two- lane roadway within a four-lane right-of-way. b. Reconstruct the Bethel Island bridge with two travel lanes and a separate pedestrian/bicycle path. 4 C. Construct Cypress Road, east of Bethel Island Road, as a four-lane roadway. d. Construct the Laurel Road-Cypress Road connection as a two-lane roadway with a grade separation at the crossing of the AT/SP railroad tracks. e. Extend and upgrade Laurel Road to four lanes between SR-4 and the Delta Expressway and construct a partial cloverleaf interchange at Delta Expressway/Laurel Road. If development occurs in the Oakley area pursuant to the new Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan (ONBAGP) (which has since been rescinded by the Board in light of pending litigation) , or a similar plan, that development shall construct and finance the improvements to Laurel Road as described in subsection "e" above. The Oakley developers shall reimburse Bethel Island developers for any advanced contributions toward those improvements. However, if development does not occur pursuant to the ONBAGP, or a similar plan, then development under the BIASP shall construct and finance the Laurel Road improvements. This roadway improvement would not be required until the Delta Expressway is under construction and development pursuant to the BIASP is more than half completed. Any potential development in the Cypress Road corridor must mitigate its traffic impacts. To further assure that the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the 1978 Area General Plan are sufficiently correlated, the General Plan Amendment has incorporated .language describing the impacts development of Bethel Island will have on the regional roadway system. Mechanisms to address such cumulative regional traffic impacts have been identified, which include a regional transportation impact fee and limitation on development in Bethel Island to 2, 109 new dwelling units and a limitation on further amendments to or changes in the General Plan authorizing new residential development in East County if a financing mechanism to address regional impacts is not reasonably assured considering reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts at that time. 3 . Housing Element. On April 23, 1985 the Housing Element of County General Plan was adopted. This Element does not specifically address housing development on Bethel Island, but does provide general policies and programs which apply to issues of concern in the Planning Area. The goals and policies in this element aim to obtain a balance of housing types, tenures, densities and price ranges through the use of flexible techniques such as planned unit developments and mixed residential and commercial developments. 5 Another policy contained therein encourages the promotion of economic development activities, particularly those which improve housing opportunities and their closeness to jobs. In addition, the County General Plan contains a goal and policies encouraging development of communities that can be served by adequate and appropriate services and facilities by: 1) considering measures to mitigate the impact of new development on public services and facilities, and 2) encouraging the utilization of infrastructure financing plans. The Housing Element of the 1978 Area General Plan contains information on the housing needs for the East County Area and states that the housing needs of East County residents will be partially met through programs developed pursuant to the Housing Element of the County General Plan. The BIASP is consistent with the housing goals and policies of the County General Plan. The recreational type of housing provided for under the BIASP provides an attractive alternative to traditional single-family and multi-family housing. The BIASP provides guidelines for a range of housing types which will be implemented with the P-1 zoning designation through planned unit development applications. In addition to providing a range of housing, the BIASP provides additional employment opportunities in commercial and recreational projects.In order to achieve, to the extent feasible, a jobs/housing balance, the BIASP obligates the County to evaluate and consider the jobs/housing impact of substantial residential projects prior to approving such projects.In addition, the financing plan for the BIASP establishes an infrastructure phasing plan and a method for financing the improvements so that adequate public services are available prior to development. An amendment to the housing goals and policies set forth in the County General Plan is not required since the BIASP is consistent therewith. The General Plan Amendment does provide updated information on the housing needs for the Bethel Island Area, in addition to updated population figures and projections which shall be- incorporated into the 1978 Area General Plan. 4. Community Facilities Element. a. Water Service. This sub-element of the County General Plan as it relates to the Bethel Island Area was revised pursuant to the 1978 Area General Plan and is now contained therein. This sub-element of the 1978 Area General Plan establishes the need for the expansion of water services as urban 6 development continues. This sub-element states that once development occurs in the Bethel Island Area, a public water supply will be required to allow for connections to residential development. The BIASP water system concept anticipates serving the long-term water needs of the area from non-groundwater sources. Either treated water from the Oakley Water District or untreated water from the Contra Costa Water District would be purchased. New public wells may be utilized only on an interim basis, provided a hydrogeological investigation is completed. An amendment to this sub-element of the County General Plan and 1978 Area General Plan is not needed since the BIASP is consistent therewith. The General Plan Amendment by incorporating a Growth Management Program into the 1978 Area General Plan reconfirms and strengthens the requirement for adequate public water service prior to development. b. Sewer Service. This sub-element of the County General Plan as it relates to the Bethel Island Area was revised pursuant to the 1978 Area General Plan and is now contained therein. This sub-element of the 1978 Area General Plan establishes the need for expansion of sewer services as urban development continues. The 1978 Area General Plan provides that the Oakley/Bethel Island treatment plant is capable of expanding to accept sewage from new development. The BIASP calls for the expansion of the existing waste water treatment plant and land disposal system to accommodate development in the Bethel Island Area. An amendment to this sub-element of the County General Plan and 1978 Area General Plan is not required since the BIASP is consistent therewith. The requirement for expanded public sewer service prior to development is reconfirmed and strengthened in the Growth Management Program that has been incorporated into the 1978 Area General Plan. C. Flood Control Facilities/Drainage. This sub- element of the County General Plan as it relates to the Bethel Island area was revised pursuant to the 1978 Area General Plan and is now contained therein. This sub-element of the 1978 Area General Plan cautions that areas of low ground elevation with surrounding waterways are subject to drainage problems and require the need for flood control and storm drainage facilities. In addition, the Plan states that flood protection in the area depends upon the quality of maintenance and design of levees. 7 The BIASP requires new development to modify the existing drainage system by utilizing the basic system and upgrading the drainage facilities. To prevent drainage problems in areas of low ground elevations, the BIASP requires that drainage of major roadways and all facilities be constructed at the existing grade and conveyed in a ditch system. Lake or lagoon housing areas shall be drained by a pipe system which discharges by gravity to a lake or slough. In addition, new conveyances are required to be constructed to meet the criteria of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, BIMID and RD799. Prior to development, drainage operation and maintenance plans shall be submitted to the County for approval. An amendment to this sub-element of the County General Plan and 1978 Area General Plan is not required since the BIASP is consistent therewith. These flood control and drainage policies have been reconfirmed and strengthened in the Growth Management Program that has been incorporated into the 1978 Area General Plan. d. Fire Protection. On January 24, 1984, the Fire Protection Plan was adopted as part of the Community Facilities Element of the County General Plan. The goals and objectives set forth therein establish the need for expansion of fire protection services as urban development continues. This Plan requires a maximum running time of three minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the first due fire station for urban areas. This Plan also requires that certain developments plans be reviewed so that implementation of the needed facilities can occur in a timely fashion. The 1978 Area General Plan contemplates the need to increase fire protection as land uses change from agricultural to residential and commercial. The BIASP acknowledges the need to expand the Bethel Island Fire District Station to a full-service facility to achieve an adequate maximum running time of five minute/1. 5 miles between development and the fire station.The BIASP requires the appropriate fire district to review development plans to assess the adequacy of fire protection services. The inconsistency with respect to the response time has been eliminated by the General Plan Amendment which has incorporated in both the County General Plan and the 1978 Area General Plan the response time of five minute/1.5 miles as set forth in the BIASP. Local fire districts throughout the County are currently using and are in support of five minutes as the maximum response time goal. e. Schools. In May of 1984, the County adopted, as part of its General Plan, the East County Educational Facilities 8 r Plan (Facilities Plan) . The Facilities Plan sets forth goals, polices and recommendations for school facilities in the East County Area and requires developers to aid in the financing of new school facilities. The 1978 Area General Plan establishes the need for expanding school facilities or constructing new facilities as urban development continues. The BIASP commits to implement the Facilities Plan. In addition, developers in the Planning Area are required to aid in the financing of school facilities by paying applicable school impact fees prior to development. The BIASP does not conflict with the policies and goals in the County General Plan and as a result, an amendment thereto is not required. To bring the information in the 1978 Area General Plan up-to-date, the General Plan Amendment has incorporated specific information on the school impacts resulting from development in the area. In addition to this additional information, the Amendment specifically states that the Facilities Plan shall be implemented and that development in the area shall contribute to school construction costs via school impact fees. 5. Noise Element. The County General Plan sets forth goals, objectives and policies to obtain acceptable noise levels in newly developed areas. Indoor noise levels are not to exceed 45 dBA (CNEL) and outdoor levels are not to exceed 60 dBA (CNEL) . The Bethel Island Area is not identified as a noise problem area. The County General Plan also contains a policy which encourages the location of sensitive land uses away from noise areas or to provide mitigation of the noise impacts on their uses. The 1978 Area General Plan relies on the noise contours in the County General Plan in providing direction for the mitigation of noise in the area. The 1978 Area General Plan provides that development around residential areas and schools should -be designed to provide appropriate attenuation of noise. The BIASP contains a circulation network that protects existing neighborhoods from the noise and hazards of traffic and imposes adequate setbacks for noise-sensitive residential land uses and erection of walls or other noise attenuation barriers, to create a noise-compatible environment and to obtain the dBA (CNEL) requirements as set forth in the County General Plan. An amendment to this element of the County General Plan and 1978 Area General Plan is not necessitated by the BIASP since it is consistent therewith. 9 6. Open Space/Conservation Element. This element of the County General Plan sets forth goals for 1) retaining large contiguous areas in agricultural production, 2) directing development in areas designated for urban growth, 3) providing parks and trails, 4) planning water-related development along shorelines, and 5) conserving natural resources. More specifically, the 1978 Area General Plan seeks to preserve the natural recreational resources in the area, including important environmental and ecologic characteristics and requires the adoption of a local park acreage standard and mechanisms for distributing park dedication fees to appropriate East County areas. The BIASP proposes a variety of open space opportunities including open space corridors, wetland mitigation and riparian use and rare plant preserve areas, buffer zones and parks. In addition, development consistent with the BIASP is directed in such a manner so as utilize the great recreational potential in the area but without damage to water quality, recreation fisheries, and agricultural values. The General Plan Amendment eliminates the potential for inconsistencies among the planning documents by 1) designating a large portion of the Planning Area as Agricultural Lands (applies to lands of marginal agricultural productivity, not containing prime soils) , 2) adopting a no net loss of wetland acreage (or higher replacement standard as may subsequently be adopted by the Board) , 3) providing the new land use designations of Open Space and Park and Recreation, and 4) imposing a Protection Fee on new residential development to be used for preserving selected, important agricultural lands, providing financing for farmers for agricultural production, and acquiring wetland and open space areas in the County. Neither the Open Space/Conservation Element of the County General Plan nor the 1978 Area General Plan preclude a change in the Land Use Element from open space or agricultural to residential or urban uses. Rather, the County open space and agricultural policies require a reasonable balance of uses. The Board has determined that the BIASP, in . conjunction with the 1978 Area General Plan as amended, maintains that balance of agricultural open space uses on the one hand and urban/residential uses on the other in the Bethel Island Area and East County. There is a reasonable balance between such land uses generally in the County. 7. Safety Element. The Safety Element of the County General Plan applies to the Bethel Island Area. This Element provides guidelines for areas 10 where potential geologic (earthquake and subsidence) , flood, land use and transportation hazards are important factors in planning for development. The 1978 Area General Plan sets forth the major policies contained in the Countywide Safety Element that apply to East County. With respect to the Bethel Island Area these policies include the following: 1) consider geologic hazards in developing reclaimed areas below 10-foot elevations, 2) evaluate flood hazards and avoid development containing human habitation in areas where flood protection is required and cannot be provided, and 3) comply with Federal Flood Insurance requirements in flood prone areas. To provide the residents and visitors a safe environment, the BIASP provides as follows: 1) limits any potential for new residential development on-island until a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter on-island levee system, the levee improvement plans have been approved by BIMID and the Army Corps of Engineers, and subsidence on-island is adequately mitigated, 2) precludes development in reclaimed areas unless flood hazards are fully evaluated and adequate flood protection provided, 3) contemplates the construction of internal levees off-island, 4) requires development to comply with setback requirements and FEMA standards unless protected by a certified levee system, and 5) permits approval of major developments only if community protection services (i.e. , police and fire) are available and adequate. The BIASP does not necessitate an amendment to this element of the County General Plan or 1978 Area General Plan since it is consistent therewith. The General Plan Amendment reconfirms and addresses more specifically the safety policies in the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan. 8. Seismic Safety Element. The policies of the Seismic Safety Element in the County General Plan as adopted in 1975 and revised in 1986, apply to the Bethel Island Area. This element of the County General Plan provides-that - because- the potential effects of . levee failure are so severe, very thorough review should be given to future growth and development in the Bethel Island Area. Geologic and engineering investigation is warranted as a prerequisite for authorizing private construction of development in affected areas. Levees should be designed to withstand the forces of anticipated earthquakes at their locations. Levees should be regarded as critical facilities that should not be sited over the trace of an active fault. This element of the 1978 Area General Plan applies the policies of the County-wide Seismic Safety Element to the Bethel 11 Island Area. In addition, the 1978 Area General Plan specifies that development should consider the major faults in the area, seismic ground shaking and liquification potential. The BIASP is consistent with the County General Plan and 1978 Area General Plan by: 1) limiting any potential for new residential development on-island until the financing mechanism for levee improvements to the entire on-island levee system is fully and completely assured, the levee improvements plans are approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and BIMID, and subsidence impacts are adequately mitigated, 2) requiring soils and geologic hazard reports, 3) setting forth specific Development Finish Floor Elevation, Residential and Levee Development Standards to deal with such potential hazards, 4) precluding levee breaches on-island, 5) contemplating the construction of internal levees in the off- island area, and 6) for the same reasons specified under the Safety Element above. The BIASP does not require an amendment to this element of the County General Plan or 1978 Area General Plan since it is consistent therewith. The General Plan Amendment reconfirms and addresses more specifically the seismic safety policies therein. 9. Scenic Routes Element. The Scenic Routes Element of the County General Plan applies to the Bethel Island Area. This Element identifies Cypress, Bethel Island and Jersey Island Roads as Scenic Rural- Recreation Routes. These roadways are defined as major rural roads that traverse areas of outstanding scenic qualities or those that provide connecting links between scenic sections of roads included within this Element. This Element states that these routes may be combined with public recreation areas such as parks, reservoirs, or hiking, riding and cycling trails. The BIASP is consistent with this Element in that it plans major trails and off-street paths along Cypress, Bethel Island and Jersey Island Roads. A park is also planned along Bethel Island Road, as well as other areas. In addition, the BIASP provides street ..design guidelines that shall implement the goals of this Element along Cypress and Bethel Island Roads. An amendment to this Element of the County General Plan is not required since the BIASP is consistent therewith. Development within or next to a scenic route is not precluded by the Scenic Routes Element. This element requires that such development be visually attractive, a fundamental goal of the BIASP. 12 10. Other Optional Elements. The optional elements of the County General Plan and 1978 Area General Plan not mentioned above do not conflict with or, are not applicable to, the BIASP. All mandatory elements (in addition to certain optional elements) have been discussed above. III. CONCLUSION The County General Plan has been amended over the years consistent with State Planning & Zoning Law. None of those amendments have applied to the Bethel Island Area. The adequacy of the County General Plan and the 1978 Area General Plan, especially as they relate to the Bethel Island Area, has not been affected by such amendments. A general plan is not intended to be a static document. State Planning & Zoning Law permits a mandatory element of the County General Plan to be amended four times during a calendar year. Government Code § 65358 (b) . The General Plan Amendment does not violate this law and shall be included as one of the four amendments. The Board finds that the General Plan Amendment maintains internal consistency with the County General Plan and the 1978 Area General Plan. The Board further finds that the County General Plan and the 1978 Area General Plan as amended are legally adequate and that the BIASP is consistent with each of them. 13 F7 6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 10 , 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Torlakson, Powers, Schroder, McPeak and Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Bethel RESOLUTION NO. 90/457 Island Area Specific Plan There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 13-1990 adopted by the East County Regional Planning Commission recommending approval of the Specific Plan for the Bethel Island Area. On March 6, 1990 this Board held a hearing on the Specific Plan as recommended by the East Contra Costa Regional Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-1990. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board at the hearing called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter, and numerous persons testified. Upon completion of the testimony, the Board closed the public hearing for oral testimony, left the record open to March 9, 1990 at 5: 00 p.m. for written comment, and deferred its decision to March 20, 1990 at 2 : 00 p.m. On March 20, 1990 the Board declared its intent to approve the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, with modifications to and changes from the Planning Commission recommendation,,..Yand wdirectedf staff .to pre_pare}appropriates,documents f:: na1,.,Board_siconderation. On July 10, 1990, consistent with the staff report of that date from the Director of Community Development, the Board was presented with the following documents for its consideration: Addendum to the Final EIR for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, Determinations and Findings Regarding Consistency of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan with the Contra Costa County General Plan and the East County Area General Plan through the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment, the General Plan Amendment for the Bethel Island Area, and the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan. Karl Wandry, Deputy Director of Community Development, advised that additional changes to the documents were required for purposes of consistency and completeness and to bring them into compliance with the intent of the Board. Additional comments on the documents and their contents were made by members of the Board. On .:`th'e. mot-ion .of supervisor Tor.lakson, .seconded by Supervisor Powers, the :Board ,,rdirected.. -:staff ;.:.to :complete -.the necessary resolution, , make, the. necessary --changes : to -'the 'documents, and, contingent on such changes, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted the necessary findings and determinations, 1 - RESOLUTION 90/457 and approved the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, effective July 10, 1990. By Resolution No. 90/454, the Board, by unanimous vote certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and adopted the Statement of Findings and Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the Statement of Determinations and Findings Regarding Consistency of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan with the Contra Costa County General Plan and East County Area General Plan through the Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment. This resolution incorporates the determinations in, contents of and documents attached to Resolution No. 90/454. With regard to the Specific Plan, the Board finds that the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment and that an environmental impact report has been prepared and completed in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, and County environmental guidelines. An Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report has also been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and County environmental guidelines. A statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring program has also been prepared.These documents were ' certified and/or adopted in Resolution No. 90/454. The Board, having fully considered this matter, has determined to approve the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan as revised and marked as Exhibit A. Said Plan includes, among others, the following changes from the East County Regional Planning Commission recommendation: LAND USE MODIFICATIONS 1. Off-island area east of Jersey Island Road: From Residential Low Density (1 - 2 .9 du/net acre) to Off Island Bonus Area 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) except when significant recreational _facilities_ open to the public .are developed. then density :of :a to.