HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-012 I.,
,1,,,,,ogooy,,„,„0,
„jotomiry,p,w,,,,,,w
' '''''oftev,,,,,w,
' )41141'.
t
',1,1!)0,4 iglio404,, ,tJ,r,,,,lx•w„/:,1,,,,,4,1,0„ie.ofit,iik,,,vpp, „,,topivid,,u,m/ifk,o;,,:ikak,6,,A,,,,,itz,aaid,,,,,,,,Azkelli,x)x.4,4"://iyoif,9
Resoluttio,,I, No, 1,,t,,-012
A ,It ES, ',IAJTIll'N OF T! ,El h TTE Cl UNTY 1,,, hA,1', ll, OF SU ERVISI, ','I) 5, AKING
FINDINGS IF FAC 11,1 IN SUP''''ORT ,,' ,,,F T IE AME H *l, ,h'EN l',', ST'll, G NE , 2',,lh, PLAN 2030 AN*
T,, 1,,1 ZONING OR"'NANCE AN1) 1 T El,' ASS*CIATE lit S11,1 ,1"'PLE l 1,E',I TAIL
ENVIROINMENTAl IMPACT 1! ' PORT, Ill JECTING ALTERNATIVES, Al":OPTII'',,G .„
c, 1,1ITIGATT l'IN MONITIRING ih,ND RE1,10 h ,TING 11' AN,AN), ' A*OPTING A STATE l' ENT
*IF OVER 'DING C IINSII YE,' . 1,1IONS
L Pu l?''POSE AND 11 ACKGRIH UN Y
A. hel,'"rojecht
Butte County has adopted amendments to the Agriculture Element of 1,utte County General Plan 2030, as well
as associated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. These amendments limit the applicability of the County's
300-foot Agricultural Buffer requirement to residential areas that are adjacent to lands zoned Agriculture. The
previous General Plan applied this buffer requirement to residential areas adjacent to any land that is used for
agricultural purposes. The amendme,,ts also allow animal grazing and crop cultivation as an interim use on
parcels at least I-acre in size in all Residential, Commercial, and Industrial zones. The previous Zoning
Ordinance only allowed these uses in Very Low Density Residential (VLIR) zones and, within some mixed use
zones with a, Administrative Permit,.
These findings relate to the 1,utte County General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The project
encompasses all of unincorporated Butte County, including land inside each municipality's Sphere of Influence
(SOI), but not inside municipality limits.
Butte Cott ty lies in north central California at the northeastern end of the Sacramento Valley, approximately
150 miles northeast of San Francisco and 70 miles north of Sacramento. From the northeastern end of the
Sacramento Valley, Butte County extends into the foothills at the confluence of the southern Cascade and the
northern Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. The total land area of Butte County is approximately 1,680 square
miles.
General Plan 2030 provides the fundamental basis for the County's land use, development, and conservation
policy; and represents the basic community values, ideals, and aspirations that will govern the County through
2030. General Plan 2030 addresses all aspects of development, including land use, housing, economic
development, agriculture, water resources, circulation, conservation and open space, health and safety, and
public facilities and services.
The objectives of the General Plan 2030 Amendment carry forward the objectives of General Plan 2030, as
enumerated in the General Plan 2030 Guiding Principles, These objectives are to:
Partner with municipalities, special districts, and unincorporated communities on important regional
planning issues. Furthermore, the County will collaborate with the military to ensure the land uses
within military operating areas (MOAs) are compatible with the military mission.
• Coordinate all modes of transportation with the transportation planning agencies.
• Address areas of urban development for anticipated growth during the next 20 years to meet the
housing needs of Butte County residents.
• Protect the county airports in coordination with the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
• Address the protection, enhancement, utilization, and management of natural resources and the
environment.
• Promote the public's health, safety, and welfare.
• Play a critical role in establishing a positive environment for economic development.
• Address agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County's economy that will be protected,
maintained, promoted, and enhanced.
• Identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will occur in rural areas while protecting
the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources, and the environment.
• Address the need for new parks and recreation opportunities. Cultural resources that are significant
to Butte County's history will be identified and protected.
• Address, identify, and promote ways to maintain or enhance economic opportunity, viability, and
community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment.
• Address where and how the full array of public services and/or facilities will be provided to the
varied and diverse geography of the county.
• Address the protection and management of water resources.
In addition, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment carry forward the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance, which are to:
• Preserve, protect, and enhance the fundamentally rural character of Butte County.
• Protect agricultural lands and associated industries as an important aspect of Butte County's
economy.
• Protect sensitive environmental resources, including conservation areas, habitat for special-status
species, and wetlands.
• Protect the county's water resources.
• Promote an environmentally sustainable pattern of development.
• Promote economic growth and the creation of jobs for Butte County residents.
• Allow for residential, commercial, and industrial growth in a manner consistent with Butte County's
rural character.
• Preserve the quality of life and character of existing residential neighborhoods.
• Protect the public from hazards associated with natural and man-made disasters, including airport-
related hazards.
• Promote and support an efficient multi-modal transportation system.
• Allow for public services and facilities to adequately serve the county population.
• Allow for public participation in government decision-making regarding land use and development
in a manner consistent with State law.
B. Purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., and the
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq., (collectively, CEQA), a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(SEIR) was prepared for the General Plan 2030 and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments to analyze their environmental effects. The Draft SEIR was circulated from June 17,
2015 to August 7, 2015 for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Responses to comments,
together with other information, were prepared and are contained in the Final SEIR. Butte County is the CEQA
Lead Agency for the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The SEIR was prepared by
PlaceWorks for Butte County.
C. Procedural Background
The following is an overview of the environmental review process for General Plan 2030 and the Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
1) Butte County adopted General Plan 2030 and certified its EIR on October 26, 2010.
2) Butte County adopted an amendment to General Plan 2030 and a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
Update and certified an associated SEIR on November 6, 2012.
3) In accordance with section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the County prepared an Initial Study and
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a SEIR and filed it with the Office of Planning and Research(OPR) on
April 1, 2015. The Initial Study and NOP was circulated to the public, local and State agencies, and
other interested parties to solicit comments on the proposed project. Environmental issues and
alternatives raised by comments received on the NOP during the subsequent 30-day public review
period were considered for inclusion in the SEIR. Public and agency comments received on the NOP
were reviewed and incorporated into the Draft SEIR.
