HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-062Resolution Na. 13-Ofi2
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS FOR THE GOLF
RESORT AT LAKE OROVILLE [UP12-0006/REZ12-0001/LLA12-0010 & 12-0011)
I. BACKGROUND
A. Project Description
The Project considered by the Board of Supervisors consists of the construction and operation of a destination Golf
Course Resort and Hotel Complex with Wellness Center on approximately 537.41 acres, a portion of which is located in
the approved 5tringtown Mountain Specific Plan {SMSP). The project would require the following entitlements from
Butte County:
o Lot Line Adjustments. Within the Golf Course Resort, APN 072-180-053, -054, -014 and -012 will be modified to
insure the cottage units and the clubhouse are each on a stand-alone parcel. Within the Hotel Complex and
Wellness Center, APN 072-180-03.6, -017, -029, and -030 will be modified to insure the hotel complex and
wellness center are each on a stand-alone parcel.
o Rezone of the golf course portion of the project to Recreational Commercial Overlay Zone {-REC),
o Minor Use Permit pursuant to the -REC for the Golf Course {inclusive of afl gol# course #acilities)
o Approval of a Use Permit for Hotel Complex and Wellness Center under Phase 1 of the Stringtown Mountain
Specific Plan pursuant to Resolution 94-114
o Issuance of permits to construct and operate temporary onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems for
the Golf Course facilities.
A brief description of each component of the proposed project is listed below and a more detailed description with
figures is provided in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR.
Golf Course Resort
The proposed project would include a Golf Course Resort located on 455 acres of the project site, all of which is outside
the SMSP. Below is a bulleted list of the Golf Course Resort facilities and amenities.
• 18-hole golf course including ponds, streams, natural landscaping, cart paths, and signage.
• 9-hole kids short course and short game area with 500 square-foot starter house.
• Golf Driving Range: 125 yards wide and 330 yards long.
• Golf Range House: 800 square-feet with Video Room, Office, and Restroom, and two Exterior Covered Teeing
Areas.
• 7,765 square-foot Golf Clubhouse with Golf Shop, Office, Men's and Women's Restrooms/Locker-room, Golf
Shop Storage, Dining Room, Kitchen, Storage Cooler Pantry, Domestic Water Heater, Mechanical (Interior),
Electrical Data/Telephone Room, Cart Storage and Recharging, Cart Washing, Cart Repair, Bag Storage, Janitor's
Closet, and General Storage. The Golf Clubhouse will also have 2,900 square feet of exterior space for patios,
courtyard, covered entry, and service/loading areas.
• 7,715 square-foot golf maintenance building with Employee Lounge, Restrooms/Showers, Locker, Office, Gear
Washing, Storage, Mechanics Office, Equipment Storage, Equipment Repair and 5ervice,lanitor's Closet & Utility
Room, and Range Ball Washing. The Golf Maintenance Building will also have 10,325 square feet far Service Yard
& Fencing, Material Bins, Equipment Washing, Equipment Wash/Pump House, and Fertilizer & Pesticide Starage.
• Nine (9) 1,500 square-foot Golf Cottages with 4 bedroom/4 bathroom, living room, kitchen, and wet bar.
Hotel Complex and Wellness Center
The proposed project would include a Hotel Complex and Wellness Center from Phase 1 of the SMSP. This component is
located an approximately 46 acres of project site. Below is a bulleted list of the Hotel Complex and Wellness Center
facilities and amenities. Tables 2-fi and 2-7 provide additional detail for these buildings.
• Hotel Cam lex: The Hotel Complex would include 82 roams within lodge units and executive cottage units. The
Hotel Complex will include: Lobby/Entry, Luggage Starage, General Storage, Event Desk/Reception,
Administrative Office, Three Conference/Meeting Rooms, Banquet Facilities, Men's and Women's Restroom, 2
Business Work Stations, Mechanical/Electrical Room, Restaurant/Kitchen/Storage, Sports Bar, Pool with Pool
House, and Outdoor Seating area. The resort complex will incorporate natural features such as rock
outcroppings, swales, and oak woodland into its design to be compatible with the area's natural setting. The
drainage corridor which runs through the eastern portion of the Hatei complex is incorporated into the design of
the complex. The Hotel Complex is planned for development under the SMSP Phase 1
o Thirty-six =36) 1,350 square-foot lodge roams with 2 bedroom/2 bathroom, living room, small kitchen
and eating area.
o Three (3) executive cottages: 1) 1979 square-foot 2 bedroom/2 bathroom/living room/dining
room/kitchen; 2J 2142 square-feet 3 bedroom/3 bathroom/living room/dining room/kitchen; 3) 2655
square-feet 4 bedroom/4 bathroom/living room/dining room/kitchen
• Wellness Center: The Wellness Center would include a Reception, Women's Attendant, Women's
Locker/Changing Rooms, Women's Toilet/Showers, Women's Steam Room, Women's Lounge, Men's, Attendant,
Men's Locker/Changing Rooms, Men's Toilet/Showers, Men's Steam/Sauna, Quiet Lounge, Treatment Rooms,
Staff Office, Staff Lounge, Storage/Laundry, Misc. Storage, Mechanical/Indoor, Domestic Hot Water, Electrical
Room, Steam Room Equipment, and Exercise Raom. The wellness center will be used in conjunction with the
Note! complex. Both facilities are intended to complement the other in regard to services and amenities offered
to guests and residents. The Wellness Center is planned far development under the SMSP Phase 1.
Offsite Infrastructure
The proposed project includes offsite infrastructure improvements to serve the onsite facilities. The proposed project
would require offsite traffic improvements, extension of offsite wastewater, potable water, and irrigation water lines,
wastewater force mains, wastewater lift stations, water storage, and storm drainage infrastructure. The location of
proposed offsite improvements are discussed below.
Traffic: These offsite improvements include traffic improvements to entry roadways including SR 162 and Forbestown.
• Wastewater: The wastewater line extension would occur from existing terminus at Mt. Ida Road approximately
1,000 feet to the west of Miner's Ranch Road and extend approximately 12,000 linear feet to the project site.
The general path of the wastewater line would follow Mt. Ida Road at the connection point east for
approximately 2,000 linear feet to Willow Pass Road, then northeast an Willow Pass Road for approximately
2,000 linear feet to Old Olive Hwy/Lost Horizon Drive, then north through vacant land to the southern boundary
of the project site at Forbestown Road. The wastewater system would require the construction of a new lift
station and approximately 1,600 feet of wastewater force main west along Mt. Ida Road.
• Potable Water: The potable water extension is approximately 7,800 linear feet. The general path of the potable
water line would follow the same path as the sewer line starting at Old Olive Hwy/Lost Horizon Drive north
through vacant land to the southern boundary of the project site at Forbestown Road.
Irri ation Water: The golf course would require the construction of a fi" diameter high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipeline water line that would bring non-potable irrigation water from Lake Wyandotte to the golf
course. The general path of the irrigation water line would start at Lake Wyandotte and follow existing dirt roads
and fire breaks for approximately 7,400 feet on land controlled by the applicant and/ar a public agency. The
irrigation line includes an underground crossing of Hurleton Road, which will require an Encroachment Permit
from County of Butte Public Works. Once the irrigation line enters private property on the north side of Hurleton
Road it will be above ground with base rock mounded over pipe in five locations to allow vehicle access. The
remainder of the irrigation water line would be constructed above-ground. The irrigation water pump system
will utilize electric pumps with a maximum estimated decibel rating of 70 dba at one meter. The electric pumps
will be on-demand (i.e. non-continuous). The irrigation water pump station will be located just south of Hurleton
Road, on the west side of Lake Wyandotte at the end of the existing access roads. There will not be additional
pumps used to stage the water up and over the bill to the storage ponds. The irrigation water pump system will
utilize storage ponds as part of the golf course pond system.
• Drainage: A drainage outfall will be located in Hawk Ravine and will contribute stormwater run-off into this
naturally occurring drainage. Hawk Ravine conveys water off-site and eventually to the Yuba River. Due to
project specifiic treatment, detention basins, and BMP's there will be no increase in peak flow and post-
development flows will be equal or less than pre-development conditions.
Other Protect Components
The proposed project will include the dedication of an approximately 1 acre site located near the Wotel Complex and
Wellness Center for the future development of a fire station. This dedication is being made pursuant to the Stringtown
Mountain Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed project will include the construction of a cellular tower. The exact
location of the cellular tower will be determined when a cellular provider is committed to the operations of such a
facility, which has not occurred at this time. An additional permit will be required under Butte County Code 24-179
Telecommunication Facilities) prior to the construction of a cellular tower. The permit process will require an evaluation
of the environmental effects of the cellular tower location.
B. Project Setting
The project site is located in unincorporated Butte County, approximately six miles east of the City of Oroville. The
project site is located northeast of the intersection of State Route 162 (SR 162) and Forbestown Road on the south side
of Lake Oroville.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of ten assessor's parcel numbers (APNs), all of which are currently
undeveloped and vacant. The total acreage of the ten parcels is 1,132.4 acres. Of the total acreage within the ten
parcels, 537.41 acres are proposed far development of the Golf Course Resort, Hotel Complex, and Welkness Center and
the remainder is associated with lot line adjustments.
The elevation of the project site ranges from 1,200 to 1,800 feet above mean sea level (msl). The topography of the
project site is hilly with a slope falling to the west toward the Loafer Creek Recreational Area, and to the north into two
canyons that feed into Lake Oroville.
The vegetation consists of blue oak woodland, montane hardwood forest, montane hardwood chaparral, blue oak
woodlands with bunchgrass, annual grassland, and montane hardwood riparian along three canyons. The project site
varies from densely covered steeper slopes to mildly sloped grasslands and chaparral Three canyons, including two
intermittent drainage courses, traverse the project site. There is a man-made lake and several ponds associated with the
drainage courses. There is a prominent rock outcropping in the western portion of the project site and smaller
outcroppings in the higher elevations.
SR 162 provides access to the northern portion of the project site, while Forbestown Raad provides access to the
southern portion of the project site. There are dirt roads and graded fire breaks that provide limited access throughout
the project site.
Lands to the immediate north, south, and east of the project site are largely similar to the project site: undeveloped and
vacant. There are a few rural residences located in the vicinity on large parcels. These surrounding lands are designated
1=oothill Residential and Agriculture under the Butte County General Plan. Lands to the west include the Loafer Creek
Recreation Area, which is between SR 162 and Lake Orovikle. A portion of the Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan is
located within the southwestern portion of the project site (i.e. Hotel Complex and Wellness Center). The remainder of
the Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan is located outside the project site to the southwest. The Stringtown Mountain
Specific Plan area is designated Recreation Commercial, Very Low Density Residential (1 du / 5 ac - 1 du/acj, and
Medium Density Residential (4-5 du/ac).
Migratory deer herds migrate from higher elevations in Butte, Plumas and Yuba Counties to lower elevation winter
range areas in Butte County. There are some portions of this winter range in Butte County that are considered to be
critical winter range areas, which include habitat that is critical to the survival of the migratory deer herds during severe
winter conditions. The non-critical areas provide habitat that is suitable for winter conditions, but not critical during
severe winter conditions.
The project site is located in an area that is designed as critical winter range under the Butte County General Plan. SR
162 located an the western side of the project site, represents the western most portion of the critical winter range
before a transition in non-critical winter range. The Butte County Zoning Update includes this property in the Deer Herd
Migration Overlay Zone.
In response to the presence of critical winter range deer herd habitat, the proposed project will include a conservation
easement in perpetuity on land immediately adjacent to the Golf Course Resort in the Deer Herd Migration Overlay
Zone. The conservation easement will be 148 acres located on lands to the northeast of the golf course and is intended
to provide a continuous and unobstructed path for migratory deer to channel from lands to the north, through the golf
course, to land to the south. The location of the conservation easement was selected far the following reasons:
• It contains habitat that meets the life history requirements of deer;
• The site is large enough to be ecologically meaningful mitigation;
• Is bordered on the north and east by public lands, thus reducing edge effects, and contributing to a larger
potential preserve;
• Restricts any future land development towards less suitable habitat;
• Protects a major wildlife movement corridor.
C. Project Objectives
The project applicant's vision is to offer a sustainable, IVarthern California destination resort with aworld-class
championship gokf course, facilities where guests can stay overnight, enjoy spa and wellness activities, children's
educational activities (i.e. First Tee Program), and some limited commercial retail amenities for their guests. The
destination resort would include an 18-hole golf course, 9-hole Kids Short Course and Short Game area with Starter
House, Golf Range/Teaching Facility, Golf Clubhouse, Golf Maintenance Building, 9 Golf Cottage units, 82-room Hotel
Complex, and Wellness Center.
The project proponent's application package has identified the fallowing goals and objectives for the proposed project:
1. Develop a high quality golf course and hotel resort that will serve residents and visitors.
2. Provide amenities for golf, lodging, dining, retail, spa and wellness center, and education.
3. Establish a platform for educational opportunities and mentoring of children.
4. Conserve natural resources and emphasize the natural heritage of the area in the project design.
5. Demonstrate sustainable design and green building practices.
6. Integrate the golf course facilities with the existing Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan development and
surrounding natural community.