<2.:'9 :du/net:;acre:_is -allowed. 2 . Off-island area west of Jersey Island Road: From Single Family Residential Low Density (1 - 2 .9 du/net acre) to Agricultural Land (1 du/5 acres) . 3 . On-island area just west of Park Lane: From Multiple Family Residential Low Density to Local Commercial. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors incorporates the determinations in, contents of and documents, attached to Resolution No. 90/454, (Bethel Island Area General Plan Amendment) and APPROVES the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan Exhibit A) . cc: Director of Community Development County Counsel i hereby certity that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of SupervisoA on the data shown. ATTESTED: F9 O PHIL BATC ELOR Jerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy 2 - RESOLUTION 90/457 BETHEL ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN r FRANKS TRACT f1 Y jlAyf.> r'^' N 1` t IR± 1'S{I'. f \—_.•.— j r+:i F fly f K Y'{v • x•'=-iit`•iit• t'r4t-. LS tr€ J''rt' { n' r:-. ••fact••• • j l..a a ,,j"qtIFiiy. F7'yXC r r ;' y*C^cljr;; t. r'. r Ji'? r.s iy S .!" exf r;i,tJrr x rr h, • i•'; S i'.7'"?'..a' o,T1'( t:"'. ,ry f.ri F s rr rt ^ .t ' • t y'S j4t" 3,ts- y7 . rrsfYiGrf ixrFrr " ° tfv: •.••; r YJ3",r' J o r F i" r. .t ZJ' Xf t ,r . f• 4, t t"+L.F' y4 GL y '' '.4 <1 '•e • t F•1tarF Y Y,, r" fF f}''kr I-f " AtIn1 •. i • - • + 7rt i L~ rt t'Q' Y t ryr• , yTL. F rj Frr r F rfvS J r f - ' r• t v} 4 5T41t,<t 1` 1k4h.''fJ•th+ tYrt6 eS{`crJt .`f ^r r tf -:(4 z f '?`., ''.( r.' f['?iF t,,;•f,Ju'`trw. A'.F_t fc.rtr:1 h1kx JERSEY ISLAND 5• ter' : : I Q y i 1 I Ilii i;i.f ri}n: K - x .' c * s^' t,:;. i._.._........ hmoi? HOLLAND TRACT 7 1 r... La NORTH Sale In Feet 1 FICI 3. 1SingleFamilyResidential- Low 1.0 to 2.9 DU/net acre Single Family Residential - High 5.0 to 7.3 DU/net acre Multiple Family Residential- Low 7.4 to 11,9 DU/net acre Mobile Home Park si Local Commercial W Waterfront Park Commercial Recreation C Community Park Agricultural Lands N Neighborhood Park Open Space Parks and Recreation Off Island Bonus Area Marina Commercial I hereby certify that this Specific Plan was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 0 /f yG Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator. BY Deputy i BETHEL ISLAND AREA SPECIFIC PLAN July 109 1990 I hereby certify that this Specific Plan was Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on l 6/ !f Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator. By Deputy Exhibit A BETHEL ISLAND AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Table of Contents Paste 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1. 1 Project Background 1-1 1.2 Planning Area Locationand Description . . . . . 1-2 1. 3 Purpose and Intent of the Specific Plan . . . . 1-4 1.4 Relationship of the Specific Plan to Contra Costa County General Plans . . 1-5 1.4. 1 Contra Costa County General Plan . . . . 1-5 1.4 .2 East County Area General Plan . . . . . 1-9 1. 5 How to Use the Specific Plan . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 1. 6 Adoption of the Specific Plan . . . . . . . . 1-11 1.7 Relationship to County General Plan . . . . . . 1-11 2 . SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . 2-1 3 . THE PLAN 3-1 3 . 1 Land Use Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 A. Commercial Development . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 B. Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 C. Parks and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 D. Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3.2 Circulation Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 3 . 3 Parks and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 3 .4 Water Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 3.5 Development and the Potential Rise in Sea Level . 3-12 3 . 6 Utilities Concepts . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3. 6. 1 Drainage Systems . . . . . . 3--13 3 . 6.2 Wastewater System . . . .3-14 3 . 6. 3 Water System 3-15 3 . 6.4 Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 3 . 6. 5 Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 3 . 6. 6 Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 3. 6. 7 Levees . . . . . 3-18 3 .7 Growth Management in the Specific Plan Area 3-20 3 .8 Policy Listing . . 3-21 4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4. 1 Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4. 1. 1 Residential Base Density Zones . . . . . 4-2 i Table of Contents cont'd) Parte 4 . 1.2 Bonus Residential Development Programs 4-3 4 . 1. 3 Residential Parking Requirements . . . . 4-7 4 . 1.4 Residential Design Guidelines . . . . . 4-8 4 . 1.5 In-Fill Development . . . . . . . . . . 4-16 4. 1. 6 Clustered Residential Development on Agricultural Designated Land Outside the Bonus Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16 4.2 Commercial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 4.2. 1 Local Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 4.2.2 Marina Commercial . . . . . . . . . . 4-23 4.2. 3 Commercial Recreation . . . . . . . . . 4-24 4 .2.4 Commercial Parking Requirements . . . . 4-25 4 .2 .5 Commercial Design Guidelines . . . . . . 4-25 4 . 3 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28 4 .4 Public Schools . . . . . . 4-29 4 .5 Parks, Open Space, and Recreation . . . . . . . 4-32 4.5. 1 Neighborhood Parks . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33 4.5.2 Community Park 4-35 4.5. 3 Bonus Public Recreation Space/Facilities 4-36 4.5.4 Streetscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38 4 .5. 5 Wetlands, Rare Plants and the Bethel Island Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40 4 . 6 Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43 4. 6. 1 Roadway Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43 4 .7 Levees o . . 4-46 4.7. 1 Levee Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46 5. IMPLEMENTATION: PERMITTING AND FINANCING . . . . . . 5-1 5. 1 Permit Processing . . . 5-1 5. 1. 1 Local Permit Processing . . 5-1 5. 1.2 Federal Review and Permitting Agencies 5-5 5. 1. 3 State Review and Permitting Agencies 5-8 5.2 Financing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 5.2. 1 Financing Public Improvements . . . . . 5-12 5. 2.2 Capital Improvement Program . . . . . . 5-13 5.2.3 Program Financing . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13 5.2.4 Reimbursement Policy . . . . . . . . 5-20 5.2.5 Miscellaneous Fees . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21 5.2.6 Cost Escalation Factor . . . . . . . . . 5-21 6. GROWTH MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 Growth Management Program . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.2. 1 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.2.2 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 6.2. 3 Sewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 ii Table of Contents cont,d) Page 6.2 . 4 Fire Protection . . . . 6-3 6.2.5 Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 6.2. 6 Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 6.2 .7 Flood Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 6.2 .8 Drainage 6-4 6.2.9 Jobs/Housing Balance . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 iii Table of Contents cont'd) Page List of Tables 3 . 1 Bethel Island Area Specific Plan Residential Land Use Data 3-3 4 . 1 Design Guidelines Roadway Design Standards . . . . . . 4-45 5. 1 Capital Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14 5.2 Phased Development Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 iv Table of Contents cont'd) Follows Page List of Figures 1. 1 Regional Location . . . . . 1-3 1.2 Planning Area Boundaries 1-3 1. 3 Existing Land Use . . 1-3 1.4 East County Area General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 3 . 1 Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3 . 2 Trails and Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 3 .3 Drainage Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 3.4 Sanitary Sewer Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15 3 .5 Water Wells and Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15 4 . 1 Allowable Building Envelope at New Levee . . . . . . 4-11 4.2 Lake Sections Key Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 4 . 3 Lake Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13 4.4 Lake Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14 4. 5 Agricultural Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 4. 6 Agricultural Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 4.7 Urban Design and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 4.8 Circulation and Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 4.9 Conceptual Landscape Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26 4. 10 Existing Commercial District Design Concepts . . . . 4-26 4. 11 Commercial Frontages: Bethel Island Road . . . . . . 4-27 4 . 12 Fire Protection Districts, Sheriff and Fire Stations . 4-28 4. 13 School Districts and School Locations . . . . . . . . 4-29 4 . 14 Street Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38 4. 15 Street Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38 4. 16 Commercial Street Sections . . . . . . 4-38 4. 17 Street Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38 4 . 18 Roadway Network . . . . . 4-43 4 . 19 Levee Sections and Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-46 5. 1 Permit Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 v 1. Introduction 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND To the people who visit and those who live there Bethel Island is a special place. It is a unique blend of agricultural, open space, and recreational experiences and it projects a special feeling that all seek to protect while allowing development. Some of these special attributes are found in the name of the place. In fact Webster defines "bethel" as 1) a hallowed spot, 2) a chapel for non-conformists and 3) a place for worship for sailors; the Bethel Island area is a little of all of these. Owing to its unique physical setting within the San Joaquin Delta and its location adjacent to the urbanizing sections of Contra Costa County in the San Francisco Bay Area, the planning area is poised for change. Due to its unique features, the Bethel Island planning area has a relative distinctness when compared to the San Francisco Bay region as a whole. These features related to the geographic locations of Bethel Island in the Delta, rather than the San Francisco Bay; the small population of the island as compared to population density of the communities surrounding the Bay; and the predominance of rural land use such as agriculture and recreation as distinct from the residential, commercial and industrial character of the rest of the Bay Area. Until the 1970's Contra Costa County had not experienced the growth and development of the older section of the metropolitan area. Since 1970, Contra Costa County has been the fastest growing County in the nine County region making up the San Francisco Bay Area. The population of the County increased by 21 percent during the 1-1 last two decades to a current level of about 700, 000. Much of the growth within the County has occurred in the central portions, around Concord and Walnut Creek, and more recently around Danville and San Ramon.Now, the eastern parts of the County are experiencing growth and development pressures that the County as a whole faced since the 1970's. In 1978 the East County Area General Plan (ECAGP) specified that, as an implementation measure, a Specific Plan should be prepared for Bethel Island to guide its future growth. In 1985, the East Bay Chapter of the American Institute of Architects sponsored a Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) , composed of people with backgrounds in community planning and development, and conducted a brief study to provide the County and Bethel Island citizens with preliminary information that could be used in the formation of a Bethel Island Specific Plan that would implement the 1978 ECAGP. In response to the recommendations of the East County Area General Plan, R/UDAT study, continuing interest on the part of residents of the area and increased development demands, the Contra Costa County Community Development Department began the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Bethel Island area in 1987. This document is the Specific Plan and is prepared pursuant to the provisions of California planning law. It sets out the land use concept and explains the goals, objectives, and presents land use designations, design guidelines and methods for implementing the plan. 1.2 PLANNING AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Bethel Island planning area is an unincorporated rural, residential, recreational and agricultural community located in northeast Contra Costa County, approximately four miles northeast 1-2 of Oakley. Figure 1.1 depicts the regional location of the Bethel Island planning area. The planning area consists of an on-island area, which is the 3,500-acre Bethel Island itself, and an off- island area (Hotchkiss Tract) , which is approximately 3, 000 acres of land south of Bethel Island. Rock Slough borders the off- island area to the south. Franks Tract State Recreation Area, located northeast of Bethel Island, consists of two submerged islands with partially broken levees remaining above the water level. Jersey Island is directly west of Bethel Island (separated by Taylor Slough) , and Holland Tract is east of the planning area separated by Sand Mound Slough) . Nearby communities and the planning area boundaries are shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 and existing land use in the planning area is indicated in Figure 1.3. Factors which influence land planning -for the area include: the Delta sloughs that define much of the edges of the planning area; the levee systems that hold back the Delta water from the on and off-island land areas; the existing circulation network which includes rural roads and bridges to the island; the drainage and pumping systems that remove water from the island; the soils and wetland conditions that pose a variety of construction and regulatory constraints; the agricultural (grazing) uses of lands within the planning area; and existing residential and commercial development both on and off the island. Other factors that influence the Specific Plan include: the sewage treatment system with its off-island treatment plant; current and future water supply systems and their relationship to groundwater extraction and possible problems of subsidence; overall County transportation plans and needed improvements to the regional highway network; and elementary through high school facilities that are located out of the planning area. 1-3 80 5a Sacramento 99 80 Napa l,a 16a A'Och a.ktSto n0 1Q1 Concord Q8wey project A.xea Brent ood 2 5 68 20 8° Wand 99 580 580 5• Modesto San Francis.. 580 8$ VV 101 San 3ose Fig. 1.l regional wan6Co No SCaIt k f I 60 Franks. Tract oJzSe ' Is1a r ii tis . t. d •.' _ I _/j l 4 OIia` T-ract Y gess' r , y s i C' r yam', i' `i .. \ ' s• 7 Brant 6A yrs_ Tj JJ el i a 7, r Planning Area Boundaries Fig. 1.2 4M Franks Tract Swa aanauMa Anal Franks Tract t t Q lww a.a...w M.r Har i Canal Road MNP v v Bethel Island v o Jersey MHP Island Nv*O• v Date-a•Road cottag. MHP La. Sandy La. Ranch La. a gYairyy Sao Dutch 31010 e a Weq+Road RdTo°° d B/rd D v cc m -^ Holland Tract cygrals Read r CIO o atb(sU 680and QQoa Existing Land Use AGRICULTURE Fig. 1.3.. spp acovoc p0agD Single-Family Boat Docks and Marinas Residential AeEE9333 Multi-Family Golf Course Residential 11 4410 2400 1100 4000 Commercial MOBILE HOME PAaKSi The East County Area General Plan (ECAGP) designates five different land uses for the Bethel Island planning area: single-family low- density, single-family high-density, multi-family low-density, commercial, and agricultural-residential (Figure 1.4) . The residential holding capacity of the planning area ranges from 10, 144 to 15,540 or from 4,899 to 7,761 residential units. There are currently about 1,450 dwelling units in the planning area. 1.3 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN Under California Law (Government Code Section 65450 et seq. ) , Cities and Counties may use Specific Plans to develop policies, programs and regulations to implement the jurisdiction's General Plan. Specific Plans often function to coordinate individual development proposals within a defined area. The law requires that a Specific Plan include text and diagrams specifying: The distribution, location, and intensity of land uses, including open space, within the planning area; The distribution, location, and capacity of infra- structure, including transportation, sewage, water, storm drainage, solid waste, and energy systems and other essential facilities necessary to support the planning area; Design standards and criteria for development and use of natural resources; and An implementation program, including capital improvements plans, regulations and financing strategies. 1-4 Franks Tract rrrrrr ' . sir r. • , I ... ...--•-"""'"...._ + %r%!.rrr_ . • • rrr //;' . rrr /r/. o Franksf _ a .r///r/r/r,, rr /r/.+ fstu•bn•Tirr. r/r-r/rr//rrrrr.. /rrrr /rr..• Tr rrrr/rrrr/rrr/r/rrr//rrrrrrrr/r/ rrrrr.- "—. r//rr/////r///rrrrrrrrrr/rrrrr //r/ry ,, , ..K rrr/rrrrrrrr/rrrr/rrrr//rrrr .r// y'rrrrrr;trrrrrrrrrr/rrrrrrrrrr ,dam :;r,i;." . t rrrrr/rrrr//rrrr/rrrrrrrrrrr rrr. t r/r/rrr/rrr.-rrr//rrrr/rrrrr/ /rrrrrrr Or' ice•• -ra. rrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr.. j .:.rrrrrrrrrrir T rrr/rrrr rr/rrrrrr//,%: ' r/rr/////rrr/rrrrr /rrrrrr rr///r/rr///r. rrrr///rrrr/rrrr/ /rrrrrr r/rr//rr/rrrr/:• rrrr//rr/rr//r/rrr rrrrr /rrY/rrrr/r/r/r rrrrrrrr//rrrrr' rrrr rrrrrrrr rrrrr/. ` r/ rrrrrrrrr rrr rr/rr/rrr//r///. r/r r//rrrr rrr rrrrrrrrrr rrr r ter/rr rrrrrrrr' r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-;"-' Y N• rrr/rrrr//r/r/rr r/r/rrr} rrrrrr:, ; r//rrr/rrr///rr/ry,r:.!r/r/rrrrrrrrr. ' ' "-. ••, r/rrrrrrrrrr////,rr.;•;rr/rrr/r/rrr • + a. . . ,• -' , o rr/rrr/rrr//rr/rrr.:• .rv=rr/rrrrrr r • b , • oGJersey Island r/rrrrrrrrrrr/ rt• .r.tfrrrr,rrr,•. P r:• : :a r/r/rrrrr:.: : ' ' ' rrrrr/rrr//rr/r r ..: •-•,rr rrr/r,P'. rrrrrrrrrrr// . :i, •^•Yrrr. i r' o rrrr::•• :::•';:`!- '• : : : Dutch stou=h•?I.096;; ON rrr ///-i1 _ Qti+' .•1•• j,/.% !r ter/r//%//r/'=`////-/ J r/iii v!/// irf//rrrr ri, rr " fr ,. f: r///rrr /rr/r: frrr''i/rry/ rrrrrrrrrrr, • r///rrfiirod///f it i irr.:irrrrrrr, r//'0 r 't ri/ii///rte!!rr!/ lrl fr!!!. r/i/r//i/r// lriii / ir ;!/"oiiiiiir/ Ylrrr, f•/ r rrr/ r/// j////// rf i ! ri/ ///ljfrr,,iiiii/rr ifiri i !'` Holt Tri/.,Fi/iiiriiii//r and actCyReadRoadri /rrrr/ r/rr/ r/r/:ii' r rrr air////J//r>'r r/%1- fr' yrtf!•.rf- ,j„ . Specific Plans are intended to be vehicles for implementing the goals and policies of a community's General Plan and can only be adopted or amended if they are consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan. 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 1.4.1 Contra Costa County General Plan The Housing (1984) , Safety (1975) , Seismic Safety (1975) , Scenic Routes (1974) , Community Facilities (1984) , and Noise (1975) Elements, as they pertain to Bethel Island, are provided in the Contra Costa County General Plan and are meant to supplement the goals and policies of the ECAGP. The goals of each of these elements as they pertain to the Bethel Island Area, are summarized below. Housing Element Adopted in April 1985, the .Housing Element of the General Plan is the most recently-prepared element of the Contra Costa General Plan. While the Housing Element does not specifically address housing development on Bethel Island, it does provide policies and programs which apply to the issues of concern on the island. Those include: It is the policy of the County to obtain a balance of housing types, tenures, densities and price ranges by applying the more extensive use of flexible techniques such as Planned Unit Developments and the appropriateness of mixed residential and commercial developments. 1-5 It is the policy of the County to coordinate and work with public and private entities in order to encourage the development of communities that are served by adequate and appropriate facilities and services by continuing to encourage and actively participating in the development of infrastructure financing plans tailored to specific local circumstances. The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan is consistent with the policies of the Housing Element as it provides guidelines for a range of housing types (single-family, duplex, apartments and condominiums) and has special provisions for maintaining the existing housing stock. It will be implemented with a P-1 zoning designation which requires Planned Unit Development applications. Additionally, the Financing Plan and Implementation Program establishes an infrastructure phasing plan and a method for financing these improvements so that adequate public services are available along with new development. Safety Element The Safety Element of the General Plan provides guidelines for areas where geologic (such as earthquakes and subsidence) , flood, land use and transportation hazards are important factors in planning for development. It also addresses water supply safety, public protection services and disaster planning in terms of potential for liquefaction, flooding and levee failure. The gas wells are also identified as potential hazards. The Specific Plan provides conceptual plans and development guidelines which implement the policies of the Safety Element. 1-6 Seismic Safety Element Adopted in 1975 and revised in 1986, the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan contains the County's programs for land use plan- ning, the provision of public improvements, and the development (or redevelopment) of land to the County's seismic characteristics. The Seismic Safety Element is particularly important to Contra Costa County because the County is located in one of the most seismically active areas of California. It is subject to severe ground shaking, ground failure, and flooding from earthquakes occurring both within the County and the Bay Area, and it is additionally subject to ground rupture from earthquakes on a number of faults located within the County. Further, the potential for earthquake damage is increasing as the County grows in population and as development extends into higher risk areas such as certain of the hill areas and natural flood-plain areas. Of particular concern in the project vicinity is the intense ground shaking that could occur in the Delta and the liquefaction potential of soils within the planning area. In addition, levee failures resulting from earthquakes could further adversely affect the planning area. Means of dealing with these potential hazards are discussed in detail in the Development Finish Floor Elevation, Residential and Levee Development Standards sections of the Specific Plan. Community Facilities Element The Community Facilities Element of the General Plan suggest multiple purpose use of facilities and establishes the need for the expansion of sewer, water, utility, child care, school, and other government services as urban development continues. The Specific 1-7 Plan provides policies and design guidelines for community facilities that are consistent with this element of the General Plan. Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan is intended to provide noise control goals for the County, as well as comply with State laws requiring cities and counties to adopt noise elements. Bethel Island is not identified by the element as an area with a noise problem, however, street sections and building setbacks in the planning area have been designed to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences. Scenic Routes Element Prepared in 1974, the Scenic Routes Element of the General Plan responds to the changing character of scenic roadways throughout the County due to the ongoing development of adjacent lands. This scenic routes element provides the means to the County for the retention and enhancement of the scenic qualities and natural scenic areas adjacent to and visible from scenic routes. The Scenic Routes Plan identifies Cypress Road, Bethel Island Road and Jersey Island Road as Scenic Rural-Recreation Routes. They are considered as "major rural roads that traverse areas of outstanding scenic qualities or those that provide connecting links between scenic sections of roads within the Contra Costa County. Scenic Routes Element. Scenic rural routes may be combined with public recreation areas such as parks, reservoirs, or hiking, riding and cycling trails. " Street design guidelines are included in the Specific Plan that are intended to implement the goals of this element along Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. 