4) Upon completion of the Draft SEIR,the County filed a Notice of Completion(NOC) on June 17, 2015
with OPR for project number 2015042004 to begin the public review period. (Pub. Resources Code, §
21161.) Copies of the Draft SEIR were available and circulated for public review.
5) The comment period for the Draft SEIR was from June 17, 2015 to August 7, 2015. During that time,
nine letters were received. In addition,the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive
comments on the Draft SEIR on July 30, 2015.
6) In response to the comments received concerning the Draft SEIR, the Final SEIR was issued on October
30, 2015. The Final SEIR contains copies of all comments received on the Draft SEIR and responses to
those comments. The Final SEIR also contains errata revisions to the Draft SEIR and supplemental
information deemed necessary in response to comments in the Draft SEIR.
7) Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the lead agency provided a written response in the
form of the Final SEIR to all public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR, 10 days prior to certifying
the Final SEIR.
II. THE USE OF A PROGRAM EIR
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This
SEIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to accommodate a
complete analysis of all of the components of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
A Program EIR is an EIR that may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large
project and are related in one of the following ways:
a) Geographically;
b) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions;
c) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of
a continuing program; or
d) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and
having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in a similar way.
e) A Program EIR enables the lead agency to consider broad environmental implications of development at
an early stage in the process; sometimes when the project is still at a conceptual level, recognizing that a series
of actions will occur prior to development. Because they are prepared relatively early on, Program EIRs allow
greater flexibility in dealing with overall development options, basic environmental issues, and cumulative
impacts.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and these findings,the record before the County includes, without limitation,the
following:
1) The EIR for General Plan 2030, which was certified on October 26, 2010;
2) The SEIR for the General Plan 2030 Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Update, which was certified on
November 6, 2012;
3) The Butte County General Plan 2030;
4) The Butte County Zoning Ordinance;
5) The Initial Study and NOP for the SEIR;
6) The Draft SEIR and all appendices to the Draft SEIR;
7) The Final SEIR and all appendices to the Final SEIR;
8) All notices required by CEQA, staff reports, and presentation materials related to General Plan 2030 and
the Zoning Ordinance Amendments;
9) The General Plan 2030 Amendment;
10) The Zoning Ordinance Amendment;
11) All studies conducted for the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments and contained in,
or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft SEIR, or the Final SEIR;
12) All public reports and documents related to the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments
prepared for the County and other agencies;
13) All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and workshops and all
transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance
Amendments,the Draft SEIR, and the Final SEIR;
14) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and ordinances,
including, without limitation, specific plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental
review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documentation relevant to
planned growth in the area; and
15) Any additional items not included above if they are required by law.
IV. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary action for the proposed project involves the following approval by the Board of Supervisors:
1) Adoption of the General Plan 2030 Amendment; and
2) Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
These findings are made by the County pursuant to sections 15091 and 15163(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. The
County is also adopting a"Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
V. GENERAL FINDINGS
A. Terminology of Findings
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified in an
EIR for a proposed project,the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three
allowable conclusions. The first is that"[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR."
The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that"[s]pecific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR."
For purposes of these findings, the term "mitigation measures" shall constitute the "changes or alterations"
discussed above. The term"avoid or substantially lessen" will refer to the effectiveness of one or more of the
mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce an otherwise significant environmental effect to a less-than-
significant level. Although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental
effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant,"these findings will nevertheless fully account
for all such effects identified in the EIR for the proposed project. When an impact remains significant or
potentially significant with mitigation, the findings will generally find that the impact is still "significant."
In the process of adopting mitigation, the County will also be making decisions on whether each mitigation
measure proposed in the EIR 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 the information and
environmental effects as shown in the Final SEIR prior to approving the General Plan 2030 and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments. These findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of Butte County,
which is the lead agency.
C. Changes to the Draft SEIR Do Not Require Recirculation
In the course of responding to comments received during the public review and comment period on the Draft
SEIR, certain portions of the Draft SEIR have been modified and some new information has been added. The
changes made to the Draft SEIR do not result in the existence of:
1) A significant new environmental impact that would result from the General Plan 2030 and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments or an adopted mitigation measure;
2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that is not reduced to a level of less
than significant by adopted mitigation measures;
3) A feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure not adopted that is considerably different from
others analyzed in the Draft SEIR that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments; or
4) Information that indicates that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and
comment on the Draft SEIR.
The County finds that the amplifications and clarifications made to the Draft SEIR do not collectively or
individually constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section
21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. The Board of Supervisors has evaluated whether these
modifications, additions, and changes trigger the thresholds for recirculation. The Board finds that there are no
substantial changes in the proposed project that necessitate revisions of the Draft SEIR, nor has significant new
information become available. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the Draft SEIR
merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in, an adequate Draft SEIR. Having received,
reviewed, and considered the entire record, both written and oral, relating to the General Plan 2030 and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments and the associated Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, the Board finds that the General Plan
2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments fall within the scope of the Draft SEIR analysis and that recirculation
of the Draft SEIR is not required prior to the adoption of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance
Amendments.
D. Evidentiary Basis for Findings
These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the County as described in
Section III.
The references to the Draft SEIR and to the Final SEIR set forth in these findings are for ease of reference and
are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon for these findings.
E. Location and Custodian of Records
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15091,
Butte County is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the County's decision is based, and such documents and other material are located at: Butte County
Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, 95965.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to
the location of the project. However, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose implementation is remote
or speculative. An EIR is required to describe and comparatively evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to a
project, or location of the project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Thus, the range of alternatives
evaluated in the Draft SEIR was dictated by CEQA Guidelines and by the range of significant impacts
identified in the Draft SEIR, and evaluated alternatives were limited to those that theoretically could have
reduced or eliminated identified environmental impacts.
As discussed in the Draft SEIR, the modified project would create new significant impacts in the topics of
agriculture and forestry resources, land use, and noise. Accordingly, two alternatives, in addition to the required
No Project Alternative, were considered and evaluated in the Draft SEIR in Chapter 5 and a summary of their
potential advantages and disadvantages is provided in Draft SEIR Table 5-1.