II. ENVIRONMENi'AL REVIEW
A. Lead Agency Status
Butte County is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quaiity Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et
seq. ("CEQA")for preparation and certification of the Final EIR for the Project.
B. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quaiity Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., (collectively, CEQA), an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR} was prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville [the "Project").
1. Impacts of the Project: Executive Summary, Table ES-2, 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 and 1sorest Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils, and
Mineral Resources, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Land Use and Population, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation,
Utilities and Service Systems, 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 mitigation measures or feasible alternatives tan 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 the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville Project:
A) Mitigation Measures are identified in the Draft EIR, and may be clarified or amplified in the Final EIR, and as
modified by the Resolution approving the Project, including the conditions of approval contained therein.
The mitigation measures as summarized in Exhibit B to the Project approval Resolution are available and
feasible mitigation measures.
B) Findings of Fact Required: 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 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 far 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 fallowing
findings for each identified significant impact:
a. Changes ar 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 ofi another public agency
and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted 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.
C. Procedural Background
The Final EIR was prepared consistent with processing criteria established by the California Environmental Quality Act,
which included the following activities:
1. On July 26, 2012, Butte County received an application for a Use Permit (UP12-0006) to construct and operate a
hotel and wellness center under phase 1 of the approved Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan pursuant to
Resolution 94-i14 and a golf course facility.
2. On July 26, 2012, Butte County received an application for a Rezone (REZ12-0001) of an approximately 455 acres
located within an area designed for the future Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan Expansion area. The rezone
application would add a Recreation Commercial Overlay Zone (-REC) to the existing zoning of FR-40 (Foothill
Residential, 40 acres minimum) and AG-80 (Agriculture, 80 acres minimum) to allow the operation of the golf
resort.
3. On July 26, 2012, Butte County received an application for two lot line adjustments (LLA12-0010 & 12-0011), one
located on APN 072-180-012, 072-180-014, 072-180-053 and 072-180-054; and the second located on APN 072-
180-016, 072-180-017, 072-180-029 and 072-180-030. The total area of the project site APNs is approximately
1132.40 acres. The Lot Line Adjustments themselves do not cause any physical changes to the project site;
rather they are intended to modify parcel boundaries such that each component of the proposed project is on a
separate parcel. Both Lot Line Adjustments are four parcels each and are separated from each other.
4. Said application for the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville Project (UP12-0006/REZ12-0001/LLA12-0010 & 12-0011)
was referred to various affected public and private agencies, County departments, and referral agencies for
review and comments.
On October 15, 2012, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project was submitted to the
State Clearinghouse (SCH#2012102036) for circulation to public agencies for comment. The NOP comment
period extended from October 15, 2012 to November 15, 2012; eight (8) NOP comment letters were received
and are provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
6. On October 26, 2012, a duly noticed public scoping meeting was conducted to present the project description to
the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding
the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft. Five people spoke at the Planning
Commission hearing providing oral testimony regarding the Notice of Preparation.
7. On December 31, 2012, a Notice of Completion and a Notice of Availability and Public Hearing was circulated for
a 45-day public review period. The public review period concluded on February 13, 2013. Twelve (12) comments
were submitted to the County during the comment period on the Draft EIR including letters, email, and verbal
testimony at the January 24, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. These comments and responses to comments
are provided in the Final EIR for the project.
8. On January 24, 2013, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission to receive
comment on the Draft EIR. Two people spoke at the Planning Commission hearing providing oral testimony
regarding the Draft EIR.
9. On March 18, 2013, the County released the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville Project Final EIR. The County provided
notice of the availability of the Final EIR to agencies, organizations, and the public.
10. On March 28, 2013, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation and
Monitoring Program, approval of the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville (UP12-0006/REZ12-0001/LLA12-0010 & 12-
0011) with findings and conditions of approval.
11. On April 23, 2013, the County held a duly noticed public hearing before the Board of Supervisors to consider the
Planning Commission recommendation for certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation and
Monitoring Program, and approval of the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville (UP12-0006/REZ12-0001/LLA12-0010 &
12-0011) 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 for the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville (SCH 2012102036) dated December 2012;
2. Technical appendices Draft EIR for the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville (SCH 2012102036] dated December 2012;
3. Comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR (Final EIR, Section 2.0);
4. Errata to the Draft EIR containing clarifications and amplifications of information presented in the text of the
Draft EIR (Final EIR, Section 3.0);
5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Final EIR, Section 4.0].
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
For purposes of CECZA and the findings hereinafter set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of those
items listed in Section 21167.6 (e) of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1230, Statutes of 1994) including but not
limited to:
A. All application materials and correspondence contained in the Lead Agency's Project files (UP12-0006/REZ12-
0001/LLA12-0010 & 12-0011};
B. The Notice of Preparation;
C. The Scoping Meeting Notes;
D. The Draft EIR, including its appendices;
E. The Planning Commission Meeting Notes for the Draft EIR;
F. The Final EIR, including its appendices;
G. 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 on the Project, and all staff
reports and presentation materials related to the Project;
H. All studies contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft EIR, or the Final EIR;
I. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the County and other agencies;
J. 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
K. 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.
L. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Cnde Section 21167.6,
subdivision (e}.
IV LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF THE RECORD
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15091, Butte
County is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the
County's decision is based. 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 CEQA actions by the Board of Supervisors:
A. Certify the Final EIR for the Project (SCH 2012102036), documenting compliance with CEQA, and independent
review and consideration of the information in the EiR prior to taking action on the Project.
B. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Mitigation Measures identified herein for the
reduction of environmental impacts.
C. Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in a Resolution approving the Project;
D. Approve the Golf Resort at Lake Oro~ille Project (UP12-0006/REZ12-0001/LLA12-0010 & 12-0011J, proposed an
a portion of the ten parcels (072-180-012, 072-1$0-014, 072-180-015, 072-180-016, 072-180-017, 072-180-029,
072-180-030, 072-180-053, 072-180-054, and 072-570-001) for the development and operation of a golf resort
and hotel with wellness center in a Resolution approving the Project.
VI. GENERAL FINDINGS
A. Terminology of Findings
Section 15091 of the CECtA 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, ar 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.
For 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 a less-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 CEQA Guidelines, "feasible means capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) When the County finds a measure is not feasible,
evidence for its decision will be provided.
B. General CEQA Findings
These findings comply with CEQA. The Board of Supervisors has considered information and environmental effects as
shown in the Final EIR prior to approving the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville Project. These findings represent the
independent judgment and analysis of Butte County, which is the lead agency.
The Butte County General Plan EIR is the first tier environmental document because it provides an environmental
assessment of impacts anticipated with build-out devekopment through 2030. It provides first tier environmental
analysis upon which supplemental environmental analysis, including the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville Project EIR, is
based. Portions of the findings herein were previously adapted as part of the Findings certifying the FEIR for General
Plan 2030.
C. Areas of Controversy
Tile 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 during the NOP public review period, including those provided at the
scoping meeting, are the identified areas of controversy for the project. Comments were received from the following:
Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (October 15, 2D12J, Native American
Heritage Commission (October 19, 2412), California Department of Fish and Game (October 22, 2012), Butte County Air
Quality Managemen# District (November 5, 2012), Resident, Barbara Fletcher (November 12, 2012), Butte County
Environmental Health Division (November 13, 2012J, Sewerage Commission Oroville Region (November 13, 2012J, and
Lake Oroville Area Public Utilities Commission (November 14, 2012). These comments are addressed in the Draft EIR. In
addition, comments were received at the scoping meeting from the following: William Standlee, Robert Bateman,
Brenda Richter, Bob Jackson, and Verona Murray. The EIR addresses environmental concerns associated with the
proposed project that are known to Butte County, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised
during scoping meeting. The Draft EIR discusses potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural
and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, and mineral resources,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and population,
noise, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities. Mitigation measures have been
provided within the EIR to address potential 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:
1. A significant new environmental impact that would result from the project or an adapted mitigation measure;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that is not reduced to a level of less than
significant by adopted mitigation measures;
3. A feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure not adopted that is considerably different from others
analyzed in the DEIR that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of 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 CECIA 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 na substantial changes in the proposed project
that necessitate revisions of the DEIR, nor has significant new information become available.
Re-circulation is not required where the new information added to the DEIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes
insignificant modifications in, an adequate DEIR. Having received, reviewed, and considered the entire record, both
written and oral, relating to the project, and the associated DEIR and FEIR, the Board of Supervisors finds that the Golf
Resort at Lake Oroville project falls within the scope of the DEIR analysis and that recirculation of the DEIR is not
required prior to the approval of the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville (UP12-OOOb/REZ12-0001/LLA12-0010 & 12-0011).
E. Evidentiary Basis for findings
These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the County as described in Section III.
The references to the Draft EIR and to the Final EIR set forth in these findings are far ease of reference and are not
intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon for these findings.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Requirements Under CEG,A
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 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.
The EIR fully evaluated the following impact categories: aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, and mineral resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and population, noise, public services and recreation,
transportation and circulation, and utilities.
Exhibit B to the Project approval Resolution provides a complete list of all impacts analyzed by the EIR, mitigation
measures and identification of impact level of significance. The Board of Supervisor's Findings of Fact concerning each of
the impacts and mitigation measures identified as significant and mitigated to less than significant, and significant and
unavoidable in the Fina! EIR are provided below insub-sections F and G below.
B. No Impacts and Less Than Significant Impacts Without Mitigation in Initia! Study
An Initial Study was not prepared for this project. Each environmental topic identified in Appendix G of the State CECZ,4
Guidelines was analyzed in the EIR.
C. Less Than Significant Impacts With Mitigation in Initial Study
An Initial Study was not prepared far this project. Each environmental topic identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines was analyzed in the EIR.
D. Less Than Significant in Final EIR
Forty-four (44) impact categories were determined to have a less than significant impact without mitigation in the Final
EIR. Each of those impacts is identified below:
^ Impact 3.2-1: Potential to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, fJnique Farmland,
and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non-agricultural uses
^ Impact 3.2-2: Potential to conflict with Williamson Act Contracts
^ Impact 3.2-3: Potential to result in conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands ar indirectly cause conversion of
agricultural lands
^ lmpact 3.2-4: Potential to conflict with existing agricultural zoning or otherwise result in conflicts with adjacent
agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands
^ Impact 3.2-5: Potential to conflict with forest or timber zoning ar result in the conversion of forest lands or
timber lands
^ Impact 3.3-3: Carbon monoxide hotspot impacts
^ Impact 3.3-4: Potential for public exposure to toxic air contaminants
^ Impact 3.3-5: Potential for exposure to odors
^ Impact 3.4-1: Direct or Indirect Effects on Special-Status Invertebrate Species
• Impact 3.4-2: Direct ar indirect Effects on Special-Status Reptile and Amphibian Species
^ Impact 3.4-9: Conflicts with an Adapted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
Recovery Plan, or Local Policies ar Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
^ Impact 3.6-1: The proposed project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects
involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic related ground failure
^ Impact 3.6-4: Potential for expansive soils to create substantial risks to life or property
^ Impact 3.6-5: Potential to result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource of value to the region or state, or
a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
^ Impact 3.6-6: Potential to release asbestos from earth movement
^ Impact 3.7-8: Potential to emit hazardous emissions ar handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing ar proposed school
^ Impact 3.8-3: Potential to result in impacts from being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5
^ Impact 3.8-4: Potential far the project to result in safety hazards for people residing or working on the project
site as a result of public airport or public use airport
^ Impact 3.8-5: Potential for the project to result in safety hazards for people residing or working on the project
site as a result of a private airstrip
^ Impact 3.8-6: Potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan
^ Impact 3.&7: Potential to expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death from wildland fires
^ Impact 3.9-3: Depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
^ Impact 3.9-4: Alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation,
flooding, or polluted runoff
^ Impact 3.9-6 Place housing or structures that would impede/redirect flows within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map
^ Impact 3.9-7 Expose people ar structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
^ Impact 3.10-1: Potential to physically divide an established community
^ Impact 3.10-2: Potential to conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect
^ lmpact 3.10-3: Potential to conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan
^ Impact 3.10-4: Induce Substantial Population Growth in an Area
^ Impact 3.10-5: Potential to displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing
^ Impact 3.11-1: Traffic Noise Levels at Existing Receptors
^ Impact 3.11-2: Construction Noise
^ impact 3.11-3: Construction Vibration
^ Impact 3.11-4: Transportation Noise at Sensitive Receptors
^ Impact 3.12-1: Potential to require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental impacts
^ Impact 3.12-2: Potential to require the construction of police department facilities which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental impacts
^ Impact 3.12-3: Potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse
physical environmental impacts
^ Impact 3.12-4: Potential to require the construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical environmental impacts
^ Impact 3.12-4 (should read 3.12-5): Effects on other public facilities
^ impact 3.13-1: Potential to create an increase in traffic that would cause existing plus project traffic conditions
to degrade to an unacceptable level of service
^ Impact 3.14-1: Potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements or capacity, or result in a determination
by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves or may serve the project that does not
have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments
^ Impact 3.14-4: Potential to have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources
^ Impact 3.14-5: Potential to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs and comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste
E. Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant in Final EIR
Twenty-three (23) impact categories were determined to have a less than significant impact after the incorporation of
mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures herein referenced are those identified in the Draft 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 twenty-three (23j potentially significant impacts to
less than significant environmental impacts.
All feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project and that are
adopted in these Findings shall become binding an the Golf Resort at Lake OroviEle 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.
Findin s of Fact
CEQA Guidelines Section 15x91 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 far 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 the proposed project, far the full text of each
mitigation measure.
1. Aesthetics
Impact 3.1-1: The project has the potential to result in substantial adverse effects an scenic vistas or substantially
damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. 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 FIR. 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 3.1-1 requires the project proponent to maximize the use of the existing
topography, trees, and vegetation on the project site to provide partial shelter, or full shelter if possible, of all structures
within view of Lake Oroville, SR 162, and Forbestown Road. Structures within view include the following: nine golf
cottage units, thirty-six lodge units, three executive cottage units, the main hotel building, and the wellness center
building. All structures that are sited in areas without existing mature trees available to partially shelter views are
required to have landscaping that includes planting a minimum of three mature trees, not less than 36" box, of a species
that is consistent with the native trees within the landscape. All structures must be single story buildings of a height not
more than 28 feet tall, unless the structure can be fully sheltered from view of Lake Oroville, SR 162, and Forbestown
Road. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1, potentially significant aesthetic impacts will be less-than-
significant.
Impact 3.1-3: Project implementation may result in light and glare impacts. 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 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 3.1-2 requires the project proponent to prepare a Lighting Management Plan
that demonstrates that all architectural and lighting plans, including plans for the offsite infrastructure, will minimize the
potential to result in light and/or glare. A!I exterior lighting must be designed and located as to avoid intrusive effects on
adjacent properties and undeveloped areas within the project site. Low-intensity street lighting and low-intensity
exterior lighting must be used throughout the development, as permitted by the Butte County Public Works
Department. Lighting fixtures must use shielding to prevent spill lighting an adjacent areas. The design and placement of
site lighting must minimize glare affecting adjacent properties, buildings, and roadways by utilizing "cut-off' fixtures on
all street and parking lot lighting. All exterior lighting intended for security must utilize motion sensors to reduce
unnecessary usage, except where the lighting is required to maintain safety. Fixtures and standards must conform to
state and local safety and illumination requirements. Ail trail and path lighting must provide optimum public safety,
while at the same time reducing nighttime light spillover and glare. Minimally reflective glass and all other materials
used on exterior building and structures must be selected with attention to minimizing reflective glare. With the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2, potentially significant aesthetic impacts will be less-than-significant.
2. Air Quality
Impact 3.3-1: The proposed project has the potential to have operational air quality impacts. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Findings: 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 Cade Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of
Regulations Section 15091[a)[1J, 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 3.3-1 requires the project proponent to implement standard measures as
outlined in the BCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality Impacts For Projects Subject to
CFQA Review. This includes: increasing building energy efficiency rating by 1p% above what is required by Title 24
requirements; improving thermal efficiency of structures as appropriate by reducing thermal load with automated and
timed temperature controls, or occupancy load limits; incorporating shade trees, adequate in number and proportional
to the project size, throughout the project site to reduce building heating and cooling requirements; and use of fleet
vehicles that run an clean-burning fuels as may be practicable. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1,
potentially significant impacts to air quality from the project will be less than significant.
3. Biolo ical Resources
Im act 3.4-3: The proposed praject has the potential to have direct or indirect effects on special-status bird species. This
is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: Changes or alterations Dave 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)[1y, that the Project can be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures ar 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 3.4-1 requires the project proponent to retain a qualified biologist to perform
preconstruction surveys far nesting raptors in the 135A and offsite improvement corridors if praject construction
activities, including vegetation clearing, are to occur during the nesting season far birds protected under the META and
CFGC [approximately March 1-August 31~. This includes at least two surveys conducted na more than 15 days prior to
the initiation of construction activities, including vegetation clearing. In the event that nesting raptors are found on the
praject site, affsite improvement corridors, or the immediate vicinity, the project proponent is required: to locate and
map the location of the nest site and prepare and submit a report to the County and CDFW; establish a no-disturbance
buffer of 250 feet [1,000 feet for bald eagles); and perform on-going weekly surveys to ensure that the no disturbance
buffer is maintained. Construction can resume when a qualified biologist has confirmed that the birds have fledged.
Additionally, in the event of destruction of a nest with eggs, or if a juvenile or adult raptor should become stranded from
the nest, injured or killed, the qualified biologist is required to immediately notify the CDFW and have the injured raptor
either transferred to a raptor recovery center or, in the case of mortality, transfer it to the CDFW within 48 hours of
notification.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires the project proponent to conduct pre-construction surveys to prevent impacts to
nesting birds if construction activities result in vegetation clearing during the avian breeding season [March 1-August
31). The migratory bird survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 15 days prior to the start of
construction to identify any active nests within active construction areas. If construction stops for a period of 15 days or
more during the avian breeding season than an additional migratory bird survey must be conducted. The biologist will
conduct a survey for all birds protected by the META and CFGC, and map all nests located within 250 feet of
construction areas. If nests are identified the biologist will develop buffer zones around active nests. Construction
activity is prohibited within the buffer zones until the young have fledged or the nest fails. Nests must be monitored at
least twice per week and a report submitted to the County and CDFW monthly.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 requires the project proponent to modify the golf course design to ensure a 250-foot
avoidance buffer around the California black rail habitat. Prior to construction, the project applicant must install orange
construction barrier fencing to identify environmentally sensitive areas around the California black rail habitat. The
location of the fencing must be marked in the field with stakes and flagging and shown an the construction drawings.
The fencing will be installed before construction activities are initiated and must be maintained throughout the
construction period. The fence shall be removed at the end of the construction season so as to not interfere with the
movement of deer and other wildlife. Permanent signs will be erected around the buffer zone that describes the buffer
boundary and the no-disturbance requirements.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, potentially significant impacts to biological
resources from the project will be less than significant.
Impact 3.4-4: The project has the potential for direct or indirect effects an special-status mammal species. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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 Caunty 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 impart. The imposition of such measures is within the jurisdiction of the Caunty to require, and
is appropriate and feasible.
Statement of Farts: Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 requires the project proponent to retain a qualified biolagist to conduct
pre-construction bat survey(s) up to thirty days prior to the commencement of construction that involves the removal of
potential diurnal roasting trees {e.g trees 24" DBH and greater, snags, hollow trees). During the survey(s) the qualified
biologist must inspect all potential diurnal roosting trees within the entire area{s) where potential diurnal roosting trees
will be removed and within a 100 foot buffer area around the entire area{s) where diurnal roosting trees will be
removed using the appropriate and most effective methodology {e.g. camera inspection, exit survey with night optics,
acoustic survey) in determining presence or absence of bat species.
If a bat roost is found within an area where trees are to be removed or within the 100 foot buffer area around the area
where trees are to be removed, during the bat maternity season {April _ August), then the tree will be marked and
construction within 100 feet from the roasting tree will be delayed until a qualified biologist has determined that young
are volant {flying). If the marked roosting tree is to be removed then the roost tree will not be removed until after a
qualified biologist has determined that all young are volant and/or the roos# is determined unoccupied.
If a bat roost is found within an area where trees are to be removed or within the 100 foot buffer area around the area
where trees are to be removed, outside of the bat maternity season, then the tree will be marked and construction
within 100 feet from the roosting tree will be delayed until a qualified biolagist can perform exclusion activities and/or
the tree is determined unoccupied. Prior to performing bat exclusion activities, the qualified biologist will prepare an
exclusion plan and obtain CDFW approval.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, potentially significant imparts to biological resources from the
project will be less than significant.
Impact 3.4-5: The proposed project has the potential for direct or indirect effects on candidate, sensitive, or special-
status plant species. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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){1J, 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 3.4-5 requires the project proponent to perform confirmation surveys in areas
of suitable habitat for adobe lily. Where found, the plant location{s) will be marked and mapped. Avoidance of
marked/mapped plant locations will be considered in the design of project plans. If avoidance is not possible through
design revisions, prior to construction, the adobe-lily bulb will be hand excavated, the depth of the bulbs will be
recorded, and the bulbs will be immediately relocated to apre-determined replanting site at the same depth that the
bulb was excavated. The replanting site will contain similar suitable habitat renditions, within the BSA, and will be
located a minimum of 100 feet from proposed construction activities. Additionally, the replanting site will contain similar
hydrology as the bulb excavation location, and shall not present a risk of runoff or pollutant sources from adjacent
construction or long-term project activities. The confirmation surveys, excavation, and replanting will be performed by a
qualified botanist with previous adobe-lily survey experience. The re-planting area will be fenced to prevent cattle or
other undesirable entry into the replanting area. Ta ensure long-term protection, signage wit! be installed on the fence
that designates this area as a sensitive restoration site and wilt provide standard no trespassing language.
A report summarizing the findings of confirmation surveys, excavation, and replanting efforts wilt be prepared and
submitted to the County and CDFW. The replanting area will be monitored for five years to determine the success of
replanting efforts. The monitoring will include a record of flowering versus vegetative plants observed, any observation
of pollutants, herbivory, site alteration from human activities or other risks to the site. Success is determined by the
number of relocated plants that survive transplantation. If the success rate after five years is below 75%, consultation
with CDFW will be required to develop appropriate remediation plans. A copy of the monitoring report will be provided
to the CDFW each year, and a new occurrence report shall be provided to the California Natural Diversity Database.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, potentially significant impacts to biological resources from the
project will be less than significant.
Impact 3.4-6: The proposed project has the potential to have an effect on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Findin s: 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, Cali#ornia 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 3.4-6 requires the project applicant to obtain the appropriate state and federal
authorizations (Streambed Alternation Agreement, Section 404 permit, Section 401 water quality certification) prior to
any construction activities that would disturb protected wetlands and/or jurisdictional areas, or riparian habitat. The
project proponent must comply with the requirements of these authorizations throughout the project.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-7 requires the project applicant to compensate for any authorized disturbance to protected
wetlands and/ar jurisdictional areas, or riparian habitat to ensure no net loss of habitat functions and values.
Compensation ratios must be based on site-specific information and determined through coordination with state,
federal, and local agencies as part of the permitting process for the project. Unless determined otherwise by the
regulatory/permitting agency, the compensation must be at a minimum ratio of 2 acres restored, created, and/or
preserved far every 1 acre of wetland, or riparian habitat disturbed. Compensation may comprise onsite
restoration/creation, off-site restoration, preservation, or mitigation credits (or a combination of these elements). The
applicant must develop and implement a restoration and monitoring plan that describes how the habitat must be
created or restored and monitored over a minimum period of time.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-$ requires the project applicant to install orange construction barrier fencing to identify
environmentally sensitive areas around the wetland, riparian area, and other aquatic habitats. The location of the
fencing must be marked in the field with stakes and flagging and shown an the construction drawings. The fencing will
be installed before construction activities are initiated and will be maintained throughout the construction period.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 requires all temporarily disturbed natural areas, including stream banks, and riparian habitat,
to be returned to original contours to the extent feasible after construction is completed. All streams that will be
realigned, rerouted, or restored will be constructed to match pre-existing conditions and functions. Affected wetlands,
riparian habitat, stream banks or stream channels must be stabilized prior to the rainy season and/ar prior to
reestablishing flow. For wetland areas, the top six inches of native topsoil must be stockpiled and replaced fallowing
work. Wetland and riparian vegetation must be reestablished using native vegetation similar to pre-existing conditions.
The applicant must prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan that includes long term monitoring to ensure that the
disturbed streams and wetlands meet or exceed baseline functions.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 requires construction staging, storage, and parking areas to be located 500 feet from
streams, riparian habitat, and wetlands. All fueling, fuels, and equipment maintenance must occur 500 feet from
wetlands and streams. Vehicle travel adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas must be limited to existing roads and
designated temporary access roads. Sensitive natural communities (i.e., wetlands, waters, riparian zones and oak
woodlands) must be conspicuously marked in the field jincluding suitable buffer zones) to minimize impacts an these
communities, and work activities must be limited to outside the marked areas.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-6, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, and 3.4-10, potentially significant impacts to
biological resources from the project will be less than significant.
Im acct 3_.4T7: The proposed project has the potential for direct and indirect adverse effects an riparian habitat or
sensitive natural communities. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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 15091ja)(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: With the incarpora#ion of Mitigation Measure 3.4-fi, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, and 3.4-10, all of which were
previously discussed, potentially significant impacts to biological resources from the project will be less than significant.
