HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-029Resolution No. 13-OZ9
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVI50RS
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING ENVIRONMENTA! FINDINGS
FOR HELENA CHEMICAL COMPLANY'5 NEL50N TERMINAL PROJECT [USE PERMIT UP10-0003
i. BACKGROUND
A. Project Description
The Project considered by the Board of Supervisors is that included in Helena Chemical Company's
application package first submitted in April, 2011, as revised and submitted to the Department of
Development Services, and described in Chapter 3.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR.
The Nelson Terminal project is a request by Helena Chemical Company to develop and operate a
regional storage and distribution facility for fertilizers and pesticides, including an office, bulk dry
fertilizer storage building, bulk liquid fertilizer storage tanks, bulk liquid pesticide storage tanks,
packaged pesticides warehouse, storm water retention basin, creation of a railroad spur to the Union
Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) main line, a driveway onto Nelson Road, and improvements to Nelson Road. In
order to establish the regional storage and distribution facility, Lot Line Adjustment would be required in
addition to Use Permit UP10-0003.
By Use Permit UP10-0003 Helena Chemical proposes to develop approximately 10 acres in phases,
shown below, to be used as a regional storage and distribution facility for "crop production products"
(fertilizers and nutritionals) and "crop protection products" herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides).
The phasing shown below is proposed by Helena Chemical Company; however, alternative phasing may
be constructed in any order consistent with the terms of the Use Permit and existing regulations.
Phase-Building Estinrfated
Letter an Si#e
Proposed Buiiding
Area :. Maximum
Phase
Pion
,. Building ,
Height
I-A Ag Products Warehouse 30,000 square feet 21' One
Building
I B Bulk Dry Fertilizer Storage 37,000 square feet 62' One
Warehouse
I-C Eight {8) Herbicide Tanks 10,000 gallons each 35' Two
I-D Office 1,250 square feet 13' One
I-E Two {2) Railroad Spur Tracks NA NA One
II-F Ag Products Warehouse 3D,000 square feet 21' Two
Building Expansion
Three {3) Liquid Fertilizer
'
II-G Storage Tanks 300,000 gallons each 35 Two
I!-H Bulk Dry Fertilizer Storage 22500 square feet fit' Two
Warehouse Expansion
The project description originally included Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 11-0002, an amendment to
Section 24-90 of Butte County Code A-5 through A-150 {Agricultural Zones) to establish "agricultural
support service" as a use permitted subject to approval of a use permit, on lands with the "Agriculture
Services" General Plan designation. "Agricultural support service" uses proposed to be allowed by Use
Permit included, but were not limited to: agricultural equipment sales and rental, light manufacturing,
warehousing, and distribution and storage, agricultural vehicle repair and heavier manufiacturing, all
subject to environmental review and hearing by the Planning Commission. ZCA11-0002 would have
affected thirty-two {32) individual parcels with the following Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 047-190-022,
039-180-042, 039-180-041, 021-200-018, 025-250-069, 025-250-053, 422-140-015, 022-140-012, 022-
140-032, 039-480-001, 039-480-002, 004-520-029, 439-080-065, 439-080-077, 424-150-007, 029-110-
038, 029-110-029, 029-155-003, 029-140-403, 029-140-004, 029-240-073, 029-240-043, 029-240-05$,
042-120-049, 047-150-137, 022-140-009, 022-100-022, 047-190-011, 024-140-062, 024-120-057 and
038-260-013.
On November 6, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted a new Zoning Ordinance {Ordinance 4050,
Butte County Code Chapter 24), which became effective on December 10, 2412. The new Zoning
Ordinance includes an Agricultural Services zone, consistent with the Agriculture Services land use
designation. Agricultural Support uses {AS Uses), including the proposed regional storage and
distribution facility for fertilizers and pesticides, are permitted in the Agricultural Services Zone with the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. With the new Zoning Ordinance becoming effective, ZCA 11-0002
is no longer required to establish the proposed AS uses on the Nelson Terminal site.
Lot Line Adjustment LLA11-0401 is an application by Helena Chemical and the UPRR far a Lot Line
Adjustment of the property line between APN 038-260-013 {Helena) and APN 038-260-014 {UPRRJ
resulting in squaring-up the irregular southwestern corner boundaries between the properties.
Page 2 of 34
Approximately 0.57 acres would be added to APN 038-260-013 from the UPRR parcel for development
of the railroad spur. Although LLA11-0001 is considered in the FEIR consistent with CEC#q to evaluate
the whole of the project, Butte County Code Section 20-95.1 (d] provides that the Director of
Development Services reviews, and approves lot line adjustment applications. Approval of LLA11-0001
is #herefore not an action before the Board of Supervisors.
The Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"] far the Project includes a detailed project
descrip#ion regarding construction and operation of the proposed Nelson Terminal project as set forth in
the Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR and amended in the Final EIR.
13. Project Setting
The Project setting is identified in the `Existing Conditions' section of each environmental topic area
located in chapters 4.1 through 4.8 of the Draft EIR.
C. Project Objectives
The Project has the following objectives (Draft EIR page 3-10 and 3-11].
Objectives of Zonine Code Amendment ZCA 11-0002: Butte County has identified the following
objectives for ZCA11-DOD2:
Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 11-0002 would establish conditionally permitted uses in the current
Agriculture (A] zone, in order to process and consider land uses consistent with the Agriculture Services
(AS] land use designation with a use permit.
ZCA11-0002 would establish conditionally permitted uses in the current Agriculture (A] zone, in order to
process and consider a chemical storage and distribution facility, consistent with the Agriculture Services
(AS] land use designation, at the Helena Chemical Nelson Terminal site.
The Board of Supervisors adopted a new Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 4050, Butte County Cade Chapter
24], which became effective December 10, 2012. The new Zoning Ordinance includes an Agricultural
Services zone, consistent with the Agriculture Services land use designation, which allows AS uses such
as the proposed regional storage and distribution facility for fertilizers and pesticides, with the issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit. With the new Zoning Ordinance becoming effective, the project objectives
of Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 11-0002 have been satisfied and ZCA 11-0002 is no longer required to
establish the proposed AS uses on the Nelson Terminal site.
Objectives of Use Permit UP10-0003: Helena Chemical Company, the project applicant, has identified
the following objectives for the Nelson Terminal project proposed by Use Permit UP10-4003:
The purpose of the proposed Use Permit UP10-0003 project is to develop the Nelson site to be used as a
regional storage and distribution facility for crop production and protection products. To achieve this
purpose the applicant believes that the following five Objectives must be met:
1. Parcel must be of minimum 15 acres in size to accommodate the minimum development
footprint.
Page 3 of 34
2. Site should be in a suburban or rural setting rather than an urban setting (e.g. cities of Chico or
Yuba City) to avoid land use conflicts with urban populations.
3. The project should be consistent with Butte County General Plan land use designation. The
proposed project is a conditionally allowed use in the Agriculture Services and Industrial Land
Use designations.
4. To reduce truck trip impacts and make Helena's businesses in Butte County more efficient by
emphasizing delivery of products to Butte County by rail, the project has the following
objectives:
a. The location must have ready and feasible access to development of a railroad spur on the
main north-south Union Pacific Railroad line for efficient delivery of agricultural production
and protection products.
b. In addition to ability to develop a railroad spur, the site must be in a location where Union
Pacific Railroad is willing to provide services to the spur.
c. The site must be in close proximity to a signalized railroad crossing of the main north-
south Union Pacific Railroad line to allow for the safe east-west flow of truck traffic for
delivery and distribution of products to and from the facility.
5. The location should be roughly central to the majority of Helena Chemical's end-user customers
from both the Yuba City and Chico facilities. The majority of these customers are located north
of Yuba City and south of Chico; about 95 percent of which are located west of the Highway 99.
Objectives of Lot Line Adjustment 11-0001: Butte County has identified the following objectives for
LLA11-0001:
Lot Line Adjustment 11-0001 seeks to add approximately 0.57 acres from the southeast portion of APN
038-260-014 (UPRR} #o the southwestern portion of APN 038-260-013 (Helena Chemical). This results in
a squaring-up of the irregular southwestern corner boundaries of the Helena Chemical property and will
facilitate the development of the railroad spur proposed by the project. The centerline of the
irrigation/drainage ditch is the north-south property line between the two properties.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A. Lead Agency Status
Butte County is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA")for preparation and certification of the Final EIR for the Project.
B. Purpose of the En-riranmental Impact Report
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and
the CEClA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., (collectively, CEC~4},
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR} was prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the Nelson
Terminal Project (the "Project"}.
Page 4 of 34
1. Impacts of the Project: Executive Summary, Table 1-1, of the Draft EIR provides a Summary of
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR and includes the following impact
categories: Aesthetic Resources, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gasses,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Noise, Transportation, Growth Inducing Impacts,
and Cumulative Impacts.
2. Mitigation of impacts Required by CEQA: CEQA states that a project shall not be approved if it
would result in a significant environmental impact, or if feasible mi#igation measures or feasible
alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact. Only when there are specific economic,
social, or other considerations which make it infeasible to substantially lessen or avoid an
impact can a project with significant impacts be approved.
3. Mitigation Measures incorporated into Nelson Terminal Project:
A) Mitigation Measures are identified in the Draft EIR, and may be clarified or amplified in the
Final EER, and as modified by the Resolution approving the Project, including the conditions
of approval contained therein. The table included in Exhibit 1 to this resolution specifies
available and feasible mitigation measures.
B) Conservation Measures are also incorporated into the project, with the concurrence of the
applicant who agreed to incorporate mitigation measures from the initial Study, also known
as `Conservation Measures,' into the Project Description. Project Description, Chapter 3.0,
Section 3-5, lists thirteen (13) Conservation Measures incorporated into the project.
C) Findings of Fact Required: CEClA Guidelines Section 15091 states that no public agency shall
approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or
more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or
more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding.
1) If the project can be defined as having significant impacts on the environment, then an
EIR must be prepared. Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one
or more potentially significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make
one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects
which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in
the completed Environmental Impact Report.
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can
and should be adapted by such other agency.
c. Specific economic, transportation or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental Impact
Report.
Page 5 of 34
C. Procedural Background
The f=inal EIR was prepared consistent with processing criteria established by the California
Environmental Quality Act, which included the following activities:
1. On October 1, 2014, Butte County received application for Use Permit UP10-0003 from Helena
Chemical Company to construct and operate an agricultural warehouse and distribution facility
in Nelson, California.
