HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11051991 - 1.91 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY# CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on November 5 , 1991by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None . Resolution No. 91/732
i
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Supplemental Findings on
Alternatives Regarding the Bethel Island Area
Specific Plan
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES
THAT:
On July 10, 1990, per Resolution No. 90/454, the Board
adopted the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, certified as adequate
the Final Environmental Impact Report (OFEIR"') supportinglit, and
adopted a Statement of Findings and Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program. On April 16, 1991, per Resolution
No. 91/225, the Board adopted Amendments to the Bethel Island Area
Specific Plan. In so doing, the Board certified Addendum No. 3 to
the FEIR and adopted revisions to the Statement of Overriding
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Petitions for writs of mandate were filed challenging the
validity of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan and its
environmental documentation. On October 17, 1991, Superior Court
Judge William A. O'Malley.rendered a decision in the consolidated
actions of Sierra Club. et al. v. County of Contra Costal et al.
(Civ. No. 90-03464) and State of California, ex. rel. . State Lands
Commission v. County of Contra Costa, et al. (Civ No. 90 -04063) .
The petitions were denied with direction that the Board of
Supervisors administratively make further findings describing the
Boards consideration of project alternatives. Such findings are
attached hereto as Exhibit NA"' and are supplemental to the findings
on alternatives in the Statement of Findings and Overriding
Considerations for the Bethel Island Area adopted on April 16,
1991.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
adopts Exhibit PkIN as supplemental findings to the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Bethel Island Area.
I hereby certify that this Is 8 true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered ori the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on th date shown.
ATTESTED: "" .0 0 A , —
J PHIL BAtCHELOR.Clerk of the Board
of Supervi and County Administrator
c,
� 13Y ,Deputy
i
Orig. Dept. : County Counsel
cc: Community Development Department
Mark Armstrong
{
i EXHIBIT "A" TO
RESOLUTION NO. 91/732
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FINDINGS ON
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
BETHEL ISLAND AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
XIX. G. Other Alternatives and Variations on Alternatives
Considered by the Board of Supervisors._(See page 53 of Statement
of Findings as revised on April 16, 1991. )
In addition to . the alternatives specifically referred to in
the FEIR, the Board consideredithe alternative recommended by the
staff to the planning commission that would permit a maximum of
3, 000 additional residential units, proportioned 1, 000 units on-
island and 2, 000 off-island. Under this alternative, residential
recreational development would be restricted to the area east of
Bethel Island Road. A "Delta Recreation Resources" land use
designation of one dwelling unit per 20 net acres was proposed
around a majority of the perimeter of the on-island area. No levee
breaching was proposed.
The Board also considered the 4, 000 residential unit
alternative recommended by the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan
Advisory Committee ("BIASPAC") , which would permit 2 , 000 units on-
island and 2 , 000 off-island, with levee breaching permitted in the
off-island area. The Board also considered the 5, 000 residential
unit alternative as recommended by the planning commission to the
Board with 3,500 units off-island and 1,500 units on-island (the
977 already approved units in the Planning Area are included in
this •unit count. ) The bonus overlay land use designation was not
included and the development area was extended west to Little Dutch
Slough.
The Board rejected these alternatives on many of the same
grounds that other project alternatives were rejected, including
the environmental impacts of and risks associated with development
on-island and the desire to limit development off-island to
recreational residential projects along Bethel Island Road.
In making its decision, the Board also considered variations
to the several alternatives that were presented. In addition to
determining that further residential development on-island beyond
one unit per existing parcel should be prohibited, the Board
analyzed the various development alternatives that were presented
for off-island. The alternatives included no adlitional
I 1
i
development, 1, 000 more residential units, 1, 600 more units, 2 , 000
more units, 2,750 more units, 3,409 more units and 3, 600 more units
off-island. The different areas considered for resildential
development off-island ranged from: 1) a, development area that
included all of Hotchkiss Tract west to Little Dutch Slough so as
to include the West Off-Island Alternative; 2) a development area
that was limited to the land between Sandmound Slough and Bethel
Island Road; and 3) a middle ground that limited the development
area to lands generally along Bethel Island Road.
The Board determined that an off-island plan that provided
for residential recreational development on lands generally along
Bethel Island Road to a maximum of 2.,909 new residential units
(plus the 91 already approved units) was the most appropriate to
be included as part of the Specific Plan in conjunction with no new
residential development on-island. other alternatives for smaller
or larger number of units were rejected for the reasons generally
set forth in the previously adopted findings. Given the
significant public improvements required under the Specific Plan,
the infrastructure and off-site costs per unit would be
unreasonably high if the number of off-island units were
significantly reduced below the approved number. Moreover, it
would be difficult to create meaningful recreational communities
with the appropriate amenities if the number of units were
significantly reduced below the approved number. In the judgment
of the Board, limiting development to the lands generally along
Bethel Island Road in the off-island area provides a good balance
between recreational residential, commercial and open space uses,
as well as a good balance between infrastructure demands and costs,
in the Bethel Island Area.
The Specific Plan as approved by the Board is different than
the draft Specific Plan analyzed in the FEIR and a variation on
alternatives discussed in the FEIR. Neither the Specific Plan as
approved by the Board nor any of the alternatives considered by the
Board but not specifically analyzed by name in the FEIR nor any of
the variations or alternatives considered in the FEIR constitute:
1) significant changes from the draft Specific Plan or the alterna-
tives analyzed in, the FEIR; 2) significant changes in the circum-
stances under which the project was undertaken or analyzed in the
FEIR; or 3) new information; any of which results in new
significant impacts not previously considered or covered in the
FEIR. The Specific Plan as approved and such other alternatives
and variations to' alternatives had in' many instances fewer environ-
mental impacts than the draft Specific Plan and alternatives
analyzed in the FEIR. The Board hereby reaffirms that the FEIR,
including the alternative analysis. therein, provides adequate
environmental review for the Specific Plan as approved and no
further environmental review under Public Resources Code Section
21166 or the applicable CEQA Guidelines is required.
2