HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-033Resolution
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE BUTTE COUNTY ON-SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ORDINANCE
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte does hereby find, determine and resolve as
follows:
SECTION I. RECITALS
A. The County of Butte caused an Environmental Impact Report (EIR} on the proposed
"ORDINANCE REPEALING BUTTE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 19, ENTITLED
`SEWAGE DISPOSAL,' AND REPLACING IT WITH BUTTE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER
19, ENTITLED `ON-SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS,"' sometimes referred to as the "On-
Site Wastewater Ordinance," and the proposed On-site Wastewater Manual, referred to
collectively herein as the "Project," to be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines,
Code of California Regulations, Title XIV, Section 15000 et seq., and the Butte County
Environmental Review Guidelines.
B. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was filed with the Office of Planning and
Research on March 9, 2009, and was circulated for public comment from March 9, 2009, to
Apri19, 2009.
C. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State
Clearinghouse on August 12, 2009, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with
respect to the Project and to other interested parties and agencies. The comments of such
persons and agencies were sought.
D. An official forty-fve (45} day public review period for the Draft EIR was established by
the State Clearinghouse. The public review period began on August 17, 2009, and ended on
October 2, 2009.
E. A Notice of Availability (NOA} was distributed to all interested groups, organizations,
and individuals on August 12, 2009, for the Draft EIR. The NOA stated that the County of
Butte had completed the Draft EIR and that copies were available at 202 Mira Loma Drive,
Oroville, California 95965, and at
1
httpalwww.buttecounty.netlpublichealthlenvironrnental/environmental.html. The NOA also
indicated that the off vial forty-fve (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR would end
on October 2, 2009.
F. A public notice was published in the Chico Enterprise Record on August 12, 2009, which
notice stated that the Draft Program EIR was available for public review and comment.
G. The Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on the Draft Program EIR on
September 15, 2409 and a public hearing on the EIR and Project on February 23, 2010.
H. Following closure of the public comment period and the conclusion of said public
hearing on September 15, 2009, the Board of Supervisors identified a Preferred Alternative and
the Draft Program EIR was supplemented to incorporate comments received and the County's
responses to said comments.
I. The following information and documents are incorporated by reference and made part of
the record supporting these f ndings:
1. The Draft and Final EIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by
reference therein.
2. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings and other
documents relied upon or prepared by County staff relating to the Project, including but
not limited to, the County of Butte General Plan.
4. All written comments, responses and testimony concerning the CEQA documents
received by the County from public agencies and interested members of the public
concerning the Project, up to and during the Board's hearings on September 15, 2009,
and February 23, 2010, and any written comments and responses thereto.
5. Documents submitted in association with the Project, describing the Project and
supporting or augmenting the environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA for
the Project.
6. This Resolution, including the Findings and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations adopted in connection with the Project.
7. The Final Program EIR which consists of the Butte County Individual On-site
Wastewater Ordinance Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (July 2009) and the
Butte County Individual On-site Wastewater Ordinance Final Program Environmental
Impact Report (Response to Comments Document -December 2009) plus the appendices
and technical reports cited in and/or relied on in preparing the Final Program EIR.
2
8. All staff reports, County files and records and other documents, prepared for
andlor submitted to the Board of Supervisors andlor County staff relating to the Final
Program EIR andlor the proposed Project.
9. The location and custodian of the Recard is the Public Health Department,
Environmental Health Division, 202 Mira Loma Drive, Oroville, CA 959b5.
SECTION II. CEQA FINDINGS
A. The Board of Supervisors finds that the EIR for the On-Site Wastewater Ordinance and
On-Site Wastewater Manual (herein the "Project"} has been completed in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Butte County Environmental
Review Guidelines.
B. The Board o£ Supervisors certifies that the EIR was prepared, published, circulated and
reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines, and constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective
and complete EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines.
C. The Board of Supervisors certif es that the EIR has been presented to it and that the
Board of Supervisors has reviewed it and considered the information contained therein prior to
acting on the proposed Project and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis
of the County.
D. Notice having been duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested parties
expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard, the EIR and
comments and responses thereto having been considered, the Board of Supervisors makes the
following determinations:
1. The EIR consists of the Draft EIR, and Final EIR (Responses to Comments) and
appendices.
2. The EIR was prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA.
3. The EIR has been presented to the Board of Supervisors which has reviewed and
considered the infarmation therein prior to adapting the On-site Wastewater Ordinance
and On-site Wastewater Manual, and the Board finds that the EIR reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the County of Butte.
E. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and in support of its approval
of the Project, the Board of Supervisors hereby adapts the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
3
SECTION III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
The County of Butte ("the County") is the applicant. The County proposes to adopt a new
Ordinance/Manual covering the regulation of on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal systems
in the County (the On-site Wastewater Ordinance and the technical Manual that describes how
the Ordinance will be implemented}. The proposed Ordinance/Manual would update and replace
existing regulations in order to be more consistent with applicable requirements (the Basin Plan)
of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and to incorporate other changes
based on the current state of knowledge and advances in practices and technologies for on-site
wastewater treatment and dispersal. In replacing these existing regulations, the proposed
Ordinance/Manual will:
• Implement more standardized procedures for soil and site evaluations, including
mandatory soil investigation for all new installations;
• Incorporate new requirements pertaining to the vertical separation between the bottom of
dispersal systems and groundwater or restrictive layers;
• Provide a broader range of treatment and dispersal designs and requirements to overcame
limiting soil and groundwater conditions;
• Incorporate minimum parcel size requirements, related to effective sail depth, fox new
parcel creation (subdivisions);
• Establish a Wastewater Advisory Committee to review and advise the County on matters
pertaining to on-site wastewater systems;
• Institute a program for certifying septic tank pumpers, system installers, system
designers, and operation, monitoring and maintenance specialists working in the County;
• Institute a program to assure ongoing inspection, monitoring and maintenance of certain
types of systems; and
• Provide a comprehensive On-Site Wastewater Manual containing procedural and
technical details for implementation of the proposed OrdinancelManual, covering
administrative, design, materials, construction, and Operations & Management matters.
