The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About_Coldstream SP_DEIR_Volume 1_Combined (2)Ý Ý ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÍÐ ÍÐ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ÜÛ×Î ÎßÚÌ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÓÐßÝÌ ÛÐÑÎÌ Ê× ÑÔËÓÛ ÍÝØÒòîððçðêîðîç Ñ ÌÌ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ïðïèíÌßÎ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ×ÎÐÑÎÌ ÑßÜ ÌôÝßçêïêï ÎËÝÕÛÛ Ð ÎÛÐßÎÛÜ ÞÇ îéîçÐÐÜôÍîîð ÎÑÍÐÛÝÌ ßÎÕ Î×ÊÛ Ë×ÌÛ ÝôÝßçëêéð Î ßÒÝØÑ ÑÎÜÑÊß îðïï Ö ËÒÛ Town CouncilDepartment Heads Richard S. Anderson, Mayor Tony Lashbrook, Town Manager J. Dennis Crabb, Town Attorney Joan deRyk Jones, Vice Mayor Nicholas Sensley, Chief of Police John McLaughlin, Community Development Director Barbara Green, Council Member Kim Szczurek, Administrative Services Director Dr. Mark Brown D.C., Council Member Judy Price, Town Clerk Carolyn Wallace Dee, Council Member Alex Terrazas, Assistant Town Manager Daniel Wilkins, Public Works Director/Town Engineer NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY SP C OLDSTREAMPECIFICLAN EIR D RAFT NVIRONMENTAL MPACTEPORT CN.2009062029 S TATELEARINGHOUSE O 17,2011 J UNE LEAD AGENCY: Town of Truckee PROJECT TITLE: Coldstream Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: The 178.6-acre project site is primarily located in the Town of Truckee in Nevada County, California, in Township 17 North, Range 16 East, within portions of Section 16 and 17, USGS Truckee Quadrangle (small portion of the site is located in Placer County). The property is owned by Teichert Land Co. and includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 18-560-10, -16; 18-740-22, -23; 18-760-11, -12, -13, -15; and 080-010-023. The project site is located approximately 2 miles west of the town’s historic downtown at the entrance of Coldstream Canyon, just south of Interstate 80, and approximately a half mile southeast of Donner Lake. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is the adoption and implementation of a specific plan with the Town of Truckee General Plan designated Planned Community 1 site. The following is a summary of the key land use components of the Coldstream Specific Plan: Commercial uses are identified in the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zone. A total of 8.6 acres allowing up to 70,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses and lodging are proposed for this zoning district. Residential land uses are also encouraged in this district. providing Residential uses are proposed for 54.4 acres total, up to 345 residential units (including affordable housing) in ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10183 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161-3306 www.townoftruckee.com Administration: 530-582-7700 / Fax: 530-582-7710 / email: truckee@townoftruckee.com Community Development: 530-582-7820 / Fax: 530-582-7889 / email: cdd@townoftruckee.com Animal Services/Vehicle Abatement: 530-582-7830 / Fax: 530-582-7889 / email: animalservices@townoftruckee.com Police Department: 530-550-2328 / Fax: 530-550-2326 / email: policedepartment@townoftruckee.com Printed on recycled paper. Page 2 the following residential districts: Village Green Residential (11.4 acres), Village Green Residential Small Lot (7.0 acres), Lakeside Residential (25.5 acres), and Forest Residential (10.5 acres). Recreation is proposed for 7.0 acres of the project site, and 108.6 acres are proposed for open space. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes a wide variety of housing types including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes. The proposed project includes a public gathering area located in the heart of the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district. Enhancement of former mining pond areas and restoration of Cold Creek and Donner Creek on the project site. Connection from Coldstream Road to Deerfield Drive (with a re-designation of Deerfield Drive) and to construct a new vehicular bridge over Cold Creek to facilitate access throughout the project site. A trail network is proposed to connect residential, commercial, and recreational areas in and outside of the project site by providing a linked system of bikeways and recreational trails. The trails system includes a major link to the Truckee Legacy Trail that will ultimately connect to Donner Memorial State Park and Coldstream Canyon through the project site via possible off-site trails. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The Town has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the specific environmental effects of implementing the Coldstream Specific Plan. The Draft EIR consists of a focused analysis of the following environmental issue areas that may be impacted by the project: Historic and Cultural Resources Land Use Transportation and CirculationVisual Resources/Light and Glare Noise Community Services Air Quality Utilities and Service Systems Geology and Soils Population, Housing, and Socioeconomics Hazards and Risk of Upset Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Hydrology and Water QualityCumulative Impacts Biological and Natural ResourcesSignificant Irreversible Environmental Changes Growth Inducing Impacts Listed hazardous waste sites, hazardous materials users and other associated hazardous material sites (including sites identified under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code) that are known to be present in the project area are identified in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Risk of Upset) of the Draft EIR. Page 3 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD/STATUS: A 45-day public review period will be provided to receive written comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment period will start on June 17, 2011, and end on August 1, 2011. Written comments should be sent to the following address: Jenna Endres TOWN OF TRUCKEE Planning Division 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT EIR: Copies of the Draft EIR are available for review at the following location: Truckee Planning Division 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Phone: (530) 582-7700 The Draft EIR may also be reviewed on the Town’s website (http://www.townoftruckee.com). Referenced material used in the preparation of the Draft EIR may be reviewed upon request to the Planning Division. ÌÌ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÝÍÐ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ÜÛ×Î ÎßÚÌ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÓÐßÝÌ ÛÐÑÎÌ Ê× ÑÔËÓÛ ÍÝØÒòîððçðêîðîç Ñ Ð®»°¿®»¼ º±®æ Ì Ì ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÌßÎ ïðïèí ÎËÝÕÛÛ ×ÎÐÑÎÌ ÑßÜ ôÝßçêïêï Ì ÎËÝÕÛÛ Ð®»°¿®»¼ ¾§ ÐÓÝ îéîçÐÐÜôÍîîð ÎÑÍÐÛÝÌ ßÎÕ Î×ÊÛ Ë×ÌÛ ÝôÝßçëêéð Î ßÒÝØÑ ÑÎÜÑÊß îðïï Ö ËÒÛ ÌÝ ßÞÔÛ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÛÒÌÍ ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ 1.1 Background and Purpose ......................................................................................................... 1.0-1 1.2 Type of Document ..................................................................................................................... 1.0-1 1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR ............................................................................................................ 1.0-2 1.4 Relationship to the Town of Truckee General Plan and Development Code ................. 1.0-3 1.5 Organization and Scope .......................................................................................................... 1.0-3 1.6 Environmental Review Process ................................................................................................. 1.0-6 1.7 Impact Terminology ................................................................................................................. 1.0-13 1.8 Commonly Used Terms ............................................................................................................ 1.0-14 îòðÛÍ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ 2.1 Purpose and Scope of the Environmental Impact Report .................................................. 2.0-1 2.2 Project Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 2.0-1 2.3 Areas of Controversy ................................................................................................................. 2.0-2 2.4 Alternatives to the Project ........................................................................................................ 2.0-4 2.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 2.0-5 íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ 3.1 Local and Regional Setting ...................................................................................................... 3.0-1 3.2 Project Site History ...................................................................................................................... 3.0-9 3.3 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3.0-13 3.4 Project Evolution ....................................................................................................................... 3.0-13 3.5 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 3.0-14 3.6 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ............................................................ 3.0-55 References.............................................................................................................................................. 3.0-57 ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ 4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 4.1-1 4.2 Transportation and Circulation ....................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.3 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.4 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................. 4.5-1 4.6 Hazards and Risk of Upset ................................................................................................................ 4.6-1 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.8 Biological and Natural Resources ................................................................................................... 4.8-1 4.9 Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.10 Visual Resources/Light and Glare ............................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.11 Community Services ..................................................................................................................... 4.11-1 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.13 Population, Housing, and Socioeconomics .............................................................................. 4.13-1 4.14 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ................................................................................ 4.14-1 ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5.0-1 5.2 Cumulative Setting ..................................................................................................................... 5.0-2 5.3 Cumulative Impact Summary .................................................................................................. 5.0-2 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ · ÌÝ ßÞÔÛ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÛÒÌÍ êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6.0-1 6.2 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ................................................................................... 6.0-2 6.3 Alternative 1A – No Project No Development Alternative .................................................. 6.0-2 6.4 Alternative 1B – No Project Consistent with General Plan Alternative .............................. 6.0-7 6.5 Alternative 2 – Reduced Residential Development and Reconfigured Roadway Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 6.0-12 6.6 Alternative 3 – Wetland Impact Minimization Alternative ................................................. 6.0-47 6.7 Alternative 4 – Reduced Development Potential Alternative .......................................... 6.0-54 6.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................................... 6.0-61 éòðÔóÌ×Ð ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ 7.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes/Irretrievable Commitment ofResources .... 7.0-1 7.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects ............................................................ 7.0-2 7.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts ......................................................................................................... 7.0-2 7.4 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................ 7.0-4 èòðÎÐ ÛÐÑÎÌ ÎÛÐßÎÛÎÍ ß ÐÐÛÒÜ×ÝÛÍ * Appendices are located in a separate volume on CD in the back of this document. Appendix A – NOP and Comments Appendix B – Consistency Tables Appendix C – Traffic Appendix D – Noise Appendix E – Air Quality Appendix F – Geotechnical Appendix G – Hazards Appendix H – Biological Resources Appendix I – Greenhouse Gases Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ·· ÌÝ ßÞÔÛ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÛÒÌÍ ÔÌ ×ÍÌ ÑÚ ßÞÔÛÍ Table 1.0-1 NOP Comments Received and References to Representative Information in this EIR .................................................................................................................................... 1.0-6 Table 2.0-1 Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures .............................................. 2.0-6 Table 3.0-1 Proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Zoning Districts ............................................. 3.0-19 Table 4.0-1 2025 General Plan Buildout Projections ..................................................................... 4.0-2 Table 4.0-2 Town of Truckee Community Development Active Land Use Permit Applications ... 4.0-4 Table 4.0-3 Summary of Development Projects within 10 miles of Project Site in Placer and Nevada Counties .......................................................................................................... 4.0-6 Table 4.1-1 [from Town of Truckee General Plan] Planned Community 1 (PC-1) Land Uses 4.1-9 Table 4.2-1 2010 Roadway Traffic Volumes ................................................................................... 4.2-7 Table 4.2-2 2010 Intersection PM Peak Hour Level of Service Without Project ...................... 4.2-11 Table 4.2-3 2010 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary Without Project ................ 4.2-14 Table 4.2-4 2010 Roadway Level of Service Without Project ................................................... 4.2-15 Table 4.2-5 2010 Ramp Merge/diverge Analysis Summary at I-80/Donner Pass Road (Western) Interchange Without Project ..................................................................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2-6 Town of Truckee Peak Hour Roadway Capacity by Type ................................... 4.2-20 Table 4.2-7 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circulation Element Roadway and Intersection Improvements ........................................................................................ 4.2-23 Table 4.2-8 Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements and Criteria .................. 4.2-24 Table 4.2-9 Trip Generation Analysis ............................................................................................. 4.2-31 Table 4.2-10 Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................... 4.2-33 Table 4.2-11 Project Travel Time and Trip Assignment ................................................................. 4.2-34 Table 4.2-12 Diversion of Existing Donner Lake Area Traffic with Option 1 ............................... 4.2-37 Table 4.2-13 2010 Intersection PM Peak Hour Level of Service With Project ............................ 4.2-48 Table 4.2-14 2010 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary With Project ...................... 4.2-49 Table 4.2-15 2010 Roadway Level of Service With Project ......................................................... 4.2-51 Table 4.2-16 2010 Ramp Merge/diverge Analysis Summary at I-80/Donner Pass Road (Western) Interchange With Project ........................................................................................... 4.2-53 Table 4.2-17 Increases in Traffic Volumes on Deerfield Drive (Option 1) .................................. 4.2-54 Table 4.2-18 2010 Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS After Mitigation ........................................... 4.2-60 Table 4.2-19 Comparison of Proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and Town of Truckee Development Code Parking Standards .................................................................. 4.2-68 Table 4.2-20 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour Level of Service With Project ............................ 4.2-76 Table 4.2-21 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary With Project ...................... 4.2-82 Table 4.2-22 2030 Roadway Level of Service With Project ......................................................... 4.2-86 Table 4.2-23 2030 Ramp Merge/Diverge Analysis Summary at I-80/Donner Pass Road (Western) Interchange With Project ........................................................................................... 4.2-88 Table 4.2-24 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS After Mitigation ........................................... 4.2-90 Table 4.2-25 2030 Intersection Queuing After Mitigation ............................................................ 4.2-92 Table 4.3-1 Typical Maximum Nose Levels .................................................................................... 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 Existing Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Coldstream Specific Plan – Town of Truckee, California May 26–28, 2009 .......................................................................... 4.3-4 Table 4.3-3 Existing I-80 Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................... 4.3-7 Table 4.3-4 2010 No Project Predicted Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................... 4.3-8 1 Table 4.3-5 Measured UPRR Train Noise Levels ............................................................................. 4.3-8 Table 4.3-6 Noise Compatibility Guidelines ................................................................................. 4.3-10 Table 4.3-7 Noise Standards by Receiving Land Use Town of Truckee Development Code ..... 4.3-11 Table 4.3-8 Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure ...................................... 4.3-12 Table 4.3-9 Predicted Existing and Plus Project Deerfield Connector (Option 1) Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................................................................ 4.3-15 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ··· ÌÝ ßÞÔÛ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÛÒÌÍ Table 4.3-10 Predicted Existing and Plus Project Without Deerfield Connector (Option 2, 3, 4) Traffic Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 4.3-16 Table 4.3-11 Predicted 2030 No Project and Plus Project Deerfield Connector (Option 1) Traffic Noise Levels .................................................................................................................. 4.3-17 Table 4.3-12 Predicted 2030 No Project and Plus Project Without Deerfield Connector (Option 2, 3, 4) Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 4.3-18 Table 4.3-13 Construction Equipment Noise ................................................................................. 4.3-21 Table 4.3-14 Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment .......................................... 4.3-21 Table 4.4-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................. 4.4-2 Table 4.4-2 Summary of Select Criteria Air Pollutants’ Common Sources and Effects ........... 4.4-3 Table 4.4-3 Summary of Annual Ambient Air Quality Data ........................................................ 4.4-5 Table 4.4-4 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Near Air Pollutant Sources ... 4.4-8 Table 4.4-5 NSAQMD-Recommended Significance Thresholds .............................................. 4.4-13 Table 4.4-6 Proposed Project Phasing .......................................................................................... 4.4-14 Table 4.4-7 Estimated Short-Term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants for the Proposed Coldstream Specific Plan .......................................................................................... 4.4-16 Table 4.4-8 Estimated Operational Emissions at Buildout without Mitigation......................... 4.4-22 Table 4.4-9 Predicted Local Mobile Source Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near-Term Plus Project Conditions (Year 2010) ................................................................................. 4.4-25 Table 4.4-10 Predicted Local Mobile Source Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Future Plus Project Conditions (Year 2030) ................................................................................. 4.4-25 Table 4.5-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale for Earthquakes ................................................... 4.5-8 Table 4.6-1 Databases Reviewed ................................................................................................... 4.6-7 Table 4.6-2 California Cortese Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List ................................. 4.6-7 Table 4.6-3 Summary of Hazardous Materials Regulatory Authority ....................................... 4.6-11 Table 4.7-1 Peak Discharge Rates for Donner Creek in Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) Published by FEMA .......................................................................................................................... 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2 Dams Upstream of the Proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Under Jurisdiction of the State of California ................................................................................................ 4.7-12 Table 4.7-3 CWA Listed Section 303(d) Water Quality Limited Segments Downstream of Project Site ................................................................................................................... 4.7-19 Table 4.8-1 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Delineated on the Project Site .............. 4.8-2 Table 4.8-2 Summary of Potential Jurisdictional Waters within the Off-site Trails PSA ............. 4.8-2 Table 4.8-3 Cover Types Identified on the Project Site ................................................................ 4.8-3 Table 4.8-4 Vegetative Communities within the Off-Site Trails PSA ......................................... 4.8-11 Table 4.8-5 Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring on the Project Site and Off-Site Trails PSA ....................................................................................................................... 4.8-23 Table 4.8-6 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project site and Off-Site Trails PSA ......................................................................................................... 4.8-31 Table 4.8-7 Impacts to Vegetative Communities within the Project Site ............................... 4.8-45 Table 4.8-8 Bat Usage During the Year ........................................................................................ 4.8-62 Table 4.8-9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation for Jurisdictional Features within the Project Site ................................................................................................................................. 4.8-67 Table 4.10-1 Maximum Allowable Structure Height ................................................................... 4.10-16 Table 4.11.4-1 TTUSD Existing Enrollment and Capacity ............................................................... 4.11-17 Table 4.11.4-2 Students Generated by the Proposed Project ..................................................... 4.11-20 Table 4.12.1-1 Planning-Level Water Demands ............................................................................... 4.12-4 Table 4.13-1 Historical Population Growth – Nevada County .................................................... 4.13-1 Table 4.13-2 Current and Projected Population – Nevada and Surrounding Counties ........ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-3 Population Estimates 1980–2009 – Town of Truckee, Nevada County, State of California ...................................................................................................................... 4.13-2 Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ·ª ÌÝ ßÞÔÛ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÛÒÌÍ Table 4.13-4 Average Household Size (Persons per Household) 2000 through 2009 Town of Truckee, Nevada County, State of California ........................................................ 4.13-3 Table 4.13-5 Housing Units by Type – Town of Truckee ................................................................ 4.13-4 Table 4.13-6 Affordable Rent and Purchase Price by Income Category – Nevada County 4.13-5 Table 4.13-7 Labor Force by Occupation – Town of Truckee 1990 and 2000 ......................... 4.13-6 Table 4.13-8 Industry Employment Status – Town of Truckee ..................................................... 4.13-7 Table 4.13-9 Major Employers – Town of Truckee ......................................................................... 4.13-7 Table 4.13-10 Current and Historic Unemployment Rates – Nevada County ........................... 4.13-8 Table 4.14-1 Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gases ................................................ 4.14-3 Table 4.14-2 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions (Pounds per Day) ...................................................................................................... 4.14-15 Table 4.14-3 Estimated Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project Operation (Metric Tons per Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4.14-15 Table 4.14-4 GHG Reductions from Application of New Regulations .................................... 4.14-17 Table 4.14-5 Summary of Project GHG Reductions ................................................................... 4.14-18 Table 6.0-1 Coldstream Trip Generation Analysis Alternative 2 ............................................... 6.0-19 Table 6.0-2 Alternative 2 – 2010 Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS ............................................. 6.0-21 Table 6.0-3 Alternative 2 – Intersection Mitigation Summary Year 2010 and 2030 ............... 6.0-25 Table 6.0-4 Alterative 2 – 2010 Roadway LOS Analysis .............................................................. 6.0-27 Table 6.0-5 Alternative 2 – 2010 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary .................. 6.0-29 Table 6.0-6 Alternative 2 – 2010 Mitigated Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary ... 6.0-30 Table 6.0-7 Alternative 2 – 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS ............................................. 6.0-33 Table 6.0-8 Alternative 2 – 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary .................. 6.0-37 Table 6.0-9 Alternative 2 – 2030 Mitigated Intersection PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary ... 6.0-39 Table 6.0-10 Predicted Existing and Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels – Alternative 2 .............. 6.0-42 Table 6.0-11 Predicted 2030 No Project and Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels – Alternative 2 ....... 6.0-43 Table 6.0-12 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ........................................... 6.0-62 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ª ÌÝ ßÞÔÛ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÛÒÌÍ ÔÚ ×ÍÌ ÑÚ ×ÙËÎÛÍ Figure 3.0-1 Regional Location Map ............................................................................................... 3.0-3 Figure 3.0-2 Parcels within the Coldstream Specific Plan ............................................................ 3.0-5 Figure 3.0-3 Adjacent Land Uses...................................................................................................... 3.0-7 Figure 3.0-4 Site History Aerial Photos ............................................................................................ 3.0-11 Figure 3.0-5 Community Realm Diagram ..................................................................................... 3.0-15 Figure 3.0-6 Land Use Diagram ...................................................................................................... 3.0-17 Figure 3.0-7 Preservation, Restoration, and Enhancement Areas ............................................ 3.0-21 Figure 3.0-8 Habitat and Pond Enhancements ........................................................................... 3.0-23 Figure 3.0-9 Location of Future Outfall Structure ......................................................................... 3.0-25 Figure 3.0-10 Proposed Circulation Diagram ................................................................................. 3.0-29 Figure 3.0-11 Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 1 Project as designed with open access to Deerfield Drive ............................................................................................................. 3.0-31 Figure 3.0-12 Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 2 Project as designed with emergency only access to Deerfield Drive .......................................................................................... 3.0-33 Figure 3.0-13 Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 3 Project primary roadway redesigned east of Cold Creek with emergency only access to Deerfield Drive and loop road back to the Cold Creek bridge .......................................................................................... 3.0-35 Figure 3.0-14 Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 4 Project primary roadway redesigned east of Cold Creek with emergency only access to Deerfield Drive .............................. 3.0-37 Figure 3.0-15 Trails Map ...................................................................................................................... 3.0-41 Figure 3.0-16 Off-Site Trails ................................................................................................................. 3.0-43 Figure 3.0-17 Utility Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3.0-47 Figure 3.0-18 Anticipated Phasing Program .................................................................................. 3.0-51 Figure 4.1-1 Land Use Designations ................................................................................................. 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 Zoning Map .................................................................................................................... 4.1-5 Figure 4.1-3 Truckee Redevelopment Plan Area ........................................................................ 4.1-13 Figure 4.1-4 Buffers & Screening Diagram .................................................................................... 4.1-19 Figure 4.1-5 Revised Buffers on Western Boundary ..................................................................... 4.1-23 Figure 4.2-1 Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control ..................................................... 4.2-3 Figure 4.2-2 2010 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project ............................................... 4.2-9 Figure 4.2-3 Project Net Impact on PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Deerfield Connector (Option 1) ..................................................................................................................... 4.2-39 Figure 4.2-4 2010 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project with Deerfield Connector (Option 1) ..................................................................................................................... 4.2-41 Figure 4.2-5 Project Net Impact on PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes without Deerfield Connector (Options 2 and 3) ........................................................................................................ 4.2-43 Figure 4.2-6 2010 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project without Deerfield Connector (Options 2 and 3) ........................................................................................................ 4.2-45 Figure 4.2-7 I-80 Westbound Ramps / Donner Pass Road Preliminary Roundabout Design . 4.2-61 Figure 4.2-8 I-80 Eastbound Ramps / Donner Pass Road / Coldstream Road Preliminary Roundabout Design ................................................................................................... 4.2-63 Figure 4.2-9 2030 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project ............................................. 4.2-73 Figure 4.2-10 2030 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project with Deerfield Connector (Option 1) ..................................................................................................................... 4.2-77 Figure 4.2-11 2030 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project without Deerfield Connector (Options 2 and 3) ........................................................................................................ 4.2-79 3-5 Figure 4.3-1 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................... 4. Figure 4.5-1 Fill Depth Plan ................................................................................................................ 4.5-3 Figure 4.5-2 Soils Map......................................................................................................................... 4.5-5 Figure 4.5-3 Faults in the Vicinity of the Project Site ...................................................................... 4.5-9 Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ª· ÌÝ ßÞÔÛ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÛÒÌÍ Figure 4.5-4 Epicenter Map ............................................................................................................. 4.5-11 Figure 4.6-1 Location of Groundwater Monitoring Wells .............................................................. 4.6-3 Figure 4.6-2 Location of Soil Vapor Sampling ................................................................................ 4.6-5 Figure 4.6-3 Truckee Tahoe Airport Compatibility Map ................................................................ 4.6-9 Figure 4.6-4 Community Areas at Risk From Wildland Fire ......................................................... 4.6-13 Figure 4.7-1 Drainage Features and General Topography ......................................................... 4.7-3 Figure 4.7-2 Cold Creek as it Traverses Through the Project Site (Looking North) .................... 4.7-5 Figure 4.7-3 Confluence of Cold Creek and Donner Creek ....................................................... 4.7-7 Figure 4.7-4 Existing Steel, Single Span Bridge Crossing of Cold Creek Within the Project Site ....... 4.7-9 Figure 4.7-5 Portion of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels 503 and 504 (Effective: July 2, 1987) ..............................................................................................................................4.7-13 Figure 4.7-6 Flood Event Map ......................................................................................................... 4.7-15 Figure 4.7-7 Donner Lake Dam View from Downstream (Outlet) Side .................................... 4.7-17 Figure 4.7-8 Donner Lake Dam - Dam Failure Inundation Map ................................................ 4.7-41 Figure 4.8-1 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. within the Project Site ......................................... 4.8-5 Figure 4.8-2 Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. within the Off-site Trails PSA .................................................................................................................................. 4.8-7 Figure 4.8-3 Vegetative Communities within the Project Site ..................................................... 4.8-9 Figure 4.8-4A Vegetative Communities within the Off-Site Trails PSA ......................................... 4.8-13 Figure 4.8-4B Vegetative Communities within the Off-site Trails PSA .......................................... 4.8-15 Figure 4.8-5 Previously Recorded Occurrences of Special-status Species within a One-mile Radius of the Project Site ........................................................................................... 4.8-27 Figure 4.8-6 Locations of Rare Plants Found Within the Project Site ......................................... 4.8-29 Figure 4.8-7 Willow Flycatcher Survey Areas and Station Points ............................................... 4.8-35 Figure 4.8-8 Impacts to Vegetative Communities within the Project Site ............................... 4.8-47 Figure 4.8-9 Impacts to Vegetative Communities within the Western Portion of the Off-Site Trails Project ................................................................................................................. 4.8-49 Figure 4.8-10 Proposed Habitat Corridors ....................................................................................... 4.8-55 Figure 4.8-11 Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Within the Project Site ....... 4.8-57 Figure 4.8-12 Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Within the Off-Site Trails PSA ....... 4.8-69 Figure 4.10-1a Existing Visual Character............................................................................................ 4.10-3 Figure 4.10-1b Existing Visual Character............................................................................................ 4.10-5 Figure 4.10-2 Views of Surrounding Uses ......................................................................................... 4.10-7 Figure 4.10-3 Photo Point Locations............................................................................................... 4.10-13 Figure 4.10-4a View of Project Site from North at Richards Blvd Residential Neighborhood .. 4.10-17 Figure 4.10-4b View of Project Site from North at Coldstream Road Interchange Intersection ..... 4.10-19 Figure 4.10-4c View of Project Site from East at Deerfield Road Terminus ................................ 4.10-21 Figure 4.10-4d View of Project Site from West at Donner Memorial State Park ........................ 4.10-23 Figure 6.0-1 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................. 6.0-13 Figure 6.0-2 Project Net Impact on PM Peak Hour Volumes with Reduced Land Uses (Alternative 2) .............................................................................................................. 6.0-17 Figure 6.0-3 2010 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project with Reduced Land Uses (Alternative 2) .............................................................................................................. 