Im amt 3.4^8: The proposed project has the potential to interfere with the movement of native fish or wildlife species or
with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Findings: 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 ar 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 3.4-11 requires the applicant to place land under their ownership in a
permanent conservation easement with a funded management endowment to off-set direct impacts from habitat
removal and loss of function on 112 acres. Figure 3.4-8 in the Draft EIR depicts the location of the 148 acre proposed
preserve. This site was selected for the following reasons: it contains habitat that meets the life history requirements of
deer; the site is large enough to be ecologically meaningful mitigation; the site is bordered on the north and east by
public lands, thus reducing edge effects, and contributing to a larger potential preserve; the site restricts any future land
development towards less suitable habitat; and the site protects a major wildlife movement corridor.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-12 includes measures to preserve and maintain wildlife movement. Existing migration and
wildlife corridors with a minimum width of 300 feet will be maintained. Barriers such as fences, structures, buildings, ar
parking areas will not be constructed in wildlife corridors. Golf fairways and landscaping associated with golf courses are
not recognized as barriers to migration, however lighting and human activity can modify deer behavior within
established migration corridors to the extent that deer no longer utilize the corridor. To reduce these effects, vegetative
buffers will be established between the playing areas and migration corridors to allow movement of animals with as
little human intrusion as possible. Lighting will not be placed in migration corridors. Vegetative buffers will be comprised
of vegetation native to the site. As feasible, an average 100 foot set-back will be maintained around all blue line
permanent and intermittent waterways as shown on the USGS maps. An average 50 foot buffer will be maintained
around all ephemeral drainages. Where impacts to ephemeral and intermittent streams occur, such as fairway crossings,
road and trail crossings, the impacts will be compensated on-site by performing restoration or realignment on the
remaining stream channel or ponds in such a manner so that no net loss of function and area will result. Construction
occurring within wildlife corridors will not be allowed between October 1 and March 31. Posted travel speeds an all
interior roads will not exceed 35 miles per hour. Speed humps will be added to road sections to prevent excess speed.
Signs will be installed notifying drivers and golfers of deer migration seasons and wildlife corridor crossings.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-13 requires the project applicant to prepare a Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan (WHMP)
that will provide a framework for protecting wildlife and enhancing the existing natural habitat to promote wildlife and
biodiversity conservation. The WHMP will identify ecologically sensitive areas such as wetlands, stream/drainage
corridors, migratory corridors, wintering habitat, breeding habitat, and other sensitive habitat that will require
protection from operational impacts. The WHMP will address human-wildlife conflicts, deer food resources, temporal
restrictions during a severe winter event, and the development of an educational program to inform employees and
guests about wildlife and their habitats.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-11, 3.4-12, and 3.4-13, potentially significant impacts to biological
resources from the project will be less than significant.
Impact 3.4-10: The proposed project has the potential to conflict with a local policy or ordinance protecting oak
woodlands. This is a potentially significant impact.
Fndin~s: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the Fina! EIR. Based upon the Final E!R and the entire record before this
County, this County finds, as authorized by Public Resources Cade Section 21081 and Title 14, California Cade 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 3.4-14 requires the project proponent to compensate for the loss of 185 acres
of oak woodland in accordance with public Resources Code Section 21083.4. The compensation includes the 148-acre
conservation easement, which also serves as migratory deer herd habitat, and 37 acres choosing one or more of the oak
woodlands mitigation alternatives out{fined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.4.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-15 requires all existing oak trees greater than 5 inches DBH proposed for retention to be
mapped. This map will be used during the planning phase to minimize construction impacts. A root protection zone for
existing oaks will be established at a distance of 1.5 x dripline. No construction activities, such as trenching, soil piling or
staging of vehicles will be conducted within the root protection zone. If construction activities are needed within the
zone, impacts will be minimized. Wood chips or 5/8 inch plywood may be placed over the affected rant protection zone
prior to work. Trenching will not impact more than 30 percent of the root protection zone. Severed roots should be
cleanly cut with a sharp saw to reduce infection. A protective barrier will be established around the root protection zone
if construction activities are planned adjacent to affected trees. Existing oaks will not be defaced, damaged ar severely
pruned during construction. Irrigation systems or establishment of turf will be outside of the root protection zone.
Heritage trees (oaks 24 inch DBH or greater and in good health) will be mapped, located and protected.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-14 and 3.4-15, potentially significant impacts to biological resources
from the project will be less than significant.
4. Cultural Resources
Irnpact_3.5-1: The proposed project has the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical or archaeological resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: Changes ar 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 retard 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 3.5-1 requires the project proponent to design the project to avoid the three
recorded cultural sites {Stringtown 1, PA-12-G10 and PA-12-G11}, These cultural sites can be assumed to be important
resources under the California Register of Historical Resources. If it is not possible for project plans to avoid these sites,
the eligibility of the sites will be determined under the California Register criteria, with all work supervised by
professionals who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. If it is determined that the
sites do not meet the criteria of the California Register, protection and preservation will not be necessary.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 requires the boundaries of the midden site {Stringtown 1} to be determined through the
excavation of a series of shovel test pits. This will establish the precise boundaries of the resource to identify the area
requiring protection.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 requires the three recorded cultural sites {Stringtown 1, PA-12-G10 and PA-12-G11} to be
fenced with orange protective fencing to provide complete protection from construction related impacts of any type
including vehicular access and pedestrian access. If at any point, permanent fencing must be installed to deter future
access, the fencing will be designed to provide complete protection from any future impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-4 requires work to be halted immediately within 50 meters X165 feet) of a cultural resources
discovery {i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features} if discovered during the course of
construction. Butte County would be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology will be retained to determine the
significance of the discovery. Butte County would consider mitigation recommendations presented by the qualified
archaeologist for any unanticipated discoveries and would carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate.
Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or
other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the
protection of cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-5 requires inspection of 5tringtown 1 to be provided on an annual basis to assure that the site
remains protected. It may be advisable to work with a group such as The Archaeological Conservancy to provide such
services or to place the site in a conservation easement.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, 3.5-Z, 3.5-3, 3.5-4, and 3.5-5, potentially significant impacts to
cultural resources from the project will be less than significant.
Irngact 3.5-2: The proposed project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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 Cade 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 3.5-6 requires work to be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of a paleontological
discovery. Butte County would be notified, and a qualified paleontologist would be retained to determine the
significance of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is considered significant, it would be excavated by a
qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, or other applicable institution, where they could be
curated and displayed for public education purposes.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-6, potentially significant impacts to cultural resources from the project
will be less than significant.
Impact 3.5-3: The proposed project has the potential to disturb unknown human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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 befare this
County, this County finds, as authorized by Public Resources Cade Section 21081 and Title 14, California Cade 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 3.5-7 requires work to be halted if human remains are discovered during the
course of construction until the Butte County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of
the cause of death is required. If the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps will be taken:
The coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission in order to ascertain the proper descendants
from the deceased individual. The coroner will make a recommendation to the landowner or the person
responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave goods, which may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist ar team of
archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains.
^ The landowner shall retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native
American monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and any associated grave goods, with
appropriate dignity, on the property and in a location that is not subject to further subsurface disturbance when
any of the following conditions occur: the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a
descendent; and the descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or Butte County or its authorized
representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American
Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-7, potentially significant impacts to cultural resources from the project
will be less than significant.
5. Geola Sails and Mineral Resources
Impact 3.6-2: The proposed project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Findin s: Changes or alterations have been required in, ar 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(ay(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 3.6-1 requires the project proponent to submit a Notice of Intent (NOIy and
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB in accordance with the NPDES General Construction
Permit requirements. The SWPPP must be designed to control pollutant discharges utilizing Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and technology to reduce erosion and sediments. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to
reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site. Measures must include temporary erosion control
measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric,
sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetatian or other ground saver) that will be employed to control erosion from
disturbed areas. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by Butte Gaunty and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be
kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives ofthe RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 requires the project proponent to ensure that at least 85 to 90 percent of annual average
stormwater runoff from the project site is treated per the standards in the California stormwater Best Management
Practice New Development and Redevelopment Handbook. Drainage from all paved surfaces, including streets, parking
lots, driveways, and roofs must be routed either through swales, buffer strips, ar sand filters or treated with a filtering
system prior to discharge to the storm drain system. Landscaping must be designed to effect some treatment, along
with the use of a stormwater Management filter to permanently sequester hydrocarbons, if necessary. Roofs must be
designed with down spouting into landscaped areas, bubbleups, or trenches. Driveways must be curbed into landscaping
so runoff drains first into the landscaping. Permeable pavers and pavement must be utilized to construct the facilities,
where appropriate.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 and 3.6-2, potentially significant impacts to geology, soils, and
mineral resources from the project will be less than significant.
Empact 3,6-3: The proposed project has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or sail that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of project implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. This is a potentially significant impact.
Finding Changes ar 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(aJ(1), that the Project can be conditioned to incorporate mitigation measures ar 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 3.6-3 requires the project proponent to retain a certified geotechnical engineer
to perform a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at adesign-level. The grading and improvement plans, as well as
the building plans must be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical
evaluation. final geotechnical design must be developed by a geotechnical engineer in accordance with the California
Building Code.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.b-3, potentially significant impacts to geology, soils, and mineral
resources from the project will be less than significant.
6. Green House Gasses and Climate Chan e
Im amt 3.7^2: The proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment -Construction. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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 3.7-2 requires the project proponent to implement standard measures as
outlined in the BCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality Impacts For Projects Subject tD
CEQA Review. This includes measures to improve fuel efficiency from construction equipment, use of on-road engines in
haul trucks, use of alternative fuels, proper maintenance of equipment, use of ARB approved low carbon fuel for
construction equipment, encourage and provide carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes and/ar secure bicycle parking for
construction worker commutes, reduce electricity use in the construction office, recycle or salvage non-hazardous
construction and demolition debris, use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials, use wood
products that are certified through a sustainable forestry program, minimize the use of concrete far paved surfaces,
produce concrete on-site if determined to be less emissive than transporting ready mix, use SmartWay certified trucks
for deliveries and equipment transport, and develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-2, potentially significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change from the project will be less than significant.
Impact 3.7-3: The proposed project has the potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adapted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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: The project proponent has included various building and design standards that are intended to
minimize greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project. These building and design standards are
Project Commitments made by the Project Applicant and will become a Condition of Approval for the proposed project.
The Project Commitments include: utilizing electric golf carts on the golf course; incorporating the California Building
Standards Commission's adopted Green Building Standards, including requirements about low- or no- toxicity building
materials; incorporating LEED (or an equivalent rating system) design into the buildings to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and to demonstrate sustainable building practices; incorporating solar-oriented and wind-oriented site design
and farm; incorporating building materials and appliances that demonstrate energy conservation in all habitable
structures (i.e. California Energy Star]; prohibiting the use of wood-burning fireplaces and non-EPA-certified wood stoves
in all habitable structures; incorporating water conservation techniques to site and building plans, including landscaping;
utilizing alternative energy sources where passible; incorporating above-ground and natural stormwater facilities; and
the use of building materials that are complimentary to natural settings. In addition to the above Project Commitments,
the BCAQMD requires standard measures that are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation 3.3-1,
which is presented under the Statements of Fact for Air Quality, includes these BCAQMD standard measures.
With the incorporation of Project Commitments, potentially significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change from the project will be less than significant.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.8-1: The proposed project has the potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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 3.8-1 requires the project applicant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business
Plan (HMBP) to Butte County Environmental Health Division (CUPA} for review and approval. If the inventory of
reportable hazardous materials include fuels stared in Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) that exceed 1320 gallons (in
containers X55 gallons) the applicant must file documents required by the California Aboveground Storage Tank Act
(APSA). If one of the AST's is larger than 20,000 gallons or the accumulative storage capacity exceeds 100,000 gallons a
Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) will be required. If during the construction process the applicant ar
his subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous
waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5.
(California Hazardous Waste Control
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1, potentially significant impacts from hazards and hazardous
materials from the project will be less than significant.
8. HydroloRV and Water Quality
Irr~pact ~.9-1: The proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
during construction. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findin~s_ 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 3.9-1 requires the project proponent to submit a NOI and SWPPP to the RWQCB
in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements prior to construction activities. The SWPPP will
utilize BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include:
temporary erasion control measures such as sift fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps,
check darns, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation ar other ground cover. The SWPPP will be kept on
site and implemented during construction activities and shall be made available upon request to representatives of
Butte County and/or RWQCB.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1, potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water quality from
the project will be less than significant.
Im a, pct ,3.9-2: The proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
during operation. This is a potentially significant impact.
Findings: 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 3.9-1 requires the project proponent to submit a NOl and SWPPP to the RWQCB
in accordance with the NPDES General Canstr~ction Permit requirements prior to construction activities. The SWPPP will
utilize BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include:
temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps,
check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The SWPPP will be kept on
site and implemented during construction activities and shall be made available upon request to representatives of
Butte County and/or RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 requires the project proponent to retain a qualified specialist to perform water quality
sampling/monitoring and the qualified specialist must submit a monitoring plan for review and approval by the Butte
County. The intent of the sampling/monitoring is to ensure that fertilizer, pesticide, herbicides, and any other pollutants
from operations and maintenance of the golf course do not increase pollution in waterbodies on or off of the project
site, including Lake Oroville. The monitoring plan must include a requirement to sample water quality prior to the
beginning of construction to establish pre-project water quality as a baseline for later comparison of post-project water
quality. The monitoring plan must establish the appropriate timing of sampling/monitoring in perpetuity. Once the
monitoring plan is approved by Butte County, the qualified specialist shall perform the sampling/monitoring in
accordance with the monitoring plan and provide the results to Butte County for the public record. Butte County must
determine if corrective actions are needed based on the sampling/monitoring results.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 and 3.9-2, potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water
quality from the project will be less than significant.