The Draft SEIR discussed the following alternatives in detail:
A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative;
B. Alternative 2: Intermediate Buffer Alternative; and
C. Alternative 3: Land Use Redesignation Alternative.
Each of these alternatives was evaluated under the same environmental categories as presented for the proposed
project and as identified in Chapter 5 of the Draft SEIR.
Based on the comparison of the relative merits of each alternative compared to the General Plan 2030 and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, each of the alternatives was found to be deficient in meeting the County's
goals and objectives.
The objectives of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments are to:
• Partner with municipalities, special districts, and unincorporated communities on important regional
planning issues. Furthermore, the County will collaborate with the military to ensure the land uses
within military operating areas (MOAs) are compatible with the military mission.
• Coordinate all modes of transportation with the transportation planning agencies.
• Address areas of urban development for anticipated growth during the next 20 years to meet the
housing needs of Butte County residents.
• Protect the county airports in coordination with the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
• Address the protection, enhancement, utilization, and management of natural resources and the
environment.
• Promote the public's health, safety, and welfare.
• Play a critical role in establishing a positive environment for economic development.
• Address agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County's economy that will be protected,
maintained, promoted, and enhanced.
• Identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will occur in rural areas while protecting
the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources, and the environment.
• Address the need for new parks and recreation opportunities. Cultural resources that are significant
to Butte County's history will be identified and protected.
• Address, identify, and promote ways to maintain or enhance economic opportunity, viability, and
community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment.
• Address where and how the full array of public services and/or facilities will be provided to the
varied and diverse geography of the county.
• Address the protection and management of water resources.
• Preserve, protect, and enhance the fundamentally rural character of Butte County.
• Protect agricultural lands and associated industries as an important aspect of Butte County's
economy.
• Protect sensitive environmental resources, including conservation areas, habitat for special-status
species, and wetlands.
• Protect the county's water resources.
• Promote an environmentally sustainable pattern of development.
• Promote economic growth and the creation of jobs for.Butte County residents.
• Allow for residential, commercial, and industrial growth in a manner consistent with Butte County's
rural character.
• Preserve the quality of life and character of existing residential neighborhoods.
• Protect the public from hazards associated with natural and man-made disasters, including airport-
related hazards.
• Promote and support an efficient multi-modal transportation system.
• Allow for public services and facilities to adequately serve the county population.
• Allow for public participation in government decision-making regarding land use and development
in a manner consistent with State law.
Based on the comparative evaluation contained in the Draft SEIR, Alternative 3, the Land Use Redesignation
Alternative, would reduce the magnitude of the most impacts and would be the environmentally superior
alternative.
A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not be
adopted, and the existing Butte County General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance would remain unchanged. The
County's past interpretation of the existing agricultural buffer policy was to only apply it to residential
development that is adjacent to lands that are zoned for agricultural use, and not to lands that are used for
agriculture but not zoned for agriculture. In addition, the existing Zoning Ordinance only applies the
agricultural buffer to lands that are zoned for agriculture. However, because the General Plan sets the
framework for land use regulation in Butte County, it is interpreted in this analysis to supersede the Zoning
Ordinance. It is also interpreted to apply the buffer to all existing agricultural uses regardless of zoning. This
means that any residential development adjacent to an agricultural use would be required to provide a 300-foot
buffer between the development and the agricultural use.
In addition, animal grazing and crop cultivation would only be allowed in the zones that currently permit these
uses in the existing Zoning Ordinance, which are the following:
• Foothill Residential
• Foothill Country Residential
• Rural Residential
• Rural Country Residential
• Very Low Density Residential
• Very Low Density Country Residential
• Mixed Use-1 and-2 (only animal grazing as an interim use prior to development with an
Administrative Permit)
Rejection of Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are technological, social, legal, economic, or other considerations that
make the No Project Alternative infeasible. Specifically, Government Code Section 65860 requires that the
Zoning Ordinance be consistent with the adopted General Plan. Because the existing Zoning Ordinance only
applies the agricultural buffer to lands that are zoned for agriculture, it is inconsistent with the existing General
Plan 2030 policy to apply the buffer to all agricultural uses, regardless of zoning. The Zoning Ordinance was
amended to include the Agricultural Buffer, based upon policy direction and interpretation under the General
Plan, by the Board of Supervisors in 2007.
Consequently, the County rejects Alternative 1 because it is inconsistent with State law.
B. Alternative 2: Intermediate Buffer Alternative
Under this alternative, the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would be adopted as
proposed. In addition, a new General Plan policy and associated Zoning Ordinance regulations would require a
150-foot buffer to be established on property proposed for residential development that is located adjacent to
agricultural uses that are not zoned for agriculture. Therefore, under this alternative, residential development
that is located adjacent to agricultural uses that are zoned for agriculture would be required to provide a 300-
foot buffer, and residential development that is located adjacent to agricultural uses that are not zoned for
agriculture would be required to provide a 150-foot buffer.
In addition, animal grazing and crop cultivation would be allowed as interim uses on parcels at least 1 acre in
size in all Residential, Commercial, and Industrial zones, as proposed by the amendments.
Rejection of Alternative 2: Intermediate Buffer Alternative
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are specific technological, social, legal, economic, or other
considerations that make the Intermediate Buffer Alternative infeasible. Each reason set forth below operates as
an independent basis upon which to reject the Alternative.
Section 5.4 of the Draft SEIR contains detailed information comparing the potential impacts of the General Plan
2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Intermediate Buffer Alternative. The Intermediate Buffer
Alternative would be a slight improvement compared to the proposed amendments with respect to agricultural
and forestry resources and noise. However, the Intermediate Buffer Alternative would not support the project's
objectives to address areas of urban development for anticipated growth during the next 20 years to meet the
housing needs of Butte County residents and to identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will
occur in rural areas while protecting the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources, and the
environment.