6.0-23 Figure 6.0-4 2030 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project with Reduced Land Uses (Alternative 2) .............................................................................................................. 6.0-35 Figure 6.0-5 Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................. 6.0-49 Figure 6.0-6 Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................. 6.0-55 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ª·· ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ This section summarizes the purpose of the environmental impact report (EIR); describes the environmental procedures that are to be followed according to state law; discusses the intended uses of the EIR; discusses the proposed project’s relationship to the Town of Truckee General Plan; describes the EIR scope and organization, contact person, and impact terminology; and provides definitions of commonly used terms and acronyms used throughout this EIR. ïòï ÞÐ ßÝÕÙÎÑËÒÜ ßÒÜ ËÎÐÑÍÛ This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) has been prepared in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (proposed project), a mixed- use development consisting of an approximately 178.6-acre project site approximately 2 miles west of the town’s historic downtown at the entrance of Coldstream Canyon just south of Interstate 80 approximately one-half mile southeast of Donner Lake. The site is also within the Truckee Redevelopment Area at the western gateway to Truckee. The Town of Truckee (Town), acting as the lead agency, has prepared this Draft EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is a public informational document that assesses potential environmental effects of the proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. Public agencies are charged with the duty to consider and minimize environmental impacts of proposed development where feasible, and obligated to balance a variety of public objectives including economic, environmental, and social factors. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “project” refers to the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]). With respect to the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, the Town has determined that the proposed development is a project within the definition of CEQA. ïòî ÌÜ ÇÐÛ ÑÚ ÑÝËÓÛÒÌ The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. This document examines all components on a project level of detail, with the exception of the park site and enhancements to ponds and Cold Creek and Donner Creek. Specific uses have not been identified for the park site at this point. Likewise, sufficient details are not available to evaluate the enhancements to ponds and creeks at a project level. The program- level analysis will focus on adoption of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, and project-level analysis will focus on approval of the Tentative Map requests. The analysis associated with a Project EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would occur as a result of implementation of the residential component of the project and examines all phases of the project (i.e., planning, construction, and operation). Ultimately, the EIR is used by the Town as a tool in evaluating the proposed project’s environmental impacts and can be further used to modify, approve, or deny approval of the proposed project based on the analysis provided in the EIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóï ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ïòí ×ËÛ×Î ÒÌÛÒÜÛÜ ÍÛÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ This EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project to the greatest extent possible. This EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all planning and permitting actions associated with the proposed project. These actions include, but are not limited to, the following: Adoption of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Approval of a General Plan Amendment associated with the adoption of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, including modification of Land Use Table LU-3 to account for development of up to 345 residential units and re-designation of portions of Deerfield Drive to a Minor Collector under Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 1 (designed with open access to Deerfield Drive) Large Lot Tentative Map Individual Tentative Subdivision Map(s) Planned Development to modify standards in the Development Code Certification of the EIR Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Development Agreement and/or Owner’s Participation Agreement (OPA) Town of Truckee Ministerial Approvals: Improvement Plans Grading permit Encroachment permit Occupancy permit Building permit Concurrent with or subsequent to approval of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, the project proponent may enter into development agreements with the Town of Truckee as authorized by Government Code Section 65864 et seq. Other discretionary approvals that may be required by other governmental agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following: State Water Resources Control Board – File Notice of Intent to obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit prior to project construction Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Lahontan Region, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, best management practices (BMPs), and Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóî ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ approval of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act U.S, Army Corps of Engineers permit and wetland delineation approval associated with filling of waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (Sections 1600 to 1603 of the Fish and Game Code) Approval of infrastructure details for wastewater facilities by the Truckee Sanitary District (TSD) and the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA) Approval of water infrastructure by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) Additional entitlements for the project site will be requested in the future, which are anticipated to be addressed through this EIR. In additional to the development requests, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes provisions for preservation and enhancement of existing wetland and creek features that are anticipated to provide habitat enhancement and improve water quality that would assist in sediment reductions for the Lower Truckee River watershed. ïòì ÎÌÌÙÐÜÝ ÛÔßÌ×ÑÒÍØ×Ð ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ ßÒÜ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÑÜÛ The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is generally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, as shown in the General Plan Consistency Matrix found in each section of the Draft EIR. According to Government Code Section 65454, no specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan. At the time the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan was prepared, the project site was designated as Planned Community 1 (PC-1) in the Town of Truckee General Plan and Development Code. Future development of the project site requires the approval of a specific plan pursuant to Section 18.16.060 of the Truckee Municipal Code. As required, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan was prepared consistent with California Government Code Sections 65450–65457 in order to guide future development on the project site. Future land uses are subject to the development standards and design guidelines set forth in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Coldstream Specific Plan document. ïòë ÑÍ ÎÙßÒ×ÆßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÝÑÐÛ Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR were established through review of environmental documentation developed for the project site, environmental documentation for nearby projects, and public agency responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Based upon these comments, agency consultation, and review of the project application, the Town determined the scope for this EIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóí ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner: ÍïòðÔ× ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Section 1.0 provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the document and identifies the components which will be analyzed at the program and project levels. This section also describes the EIR review and certification process. ÍîòðÔÛÍ ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures as required under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. This section also provides a clear description of mitigation measure triggers and differentiates which mitigation measures are associated with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan versus those associated with the tentative map requests in regard to responsibility and timing. ÍíòðÔÐÜ ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ This section includes a detailed description of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and tentative map requests of the project, components of the proposed project (including construction activities), required infrastructure improvements (including those that are off site), graphics illustrating the proposed project, and a description of anticipated actions associated with the project. ÍìòðÔÛÍô×ôÓ ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÓÛßÍËÎÛÍ Section 4.0 contains an introductory section that specifies the assumptions of the environmental impact analysis in the following general areas: Definition of baseline conditions Identification of how the analysis is organized in the impact analyses Consideration of the environmental effects of the roadway options identified by the Town, which will be carried throughout the EIR General definition of the cumulative setting used in the EIR In addition, this section provides an analysis of each of the environmental topic areas as identified below. Each subsection contains a description of the existing setting of the project site and the regulatory environment, identifies standards of significance, identifies project-related impacts, and recommends mitigation measures. The following major environmental topics are addressed in this section: Land Use Biological Resources and Natural Resources Transportation and Circulation Historic and Cultural Resources Noise Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóì ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Air Quality Visual Resources/Light and Glare Climate Change Community Services Geology and Soils Utilities and Service Systems Hazards and Risk of Upset Population, Housing, and Socioeconomics Hydrology and Water Quality Sections 4.1 through 4.14 in this EIR provide an integrated presentation of the setting, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for each of the environmental issue areas addressed. Potential effects of implementing the proposed project are identified, including cumulative effects, along with mitigation measures recommended to lessen or reduce identified impacts. In cases where no mitigation is available, this fact is noted. This EIR provides an analysis of environmental effects specifically associated with the proposed project, as well as an evaluation of project impacts in light of the environmental analysis provided in the Town of Truckee General Plan EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this EIR addresses environmental effects that are peculiar to the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and utilizes mitigation measures that are based on adopted Town of Truckee development policies and standards to mitigate anticipated impacts. ÍëòðÔÝ×Í ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The cumulative impacts of the project are assessed in combination with other known, approved, or reasonably foreseeable development activity in the region. This analysis is based on a list of known projects in the region as well as development forecasts contained in the Placer County General Plan, the Town of Truckee General Plan, and the Martis Valley Community Plan and by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines. This analysis also includes conditions outside the region that may indirectly impact the Truckee area (e.g., issues associated with the Truckee River, affordable housing issues, and traffic conditions on Interstate 80). The cumulative analysis addresses each topic covered in the environmental analysis (e.g., water supply, traffic, and biological resources) and identifies appropriate mitigation measures for any significant impacts identified. ÍêòðÔßÐ ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. ÍéòðÔÔóÌ×Ð ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ This section contains discussions and analysis of various topical issues mandated by CEQA. These include significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented as well as growth-inducing impacts. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóë ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÍèòðÔÎÐ ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÛÐÑÎÌ ÎÛÐßÎÛÎÍ This section lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the report by name, title, and company or agency affiliation. ß ÐÐÛÒÜ×ÝÛÍ This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR, as well as all technical material prepared to support the analysis. ïòê ÛÎÐ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÎÑÝÛÍÍ The review and certification process for the EIR involves the following procedural steps: ÒÐ×Í ÑÌ×ÝÛ ÑÚ ÎÛÐßÎßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ Ò×Ì×ßÔ ÌËÜÇ In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Town prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan on June 5, 2009. The Town was identified as the lead agency for the proposed project. The notice was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments on the proposed project. The 30-day comment period closed on July 6, 2009. A scoping meeting was also held on June 30, 2009, to solicit input from interested agencies and the public. Concerns raised in response to the NOP and at the scoping meeting were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP, responses by interested parties, and comments received at the scoping meeting are presented in Appendix A. The NOP’s conclusions supported preparation of an EIR for the proposed project. Following release of the original NOP, changes were made to the project description that necessitated release of a revised NOP and a re-release of the DEIR (see below). The revised NOP was issued January 4, 2011. A scoping meeting was held by the Town on January 27, 2011, to solicit comments on the scope of the analysis that should be prepared for the revised project. The revised NOP, responses by interested parties, and comments received at the scoping meeting are presented in Appendix A. Furthermore, Table 1.0-1 below lists every comment received during both NOP comment periods and information as to where those issues were addressed in this Draft EIR. The reader is advised that comments provided during the NOP process that did not concern the environmental impacts of the proposed project or the scope the EIR analysis should take are not codified in the table below, though they will be considered by the Town and are included in Appendix A. ïòðóï Ì ßÞÔÛ ÒÑÐÝÎÎÎ×Û×Î ÑÓÓÛÒÌÍ ÛÝÛ×ÊÛÜ ßÒÜ ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ ÌÑ ÛÐÎÛÍÛÒÌßÌ×ÊÛ ÒÚÑÎÓßÌ×ÑÒ ×Ò ÌØ×Í Ý±³³»²¬ Î»°±²» Ð®±¶»½¬ Ü»½®·°¬·±²ñÙ»²»®¿´ Í½±°» ûÏÑÑÙÌÛÕÝÒÉËÙËÕÐÊÖÙÎÌÏÎÏËÙÚÎÌÏÔÙÛÊÝÌÙÏÉÐÐÙÛÙËËÝÌÅÎÌ¸· ½±³³»²¬ ½±²½»®² ¬¸» Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ·¬»´º ¿²¼ · ²±¬ ¿²¼ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ±³·¬¬»¼ò ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ÝÛÏß ¿²¿´§·ò Ì¸»®»º±®»ô ·¬ · ²±¬ ¿¼¼®»»¼ º«®¬¸»® ·² ¬¸· Û×Îò ß² ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ¸±«´¼ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ©·¬¸ ±²´§ îëð Ì¸» Ì±©² Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ¿´´±© º±® «° ¬± íðð ¼©»´´·²¹ ÌÙËÕÚÙÐÊÕÝÒÉÐÕÊËÚÉÙÊÏÏÛÌÏÇÚÕÐ×Î«²·¬ô ¿«³·²¹ ²± «» ±º ¼»²·¬§ ¾±²«» º±® ©±®µº±®½»ñ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» ¸±«·²¹ò ß «½¸ô ®»¬®·½¬·²¹ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¾»´±© ¬¸· ´»ª»´ ©±«´¼ ¾» «²´·µ»´§ò Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóê ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Ý±³³»²¬ Î»°±²» Î»¹¿®¼´»ô Í»½¬·±² êòðô ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»ô ·²½´«¼» ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ¿ ®»¼«½»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °±¬»²¬·¿´ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» øß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ì÷ò Ì¸» »ºº»½¬ ±º ¬¸» ±°»²·²¹ ±º Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ±² ¬¸» Ì¸» ÜÛ×Î ¸¿ ¾»»² «°¼¿¬»¼ ¬± ¿½½±«²¬ º±® ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ½¸¿®¿½¬»® »¨·¬·²¹ »¿¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿®»¿ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ º®±³ ¬¸» °±·¾´» ±°»²·²¹ ±º ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² ¬¸» Û×Îò Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¬± ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬®¿ºº·½ò Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ »½¬·±² ±º ¬¸· Û×Î º±® ³±®» ·²º±®³¿¬·±² øÍ»½¬·±² ìòï ¬¸®±«¹¸ ìòïì÷ò Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ ß·®°±®¬ Ü·¬®·½¬ · ²±¬ ¿ ®»°±²·¾´» ¿¹»²½§ ±® ¬®«¬»» ¿¹»²½§ Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò º±® ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò Ò± ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¿·®°±®¬ ·³°¿½¬ »¨°»½¬»¼ ·² ®»´¿¬·±² ¬± ¬¸» Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ ø»» Í»½¬·±² ìòíô Ò±·»ô ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² ìòêô ¿·®°±®¬ò Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Î·µ ±º Ë°»¬ô º±® ¿ ¼·½«·±² ±º ¿·®°±®¬ ·³°¿½¬÷ò Ò± °»½·¿´ ¿·®°±®¬ ¬«¼·» ¿®» ®»¯«·®»¼ò Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò Ò± °»½·¿´ ±® ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¿·®°±®¬ º¿½·´·¬·» ¿®» ®»¯«·®»¼ò Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò ß¬¬»²¼¿²½» ¿¬ ¬¸» ½±°·²¹ ³»»¬·²¹ · ²±¬ ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ¬¸» Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò ¿·®°±®¬ò Ý¿´¬®¿² «°°±®¬ °®±ª··±² ±º ¿½½» º±® ¾·½§½´» ¿²¼ Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò °»¼»¬®·¿² ¿´±²¹ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª»ò Ý¿´¬®¿² «°°±®¬ ¬¸» ±°¬·±² ¬± ±°»² Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¬± Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò Í»» Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼ Ñ°¬·±² ï ¿ ¿ ³»¬¸±¼ ¬± ®»¼«½» Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ô º±® ¿ ¼·½«·±² ±º ¬®¿ºº·½ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ñ ´±½¿´ ¬®¿ºº·½ ±² ×óèðò ·³°¿½¬ º®±³ Ñ°¬·±² ïò É±«´¼ ½·®½«´¿¬·±² °´¿² ·²½´«¼» ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ð±·¾´» ¿²¼ »¨°»½¬»¼ º«¬«®» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ô «½¸ ¿ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ¿²¼ ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» ©»¬ »²¬®¿²½» ¬± ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ³»²¬·±²»¼ ·² ¬¸· ½±³³»²¬ô ©»®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¬¸» Þ±«´¼»®á ¼«®·²¹ °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬«¼§ò Í»» Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ô º±® ³±®» ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ò Ì¸» Ñ´§³°·½ Ø»·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ñ´¼ Ù®»»²©±±¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò Ì¸» Û×Î ¼±» ²±¬ ¿¼ª±½¿¬» ¿²§ °¿®¬·½«´¿® ·²½´«¼» ¹¿¬»¼ ¿½½»ô «½¸ ¿ ¬¸¿¬ °®±°±»¼ ¾§ ±³» ±º ¬¸» ½·®½«´¿¬·±² ±°¬·±² º±® Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª»å ¬¸«ô ¿´´ °±·¾´» °®±¶»½¬ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»ô ©·¬¸ ´±½¿´ «°°±®¬ º±® ¬¸» ¹¿¬»ò ±°¬·±² ¿®» ¿¼¼®»»¼ò Ì¸» Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý±³³··±² ¸±«´¼ ¾» ýÌÙËÎÏÐËÕÜÒÙÝ×ÙÐÛÅÉÐÚÙÌûùíýÕËÏÐÙÊÖÝÊÏÖÝË ÊÌÙÝÊÙÚÏÕÐÊÖÙËÝÑÙÑÝÐÐÙÌÎÝËÝÌÙËÎÏÐËÕÜÒÙÝ×ÙÐÛÅÝÐÚ®»°±²·¾·´·¬§ º±® ½¿®®§·²¹ ±«ÊÏÌÝÎÎÌÏÈÕÐ×ÝÎÌÏÔÙÛÊÎ ¬¸»·® ·²°«¬ ¬¿µ»² ¿ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¿ °®±¶»½¬ ±º ®»¹·±²¿´ ±® øÐ«¾´·½ Î»±«®½» Ý±¼» Í»½¬·±² îïðêç÷ò ß ¼»½®·¾»¼ ·² ¬¿¬»©·¼» ·³°±®¬¿²½»ò Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý±³³··±² ¼±» ²±¬ ¸¿ª» ¿ °±´·½§ ±® °®±¹®¿³ ·² °´¿½» ¬¸¿¬ ®»¯«·®» ¬¸»·® ¿°°®±ª¿´ °®·±® ¬± ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ò ß «½¸ô ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ¿ ¿ ®»°±²·¾´» ¿¹»²½§ · ·²¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¿¬ ¬¸· ¬·³»ò Ø±©»ª»®ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©·´´ º±®©¿®¼ ¿ ½±°§ ±º ¬¸» ÜÛ×Î ¬± ¬¸» Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý±³³··±² ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ÜÛ×Î ½±³³»²¬ °»®·±¼ò Ì®¿ºº·½ ¿²¿´§· ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» µ»§ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² Ì¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ¿²¿´§· °®»»²¬»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòîô ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸» ÒÑÐò Ú«®¬¸»®³±®»ô ¬¸» ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¸±«´¼ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ô ·²½´«¼» ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ¾» ®»ª·»©»¼ ¾§ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ð«¾´·½ É±®µ ¿²¼ ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¿²¼ º®±³ ¬¸»» ·²¬»®»½¬·±²ò ß º±® ®»ª·»© ¾§ Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¬¿ºº ¿²¼ Ý¿´¬®¿² Ñ°»®¿¬·±² ¬¿ººò ¬¸» Ì±©² Ð«¾´·½ É±®µ ¿²¼ Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¬¿ºº ¿²¼ Ý¿´¬®¿²ô ¾±¬¸ ¾±¼·» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¹·ª»² ¬¸» Û×Î ¬± ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ¾±¬¸ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ½±²«´¬»¼ ¼«®·²¹ °®»°¿®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸· Û×Îò Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóé ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Ý±³³»²¬ Î»°±²» Ì¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬«¼§ ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¿ ³¿° ©·¬¸ ¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹ ¹¿¬» Ì¸» ³¿° ·² ¬¸» Û×Î ¼± ²±¬ ·²½´«¼» °»½·º·½ ¼»°·½¬·±² ±º ï ±² Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ò ¬¸» ¹¿¬» ±² Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ò ×³°¿½¬ ±º ¼·¿¹±²¿´ °¿®µ·²¹ ±² ¾·½§½´» ¬®¿ª»´ ¸±«´¼ ¾» Ì¸· ·«» · ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ »ª¿´«¿¬»¼ò Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ò Ì®¿ºº·½ ¿º»¬§ ·³°¿½¬ ±º ±°»²·²¹ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¬± ¬¸®±«¹¸ ß ¸±©² ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ô ¬®¿ºº·½ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²½´«¼»¼ò ª·«¿´ ¼·¬¿²½» ¿²¼ °»¼»¬®·¿² ¿º»¬§ ·«» ®»«´¬·²¹ º®±³ ±°»²·²¹ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¬± ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬®¿ºº·½ ¿®» ·²½´«¼»¼ò Ì®¿ºº·½ ¿²¿´§· ¸±«´¼ ½±²·¼»® ¬¸» ·²½®»¿» ·² ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬¸¿¬ Ì¸» ·²½®»¿» »¨°»½¬»¼ ·² ¬®¿ºº·½ ¿´±²¹ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» · ©±«´¼ ±½½«® ±² Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¿ ¿ ®»«´¬ ±º ±°»²·²¹ ·¬ ¬± ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ò ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬®¿ºº·½ò Ì¸» °¸§·½¿´ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ·³°¿½¬ ±º ¿¼¼·²¹ ·¼»©¿´µ ¬± Ì¸· ·«» · ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ³«¬ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ò Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ò ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ ß·® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ º®±³ ¬¸» °±¬»²¬·¿´ ±°»²·²¹ ±º Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ì¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ·²½®»¿» ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ü®·ª» ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ò ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ·²½®»¿» ·² »³··±² ±º °±´´«¬¿²¬ ¿®» ¯«¿²¬·º·»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòìô ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ò Ò±·» Í±«²¼ ·³°¿½¬ º®±³ ×óèð ¸¿ª» ¼®·ª»² ®»·¼»²¬ ±º Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ì¸» ²±·» ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ²»© ®»·¼»²¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ Ü®·ª» ¬± °´¿½» ¼»½µô ¬¿¾´»ô »¬½òô ±² ¬¸» º®±²¬ ±º ¬¸»·® °®±¶»½¬ ¿®» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòíô Ò±·»ò ¸±³»ô ¿©¿§ º®±³ ¬¸» ¸·¹¸©¿§ò Ò±·» ·³°¿½¬ ±º ±°»²·²¹ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¬± ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬®¿ºº·½ Ì®¿ºº·½ ²±·» · ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòíô Ò±·»ò ¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²½´«¼»¼ò Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ø¿¾·¬¿¬ ¾«ºº»® ¿²¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹ »¬¾¿½µ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²½®»¿»¼ ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ý±´¼ Ý®»»µ º®±³ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ¿®» ¾»§±²¼ ëð º»»¬ ¿´±²¹ Ý±´¼ Ý®»»µ ¬± ¿´´±© º±® ¿ ©·¼»® ¬®»¿³ ¼·½«»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ò ¦±²»ò Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ¿®» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ©¸»®» ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ½®»»µ ¿²¼ ¬± ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ «» ¿®» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ò Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ ®»°´¿½»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý±´¼ Ý®»»µ Þ®·¼¹» ¸±«´¼ Í»» ¿¾±ª»ò ¾» ´»²¹¬¸»²»¼ ¿²¼ ¿² ·²»¬ º´±±¼°´¿·² ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ¿²¼ ª»¹»¬¿¬»¼ ¬± ®»¼«½» º´±±¼ ¿²¼ »®±·±² ¸¿¦¿®¼ ¿ ©»´´ ¿ ¬± ·³°®±ª» ¸¿¾·¬¿¬ò Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¿ ¬±®³©¿¬»® ß ¬¿¬»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ¿ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ °´¿²ò ¬±®³©¿¬»® °±´´«¬·±² °®»ª»²¬·±² °´¿² · ®»¯«·®»¼ °®·±® ¬± ·¬» ¼·¬«®¾¿²½»ò Ì¸» ©¿¬»® »¬¾¿½µ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²½®»¿»¼ ¬± ïðð º»»¬ ¬± Í»» ¿¾±ª»ò ³·¬·¹¿¬» º±® º´±±¼·²¹ò êÖÙÇÝÊÙÌËÖÙÚÉÎËÊÌÙÝÑÏØÊÖÙÎÌÏÔÙÛÊÕËÏËÙÈÙÌÙÒÅÕÑÎÝÕÌÙÚÚ´±±¼·²¹ ·³°¿½¬ ¿ ¿ ®»«´¬ ±º ¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±² ±º ÝÐÚÕËÕÐÛÝÎÝÜÒÙÏØËÒÏÇÕÐ×ÌÉÐÏØØÎêÖÙÌÙËÉÒÊÕÐ×ÏËÙÈÙÌÙÝ±´¼ Ý®»»µ ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ý®»»µ ¿®» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ØÒÏÏÚÌÕËÓÎËÖÏÉÒÚÜÙÝÚÚÌÙËËÙÚÕÐÊÖÙùõììòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ò Ì¸» »¨·¬·²¹ ¼®¿·²¿¹» ½±²¼·¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¬©± ½®»»µ ©¿ ½±²·¼»®»¼ò 1 Coldstream Road is also referred to in some maps and plans as Cold Stream Road. Coldstream Road is typically used throughout this EIR. However, the two names are interchangeable and refer to the same roadway. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóè ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Ý±³³»²¬ Î»°±²» ×³°¿½¬ ±² ¬®»¿³ô °±²¼ô ¿²¼ ©»¬´¿²¼ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± ¬¸»» ®»±«®½» ¿®» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² ¾±¬¸ Í»½¬·±² ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¬«¼§ò ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² ìòè Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ¿¼¼®» °±¬»²¬·¿´ ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¬¸» °±²¼ ¬± ¬¸» ×²½®»¿»¼ ·³°¿½¬ ±² ®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ ®»±«®½» ¿®» ¿ ®»¯«·®»¼ ±«¬¸©»¬ º®±³ ·²½®»¿»¼ »¿» ±º ¿½½»ô ·²½®»¿»¼ «» ±º ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ·² Û×Î ø»» Í»½¬·±² ìòïïô Ý±³³«²·¬§ ®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ º¿½·´·¬·»ô ¿²¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´ ¸¿¦¿®¼ º®±³ º«¬«®» Í»®ª·½»÷ò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´´§ô »» Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ®»·¼»²¬ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô º±® ¿ ¼·½«·±² ±º ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ ±² ¬¸»» °±²¼ º®±³ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ò ×¬ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ©¸»¬¸»® ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ · Ü·½«·±² ±º ®»¹«´¿¬·±² ¿²¼ °®±¹®¿³ ¬± ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» «¾¶»½¬ ¬± Ý´»¿² É¿¬»® ß½¬ Í»½¬·±² ìðï É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ · «¾¶»½¬ · ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Ý»®¬·º·½¿¬·±²ò Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò Ï«¿²¬·º·½¿¬·±² ±º ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿ Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ·²½´«¼» ¿ ¼»º·²·¬·ª» ¿ °±·¾´»ô «·²¹ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ³±¼»´·²¹ ¿²¼ ³«½¸ ¯«¿²¬·º·½¿¬·±² ±º ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½» ·³°¿½¬ ¿ °±·¾´» ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¼¿¬¿ò «²¼»® ¬¸» ¬§°» ±º Û×Î °®»°¿®»¼ò ×² ¬¸» ½¿» ±º ¬¸» °¿®µ «» ¿²¼ ½®»»µñ°±²¼ »²¸¿²½»³»²¬ô «ºº·½·»²¬ ¼»¬¿·´ ©¿ ²±¬ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± °®±¼«½» ¿ °®±¶»½¬ó´»ª»´ ¿²¿´§·ò Ì¸»» º»¿¬«®» ©»®» ¿¼¼®»»¼ °®±¹®¿³³¿¬·½¿´´§ ·² ¬¸· Û×Îò Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ·²½´«¼» ¿ ¬¸» Û×Îò ¼·½«·±² ±º ½«³«´¿¬·ª» ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ ®»«´¬·²¹ º®±³ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ½±³¾·²»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¹®±©¬¸ ·² ¬¸» Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ò ß´´ ¿ºº»½¬»¼ ©¿¬»® ¸±«´¼ ¾» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Û×Îô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ß²§ ¿ºº»½¬»¼ ©¿¬»®ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿ ©»¬´¿²¼ ¼»´·²»¿¬·±²ô ¿®» ·¼»²¬·º·½¿¬·±² ±º É¿¬»® Þ±¿®¼ ¶«®·¼·½¬·±²ô ¿½®»¿¹» ¿ºº»½¬»¼ô ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ¿²¼ ´·²»¿® º»»¬ ·³°¿½¬»¼ò ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò ×±´¿¬»¼ ©»¬´¿²¼ ±® ±¬¸»® ©¿¬»® ²±¬ «¾¶»½¬ ¬± º»¼»®¿´ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ¶«®·¼·½¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ®»¿½¸ ±º º´±±¼©¿¬»® ¼«®·²¹ ¿ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò îìó¸±«® ¬±®³ »ª»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¿ ïððó§»¿® ®»¬«®² º®»¯«»²½§ º±® ¿´´ «®º¿½» ©¿¬»® ¾±¼·» ¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¿²¿´§·ò Ý±²¬®«½¬·±²ó®»´¿¬»¼ ¼·®»½¬ ·³°¿½¬ ¬± «®º¿½» ©¿¬»® ©·´´ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ´·µ»´§ ®»¯«·®» É¿¬» Ü·½¸¿®¹» Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Ð®·²½·°´» ±º ¿ª±·¼¿²½» ®»¯«·®»¼ ±º º»¼»®¿´ ÝÉß Í»½¬·±² Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ìðìø¾÷ øï÷ ¹«·¼»´·²» ¸±«´¼ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò ß²§ ¼·½¸¿®¹» ±º ©¿¬» »¿®¬¸»² ³¿¬»®·¿´ ±® ±¬¸»® °®±¶»½¬óÌ¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ®»´¿¬»¼ °±´´«¬¿²¬ ¬± ¿²§ «®º¿½» ©¿¬»® ±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ·² É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò °®±°»®´§ ³¿²¿¹»¼ ¬±®³©¿¬»® ½±²ª»§¿²½» · °®±¸·¾·¬»¼ò Ì¸» Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¿ ÅËòÍò ß®³§Ã Ý±®°óª»®·º·»¼ ©»¬´¿²¼ Ì¸» Û×Î ·²½´«¼» ¿ ©»¬´¿²¼ ¼»´·²»¿¬·±² º±® ¾±¬¸ ±²ó ¿²¼ ¼»´·²»¿¬·±²ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ³»¿«®» ¬± °®»ª»²¬ ¼·½¸¿®¹» ±º ±ººó·¬» ·³°¿½¬ ø»» Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® °±´´«¬¿²¬ ¬± ©»¬´¿²¼ ¿®»¿ò Ï«¿´·¬§ô ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»÷ò É¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ · ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòéò Ô±© ·³°¿½¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ øÔ×Ü÷ ¬»½¸²·¯«» ¿®» Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò ß² ÒÐÜÛÍ ¹»²»®¿´ °»®³·¬ ©·´´ ¾» ®»¯«·®»¼ò Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò ß ÍÉÐÐÐ ©·´´ ¾» ®»¯«·®»¼ò Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Ð±¬ó½±²¬®«½¬·±² ÞÓÐ ¿®» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ò Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóç ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Ý±³³»²¬ Î»°±²» Ì¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¸±«´¼ «¬·´·¦» ±«®½» ½±²¬®±´ ±º ¬±®³©¿¬»® Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ®¿¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¬®»¿¬³»²¬ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò ×³°¿½¬ ±º ²±© ¬±®¿¹» ±² ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ¸±«´¼ ¾» Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ¿¼¼®»»¼ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Ü·¬«®¾¿²½» ±º «®º¿½» ©¿¬»® ¿²¼ ¬¸» ïððó§»¿® º´±±¼°´¿·² · Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ °®±¸·¾·¬»¼ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Ì¸» »ºº»½¬ ±º ©¿¬»® «¿¹» ±² «®º¿½» ©¿¬»® ¸±«´¼ ¾» Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ¿¼¼®»»¼ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Þ±¬¸ ¬®»¿¬³»²¬ ¿²¼ ®»¬»²¬·±² ±º ¬±®³©¿¬»® ¸±«´¼ ¾» Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Ì¸» Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¿²§ ©¿¬»® ®«²±ºº ½±²ª»§¿²½» ±® Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ¼®¿·²¿¹» ¿²¿´§» °®»°¿®»¼ º±® ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Ì¸» »ºº»½¬ ±º «·²¹ ´¿²¼½¿°·²¹ º»®¬·´·¦»® ±® ±¬¸»® ½¸»³·½¿´ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ±² ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² ¬¸» Û×Îò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Î»ª»¹»¬¿¬·±² ±º ¼·¬«®¾»¼ ¿®»¿ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¼·½«»¼ ·² ¬¸» Î»ª»¹»¬¿¬·±² · ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ò Ì¸» Û×Îò »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ »ºº»½¬ ±º «½¸ ¿½¬·±² ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¿²¿´§· °®»»²¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ®»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª» »½¬·±² ±º ¬¸· Û×Î ø»°»½·¿´´§ Í»½¬·±² ìòìô ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ô Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»÷ò Ì¸» Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ·¼»²¬·º§ »®±·±² ¿²¼ »¼·³»²¬ ½±²¬®±´ ÞÓÐ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòéô Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ ¬± ¾» «»¼ò É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ©¿¬»® ®»±«®½»ò Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ «°°±®¬ ¬¸» °´¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ ®»ª»¹»¬¿¬·±² Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò ±º ¼·¬«®¾»¼ ¿®»¿ ©·¬¸ ²¿¬·ª» ª»¹»¬¿¬·±² ±²´§ò Ð´»¿» ·²½´«¼» ¿ ©»»¼ ¿½¬·±² °´¿² º±® ·²ª¿·ª»ô ²±²ó²¿¬·ª» Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ °´¿²¬ ·² ¿´´ °¸¿» ±º ½±²¬®«½¬·±²ò Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò Ì¸» Ñ°»² Í°¿½» Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ Ð´¿² ³«¬ ¾» »¨°¿²¼»¼ ¬± Ì¸» ±°»² °¿½» ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ °´¿² · ²±¬ ¿² ¿°»½¬ ±º ¬¸» ·²½´«¼» »¨·¬·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬± ¿¼¼®» ·²¬»¹®·¬§ ±º Û×Îò Ø±©»ª»®ô ·³°¿½¬ ¬± °®»»®ª»¼ ¿²¼ »²¸¿²½»¼ ¿®»¿ °®»»®ª»¼ ¿²¼ »²¸¿²½»¼ ¿®»¿ò ¿®» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ¿¼¼®» ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ©·´¼´·º»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ·³°¿½¬ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ ØÌÏÑÌÙËÕÚÙÐÊËÑÎÙÊËÙÐÊÙÌÕÐ× ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ ¿²¼ ¸«³¿²ó¾»¿® Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò ·²¬»®¿½¬·±²ò Ð´¿² °»½·» ¬¿¾´» ¸±«´¼ ¾» °´·¬ ¬± ¸±© ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ ½¸¿²¹» ©±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ²± º«²½¬·±²¿´ »ºº»½¬ ±² °»½·» ±² ±²» ¿²¼ °»½·» ¬± ¿ª±·¼ ±² ¿²±¬¸»®ò ¬¸» »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ·³°¿½¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ¿ ¬¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» Û×Îô ¿ ¬¸» ¿³» °´¿²¬ ©±«´¼ ¾» ¼·½±«®¿¹»¼ò Ý·®·«³ °ò ¸±«´¼ ¾» »´·³·²¿¬»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» ®»¬±®¿¬·±² °´¿² ×²ª¿·ª» °»½·» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ½±²·¼»®»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòèô °¿´»¬¬» ·²½» ³¿²§ °»½·» ±º ¬¸· °´¿²¬ ½¿² ¾» ·²ª¿·ª»ò Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò ß ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ¸¿ ¾»»² ·²½´«¼»¼ ¬± °®»ª»²¬ °´¿²¬·²¹ ±º ¬¸· °¿®¬·½«´¿® ¹»²«ò Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ©·´´ ®»¯«·®» ¿ Ì·³¾»®´¿²¼ Ý±²ª»®·±² Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ì·³¾»® Ø¿®ª»¬ Ð´¿²ô ¿ °»® Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ý±¼» ±º ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ô ®»¯«·®» «½¸ ¿ °´¿² ·º ¬·³¾»® · ¬± Î»¹«´¿¬·±²ô Í»½¬·±² ïïðíò ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ º±® ¿´»ò ×³°¿½¬ ±² ©·´¼´·º» ¬®¿ª»´ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¬«¼·»¼ò ×³°¿½¬ ¬± ³±ª»³»²¬ ½±®®·¼±® ¿®» ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóïð ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Ý±³³»²¬ Î»°±²» Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½» ß ®»½±®¼ »¿®½¸ º±® µ²±©² ½«´¬«®¿´ ®»±«®½» ¸±«´¼ ¾» ß ®»½±®¼ »¿®½¸ ©¿ «²¼»®¬¿µ»²ô ¿ ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² «²¼»®¬¿µ»²ò ìòçô Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò ×º ¿² ¿®½¸»±´±¹·½¿´ «®ª»§ · ®»¯«·®»¼ °»® ¬¸» ®»«´¬ ±º ¿ ß² ß®½¸¿»±´±¹·½¿´ ×²ª»²¬±®§ Í«®ª»§ øÖ»²»² îððî÷ ©¿ ®»½±®¼ »¿®½¸ô ¿ º·²¿´ ®»°±®¬ ½¿¬¿´±¹·²¹ ¬¸» º·²¼·²¹ ±º «½¸ °®»°¿®»¼ º±® ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ·¬ º·²¼·²¹ ©»®» ¿ «®ª»§ ¸±«´¼ ¾» °®»°¿®»¼ò ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ·²¬± ¬¸» ¿²¿´§· ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòçô Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò Ì¸» Ò¿¬·ª» ß³»®·½¿² Ø»®·¬¿¹» Ý±³³··±² ¸±«´¼ ¾» Ý±²«´¬¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ò¿¬·ª» ß³»®·½¿² Ø»®·¬¿¹» ½±²¬¿½¬»¼ º±® ¿ Í¿½®»¼ Ô¿²¼ Ú·´» Ý¸»½µ ¿²¼ ¿ ´·¬ ±º Ý±³³··±² ©¿ «²¼»®¬¿µ»²ô ¿ ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòçô ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ½±²¬¿½¬ º±® ½±²«´¬¿¬·±²ò Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ò Ô¿½µ ±º «®º¿½» »ª·¼»²½» ±º ¿®½¸¿»±´±¹·½¿´ ®»±«®½» ¼±» Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ©»®» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ìòçô ²±¬ °®»½´«¼» ¬¸»·® »¨·¬»²½»ò Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ô ¬± ¿¼¼®» ¬¸» °±·¾´» ¼·½±ª»®§ ±º «½¸ ®»±«®½» ¿²¼ ¿½¬·±² ¬± ¾» «²¼»®¬¿µ»² ·² ¬¸» ½¿» «½¸ ®»±«®½» ¿®» ¼·½±ª»®»¼ò Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®» Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ¿¼¼®» ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ½¿³°¹®±«²¼ô Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿»¬¸»¬·½ô ²±·»ô ¿²¼ ´·¹¸¬ ·«»ò ×²½´«¼» Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ¿² ·²½®»¿»¼ ¾«ºº»® ¬± îðð º»»¬ô ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ±º ¿ º»²½» ¿²¼ ª»¹»¬¿¬»¼ »¿®¬¸»² ¾»®³ô ´·³·¬¿¬·±² ±² ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¸±«®ñ¼¿§ô ¿²¼ °®»»®ª¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹ ³¿¬«®» ¬®»» ¿²¼ ¸®«¾ ª»¹»¬¿¬·±² ¿ ¿ ª·«¿´ ½®»»²ò Î»½±³³»²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¸±³» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ ¿®» Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ¿ ·²¹´» ¬±®§ ·² ¸»·¹¸¬ ¬± ®»¼«½» ª·«¿´ ·³°¿½¬ò Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ·³«´¿¬»¼ ª·»© ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ º®±³ ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ª·»© ·² ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µò Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò ß´´ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¼±©²½¿¬ô ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ °®±°»®¬§ô ¿²¼ °±·²¬»¼ ¿©¿§ º®±³ ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µò Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò Î»½±³³»²¼ ¿ ¼»»¼ ®»¬®·½¬·±² ±® ´»¹¿´´§ ¾·²¼·²¹ ¾«·´¼·²¹ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïô Ô¿²¼ Ë»ô ¿²¼ »²ª»´±°» ¬± »²«®» ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ±º ¾«ºº»® ¿´±²¹ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò Î±¿¼ò Ê·´´¿¹» Ó·¨»¼ Ë» ¿®»¿ ¸±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¿ ª»¹»¬¿¬·ª» ½®»»² ±® Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ ¾«ºº»® º®±³ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µò Þ«·´¼·²¹ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò ¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²¹´» ¬±®§ ¿´±²¹ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ò Ë» ·² ¬¸» Ê·´´¿¹» Ù®»»² Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿®»¿ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ´·³·¬»¼ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ ¬± ¬©± ¬±®·»ò Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò Ë» ·² ¬¸» Ê·´´¿¹» Ù®»»² Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Í³¿´´ Ô±¬ ¸±«´¼ ¾» Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ±²» ¬±®§ò Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò Ë» ¿´´±©»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Î»½®»¿¬·±² Æ±²» ø»ò¹òô ÞúÞô ½¸·´¼ó Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ ½¿®» ½»²¬»®ô ½±²º»®»²½» º¿½·´·¬·»ô »³°´±§»» ¸±«·²¹÷ ¿®» Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò ÐÏÊÝÎÎÌÏÎÌÕÝÊÙØÏÌÝÏÌÙÛÌÙÝÊÕÏÐÝÒÎÚÙËÕ×ÐÝÊÕÏÐüÉÕÒÚÕÐ× ¸»·¹¸¬ ·² ¬¸· ¿®»¿ ¸±«´¼ ¾» ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ±²» ¬±®§ ±² ¬¸» ²±®¬¸»®² ¬¸·®¼ ±º ¬¸» Î»½®»¿¬·±² ß®»¿ò ×²½´«¼» ¿² ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ©¸»®» ¸»·¹¸¬ ¿®» ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± íë º»»¬ò Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò Ì¸» ª·«¿´ ¬«¼§ ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ª·»© º®±³ ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µô Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïðô Ê·«¿´ ß®³¬®±²¹ Ì®¿½¬ô Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ô ¿²¼ Ì¿¸±» Ü±²²»®ò Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®»ò Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóïï ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ Ý±³³»²¬ Î»°±²» Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í»®ª·½» ß ±©²»® ¿²¼ ±°»®¿¬±® ±º ¬¸» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ Ü±²²»® Ó»³±®·¿´ Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µô ¬¸» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ð¿®µ ¿²¼ Î»½®»¿¬·±² · ¿ ¬®«¬»» ¿¹»²½§ò Ð´»¿» ½´¿®·º§ ¬¸» ¬¿¬« ±º ¬¸» ´¿²¼ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» ±«¬¸»¿¬ ±º Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬ °»½·º·½¿´´§ ²±¬» º·¹«®» º®±³ ¬¸» Í°»½·º·½ Ý±´¼ Ý®»»µ ¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ Î»½®»¿¬·±² ß®»¿ò Ð´¿²ô ²±¬ ¬¸» Û×Î ±® ÒÑÐò Ø±©»ª»®ô ·² ½´¿®·º·½¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» ¿®»¿ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ · ¸±©² ·² ¾±¬¸ º·¹«®» ¿ ¾»·²¹ «²·³°®±ª»¼ô ±°»² °¿½»ò Ì¸» Û×Î ¿«³»¼ ¿ ³«½¸ò Ì¸» Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ¿¼¼®» ·²½®»¿»¼ «» ±º Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ ¬®¿·´ ¿ ¿ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòèô Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ ¿²¼ ®»«´¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ °±·¾´» Ò¿¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½»ô ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² ìòïïô Ý±³³«²·¬§ ½±²²»½¬·ª·¬§ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ ¬®¿·´ §¬»³ò Í»®ª·½»ò Ü±²²»® Ó»³±®·¿´ Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ · îôçèì ¿½®» ·² ·¦»ò Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò Ì¸» ¬®¿·´ ½±²²»½¬·±² ¬± Ü±²²»® Ó»³±®·¿´ Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ ¸±«´¼ Ý±³³»²¬ ²±¬»¼ò ¾» ½±²²»½¬»¼ ¼·®»½¬´§ ©»¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ²±¬ ¿´±²¹ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ò Í¿º»¬§ ±º «»® ±º ¬¸» Ô»¹¿½§ Ì®¿·´ ¿´±²¹ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòîô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿¼¼®»»¼ò ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±²ò Ë¬·´·¬·» ¿²¼ Í»®ª·½» Í§¬»³ Û×Î ¸±«´¼ ·²½´«¼» ¼·½«·±² ±º ©¿¬»® ¿²¼ »²»®¹§ ²»»¼ ±º Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïïô Ë¬·´·¬·» ¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ò Í»®ª·½» Í§¬»³ò Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿» Ù´±¾¿´ ©¿®³·²¹ ·³°¿½¬ ²»½»·¬¿¬» ·²½®»¿·²¹ ¾«ºº»® ¿´±²¹ Ì¸» ½±³³»²¬»® · ®»º»®®»¼ ¬± Í»½¬·±² ìòïìô Ù®»»²¸±«» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Å·½Ã Ý®»»µò Ù´±¾¿´ ©¿®³·²¹ ·³°¿½¬ ¸±«´¼ ¾» Ù¿» ¿²¼ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹»ò ¿¼¼®»»¼ ·² ¬¸» Û×Îò ÜÛ×Î ÎßÚÌ The Draft EIR contains a description of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the Town of Truckee filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code Section 21161). ÐÒñÐÎ ËÞÔ×Ý ÑÌ×ÝÛËÞÔ×Ý ÛÊ×ÛÉ Concurrent with the NOC, the Town will provide public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The public review and comment period should be no less than 30 days or longer than 90 days. The review period in this case is expected to be 45 days. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to: Jenna Endres TOWN OF TRUCKEE Planning Division 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóïî ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÎÝñÚÛ×Î ÛÍÐÑÒÍÛ ÌÑ ÑÓÓÛÒÌÍ×ÒßÔ Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period and to oral comments made at public hearings regarding the proposed project. ÝÛ×ÎñÐÝ ÛÎÌ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÑÒÍ×ÜÛÎßÌ×ÑÒ The Town of Truckee Planning Commission will review and consider the Final EIR. If the Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the Commission may certify the Final EIR at a public hearing. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if it shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information and provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of its environmental consequences. Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission may take action to recommend approval, revise, or reject the Tentative Map and the Restoration and Management Plan. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and, if applicable, Section 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as described below, would also be adopted for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. This MMRP will be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation. Additionally, once the Final EIR is certified and if the project is approved, the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Town of Truckee Town Council to approve the project. ÓÓÎÐ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÒ×ÌÑÎ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÛÐÑÎÌ×ÒÙ ÎÑÙÎßÓ CEQA Section 21081.6(a) requires lead agencies to adopt an MMRP to describe measures which have been adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The specific “reporting or monitoring” program required by CEQA is not required to be included in the EIR; however it will be presented to the Planning Commission for adoption. Throughout the EIR, mitigation measures have been clearly identified and presented in language that will facilitate establishment of an MMRP. Any mitigation measures adopted by the Town as conditions for approval of the project will be included in an MMRP to verify compliance. ïòé ×Ì ÓÐßÝÌ ÛÎÓ×ÒÑÔÑÙÇ This Draft EIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the proposed project: Less Than Significant Impact: A less than significant impact would cause no substantial change in the physical condition of the environment (no mitigation would be required for project effects found to be less than significant). Significant Impact and Potentially Significant Impact: A significant impact would cause (or would potentially cause) a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of project effects using Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóïí ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ specified standards of significance provided in each technical section of the DEIR. Identified “significant” impacts are those where the project would result in an impact that can be measured or quantified, while identified “potentially significant” impacts are those impacts where an exact measurement of the project’s effects cannot be made but substantial evidence indicates that the impact would exceed standards of significance. A potentially significant impact may also be an impact that may or may not occur and where a definite determination cannot be foreseen. Mitigation measures and/or project alternatives are identified to avoid or reduce project effects to the environment to a less than significant level. Significant and Unavoidable Impact: A significant and unavoidable impact would result in a substantial negative change in the environment that cannot be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level if the project is implemented. Less Than Cumulatively Considerable Impact: A less than cumulatively considerable impact would cause no substantial change in the physical condition of the environment under cumulative conditions. Cumulatively Considerable Impact: A cumulatively considerable impact would result when the incremental effects of an individual project result in a significant adverse physical impact on the environment under cumulative conditions. ïòè ÝËÌ ÑÓÓÑÒÔÇ ÍÛÜ ÛÎÓÍ Identified below are common terms used throughout this document. A complete list of abreviations is also provided. Ì ÛÎÓÍ This Draft EIR uses the following terminology: Project Site: The 178.6-acre project site generally bounded by Interstate 80 on the north, the Union Pacific Railroad on the south, residential uses to the east, and Coldstream Road and Donner Memorial State Park to the west. Standards of Significance: A set of significance criteria to determine at what level or “threshold” an impact would be considered significant. Significance criteria used in this Draft EIR include the State CEQA Guidelines; factual or scientific information; regulatory performance standards of local, state, and federal agencies; and Town goals, objectives, and policies. Specified significance criteria used by the Town of Truckee are identified at the beginning of the impact analyses of each technical section of the Draft EIR. Subsequent Projects: Anticipated development projects (e.g., residential, commercial, park, recreational) that would occur under the General Plan. This would include public and utility extension projects including, but not limited to, roadway widenings and extensions, intersection improvements, water distribution improvements, and trail extensions. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóïì ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ïòç ß ÞÞÎÛÊ×ßÌ×ÑÒÍ AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos-containing material ADT average daily trips af/yr acre-feet per year amsl above mean sea level ANSI American National Standards Institute APCD Air Pollution Control District APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACT Best Available Control Technology bgs below ground surface BMP best management practices CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Cal EMA California Emergency Management Agency Cal-EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAO Cleanup and Abatement Order CARB California Air Resources Board CAT Climate Action Team CBSC California Building Standards Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CC&R covenants, codes, and restrictions CCR California Code of Regulations CDF California Department of Forestry CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CER Computerized Environmental Report CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFD Community Facility District CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CGP Construction General Permit CH methane 4 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóïë ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ CHHSL California Human Health Screening Levels CHP California Highway Patrol CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide carbon dioxide CO 2 COe carbon dioxide equivalents 2 CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CSD Community Services District CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DBH diameter at breast height DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DOT Department of Transportation DPM diesel-exhaust particulate matter DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan DSCP Dust Suppression Control Plan DSOD Division of Safety of Dams DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DUE dwelling unit equivalent du/acre dwelling units per acre DWR Department of Water Resources EDU equivalent dwelling units EIR environmental impact report EOP Emergency Operations Plan ERP Emissions Reduction Plan ESA Environmental Site Assessment ESL environmental screening level FAR floor area ratio FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act FESA federal Endangered Species Act FGC Fish and Game Code FHF Flood Hazard Factors FIP Federal Implementation Plan FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóïê ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ FIS Flood Insurance Study FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FSRS Fire Suppression Rating Schedule FTEE full-time equivalent employee GHG greenhouse gas GPA General Plan Amendment gpd gallons per day g/m grams per meter 22 gpm gallons per minute GWP global warming potential HAP hazardous air pollutant HCM Highway Capacity Manual HFC hydrofluorocarbon I interstate [as in I-80] ISO Insurance Services Office L day/night average sound level dn LED light-emitting diode L equivalent or energy-averaged sound level eq LID low impact development lbs/day pounds per day maximum noise level L max L minimum noise level min LOS level of service LUST leaking underground storage tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCAB Mountain Counties Air Basin MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake MCL Maximum Containment Level mgd million gallons per day MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MRF Material Recovery Facility MT metric ton MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether M moment magnitude w NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóïé ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCTC Nevada County Transportation Commission NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nitrogen dioxide NO 2 NOP Notice of Preparation No nitrogen oxides x NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSAQMD Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District O nitrous oxide N 2 Oozone 3 OES Office of Emergency Services OHWM ordinary high water mark OPR Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb lead PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCWA Placer County Water Agency PFC perfluorocarbon PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PPC Public Protection Classification PM particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 2.5 PM particulate matter between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter 10 ppm parts per million ppv peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code PUC Public Utilities Commission RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 REC recognized environmental condition RMPP Risk Management Prevention Program ROG reactive organic gas RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóïè ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ SB Senate Bill SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCCD Sierra Community College District SCS Soil Conservation Service SEL Single Event Noise Level sulfur hexafluoride SF 6 SFU single-family unit SIP State Implementation Plan SOI sphere of influence sulfur dioxide SO 2 SR State Route SWMP stormwater management plan SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant TCR Transportation Concept Report TDPUD Truckee Donner Public Utility District TDRPD Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District TDS total dissolved solids TEA Transportation Equity Act TFPD Truckee Fire Protection District TMDL total maximum daily loads TROA Truckee River Operating Agreement TRWC Truckee River Watershed Council TSD Truckee Sanitary District TSS total suspended solids TTD Tahoe Truckee Disposal TTPDTown of Truckee Police Department TTSA Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency TTUSD Tahoe Truckee Unified School District UBC Uniform Building Code UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology UFC Uniform Fire Code UPRR Union Pacific Railroad USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDA-SCS USDA Soil Conservation Service USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS United States Forest Service Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ïòðóïç ïòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UST underground storage tank UWMP urban water management plan V/C volume-to-capacity ratio VMT vehicle miles of travel VOC volatile organic compound WEAP worker environmental awareness program WRCC Western Regional Climate Center Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ïòðóîð îòðÛÍ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ îòðÛÍ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ This section provides an overview of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and the environmental analysis. For additional details regarding specific issues, please consult the appropriate chapter in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. îòï ÐÍÛ×Î ËÎÐÑÍÛ ßÒÜ ÝÑÐÛ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÓÐßÝÌ ÛÐÑÎÌ This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will provide a reasonably thorough analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This EIR analysis focuses upon potential environmental impacts related to land use, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and risk of upset, hydrology and water quality, biological and natural resources, historic and cultural resources, visual resources/light and glare, community services, utilities and service systems, population, housing, and socioeconomics, and climate change. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared for the proposed project by the Town of Truckee and circulated for agency and public review and comment from June 5, 2009, to July 6, 2009. The NOP and comment letters received during the comment period are included in Appendix A. Following changes to the project description, a second NOP was prepared by the Town and circulated from January 4, 2011, to February 4, 2011. The revised NOP and comment letters received during the comment period are included in Appendix A as well. îòî ÐÝ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ØßÎßÝÌÛÎ×ÍÌ×ÝÍ The proposed project includes the following components: Commercial uses are identified in the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zone. A total of 8.6 acres allowing up to 70,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses and lodging are proposed for this zoning district. Residential land uses are also encouraged in this district. Residential uses are proposed for 54.4 acres total,providing up to 345 residential units (including affordable housing) in the following residential districts: Village Green Residential (11.4 acres), Village Green Residential Small Lot (7.0 acres), Lakeside Residential (25.5 acres), and Forest Residential (10.5 acres). Recreation is proposed for 7.0 acres of the project site, and 108.6 acres are proposed for Open Space. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes a wide variety of housing types including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes. The proposed project includes a public gathering area located in the heart of the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district. Another major component of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is enhancement of former mining pond areas and restoration of Cold Creek and Donner Creek. This aspect of the proposed project presents preservation, restoration, and enhancement opportunities. The project also proposes to create a connection from Coldstream Road to Deerfield Drive (with a re-designation of Deerfield Drive) and to construct a new vehicular bridge over Cold Creek to facilitate access throughout the project site. êÏÇÐÏØêÌÉÛÓÙÙûÏÒÚËÊÌÙÝÑëÎÙÛÕØÕÛîÒÝÐ ôÉÐÙ úÌÝØÊùÐÈÕÌÏÐÑÙÐÊÝÒõÑÎÝÛÊìÙÎÏÌÊ îòðóï îòðÛÍ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ A trail network is proposed to connect residential, commercial, and recreational areas in and outside of the project site by providing a linked system of bikeways and recreational trails. The trails system includes a major link to the Truckee Legacy Trail that will ultimately connect to Donner Memorial State Park and Coldstream Canyon through the project site via possible off-site trails. îòí ßÝ ÎÛßÍ ÑÚ ÑÒÌÎÑÊÛÎÍÇ The following letters were received during the two NOP comment periods which lasted from June 5, 2009, to July 6, 2009, and from January 4, 2011, to February 4, 2011. A summary of each issue raised by the commenter is provided below, and the section of the EIR in which it will be addressed is identified. A letter was also received from the Truckee Tahoe Airport District indicating that the district would not be a responsible or trustee agency. California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan Region: Commenter provided general comments regarding the approvals that will likely be required for the proposed Specific Plan to be developed. Commenter asked that quantification of water quality impacts be as detailed as possible given the available information, delineation of any wetlands, the requirement for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit(s), the requirement for a stormwater pollution prevention plan, the need for post-construction best management practices (BMPs), a recommendation for both treatment and retention of stormwater, inclusion of any stormwater analyses as appendices to the EIR, discussion of effects from landscaping fertilizers and other chemicals, the need for revegetation of disturbed areas, recommendations for erosion/sediment BMPs, recommendations for source control of stormwater quality, discussion of possible water quality impacts of snow storage, recommendations for the use of low impact development practices, discussion of possible habitat connectivity and wildlife movement impacts, information regarding prohibitions of development within established floodplains, and a request for the EIR to analyze impacts of water supply on surface water. Water quality issues raised by the commenter will be discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Habitat and wildlife concerns of the commenter will be discussed in Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources. Carmel Ski Club: The Carmel Ski Club opposes opening Deerfield Drive to through traffic, citing traffic and noise impacts. Traffic impacts of this option will be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. Noise impacts will be discussed in Section 4.3, Noise. Anton Stinauer: Commenter states his opposition to opening Deerfield Drive to through traffic and states this option would increase hazards for pedestrians and bicycles along the roadway, potentially doing damage to the roadway and resulting in loss of private property for the installation of sidewalks. These issues will be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. The commenter further states that opening Deerfield Drive to through traffic will result in increases in air and noise pollution. These issues are discussed in Section 4.4, Air Quality, and Section 4.3, Noise, respectively. Truckee Trails Foundation : Commenter recommends that the Legacy Trail alignment connect directly to Donner Memorial State Park from the Specific Plan Area, not via Donner Pass Road. Trails impacts will be discussed in Section 4.11, Community Services. Truckee Sanitary District: Commenter expressed their support for opening Deerfield Drive as it would provide access to district resources west of the project area. Connectivity will be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. ûÏÒÚËÊÌÙÝÑëÎÙÛÕØÕÛîÒÝÐêÏÇÐÏØêÌÉÛÓÙÙ úÌÝØÊùÐÈÕÌÏÐÑÙÐÊÝÒõÑÎÝÛÊìÙÎÏÌÊôÉÐÙ îòðóî îòðÛÍ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC): The NAHC requests that the EIR include mitigation to address accidentally discovered archaeological resources and disposition of recovered artifacts in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans, as well as provisions for discovery of Native American human remains. This issue will be discussed in Section 4.9, Historic and Cultural Resources. State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation: The Department of Parks and Recreation raised a number of issues to be addressed as part of the EIR analysis. These issues included concerns regarding revegetation and noninvasive species, recommendations for the habitat buffer and building setbacks from the creek channel to be increased beyond 50 feet to allow for a wider stream zone, and a discussion of impacts to wildlife from domestic pets as well as potential issues with bears and humans. These issues will be addressed in Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources, of the EIR. Questions regarding the Open Space area depicted on the land use plan and the defensible space setback between Donner Memorial State Park and lots adjacent to Coldstream Road will be addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use, of the EIR. Impacts to ponds and trails in Donner Memorial State Park will be addressed in the Recreation discussion in Section 4.11, Community Services, of the EIR. Visual impacts to the campground that borders Coldstream Road and the heights of structures next to Coldstream Road, as well as various comments regarding each of the proposed land use designations and recommended buffers and screening, will be discussed in Section 4.10, Visual Resources/Light and Glare. Noise impacts to the campground that borders Coldstream Road will be addressed in Section 4.3, Noise. The Department of Parks and Recreation also requested that the traffic study include Coldstream Road, including a map with the existing gate and potential safety issues if the Legacy Trail and Class III bike route cross the road. These issues will be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. Maintenance of vegetated swales and road shoulders will be discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Defensible space setback between Donner Memorial State Park and lots adjacent to Coldstream Road will be discussed in Section 4.1, Land Use. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Caltrans indicated support of the Town of Truckee’s efforts to provide access for bicycles and pedestrians along Deerfield Drive for the three “emergency-only” alternatives as well as traffic calming measures to reduce concerns of the existing residents on Deerfield Drive. These issues will be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection indicated that a Timberland Conversion and Timber Harvest Plan is required. Timberland Conversion Permits are specified in the letter as well. These issues will be discussed in Section 4.1, Land Use. The comment was reissued by the commenter for the revised NOP. Nevada County Transportation Commission: The Nevada County Transportation Commission indicated that the EIR should evaluate the key intersections listed in the NOP and should be reviewed by Town of Truckee Public Works and Engineering staff as well as by Caltrans Traffic Operations staff. This issue will be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. Karen Pillar: The commenter raised questions regarding whether the proposed circulation plan includes a roundabout at the west entrance of the Boulders residential area and indicated that Olympic Heights and Old Greenwood have an alignment with a closed gate that both communities supported. These issues will be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. The commenter also points out that residents along Deerfield Drive have decks in their front yards to avoid highway noise at the back of the lots. This issue will be discussed in Section 4.3, Noise. The commenter provided comments on the revised NOP indicating that she êÏÇÐÏØêÌÉÛÓÙÙûÏÒÚËÊÌÙÝÑëÎÙÛÕØÕÛîÒÝÐ ôÉÐÙ úÌÝØÊùÐÈÕÌÏÐÑÙÐÊÝÒõÑÎÝÛÊìÙÎÏÌÊ îòðóí îòðÛÍ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ does not support the opening of Deerfield Drive to through traffic and that she is concerned with the Town’s past actions on this matter. The environmental effects of opening Deerfield Road, referred to as “Option 1,” are addressed in this EIR. As for the actions of the Town or the possible selection of this option by the Town, those issues are not related to the environmental effects and are thus not directly discussed herein. Mountain Area Preservation Foundation: The Mountain Area Preservation Foundation had comments that addressed a variety of issues. Concerns regarding possible flooding as a result of the upstream watershed being severely impaired, the possibility of implementing 100-foot setbacks from the creek and 50-foot setbacks from the pond to avoid risk of flood, and impacts of development, including lawns, on streams, wetlands, and ponds, will be discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Consideration of a change in height limits from 35 feet to 50 feet and the request that the analysis consider views from the State Park, Armstrong Tract, the road coming down from Coldstream, and Tahoe Donner will be addressed in Section 4.10, Visual Resources/Light and Glare. Concerns regarding impact of additional commercial development on existing commercial centers will be addressed in Section 4.13, Population, Housing, and Socioeconomics. The Mountain Area Preservation Foundation also requested that an alternative with no commercial development be included and that an alternative that proposes 250 residential units be considered. These alternatives will be discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives. Water and energy required for each alternative will also be considered in Section 6.0. A discussion of global warming and vehicle miles traveled will be included in the Cumulative Impacts Summary of Section 4.14, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, as well as in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. Impacts of diagonal parking spaces on bicycle travel will also be discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. Impacts on wildlife movement will be discussed in Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources. îòì ßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ The purpose of the EIR alternatives analysis is to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[a]). An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, nor is it required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The discussion of alternatives shall focus on those which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if they impede the attainment of the project objectives to some degree or would be more costly [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)]. Alternative 1a – No Project. Under this alternative, no development of the project site would occur. The project site would remain in its current undeveloped state. This alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project, the Town of Truckee General Plan, or the Truckee Redevelopment Plan, but analysis of the No Project Alternative is required under CEQA GuidelinesSection 15126.6(e). Alternative 1b –No Project Consistent with General Plan. Under this alternative, the project site would be developed consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation for PC-1 which allows 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet (s.f.) of commercial uses. Alternative 2 –Reduced Residential Development and Reconfigured Roadway Alternative. This alternative would reduce the number of residential units proposed on the project site by 50 dwelling units east of Cold Creek in the Forest Residential zoning district, resulting in 295 residential units. The roadway system would be modified to provide only ûÏÒÚËÊÌÙÝÑëÎÙÛÕØÕÛîÒÝÐêÏÇÐÏØêÌÉÛÓÙÙ úÌÝØÊùÐÈÕÌÏÐÑÙÐÊÝÒõÑÎÝÛÊìÙÎÏÌÊôÉÐÙ îòðóì îòðÛÍ ÈÛÝËÌ×ÊÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ emergency access to Deerfield Drive east of the project site (see Figure 6.0-1). All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative 3 –Wetland Impact Minimization Alternative. This alternative would retain the same overall site design; however, the site design would be modified to avoid wetland impacts in the southern portion and eastern portion of the site (see Figure 6.0-5). In addition, the roadway system would be modified to provide only emergency access to Deerfield Drive east of the project site. All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative 4 – Reduced Development Potential Alternative. This alternative would substantially redesign the project through the reduction in the number of residential units by 85 units (260 residential units), as well as the elimination of the commercial uses (70,000 square feet) (see Figure 6.0-6). The roadway pattern for this alternative would be reconfigured to provide an emergency-only access to Deerfield Drive. This reduction in site development would minimize impacts to wetlands as well as avoid project traffic impacts to the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection. îòë ÍÛ× ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÓÐßÝÌÍ Table 2.0-1 displays a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize the potential impacts of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. In the table, the level of significance is indicated both before and after the implementation of each mitigation measure. For detailed discussions of all project-level mitigation measures, refer to Sections 4.1through4.14 of this Draft EIR. êÏÇÐÏØêÌÉÛÓÙÙûÏÒÚËÊÌÙÝÑëÎÙÛÕØÕÛîÒÝÐ ôÉÐÙ úÌÝØÊùÐÈÕÌÏÐÑÙÐÊÝÒõÑÎÝÛÊìÙÎÏÌÊ îòðóë íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ The Coldstream Specific Plan project site consists of approximately 178.6 acres of vacant land in the Town of Truckee. The project site is designated in the Town of Truckee General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community, PC-1. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would implement Town of Truckee General Plan PC-1 policy provisions as well as other provisions of the General Plan. 1 íòï ÔÎÍ ÑÝßÔ ßÒÜ ÛÙ×ÑÒßÔ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The 178.6-acre project site is located in the Town of Truckee in Nevada County, California, in Township 17 North, Range 16 East, within portions of Section 16 and 17, USGS Truckee Quadrangle (Figure 3.0-1). The property is owned by Teichert Land Co. and includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 18-560-10, -16; 18-740-22, -23; 18-760-11, -12, -13, -15; and 080-010-023 (Figure 3.0-2). The project site is located approximately 2 miles west of the town’s historic downtown at the entrance of Coldstream Canyon, just south of Interstate 80, and approximately a half mile southeast of Donner Lake (Figure 3.0-3). The project site is also within the Truckee Redevelopment Area at the western gateway to Truckee. ÛÝ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ Existing elevations on the site range from approximately 5,800 to 5,900 feet above mean sea level (amsl). As a result of past aggregate mining activities, the project site is characterized by a number of ponds and uneven topography. In addition to the former aggregate ponds that dot the landscape, Cold Creek and Donner Creek are primary water features on the project site. The natural landscape of the site has been converted from mixed conifer community to open grasslands and freshwater ponds and marshes due to past aggregate mining (SCO et al., 2009). Freshwater marsh and willow habitats are clearly defined. Scattered strands of lodgepole pine and patches of grasslands, upland mountain sagebrush, and bitterbrush plant communities have integrated into the landscape. A 2003 wetland delineation verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) identified approximately 53.57 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The wetland delineation was reviewed and extended by the USACE on October 7, 2008. ÍÔË ËÎÎÑËÒÜ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÍÛÍ The project site is bordered by a variety of land uses (Figure 3.0-3). The northern edge of the project site abuts commercial and residential uses as well as Interstate 80 (I-80). Commercial related land uses are clustered along Cold Stream Road adjacent to the freeway on/off-ramp to I-80. Residential land uses consist of single-family homes located on Deerfield Drive. Land uses along the southern property boundary include the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) rail line, a small pond and open space that are part of Donner Memorial State Park and owned by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) materials storage yard. To the east, the project site is bordered by the First Baptist Church and the Boulders, a single-family residential development. Coldstream Road as well as a campground and open space within Donner Memorial State Park abut the western edge of the project site. The project site is primarily accessible from Donner Pass Road. Minor modifications of the General Plan would be required as part of the project. See discussion in this section for more details. 