HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-151RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT IN
SUPPORT OF BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2430 AND ITS
ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, REJECTING
ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PLAN, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT DF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
I. PuRrOSE A1vn BACKGROUrm
A. The Project
These findings relate to the .Butte County General Plan 2030 (General Plan 2034). The
project encompasses all of unincorporated Butte County, including land inside each
municipality's Sphere of Influence (SOn, but not inside municipality limits.
Butte County lies in north central California at the northeastern end of the Sacramento Valley,
approximately 150 miles northeast of San. Francisco and 70 miles north of Sacramento. From
the northeastem end of the Sacramento Valley, Butte County extends into the foothills at the
confluence of the southern Cascade and the northern Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. The
total land area of Butte County is approximately 1,680 square miles. ,
General Plan 2030 provides-the fundamental basis for the County's land use, development,
and conservation policy, and represents the basic community values, ideals, and aspirations
that will govern the County through 2030. General Plan 2030 addresses all aspects of
development, including land use, housing, economic development, agriculture, water
resources, circulation, conservation and open space, health and safety, and public facilities
and services.
California Government Code section 65300 requires General Plan 2030 to be comprehensive
and internally consistent, and to provide long-term guidance for the community. Although
General Plan 2030 is required to address the issues specified by State law, it may be organized
in a way that best suits Butte County.
The overall objectives of General Plan 2030 are enumerated in the General Plan 2030 Guiding
Principles. These objectives are to:
• Partner with municipalities, special districts and unincorporated communities on
important regional planning issues.
• Coordinate all modes of transportation with the transportation planning agencies.
• Address areas of urban development for anticipated growth during the next 20
years to meet the housing needs of Butte County residents.
• Protect the county airports in coordination with the 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan.
• Address the protection, enhancement, utilization and management of natural
resources and the environment.
• Promote the public's health, safety and welfare.
• Play a critical role in establishing a positive environment for economic
development.
• Address agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County's economy that will be
protected, maintained, promoted and enhanced.
• Identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will occur in rural areas
while protecting the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources,
and the environment.
• Address the need for new parks and recreation opportunities. Cultural resources
that are significant to Butte County's history will be identified and protected.
• Address, identify and promote ways to maintain or enhance economic opportunity,
viability and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural
environment.
• Address where and how the full array of public services andlor facilities will be
provided to the varied and diverse geography of the county.
• Address the protection and management of water resources.
In addition to the objectives outlined in the General Plan 2030 Guiding Principles, General
Plan 2030 aims to accommodate anticipated population growth and to allow all Butte County
residents to maintain economic use and value of their property.
B. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000
et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Cade of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et
seq., (collectively, CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared far General
Plan 2030 to analyze the environmental effects of General Plan 2030. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated from April 8, 2010 to June 7, 2010 for
public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Responses to comments, together
with other information, were prepared and are contained in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR). Butte County is the CEQA Lead Agency for General Plan 2030. The EIR
was prepared by Design, Community & Environment (DC&E) for Butte County.
2
C. Procedural Background
The following is an overview of the environmental review process for General Plan 203D that
has led to the preparation of the FEIR.
1) In accordance with section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the County prepared a
Notice of Preparation {NOP) of an EIR and filed it with the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR} on September 15, 2008. The NOP was circulated to the public, local
and State agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the proposed
project. Environmental issues and alternatives raised by comments received on the
NOP during the subsequent 30-day public review period were considered for inclusion
in the EIR. Public and agency comments received on the NOP were reviewed, and
incorporated into the DEIR.
2) Upon completion of the DEIR, the County filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) an
Apri16, 2010 with the State 4fJice of Planning and Research far project number
2008D92062 to begin the public review period. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21161.)
Copies of the DEIR were available and circulated for public review.
3) The comment period for the DEIR was from April 8, 2010 to June 7, 2010. During
that time, 2D letters were received. In addition, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing to receive comments on the DEIR on April 22, 2010.
4) In response to the comments received concerning the DEIR, the FEIR was issued on
August 30, 2010. The FEIR contains copies of all comments received on the DEIR
and responses to those comments. The FEIR also contains errata revisions to the
.DEIR and supplemental information deemed necessary in response to comments in the
DEIR.
5) Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the lead agency provided a
written response in the form of the FEIR to all public agencies commenting on the
DEIR, 10 days prior to certifying the FEIR.
II. THE USE OF A PROGRAM EIR
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project
circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 to accommodate a complete analysis of all of the components of General Plan
2D3D.
A Program EIR is an EIR that may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized
as one large project and are related in one of the following ways:
a) Geographically;
3
b) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions;
c) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
d) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in
a similar way.
a) A'Program EIR enables the lead agency to consider broad environmental implications
of development at an early stage in the process, sometimes when the project is still at a
conceptual level, recognizing that a series of actions will occur prior to development.
Because they are prepared relatively early on, Program EIRs allow greater flexibility
in dealing with overall development options, basic environmental issues, and
cumulative impacts.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and these f ndings, the record before the County includes, without
limitation, the following:
1) The NOP;
2) The DEIR and all appendices to the DEIR;
3) The FEIR and all appendices to the FEIR;
~1) All notices required by CEQA, staff reports and presentation materials related to
General Plan 2030;
5) General Plan 2030;
6) All studies conducted or relied upon for General Plan 2030 and contained in, or
referenced by, staff reports, the DEIR, or the FEIR, or General Plan 2030;
7} All public reports and documents related to General Plan 2034 prepared for the
County and other agencies;
$) All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and
workshops and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to General Plan
2030, the DEIR, and the FEIR;
9) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and
ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans and ordinances, master plans
together with environmental review documents, Endings, mitigation monitoring
4
programs and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area; and
10) Any additional items not included above if they are required by law.
fV. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary action for the proposed project involves the following approval by the
Board of Supervisors:
1) Adoption of General Plan 2030; and
2) Amendment of the North Chico Specific Plan, and the Stringtown Mountain Specific
Plan.
These Endings are made by the County pursuant to section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The County is also adopting a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
V. GENERAL FINDINGS
A. Terminology of Findings
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental
effect identifed in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written
Ending reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions. 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 FEIR." 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 finding. 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]pecific 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 ar more of the mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce an otherwise
significant environmental effect to ales-than-significant level. Although section 15091, read
literally, does not require Endings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as
merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account far all such
effects identified in the EIR for the proposed project. When an impact remains signiEcant or
potentially significant with mitigation, the Endings will generally find that the impact is still
"significant: '
In the process of adopting mitigation, the County will also be making decisions on whether
each mitigation measure proposed in the DEIR is feasible or infeasible. Pursuant to the
5
CEQA Guidelines, "feasible 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, § 15364.) When the County finds a measure
is not feasible, evidence for its decision will be provided.
B. General CEQA Findings
These findings comply with CEQA. The Board of Supervisors has considered the
information and environmental effects as shown in the FEIR prior to approving General Plan
2030. These findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of Butte County,
which is the lead agency.
C. Changes to the DEl(R Do Nat Require Recirculation
In the course of responding to comments received during the public review and comment
period on the DEIR, certain portions of the DEIR have been modified and same new
information has been added. The changes made to the DEIR do not result in the existence of:
1) A signif cant new environmental impact that would result from General Plan 2030 or
an adopted mitigation measure;
2} A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that is not reduced to
a level of less than significant by adopted mitigation measures;
3) A feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure not adopted that is considerably
different from others analyzed in the DEIR that would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of General Plan 2030; or
4) Information that indicates that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to
review and comment on the DEIR.
The County finds that the amplifications and clarif cations made to the DEIR da not
collectively or individually constitute significant new information within the meaning of
Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. The Board of
Supervisors has evaluated whether these modifications, additions, and changes trigger the
thresholds for recirculation. The Board finds that there are no substantial changes in the
proposed project that necessitate revisions of the DEIR, nor has significant new information
become available. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the
DEIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in, an adequate DEIR.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the entire record, both written and oral, relating to
General Plan 2030, and the associated DEIR and FEIR, the Board finds that General Plan
2030 falls within the scope of the DEIR analysis and that recirculation of the DEIR is not
required prior to the adoption of General Plan 2430.
6
D. Evidentiary Basis for Findings
These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the County as
described in Section III.
The references to the DEIR and to the FEIR set forth in these findings are for ease of
reference and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon for
these findings.
E. Loca#ion and Custodian of Records
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and California Code of Regulations, title
14, section 15091, Butte County is the custodian of the documents and other material that
constitute the record of proceedings upon which the County's decision is based, and such
documents and other material are located at: Butte County Department of Development
Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, 95965.
VI. FINDINGS REGAItbIIYG ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives
to the project or to the location of the project. However, an EIR need not consider an
alternative whose implementation is remote or speculative. An EIR is required to describe
and comparatively evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or location of the
project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Thus, the range of
alternatives evaluated in the DEIR was dictated by CEQA Guidelines and by the range of
significant impacts identified in the DEIR, and evaluated alternatives were limited to those
that theoretically could have reduced or eliminated identified environmental impacts.
The alternatives considered in the DEIR alternatives analysis are based on the alternatives
developed through the General Plan 2030 process, which involved a much more extensive,
community-based alternatives process than would normally be required under CEQA.
General Plan 2030 and its preferred land use alternative were developed with extensive
community input. Widely-publicized public workshops were held to inform community
members about the update and to invite feedback on the process. Additionally, the Board of
Supervisors formed a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) consisting of 34 Butte County
residents to provide representative input to the General Plan 2030 process.