The Butte County General Plan 2030 Land Use Map process was extensive and resulted in the identification of
appropriate locations for new development in Butte County. Areas that were designated for agriculture were
intended to remain in agriculture and enjoy the full use of each property for agricultural purposes, and areas that
were designated for residential use were intended to be allowed to enjoy the full use of each property for
residential purposes. The land use map therefore fulfilled the project objectives to address areas of urban
development for anticipated growth during the next 20 years to meet the housing needs of Butte County
residents and to identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will occur in rural areas while
protecting the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources, and the environment.
Requiring a 150-foot buffer on a residential parcel can create significant economic hardships for a property
owner who wishes to develop a small residential subdivision, and can severely limit the use of the property. For
example, in a residential zone that allows 1-acre parcels, a 10-acre square parcel with no buffer requirement
could feasibly subdivide into ten, 1-acre parcels, assuming there were no significant environmental constraints.
A 150-foot setback requirement on one side of that square parcel would remove about 2.3 acres from the
developable area of the parcel, which would reduce its development capacity by 30 percent, from ten homes to
seven.
While the County has determined that such economic hardships are acceptable when the buffer would protect
agricultural uses that it has designated and zoned for agriculture, the General Plan directs these areas primarily
for residential growth based upon allowed density and land uses. There would be no benefit related to protecting
agriculture in these areas since the area is already designated for a non-agricultural use, meaning that it could be
converted to a non-agricultural use regardless of a buffer.
Therefore, the Intermediate Buffer Alternative does not support the land use map, which implements the
General Plan Guiding Principle and project objective to address areas of urban development. Similarly, by not
supporting the land use map,the Intermediate Buffer Alternative also does not support the General Plan
Guiding Principle and project objective to identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will occur
in rural areas while protecting the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources, and the
environment. Because the Intermediate Buffer Alternative does not meet the project objectives and would create
economic hardships for development that the County and its residents have identified as appropriate, it is
considered infeasible.
C. Alternative 3: Land Use Redesignation Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not be
adopted; the 300-foot buffer requirement for residential development adjacent to all agricultural uses, regardless
of zoning, would be maintained, consistent with the adopted General Plan. Instead, certain areas would be
redesignated. Specifically, areas that are currently designated and zoned VLDR(1-acre minimum lot size) and
that have a high proportion of existing agricultural uses would be redesignated and rezoned for Rural
Residential (RR, 5-acre minimum lot size). These are the communities where a 300-foot buffer requirement
adjacent to agricultural uses can be most problematic for development because it is difficult to accommodate a
300-foot buffer on a 1-acre lot. For example, a 1-acre square parcel would only have approximately 210 feet on
each side property line, so the entire parcel would be required to be reserved as a buffer if it were adjacent to an
agricultural use. By redesignating these communities for a lower density (i.e. 5-acre lot size), future
development could accommodate a 300-foot buffer without significant reductions in developable area.
In addition, animal grazing and crop cultivation would only be allowed in the zones that currently permit these
uses in the existing Zoning Ordinance, which are the following:
• Foothill Residential
• Foothill Country Residential
• Rural Residential
• Rural Country Residential
• Very Low Density Residential
• Very Low Density Country Residential
• Mixed Use-1 and -2 (only animal grazing as an interim use prior to development with an
Administrative Permit)
Rejection of Alternative 3: Land Use Redesignation Alternative
The Board of Supervisors finds that there are specific technological, social, legal, economic, or other
considerations that make the Land Use Redesignation Alternative infeasible. Each reason set forth below
operates as an independent basis upon which to reject the Alternative.
Section 5.5 of the Draft SEIR contains detailed information comparing the potential impacts of the General Plan
2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Land Use Redesignation Alternative. The Draft SEIR finds the
Land Use Redesignation Alternative to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. By maintaining a 300-foot
buffer requirement for residential development adjacent to agricultural uses, regardless of zoning, and by only
allowing animal grazing and crop cultivation in low density residential and Mixed Use zones, impacts related to
agriculture, land use, and noise would be reduced.
However, as described in the rejection of Alternative 2, the process to create the Butte County General Plan
2030 Land Use Map was extensive and resulted in the identification of appropriate locations for new
development in Butte County. The process fulfilled the project objectives to address areas of urban development
for anticipated growth during the next 20 years to meet the housing needs of Butte County residents and to
identify appropriate locations and the type of growth that will occur in rural areas while protecting the
integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources, and the environment. The General Plan Update
process included 27 meetings with the General Plans Citizens Advisory Committee, a group of 34 Butte County
citizens that were selected by the Board of Supervisors to oversee the General Plan 2030 process, as well as 24
additional workshops and community meetings at various locations across Butte County, most of which were
focused on land use and related aspects of the General Plan. The 2012 amendment to the General Plan included
additional public workshops and public meetings with the Planning Commission and Citizens Advisory
Committee.
After the extensive public process to create the General Plan 2030 Land Use Map, which was finalized just
three years ago, changing the land use designations through a County-lead process to reduce issues related to
the agricultural buffer policy would not support the project objective to allow for public participation in
government decision-making regarding land use and development.
Therefore, the Land Use Redesignation Alternative does not meet the project objectives and is considered
infeasible.
VII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 6.1 of the Draft SEIR presents the growth-inducing impacts that can be anticipated from adoption and
implementation of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Section 15126(d) of the CEQA
Guidelines requires that an EIR address the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed action. Not all growth
inducement is necessarily negative.Negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the
projected growth would cause adverse environmental impacts.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should discuss the ways in which the General Plan 2030 and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments could foster economic or population growth. Growth-inducing impacts fall into
two general categories: direct and indirect. Direct growth-inducing impacts generally result from the extension
of urban services to an undeveloped area, which can serve to induce landowners in the vicinity to convert their
properties to urban uses. Indirect, or secondary, growth- inducing impacts refer to growth induced by additional
demands for housing, goods, and services associated with the population increase caused by, or attracted to, a
new project.
Direct Impacts
The proposed General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not directly induce growth because
they would not bring development or urban services to an undeveloped area. Although the proposed change to
Policy AG-P5.3 would allow residential development in areas that would have been used as a buffer under the
adopted General Plan, the adopted General Plan would have already allowed new homes on the remainder of
the parcel. Simply extending the developable area by 300 feet would not increase the direct growth-inducing
impacts of the adopted General Plan because the homes would be on the parcel regardless of this change.