The EIR assesses an alternative to the originally proposed Project called Modified Alternative 4
{"include Special Considerations in the Proposed Ordinance for Existing Large Parcels
Alternative"). The EIR concluded that the Project as proposed and Alternative 4 were
environmentally equivalent and superior to all other alternatives assessed in the Program EIR.
The Board of Supervisors has identified Alternative 4 (as modified in the Final Program EIR) as
the Preferred Alternative. Hereafter, in these Findings this alternative is referred to as the
Project.
4
This Preferred Alternative Project is described and assessed on pages 196 to 201 in the Draft
Program EIR and, as modif ed, on pages 2 to 10 of the Final Program EIR. This Preferred
Alternative Project includes the components that were part of the originally proposed Project but
makes special provisions for existing lots 5 acres or more in size.
These special conditions would be included in Section 19-7 of the proposed OrdinancelManual
and would apply specif tally to on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS} for existing large
parcels, 5 acres or greater in size. New wastewater systems on parcels of this size may be
approved by the Caunty without a requirement for supplemental treatment when the following
criteria are met:
The parcel shall be at least 5 acres in size;
2. The area in which the dispersal component of the wastewater system is located
and its designated repair area shall be shown to have a minimum native effective
soil depth of 24 inches;
3. The dispersal component of the wastewater system shall be designed and
constructed to maintain a vertical separation of at least 18 inches;
4. There shall be evidence of a restrictive layer between the dispersal component of
the wastewater system and the first useable aquifer. If the first usable aquifer is
known or estimated to be within i 0 feet of ground surface, additional evaluation
shall be required to verify that there is at least three feet of unsaturated soil
between the bottom of the dispersal system and the anticipated highest level of
usable groundwater;
The soil conditions at distances of 25 feet and 50 feet downslope of the dispersal
field and its designated repair area shall be demonstrated to meet the same soil
suitability conditions as required for dispersal field;
6. The wastewater system shall serve only a single family residence;
7. A deed restriction shall be recorded to assure: (a} The parcel will not be
subdivided in the future; and (b} The parcel will not be further developed with a
permanent secondary dwelling, until such time that the wastewater system is
upgraded to meet the requirements of Subsection A.2. of Section 19-'~ or until
another method of wastewater disposal is approved by the LEA, such as
connection to a public sewer;
The dispersal component of the on-site wastewater system and the designated
repair area shall be sited so as to maximize separation from wells and surface
water with the design objective of increasing said separation when feasible, by up
to 100% of that which is specified in the On-Site Wastewater Manual. At a
5
minimum, an additional setback distance to any well or surface watex in the
downslope direction from the dispersal field shall be SO feet;
9. The increased setback area between wells and surface water, and the dispersal
component of the an-site wastewater system and the designated repair area shall
be verified through the site evaluation process to not contain rock outcrops, cut
banks, or other soil or landscape features that would allow surfacing of
wastewater effluent;
10. The dispersal component of the on-site wastewater system and the designated
repair area shall be sited so as to maximize separation to property lines with the
design objective of increasing said separation when feasible, by up to 100ft. At a
minimum, the setback distance to any property line in the dawnslope direction
from the dispersal field shall be at least 50 feet; and
11. The dispersal component of the on-site wastewater system and the designated
repair area shall be sited so that the minimum natural ground slope within and in
the area extending 50 feet downslope of the dispersal field and its designated
repair area shall be 5 percent or greater. The LEA may waive this requirement
where it can be demonstrated that there will be adequate drainage away from the
dispersal field.
SECTION IV. FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT
A. INTRODUCTION
The EIR for the Project evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse
environmental impacts that could result from adoption of the Project or alternatives to the
Project.
The EIR analyzes environmental effects of the Project that would be significant in the absence of
mitigation measures for the Project. These effects (or impacts) are set forth in the EIR, along
with the adopted mitigation measures {changes or alterations} that will avoid or substantially
lessen those significant effects. Also set forth are certain significant effects that cannot be
avoided or reduced to a less than significant level even with the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures proposed in the EIR. In adopting these Endings, the Board of Supervisors
also adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the economic, racial and other
benefits of the Project that will render these significant effects acceptable.
Because the EIR indicates that implementation of the Project (or Project alternatives} would
result in certain adverse impacts, the County is required under CEQA, and the State and County
guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, to make certain findings with respect to these impacts. The
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., ("CEQA"}
6
and the California Cade of Regulations, Title 14 (the "CEQA Guidelines") allow a lead agency
to approve a project with significant unavoidable effects if the lead agency identifes in writing,
based on substantial evidence in the record, specific economic, social, or other benefits that
outweigh the significant unavoidable effects.
The Board of Supervisors {"Board") has reviewed the EIR and the potentially significant
environmental impacts that will directly or indirectly result from approval of the Project, and
makes one or more of the findings set forth below for each identified significant impact.
Said findings are made by the Board pursuant to Public Resources Cade section 21081 and
section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Board also is adopting a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" pursuant to section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The Board finds that where more than one reason exists for any Ending, each reason
independently supports these findings. This document presents the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations to allow the Project to be adopted. The said Findings
and Statement are based not only on the EIR, but also on evidence in the entire record, including
written and oral testimony to the Board of Supervisors.
B. TERMINOLOGY OF FINDINGS
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that for each significant environmental effect
identified in an EIR for a proposed Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding
reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions, including a brief explanation of the
rationale for each conclusion. The first is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR." The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
agency making the fording. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and
should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that "[s]pecifc
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the final EIR."
For purposes of these Findings, the term "mitigation measures" shall constitute the "changes or
alterations" discussed above. The term "avoid or substantially lessen" will refer to the
effectiveness of one or more of the mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce an otherwise
significant environmental effect to a less than significant level. When an impact remains
significant or potentially significant with mitigation, the Findings will indicate that the impact is
still "significant."