Each major task in the General Plan 2030 process included a "Meeting Series." Each series
was made up of a Public Workshop, one or more CAC meetings, one or more Planning
Commission Study Sessions, and one or more Board of Supervisors Study Session.
The three project alternatives evaluated in the EIR were developed during Meeting Series
#2/3, Alternatives Finalization. During this phase, the County considered numerous other
potential alternatives in various parts of the county. "Study areas," in which potential changes
to the existing land use designations should be considered, were identified. The public, CAC,
municipal staff, County staff, and the consultant team identified 25 study areas, while
landowners and developers identified 18 study areas. Different potential land use alternatives
were suggested for each study area. At the conclusion of Meeting Series #213, the Board of
Supervisors considered various alternatives for all 43 study areas, but decided that the existing
land use designations in twelve of these areas should not change, and finalized 31 study areas
in the unincorporated county for further consideration of appropriate land use alternatives.
Prior to Meeting Series #4, Alternatives Evaluation and Selection, the County published the
Butte County General Plan 2030 Alternatives Evaluation Report. The Report informed the
public and decision-makers about constraints and opportunities associated with each land use
alternative for each study area, examining topics related to transportation and circulation,
f scal impacts, agricultural impacts, water supply, wastewater infrastructure, biological
resources (including the Butte Regional HCP/NCCP and migratory deer range), cultural
resources, public services, and safety and hazards. This Report was.used as a source of
valuable information throughout Meeting Series #4, and informed the selection of the
preferred land use alternative during this meeting series. Meeting Series #4 included the
following meetings:
• Over 130 people attended a community workshop that included an open house and town
hall discussion. Participants provided input on the selection of a preferred land use
alternative.
• The CAC held five meetings to closely review the Alternatives Evaluation Report and
select a preferred land use alternative for each study area. These meetings also included
substantial public input to inform the CAC discussions.
• The Planning Commission held three study sessions to consider the Alternatives
Evaluation Report and input from the community workshop and CAC meetings, and
provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the preferred land use
alternative. Like the CAC meetings, the Planning Commission heard significant public
comment on the land use alternatives.
• The Board of Supervisors held two study sessions to consider the Alternatives Evaluation
Report, input from the community workshop and CAC meetings, and the recommendatian
from the Planning Commission. Again, these study sessions incorporated public comment
periods. The Board of Supervisors selected the preferred land use alternative, which
became the basis for the General Plan 2030 land use map.
As discussed in the DEIR, all impacts would be less than signif cant, except for impacts to
agriculture, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation and
circulation, and greenhouse gas emissions, which would remain significant and unavoidable.
Accordingly, two alternatives, in addition to the required No Project Alternative, were
considered and evaluated in the DEIR in Chapter 5 and a summary of their potential
8
advantages and disadvantages is provided in DEIR Table 5-2.
The DEIR discussed the following alternatives in detail:
A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative;
B. Alternative 2: Concentrated Growth Alternative; and
C. Alternative 3: Rural Extension Alternative.
Each of these alternatives was evaluated under the same environmental categories as
presented for the proposed project and as identified in Chapter 5 of the DEIR.
Based on the comparison of the relative merits of each alternative compared to General Plan
2030, each of the alternatives was found to be deficient in meeting the County's goals and
objectives.
The objectives of General Plan 2030 are to:
• Partner with municipalities, special districts and unincorporated communities on
important regional planning issues.
• Coordinate all modes of transportation with the transportation planning agencies.
• Address areas of urban development for anticipated growth during the next 20
years to meet the housing needs of Butte County residents.
• Protect the county airports in coordination with the 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan.
• Address the protection, enhancement, utilization and management of natural
resources and the environment.
• Promote the public's health, safety and welfare.
• Play a critical role in establishing a positive environment far economic
development.
• .Address agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County's economy that will be
protected, maintained, promoted and enhanced.
• Identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will occur in rural areas
while protecting the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources,
and the environment.
• Address the need for new parks and recreation opportunities. Cultural resources
that are significant to Butte County's history will be identified and protected.
• Address, identify and promote ways to maintain or enhance economic opportunity,
viability and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural
environment.
• Address where and how the full array of public services and/or facilities will be
provided to the varied and diverse geography of the county.
• Address the protection and management of water resources.
• Accommodate anticipated population growth and allow all Butte County residents
9
to maintain economic use and value oftheir property.
Based on the comparative evaluation contained in the DEIR, Alternative 2, the Concentrated
Growth Alternative, would reduce the magnitude of the most impacts and would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes General Plan 2030 would not be adopted and the existing
General Plan would remain in effect. Thus, new development would occur according to the
existing General Plan land use designations, as well as the County's existing General Plan
policies.
The Na Project Alternative differs from General Plan 2030 in terms of the amount of
residential and non-residential growth proposed. When compared to General Plan 2030, the
No Project Alternative would allow for 500 more dwelling units, 1.3 million square feet less
retailloffice uses, 0.4 million square feet more industrial uses, and 1,300 fewer people at
horizon buildout.
in general, medium to high density residential designations would be located near the
incorporated municipalities and in the unincorporated rural communities. Scattered rural
residential development could occur throughout the county in the Agricultural Residential and
Foothill Residential land use designations. In addition, the agricultural and timber areas could
be parcelized to lots as small as S and 40 acres, respectively, compared to a minimum of 20 to
160 acres under the proposed project, and single-family homes would be allowed an each
legal parcel The existing General Plan also allows for commercial uses near the incorporated
municipalities and in many rural community centers. Industrial development would mainly
be allowed near the incorporated municipalities.
Rejection of Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are specific technological, social, legal, economic or
other considerations that make the No Project Alternative infeasible. Each reason set forth
below operates as an independent basis upon which to reject the infeasibility of the
Alternative.
Section 5.C.2 of the DEIR contains detailed information comparing the potential impacts of
General Plan 2030 to the No Project Alternative. As described in detail below, the No Project
Alternative would represent a substantial deterioration in comparison to General Flan 2030
because it would exacerbate impacts on the following: aesthetics, agriculture, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and safety, hydrology and water quality, land
use, noise, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, utilities and
infrastructure, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The No Project Alternative would result in lower-density development scattered over a larger
10
rural area compared to General Plan 2030. The No Project Alternative would result in 0.5
percent more vehicle miles traveled than the proposed project. This increase is primarily due
to the higher amount of residential growth, combined with less commercial development than
that of the proposed project. Even though this alternative would cause the largest overall
increase in industrial space, it likely does not improve the jobs-to-housing balance as much as
General PIan 2030, which would mean Butte County residents would need to commute out of
the county to work. The increase in vehicle miles traveled would increase emissions of air
pollutants from vehicles, traffic-related noise, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The amount and pattern of development allowed by the No Project Alternative would also
place a larger demand on public services, recreation, and utilities, and make service delivery
less efficient. More land would be disturbed and more impermeable surface area would be
created, thereby increasing the potential for impacts related to increased stormwater runoff
and contamination, depletion of groundwater supplies, and the degradation of water quality in
receiving water bodies. The No Project Alternative includes higher density residential
designations in some rural unincorporated communities, which could cause more conflicts
between agricultural and residential land uses compared to General Plan 2030. In addition, by
allowing more development on currently undeveloped land, the amount and pattern of growth
projected under the No Project Alternative would likely have a greater impact on scenic
vistas, biological resources, and cultural resources.
Because the No Project Alternative would result in a larger amount of new residential and
industrial development than General Plan 2030, it potentially exposes more people to hazards
and hazardous materials. This alternative would include approximately 400,000 square feet
more of industrial uses, which are more likely to transport, store, and emit hazardous
materials that could be harmful to the public.
Under the No Project Alternative, a total of 28 roadway segments would operate unacceptably
during the PM peak hour based on the applicable level of service standards. The deficiencies
that would exist under the No Project Alternative, but not under General Plan 2030, include
East Gridley Road between State Route 99 and State Route 70 and the Skyway from South
Pentz Road to Nimshew Road north of the Town of Paradise.
The No Project Alternative includes land use designations and standards from the existing
General Plan which differ from those in General Plan 2030. In particular, General Plan 2030
would eliminate the Agricultural Residential designation and increase the minimum parcel
sizes for timber and agricultural designations. The Agricultural Residential designation
covers land that is currently being used for agriculture. The No Project Alternative would
increase impacts on agricultural resources and increase land use conflicts by maintaining the
Agricultural Residential designation which allows for smaller minimum parcel sizes. In
addition, these aspects of the No Project Alternative could lead to more noise impacts from
agricultural operations on adjacent residential uses than under General Plan 2030.
Finally, the No Project Alternative would not have the same level of comprehensive policy
direction in many areas, including aesthetics, agriculture, biological resources, cultural
11
resources, hazards and safety, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, public services
and recreation, transportation, utilities and infrastructure, and greenhouse gas emissions
resulting in increased impacts. A discussion with examples of the more comprehensive policy
approach is found in the DEIR at pages 5-12 through 5-22.
Consequently, the County rejects Alternative 1 because it would represent a substantial
increase in environmental impacts in comparison to General Plan 2030.
B. Alternative 2: Concentrated Growth Alternative
The Concentrated Growth Alternative assumes that the same goals, policies, and actions
included in General Plan 2030 would be adopted. However, development would be directed
toward the existing urban areas. Outlying areas would instead be designated for very low
density residential, agriculture, and resource conservation. Meanwhile, higher density
development would occur in and around the existing urban areas.
The Concentrated Growth Alternative would provide for approximately 500 more new
residential units than General Plan 2030, which would equate to 1,300 mare residents at
projected 2030 buildout. This alternative includes the same amount ofnew industrial space
and 200,000 more square feet ofnew commercial space.