1-8 1.4.2 East County Area General Plan The East County Area General Plan, (ECAGP) , approved in 1978 and subsequently amended . by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, revised the Contra Costa County General Plan by adding policies specifically addressing the East County Area. Goals and policies are set forth in the following areas: agriculture, planned communities, recreation communities, recreation industry, circulation and community facilities. Bethel Island is indicated in the ECAGP as a Recreation Community which is planned to accommodate uses which are primarily oriented toward recreational opportunities, including certain related residential and commercial uses. The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan is consistent with this objective and implements it by providing opportunities and incentives for resort development, recreational activities and businesses, additional marinas, support commercial uses and recreation-residential development. Five land use designations are applied by the East County Area General Plan in the Bethel Island planning area. The existing commercial uses and an expansion area located along Bethel Island Road at the entrance to the island are designated in the commercial land use category, as are the major marina and boat harbor complexes. The perimeter of the island, as well as lands along the southerly bank of Dutch Slough and along Sandmound Boulevard, are shown as Single Family Residential-High Density Uses. A large portion of the south and southeasterly part of the island are shown as Single Family Residential-Low Density Uses. The condominium complex on Sandmound Slough and an area at the eastern end of Gateway Boulevard are designated for Multiple Family-Low Density 1-9 uses. The central portion of the island is designated for Agriculture Residential. The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan proposes a similar mix of land uses as the ECAGP, including a commercial expansion area along Bethel Island Road, major marina and boat harbor complexes, single and multiple family housing and ,. agricultural-residential areas. However, with the additional information gathered during the preparation of the Specific Plan, more appropriate sites were chosen for each land use based on market, infrastructure and environmental considerations. In this way, the recommendations of the Specific Plan differ from those of the ECAGP and will require a General Plan Amendment prior to/at the time of its adoption. 1.5 HOW TO USE THE SPECIFIC PLAN The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan is divided into six major sections or chapters. Chapter 1 serves as a general introduction to the Specific Plan, outlining- its setting and historical origins, as well as its structure and intent. Chapter 2 discusses the goals and objectives which form the framework for development within the Specific Plan area. Chapter 3 sets forth the planning concepts of the development plan and explains how each is addressed in the Specific Plan. Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, establishes specific standards for all development and indicates allowable land uses, development densities, siting and open space, street and public utility requirements. Chapter 5 discusses how the Specific Plan will be implemented, including financing mechanisms and. permit procedures. Finally, Chapter 6 contains a growth management program as mandated by Measure C, the Contra Costa County Transportation and Growth Management Program adopted by the voters in November of 1988, which requires development in the planning 1-10 area to pay for all necessary infrastructure and conform to certain growth management standards. 1.6 ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN As mentioned above, the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan. Consequently a General Plan Amendment will be adopted contemporaneously with the adoption of the Specific Plan. 1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN The California General Plan Guidelines indicate that the relationship between a jurisdiction's General Plan and any adopted area plans must be spelled out. It is important to note that area plan elements adopted by Contra Costa County do not necessarily take the place of countywide elements, but are in addition to countywide elements. In other words, the Land Use section of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan which consists of a land use map, goals, policies and implementation programs shall govern development in the area in addition to the goals, policies, and programs in the countywide Land Use Element. The specific plan refines the policies of the countywide plan as they apply to a smaller geographic area. The State guidelines indicate that a specific plan must be internally consistent with the general plan. To facilitate such consistency, the general plan should incorporate policies addressing all areawide issues and setting guidelines for the detailed treatment of issues in the various specialized plans. Ideally, to simplify implementation, land use categories, terminology, format, and diagrams should be uniform among the area or community plans. 1-11 S The countywide land use goals and policies are much less specific than the area plan, but if there is a countywide issue being addressed in Bethel Island (e.g. , instituting a wetland mitigation program) , the countywide plan must be consulted in addition to the specific plan. Conversely, the County General Plan specifically references the Bethel Island in the chapter regarding "Local Area Plans". 1-12 2. Specific Plan Goals and Objectives SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Given the desire of the existing Bethel Island area residents to maintain the unique quality of life in their community, a set of goals and objectives have been established to guide development in the planning area. The goals and objectives enumerated below address these desires and are consistent with the goals and objectives of the East County Area General Plan. 2. 1 To preserve and enhance the unique "sense" of community in the Bethel Island Area by limiting the gross density, future population and future use of the area; by establishing a circulation network of vehicular, equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle ways that provides access, reduces congestion and regulates traffic flow; by establishing design standards and guidelines; and by controlling commercial development. 2 .2 To provide and maintain a water-oriented recreation community supported by necessary residential and commercial development. 2 . 3 To allow recreational development only in a manner which complements the natural features of the area, including the topography, water ways, vegetation and soil characteristics; and to protect and enhance the recreation resources of the Delta. 2.4 To provide and maintain, to the extent possible, a safe living and recreational environment free from flooding and levee failure by limiting new residential development on-island to one unit per existing parcel. 2-1 2 .5 To improve the Quality of Life on Bethel Island by preserving the rural or semi-rural nature of the area; by preserving the freedom of lifestyle that currently exits; by requiring visual buffer areas around proposed developments; by requiring low light levels and shading on streets or parking lots; and by encouraging tree planting programs. 2 . 6 To encourage the preservation and enhancement of open space and/or agriculture by encouraging development restrictions on agricultural parcels. 2.7 To provide and maintain employment opportunities appropriate to the rural and recreational nature of the area and to aid in developing the economic base of the planning area through new employment opportunities with special emphasis on expanding the commercial recreational sector. 2.8 To achieve a safe, efficient and coordinated transportation system capable of serving and supporting the citizens and the economic base of the area. 2.9 To obtain maximum benefit from existing public structures; to provide adequate public services and cultural and recreational facilities for residents of all ages. 2. 10 To promote residential, recreational and commercial development in a way which preserves and protects -- with no net loss -- wetland and upland areas. 2-2 3. The Plan This section describes the planning concepts and policies of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan development program. These concepts are intended to clarify the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and provide a clear and consistent foundation for the development standards contained ,in Chapter 4 and the implemen- tation strategies of Chapter 5. The guiding policies of this narrative are highlighted by a policy number reference following these key sentences. 3.1 LAND USE CONCEPT The Bethel Island Area Specific Plan addresses both the island lands and the lands south of the island which are bordered on the north by Dutch Slough, the southwest by the Contra Costa Canal and the south by Rock Slough (Hotchkiss Tract) . The overall land use concept for the Plan is to preserve and enhance the rural and recreational qualities of this unique area, while providing opportunities for additional residential and commercial growth which is tied to water-oriented recreation. In order to accomplish this, the Plan provides for preservation of the existing residential areas, improvements to the existing local commercial center, opportunities for new major recreational resort areas, additional rural and recreational housing, expanded public facilities, improved circulation, parks and permanent open space. To retain the characteristics of Bethel Island that make it a unique place in the Delta, low overall density, the provision of open space buffers and the preservation and protection of wetland and upland areas and rare plants are critical elements of this land use plan. 3-1 The land use plan for the planning area itself (Figure 3.1) first and foremost incorporates the existing land uses into the concept of the new plan. Furthermore, all existing buildable lots within the Specific Plan area will retain the right to proceed to a building permit for the level of development entitled prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan providing no further subdivision of the land is required.The streets and neighborhoods which , currently line most of the edge of the island will be retained as they are now, with some improvements to help make life on the island more comfortable and safe. (Policy 3 . 1. 1) . Stilt structures may be required by FEMA if the area is not protected by a certified levee system. However, stilt structures are not aesthetically pleasing and are not preferred in the planning area. Stilt structures may be allowed in small developments (one unit per parcel/5 acres) but shall not be permitted to comprise an entire subdivision or housing development. Consequently, before certain developments can proceed, it may be necessary to improve conditions in the flood plain. The Land Use map shown in Figure 3 . 1, as well as all other maps included in this document, are conceptual diagrams. Therefore, the boundary line and locations of symbols on the maps should be used only as guidelines and not interpreted literally. Precise boundary lines and exact locations of symbols will be determined during the preparation of Final Development Plans and rezoning to P-1 (see Chapter 5) . A. Commercial Development The existing Bethel Island area commercial activities located on either side of the Bethel Island Bridge will be enhanced to provide the types of goods and services often found in a neighborhood 3-2 Li W. r Li+'au A CDcr _ v. N C 3 r h CD fD r Table 3.1 Bethel Island Area specific Plan Residential Land Use Data Approved Specific Approximate But Not Plan Gross Existing Built Propose Total Acres Units Units Units Units On-Island 3 , 500 1, 050 886 1 du/par 1,936+ Off-Island 3, 000 400 91 2,909 3 ,000 Total 6, 500 1,450 977 2,909+ 4,936+ 1 Included in these totals are the following maximum bonus units: hotel development = 150 units; public recreation = 150 units. 3-3 shopping center (Policy 3. 1.2) . This local commercial center will also continue to include the Fire Station, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) offices, Scout Hall and the Post Office. Sites for -Commercial Recreational uses are identified by the land use map at the area at the north end of Bethel Island Road and east of Jersey Island Road along Dutch Slough (Policy 3 . 1. 3) . Land uses in these areas will be integrated with adjacent public recreation uses, including boat ramps, marina facilities, sports facilities e.g. tennis courts, golf course or equestrian facilities) , waterfront parks, fishing piers and nature areas. Sufficient land is set aside in this location for 100, 000 square feet of tourist- and boat-oriented retail space, restaurants and a maximum of 500 hotel rooms, including conference and meeting space (Policy 3 . 1.4) . If an applicant proposes to construct a marine or waterfront facility on the outside (Delta side) of the levee system, a special use permit must be obtained and additional environment review would be necessary so that the environmental impacts of the proposed facility at that specific location could be fully analyzed, especially with respect to aquatic resources. A special use permit is not required for the construction of a marine or waterfront facility on the inside of the levee system. Small satellite commercial recreation areas will be allowed at key locations along the waterways to take advantage of the recreational amenity of the Delta (Policy 3 . 1.5) . These areas will primarily provide space for marinas and marina related facilities. Limited commercial development may be considered in the off-island area if it is incorporated within a future residential community Policy 3 . 1.5.a) . This will be allowed on a discretionary basis 3-4 providing the proposed commercial development is designed to meet the needs of the new residences. B. Residential Development The - land - use concept for the off-island area calls for the development of a maximum of 3, 000 additional housing units, which includes the 91 units already approved but not built. In addition, the Plan provides for the 886 already approved units on-island as well as one unit per existing vacant parcel. Development in the planning area shall occur over the approximate 15-year life of the Specific Plan (Policy 3 . 1. 6) . The maximum 3, 000 units include units that are the result of bonuses for the development of a hotel, recreation-oriented housing on Hotchkiss Tract, extra public recreational facilities or through the purchase of development rights on Agricultural/Agriculture Core lands in the County. A breakdown of these units, including those that are currently approved but not yet constructed, is shown in Table 3.1. The majority of the on-island area will be devoted to Agricultural Lands (Policy 3 . 1.7) . While this designation permits limited residential development of one dwelling unit per five acres, this designation in the on-island area only allows one unit per existing parcel. Due mainly to safety concerns, development on-island is limited. Additional new residential development on-island shall be considered once 1) a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter on-island levee system, 2) the levee improvement plans have -been approved by BIMID and the Army Corps of Engineers and 3) subsidence impacts, as well as impacts on wetlands, are adequately mitigated. Planning and design standards for clustering of residential development on Agricultural Lands are provided in Chapter 4. 3-5 New residential development will be also be allowed off-island Hotchkiss Tract) . The existing residences will continue to line the edge of Dutch Slough and cluster along Sandmound Boulevard. While a majority of the off-island area is designated for Agricultural Lands an Off-Island Bonus Area is planned in the area east -of Jersey .. Island Road allowing - for the potential of recreational residential development at a maximum of 1-2.9 units per net acre (Policy 3 .1.8) . In order to receive this higher density, a proposed project must either clearly demonstrate a recreational character (Policy 3. 1.9) and/or the project proponent must purchase development rights from Agriculture/Agriculture Core lands in the County. For example, a project can demonstrate a recreational character by either including marinas or launching facilities off the project site on Sandmound or Rock Slough, a sailing/boating club on a project lake, a lake community, an equestrian or rodeo facilities, or tennis club or golf course. In the absence of this recreational emphasis, the density would be the underlying Agricultural Lands. (1 unit per 5 acres. ) In general, these residential land use designations might generate a population density as follows: 1-2.9 dwelling units per net acre, approximately 2.5 persons per acre; and 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres; approximately .5 persons per acre. Safety of the study area and its residents from flooding and levee failure is a key concern of the Specific Plan land use program Policy 3 . 1. 10) . As a result of this concern, new residential development in the on-island area shall be -limited to one unit per existing parcel and the opening or breaching of levees will not be permitted in conjunction with development in the planning area. Additionally, all new residences will be built to conform to federal flood insurance requirements.Design standards are provided in the Specific Plan which specify required levee heights, 3-6 widths and standards for lake-type developments including sections that will allow adjustment of levee heights in the event of arise in sea level over time. The land use concept is flexible in the types of housing that may be -constructed -both on and off the island (Policy 3 .1. 11) . Architectural design guidelines are provided which set standards for minimum floor elevations, building heights and setbacks for buildings, as well as specific design standards for houses built on poles or adjacent to levees. The developer may choose the type and style of the homes to be built subject to development plan approval, so long as these standards are met at a minimum. In order to address concern over the inefficient use of the land and infrastructure implicit in the construction of housing on agriculturally zoned parcels, a program of development clustering is proposed for agricultural areas outside the bonus area and its use strongly encouraged (Policy 3. 1. 12) . This concept allows the development of an Agricultural Lands parcel with the lots/homes clustered on a small portion of the area. These developments must be served by utilities and the larger remaining portion of the parcel will be left in a development restricted agricultural land use or may be utilized for a variety of agricultural, open space or recreational uses such as equestrian centers or vineyards. C. Parks and Open Space Finally, a complete system of public parks and open space corridors is incorporated into the land use concept in order to retain some of the existing, spacious open feeling of the island (Policy 3 . 1. 13) . Guidelines relating to the preservation or construction of wetland areas and rare plant preserves are included in Chapter 4. These areas shall serve as habitat for the numerous animals of 3-7 the Delta. Buffer areas will be indicated adjacent to existing neighborhoods to provide visual and physical relief between development areas. A Protection Fee shall be imposed on each new'residential unit to be--used -by-the-County to acquire-open -space and -wetland areas (this Protection Fee shall also be used to protect agricultural lands as discussed below) . Priority shall be given to acquisition on- island with emphasis on acquisition near the waterfront park and along the sloughs.The County shall explore other funding opportunities to supplement or replace this Protection Fee. D. Agriculture The Planning Area consists of lands of marginal agricultural productivity. The area does not consist of Agricultural Core lands comprised of Class I and Class II prime soils as shown in the US Soils Conservation Service Soil Survey of Contra Costa County 1973. In recognizing the marginal agricultural value of the land in the planning area, development in the area is permitted. In order to minimize the impact on agricultural lands, development in the area is permitted at a low overall density and is controlled. For example, large subdivisions are discouraged and the clustering of residential development on agriculturally designated lands not in the bonus area is encouraged, and a program is contained herein that allows development rights to be purchased on agricultural lands.These limitations and programs will permit certain agricultural lands -to remain in their present undeveloped state. In addition, a Protection Fee shall be imposed on each new residential unit in the planning area to be used by the County, in part, to acquire development rights for selected, important agricultural land or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production (this Protection Fee shall also be used to 3-8 acquire open space and wetland areas as discussed above) . Other sources of funding shall be explored to supplement or replace this fee. 3.2 CIRCULATION CONCEPT As the Specific Plan is implemented, the Bethel Island Area's roadway network will evolve from a system of rural roads to a network of improved arterial and collector streets capable of handling the traffic of its residents and recreational visitors. Since it is predicted that a significant proportion of the Specific Plan residents and visitors will be traveling to and from surround- ing communities, the circulation system will also be expanded to provide better links with regional transportation routes. The Specific Plan proposes that circulation patterns be improved in order to accommodate traffic originating from new residential development and the anticipated increase in visitors to the island, as well as to protect the existing neighborhoods from the noise and hazards of traffic (Policy 3 .2 . 1) . The roadway network is designed to take non-residents directly to and from the public areas of the island, without encroaching on the existing neighborhoods. All major roads are designed with setbacks, a minimum number of curb cuts, and landscaped right-of-ways to protect the rural quality of the area. Some of these new local roads may be located on the top of the newly-created levees associated with lake-type development. The Bethel Island bridge will be reconstructed with two travel lanes and a separate bicycle/pedestrian path. Other improvements will be made to portions of Cypress, Laurel and Bethel Island Roads. (Policy 3 .2 .2) . These will be built coincident with the traffic demand generated by new residential and commercial development. 3-9 As the flat topography of the planning area lends itself so well to non-vehicular travel, roadways will be flanked by bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian trails. These will be linked to the neighborhood and community park sites along these roadways and down separate open space -corridors (Policy 3.2 . 3) . The levee road around Bethel Island and -along the sloughs on the north and east side of Hotchkiss Tract is proposed to be developed as a recrea- tional trail with water access at specific points in cooperation with BIMID and RD-799 and the respective property owners. 3.3 PARRS AND OPEN SPACE The Specific Plan proposes a variety of park and open space opportunities, including neighborhood parks, a community park, a waterfront park, open space corridors, and buffer zones (Figure 3.2) . These open space areas will complement the extensive Delta waterway system that provides island residents and visitors with easy access to the greater Delta. In addition, open space areas may be used for wetland mitigation, riparian use and rare plant preserve areas as well as for trails and paths. The open space corridor in the off-island area is conceptual; final open space configuration will be determined at time of residential project approval. Three neighborhood parks of eight acres in size are diagrammatically designated throughout the Specific Plan areas Policy 3. 3 . 1) . The total- neighborhood park acreage is generated according to a standard of 2.5 acres of park land per 1, 000 new residents. In addition, a 15 acre Community Park and Waterfront Park are indicated on the plan (Policy 3 . 3 . 2) . The Community Park will be programmed to include play fields and group use areas and serve as a resource for existing and new residents alike. Through 3-10 Franks Tract law.Rccn.w.Art.l i I Franks Tractt1 • Q IL.rc a--.A...I 0000 1 H.rbor• O Canal Road ti••••••••••••• b` o O Bethel Island I 96 irk f 0 Jersey OL`: :_\'•, v Island 4 o Gateway d 000000000 0000••• cottaLn. — Slady Ln. Ranch Ln. k S• oa Dutch slou h rode f Dutch Slough Road•• t [S ti u K'ells Ro1Q seess,itr.ises !°0000 ti`. a. • /tenon°9••• a e • 1 0 t 1• a j:: 1• Holland Tract Cypress Roadiiiiiii •i•iiii•iii• •ii•_•i••• •.*. u 44,J. 1. a Co f F+• as x r. . I 1 N rrrr.I..rrrrrriTiriYir aMsgRRpapgwd (pQ(sa Trails and Open Space Fig. 3.2 s p e @ U U 0 M a!1 PMajart of Landscaapeor AssOffement District)oPotential F,quattisn/Bicydo Trail M; Bicycle Lane On-Strect Neighborhood Puff(8 Ac.) Z F-30 0 100 1600 2400 3100 4000 Greenbelt-Pedestrian/Equestrian'Trad U Community Park(15 Ac)I 1.-- this program additional housing units may be allowed if public open space lands are developed and dedicated (Policy 3 . 1.9) . All these facilities are provided for in the financing plan. In addition to these parks additional public open space may be provided via the Public Recreation Facility Space/Bonus Program. Roadway noise buffers zones are provided by the Plan between arterial/collector roads and residential areas (Policy 3 . 3 .3) . The buffers allow the Plan to achieve State mandated noise level maximums at the units and at the same time maintain the rural character of the community without the need for suburban-style noise walls. These buffers, as indicated in Chapter 4, incorporate pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle paths. 