2. On October 26, 2010 Butte County Board of Supervisors adopted Butte County General Plan
2030. It designated 48 sites with a new Agriculture Services {AS) land use designation, including
the Helena Nelson Terminal site, assessor's parcel number 038-260-013.
3. On September 23, 2011, a Notice of Preparation {NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project was
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to public agencies for comment. The NDP
comment period extended from September 23, 2011 to October 24, 2011; thirty-eight {38) NOP
comment letters were received and are provided in Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
4. A Notice of Completion and a Notice of Availability and Public Hearing was circulated fora 45-
day public review period from May 16, 2012 through July 2, 2012. Twenty-three {23) comments
were submitted to the County during the comment period on the Draft EIR including letters,
email, and verbal testimony at the June 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. These
comments and responses to comments are provided in the Final EIR for the project. Comment
letters received following the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR are also available for review
at the County Department of Development Services and as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.
5. A duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on June 14, 2012 to
receive comment on the Draft EIR. Eight people spoke at the Planning Commission hearing
providing ora! testimony regarding the Draft EIR.
6. On September 28, 2012, the County released the Helena Nelson Terminal Project Final EIR. The
County provided notice of the availability of the Final EIR to agencies, organizations, and the
public.
7. On October 11, 2012, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning
Commission to consider certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring
Program, approval of Use Permit for chemical storage and distribution warehouse, and a
recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the Zoning Code Amendment
{ZCA). The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare approval resolutions for the project
and continued the hearing to November S, 2012.
8. On November 6, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted a new Zoning Ordinance {Ordinance
4050, Butte County Code Chapter 24J, which became effective on December 10, 2012. The new
Zoning Ordinance includes an Agricultural Services zone, consistent with the Agriculture Services
land use designation. Agricultural Support uses {AS Uses), including the proposed regional
storage and distribution facility far fertilizers and pesticides, are permitted in the Agricultural
Services Zone with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Page 6 of 34
9. On November $, 2012, the County held a continued public hearing before the Planning
Commission to further consider certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation and
Monitoring Program, approval of Use Permit for chemical storage and distribution warehouse,
and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors on the Zoning Code Amendment
(ZCA}. At the conclusion of said hearing, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions:
certifying the Final EIR and making environmental findings; and making findings regarding
significant and unavoidable impacts, adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program,
and approving Use Permit UP10-0003 for the Helena Chemical Nelson Terminal Project with
findings and conditions of approval.
10. On November 19, 2012 an appeal of the November 8, 2012 decision to certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report {FEIR} far Use Permit UP10-0003 'tn accordance with the California
Environmental Ctuality Act {CEC+~,} and approve said Use Permit with findings and conditions of
approval was filed as provided by Section 24-45.30 of the Butte County Code.
11. On January 29, 2013, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the Board of
Supervisors to consider certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation and Monitoring
Program, approval of Use Permit for chemical storage and distribution warehouse. At the
conclusion of said public hearing, the Board of Supervisors adopted a motion of intent to certify
the Final EIR and make environmental findings in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and to deny the appeal and approve Use Permit UP10-0003 for the Helena Chemical
Nelson Terminal with findings and conditions of approval.
D. Documents Comprising Final EIR
The Final EIR for the Project includes the following items (collectively referred to as the "Final EIR").
1. Draft EIR Helena Chemical Nelson Terminal ZCA11-OOD2, UP10-0003, and LLA11-0001 (SCH
2011092061} dated May 2012;
2. Technical appendices attached to the Draft EIR;
3. Comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, dated September 2012{Final EIR,
Chapter 3};
4. Errata to the Draft EIR containing clarifications and amplifications of information presented in
the text of the Draft EIR {Final EIR, Chapter 4};
5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Final EIR, Chapter 5}.
Ell. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
For purposes of CEC~A and the findings hereinafter set forth, the administrative record for the Project
consists of those items listed in Section 211.67.6 (e} of the Public Resources Code (chapter 1234,
Statutes of 1994) including but not limited to:
A. All application materials and correspondence contained in the Lead Agency's Project files (UP10-
Page 7 of 34
0003, ZCA11-0002, and LLA11-0001);
B. The initial Study;
C. The Draft EIR, including its appendices;
D. The Final EIR, including its appendices;
E. All Notices of Availability, the Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse, the
Notice of Determination that will be filed with the County Clerk's Office upon a final decision an
the Project, and all staff reports and presentation materials related to the Project;
F. All studies contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft EIR, or the Final EIR;
G. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the County and other
agencies;
H. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and workshops,
and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project; and
I. For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and ordinances,
including, without limitation, general plans, area plans and ordinances, master plans together
with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs and other
documentation relevant to planned growth in the area.
J. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Grade Section
21167.6, subdivision (e).
IV LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF THE RECORD
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and California Cade 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. Such documents and other material are located
at: Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California,
95965.
V. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND ACTIONS
The proposed Project involves the following discretionary approvals and CECIp actions by the Board of
Supervisors:
A. Certify the Final EIR for the Project (SCH 2011092061), documenting compliance with CECtA,
and independent review and consideration of the information in the E1R prior to taking action
on the Project.
B. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Mitigation Measures and
Conservation Measures identified herein for the reduction of environmental impacts.
Page 8 of 34
C. Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in a Resolution approving the Project;
D. Approve the Helena Chemical Nelson Terminal Project (UP10-0003), proposed on APN 438-
260-013 in Nelson California, to develop and operate a regional storage and distribution facility
for fertilizers and pesticides, including an office, bulk dry fertilizer storage building, bulk liquid
fertilizer storage tanks, bulk liquid pesticide storage tanks, packaged pesticides warehouse,
stormwater retention basin, creation of a railroad spur to the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR}
main line, a driveway onto Nelson Road, and improvements to Nelson Road.
VI. GENERAL FINDINGS
A. Terminology of Findings
Section 15491 of the CECIq Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified
in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more
of three allowable conclusions.
1. Changes 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.
2. Such 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.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
1=or purposes of these findings, the terms "mitigation measures" and "conservation measures" shall
constitute "changes or alterations" discussed above.
The term "avoid or substantially lessen" will refer to the effectiveness of one or more of the mitigation
measures, conservation measures, or alternatives, to reduce an otherwise significant environmental
effect to aless-than-significant level.
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 CEC+A 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." (CECtA
Guidelines, § 15354.) When the County finds a measure is not feasible, evidence for its decision will be
provided.
B. General CEQA Findings
These findings comply with CEC~A. The Board of Supervisors has considered information and
environmental effects as shown in the Final EIR prior to approving the Nelson Terminal Project. These
findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of Butte County, which is the lead agency.
Page 9 of 34
The Butte County General Plan EIR is the first tier environmental document because it provides an
environmental assessment of impacts anticipated with build-out development through 2030. It provides
first tier environmental analysis upon which supplemental environmental analysis, including the Flelena
Nelson Terminal Project EIR, is based. Portions of the findings herein were previously adopted as part of
the Findings certifying the FEIR for General Plan 2030.
Included in the General Plan's 2030 build-out assessment is the re-designation of ~8 sites, including the
site of the Proposed Project, to a new Agriculture Services land use designation.
C. Areas of Controversy
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency based
upon review of public and agency comment. Concerns expressed at the scoping meeting for the EIR are
the identified areas of controversy for the project and are summarized in Table 2-3 of the Draft EIR.
Controversial aspects of the Project are summarized as: localized flooding, stormwater runoff, fertilizer
and pesticide odors, groundwater contamination, materials release hazards, fugitive dust, railroad car
coupling noise, viewscape/aesthetics, surrounding agriculture, farm equipment sharing roads, damage
to Butte Creek Bridge, limits on future new materials, traffic on roadways, agricultural aviation, truck
length safety, railroad crossing safety, facility waste water, location near community of Nelson, farmland
conversion and growth inducing effects. Mitigation measures have been provided within the Final EIR to
address these impacts, to the extent feasible.
D. Changes to the DEIR Do Not Require Re-circulation. 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 some new information has been added. The changes made to the DEIR do not result
in the existence of:
A significant new environmental impact that would result from the project 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;
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 environments! impacts
of the project; 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 clarifications made to the DEIR do not collectively or
individually constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section
21092.1 and CEG,A Guidelines section 15088.5. The Board of Supervisors has evaluated whether these
modifications, additions, and changes trigger the thresholds for recirculation. The Board of Supervisors
finds that there are no substantial changes in the proposed project that necessitate revisions of the
DEIR, nor has significant new information became available.
Re-circulation is not required where the new information added to the DEIR merely clarifies, amplifies,
Page 10 of 34
or makes insignificant modifications in, an adequate DEIR. Having received, reviewed, and considered
the entire record, both written and oral, relating to the project, and the associated DEIR and FEIR, the
Board of Supervisors finds that the Helena Nelson Terminal project falls within the scope of the DEIR
analysis and that recirculation of the DEIR is not required prior to the approval of Use Permit 10-0003.
E. Evidentiary Basis far Findings
These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the County as described
in Section III. The references to the Draft EIR and to the Final EIR 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.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ENViRONMENTAI. IMPACTS
A. Requirements Under CEgp
CEC+,A Guidelines Section 15091 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for
which an EIR has been certified which identifies one ar more significant environmental effects of the
Project unless the public agency makes one or more written #indings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
The EIR fully evaluated the following impact categories: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Noise, and Transportation.
Exhibit 1 (Environmental Impact Summary), attached hereto, provides a complete list of all impacts
analyzed by the EIR, mitigation measures and identification of significant and unavoidable impacts. The
Board of Supervisor's Findings of Fact concerning each of the impacts and mitigation measures
identified as significant and mitigated to less than signifcant, and significant and unavoidable in the
Final EIR are provided below insub-sections F and G below.
The full text of each mitigation measure that would avoid or reduce significant effects is provided in
Exhibit B to the Project Approval resolution, incorporated herein by reference.
B. No Impacts and Less Than Signifrcant Impacts Without Mitigation in Initial Study
As noted in sub-section II (CJ above, an Initial Study was prepared and circulated for the Project. Several
environmental factors are fully addressed in the project Initial Study. As discussed in the lnitial Study,
the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact without mitigation on the following
environmental factors. These environmental factors are as follows:
Mineral Resources
• Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities/Service Systems
Page 11 of 34
C. Less Than Significant Impacts With Mitigation in Initial Study
Fourteen [14} Conservation Measures were identified in the Initial Study to reduce/mitigate impacts
from the proposed project to a level of Less Than Significant. All Conservation Measures set forth in the
Initial Study are incorporated as Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval. Conservation Measures
iden#ified in the Initial Study mitigated impacts to the following environmental factors to a level of Less
Than Significant:
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geologic Processes
• Hydrology and Water Quality
D. No Impacts in Final EIR
Exhibit A provides a summary of environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project as
identified in the EIR. Thirty-seven impacts categories were evaluated in the Final EIR. Three [3} of thirty-
seven [37} impact categories were determined to have no impact in the Final EIR. No mitigation is
required.