Impact 3.9-5: The proposed project has the potential to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Findings-. Changes ar 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 ElR 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 3.9-1 requires the project proponent to submit a NOI and SWPPP to the RWQCB
in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements prior to construction activities. The SWPPP will
utilize BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include:
temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps,
check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation ar other ground cover. The SWPPP will be kept on
site and implemented during construction activities and shall be made available upon request to representatives of
Butte County and/or RWQCB.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 requires the project proponent to retain a qualified specialist to perform water quality
sampling/monitoring and the qualified specialist must submit a monitoring plan for review and approval by the Butte
County. The intent of the sampling/monitoring is to ensure that fertilizer, pesticide, herbicides, and any other pollutants
#rom operations and maintenance of the golf course do not increase pollution in waterbodies on or off of the project
site, including Lake Oroville. The monitoring plan must include a requirement to sample water quality prior to the
beginning of construction to establish pre-project water quality as a baseline for later comparison of post-project water
quality. The monitoring plan must establish the appropriate timing of sampling/monitoring in perpetuity. Once the
monitoring plan is approved by Butte County, the qualified specialist shall perform the sampling/monitoring in
accordance with the monitoring plan and provide the results to Butte County for the public record. Butte County must
determine if corrective actions are needed based on the sampling/monitoring results.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 and 3.9-2, potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water
quality from the project will be less than significant.
9. Noise
Impact 3.11=5: The proposed project has the potential for stationary noise at sensitive receptors. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Fines 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 retard before this
County, this County finds, as authorized by Public Resources Cade Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of
Regulations Section 15091(a)(1j, 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 3.11-1 restricts golf course maintenance activities occurring on the Stringtown
Road end of the project to daytime hours (7:00 am - 7:00 pm). This would specifically apply to gasoline-powered
equipment, including mowers and aerators.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-1, potentially significant impacts from noise from the project will be
less than significant.
10. Transportation and Circulation
Im act 3.13-2: Potential to create an increase in traffic that would cause cumulative plus project traffic conditions to
degrade to an unacceptable level of service
Findi~ .ngs: Changes or alterations have been required in, ar incorporated into, the Project, which substantially lessen the
significant environmenta! 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 3.13-1 requires the project proponent to Implement traffic improvements.
This includes the requirement to retime the SR 162/Gold Country Casino Access Intersection traffic signal during the PM
peak hour. This results in an improvement from LOS E to an acceptable LOS D operation. Additionally, the project
proponent would construct a standard left-tum lane at the SR 162/Forbestown Road intersection (Intersection 3 in the
TIS) based on Chapter 400 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Sixth Edition. The existing Right-af--Way (ROW)
appears to be adequate to accommodate the widening; if not the applicant would dedicate ROW from the project site as
needed. Lastly, the project proponent would construct a left turn lane at the SR 152/Project Access intersection. If the
existing ROW is not adequate to accommodate the widening, the applicant would dedicate ROW as needed. If the Lost
of a left turn lane is prohibitive due to terrain, a shoulder bypass lane may be adequate.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, potentially significant impacts from traffic from the project will be
less than significant.
F. Significant Unavoidable Impacts after Incorporation of Feasible Mitigation
Exhibit B to the Project approval Resolution provides a complete list of all impacts analyzed by the EIR, mitigation
measures and identification of impact level of significance. Ten (10) 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.
• Impact 3.1-2: Potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
• Impact 3.3-2: Air quality construction impacts.
• Impact 3.3-6: Cumulative Impacts -construction air quality
• Impact 3.7-1: Potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment-Operational
• Impact 3.14-2: Potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment and/or
collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects
• Impact 3.143: Potential to require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities
• Impact 4.1: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region
• Impact 4.3: Cumulative impact on the region's air quality.
• Impact 4.4: Cumulative Lass of Biological Resources Including Habitats and Special Status Species
* Impact 4.7: Cumulative Impact on Climate Change from Increased Project-Related Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
For the significant and unavoidable impacts, Findings of Fact are required.
1. Aesthetics
Impact 3.i-2: The proposed project has the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings. This is a potentially significant impact.
Miti ation Ado ted b the Count : No feasible mitigation is available to reduce these potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Facts: The ElR identified that implementation of the proposed project would convert the project site from
its existing rural character to a developed golf resort and hotel complex with various buildings, landscaping, and parking
areas. Project implementation would change the existing unaltered scenic qualities that the project site provides to
viewers.
The project applicant established standards far the design of the golf course as an effort to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts, including aesthetic impacts. These building and design standards are Project Commitments
made by the Project Applicant and will become a Condition of Approval for the proposed project. The standards are
listed below:
^ Respect the natural landforms and topography.
^ Avoid designs that cut into slopes and channels above riparian corridors, creeks, streams, and wetlands.
^ Incorporate water features in locations where they can serve as detention for storm drainage.
^ Incorporate vegetated swales and planter areas that serve as biofilters between the developed areas and the
existing riparian corridors, creeks, streams, wetlands, and detention/drainage areas.
^ Minimize disturbance to slopes and natural drainage areas.
^ Maintain a buffer on each side of all riparian corridors, creeks, streams, and wetlands, except where crossings are
necessary.
^ Minimize the number of crossings over/through riparian corridors, creeks, streams, and wetlands and utilize
bridge spans when crossings are needed.
^ Focus design in areas with a lower density of trees to minimize impacts to trees.
While the project applicant has incorporated design measures that are intended to minimize aesthetic impacts
(extensive open space, landscaping, etc.), the visual quality and character of project site will forever be changed. There
are no mitigation measures or design measures that could feasibly reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. As such,
implementation of the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this environmental
topic. See Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by
reference.
2. Air Quality
Im act 3.3-2 and 3.3-6: The proposed project has the potential to cause construction air quality impacts, including
cumulative air quality impacts. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 requires the project applicant to implement specific
mitigation measures to ensure adequate dust control. Compliance with the mitigation measures should minimize the
potential for violations of District Rule 200, Nuisance and Rule 205 Fugitive Dust. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 requires the
project applicant to implement measures to mitigate combustion emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 will not reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant
level. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Findin~s_; Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: Construction activities would result in temporary short-term emissions associated with vehicle trips
from construction workers, operation of construction equipment, and the dust generated during construction activities.
These temporary and short-term emissions would generate additional ozone precursors [ROG and NOx) as well as PM10
and PM2.5, which could exacerbate the County's existing non-attainment status far these criteria pollutants.
The Butte County Air Pollution Control District has established three threshold levels for ozone precursors [ROG and
NOX), and PM10. The ROG emissions are below all thresholds of significance throughout the project construction phase.
However, project generated emissions are above the Level C threshold of > 137 pounds per day for NOx and PM10 in
2013. From 2014 through 2015, NOx emissions exceed the Level B threshold, while PM10 emissions are below all
thresholds. The exceedances identified above are a potentially significant impact.
The exceedance of PM10 is largely a result of fugitive dust emissions [454.98 pounds per day) during the construction
phase; while the PM10 exhaust emission [7.55 pounds per day) are below all thresholds of significance. The BCAQMD
requires the use of specific construction dust mitigation measures to reduce PM10 emissions during construction. These
measures focus on minimizing emissions associated with Land Clearing/Earth Moving, Visibly Dry Disturbed Soil Surface
Areas, Paved Road Track-Out, Visibly Dry Disturbed Unpaved Roads, Vehicles Entering/Exiting Construction Area,
Employee Vehicles, and Soil Piles. The BCAQMD also requires the use of specific mitigation measures that are intended
to mitigate combustion emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment. implementation of the BCAQMD
construction mitigation measures would reduce project-related construction emissions to the extent feasible; however,
the emissions levels during the construction phase will not drop below significance thresholds. As such implementation
of the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact from short-term construction emissions. See
Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Chan e
impact 3.7-1: The proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment. This is a potentially significant impact.
Miti ation Ado ted b the Count :Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 requires the project proponent to implement standard
measures as outlined in the BCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Guidelines for Assessing Air Qualify Impacts For
Projects Subject to CEQA Review. This includes: increasing building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is
required by Title 24 requirements; improving thermal efficiency of structures as appropriate by reducing thermal load
with automated and timed temperature controls, or occupancy load limits; incorporating shade trees, adequate in
number and proportional to the project size, throughout the project site to reduce building heating and cooling
requirements; and use of fleet vehicles that run on clean-burning fuels as may be practicable.
The project proponent has included various building and design standards that are intended to minimize greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the proposed project. These building and design standards are Project Commitments made by
the Project Applicant and will become a Condition of Approval for the proposed project. The Project Commitments
include: utilizing electric golf carts on the golf course; incorporating the California Building Standards Commission's
adopted Green Building Standards, including requirements about low- or no- toxicity building materials; incorporating
LEED [or an equivalent rating system) design into the buildings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to demonstrate
sustainable building practices; incorporating solar-oriented and wind-oriented site design and form; incorporating
building materials and appliances that demonstrate energy conservation in all habitable structures [i.e. California Energy
Star); prohibiting the use of wood-burning fireplaces and non-EPA-certified woad stoves in all habitable structures;
incorporating water conservation techniques to site and building plans, including landscaping; utilizing alternative
energy sources where passible; incorporating above-ground and natural stormwater facilities; and the use of building
materials that are complimentary to natural settings. In addition to the above Project Commitments, the BCAQMD
requires standard measures that are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 and the Project Commitments will not reduce this potential impact to a less
than significant level. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.
Findin s: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denia! of the project.
Statement of Fact: The proposed project would be a direct and indirect source of greenhouse gas emissions, in that it
would generate and attract vehicle trips in the region (mobile source emissions) and it would increase area source
emissions and energy consumption. Prominent GNGs of primary concern include carbon dioxide (C02J, methane (CH4),
and nitrous oxide (N20). Other GHGs such as hydrafluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are of
less concern because operational activities associated are not likely to generate substantial quantities of these GWGs.
Implementation of these Project Commitments and Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 would reduce operational greenhouse gas
emissions to the extent feasible; however, the reductions are not anticipated to result in a significant reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable
impact from operational greenhouse gas emissions See Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval
Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
4. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 3.14-2: The proposed project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater
treatment and/or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Adapted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findin s: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The EIR identified that the environmental impacts of constructing the wastewater collection
infrastructure, including the septic system, have been assessed in each respective Section of Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR
and that the wastewater infrastructure, including the septic system, has the potential for direct and indirect impacts
associated with the construction of the infrastructure. Mitigation measures have been provided to avoid and minimize
each potential impact to the extent feasible. It was found that the construction and operation of the project, including
the construction of wastewater infrastructure, would have significant and unavoidable impacts (project and/or
cumulative) relative to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources and greenhouse gas emissions. As such,
implementation of the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact from the construction of
wastewater infrastructure far each of these environmental topics. Construction of the wastewater infrastructure would
not cause environmental impacts above what has been addressed in each Section of Chapter 3 within this EER. See
Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution far the project, incorporated herein by reference.
Impact 3.14_3: The proposed project has the potential to require construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities:
Mitigation Adopted by the_Caun~ No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Finding Specific economic, legak, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denia[ of the project.
Statement of Fact: The EIR identified that the proposed project would require the construction of potable and non-
potable water infrastructure and that the environmental impacts of constructing the water infrastructure has been
assessed in each respective Section of Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The water infrastructure has the potential for direct
and indirect impacts associated with the construction of the infrastructure. Mitigation measures have been provided to
avoid and minimize each potential impact to the extent feasible. It was found that the construction and operation of the
project, including the construction of water infrastructure, would have significant and unavoidable impacts (project
and/or cumulative) relative to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources and greenhouse gas emissions. As such,
implementation of the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact from the construction of
water infrastructure far each of these environmental topics. Construction of the water infrastructure would oat cause
environmental impacts above what has been addressed in each Section of Chapter 3 within this EiR. See Findings for
Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
5. Cumulative
Impact 4.1: The proposed project has the potential to cumulatively degrade the existing visual character of the region.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Miti ation Ada ted b the Count : Na feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The ElR identified that implementation of the proposed project would convert the project site from
its existing rural character to a developed golf resort and hotel complex with various buildings, landscaping, and parking
areas. Project implementation would change the existing unaltered scenic qualities that the project site provides to
viewers and is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the Butte County General Plan could result in changes to the visual character
and quality of Butte County through development of undeveloped areas and/ar changes to the character of existing
communities. Development of this project, in addition to other future projects in the County, would change the existing
visual and scenic qualities of the County. There are no mitigation measures that could reduce this impact. As such, this is
considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact. See Findings far Overriding
Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
Irngact 4.3: The proposed project has the potential to cumulatively impact the region's air quality. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Miti:~ation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The EIR identified that under buildout conditions in the Butte County General Plan, the NSVAB would
continue to experience increases in criteria pollutants and efforts to improve air quality throughout the basin would be
hindered. Butte County has a state designation of nonattainment far Ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The County has a
national designation of nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5. The proposed project would result in increased emissions
primarily from vehicle miles travelled associated with project implementation. Project generated emissions of ROG,
NOx, and PM10 are below all thresholds of significance throughout the project operational phase under unmitigated and
mitigated conditions. PM2.5 emissions are insignificant under both unmitigated and mitigated conditions. Construction
activities would increase emissions ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The emissions model showed that iiOG emissions are
projected to fall below the BCAQMD threshold of significance. The emissions model also showed that NOx and PM10
emissions are projected to exceed the threshold of significance during construction. While, the proposed project will
implement the BCAQMD mitigation measures that are intended to minimize emissions from equipment combustion and
fugitive dust, the proposed project was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to construction
related emissions even with mitigation measures. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have a
cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact from construction emissions. See Findings for
Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution far the project, incorporated herein by reference.