Furthermore,the proposed General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments do not change land use
designations to allow urban uses in an undeveloped area.
Indirect Impacts
As described above, indirect growth-inducing impacts in the region result from additional demands for housing,
goods, and services associated with the population increase caused by or attracted to a new project. The General
Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments change policies and regulations, but they do not change the
General Plan Land Use Map, zoning map, or the amount of development anticipated to occur by the General
Plan horizon year of 2030 (i.e., the amount of development evaluated in the 2010 General Plan 2030 EIR and
2012 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Update SEIR). Although the proposed General Plan
Amendment would limit the applicability of the 300-foot Agricultural Buffer, which could lead to increased
opportunities for residential development,the 300-foot Agricultural Buffer was not factored into the projected
2030 buildout of General Plan 2030 (see pages 3-39 to 3-55 of the 2010 Draft EIR). Therefore, the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not increase the development capacity, so they would
not increase the population in Butte County. The 2010 General Plan 2030 EIR and 2012 General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Update SEIR already accounted for the development potential of residential
development without taking into account reductions for the agricultural buffer. Therefore, the proposed
amendments would not result in additional demands for housing, goods, and services associated with a
population increase beyond what was evaluated for the adopted General Plan.
Finding Concerning Growth Inducing Impacts
Direct Impacts
The General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not bring development or urban services to
an undeveloped area, nor would they change land use designations to allow urban uses in an undeveloped area.
Therefore, they would not change the direct growth-inducing impacts of the adopted General Plan 2030 and
Zoning Ordinance, and they would remain less than significant.
Indirect Impacts
The General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not result in additional demands for housing,
goods, and services associated with a population increase beyond what was evaluated for the adopted General
Plan. Therefore, they would not change the indirect growth-inducing impacts of the adopted General Plan 2030
and Zoning Ordinance, and they would remain less than significant.
VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The Initial Study and SEIR identify the thresholds of significance utilized to determine the impacts in the
various resource categories discussed below. The Initial Study and EIR find that there are less-than-significant
environmental impacts in the following subject areas:
• Aesthetics and Visual Resources
• Air Quality
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geologic Processes
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
The County is not required to adopt mitigation measures or adopt policies or regulations as part of the General
Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments for impacts that are less than significant.
The SEIR identifies one significant impact that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level:
•
Impact AG-2: The Modified Project could conflict with Williamson Act contracts on approximately 1,630
acres.
Mitigation Adopted by the County:
Mitigation Measure AG-2: Adopt a new Policy AG-P5.3.3 in the Agriculture Element of the General
Plan that states: "The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed
for residential development requiring discretionary approval in order to protect existing Williamson Act
contracts (i.e. those contracts that are in effect at the time of adoption of the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment) from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard
shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Adopt associated Zoning
Ordinance requirements to implement this buffer requirement. In addition, update the
Agricultural/Residential Buffer Implementation Guidelines, which provide guidance regarding unusual
circumstances, as needed to implement the General Plan policy.
Finding: Mitigation Measure AG-2 will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding: Per the County's Williamson Act program,the County
will not approve new Williamson Act contracts on non-agriculturally designated land, so this policy will
apply to existing contracts only. Through the discretionary approval process, the County can impose
specific conditions of approval to address site-specific land use conflicts between residential and
agricultural uses. The 300-foot buffer requirement would limit the effects of adjacent residential
development on agricultural operations on a parcel under a Williamson Act contract, which would
reduce the likelihood that the farmer would take their land out of production. This mitigation measure
would re-establish the same buffer requirement as under the adopted General Plan for parcels under
Williamson Act contracts, thus mitigating this impact of the Modified Project to a less-than-significant
level.
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The SEIR sets forth environmental effects of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments that
would be significant and unavoidable. These impacts cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant
level even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures proposed in the SEIR. In adopting these
findings, the County also adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the economic, social,
and other benefits of the proposed project that will render these significant effects acceptable.
A. Land Use
Impact LU-2: The Modified Project would be inconsistent with the General Plan, which could cause land
use compatibility conflicts.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact LU-2 will be significant and unavoidable. The County finds that there are no feasible
mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that would reduce the impact to less than
significant. To the extent that this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or eliminated, the
County finds that specific economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding: This land use impact would result from the proposed
change to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow animal grazing and crop cultivation as an
interim use on parcels at least 1 acre in size in all residential, commercial, and industrial zones (i.e., new
agricultural uses within existing communities). The County considered mitigating the impact by
requiring a buffer between agricultural and urban uses when new agriculture would be located adjacent
to an existing urban use. Because the impact is caused by new agricultural uses being developed within
existing communities, the Agricultural Buffer would need to be provided by the agricultural use, as
opposed to providing the buffer on the developing parcel as required by existing Policy AG-P5.3. A
300-foot buffer requirement on a 1-acre parcel could make the parcel unusable, depending on its
configuration. For example, a 1-acre square parcel would be approximately 210 feet on each parcel line;
if a 300-foot buffer were required on one property line,there would be no land available for animal
grazing or crop cultivation.
Furthermore, establishing limitations on agricultural activity contradicts the County's long-standing
policy to conserve,protect, enhance, and encourage agricultural operations. The Butte County Right to
Farm Ordinance, which is described in the Draft SEIR, states agricultural operations shall not be
considered a nuisance, and requires annual notification to all property owners in Butte County that
residents or users of properties near agricultural operations should be prepared to accept inconveniences
or discomforts as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and
an active agricultural sector. This Right to Farm Ordinance also supports interim agricultural uses on
parcels designated and zoned for residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
This policy to conserve, protect, enhance, and encourage agricultural operations is also called out as a
guiding principle in General Plan 2030: "The General Plan addresses agriculture as an important aspect
of Butte County's economy that will be protected, maintained, promoted, and enhanced." This guiding
principle was also a project objective in the 2010 General Plan EIR and the 2012 General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Update SEIR, and is maintained as a project objective in this SEIR
for the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
The benefit of reducing land use compatibility conflicts does not outweigh this mitigation measure's
economic burden on farmers and associated conflict with existing County policies and inconsistency
with Butte County culture. Therefore, the County rejects this mitigation measure. No other mitigation
measures were identified to mitigate this impact. Consequently,this impact is considered significant and
unavoidable.