Rejection of Alternative 2: Concentrated Growth Alternative
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are specific technological, social, legal, economic or
other considerations that make the Concentrated Growth Alternative infeasible. Each reason
set forth below operates as an independent basis upon which to reject the infeasibility of the
Alternative.
Section S.D.2 of the DEIR contains detailed information comparing the potential impacts of
General Plan 2030 to the Concentrated Growth Alternative. The DEIR finds the Concentrated
Growth Alternative to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. By focusing growth into
the SOIs of the county's municipalities and into existing unincorporated communities, this
alternative would be an improvement over General Plan 2030 with respect to potential
negative impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation, transportation
and circulation, utilities and infrastructure, and greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the Concentrated Growth Alternative would not allow all Butte County residents to
maintain economic use and value of their property which does not allow Butte County to meet
the additional objective set forth at the bottom of DEIR page 3-10. This objective states: "the
proposed project aims to accommodate anticipated population growth and to allow all Butte
County residents to maintain economic use and value of their property." The Alternative also
does not adequately advance several General Plan 2030 Guiding Principles as set forth on
page 3-10: "Play a critical role in establishing a positive environment far economic
development;" "Identify appropriate locations and type of growth that will occur in rural areas
12
while protecting the integrated benef is of agricultural resources, natural resources and the
environment;" and "Address, identify and promote ways to maintain or enhance economic
opportunity, viability and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural
environment." Specifically, the Concentrated Growth Alternative would decrease the amount
of development allowed on much of the rural land throughout Butte County. While the
Concentrated Growth Alternative promotes the values of directing urban growth towards
Butte County's urban centers, it does not recognize that Butte County is home to over 42
unincorporated communities of varying sizes situated throughout the County. These
communities have developed throughout Butte County's history and play important roles in
the County's socio-economic condition. The Concentrated Growth Alternative ignores this
diverse community setting. These small unincorporated communities contribute to the overall
economic vitality of Butte County by supporting agriculture, industry and commerce, tourism,
and by providing civic services through local community centers and organizations, granges,
local fire safe councils, parks and recreation, and schools. The Concentrated Growth
Alternative would unnecessarily constrain growth and economic development in many areas
that depend upon localized community based services. In fact, smaller communities can
provide services to rural areas in a sustainable and environmentally superior manner that
would not otherwise be available. However, the Concentrated Growth Alternative would
limit economic development in these areas, putting at risk the ability to provide needed goods
and services to outlying areas, and unnecessarily constrain the economic development of
many communities throughout Butte County. Therefore, the Concentrated Growth
Alternative does not meet the project objectives and is considered infeasible.
C. Alternative 3: Rural Extension Alternative
The Rural Extension Alternative assumes that the same goals, policies, and actions included
in General Plan 2030 would be adopted. However, development would be distributed more
widely throughout the county with less emphasis on locating new development in or next to
existing urban areas than General Plan 2030. Typically, outlying areas under this alternative
would allow more dwelling units than under General Plan 2030 and densities would often be
lower in and around the existing urban areas.
The Rural Extension Alternative would provide for approximately 600 more new residential
units than General Plan 2030, which would equate to about 1,500 more residents in Butte
County at projected 2030 buildout. Similarly, this alternative includes 100,000 more square
feet of new industrial space and 700,000 more square feet of new commercial space.
Rejection of Alternative 3: Rural Extension Alternative
The Board of Supervisors frnds that there are specific technological, social, legal, economic or
other considerations that make the Rural Extension Alternative infeasible. Each reason set
forth below operates as an independent basis upon which to reject the infeasibility of the
Alternative.
13
Section S.E.2 of the DEIR contains detailed information comparing the potential impacts of
General Plan 2030 to the Rural Extension Alternative. The Rural Extension Alternative
would allow development to be spread over a larger area which would have a less visual
impact on the existing rural character of the county. Aside from this improvement in
aesthetics, as described in detail below, the Rural Extension Alternative would represent a
substantial deterioration in comparison to General Plan 2030 because it would exacerbate
impacts on the following: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and
water quality, noise, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, utilities and
infrastructure, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Rural Extension Alternative would allow more development and contribute to a less
centralized pattern of growth oriented to the more undeveloped portions of Butte County than
General Plan 2030. This alternative would cause the highest amount of vehicle miles traveled
among the three alternatives, a 9 percent increase over General Plan 2030. This increase is
attributable to aspects of this alternative. First, land uses are spread farther throughout the
county than the other alternatives, necessitating more-auto travel between destinations.
Second, the amount of commercial and industrial development envisioned by this alternative
would provide a higher number of jobs than the number of employed residents in Butte
County, meaning workers would have to commute from outside the county. The increase in
vehicle trips projected under the Rural Extension Alternative would result in increased
emissions of air pollutants, traffic-related noise, and greenhouse gas emissions compared to
General Plan 2030.
By extending growth into more rural areas, the Rural Extension Alternative would place more
growth pressure on habitat and potential habitat for species of concern than under General
Plan 2030. There would be more construction in undeveloped or lesser developed portions of
the county, where the potential for impacts on previously undiscovered, buried cultural
resources is typically greater.
The amount and pattern of development allowed by the Rural Extension Alternative would
also place a larger demand on public services, recreation, and utilities, and make service
delivery less eff cient. More undeveloped- land would be disturbed and more impermeable
surface area would be created, thereby increasing the potential for impacts related to increased
stormwater runoff and contamination, depletion of groundwater supplies, and the degradation
of water qualify. In addition, the Rural Extension Alternative would generate more
construction-related noise than Genera! Plan 2030.
Consequently, the County rejects Alternative 3 because it would represent a substantial
increase in environmental impacts in comparison to General Plan 2030.
VII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 6.A of the DEIR presents the growth-inducing impacts that can be anticipated from
adoption and implementation of General Plan 2030. Section 15126(d) of the CEQA
Guidelines requires that an EIR address the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed action.
14
Not all growth inducement is necessarily negative. Negative impacts associated with growth
inducement occur only where the projected growth would cause adverse environmental
impacts.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should discuss the ways in which General Plan
2030 could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing,
either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment, including projects which would
remove obstacles to population growth. Direct growth-inducing impacts are generally
associated with providing urban services to an undeveloped area. Providing urban services to
a site, and the subsequent development, can serve to induce other landowners in the vicinity to
convert their property to urban uses. Indirect, or secondary growth-inducing impacts, consist
of growth induced in the region by additional demands for housing, goods, and services
associated with the population increase caused by, or attracted to, a new project.
Direct Impacts
General Plan 2030 would directly induce population, employment, and economic growth by
allowing development in areas not currently designated for urban growth. The primary
mechanism for this growth is the General Plan 2030 land use map, which allows development
in areas that are not currently developed. In addition, under General Plan 2030, the County
would continue its practice of allowing a single family home to be constructed on parcels
designated far agricultural and timber mountain uses.
However, the proposed General Plan 2030 includes policies to control how growth occurs
within Butte County and to encourage infill development. Land Use Element Goal LU-2 and
its associated policies call-for orderly, well-planned, and balanced growth. Policies LU-P2.3
and LU-P2.4 support planning efforts in unincorporated communities through the
development of community visions, area plans, urban growth boundaries, community
boundaries, and SOIs. In addition, Policy LU-P1S.2 requires that new urban development be
primarily located in or immediately adjoining already urbanized areas. Goal LU-8 and its
associated policies promote development near existing infrastructure and services and within
already-developed areas. Policy LU-P8.1 directs industry to be located near major
transportation facilities. Policy LU-P8.2 requires that the County direct projected growth to
areas where the appropriate level of transportation infrastructure is or will be available during
the planning period. In addition, Policies LU-P8.3, LU-P8.4, LU-P8.5, and LU-F15.3
promote efficient infill development near public facilities. These policies would reduce direct
growth-inducing impacts by directing development to infill and other areas where
development already exists so that existing undeveloped areas may remain undeveloped.
General Plan 2030 also includes policies that would maintain the rural character of Butte
County and minimize the environmental impacts of anticipated growth. Policy LU-P4.1
requires that the integrity and stability of existing residential neighborhoods be promoted and
preserved. In addition, the Land Use Element supports community planning efforts that
would preserve the character of these communities through policies LU-P2.3, which supports
planning efforts in unincorporated communities by providing stafflcnowledge, time, and
materials to community efforts, and LU-P2.4, which engages unincorporated communities in
15
community planning processes to set a community vision, develop Area Flans and potentially
urban growth boundaries, community boundaries, and SOIs. These policies would recognize
the importance of the small unincorporated communities in Butte County, while maintaining
their rural character and directing urban development to existing urbanized areas.
Indirect Impacts
Because General Plan 2030 allows additional growth, it has the potential to indirectly induce
growth from additional demands for housing, goods, and services associated with the
population increase. However, General Plan 2030 also includes specific policies that direct
growth to existing urbanized areas. Por example, Policy LU-P15.2 requires that new urban
development be primarily located in or immediately adjoining already urbanized areas. The
General Plan 20301and use map also works to limit the expansion of urban growth by
providing designations that allow urban development primarily within the SOIs for the
incorporated municipalities and the existing unincorporated communities. Outside of those
areas, General Plan 20301and use designations would not allow urban levels of development.
The principles that guided the development of the land use map for General Plan 2030 are
also included as policies in the Land Use Element. Policy LU-P15.1 requires that the County
prevent scattered development patterns and encourage development in existing urbanized
areas, and in particular areas that have access to public services and infrastructure. Through
these policies and the land use map, development allowed by General Plan 2030 would be
directed to existing urbanized areas, which would minimize any indirect growth-inducing
impacts.