3.4 WATER RECREATION The Bethel Island planning area is virtually surrounded by sloughs that are part of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. Much of the area's character and history has been formed by its relationship to the Delta. There are numerous marinas along the perimeter of Bethel Island and much of the area's commercial base is tied directly to water-oriented activities such as boat sales, repairs, storage, fishing supplies and water skiing. A signi- ficant number of people who come to the area like to visit their boat on the weekends, even if all that means is remaining at the berth and enjoying the aquatic environment. The Horseshoe Bend area is proposed as a focal point of water- oriented recreation.A marina, as well as commercial and recreational features, could be created at this location to be readily accessible to the Delta and to help provide focus to the Island's recreational commercial development. A waterfront park may be planned here. If deemed feasible, by B.I.M.I.D. , the 3-11 waterfront park may include pedestrian access to the slough over the adjacent levee. The marina, adjacent commercial and recre- ational areas and waterfront park, would be available for residents, visitors, off-island boat owners, and boat owners in the nearby housing (Policy 3 .4. 1) . 3.5 DEVELOPMENT AND THE POTENTIAL RISE IN SEA LEVEL All housing will be constructed to meet the minimum finished floor elevation required by the standards of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and local authorities (Policy 3.5. 1) . In general, FEMA currently requires the first floor of all such housing to be set at elevation +10.0 on a mean sea level (MSL) datum. Existing grades in the area currently range from over ten feet below to slightly above sea level. However, stilt developments to meet FEMA standards are not aesthetically pleasing and are not preferred. Stilt residential structures shall only be allowed on the basis of one unit per existing parcel. Such elevated structures shall not be allowed in any new subdivisions. Consequently, before certain developments may proceed, it may be necessary to improve conditions in the flood plain. The Plan recommends this standard be modified in the event the entire project area is ringed by a new levee built to FEMA standards which would, in essence, remove the area from the floodplain. In the flood protected zone inside these levees, units could be constructed with finish floor elevations lower than +10. 0 MSL. In addition,-- the relocation of- planned facilities and/or structures will be considered if the risk of liquefaction cannot be eliminated. In recent years several scientific studies have predicted a rise in sea level over the next one hundred years. While there 3-12 continues to be some disagreement about the magnitude of this problem, the Plan assumes a 4-foot rise in sea level over the next 50 years and includes provisions to allow the future raising of exterior levees (Policy 3 . 5.2) . At the same time finish floor standards for new infill or lake construction behind existing levees are set as described above. - Here, the most effective flood protection measure can be accomplished by raising the top of the existing barrier levees. 3.6 UTILITIES CONCEPTS The primary objective of the Specific Plan and its function in the orderly management of growth, as it pertains to utility systems, is to ensure that new residential and commercial projects are provided with adequate service prior to development. The Specific Plan insures that development in the planning area provides all necessary supporting infrastructure. The utilities concepts refers to storm drainage, sewer, water, electric and gas systems, and solid waste. 3.6.1 Drainage Systems Storm water runoff currently travels overland to a series of canals/ditches which flow to pump stations at the back of levees see Figure 3.3) . Water is then pumped over the levees to the adjacent sloughs. On Bethel Island these facilities are operated and maintained by the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District BIMID) while Reclamation District 799 (RD 799) provides this service on Hotchkiss Tract. This Plan proposes that drainage of major roadways and all facilities constructed at existing grade be conveyed in a ditch system such as now exists (Policy 3 . 6. 1) . This will be the most 3-13 Franks Tract ISuu,a•er..riaa Au.l J I a I t \ Franks Tract Suu a..r..u..m.., r- Pump Station -........ B hel Island j a• 06 r'°, Jersey o, Island tcw&Y Road Lake cottage, tLn. Sandy L Dute. Pump Station' SI°,• S r(S° Pump I v Dutch Slouch Road • R d Station Pump Station I `"°»=s°ad Sa° dmOynd B/vd 0 iHolland Tract Pump Station 47 p 6pfess Road Proposed system will vary based on development concepts. Pump Station The following shall guide design: Arterial and low area drainage to existing channels. Lagoon housing areas piped to lagoons or sloughs. y Lake housing area piped to lake and pumped to cannel l or slough. N aMSD Osomd &(TOE Drainage Facilities Fig. 3.3 SP(BOMO Man Existing open channels 0 Ac. L.-J tt A.1 ip Existing Pump Stations 0 100 1600 2400 3200 4000 appropriate drainage system for such a low, flat area as the open- top facilities will be easily maintained and system first costs will be lower. Further, the elimination of curbs and gutters will reinforce the aesthetic design goals by maintaining a more rural character along the roadway. The drainage of lake housing areas, constructed at new, elevated grades, will be by -a pipe .system discharging by gravity to a lake or slough (Policy 3 . 6.2) . New conveyances will be constructed to meet the criteria of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCCFWCD) , BIMID and RD 799 policies concerning design storms, storm water retention and pump station design (Policy 3 . 6. 3) . The system will utilize the basic system now in place with improvements and the realignment of facilities based on the actual location of development. On-island storm water retention is encouraged along the spine of the main canal as mentioned in Chapter 4 at Section 4.5.5. 3.6.2 Wastewater System The existing wastewater collection system consists of gravity collection mains, force mains, pumping facilities and a wastewater treatment plant that is located outside of the planning area and is managed by the Oakley-Bethel Island Wastewater Management Agency OBIWMA) (Figure 3.4) . The plant serves both the Oakley Sanitation District and the Bethel Island Planning Area. The treatment plant was designed for a treatment capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) at a biological oxygen demand (BOD) of 97 milligrams per liter. Since put in operation in 1984, it has been determined that the actual treatment capacity may be 2.3 mgd. The plant disposes its effluent to 254 acres of farmland. The current land disposal capacity is 1.2 mgd. 3-14 The wastewater concept calls for an expansion of the existing treatment plant and land disposal system to accommodate an additional 1.9 mgd flow from the Bethel Island planning area. Additionally, a new separate collection system would be required to serve new development and additional pumping capacity would be needed -at the Main Pump -Station and Pump -Station WEB-14 and a new force main would be required from the Main Pump Station to the treatment plant (Policy 3.6.4) . 3.6.3 Water System Domestic water needs within the planning area are supplied by a variety of publicly and privately operated water systems and individual wells (Figure 3.5) . Groundwater, which is generally withdrawn from depths of between 150 and 350 feet, is the source of all domestic water supply. There are three major wells operated by Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 15 (CCSD 15) which have discharge rates of about 200 to 250 gallons per minute (gpm) each. The distribution systems for the various water supplies typically consist of a pump, hydropneumatic tank, and small diameter piping. Several systems have a minimal amount of storage. Slough water is used for firefighting. The Specific Plan water supply concept serves the long-term water needs of the area from non-groundwater sources from outside the planning area-boundaries. This includes purchasing either treated water from the Oakley Water District (OWD) or untreated water from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) . In the event untreated water is purchased, a treatment plant will be constructed within the Specific Plan area (Policy 3.6.5) . Use of these sources would 3-15 Franks Tract law.R.cn.usa A.ul Franks Tract Harbor , OII/ Gnat Road Bethel p\\\\ Island Jersey Island ovaa w Gateway Roo Cottage f fLa. 1 Sandy La. Main Pump Station Duch S1onglg?49i- eilr • S Ooe a D WEB-I4 yRead R Pump Station 11 i mod 00048/r d c Holland Tract i 1111111 INNER41111111flllllltlllllll f To Oakley Bethel Island I eatment Plant i o C-1 o G i G I t M MW Wand b%vas Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fig. 3.4 p B Dc ° £JW Main System • Pump Station Ac mmm 14"Force Main 0 soo 1600 2400 noo .aoo ll!lilllll!llllll New Facilities Franks Tract Franks Tract Beacon west d° i Development O Canal Road wk Willow Mobile ig Home Park Bethel Island Jersey Island cAkway Road c«las. • l a. • s.adr Lu. Ranch La. Dub floap •_ soo' Datc fa load. ROad I i andmOyed B/ra. e s Willow Park 0 Marina t U=tio of Tcrit Plant Condominium 'l anPUMP ., on a Development Holland Tract V. cypress Read ,. ily jl/l—_..,...........N -• .. y• SoPossible urce g y of CCWD Water x fttho0 986an l &[Fee Water Wells and systems Fig. 3.5 specoloc Ran New 14"Water Main Location of Wells and Small Water Systems Water Districts Operated by CCCSD N0.15 0 t0o IN*41m New Distribution Facilities minimize concern surrounding the issue of groundwater extraction as a cause of planning area subsidence. The water supply concept also anticipates the expansion of use of the existing CCSD 15 wells, and new interim wells provided satisfactory hydrological investigation is -completed-until maximum pumping capacity is reached (Policy 3.6. 6) . It is estimated that capacity would be reached with the construction of approximately 1,200 new dwelling units. Prior to the time that the 1,200 dwelling unit threshold is reached, efforts must be successful to bring out-of-area water to the planning area as described above. The OWD will construct and be operating a new 12 mgd water treatment plant to replace the existing 7. 5 mgd plant by the end of July 1992. Until that time, the remaining capacity of the existing plant is committed to proposed development within the OWD boundaries. The new plant is planned to have an ultimate capac- ity of 24 mgd and the additional capacity is not committed at this time. Water demands for the Bethel Island planning area could be incorporated into planning of the phased OWD expansion. A pump station and transmission pipeline would be required to deliver water from the OWD system to the study area. The OWD boundary would need to be expanded to include the study area before it could be served by OWD. Water could also be purchased from CCWD to meet a portion or all of the demands from proposed development. Water would be withdrawn from Contra Costa Canal near Cypress Road, treated and pumped via a transmission pipeline into the study area for distribution. There would be no impact on the CCWD supply allotment because its contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation allows purchase of almost double of what CCWD currently uses. For budgeting purposes, the financing plan allocates money to construct two 500 mg storage 3-16 plants in the planning area and waterline from the expanded Oakley Water District Plant to mid on-island. Transmission facilities to deliver water from either on- or off-site sources should be sized for the maximum day flow. The distribution --system, -however, would be sized for -the peak hourly flow. A loop distribution system would be designed to minimize impacts due to accidental service disruption and shutdowns for the hookup of new customers. The water distribution system would also provide adequate storage to meet the minimum fire flows as established by the Bethel Island and Oakley Fire Districts. The water supply must comply with all applicable State and County water quality standards. Since several existing wells currently exceed secondary standard limitations, water treatment may be required if groundwater supplies are used to meet a portion of future demands. With regard to existing water supplies, as long as all such systems meet minimum State standards they will not be required to connect to a new system. A consolidation study may investigate the feasibility of combining the existing systems with the new infrastructure systems. Raw water purchased from CCWD would need to be treated, primarily involving the removal of total dissolved solids and the provision of chlorination. Water purchased from OWD would not require further treatment. 3.6.4 Electricity Electric service will be supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The existing - transmission lines and substation have adequate capacity to provide service for new development. A new 21 kV underground distribution line and an expansion of the current parallel 21 kV distribution lines from east of Sellers Road to Bethel Island will be necessary. The costs associated with the expansion and the new line would be financed by both project 3-17 developers and PG and E, according to California Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulations. 3.6.5 Natural Gas There is no existing gas distribution system in this area. The feasibi-lity of connecting to '-PG and E's 'regional-gas network -could be investigated by interested major developers. 3.6.6 Solid Waste Generation of additional waste by new development will require modification of the existing refuse collection system. Brentwood Disposal has indicated that they have the capacity to provide service. 3.6.7 Levees County and local regulations prohibit construction of new houses within a 100 foot levee setback from the centerline of the levee. Where existing lots of record cannot meet this standard BIMID or RD-799, depending upon location, shall establish the setback standard. Structures that exist inside the levee setback as established by County Zoning Ordinance 84-34. 1006 and B.I.M.I.D Ordinance No. 9 are known as non-conforming structures. Ordinance No. 9 also prohibits major repairs on non-conforming structures to help limit their useful life. Both Districts have jurisdiction to issue permits for construction of houses, retaining walls, bulkheads, walkways, docks, etc. The permits include the condition that if the permitted structure should interfere with future maintenance, it will be removed at the owner's expense. County Ordinance 716-2 . 608 prohibits the excavation of any material from a levee without approval from the local responsible agency. 3-18 It is the policy of the Specific Plan to prevent future non- conforming structures and help eliminate existing encroachments Policy 3 . 6.7) . All properties within the planning area shall be notified of the importance for public safety of the maintenance of the levee systems. A deed notification should be recorded for each parcel. Development not already approved on-island shall be limited to one dwelling unit per parcel in part due to concerns about the safety and stability of the existing levee system. No new development on-island should be considered unless a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter levee system, levee improvement plans are approved by BIMID and the Army Corps of Engineers, and subsidence on the island is adequately mitigated. To address safety concerns and for policy reasons as discussed above, levee breaches on-island are prohibited unless the entire perimeter levee is improved to Army Corps of Engineers' standards. Levee breaching is not prohibited off-island, which is part of the mainland with different levee, geographic and topographic conditions than on-island (Policy 3 . 6.8) . Levee breaching off- island shall be permitted on a project-by-project basis and shall only be allowed subject to approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is likely that the perimeter levee system will have to be improved before such breaching is allowed. Any- internal--levees must -meet Army Corps of--Engineers' -standards. New construction must be set back from levee centerlines a minimum of 100 feet unless adequate substantiation for reduction is approved by RD-799 or BIMID. New construction not protected by certified levees must meet FEMA standards. 3-19 The foregoing minimum prerequisites to consider additional residential development on-island are included for the following, among other, reasons: weak, organic soils underlying the perimeter levee system; there are limited opportunities for evacuation of the island in the event of levee failure; the island is generally below sea --level and subsiding; and there are limited opportunities for disbursement of flood water because it is a small island enclosed by levees; stilt development would be necessary to meet FEMA standards which is aesthetically unpleasing and not preferred. The policy against levee breaching is based on the foregoing, among other reasons, including that a levee breach and resultant new levee system protecting only a portion of the island will further limit the area of flood water disbursement in the event of a failure in the remaining, unimproved levee, increasing the flooding, health and safety hazards to residents on properties in the remainder of the island. On the other hand, levee breaching may occur in the off-island for the following reasons: wetland areas are limited; the soil is sandy and less subject to subsidence; the elevation is higher; the levee system is in an improved condition and not as long; there are several evacuation alternatives; it is part of the mainland; and disbursements of flood waters is not artificially contained such that internal systems around new development will not adversely affect existing residents and structure in the flood plain. 3.7 - GROWTH 'MANAGEMENT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA The current residents of the planning area, as well as the County staff, desire that infrastructure improvements are developed coincident with the growth they serve. To allow for orderly 3-20 development, development in the planning area must conform to the specific growth management standards set forth in Chapter 6. All infrastructure, including the reconstruction of the Bethel Island bridge and the neighborhood and community parks is funded through-the financing mechanism identified in Chapter 5. Briefly this concept relies on developer fees to pay for the needed improvement in 500 unit development increments. Developers are required to finance the needed infrastructure for the area. In the absence of the developer's willingness to finance and/or construct these improvements growth will not occur. 3.8 POLICY LISTING In summary, the policies highlighted in this chapter are listed as follows. Policy No. Land Use Content 3 . 1. 1 Retain existing streets and neighborhoods with improvements to insure safety and comfort. 3 . 1.2 Enhance existing commercial activities. 3. 1. 3 Allow new recreational commercial developments near the north end of Bethel Island Road and east of Jersey Island Road. 3. 1.4 Designate land for 100, 000 square feet of commercial space and 500 hotel rooms. 3 . 1.5 Allow small satellite commercial recreation uses along waterways. 3-21 3. 1.5a Consider limited commercial development on Hotchkiss Tract if incorporated within a future residential community. 3 . 1. 6 Develop a maximum of '3,000 additional housing units off- island (2,909 new units and 91 already approved) . On- island residential development shall be limited to the approved 886 units and one unit per existing parcel. 3 . 1.7 Designate the majority of the island as Agricultural Lands and Open Space. 3. 1.8 While the off-island portion of the planning area is designated Agricultural Lands (5) and Open Space, it also designates a Single Family Residential-Low Density bonus area allowing a maximum net density of 1-2 .9 units/net acre east of Jersey Island Road. 3 . 1.9 In order to receive a Single Family Residential-Low Density bonus a project must demonstrate a clearly recreational character, create public recreation space/facilities, construct a hotel or purchase development rights. 3. 1. 10 Insure safety of the planning area from flooding by limiting new, not yet approved, residential development. 3 . 1. 11 Allow a wide range of housing types throughout the planning area. 3 . 1. 12 Encourage the clustering of development on designated Agricultural Lands outside the off-island Bonus Area. 3-22 3 . 1. 13 Provide parks and open space improvements. Circulation 3 .2 . 1Provide circulation improvements to -accommodate development generated and through traffic while protecting impacts on existing neighborhoods. 3 .2 .2 Reconstruct the Bethel Island bridge and provide improvements to Cypress, Laurel and Bethel Island Roads. 3.2 . 3 Link planning area developments together with a system of open space corridors. Parks and Open Space 3.3 . 1 Provide three neighborhood parks of eight acres in size. 3 . 3 .2 Provide a fifteen-acre community park and a waterfront park. 3 . 3 . 3 Provide open space/noise buffers along arterial and collector roads. Water Recreation 3 .4 . 1 The Horseshoe Bend area should develop as a focal point of water-oriented recreation including marina and commercial uses and a waterfront park. 3-23 Development and the Potential Rise in Sea Level 3 . 5. 1 All housing will be constructed to meet the minimum finished floor elevation required by the standards of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and local authorities or be protected by a certified levee system consistent with FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers' standards. 3 . 5.2 Provisions shall be made to allow the raising of exterior levees in the event of a rise in sea level. Utilities 3 . 6. 1 Drainage of major roadways shall be in open ditches. 3 . 6.2 Drainage from new housing areas shall be piped systems. 3 . 6. 3 New drainage conveyances shall meet the requirements of the CCCFCWCD, BIMID and RD799. 3 . 6.4 Expand and improve sanitary sewage collection system and OBIWMA treatment plant to serve new growth. 3 . 6. 5 Serve water to new development from new, non-groundwater sources from outside the planning area. 3 . 6. 6 Utilize existing CSD wells and consider new interim wells until pumping- capacity is reached. 3 . 6.7 Prevent future non-conforming structures to be established and help eliminate existing encroachments. 3-24 3 . 6.8 Levee breaching is prohibited on the island but may be permitted off-island on a project-by-project basis. 3-25 4. Development Standards 4.1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The Specific Plan land use program designates the residential development -categories of Single Family Residential-Low. Density 1 - 2.9 dwelling units per net acre) , Single Family Residential- High Density (5-7.2 dwelling units per net acre) , Multiple Family Residential-Low Density (7.4-11.9 dwelling units per net acre) , Mobile Home Park (12-20.9 dwelling units per net acre) , and Agricultural Lands (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) . These categories describe base development densities permitted as a right expressed as net densities. Net density is calculated by dividing the total number of units proposed on a parcel by the total area of the parcel less 1) any public or private circulation improvements or 2) easements existing on the date this document is adopted or identified in this document. In addition to these base gross densities additional units may be allowed on a parcel if they meet the recreational residential, resort hotel development or public recreation bonus standards of this chapter or purchase development rights on agricultural land in the County. The proposed zoning will allow the developer to propose a variety of housing types. This chapter includes design standards for each housing type that might be proposed. 4-1 4.1.1 Residential Base Density zones A. Single Family Residential-Low Density The Single Family Residential-Low Density designation appears in the east and-southeast -portions of the island. This - designation shall be followed in the off-island Bonus Area if certain criteria is met (see Section 4. 1.2 . ) . Once a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter levee system on-island, the levee improvement plans are approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and BIMID, and subsidence impacts, as well as impacts on wetlands, are adequately mitigated, the on- island area will be permitted a density of 1-2 .9 dwelling units per net acre. Density: On-island: 1 dwelling unit per parcel Off island: 1-2 .9 dwelling units per net acre. B. Single Family Residential-High Density This Single Family Residential-High Density designation is shown on certain portions of the perimeter of the island and along a portion of Dutch Slough on Hotchkiss Tract. The intent is to maintain the existing land uses and to maximize access to and visibility of the Delta resource. Density: On-island: 1 unit per parcel Off-island: 5-7.2 units per net acre C. Multiple Family Residential-Low Density The Multiple Family Residential - Low Density designation maintains the existing land use generally located in the north east of the 4-2 off-island area along Dutch Slough Road and in the area north of Gateway Road in the on-island area. Density: On-island: 1 dwelling unit per parcel Off-island: 7.3-11.9 dwelling units per net acre D. Mobile Home Park The Mobile Home Park designation maintains the existing uses along Dutch Slough, Gateway Road, and along some portions of the perimeter of the island. Density: On-island: 1 dwelling unit per parcel or approved space Off-island: 12-20.9 dwelling units per net acre E. Agricultural Lands The Agricultural Lands designation appears in the north central section of the island and on the majority of the land in the off- island area. A density of 1-2.9 dwelling units per net acre will be allowed in the Bonus Area subject to the provisions of Section 4. 