Irngact 4.4: The proposed project has the potential to result in a cumulative loss of biological resources including
habitats and special status species. This is a potentially significant impact.
Miti ation Ada ted b the Count Na feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Fines Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The EIR identified under cumulative conditions, buildout of the Butte County General Plan will result
in impacts to biological resources in Butte County through new and existing development. The General Plan includes
policies that are designed to minimize impacts to the extent feasible. Construction activities on the project site have the
potential to result in impacts to special-status species in the region. There are no known special-status species that have
been observed on the project site, although there are two plants and one wildlife species that are assumed present. The
project site also provides migratory deer habitat and protected aquatic habitat. Mitigation measures will be
implemented to minimize impacts to biological resources to the extent feasible. However, development of this project,
in addition to other future projects in the County, would impact biological resources. There are no mitigation measures
that could fully reduce this impact. As such, this is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and
unavoidable impact. See Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated
herein by reference.
Impact 4.7: The proposed project has the potential to have a cumulative impact on climate change from increased
project-related greenhouse gas emissions. This is a po#entially significant impact.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The EIR identified that greenhouse gas emissions from a single project will not cause global climate
change; however, greenhouse gas emission from multiple projects throughout a region or state could result in a
cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Implementation of Project Commitments and Mitigation
Measures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 would reduce operational and construction-related greenhouse gas emissions to the extent
feasible. While, the proposed project will implement the Project Commitments and mitigation measures that are
intended to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project was determined to have a significant and
unavoidable impact relative to greenhouse gas emissions even with mitigation measures. As such, implementation of
the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact. See Findings for
Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
V111. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
A. Requirements Under CEOA
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(dy 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 ar population growth, or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth, far example, developing service areas in previously unserved areas,
extending transportation routes into previously undeveloped areas, and establishing major new employment
opportunities; ar
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or
cumulatively.
Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR discusses growth inducing impacts.
B. Direct Imparts Through Increased Employment Opportunities
1. Economic Growth:
Implementation of the proposed project would provide job growth to the area. It is anticipated that loco! employment
would be increased to provide administrative services, facilities operation, and maintenance at the project site. The
proposed project is expected to require both full-time and part-time employees. It is anticipated that the employment
growth would be met by existing county residents, although it is also possible that the employment growth results in
new residents to the County. Additional part-time construction jobs would also result from construction of facilities. The
proposed project is located in an area that is designated for growth in the Butte County General Plan. Economic growth
and development in this area is consistent with the General Plan and is not considered a significant growth inducing
impact.
2. Population/Hausin~ 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 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 Imparts
1. Elimination of Obstacles to Growth:
The project would require the extension of offsite infrastructure, which has the potential to induce growth. The offsite
improvements include traffic, wastewater, potable water, irrigation water, and other utilities. The offsite traffic
improvements are minor and would not induce growth. The irrigation water infrastructure is also not anticipated to
induce growth given the fact that the water is non-potable. The extension of the sewer and water infrastructure has the
potential to induce growth by eliminated an obstacle to growth. Ultimately, development within this area is guided by
the General Plan, which has designated this area for future development of a Specific Plan with the development
potential of 2,700 residential units on 1,279 acres of land. Growth inducement to this designated future Specific Plan
area would not be anticipated to exceed planned growth for this area. it is possible, however, that the golf course
development, which is sited on the majority of the "more level land" within the future Stringtown Mountain Specific
Plan area, would inhibit the full buildout of all 2,700 units. Any potential development in the area is subject to the Butte
County land use policies and regulations that govern such development.
2. Encouragement of Growth:
The development of the golf course could induce growth in the areas surrounding the golf course, as people may desire
to obtain a residence near this amenity. This tauld include a variety of residential uses, including condos, townhomes,
apartments, single-family attached, orsingle-family detached. Ultimately, development within this area is guided by the
General Plan, which has designated this area far future development of a Specific Plan with the development potential
of 2,700 residential units on 1,279 acres of land. Growth inducement to this designated future Specific Plan area would
not be anticipated to exceed planned growth for this area. It is possible, however, that the golf course development,
which is sited on the majority of the "more level land" within the future 5tringtown Mountain Specific Plan area, would
inhibit the full buildaut of all 2,700 units. Any potential development in the area is subject to the Butte County land use
policies and regulations that govern such development.
EX. FINDING5 REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACT
A, Requirements Under CECIp
Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant Projects taking place aver a period of
time (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355(bj).
Cumulative impacts are further described as follows: (1) the individual effects may be changes resulting from a single
Project ar a number of separate Projects; and (2) 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 aver 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 150b4(iJ(5): The mere existence of significant cumulative
impacts caused by other Projects atone shat! not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed Project's incremental
effects are cumulatively considerable.
8. Cumulative Impacts Evaluation
The cumulative impact analysis is contained in Section 4.0 of the EIR. Cumulative impacts for most issue areas are not
quantifiable and are therefore discussed in general terms as they pertain to development patterns in the surrounding
region. Exceptions to this are traffic, noise and air quality (the latter two of which are associated with traffic volumes),
which may be quantified by estimating future traffic patterns, pollutant emitters, etc. and determining the combined
effects that may result. In consideration of the cumulative scenario described above, the proposed project may result in
the following cumulative impacts.
~.. Less than Cumulatively Considerable Irr-.pacts
Impart 4.2 (Aericulture and Forest Resources): The proposed project has the potential to have a cumulative impact on
agricultural and forest resources.
Statement of Facts: The Butte County Zoning Ordinance designates a portion of the Golf Course Resort site as AG-80
Agricultural, 80 acre minimum. However, this area is vacant and undeveloped and is not being used for agricultural
purposes other than grazing. The remainder of the Galf Course Resort and the entire Hotel Complex and Wellness
Center is zoned for a variety of non-agricultural uses.
The project site is located on land designated as Other Land on the Important Farmlands Map. The sails an the project
site have a Capability Classification of 4 to 8, all of which have limitations ar are considered unsuitable for farming with
or without irrigation.
The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland
of local Importance. Given that the project site is not irrigated, has not been historically used for agricultural purposes,
and is not designated as Important Farmlands, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the
conversion of farmlands to non-agricultural uses.
The project site is not zoned or designated for forest or timber resource uses. There are no forest lands on the project
site ar in the vicinity of the project site, as defined by Public Resources Cade Section 12220(8), nor are there any timber
lands an the project site or in the vicinity of the project site, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526.
Therefore, the project site is not considered a8ricultural land that requires protection from urban development. As
further described in Section 3.2, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the indirect conversion of
adjacent agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
Im act 4.5 Cultural Resources :Cumulative Impacts an Known and Undiscovered Cultural Resources
Statement of Facts: Cumulative development anticipated in Butte County, including growth projected by adapted
general plans, may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archaeological, paleontological,
historical, and Native American resources and Duman remains. As discussed in Section 3.5- Cultural Resources, there are
three known cultural ar historic resources present an the project site. Mitigation measures provided in Section 3.5
would require the proposed project to protect the known cultural resources by avoidance. Any unknown cultural
resources which are discovered during development of the project would be required to be preserved, either through
preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. With
implementation of the miti8ation measures provided in Section 3.5, the proposed project is not anticipated to
considerably contribute to a significant reduction in cultural resources. Therefore, the project would have a less than
cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts to cultural resources.
Impact 4.6 (Geoloey. Soils, and Mineral Resources): Cumulative Impact on Geologic, Soils, Mineral Resources.
Statement of Facts: As discussed in Section 3.5 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in any significant impacts related to this environmental topic. Geologic and sails impacts tend to
be site-specific and project_specific. There are no mining operations on the project site. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in increased risks or hazards related to geologic conditions in the cumulative setting area, nor
would it result in any off-site or indirect impacts. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
Impact 4.8 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials]: Cumulative Impact Related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Statement of Facts: Hazard-related impacts tend to besite-specific and project-specific. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in increased risks of hazards in the cumulative setting area, nor would it result in any off-site or
indirect impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the risk of on-site hazards associated with the use
of on-site hazardous materials. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
Impact 4.9 [Hydroloey and Water Ctuali#V]: Cumulative Increases in Peak Stormwater Runoff from the Project Site
Statement of Facts: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the
project site, which could increase peak Stormwater runoff rates and volumes on and downstream of the site. However,
the proposed project includes an extensive system of on-site stormwater collection, treatment and retention facilities to
accommodate the increased Stormwater flows that would originate on site.
The project's Preliminary Grading & Storm Drain Analysis was provided by NorthStar Engineering. Preliminary
calculations show that the construction of detention basins with outlets will reduce the peak runoff from each area to
less than the calculated pre-construction peak flows. The small portion of the hotel resort complex and wellness center
that cannot be captured and treated in the proposed detention ponds will continue to drain towards the existing
drainage Swale east of the proposed improvements. It has been calculated that the post-construction peak runoff for
this area is also less than the pre-construction peak runoff. This reduction in peak flow is due to a reduction in tributary
area draining towards the existing Swale, a portion of the pre-construction tributary area has been redirected towards
the detention ponds for the hotel resort complex and wellness center.
The preliminary calculations for the typical fairway within the proposed golf course area show that the post-construction
peak flows are the same as the pre-construction peak flaws for the same area. The typical fairway detail used for the
calculations was a worse case example with a long portion of roadway. Not all proposed holes are adjacent to the
roadway and the post-construction peak flows from these areas are projected to be less than the pre-construction peak
flows. The proposed impervious area for the maintenance shop and access roadway is comparable to roadway used in
the typical fairway calculations; therefore the construction of the maintenance shop is not anticipated to increase the
peak runoff for the tributary area.
With the design and construction of flood control improvements outlined in the Preliminary Grading & Storm Drain
Analysis the proposed project would not increase peak Stormwater runoff. This is a less than cumulatively considerable
impact.
Impact 4.10 {Hydrola~y an_d Water Quality}: Cumulative Impacts Related to Degradation of Water Quality
Statement of Facts: Construction of the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative increase in urban pollutant
loading, which could adversely affect water quality. Cumulative development in the Qroviile area, including the
proposed project, would also result in increased impervious surfaces that could increase the rate and amount of runoff,
thereby potentially adversely affecting existing surface water quality through increased erosion and sedimentation. The
primary sources of water pollution include: runoff from roadways and parking lots; runoff from landscaping areas; non-
stormwaterconnections to the drainage system; accidental spills; and illegal dumping. Runoff from roadway and parking
lots could contain oil, grease, and heavy metals; additionally, runoff from landscaped areas could contain elevated
concentrations of nutrients, fertilizers, and pesticides.
The proposed project will be required to comply with County Cade Chapter 50 which was implemented in order to
protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses and water bodies within the unincorporated County. Stormwater
will be managed through a comprehensive system of storm drain pipes, insets and outlets, swales, and basins. Prior to
runoff being discharged from the project site, Stormwater treatment would be provided on site through implementation
of best management practices (BMPs) approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB)
and consistent with County approved design criteria. Such BMPs will include site design measures, as well as source
control and treatment measures.
Compliance with Chapter 50, approval from CVRWQCB and Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would ensure that the project
results in a less than cumulatively considerable impact to surface water quality.
Im act 4.11 Land Use and Po uiation :Cumulative lmpact on Communities and Local Land IJses
Statement of Facts: Cumulative land use impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and
consistency with adapted plans and regulations, are typically site- and project-specific. Prior to project authorization,
Butte County would rezone portions of the project site to allow for a -REC overlay to designate the site for the land uses
proposed by the project applicant. The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with applicable aspects of
the County's General Plan, and as described in this EIR, the proposed project would not be incompatible with any of the
surrounding land uses. As such, the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact relative
to this topic.
Impact 4.12 (Land Use and_Populatianl: Cumulative Impacts on Population and Housing
Statement of Facts: As described in Section 3.10, there are no existing homes or other types of residential structures on
the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace any persons or existing housing. As such, the proposed project
would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on population and housing.
Impact 4.13__ Noise :Cumulative Exposure of Existing and Future Noise- Sensitive Land Uses to Increased Noise Resulting
from Cumulative Development
Statement of Facts: Noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise
environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. The total noise impact of the proposed project would
be fairly small and would not be a substantial increase to the existing future noise environment.
Traffic Noise: Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to
the proposed project and other projects within the area. Tables 3.11-10 in Section 3.11 show cumulative traffic noise
levels with and without the proposed project.