In addition, the General Plan 20341and use map provides a mixture of housing, retail, and
employment opportunities within Butte County so that as the number of residents increases,
the residents do not pressure adjacent communities to provide new commerciai and
employment opportunities, which also limits indirect growth-inducing impacts.
Finding Concerning Growth Inducing Impacts
Direct Impacts
While implementation of General Plan 2030 would allow for increased local growth, the goals
and policies mentioned in the discussion of direct impacts above that are included in General
Plan 2030 would reduce the potential for negative impacts associated with direct growth
inducement to ales-than-significant level. These goals and policies accomplish this reduction
by implementing General Plan 2030's contemplated vision of planned growth and
development throughout Butte County. General Plan 2030 goals and policies will be drawn
upon during the review of discretionary land use decisions, in other situations where land use
decisions arise, which require guidance from the General Plan, and in the day to day oversight
of development and planning activities under the jurisdiction of Butte County. Land Use
Element Goal LU-2 states: "Provide far orderly, well-planned, and balanced growth that
maintains private property rights." Under this goal, the General Plan implements several
policies that encourage planned growth and development contemplated under General Plan
2030. Land Use Element Policy LU-P2.3 states: "The County shall support planning efforts in
unincorporated communities by providing knowledge, time and materials to community
16
efforts." Land Use Element Policy LU-P 2.4 states: "As resources become available, the County
shall engage willing and interested unincorporated communities in community planning
processes to set a community vision and develop Area Plans. Urban growth boundaries,
community boundaries and spheres of influence maybe developed as part of such processes."
Under these two policies, the General Plan directs county participation in the planning efforts
of unincorporated communities, thus promoting the planned growth contemplated under
General Plan 2430. Land Use Element Policy LU-P4.1 states: "The integrity and stability of
existing residential neighborhoods shall be promoted and preserved." Under this policy, the
General Plan directs that planning efforts address Butte County's existing residential
neighborhoods, thus promoting the planned growth contemplated under General Plan 2030.
Land Use Element Goal LU-8 states: "Promote development near existing infrastructure and
services, and within alreadydeveloped areas." Under this goal, the General Plan directs growth
and development be promoted in areas where existing infrastructure and services are present,
thus promoting the planned growth contemplated under General Plan 2030. Land Use
Element Policy LU-P8.1 states: "lndustry shall be located near major transportation facilities."
Under this policy, the General Plan directs industry towards major transportation facilities,
thus promoting the planned growth contemplated under General Plan 2030. Land Use
Element Policy LU-P8.2 states: "The County shall direct projected growth to areas where the
appropriate level of transportation infrastructure is or will be available during the planning
period." Under this policy, the General Plan directs growth where it can be most efficiently
served by existing or proposed transportation infrastructure is available. Land Use Element
Policy LU-P8.3 states: "Applicants intending to develop sites served by existing public facilities
shall be encouraged to develop at-the highest allowable density and intensity." Under this
policy, the General Plan directs that areas already served by public facilities be promoted to
achieve the highest development potential. Land Use Element Policy LU-P8.4 states: "New
industrial development shall be encouraged to locate in existing industrial areas until existing
industrial areas have been fully utilized." Under this policy, the General Plan directs industry
towards existing industrial areas, thus promoting the planned growth contemplated under
General Plan 2030. Land Use Element Policy LU-P8.5 states: "Stores providing goods and
services to support daily life in neighborhoods should be located within walking distance to the
majority of neighborhoods." Under this policy, the General Plan directs that areas be
developed to encourage walkability and access to needed services. Land Use Element Policy
LU-P15.2 states: "New urban development shall be primarily located in or immediately
adjoining already urbanized areas." Land Use Element Policy LU-P15.3 states: The County
shall encourage efficient urban infill development within municipal limits, municipal spheres of
influence, and existing unincorporated communities where development can readily be served
by public infrastructure facilities." Under these policies, the General Plan directs growth away
from undeveloped areas and towards existing urbanizing areas.
Indirect Impacts
While implementation of General Plan 2030 would allow for increased local growth, policies
.mentioned in the discussion of indirect impacts above that are included in General Plan 2030
would reduce the potential for negative impacts associated with indirect growth inducement to
17
a less-than-significant level. Land Use Element Policy LU-P15.1 states: "The County shall
prevent scattered development patterns and encourage development in existing urbanized
areas, and in particular areas that have access to public services and infrastructure:' Land Use
Element Policy LU-P15.2 states: "New urban development shall be primarily located in or
immediately adjoining already urbanized areas." Under these Policies, the General Plan
directs growth away from undeveloped areas and towards existing urbanizing areas.
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICAN'T' ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACTS
The EIR identifies the thresholds of significance utilized to determine the impacts in the
various resource categories discussed below. The EIR finds that there are less-than-
significant environmental impacts in the following subject areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Cultural Resources
• Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
• Hazards and Safety
• Land Use
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Utilities
The County is not required to adopt mitigation measures or adopt policies as part of General
Plan 2030 for impacts that are less than significant.
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As noted in each section below, General Plan 2030 includes planning policies which have the
effect of avoiding or reducing environmental impacts. The EIR sets forth environmental
effects of General Plan 2030 that would be significant and unavoidable. These impacts
cannot be avoided or reduced to ales-than-significant level even with the adoption of all
feasible mitigation measures proposed in the EIR. In adopting these f ndings, the County also
adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the economic, social, and other
benef is of the proposed project that will render these significant effects acceptable.
A. Agriculture
Im act AG-1: Although the goals, policies, actions and regulations of General Flan 2030
would reduce and partially offset the conversion of farmland, the proposed
project designates approximately 4,700 acres of farmlands of concern
under CEQA for non-agricultural uses.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: Na feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: impact AG-1 will be signif cant and unavoidable. The County finds that
18
there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. The purpose of General Plan 2030's
Agriculture Element is to protect farmland from urbanization and to enhance the
county's agricultural industry. Agriculture Element Goal AG-2 and its supporting
policies and actions seek to protect Butte County's agricultural lands from conversion
to non-agricultural uses. Policy AG-P2.1 directs the County to work with the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to create and maintain a consistent
approach to the conservation of agricultural Iand through the designation of reasonable
and logical SOI boundaries. Policy AG-P2.3 limits redesignation and rezoning of
agricultural land to an urban designation. Folicy AG-P2.6 directs the County to use
proactive land use techniques, such as clustered development and density bonuses, to
retain and protect agricultural land. In addition, Action AG-A2.1 directs the County to
develop an agricultural mitigation ordinance that would help to mitigate potential
losses of agricultural land. Additionally, agricultural lands west of Chico will be
protected by the Chico Area Greenline through Goal LU-13 and its associated policies.
Specifically, Policies LU-P13.4 and LU-P13.5 restrict non-agricultural land uses on
the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline. In addition, Policy LU-P13.9
requires evidence of substantial benefits to the public in order to convert land on the
Agricultural Side of the Greenline to urban land, as well as findings that no other lands
exist that are reasonably available and suitable for the proposed development. All of
these policies included in General Plan 2030 reduce any potential impact to
agricultural resources by restricting the ability of potential developers to convert
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. These policies also reduce any potential
impact by clustering development to avoid agricultural land and requiring mitigation
when agricultural land is converted.
However, the designation of farmlands of concern under CEQA for non-agricultural
uses in the General Plan 20301and use map could lead to the conversion of such
farmland to non-agricultural uses, regardless of these goals, policies, and actions. The
location of agricultural parcels near existing urban and suburban areas generally limits
their on-going viability for active agricultural activities. Nuisance complaints from
neighbors, prohibitions on spraying pesticides and herbicides near sensitive receptors,
vandalism, and traffic all reduce the viability of working agricultural Iand in proximity
to urban and suburban development. In addition, small agricultural parcels may no
longer be viable far current agricultural practices. Placing or keeping an agricultural
designation on these scattered parcels would not ensure on-going agricultural use.
In addition, placing or keeping an agricultural designation on parcels that are not
viable for agricultural use is inconsistent in the long term with General Plan 2030
policies that promote economic opportunities. Placing or keeping an agricultural
19
designation on parcels that are not viable for agricultural use, but are close to urban
centers, would also direct development away from urbanized areas, which is
inconsistent with numerous General Plan 2030 policies encouraging a compact urban
form. Therefore, placing or keeping an agricultural designation on these scattered
parcels would make General Plan 2030 internally inconsistent. For the social and
economic reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce
#his impact to a less than signif cant level. Consequently, this impact is considered
significant and unavoidable. (DE1R pp. 4.2-9 through 4.2-13.)
Impact AG-2: Although the goals, policies, actions, and regulations of General Plan 2030
would reduce and partially offset conflicts with Williamson Act contracts,
the proposed project designates approximately 90 acres of lands with
existing Williamson Act contracts for residential or industrial uses.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: lmpact AG-2 will be significant and unavoidable. The County finds that
there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. General Plan 2030 includes policies
and actions to minimize conflicts with Williamson Act contracts. Agriculture Element
Policy AG-P1.3 calls for the County to continue to work with landowners in
establishing new and maintaining existing Williamson Act contracts, and Action AG-
A1.1 maintains County policies that address consistency with the Williamson Act.
These policies included in General Plan 2030 reduce any potential impact to
Williamson Act contracted land by maintaining the integrity ofthe Williamson Act
program and viability of Williamson Act contracted lands.