E. Less Than Significant in Final EIR
Twenty [20} of thirty-seven [37} impact categories were determined to have a less than significant
impact without mitigation in the Final EIR. No mitigation is required.
F. Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant in Final EIR
Nine [9] of thirty-seven [37} impact categories were determined to have a less than significant impact
after the incorporation of thirteen [13} mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts to a Tess
than significant level.
The EIR finds that there are less-than-significant environmental impacts, with identified mitigation
measures from the Final EIR, for the following impact categories:
• impact 4.1.3 Aesthetic Resources (New Source of Light and Glare);
• Impact 4.25 Agricultural Resources (Farmland Conversion by means other than loss of
farmland) ;
+ Impact 4.3.2 Air Quality [Violate Air Quality Standards];
• Impact 4.4.1 Greenhouse Gasses [Generate Significant Emission];
• Impacts 4.5.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials [Hazard via Routine Transportation and
Use};
• Impacts 4.5.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Hazard via Reasonably Foreseeable
Upset or Accident];
• Impacts 4.5.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials [Cumulative Human Exposure to
Hazardous Materials);
• Impact 4.7.4 Noise (Construction-Related Noise]; and
• Impact 4.8.2 Transportation (Unsafe Turning Movements]
Page 12 of 34
Mitieation Measures
The mitigation measures herein referenced are those identified in the 17raft EIR, as clarified or amplified
in the Final EIR, and summarized in Exhibit B to the Project approval Resolution. Exhibit B specifies
available and feasible mitigation measures for the proposed Project. Mitigation measures will reduce
nine [9} potentially significant impacts to less than significant environmental impacts.
All feasible mitigation measures that avoid ar substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project
and that are adopted in these Findings shall become binding on the County and Helena Chemical
Company at the time of approval of the Project.
The mitigation measures incorporated into and imposed upon the Project will not have new significant
environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the EIR.
Findings of Fact
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for
which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmenta! effects of the
Project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
The following effects have been identified in the EIR as significant or potentially significant in the
absence of mitigation. Mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce these effects are summarized
below. See Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program} to the Resolution Approving Use
Permit 10-0003, for the full text of each mitigation measure.
1. Aesthetics
Potentially Significant Impact 4.1.3: The project will create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This is a potentially significant impact
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
Final EIR and the entire record before this County, this County finds, as authorized by Public Resources
Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a}(1}, that the Project can
be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this impact to a
less-than-significant level. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the County to
require, and is appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation Measure MM 4.1.1 (Light and Glare} requires that outdoor facility
lighting be designed and located so that it will not shine upon or illuminate areas not required to be
lighted, such as surrounding residences. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.1, potentially
significant aesthetic impacts resulting #rom light and glare will be fens-than-significant upon surrounding
residences.
2. Agricultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact 4,2.5: The project site could potentially provide a repository and
propagation area for noxious weeds and could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
Final EIR and the entire record before this County, this County finds, as authorized by Public Resources
Page 13 of 34
Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091{a}{1}, that the Project can
be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this impact to a
less-than-significant level. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the County to
require, and is appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation Measure MM 4.2.1 (Noxious Weeds Management Plan} requires that the
applicant prepare and adhere to a weed management plan meeting the criteria of the Agricultural
Commissioner. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.1, potentially significant impacts to
agricultural resources resulting from noxious weeds will be less than significant.
3. Air Quality
Potentially Sienificant Impact 4.3.2: The project could violate an air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Findines: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
Final EIR and the entire record before this County, this County finds, as authorized by Public Resources
Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091{a}{1}, that the Project can
be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this impact. The
imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the County to require, and is appropriate and
feasible
Statement of Facts: Mitigation Measure MM 4.3.1 {Commitments to Air Quality} requires the
implementation of the Butte County Air Quality Management District's standard and best available
measures to reduce reactive organic gases {ROG}, Nitrogen Oxides {NOx} and PM10 and incorporates
several assumptions from the air quality modeling performed for the site to ensure implementation.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.3.1, potentially significant impacts to air quality from
the project will be less than significant.
4. Green Nouse Gasses
Potentially Sienificant Impact 4.4.1 The project would contribute greenhouse gas emissions that may
have a significant impact on the environment.
Findines: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
Final EIR and the entire record before this County, this County finds, as authorized by Public Resources
Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091{a}{1}, that the Project can
be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this impact. The
imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the County to require, and is appropriate and
feasible.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation Measure MM 4.3.1 (Commitments to Air Quality} requires the
implementation of the Butte County Air Quality Management District's standard and best available
measures to reduce reactive organic gases {ROG}, Nitrogen Oxides {NOx} and PM10 and requires
implementation of assumptions #rom the air quality modeling performed for the project. With the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.3.1, potentially significant greenhouse gas impacts from the
project will be less than significant.
Page 14 0# 34
5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Potentially Significant Impact 4.5.1: The project could create a hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport and use, or disposal of hazardous materials, including if measures are not
taken to handle materials consistent with applicable state and local regulations.
Findines: Hazard Analysis study performed by Oscar Larsen & Associates concluded that Helena's
operations, policy and training in compliance with multiple levels of local, State, and federal regulations
are expected to avoid most all upset conditions. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen remaining, potentially significant
environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record
before this County, this County finds that, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a}(1}, that the Project can be conditioned to
incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this impact to aless-than-significant
level. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the County to require, and is
appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1{No Bottom Dump Rail Cars with Winds over
15mph}, MM 4.5-2 [Pre-Planning for Release), MM 4.5-3 (Area-Plan Update), MM 4.5-4 {Funding for
Equipment and Supplies}, and CM 10 (Transportation Regulation and Infrastructure Improvements)
collectively specify requirements for the safe handling and management of hazardous materials at the
Project site. MM 4.5-1 requires the applicant to coordinate with BCAQMD to establish appropriate
limits on the dumping of bottom dump rail cars when winds exceed 15 miles per hour, and/or other
means as can be demonstra#ed to be reliable and sa#e to avoid contribution to cumulative particulate
dust. MM 4.5-2 and MM 4.5-3 respectively require Butte County to plan for a release event and to
update the Area Plan. MM 4.5-4 requires Helena Chemical Company to pay for emergency equipment
or supplies needed to prepare or respond to an emergency event at the Nelson Terminal site. CM10, in
part, requires roadway improvements on Nelson Road to provide safe turning movements for large
trucks traveling to and from the site, often with agricultural fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides.
Adherence to these measures will reduce potential impacts associated with the handling of hazardous
materials to less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact 4.5.2: The project could create a hazard to the public or the environment
through upset and accident conditions, involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment, because it is a distribution facility for regulated substances and hazardous materials. The
Helena Nelson Terminal could release hazards to the environment {soil, groundwater, surface water,
stormwater, and air) during transport, storage, handling, and distribution of products. A spill or
accidental release is not necessarily a release into the environment if it is contained on site, far instance
by secondary containment.)
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
Final E1R and the entire record before this County, this County finds that, as authorized by Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a}(1}, that the
Project can be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this
impact to aless-than-significant level. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the
County to require, and is appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-~. (No Bottom Dump Rail Cars with Winds aver
15mph}, MM 45-2 (Pre-Planning for Release}, MM 4.5-3 (Area-Plan Update}, MM 4.5-4 {Funding for
Equipment and Supplies), MM4.5-5 (RMP Modifications-Storox and Zerotol}, MM4.5-6 (RMP
Page 15 of 34
Modifications-Emergency Response Decision Tree), MM4.5-7 (Grounding for dry bulk fertilizer
building), MM4.5-8 (Grounding for all Tanks), MM4.5-9 (Separation of Water Reactive Chemicals}, and
CM 10 (Transportation Regulation and Infrastructure Improvements) collectively specify requirements
to avoid and respond to potential upset ar accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials. MM 4.5-1 requires the applicant to coordinate with BCAQMD to establish appropriate limits
on the dumping of bottom dump rail cars when winds exceed 15 miles per hour, and/or other means as
can be demonstrated to be reliable and safe to avoid contribution to cumulative particulate dust. MM
4.5-2 and MM 4.5-3 respectively require Butte County to plan for a release event and to update the Area
Plan. MM 4.5-4 requires Helena Chemical Company to pay for emergency equipment or supplies
needed to prepare or respond to an emergency event at the Nelson Terminal site. MM4.5-5 requires
the removal of Starox and Zerotol from the project site, or the submittal of additional regulatory
requirements necessary to handle these materials, to ensure safe storage and handling and consistency
with regulatory standards. Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-6 ensures that the emergency response
decision tree is reviewed and revised as recommended by DI,.A, consistent with the requirements of
Environmental Health. MM 4.5-7 and MM 4.5-8 require that all tanks as well as the dry bulk fertilizer
building, the tallest structures in the vicinity, be grounded against lightning strikes. MM4.5-9 requires
the segregation of water reactive chemicals to avoid potential chemical reaction as a result of spillage.
CM10, in part, requires roadway improvements an Nelson Road to provide safe turning movements for
large trucks traveling to and from the site, often with agricultural fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides.
Adherence to these measures will reduce potential impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to less
than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact 4.5.3: The project, in combination with other risk-based facilities in Butte
County, could contribute to human exposure to hazardous materials and regulated substances on a
cumulatively considerable basis.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
Final EIR and the entire record before this County, this County finds that, as authorized by Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a}(1), that the
Project can be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this
impact to aless-than-significant level. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the
County to require, and is appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1(No Bottom Dump Rail Cars with Winds over
15mph), MM 4.5-2 (Pre-Planning for Release), MM 4.5-3 (Area-Plan Update), MM 4.5-4 (Funding far
Equipment and Supplies}, MM4.5-5 (RMP Modifications-5torox and Zerotol), MM4.5-6 (RMP
Modifications-Emergency Response Decision Tree), MM4.5-7 (Grounding for dry bulk fertilizer
building), MM4.5-8 {Grounding for all Tanks), MM4.5-9 (separation of Water Reactive Chemicals], and
CM 10 (Transportation Regulation and Infrastructure Improvements] collectively specify requirements
to avoid and respond to conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. MM 4.5-1 requires the
applicant to coordinate with BCAQMD to establish appropriate limits on the dumping of bottom dump
rail cars when winds exceed 15 miles per hour, and/or other means as can be demonstrated to be
reliable and safe to avoid contribution to cumulative particulate dust. MM 4.5-2 and MM 4.5-3
respectively require Butte County to plan for a release event and to update the Area Plan. MM 4.5-4
requires Helena Chemical Company to pay for emergency equipment or supplies needed to prepare or
respond to an emergency event at the Nelson Terminal site. MM4.5-5 requires the removal of Storox
and Zerotol from the project site, or the submittal of additional regulatory requirements necessary to
Page 16 of 34
handle these materials, to ensure safe storage and handling and consistency with regulatory standards.
Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-6 ensures that the emergency response decision tree is reviewed and
revised as recommended by OLA, consistent with the requiremen#s of Environmental Health. MM 4.5-7
and MM 4.5-8 require that all tanks as well as the dry bulk fertilizer building, the tallest structures in the
vicinity, be grounded against lightning strikes. MM4.5-9 requires the segregation of water reactive
chemicals to avoid potential chemical reaction as a result of spillage. CM10, in part, requires roadway
improvements on Nelson Road to provide safe turning movements for large trucks traveling to and from
the site with agricultural fertilizers, herbicides, ar pesticides. Adherence to these measures will reduce
the project's contribution to cumulative human exposure to hazardous materials and regulated
substances to less than significant.
6. Noise.
Potentially. Significant Impact 4.7.4: Project construction activities would result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
Final EIR and the entire record before this County, this County finds that, as authorized by Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091[a}[1}, that the
Project can be condi#ioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this
impact to aless-than-significant level. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the
County to require, and is appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Facts:
Mitigation Measure MM 4.7.1 [Construction Noise} limits the hours of noise producing construction
activities, requires the use of best available noise suppression devices, and establishes a disturbance
coordinator to manage complaints. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.7.1, potentially
significant construction noise impacts from the project will be less than significant.
7. Traffic and_Transportation
Potentially Significant Impact 4.8.2: The project could substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature [e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections} or incompatible uses [e.g., farm equipment}.
Findines: Changes ar alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmen#al effec# as identified in the Final EIR. Based upon the
FEIR and the entire record before this County, this County finds that, as authorized by Public Resources
Code Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15091[a}[1}, that the Project can
be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures or practices to substantially lessen this impact to a
less-than-significant level. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the County to
require, and is appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Facts: CM 10 (Transportation Regulation and Infrastructure Improvements} requires
roadway improvements on Nelson Road to provide safe turning movements for large trucks traveling to
and from the site with agricultural fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides. It also limits truck traffic on
Entler Avenue and on Nelson Road, from the facility entrance to Highway 99, to local deliveries and
specifies other improvements for consistency with county standards. A traffic assessment by ICp
Anderson confirmed that the proposed warehouse and distribution facili#y will not result in inadequate
levels of service on Iota! roadways and that use of farm equipment on local roads will oat result in
Page 17 of 34
significant incompatibilities with the proposed project. Adherence to CM10 will reduce the project's
impact due to design features and incompatible land uses to Less Than Significant.
G. Significan# Unavoidable lmpac#s after Incorporation of Feasible Mitigation
Exhibit A provides a summary of environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project as
evaluated in the EIR. Five (5) of thirty-seven (37) impact categories were determined to be significant
and unavoidable, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation, and will require findings of
overriding consideration in order for the Project to be approved.
The E[R concludes that there are two project-specific significant impacts and three cumulative impacts
that will remain significant after the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures.
• Impact 4.2.1 Agricultural Resources (farmland conversion)
• impact 4.2.4 Agricultural Resources (contribution to cumulative farmland conversion)
• Impact 4.7.5 Noise (contribution to cumulative noise exceeding standardsy
• Impact 4.8.5 Transportation (contribution of traffic to roadways operating below
standards)
• Impact 5.0 Growth Inducing Impacts (potential to convert land to Agricultural Services
uses).
For the significant and unavoidable impacts, Findings of Fact are required.
1. Permanent Conversion of Farmland On-site
Significant Impact 4.2.1: The Project would result in the permanent conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses. As evaluated by Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project will result in the direct,
permanent loss and conversion of ten (10) acres of farmland as a result of the project. An additional
sixteen (16y acres on the 26-acre project site (the undeveloped remainder) is also unlikely to be utilized
for agriculture in the future, resulting in 26 acres of farmland being converted to non-agricultural use.
Mitigation Adopted_ by the County: No feasible mitigation is available to reduce the on-site conversion
of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses with the Project.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities and reduction of air emissions as compared to the status quo, warrant the
acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods available to avoid the on-site conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural land uses would be the selection of an alternative project site or
denial of the project. The Project will provide fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides for agricultural lands.
An important objective of the Project is to be located near a Union Pacific Rail line so as to provide
efficient delivery of product for agriculture, thereby reducing transportation costs, air emissions and
greenhouse gasses associated with the delivery of these fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The No
Project Alternative and Alternative project sites evaluated in the EIR would result in a less efficient
delivery of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to Butte County and would increase transportation
costs, air emissions and greenhouse gasses associated with the delivery of these products, as compared
to the Project.
Statement of Facts: The project site is designated by the Butte County General Plan, adopted October
26, 2010, with an "Agriculture Services" land use designation. The Butte County General Plan EIR
Page 18 of 34
anticipated that development of the Project site would convert agricultural land to non-agricultural land
uses and, on programmatic level, and found that adoption of the Agriculture Services land use
designation would result in the conversion of farmland, a significant environmental impact. Because no
method is available to offset the loss of farmland on site, and because selecting an alternative site does
not meet the basic objectives of Helena's proposed Nelson Terminal project, the loss of farmland is
considered significant and unavoidable. See Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval
Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
2. Cumulative Conversion of Farmland
Significant Impact 4.2.4: The Environmental Impact Report far the Butte County General Plan evaluated
the environmental consequences of anticipated development in Butte County through 2030. The
General Plan EIR identified Impact AG-1 as follows "Although the goals, policies, actions and regulations
of General Pian 2030 would reduce and partially offset the conversion of farmland, the proposed project
designates approximately 4,700 acres of farmlands of concern under CECiA for non-agricultural uses."
Miti~atian Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Findines: The Project will lead to the conversion of 26 acres of farmland to non-agricultural use which
will incrementally contribute to the permanent lass and conversion of approximately 4700 acres of
farmland with build-out of the Butte County Genera! Plan. Like Impact AG-1 from the Butte County
General Pian, Project Impact 4.2.4 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.
Statement of Fact: 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 (LAFCOj to create and maintain a consistent approach to the conservation of agriculture!
land through the designation of reasonable and logical SOI boundaries. Policy AG-P2.3 limits
redesignation and rezoning of agricultural land to an urban designation. Policy 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. ]n 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 agriculture! 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 CEO,A for non-agricultural uses in the General
Page 19 of 34
Plan 2030 land 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 land in proximity to urban and
suburban development. In addition, small agricultural parcels may no longer be viable for 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 #or 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 an these scattered parcels would make
General Plan 2030 internally inconsistent. Far 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. (General Plan DEIR, pp. 4.2-9 through 4.2-13.}
See Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated
herein by reference.
3. Cumulative Noise Im acts
Sienificant Impact 4.7.5: As evaluated by Section 4.7 of the Draft EIR, the Project, in combination with
other noise sources surrounding the project site, will result in exposure of people to noise levels in
excess of standards established in Butte County General Plan.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Findines: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities and reduction of air emissions as compared to the status quo, warrant the
acceptance of the Project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts. Ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project already exceed standards of the Butte County General Plan with or without the
project; ambient noise levels are dominated by the passage of trains on a railroad track adjacent to the
Project site. The project proposes a new rail spur and which would add the coupling of rail cars to the
noise environment. The coupling of rail cars was not found to be a significant source of noise in and of
itself, but may be audible to nearby residents in Nelson and would contribute to noise experienced by
residents in Nelson. Alternatives ~. through 4 were not found to contribute to significant cumulative
noise impacts. However, as noted in the Alternatives discussion below in section X, the No Project
Alternative does not meet basic project objectives. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in potentially
increased impacts or new impacts as compared to the proposed project, and do not meet important
basic project objectives.
Statement of Fact
Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project already exceed standards of the Butte County General
Plan with or without the project. The project will add less than one decibel of additional noise to
existing noise levels. The project's incremental contribution to increased ambient noise levels (well
below one decibel} will not be audible. The coupling of rail cars may be audible to nearby residents in
Page 20 of 34
Nelson and would contribute to the cumulative experience of noise in the vicinity of the Project.
No method is available to reduce ambient noise to less than significant levels on the project site.
Selecting an alternative site does not meet the basic objectives of Helena's proposed Nelsen Terminal
project. Noise levels in excess of applicable standards is considered significant and unavoidable. See
Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by
reference.
4. Cumulative Transportation Impacts
Significant Impact 4.8.5 As evaluated in Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR, the project will contribute truck
trips to area roadways, some of which are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service with
build-eu# of the Butte County General Plan. Midway from East Park Avenue to Durham-Dayton Road is
projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service with build-out of the General Plan. The project
may also incrementally add truck trips to other roadways operating at unacceptable levels of service, as
identified in the General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Adopted, k~Y the Countv: No feasible mitigation is available for Midway from East Park Avenue
to Durham-Dayton Road with the Proposed project.
Findines: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities and reduction of air emissions as compared to the status quo, warrant the
acceptance of the Project's contribution to identified transportation impacts with build-out of the Butte
County General Plan through 2030.
Statement of Fact: Conservation Measure CM 10 (Transportation Regulation and Infrastructure
Improvements) requires roadway improvements on Nelson Road to provide safe turning movements for
large trucks traveling to and from the site with agricultural products, limits truck traffic on Entler Avenue
and on Nelson Road, from the facility entrance to Highway 99, to local deliveries and specifies other
improvements for consistency with county standards. A traffic assessment by KD Andersen confirmed
that the proposed warehouse and distribution facility will not result in inadequate levels of service on
local roadways and that use of farm equipment en local reads will not result in significant
incompatibilities with the proposed project. Nevertheless, CM10 cannot feasibly remedy existing traffic
deficiencies identified in the General Plan E1R. The delivery of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to
agricultural end users is an essential component of the project. The project's contribution to cumulative
traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. See Findings for Overriding Considerations in the
Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
5. Growth InducinE= Impacts
Potentialiy Significant Impact 5.4: As evaluated in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR, the project may or may
net pre-dispose the adjacent Gore and O'Shea parcels (totaling approximately 39 acres) for unplanned
growth. If future action of the Board of Supervisors re-designates the properties to Agricultural Services
as requested, the properties may or may not result in the development of Agricultural Service uses on
these re-designated parcels.