1.2 . of this Plan. Density: On-island: 1 dwelling unit per parcel Off-island: 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres 4.1.2 Bonus Residential Development Programs A. Operation of Bonusing Programs As mentioned in Chapter 3, 3, 000 total new residential units will be allowed in the off-island area under the Specific Plan. Ninety- 4-3 one of these units are already approved and are included in the total number. All bonus programs will be included within these total numbers. In the off-island bonus area, land will have the base entitlement of Agricultural Lands as indicated on the Land Use map (Figure 3.1) . These agricultural entitlements total 430 units. The remaining 2,909 units may be allowed under one or more of the following bonus programs. B. Off-Island Recreational Residential Bonus Program A bonus density zone is identified in the off-island area that would grant a significant residential bonus to projects that include a distinct, identifiable recreational character. This area east of Jersey Island Road has a base designation of General Agriculture Lands. Under this bonus program the allowable density would be increased from 0.2 (1 unit per 5 acres) to 1-2.9 units per net acre. The density bonus would be granted to planned residential projects that exhibit this recreational character through the inclusion of substantial recreational facilities. Examples of recreational amenities which may qualify the project for the bonus would include marinas or launching areas off the project site on Sandmound or Rock Sloughs, a sailing/boating club on a project lake, a lake community, an equestrian facility, a tennis club or golf course. The size and amount of facilities shall relate to the scale of the development with large projects providing more than smaller ones. These facilities shall be open to public use or membership, however, they may be commercial recreation ventures charging market rates for access and use. 4-4 C. Off-Island Purchase of Development Rights Program Agricultural Lands. Additional residential units shall be granted to a development project in the Off-Island Bonus Area if the development rights for one acre increments of land in the County with an Agricultural Lands designation are purchased and dedicated to the County. For each acre that is purchased, the existing density shall be increased by a 1/2 dwelling unit per net acre. Agricultural Core.Additional units shall be granted to a development project in the Off-Island Bonus Area if the development rights for one acre increments of land in the County with - an Agricultural Core designation are purchased and dedicated to the County. For each acre that is purchased, the existing density shall be increased by up to 3 dwelling units per net acre. D. Focused Bonus Programs There are two other programs that allow for development of residential units within the Bonus Area on Hotchkiss Tract in excess of the base density. They are as follows: 1. Hotel Bonus A maximum of 150 additional housing units will be granted to the first development that includes a recreation-oriented hotel located near Delta waters. This bonus is recommended in recognition that there is not a clearly established market for hotel facilities in the planning area and to enhance the resort destination goal of the plan. A development project that includes a hotel would not, by 4-5 right, be granted the additional housing bonus. Criteria for the awarding of a bonus are: s The hotel should have a minimum of 60 rooms. It shall be located near a waterway or lake and provide recreational amenities. The architectural and site design shall be of a style and materials appropriate to quality recreational accommodations. 2. Public Recreation SpacelFacilities Bonus All or a portion of an additional 150 residential units could be granted to a development project in the off-island Bonus Area that provides improved public recreation space or facilities above and beyond those required under the Plan's park dedication requirements. . An additional acre of improved recreation space will receive the development rights to build an additional four homes. A minimum of ten acres would be required to qualify for the bonus. The location of the recreational improvement may be within the project receiving the bonus or on another property located on the island or Bonus Area designation on Hotchkiss Tract. Criteria for the awarding of a bonus are: The recreational improvement should appeal to a broad range of interests and ages. The recreational uses should integrate with and enhance the surrounding land uses and unique physical attributes. 4-6 The recreational site should have easy, public accessibility. Siting off an Arterial or Major Collector roadway is essential with networking to as many other transportation possibilities encouraged (bicycle, pedestrian, boat, equestrian) . The recreational improvements should focus on outdoor activities. The recreational improvements should meet the needs and interests of the resident community as well as be attractive to visitors. Suggested program concepts include, but are not limited to, a waterside development on a lake or slough, an equestrian center, and a nature and environmental education center. As an• example, a waterside recreational development might include a boat launch, fishing pier, boat tie up docks, restrooms, drinking fountains, landscaped scenic walk and bikeways, shade pavilion with seating at an overlook, picnic facilities with adjacent tot lot and/or children's playground. 4.1.3 Residential Parking Requirements All residential units shall have parking spaces located off-street and on the lot improved with the units(s) . The spaces shall measure 9 by 19 feet and may be covered or uncovered except for apartments (3 or more units) where half of the spaces must be covered. The parking spaces may not be located in any set back area. The number of required spaces is as follows: single-family detached 2 spaces 4-7 condominium 2 spaces per unit duplex 2 spaces per unit apartments: studio 1 space 1 bedroom unit 1 spaces 2 or more bedroom unit 2 spaces PLUS guest parking a space per unit fractional amounts are rounded up. Guest parking may include the curbing at the street frontage. 4.1.4 Residential Design Guidelines A. Overall Concepts Design concepts which are to be included in Final Development Plans are as follows: 1. When designing the development, create buffers between residential, commercial, and public uses with landscaping. 2 . Uses at the edge of new developments shall be compatible with adjacent existing development. The character and scale of the new neighborhood shall complement the adjacent neighborhoods, although it is not necessary that they be identical. 3 . The development shall be designed so that the streets, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle ways connect with the appropriate neighborhood open space and park system. 4. Residential development designs shall avoid long, straight streets. Where a street must be long, it shall be curved such that there is an off-set equal to the width of the street over 4-8 a viewing distance. This will help to reduce speeding and noise impacts on adjacent homes. 5. Development projects shall provide internal access ways between multi-family, and single-family areas. 6. Multi-family units shall either have enclosed parking or small grouped parking areas centralized between and visible to the units they serve. Parking areas shall also be visible from the adjacent street to provide safety and allow easy police surveillance; however, landscaped berming shall be provided in the setback to minimize visual impacts. Parking areas which completely surround a building shall be avoided. 7. Where significant visual features have been identified in the process of site design, views of these features from roads and future development shall be preserved where practical. Homes shall be oriented to maximize view opportunities, but unrestricted views shall not be expected and the privacy of others shall not be unduly sacrificed. 8. While maintaining good circulation, street orientation shall allow for a passive solar benefit. For example, residential streets running east and west allow the face and rear of houses to be oriented to the north and south, thus allowing the greatest access for solar heating and cooling. 9. Special care shall be exercised to ensure that multi-story structures do not obstruct solar access of adjacent single- story structures. 10. Within each subdivision, provide a unit mix and exterior building design variation. 4-9 11. Residential subdivisions shall avoid creating double and/or reversed frontage lots, except where necessary to provide separation from collector streets or to overcome specific disadvantages of orientation. 12 . Unit setbacks from streets shall be varied to provide a more interesting streetscape. 13 . A landscape maintenance district should be created in order to provide continuing maintenance of landscape zones adjacent to arterial and collector roadways. These landscape zones, including typical sections and planting materials, are specified under Section 4.5.4, Streetscapes. 14 . In existing neighborhoods, new developments, and along existing barrier levees, no new structure -- residential or otherwise -- shall encroach into setbacks (from levee centerline) established and enforced by BIMID or RD-799. B. Residential Prototypes 1. The Concept of Prototypes Residential prototypes presented in the following figures are examples of configurations of residential developments on lakes that achieve the goals of the plan and address the more routine issues of setback and minimum finish floor elevations. While these may graphically indicate a single-family or multi-family unit it should be understood that the full range of permitted housing type could be substituted for those shown. 4-10 2 . Maximum Building Heights, Minimum Finish Floors and Sideyard Setbacks All residential units, with „the exception of hotels, are limited to two stories of living space with the building height not to exceed 30.0 feet. A modification of this 30-foot limit may be granted based upon design review in the event "pole type” construction is proposed in an area where existing grade is cur- rently considerably below sea level.However, "pole type" development or stilt structures are not aesthetically pleasing and are not preferred in the planning area.Stilt residential structures shall be permitted on the basis of one unit per existing parcel.Such structures shall not be permitted in any new subdivisions. Hotels shall be restricted to a 50-foot height limit with a variation in this maximum allowable in the event the pro- posal is found to be of exceptional design. In addition, building envelope as viewed from any roadway of existing grade to housing on a new levee shall be governed by Figure 4.1. Because the planning area is in a flood hazard area, the finished floor of the living space must be at 'or above the +10.0 foot elevation (unless it is protected by a levee as specified in Section 4 .7 to meet mandatory flood protection standards of the Federal Emergency Management Administration) . Likewise, levees must be built to this same +10 foot elevation to provide flood protection, as described in Section 4.7. All reference to finish floor elevations of +10.0 shall mean the current minimum finish floor requirement of the County. Should this minimum be officially revised, either upward or downward, then all provisions of this document shall adopt the revised elevation. Setbacks are, however, specified at new barrier levees and along major roadways.Figure 4.2 indicates the minimum allowable building configuration where a new barrier levee might be proposed 4-11 Allowable Building Envelope Any Road at Existing Grade EL 0 or Below) Top of Slope ti . ia2iQ Min.Dimension Required Noise Buffer (See text) Allowable Building Envelope at New Levee Mhoo Wand arr98 Man Scale:1"=20, Fig. 4.1 yee terioY lleeptua Dia ram FIG d..Sunk Glad e i' U/ 'f ' 1! ig• 4'2 a1p Seetlo Q hoc to along a proposed or existing road constructed at existing grade of elevation 0. 0 or lower. This indicates the limits of this setback based both on maximum slope and noise setback criteria. In order to meet noise standards within residential units and so as to -dispense with the need for sound barrier walls, minimum setback from the centerline of roadways to exterior walls of housing units shall be as follows: Roadway Minimum Noise Designation Setback Arterials 200 feet Collectors 100 feet Residential Streets None Required Side yard setbacks are not specified for Lake Prototypes to add flexibility in project design and housing type. A full range of housing types - single-family detached, zero lot line, duplex and multi-family residential, (with the exception of multi-family development on finger levees) are acceptable. Sideyard setbacks will be reviewed through the Final Development Plan process. Evaluation criteria are: 1. A structure should not block solar access for heating and cooling purposes from a residence. 2. Space between buildings should increase in relation to their height and mass. 3. Periodic view corridors to the water should be provided. 4-12 C. Lake Prototypes 1. Levee Development; Lake Setting Figure 4.3 illustrates a double loaded levee on a lake. The first floor living space is at grade on the +101 elevation levee top. Units are accessed by a two lane local road on the levee top. Right-of-way: minimum width of 44' Lot: minimum width 60' minimum depth 80' to top of levee slope Minimum setbacks: 251 front 20' rear and/or 101 to top of levee slope 2. Levee Development with Dual Access Figure 4.3 illustrates a double loaded levee with the primary access on the levee and a service lane to the garages of the residences on the outer side of the levee. Housing type is not restricted. Living levels are at grade on the top of +10 elevation levee. Garages are built into the side of the levee on the outer side of the levee. The split level design nestled into the levee provides a softening of the visual heights as seen from afar. Right-of-way: minimum width of 44' for local road minimum width of 281 for service lane Lot: minimum width 60' minimum depth is 80' to top of levee slope 4-13 V) M' 03 v Vi N L1 U V A q N ti ry pq O F 44 cu 47 N ro O 0000 O 00 C ca PM4 p CA o I V oZ z O fV Q moi• A Q PPZ Ft pmmq a ' a pm v POM ca ca PC o r b u C3 o f En W IC,3b Iyl 00 M 00 u Q o Q80a N 40. o O to y 00 00 d A QO Minimum setbacks: 20' front 10' rear and/or 10' to top of levee slope 3 . Flood Protection Levee with Lower, Inner Ring of Development on Lake Figure 4.4 illustrates development and an access road on top of a levee which meet the flood protection elevation of +10' surrounding a lower inner ring of development on a lake. Living levels are at grade on both levels. The living level on the inner development ring can be less than +10 feet of elevation because it is enclosed by the levee which meets the flood protection standards. Units are accessed by a two-lane local road located on the upper portion of the levee. Off-street parking for the lower level residences can be on the same level as the residence or provided by detached parking decks located immediately behind the front setback (no garages or carports are permitted which would impact views) . Lower level parking may be open or enclosed and must be provided with turn-around in order to avoid long, uphill backing on sloped driveways. Mutual access driveways and turn around easements between lower level units are encouraged to minimize driveway cuts and paving. Provision of guest parking area at the lower level is encouraged. For lower level development, drain(s) and a 20 grade on driveways outside garages are recommended to avoid storm runoff from entering the garage. Right-of-way: minimum width of 44' Lot: minimum width 601 minimum depth for levee top lots 80, to top of slope minimum depth for lakeside lots 80' from lake edge to bottom of transition grade 4-14 C v1 V + O 1 a ray 1 U p 001, I` 4e y` 04 tsl f A O 0II. to r A a 09 d H o G' oL oo C 1 U Al. v 3 transition grade/driveway slope not to exceed 20% grade Minimum setbacks: 25' front 101 rear and/or 101 to top of levee slope or lake edge 4. Transitional Grade Development Figure 4.4 illustrates development on a transitional grade between a flood protection levee (+10' elevation) adjacent to a lake or lagoon and the ungraded surrounding lower lands. The living level of the residences on the transitional grade is raised to meet the flood protection requirements, but by no more than 6 feet above grade. The grade level of the residence may be used for non- habitable purposes only. A two-lane local road located on the transitional grade provides access. Right-of-Way: minimum width 44' Lot: minimum width 60' minimum depth 80' to levee or graded slope Minimum setbacks: 251 front 101 rear to levee or graded slope The foregoing lake prototypes are not intended to be inclusive. Other lake prototypes and housing mixes-that -achieve the same goal of a diversified and attractive water recreational community may be considered at the time of project approval. 4-15 4.1.5 In-Fill Development In-fill residential development is expected on existing undeveloped, legal lots which cannot be further subdivided. The sizes of the lots vary and are located on and off levees. For those residences whose first floor living is raised above grade to meet the flood protection standard, the grade level should be, at least, partially enclosed to provide a visually solid base to the raised area. A minimum of 1/3 of the square footage of the first floor living area is recommended for grade area enclosure. The enclosing walls must be constructed in a manner that will permit detachment under pressure from the structural support members in the event of flooding. The enclosed space may be used for non-habitable purposes such as garage or storage. 4.1.6 Clustered Residential Development on Agricultural Designated Land Outside the Bonus Area A. General The Specific Plan land use program designates Agriculture Lands at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. The goals of the community are to maintain the rural character and the open space quality of the land. In support of these goals the following approach is provided for the development of Agricultural Lands rather than the subdivision of parcels into 5 acre lots as allowed by the traditional Agriculture Lands designation. The intent is to allow the owners of agricultural property to derive an equivalent amount of benefit that they might realize under the traditional zoning designations without actually dividing the land 4-16 into the 5 acre parcels. The Agriculture Clustering concept is included as the most desirable means of affecting those goals. Under the Plan, the subdivision of a parcel categorized as Agricultural Lands outside the bonus area is required to develop under this clustering concept. The development potential of such a parcel is defined as the number of housing units allowed under the Plan designation (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) . The clustering concept allows the subdivider to locate this development potential on one area of the property while agreeing to restrict development on the remainder of the land. In the developed portion of the parcel the lots can be much smaller than the 1 per 5 acre minimum. The mechanisms for accomplishing clustered development are a Final Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map. A condition of the subdivision shall require that development rights to the agricultural "parent" parcel be dedicated to the County. This deed shall state what the remaining development potential is, if any, or that the parcel may not be further subdivided in the event that the maximum gross density of the original parcel has been fully developed. Such entities as a home association or public trust and/or other public entity could assume responsibility for the remainder parcel. B. Final Development Plan Procedure The applicant shall submit, as part of the final development plan application, a statement by the applicant/property owner identifying the property's agricultural and environmental resources and/or constraints. 4-17 C. Agricultural Cluster Standards 1. Limited Access to Collector/Arterial-Roadway New development shall be located on cul-de-sac streets meeting County--development standards and offered for public dedication. Access points to the collector/arterial shall be located to provide sight distance in accordance with Chapter 82-18 of the Zoning Ordinance and appropriate distance from intersections in order to maximize the consistent flow of traffic. New development shall not access four-lane divided arterials (portions of Bethel Island Road and Cypress Road) unless no other viable alternative is available. 2 . Buffer Between Agricultural Land and Residential Development Residences can be subject to dust, noise, odor and the drift of pesticide spray from adjacent agricultural land. To mitigate the impacts, habitable structures should be well removed from the edge of the agricultural property. A restricted building setback strip of 100, width shall be required. The deeds to the clustered residential properties shall contain a notification to all potential property owners that the property is in an agricultural district and may be subject to the above impacts. 3 . Noise Buffers In order to meet minimum traffic generated noise levels at the homes -and to achieve this level without the need for the sound- barrier wall, the minimum setbacks specified in paragraph 4. 1.4 .B.2 are required from the centerline of roadways to the exterior walls of any living area. some exceptions may be granted for existing in-fill lots. 4-18 4. Ownership of buffer areas Noise and agricultural buffers shall be held in fee by the individual property owners of the clustered units. 5. Landscaping Landscaping shall be required for the perimeter of the clustered development as viewed from the roadway. Typical front yard landscaping shall be installed on all lots. 6. Residential Design There shall be harmonious color and texture between the residence and any detached structures. The clustered lots may be filled to the flood protection level, partially filled, or not filled. For residences whose first floor living is raised to meet the flood protection level, the grade level of the residences should be, at least, partially enclosed to provide a visually solid base to the raised area. A minimum of 1/3 of the square footage of the first floor living area is recom- mended for grade area enclosure. The enclosing walls must be constructed in a manner that will permit detachment under pressure from the structural support members in the event of flooding. The enclosed space shall be used for nonhabitable purposes such as garage or storage. 4-19 D. Residential Lot Requirements 1. Lot size Lot area, including any restricted buffer area, shall not be less than 10;840 square feet --(1/4 acre) nor exceed 21,780 square feet 1/2 acre) with the following exception: 25% of the total number of clustered lots may be 43,560 square feet (1 acre) in size, provided the lots are contiguous to one another, and include the required agricultural buffer setbacks. For lots adjacent to lakes created in the Off-Island Bonus Area, lot size and configurations shall be in conformance with the standards established in the Specific Plan for residential developments. 2. Lot width Average lot width shall not be less than 70 feet. 3 . Setbacks Front: There shall be a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet for any structure. Side: No side yard shall be less than 10 feet wide measured from the property line or 100 feet against agricultural land. These minimum requirements may be reduced to three feet for an accessory building or -structure if it is set back at--least 50 feet from the front property line. Rear: There shall be a rear yard setback for any principal structure of at least 15 feet measured from the property line or 100 feet against agricultural land. 4-20 There shall be a rear yard for accessory structures of at least 3 feet. E. Cluster Prototypes Examples of new residential unit clustering on Agricultural Lands are shown on Figures 4.5 and 4.6. 4.2 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT The Specific Plan has three commercial land use designations: Local Commercial, Marina Commercial and Commercial Recreation. Development Standards and Design Guidelines are discussed in the following sections. 4.2.1 Local Commercial The Local Commercial designation recognizes and allows for the expansion of the existing commercial core along Bethel Island Road, on both sides of the ,bridge. The intent of the designation is to support existing businesses and further the variety of services and retail products available to residents and visitors. See Figures 4.7 and 4.8. Lot area and width: All buildings or parts of buildings hereafter erected or altered for new use for business shall be situated on a lot at least thirty-five hundred square feet in area, and at least thirty-five feet in average width. Existing developed lots of smaller size may continue as a business use. Yards: None required. See design standards. 