For each mitigation measure, the Board also will decide whether the mitigation proposed in the
EIR is "feasible." Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, "`[f]easible' means capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines section
15364.)
7
C. FINDINGS ARE DETERMINATIVE
The Board of Supervisors recognizes that there may be differences in and among the different
sources of information and opinions offered in the documents and testimony that make up the
Program EIR and the administrative record; that experts can disagree; and that the Board of
Supervisors must base its decisions and these findings on the substantial evidence in the record
that it finds most compelling. Therefore, by these f ndings, the Board of Supervisors ratifies,
clarifies, andlor makes insignificant modifications to the Program EIR and resolves that these
findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, as implemented
by the conditions of approval for the Project, shall control and are determinative of the
signifcant impacts of the Project and requirements imposed specifically on the Project in
response to those impacts.
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
The Board of Supervisors has modifed the Project as originally proposed, by the approval of the
Board of Supervisor's Preferred Alternative, Modif ed Alternative 4, and adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and these Endings, to avoid or mitigate to a less-
than-significant level most environmental impacts, and to otherwise consider, address and
resolve all of the environmental concerns raised during public review of the Program EIR. The
discussion which follows for each significant impact recites some of the background
environmental impact information related to the Preferred Alternative; the f nding made by the
Board of Supervisors is set forth under the caption "CEQA §21081(a) Finding"; and the
discussion under the caption "Evidence Supporting the Finding" contains substantiating
information about what mitigation is provided and how it reduces the significant impact. For
three impacts, there is no feasible mitigation available and the finding is set forth in the caption
"CEQA §21081(b) Finding." Therefore, the Board of Supervisors finds that the specif c
references to Mitigation Measures provided herein are intended to indicate where the particular
measure can be found and not to indicate that adoption of the precise mitigation is limited to the
information in the findings. Instead, the referenced Mitigation Measures are adopted in full as
set forth in the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
E. CONCURRENCE WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED TO BE LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
WITHOUT NEED FOR IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION
The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the information in the Program EIR,
including Chapters 4 and 5, addressing environmental effects, mitigation measures, and
alternatives, and said chapters identify certain conclusions that the Project would cause
environmental impacts that are Iess-than-significant without imposition of mitigation (see
Section 5.3 in the Program EIR}. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors, relying on the facts and
8
analysis in the Program EIR, which was presented to the Board of Supervisors and reviewed and
considered, concurs with the conclusions of the Program EIR regarding the less-than-significant
environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
F. CEQA §2l.OSI(A) FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO ALESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The Program Final EIR (hereafter called "the EIR") indicates that certain significant
environmental impacts will or may result from approval of the proposed Project. Each of these
significant impacts, except far a land use impact (Impact 4.9-A}, a cumulative impact (Section
5.2}, and agrowth-inducing impact (Section 5.1) can be mitigated to aless-than-signif cant Level.
In response to those significant impacts so identified in the EIR discussed in this Section F,
alterations have been required to the proposed Project or mitigation has been incorporated into or
imposed on the Project which will avoid ox substantially lessen each significant environmental
impact (except for the three impacts listed above) identified in this section. The Board of
Supervisors hereby finds that each and every mitigation measure identified in this section is
feasible and has been imposed on or incorporated into the proposed Project, and the Board of
Supervisors fiu~ther finds that the significant impacts (except for the three impacts listed above)
described in this section have been reduced to aless-than-significant level by incorporation of
these mitigation measures. The Board of Supervisors makes specific findings, as follows, for
each significant impact that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level, pursuant to CEQA
§210$1(a), based not only on the EIR, but on the evidence in the entire record, including written
and oral testimony to the Board of Supervisors.
According to CEQA §210$1 no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certif ed that identifies one or more significant effects on
the environment that would ensue if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the
following occur:
1. The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to
each significant effect:
a. Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which mitigate or avoid the signif cant effects on the environment
(referred to herein as: "Finding 1: The impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level.")
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by
that other agency (referred to herein as "Finding 2: Another public agency
can and should mitigate the impact."}
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including consideration for the provision of employment opportunities for
9
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report {referred to
herein as: "Finding 3: Specific considerations make mitigation measures
or alternatives infeasible;" or if the impact is partially mitigated, but not to
aless-than-significant level: "Finding 3: The impact would be mitigated,
but not to aless-than-significant level. Special considerations make
further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible").
2. With respect to the significant effects, which were subject to Finding c described
above, the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on
the environment.
The following facts, findings, and substantial evidence supporting the Findings related to
significant effects of the Project do not repeat the full analysis of impacts and description of
mitigation measures contained in documents making up the administrative record. Instead, the
following discussion specif tally references particular locations in documents containing such
information (e.g., specific sections in the EIR}. The referenced documents are either included or
attached herein, or are readily available to the public for review at the Public Health Department,
Environmental Health Division, 202 Mira Loma Drive, Oroville, CA 95965. The numerical
assignments used in these facts, findings, and supporting evidence corresponds exactly to the
numbering system used in the EIR.
Impact 4.1-A Surface Ruptures
In Section 4.1 {Geology and Soils), the EIR found that on-site wastewater systems (OWTS}
allowed under the Project could be damaged by surface ruptures caused by earthquakes centered
on the Cleveland Hills Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zane, which would pose a health risk.
CEQA §210$1(a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this seismio-related impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.1-A.1. With this mitigation measure,
this impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level because all permits for OWTS
located within the Cleveland Hills Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that utilize engineered
and supplemental treatment systems shall include a condition requiring inspection in the event of
an earthquake centered on that fault that results in appreciable surface fault displacement. The
Ordinance requires that any damage to or deficiencies in the OWTS noted during this inspection
shall be addressed immediately, which will reduce the risk of human exposure to untreated
wastewater.
10
impact ~.1-B Ground Shaking
In Section 4.1 (Geology and Soils), the EIR found OWTS allowed under the Project could be
damaged by ground shaking caused by earthquakes, which would pose a health risk.