1 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóï íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÛÙÐÆ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ ßÒÜ ÑÒ×ÒÙ The project site is designated in the Town of Truckee General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community, PC-1. Policies specifically related to PC-1 are provided in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows (Town of Truckee, 2006): PC1-P1 The Specific Plan shall include policies and design measures to ensure that development on the site shall be compatible with, and shall not adversely affect the historic or natural character of Donner Memorial State Park. PC1-P2 The Specific Plan shall provide adequate setbacks from Cold Creek, Donner Creek, and other riparian/wetland areas. PC1-P3 Development of the site shall connect that portion of Deerfield Drive east of Cold Creek with Coldstream Road. The roadway connecting PC-1 with Deerfield Drive may be designed as a possible future local access route, but will be used in the near term as an emergency access only. The roadway shall be designed to discourage use of the road as a cut through route for non-local traffic. PC1-P4 Land uses on the site shall include visitor-serving commercial uses and other uses which promote or accommodate tourism as well as commercial uses serving local needs. In order to encourage the development of housing in proximity to employment centers, the Specific Plan shall include policies designed to provide for the development of affordable housing by allowing for mixed uses at appropriate densities. ÌÔËóí ßÞÔÛ ÅÌÌÙÐÃ ÚÎÑÓ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ ÐÝïøÐÝóï÷ÔË ÔßÒÒÛÜ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ßÒÜ ÍÛÍ Ó¿¨·³«³ Í¯«¿®» Ú»»¬ñ Ì§°» Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ö Ý±³³»®½·¿´ñÑºº·½» «» «° ¬± éðôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ Ô±¼¹·²¹ ïðð ´±¼¹·²¹ «²·¬ Ý´«¬»®»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ë²·¬ íðð «²·¬öö ö ß ¬±¬¿´ ±º éð ¿½®» · ¿´´±¬¬»¼ º±® ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ô ³·¨»¼ «» ¿²¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «»ò öö Ì±¬¿´ · ¬± ·²½´«¼» ¿´´ ®»¯«·®»¼ ·²½´«·±²¿®§ ¸±«·²¹ ¿²¼ñ±® ©±®µº±®½» ¸±«·²¹ «²·¬ò ß ¼»²·¬§ ¾±²« ³¿§ ¾» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¬± »¨½»»¼ ¬¸» íðð «²·¬ ·º ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ©±®µº±®½» ¸±«·²¹ «²·¬ ¿®» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿¾±ª» ¿²¼ ¾»§±²¼ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ·²½´«·±²¿®§ ¿²¼ ©±®µº±®½» «²·¬ò PC1-P5 The Specific Plan shall include standards for the design of retail shopping areas that are oriented and scaled to the pedestrian realm and that avoid “strip commercial” site layout. PC1-P6 The Specific Plan shall include design standards or guidelines tailored to the specific needs of the site. PC1-P7 Specific Plan design standards shall include requirements for parking areas which promote attractive streetscapes, recognize the need for snow storage or removal, and reduce the visual impacts of paved areas through distributed landscaping, landscaped berms, and other measures. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóî Plumas Plumas County County Plumas NF Cold Springs Cold Springs Cold Lake 395 395 Sierra Sierra 395 County County Reno 80 Jackson Maw Reservoir Stampede Reservoir 395 Bowman Lake Independence Lake Boca Reservoir Nevada Nevada Fordyce Lake Tahoe NF County County Prosser Creek Reservoir Lake Spaulding Truckee Truckee Donner Lake Project Washoe Lake Toiyabe NF Location Incline Village-Crystal Bay Incline Village-Crystal Bay 80 395 Lake Tahoe Nevada Lake Tahoe Nevada Placer Placer State Park State Park County County 50 French Meadows Reservoir Lake Tahoe Hell Hole Reservoir Loon Lake Gardnerville Ranchos Gardnerville Ranchos El Dorado NF El Dorado El Dorado South Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe County County Fallen Leaf Lake 50 Union Valley Reservoir Lake Aloha Alpine Alpine Lower Echo Lake County County Ice House Resrvoir Source: ESRI Streetmap USA, PMC 404 Figure 3.0-1 Regional Location Map MILES ÓÐ ïëæïíæí à çððîñíîñç ó ÜÈÓòÍÔÛÝÎßÐÌÝÛÖÑÎÐÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ PC1-P8 Development on the site shall incorporate pedestrian/equestrian/bicycle/ski trails into project design to provide access through the entire project area, connecting onsite and offsite shopping and service areas with residential and recreational areas. Trails shall be open to the public. PC1-P9 The project shall provide a public pedestrian/equestrian/bicycle/ski trail along Donner Creek and Cold Creek, or another alignment as approved as part of Specific Plan approval, through the project site and connecting to trails located within the Donner Memorial State Park. PC1-P10 Ensure that the mix of land uses in the PC-1 Specific Plan will generate an amount of traffic that, in addition to buildout of the General Plan (considering all planned circulation improvements), would not result in conditions worse than LOS D on Donner Pass Road or the need for four lanes on Donner Pass Road. PC1-P11 A traffic study for the PC-1 Specific Plan that utilizes methodology described in Circulation Policy P3.1, and assumes full buildout of the General Plan for the cumulative condition, will be required. The traffic study shall consider the following elements: Consistency of the proposed project with Policy PC1-P10. The alignment and design of a connector between Coldstream Road and Highway 89 South, per Policy PC1-P3. Impacts and needed improvements to local intersections, including the I-80/Donner Pass Road (West) interchange. Land uses allowed in this designation are a mixture of medium-density, clustered residential uses; commercial uses, including visitor lodging; and open space for passive recreation and preservation of scenic and habitat values. The project site is currently zoned PC (Planned Community) on Sheet 20 of the Town of Truckee zoning maps (Town of Truckee, 2009).Standards for proposed development and new land uses within a PC zoning district are to be defined as part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. íòî ÐÍØ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ ×ÍÌÑÎÇ As previously noted, the project site has historically been used for aggregate mining along the lower reach of Cold Creek at its confluence with Donner Creek (Figure 3.0-4). The project site has gone through multiple ownerships, with Teichert acquiring the lease for aggregate harvesting in 1966. Mining operations occurred consistently through 1984. Reclamation of the project site was implemented in 1985. Reclamation work related to previous mining was completed in 1987, including widening of the Cold Creek channel to improve passage of 100- year storm flows, regrading, recontouring, and revegetating of the old mined area (Jensen & Associates, 2002). Ten ponds remain from mining activities, presently covering approximately 49 acres, or 32 percent of the property area (Brown & Caldwell, 2002). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóç íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ This page intentionally left blank. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóïð Source: Kenkay Associates, 2009. Figure 3.0-4 Site History Aerial Photos NO SCALE íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ íòí ÐÑ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÞÖÛÝÌ×ÊÛÍ The following objectives have been identified for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan: Act as a catalyst to redevelopment and revitalization in the western gateway to Truckee. Transition a former mine site into a productive mixed-use community including residential, commercial, open space, and recreational land uses. Implement the General Plan PC-1 policy provisions as well as other provisions of the General Plan. Complement existing adjacent land use conditions through site design, buffering, and building height. Increase and improve the community’s supply of affordable housing. Embody a creative and thoughtful approach to development through the implementation of a mixed-use community that provides a variety of housing and commercial opportunities for a variety of socioeconomic levels. Preserve and enhance existing wetland and creek features to enhance habitat and improve water quality as well as assist in sediment reductions for the Lower Truckee River watershed. Allow for infill expansion opportunities that will benefit the western area of the town, thus ensuring that new commercial and business expansion keeps pace with market demands in Truckee and will not be adverse to the economic strategies of the Truckee Downtown Commercial Core. Implement a circulation system that provides a road network compatible with adjacent development and promotes pedestrian use, bicycling, and other alternative forms of transportation. íòì ÐÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÊÑÔËÌ×ÑÒ The Coldstream Specific Plan (PC-1) project began as part of the property owner’s efforts to transition a former mine site in the Truckee community into a mixed-use community. Based on its location and former uses as an aggregate mine, the project presents a unique reuse opportunity to develop a mixture of residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses. The site is located next to existing infrastructure and within an existing redevelopment area. The proposed project has changed significantly since early planning efforts began in the year 2000. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan has evolved as a result of the extensive public participation. It now incorporates numerous ideas, comments, and suggestions provided by various interest groups, community members, Town staff, and local leaders in the community over the last nine years. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóïí íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ íòë ÐÝ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ØßÎßÝÌÛÎ×ÍÌ×ÝÍ ÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (Figure 3.0-5) is characterized by a variety of land uses within seven distinct zoning districts (Figure 3.0-6). The districts include: Village Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC) Village Green Residential (VGR) Village Green Residential Small Lot (VSL) Lakeside Residential (LR) Forest Residential (FR) Recreation (REC) Open Space (OS) Each district has specific development standards as well as site, architectural, and landscape design guidelines. In addition, permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and temporary permitted uses allowed within each zoning district are set forth in Table 4-1 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (SCO et al., 2009, pp. 4.3–4.7). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóïì T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ The overall breakdown of uses is shown in Figure 3.0-6 and summarized in Table 3.0-1 below. Ìíòðóï ßÞÔÛ ÐÝÍÐÆÜ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ÑÒ×ÒÙ ×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌÍ Æ±²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ ß½®»¿¹»ñÍ¯«¿®» Ú»»¬ñË²·¬ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ Ê·´´¿¹» Ó·¨»¼óË» Ý±³³»®½·¿´ èòê ¿½®» ¿´´±©·²¹ «° ¬± éðôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ ±º ®»¬¿·´ ¿²¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «» ¿²¼ ´±¼¹·²¹ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²¼ «» ¿®» ¿´± »²½±«®¿¹»¼ ·² ¬¸· ¼·¬®·½¬ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ëìòì ¿½®» ¬±¬¿´°®±ª·¼·²¹ «° ¬± íìë ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» ¸±«·²¹÷ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼·¬®·½¬æ Ê·´´¿¹» Ù®»»² Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ïïòì ¿½®» Ê·´´¿¹» Ù®»»² Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Í³¿´´ Ô±¬ éòð ¿½®» Ô¿µ»·¼» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ îëòë ¿½®» Ú±®»¬ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ïðòë ¿½®» Î»½®»¿¬·±² Î»½®»¿¬·±² éòð ¿½®» Ñ°»² Í°¿½» Ñ°»² Í°¿½» ïðèòê ¿½®» ëÏÉÌÛÙëûïÙÊÝÒ ÎÎ Ô The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes a wide variety of housing types including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes. The proposed project includes a public gathering area centrally located in the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district. The land use plan has been designed to provide public art displays within, but not limited to, the Community Green in the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district and the Village Green and/or the traffic circle on the primary access roadway within the project site. As shown in Table 3.0-1, buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would allow construction of up to 70,000 square feet of retail, commercial, and lodging uses on 8.6 acres and up to 345 residential uses on 54.4 acres. One secondary residential unit per lot could also be developed in compliance with Town of Truckee Development Code Chapter 18.58.230. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the project. The remainder of the project site would be used for recreation and open space. While the proposed land uses are consistent with the intent of the Town of Truckee General Plan land use policies for Planned Community (PC-1), the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would allow for more residential development than allowed by the General Plan. Accordingly, General Plan Table LU-3 would be modified as a part of the proposed project to show that 345 units are allowed in the project site. These additional units can be accounted for by factoring in additional land located along the side of I-80, purchased by Teichert prior to preparation of the proposed Specific Plan and included in the project site. This additional land area, when added to the PC-1 area delineated in the General Plan, results in a slightly larger project area than expected in the General Plan and thus a greater development potential. Regardless, the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to modify Table LU-3 to reflect the total number of units expected to be constructed in the project site. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóïç íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Specific uses have not yet been identified for the 7.0 acres designated in the Recreation zoning district. Future uses on this parcel will be evaluated at the programmatic level in this EIR. ×³°®±ª»¼ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ ×²¬»®º¿½» The project proponent purchased 23 acres zoned Highway Commercial (CH) located at the western end of Deerfield Drive for inclusion in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan in order to comprehensively plan the entire area and to provide enhanced roadway treatments and improved residential compatibility with the existing Deerfield Drive neighborhood. In addition, inclusion of the CH property in the proposed project provides the opportunity for an integrated master plan for the area and eliminates the possibility of creating a remnant incompatible parcel at the west end of Deerfield Drive. Û²¸¿²½»³»²¬ ¬± Ð±²¼ ß®»¿ô Ý±´¼ Ý®»»µô ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ý®»»µ A major component of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is enhancement of former mining pond areas and restoration of Cold Creek and Donner Creek. Preservation, restoration, and enhancement opportunities are shown in Figure 3.0-7 and Figure 3.0-8 and are summarized below: Recontouring of pond fringe areas to allow for softer slopes, which improve vegetative habitat for wildlife and the general water quality of the ponds. Construction of a .65+ acre wetland which allows for seasonal wetland habitat. Removal of large industrial berms separating pond areas to create a larger pond surface area and habitat opportunities. Creation of habitat “islands” to attract local wildlife and migratory waterfowl. Restoration and enhancement of the section of Cold Creek along the Coldstream and State Park properties. Improvements would reduce erosive material along the stream banks and enlarge the stream channel. The improvements would also provide downstream water quality benefits in Donner Creek and the Truckee River. Replacement of existing Cold Creek Bridge to improve free flow of the creek and reduce the erosive effects of backwater on creek banks. Creation of an outfall structure to regulate and maintain water levels in the southern pond (Figure 3.0-9). The outfall structure is proposed to be installed concurrent with enhancement and restoration efforts for the pond and open space areas (as a part of Phase II). It is considered an enhancement (not necessary) for the project because it is intended to maintain a more stable water surface elevation in the pond area which is currently being maintained by a small beaver dam / earthen dam. The outfall structure would be engineered to minimize seepage and protect against instability in order to maintain the hydrologic regime of the existing wetlands. Existing drainage patterns would be maintained with no diversion of flow in order to protect the integrative nature of wetland and floodplain communities Detailed improvement plans for the enhancements to the ponds, Cold Creek, and Donner Creek have not been prepared, and no further information beyond what is described on pages 3.5 through 3.9 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is currently available. Based on the amount of information available, these features will be analyzed at a programmatic level. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóîð T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 ÌæÄÁÝÍÄÉ±®µÄÌ®«½µ»»ô Ý·¬§ ±ºÄÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ßÜ Û×Î îçóððíèóððï Í±«®½»æ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿²ô îððç ÷ÔÖÈËØ Ô±½¿¬·±² ±º Ú«¬«®» Ñ«¬º¿´´ Í¬®«½¬«®» íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Detailed enhancement plans would be developed subsequent to adoption of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Þ«ºº»® The Coldstream Specific Plan includes buffers at several key locations to enhance the compatibility of the project site with adjacent lands. These areas utilize a combination of physical setbacks, landscaping, and screening to enhance the overall environment of the project’s edge as well as to buffer the project land uses from Donner Memorial State Park, the Caltrans material storage yard, Interstate 80, and Deerfield Drive neighborhoods. These buffer areas are generally shown on Figure 3.0-7 and are described in detail on pages 3.20 through 3.23 of the Coldstream Specific Plan. Ý ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ The proposed circulation system for the Coldstream Specific Plan is a hierarchy of roadways designed to provide access to proposed land uses. The proposed project addresses the totality of the streetscape for the circulation of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, as well as the design and character of the various villages on the project site. Street sections, bridge design, and emergency access points are identified, as well as a comprehensive system of bicycle routes, pedestrian trails, and the Truckee Legacy Trail alignment. As illustrated in Figure 3.0-10, proposed roadways are limited to roads necessary to adequately support future development and facilitate safe circulation patterns. The precise alignment of proposed project roadways would be determined during the processing of improvement plans and final maps. A description of the roadway system hierarchy is provided below. Ý±²²»½¬·±² ¬± Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» The Coldstream Specific Plan proposes to create a connection from Coldstream Road to Deerfield Drive. This improvement is consistent with item 3 in Table CIR-5 of the General Plan Circulation Element, which identifies the “Deerfield Drive Extension Emergency road connection and future local access route between Deerfield Drive and Coldstream Road through PC-1” as part of development of the proposed project (Town of Truckee, 2006). As specified on pages 4-31 and 4-32 of the Town of Truckee General Plan, the determination of whether this road would ultimately be used as a local access road would be made through the PC-1 Specific Plan and subject to the results of an alignment study. Four roadway alignment options for the connection of Deerfield Drive are being considered by the Town of Truckee. These options include: 1. The project as designed with open access to Deerfield Drive (Figure 3.0-11), including amendment of the General Plan to re-designate Deerfield Drive as a Minor Collector from Coldstream Road to 1,000 feet west of State Route 89 (SR 89); 2. The project as designed with emergency-only access to Deerfield Drive (Figure 3.0-12); 3. The project primary roadway redesigned east of Cold Creek with emergency-only access to Deerfield Drive and a loop road back to the Cold Creek Bridge (Figure 3.0-13); and Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóîé íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ 4. The project primary roadway redesigned east of Cold Creek with emergency-only access to Deerfield Drive and a roadway connected to a second bridge over Cold Creek that connects to the gateway commercial area (Figure 3.0-14). In the case of Option 1 above, the Town would re-designate Deerfield Drive as a Minor Collector due to the traffic volume expected along portions of Deerfield Drive (see Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation). According to the 2003 Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Standards (Engineering Standards), this would require widening the roadway significantly. However, the Engineering Standards allow for design exceptions in cases where it is warranted. Given the existing residential nature of the neighborhood along Deerfield Drive and the fact that the Town would seek to calm traffic along this roadway as much as possible, it is the intention of the Town to retain Deerfield Drive’s current width via a design exemption. Ê·´´¿¹» Ý±³³»®½·¿´ Í¬®»»¬ The main entry road into the project site aligns through the Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC) zoning district and connects with various residential areas. This roadway segment would serve the MUC zoning district. This section of road would have two travel lanes with angled parking on both sides of the street and standard curb and gutter. The angled on-street parking would serve the commercial uses and help calm traffic to accommodate pedestrians. Both sides of the street would have wide sidewalks and planter areas to accommodate active commercial uses. Street trees would be placed in sidewalk planters. The sidewalk would be widened to create small plazas for public gatherings, water features, and art. èÕÒÒÝ×ÙìÙËÕÚÙÐÊÕÝÒÔîÌÕÑÝÌÅëÊÌÙÙÊ A landscaped roundabout serves as a transition from the MUC zoning district to the Village Green Residential (VGR) zoning district and requires drivers to slow down as they enter the Village Green. The primary road would be a loop road around the Village Green. This one-way system would include a single travel lane with parallel parking on the residential side of the road only, and rolled curb and gutter. A sidewalk separated by a planting strip would be located adjacent to the street along the residential side of the road. Intersection “bulb-outs” would be provided to reinforce the primary pedestrian circulation in the Village Green area. Street trees would be used to frame the views to Coldstream Valley and the mountains beyond. Street trees would be planted in regularly spaced patterns, relatively close together, to produce a strong street edge and provide shade for pedestrians and parked cars. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóîè ÌæÄÁÝÍÄÉ±®µÄÌ®«½µ»»ô Ý·¬§ ±ºÄÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ßÜ Û×Î îçóððíèóððï ÌæÄÁÝÍÄÉ±®µÄÌ®«½µ»»ô Ý·¬§ ±ºÄÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ßÜ Û×Î îçóððíèóððï ÌæÄÁÝÍÄÉ±®µÄÌ®«½µ»»ô Ý·¬§ ±ºÄÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ßÜ Û×Î îçóððíèóððï ÌæÄÁÝÍÄÉ±®µÄÌ®«½µ»»ô Ý·¬§ ±ºÄÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ßÜ Û×Î îçóððíèóððï ÌæÄÁÝÍÄÉ±®µÄÌ®«½µ»»ô Ý·¬§ ±ºÄÍ¬±²»¾®·¼¹» Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Û×Î îçóððíèÄº·¹«®» íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ èÕÒÒÝ×ÙìÙËÕÚÙÐÊÕÝÒÔëÙÛÏÐÚÝÌÅëÊÌÙÙÊ Secondary streets in the VGR zoning district would consist of two travel lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the road separated by planter strips. Parking would be prohibited along these streets. Medium- to large-scale street trees, different from those to be used along primary streets in the VGR zoning district, would be used to create a canopy effect along the street frontage. Street trees would be planted in a regularly spaced pattern, relatively close together, to produce a strong street edge and provide shade for pedestrians. Ê·´´¿¹» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Î»¿®óÔ¿²» Rear lanes are proposed in the Coldstream Specific Plan to allow a variety of residential housing types to reduce the impact of front-loaded garages on the streetscape. Rear lanes would consist of two travel lanes with garages set back an additional 5 feet from the curb line allowing for a landscaping setback. Tall, small-scale, columnar trees would be planted along the entire length of the lane, approximately one tree per residence. Trash containers would be enclosed in the garages. Ð®·³¿®§ Î±¿¼ The character of the primary road is intended to reduce the impact of the roadway on the natural environment east of the bridge crossing and to reinforce the natural character of the Lakeside Residential (LR) and Forest Residential (FR) zoning districts. The roadway is designed with two lanes and no on-street parking. Curbs and gutters would be avoided where possible. A “green streets” approach is proposed with two possible solutions. In Solution 1, where the road is adjacent to residential lots, a permeable road shoulder would be used that allows runoff to infiltrate directly into the ground. In Solution 2, where the road is adjacent to open space, curbs and gutters would be replaced with a meandering, vegetated swale. The swale would be planted with natural grasses and perennials to create an informal edge and transition into natural open space areas. The swale would assist with stormwater management and prevent runoff from reaching the natural open space areas. A 20-foot-wide snow storage easement would be located along one side of the road. Both sides of the street would have groupings of large-scale trees for a sense of open space and to provide a visual separation between residences and the street. Street tree plantings would consist of mixed tree species that correspond with the Plant Palette provided in Chapter 4 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (SCO et al., 2009, pp. 4.55–4.75). Î»¿® Ô¿²» The rear lane serving the FR zoning district is designed to accommodate the limited amount of vehicular travel projected for the area, while enhancing the natural character of the district. The roadway would have two travel lanes, rolled curb and gutter, and no on-street parking. Guest parking would be provided in parking courts located at varying intervals along the road. Sidewalks would not be provided to encourage use of the proposed trail system along Donner Creek and to reduce the amount of impervious surface area. Ý±´¼ Ý®»»µ Þ®·¼¹» A new vehicular bridge is proposed to facilitate access throughout the project site and improve movement of water in Cold Creek. The new bridge structure is proposed to be located near the site of the existing bridge that currently spans Cold Creek. The proposed bridge would be designed to accommodate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian use. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóíç íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Ì®¿·´ The proposed trail network on the project site consists of an interconnected system of on-street sidewalks and an off-street system of multi-use trails for pedestrians and bicyclists (Figure 3.0-15). The proposed trail system would connect residential, commercial, and recreational areas in and outside of the project site. The system would provide access and recreation throughout the entire project site and provide opportunities for connections within different Coldstream Specific Plan zoning districts, as well as with the greater Truckee community. Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide a major link to the Truckee Legacy Trail that would ultimately connect to Donner Memorial State Park and Coldstream Canyon through the project site. This critical link would provide the opportunity to bicycle, hike, or walk from Glenshire to Donner Memorial State Park and Coldstream Canyon. Ý´¿ × Þ·½§½´» Ì®¿·´ ±® Ð¿¬¸ Approximately 1.3 miles of publicly accessible Class I trails are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. Class I trails provide a 10-foot asphalt or concrete paved surface designed to serve bicyclists, pedestrians, and other trail users as a fully separated off-street path for the unimpeded flow of traffic. A Class I trail is proposed to connect Deerfield Drive with Coldstream Road and Donner Memorial State Park. Alignments and connections shown are for preliminary planning purposes and may vary with final design. Also included are proposed extensions of on-site Class I trails at off-site locations that would consist of 10 feet of paved trail and 2 to 8 feet of drainage swale improvement along the roadways. These off-site trails would extend west from the project boundary north to Donner Pass Road and then west along Donner Pass Road to the entrance to Donner Memorial State Park. A similar Class I trail is proposed that would exit the project site onto Deerfield Drive immediately adjacent to the First Baptist Church, extending east along Deerfield Drive to connect with an existing Class I trail along the northern boundary of the Boulders subdivision, then continuing east from the end of that trail along Deerfield Drive to the intersection with SR 89. These possible off-site trails are shown in Figure 3.0-16. Trail alignments may shift slightly when actually constructed; however, the alignments shown in Figure 3.0-16 are expected to largely conform to the finished trails. Ý´¿ ××× Þ·½§½´» Î±«¬» Class III facilities are defined as signed on-street routes along local public streets where bicyclists do not have a delineated lane and must share the roadway with motorists. Due to the low projected traffic volumes in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, local public streets accommodate bicycle traffic and provide the ability to connect to Class I bikeways and recreational trails on the project site. Î»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ Ì®¿·´ A variety of recreational trails are proposed in the Coldstream Specific Plan. These trails are intended to serve as recreational connections to the primary Class I and Class III trail facilities that connect the project site to Donner Memorial State Park and the larger Truckee community. Recreational trails may consist of a variety of earthen and soft surface trails ranging in width from 4 to 8 feet. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóìð T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÑººóÍ¬®»»¬ Ð»¼»¬®·¿² Î±«¬» In addition to the provision of the trails described above, off-street pedestrian routes located within the Village Green Residential and Forest Residential zoning districts provide additional connections from private home sites to common recreational areas and the larger trails system throughout the project site. Ì®¿²·¬ Truckee Transit provides fixed-route bus service in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest stop is located in front of the Holiday Inn Express on Coldstream Road northwest of the project site. No plans are currently identified to provide transit service through the project site. However, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes areas to accommodate future transit shelters and pedestrian facilities to access the shelters. Transit is discussed further in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation. ËôÝÍôÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ The project site would receive water and electrical service from the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD), sewer service from the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA) and Truckee Sanitary District (TSD), solid waste collection/disposal from Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal Company, Inc. (TTSD), fire protection from the Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD), police protection from the Town of Truckee Police Department (TPD), school services from the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD), natural gas from Southwest Gas Corporation, telephone service from AT&T, and cable service from Suddenlink Communications. Utilities are shown in Figure 3.0-17. É¿¬»® TDPUD is the water service provider for the Town of Truckee and would serve the project site. Existing infrastructure in the area includes a 12-inch water line in Coldstream Road and an 8-inch concrete pipe in Deerfield Drive. New water lines that would connect to existing infrastructure would be installed within the proposed roadway network. Water supply and infrastructure are discussed further in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. É¿¬»©¿¬»® TSD provides wastewater conveyance service and sewage collection services to the Town of Truckee, while TTSA provides wastewater treatment. TSD currently has facilities in the vicinity of the project site. These facilities include a 12-inch gravity line, a 10-inch force main, and a 6-inch force main located in the northern portion of the project site in Deerfield Drive. TTSA’s wastewater treatment plant is located on Joerger Drive, north of Truckee-Tahoe Airport and between the Truckee River and Martis Creek. Wastewater service is discussed further in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. Ü®¿·²¿¹» Surface water and drainage would be managed through a combination of natural and built features to conserve water quality, natural hydrology and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through conservation of water bodies and wetlands. Low impact development (LID) stormwater management strategies will be used to maintain the natural hydrologic function of the project site with localized small-scale source control techniques that disperse flows and manage runoff close to where it originates. Storm drainage from impervious areas (roads, walks, roofs) would be Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóìë íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ collected and routed through water quality treatment facilities designed to reduce the rate of runoff, remove potential pollutants, and facilitate infiltration. Drainage is discussed further in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Í²±© Í¬±®¿¹» The provision of snow storage is identified in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan as 50 percent of all uncovered parking and driveway areas in the development standards for proposed Village Mixed-Use Commercial and Recreation zoning districts. Regardless, snow storage will be provided on the project site according to the standards and requirements of the Town of Truckee Development Code. Í±´·¼ É¿¬» TTSD provides waste removal services for the Lake Tahoe area, including the Town of Truckee. Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Company is responsible for collecting household waste and recyclables. Solid waste service is discussed further in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. Ú·®» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² The project site is located in the TFPD service area. TFPD provides fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical care and/or transportation, assorted rescue services, and public education. Fire protection service is discussed further in Section 4.11, Community Services. Ô¿© Û²º±®½»³»²¬ Police services would be provided by the TPD. Law enforcement service is discussed further in Section 4.11, Community Services. Í½¸±±´ The proposed project would generate additional students and falls within the boundaries of the TTUSD, which serves more than 4,000 students in Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado counties. Schools are discussed further in Section 4.11, Community Services. Û´»½¬®·½·¬§ Electric service in the area is currently provided by the TDPUD, which receives its electricity from Idaho Power. Overhead electrical transmission lines are located within the existing Deerfield Drive right-of-way north of the project site. Electrical service is discussed further in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. Ò¿¬«®¿´ Ù¿ Southwest Gas Corporation provides gas service to the project site. Natural gas is available from a 6-inch polyethylene gas main within the Deerfield Drive right-of-way. Additionally, Kinder Morgan operates a natural gas pipeline located along the northern boundary of the project site. Natural gas service is discussed further in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóìê T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Ì»´»°¸±²» AT&T currently has a 200-pair feed line in the northern portion of the project site, which serves the adjacent subdivision. Two options for providing service to the project site are available. Telephone service is discussed further in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. Ý¿¾´» Cable television service in the area is currently provided by Suddenlink Communications and is available for connection in two primary locations. Cable television is discussed further in Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. ÑóÍË× ÚÚ×ÌÛ Ì×Ô×ÌÇ ÓÐÎÑÊÛÓÛÒÌÍ The following utility improvements would occur off site, but have been included in the environmental analysis: Water, electric, telephone, and cable underground improvements within Coldstream Road Realignment of existing utilities at the intersection of Donner Pass Road and Coldstream Road Extension and/or upsizing of overhead telephone and cable lines along Deerfield Drive Sewer pump station improvements at existing North Donner Pump Station No. 1A (near the Chevron Station) Sewer force main improvements along Deerfield Drive Í× Ñ×Ô ÓÐÑÎÌ As part of site preparation, approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soils would be imported to the project site. The soil is anticipated to be imported from Teichert Aggregates’ Martis Valley Plant, which is licensed and permitted for excavation processing and trucking. Soil import and earthwork is anticipated to occur during Phase I of the project. The soil is needed to establish subgrade for roadways, driveways, and building pads. Existing low-lying areas that were previously graded for aggregate mining would be filled as necessary to achieve the minimum required gradients for roadway access and utility infrastructure and would be in compliance with regulatory agencies. Imported fill material would be placed at various locations throughout the Lakeside Residential area and Forest Residential area. In accordance with the use permit for Teichert Aggregates’ Martis Valley Plant, all excavated material would meet or exceed regulatory requirements for containment level and compliance before it is imported to the project site. ßÐÝÍÐ ÜÑÐÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ The proposed project serves to implement the policies of the Town of Truckee General Plan as they relate to the project site, in addition to establishing development standards and design guidelines for land use districts within the project site. Any future plans which require exterior renovation, demolition, or construction and erection of new structures require development approval from the Town of Truckee Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóìç íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Development approval may include, but is not limited to, the approval of tentative subdivision maps, parcel maps, rezones, development permits, conditional use permits, and lot line adjustments. Plans would be evaluated according to their adherence to the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. If conflicts occur between the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and the existing policies and regulations of the Town of Truckee Development Code, the provisions of the Coldstream Specific Plan shall govern. In the event that certain issues are not addressed by the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, the existing standards and regulations of the Town of Truckee Development Code shall govern. ÝÐ ÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ØßÍ×ÒÙ Figure 3.0-18 illustrates how the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan may be implemented over time. The phasing program comprises five anticipated development phases (Phases I, II, III, IV, and V) which are estimated to occur as infrastructure is constructed and residential, commercial, and recreational facilities are developed. Phasing of the proposed project is summarized below. However, some phases may be constructed concurrently and others may be commenced prior to the completion of other phases. Ð¸¿» × Phase I would consist of developing the Village Green Residential (VGR) and Village Green Small Lot (VSL) zoning districts located south of the Village Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC) zoning district including: 1. Extension of off-site utilities and construction of the primary roadway from Coldstream Road. 2. Recordation of a Final Map allowing for subdivision of the residential parcels within the VGR and VSL zoning districts. 