Although General Plan 2030 would avoid most conflicts with Williamson Act
contracts through the land use map, and although General Plan 2030 policies and
actions would minimize conflicts with Williamson Act contracts, the proposed sand
use map includes residential or industrial designations for some areas that are under a
Williamson Act contract. The parcels with Williamson Act conflicts are small parcels,
and some are located close to existing urbanized areas or established unincorporated
communities. Small agricultural parcels may no longer be viable for current
agricultural practices. In addition, the location of agricultural parcels near existing
urban and suburban areas generally limits their on-going viability for active
agricultural activities. Nuisance complaints from neighbors, prohibitions on spraying
pesticides and herbicides near sensitive receptors, vandalism, and traffic all reduce the
viability of working agricultural land in proximity to urban and suburban
20
development. Therefore, placing or keeping an agricultural designation on these
scattered parcels would not ensure on-going agricultural use as intended under the
Williamson Act contract.
In addition, placing or keeping an agricultural designation on parcels that are not
viable for agricultural use is inconsistent in the long term with General Plan 2030
policies that promote economic opportunities. Placing or keeping an agricultural
designation on parcels that are not viable for agricultural use, but are close to urban
centers, would also direct development away from urbanized areas, which is
inconsistent with numerous General Plan 2030 policies encouraging a compact urban
form. Therefore, placing or keeping an agricultural designation on these parcels
would make General Plan 2030 internally inconsistent. For the social and economic
reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact
to a less than significant level. Consequently, this impact is considered significant and
unavoidable. (DEIR pp. 4.2-13 through 4.2-14.)
Impact AG-3: Although the goals, policies, actions, and regulations of General Plan 2030
would reduce and partially offset regional agricultural impacts, the
proposed project would contribute to cumulatively significant agricultural
impacts in the region.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact AG-3 will be signifcaat and unavoidable. The County finds that
there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County Ends that specific
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Development allowed under General
Plan 2030 would contribute to cumulative agricultural impacts resulting from the
conversion of farmland to urban uses in the region. Although General Plan 2030
goals, policies, actions, and regulations would reduce and partially offset Butte
County's contribution to these impacts, the overall cumulative agricultural impact
would remain significant. Because the amount of growth foreseen in the region and
the decisions of surrounding counties regarding conversion of agricultural land are
outside the control of Butte County, the impact is significant and unavoidable. For the
social and economic reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures
to reduce this impact to a less.than significant level. (DEIR pp. X1.2-1b through ~1.2-
17.)
2I
B. Biological Resources
Im act BIO-1: General Plan 2030 contains extensive goals, policies, and actions that
mitigate impacts to undeveloped lands that support sensitive biological
resources, including special-status species, sensitive natural communities,
federally-protected wetlands, and wildlife and fish movement corridors, to
aless-than-significant level and that additionally minimize the effects of
development on biological resources in general Development allowed
under General Plan 2030 would contribute to the on-going loss of
undeveloped lands that support such sensitive biological resources in Butte
County. The cumulative loss of habitat and sensitive natural communities
in Butte County could potentially contribute to a general decline for the
region, and might result in the loss or displacement of wildlife that would
have to compete for suitable habitats with existing adjacent populations.
Mi#igation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact BIO-1 will be signif cant and unavoidable. The County finds that
there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County Ends that specific
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts-and Reasoning that Support Finding. As indicated in the impact statement,
General Plan 2030 includes extensive goals, policies, and actions that mitigate
potential impacts on biological resources. However, cumulative development in the
Butte County region would result in the loss of undeveloped lands that support
biological resources, and General Plan 2030 would contribute to that trend. Since this
potential change would occur as an intrinsic part of the land use changes allowed
under General Plan 2030 to accommodate the expected continued growth of
population and economic activity in Butte County over the next 20 years, and since
development outside Butte County is beyond the County's ability to regulate or
control, the cumulative change may rise to a level of significance and is being treated
as a significant and unavoidable impact. For the social and economic reasons outlined
above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. (DEIR p. 4.4-SS.)
C. Hydrology and Water Quality
Imuac# HYDRO-1: Although General Plan 2030 polices and actions reduce risks associated
with levee failure, they do not eliminate risks to people and property.
In addition, recently-adopted policies by FEMA would de-certify a
number of levees in Butte County, which indicates that larger areas of
Butte County are subject to levee inundation than realized under
22
previous policies.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact HYDRO-I will be significant and unavoidable. The County finds
that there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time
that would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. General Plan 2030 includes policies
that protect people and property from flooding. Health and Safety Element Policies
HS-P2.4 and HS-P2.5 protect people and property from flood risks within the 100-
year flood hazard zone and ensure that development within this area will not impede
ar redirect flood flows. Policies HS-P3.1 through HS-P3.4 work to prevent and reduce
flooding. In addition, Policy HS-F2.1 supports the efforts of regional, State, and
federal agencies to improve flood management facilities along the Sacramento River,
and Folicy HS-P2.2 supports the efforts of private landowners and public agencies to
maintain existing flood management facilities.
Furthermore, policies under Goal HS-4 address flooding impacts related specifically to
levee failure. Policy HS-P4.3 requires that new development in levee inundation areas
consider risks from failure of these levees. Policies HS-P4.1 and HS-P4.2 support the
efforts of public and private entities to study levee stability and design and reconstruct
levees that do not meet flood protection standards. Al! of these policies included in
General Plan-2030 reduce any potential impact to property from flooding by
restricting development in flood hazard zones and reducing the likelihood of flooding.
Although General Plan 2030 policies discussed above would reduce potential impacts
related to flooding as a result of levee failure, they do not eliminate the risks to people
and property from flooding. In addition, recently-adopted policies by FEMA would
de-certify a number of levees in Butte County, which indicates that larger areas of
Butte County are subject to levee inundation than realized under previous policies.
Given the number of levees in Butte County, and the fact that most are owned or
maintained by private individuals or other public agencies, it is not feasible for the
County's General Plan to completely address maintenance and improvements to all
levees to the extent necessary to eliminate risks from levee failure. Far the social and
economic reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level. The impact is therefore considered
signifcant and unavoidable. {DE1R pp. X1.8-30 through 4.8-32.)
Impact FIYDR4-2: Although General Plan 2030 polices and actions reduce risks associated
with dam failure, they do not eliminate risks to people and property.
23
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact HYDRO-2 will be significant and unavoidable. The County finds
that there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time
that would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. General Plan 2030 includes policies
that protect people and property from flooding. Health and Safety Element Policies
HS-P2.4 and HS-P2.5 protect people and property from flood risks within the 100-
year flood hazard zone and ensure that development within this area will not impede
or redirect flood flows. Policies HS-P3.1 through HS-P3.4 work to prevent and reduce
flooding. In addition, Policy HS-P2.1 supports the efforts of regional, State, and
federal agencies to improve flood management facilities along the Sacramento River,
and Policy HS-P2.2 supports the efforts of private landowners and public agencies to
maintain existing flood management facilities.
Furthermore, policies and actions under Goal HS-5 address flooding impacts related.
specifcally to dam failure. Policy HS-P5.1 requires that new development in dam
inundation areas consider risks from failure of these dams. Action HS-A5.1 directs
the County to maintain and update emergency response plans that address potentia!
flooding in dam inundation areas, and Action HS-A5.2 directs the County to
coordinate with other agencies to seek funding and implement the stabilization of the
Magalia Dam. All of these policies included in General Plan 2030 reduce any
potential impact to property by restricting development i^ flood hazard zones and
reducing the likelihood of flooding.
Although General Plan 2030 policies and actions discussed above would reduce
potential impacts related to flooding as a result of dam failure, they do not eliminate
the risks to people and property from flooding. Dams within and around Butte County
that pose risks to people and property resulting from dam inundation are owned and/or
operated by other agencies, and seismic activity in the region could cause dam failure.
It is therefore not feasible for the County's Genera! Plan to completely address
improvements to all dams to the extent necessary to eliminate risks from dam failure.
Far the social and economic reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation
measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The impact is therefore
considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR pp. 4.8-30 through 4.8-32)
Irnnact HYDRO-3: General Plan 2030 would contribute to development in levee and dam
inundation areas, resulting in a significant cumulative impact
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
24
Finding: Impact HYDRO-3 will be significant and unavoidable. The County finds
that there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time
that would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County f nds that specif c
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Development allowed under General
Plan 2030 would contribute to cumulative hydrology impacts resulting from
development in levee and dam inundation areas in the region. Although General Plan
2030 goals, policies, and actions would reduce and partially offset Butte County's
contribution to these impacts, the overall cumulative hydrology impact would remain
significant. Because the decisions of surrounding counties and municipalities
regarding development in levee and dam inundation areas are outside the control of
Butte County, the impact is significant and unavoidable. Far the social and economic
reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact
to a less than signif cant level. {DEIR p. 4.8-34.)
D. Noise
Impact NOI-I : Implementation of General Plan 2030 would cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels because more people would be living,
driving and flying in Butte County.
Mitigafion Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact NOI-1 will be significant and unavoidable. The County finds that
there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social, and other benef is identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. General Plan 2034 Health and Safety
Element policies would reduce impacts related to the exposure of people to or
generation of noise levels in excess of local standards to aless-than-significant level.
However, proposed General Plan 2030 policies would not mitigate the significant
impacts from traffic noise increases and aircraft noise increases on ambient noise
levels in all cases. This traffic and aircraft operation is an unavoidable outcome of the
type of residential and commercial growth foreseen in Butte County. For the social
and economic reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to
reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed General
Plan 2030 is considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact on ambient noise
levels. (DEIR pp. 4.10-36 through 4.10-45.)