CEQA §21081(a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this seismic-related impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.1-B.1. With this mitigation measure,
this impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level because in the event of an
earthquake centered within 25 miles of Butte County with Richter Magnitude of 5.0 and above,
post-seismic inspections will be performed on all OWTS that utilize engineered and
supplemental treatment systems. The Ordinance requires that any damage to or deficiencies in
the OWTS noted during this inspection shall be addressed immediately, which will reduce the
risk of human exposure to untreated wastewater.
impact 4.1-C Ground Failure
In Section 4.1 {Geology and Sails), the EIR found OWTS allowed under the Project could be
damaged by ground failure (including liquefaction, lurch cracking, and densification} caused by
earthquakes, which would pose a health risk.
CEQA §21081(a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this seismic-related impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.1-B.1. With this mitigation measure,
this impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level because in the event of an
earthquake centered within 25 miles of Butte County with Richter Magnitude of 5.0 and above,
post-seismic inspections shall be performed on all OWTS that utilize engineered and
supplemental treatment systems. The Ordinance requires that any damage to or deficiencies in
the OWTS noted during this inspection shall be addressed immediately, which will reduce the
risk of human exposure to untreated wastewater.
11
Impact 4.1-D Unstable Slopes
In Section 4.1 (Geology and Soils}, the EIR found OWTS allowed under the Project located an
unstable slopes could be damaged and possibly fail, andlor the OWTS could cause slope failure
due to discharge from the OWTS, which would pose a health risk.
CEQA §210$1{a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to a Less-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this sail erosion impact is mitigated to a less-than-
signifzcant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 4.1-D.1 and 4.1-D.2. With these
mitigation measures, this impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level because: 1) the
Ordinance requires construction of OWTS on slopes between 1 S% and 30% be evaluated to
identify any evidence of slope instabilities in the proposed dispersal field area or within 50 feet
of the proposed dispersal f eld area.; 2} where the OWTS site evaluation reveals the probable
existence of slope instabilities, then a Professional Geologist ar Registered Civil Engineer shall
inspect the site and recommend mitigation measures to prevent slope instabilities from impacting
the proposed OWTS including relocating the OWTS, establishing setbacks from slope
instabilities, and incorporating OWTS design measures to minimize the creation of localized
saturated flows. Implementing these measures reduces the risk of failure due to slope instability.
Impact 4.1-E Soil Erosion
In Section 4.1 {Geology and Soils}, the EIR found that construction of OWTS allowed under the
Project would result in soil erosion that could degrade water quality and cause sedimentation in
downstream receiving waters.
CEQA §21OS1(a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this soil erosion impact is mitigated to a less-than-
signifncant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.1-E.1. With this mitigation measure,
this impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level because: the Ordinance is amended
to contain language regulating the erosion of substantial amounts of soil when constructing new
OWTS. The Ordinance requires: 1) coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit
for stormwater discharges for projects disturbing more than one acre; 2} a County grading permit
for any project grading more than 1,000 cubic yards; and 3} estimates of ground disturbance in
12
OWTS applications for all OWTS except for those for private residences. These provisions will
reduce the amount of soil erosion caused by installation of new OWTS.
Impact 4.2-A Pathogens iu Water
In Section 4.2 {Hydrology and Water Quality), the EIR found that construction and operation of
OWTS allowed under the Project could result in contamination of groundwater and surface water
from pathogens, which could be a human health risk and damage environmental resources.
CEQA §21481(x) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to ales-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this water quality impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 4.2-A.1 to 4.2-A.6 (as revised in Items
9 to 12 on page 59 of the Final EIR -Response to Comments) and the five mitigation measures
listed on page 6 of the Final EIR -Response to Comments. With these mitigation measures, this
impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level because the following are required: 1)
special protections for new OWTS within Watershed Protection Overlay Zones; 2) supplemental
treatment and pressure distribution/drip dispersal of the treated effluent, in areas where a
minimum vertical separation distance of less than 36 inches is permitted; 3) special design
factors for areas of coarse-textured soils with percolation rates of 1 to 5 MPI; 4} supplemental
treatment with asingle-pass sand filter for disinfection systems or additional monitoring
provisions; and 5) for large existing lots (over 5 acres) where supplemental treatment systems are
not required, adequate restrictive layer between the trench bottom and groundwater; increased
setback from wells, streams and property lines; and adequate soil conditions and ground slopes
in and downhill of the dispersal fzeld. Together, these measures reduce the chance of
contamination from new OWTS due to soil or hydrologic conditions in the area.
Impact 4.2-E Localized Water Quality and Human Health
In Section 4.2 {Hydrology and Water Quality), the EIR found that construction and operation of
non-residential and large flow OWTS allowed under the Project could cause localized impacts to
water quality andlor public health
CEQA §2 i 081(x) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
13
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this water quality impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.2-E.1 (as revised by Item No. 19 on
page 61 of the Final EIR -Response to Comments report). With this mitigation measure, this
impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because the OWTS Manual will be
amended to require: 1) more detailed design analysis for systems that would treat more than
1,500 gallons per day; and 2)implementation of design measures in the new OWTS to address
groundwater mounding, nitrogen loading, or other potential problems identif ed in the design
analysis. This measure would reduce the potential localized water quality and health impacts
from new larger OWTS.
)Cmpact 4.2-J Flooding
In Section 4.2 (Hydrology and Water Quality), the EIR found that construction and operation of
OWTS allowed under the Project in areas subject to flooding could result in OWTS failure with
corresponding risk of failure and release of sewage during flood events. Flooding could result in
serious damage to system components, which could cause localized impacts to water quality or
public health.
CEQA §21051(a} Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this water quality impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.2-~.1 (as revised in Item No. 1~ on
page 50 of the Final EIR -Response to Comments report). With this mitigation measure, this
impact would be reduced to aless-than-signif cant level because: 1) supplemental systems will
be protected from flooding; and 2) wastewater will not be discharged by pumps or dosing
siphons (where the distribution piping is less than 12 inches below the ground surface) to flooded
dispersal areas.