Mitigation Adopted by the Countv: No feasible mitigation is available.
Page 21 of 34
Findines: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities and reduction of air emissions as compared to the status quo, warrant the
acceptance of the potential growth inducing impacts.
Statement of Fact: The requests for changes to the neighboring land use designations on five parcels
(Gore and O'Shea parcel) were made to the Board after the public was provided notice of Helena's
proposed Nelson Terminal project. In that way, the requests appear related to development of the
warehouse/distribution facility at Nelson Terminal Site. While actual development of the Agriculture
Services-designated sites mayor may not occur in the future, the request for re-designation and Board-
directed re-designation is considered a potential significant growth inducing impact of UP10-0003. The
ability to respond to constituents' requests to consider changes in land use over time is a necessary
function of the Board of Supervisors, making this growth inducing impact, from Board-direction
concerning land use within its jurisdiction, to be unavoidable. See Findings for Overriding
Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING GRO{NTH INDUCING IMPACTS
A. Requirements Under CEC}p
CEQq Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR consider the potential for a project to create
growth inducing impacts. A project could have a growth inducing impact if it could:
+ Foster economic or population growth, or construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment;
+ Remove obstacles to population growth, for example, developing service areas in previously
unnerved areas, extending transportation routes into previously undeveloped areas, and
establishing major new employment opportunities; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively.
Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR and Section VII. G5 of this resolution discuss growth inducing impacts.
B. Direct Impacts Through Increased Employment Opportunities
1. Economic Growth:
Helena Chemical Company projects employing up to 6 people full-time at the warehouse/distribution
facility. Additional part-time construction jobs would also result from construction of facilities. If the
quantity of materials increases over the status quo quantities utilized in Butte County, additional
employment related to the transportation of agricultural chemicals could also result. The Helena Nelson
Terminal Project Site was designated Agriculture Services on October 26, 2010 with adoption of the
Butte County General Plan, and the Final Environmental Impact Report or the General Plan evaluated
the programmatic impacts of estimated General Plan build-out through 2030, including development
the Agricultural Services land use designation. The project is consistent with growth anticipated with
General Plan 2030 and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Economic growth and development consistent
with General Plan 2030 are not considered significant growth inducing impacts of the project.
2. Population/Housing Growth:
Although additional jobs would provide an economic benefit to the County, they are not large enough in
number to substantially induce growth or increase housing in the County. The project will not construct
housing or generate substantial demand for housing. Housing vacancies in Butte County and vicinity can
Page 22 of 34
easily accommodate potential increases in employment associated with the project. Therefore,
population and housing growth is not a significant growth inducing impact of the project.
C. Indirect Impacts
1. Elimination of Obstacles to Growth:
Regarding the elimination of obstacles to growth, the proposed project would tie into existing roadway
and service infrastructure. Existing rural residential and agricultural development is served with existing
infrastructure. Off-site road improvements between Midway and the project site would not extend
infrastructure to previously un-served areas. It is anticipated that the project would have na impact on
removing obstacles to growth beyond levels contemplated in the General Plan.
2. Requested Re-Designation of Nearby Parcels
The Helena Terminal EIR concludes that buildout of the project site was anticipated under the General
Plan and addressed by the General Plan EIR. However, additional, proposed land use changes in the
Community of Nelson, specifically requests received from the Gores and O'Sheas to re-designate their
property from Agricultural to Agricultural Services land use designations during the 2011/2012
amendments to the Butte County General Plan, were potentially related to establishment of Helena's
Nelson site. This change in planned land use was identified as a potentially significant growth-inducing
impact from the Helena Nelson Terminal site.
The property owners of five parcels totaling approximately 39 acres requested that their parcels be re-
designated to an Agricultural Services land use designation after the public was provided notice of the
Helena Nelson Terminal Project. In that way, the requests appeared related to development of the
warehouse/distribution facility at Nelson Terminal Site. While actual development of the Agriculture
Services-designated sites may or may not occur in the future, the request for re-designation and Bvard-
directed re-designation is considered a potentially significant growth inducing impact of UP10-0003. In
fact, this impact has already occurred as the properties have been redesignated and rezoned by the
Beard of Supervisors to Agricultural Services. The ability to respond to constituents' requests to
consider changes in land use over time is a necessary function of the Board of Supervisors, making this
growth inducing impact, from Board-direction concerning land use within its jurisdiction, to be
unavoidable.
The redesignation of the Gore and O'Shea parcels was not a part of the project contemplated by UP10-
003 or ZCA11-0002. Rather, action on the Gore and O'Shea parcels was contemplated separately from
the proposed project as part of County-sponsored amendments to the General Plan Amendments and
adoption of the Updated Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4050, adapted November 6, 2012) and
Zoning Map.
Development of agricultural service uses may or may not follow the re-designation of the Gore and
O'Shea parcels as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Only with the development of agricultural
service uses will the re-designation of the Gore and O'Shea properties result in direct impacts on the
environment.
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACT
A. Requirements Under CEQp
Cumulative impacts are defned by CEO,A as "two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" State CEC#p
Page 23 of 34
Guidelines, Section 15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant Projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355[bj).
Cumulative impacts are further described as follows: {1y the individual effects may be changes resulting
from a single Project or a number of separate Projects; and {2J the cumulative impacts from several
Projects are the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project
when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Projects.
Depending upon the impact and setting, cumulative impacts may occur over different geographic areas.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130{a]{1), a "cumulative impact" consists of an impact that is
created as a result of the combination of the Project evaluated in the EIR together with other Projects
causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the Project
evaluated in the EIR.
In addition, as stated in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064{i){5): The mere existence of
significant cumulative impacts caused by other Projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence
that the proposed Project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.
B. Cumulative Impacts Evaluation
Cumulative Impacts Summary, Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR provides a summary of the cumulative
impacts related to Aesthetic Resources, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gasses, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Noise, Transportation, and Growth Inducing Impacts, as discussed in
Chapters 4.1 through 4.8 and Chapter 5.1 of the DEIR.
As noted in Subsection VII. G above, the analysis concludes that project-related lass of agricultural land
and project-related traffic would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts
anticipated with build-out of the Butte County General Plan through the year 2030, as identi#ied in the
General Plan EIR. In other words, the General Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable cumulative
impacts for both agricultural resources and traffic, and the project would contribute to those previously
identified impacts.
Additionally, Helena's proposed Nelson Terminal would contribute additional noise {less than one
decibel) in an area already exceeding county noise standards established in the General Alan. As
ambient noise would exceed county standards with or without the Nelson Terminal project and because
the project-generated increase in noise is too small to be audible, project-specific noise impacts were
not identified in the Nelson Terminal EIR. However, the project would contribute to cumulative noise
impacts in the vicinity of the project.
Given the dependence of the proposed facility upon truck transport of products, only the No Project
Alternative would avoid cumulative transportation impacts. It should be noted, however, that existing
roadway conditions include substantial truck traffic for the delivery of Helena products already being
distributed throughout Butte County from other Helena distribution facilities. The No Project
Alternative would result in no significant change from existing conditions, which includes existing truck
trips necessary to deliver Helena Chemical Company products under current conditions.
The cumulative loss of agricultural land would be avoided with Alternative 3, as evaluated in the Draft
EIR, the "Industrial Location/south of Oroville." It would avoid the permanent conversion of farmland
by locating the project on industrially-designated property that is not utilized for agriculture and is not
considered important #armland as determined by California Department of Conservation. While this
alternative would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultura! use, it would have
additional impacts and/or increased impac#s as compared to the proposed project including increased
concerns with water quality, increased vehicle miles traveled and increased air emissions. The County
Page 24 of 34
finds that this alternative would result in new impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified for
the proposed Project. The County does not consider Alternative 3 to be a preferred alternative to the
proposed Project given these impacts.
Alternatives 1 through 4 were found to avoid the project's contribution to cumulatively significant noise
impacts. However, as noted in the Alternatives discussion below in section X, the No Project Alternative
does not meet basic project objectives and Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in potentially increased
impacts or new impacts as compared to the proposed project.
X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Requirements Under CECI~-
CEC+~A 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 E[R 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 CECl~1 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. CEQA
Guidelines Section 1512fi.6 requires a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to a project or to
the location of the project which would feasibly attain mast of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider
alternatives which are infeasible. For this project, several alternatives were evaluated. These
alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR Chapter 6.0, Alternatives.
B. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
The DEIR eliminated the following alternatives from future consideration.
1. The Reduced Intensity Alternative is a reduction by half of the proposed storage
capacity for liquid fertilizer tanks, dry storage of fertilizer, pesticide tanks, and substances of
concern. This alternative was rejected as impractical because the facility is planned to serve
existing and projected customer bases. Under the reduced intensity alternative, limitations at
the Nelsen Terminal will likely be met at another location. Expansion at two locations is
impractical, does not meet basic project objectives, and does not serve to substantially lessen or
avoid environmental impacts.
7. Helena Chico Facility Expansion Alternative would consist of developing proposed
storage for liquid fertilizer tanks, dry storage of fertilizer, pesticide tanks, and substances of
concern at Helena's Chico Facility at 3155 Southgate Lane, on the northeast portion of the
intersection of Butte Creek and State Highway 99. Several factors contribute to the infeasibility
of this Alternative. The Level of Service for vehicle traffic on State Route 99 between Durham
Pentz Road and the Skyway is currently at LOS E. Implementation of General Plan 2030 is
projected to lead to an unacceptable LOS of F. Introducing additional truck traffic at the
intersection of Entler and Highway 99 would exacerbate this situation. Size of the Site, 6.29
acres, is too small to accommodate the proposed 10-acre footprint. Butte Creek traverses along
Page 25 of 34
the northeastern edge of the Chico site. Butte Creek provides critical salmon habitat and
spawning grounds, as well as habitat far many species of special status. The potential impacts
to these biological resources could be significant.
3. Therefore, these two alternatives were eliminated from further review based upon
Section 15126.6(f)(2), which states that "Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant effects of the project need be considered in the EIR."
C. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The Draft EIR examines four project alternatives, at level of detail consistent with the requirements of
CEQA. A summary comparison of the alternatives is provided in Table 6-3 of the Draft ElR and is
included herein. An analysis comparing the proposed project with each alternative is provided below.