25
Irnnact NOI-2; Implementation of General Plan 2030 would contribute to conditions that
exceed County noise standards and that cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels, causing a significant cumulative noise
impact.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact NOI-2 will be significant and unavailable. The County fids that
there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social; and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. General Flan 2030 would contribute to
cumulative traffic noise conditions that exceed County noise standards. Since this
traffic is an unavoidable outcome of the type of residential and commercial growth
foreseen in Butte County and the surrounding counties, this impact is signifcant and
unavoidable. For the social and economic reasons outlined above, there are no
feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
(DEIR pp. 4.1.0-46 through 4.10-47.)
E. Transportation and Circulation
X~npact TRAF-I: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS F
operations on State Route 32 between Muir Avenue and W. 1St Street.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Miti ation Measure TRAF-1: Widen State Route 32 to four lanes through this section.
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benef is identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a State
26
facility and the County lacks the authority to require the State to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The State has
identified completion of this mitigation measure as conceptual. Therefore, this impact
is considered significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081(x)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(x)(2), the County finds that this
roadway segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DE1R pp.
4.13-53 through 4.13-54.)
Impact TR.AF-2: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS F
operations on State Route 99 between the Sutter County Line and East
Biggs Highway.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-2_: Widen and convert State Route 99 to a four-lane
conventional highway through this section.
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. The
County finds that-there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a State
facility and the County lacks the authority to require the State to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The State has
identified completion of this mitigation measure as ultimately planned within the next
20 plus years. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Pursuant to Public Resources Cade section 21081 (a}{2) and CEQA Guidelines section
1509i(a)(2), the County finds that this roadway segment is within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 can and should be
adopted by that agency. (DEIR p. 4.13-54.)
Im act TRAF-3: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS F
operations on State Route 99 between State Route 149 and the Skyway.
Mitigation Adapted by the Couniy:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: Convert State Route 99 to a grade separated, limited
27
access freeway facility though this section.
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. The
County Ends that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County f nds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a State
facility and the County lacks the authority to require the State to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The State has
identified completion of this mitigation measure as conceptual. Therefore, this impact
is considered significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2}, the County finds that this
roadway segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DEIR pp.
4.13-5~1 through 4.13-55.)
Impact TRAF-4: Implementation of Genera! Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS F
operations on State Route 99 between East 20th Street and Cohasset Road.
Mitigation Adapted by the County:
Miti;~ation Measure TRAF-4: Widen State Route 99 to six lanes through this section.
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to ales-than-signif cant level The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-4 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a State
28
facility and the County lacks the authority to require the State to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The State has
identified completion of this mitigation measure as conceptual. Therefore, this impact
is considered significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2), the County Ends that this
roadway segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-4 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DEIR p.
x.13-55.)
Impact TRAF-S: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS p
operations on State Route 99 between Eaton Road and Keefer Road.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Miti ation Measure TRAF-5: Widen State Route 99 to four lanes through this section.
Finding: The County f nds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specifre economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-5 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of sezvice. However, since this is a State
facility and the County lacks the authority to require the State to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The State has
identified completion of this mitigation measure as ultimately planned within the next
20 plus years. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21481(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section
15091(a)(2), the County finds that this roadway segment is within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that Mitigation Measure TRAF-5 can and should be
adopted by that agency. (DEIR pp. 4.13-55 through 4.13-56.}
Impact TRAF-6: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS E
operations on State Route 162 between Larkin Road and State Route 70.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Miti ation Measure TRAF-5: Widen State Route 152 to four lanes through this
section.
29
Finding: The County Ends that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is signifECant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The
County finds that there are na other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approva! of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAP-6 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a State
facility and the County lacks the authority to require the State to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The State has
identified completion of this mitigation measure as conceptual Therefore, this impact
is considered significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081(a}(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a}(2), the County Ends that this
roadway segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-6 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DEIR p.
4.13-56.)
Impact TRAF-7: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS F
operations on State Route 162 between State Route 70 and Lower
Wyandotte Road.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Mitigation Measure T_RAF-7: Widen State Route 162 to six lanes through this section.
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adapted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAP-7 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traff"tc flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a State
facility located in the City of Oroville and the County lacks the authority to require the
34
State to implement the mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its
implementation. The State has identified completion of this mitigation measure as not
planned, although a four lane facility is ultimately planned. Therefore, this impact is
considered significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081(x)(2} and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(x)(2), the County finds that this
roadway segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-7 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DEIR pp.
4.13-56 through 4.13-57.)
Impact TRAF-S: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS E
operations on State Route 162 between Foothill Boulevard and Canyon
Drive.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-8_ Widen State Route 162 to four lanes though this section.
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact wil! not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction ofthe improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-8 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a State
facility and the County lacks the authority to require the State to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The State has
identified completion of this mitigation measure as conceptual. Therefore, this impact
is considered significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081(x)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(x)(2), the County finds that this
roadway segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, and that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-8 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DEIR p.
4.l 3-57.}
Irn act TRAF-9: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS F
operations on Cohasset Road between State Route 99 and East Avenue.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-9: Construct a raised median on this roadway section to
enhance capacity.
3i
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Froject.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-9 would mitigate the impact on this segment by improving
traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is a City of
Chico facility and the County lacks the authority to require the City to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The City has
recently constructed improvements at the Cohasset Road and East Avenue intersection
that increased traffic capacity. The City contemplates other improvements along
Cohasset Road between State Route 99 and East Avenue, but satisfaction of our
mitigation measure to construct a raised median is not contemplated. Therefore, this
impact is considered signif cant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Cade
section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2), the County finds that
this roadway segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Chico,
and that Mitigation Measure TRAF-9 can and should be adopted by that agency.
(DE1R pp. 4.13-57 through 4.13-58.)
Impact TRAF-10: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS
D operations on Midway between the planned Southgate Extension and
Durham-Dayton Road.
Mitigation Identified, but Not Adopted, by the County:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-10_ Widen Midway to four lanes though this section.
Finding: The County f nds that the above-stated mitigation measure, if incorporated
into the proposed Froject, would reduce the potential effects to less-than-significant.
However, the County chooses not to adopt the mitigation measure. Thus, Impact
TRAF-10 will remain significant and unavoidable. The County finds that there are
no other feasible mitigation measures that the County could adapt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
32
Mitigation Measure TRAF-10 would mitigate the impact on this segment by
improving traffle flow to the County's required Ievel of service. However, given the
environmental constraints that exist in this location and the County's desire to
maintain this roadway as a two-lane rural facility, the County is not adopting
Mitigation Measure TRAF-10, and this impact is considered significant and
unavoidable. The expansion of the Midway from two to four lanes also raises issues
of compatibility with the goals and policies contained in the Durham-Dayton-Nelson
Planning Area, especially the retention of a rural lifestyle, protection of natural
resources, and planned orderly develaprnent consistent with this rural agricultural
area. The expansion would require the removal of heritage trees which are of aesthetic
value to this scenic drive between Chico and Durham. The expansion could also
encourage or induce suburban residential development that exceeds the planned
population growth and the capacity of public facilities and services. For the social and
economic reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level. {DEIR p. 4.13-58.)
llm~act TRAF-11: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS
F operations on the Skyway between State Route 99 and Notre Dame
Boulevard.
Mitigation Adapted by the County:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-11: Construct a raised median on this roadway section to
enhance capacity.
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adapt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specifc economic, social, or other benefts identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval ofthe proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-11 would mitigate the impact on this segment by
improving traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is
a City of Chico facility and the County lacks the authority to require the City to
implement the mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation.
The City is constructing significant improvements in the vicinity of the Skyway and
Notre Dame Boulevard that will expand capacity on the Skyway between State Route
99 and Notre Dame Boulevard, but satisfaction of our mitigation measure to construct
a raised median is not contemplated. Therefore, this impact is considered significant
and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA
33
Guidelines section 15091(a)(2), the County finds that this roadway segment is within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Chico, and that Mitigation Measure
TRAF-11 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DEIR pp. 4.13-58 through 4.13-
59.)
Im act TRAF-i2: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS
DIE operations on the Skyway between Neal Road and Bille Road.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Miti ation Measure TRAF-12: Convert this section of the Skyway to a four-lane
limited access expressway.
Finding: The County Ends that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change,-the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adapt
at this time that would-reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Fac#s and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-12 would mitigate the impact on this segment by
improving traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is
a Town of Paradise facility and is not compatible with the Town's plans far this
facility, and the County lacks the authority to require the Town to implement the
mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation. The Town
indicates that this segment is built out to its ultimate standard {C-1 Road Standard).
This segment crosses through "Downtown Paradise," and the Town's efforts will be to
clam traffic and increase pedestrian safety, rather than to increase speeds. Therefore,
this impact is considered. significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 210$1(a){2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2), the County finds
that this roadway segment is within. the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Town of
Paradise, and that Mitigation Measure TRAF-12 can and should be adapted by that
agency. (DEIR p. 4.13-59.)
Ian act TRAF-13: lmplernentation of General Plan 2030 would lead to unacceptable LOS
DIE operations on the Skyway between Bille Road and Pentz Road.
Mitigation Adapted by the County:
Miti ation Measure TRAF-13: Widen the section of the Skyway between Bille Raad
and Wagstaff Road to a four-lane, divided arterial, and widen the section of the
Skyway from Wagstaff Road to Pentz Road to a four-lane, undivided arterial.
34
Finding: The County finds that the above-stated mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The mitigation measure can
and should be adopted by that public agency, but until such time as that public agency
authorizes the change, the impact is significant and unavoidable. With the
mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. The
County finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures which it could adopt
at this time that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant. To the extent that
this adverse impact wil! not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds
that specific economic, social, or other benefits identified in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Construction of the improvement in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-13 would mitigate the impact on this segment by
improving traffic flow to the County's required level of service. However, since this is
a Town of Paradise facility and the County lacks the authority to require the Town to
implement the mitigation measure, the County cannot guarantee its implementation.