Impact 4.2-L Sail Saturation
In Section 4.2 {Hydrology and Water Quality}, the EIR found that construction of new OWTS
allowed under the Project utilizing subsurface drip irrigation for wastewater dispersal could
create localized soil saturation and surfacing of wastewater effluent, which would pose a risk to
human health and potentially degrade water quality.
CEQA §21051{a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
i4
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this water quality impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.2-L.1(as revised by Item No. 19 on
page 61 of the Final EIR -Response to Comments report). With this mitigation measure, this
impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level because the OWTS Manual will be
amended to require specific criteria for sizing of subsurface drip irrigation fields in lieu of the
currently proposed requirements that defer this to manufacturer recommendations. The sizing
criteria shall take into account subsoil as well as surface soil conditions, and shall include
provisions for requiring additional analysis of dispersal site hydraulic capacitylgroundwater
mounding for large flow systems and other situations, as warranted. Inclusion of these design
criteria reduces the potential impact of system failure for new OWTS using subsurface drip
irrigation for dispersal.
Ympact 4.3-A Special Status Species
In Section 4.3 (Biological Resources}, the EIR found that construction of new OWTS allowed
under the Project could damage habitat used by Special Status Species of plants or wildlife
andlor harm or kill these species.
CEQA §21081(a} Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this biological impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.3-A.1. With this mitigation measure,
this impact would be reduced to a Less-than-signif cant level because the Ordinance shall be
revised to require a qualified biologist to survey proposed OWTS sites in Areas of
Environmental Concern (as identified by the County during its update of the County General
Plan) that include special status species habitat. If the site contains a population of special status
species or habitat critical to the survival of a special status species, then either an alternate site
will be identified, or the biologist will identify on- or off site mitigation that is acceptable to the
County and the California Department of Fish and Game. Such mitigation could include
preserving habitat or creating additional habitat needed by the affected species. This revision of
the Ordinance will provide additional protection to Special Status Species and their required
habitat and reduce the potential impact to these species.
impact 4.3-B Sensitive Natural Communities
In Section 4.3 (Biological Resources), the EIR found that construction of new OWTS allowed
under the Project could damage wetlands and other sensitive natural communities.
15
CEQA §210$1 {a} Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to ales-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this biological impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.3-B.1. With this mitigation measure,
this impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level because the Ordinance shall be
revised to require a qualified biologist to survey proposed OWTS in Areas of Environmental
Concern (as identified by the County during its update of the County General Plan) that include
wetlands, riparian habitat, andlor oak woodlands. If the site contains these communities, then
either an alternate site will be identified, or the biologist will identify on- or off-site mitigation
that is acceptable to the County and the California Department of Fish and Garne. Mitigation
can include construction of replacement woodlands, replanting degraded riparian habitat on- or
off site, replanting oak trees, payment to the State Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund, or other
measures approved by the County and State.
Impact 4.3-C Pathogens
In Section 4.3 (Biological Resources), the EIR found that operation of new OWTS allowed under
the Project could release pathogens that would adversely affect biological resources.
CEQA §210& 1(a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this biological impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of previously-described Mitigation Measures 4.2-A.1 through
4.2-A.4, 4.2-E.1, 4.2-J.1, and 4.2-L.1. Under these mitigation measures adequate design
measures would be required to reduce the chance of pathogens escaping into the environment, as
was described under Impacts 4.2-A, 4.2-E, 4.2-J, and 4.2-L.
Impact 4.4-A Cultural Resources
In Section 4.4 (Cultural Resources), the EIR found that construction of new OWTS allowed
under the Project could damage or destroy historical and unique archeological resources.
CEQA §21081(a) Finding
16
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-signif cant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this cultural resource impact is mitigated to a less-
than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 4.4-A.1 and 4-4-A.2 because: 1}
work on constructing new OWTS will be halted if any cultural resources are discovered until the
resources can be assessed and protected or mitigated, if warranted; and 2) any human remains
will be handled as required by State law. These standard mitigation measures reduce the
possible impact to cultural resources and human remains.
Impact 4.4-B Paleontological Resources
In Section 4.4 {Cultural Resources), the EIR found that construction of new OWTS allowed
under the Froject could damage or destroy paleontological resources.
CEQA §21081 {a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to aless-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this paleontological impact is mitigated to a Iess-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.4-B.1 because work on constructing
new OWTS will be halted if any paleontological resources are discovered until the resources can
be assessed and protected or mitigated, if warranted. This standard mitigation measure reduces
the possible impact to paleontological resources.
Impact 4.6-A Emission of Air Pollutants
In Section 4.6 (Air Quality), the EIR found that construction of new OWTS allowed under the
Project could generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants that may cause adverse effects
on local air quality.
CEQA §21081(a) Finding
Finding 1: This impact is mitigated to ales-than-significant level.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, this air quality impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.6-A.I because Installation of new
OWTS will be done consistent with Butte County Air Quality Management District {BCAQMD)
17
requirements for land clearing and construction. Compliance with the BCAQMD guidelines will
reduce the impact on air quality.
G. CEQA §21081{B} FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS
WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO ALESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The EIR identified three impacts that cannot be reduced to aless-than-significant level by
implementing known andlor feasible mitigation measures. As described above in the
introductory paragraphs of this Section IV, the County cannot approve or carry out a project for
which an environmental impact report has been certified that identified one or more significant
effects on the environment that would ensue if the project is approved or carried out unless both
of the following occur:
1. The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to
each significant effect:
a. Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which mitigate or avoid the signifcant effects on the environment
{referred to herein as: "Finding 1: The impact is mitigated to a less-than-
signifcant level.")
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by
that other agency (referred to herein as "Finding 2: Another public agency
can and should mitigate the impact.")