B. Noise
Impact NOI-1: The Modified Project could result in the exposure of residential uses to agricultural noise levels that
exceed the maximum allowable noise exposure to noise sensitive interior and exterior areas identified
in the Butte County General Plan and Noise Control Ordinance.
Mitigation Adopted by the County: No feasible mitigation is available.
Finding: Impact NOI-1 will be significant and unavoidable. The County finds that there are no
feasible mitigation measures that the County could adopt at this time that would reduce the impact to
less than significant. To the extent that this adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or
eliminated, the County finds that specific economic, social, and other benefits identified in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations support the approval of the proposed Project.
Facts and Reasoning that Support Finding: The County considered three potential mitigation
measures, but rejected them as infeasible as described below.
Agricultural Buffers: Maintaining the General Plan 2030 Policy AG-P5.3 as adopted, and changing the
Zoning Ordinance to apply the 300-foot buffer requirement to all agricultural uses, regardless of the land
use designation or zone, would increase the distance between existing or new sensitive receptors and
existing or new agricultural uses. Although noise attenuates with distance, meaning that a 300-foot
buffer would reduce noise exposure for sensitive receptors,the 300-foot buffer requirement was never
intended to mitigate potential noise impacts. Rather, it was intended to protect agricultural lands; by
avoiding land use compatibility issues, such as noise, dust, and odors, resulting from residential uses
directly adjacent to agricultural uses, farmers would not suffer from nuisance complaints and other
issues that could eventually lead them to take their land out of production.
Requiring a buffer in order to mitigate noise impacts from agricultural operations conflicts with County
policies and regulations that explicitly exclude agricultural operations from what is considered a
nuisance and from adopted noise standards. The Butte County Right to Farm Ordinance states that
agricultural operations shall not be considered a nuisance. Under this Ordinance, all property owners in
Butte County receive an annual notice that residents or users of properties near agricultural operations
should be prepared to accept inconveniences or discomforts—including noise—as a normal and
necessary aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and an active agricultural sector. This
disclosure is also provided to all purchasers of real property in unincorporated Butte County, as well as
all development approvals on or adjacent to agricultural land. In addition, the Butte County Noise
Control Ordinance exempts agricultural operations from its standards.
County staff and the Board of Supervisors have a long-standing practice to apply existing Agricultural
Buffer setback requirements to residential development that is adjacent to lands that are zoned for
agricultural use, and not to lands that are used for agriculture but not zoned for agriculture. This practice
is rooted in the premise that the General Plan land use map is the foundation for governing land uses in
Butte County. Areas that are designated for agriculture should remain in agriculture and enjoy the full
use of each property for agricultural purposes, and areas that are designated for residential use should be
allowed to enjoy the full use of each property for residential purposes. Establishing a 300-foot buffer
requirement on a residential parcel can create significant economic hardships for a property owner who
wishes to develop a small residential subdivision and can severely limit the use of the property. For
example, in a residential zone that allows 1-acre parcels, a 10-acre square parcel with no buffer
requirement could feasibly subdivide into ten 1-acre parcels, assuming there were no significant
environmental constraints. A 300-foot setback requirement on one side of that square parcel would
remove about 4.5 acres from the developable area of the parcel, which would reduce its development
capacity in half, from ten homes to five.
While the County has determined that such economic hardships are acceptable when the buffer would
protect agricultural uses that it has designated and zoned for agriculture, the General Plan directs these
areas primarily for residential growth based upon allowed density and land uses. There would be no
benefit related to protecting agriculture since the area is already designated for a non-agricultural use,
meaning that it could be converted to a non-agricultural use regardless of a buffer. Furthermore, the
County has clearly exempted agricultural operations from what it considers a nuisance and from adopted
noise standards, as discussed above. Given that the economic hardships would outweigh the exposure of
sensitive receptors to noise and that the County has exempted agricultural operations from nuisance
complaints and noise standards, the County rejects this mitigation measure as infeasible.
Acoustical Studies and Design Mitigation: The General Plan Health and Safety Element includes
Policy HS-P1.6, which requires applicants proposing new noise-producing development near existing or
planned noise-sensitive uses to provide an acoustical study and include design features to mitigate
impacts on noise-sensitive uses. The County considered a mitigation measure that would establish
similar requirements for new residential development located adjacent to existing agricultural operations
when no buffer is required (i.e., place the burden for mitigation on new noise-sensitive uses). However,
such acoustical studies are a significant expense, particularly for individual landowners with small
subdivision projects; they can cost in the range of$4,000 to $5,000 for screening-level evaluations of
basic sound insulation parameters up to $10,000 to $15,000 or more for detailed
engineering/architectural design review studies and building permit documentation support efforts.
In addition, although resulting mitigation for interior noise levels would likely be reasonable, such as
through sound insulation features and high-transmission-loss windows, mitigation to meet the outdoor
noise level standards would likely include sound walls, which do not fit with the rural character of Butte
County. They would be an eyesore to many people and could reduce pedestrian and bicycle access into
and out of the subdivision.
Furthermore,the noise generated by agricultural activity is often seasonal and temporary. Plus, as
discussed in the consideration of agricultural buffers as mitigation above, new homeowners in areas
adjacent to agricultural operations would be required to sign a Right to Farm disclosure, and the County
has clearly established that noise from agricultural operations shall not be considered a nuisance, is
exempt from its Noise Control Ordinance, and is a normal and necessary aspect of living in a county
with a strong rural character and an active agricultural sector. The benefit of reducing a seasonal and
temporary noise impact does not outweigh this mitigation measure's economic burdens,potential
aesthetic and accessibility impacts, and conflicts with existing County policies. Therefore, the County
rejects this mitigation measure as infeasible.
Sound Suppression and Barriers for Agricultural Operations: Agricultural operations are exempt
from the Noise Control Ordinance. This mitigation measure would remove the exemption when an
agricultural activity is located in a non-agricultural zone, meaning that the farmer would be required to
implement measures that would ensure that the agricultural activity generates noise that is within the
standards identified in the Noise Control Ordinance. This would likely involve sound suppression in
agricultural equipment and machinery and/or installing temporary or semi-permanent sound barriers on
the site in order to reduce noise to the applicable noise standards.