Although the Town's 1944 General Plan proposed a four lane roadway over this
segment, there has been no serious effort to convert this segment to a four lane
roadway. Amore recent study, the 2008 BCAG Skyway study, proposed leaving part
of this segment as a three lane roadway. Therefore, this impact is considered
significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(2)
and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a}(2), the County finds that this roadway
segment is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Town of Paradise, and that
Mitigation Measure TRAF-13 can and should be adopted by that agency. (DEIR pp.
4.13-59 through 4.13-60.}
Imaact TRAF-14: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would cause increased traffic that
would exacerbate existing deficiencies along regional roadways,
contributing to a cumulatively significant transportation impact.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Funding: Impact TRAF-14 will be significant and unavoidable. The County Ends
that there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time
that would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specifc
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Findung. Within the horizon of General Plan
2030, the number of Butte County residents commuting to jobs in Yuba City,
Marysville, Lincoln, and Roseville could increase as the number ofjob-generating
uses in these communities increases. Segments of State Routes 70, 99, and 65 are
already experiencing severe peak hour congestion. Although some improvements,
35
such as the Lincoln bypass, are planned, full funding for these improvements is not
guaranteed. Increased traffic resulting from development in Butte County would
exacerbate existing deficiencies along State Routes 65, 70, and 99. Because
mitigation for these deficiencies outside Butte County is beyond the County's ability
to regulate or control, the cumulative impact to regional roadways is considered
significant and unavoidable. For the social and economic reasons outlined above,
there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level. (DEIR pp. 4.13-52 through X113-53.)
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
~~npact CC-1: Implementation of General Plan 2030 would result in greenhouse gas
emissions that would contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas
emissions and global climate change. The 2020 greenhouse gas
forecast far the county indicates that emissions would be greater than
85 percent of current (2006) conditions, creating a signif cant
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate
change impacts. Policies and actions would provide a comprehensive
framework far reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the county, but
they would not ensure that the County can meet the reduction goal.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact CC-1 will be signifieaz~t and unavoidable. The County finds that
there are no feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that
would reduce the impact to less than significant. To the extent that this adverse
impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the County finds that specific
economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding. Proposed General Plan 2030 policies
and actions provide a comprehensive framework for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the county. In particular, the Climate Action Plan requirements under
Action COS-A1.1 would assist California in meeting the reduction goals for 2020 that
are embodied in AB 32, and would ensure that greenhouse gas emissions in Butte
County would not contribute considerably to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions
and associated climate change effects. However, until the Climate Action Plan is fully
developed, it cannot be assured that all measures to achieve the needed greenhouse gas
reduction are feasible. Furthermore, although Action COS-A1.1 requires that the
County update the Climate Action Plan by 2020 to include reduction measures to
achieve the adopted 2030 reduction goal, State action beyond 2020 is uncertain as
there are no adopted State plans to achieve reductions beyond 2020. Thus, even if the
County were to achieve its stated 2030 reduction goals, given the limitations on
County authority {e.g. lack ofauthority over vehicle emissions), greenhouse gas
emissions in the county would still contribute considerably to 2030 cumulative
36
emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would have a significant greenhouse gas
emission impact.
As part of the General Plan 2030 process, the County considered a wide range of
policies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and all feasible measures are
included. However, they do not ensure that the County will meet its reduction goal, so
the impact is considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. For the social and
economic reasons outlined above, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level. (DEIR pp. 4.15-33 through 4.15-65.)
X. FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OE MITIGATION MEASURES
General Plan 2030 is largely aself-mitigating document because the goals, policies, and
actions set forth in it reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Nevertheless,
mitigation measures are provided for ] 3 significant impacts in the General Plan 2030 EIR.
The significant impacts are found under Impact TRAF-1 through Impact TRAF-13. i2 of the
significant impacts, all excluding Impact TRAF-10, fall within the jurisdiction of another
public agency. Although carrying out the mitigation measures would mitigate the impacts,
the County lacks the authority to require the other public agency to implement the mitigation
measures. Thus, these mitigation measures will be adopted and monitored through a
mitigation monitoring plan, but the County is only able to encourage the voluntary
implementation of the mitigation measures by the other public agencies. For the signifcant
impact that falls within Butte County's jurisdiction, Impact TRAF-10, a mitigation measure
has been identified, but is not being adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
has been prepared for General Plan 203D, and is included in the FEIR. The Board of
Supervisors adopts the mitigation measures set forth in Impact TRAF-1 through Impact
TRAF-9 and Impact TRAF-11 through Impact TRAF-13 and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan that applies to these mitigation measures. The Board finds that the Plan is the
best approach for the County to enforce the mitigation measures.
XI. FINDINGS RELATED TO CUMULATIVE 1CMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the potential cumulative impacts that could result
from a proposed project in conjunction with other projects in the vicinity. Such impacts can
occur when two or more individual effects create a considerable environmental impact or
compound other environmental consequences. In the case of a countywide planning
document such as Butte County General Plan 2030, cumulative effects are effects that
combine impacts from implementation of the project in the unincorporated county with
effects of development in other portions of the region, including the incorporated
municipalities and the surrounding counties.
The cumulative analyses in the DEIR evaluate aggregated impacts from projected
development in the incorporated municipalities of Butte County and adjacent counties. The
cumulative analyses consider anticipated levels of growth and development within the
following jurisdictions:
37
• Municipalities in Butte County:
- City of Biggs
- City of Chico
- City of Gridley
- City of Oroville
-~ Town of Paradise
• Adjacent Counties:
- Colusa County
- Glenn County
- Plumas County
- Sutter County
- Tehama County
-- Yuba County
• Adjacent Municipalities:
- City of Colusa
- City of Corning
- City of Live Oak
- City of Marysville
- City of Orland
- City of Portola
- City of Red Bluff
- City of Tehama
- City of Wheatland
- City of Williams
- City of Willows
- City of Yuba City
Signifcant cumulative impacts are disclosed in Section IX. No other significant cumulative
impacts were found in the EIR.
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Introduction
In determining whether to adopt General Plan 2030, CEQA requires a public agency to
balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks. (CEQA
Guidelines, section 15093). In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and
CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Board of Supervisors has, in determining whether ar not
to adapt General Plan 2030, balanced the econornic, social, technological, academic, and
other benefits of the Plan against its unavoidable environmental effects, and has found that the
38
benefits of the Plan outweigh the Signifcant adverse environmental effects that are not
mitigated to Iess-than-significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. This statement of
overriding considerations is based on the Board of Supervisors' review of the DEIR and FEIR
and other information in the administrative record. The Board of Supervisors finds that each
of the following benefits is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that
warrants approval of General Plan 2030 notwithstanding the Plan's significant unavoidable
impacts.
By incorporating policies intended to avoid environmental impacts and by steering
development to existing urbanized areas and unincorporated communities, General Plan 2030
is largely self mitigating. Rather than mitigating impacts from implementation of General
Plan 2030 through mitigation measures in the EIR, the policies and land use map in General
Plan 2030 are intended to prevent the majority of environmental impacts altogether.
Implementation of General Plan 2030 has the potential to generate 24 significant
environmental impacts. Of these impacts, 1 S are the result of General Plan 2030, 5 are the
result of General Plan 2030 combined with other cumulative development in the larger region,
and 1 is considered an impact of both General Plan 2030 and cumulative development.
Signifcant and Unavoidable Project Impacts:
• AG-1 • TRAF-2 • TRAF-$
• AG-2 • TRAF-3 • TRAF-9
• HYDRO-I • TRAF-4 • TRAF-10
• HYDRO-2 • TRAF-5 • TRAF-11
• NOISE-1 • TRAF-6 • TRAF-12
* TRAF-1 • TRAF-7 • TRAF-13
Signifcant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts:
• AG-3 HYDRO-3
• BIO-1
• NOISE-2
Significant and Unavoidable Project and Cumulative Impacts:
• CC-1
• TRAF-14
The County recognizes that General Plan 2030 will cause the 24 significant and
unavoidable impacts as listed above. The County has carefully balanced the benefits of
General Plan 2030 against the unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the DEIR, FEIR
and the County's Findings of Fact. Notwithstanding the disclosure of impacts identified
as significant and which have not been eliminated to a level of insignificance, the County,
acting pursuant to section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that the
benefits of General Plan 2030 outweigh the significant unmitigated adverse impacts.
39
B. Specific Findings
Pro'ect Benefits Outwei h Unavoidable Im acts
The remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of General Plan 2030 are acceptable
in light of the economic, fiscal, social, planning, land use, and other considerations set
forth herein because the benefits of General Plan 2030 outweigh its significant and
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
Balance of Com etin Goals
The County finds it imperative to balance competing goals in adopting General Plan 2030
and the environmental documentation for General Flan 2030. Nat every policy or
environmental concern has been fully satisfied because of the need to satisfy competing
concerns to a certain extent. Accordingly, in some instances the County has chosen to
accept certain environmental impacts because to eliminate them would unduly
compromise important economic, racial, or other goals. The County finds and
determines that the text of General Plan 2030 and the supporting environmental
documentation provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the
economic, f scal, social, planning, land use, and other benef is to be obtained by General
Plan 2030 outweigh the environmental and related potential impacts of General Plan
2030.