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including consideration for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (referred to
herein as: "Finding 3: Specific considerations make mitigation measures
or alternatives infeasible." or if the impact is partially mitigated, but not to
a less-than-significant level; "Finding 3: The impact would be mitigated,
but not to aless-than-significant level. Special considerations make
further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.")
2. With respect to the significant effects, which were subject to Finding c described
above, the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benef is of the project outweigh the signif cant effects on
the environment.
In the case of the following three impacts, one of the two alternates for Finding 3 is made. See
Section V for the Statement of Overriding Considerations required under Point No. 2 above.
18
Impact 4.9-A Conversion of Farmland
In Section 4.9 {Land Use), the EIR found that construction of new OWTS allowed under the
Project could convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) to non-agricultural use.
CEQA §21081{a} Finding
Finding 3: Specific considerations make mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
Currently the County cannot prohibit the single-family residential development of existing
parcels if that development would be consistent with zoning and the General Plan designation,
including development of parcels containing Farmlands. The only mitigation would be
amending the General Plan to exclude any development on areas designated as Farmland. Such
an amendment of the General Plan is not considered feasible for this Project
Impact 4,fi-D Cumulative Impact -Global Climate Change
In Section 5.2 {Cumulative Impacts), the EIR found that construction and operation of new
OWTS allowed under the Project could emit greenhouse gases. While the emissions from the
Project would not be substantial enough to cause climate change, the Project would be an
increment of emissions adding to those from other development in the area. These increased
emissions would make it difficult to meet its emissions reduction target, and would cause a
significant cumulative impact to the world's climate.
CEQA §21081(a} Finding
Finding 3: The impact would be mitigated, but not to aless-than-significant level. Special
considerations make further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible
Evidence Supporting the Finding
All new development including construction and operation of new OWTS will contribute
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Installation of new OWTS will be done consistent with the
guidelines established by the BCAQMD. This will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, but
it would not fully mitigate the impact.
Section 5.1 Growth-Inducing Impact
19
In Section 5.1 (Growth-Inducing Impacts), the EIR found that the Project could induce
development of additional land {up to an additional 244 lots), and development of that land
would or could have significant environmental impacts.
CEQA §21081{a) Finding
Finding 3: Specific considerations make mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible.
Evidence Supporting the Finding
The only mitigation would be for the County to prohibit division of the properties that would
create these new lots. However, this subdivision is allowed by the General Plan, so this
mitigation would require amendment of the General Plan. This is not considered a feasible
mitigation far this Project.
H. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
1. CEQA Alternatives Analysis
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project. (State CEQA Guidelines 15126[d]}. The EIR evaluated and compared
several alternatives to the originally proposed Froject as well as the current Project (the Preferred
Alternative, Modified Alternative No. 4}, and the Board of Supervisors' findings regarding these
alternatives are set forth below.
2. Definition of Feasibility of Alternatives
Fublic Resources Code §21081{b)(3} provides that when approving a project for which an EIR
has been prepared, a public agency may find that specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report. Under Public Resources Code §21061.1, the term "feasible"
means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
3. Environmentally Superior Alternative
On page 202, the EIR discusses which alternative is environmentally superior, based on the
alternatives analysis. The EIR concluded that the Project as originally proposed was the
environmentally superior alternative. However, it also concluded that the current Project
{Alternative 4 -Include Special Considerations in the Proposed Ordinance for Existing Large
Parcels} was the environmental equivalent of the Project as originally proposed. The modifed
Alternative 4 in the Final EIR was also found to be the environmental equivalent of the Project
zo
as originally proposed (see the Final EIR -Response to Comments report at page $). The Board
of Supervisors identified the modified Alternative 4 as the Preferred Alternative, which is the
Project. These Findings apply to this Preferred Alternative.
4. Findings on Feasibility of Alternatives
The EIR examined four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative; Reduced Density
Alternative; Incorporate Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan Guidelines for
Subdivisions into the Ordinance Alternative; Adopt Draft AB 885 Regulations Alternative; and
Include Special Considerations in the Proposed Ordinance for Existing Large Parcels
Alternative.
For reasons set forth below and considering the entire record, the Board of Supervisors hereby
determines that the EIR presents a reasonable range of alternatives, in accordance with CEQA.
Each reason set forth below is a separate and independent ground far the Board of Supervisars'
determination.
(1) No Project Alternative
Description of the Alternative
The No Project Alternative discussed in Section 5.4 of the EIR describes the environmental
effects of not approving the prapased Project. This would mean that future OWTS would be
designed, installed, and operated under existing County regulations.
Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative
Most construction-related impacts would be approximately the same for both the proposed
Project and this alternative, and would mainly be less-than-significant impacts. The main
environmental benef t of this alternative is that it eliminates the potential creation of about 24~
new lots in the County. The alternative has more substantial impacts on the long-term reliability
of the new OWTS given geologic and soil constraints; more substantial impacts to biological and
cultural resources; and mare potential impacts to water quality and human health. While the
alternative eliminates the significant growth-inducing impact, this advantage is significantly
outweighed by the many environmental benefits that would result from new OWTS allowed
under the proposed Project as compared to existing regulations.
(2} Incorporate Regional Water Board Basin Plan Guidelines for Subdivisions into the
Ordinance Alternative
Description of the Alternative
Under this alternative the criteria and requirements contained in the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan "Guidelines for Waste Disposal from Land
Development (Guidelines)" would be incorporated directly into the proposed Ordinance/Manual.
21
These Guidelines would apply only to the creation of new Iots {subdivisions}, which is how they
are structured and applied by the RWQCB. They would replace the requirements in the
proposed Ordinance/Manual pertaining to subdivisions. The other portions of the
Ordinance/Manual addressing OWTS for existing parcels would be retained as proposed, along
with all of the general provisions of the OrdinancelManual. This alternative would be a hybrid,
combining the Guidelines with portions of the OrdinancelManual.
Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative
The main advantages of the RWQCB Guidelines are standard limits of 60 MPI percolation and
5-foot vertical separation requirements for soil depth and groundwater separation for new
subdivisions, as compared to the proposed Ordinance/Manual that allows up to 120 MPI, and a
3-foot vertical separation for standard systems. The advantages of the proposed
Ordinance/Manual as compared to these guidelines are {a) the requirement for Pressure
Distribution design for b0 to 120 MPI, and (b) the minimum lot size requirements in Table 2 of
the OrdinancelManual that scale up (1, 2 and 5 acres) as the soil/groundwater vertical separation
becomes less. The RWQCB Guidelines also allow for case-by-case waiver of their minimum
criteria where they cannot be met and there are valid engineering solutions and oversight
available. The proposed Ordinance/Manual formalizes requirements that are compatible with the
types of case-by-case approval of engineered systems granted by the RWQCB in the past, along
with minimum lot size requirements to assure that development densities are regulated. This is
important to minimize overall cumulative septic system loading impacts (e.g., from nitrogen).
There is some advantage to possibly requiring the 5-foot vertical separation, but this is countered
by the lack of minimum parcel sizes and the allowance of seepage pits. There are possible
advantages to the alternative, but they do not outweigh the environmental benefits of the
proposed OrdinancelManual, so this is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
(3) Adopt Draft AB 885 Regulations Alternative
Description of the Alternative
This alternative would substitute the requirements for OWTS as contained in the Draft
Regulations for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems issued by the State Water Board in
November 2008 (AB 885 Regulations) in place of the requirements in the proposed
OrdinancelManual. The AB 885 Regulations contain requirements applicable to both
subdivisions and existing parcels. The AB 885 Regulations have not been adopted by the State
Water Board and are reportedly in the process of being revised based on public review
comments; however no information is available on what changes might be made to the
November 2008 version. Therefore, the November 200$ version represents the latest proposal
from the State Water Board and was reviewed as a project alternative.
Reasons far Rejecting the Alternative
The alternative would have approximately the same short-term, construction-related and the
growth-inducing impacts as the proposed Project. The proposed Ordinance/Manual is
22
environmentally superior in the following ways: inclusion of minimum setback requirements;
establishing minimum lot sizes for subdivisions; and prohibition of seepage pits. The proposed
OrdinancelManual is more thorough and complete in regard to site evaluation procedures,
certification of practitioners, design requirements and ongoing O&M program (renewable
operating permits}. AB 885 is vague andlor incomplete in these areas. Additionally, AB 885
will introduce a new requirement for inspection and testing of the 22,000-plus existing OWTS in
the County which could generate more unnecessary pumping of septic tanks at the time of
inspection. The additional benefits of the AB 885 septic tank inspections is questionable -some
failures might be found and corrected, but there is no requirement to inspect the leachfield (only
the tank), and there is no reporting requirement. Therefore, reporting and correction of failures
could be random. The water well testing, if implemented, would produce data of questionable
value and with no clear plan of what to do with it. The requirement for use of pressure
distribution and leachfield size adjustments where rock content in the soil exceeds 30% will
increase the number of pressure distribution and supplemental treatment systems, which may or
may not be a goad thing. This will mean a greater use of energy where gravity systems would
otherwise be satisfactory, and there would not be any clear water quality benef t. The alternative
is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
{4) Include Special Considerations in the Proposed Ordinance for Existing Large Farcels
Alternative
Description of the Alternative
As modified as part of the Final EIR -Response to Comments report (see pages 2 to 10 of the
Final EIR), this alternative proposes special conditions to be included in Section 19-'1 of the
proposed Ordinance/Manual that would apply specifically to OWTS for existing large parcels, 5
acres or greater in size. Other than these special provisions for large existing parcels, the
remainder of this Preferred Alternative includes the provisions and regulations that were in the
original Froject. See Section III of these Findings for additional discussion of the components of
this alternative.
Reasons for Accepting the Alternative
The Freferred Alternative would have approximately the same short-term, construction-related
and growth-inducing impacts as the originally proposed Project. The alternative would slightly
reduce impacts associated with the use of pumps and supplemental systems, and it would have
potentially more significant impacts an water quality. However, these impacts can be reduced to
a less-than-significant level. Based on input from the public during the public review process, the
Board of Supervisors determined that: 1} few environmental impacts have resulted from
installation of OWTS on existing large parcels; 2} the alternative would be the environmental
equivalent of the original Project; and 3) requiring the use of supplemental treatment and other
requirements established by the original proposed Project was an undue economic burden on
property owners given there is no substantial reasons for requiring those additional
improvements. As such, the Board of Supervisors selected modif ed Alternative 4 as described
in the Final EIR as the Preferred Alternative to be adopted.
23
SECTION V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Board of Supervisors specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse impacts have
not been mitigated to ales-than-significant level, there are specific economic, social and other
considerations that support approval of the Project.
CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed Project, including specific
economic, social, planning, land use, or other considerations, against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. The Board of Supervisors
has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and throughout the record.
Based on this information, the Board of Supervisors proposes to approve the Project despite
three significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the EIR.
The Board of Supervisors has carefully balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the
unavoidable adverse impacts identif ed in the EIR. Notwithstanding the disclosure of impacts
identified in the EIR as significant, which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of
insignificance, the Board of Supervisors, acting pursuant to sections 15093 and 15096(h) of the
CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that the benefits of approving the Project outweigh the
significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. The specific rationale for each of the
three impacts is described below.
Impact ~.9-A Conversion of Farmland
In Section 4.9 (Land Use), the EIR found that construction of new OWTS allowed under the
Project could convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) to non-agricultural use.
Reasons far Overriding the Significant Adverse Impact
The Board of Supervisors approves the Project despite this impact for the following reasons:
1. The Board of Supervisors finds that the County allows the development of existing
parcels of land when that development is consistent with the General Plan designation, General
Plan policies, and the zoning of the property. Single-family residential development of these
existing parcels does not require discretionary approval from the County. This includes parcels
that contain Farmland. Installation of a new OWTS is an ancillary improvement that is part of
the overall development of the property. The County Boazd of Supervisors has already accepted
this potential conversion of Farmland when it approved its General Plan. Thus, the County has
previously accepted this potential impact as an acceptable part of allowing the orderly
development of the County. The Project does not alter this existing situation.