3. Development of the Village Green recreational park area. 4. Development of the Village Green Pocket Park. 5. Construction of the roundabout shown in the land use plan. 6. Construction of the in-tract roadway network. 7. Implementation of the buffered landscape area along the western border of the Coldstream property where it abuts Coldstream Road. 8. Construction of trails, interpretative signage, and any potential stream restoration work along Cold Creek. 9. Any other facilities necessary for development of the VGR and VSL zoning districts. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóëð T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Ð¸¿» ×× Phase II would involve development of the Lakeside Residential (LR) zoning district which would consist of the following: 1. Construction of the primary circulation road. 2. Construction of the new Cold Creek Bridge. 3. Extension of utilities through the project site. 4. Stabilization and enhancement of pond areas in conjunction with wetland creation as described in Chapter 3 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. 5. Recordation of a Final Map allowing for subdivision of the residential parcels within the LR zoning district. 6. Construction of the Legacy Trail extension throughout the project site. 7. Construction of trails and any potential stream restoration work along Cold Creek. 8. Any other facilities necessary for development of the LR zoning district. Ð¸¿» ××× Phase III would involve development of the Forest Residential (FR) zoning district, which would consist of the following: 1. Construction of the in-tract roadway network. 2. Extension of infrastructure through the project site. 3. Recordation of a Final Map allowing for subdivision of the residential parcels within the FR zoning district. 4. Construction of trails and noise-attenuating berm. 5. Development of the Meandering Green and associated landscape and recreational facilities. 6. Any other facilities necessary for development of the FR zoning district. Ð¸¿» ×Ê Phase IV would involve development of the MUC zoning district. Construction of the Neighborhood Village Center may include all “village” buildings and residential units or portions thereof as market demands dictate. This may necessitate that some or all of this zoning district is constructed during Phase I. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóëí íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Ð¸¿» Ê Phase V would involve development of the Recreational (REC) zoning district. Similar to the neighborhood Village Center, the recreational area would be developed based on the needs of residential areas of the proposed project. As outlined in Chapter 4 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, a wide range of recreational buildings can be considered, including a community building with associated recreational amenities such as a pool, fitness center, lodging, and sport courts. Additional facilities constructed during Phase V may include ancillary trails, interpretive signage, and parking facilities. × ÒÚÎßÍÌÎËÝÌËÎÛ Buildout of the project site would require significant investment in the construction of infrastructure including roadways and sewer, water, and drainage facilities. The construction of public improvements to serve the project site would be funded by a variety of sources, depending upon the type of facility and the level of benefit received. Generally, improvements within the project site can be categorized into the four following major types: Backbone Infrastructure. Includes the primary collector roadway, roundabout, Cold Creek Bridge, street signs, streetlights, sanitary sewer trunk system, water storage and delivery system, storm drainage system, and stormwater detention. Community Facilities. Includes the Village Green, Village Green Pocket Park, Meandering Green, common landscaping, recreational facilities within the REC zoning district, tertiary trails within the project site, pond restoration and enhancement, and associated interpretive signage and landscaping. Regional Facilities. Includes the Truckee Legacy Trail, affordable housing, and any required off- site improvements, as well as potential stream restoration and enhancement work to Cold and/or Donner creeks. In-Tract Subdivision Infrastructure. Includes local streets, sewer, water, storm drainage, utilities, fire hydrants, neighborhood street signs, and lighting. ÚÓ ×ÒßÒÝ×ÒÙ ÛÝØßÒ×ÍÓÍ The major infrastructure required for development to proceed on the project site would be funded primarily through private financing such as Community Facility District (CFD) funding, Town and Special District development impact fees, redevelopment grants, and private assessments. A brief description of the financing mechanisms available to fund development of the project site is included below. Community Facilities District. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 enables cities, counties, special districts, school districts, and other entities to levy special taxes to fund a wide variety of facilities and services required by a specific plan. The use of Mello-Roos funding is common in California and provides local jurisdictions and developers the ability to spread the typically high cost of infrastructure over a number of years, thus reducing the initial fiscal burden of development. Impact Fees. Impact fees are exactions which lessen the impact of new development resulting from increased population or demand on services. Local governments derive their authority to impose exactions from the “police power” granted to them by the State Constitution and/or Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóëì íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ specific state-enabling statutes such as the Subdivision Map Act. The Town of Truckee levies development impact fees at the time of Final Map recordation and building permit issuance to finance capital improvements. Funding from these impact fee sources may be available to help finance certain improvements within the project site. Assessment Districts. Special assessment districts are defined geographical areas for which local governments levy assessments to pay for public projects such as streets, sewers, storm drains, flood control, landscaping, and street lighting. Special assessments pay for projects that are of specific and direct benefit to particular properties. The use of an assessment district to pay for the construction and maintenance of project site facilities may be utilized where deemed appropriate. Redevelopment. The project site is located within the Town of Truckee Redevelopment Area and as such may be eligible for participation in tax increment revenues collected by the Truckee Redevelopment Agency. Under redevelopment law, no less than 20 percent of all taxes that are allocated to the Redevelopment Agency are to be used by the agency for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the supply of housing for persons and families of very low, low, and moderate incomes. In addition, tax increment financing may be utilized to fund a number of construction, acquisition, and enhancement activities within the Redevelopment Area. Developer Financing. Developer financing may be used to contribute toward the construction of major infrastructure facilities and in-tract subdivision improvements. ÑÍÜÓ ÐÛÒ ÐßÝÛ ÛÜ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ß×ÒÌÛÒßÒÝÛ Areas zoned Open Space would be managed and maintained by a separate entity such as a lighting and landscape assessment district, business association, homeowners association, conservancy, or other appropriate management organization. Management and maintenance of open space areas are to be carried out in compliance with the Coldstream Restoration and Management Plan approved through the USACE Letter of Permission. íòê ÎÎôÐôß ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÛÏË×ÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ ÛÎÓ×ÌÍ ßÒÜ ÐÐÎÑÊßÔÍ ÎÛ ÛÏËÛÍÌÛÜ ÒÌ×ÌÔÛÓÛÒÌÍ The proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Truckee. Requested entitlements and approval actions that would be required from the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Town staff include, but are not limited to, the following items: Adoption of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Approval of General Plan Amendment associated with the adoption of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, including modification of Land Use Table LU-3 to account for development of up to 345 residential units and re-designation of portions of Deerfield Drive to a Minor Collector should Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 1 be adopted Large Lot Tentative Map Individual Tentative Subdivision Map(s) Planned Development to modify standards in the Development Code Certification of the EIR Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóëë íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Development Agreement and/or Owner’s Participation Agreement (OPA) Town of Truckee Ministerial Approvals: Improvement Plans Grading permit Encroachment permit Occupancy permit Building permit Concurrent with or subsequent to approval of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, the project proponent may enter into development agreements with the Town of Truckee as authorized by Government Code Section 65864 et seq. Other discretionary approvals that may be required by other governmental agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following: State Water Resources Control Board – File Notice of Intent to obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit prior to project construction Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Lahontan Region, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, best management practices (BMPs), and approval of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit and wetland delineation approval associated with filling of waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (Sections 1600 to 1603 of the Fish and Game Code) Approval of infrastructure details for wastewater facilities by the Truckee Sanitary District (TSD) and the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA) Approval of water infrastructure by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï íòðóëê íòðÐÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Brown & Caldwell. 2002. Cold Stream Property 100-Year Flood Evaluation. Cavanaugh, Thomas J., Acting Chief, Central California/Nevada Section. 2003. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Letter to Michael Isle, Teichert Aggregates, dated November 19, 2003. Foothill Associates. 2004. Coldstream Restoration and Management Plan. Jensen & Associates. 2002. Archaeological Inventory Survey, Cold Creek Residential and Commercial Development Project, c. 178 acres in West Truckee at Cold and Donner Creeks, Nevada County, California. June 28, 2002, revised July 29, 2002. SCO Planning & Engineering, Kenkay Associations, and Ward-Young Architecture & Planning. 2009. Coldstream Specific Plan. Town of Truckee. 2003. Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Standards. ———. 2006. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. ———. 2009. Truckee Zoning Map, Sheet 20. http://www.townoftruckee.com/zoningmap /map20.htm (accessed May 20, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ íòðóëé ìòð× ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ Ûß ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ßË ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ The following is an introduction to the environmental analysis of project-specific and cumulative impacts and general assumptions used in the analysis. The reader is referred to the individual technical sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) regarding specific assumptions and methodology used in the analysis. ßßÙËÛ×Ð ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÛÒÛÎßÔÔÇ ÍÛÜ ÌÑ ÊßÔËßÌÛ ÌØÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÝÍÐ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ÞÛÝßÜÛ×Î ßÍÛÔ×ÒÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ ÍÍËÓÛÜ ×Ò ÌØÛ Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The CEQA Guidelines also specify that this description of the physical environmental conditions is to serve as the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether impacts of a project are considered significant. The environmental setting conditions of the Town of Truckee and the surrounding area are described in detail in the technical sections of the DEIR (see Sections 4.1 through 4.14). In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Town prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a DEIR for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan on June 5, 2009. A scoping meeting was held on June 30, 2009, to receive comments from the public. A second Notice of Preparation was released and a second scoping meeting was held by the Town on January 27, 2011. Comments provided during the second NOP comment period and at the second scoping meeting were likewise considered in the preparation of this revised DEIR. In general, these setting discussions describe the relevant environmental conditions of the Town of Truckee and the surrounding area, as they existed when the NOPs for the proposed project were released. In addition, the DEIR includes updated setting information since release of the NOP, such as the status of large-scale development projects in the town and surrounding region (see Table 4.0-2). ÞßËÙÐÉÛÌÔ Ë×ÔÜÑËÌ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÒÜÛÎ ÌØÛ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ ×ÌØ×Ò È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÑÉÒ ×Ó×ÌÍ Buildout projections for the 2025 General Plan reflect the maximum total amount of residential and nonresidential development, including existing and future development, that could occur with implementation of the 2025 General Plan. Table 4.0-1 shows the maximum expected housing buildout under land use designations proposed in the General Plan Update. As shown in this table, the land use designations in this General Plan would allow for a total of approximately 20,082 units within the Town of Truckee, of which just under 11,000 would be year-round occupied units. (Note: Year-round occupancy for new units was determined based on existing distribution of year-round and seasonal homes within Truckee’s neighborhoods. Future patterns of seasonal home distribution were assumed to remain relatively similar to today.) This number represents approximately 9,259 more units than were built as of April 2004. An additional 627 units would be constructed in the proposed Sphere of Influence outside the town limits, with the vast majority of this construction being located in the three Planned Residential Development areas (Town of Truckee, 2006). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòðóï ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ Ììòðóï ßÞÔÛ îðîëÙÐÞÐ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ Ë×ÔÜÑËÌ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ×ÑÒÍ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ë²·¬ Ì±©² Ô·³·¬ Í°¸»®» ±º ×²º´«»²½» Í·²¹´»óÚ¿³·´§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ö ïëôîçí ëîî Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´öö íôêìì ð Í»½±²¼ Ë²·¬ ïôïìë ïðë Ì±¬¿´ Þ«·´¼±«¬ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ îðôðèî êîé Ç»¿®óÎ±«²¼ Ë²·¬ ïðôèìì Í»¿±²¿´ñÊ¿½¿¬·±² Ë²·¬ çôîíè Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ì§°» Ï«¿²¬·¬§ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ ø·²½´«¼·²¹ Ù»²»®¿´ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ô Î»¬¿·´ô Î»¬¿«®¿²¬ô Ø·¹¸©¿§ ïôççìôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ Ý±³³»®½·¿´÷ Ñºº·½» ø·²½´«¼» Ù»²»®¿´ Ñºº·½»ô Ó»¼·½¿´ Ñºº·½» ¿²¼ Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ Ñºº·½»÷ çëîôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ Ô·¹¸¬ ×²¼«¬®·¿´ñÉ¿®»¸±«» ïôîëçôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ Î»´·¹·±« ×²¬·¬«¬·±² èëôéðð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ Ô±¼¹·²¹ ïôíçî ®±±³ Í±«®½»æ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ô îððê ö ×²½´«¼» ³±¾·´» ¸±³»ò ööß«³» ¬¸¿¬ îð °»®½»²¬ ±º ¿´´ º«¬«®» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ «²·¬ ©·´´ ·²½´«¼» »½±²¼¿®§ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ò Truckee’s housing stock includes a large proportion of second or vacation homes, and so the additional housing units projected to be developed under the 2025 General Plan would contribute a proportionately smaller number of new full-time residents in the town. An estimated 46 percent of all housing units at buildout are expected to be seasonal or vacation homes. The approximately 54 percent of units occupied full time at buildout of the 2025 General Plan would result in an estimated buildout population of approximately 28,520 persons, an increase of just over 13,200 persons from 2005 estimated numbers (Town of Truckee, 2006). The 2025 General Plan would also allow additional nonresidential development, including new retail, office, and light industrial uses, additional visitor lodging uses, and new public uses, including a future community college campus. Since the mixture of uses that could be developed would be influenced by economic conditions and other market factors, it is difficult to determine the exact mixture of nonresidential uses that might be developed under the 2025 General Plan. Therefore, Table 4.0-1 also summarizes the assumed nonresidential land uses that were factored into the traffic and circulation analysis of the proposed General Plan Update. As shown in Table 4.0-1, just under 2 million square feet of commercial development, close to 1 million square feet of office development, approximately 1.26 million square feet of new light industrial or warehouse uses, and almost 1,400 lodging units could be in place in Truckee at buildout of the 2025 General Plan (Town of Truckee, 2006). ÞßËÝÍÐ Ë×ÔÜÑËÌ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÒÜÛÎ ÌØÛ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes 8.6 acres of commercial lands allowing up to 70,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses and lodging, 54.4 residential acres totalproviding up to 345 residential units (including affordable housing), 7.0 acres for recreational use, and 108.6 acres of open space. Uses proposed would Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòðóî ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ result in up to 345 dwelling units, 873 residents (345 x 2.529 persons per unit) (California Department of Finance, 2009) and a potential increase of 140 jobs (based on the standard of one full-time equivalent employee (FTEE) for every 500 square feet of gross floor space [70,000 square feet/500 square feet = 140 FTEE]) (Town of Truckee, 2009a). In addition to this development, it is assumed that up to 141 second units could be developed on the site. ÙßËÛÝôÐôÑ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ Ì×Ô×ÆÛÜ ÚÑÎ ÊßÔËßÌ×ÒÙ ÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ØßÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÐÛÎßÌ×ÑÒßÔ ××ÝÍÐ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ÚÎÑÓ ÌØÛ ÓÐÔÛÓÛÒÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ The environmental analysis in this DEIR considers environmental effects associated with construction and operation of land uses under the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, which calls for construction of the project in five phases. Phase I would consist of developing the Village Green Residential (VGR) and Village Green Small Lot (VSL) zoning districts located south of the Village Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC) zoning district. Phase II would comprise development of the Lakeside Residential (LR) zoning district. Phase III would involve development of the Forest Residential (FR) zoning district. Phase IV would involve development of the MUC zoning district. Phase V would involve development of the Recreational (REC) zoning district. As previously noted, the proposed project assumes that up to 345 residential units would be developed. In addition, one secondary residential unit per lot could also be developed in compliance with Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards. According to the code, one secondary unit is allowed on a single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. Size of the secondary unit would range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet and must be a minimum of at least 500 square feet. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. However, as part of the traffic analysis and consistent with other recent studies performed in the Truckee area, 50 percent of the proposed condo/townhouse and single-family residences were assumed to include secondary units, for a total of 141 units. To accommodate construction of the proposed project, approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the project site. Approximately 5,000 truckloads of soil would be brought to the project site over a period of 15 days from Teichert’s Martis Valley Plant located approximately 5.2 miles away. The soil import would occur during Phase I of the proposed project. Operational levels are considered based on buildout of all five phases in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this DEIR. The operational analysis assumed a worst-case scenario where all residential units are assumed to be 100 percent occupied. No vacation homes are assumed. Multi-family units are assumed to consist of apartments (rentals) and condos/townhouses (owned). A mix of 80 percent retail/20 percent office uses was assumed for the commercial component of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. A 15,000-square-foot recreational community center was assumed in Zone 6 (Recreation Zone). No significant vehicular trip generation is expected in Zone 7 (Open Space). ÝÐÔ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÍÌ Town staff has provided a list of substantial residential subdivision projects (including associated approvals) within the town limits that could be regarded as “approved” or “pending approval” for construction in the near term. A summary of these projects is provided in Table 4.0-2. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòðóí ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ Ììòðóî ßÞÔÛ ÌÌÝÜßÔËÐß ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÝÌ×ÊÛ ßÒÜ ÍÛ ÛÎÓ×Ì ÐÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ß°°ò ý Ð®±¶»½¬ Ò¿³» Ð®±¶»½¬ Ü»½®·°¬·±² Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² Í¬¿¬« ððóïïðø¾÷ Ø·´´¬±° ÓÐ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² Ü±©²¬±©² ¿®»¿ô ·² ¬¸» Ì±©² ¬¿ºº · ®»ª·»©·²¹ Ý±³³±² ®»ª·»© ±º Ð¸¿» ï ±º Ø·´´¬±° Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² ¿®»¿ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ò ÔÍÝ ×²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» Ð´¿² ½±³³±² ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®» º±® Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ø·´´¬±° Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² Ý±²«´¬¿²¬ · °®»°¿®·²¹ ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬«¼·» ±² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò ððóïïïø»÷ Ð·±²»»® Î»¯«»¬ º±® ¿ º·ª»ó§»¿® ¬·³» Ð®±»® ¿®»¿ô ±² ¬¸» ²±®¬¸ ß°°´·½¿¬·±² ®»¿¼§ º±® Ý±³³»®½» Ý»²¬»® »¨¬»²·±² ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ·¼» ±º Ð·±²»»® Ì®¿·´ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² Ð¸¿» î Ì·³» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º Ð¸¿» î ±º ¿°°®±¨ò ïñì ³·´» »¿¬ ±º ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²ò Û¨¬»²·±² Ð·±²»»® Ý±³³»®½» Ý»²¬»® Ý±³¬±½µ Ü®·ª» ðëóðëè Ù®»¹±®§ Ý®»»µ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» ³¿° ¬± ¼·ª·¼» ¿ Ü±²²»® Ô¿µ» ¿®»¿ô Ì±©² ¬¿ºº ½«®®»²¬´§ Í«¾¼·ª··±² íîòïó¿½®» ·¬» ·²¬± ïé ·²¹´»ó¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ïñì ³·´» °®»°¿®·²¹ Ú·²¿´ Û×Îò º¿³·´§ °¿®½»´ô ïð ¼«°´»¨»ô ²±®¬¸©»¬ ±º ¬¸» ¿²¼ ±²» º±«®°´»¨ò ß´± ¿ ´±¬ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ±º Ü±²²»® Ð¿ ´·²» ¿¼¶«¬³»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬©± Î±¿¼ ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ô¿µ» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ °¿®½»´ò Î±¿¼ ðêóðéð Î¿·´§¿®¼ Ó¿¬»® Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² »²½±³°¿·²¹ Û¿¬»®² »²¼ ±º ¸·¬±®·½ ß°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ Ì±©² Ð´¿² éë ¿½®» ±² îð °¿®½»´ò ¼±©²¬±©² Ì®«½µ»»ò Ì¸» Ý±«²½·´ ±² Ö«²» ïéô ×²½´«¼» ½®»¿¬·±² ±º í ²»© ¿®»¿ · ¹»²»®¿´´§ ¾±«²¼»¼ îððçò ÄÏÐÕÐ×ÚÕËÊÌÕÛÊËÓúÏÇÐÊÏÇÐ¾§ Ù´»²¸·®» Ü®·ª» ¬± ¬¸» Û¨¬»²·±² Ü·¬®·½¬ô ×²¼«¬®·¿´ ²±®¬¸ô ·²¼«¬®·¿´ «» ¿²¼ Ø»®·¬¿¹» Ü·¬®·½¬ ¿²¼ Ì®±«¬ «²¼»ª»´±°»¼ ´¿²¼ ¬± ¬¸» ûÌÙÙÓúÕËÊÌÕÛÊÓÕÐÝÚÚÕÊÕÏÐ»¿¬ô Ë²·±² Ð¿½·º·½ ¬± Ü±©²¬±©² Ø·¹¸ Ü»²·¬§ Î¿·´®±¿¼ ®·¹¸¬ó±ºó©¿§ ¿²¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ô ïì «²·¬ °»® ¿½®»ô Û¿¬ Î·ª»® Í¬®»»¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ü±©²¬±©² Ó¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ô ±«¬¸ô ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ¿²¼ Þ®·¼¹» Í¬®»»¬ ¬± Ü±©²¬±©² Ó·¨»¼ Ë»ô ¬¸» ©»¬ Ü±©²¬±©² Î¿·´®±¿¼ô Ð«¾´·½ Ú¿½·´·¬·»ô ¿²¼ Ñ°»² Í°¿½»ò ðíóðëïÖ±»®¹»® Î¿²½¸ Ø·¹¸ó·²¬»²·¬§ ³·¨»¼ó«» Ñ²» ³·´» ±«¬¸»¿¬ ±º Ì±©² ¬¿ºº ½«®®»²¬´§ øÐÝóí÷ °®±¶»½¬ °®±°±»¼ ±² éð ¿½®» Ø·¬±®·½ ¼±©²¬±©² °®»°¿®·²¹ Ü®¿º¬ Û×Îò ©·¬¸·² º·ª» ¦±²·²¹ ¼·¬®·½¬æ Ì®«½µ»» ±½½«°§·²¹ ¿´´ º±«® Ù»²»®¿´ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ô ½±®²»® ±º ¬¸» Þ®±½µ©¿§ Í»®ª·½» Ý±³³»®½·¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ô Î±¿¼ñØ·¹¸©¿§ îêé ¾§°¿ Ó¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ñ ×²¼«¬®·¿´ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² Ü·¬®·½¬ô Î»·¼»²¬·¿´óÓ«´¬·ó º¿³·´§ Ü·¬®·½¬ô ¿²¼ Ð«¾´·½ Ú¿½·´·¬·» Ü·¬®·½¬ò ðéóðîí ß°»² Ó»¿¼±© Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ °»®³·¬ ¬± Ó¿®¬· Ê¿´´»§ ¿®»¿ô ±² ¬¸» Ì±©² ¬¿ºº · ®»ª·»©·²¹ ½±²¬®«½¬ ëé ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ±«¬¸ ·¼» ±º Þ®±½µ©¿§ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ©·´´ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ¿²¼ ¬»²¬¿¬·ª» Î±¿¼ ¾»¬©»»² Ó¿®¬· ®±«¬» ¬¸· ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¬± ³¿° ¬± ¼·ª·¼» çòíó¿½®» °¿®½»´ Ê¿´´»§ Î±¿¼ ¿²¼ Ø±°» °»½·¿´ ¼·¬®·½¬ ¿²¼ ·²¬± ëé ½±²¼±³·²·«³ ¿²¼ Ý±«®¬ «¬·´·¬§ ½±³°¿²·» º±® ½±³³±² ¿®»¿ò Ð´¿²²»¼ ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ½±³³»²¬ò Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬± ¿´´±© Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ð¿®½»´ Ó»®¹»® ¬± ³»®¹» ¬©± °¿®½»´ ·²¬± ±²»ò Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòðóì ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ ß°°ò ý Ð®±¶»½¬ Ò¿³» Ð®±¶»½¬ Ü»½®·°¬·±² Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² Í¬¿¬« ðìóðéî Í°®·²¹ Ý®»»µ Ì·³» »¨¬»²·±² ®»¯«»¬»¼ Ð®±»® ¿®»¿ô ±² Ì±©² ¬¿ºº · ®»ª·»©·²¹ Ì·³» Û¨¬»²·±² º±® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °»®³·¬ º±® Í¿¼¼´»¾¿½µ Î±¿¼ ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬ò Í°®·²¹ Ý®»»µ Í«¾¼·ª··±²ò ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ dó³·´» »¿¬ ±º Ý±³¬±½µ Ü®·ª» ðèóððè Ì·³¾»® Ý®»»µ ¿¬ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ó¿° ¬± «¾¼·ª·¼» Ü±©²¬±©² ¿®»¿ô ¿¬ ¬¸» Ì±©² ¬¿ºº ¸¿ Ì®«½µ»» ¿² èîòêó¿½®» °¿®½»´ ·²¬± êé ²±®¬¸»®² »²¼ ±º ×²¼·¿² Ö¿½µ ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ´±¬ô ¿² Î±¿¼ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¬± ¾» ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» ¸±«·²¹ ´±¬ô ¿ ·²½±³°´»¬»ò ®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ ¿³»²·¬·» ´±¬ô ¿²¼ º±«® ±°»² °¿½» ´±¬ô ¿²¼ ¿ Ð´¿²²»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬± ¿´´±© ¿ Ì®¿²º»® ±º Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ®·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ ¿ ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ¬± Ð×ÛÍ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ®±¿¼ ´»²¹¬¸ò èóððç Ô·¦±²¼± Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ó¿° ¬± «¾¼·ª·¼» Ù¿¬»©¿§ ¿®»¿ô ±² Í·»®®¿ Ì±©² ¬¿ºº · °®»°¿®·²¹ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ëòèí ¿½®» ·²¬± ïç Ü®·ª» ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ïðð ¿² ×²·¬·¿´ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬±©²¸±³»ô ¬©± ½±³³±² º»»¬ »¿¬ ±º Ø·¹¸©¿§ Î±¿¼ Í¬«¼§ñÓ·¬·¹¿¬»¼ ¿®»¿ °¿®½»´ô ¿²¼ ¬©± Ò»¹¿¬·ª» Ü»½´¿®¿¬·±² º±® ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ´±¬å ¿ «» ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò °»®³·¬ ¬± ½±²¬®«½¬ ïç ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬ º±® ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ ±©²»®¸·°å ¿²¼ ¿ «» °»®³·¬ º±® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±² ´±°» ±º îðû ±® ¹®»¿¬»®ò ððóðîï Ì¸» Þ±«´¼»® Î»¯«»¬ º±® ¬·³» »¨¬»²·±² Ù¿¬»©¿§ ¿®»¿ô ±² ¬¸» ±«¬¸ Ì±©² ¬¿ºº · ®»ª·»©·²¹ Ð¸¿» ì Ì·³» º±® Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ð»®³·¬ô ·¼» ±º Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²ò Û¨¬»²·±² Ê»¬·²¹ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ó¿°ô ¿²¼ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ìðð º»»¬ Ð´¿²²»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ º±® ©»¬ ±º Í¬¿¬» Î±«¬» èç ¬¸» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º íî Í±«¬¸ ½±²¼±³·²·«³ «²·¬ò ðéóðíè É»¬»®² Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ð®±¶»½¬ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± Ð®±»® ¿®»¿ô ±² ¬¸» ²±®¬¸ Ì¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Í«°°´§ Ð®±¶»½¬ ß°°´·½¿¬·±² Ò±ò ðíóðêï ·¼» ±º ×²¼«¬®·¿´ É¿§ Ý±³³··±² ®»ª·»©»¼ ß³»²¼³»²¬ ýî ¿²¼ ðéóðíè ¬± ¿¼¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ dó³·´» »¿¬ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¿¬ ¿ ¿²¼ ·²½®»¿» º´±±® ¿®»¿ ®¿¬·± ±º Ý±³¬±½µ Ü®·ª» Ó¿®½¸ ïïô îððçô °«¾´·½ ¬± ðòîêéô ¿²¼ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» ¸»¿®·²¹ò Ó¿° ¬± ¼·ª·¼» °®±°»®¬§ ·²¬± ¬»² ·²¼«¬®·¿´ «²·¬ ¿²¼ ¿ ½±³³±² ¿®»¿ °¿®½»´ò ðèóðìé Í·´ª»®©±±¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ð»®³·¬ ¿²¼ Ø·´´¬±° Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² Ì±©² ¬¿ºº ¸¿ Ó·¨»¼óË» Ë» Ð»®³·¬ ¬± ¿´´±© ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸» Þ«·´¼·²¹ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ¿ ³·¨»¼ó«» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¬± ¾» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ø·´´¬±° ·²½±³°´»¬»ò Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² ¿®»¿ò ðèóðëð ß«³°¬·±² Ð®»´·³·²¿®§ °´¿² ®»ª·»© º±® Ð®±»® ¿®»¿ô ±² ¬¸» ²±®¬¸ Ì¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý¸«®½¸ ¿ ïðôððð òºò ½¸«®½¸ ¿²¼ ·¼» ±º ß´¼»® Ü®·ª»ô Ý±³³··±² ½±²¼«½¬»¼ Ð®»´·³·²¿®§ Ð´¿² ®»½¬±®§ º±® ¬¸» ß«³°¬·±² ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ïðð º»»¬ »¿¬ °®»´·³·²¿®§ ®»ª·»© ±º Î»ª·»© ±º ¬¸» Þ´»»¼ Ê·®¹·² Ó¿®§ ±º Ý¸·²¿ Ý¿³° Î±¿¼ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¿¬ ¬¸»·® Ð¿®·¸ò îñïïñðç ³»»¬·²¹ò Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòðóë ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ ß°°ò ý Ð®±¶»½¬ Ò¿³» Ð®±¶»½¬ Ü»½®·°¬·±² Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² Í¬¿¬« Ë» °»®³·¬ ¬± »¬¿¾´·¸ ¿ Ü±©²¬±©² ¿®»¿ô ·² ¬¸» Ì¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Í»²·±® Ô·ª·²¹ »²·±® ´·ª·²¹ º¿½·´·¬§ ©·¬¸ çç Ø·´´¬±° Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² ¿®»¿ ¿¬ Ý±³³··±² ½±²¼«½¬»¼ Ð®±¶»½¬ ¿¬ Ø·´´¬±° ®±±³ñ«²·¬ º±® ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬ ¬¸» »²¼ ±º Ð·²» Ý±²» Î±¿¼ ¿ °«¾´·½ ©±®µ¸±° ±² ¿²¼ ¿·¬»¼ ´·ª·²¹ ¿²¼ Ö«´§ ïìô îðïðò ³»³±®§ ½¿®» ¿²¼ ¬± ½±²¬®«½¬ ëê ¿¹»ó®»¬®·½¬»¼ »²·±® ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ò Ñ¬¸»® ®»¯«»¬»¼ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ·²½´«¼» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± Ø·´´¬±° Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿²ô ®»¦±²·²¹ ±º °®±°»®¬§ô ¿²¼ ¬»²¬¿¬·ª» ³¿°ò Í±«®½»æ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ô îððç¾ô îðïð One approved or pending project is located within 10 miles of the project site under the jurisdiction of Nevada County, and three development projects matching this criteria are located in Placer County, as shown in Table 4.0-3. Ììòðóí ßÞÔÛ ÍÜÐïðÐÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÎÑÖÛÝÌÍ É×ÌØ×Ò Ó×ÔÛÍ ÑÚ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ ÐÒÝ ×Ò ÔßÝÛÎ ßÒÜ ÛÊßÜß ÑËÒÌ×ÛÍ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ò¿³» Ð®±¶»½¬ Ü»½®·°¬·±² Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² Í¬¿¬« Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ Þ±§ Í½±«¬ ±º ß³»®·½¿ Î»½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ¿ ¾«®²»¼ó¼±©² ïîðð Õ·´¾±®² Ô¿µ» Î±¿¼ Ð®»óß°°´·½¿¬·±²ò ÔìÏÅÝÒ÷ÏÌ×ÙîÌÙïïôðððó¯«¿®»óº±±¬ ´±¼¹»ñ¼·²·²¹ ß°°´·½¿¬·±² Î»ª·»© ¸¿´´ñ»³°´±§»» ¸±«·²¹ º¿½·´·¬§ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ íí ¹«»¬ ®±±³ ¿²¼ ¿ êôèîêó¯«¿®»óº±±¬ ¼·²·²¹ º¿½·´·¬§ò ×²½´«¼» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ïì ²»© ½¿¾·² ±º ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ íîë ¯«¿®» º»»¬ »¿½¸ò Ð´¿½»® Ý±«²¬§ Ò±®¬¸¬¿® Ñª»®¿´´ Ì¸» °®±¶»½¬ ©·´´ ·²½´«¼» ·¨ ²»© ´·º¬ Ò±®¬¸¬¿®ó¿¬óÌ¿¸±» Û×Î ¾»·²¹ °®»°¿®»¼ò Ó±«²¬¿·² Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² ¿²¼ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ¬»®®¿·²ô ²±©³¿µ·²¹ Ó¿®¬· Ê¿´´»§ ê ³·´» ¿²¼ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ·²º®¿¬®«½¬«®»ô ±«¬¸»¿¬ ±º Ì®«½µ»» ±ºº ±º ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬®¿·´ ¿²¼ ¬®¿·´ ©·¼»²·²¹ô Ò±®¬¸¬¿® Ü®·ª» ª·¿ Í¬¿¬» º±«® µ·»® ¾®·¼¹»ô ²»© ¸¿´º °·°» Î±«¬» îêéô ·² Ð´¿½»® ¿²¼ »¨·¬·²¹ ¸¿´º °·°» ®»´±½¿¬·±²ô Ý±«²¬§ ²»© µ·»® »®ª·½»ô ·¬» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬± »¨·¬·²¹ ·¬»ô ½®± ½±«²¬®§ ½»²¬»® ®»´±½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ½¿³°·¬» ¿®»¿ô ®»´±½¿¬»¼ ®±°» ½±«®» ¿²¼ ¬®»» ½¿²±°§ ¬±«®ô ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ³±«²¬¿·² ¾·µ» °¿®µ ¬®¿·´ò Û²¬·¬´»³»²¬ ·²½´«¼» Î»¦±²» ¿²¼ Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ß³»²¼³»²¬ò Ì¸» º«¬«®» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ©·´´ ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» °®±¹®¿³ ´»ª»´ ©·´´ ·²½´«¼» ¬©± ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ´·º¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ×²¬»®½»°¬ Ð¿®µ·²¹ Ô±¬ Ù±²¼±´¿ ¿²¼ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ ¬»®®¿·²ô ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ µ·»® »®ª·½» ·¬»ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» Þ¿½µ·¼»ò Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòðóê ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ò¿³» Ð®±¶»½¬ Ü»½®·°¬·±² Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² Í¬¿¬« Ì¿¸±» Ì·³»¸¿®» Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ïð ²»© Ò±®¬¸©»¬ ½±®²»® ±º Ò±®¬¸ ×²·¬·¿´ Í¬«¼§ ¾»·²¹ °®»°¿®»¼ò ¬·³»¸¿®» ¼«°´»¨»ô ©±®µº±®½» Ô¿µ» Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ ¿²¼ ¸±«·²¹ô ¿²¼ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬®«½¬«®» ß²¼»®±² Î±¿¼ô Ì¿¸±» ±² ëòê ¿½®»ò Ê·¬¿ Ò±®¬¸¬¿® Ó±«²¬¿·² Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² ±º ¿ ±²»ó¬±®§ô Ò±®¬¸ ±º ¬¸» Æ»°¸§® µ· ´·º¬ ß©¿·¬·²¹ ½±³°´»¬» Ô±¼¹» ïëôéëðó¯«¿®»óº±±¬ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬± ÝÐÚëÛÖÝØØÙÌÑËûÝÑÎ«¾³·¬¬¿´ ±º ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² °®±ª·¼» §»¿®ó®±«²¼ »®ª·½» ¬± Î»¬¿«®¿²¬ ¿¬ Ò±®¬¸¬¿® ¿¬ ³¿¬»®·¿´ º®±³ ¿°°´·½¿²¬ò ¹«»¬ ±º ¬¸» Ò±®¬¸¬¿® ¿¬ Ì¿¸±» Ì¿¸±» Î»±®¬ò Ý±²·¬ ±º ¿ ®»¬¿«®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ½¿º»¬»®·¿ »®ª·½» ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ëðð ·²¼±±® »¿¬ ¿²¼ îëð ±«¬¼±±® »¿¬ò Ú¿½·´·¬§ ©·´´ ¿´± °®±ª·¼» ®»¬®±±³ô ®»¬¿·´ô ´±«²¹»ô ¿²¼ °»½·¿´ »ª»²¬ò Í±«®½»æ Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ô îðïïå Ð´¿½»® Ý±«²¬§ô îððçô îðïï ßÝ×ß ÐÐÎÑßÝØ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í Ü»º·²·¬·±² ±º Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Í»¬¬·²¹ CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires that EIRs include an analysis of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s effect is considered cumulatively considerable. In general, the cumulative setting conditions considered in this DEIR are based on buildout of the Town of Truckee General Plan including the approved and pending projects in Table 4.0-2 and development within 10 miles of the project site in Nevada and Placer counties (Table 4.0-3). The tables are intended to summarize large-scale development in the vicinity of the town and are not intended to be an all-inclusive list of projects in the region. Each technical section of the DEIR includes a description of the cumulative setting’s geographic extent based on the characteristics of the environmental issue under consideration as set forth in Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Ý±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ Each technical section in the DEIR considers whether the proposed project’s effect on anticipated cumulative setting conditions is cumulatively considerable (i.e., a significant effect). The determination of whether the proposed project’s impact on cumulative conditions is considerable is based on consideration of applicable public agency standards, consultation with public agencies, and/or expert opinion. Section 5.0, Cumulative Impacts Summary, provides a summary of the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòðóé ìòð×ÛßßË ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ßÒÜ ÍÍËÓÐÌ×ÑÒÍ ÍÛÜ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ California Department of Finance. 2009. Town of Truckee Population and Housing Estimates as of January 1, 2009. http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=748 (accessed May 21, 2009). Nevada County. 2011. Planning Public Library: Current Planning Projects. https://public.nevcounty.net/PlanningPublic%20Library/Forms/AllItems.aspx?Folder&View ={f7ba7e71-b626-4cc6-949d-12d89491f317}&RootFolder=%2FPlanning%20Public%20 Library%2FPlanning%20Projects%2FCurrent%20Planning%20Projects&SortField =LinkFilename&SortDir=Asc (accessed March 10, 1011). Placer County. 2009. CEQA Current Projects, September 2009. http://www.placer.ca.gov /Departments/CommunityDevelopment/EnvCoordSvcs/~/media/cdr/ECS/CurrentProjec ts/current%20projects%2007%2009%20%20%20team%20area.ashx. ———. 2011. CEQA Current Projects. http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments /CommunityDevelopment /EnvCoordSvcs/CurrentProjects.aspx (accessed March 10, 2011). Town of Truckee. 2006. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR. ———. 2009a. Town of Truckee Development Code Chapter 18.216, Section 18.216.040. ———. 