Under cumulative conditions, there would not be significant increases in noise levels compared to the no project
conditions. However, the 60, 65 and 70 dB Ldn contours would extend farther under cumulative conditions and
potentially impact additional sensitive receptors. As shown, the proposed project would contribute no more than 0.7 dB
Ldn to noise levels on roadways fronting residential uses along the study area roadways. Additionally, the proposed
project would not cause new exceedances of the Butte County 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard. Therefore, the
project would not have a considerable contribution to potentially significant cumulative traffic noise impacts.
Non-Traffic Norse: The proposed project would include maintenance activities associated with the proposed golf course.
As discussed earlier these noise levels will comply with the Butte County exterior noise level limits at the nearest existing
noise-sensitive receptors. Consequently, this would not significantly add to any cumulative noise levels and would result
in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative stationary noise levels.
Im act 4.14 Public Services :Cumulative Impact on Public Services
Statement of Facts: Implementation of the proposed project would contribute toward an increased demand far public
services and facilities within the Butte County Sheriffs Office I;BCSO), Butte County Fire Department (BCFD), Feather
River Recreation and Parks District (FRRPDJ, Oroville City Elementary School District and the Oroville Union High School
District. Public service and facility related to the Sheriff's Office and Fire Department needs for Butte County have been
evaluated in the Butte County General Plan, and the goals and policies included in the General Plan ensure that
adequate services will be available for build-out of the General Plan according to the current Land Use Map. It has been
determined that the impacts to these public services and facilities (Sheriff s Office and Fire Department) as a result of
the proposed project would be less-than-significant.
Because this project does not create an additional permanent population to the County, impacts to schools is not
applicable as no students would be in need of school facilities. Additionally, the proposed project does not result in
additional residents to the FRRPD service area so there would not be a need for additional park lands. It is also noted
that the proposed project would increase the amount of recreational facilities in the County with the development of
the proposed golf course resort.
The County collects development impact fees from new development. These fees include an impact fee for fire, police,
schools, and parks. The project also includes the dedication of a one acre site for a future fire station. Payment of the
applicable impact fees by the project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes,
and other revenues generated by the proposed project, would assist in the maintaining of existing fire and sheriff
facilities. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
Impact 4,15 (Transportation and Circulatio~Cumulative Impact on the Transportation Network.
Statement of Facts: The traffic operations analysis showed that the cumulative plus project conditions would not cause
an increase in traffic on roadways that would cause traffic operations to degrade to an unacceptable level of service. The
traffic signal warrant analysis showed that signal warrants are not met for the AM or PM peak hours at the study
intersections. The proposed project doesn't change the bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities in the area. The traffic
operations analysis shaved that cumulative plus project traffic at the 5R 162/Gold Country Casino access degrades from
LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour with the addition of project related traffic. This is a potentially significant
impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 all project traffic impacts under the Cumulative plus Proposed
Project scenario would not surpass the LOS thresholds established by Butte County and Caltrans. As such, this is
considered a less than cumulatively considerable impact after mitigation.
lmgact 4.16 (Utilities and Service Systems): Cumulative Impact on Wastewater Utilities.
Statement of Facts: As described under Impact 3.14-1, there is currently adequate capacity within LOAPUD's wastewater
collection system and the SC-OR WWTP to receive and treat all of the wastewater generated by the proposed project.
The wastewater treatment plant operated by SC-OR has a design capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day ~mgdJ, average
dry weather flow, and current wastewater flows of approximately 3.2 mgd, leaving a surplus capacity of approximately
3.3 mgd under average dry weather flow. The Butte LAFCo Wastewater MSR for SC-OR indicates that at the historical
growth rate of approximately 227 EDUs per year, the SC-OR WWTP has approximately 12 years of dry weather capacity
before expansion would be required. Based upon population growth estimates supplied by the member entities
[LAOPUD, TID and the City of Oroville), SC-0R has projected that their wastewater treatment plant will need to have
treatment capacity for approximately 32,179 EDUs by 2030.
Implementation of the proposed project would add about 28,285 gpd or 0.028 mgd of average dry weather flow
wastewater to the existing LOAPUD and SC-OR system. This would increase the current flaw of approximately 3.2 mgd
average dry weather flow, which is far less than the 6.2 mgd average dry weather flaw permitted. individually, this
increase would not result in adverse effects to the wastewater conveyance or treatment system. While the project by
itself does not exceed the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, the proposed project in combination
with future projects under buildout conditions within the three member agency jurisdictions [LOAPUD, TWSD, and City
of Oroville) would likely result in a deficit of capacity warranting improvements to increase treatment capacity. Each
project that receives wastewater collection and treatment services is required to pay a connection fee, which serves as a
project share of service expansion. SC-OR has a policy with member agencies of first come, first served for unused
capacity. The proposed project would be required to pay a connection fee for its share. With the appropriate payment of
a connection fee to SC-OR, the project's cumulative impact to wastewater services is less than cumulatively
considerable.
Impact 4.17 (Utilities and Ser~ice_S stems :Cumulative Impact on Water Utilities.
Statement of Facts: As described under Impact 3.14-2 in Section 3.14, the total projected water demand far the
proposed project at buildout is estimated to be approximately 391.57 acre-feet per year [af/yr). Based on the analysis
described under impact 3.14-2, SFWPA existing water supplies [potable and non-potable) are sufficient to meet the
SFWPA existing and projected future water demands, including those future water demands associated with the
proposed project, to the year 2030 under all hydrologic conditions [normal years and dry years). Therefore, the
proposed project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact to water supplies, and no new water
production, treatment or extraction facilities would be required to serve the proposed project other than those
identified in the project description.
Impact 4.1$ iUtilities and Service Systems): Cumulative Impact on Solid Waste Utilities.
Statement of Facts: As described under Impact 3.14-3 in Section 3.14, the Butte County General Plan EIR determined
that the Neal Road Landfill had adequate capacity to meet the County's population projections through the 2030
General Plan time period. Permitted maximum disposal at the Neal Road Landfill is 1,500 tans per day. The total design
capacity of the Neal Road Facility is approximately 25,271,900 cubic yards. As of March 2011, the remaining capacity is
20,153,657 cubic yards. Based on current trends, Butte County Public Works Department estimates landfill capacity until
approximately 2059. The addition of the volume of solid waste associated with the proposed project to the landfill
would not exceed the landfill's remaining capacity.
Consistent with best practices, the proposed project includes the development of a Sustainable Waste Management
Plan that is intended to assist in the reduction of solid waste from project operations. The proposed project is also
required to comply with Policy P11.2 which states that all construction sites shall provide for the salvage, reuse, or
recycling of construction and demolition materials. As a result, this is a less than cumulatively considerable impact.
2. Cumulatively Considerable Impacts
Im act 4.1 Aesthetics :The proposed project has the potential to cumulatively degrade the existing visual character of
the region. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status qua, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The E1R identified that implementation of the proposed project would convert the project site from
its existing rural character to a developed golf resort and hotel complex with various buildings, landscaping, and parking
areas. Project implementation would change the existing unaltered scenic qualities that the project site provides to
viewers and is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the Butte County General Plan could result in changes to the visual character
and quality of Butte County through development of undeveloped areas and/or changes to the character of existing
communities. Development of this project, in addition to other future projects in the County, would change the existing
visual and scenic qualities of the County. There are no mitigation measures that could reduce this impact. As such, this is
considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact. See Findings far Overriding
Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
Im act 4.3 Air ualit :The proposed project has the potentia! to cumulatively impact the region's air quality. This is a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The ElR identified that under buildout conditions in the Butte County General Plan, the N5VA6 would
continue to experience increases in criteria pollutants and efforts to improve air quality throughout the basin would be
hindered. Butte County has a state designation of nanattainment for Ozone, PM1D, and PM2.5. The County has a
national designation of nanattainment for ozone and PM2.5. The proposed project would result in increased emissions
primarily from vehicle miles travelled associated with project implementation. Project generated emissions of ROG,
NOx, and PM10 are below all thresholds of significance throughout the project operational phase under unmitigated and
mitigated conditions. PM2.5 emissions are insignificant under both unmitigated and mitigated conditions. Construction
activities would increase emissions ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The emissions model showed that ROG emissions are
projected to fall below the BCAQMD threshold of significance. The emissions model also showed that NOx and PM10
emissions are projected to exceed the threshold of significance during construction. While, the proposed project will
implement the BCAQMD mitigation measures that are intended to minimize emissions from equipment combustion and
fugitive dust, the proposed project was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to construction
related emissions even with mitigation measures. As such, implementation a# the proposed project would have a
cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact from construction emissions. See Findings far
Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution far the project, incorporated herein by reference.
Im act 4.4 Biolo ical Resources :The proposed project has the potential to result in a cumulative loss of biological
resources including habitats and special status species. This is a potentially significant impact.
Miti ation Ado ted b the Count No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The EIR identi#ied under cumulative conditions, buildout of the Butte County General Plan will result
in impacts to biological resources in Butte County through new and existing development. The General Plan includes
policies that are designed to minimize impacts to the extent feasible. Construction activities an the project site have the
potential to result in impacts to special-status species in the region. There are na known special-status species that have
been observed on the project site, although there are two plants and one wildlife species that are assumed present. The
project site also provides migratory deer habitat and protected aquatic habitat. Mitigation measures will be
implemented to minimize impacts to biological resources to the extent feasible. However, development of this project,
in addition to other future projects in the County, would impact biological resources. There are no mitigation measures
that could fully reduce this impact. As such, this is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and
unavoidable impact. See Findings for Overriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated
herein by reference.
Impact 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and _Climate Chaneel: The proposed project has the potential to have a
cumulative impact on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions. This is a potentially
significant impact.
Miti ation Ado ted b the Count No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Findings: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities as compared to the status quo, warrant the acceptance of this significant impact. The only methods
available to avoid this impact would be denial of the project.
Statement of Fact: The EIR identified that greenhouse gas emissions from a single project will not cause global climate
change; however, greenhouse gas emission from multiple projects throughout a region or state could result in a
cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Implementation of Project Commitments and Mitigation
Measures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 would reduce operational and construction-related greenhouse gas emissions to the extent
feasible. While, the proposed project will implement the Project Commitments and mitigation measures that are
intended to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project was determined to have a significant and
unavoidable impact relative to greenhouse gas emissions even with mitigation measures. As such, implementation of
the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact. See Findings for
Qverriding Considerations in the Approval Resolution for the project, incorporated herein by reference.
X. f1NDiNGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Requirements Under CEClA
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the
location of the project. However, an 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 CEQA Guidelines and by the range of significant impacts identified in the DEIR, and evaluated alternatives
were limited to those that theoretically could have reduced or eliminated identified environmental impacts. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to a project or to the location of
the project which 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. An EIR need not consider alternatives which are infeasible. For this
project, several alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR Section 5.0 Alternatives.
B. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to
the proposed project. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit
recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. No specific alternatives were
recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the NOP public review process. There were no
alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration.
C. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The Draft EIR examines five project alternatives, at level of detail consistent with the requirements of CEC~. A summary
comparison of the alternatives is provided in Table 5.0-2 of the Draft EIR and is included herein. An analysis of each
alternative is provided in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR.
1. No Project (No Build) Alternative: The CECZA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) require consideration of a no
project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to
occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project
(No Build), development of the project site would not occur, and the project site would remain in its current
existing vacant condition. It is noted that the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the project
objectives identified by the project applicant.
2. Alternative Location: This alternative would address potential impacts associated with development of the
project, as currently proposed by the applicant, at a location other than the currently proposed project site. For
this alternative, the alternative location is within the existing Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan (SMSP) area.
The SMSP is 171.6 acres in size. The Hotel and Wellness Center will not be relocated as it is already a part of the
SMSP. Table 5.0-1 in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR identifies the land by APN, General Plan land use designation
and zoning designation for the Alternative Location.
The Alternative Location is similar to the project site in topography and elevations run from 1,220 to 1,680 feet
MSL. The Alternative Location is vacant undeveloped land and is bordered by State Highway 162 to the
northwest and Forbestown Road to the west. The provision of public services =i.e. law enforcement, fire service,
etc.) is the same as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Alternative Location would need
the following discretionary approvals:
^ Specific plan amendment adding the -REC overlay far the golf course portion of the site;
^ Zoning change adding the -REC overlay for the golf course portion of the site;
^ Minor Use Permit pursuant to the -REC for the Golf Course (inclusive of all golf course facilities);
^ Approval of a Use Permit for the Hotel Complex and Wellness Center under Phase 1 of the Stringtown
Mountain Specific Plan pursuant to Resolution 94-114;
^ Approval of the Sphere of Influence Amendment for the Lake Oroville Area Public Utilities District;
^ Annexation to the Lake Oroville Area Public Utilities District;
^ Approval of the Sphere of Influence Amendment for the South Feather Water and Power Agency; and
^ Annexation to the South Feather Water and Power Agency.
According to the Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan Draft EIR, the Alternative Location has three intermittent
creeks and vegetation consists of steep rolling blue oak woodland with bunchgrass, annual grassland and
montane hardwood riparian. There are no wetland habitats or freshwater marshes within the Alternative
Location. The Alternative Location drains southerly into Hawk Ravine and to North Huncut Creek. A small portion
of the Alternative Location drains into Loafer Creek, which then drains into Lake Oroville. The Alternative
Location is also in the Critical Deer Habitat Overlay zone.