Such requirements would increase operating costs for farmers in Butte County. Costs for the noise
suppression of individual agricultural equipment items would vary, depending on the type and usage of
each item, as well as on the necessary amount of sound reduction. For example, costs for the installation
of an improved exhaust muffler could be a few hundred dollars, while costs for the installation of a
complete engine cowling/enclosure system could easily be in the thousands of dollars per machine.
Temporary acoustic sound barriers, depending on manufacturer, can cost anywhere between $3.00 to
$18.00 per square foot."2 Semi-permanent or permanent sound barriers—taking into account
foundations, seismic considerations, design costs, installation, and materials—could easily necessitate
multiplication factors of 1.5x or 2x to the costs of a similarly-sized temporary barrier.
These types of additional costs contradict the County's long-standing policy to conserve, protect,
enhance, and encourage agricultural operations. Not only is this policy described in the County's Right
to Farm Ordinance as discussed above, it is also called out as a guiding principle in General Plan 2030:
"The General Plan addresses agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County's economy that will be
protected, maintained, promoted, and enhanced." This guiding principle was also a project objective in
the 2010 General Plan EIR and the 2012 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Update SEIR,
and is maintained as a project objective in this SEIR for the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments.
The benefit of reducing a seasonal and temporary noise impact does not outweigh this mitigation
measure's economic burden on farmers and associated conflict with existing County policies. Therefore,
the County rejects this mitigation measure as infeasible.
In summary, no viable mitigation measures that are consistent with the body of Butte County policies
Ashley,Jim.Sales Manager,Acoustiblok. Personal communication with Alex Lopez, PlaceWorks,on May 26, 2015.
2 Berg,Kyle.Sales/Account Manager,Acoustical Surface, Inc. Personal communication with Alex Lopez, PlaceWorks,on May 26, 2015.
and established agricultural development practices were found that would reduce this noise-related
impact to being less than significant. Consequently, this impact is considered significant and
unavoidable.
X. FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OF MITIGATION MEASURES
As described in Section VIII above, mitigation is provided for one significant impact in the SEIR. Mitigation
Measure AG-2 is found to mitigate the agricultural and forestry resources impact to a less-than-significant level.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared for the General Plan 2030 and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments, and is included in the Final SEIR. The Board of Supervisors adopts Mitigation
Measure AG-2 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that applies to this mitigation. The Board
finds that the Plan is the best approach for the County to enforce the mitigation.
XI. FINDINGS RELATED TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the potential cumulative impacts that could result from a proposed
project in conjunction with other projects in the vicinity. Such impacts can occur when two or more individual
effects create a considerable environmental impact or compound other environmental consequences. In the case
of countywide planning documents such as the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, cumulative effects are
effects that combine impacts from implementation of the Project in the unincorporated county with effects of
development in other portions of the region, including the incorporated municipalities and the surrounding
counties.
In addition to activities within unincorporated Butte County as evaluated in the SEIR, the cumulative analyses
evaluate aggregated impacts from projected development in the incorporated municipalities of Butte County
and adjacent counties. The cumulative analyses consider anticipated levels of growth and development within
the following jurisdictions:
• Municipalities in Butte County:
- City of Biggs
- City of Chico
- City of Gridley
- City of Oroville
- Town of Paradise
• Adjacent Counties:
- Colusa County
- Glenn County
- Plumas County
- Sutter County
- Tehama County
- Yuba County
• Adjacent Municipalities:
- City of Colusa
- City of Corning
- City of Live Oak
- City of Marysville
- City of Orland
- City of Portola
- City of Red Bluff
- City of Tehama
- City of Wheatland
- City of Williams
- City of Willows
- City of Yuba City
The SEIR found no significant cumulative impacts.
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Introduction
In determining whether to adopt the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments, CEQA requires a
public agency to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks. (CEQA
Guidelines, section 15093). In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines
section 15093, the Board of Supervisors has, in determining whether or not to adopt the General Plan 2030 and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, balanced the economic, social, technological, academic, and other benefits of
the proposed amendments against their unavoidable environmental effects, and has found that the benefits of the
amendments outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated to less-than-
significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is based on the
Board of Supervisors' review of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR and other information in the administrative
record. The Board of Supervisors finds that each of the following benefits is an overriding consideration,
independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance
Amendments notwithstanding the amendments' significant unavoidable impacts.
The County recognizes that the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments will cause the two
significant and unavoidable impacts as listed above. The County has carefully balanced the benefits of the
General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments against the unavoidable adverse impacts identified in
the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, and the County's Findings of Fact. Notwithstanding the disclosure of impacts
identified as significant and which have not been eliminated to a level of insignificance, the County, acting
pursuant to section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that the benefits of the General Plan
2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments outweigh the significant unmitigated adverse impacts.
B. Specific Findings
Balance of Competing Goals
General Plan 2030 maintained and strengthened the County's emphasis on protecting and enhancing its
agricultural base. This directive was clear from the beginning of the project when the County established
Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update. Specifically, General Plan 2030 includes a Guiding Principle to
address agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County's economy that will be protected, maintained,
promoted, and enhanced, as well as a Guiding Principle to identify appropriate locations and the type of growth
that will occur in rural areas while protecting the integrated benefits of agricultural resources, natural resources,
and the environment. The General Plan and the 2012 amendment to the General Plan accomplished this goal by
establishing clear boundaries for where agricultural uses should be maintained and for where urban
development can occur. In addition,the General Plan supported this goal by including a policy to protect
agricultural uses that are adjacent to residential uses through the use of a buffer.
As described in Chapter 3 of the Draft SEIR, the agricultural buffer policy was carried forward from the
previous General Plan, and the County had a long-standing practice to apply agricultural buffer requirements to
residential development that is adjacent to lands that are zoned for agricultural use, and not to lands that are
used for agriculture but not zoned for agriculture. This practice is supported by the County's existing Zoning
Ordinance, which only applies the buffer to lands zoned for agriculture. The General Plan policy was not
intended to be applied to agricultural uses that are not zoned for agriculture because there would be no benefit
related to protecting agriculture; the area is already designated for a non-agricultural use, meaning that it could
be converted to a non-agricultural use regardless of a buffer.