Each of the four alternatives is evaluated for its ability to reduce or avoid impacts found to be significant
and unavoidable with the proposed project. These four impact categories include: Agricultural
Resources; Noise; Transportation; and Growth Inducing Impacts. Table 6-3 of the Draft EIR, included
herein, provides atable-format comparison of the analysis The alternatives analyzed, are as follows:
1. Alternative 1: Na Project/Baseline Condition The No Project/Baseline Condition
Alternative is the circumstance under which the proposed project does not proceed on the
project site. The consideration of this alternative is required under CEC#A Guidelines Section
15126.6 (e). This alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the
proposed project in contrast to the environmental impacts that could result from not approving
or denying the proposed project.
Under the No Project/Baseline Condition, the project site would remain in its existing condition
and no changes in the natural setting would occur. Rice production or fallow rice fields would be
the assumed land use in the No Project Alternative. The project would remain vacant or in rice
production and no development would occur in the short-term. Thus, the No Project/Baseline
Condition Alternative would avoid conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use in the short-
term. Likewise, the No Project Alternative would not contribute to the cumulative conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use. Because the site's AS General Plan designation would remain,
the site may nevertheless convert to non-agricultural use over time, with build-out of the Butte
County General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not have potential growth inducing
impacts on the Gore and O'Shea parcels. The No Project Alternative would not contribute to
cumulative transportation impacts by utilizing intersections projected to operate at
unacceptable levels of service with build-out of the Butte County General Plan. Na increase in
ambient noise level in the Nelson area would occur with the No Project Alternative.
However, without the Nelson Terminal project, the bulk dry and liquid fertilizers needed to meet
the demands of Helena's customers would not be delivered via rail, and 18 heavy duty truck
trips per day would not be eliminated from roadways via the proposed mode shift to primarily
rail transportation of bulk fertilizers. Since the No Project Alternative would not generate NOx,
its contribution to NOx emissions would necessarily be Less than Significant. Nevertheless,
Helena's overall contribution to County-wide NOx will be less with the proposed Nelson
Terminal project than with the No Project Alternative, due to the regional air quality benefits
associated with converting bulk fertilizer deliveries to rail transportation
Page 26 of 34
County-wide, similar hazardous materials exposures are expected with or without the proposed
project, as the same Helena Chemical products would be distributed to customers from other
Helena facilities in the vicinity.
2. Alternative 2: Other UPRR Location/South of Biggs This Alternative would consist v#
developing the entire project (as proposed) on another AS designated site within Butte County,
with proximity to the Union Pacific Rail Road line, as necessary to implement the applicant's
objective to transport a greater percentage of its product via railcar. A search of Agriculture
Services-designated properties at least ten acres in size and vacant, with UPRR access, identified
three parcels, totaling approximately 275 acres south of the City of Biggs, in unincorporated
Butte County, which provide the basis for Alternative 2.
In Alternative 2, the 10-acre proposed project site would be relocated to other AS designated
properties with UPRR rail access. An analysis of available properties identified acreage south of
Biggs meeting these two criteria. This Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts from the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use, a significant and
unavoidable impact of the Nelson Terminal project. Likewise, this Alternative would contribute
to the cumulative conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would contribute to cumulative transportation impacts
by utilizing intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service with build-out of
the Butte County General Plan. Also, this Alternative will also contribute to cumulative noise
levels; however, ambient noise levels in the Biggs area are not expected to exceed county
standards.
Growth Inducing Impacts are not reasonably assumed at this Alternative site. Given the
extensive acreage already designated A5 in this area south of Biggs, consistent with the
proposed use, requests for land use amendments to AS as a result of this Alternative are not
an#icipated.
However, for efficient transportation of wholesale goods to the Chico Helena facility and of local
deliveries tv growers to the north, Helena's trucks would need to pass through the City of Biggs,
travelling north on West Biggs-Gridley Road into the city, to its intersection with Bannock Street,
then north on 8th Street, exiting the city limits, and continuing west onto Afton Road, to
destinations to the west and north. This route would constitute nearly aone-mile long passage
through the city limits/streets of Biggs.
The land to the east of Bannock Street is separated from the 8th Street roadway by the 140 font
wide UPRR right-af-way, and is mostly designated for Low Density Residential use. The land
immediately adjacent to the west of 8th Street is variously designed by the City of Biggs as
approximately 28.5 percent downtown Mixed Use, 14 percent Public done park), and 57.5
percent Low Density Residential. As mentioned above, this portion of the City is designated as
the West Area Industrial /Residential Special Planning Area/District. The area is adjacent to the
UPRR tracks on its eastern edge and wraps around the southwest and western portions of the
City. The developed properties in this area are currently utilized primarily for single-family
residential uses, public facilities, heavy-industrial and agricultural industrial purposes.
Because the "Biggs" alternative sites are proximate to the transportation route described above
Page 27 of 34
which does not require a signalized railroad crossing to allow for truck deliveries) it appears
likely that the three sites would increase the volume of truck trips passing through the City.
Traffic congestion and/or incompatibilities may increase the identified Transportation impacts,
with this alternative.
3. Alternative 3: Industrial Alternative/South of Oroville. This Alternative would consist
of developing the entire project as proposed on an Industrially-designated property not
designated as `farmland,' and with railroad access. Industrial land meeting this description was
located south of Oroville, in unincorporated Butte County, as described further below, 7 1/2
miles east of the UPRR fine proposed to serve the Nelson Terminal project.
Alternative 3 would not result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use,
which is a significant and unavoidable impact of the Nelson Terminal project, because the
alternative site is not located on identified agricultural land. Likewise, this Alternative would not
contribute to the cumulative conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
This Alternative site is located approximately 7.5 miles east of the intersection of State Route
(SR) 99 at Richvale Highway and State Route 162. The Oroville location would involve an
additional fifteen {15) miles per round trip for product distribution to 95 percent of Helena's
customers from the Oroville site. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative air quality
impacts would be greater than the Nelson Terminal site.
Alternative 3 would contribute to cumulative transportation impacts by utilizing intersections
projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service with build-out of the Butte County
General Plan. like the Nelson Terminal Project, this Alternative will also contribute to
cumulative noise levels; however, ambient noise levels at this location are not expected to
exceed county standards.
The ponds within the barrow pits on Alternative 3 are likely connected to the hyporheic zone of
the FBather River, approximately 1,300 feet to the west. This increases the likelihood of
potential for surFace water/groundwater interactions and potential water quality impacts. The
Feather River serves as salmon habitat and spawning grounds, as well as habitat for many
species of special status. The potential impacts to these biological resources could be
significant.
Growth Inducing Impacts are not projected at this Alternative site, given the extensive acreage
already designated Industrial in this area south of Oroville. The Industrial designation allows the
proposed chemical storage and distribution facility use; therefore, requests for modifications to
land use designations to Industrial or Agriculture Services as a result of this Alternative are not
anticipated.
4. Alternative 4: Industrial Alternative/Gridley Industrial Park. This Alternative would
consist of developing the entire project (as proposed) on an Industrially-designated property
and with railroad access to the UPRR line proposed to serve the Nelson Terminal project.
Industrial land meeting this description is located in the Gridley Industrial Park, within the City of
Gridley.
Alternative 4 would contribute to cumulative transportation impacts by utilizing intersections
Page 2$ of 34
without adequate improvements and projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service with
build-out of the Butte County General Plan. Like the Nelson Terminal Project, this Alternative
will also contribute to cumulative noise levels; however, ambient noise levels are not known or
expected to exceed the City of Gridley's standards.
Growth Inducing Impacts are not projected at this Alternative site. Given the publically-owned
nature of this Alternative site and land use plans adopted to date, re-designation of lands
inconsistent with the City of Gridley's Industria! Park Plans are not required far the project or
Agriculture Service uses. Growth inducing impacts are not anticipated.
D. Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
1. Environmentally Superior Alternative: GEQA Guidelines Section 1512fi.fi{e){2) requires the
EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative. Section 6.4 of the Draft EIR
identifies the No Project/Baseline Condition Alternative as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative. Where an EIR identifies the No Project Alternative as the Environmentally
Superior Alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be identified
among the remaining alternatives. In this case, Alternative 4 would be another
environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 4 is Industrially-designated land in the
Gridley Industrial Park within the land use jurisdiction of the City of Gridley. Alternative 4
was found to avoid all impacts associated with the proposed project, except cumulative
transportation impacts associated hauling products.
The 14J-acre Alternative ~# project site does not contain Butte County's AS land use
designation or similar designation. Moreover, industrial land is not in relatively short supply
like the AS land use designation. Therefore, if the Helena project were developed at the
Alternative 4 site, it would not be expected to have growth inducing impacts. The
Alternative 4 site is surrounded by other non-residential land and would therefore increase
the distance between adjacent residences and Helena's facilities to 450 feet with Alternative
4.
As compared to the Nelson Terminal project, Alternative 3 South of Oroville would have
additional air quality and water quality impact. Therefore, Alternative 3 was not selected
over Alternative 4 as the environmentally superior alternative. The Oroville Alternative site
likely connects to the hyparheic zone of the Feather River, the region beneath and alongside
a stream bed, where there is mixing of shallow groundwater and surface water. Therefore
Alternative 3 represents increased risk of water pollution. Since it adds 15 miles to most
vehicle trips serving the project, it also increases Alternative 3's contribution to regional air
emissions.
2. Preferred Project„Lpcation: Alternative 4 is identified as an environmentally superior
alternative in the Draft EIR, but is not recommended by staff as a preferred location for the
project for two primary reasons: the relatively inefficient delivery of agricultural products to
Butte County and anticipated traffic issues resulting from the lack of a traffic signal at the
intersection of West Liberty and SR99.
CECG4 does not require the County {the Lead Agencyy to select the environmentally superior
alternative {CECI.A Guidelines Section 15042-15043) as a preferred alternative to the
Page 29 of 34
proposed project. Alternative 4 is not a preferred alternative to the Nelson Terminal site in
terms of traffic impacts associated with turn movements onto and off of Highway 99 at
West Liberty Rd., an intersection which necessitates California Department of
Transportation encroachment permits to improve, and the relatively inefficient delivery of
services. Efficiency in delivery of services can be estimated as the relative vehicle miles
traveled, or distance, to end users. Efficiency in delivery of services corresponds to reduced
trip lengths (distances) to end consumers and reduced vehicle emissions..