3. Reduced Project Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed with the same
amenities as described in the Project Description, but size of the buildings would be reduced.
Golf Course Resarr: The proposed project would include a Golf Course Resort located on 437.41 acres of the
project site, which would remain the same. The project amenities will be reduced in size from a total of 29,655
sq. ft. to 15,502 sq. ft. of building area. The short course and driving range would remain the same. Below is a
bulleted list of the Golf Course Resort project facilities and amenities:
^ 18-hole golf course including ponds, streams, natural landscaping, cart paths, and signage;
^ 9-hole kids short course and chart game area with 500 square-fast starter house;
^ Golf Driving Range: 125 yards wide and 330 yards long;
^ Golf Range House: Video Room, Office, and Restroom, and two Exterior Covered Teeing Areas. Reduced
from 800 sq. ft. to 400 sq. ft.;
^ Golf Clubhouse with Golf Shop, Office, Men's and Women's Restrooms/Locker-room, Golf Shop Storage,
Dining Room, Kitchen, Storage Choler Pantry, Domestic Water Heater, Mechanical Interior}, Electrical
Data/Telephone Room, Cart Storage and Recharging, Cart Washing, Cart Repair, Bag Storage, Janitor's
Closet, and General Storage. Reduced from 7,765 sq. ft. to 3,882 sq. ft. The Galf Clubhouse will also have
exterior space for patios, courtyard, covered entry, and service/loading areas. Reduced from 2,900 sq.
ft. to 1,450 sq. ft.;
^ Golf maintenance building with Employee Lounge, Restrooms/Showers, Locker, Office, Gear Washing,
Storage, Mechanics Office, Equipment Storage, Equipment Repair and Service, Janitor's Closet & Utility
Room, and Range Bail Washing. Reduced from 7,715sq. ft. to 3,858 sq. ft. The Golf Maintenance Building
will also have Service Yard & Fencing, Material Bins, Equipment Washing, Equipment Wash/Pump
House, and Fertilizer & Pesticide Storage. Reduced from 10,325 sq. ft. to 5,162 sq. ft.;
^ Nine (9} Golf Cottages with 2 bedroom/2 bathroom, living room, kitchen, and wet bar. Reduced from
1,500 sq. ft. to 750 sq. ft.
Hote! Complex and Wellness Center: The proposed project would include a Hotel Complex and Wellness Center
from Phase 1 of the SMSP. This component is located on approximately 46 acres of the project site. Below is a
bulleted list of the Hotel Complex and Wellness Center facilities and amenities:
^ Hotel Complex: For the Reduced Project alternative, the Hotel Complex would continue to include 82
rooms within lodge units and executive cottage units, but these units were reduced in square footage.
The Hotel Complex will continue to include: Lobby/Entry, Luggage Storage, General Storage, Event
Desk/Reception, Administrative Office, Three Conference/Meeting Rooms, Banquet Facilities, Men's and
Women's Restroom, 2 Business Work Stations, Mechanical/Electrical Room,
Restaurant/Kitchen/Storage, Sports Bar, Paol with Pool House, and Outdoor Seating area. The resort
complex will incorporate natural features such as rock outcroppings, swales, and oak woodland into its
design to be compatible with the area's natural setting. The drainage corridor which runs through the
eastern portion of the Hotel complex is incorporated into the design of the complex. The Hotel Complex
is planned for development under the SMSP Phase 1.
o Thirty-six [36} lodge rooms with 2 bedroom/2 bathroom, living room, small kitchen and eating
area. Rooms reduced from 1,350 sq. ft. to 700 sq. ft.
o Three (3}executive cottages:
0 1} 2 bedroom/2 bathroom/living room/dining room/kitchen. Rooms reduced from 1,979 sq. ft.
to 990 sq. ft.;
0 2} 3 bedroom/3 bathroom/living room/dining room/kitchen. Rooms reduced from 2,142 sq. ft.
to 1,071 sq. ft.;
0 3} 4 bedroom/4 bathroom/living room/dining room/kitchen. Rooms reduced from 2,655 sq. ft.
to 1,328 sq. ft.
^ Wellness Center: For the Reduced Project alternative the Wellness Center would be reduced from
10,000 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. The Wellness Center would continue to include a Reception, Women's
Attendant, Women's Locker/Changing Rooms, Women's Toilet/Showers, Women's Steam Room,
Women's Lounge, Men's, Attendant, Men's Locker/Changing Rooms, Men's Toilet/Showers, Men's
Steam/Sauna, Quiet Lounge, Treatment Roams, Staff Office, Staff Lounge, Storage/Laundry, Misc.
Storage, Mechanical/Indoor, Domestic Hot Water, Electrical Room, Steam Room Equipment, and
Exercise Room. The wellness center will be used in conjunction with the hotel complex. Both facilities
are intended to complement the other in regard to services and amenities offered to guests and
residents. The Wellness Center is planned for development under the SMSP Phase 1.
4. Site Reconfiguration Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed with the
same amenities as described in the Project Description, but the site layout would be reconfigured reducing the
area set aside for the golf course. According to the U.S. EPA, the size of the average 18-hole golf course,
including lakes, ponds, out-of-play areas and hard structure acreage, is 150 acres.l The actual acreage for the
proposed golf course cultivated land is 125 acres. However, the proposed golf course is designed to
accommodate the natural topography making the total land used for the golf course approximately 437.41 acres
in size. The Site Reconfiguration Alternative would reduce total land used to 150 acres. This would allow for an
additional 338 acres of open space bringing the total open space to 924 acres (338 ac. ~ 586 ac.). The golf course
would be located in the same area as the proposed project. All other project components would remain the
same. The layout of the golf course would be more dense, as opposed to the proposed layout which is more
spread out.
5. Hunting Ladge Alternatives Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed with the same
hotel resort and wellness amenities on lands within the SMSP, and the golf course resort would be developed as
a hunting lodge for private recreational use. This hunting lodge would include similar lodging, clubhouse, and
maintenance buildings when compared to the golf course resort, but the landscaping and irrigation associated
with the golf course would be left in a natural state. The 1,132 acre project site would include 1,079 acres of
open space for hunting, seven acres for a hunting lodge, and 46 acres for the hotel and wellness center. As with
the proposed project, this alternative would require the following discretionary approvals:
^ Zoning change adding the -REC overlay for the hunting lodge portion of the site;
^ Minor Use Permit pursuant tothe -REC for the hunting IodgeJ;
^ Approval of a Use Permit for Hotel Complex and Wellness Center under Phase 1 of the Stringtown
Mountain Specific Plan pursuant to Resolution 94-114;
^ Approval of the Sphere of Influence Amendment for the Lake OroviNe Area Public Utilities District;
^ Annexation to the Lake Oroville Area Public Utilities District;
^ Approval of the Sphere of Influence Amendment for the South Feather Water and Power Agency; and
^ Annexation to the South Feather Water and Power Agency.
D, Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
1. Environmentally Superior Alternative: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2J requires the EIR to identify the
environmentally superior alternative. Section 5.q of the Draft EIR identifies the No Project 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, the Hunting Lodge Alternative would be another
environmentally superior alternative because it provides the greatest reduction of potential impacts in
comparison to the proposed project. It should be noted that the Hunting Lodge Alternative does not meet
all of the project objectives. Except noise impacts associated gunfire, this alternative would have a lesser or
equal impact under all impact categories when compared to the proposed project. The table below presents
a comparison of the alternatives to the proposed project.
s U.S. EPA Golf Course Adjustment Factors for Modifying Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations and Estimated Environmental
Concentrations Generated l,y Tier I (FIRST) and Tier 11 (PRZM/EXAMS) Models
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed 1/models/water/golf_course_adj ustment_factors.htm
~_.Y~_a.._~ s n~~..,~.....+:..., o..,.e..r Ir~.»~tc to +hn Drnnnearl DrniPrt
..r_.. -- -• • .•----- ---- - - -
Alternative -
Reduced
Site Reconfiguration
Hunting
Environmental Issue No Build Location Project Lodge
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Less Equal Equal Less Less
Agricultural and Forest Less Equal Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less
Resources
Air Quality Less Equal Slightly Less Greater Less
Biological Resources Less Less Equal Less Less
Cultural Resources Less Less Slightly Less Less Less
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Less Equal Slightly Less Less Less
Resources
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Less Equal Slightly Less Greater Less
Change
Hazards and Hazardous Less Equal Equal Equal Less
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Less Equal Slightly Less Slightly Less Less
Land Use & Population Less Equal Equal Equal Equal
poise Less Equal Equal Equal Greater
Public Services and Recreation Less Equal Equal Equal Equal
Transportation and Circulation Less Equal Equal Equal Slightly Less
Utilities Less Equal Equal Equal Less
2. Preferred Praiect: The Hunting Lodge Alternative is identified as an environmentally superior alternative in
the Draft EIR, but is not recommended by staff as a preferred project. CEQA does not require the County
(the Lead Agency) to select the environmentally superior alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15042-15043)
as a preferred alternative to the proposed project. The Hunting Lodge Alternative has the potential to meet
three of the project objectives, including: establishment of a platform for educational opportunities and
mentoring of children; conservation of natural resources with an emphasis on the natural heritage of the
area in the project design; and demonstration of sustainable design and green building practices. However,
the Hunting Lodge Alternative does not meet alb of the objectives of the proposed project. Specifically, the
Wonting Lodge Alternative does not result in a high quality golf course and hotel resort that will serve
residents and visitors. The Hunting Lodge Alternative also does not provide amenities for golf, lodging,
dining, retail, spa and wellness center, and education. Lastly, the Hunting Lodge Alternative does not
integrate golf course facilities with the existing Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan development and
surrounding natural community. Far these reasons, the Hunting Lodge Alternative is not a preferred
alternative to the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville.
The Alternative Location has the potential to meet five of the project objectives, including: development of a
high quality golf course and hotel resort that will serve residents and visitors; provision of amenities for golf,
lodging, dining, retail, spa and wellness center, and education; establishment of a platform for educational
opportunities and mentoring of children; conservation of natural resources with an emphasis on the natural
heritage of the area in the project design; and demonstration of sustainable design and green building
practice. However, the Alternative Location does not meet al{ of the objectives of the proposed project.
Specifically, the Alternative Location does not integrate the golf course facilities with the existing Stringtown
Mountain Specific Plan development and surrounding natural community, rather it would substitute a golf
course for the other land uses that have been approved in the Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan area. For
these reasons, the Alternative Location is not a preferred alternative to the Golf Resort at Lake Oraville.
The Reduced Project Alternative has the potential to meet five of the project objectives, including:
development of a high quality golf course and hotel resort that will serve residents and visitors;
establishment of a platform for educational opportunities and mentoring of children; conservation of
natural resources with an emphasis on the natural heritage of the area in the project design; demonstration
of sustainable design and green building practices; and integration of the golf course facilities with the
existing Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan development and surrounding natural community. This
alternative partially meets the sixth alternative given that it will include the provisions of amenities for golf,
lodging, dining, retail, spa and wellness center, and education; however, the reduced size of these amenities
does not enable this alternative to fully capture the intent of this project objective and it would not meet
the size requirements of the hotel and wellness center provided in the existing Stringtown Mountain Specific
Plan. For this reason, the Reduced Size Alternative is not a preferred alternative to the Golf Resort at Lake
Oraville.
The Site Reconfiguration has the potential to meet four of the project objectives, including: development of
a high quality golf course and hotel resort that will serve residents and visitors; provision of amenities for
golf, lodging, dining, retail, spa and wellness center, and education; establishment of a platform for
educational opportunities and mentoring of children; and integration of the golf course facilities with the
existing Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan development and surrounding natural community. However, the
Site Recon#iguration Aiternative does not meet all of the objectives of the proposed project. Specifically, the
Site Reconfiguration Aiternative does not result in the conservation of natural resources with an emphasis
on the natural heritage of the area in the project design and it does not demonstrate sustainable design and
green building practices. The proposed project is more spread out because it considers environmental
elements (topography, hydrologic features, habitat, etc.] on the project site and avoids them through the
design. The Site Reconfiguration Alternative would require the design to ignore environmental elements and
focus on the size of the golf course footprint. This will in effect significantly increase grading due to the
topography and will inevitably result in increased impacts to air quality and greenhouse gases during
construction, and will reduce the potential to avoid habitats and hydrologic features. For these reasons, the
Site Reconfiguration Alternative is not a preferred alternative to the Golf Resort at Lake Oroviile.
XI. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Requirerner~ts Under CEQA
1. Section 21081.fi of the California Public Resources Cade, CEQA 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 CEQA 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 Mitigation Measures identified in the Golf Resort at Lake
Oraville EIR.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors:
I. Certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Golf Resort at Lake Oroville project Rezone 12-0001, Use
Permit 12-0006, and Lot Line Adjustments 12-0010 & 12-0011 has been completed in compliance with CEQA,
including the following:
a) 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 23rd day of April , 2013 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wahl, Kirk, Lambert, Teeter, and Chair Connelly
NOES: None
ABSENT: None ~_'/)~
NOTVOTINC: None ,,~ '~+C'r..
BILL CONNELLY, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTE 5T
gy. ,~, iw~ • ~~
Paul H hn of Adm nistrative Officer nd
Clerk of a Board of Supervisors