4-21 Ail 00 w i r r• r r PM r r 6 0tpa ell 4bA C4e cd CV 1 W S 94 00 wnwiuijq V i r a 00z rte'' / r , /+' ` R t O . 4tica cl it t . „' 1 'Z!j• N o" o a J t cV 1 oot oc 201001100 QO e0 a w 1. F"r M a V V+'I G W Il O O d pca N N wt WIum IPA. N cn 4S Q O 11 b L_-J t_ let OLT da. LV Community Park Z C M2 Gateway Rd. trvr vrr-1'x'1 i o}s •}" t+c.- L tGY' Gav»ne Gt Cay. t Cottage Ln. M Taylor Rd. \ il Sandy Ln. detiv ttvt T M 35 D.G , p Ranch Ln. 13Ta,, Q 1 v 4 —Stone Rd. Sl o op a U f Amf1t4]1?tlfzll l Dutch S tou ggt, QDv Dutch Slough Rd. ' Lav cv Go'''lev t E rwOV'G fj QVC- vid,,o t . pv>.it ry v{v vG hI Wells Rd. j• L_ Sandmound Blvd. MW MEnd Qu,(Ba Urban Design and Land Use Fig. 4.7 d C V Community Park 7a;acc i P aa2rvrGeTI l rIP Ip E-xrh i h!yCe14W- n ovti 1 I lo-} i tn0` I Cottage- Ln. n 1A Taylor Rd.p Sandy Ln. I Ranch Ln. Levee • Q&&45,, 2kL 0 6$ o,. Stone Rd. 0 less m Dutch Slou h Dutch Slough Rd. VeIMGvlc4v ring Lt I P Wells Rd. p Sandmound Blvd V . P i j MR MW Oaknd &a Ga Circulation and Parking Fig. 4.8 poc 6c paw Height: Maximum of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. A modification of this 35' limit may be granted based upon design review in the event npole types construction is proposed in an area where existing grade is currently considerably below sea level. Hotels shall be restricted to a 50-foot height limit with a variation in this maximum allowable in the event the proposal is found to be of exceptional design. Coverage: The building(s) shall not cover more than 35 percent of the square footage of the parcel. Permitted uses: Shall include the following and other uses of like character: bakery, barber and beauty shops, delicatessen restaurants, drug store, grocery, clothing store, laundry and dry cleaning agencies, meat market, hardware store, variety store video rentals, shoe repair, professional offices including real estate, banks and financial institutions, and doctor's offices, commercial marinas, boat sales and rentals, boat engine repair. Uses requiring a use permit: Detached single-family residences, duplexes, apartments, gasoline service stations, car/boat wash, restaurants with take-out foods and/or outdoor eating areas, signs that exceed the provisions above.. Signs: Monument signs are permitted providing they do not exceed 40 square feet of surface area, 8 feet in height, and do not rotate, flash or have animation. Double faced signs are regarded as having a single surface. 4-22 4.2.2 Marina Commercial The Marina Commercial land use designation is assigned to points along the sloughs for development supportive of water recreation, especially boating. Lot area and width: Lots shall have a minimum area of 6, 000 square feet and a minimum width of 60 feet. Yards: Ten foot structure setback from levee's top of slope on the water side. No other setbacks required, (see guidelines) , except that BIMID/RD 799 levee encroachment regulations shall be observed. Height: Maximum of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. A modification of this limit may be granted based upon design review in the event "pole type" construction is proposed in an area where existing grade is currently considerably below sea level. Hotels shall be restricted to a 50-f6ot height limit with a variation in this maximum allowable in the event the proposal is found to be of exceptional design. Coverage: The building(s) shall not cover more than 35 percent of the square footage of the parcel. Parking areas/structures are excluded from coverage calculations. Permitted uses: Commercial marinas, boat and bicycle rentals, boat charter, boat sales, boat launch, boat engine repair conducted within an enclosed building, retail stores including chandlery, bait and tackle, clothing store, delicatessen groceries, bakery, drug stores, restaurants on parcels within 200 feet of the water's edge, public and private parks/picnic/tennis facilities, fishing pier, cocktail lounges, any other waterfront or marine facilities proposed on the inside of the levee system and similar uses. 4-23 Uses requiring a use permit: Any marine or waterfront facility proposed on the outside (Delta side) of the levee system, detached single-family residential, duplexes, condominiums, apartments, gasoline service station, car wash, dry boat storage, RV park, hotels and motels, seasonal clubs and camps, lodging house/bed and breakfast, restaurants with take-out food and/or outdoor eating areas. 4.2.3 Commercial Recreation The Commercial Recreation designation has been assigned to an undeveloped area at the north of the island, to areas along the east side of the island and to areas east of Jersey Island Road along Dutch Slough where substantial new development could take place. The intent is to create a resort atmosphere with water access and orientation. Lot area and width: Lots shall have a minimum lot area of 6, 000 square feet and a minimum width of 60 feet in width. Yards: 10 foot structure setback from levee's top of slope on the water side. No other setbacks required, see guidelines. Height: Maximum of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. A modification of this 35' limit may be granted based upon design review in the event "pole type" construction is proposed in an area where existing grade is currently considerably below sea level. Hotels shall be restricted to a 50-foot height limit with a variation in this maximum allowable in the event the proposal is found to be of exceptional design. 4-24 Coverage: The building(s) shall not cover more than 35 percent of the square footage of the parcel. Parking areas/structures are excluded from coverage calculations. Permitted uses: Hotels and motels, lodging house/bed and breakfast, timeshare units; commercial marina, boat launch, fishing piers, boat rental/charter, retail marine supplies, specialty stores, groceries, delicatessen, bakery, drug store, boat sales, convention/meeting facilities, restaurants, parks, picnic areas, tennis courts, golf course, equestrian facilities, beauty and barber shops, banks and financial institutions, medical clinics and offices, dental office, theaters, cocktail lounges, any other waterfront or marine facility proposed on the inside of the levee system and similar uses. Uses requiring a use permit: Gasoline service stations, car/boat wash, professional offices including medical office, clinic, dental office, restaurants with take-out foods and/or outdoor eating areas, and any waterfront or marine facialities. proposed on the outside (Delta side) of the levee system. 4.2.4 Commercial Parking Requirements Commercial parking requirements are as specified in Chapter 82-16 of the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. 4.2.5 Commercial Design Guidelines a) For parcels with frontage on Bethel Island Road, primary business entrances should face Bethel Island Road. A central plaza located off the street frontage may be proposed, however, the side of the development along Bethel Island Road 4-25 must reinforce the commercial image of the street. See Figure 4.9. b) Parcels adjacent to waterways shall have development oriented to the water. c) Parking shall be provided at the side or rear of buildings. Curb cuts on Bethel Island Road for driveway access to rear parking shall be limited. Mutual access easements between parcels is encouraged. See Figure 4.10. d) Entryways to parking lots should be well defined and recognizable to the motorists and include elements such as lighting and signage. e) No less than 20% of the net site shall be landscaped. The perimeter of the parking area shall have a landscape strip not less than five feet wide to provide separation between vehicles and pedestrians. For security purposes, landscaping shall not obscure view of building entrances or activities in the parking area. See Figure 4.7 for design concepts. f) Both perimeter and interior landscaping shall consist of canopy-type trees. The location and spacing of trees is dependent on the type of tree used, but the effect should be a consistent tree cover which will provide shade. Generally, a tree should be installed for every five to eight parking spaces. These trees can help provide an identifiable image to the commercial center. The use of turf in the narrow planting islands is discouraged. g) The plant palette should be relatively limited and applied in groupings of similar species rather than a few plants of many 4-26 5 N 9 Community Park m CH t Gatewav Rd. T ywG't Gth hv'r y alarm LdG'i^tati Ginni . Cottage Ln n 4 Taylor Rd. Sandy Ln. Ranch Ln. 13 Stone Rd. j(j,Vo. Cor.f taGghaXI7G 1U{ t-0 YCA4 .t v}J mrnmtrnzmnm II Dutch St_ ougt CI1 4 Dutch Slough Rd. s'rrtnV:5 gF4WIAI;ko,tkal , u V:5 014 ve - t Wells Rd L a 5 k fi aloes ct lava hit. f D Z P e.t..a. t Sandmound Blvd au as - Conceptual .Landscape Treatment Fig.4.9 Typical Existing Conditions Numerous Curb Cuts Inconsistent Signage, Landscape, etc. Building Facades Interrupted and Oriented Away From Street G Residential Mixed with Commercial Chain Link Fencing at Street Edge i o 4000, r Proposed Conditions rg '' C Curb Cuts Limited Parking at Rear Consistent Signage, Landscape, etc. Retail Entrances Face Bethel Island Road Buffer to Residential Land Use Provided All Chain Link Fencing and Similar Structures Prohibited Along Retail Frontages Fig 4.10 Existing Commercial District- spscVc pogn Design Concepts I different species planted together.The use of water conserving plants, such as California natives and drought tolerant trees, shrubs and turf is encouraged. h) Live plant materials should be used in all landscaped areas. The use of gravel, colored rock, bark and other similar materials are not acceptable as a sole ground cover material. i) Automatic irrigation is required for all landscape areas. Plants should be watered and maintained on a regular basis. Irrigation systems should be designed so as not to overspray walks, buildings, parking areas, etc. The use of water conserving systems such as drip irrigation for shrub and tree planting is encouraged, and the water conservation policies of the Contra Costa County Water District shall be met in any new development. j) New commercial development and remodels shall utilize design elements which give the construction a human scale and result in a consistent village character. Recommended elements include frequent business entrances, display windows, arcades, benches, and low height light standards. See Figure 4.11. k) New commercial developments shall establish sign programs specifying the style, material, color and sizes of signs for the complex within the provisions enumerated in the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. Existing commercial buildings with multiple tenants shall be required to develop a consistent design approach to signing. 1) All exterior trash enclosures, storage structures, transformers, and service areas shall be screened from view. 4-27 Ob 40 Humanscale"Elements at Street Edge- Large Display Windows,Eye-Level Signage,Landscaping,Lighting,Benches,etc, j, Existing Sidewalk I width varies) Or Covered"Porch"/Portico t Landscaped Area iProposedPlan Commercial Frontagesntages Along > Bethel Island Road g 4L 6__L• maximum Fig. 4.11 8 hso Wand &T&E Commercial Frontages:. p Bethel Island Road m) The design of fencing, trash enclosures and similar accessory site elements shall be compatible with the architecture of the building and should use similar materials. n) For exterior lighting, both the fixtures and the overall lighting scheme shall be conceived as part of the architectural and landscape design statements for a project. Area lighting should be directed predominantly downward and shall be placed to prevent glare or excessive spray of light on neighboring sites. Pedestrian walkways, plazas or other activity points should be illuminated. 4.3 PUBLIC SERVICES Most of the public services currently have facilities located outside the planning area. See Figure 4.12. The Sheriff has the Delta Station located in Oakley. The Oakley Fire Protection District, which serves south-western portions of the off island area, has a first response station located in Knightsen with a back-up station in Oakley. The single public service with a facility presently located in the planning area is the Bethel Island Fire Protection District with a station on Ranch Lane in the commercial core of Bethel Island. The Bethel Island Fire District's jurisdiction covers the island and approximately 40% of the off-island area. The off-island jurisdiction- covers a-rectangular area from Jersey Island Road to Sand Mound Slough with a southerly panhandle covering the development along Sand Mound Boulevard. As development takes place, the Ranch Lane facility will need to be expanded to a full service facility. Two additional 4-28 i I J r Frank=s, Tract 00 Jersey Island Bethel Island I 0Bethelsiah Holland Tract f' GFireProtection Stminnrf f ... w( ntra Costa Oakley Sheriffs Station 4" Oakley Fire-- w y - f C r e .,; . >-. '. ProtecuonrStatiotn, ` i d Oakley Protection Station Brentwood}„ .: T a. I I 6%TSae Fire Protection Districts, Sheriff and Fire Stations apaCM(D Flo le Y Bethel Island Fire Protection District FIG. '4 12 Q Oakley Fire Protection District 4 Sheci[Ps• and Fire Protection Station, 000 WOOo substations, one in the northern portion and one in southern portion of the planning area, may be needed to maintain satis- factory response time. The financing plan, detailed in Chapter 5, provides funds for police, fire and school capital improvements at various increments of development. The only facility construction within the planning area that can be expected with a degree of certainty is the expansion of the Bethel Island Fire District Station to a full service facility. Approximately 3.5 acres of land adjacent to the present site would have to be purchased to accommodate the new construction. Anticipation of need, budgeting, and construction are expected to be timely. The Board of Supervisors has approved five year plans to forecast budgetary needs and Contra Costa County fire districts have retained a consultant to facilitate their planning. 4.4 PUBLIC SCHOOLS The planning area falls within the jurisdiction of three school districts: Oakley Union and Knightsen School District for kindergarten through eighth grades, and Liberty Union High School District. Figure 4.13. Each of the districts cover broad land areas, and children are bussed to school. The Oakley Union School District has an elementary school at Sand Hill and a middle school in Oakley. The Oakley area has been in a period of continuous growth, consequently the schools located within the Oakley School District are over enrolled and new facilities are being planned. Maximum development of the Bethel Island Area under this Plan is expected to generate approximately 1, 650 elementary school and 850 middle school students. With these numbers of new students, the construction of two elementary schools and one middle school will be required. 4-29 11.4 1• fr i. .: c ti r r c c e :. .. . . . . . . . X t yl• 1t ._ Q . S`, i.L h1,.{ \ . . . . ., 1Fftd Go . . Tract: . . . . ; 7/11 Bethel Is1an-d c-ate: I^y'' x.- V;,' `.• o 3©llandlracr. fGor - _ -_, Oakley. Oak-ley r= Middle School fix u 1 . . .Gehringeri` e _ Element School + jj iE nightse Elementary School 1 f z IL 1 kS Liberty Union _. x °'• F 1 High School; 3 Brentwood c 4• Mhso WEfldd ,n p32, School Districts and School Locations FIG. 4. 13 S Q Ccd ft PQ o n Knightsen Oakley Union School District School District 1111111 Liberty Union High School Locations School District 0 4000 E000 I The Knightsen School District covers a small southerly portion of the planning area. The sole school in the district, Knightsen School in Knightsen, is essentially at capacity, but presently the school population is stable. Because the majority of planning area that is within this school district is designated as bonus density area, it is difficult to project what the ultimate student generation would be. The base Agricultural Lands density could generate 36 students; if the bonus provisions are maximized conceivably 222 students could be generated. The potential impact to the school thus ranges between an expansion of the school to development of a "starter" school, a small new facility for a few grades. The Liberty Union High School District covers a broad territory ranging from Brentwood to the planning area and draws students from Oakley, Sand Hill, Knightsen, Brentwood, Discovery Bay, and Byron in addition to the Bethel Island Area. The single existing high school, Liberty Union, located in Brentwood, is also over enrolled. The school district has recently received funding for the high school's expansion and acquisition of a second school site in Oakley. Including the continued use of portable classrooms, the student occupancy at Liberty High could be increased from 1,200 to 2,200. As the school approaches its ultimate capacity, the school district will apply for State school construction funds to build the second high school in Oakley. The maximum build-out scenario for the Bethel Island Area estimates a maximum high school student generation of 747 students, equivalent to a third of a large school's population. 4-30 The Specific Plan's financing plan provides funding for school construction and/or expansion based on projected student generation rates per unit. For details, refer to Chapter 5. There are several factors which make the construction of any school in the Bethel Island planning area unlikely to be approved by the California Department of Education. The Department, in reviewing construction proposals, must evaluate alternative locations within the school district. The safety of the students is a prime consideration in the evaluation. The Bethel Island planning area, which a few spot exceptions, is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 100-year flood hazard area. This means the area is at a one percent risk of flooding in any given year. Additionally, the planning area is potentially subject to liquefaction under earthquake conditions, and the island itself is accessed only by a single bridge. The concerns are that students could be put at risk in a planning area school through earthquake damage to the building or through flood and curtailed emergency egress. Areas outside the planning area, but within the school district, however, are out of the flood hazard area, have more stable soils, and can be served by better access.Because of this, the Department of Education may require construction outside the planning area. The site location would not be limited by zoning districts as schools are permitted in all zones. The Oakley Union School District has developed the following preliminary criteria for selection of school sites: 1. Schools should be spread out in the district to maximize the opportunity for neighborhood children to walk to schools close to their homes. 4-31 2 . Schools serving the Bethel Island Area students should be located as close as possible to the planning area for the convenience of the students and to minimize the cost of bussing. 3 . Schools should be located to provide appropriate fire and bus access. 4 . School sites should provide the flexibility to meet demographic changes. 4.5 PARRS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION Park standards vary typically from a factor of from 2 .5 to 5 acres per 1, 000 persons to determine the amount of neighborhood and community parks required. Because of the unique nature of the Bethel Island development which will include wetlands, water areas and marina space, the amount of formal neighborhood park space is planned at 2 .5 acres per 1, 000 persons and will result in the need for approximately 40 acres of park area. In addition, a community park and waterfront are planned at 1.5 acres per 1,000 persons and shall consist of a minimum of 15 acres each. The wetlands and water areas plus buffer areas developed during the design phase will result in a high percentage of open space and recreation area. The park planned at the north of the island must be a waterfront park. Park and open space improvements should be designed to promote personal security and minimize the incident of vandalism. The following methods are recommended to achieve these goals: 4-32 a) Walkways should be designed to provide clear visibility of approaching persons and away from hedges or trees that would provide concealment. b) Entrances to the area should be limited and within view of persons passing by, or in adjacent buildings. c) Buildings should be located close to police access roads, in well populated activity areas, and oriented for entrances to be in public view. d) Night lighting should be even (without shadows to aid in concealment) along walkways, in parking areas, around buildings, and throughout any evening activity area. Parks should be designed for a wide range of ages with special attention given to the recreational needs of the substantial number of senior citizens living in the planning area. Separation should be created between active playground equipment for children and areas with facilities attractive to adults. The parks should be handicapped accessible and provide seating areas, formal and informal, with summer shading. 4.5.1 Neighborhood Parks A. Neighborhood parks are a minimum of 8 acres in size and located in areas of highest potential population density. Other criteria for siting include proximity to: 1. collector roadways and off-street bicycle pathways to maximize accessibility and support recreational bicycling; 4-33 2. the visual amenities provided by the canals on- and off- island; and 3. potential equestrian trails off-island. B. Features of -neighborhood-parks should include: 1. contoured grading; 2. a mix of shade trees; and 3 . retention and incorporation of mature trees where available; 4. active and passive activity areas; 5. drinking fountains and public restrooms; and 6. orientation to significant vistas. C. Recommended recreational facilities include: 1. sand play areas, slides, climbing apparatus swings, wading pool or other water play feature; 2 . baseball and soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts, sport walls, general purpose lawn areas, picnic and barbecue areas; and 3 . putting green, paddle tennis court, fixed tables and seats for' card playing, horseshoe pit, and bocce ball court. 4-34 4.5.2 Community Park . A 15 acre community park is designated for a mid-island location adjacent to the town center. (See Figure 3.1) . The finance plan provides funds for the acquisition and improvement of this facility. A. Siting criteria shall include proximity to: 1. highest potential population density; 2 . existing commercial core; 3. major collector roads - Bethel Island Road - and adjacent bicycle path; and 4. visual amenity of the canal and potential development of wetlands, as the area is designated for enhancement when off-site mitigation is required for development elsewhere in the planning area. B. Features of the community park (and waterfront park) should include: 1. contoured grading; 2. a mix of shade trees; 3 . retention and incorporation of mature trees where available; 4. active and passive activity areas; and 4-35 5. parking areas separated from the roadway; C. Recommended recreational facilities include: 1. community meeting building with kitchen; 2 . amphitheater with stage; 3 . multi-purpose paved area for large group use (e.g. air fair, reception, classes) ; 4. gardens; 5. promenade; 6. water feature; and 7. any of the facilities listed under Neighborhood Parks. 4.5.3 Bonus Public Recreation Space/Facilities All or a portion of an additional 150 residential units could be granted to a development project in the Residential or Bonus Area that provides improved public recreation space or facilities beyond those required under the County's standard park dedication requirements. An additional acre of improved recreation space will receive the development rights to build an additional four homes. A minimum of ten acres would be required to qualify for the bonus. The location of the recreational improvement may be within the project receiving the bonus or on another property located within the Residential or Off-Island Bonus Area designations. 4-36 Criteria for the awarding of a bonus are: a) The recreational improvement shall appeal to a broad range of interests and ages. b) The recreational uses shall integrate with and enhance the surrounding land uses and unique physical attributes. c) The recreational site shall have easy, multi-modal public accessibility. Siting off an Arterial or Major Collector roadway is essential with networking to as many other transportation modalities as possible encouraged (bicycle, pedestrian, boat, equestrian) . d) The recreational improvement shall achieve design excellence in function and in creating a physically attractive environment. e) The recreational improvements shall focus on outdoor activities. f) The recreational improvements shall meet the needs and interests of the resident community as well as be attractive to visitors. Suggested program concepts include, but are not limited to, a development along a slough or waterway, an equestrian center, or a nature center. As an example, a waterside development might include a boat launch, fishing pier, boat tie up docks, restrooms, drinking fountains, landscaped scenic walk and bikeways, shade pavilion with seating at an overlook, picnic facilities with adjacent tot lot and/or children's playground. 