2. The Project will provide environmental benefits by replacing existing County regulations
with more up-to-date guidelines regulating the installation and operation of OWTS. These new
24
regulations incorporate changes based on the current state of knowledge and advances in
practices and technologies for on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal. These new regulations
will provide more protection for biological and cultural resources than occurs under existing
County regulations. These environmental benefits outweigh the conversion of a small amount of
Farmland.
3. The new regulations in the Project reduce the chance of OWTS failure due to
inappropriate siting, geologic and soil constraints, and hydrologic constraints. The Project will
therefore reduce the chance for human contact with untreated wastewater. These health benef is
outweigh the conversion of a small amount of Farmland.
Impact 4.6-D Cumulative Impact -Global Climate Change
In Section 5.2 {Cumulative Impacts), the EIR found that construction and operation of new
OWTS allowed under the Project could emit greenhouse gases. While the emissions from the
Project would not be substantial enough to cause climate change, the Project would be an
increment of emissions from other development in the area that would make it more difficult for
the State to meet its emission reduction targets, and globally, it would cause a significant
cumulative impact on the world's climate.
Reasons for Overriding the Significant Adverse Impact
The Board of Supervisors approves the Project despite this impact for the following reasons:
1. Installation of new OWTS will comply with all regulations governing construction and
operations of projects as established by the Butte County Air Quality Management District. in
complying with these regulations, installers will be emitting fewer pollutants into the air,
including greenhouse gases, than would be the case if these regulations did not apply.
2. The cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases will occur over many years. As the EIR
notes, the impact of these emissions in and of itself is not a significant impact. It is only when
considered as an increment of world-wide emissions that the impact rises to the level of
signif cance. It is debatable whether the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact should
be considered "cumulatively considerable." To ensure a worst case analysis, and because the
State has yet to adopt thresholds of significance for emissions, the EIR concluded the impact was
significant and any contribution of emissions was significant. While the Board of Supervisors
accepts this conclusion, it notes that the contribution of new OWTS installation and operation is
a very small contribution. In addition, this contribution would occur in any case if the new
Ordinance was not adopted (since development of property, including development of a new
OWTS, in most cases is not a discretionary project requiring County approval).
3. The Project will provide environmental benefits by replacing existing County regulations
with more up-to-date guidelines regulating the installation and operation of OWTS. These new
regulations incorporate changes based on the current state of knowledge and advances in
25
practices and technologies for on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal. These new regulations
will provide more protection for biological and cultural resources than occurs under existing
County regulations. These environmental benefits outweigh the small increment of greenhouse
gas emissions generated by the Project.
4. The new regulations reduce the chance of OWTS failure due to inappropriate siting,
geologic and soil constraints, and hydrologic constraints. The Project will reduce the chance for
human contact with untreated wastewater. The benefits to human health outweigh the small
increment of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Project.
Section 5.1 Growth-Inducing Impact
In Section 5.1 (Growth-Inducing Impacts), the EIR found that the Project could induce
development of additional land (up to an additional 244 lots), and development of that land
would ar could have significant environmental impacts.
Reasons far Overriding the Significant Adverse Impact
The Board of Supervisors approves the Project despite this impact for the following xasons:
1. The Board of Supervisors finds that the County allows subdivision of lands consistent
with the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the property, if such subdivision is
consistent with General Plan policies. Therefore, subdivision of existing properties to allow as
many as 244 additional lots would be consistent with County policy, and this potential
subdivision was accepted when the County adapted its General Plan. Thus, the County has
previously accepted this potential impact as an acceptable part of allowing the orderly
development of the County. The Project does not alter this existing situation.
2. Because the creation of these new lots requires discretionary approval from the County,
the County will have the opportunity to assess the specif c environmental effects of the
subdivisions at the time of application. It is possible that either impacts of each subdivision can
be reduced to aless-than-significant level, ar that the County may not approve the subdivisions
based on the severity of the impacts and/or inconsistency with County General Plan policies that
protect environmental resources.
3. The Project will provide environmental benefits by replacing existing County regulations
with more up-to-date guidelines regulating the installation and operation of OWTS. These new
regulations incorporate changes based an the current state of knowledge and advances in
practices and technologies for on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal. These new regulations
will provide more protection for biological and cultural resources than occurs under existing
County regulations. These environmental benefits outweigh the possible adverse impacts
associated with development of these additional lots.
26
4. The Project will reduce the chance for humans to come into contact with untreated
wastewater, because the new regulations reduce the chance of OWTS failure due to inappropriate
siting, geologic and soil constraints, and hydrologic constraints. These health benefits outweigh
the possible adverse impacts associated with development of these additional lots. The benefits
to human health outweigh the possible adverse impacts associated with development of these
additional lots.
SECTION VI. DETERMINATIONS AND ACTIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors makes the
following determinations and takes the following actions:
1. Certifies that the EIR was properly prepared and supports the approval of the Project
which is the adoption of the On-Site Wastewater Ordinance and the On-Site Wastewater Manual
as specified in the Endings set forth in Section II above;
2. Adopts the findings set forth in Section IV above concerning the ability to mitigate to
aless-than-significant level the identified potentially significant impacts;
3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in Exhibit A;
and
4. Adopts a Statement of Overriding Consideration concerning the three significant,
unavoidable impacts as specified in the findings set forth in Section V above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of
California, on the 23rd day of February, 2010 by the following votes:
AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Kzxk, Lambert, and 'Yamaguchi
NOES: Chaa.r Connelly
ABSENT: None
NOT VOTING: None
BILL CONNELLY, AIR
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTESTED:
Scott Tandy
Interim Chief Ad 'strative Officer
and the Clerl'c f e Bs~ard
By:
27