C. Overriding Considerations
Substantial evidence is included in the record of these proceedings and in documents
relating to General Plan 2030 demonstrating the benefits which the County would derive
from the implementation of the Plan. The County has balanced the economic
considerations of General Plan 2030 against the unavoidable environmental impacts
identified in the DEIR and FEIR and concludes that the economic benefits that wil! be
derived from the implementation of General Plan 2030 outweigh those environmental
impacts. In particular, the County considered whether there would be any impacts related
to: aesthetics; agriculture; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology,
soils, and mineral resources; hazards and safety; hydrology and water quality; land use;
noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and
circulation; utilities; and greenhouse gas emissions. Upon balancing the environmental
risks and countervailing benefits, the County concludes that the benefits which the
County will derive from the implementation of General Plan 2030 outweigh those
environmental risks.
More particularly, General Plan 2030 will provide for the orderly development of
residential, mixed use, retail and office, industrial, and public uses, while maintaining
significant areas of open space; agriculture, and public lands. The County anticipates
continued pressure for development within unincorporated Butte County. General Plan
2030 defines a vision of what the County desires to be in 20 years, and serves as a
4a
comprehensive guide for decisions about land use, housing, economic development,
agriculture, water resources, circulation, conservation and open space, health and safety,
and public facilities and services. The County finds that this level of comprehensive
planning is desirable and beneficial to the county and provides a more environmentally
sustainable vision and development plan for the county than the previously adopted
General Plan. For example, General Plan 2030 eliminates the Agricultural Residential
designation, which allowed the expansion of rural residential development into
agricultural areas, and designates the largest portion of this area Agriculture. General
Plan 2030 increases the minimum parcel sizes allowed for Agriculture and Timber
designations. In addition, General Plan 2030 contains extensive new policies that reduce
single occupancy vehicle trips (such as the Policies under Goals CIR-2, CIR-3, and CIR-
4), conserve energy (such as the Policies and Actions under Goals COS-2, COS-3, and
COS-4), conserve water resources (such as the Policies under Goal W-4}, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions (such as the Policies and Actions under Goal COS-l), and
promote environmental sustainability.
The adoption of General Plan 2030 would provide the County with a "constitution" for
land use and development that would guide the county's growth aver the next 25 years in
a manner that aligns with the goals of Butte County and its residents. General Plan 2030
would also create a variety of housing types that would allow the County to meet its fair
share housing allocation without dividing established communities. This furthers the
County's General Plan Housing Element Goal 1, which is to "Provide for the County's
regional share of new housing for all income groups and future residents as identified in
the Housing Needs Assessment."
The County Ends that the above described benefits which will be derived from adopting
General Plan 2030, when weighed against the absence of a general plan, override the
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Plan.
The Board of Supervisors has considered and carefully balanced the economic, legal,
social, technological and other benefits of General Plan 2030 against its potentially
signifcant and unavailable adverse environmental effects. The Board of Supervisors has
determined that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of
the project, as more specifically identified below, outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects of the project, which are thus considered acceptable by the Board.
The Board of Supervisors hereby determines that the project is in the public interest and
should, therefore, be approved.
The DEIR and FEIR recognize that certain specified adverse environmental impacts may
be caused by the approval of General Flan 2030, which cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the application of feasible mitigation measures or an alternative to the
project. Despite the finling in the EIR that such unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts may be caused by the project, the Board of Supervisors nevertheless f nds, after a
thorough review and independent consideration of such potentially adverse
environmental impacts, that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
41.
environmental impacts. Those impacts are therefore deemed to be acceptable by the
Board. Each benefit set forth below constitutes a separate, independent, and severable
overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, despite the unavoidable
impact.
Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the County would derive the
following benefits from adoption and implementation of General Plan 2030:
• The project updates and modernizes the existing General Plan, which
would become increasingly out of date, and put the County at risk of a
legal challenge which could potentially restrict the County's ability to
approve new development projects (residential, agricultural, commercial,
and industrial}.
• The project updates the General Plan policies and the Land Use Map to
account for changing land use patterns, economic conditions,
socioeconomic changes, technological advances, and the need to address
environmental impacts, such as global climate change.
• The project would assist the County to make appropriate land use
decisions. The land use designations of General Plan 2030 would allow
decision makers to approve development within the county consistent with
the County's vision far growth.
• General Plan 2030 best reflects the community's expressions of quality of
life and community values and guides the County's future growth in line
with those values. The project supports a balance between agriculture,
housing, environmental preservation and restoration, population growth
and economic development.
• .General Plan 2030 balances the protection of ecologically sensitive
resources with the protection of property rights, the importance of
agriculture and the need far affordable housing, transportation, and
economic growth. The project represents the best compromise in terms of
satisfying the County's obligations to social, environmental, and housing
considerations, all within the constraints of the County's limited budget.
General Plan 2030 ensures that private property owners will continue to
have economically viable use of their lands, promotes economic
development, spreads the public burdens fairly, and protects the County
from regulatory takings challenges.
The project includes goals, objectives, and policies that provide substantial
additional protection of the County's important natural resources, such as
biological resources and timber and agricultural resources, while
42
recognizing the rights of private property owners.
• The project will provide for future County housing needs. General Plan
2030 will provide necessary housing for future conditions, thereby
addressing, among other things, the need for moderate priced workforce
housing.
• The project would provide additional employment opportunities in the
County. Land use designations and policies of General Plan 2030
encourage the establishment of uses that will generate employment
opportunities for the residents of the County.
• The project would increase County revenues, through increased property
taxes from property developed as a result of General Plan 2030, and
through funds collected from development impact fees and other exactions
imposed upon such development.
• The project incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to reduce
potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
• General Plan 2030 includes policies and implementation measures that
address greenhouse gas emissions and commit the County to developing a
Climate Action Plan.
• General Plan 2030 includes policies and implementation measures that
protect groundwater and other water supplies, to the extent feasible, by
providing measures to ensure that water supply and delivery systems are
available in time to meet the demand created by new development, and by
requiring development project approvals to include best management
practices for water use efficiency and to demonstrate specific water
conservation measures. General Plan 2030 also commits the County to
protect and preserve groundwater supplies and quality in Butte County.
• General Plan 2030 includes policies and implementation measures that
promote recycling and solid waste reduction.
General Plan 2030 accommodates a reasonable amount of growth, while
including policies and implementation measures to ensure that the impacts
of such growth on Butte County are mitigated to the extent feasible, and
that development projects contribute their reasonable share of costs toward
needed public infrastructure.
The amount, density, and compactness of development contemplated and
allowed by General Plan 2030 will support the establishment of
infrastructure (water, wastewater, roads, public facilities, etc.} and levels
43
of service to address the needs and impacts of growth in Butte County.
• General Plan 2030 provides far Special Planning Areas that require
coordinated, master-planned, high density development in appropriate
locations, which furthers the County's vision for growth, avoids urban
sprawl, and assists in reducing development pressure on agricultural and
resources lands elsewhere.
• Genera! Plan 2030 further protects, to the extent feasible, agricultural
Iands, open space, and natural resources (which include grazing, timber,
and wildlife Iands}, by not allowing land divisions intended for residential
use to be developed in areas that are not specifically designated far such
development in the General Plan.
• General Plan 2030 provides appropriate minimum parcel sizes far
agricultural lands throughout the County.
• The project supports the loco! economy by reserving an appropriate and
feasible amount of land for development, while balancing the protection of
agricultural and environmentally sensitive Iands and resources. The
project promotes a stxong, diverse, and sustainable economy by attracting
and retaining businesses that both provide jabs and provide opportunities
for businesses and consumers to purchase needed goods and services
locally.
The Board of Supervisors hereby finds it is imperative to balance competing goals when
approving General Plan 2030 and associated environmental docamentation. Not every
environmental concern has been fully satisfied because of the need to satisfy competing
concerns to a certain extent. The Board has chosen to accept certain environmental
impacts because complete eradication of impacts would unduly compromise some other
important community goals.
The Board has found and determined that General Plan 2030 and supporting
environmental documentation provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and
that the social, environmental, land-use and other benefits to be obtained by the project
outweigh any remaining environmental and related potential detriment of the project.
XIII. lCi~[CORPORA'rION BY REFERENCE
The EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this
incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the
basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of
alternatives, and the reasons for approving the project in spite of the potential for
associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
44
XN. Si1MMARY
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the Record, the Board
of Supervisors has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the
significant environmental effects of General Plan 2030:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, General Plan
2030 which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2) 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.
3) Specifc 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.
Based on the foregoing frndings and the information contained in the record, it is
determined that:
1) All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the project have
been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2) Any remaining signif cant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are
acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations in subsection X11 C,, above, and the County finds that General
Plan 2030 should be approved.
XV. CERTIFICATION
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte hereby certifies the Final Environmental
Impact Report prepared for General Plan 2030 (consisting of the DEIR, FEIR, and all
appendices and errata), adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth
herein, and approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program discussed in
section X above. The Director of Development Services shall promptly file a Notice of
Determination as provided in California Code of Regulation, title 14, section 15094.
XVI. VOTE
For the reasons set forth above, the Board of Supervisors makes the specified findings of
fact, rejects the three alternatives, adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan,
and adopts a statement of overriding considerations.
~F5
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of
California, at its regular meeting held on the 26~' day of October, 2Q10, by the following
vote:
AYES:SUPERVI50R5 DOLAN;KIRK; LAMBERT AND CONNELL"Y
NOES: su~E~vzsoR YAMAGUCx~.
ABSENT: NONE
NOT VOTING: NO1~E
BILL CONNELLY, C air
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
PAUL HAHN, Chief Administrative
and Clerk of.~h~ Boar~gf $~pervisor
By:
46