Alternative 4 is located within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Gridley and is
therefore outside the land use jurisdiction of Butte County. Planning Commission Chair Ed
Becker, a longtime resident of Gridley, indicated at the June 14, 2012 Planning Commission
meeting that he thought the Helena facility would have difficulties being permitted at the
Alternative 4 site.
County Development Services staff sent the City of Gridley email communication regarding
proposed Alternative 4, evaluated in the Helena Chemical Nelson Terminal Draft EIR and left
telephone messages. As of the date of publication of this Final EIR, the City of Gridley has
not provided comment concerning compatibility of the proposed warehouse and
distribution facility with the Gridley Industrial Park. No land use applications are pending at
the City of Gridley for Alternative 4. Traffic issues for the Alternative 4 site include
inadequate improvements at the SR 99 /West Liberty intersection and an existing
transportation pattern through the City of Gridley. Alternative 4 has access only from West
Liberty Road. West Liberty Road ties in to Highway 99 with an uncontrolled intersection
that would not be preferred for trucks entering the highway. Also, the road does not tie
into a major artery west. Helena's transportation routes to access customers on the west
side of the valley would, by necessity, be routed north through Gridley.
Requiring a new location like Alternative 4 of the Helena Chemical Company would require
additional casts including one-time costs, or sunk costs, associated with re-designing and re-
permitting the facility as well as ongoing operational costs associated with marginally longer
haul routes for a large volume of products. Alternative 4 could result in potentially
significant traffic impacts, as the current intersection of Highway 99 and West Liberty Rd. is
uncontrolled. Trucks traveling north on Highway 99 to serve Alternative 4 would need to
make a left turn onto West Liberty Road without assistance of a traffic signal or stop sign.
Likewise, trucks turning north onto Highway 99 from West Liberty Rd. would need to cross
the south-bound traffic lane and merge into the north-bound lane without assistance of a
traffic signal. This would likely result in significant delays for all east-bound traffic on West
Liberty Rd.
Equitable funding consistent with the principles of nexus and rough proportionality would
be difficult to achieve for Alternative 4 traffic improvements at Highway 99 and West Liberty
Rd. The volume of trips associated with the Helena Chemical terminal is a very small
proportion of the traffic utilizing Highway 99 and contributing to congestion at its
intersection with West Liberty Rd. Therefore, the project would not appear to demonstrate
a reasonable nexus for the full payment of needed traffic improvements at Highway 99 and
West Liberty Rd. No other funding source is evident for these unplanned improvements to
the state highway system. While it would generate only a small proportion of the traffic at
this location, Helena's Alternative 4 terminal would likely not be able to operate safely
Page 30 of 34
without major improvements to the state highway system at West Liberty and Highway 99.
It is not anticipated that the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans would
approve and pursue construction of improvements at Highway 99 and West Liberty Rd in a
time frame allowing an Alternative 4 terminal project to proceed in the near term. Praject-
specific traffic impacts at Highway 99 and West Liberty Rd. with Alternative 4 would be
more severe than the proposed project's contribution to cumulative traffic. Unsafe turn
movements off the state highway with Alternative 4, should necessary improvements be
economically infeasible, would bean unacceptable safety risk, as compared to the proposed
project's contribution to long-term traffic on the region's road system.
Page 31 of 34
W
Q
z
W
a
G
W
0
M ~
a
~o ~
~ O
~a
a
0
z
0
a
a
ci
~ c
~ ~ ~ ~.
°
a
~
fs.
a ~
41
~ ~ ~
y
-
v
~ ~
~
'
N = ~
C 3 C
~
C ~
C ~ a
+
O
~ V
+
+
L "C ~ vi C
tC fp
'C C
fp fp
"~ N C
R C 9
f6 i0 f0 C
{p ~ ~ 'O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ C
= t U C
a
Q ~ C
i r C
n
o -d f6
c C
tin -C R
C v+ C
nio C
~ ~ ~ ~ +~+ i ~ ~
,.. ,
V'1 c
f6
~
l/'1 c
fO
~ ~
J
l%)
if1 f6 m
J ~
fn a ~ ~ rn ~
'~~j ~ y ~ N C
~ ~ IA ~
~ C N
R CC
3 U -C ~ ~ H
w
~ +~
ro ~..
~
~ +,
~
c ~ ,~
~ a, ,o
c
~ L ~
~ ~ G
L.. ~ O ~. Q ~ U R ~ ~
~ {~ ~
~ ~ v
y ~ U
N "
1.lY ~ J CS
._ C f0 ~
`~ a 3 U N
~ ~ ~; °'
> > ~ c
R ~ c
,~ a, ~
R a~ ~, R ~
-
+~
c ~
R +~
C ~
R
c ,~
c +, .n
c R
c ,~
c a
c c
o~
~, _
C
Q +~ p ~ e ~ ~ ~ C
uD ~ ~ ~ ~ O u ~ ~ ~ m
O ..1 ~ ~ in ~ ...,! _
in V? ~ J N a .~ V a`+ C C
m~~,~
~ .~~ C~ U U X47 U V
o
a z ~ z ° ° z ° °
z z z z
a, ~, a, m ~
N ~ C fs C f0 C fC C IC C fC
p~
~
' f0 ~ ftf ~ f0 ~ f0 TS f6 ~
.
o
° ~
~
- o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ `~ a
a.
a
~ ~
c R
c
tw -~
c R
c ~
on -~
c R
c -~
tiq c R
c ~
do ~
c R
c ,~
in
m
~
in
rc
~
in
m
~
in ro
~
'v7
to
~ ~
C
~'
~ ~ a ~
• a, ~
~ ~ ~,
~~ +
~+ C C •O ~ of f0
O
Q ~
~
G] O
•~
~ Q
•` z
M
IA
•C ~ M
~
. j N ^ DO ~ ~,
~
L7 ~
~
~ ~
~
~ C
~ Q
L ''"'
~ C
~
~ ~ ~i D ~ ~ ~+ (7 ' ~
~ ~ ~'3 ~. ~
j ~ O. Q
~ O in
~ y
~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ .
~ °
~ an ~ `a
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ c ~ d Q.
~ `m ~ da ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~~+ ~
v a Y U V ~ Oc~
~'
M
a
N
M
~o
XI. FINDING5 REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING ANO REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Requirements Under CEC~4
1. Section 2J,081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, CEC±A Guideline section 15097, and
Board policy require the Butte County Board of Supervisors to adopt a monitoring and
reporting program on the changes in the Project and Mitigation Measures it has imposed to
mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. Conservation Measures were
incorporated into the project description and listed as Mitigation Measures on the project.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to the Project Approval
Resolution as Exhibit B.
2. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) fulfills the CEG,A mitigation
monitoring requirement because the Conditions of Approval are specific and, as
appropriate, define performance standards to measure compliance for project construction,
operation, and monitoring over time. The MMRP contains detailed descriptions of
conditions, implementation, verification, compliance standards and reporting requirements
to insure compliance with Conservation Measures identified in the Initial Study prepared far
the Project as well as Mitigation Measures identified in the Helena Nelson Terminal EIR.
3. The Conservation Measures included in the Initial Study, with the revisions/replacements
identified within the Project Description of this EIR, have been incorporated into the Project
Description. These Conservation Measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) for this EIR to be adopted upon approval of the proposed
project.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors:
I. Certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Nelson Terminal project t)se Permit
UP10-0003 has been completed in compliance with CECi,A, including the following:
ay That the Final EIR was presented to the Butte County Board of Supervisors serving as lead
agency and that the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Final EIR prior to taking action on the project;
b) The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and
II. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Exhibit B to the Project
Approval resolution.
Page 33 of 34
PASSED AND ADDPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 2fith day of February by the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Kirk, Wahl, Lambert, and Chair Connelly
NOES: Supervisor Teeter
ABSENT: None
NOT VOTING: None
ATTEST:
By: ____,
Paul Hal
Clerk a#
~~~~
Officer an
pervisors
Attachments:
Exhibit A, Summary of Project Environmental Impacts
BILL CONNELLY, Chair
Butte County Board ofSupervisors
Page 34 of 34
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impacts Mitigation Measuutes Finding of Fact
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Impact 4.1.1 The project will not have None Less than significant impact. Findings
an adverse effect on scenic vistas. Less not required.
Than Significant
Impact 4.1.2 Implementation of the None Less than significant impact. Findings
project will not substantially degrade the not required.
existing visual character o= quality of the
site and its surroundings. Less Than
Significant
Impact 4.1.3 The project will create a MM 4.1.3 Light and Glare The Board of Supervisors hereby
new source of substantial light ox glare Mitigation directs the mitigation measure (s) to
which would adversely affect day or be a condition (s) of the project. The
nighttime views in the area. This is a Board of Supervisors finds that this
potentially significant impact. mitigation measure will reduce the
impact to aless-than-significant level.
Impact 4.1.4 The project will not Nane Less than significant impact. Findings
contribute substantially to cumulative not required.
aesthetic impacts. Less Than Significant
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.2.1 The project will convert Significant and Unavoidable, as
approximately 26.5acres of Prime previously identified in the EJR for
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or the General Plan. Because Butte
Farmland of Statewide Importance County has not yet identified,
(Farmland), to non-agricultural use. determined, or adopted appropriate
mitigation options to adequately
address the loss of agricultural land in
the county, the Board of Supervisors
finds that there are no additional
feasible niEtigation measures or
alternatives that the Board of
Supervisors could adopt at this time
which would reduce this impact to an
acceptable (less-than-significant) level.
The impact, therefore, remains
significant and unavoidable. To the
extent that this adverse impact will
not be eliminated or lessened to an
acceptable level, the Board of
Supervisors finds that specific
economic, social, and other
considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of
the Project as modified, despite
unavoidable significant impacts.
Impact 4.2.2 The project will not Nar:e No impact. Findings not required.
conflict with existing zoning for
a cultural use, or a Williamson r~ct
Fage '[ of 7
Impacts Mitigation Measures Findinkg o£ Fact
Contract. No impact.
Impact 4.2-3 The project will not None No impact. Findings not required.
conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Cade section
i2220{~), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 452G), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g}. No Impact.
Impact 4.2-4 The project will not result Nane No impact. Findings not required.
in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use. No
impact.