When this interpretation of the buffer policy was questioned, the County proposed the amendment to Policy
AG-P5.3 to clarify their intent and practice. While doing so, the County also proposed additional amendments
to further protect and enhance its agricultural sector, including allowing agriculture as an interim use prior to
development on parcels that are not designated for agriculture. These General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance
Amendments were proposed as a way to clarify the County's long-standing practice, implement the General
Plan land use map directive, and protect and enhance agriculture in Butte County. In doing so, the amendments
could cause land use and noise impacts, as disclosed in the Draft SEIR.
The County has chosen to accept these environmental impacts because to eliminate them would hinder its
progress towards implementing the General Plan Land Use Map and its goal of protecting and enhancing
agriculture in Butte County, and unduly compromise important economic, social, or other goals. The County
finds and determines that the text of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the
supporting environmental documentation provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the
economic, fiscal, social, planning, land use, and other benefits to be obtained by the General Plan 2030 and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments outweigh the environmental and related potential impacts of the General Plan
2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
C. Overriding Considerations
Substantial evidence is included in the record of these proceedings and in documents relating to the General
Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments demonstrating the benefits which the County would derive from
the implementation of these documents. The Board of Supervisors has considered and carefully balanced the
economic, legal, social,technological, and other benefits of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance
Amendments against their potentially significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The Board of
Supervisors has determined that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
project, as more specifically identified below, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the
project, which are thus considered acceptable by the Board. The Board of Supervisors hereby determines that
the project is in the public interest and should, therefore, be approved.
Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the County would derive the following benefits from
adoption and implementation of the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments:
• The project maintains the agricultural buffer requirement for residential development that is adjacent
to lands that are designated for agricultural use, and thus maintains its original mitigating benefit
related to the protection of agricultural resources. The buffer would not be applied to areas that the
County has already designated for a different use, which inherently do not benefit from a buffer
requirement because of the non-agricultural designation. Therefore, the project would not impact
agricultural resources. Furthermore, it would serve to further enhance Butte County agriculture by
allowing agriculture as an interim use prior to development on lands designated for a non-
agricultural use.
• The project reaffirms the General Plan Land Use Map that was based on extensive community input
by allowing areas that were designated for agriculture to enjoy the full use of each property for
agricultural purposes, and allowing areas that were designated for residential use to enjoy the full use
of each property for residential purposes. This ensures that the General Plan continues to reflect the
community's expression of quality of life and community values and guides the County's future
growth in line with those values, and it ensures that the document functions well.
• The project supports a balance between agriculture, housing, environmental preservation and
restoration,population growth, and economic development.
• The General Plan identifies areas that are to be conserved for agriculture, and other areas that are to
be developed with residential and other non-agricultural development. In so doing, the General Plan
supports Land Use Element Policy LU-P2.6, which projects that for the year 2030 the
unincorporated area of Butte County accommodate a maximum of 13,600 new homes. Lands within
the county have been specifically designated to provide residential development opportunities to
provide for this future growth potential and need.
• The project balances the importance of agriculture with the need for affordable housing,
transportation, economic growth, and the protection of property rights. The project represents the
best compromise in terms of satisfying the County's obligations to social, environmental, and
housing considerations, all within the constraints of the County's limited budget.
• The project ensures that private property owners will continue to have economically viable use of
their lands, promotes economic development, spreads the public burdens fairly, and protects the
County from regulatory takings challenges.
• The project supports the intent of the County's Right-to-Farm Ordinance, which is to:
- Conserve, protect, enhance, and encourage agricultural operations on lands designated and zoned
agriculture within the unincorporated area of the county, and to support agriculture as an interim
use prior to development in residential, commercial, and industrial designations and zones.
- Reduce the loss of agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which properly
conducted agricultural operations on agricultural land may be considered a nuisance.
-- Through mandatory disclosures, help owners, purchasers,residents and users to better
understand the impact of living or working near agricultural operations and be prepared to accept
attendant conditions from properly conducted agricultural operations as a normal and necessary
aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and an active agricultural sector.
- Carry out and advance the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs of the
General Plan 2030 Agricultural Element.
• The project incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts
to the greatest extent feasible.
The Board of Supervisors hereby finds it is imperative to balance competing goals when approving the General
Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments and associated environmental documentation. Not every
environmental concern has been fully satisfied because of the need to satisfy competing concerns to a certain
extent. The Board has chosen to accept certain environmental impacts because complete eradication of impacts
would unduly compromise some other important community goals.
The Board has found and determined that the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments and
supporting environmental documentation provide for a positive balance of the competing goals and that the
social, environmental, land-use and other benefits to be obtained by the project outweigh any remaining
environmental and related potential detriment of the project.
XIII. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The SEIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is
intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance
of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the project in spite of the
potential for associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
XIV. SUMMARY
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the Record, the Board of Supervisors has
made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant environmental effects of the
General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the General Plan 2030 and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that:
1) All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the project have been eliminated or
substantially lessened where feasible.
2) Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the
factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in subsection XII C., above, and the
County finds that the General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments should be approved.
XV. CERTIFICATION
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte hereby certifies the Final SIER prepared for the General Plan
2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments (consisting of the Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, and all appendices and
errata), adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth herein, and approves the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan discussed in section X above. The Director of Development Services shall
promptly file a Notice of Determination as provided in California Code of Regulation,title 14, section 15094.
XVI. VOTE
For the reasons set forth above, the Board of Supervisors makes the specified Findings of Fact, rejects the three
alternatives, adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopts a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the bard of Supervisors of the County of I'uttc, State of California, at its
meeting held on the 12'1' day of J. uary, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wahl, Lambert and Chair Connelly
NOES: Supervisors Kirk and Teeter
A I SENT: None
NOT VOTING: None
bill Connelly, Chair le
Butte County board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
PAUL 11A 1, C,131Lief Administrative Officer
d Clerk of the Voogd of Supervisors ..—_ ..
_—
l',7 ,------
/ ....,
By:
Dept y/