4-37 4.5.4 Streetscapes Along the four-lane divided arterial and major collector roadways, a publicly maintained landscape zone should be provided to create a visually attractive buffer between the roadway and adjacent residential developments. The width of the- strip, measured from edge of the right-of-way, should be as shown in Figures 4.14 through 4.17. Maintenance should be provided by a landscape maintenance district. a) A bicycle and pedestrian path should be provided within the landscape zone as indicated in the figures. Where appropriate, a separate lane for equestrian use should be provided. b) The character and "feel" of the design for the landscape zones shall be similar to the existing rural setting. Vegetation shall be kept low and consist predominately of grass and wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and trees. Tree massing should occur in riparian areas or where screening is desired. Irrigation is to be kept to a minimum and used only in special areas where increased water is necessary to achieve desired planting effects. c) Due to the extensive hydric/alkaline soils found throughout the planning area, the following plant materials that can thrive under those conditions are recommended: Low Growing Grasses as Legumes Latin Name Common Name Comments Briza maxima Quaking Grass A) White flower Bromus mollis Blando Brome A) Good erosion control Lotus corniculatus Bird's-Foot Trefoil (P) Deep rooted Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass P) Clumping grass Trifolium tragiferum O'Conners strawberry(P) Good erosion control clover 4-38 to u. 01a to A N r s NIA 0 bo S r co pi O rA w tQ A b bo ct f1 N n G r u' U Y, t bo BO o a opt+ G o alt P U"std a a w44p 10 a ca H M o Ll1 b • 4-a Qa BO zo 93 N N H N c r:7— oti as C 1, r•. 62' R.O.W. 2' 12'1212'12' L 8' 4' 0 o i o Section 8 Bethel Island Road Bridge 91 7E , a 6' b' 12'12' 1 12'12' 8' 6' js 60'Existin g R.O.W. Distance 74Propowd R.O.W. Varies Section 9 Bethel Island Road Between the B.I. Bridge and Taylor Rd.& Between the B.L Bridge and Sandmound Blvd_ y I G 7 ii D stancx 81 10t 12'11.Distan sties 84' R.O.W. Varies Section 10 Bethel Island Road Between Taylor Rd.and Gateway Rd. aMag Wand L%(ba Commercial sp(MCNOC Man Scale : 1»a2o'-o0"Street Sections FIG. 4. 17 Low Growing Wildflowers Achillea millefolium White Yarrow P) Fast cover Centaurea cyanus Bachelor Button A) Tolerates drought Chrysanthemum Ox Eye Daisy P) Full sun/part shade leucanthemum Eschscholzia California Poppy A,P) Easily established californica Lasthenia chrysostoma Dwarf Goldfields A) Fast cover Lupinus bicolor Pigmy-leaved lupine (A) Attractive blue flwrs Nemophila menziesii Baby Blue Eyes A) Fast cover Latin Name Common Name Comments Oenothera hookeri California Evening (P) Sherry Red flowers Primrose Phacelia tanacetifolia Lacy Teavea Phacelia(A) Hardy, reseeds well A) = Annual P) = Perenial Shrubs and Trees Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Populus nigra "Italicaff Lombardy Poplar Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Salix babylonica Weeping Willow Umbellularia Californica California Bay Street Trees a) Street trees shall be used with discretion and limited to special areas such as commercial areas, at major entrances, along neighborhood and community parks, and as buffers or , screens where needed. b) Tree species shall not be randomly mixed but reflect an organized, identifiable pattern. Spacing intervals should be no greater than 35 to 40 feet on center. c) Where trees are planted in medians the plantings shall be continuous and at regular intervals. Spacing interval shall be no greater than 35 to 40 feet on center. 4-39 d) Sight lines at intersections shall be kept clear of plant materials that could obstruct vision. e) Recommended tree species that can form the major ornamental plant palette are as follows: Latin Name Common Name Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry Eucalyptus citriodora Lemon-Scented Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red Gum Malus cvs. Flowering Crabapple Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree Populus nigra "Italica" . Lombardy Poplar Pyrus calleryana Ornamental Pear Pyrus communis cvs. Common Pear Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm 4.5.5 Wetlands, Rare Plants and the Bethel Island Canal Preliminary investigation of the Bethel Island Area has indicated potential wetland areas both on and off the Island. The specific types of wetlands and associated plant communities can be very broadly classified as a seasonal wetland, permanent wetland, and riparian woodland. All proposed project activity in the planning area shall avoid seasonal and permanent wetlands, wood riparian, and tidal areas because of their high value to wildlife. To promote the County's policy to protect wetland resources and the California Department of Fish and Game's policy of "no net loss of wetlands", all proposed development shall result in no net loss of wetlands, or offer means of replacing wetlands affected by the proposed development. If the County develops a more stringent wetlands avoidance or replacement ratio policy, then such new policy will 4-40 apply in the Bethel Island Area. In addition, a Protection Fee shall be imposed on each new residential unit which in part shall be used by the County to acquire open space and wetland areas. Priority shall be given to acquisition on-island with emphasis on acquisition near the waterfront park and sloughs. Additional funding sources shall be explored by the County to supplement or replace this Protection Fee. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the primary permitting agency having jurisdiction over wetland modification. Development- areas which may contain wetlands will have to request a Notice of Determination of Jurisdiction before development can begin. The Corps will then specifically determine if, by their criteria, a wetland exists, the boundaries of the wetland, and whether any proposed filling is in the public interest. The Corps will consider mitigation measures ranging from avoidance of wetland filling and minimization of impacts, to compensation, either on- site or off-site, when impacts cannot be avoided. The most conservative treatment of the wetland areas is required. The Corps will specify the nature of the wetland mitigation enhancement which will attempt to recreate in detail the type of wetland that is eliminated. Conceptually, it is possible to utilize an overflow concept along the canal water and create a wide variety of wetlands. Multiple wetland types could concurrently exist at various points along the canal. It is the adopted policy of Contra Costa County that there shall be no net -loss in- either quantity or quality of value of- permanent or seasonal wetlands. The following lists contain possible plant material for use in wetlands enhancement. The general habitat type is noted. 4-41 Latin Name Common Name Comments Artemisia douglasiana Douglas' mugwort Seasonal wetland Eleocharis sp. Spikerush Perennial Elymus triticoides Creeping ryegrass Seasonal wetland Epilobium sp. Willow herb Seasonal wetland Juncus dalticus Baltic rush Perennial & seasonal wetland Juncus effusus Soft rush Jussiaea californica Yellow water flower Perennial Lasthenia chrysostoma Goldfields Seasonal wetland Lemna sp. Duckweed Perennial Mentha arvensis Field mint Seasonal wetland Polygonum coceineum Smartweed Seasonal wetland Polygonum punctatum Water smartweed Perennial & seasonal wetland Salix gooddingii Gooddinie willow Riparian Salix hinsiana Sandbar willow Riparian Salix laevigata Red willow Riparian Salix laslolepis Arroyo willow Riparian Scirpus acutus Tule Perennial Scirpus dneyi Dney's bulrush Perennial Latin Name Common Name Comments Spergularia marina Salt marsh sand Seasonal wetland spurrey Typha latifolium Common cattail Perennial Urtica dioica Stinging nettle Seasonal wetland holosericea In addition to protecting wetlands, preserve areas shall be set aside to protect the rare plant communities as designated by the California Natural Diversity Data Base.Preserves shall be equipped with sufficient buffers and other security measures to protect existing values. The width of buffers will vary depending on the type of community and surrounding area. The buffers will generally range between 50 and 200 feet, but could be of greater width depending on specific ecological conditions. Acknowledging the visual amenity of the central drainage canal on Bethel Island, the land adjacent to the canal is identified in the Plan as a potential wetland enhancement area. Consolidated use of 4-42 this area for off-site mitigation, if acceptable and relevant to the permitting agencies, is encouraged. 4.6 CIRCULATION 4.6.1 Roadway Standards The Specific Plan circulation system has been designed to meet the transportation demands of the projected population. Access from the west along Cypress Road will remain the primary access to the planning area. Figure 4.18 indicates the location of arterial and collector roadways of the circulation plan. Many of the roadways exist, but will require expansion and/or upgrading. The alignment of new roadways through areas of potential residential development are schematic; actual alignments and circulation patterns will be determined at the time residential projects are considered. Design standards for roadways in the study areas are shown in Table 4.1. The table indicates recommended roadway widths for a range of daily traffic volumes. Figures 4-14, 4-15, 4-16 and 4-17 illustrate the roadway cross sections. The following roadway improvements will allow the planning area to operate at an acceptable level of service: s Construct - Cypress Road east of Bethel Island Road, as a four lane divided roadway. 0 Reconstruct the Bethel Island bridge with two travel lanes including separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways. 4-43 Franks Tract Franks Tract to' D 1 3 OCana Rad 5 o Bethel.islandl IslaJersnd 5 4 v°• o t7 4 ca6.. Rosa Ln. a, i. 5 8 Duma Shat! Deas Slough Aad i\ s 2 o e O•ee 8jro s a I a t , Holland Tract I 1 Cypress Radno See Tabb 4.1 I Roadway Desia Standards M o agbs0 986an l A(Tas Roadway Network AxnmLA s COLLE=RS Four Lane Divided O 'Major Two Laos Undivided 66•... O roar Lane Undivided O Minor Two Line Undivided 0 too 1600 2600 3200 400° 1s-- O Two Lane Undivided L,_•'t'see secti=in Test FIG. 4 - 18 e Construct the Laurel-Cypress connection as a two lane road with a grade separation at the AT&SF railroad. Extend Bethel Island Road to Rock Slough as a two lane road in a 1101 right-of-way. Extend and upgrade Laurel Road to four lanes between SR- 4 and the Delta Expressway. (This improvement shall be constructed and financed by development in the Bethel Island Area if development does not occur in the Oakley Area pursuant to the proposed Oakley/North Brentwood Area General Plan (ONBAGP) , or a similar plan, with construction to take place only if the Delta Expressway is constructed and Bethel Island is more than half developed under this Plan. If new development occurs in Oakley through a revised General Plan, or any other plan, 4-44 Table 4.1 Design Guidelines Roadway Design Standards Index No Roadway' Type Width' Average Daily Traffic Arterials 1.Four Lane Divided 80/100 13, 000 23, 000 2 .Four Lane Undivided 64/84 13,000 23, 000 3 .Two Lane Undivided 40/60 13, 000 26, 000 Collectors 4 .Major Two Lane 36/46 3,000 13, 000 Undivided "A" 5. Minor Two Lane 32/40 1,000 7, 000 Undivided "B" Minor Streets Two Lane Undivided 24/32 Less than 1, 000 1. Width in feet; curb to curb/right-of-way 2 . Access limited to approximately one mile spacing. 4-45 then Oakley development shall finance construction of this improvement. ) The planned improvements on the internal roadways in the Bethel Island Area and Oakley Area will allow operating conditions of Level of Service D or better. New development in Oakley will require additional improvements. In the event development in the Cypress Road corridor within Oakley and the off-island area west of Jersey Island Road is considered, additional transportation improvements financed by that development to mitigate traffic impacts shall be required. Such new development must mitigate other infrastructure and service impacts consistent with the growth management program and facilities element for the Bethel Island Area. In the event new development is considered, Oakley, the Cypress Road corridor and Bethel Island Area shall be planned as integrated communities. 4.7 LEVEES 4.7.1 Levee Standards Levees on Bethel Island shall be rehabilitated following the standards of the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District BIMID) .Levees on Hotchkiss Tract shall be rehabilitated according to the standards of Reclamation District 799. All levees shall have rock slope protection on the water side designed based on expected water velocities and wave heights. Typical levee cross sections depicting minimum requirements -are shown on Figure 4.19. Prior to construction of new levees, weak, highly compressible or liquefiable soils shall be overexcavated and replaced with compacted, non-liquefiable, non-swelling soils. Generally, on- site soils, especially organic soils, shall not be used for construction of levees. 4-46 l 00 J I m m Co i i O r cn Cl o i o 0 0 I o r_ Q__-- o o — m o D i mm mm T- oqq x m N m T T. m x m 3 r-•m-M O fe — r•+x m 1 fe -+ Dox m to 9 I a r+rD a s a Co (D y an Cl) m r.3 D f t O a re+ c Q„ a O co 50 I O W -n O Cl.Z m O• . 1 f'7 Z O o, -. i n G7 o 7 C-,) 0 o r C-3 D r s r-e-) a O fD O ...O fD -M a d O r. cafe f c o_ c< n C7 -M,1 = CD = -< n t— L"J H fD I G to fD X: m I N O. m 1 f7 l n- M On fD CIoa kJ0) 11 M aTn m<m ai I o 0 0 m F------- j o o a x o r+ fD '_0 m i d D o• I a ---- x I a = cnX m co i m C) O r- o I I fD rrl LA mo L \ aj m O I j Q y D N m a Z I 10 CDLAa Tn I IrD Nr+ m c a CD a I G a ---- I O p' (LD r r UD r I .a f<D m r-. 'S Ul 0 0 D O. N N CD r1 I p N ow CD, N 0 0 m m O y cn - fD m L c CD m o ti' `c, a D o < z olx ao t D I ti r es O I Abb i Z o- a II CD I aD r O 3 3 S s I L m I rn m mm m O I------- , . W V T " C) W v wry O A W fV p co Where available subsurface data is inadequate to determine design and construction constraints, a site specific geotechnical exploration shall be completed prior to rehabilitation or construction of levees. If required, a site specific geotechnical exploration will be performed for each proposed development or improvement. The geotechnical exploration shall include, as a minimum, the following: Sufficient borings to adequately characterize the subsurface conditions at each site. Sufficient testing to adequately determine the static and dynamic engineering properties of the soils at the site. A seismic investigation to determine design earthquake parameters. construction recommendations including methods to mitigate seismic hazards, excessive total and differential settlements and excessive seepage. A report, signed by a registered professional geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist, presenting findings, analyses and recommendations. The prototype Levees Sections (Figures 4.1 through 4.4) indicate the outline of BIMID or RD 799 standard levees. While the entire fill., for the homes and roads will be to applicable standards, this portion of the site will be constrained by BIMID or RD 799 access rights. The Districts shall further have the right to raise the level of the levees in these zones if a rise in sea level elevation occurs. 4-47 S. Implementation: Permitting and Financing 5.1 PERMIT PROCESSING The permit process described below applies to all developments proposed within the Specific Plan area. Figure 5.1 is a graphic representation of this process from design concept to approval of the building permit. In addition to the procedures specified in the Contra Costa County Code, permits from other governmental agencies may be required prior to project approval. The jurisdiction of these agencies, as well as a description of the procedure for obtaining permits is described below. A request for rezoning to P-1 shall be accompanied by an application of final development plan and tentative subdivision map2. 5.1.1 Local Permit Processing A. Preliminary Plan Review Prior to preparation of a tentative map, an informal review of the proposed development concept with the Community Development Department is recommended. This is not a requirement of the County Code, but is intended to allow both the developer and the planning staff the opportunity to discuss the details of the proposed project before substantial investments are made in preparation of tentative maps. Documents should be submitted in the form of a preliminary subdivision map.It should include preliminary subdivision layouts and proposed design solutions to Specific Plan requirements. 2 All references to "tentative subdivision map" or "tentative map" also refer to "vesting tentative subdivision map". 5-1 t Pre-Application Conference Application DP,MS 4:it>JLJ.'t'viiGi>:tv4:+ci:<::vi>JJ'r44i0tiiiJCw»li'S4%:JR Determine Conformance Requires Supplemental with Specific Pian K EIR Refer to Appropriate Agencies) Prepare EIR Requires C.O.E. Permit Conforms with Specific Plan- No Supplemental EIR Required Public Hearing at Planning Commission Staff Report with repare EIS p Certify EIREPR Conditions of Approval k4u;...o..iwss.w:acsrrrw.,xa:itii:'wicaiti>R iia,.w,u;';'.... :.,•:> . - au'i :ciiki.::i;:iia:'.•:i:^..:iui:2;•vii:i:,;<;:::iaf Public Hearing at : No Planning Commission DP,M$ Appeal to Board Yes of Supervisors Comply with Conditions Yes of Approval File Final Map. DP=Development Plan MS=Major Subdivision Secure Building Permit1a i 9thd Wand arca Fig. 5. 1 Specifics pian Permit Processing B. Final Development Plans and Tentative Maps (Chapter 94-2) A final development plan must be submitted indicating the nature of overall development of a parcel. At the same time, a tentative map may be submitted for the first planned development area. Requirements for information that must be - included on the final development plan and tentative map are listed in Section 94-2.204 of the Contra Costa County Code and a listing of data to accompany the tentative map is specified in Section 94-2.206. If the Specific Plan requires certain improvements, the proposed subdivision must provide them and show them on the tentative map. Otherwise, the County will deny the map as it will not be consistent with the Specific Plan or condition the map to include the improvements. C. Final Maps and Parcel Maps (Chapter 94-4) Prior to the expiration of the tentative map, a final map should be submitted to the Department of Public Works. This map shall be prepared by either a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor and must conform with the tentative map as it was approved or conditionally approved. The form and contents of the final map shall conform to the requirements of County Code Article 94-4 .2. Requirements for supplementary documents are described in article 94-4.4 . Among other items, Article 94-4 .4 requires a subdivision agreement Section 94-4 .402) , cash deposit and performance security (Section 94-4.406) , payment security (Section 94-4.408) , deeds for easements Section 94-4.412) and soils reports (Section 94-4.420) . Procedures for approval and filing of final maps are specified in Article 94-4 .8. 5-2 D. Improvement Plans (Chapter 96-2) Following approval of the tentative map, the subdivider shall prepare and submit to the Public Works Department for review, complete -construction plans for the improvements required by the Specific Plan and Division 96 of the County Code. The improvement plan shall be considered as a condition of approval of the final map. Plans for street lighting, sidewalks and paths, underground utilities, curbs and gutters and other miscellaneous improvements shall be submitted prior to the approval of the final map and all construction details must conform with the Specific Plan and other County specified details. The County may only impose those conditions which are in effect at the time the application for the tentative map has been completed. Furthermore, conditions which could have been placed on a tentative map cannot be placed on subsequent permits for residential construction. E. Building Permits Following approval of the final map, applicants of development proposals may apply for building permits through the Building Department. All structures must comply with the Uniform Building Code. Before a building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the Building Official shall determine that the proposed building location, facilities, and improvements are in conformity with the approved final map and its specified conditions. Before 5-3 a building may be occupied, the Building Official shall certify that the site has been developed in conformity with the final map. F. Conditional Use or Land Use Permits (Chapters 26-2 and 82-6) Land uses and permissible densities for each land use -designation within the Specific Plan area are discussed in Chapter 4. Specified conditional uses are permitted subject to the approval of a Land Use Permit. Because these uses must be carefully integrated with surrounding uses, conditional uses require special consideration and necessitate additional design and operational requirements. The procedure for application for a Land Use Permit is discussed in Chapters 26-2 and 82-6 of the Contra Costa County Code. G. Development Agreements Development agreements give assurances to applicants for a development project that upon approval of the project, an applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations. They are intended to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs of development. The County has developed guidelines for specific development agreement proposals. H. Residential Projects and the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to Section 65457 of the California Government Code, residential projects which conform with the Specific Plan are exempt from subsequent environmental review, eliminating the need for additional Negative Declarations or Environment Impact Reports. 5-4 This exemption applies to all forms of single-use residential projects. In practice, the County will require that an Initial Study be performed to determine if a Negative Declaration is appropriate. I. Commercial Projects and the California Environmental Quality Act A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared which addresses the potential impacts of the residential and nonresidential uses allowed by this Specific Plan. This EIR only identifies the impacts of the amount and mix of development described in the Specific Plan. If individually proposed projects are within this prescribed level of development, then following an Initial Study, a Negative Declaration may be granted and no additional environmental review would be required. If additional impacts are identified and a subsequent EIR is required, general impacts which are addressed in the Specific Plan EIR may be included by reference. 5.1.2 Federal Review and Permitting Agencies A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will play a key role in development of the Bethel Island Area through its broad review and permitting authority for any projects affecting navigable waterways and flood control. The federal legislation behind the Corps' permit program includes Sections 9 and 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, regulating any diking, filling, or placement of structures in navigable waterways; and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, regulating the 5-5 disposal of dredge and fill materials up to the high water mark including adjacent wetlands. These two laws allow the Corps to exercise permit authority over development or fill projects proposed within the Bethel Island planning area. The Bethel Island Area falls under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District. All saline, brackish, or freshwater wetlands which are adjacent to navigable waters are subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps practice is to issue public notices on proposed projects and invite comments from all interested parties. If significant environmental impacts are anticipated, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required. The Corps can deny permits to those applicants whose projects are determined not to be in the public interest. Corps permit decisions are to reflect concern for protection and utilization of national resources as well as environmental, economic and social concerns. Generally, Corps permits will not be issued in those instances where required state or local authorizations have been denied. In the planning area, the Corps jurisdiction will likely focus on navigable waters and wetlands. For wetlands the Corps will be the implementing agency for the Fish and Wildlife Service's concerns. In addition to its regulatory role, projects in the Delta, including- the Bethel Island Area must meet the Corps' standards for maintenance of public levees. Maintenance of Corps' levees is the responsibility of the State Reclamation Board which in turn passes this responsibility on to local reclamation districts, such as the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District and Reclamation District 799. 5-6 Private levees are not subject to Corps' standards or environmental review except to the extent that new construction would require a Corps permit. In the Bethel Island Area, an on-site Biological Assessment for the presence of wetlands will be required of each proposed development to determine whether a Corps permit will be required. B. Environmental Protection Agency The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is involved in identifying and controlling all forms of pollution to the nation's environment. In the Delta, the EPA reviews all fill and dredge permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, and reserves the right to intervene with ultimate veto power. C. Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is involved in the Federal Flood Insurance Program established by Congress to address emergency financing for low interest loans and grants to areas which are damaged by flooding. FEMA can provide assistance to the State in the event of a major disaster. At the request of the Governor, FEMA personnel review damage to an area and present findings to the national office. If an area is eligible for federal assistance, funds are made available based on this assessment. FEMA uses detailed mapping techniques based on engineering studies to create accurate flood hazard boundary maps. These maps are called Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM maps) . The purpose of these maps is to determine areas where Federal Flood Hazard Insurance must be purchased as a condition of obtaining federally regulated 5-7 financial assistance for the construction or substantial improvement of structures in designated flood hazard areas. The Bethel Island planning area is entirely within the 100-year flood zone. All properties will be required to comply with FEMA building regulations in order to qualify for -insurance and emergency assistance under the program. 5.1.3 State Review and Permitting Agencies A. Department of Fish and Game The California Department of Fish and Game has review and permitting authority over developments that may impact natural habitats in the County. Bethel Island Area is included within Region 4, which covers all of the Delta area east of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. The department is concerned with any factors that may affect fish, wildlife or native habitats, including water quality, solid waste disposal, pesticide use, and loss of vegetation that is valuable to wildlife. The department routinely comments on proposed developments when environmental documents are processed through the State Clearinghouse for review by several State agencies. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines the Delta as an area of critical environmental sensitivity" and requires that all environmental documents be submitted to the State Clearinghouse, where -the Department of Fish and Game may comment. In addition to responding to Environmental Impact Reports, Fish and Game staff review permits issued by the State Lands Commission, the Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Their comments identify impacts of development upon the natural 5-8 environment including wetland areas, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Frank's Tract, Little Frank's Tract and Sandmound Slough have been identified by the department as significant natural resources which should be protected. B. State Lands Commission The State Lands Commission administers approximately 4.5 million acres of public lands owned by the state, including tidelands, submerged lands, swamp and overflow lands and school lands. In its role as land manager, the commission works with many public and private entities to develop a wide variety of programs to best utilize state lands. These programs include the leasing of land for many purposes, including development of marinas, wharves, dredging and grazing. The goal of the Commission's leasing and management policy is to optimize the use of the land under its jurisdiction in the statewide public interest and consistent with environmental protection and enhancement. In the Bethel Island Area, the State Lands Commission may hold title to some submerged lands along the sloughs. Proposed projects will be reviewed by the State Lands Commission to determine the extent, if any, of publicly owned lands. If necessary, the State Lands Commission shall determine whether proposed uses are consistent with their policies and establish a long-term leasing agreement with the proponent. C. State Reclamation Board The California State Reclamation Board's primary function is to ensure the integrity and participate in the completion of federal levee and channel flood control projects in the Delta. This 5-9 involves providing project assurances and acquiring land and rights-of way for the projects. Maintenance of Corps levees is the responsibility of the State Reclamation Board which in turn passes this responsibility on to local reclamation districts, such as the, Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District and Reclamation District 799. Permits for alterations or improvements to levees in the Bethel Island Area would need to be obtained from the local reclamation districts. D. Water Resources Control Board The California Water Resources Control Board, and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, are responsible for regulating all discharges into state waters. The Boards adopt water quality control policies implementing federal standards and issue permits under authority of the state Porter-Cologne Act and the U.S. Clean Water Act. The permitting authority of the Boards directly affects the operation of industries and agriculture in Contra Costa County, as well as wastewater treatment facilities. The Bethel Island Area falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh (called the Delta Plan) sets forth water quality standards for the Delta. It's standards address salinity and flow- related-parameters, such as standards for Delta agriculture and the Contra Costa Canal Intake. The regulation of other parameters, such as organic pollutants and toxic pollutants, are left to the basic planning process conducted by the Regional Boards. There are also water quality standards for certain species such as striped bass and salmon. 5-10 E. Department of Transportation The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over all interstate and state highways in Contra Costa County. Long-range planning for highway improvement projects is accomplished in part through updated "Route Concept Reports," which are prepared for existing or adopted state highway routes in the state. The Route Concept Reports detail current conditions on each segment of the highways, project future traffic volumes and recommend improvements in order to meet the demand. Funding of major transportation projects in Contra Costa County and other counties is determined by the California Transportation Commission, a public board assisted by a small staff that receives technical support from Caltrans. Each fiscal year the Commission adopts a State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which allocates federal and state funding to roadway projects over a five-year period. Realignment of Route 4 in the Oakley area, which affects development in the Bethel Island Area, has been suggested in Caltrans Route Concept Reports, but has not yet been included on the STIP. Suggested improvements that are described in this plan's financing program must be approved by Caltrans. F. Department of Parks and Recreation The California Department of Parks and Recreation administers the state park system, as well as identifies scenic and historic resources in the state. Frank's Tract State Recreation Area is adjacent to the study area and is administered by this department. 5-11 The recreation area is comprised of 3, 580 acres of submerged land which is used for boating and fishing. The department recently prepared, in conjunction with the East Bay Regional Park District, a study examining the educational, recreation -and- preservation potential of the Frank's Tract Area. The resulting report recommends wave-blocking islands be constructed to allow picnic facilities and boat access within the area. 5.2 FINANCING PLAN 5.2.1 Financing Public Improvements This chapter analyzes the need for major infrastructure needs such as area wide roads and other public improvements required to serve the Bethel Island Area. The cost of these improvements shall be borne by development within the area. The responsible public agencies may accept and maintain the public facilities constructed to their current standards. The financing for the improvements for each phase must be reasonably assured prior to issuance of building permits within that phase. The required public improvements must be constructed and be in operation prior to occupancy. The intent of the Specific Plan is to enhance commercial and recreational development in the Bethel Island Area. This type of development will help the entire Bethel Island Area and increase property values, and in turn generally benefit all of the property owners in the area. The costs of infrastructure improvements proposed by this Financing Plan will be paid by new residential development through the fees required by the Plan and other County requirements. 5-12 The required public improvements shall benefit property owners within the entire Bethel Island Area. Applicants will be obligated for at least an equitable share of the burden. The estimated costs of the required additional improvements are listed in Table 5.1. The -f igures used - to -estimate -improvement costs are subject to change as prices change and more accurate estimates are approved by the County. Changes in the estimates in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 will not require an amendment to the Specific Plan. 5.2.2 Capital Improvement Program The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) required to implement the Specific Plan is shown in Table 5.1. This CIP has been designed to meet the Specific Plan Level of Service targets when the planning area has developed to its ultimate capacity of 3, 000 dwelling units. Applicants are encouraged to propose the construction of public improvements for acceptance and dedication to and acceptance by Contra Costa County. If a financing district is used, then applicants are encouraged to construct the improvements for acquisition by the financing district. 5.2 .3 Program Financing Implementation of the Specific Plan depends on acquisition of rights-of-way--and- construction of facilities for roadways, parks, sewer systems, water systems, a sheriff substation and fire protection improvements. Costs have been developed in Table 5.2 for each phase of development subtotaled by phase. Per unit costs have been estimated for each phase and an equitable share of burden has been estimated based on development of 3,000 units and 5-13 Table 5.1 Capital Improvement Program Cost Project 1/1/90 Dollars) Bethel Island Road - Cypress to Bethel Island, Landscape Median Island and Signalize Sandmound Boulevard Intersection 1, 300, 000 Bethel Island Bridge Reconstruction 5, 000, 000 Bethel Island Road Extension to Rock Slough 2-Lane Roadway Within a 4-Lane R/W) 1, 600, 000 Cypress Road - Laurel Road extension to Machado Lane. Construct 2 Lanes, widen Marsh Creek Bridge and Construct Railroad Overcrossing 5,500, 000 Cypress Road - Machado Lane to Bethel Island Road Widen to 4 Full Lanes 3,500, 000 Drain Field for Wastewater Disposal 287,500 at each of six phases at each phase 287,500 Total 1,725, 000) Fire - Acquire Site for New Bethel Island Area Fire Station 100, 000 Fire - Construct New Centrally Located Bethel Island Fire Facility 1, 000, 000 Fire - Hotchkiss Fire Station and Fire Engine 1, 200, 000 Greenbelt Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail 200, 000 at each of six phases at each phase 200, 000 Total 1,200, 000) Intersection - Cypress at Bethel Island Road does not include significant increase in curve radius to facilitate turning movements) 1, 000, 000 Intersection - Cypress at Knightsen 200, 000 Intersection - Cypress at Sellers 200, 000 5-14 Intersection - Highway 4 at Cypress Budgeted Library - Acquire Site for Areawide Library and fund prorata share for construction 2001F000 Major Trails/Paths - Offstreet 400, 000 at each of six phases at each phase 400, 000 Total 2,400, 000) Park #1 1,000, 000 Park #2 1, 000,000 Park #3 1,000, 000 Community Park 2, 000, 000 Waterfront Park 4, 000, 000 Sheriff - Expand Oakley Substation 200, 000 Water Line - Oakley Water District Plant to Mid-Island with 500 MG Water Storage 2,000, 000 Additional 500 MG Water Storage Facility 500. 000 Total 37, 825, 000 Subtotal 500 units 6, 087, 500 12,175/Unit Ave. Subtotal 1000 units 6,287,500 12, 575/Unit Ave. Subtotal 1500 units 6,387,500 12 ,775/Unit Ave. Subtotal 2000 units 6,587, 500 13, 175/Unit Ave. Subtotal 2500 units 6, 387, 500 12,775/Unit Ave. Subtotal 3000 units 6, 087,500 12, 175/Unit Ave. Additional Fees (Per Dwelling Unit) Road Fees East/Central County Travel Corridor Fee $ 380 Subregional Road Fee, includes Laurel Road and Highway 4 Share (does not include Delta Expressway) 1, 067 Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee 2,805 Water Connection Fee 3 , 022 School Fee 3, 120 Plan Cost Recovery Fee 200 Monitoring and Administration Fee 100 GRAND TOTAL 23, 636/Unit 5-15 Table 5.2 Phased Development Costs Cost 1/1/90 Dollars) Phase 1: Up to 500 Units: 1. Water-Line - Oakley Water District Plan to Mid-Island With 500 MG Water Storage 2, 000, 000 2 . Drain Field for Wastewater Disposal partial)287,500 3 . Greenbelt Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail partial)200, 000 4. Major Trails/Paths - Offstreet (partial) 400, 000 5. Intersection - Cypress at Bethel Island Rd. 1, 000, 000 6. Fire - Hotchkiss Fire Station and Fire Engine 1,200, 000 7 . Park #1 1, 000, 000 Subtotal for Phase 1 6,087,500 Cumulative Subtotal for Phase 1 6, 087,500 Per Unit Cost of Phase 1 Improvements 12, 175 Equitable Share of Burden (per unit) * 12, 608 PHASE 2 : Up to 1, 000 Units: 8. Cypress Rd. - Machado Lane to Bethel Island Rd. - Widen to 4 full lanes 3,500, 000 9. Sheriff - Expand Oakley Sub Station 200, 000 10. Drain Field for Wastewater Disposal (partial) 287,500 11. Greenbelt Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail partial)200, 000 5-16 12. Major Trails/Paths - Offstreet (partial) 400, 000 13 . Bethel Island Rd. - Cypress to Bethel Island, Landscape Median Island and Signalize Sandmound Blvd. Intersection 1,300, 000 14. Intersection - _Cypress at Sellers 200, 000 15. Intersection - Cypress at Knightsen 200,000 Subtotal for Phase 2 6,287, 500 Cumulative Subtotal for Phase 2 12,287,500 Per Unit cost of Phase 2 Improvements 12,575 Equitable Share of Burden (per unit) * 12, 608 PHASE 3: Up to 1, 500 Units: 16. Cypress Rd. - Laurel Rd. Extension to Machado Ln. Construct 2 lanes, widen Marsh Creek Bridge and construction R.R. overcrossing 5,500, 000 17. Drain Field for Wastewater Disposal (partial) 287,500 18. Greenbelt Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail (partial) 200, 000 19. Major Trails/Paths - Offstreet (partial) 400, 000 Subtotal for Phase 3 6, 387,500 Cumulative Subtotal for Phase 3 18,962,500 Per Unit Cost of Phase 3 Improvements 12,775 Equitable Share of Burden (per unit) * 12, 608 PHASE 4: Up to 2, 000 Units: 20. Community Park 2,000,000 21. Drain Field for Wastewater Disposal (partial) 287, 500 22 . Greenbelt Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail (partial) 200, 000 23. Major Trails/Paths - Offstreet (partial) 200, 000 5-17 24. Bethel Island Rd. Extension to Rock Slough 2 land road within 4 land R/W) 1,600, 000 25. Fire - Construct New Centrally Located Bethel Island Fire Facility 1, 000, 000 26. Water Storage Facility (500 MG capacity) 500, 000 27. Fire - Acquire site for new Bethel Island Area Fire Station 100,000 28. Park #2 11000, 000 Subtotal for Phase 4 6,587,500 Cumulative Subtotal for Phase 4 25, 350, 000 Per Unit Cost of Phase 5 Improvements 13, 175 Equitable Share of Burden (per unit) * 12, 608 PHASE 5: Up to 2 , 500 Units: 29. Bethel Island Bridge Reconstruction** 5,000, 000 30. Drain Field for Wastewater Disposal (partial) 287, 500 31. Greenbelt Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail (partial) 2001000 32 . Major Trails/Paths - Offstreet (partial) 400, 000 33 . Water Storage Facility (500 MG Capacity) 500, 000 Subtotal for Phase 5 6, 387,500 Cumulative Subtotal for Phase 5 31,737, 500 Per Unit Cost of Phase 5 Improvements 12,775 Equitable Share of Burden (per unit) * 12, 608 PHASE 6: Up to 3 , 000 Units: 34. Waterfront Park 4, 000, 000 35. Greenbelt Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail (partial) 200, 000 36. Drain Field for Wastewater Disposal (partial) 287,500 5-18 37. Library - Acquire Site for Areawide Library and Participate on a Pro Rata Basis in its Construction 200, 000 38. Major Trails/Paths - Offstreet (partial) 400, 000 39. Park #3 1, 000,000 Subtotal for Phase 6 6, 087,500 Cumulative Subtotal for Phase 6 37,825, 000 Per Unit Cost of Phase 6 12, 175 Equitable Share of Burden (per unit) * 12 , 608 The difference between the Equitable share of Burden and the per unit cost of the phase may be eligible for reimbursement. Required at this time or when on-island development exceeds 500 units. 5-19 construction of all of the required infrastructure improvements. Implementation also depends on payment of the additional fees listed on Table 5.1 required for other offsite roadway improvements, connection fees, school fees and other normal fees associated with construction within the County. For individual developments of 25 units or less, the applicants will be required to construct all improvements required for that phase of the Capital Improvement Program, and pay all additional fees listed on Table 5.1 and other normal fees associated with construction within the County. The first project over 25 units in any phase is obligated to construct all of the improvements in that phase or those phases. Phases will consist of 500 units each. The improvements required by each phase of the Capital Improvement Program must be in place prior to occupancy. The method by which this will be accomplished shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department prior to filing of the final map creating additional lots or approval of development permits for creation of residential developments. 5.2.4 Reimbursement Policy This financing plan calls for an equitable distribution of costs for the 3, 000 units anticipated in the Specific Plan. It may not be possible to achieve an equitable allocation of burden during interim development phases. It may be necessary, for example, that an early phase take a greater share of the burden than would ultimately be necessary. In such cases, the County will consider reimbursement agreements and techniques such as an Integrated Financing District (as defined in Government Code Section 53175 et sea. ) If other properties subsequently develop and enjoy the benefits of improvements funded by an earlier phase of development, then those who originally advanced the costs in excess of an 5-20 ultimate fair share may receive reimbursement from those who develop subsequently. It is the obligation of the applicants for each development phase to propose terms of reimbursement. 5.2 .5 Miscellaneous Fees Development in the Bethel Island Area is subject to all of the charges and development impact fees normally levied by the County, the utility districts, school districtstal documents prepared in conjunction with the Plan. A Monitoring and Administration Fee of 100 per unit will be levied to compensate the County for extraordinary administration costs required for future processing work on the Specific Plan and to monitor fulfillment of requirements. 5.2. 6 Cost Escalation Factor The cost of the proposed facilities in the Capital Improvement Plan along with the cost of various fees will increase with time and with cost of living increases in the area. The Table 5.2 costs of the proposed facilities, per unit costs for each phase of the Plan and the equitable share of burden are based on January 1, 1990 dollars. They are subject to revision periodically in response to changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other appropriate index as provided for by the administering agency. The various costs and County fees will be escalated at least every 2 years to keep them in line with actual costs. The fees of other responsible agencies will be modified from time to time by those agencies to reflect their costs. 5-21 6. Growth Management 6.1 INTRODUCTION Measure C, the Contra Costa County Transportation and Growth Management Program adopted by the voters in November of 1988, requires local jurisdictions to adopt growth management programs to ensure that future residential and commercial development pays for the infrastructure that is required for that development. Consistent with Measure C, the following Growth Management Program has been prepared and shall be enforced in the Bethel Island Area this program is similar to the Growth Management Program contained in the March 1989 Draft County General Plan) . A similar growth management program shall be enforced throughout the entire unincorporated East County Area and encouraged within cities. 6.2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Development consistent with the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan shall be managed by requiring developers to finance and/or construct major infrastructure features within the planning area as they are needed. Such development shall not impose capital improvement financial burdens on the existing community and shall be consistent with the Financing Plan as discussed in Section 5.2. Development within the Bethel Island Area shall conform to the following growth management standards: 6.2.1 Transportation Local - A roadway network system shall be provided capable of handling the traffic of the residents and recreational visitors. Traffic at intersections in the Bethel Island Area shall operate at acceptable levels (low level of D or lower) . Service levels into the Oakley Area shall not be degraded as a result of traffic from the Bethel Island Area. 6-1 Regional - Prior to approval of the 2, 110th dwelling unit, the financing mechanisms and funding for regional (East County) roadway improvements created by the development in Bethel Island must be reasonably assured. Cumulative regional traffic impacts may be mitigated through a regional traffic mitigation fee (and reasonable increases thereto, if needed) , the implementation of Measure C, the adoption of a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ordinance revenues generated by gasoline tax increases and the implementation of the jobs/housing balance requirement contained in this program. If financing mechanisms and funding cannot be reasonably assured at that time, development under the Land Use Element shall be limited to 2, 109 dwelling units. This limit, and a limit on new development in the East County Area as a result of amendments to the General Plan, shall remain in effect until the financing mechanism for improvements to the regional circulation system is reasonably assured to accommodate reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts at that time. 6.2.2 Water Non-ground water sources shall be developed for the area. New public wells may be utilized only on an interim basis, provided a hydrogeological investigation is completed. All water supply facilities developed for the ultimate water system shall be constructed to the standards of the Oakley Water District. 6.2.3 Sewer Adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal capacity shall be assured prior to final parcel or map approval for subdivisions or building permit approval for other development. 6-2 6.2.4 Fire Protection The appropriate fire district shall review all development plans. If the response time is more than 5 minutes, special building design features may be imposed. 6.2.5 Police Protection A sheriff protection service standard of 1.5 patrol officers/1, 000 residents shall be achieved. 6.2 .6 Parks and Recreation A minimum of 2 .5 acres of neighborhood parks (which includes a waterfront park) and 1.5 acres of community park (which includes a waterfront park) per 1, 000 population shall be provided. 6.2.7 Flood Control No new residential development beyond already approved projects and one unit per parcel shall be allowed in the on-island area. New development in the off-island area shall comply with a setback of a minimum 100 feet from the centerline of levees unless adequate substantiation for reduction is approved by RD-799 or BIMID. In addition, new construction shall be constructed in compliance with FEMA standards unless protected by a certified levee system provided however, stilt residential development shall be limited to -one unit per existing parcel to avoid aesthetic impacts. Prior to approving any new development in a flood hazard area, the applicant shall prepare an emergency evacuation plan. An amendment to consider new development on-island may be considered at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors provided a financing mechanism is fully and completely assured for improvements to the entire perimeter on-island levee system, the levee improvement 6-3 plans are approved by BIMID and the Army Corps of Engineers and impacts on subsidence (and wetlands) are adequately mitigated. 6.2 .8 Drainage Prior to approval of specific development projects, adequate drainage operation and maintenance plans consistent with the Specific Plan shall be submitted to the County. Applicants shall be required to mitigate the significant impacts identified in the plans. 6.2.9 Jobs/Housing Balance Prior to approval of substantial residential projects, the County shall evaluate and consider whether there is a beneficial impact of that project on the jobs/housing balance for the region. This evaluation shall take into consideration growth in housing units and employment and housing and employment availability, relative affordability and commute patterns, price of the units and wage levels of the jobs added. 6-4