Itupact 4.2-5 The project will involve MM 4.2.1 The Board of Supervisors hereby
other changes in the existing Noxious Weeds Management directs the mitigation measure {s) to
environment which, due to their location plan be a condition {s) of the project. The
or nature, could result in conversion of Board of Supervisors finds that this
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or mitigation measure will reduce the
forest land to non-forest use. impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 4.2.6 The project, in SigniSicant and Unavoidable, as
combination with anticipated General previously identified in the EIR for
Plan buildout, will result in direct the General Plan. Because Butte
conversion of approximately 2G.5 acres County has not yet identified,
of Farmland to non-agricultural use, a determined, ox adopted appropriate
`considerable' component of an mitigation options to adequately
estimated 4,700 acres of farmland address the loss of agricultural land in
anticipated to be converted to non- the county, the Board of Supervisors
agricultural use with adoption of the finds that there are no additional
Butte County General Plan on October feasible xxutigation measures or
2G, 2010. alternatives that the Board of
Supervisors Could adopt at this time
which would reduce this impact to an
acceptable (less-than-signficant) level.
The impact, therefore, remains
significant and unavoidable. To the
extent that this adverse impact will
not be eliminated or lessened to an
acceptable level, the Boazd of
Supervisors finds that specifiic
economic, social, and other
considerations identifiedzn the
Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of
the Project as modified, despite
unavoidable significant impacts.
AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.3.1 The proposed project None Less than significant impact. Findings
would not conflict with or obstruct not required.
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan. Less than significant.
Page 2 of 7
Impacts Mitigation Measures Finding of Fact
Impact 4.3.2 The project could violate an MM 4.3.1 The Board of Supervisors hereby
air quality standard or contribute Ais Quality Modeling directs the mitigation measure (s) to
substantially to an existing or projected air Assumptions be a condition (s) of the project. The
quality violation. This is a potentially Board of Supervisors #inds that this
significant impact. mitigation measure will reduce the
impact to ales-than-significant level.
Impact 4.3.3 The proposed project None Less than significant impact. Findings
would not result in a cumulatively not required.
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable
federal. or state ambient air quality
standard
Impact 4.3.4 Construction and None Less than significant impact. Findings
operation of the proposed project would not required.
not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations
Impact 4.3.5 The project would not Nane Less than significant impact. Findings
create objectionable odors affecting a not required.
substantial number of people.
Impact 4.3.6 Construction and None Less than significant impact. Findings
operation of the proposed project would not required.
not signii-icantly contribute to cumulative
air emissions that were identified as
significant and unavoidable i.n the Final
EIR for the Butte County General Plan.
GREENHOUSE GASSES
Impact 4.4.1 The project would MM 4.3.1 The Board of Supervisors hereby
generate emissions that may have a Air Quality Modeling directs the mitigation measure (s} to
significant impact on the environment. Assumptions be a condition (s) of the project. The
This is a potentially significant impact. Board of Supervisors finds that this
mitigation measure (s} will reduce the
impact to ales-than-significant level.
Impact 4.4.2 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
conflict with an applicable plan, polity or not required.
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases
Impact 4.4.3 The project's contribution None Less than significant impact. Findings
to greenhouse gas levels would not be not required.
significant on a cumulatively
considerable basis.
HAZARDS &HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.5.1 The project could create a MM 4.5-1(No Bottom Dump The Board of Supervisors hereby
hazard to the public or the environmental Rail Cars with Winds over directs these rnitigation measures (s)
through the routine transport use, or 15mph}, MM 4.5-2 (Pre- to be conditions of the project. The
dis osal of hazardous materials. This is a Plannin for Release , MM 4.5- Board of Su ervisors finds that these
Page 3 of 7
Impacts Mitigation Measttues Find.it~ of Fact
potentially significant impact. 3 (Area-Plan Update), MM 4.5- mitigation measures will reduce the
4 (Funding for Equipment and impact to aless-than-significant level.
5upplies), and CM 10
(T'ransportation Regulation and
Infiasfiructuxe Improvements)
Impact 4.5.2 The project could create a MM 4.5-1(No Bottom Dump The Board of Supervisors hereby
hazard to the public or the environment Rail Cars with l~Tinds over directs these mitigation measures {s)
through reasonably foreseeable upset and 15mph), to be conditions of the project. The
accident conditions involving the release MM 4.5-2 {Pre-Planning fox Board of Supervisors finds that these
of hazardous materials into the Release), MM 4.5-3 {Area-Plan mitigation measures will reduce the
environment. This is a potentially Update), MM 4.5-4 (Funding impact to ales-than-significant level.
significant impact. for Equipment and Supplies),
4.5-5 {Stator and Zerotol),
4.5-6 Emergenry Response
Decision Tree, MM 4.57
(Grounding for dry bulk
fertilizer building}, MM 4.5-5
(Grounding fox all Tanks), MM
4.5-9 (Separation of Water
Reactive Chemicals)
Impact 4.5.3 The project could MM 4.5-1(No Bottom Dump The Board of Supervisors hereby
contribute to human exposure to Rail Caxs with Winds over directs these ntigation measures to
hazardous materials and regulated 15mph), be a conditions of the project. 'The
substances on a cumulatively MM 4.5-2 (Pre-Planning for Board of Supervisors finds that these
considerable basis. This is a potentially Release), MM 4.5-3 (Area-Plan mitigation measures will reduce the
significant impact. Update}, MM 4.5-4 (Funding impact to aless-than-significant level.
for Equipment and Supplies),
4.5-5 (Storox and Zerotol),
4.5-6 Emergency Response
Derision Tree, MM 4.57
(Grounding for dry bulk
fertilizer building), MM 4.5-5
(Grounding for all Tanks), MM
4.5-9 {Separation of Water
Reactive Chemicals) and CM 10
(Transportation Regulation and
Infrastructure Improvements)
LANI? USE
Impact 4,6.1 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
physically divide an established not required.
community. Less than Significant.
Page 4 of 7
Impacts Mitigation Measures Findiag of Fact
Impact 4.6.2 ~C~11-0001 or Use None Less than significant impact. Findings
Permit UP10-0003 would not conflict not required.
with an applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulations of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including
General Plan policies mandated to
reduce impacts} adopted fox tl~e purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Less than
Siga3ficant.
Impact 4.b.3 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
induce population growth in the not required.
community of Nelson ox industrial
development which would be
inconsistent with existing and/ox
proposed land uses. Less than
Significant.
Impact 4.6.4 The project would not, in None Less than significant impact. Findings
combination with other development in not required.
Butte County, induce population growth
or industrial development in Butte
County which would be inconsistent
with existing and/ox proposed land uses.
Less than Significant.
NOISE
Impact 4.7.1 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
result in exposure of persons to, ox not required.
generation of noise levels in excess of,
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies. Less than
Significant
Impact 4.7.2 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
result in exposure of persons to or not required.
generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground home noise levels.
Less than Significant
Impact 4.7.3 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
result in a substantial permanent increase not required.
in ambient noise levels ui the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project. Less than Significant
Impact 4.7.4 Would the project result MM 4.7-1 The Board of Supervisors hereby
in a substantial temporary or periodic Construction Noise directs the mitigation measure to be a
increase in ambient noise levels in the condition of the project. The Board
project vicinity above levels existing of Supervisors finds that this
without the project. This is a potentially mitigation measure will reduce the
significant impact. impact to aless-than-significant level.
Impact 4.7.5 The project would in This is a Significant and
Page 5 of 7
Impacts Mitigation Measures Finding of Fact
combination with other noise sources Unavoidable contribution to a
surrounding the property, result in cumulative noise impact. The
exposure of people to noise levels in Board of Supervisors finds that there
excess of standards established by the are no additional feasible mitigation
General Plan. The project would add measures or alternatives that the
less than 1 decibel of noise to ambient Board of Supervisors could adopt at
noise levels already exceeding county this time which would reduce this
standards. impact to an acceptable (less-than-
significant) level. The impact,
therefore, remains significant and
unavoidable. To the extent that this
adverse impact will not be eliminated
ox lessened to an acceptable level, the
Board of Supervisors Ends that
specific economic, social, and other
considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of
the Project as modified, despite
unavoidable significant impacts.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact 4.8.1 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
result in a change in air traffic patterns, not required.
including either an increase in traffic levels
ox a change ifl location that results in
substantial safety risks. Less than
Significant
Impact 4.8.2 The project could CM lU (Transportation The Board of Supervisors hereby
substantially increase hazards due to a Regulation and Infrastructure directs the mitigation measure (s} to
design feature {e.g., sharp curves or Improvements) be a condition (s) of the project. The
dangerous intersections) or incompatible Board of Supervisors finds that this
uses (e.g., farm equipment). This is a mitigation measure will reduce the
potentially significant impact. impact to aless-than-significant level.
Impact 4.8.3 The project would not Nane Less than significant impact. Findings
conflict with an applicable plan, not required.
ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation, including mass transit
and non-motovzed travel and relevant
components of the axculations system?
2 Less than Significant
Impact 4.8.4 The project would not None Less than significant impact. Findings
conflict with an applicable congestion not required.
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency fox
designated roads or highways. Less than
Significant
Page 6 of 7
Impacts Mitigation Measures Fincling of Fact
Impact 4.8.5 The project will exceed, in This project would incrementally,
combination with other projects, a level though, marginally contribute to
of service standard established by the Significant and Unavoidable traffic
county congestion management agency impacts with build out of the General
for designated roads or highways. 'T'his Plan (GP) through the year 2030 as
project would marginally contribute to envisioned in the GPEIR. This
Significant and Unavoidable traffic impact was previously addressed in
impacts with build out of the General the GPEIR.
Plan through the year 2030 as envisioned
in the GPEIR. This impact was The Board of Supervisors finds that
previously addressed in the GPE1R. there are no additional feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives
that the Board of Supervisors Could
adopt at this tine which would reduce
this impact to an acceptable (less-
than-significant) level. The impact,
therefore, remains significant and
unavoidable. To the extent that this
adverse impact will not be eliminated
or lessened to an acceptable level, the
Board of Supervisors finds that
specific economic, sodal, and other
considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of
the Project as modified, despite
unavoidable significant impacts.
GROWTH INDUCING
5.0 Growth Inducing Development of The Board of Supervisors Ends that
the Helena project site could pre-dispose there are no additional feasible
the area for unplanned growth on mitigation measures or altenxatives
adjacent parcels totaling 39 acres. that the Board of Supervisors could
adopt at this time which would reduce
this impact to an acceptable (Iess-
than-significant) level. The impact,
therefore, remains significant and
unavoidable. To the extent that this
adverse impact will not be eliminated
or lessened to an acceptable level, the
Board of Supervisors finds that
specific economic, social, and other
considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of
the Project as modifzed, despite
unavoidable significant impacts.
Page7of7