2009b. Town of Truckee Community Development Active Land Use Permit Applications. February 2009. ———. 2010. Town of Truckee Community Development: Active Land Use Permit Applications. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòðóè ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) discusses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan associated with land use. Existing land uses in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan project area are characterized in the context of the Town of Truckee General Plan and Town of Truckee Development Code, as well as other adopted plans and policies. The analysis focuses on land use compatibility, General Plan consistency, and the implications of the proposed project on existing and surrounding land uses. Information for this section was obtained primarily from public documents, public and agency contacts, site reconnaissance, and the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. ìòïòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The Coldstream Specific Plan project site is located in the Town of Truckee in Nevada County, California (refer to Figure 3.0-1 and Figure 3.0-2). The site is located approximately 2 miles west of the town’s historic downtown at the entrance of Coldstream Canyon just south of Interstate 80 (I-80) approximately a half mile southeast of Donner Lake (refer to Figure 3.0-3). The project site is also within the Truckee Redevelopment Area at the western gateway to Truckee. ÛÝ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ The site is primarily vacant and dominated by former aggregate ponds located in the central portion of the site. Cold Creek aligns northeast to southwest through the western third of the project site. Donner Creek aligns east-west across the northern portion of the project site. One home and one building formerly leased by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) and used for materials storage are currently located on the site. The Madigan’s Restaurant structure was demolished and no longer occupies the northern portion of the site. Multiple dirt trails cross the site and are used for hiking. ÍÔË ËÎÎÑËÒÜ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÍÛÍ The project site is bordered by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to the south, Donner Memorial State Park to the west, and an existing residential development (the Boulders) to the east (refer to Figure 3.0-3). The site is accessible from Coldstream Road and Donner Pass Road. The northern edge of the project site abuts a variety of land uses, including commercial, residential, and I-80. Commercial-related land uses are clustered along Coldstream Road adjacent to the freeway on/off-ramp to I-80. Residential land uses consist of single-family homes located on Deerfield Drive (refer to Figure 3.0-3). Caltrans currently has construction staging areas on the north and south sides of I-80. The northern staging area is used to store fill materials, and the area adjacent to the project site on the south side of I-80 contains a batch plant. Land uses along the southern property boundary include the UPRR and highly disturbed areas from former land practices owned by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) and Caltrans. The UPRR is located approximately 200 feet from the project site’s southern boundary and serves as an important link for national freight service. The property operated by Caltrans is primarily used as a storage yard for fill materials related to highway maintenance and improvements. The small parcel to the west of the project site owned by State Parks is vacant and physically separated from Donner Memorial State Park by Cold Creek and the Caltrans storage yard (refer to Figure 3.0-3). The First Baptist Church owns and operates a facility that abuts the eastern property boundary of the project site. Approximately 4.9 acres in size, this site currently houses a 3,600-square-foot structure and associated parking facilities used for its daily operations. The remainder of the Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóï ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ residentially zoned site is currently under construction for single-family homes as part of the Boulders development (refer to Figure 3.0-3). Coldstream Road and Donner Memorial State Park abut the western edge of the project site (refer to Figure 3.0-3). The park contains approximately 1,750 acres of facilities that include campsites, picnic sites, a campfire center, and the Emigrant Trail Museum and Pioneer Monument. A 60-foot-wide Nevada County road easement for Coldstream Road is located along the east side of the park and divides the project site from the park. In the same area, there is a 30-foot-wide Nevada County pipeline easement that crosses Donner Pass Road and extends along the eastern boundary of the park to meet Coldstream Road (California State Parks, 2003). A campground area is located approximately 150 feet to the west of the project site’s western boundary. As of September 2009, the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation had not identified the park for closure as part of budget cutbacks. Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² The project site is designated in the Town of Truckee General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community, PC-1. Land use designations within and surrounding the project site are illustrated in Figure 4.1-1 and include Public to the west, Commercial and Residential 3–6 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) to the north, Residential 3–6 du/acre to the east, and Rail Transportation Corridor to the south. The southern portion of the project site borders Placer County and lands within the Town’s Sphere of Influence. Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² The site is currently zoned PC (Planned Community) on Sheet 20 of the Town of Truckee zoning maps (Town of Truckee, 2009b). The PC zoning district applies to specific subareas identified in the General Plan that define the type, amount, and mixture of land uses allowed. The subareas include development of residential, commercial, recreational, mixed use, and industrial uses. The PC zoning district is consistent with the PC-1 land use classifications of the General Plan. Standards for proposed development and new land uses within a PC zoning district are defined as part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. The project site is surrounded by lands zoned Public Facilities (PF) to the west, Highway Commercial (CH) and Single Family Residential (RS-X) to the north, Residential (RS-2.0) to the east, and Rural Residential (RR 0.05) to the south (Figure 4.1-2). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ ìòïòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Í ÌßÌÛ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ú±®»¬®§ ¿²¼ Ú·®» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² The California Forest Practice Act was adopted in 1973, resulting in a comprehensive forest regulation process. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) oversees enforcement of California’s forest practice regulations. Under the Forest Practice Act, Timber Harvest Plans are submitted to CDF for commercial timber harvesting on all non-federal timberlands. The plans are reviewed for compliance with the Forest Practice Act and rules adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as well as other state and federal laws that protect watersheds and wildlife. CDF foresters also do on-site inspections of proposed logging sites. CDF has jurisdiction over all timber and forestlands, regardless of whether the land is zoned Timber Production Zone (TPZ). In certain circumstances, development in timber areas would be required to prepare a Timber Harvest Plan and obtain a Timberland Conversion Permit from CDF. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has indicated that a Timberland Conversion Plan and Timber Harvest Plan are required for the proposed project. Timberland Conversion Permits will also be required (Harris, 2009). Ü±²²»® Ó»³±®·¿´ Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² A General Plan has been prepared for Donner Memorial State Park by California State Parks (2003). The General Plan establishes the overall long-range purpose and vision for the future of Donner Memorial State Park. Specific goals and supporting guidelines are provided to clarify the vision for the park’s future. The goals and guidelines are designed to address critical issues, while providing a solid foundation for continued resource protection, preservation, and rehabilitation, as well as facility development and resource interpretation at the park. The goals and guidelines serve as the design and implementation guideposts for required subsequent management and development plans. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan was adopted in 2006 and serves as the overall guiding policy document for land use, development, and environmental quality for the Town. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and intensity of all uses of land in the community. The Land Use Element contains the following guiding principles: Manage projected growth within the planning period (2005 to 2025). Provide sufficient land identified for development to account for unbuildable residential lots and to ensure competition and flexibility in Commercial and Industrial land uses. Preserve the important qualities of Truckee’s community character through appropriate land use patterns and locations. Locate significant new development around existing developed areas. Locate the highest density and intensity of development on infill sites within existing developed areas. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóé ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ Designate an adequate amount of land for commercial and industrial uses to accommodate projected demand and fulfill economic diversification goals. Continue to locate freeway oriented commercial development only at the existing developed interchanges with Interstate 80 at Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road and at State Route 89 South. Ensure high quality design for freeway-oriented commercial development in those areas. Prohibit freeway-oriented development on the north side of the Interstate 80/Donner Pass Road (East) interchange, and on the Forest Service-owned parcel on the southeast side of Interstate 80 (I-80) at this same interchange. Screen all development in this area from Interstate 80. Other development on the south side of this interchange is to be addressed through the Downtown Specific Plan. Discourage future subdivision of estate type parcels (2.5- to 10-acre parcel sizes) within the Town boundaries outside of existing rural subdivisions. In order to provide opportunities for infill development and help fund the need for a secondary access road out of Tahoe Donner, maintain allowed residential densities on 700 acres southeast of Tahoe Donner. Prevent “commercial sprawl” in Truckee. Improve the character and visual quality of development in the Gateway area, along the Brockway Road corridor, and along the Truckee River in the Downtown Study Area. Prevent the negative visual impact of mass parking lots and large single building forms. Promote mixed-use development in Commercial areas. The mix can include office, residential, service, and/or retail uses. Ensure adequate provision of public services and infrastructure to support planned residential and non-residential development in suitable locations. The project site is designated on the Town of Truckee General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community, PC-1. Land use designations within and surrounding the project site are illustrated in Figure 4.1-1. The Town of Truckee General Plan identifies specific goals and policies regarding land use and open space. Appendix B analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable policies of the Town of Truckee General Plan. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Ð´¿²²»¼ Ý±³³«²·¬§ ß®»¿ Two areas are designated as Planned Community Areas on the Land Use Map. They include the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (PC-1) and the Joerger Site (PC-3). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóè ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ Specific plans are required for planned community areas pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65450–65457, and development on each site is required to be consistent with its specific plan. Policies specifically related to PC-1 and the PC designation are found below. Ð´¿²²»¼ Ý±³³«²·¬§ ï Planned Community 1 (PC-1) consists of a 178.6-acre former aggregate mine site on the southern side of I-80. It is the Town’s policy, as expressed in Circulation Policy P6.3, that Donner Pass Road remain at two travel lanes with a center turn lane. For this reason, the specific plan for PC-1 will be required to provide a mix of land uses generating an amount of traffic that, in addition to buildout of the General Plan, would not result in the need for four lanes on Donner Pass Road or result in conditions on Donner Pass Road worse than level of service (LOS) D. Policies addressing this issue are found in the General Plan Circulation Element. Land Uses Allowed: Land uses allowed in this designation are a mixture of medium-density, clustered residential uses; commercial uses, including visitor lodging; and open space for passive recreation and preservation of scenic and habitat values. Density and Intensity: The maximum amount of development allowed (of housing units and square feet of nonresidential development) is shown in Table 4.1-1. A total of 50 acres is assigned for development of all allowed uses on the site in recognition of the physical constraints to development that exist over much of the site’s area. This acreage is a guideline to be used in specific plan development and may vary based on the results of detailed studies completed prior to site development. ìòïóï Ì ßÞÔÛ ÅÌÌÙÐÃ ÚÎÑÓ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ ÐÝïøÐÝóï÷ÔË ÔßÒÒÛÜ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ßÒÜ ÍÛÍ Ó¿¨·³«³ Í¯«¿®» Ú»»¬ñ Ì§°» Ü©»´´·²¹ Ë²·¬ö Ý±³³»®½·¿´ñÑºº·½» «» «° ¬± éðôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ Ô±¼¹·²¹ ïðð ´±¼¹·²¹ «²·¬ Ý´«¬»®»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ë²·¬ íðð «²·¬öö ö ß ¬±¬¿´ ±º éð ¿½®» · ¿´´±¬¬»¼ º±® ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ô ³·¨»¼ «» ¿²¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «»ò öö Ì±¬¿´ · ¬± ·²½´«¼» ¿´´ ®»¯«·®»¼ ·²½´«·±²¿®§ ¸±«·²¹ ¿²¼ñ±® ©±®µº±®½» ¸±«·²¹ «²·¬ò ß ¼»²·¬§ ¾±²« ³¿§ ¾» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¬± »¨½»»¼ ¬¸» íðð «²·¬ ·º ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ©±®µº±®½» ¸±«·²¹ «²·¬ ¿®» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿¾±ª» ¿²¼ ¾»§±²¼ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ·²½´«·±²¿®§ ¿²¼ ©±®µº±®½» «²·¬ò Policies:A table of policies that guide development of the specific plan for PC-1 is located in Appendix B. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Æ±²·²¹ Î»¹«´¿¬·±² The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the Town of Truckee, found in the Town’s Development Code (Title 18), provide specific development and land use regulations for the Town of Truckee. The Zoning Ordinance is designed to implement the General Plan and promote, protect, and preserve the general public health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Truckee (Town of Truckee, 2003). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóç ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ The site is currently zoned PC (Planned Community) on Sheet 20 of the Town of Truckee zoning maps (Town of Truckee, 2009b).The PC zoning district applies to specific subareas identified in the General Plan that define the type, amount, and mixture of land uses allowed. The subareas include development of residential, commercial, recreational, mixed-use, and industrial uses. The PC zoning district is consistent with the Special Study Area and PC-1 land use classifications of the General Plan. Standards for proposed development and new land uses within a PC zoning district are defined as part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. The project site is surrounded by lands zoned Public Facilities (PF) to the west, Highway Commercial (CH) and Residential (RS-X) in which further subdivision is prohibited to the north, Residential 2 units per acre (RS-2.0) to the east, and Rural Residential one unit per 20 acres (RR 0.05) to the south (Figure 4.1-2). The PF designation applies to Donner Lake Memorial State Park as well as to the Caltrans materials storage yard. The CH zoning applies to the highway commercial uses north of the site (gas stations, restaurant, hotel), and the residential designation applies to the Gateway Neighborhood area to the north and east. The area south of the site and the UPRR is zoned Rural Residential. These designations are defined in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance as follows: PF (Public Facilities) District.The PF zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for public, institutional and auxiliary uses that are established in response to the recreational, safety, cultural, and welfare needs of the Town. Allowable land uses may include public parks and facilities, schools, hospitals and government offices, and other appropriate uses for public agencies. The PF zoning district is consistent with the Public and Public, Hospital/Offices land use classifications of the General Plan and on public lands in other land use classifications. CH (Highway Commercial) District.The CH zoning district is applied to locations along highways and it is intended to provide highway and tourist related services. The floor area ratio for commercial development in the CH zoning district is 0.20. The CH zoning district is consistent with the Commercial land use classification of the General Plan. RS (Single Family Residential) District. The RS zoning district applies to parcels with existing residential development and areas appropriate for new clustered development. Allowable densities range from 0.5 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The RS zoning district is consistent with the Residential (RES), Residential Cluster (RC), Open Space Recreation (OSR), Public (Hospital/Office), and Tahoe Donner PC land use classifications of the General Plan. The designation of areas in the RS zoning district may also include: 1. Establishing separate RS zoning districts with specific density requirements. These requirements shall be indicated on the Zoning Map by a suffix to the RS Zoning Map symbol which denotes the maximum allowable number of dwelling units per acre. For example, RS-1 means one dwelling unit per acre and RS-4 means four units per acre. 2. Establishing separate RS zoning districts where further subdivision of existing parcels shall be prohibited because the maximum density allowed by the General Plan has been achieved through previous subdivision. This requirement shall be indicated on the Zoning Map by an “X” suffix to the Zoning Map symbol. Existing parcels located within an area designated in the RS-X district on the Zoning Map shall not be further subdivided. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóïð ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ RR (Rural Residential) District. The RR zoning district identifies areas intended for rural living, including the keeping of animals, with supporting corrals and barns. Parcels in the RR zoning district are appropriate for clustered infill development away from environmentally sensitive areas, and to preserve open space. The density of development for this zoning district generally includes properties with a minimum area of 5 acres for each dwelling unit. The RR zoning district is consistent with the RC-10, RC-5, RES, and OSR classifications of the General Plan. The designation of areas in the RR zoning district may also include: 1. Establishing separate RR zoning districts with specific density requirements. These requirements shall be indicated on the Zoning Map by a suffix to the RR Zoning Map symbol which denotes the maximum allowable number of dwelling units per acre. For example, RR-.1 means one dwelling unit per 10 acres and RR-0.2 means one unit per 5 acres. 2. Establishing separate RR zoning districts where further subdivision of existing parcels shall be prohibited because the maximum density allowed by the General Plan has been achieved through previous subdivision. This requirement shall be indicated on the Zoning Map by an “X” suffix to the Zoning Map symbol. Existing parcels located within an area designated in the RS-X district on the Zoning Map shall not be further subdivided. Ì®«½µ»» Î»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ß®»¿ The project site is strategically located within the Truckee Redevelopment Area, which covers approximately 1,000 acres within the Town of Truckee and was established in January 1998 by Resolution 98-02. Future development within the Truckee Redevelopment Area is subject to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan (adopted in 1998 by Resolution 98-06) and by the 5-year implementation plans it is required to adopt. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is located within the Redevelopment Area as shown in Figure 4.1-3. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóïï ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ This page intentionally left blank. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóïî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ ìòïòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts to land use are considered significant if implementation of the project would result in any of the following conditions: 1)Physically divide an established community. 2)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the Town of Truckee General Plan and Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ Evaluation of potential land use impacts of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan was based on review of planning documents pertaining to the project site, including the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan and Town of Truckee Zoning Ordinance, consultation with appropriate agencies, and field review of the project site and surroundings. The focus of this land use analysis is on the proposed project’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee land use policies, particularly those related to Planned Community Areas, as well as compatibility with surrounding land uses. ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ð¸§·½¿´´§ Ü·ª·¼» ¿² Û¬¿¾´·¸»¼ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Impact 4.1.1 The project site for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is located south of I-80 and east of Donner Lake. The proposed project would be an infill project and would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. The proposed project would be located on a largely vacant piece of property in the southwestern portion of the town. Several features divide the town including I-80, State Route 89, the UPRR, and the Truckee River. The project site is highly constrained due to its past as an aggregate mine site and has been designated PC-1 on the Town’s General Plan Land Use Map. However, the site itself does not physically divide the town or any of its neighborhood areas. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide infill development consisting of a mixture of medium-density, clustered residential uses, commercial uses, and open space for passive recreation and preservation of scenic and habitat values. It would complement existing development that occurs to the east and north of site as well as provide trail connections to improve connectivity of this portion of the town. Thus, no impact is expected. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóïë ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿²ô Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼»ô ¿²¼ Ì®«½µ»» Î»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ð´¿² Impact 4.1.2 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan has been prepared generally consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and Redevelopment Plan. Therefore conflicts with the General Plan, Development Code, and Redevelopment Plan are considered to be a less than significant impact. The project site is currently designated Planned Community (PC-1) in the Town of Truckee General Plan (2006), and the current zoning on the project site is also PC. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment associated with the adoption of the Coldstream Specific Plan. The land use designations and zoning of the site would be changed to those identified in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan in association with its adoption. In keeping with the PC-1 designation and policies specific to PC-1, the proposed project provides a mix of land uses including residential uses, commercial uses, and open space for passive recreation. Seven distinct zoning districts (refer to Figure 3.0-6) are created as part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan: Village Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC), Village Green Residential (VGR), Village Green Residential Small Lot (VSL), Lakeside Residential (LR), Forest Residential (FR), Recreation (REC), and Open Space (OS). Each district has specific development standards as well as site, architectural, and landscape design guidelines. Where conflicts occur between the provisions in the Town of Truckee Development Code (which includes the Zoning Ordinance) and the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, the provisions of the Specific Plan will apply. Where the Specific Plan does not address a specific provision, requirements of the Development Code will govern development on the project site. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan has been developed based on, and generally consistent with, the provisions of the General Plan relative to the PC-1 area (refer to Appendix B). In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan (refer to Appendix B). The proposed project would allow for the development of up to 345 single-family homes and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. This development is inconsistent with the requirements of Table 4.1-1, which does not allow for more than 300 dwelling units. While the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the number of allowed units in Table 4.1-1 to 345, this change is due to additional property included in the PC-1 area and thus would not change the intent or effect of the General Plan (see Section 3.0, Project Description). No conflicts are anticipated to occur between the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and the General Plan following adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The proposed project has been prepared in compliance with the adopted Truckee Redevelopment Plan. The land uses set forth in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan are intended to further the Redevelopment Plan’s goals and objectives by encouraging employment opportunities through environmental and economic improvements resulting from redevelopment activities; providing for participation in the redevelopment of property(ies) in the project area by owners who agree to participate in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan; providing public infrastructure improvements and community facilities that are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the project area; increasing and improving the community’s supply of affordable housing for low- and moderate- income families, seniors, and the disabled; and encouraging the redevelopment of the project area through the cooperation of private enterprise and public agencies. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Development Code, and Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, impacts relative to conflicts with these plans and the Development Code are considered less than significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóïê ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ô¿²¼ Ë» Ý±²º´·½¬ Impact 4.1.3 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses. Implementation of the proposed project could result in conflicts with the operation of Donner Memorial State Park. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. Existing land uses surrounding the site include I-80 to the north, the Deerfield neighborhood to the northeast; vacant land and the UPRR to the south, the Boulders residential development to the east, Donner Memorial State Park to the west, a Caltrans maintenance materials storage yard to the southwest, and a Holiday Inn and Union 76 and Chevron gas stations to the northwest (refer to Figure 3.0-3). The compatibility of land uses proposed in the Coldstream Specific Plan with adjacent uses is described below. Interstate 80 borders the northern boundary of the project site, where areas adjacent to I-80 are designated as Open Space. In addition, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan identifies the Interstate 80 Buffer on the northern portion of the project site along the southern bank of Donner Creek. The buffer calls for construction of a landscaped berm north of the proposed Forest Residential zoning district and south of the existing alignment of Donner Creek. The berm would include a combination of earth, stone, and native or naturalized plant materials for landscaping and be at least 6 feet in height to provide noise attenuation from traffic along I-80. The berm would also serve as a visual amenity to residents within the project site (pages 3.22 and 3.23, Figure 3-23 in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan). Impacts associated with noise and aesthetics are discussed in Section 4.3 and 4.10, respectively, of this Draft EIR. Land use conflicts are anticipated to be less than significant with incorporation of the buffer and the location of the proposed Open Space land use adjacent to I-80. The Coldstream Specific Plan proposes that the eastern portion of the project site contain Open Space, Forest Residential, and Lakeside Residential uses to border the Deerfield neighborhood to the northeast of the project site. The project site incorporates a buffer between the proposed land uses and the existing Deerfield residential neighborhood. The Deerfield Neighborhood Buffer is identified along the northern border of the project site (page 3.22, Figure 3-23, of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan). The area located directly south of the Deerfield neighborhood is designated as permanent open space in order to preserve views from these residences toward the pond areas and to maintain backyard privacy for existing residents. Since the area between the neighborhood and development on the project site would be retained as open space, land use conflicts are considered less than significant. To the south, a swath of vacant land borders the project site. The UPRR is located approximately 200 feet to the south of the project site’s southern property line. Land uses proposed in the project site’s southern portion include Open Space, which includes preservation and enhancement areas. The rear yard of the nearest Forest Residential lot is approximately 180 to 200 feet from the project site’s southern property boundary and approximately 400 feet from the UPRR. The area separating the residential lots from the UPRR includes trees and vegetation which would provide a visual buffer and setback (impacts relative to noise are discussed in Section 4.3 of this DEIR). Thus, land use conflicts between the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and the adjacent open space and UPRR are anticipated to be less than significant. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóïé ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ The Boulders residential development borders the eastern boundary of the project site. The project site’s eastern portion is designated as Open Space, which includes a preservation area as well as a segment of the Truckee Legacy Trail. No urban uses are proposed on this portion of the project site. The open space would serve as a buffer between the adjacent Boulders development and the project site; thus, no conflicts are anticipated between the two uses. Donner Memorial State Park is located immediately to the west of the project site separated by a 60-foot-wide Nevada County road easement for Coldstream Road. The park contains a campsite approximately 150 feet from the project site’s western boundary. The closest land use within the project site to the campsite area is Village Green Residential Small Lot. Placement of homes in proximity to Donner Memorial State Park could result in issues with trespassing, vandalism, and other urban uses/natural parkland interface impacts common to such situations. Homes proposed by the project would be separated from the property boundary by the 60-foot Nevada County road easement as well as by the proposed Coldstream Road State Parks Buffer. The Coldstream Road and Donner Memorial State Park Buffer is described on page 3.20 and 3.22 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and depicted in Figure 4.1-4. (All proposed buffers are shown on page 3.21, Figure 3-23, Buffers and Screening Diagram, of the Coldstream Specific Plan.) This area is intended to establish the existing tree stand along the western edge of the project site and establish a minimum 20-foot-wide buffer to preserve the trees within the proposed project’s boundaries measured from the western boundary to the rear lot lines of the Village Green Residential zoning district. Existing vegetation would be supplemented with support plantings to maintain a visual screen between Donner Memorial State Park and the project site. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan calls for installation of a continuous fence or wall that utilizes natural materials along the western property line between the project site and Donner Memorial State Park to supplement the visual screen provided by the existing and proposed landscaping within the buffer. The proposed buffer would also serve to reduce potential trespassing and vandalism issues with neighboring property owners. While this extent of buffering would assist in reducing conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park operations, additional buffering provisions are required. Conflicts associated with noise, biological resources, air quality, visual resources and trail use are addressed in Sections 4.3 (Noise), 4.4 (Air Quality), 4.8 (Biological and Natural Resources), 4.10 (Visual Resources/Light and Glare), and 4.11 (Community Services). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóïè T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ A Caltrans maintenance material storage yard is located to the southwest, sandwiched between the project site and Donner State Memorial Park (refer to Figure 3.0-3). The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (page 3.21, Figure 3-23) identifies the Caltrans Buffer along the southern portion of the project site north of the Caltrans site and calls for a 20-foot landscaped buffer to be maintained between the project site and the Caltrans site (see Figure 4.1-4). Within the buffer, a fence or common wall would be erected along the southern property of the Village Green Small Lot residential homes. The homes would be oriented with their rear yards to the south. A mixture of deciduous and evergreen species would be established within the buffer to provide a visual screen between the project site and the Caltrans maintenance yard. Thus, land use conflicts between Village Green Residential Small Lot and the Caltrans maintenance yard are anticipated to be less than significant, as the buffer provides sufficient setback and screening between the two uses. Commercial uses including a Holiday Inn and Union 76 and Chevron gas stations are located to the northwest of the project site. The Holiday Inn and Union 76 are located on the west side of Coldstream Road, while the Chevron station is on the east side of Coldstream Road. The area of the project site near these uses is designated for Village Mixed-Use Commercial and Open Space. The Village Mixed-Use Commercial designation allows for commercial development, and the Open Space designation would be a preservation and buffer area between the project site and adjacent uses. Thus both the Village Mixed-Use Commercial and Open Space designations would be compatible with commercial uses. Cold Creek would also provide a separation between the eastern portion of the project site and the Chevron site. Thus, land use conflicts between the open space and mixed-use commercial proposed by the Coldstream Specific Plan adjacent to the existing commercial uses are anticipated to be less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.1.3 The project applicant shall modify the design of the proposed project’s western boundary as follows: Modify the western buffer and residential parcels along the Village Green Residential Small Lot area in the following manner as shown in Figure 4.1-5: Eliminate residential lots along the western project boundary o adjacent to Donner State Memorial Park. Increase the size of the buffer in this area to provide a 100-foot o setback from the western property line. Provide a 6-foot durable (winter-resistant) fence along the o western boundary to the recreation parcel with no gates or openings (except as noted below). Final design of the fence shall be approved by the Town Planner prior to installation. Provide a gated access point at the recreation parcel to the California Department State Parks and Recreation parcel immediately to the west for use only by the California Department State Parks and Recreation. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of tentative maps for the Village Green Residential Small Lot area and Recreation parcel Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóîï ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ Implementation of the above mitigation measure would expand the buffer area between Donner State Memorial Park campsites and residential uses to a total of 250 feet and would provide a barrier to avoid trespass from the residential area into the park. This additional buffering and barrier provision would mitigate this impact to less than significant. Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ ß°°´·½¿¾´» Ø¿¾·¬¿¬ Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±² Ð´¿² Impact 4.1.4 The Town of Truckee is not located within an area covered by a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur relative to conflicts between the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans have been adopted for the Truckee area by local, regional, or state agencies (Town of Truckee, 2006b). Conservation and Open Space Element Action A4.5 directs the Town as follows: “Actively pursue funding opportunities from State and federal sources for riparian habitat restoration. Examples of potential funding sources include the Riparian Habitat Conservation Program and other programs of the California Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 40), and Urban Streams restoration grants.” Thus, at some point in the future the Town may pursue a Riparian Habitat Conservation Program. Currently, no conflict would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóîî Source: SWA Group, 2011 Figure 4.1-5 0100200 Revised Buffers on Western Boundary FEET ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ ìòïòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ For the purposes of evaluating the potential cumulative land use impacts, the proposed project must be considered in combination with the pending and approved projects identified in Table 4.0-1 and Table 4.0-2. The proposed project would occur on a site designated as Planned Community, PC-1, on the General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is generally consistent with what would occur as envisioned as part of buildout of the General Plan. Future growth under cumulative conditions may result in a variety of land use impacts such as consistency with land use plans and land use compatibility. The cumulative impact analysis herein focuses on the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ô¿²¼ Ë» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±²º´·½¬ Impact 4.1.5 The proposed project, in combination with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Town of Truckee and nearby areas of Nevada County and Placer County, could result in conflicts with applicable land use planning policies. This would be a less than cumulatively considerable impact. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan project, in combination with pending and approved projects in the project area, has the potential to create land use conflicts with existing uses, such as the existing commercial land uses adjacent to the northwestern portion of the site, Donner Memorial State Park to the west, and the residential development to the east of the site. Generally, land use conflicts are site-specific and not cumulative and are also related to noise, traffic, and air quality, which are discussed in the relevant sections of this document. Consistency with the applicable policies from the Town of Truckee General Plan and the requirements identified in the Zoning Ordinance would ensure that project impacts to adjacent land uses are minimized. In addition, the proposed project incorporates buffers at key interface locations along the periphery of the project site. These buffers include setbacks from property lines, walls or fences, and landscaping as well as preservation of existing vegetation. Project- specific conflicts with Donner State Memorial Park would be mitigated through project design modification identified in mitigation measure MM 4.1.3. Furthermore, the proposed development is consistent with development envisioned for PC-1 as part of General Plan buildout. As such, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would have minimal contribution to any cumulative inconsistencies. As shown in Appendix B and discussed under Impact 4.1.2, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies from the Truckee General Plan. When considered in combination with pending and approved projects in the project area, construction and implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not result in cumulatively considerable land use planning conflicts. Therefore, this impact is less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïóîë ìòïÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Brown & Caldwell. 2002. Cold Stream Property 100-Year Flood Evaluation. California State Parks. 2003. Donner Memorial State Park. General Plan Volume 1 of 2. Cavanaugh, Thomas J., Acting Chief, Central California/Nevada Section. 2003. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Letter to Michael Isle, Teichert Aggregates, dated November 19, 2003. County of Placer. 2009. Correspondence (e-mail) with Maywan Krach, Community Development Technician, dated June 6, 2009. Harris, Brad, Unit Chief. 2009. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Letter regarding Coldstream Specific Plan, dated June 23, 2009. SCO Planning & Engineering, Kenkay Associations, and Ward-Young Architecture & Planning. 2009. Coldstream Specific Plan. Town of Truckee. 2003. Town of Truckee Title 18 – Development Code. ———. 2006a. Town of Truckee General Plan. ———. 2006b. Truckee 2025 General Plan Update and EIR. ———. 2009a. Active Land Use Permit Applications (as ofFebruary 6, 2009). ———. 2009b. Sheet 20 of the Town of Truckee Zoning Maps. http://www.townoftruckee.com/zoningmap/map20.htm (accessed May 27, 2009). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïóîê ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) describes transportation and circulation conditions in the area of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and identifies impacts associated with the development of the project. The analysis focuses on potential impacts to the transportation network, including roadways, transit service, internal site circulation, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan transportation policies. Significant impacts are identified and, as necessary, mitigation measures are identified to address those impacts. All technical analyses related to this section are contained in Appendix C. The analysis in this section was prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. ìòîòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the project site is located in the Donner Lake area of Truckee, California, just south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and approximately one-half mile southeast of Donner Lake. The following intersections and roadway segments were selected for analysis by the Town of Truckee, as the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could potentially result in a significant impact at the following intersections and roadway segments: Intersections: State Route 89 (SR 89)/Deerfield Drive SR 89/I-80 Eastbound Ramps SR 89/I-80 Westbound Ramps SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road Northwoods Boulevard/Donner Pass Road I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive Coldstream Road/Site Access Road (proposed intersection) Coldstream Road/Internal East-West Road (proposed intersection) Site Access Road/Internal East-West Road (proposed intersection) Roadway Segments: Donner Pass Road, west of Coldstream Road Donner Pass Road, over I-80 Donner Pass Road, between I-80 Westbound Ramp and Northwoods Boulevard Donner Pass Road, between Northwoods Boulevard and SR 89 South Coldstream Road, between Donner Pass Road and Deerfield Drive Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóï ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Coldstream Road, between Deerfield Drive and site access Deerfield Drive, between SR 89 South and 1,000 feet west of SR 89 South Deerfield Drive, between 1,000 feet west of SR 89 South and existing end of pavement I-80 roadway links were not analyzed, because the proposed project would not significantly impact the high volumes on the interstate (less than a 0.5 percent increase in the peak hour volume). ÛÌÒ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÛÌÉÑÎÕ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² The location, existing lane configurations, and traffic control of study intersections are shown in Figure 4.2-1. Î±¿¼©¿§ ×²¬»®¬¿¬» èð Interstate 80 (I-80) provides interregional highway connections east to Reno, Nevada, and beyond, and west to Sacramento, California, and the San Francisco Bay Area. The Town of Truckee area lies along both sides of I-80, 34 miles west of Reno and 90 miles east of Sacramento. This section of I-80 is currently a four-lane divided highway with limited truck climbing lanes and with speed limits posted at 65 miles per hour. There are five interchanges serving Truckee on I-80. Í¬¿¬» Î±«¬» èç Í±«¬¸ State Route (SR 89) is the primary north-south California state route to the east of the Sierra crest. The “South” segment of SR 89 begins at the I-80/SR 89 South interchange in central Truckee where two dual-lane roundabouts were recently constructed. However, for purposes of this analysis, SR 89 South is considered to begin at Donner Pass Road and travel through the southern boundary of the study area. SR 89 is a four-lane roadway from Donner Pass Road southward until it narrows to one lane in each direction through the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) undercrossing (the “Mousehole”), just south of the study area boundary. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Donner Pass Road extends from the intersection with SR 89 North (east of downtown Truckee) westward to Donner Lake, Donner Summit, and Soda Springs. This roadway provides a vital link for local circulation by providing access to historic downtown Truckee, public and commercial uses in the Gateway area such as the Tahoe Forest Hospital, Gateway Commercial Center, and several school facilities, as well as Donner Memorial State Park and the Donner Lake residential area. Within the vicinity of the project site, Donner Pass Road is a two-lane roadway on the south side of I-80 and a three-lane roadway (one travel lane in each direction plus a central two-way left-turn lane) north of I-80. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. A Class II bike lane is provided along Donner Pass Road in the vicinity of the project site. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ Coldstream Road is a two-lane roadway providing direct access to two gas stations, lodging uses, and industrial uses, as well as a fast-food restaurant with drive-through and commercial uses on the western portion of Deerfield Drive. Coldstream Road extends southward from the Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastbound ramps intersection to the project site and Coldstream Valley. The pavement width on Coldstream Road adjacent to the commercial uses is approximately 48 feet. To the south of the lodging uses, the roadway is gated and narrows to approximately 24 feet. Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» While originally a through roadway, currently Deerfield Drive consists of two sections, separated by Donner Creek. To the east of the creek, it is a two-lane roadway extending westward from SR 89 South for approximately one-half mile. Near SR 89 South, Deerfield Drive serves commercial land uses including the Crossroads Center, while farther west the lanes narrow slightly as the roadway serves a residential neighborhood and church. Adjacent to the northern edge of the Crossroads Center, Deerfield Drive is improved to a 46-foot cross section with curb, gutter, and attached sidewalks. Adjacent to the Boulders condominium development and the Inn at Truckee, the total pavement width is about 36 feet, and sidewalk, curb, and gutter are provided along the north side of the street. This segment of Deerfield Drive has a summer PM peak hour total two-way volume of about 110. A rural residential street standard is provided through the residential neighborhood to the west, with approximately 24 feet of pavement width, graveled shoulders, and a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. This segment of Deerfield Drive has a summer PM peak hour total two-way volume of up to 60. To the west of the creek, Deerfield Drive consists of a cul-de-sac roughly 650 feet in length. It provides access from Coldstream Road to a fast-food restaurant with drive-through, a service station, and commercial office space. Ì®¿²·¬ Í»®ª·½» Ì®«½µ»» Ì®¿²·¬ The Town of Truckee contracts with a private operator (Aztec Transportation) to provide public transit services. Truckee Transit fixed-route service is provided on a year-round basis within the town and on a seasonal basis to Donner Summit to the west. Truckee Transit fixed-route service is provided hourly along the Donner Pass Road/Old Brockway Road corridors between Donner Lake and the Truckee Tahoe Airport. Service is provided Monday through Saturday from 9:15 AM through 5:16 PM (except during lunch hour 12:15 PM to 1:15 PM). The nearest stop to the site is located in front of the Holiday Inn Express on Coldstream Road. The one-way fare on Truckee Transit fixed routes is $2.00 for adults, $1.00 for children ages 5 to 12, and $0.50 for seniors and disabled persons. An all-day pass is $4.00 for adults, $2.00 for students, $1.00 for seniors and disabled persons, and $1.00 for children ages 5 and over. No fare is charged for children under the age of 5 traveling with a paying adult. In an effort to provide convenient transportation for employees and guests, Sugar Bowl Ski Resort subsidizes the winter fixed route. In exchange, passengers traveling to anywhere on Donner Summit are not charged a fare (Town of Truckee, 2009). Ì®«½µ»» Ü·¿´óßóÎ·¼» Since 2003, the Town of Truckee has contracted with Aztec Transportation for operation of the Truckee Dial-A-Ride program. Truckee Dial-A-Ride provides curb-to-curb demand-response service to persons with disabilities with Americans with Disabilities Act certification and to the general public. Truckee Dial-A-Ride service is offered to the general public throughout the Town Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóë ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ of Truckee on weekdays from 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM except during the lunch hour and on Saturdays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM except during the lunch hour. The general public one-way fare on Truckee Dial-A-Ride is $4.00. The one-way fare for seniors/disabled/wheelchair passengers is $1.00. Children under the age of 5, personal aides for disabled passengers, and companions of disabled passengers ride free. Free transfers are provided between Truckee Dial- A-Ride and the Truckee Transit fixed-route service (Town of Truckee, 2009). Ì¿¸±» ß®»¿ Î»¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²·¬ Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART), in partnership with the Town of Truckee, operates transit service between Truckee and Tahoe City along the SR 89 corridor year-round. A winter-only route is operated along SR 267 between Truckee and Crystal Bay. TART is operated seven days a week by the Placer County Department of Public Works. Service along SR 89 operates from 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM, providing one-hour headways. Service along SR 267 operates from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, providing one-hour headways (TART, 2009). Ù®»§¸±«²¼ Ô·²»ô ×²½ò Greyhound provides bus service between Reno and Truckee seven days a week. Passengers are dropped off in Truckee at 10065 Donner Pass Road. Westbound service departs Reno at 6:35 AM and 3:30 PM and arrives in Truckee at 7:25 AM and 4:20 PM, respectively. Eastbound service departs Truckee at 11:59 AM and 5:00 PM and arrives in Reno at 12:50 PM and 6:40 PM, respectively (Greyhound, 2009). ß³¬®¿µ Amtrak provides rail service between Reno and Truckee seven days a week, as part of the California Zephyr route between the Bay Area and Chicago. Westbound service departs Reno at 9:36 AM, arriving in Truckee at 10:37 AM. Eastbound service departs Truckee at 2:38 PM, arriving in Reno at 4:06 PM (Amtrak, 2009). Þ·½§½´» ¿²¼ Ð»¼»¬®·¿² Ú¿½·´·¬·» As noted in the Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, a Class II bike lane is provided along Donner Pass Road and a Class III bike route is provided along portions of Deerfield Drive within the vicinity of the project site. The Trails and Bikeways Master Plan proposes extending the Class III bike route along Deerfield Drive through the project site and connecting with Coldstream Road and Donner Pass Road. A Class II bike lane is proposed for SR 89 South, east of the project site. Along the southern end of the project site, the Trails and Bikeway Master Plan also identifies a proposed recreational trail segment between Coldstream Road at I-80 and Deerfield Drive at SR 89 South utilizing existing rough-graded roads. Another recreational trail is proposed through the project site along Cold Creek linking the previous recreational trail and Deerfield Drive (Town of Truckee, 2007). In addition, Phase 5 of the Truckee River Legacy Trail is planned through the project site and would connect Donner Memorial State Park to the trail west of SR 89. In the immediate vicinity of the project site, no improved pedestrian facilities exist. However, there are unapproved trails that occur on the site as the result of public usage since closure of mining activities. Limited sidewalks are provided along Deerfield Drive east of the project site. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóê ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ð¿®µ·²¹ Parking requirements for the Town of Truckee are provided in Section 18.48 of the Development Code (Town of Truckee, 2009). No existing improved parking facilities are located on the project site. Commercial areas along Coldstream Road include large surface parking areas near the project site, as well as parking within Donner Memorial State Park. ÛÌÊ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÎßÚÚ×Ý ÑÔËÓÛÍ For this analysis, and consistent with Town of Truckee policy, impacts on the transportation network were determined by measuring the effect that site-generated traffic has on traffic operations at key intersections and along roadways during the tenth-highest summer weekday PM peak hour. The focus on summer conditions reflects the fact that overall traffic activity is higher during the summer than the winter months and that the Town of Truckee’s adopted traffic standards consider summer conditions only. PM peak hour traffic counts were conducted from June 23 to June 26, 2009, at the eight existing study intersections. Continuous two-way traffic counts were conducted from June 23 to June 25, 2009, at a point on Coldstream Road immediately south of the Holiday Inn Express. Based upon a review of 2003, 2008, and 2009 summer traffic data, it was determined that the June 2009 traffic counts conducted for the proposed project would need to be adjusted upward by approximately 20 percent to reflect the tenth-highest PM peak hour conditions for all locations except for the freeway ramps. Counts on the freeway ramps were determined to be approximately 30 percent below the tenth-highest PM peak hour conditions and were adjusted upward accordingly. To reflect a 2010 analysis year, the 2009 adjusted peak hour volumes were increased by a 2 percent annual growth rate. Finally, 2010 traffic volumes were balanced between adjacent intersections. The resulting 2010 PM peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections are illustrated in Figure 4.2-2. Roadway segment 2010 volumes are illustrated in Table 4.2-1. Ììòîóï ßÞÔÛ îðïðÎÌÊ ÑßÜÉßÇ ÎßÚÚ×Ý ÑÔËÓÛÍ Ð»¿µ Ø±«® Ð»¿µ Ø±«® Î±¿¼©¿§ Í»¹³»²¬ Ì©±óÉ¿§ Ð»¿µ Ü·®»½¬·±² Ê±´«³» Ê±´«³» Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ô ©»¬ ±º Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ èðð ìîë Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ô ±ª»® ×óèð ïôððé ëìð Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ô ¾»¬©»»² ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³° ¿²¼ Ò±®¬¸©±±¼ Þ´ª¼ çíé ëéï Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ô ¾»¬©»»² Ò±®¬¸©±±¼ Þ´ª¼ ¿²¼ ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ ïôêçð èêè Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ô ¾»¬©»»² Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ¿²¼ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü® ìîé îïè Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ô ¾»¬©»»² Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü® ¿²¼ ·¬» ¿½½» ëê íï Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®ô ¾»¬©»»² ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ ¿²¼ ïôððð º»»¬ ©»¬ ±º ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ èíç ìêê ï Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®ô ¾»¬©»»² ïôððð º»»¬ ©»¬ ±º ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ ¿²¼ »¨·¬·²¹ »²¼ ±º °¿ª»³»²¬ ïðè êí ï Ò±¬»æ Ì¸· »¹³»²¬ ±º Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» · ²±¬ ½±²¬·²«±« ¬± ¬¸» ©»¬»®² »¹³»²¬ ±º Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ¬¸¿¬ ¿½½»» ¬¸» Ì¿½± Þ»´´ ®»¬¿«®¿²¬ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®»½¬ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ò Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îðïï Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóé ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ A weekend analysis of the I-80/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection was requested by Caltrans, given that traffic volumes at this location are typically higher on weekends than midweek. Traffic counts conducted on June 27, 2009, were adjusted upward by approximately 10 percent for Donner Pass Road approaches and by approximately 30 percent for freeway ramps to reflect busy summer Saturday conditions based. Finally, the volumes were adjusted to balance between the two ramp intersections. ÛÌÝ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÎßÚÚ×Ý ÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» ß°°®±¿½¸ Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions that occur on a given roadway segment or intersection under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, travel speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. LOS designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. LOS designation is reported differently for unsignalized intersections, signalized intersections, and roadway segments, as described below. For signalized intersections, LOS is primarily measured in terms of average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. LOS at unsignalized intersections is quantified in terms of delay per vehicle for each movement. The unsignalized intersection LOS is based upon the theory of gap acceptance for side-street stop-sign-controlled approaches, while signalized intersection LOS is based upon the assessment of volume-to-capacity ratios and control delay. Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» Ì¸®»¸±´¼ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» The existing Town of Truckee policy on LOS is applied in this analysis. As stated in the Truckee 2025 General Plan, the Town’s LOS standards are as follows: Policy P2.1. Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road segments and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside of the Downtown Study Area. Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and collector road segments and for total intersection movements within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cumulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of these conditions shall be met for traffic operations to be considered unacceptable. As all the study intersections are outside the downtown Truckee area, LOS D applies to all the study intersections. For purposes of this analysis, the LOS delay criteria for unsignalized intersections are assumed to be applicable to roundabouts on a worst approach basis. Ý¿´¬®¿² In general, Caltrans tries to maintain LOS D or better, but exceptions are made in specific cases. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóè T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ Intersection LOS for the study intersections was largely evaluated using the methodologies documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), as applied in the Traffix 8.0 software package developed by Dowling Associates. The SIDRA software (Version 3.2) was used to analyze roundabout LOS. îðïð ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» Study intersections were evaluated to determine existing (2010) operational conditions for the summer PM peak hour. Using the traffic volumes previously described, it is possible to evaluate the LOS provided during peak periods at the intersections serving the study area. As indicated in Table 4.2-2, the LOS at all study intersections is acceptable without project implementation, with the exception of the following: SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road, with LOS E I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road (western interchange), with LOS F and more than four vehicle-hours of delay Ììòîóî ßÞÔÛ îðïð×ÐÓÐØÔÍÉÐ ÒÌÛÎÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÕ ÑËÎ ÛÊÛÔ ÑÚ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ×ÌØÑËÌ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ü»´¿§ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ý±²¬®±´ Ì§°» ÔÑÍ ø»½ñª»¸÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ï ÍÎ èçñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü® Í·¹²¿´ ïíòì Þ î ÍÎ èçñ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³° Î±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ïçòï Ý î ÍÎ èçñ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³° Î±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ïèòê Ý ï ÍÎ èçñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ Í·¹²¿´ ëëòí Û ï Ò±®¬¸©±±¼ Þ´ª¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ Í·¹²¿´ ïçòç Þ î ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø©»¬÷ Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ïðòð ß î í ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ß´´óÉ¿§ Í¬±° êîòð Ú î Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü® Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ïîòê Þ î Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÍ·¬» ß½½» Î¼ Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ÔÔ î Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÛ¿¬óÉ»¬ Î¼ Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ÔÔ î Í·¬» ß½½» Î¼ñÛ¿¬óÉ»¬ Î¼ Î±«²¼¿¾±«¬ÔÔ Í¿¬«®¼¿§ î ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø©»¬÷ Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ïïòð Þ î í ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ß´´óÉ¿§ Í¬±° çïòç Ú Ò±¬»æ Þ±´¼ ¬»¨¬ ·²¼·½¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ ÔÑÍ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¸¿ ¾»»² »¨½»»¼»¼å ÑÊÚ ã ±ª»®º´±©ò Ñª»®º´±© ·²¼·½¿¬» ¿ ¼»´¿§ ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² îðð »½±²¼ °»® ª»¸·½´»ô ©¸·½¸ ½¿²²±¬ ¾» ¿½½«®¿¬»´§ ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ «·²¹ ØÝÓ ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ò ï ÔÑÍ º±® ·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² · ®»°±®¬»¼ º±® ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ·²¬»®»½¬·±²ò î ÔÑÍ º±® ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ¿²¼ ¬±°ó½±²¬®±´´»¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² · ®»°±®¬»¼ º±® ¬¸» ©±®¬ ³±ª»³»²¬ò í Ì¸»» ´±½¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ÔÑÍ Ú ¿´± »¨½»»¼ ¬¸» Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® «²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ¿°°®±¿½¸»ô ©¸·½¸ ¬¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¿² «²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ³±ª»³»²¬ ¿¬ ÔÑÍ Ú ©·¬¸ ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² º±«® ¬±¬¿´ ª»¸·½´»ó¸±«® ±º ¼»´¿§ · «²¿½½»°¬¿¾´»ò Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îðïï Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóïï ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ Traffic queues at an intersection that exceed the storage capacity of turn lanes or ramps, or that block turn movements at important nearby intersections, can cause operational problems beyond the intersection LOS. A queue length analysis was conducted for pertinent study intersections, and the results are summarized in Table 4.2-3. The 95th-percentile queue length is reported for all intersections, except the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road intersection. HCM methodology does not report 95th-percentile for which the average queues are reported (as the Traffix software only reports average queue lengths for all-way stop-controlled intersections). ÍÎ èçñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» As shown in Table 4.2-3, the southbound right-turn queue on the SR 89/Deerfield Drive intersection is calculated to exceed the available storage length by approximately 50 feet under existing (2010) conditions. As a result, the southbound traffic queue could extend to the gas station right-in/right-out-only driveway during peak periods but is not considered to be a significant traffic problem. It would also not interfere with the upstream I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout. On the eastbound approach, the dual left-turn lane queues are estimated to exceed the available storage length. Although the existing pavement width in the eastbound direction allows some additional left-turn storage to occur beyond the striped turn lanes, there is the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods. ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ The calculated queues at this intersection are within the available storage lengths under existing (2010) weekday and Saturday conditions. ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ The calculated queues at this intersection are within the available storage lengths under existing (2010) weekday and Saturday conditions. Note that the traffic queues at the intersections along Coldstream Road were also evaluated, and no operational problems were identified. Î±¿¼©¿§ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Roadway capacity is evaluated in order to determine whether a specific roadway segment should be widened to accommodate existing or future traffic volumes. Different methodologies can be employed to determine capacity, but generally the calculation will incorporate a series of factors including roadway facility type, evaluation period, and level of service thresholds. The Town of Truckee roadway capacity standards are based upon hourly traffic volumes, and the capacities applicable to the study roadway segments are described below. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Î±¿¼©¿§ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ It is the policy of the Town of Truckee that the methodology used to determine roadway capacity for the Town follows the guidance in the Level of Service Criteria Study, completed by Prism Engineering for the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) in 2000. Please note that although NCTC generally agrees with the approach and conclusions of this study, this document was never formally adopted. The document relies on factors described in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board. Since publication of Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóïî ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ the Level of Service Criteria Study, a revised edition of the HCM has been published that updated the factors applied in the NCTC study. Application of the 2000 HCM standards results in revised capacity standards for Truckee roadways from those determined under the 1997 HCM. The resulting roadway capacities to attain LOS D or better are presented in Table 4.2-4. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóïí ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Î±¿¼©¿§ Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» Table 4.2-4 presents the comparison of peak hour traffic volumes with the pertinent LOS standard. As illustrated, all study roadway segments are within the allowable peak hour peak direction volume threshold for LOS D. The roadway with the highest proportion of capacity currently being utilized based on the pertinent standards is Donner Pass Road between Northwoods Boulevard and SR 89 South, where the PM peak hour peak direction volume is about 61 percent of the applicable capacity. Î¿³° Ó»®¹»ñÜ·ª»®¹» ¿¬ ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ Merge/diverge analyses were performed for the eastbound and westbound ramps at the I-80/ Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection. Note that although there are two westbound on-ramps at this interchange, only the westernmost westbound on-ramp (the clover- shaped on-ramp) was included in this analysis, as the eastern westbound on-ramp would not be used by project-generated traffic. This analysis was based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies, and the results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.2-5. Estimated through volumes along I-80 for the ramp merge/diverge analysis were based on traffic volumes from the Caltrans permanent count station located at a point on the I-80 eastbound mainline west of the western Donner Pass Road off-ramp for the entire summer of 2008. For the weekday analysis, the tenth-highest peak hour along the mainline was chosen as the design period, consistent with the Town of Truckee standard. The third-highest Saturday peak hour was chosen as the design period for the Saturday analysis to reflect busy (but not peak) summer Saturday conditions. An average annual growth rate of approximately 2.8 percent was applied to the 2008 data to estimate the 2010 design volumes based on a review of traffic data from this location between 2003 and 2008. As no westbound traffic volumes on the I-80 mainline at this location were available from Caltrans, the westbound I-80 mainline traffic volumes were estimated using the directional split assumption stated in the Interstate 80 Transportation Concept Report prepared by Caltrans District 3 in January 2001. The report states that the peak direction of travel on I-80 carries 58 percent of the total two-way traffic volumes. Eastbound is typically the peak direction during the weekday and Saturday PM peak hours. Therefore, 58 percent of the total traffic was assumed to be traveling eastbound, and the remaining 42 percent was assumed to be traveling westbound. As illustrated in Table 4.2-5, under existing (2010) weekday and weekend conditions, the merge/ diverge analyses performed for the eastbound and westbound ramps at the I-80/Donner Pass Road (western) interchange resulted in acceptable LOS for all movements. Ù»±³»¬®§ ±º ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®²÷ ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹» Î¿³° The existing geometry of the I-80/Donner Pass Road (western) interchange ramps was evaluated against the standards set forth in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. É»¬¾±«²¼ Ñ²óÎ¿³° A standard single-lane freeway entrance has an acceleration lane length of approximately 1,068 feet. According to Caltrans standards, the design of freeway entrances should conform to this standard. The existing westbound on-ramp (the loop on-ramp) provides about 500 feet of acceleration lane length, which is about 570 feet short of the standard. Therefore, the westbound on-ramp does not conform to the standard. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóïê ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Ñ²óÎ¿³° Similarly, the existing eastbound on-ramp provides about 420 feet of acceleration lane length, which is about 650 feet short of the Caltrans standard of 1,070 feet. Therefore, the eastbound on- ramp does not conform to the standard. É»¬¾±«²¼ ÑººóÎ¿³° The minimum deceleration length required for the westbound off-ramp is 470 feet. According to Caltrans standards, the minimum deceleration length is to be provided prior to the first curve beyond the exit nose to assure adequate distance for vehicles to decelerate before entering the curve. The existing westbound off-ramp provides a deceleration length of about 400 feet, which is 70 feet short of the Caltrans standard. Therefore, the westbound off-ramp does not conform to the standard. Û¿¬¾±«²¼ ÑººóÎ¿³° A standard single-lane freeway exit has a minimum length of 525 feet between the exit nose and the end of the ramp for a full stop at the end of the ramp. According to Caltrans standards, the design of freeway exits should conform to this standard. The existing eastbound off-ramp provides approximately 350 feet, which is about 175 feet short of the standard. In addition, the minimum deceleration length required for the eastbound off-ramp is 570 feet. According to Caltrans standards, the minimum deceleration length is to be provided prior to the first curve beyond the exit nose to assure adequate distance for vehicles to decelerate before entering the curve. The existing eastbound off-ramp provides a deceleration length of about 330 feet, which is 240 feet short of the Caltrans standard. Therefore, the eastbound off-ramp does not conform to the standard. Ü®·ª»® Í·¹¸¬ Ü·¬¿²½» The driver sight distance at the existing study intersections was reviewed as part of this analysis. Only one intersection was found to have a sight distance concern. The I-80 Westbound Ramps/ Donner Pass Road intersection has limited sight distance and was therefore evaluated as part of the traffic study. As discussed in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, there are two prevalent types of sight distance standards that should be considered. The first type is stopping sight distance, or the distance required by the driver of a vehicle to bring his vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible. This is the minimum distance needed for a driver to see an object in their travel path (such as a vehicle turning onto Donner Pass Road) and safely come to a stop. Based on a design speed of 40 miles per hour (35 miles per hour speed limit), the required stopping sight distance along Donner Pass Road is 300 feet. A sight distance survey conducted as part of the traffic study at the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection indicated that about 440 feet of stopping sight distance is provided for eastbound drivers along Donner Pass Road, and about 310 feet of stopping sight distance is provided for westbound drivers. Although the stopping sight distance is limited by the horizontal and vertical curvature of Donner Pass Road, the stopping sight distance at this location exceeds the requirement by at least 10 feet. Therefore, the stopping sight distance at this intersection was determined to be adequate. The second type of sight distance is corner sight distance, which is the distance a driver waiting at a cross street should be able to see in either direction along the main roadway in order to accurately identify an acceptable gap in through traffic. A clear line of sight should be Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóïè ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ maintained between the driver pulling out of the minor street and any approaching vehicle on the major street. Based on a design speed of 40 miles per hour, the required corner sight distance at the I-80 westbound off-ramp is 440 feet. The actual corner sight distance looking to the east is approximately 310 feet. The corner sight distance is hindered not only by the horizontal and vertical curvature along Donner Pass Road, but also by the presence of signage, a light post, and vegetation, as well as an upgrade on the off-ramp approach. About 390 feet of corner sight distance is provided to the west. The corner sight distance to the west is limited by the horizontal curvature along Donner Pass Road. The traffic study recommended that the existing brush along Donner Pass Road in the southeast quadrant of the intersection that hinders corner sight distance from the off-ramp looking to the east be trimmed or removed in order to increase the sight distance. During the winter season, snow berms should be removed from this area. Even with this measure, the corner sight distance in both directions would be less than the recommended 440 feet corner sight distance, due to the horizontal and vertical curvature along Donner Pass Road. Alternatively, reducing the speed limit along Donner Pass Road would reduce the sight distance requirements. However, according to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, where restrictive conditions exist (such as excessive costs associated with modifying an existing roadway), the minimum value for corner sight distance at unsignalized intersections shall be equal to the stopping sight distance. In this case, the existing available corner sight distance provided is greater than the required stopping sight distance (300 feet). Therefore, the driver sight distance is considered to meet Caltrans standards as long as the existing vegetation that interferes with the corner sight distance looking to the east is trimmed back or removed. ìòîòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ No federal documents were identified that addressed regulatory issues relating to the proposed project’s impact on the transportation network. Í ÌßÌÛ Ý¿´¬®¿² Caltrans owns, operates, and maintains I-80, which provides the primary access to the Truckee region, including the project site. Specific regulatory conditions that relate to this analysis or the implementation of the proposed project are described below. Ü·¬®·½¬ Í§¬»³ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ Ð´¿² The District System Management Plan (Caltrans District 3, August 1992) sets forth the policy direction for Caltrans–District 3 over the next 20 to 30 years. Nine policies and 15 action statements are presented, all intended to move toward achieving the District’s principal goal: …assure the economic vitality and quality of life for its population through a cohesive multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional, economical and environmentally sound transportation system to provide for mobility of goods, services, information, and people, in a safe and efficient manner. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóïç ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ×²¬»®¬¿¬» èð Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý±²½»°¬ Î»°±®¬ The Interstate 80 Transportation Concept Report (TCR) (Caltrans District 3, 2001) is a planning document that is intended to define the state’s goal for a specific facility in terms of LOS and the general magnitude of improvements. The TCR states that the level of service for this interstate highway in rural areas (including the vicinity of the proposed project) should be LOS D (assuming traffic operations are unaffected by adverse weather). In addition, the “concept facility” is defined as a six-lane facility, though only four lanes exist today. The TCR anticipates reduction in LOS to F by the year 2020 and proposes a series of improvements to mitigate some of these deficiencies. Among the proposals noted in the TCR are the reconstruction of the I-80/SR 89/SR 267 interchange and the addition of a 1.3-mile eastbound auxiliary lane between Truckee and the new interchange. The reconstruction of the I-80/SR 89/SR 267 interchange was completed in 2002. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan identifies specific goals and policies regarding transportation and circulation. Appendix B contains an analysis of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. The Town of Truckee does not currently have established roadway capacity thresholds. However, roadway capacities were developed as a part of the Truckee General Plan Update EIR (Town of Truckee, 2006). Table 4.2-6 illustrates hourly capacity per lane per direction for various roadway types. Ììòîóê ßÞÔÛ ÌÌÐØÎÝÌ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛßÕ ÑËÎ ÑßÜÉßÇ ßÐßÝ×ÌÇ ÞÇ ÇÐÛ Ø±«®´§ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ °»® Ô¿²» °»® Ü·®»½¬·±² Î±¿¼©¿§ Ì§°» ÔÑÍ Ü ÔÑÍ Û Ø·¹¸©¿§ ïôèëð îôðèð Ó·²±® ß®¬»®·¿´ ïôìîð ïôêðð Ý±´´»½¬±® èçð ïôððð Ô±½¿´ Î±¿¼ ëðð ëíð Í±«®½»æ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ô îððê Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² Ù«·¼·²¹ Ð®·²½·°´» The following guiding principles are listed in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circulation Element: Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóîð ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Coordinate land use and transportation planning in Truckee to provide for the long- range development of the Town’s roadway system consistent with the existing and future land use patterns described in the Land Use Element. Maintain acceptable traffic operations on the Town’s roads through application of Level of Service thresholds, and by conditioning new development on the ability of local roads and intersections to accommodate projected traffic impacts. Eliminate, to the extent feasible, all traffic signals in Truckee. Minimize the negative impacts of transportation infrastructure upon Truckee’s community character, local neighborhoods, and the environment. Ensure that new development minimizes impacts on the roadway network, is integrated into the existing transportation system, and provides opportunities for use of alternate modes. Work cooperatively with adjacent jurisdictions to address regional traffic issues. Reduce automobile travel demand to reduce impacts on the Town’s roadway system, lessen the need for new or expanded road facilities to accommodate increased demand, and decrease pollutants emissions from automobiles. Provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of trails and bikeways as a key component of the circulation system. Promote a safe and efficient transit system, including both bus and rail, to reduce congestion, improve the environment, and provide viable alternatives to the automobile. Provide for the safe and efficient movement of commercial goods through Truckee by road and rail. Promote maintenance and improvement of aviation facilities that are compatible with surrounding land uses. Î±¿¼©¿§ ¿²¼ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ The Circulation Element also identifies a numbers of improvements relevant to the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Table 4.2-7 illustrates those planned circulation improvements. Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Û¨¬»²·±² The Circulation Element also provides additional discussion relevant to the extension of Deerfield Drive. The applicable language is provided below. In conjunction with development of PC-1, that portion of Deerfield Drive east of Cold Creek will be connected with Coldstream Road. The roadway may be designed as a possible future local access route to allow development in PC-1 to access Deerfield Drive, but will be used in the near term as an emergency access only. The determination of whether this road will ultimately be used as a local access road will be made through the PC-1 Specific Plan. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóîï ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ As part of the PC-1 specific plan process, an alignment study shall be conducted, which shall follow the guidelines below: Provide for public participation and input from Deerfield Drive residents and property owners; Analyze various alignments and connections from PC-1 to that portion of Deerfield Drive east of Cold Creek; Avoid an alignment that would substantially impact residences along either side of Deerfield Drive; and Incorporate features to specifically discourage use of the road as a cut through route for non-local traffic if and when the road is opened to Deerfield Drive. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóîî ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ñ¬¸»® Î±¿¼©¿§ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ The Circulation Element also provides additional discussion of the improvements to Coldstream Road, noting that “as part of the PC-1 development, additional northbound and southbound through lanes will be constructed between Donner Pass Road and the PC-1 project site.” As noted in Circulation Element Policy P2.2, Table CIR-6 (within the same element) describes the Town’s traffic impact analysis requirements and criteria. Table 4.2-8 replicates the information from that table which is applicable to the proposed project. Ììòîóè ßÞÔÛ ÌÌÌ×ßÎÝ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÎßÚÚ×Ý ÓÐßÝÌ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í ÛÏË×ÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ ßÒÜ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß Ì®¿ºº·½ ×³°¿½¬ ß²¿´§· Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ð®±¶»½¬ ß®¬»®·¿´ ¿²¼ Ý±´´»½¬±® Ô±½¿´ Î±¿¼ ß²¿´§· ï Ì§°» Î»¯«·®»¼á Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» Ð®±¶»½¬ É±«´¼ ß¼¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ îí ß½½»°¬¿¾´» Ë²¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ¬± ¿ Ô±½¿´ Î±¿¼©¿§ Ý¿¬»¹±®§ ì Ç» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿´´±©»¼ ·ºæ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿´´±©»¼ ·ºæ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿´´±©»¼ ·ºæ Í°»½·¿´ Ð®±¶»½¬ ¬®¿ºº·½ ¼±» ²±¬ Ð®±¶»½¬ ½±²¬®«½¬ Ð®±¶»½¬ ¼±» ²±¬ ·²½®»¿» °´¿²²·²¹ ¼»¹®¿¼» ÔÑÍ ¬± ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬± ·³°¿½¬»¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ±² ´±½¿´ ®±¿¼ ¾§ ¿®»¿ ó «²¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ´»ª»´ ±º ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¿ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ïôððð ¿ª»®¿¹» ÐÝïô ÐÝíô »®ª·½»å ÑÎ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² Ì¿¾´» Ý×Îóëò ¼¿·´§ ¬®·°å ÑÎ Ó½×ª»® Ð®±¶»½¬ ½±²¬®«½¬ ßÒÜ Ð®±¶»½¬ ·²½®»¿» ¬®¿ºº·½ ±² Ø·´´ô ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬± ·³°¿½¬»¼ ´±½¿´ ®±¿¼ ¾§ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ×º °®±¶»½¬ ¹»²»®¿¬» ¬®¿ºº·½ Ø·´´¬±°ô ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¿ ïôððð ¿ª»®¿¹» ¼¿·´§ ¬®·°ô ª±´«³» ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² Ó·´´ Í·¬»ô ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² Ì¿¾´» Ý×Îóë ¬± ¾«¬ ¬¸» ·²½®»¿» ·² ¿ª»®¿¹» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ÐÎÜóïô ³¿·²¬¿·² ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ÔÑÍò ¼¿·´§ ¬®·° · ´» ¬¸¿² ëðûò ¬®¿ºº·½ ³±¼»´ô °®±¶»½¬ ÐÎÜóîô ßÒÜ ½±²¬®«½¬ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬± ßÒÜ ÐÎÜóí ·³°¿½¬»¼ ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ×º °®±¶»½¬ ¹»²»®¿¬» ¬®¿ºº·½ Ì¸» °®±ª··±² ±º ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¿ ²»½»¿®§ ¬± ª±´«³» ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² Û´»³»²¬ Ð±´·½§ ¿½¸·»ª» ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ÔÑÍ º±® ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² Ðîòì ½¿² ¾» ³»¬ò ¾«·´¼±«¬ ¬®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³»ò ¬®¿ºº·½ ³±¼»´ô °®±¶»½¬ ½±²¬®«½¬ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬± ·³°¿½¬»¼ ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¿ ²»½»¿®§ ¬± ¿½¸·»ª» ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ÔÑÍ º±® ¾«·´¼±«¬ ¬®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³»ò Ò±¬»æ ï Ñ²´§ Ý¿¬»¹±®§ ì · ¸±©²ô ¿ ·¬ · ¬¸» ±²´§ ½¿¬»¹±®§ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò î Ð®±¶»½¬ ©±«´¼ ¿¼¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬± ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ´»ª»´ ±º »®ª·½» ¿²¼ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬®¿ºº·½ò í Ð®±¶»½¬ ©±«´¼ ¿¼¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬± ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ©·¬¸ »¨·¬·²¹ «²¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ´»ª»´ ±º »®ª·½» ©·¬¸ ²± ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬®¿ºº·½ò Í±«®½»æ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ô îððê Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼»ô Ì®«½µ»» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±¼»ô Ì·¬´» ïè The Town of Truckee Development Code, Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18 (Town of Truckee 2007), effective November 6, 2000, provides most of the Town’s requirements for the development and use of private and public land, buildings, and structures within Truckee. Section 18.30.020 “Access” states the following thresholds: Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóîì ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ For intersections with an acceptable level of service (D or better outside the Downtown Study Area (DSA), E or better inside DSA), the project (existing plus project traffic) decreases the level of service of the total intersection to an unacceptable level (E or F outside DSA, F inside DSA area). The significant impact may be reduced to a less than significant level by incorporating intersection improvements and other mitigation into the project which improves level of service to an acceptable level. For intersections with an unacceptable level of service, the project increases the total traffic volumes of the intersection 5% or more above existing traffic volumes. The significant impact may be reduced to a less than significant level by incorporating intersection improvements and other mitigation into the project, which maintains the level of service of the intersection at pre-project levels. Section 18.48 of the Truckee Development code provides the parking standards for the Town. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» ßÞ ïêðð Ì®¿ºº·½ Ú»» Ð®±¹®¿³ The Town of Truckee maintains an AB 1600 Traffic Fee Program (Town of Truckee, 1999), which requires new development within the town to pay traffic impact fees. The fees collected through this program, in addition to other funding sources, allow the Town to construct transportation facilities needed as a result of new development. The fee each development is required to pay is based upon a comparison between the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) it generates and the VMT generation of a single-family dwelling unit or a dwelling unit equivalent (DUE). Relevant intersection improvements that are fully or partially funded by the fees collected as a part of this program are as follows: SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road/Frates Lane Intersection I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection ìòîòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÌÍ ØÎÛÍØÑÔÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will be expected to result in a significant transportation and circulation impact if it causes an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. For the purpose of this Draft EIR, impacts are considered to be significant if the following could result from the implementation of the proposed project: 1)Implementation of the proposed project, either during construction phases, in existing (2010) with project or future (2030) with project conditions, results in exceedance of an established level of service standard pursuant to General Plan Policy P2.1. 2)For intersection or roadway segment operating at unsatisfactory levels under existing (2010) conditions, implementation of the project would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. This is defined by the Town of Truckee as an increase in traffic volume through the intersection or along a roadway segment by 5 percent or more. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóîë ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ 3)In the case where an intersection or roadway segment is forecast to operate at unsatisfactory levels under future no-project conditions, the project causes an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, defined as any increase in traffic along roadways or through intersections operating below standards. 4)Project implementation conflicts with related goals, objectives, and policies of the Town of Truckee General Plan. 5)Project provides inadequate emergency access. 6)Project results in inadequate parking capacity. 7)Project implementation results in substantial conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists, or conflicts with the Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. 8)Project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting transit service. 9)Project implementation exacerbates an identified traffic safety deficiency, or if a project proposes to construct a roadway/intersection design that would result in inadequate driver sight distance or other factor that does not meet established safety-related standards. These criteria are consistent with the adopted policies or thresholds of Caltrans and the Town of Truckee. Therefore, the Town of Truckee LOS thresholds are either the same as Caltrans thresholds or more stringent. Other transportation-related issues (such as impact on air traffic patterns) are addressed in other sections of this Draft EIR. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis contained in this section, as well as much of the information provided in the above sections, is based on a traffic study prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., for the proposed project in September 2009. Following changes to the project description and reissuance of the Notice of Preparation (see Section 1.0), LSC provided an updated traffic study, dated February 28, 2011. The discussion below describes the methodologies used for the calculation of 2010 circulation conditions with the addition of project conditions. First, the number of summer peak hour and daily trips that would be generated by the proposed development is presented. Next, these trips are assigned to the 2010 without project traffic volumes based on the discussed trip distribution and assignment approach. Finally, the resulting intersection LOS, intersection queuing, roadway LOS, and ramp merge/diverge LOS that would result from the implementation of the proposed project are presented. Although the project plan will be developed in several phases, this traffic analysis is focused on buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. A separate trip generation analysis is provided for each development zone in order to accurately reflect trips made internal to the project site. The project is proposed to consist of the following zones and associated land uses: Zone 1 – Village Mixed-Use Commercial Zoning District Zone 2 – Village Green Residential Zoning District Zone 3 – Village Green Residential Small Lot Zoning District Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóîê ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Zone 4 – Lakeside Residential Zoning District Zone 5 – Forest Residential Zoning District Zone 6 – Recreation Zoning District Zone 7 – Open Space Zoning District It is important to note that a total of four project options were evaluated based on whether the Deerfield Drive extension would provide full access or emergency vehicle access only and different configurations of the proposed project’s internal roadway network. The four options are defined as: Option 1 – This option assumes full land use with the Deerfield Drive connector providing full access to Deerfield Drive and amendment of the General Plan to re-designate Deerfield Drive as a Minor Collector from Coldstream Road to 1,000 feet west of State Route 89 (SR 89). Option 2 – This option assumes full land use without the Deerfield Drive connector providing full access. Under this option, access to Deerfield Drive is for emergency vehicles only. All project traffic would use the Coldstream Road access point. Option 3 – This option assumes full land use without the Deerfield Drive connector providing full access. Under this option, access to Deerfield Drive is for emergency vehicles only. All project traffic would use the Coldstream Road access point. Option 3 also includes an internal loop road. Option 4 – This option assumes full land use without the Deerfield Drive connector providing full access. Under this option, access to Deerfield Drive is for emergency vehicles only. All project traffic would use the Coldstream Road access point. Option 4 also includes a second bridge connecting the project site to the existing commercial area along Coldstream Road. Ì®·° Ù»²»®¿¬·±² It is important to note that project trip generation employed the following assumptions for this analysis: The trip generation associated with the proposed project is primarily based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (8 Edition) trip rates, th modified as discussed below to reflect various factors that tend to reduce traffic generation for the project. All residential units are assumed to be 100 percent occupied during the period of analysis. Some of the residential units could potentially be used as vacation homes, which tend to generate fewer trips than primary residences. The Town of Truckee General Plan assumes 46 percent of housing units are second homes or vacant. However, in order to remain conservative in this analysis, no vacation homes were assumed. Therefore, the proposed residential units are assumed to be 100 percent primary residences (i.e., year-round occupancy rather than seasonal occupancy). Multi-family units are assumed to consist of apartment (rentals) and condo/townhouse (owned). For the purposes of this analysis, the multi-family units in Zone 1 are treated as apartments, given that the majority of affordable housing units will be located in Zone 1. The remaining attached units on the project site are treated as condo/townhouse units. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóîé ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ According to the project description, secondary units (“granny” units) are encouraged above garages or adjacent to garages. It was therefore necessary to estimate what portion of the proposed attached and detached residences may contain secondary units. Consistent with other recent studies performed in the Truckee area, 50 percent of the proposed condo/townhouse and single-family residences are conservatively assumed to contain secondary units. Trip generation rates for the “apartment” land use are applied to secondary units. Although it is likely that many of the secondary units will only be used seasonally or when the owner has guests, they are assumed to be occupied on a full-time basis. As the proposed commercial uses are unknown, a mix of 80 percent retail/20 percent office was assumed, consistent with the composition of similar nearby sites. This is considered to be a conservative assumption, as the trip generation rates for retail floor area are greater then those for office floor area. Note that there is the potential for lodging units to be provided in Zone 1. However, in order to remain conservative in this analysis, shopping center trip generation rates, which are substantially higher than lodging trip generation rates, are applied to all of the floor area that could potentially contain lodging. The specific land uses proposed for Zone 6 are unknown. For purposes of this analysis, a 15,000 square foot recreational community center was assumed. Although lodging is permitted in this zone, the project description indicates that any potential lodging would be provided in Zone 1 rather than Zone 6. Therefore, no lodging is assumed in Zone 6. No significant vehicular trip generation is expected in Zone 7, as no public trailhead parking will be provided. Special events (such as an art fair, farmers market, concert, or cultural event) could potentially occur in Zone 2 or Zone 6. Consistent with other recent studies in the town, special events are assumed to occur only a few times per year and not typically on a peak day or during the peak hour. Therefore, this analysis does not address the transportation-related impacts associated with special events. Furthermore, the need for intersection or roadway improvements typically is not determined based upon traffic conditions generated by a special event. Þ¿» Ì®·° Ù»²»®¿¬·±² Ð®·±® ¬± ß°°´·½¿¬·±² ±º Î»¼«½¬·±² The trip generation analysis was conducted by first identifying appropriate “base” trip generation rates, multiplying these rates by the proposed land use quantities associated with the proposed project, and then applying a series of adjustment factors to reflect the specific characteristics of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and its location. Standard ITE trip generation rates were applied to all of the land use quantities to estimate daily and PM peak hour trip generation, with the exception of the condo/townhouse and apartment units. For these land uses, regression equations are applied rather than average trip rates, in accordance with the “Recommended Procedure for Selecting between Trip Generation Average Rates and Equations” methodology presented in the ITETrip Generation Handbook (2nd Edition). Ì®·° Ù»²»®¿¬·±² Î»¼«½¬·±² Î»º´»½¬·²¹ ×²¬»®²¿´ ¿²¼ Ò±²óß«¬± Ì®·° Because the project is proposed as a mixed-use land development, trips internal to the project site are expected to occur. For example, some trips generated by the residential units can be expected to be made to the retail uses in Zone 1 and vice versa. The internal trip generation of Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóîè ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ the proposed project was estimated based upon the internal capture rates for trip origins and destinations within a multi-use development presented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2nd Edition). This procedure indicates that 10 percent of residential trip generation would remain internal, along with 14 percent of retail trip generation and 15 percent of office trip generation. Additionally, consistent with other recent traffic studies performed in Truckee, 75 percent of trips associated with the recreation facility are estimated to be made internal to the site. This reflects a facility that is largely for the use of development residents, but can be expected to also generate trips made by guests of project residents. The trip generation rates presented in the ITE trip generation manual reflect a negligible level of transit use and the modest level of pedestrian/bicycle travel found in typical suburban settings. There is an existing transit stop on Coldstream Road at the Holiday Inn Express, which is located within convenient walking distance of Zones 1, 2, and 3. However, no reductions were applied for trips made via transit, as the transit service currently provided in the Town of Truckee is relatively limited in scope and frequency. Portions of project-generated trips are expected to be made by pedestrians or bicyclists, especially some of the internal trips made within Zone 1. However, in order to remain conservative in this analysis, no additional reduction was applied for trips made via non- auto modes, as the non-auto trips are not expected to impact external roadways. Ì®·° Ù»²»®¿¬·±² Î»¼«½¬·±² Î»º´»½¬·²¹ Ü·ª»®¬»¼ Ô·²µ»¼ ¿²¼ ×²¬»®½»°¬»¼ Ì®·° A portion of the commercial trips would consist of diverted linked trips or trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator (such as Donner Pass Road) but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the project site. Diverted linked trips may be part of a multiple-stop chain of trips. As an example, a Donner Lake resident stopping by a store within the project site on their way to the high school would generate a diverted trip on Coldstream Road, but would not represent a new trip on Donner Pass Road. (Pass-by trips—another category of trips made by drivers passing directly adjacent to a development site— do not pertain to this development as it does not directly front onto Donner Pass Road and as no appreciable number of trips pass directly by the project site along Coldstream Road.) Primary trips are trips made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator (the generator is the retail use in this case). Data regarding primary trip percentages for various land uses is available in the ITETrip Generation Handbook. The average primary trip percentage presented in this document for shopping centers less than 100,000 square feet floor area in size is approximately 32 percent. The remaining 68 percent of trips are not primary. Therefore, 68 percent of project- generated trips traveling to/from the Donner Lake area are estimated to be diverted linked trips. This equates to about 15 PM peak hour trips, which are included in the site roadway movements and movements on Coldstream Road, but are reflected as reductions in the through volumes on Donner Pass Road at its intersection with Coldstream Road. All other land uses are assumed to have no diverted linked trips. Reductions for diverted linked trips are not appropriate for residential land uses, as this land use is a primary origin/destination of a vehicle trip. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide a new “intervening opportunity” for persons currently driving from the Donner Lake area to Truckee or beyond to accomplish retail trip purposes. As a result, some of the trips that are currently made between the Donner Lake area and other areas could potentially be intercepted by the proposed commercial uses. Conversely, considering that the proposed commercial uses are conveniently located near Donner Lake, it is likely that some new shopping trips will be made by Donner Lake residents. An analysis using the Truckee TransCAD traffic model indicated that the addition of the project commercial uses would not affect the number of trips made from Donner Lake residences to other commercial areas, such as the Gateway Center, Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóîç ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Crossroads Center, or downtown Truckee. Therefore, considering the land uses proposed in the project, the traffic volumes on Donner Pass Road, and the distance to other commercial land uses, the impact on overall traffic volumes associated with intercepted trips was found to be negligible. Î»«´¬·²¹ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ì®·° Ù»²»®¿¬·±² The base trip generation estimates were factored by the reductions discussed above in order to identify the total number of vehicle trips that would enter/exit the site. As shown in the far right portion of Table 4.2-9, with full buildout of the proposed project the number of site access one- way vehicle trips is estimated to equal 5,383 per day, including 506 PM peak hour trips (289 inbound plus 217 outbound). Comparing these figures with the base trip generation volumes, the overall reduction in traffic associated with internal trips was estimated to equal 14 percent. After adjusting for the diverted linked trips, the impact of the proposed project on traffic volumes on external roadways is estimated to equal 5,200 per day, including 491 PM peak hour trips (282 inbound plus 209 outbound). Of total trip generation on external roadways at buildout, roughly 60 percent is generated by the residential uses and 40 percent is generated by the commercial uses. Ì®·° Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² The distribution of trips generated by the project site was developed using the Truckee TransCAD traffic model. A Select Zone Analysis was performed to identify the proportion of trips generated by the project site to and from each distribution area/gate in the study area. Adjustments were made to reflect the types of trips generated by the proposed project land uses, the site’s location with respect to inter-regional access (access to Sacramento/Bay Area, SR 89 to the south, and Truckee/Reno to the east) as well as local access (access to other commercial, recreational, and residential areas within Truckee). Trips made by project residents would have different distribution patterns than trips made by retail customers. The estimated distributions for the proposed residential and commercial uses are shown in Table 4.2-10. Note that implementation of the Deerfield Drive connection is expected to increase the distribution of project residents accessing the Crossroads Center by approximately 3 percent, primarily due to the fact that this connection would provide a faster and more convenient route to a grocery store. Per Town of Truckee standards, this analysis was conducted for summer conditions when project residents would not be traveling to or from the nearby schools located on Donner Pass Road. A slightly different distribution would be appropriate during the school year with a higher proportion of trip distribution to/from the elementary and high schools. This would tend to reduce potential use of a Deerfield Drive connector from the levels discussed below. Ì®·° ß·¹²³»²¬ In order to determine the appropriate assignment of project trips on various travel paths, a travel time analysis was performed to determine relative travel times provided by various routes. A minimum of three travel time observations were made in each direction between the project site and the Gateway Center, between the project site and the SR 89 UPRR underpass (the “Mousehole”), between the project site and Crossroads Center, and between the project site and I- 80 east of the SR 89 interchange. Next, the total travel times between each project zone and these four locations were calculated for both existing and potential travel routes using the actual travel times on existing roadways as well as estimated travel times on proposed roadways. The results for scenarios with and without the Deerfield Drive connector roadway are shown in Table 4.2-11. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóíð ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Calibration of the Town Traffic Model indicates that, travel time being equal, Truckee drivers tend to choose a route that remains on local roadways and avoids the stress of entering I-80 traffic. Consequently, the results of the travel time analysis were adjusted to reflect that Truckee drivers will typically avoid the freeway unless the freeway route is more than one minute faster than the non-freeway route. The travel times shown in the table include this adjustment. Î»´¿¬·ª» Ì®¿ª»´ Ì·³» ©·¬¸ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Ý±²²»½¬±® øÑ°¬·±² ï÷ As indicated in Table 4.2-11, if opened to general traffic the Deerfield Drive connector roadway would provide the fastest and most convenient route for project trips to and from the following locations: For all zones, Deerfield Drive would be the most convenient route to/from SR 89 South to the south of I-80 (such as Crossroads/SaveMart and SR 89 South toward Squaw Valley/Tahoe City). Most trips generated in the eastern portion of the project site (Zones 4 and 5) would use the new connector roadway to access I-80 eastbound or Donner Pass Road east of SR 89 South (Gateway/Safeway). Some trips generated by the eastern portion of the project site would also use the new connector to access points along Donner Pass Road between Northwoods Boulevard and SR 89 South. Table 4.2-11 reflects the fact that travel times for the outbound and inbound directions can differ, depending on the delays on specific movements at individual intersections. Although the Deerfield connector route is faster than I-80 for trips made between Zone 1 and Crossroads/SaveMart or the Mousehole, a small portion of Zone 1 trips are assigned to the freeway route, reflecting the fact that some Coldstream Specific Plan commercial customers will not be aware of the Deerfield Drive route. In addition, the trip assignment factors presented in Table 4.2-11 reflect that drivers inherently have a range of preferences that affect route choice, and thus do not all choose to use a single route unless that route has a clear and consistently shorter travel time. Re-designation of Deerfield Drive as a Minor Collector would allow for a wider roadway under the Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Standards. However, as described in Section 3.0 of this DEIR, a design exception is expected for the re-designation to allow Deerfield Drive to remain its current width, thereby not modifying the travel speed along this section of roadway. Î»´¿¬·ª» Ì®¿ª»´ Ì·³» ©·¬¸±«¬ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Ý±²²»½¬±® øÑ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì÷ Without the Deerfield Drive connector roadway, I-80 provides the fastest route for project drivers to and from locations along SR 89 South to the south of I-80 (such as Crossroads/SaveMart and SR 89 South toward Squaw Valley/Tahoe City). However, a small portion of project trips to the south are assigned to Donner Pass Road, considering that some drivers will prefer the non- freeway route. Also, Donner Pass Road provides the fastest route for trips to/from the Gateway/ Safeway area, but a small portion of these project trips are assigned to the freeway to reflect the fact that some drivers will prefer the freeway route. Based on the travel time analysis and the distribution patterns shown in Table 4.2-10 and the trip assignment proportions shown in Table 4.2-11, the traffic generation volumes shown in Table 4.2-9 were assigned to the study roadway network. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóíê ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Í¸·º¬ ·² Û¨·¬·²¹ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» ©·¬¸ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ý±²²»½¬±® øÑ°¬·±² ï÷ A travel time analysis was also conducted for existing traffic movements that could potentially be provided with a shorter travel times by the Deerfield Drive connector route versus existing roadways. If this connection is provided, some existing “non-project” drivers traveling between the Donner Lake area and points along SR 89 South to the south of I-80 (such as Crossroads Center and SR 89 South toward Squaw Valley/Tahoe City) are expected to use the proposed project internal roadways and Deerfield Drive connector roadway (thus diverting from their existing routes). The relative travel times and associated estimated percent diversion of existing traffic with the Deerfield Drive connector are shown in Table 4.2-12. The Town TransCAD traffic model was utilized in order to estimate the number of existing PM peak hour trips that currently are made between the Donner Lake area and points south of I-80 (not including trips using West River Street to access other areas in Truckee). According to the model results, a total of 88 PM peak hour trips (43 eastbound and 45 westbound) were estimated to currently make trips between these two points. Applying the route assumptions in Table 4.2-12 yields a total of 53 peak hour non-project trips (20 eastbound and 33 westbound) diverting to the new connector roadway during the PM peak hour. ìòîóïî Ì ßÞÔÛ ÜÛÜÔßÌÑï ×ÊÛÎÍ×ÑÒ ÑÚ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÑÒÒÛÎ ßÕÛ ÎÛß ÎßÚÚ×Ý É×ÌØ ÐÌ×ÑÒ Ñ«¬¾±«²¼ ×²¾±«²¼ Ô±½¿¬·±² Î±«¬» Ì®¿ª»´ Ì·³» Ì®·° Ì®¿ª»´ Ì·³» Ì®·° ï ø»½÷ ß·¹²³»²¬ ø»½÷ ß·¹²³»²¬ ×óèð ïçç ëðû îêë îðû Ý®±®±¿¼ñÍ¿ª»Ó¿®¬ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü® ïçð ëðû ïçð èðû ×óèð îðì êðû îëî ëðû ÍÎ èçô ±«¬¸ ±º É»¬ Î·ª»® Í¬ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü® îíî ìðû îìë ëðû ï Ò±¬»æ Ú®»»©¿§ ®±«¬» ·²½´«¼» ¿ êðó»½±²¼ þ¿ª±·¼ ¬¸» º®»»©¿§þ º¿½¬±®ò Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îðïï Ð®±¶»½¬ Ò»¬ ×³°¿½¬ Using the trip generation estimates, traffic distribution pattern, and travel route assumptions, traffic assignments were estimated for the weekday PM peak hour of traffic activity. Next, the shift in existing traffic patterns was added to the project-generated traffic volumes to yield the project net impact on PM peak hour turning movement volumes. Ñ°¬·±² ï Figure 4.2-3 presents the project net impact with Option 1, and Figure 4.2-4 shows the existing (2010) volumes with Option 1 project traffic volumes. Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì Figure 4.2-5 shows the project net impact under Options 2 and 3, and Figure 4.2-6 presents the existing (2010) volumes with these project option traffic volumes. Note that under Option 4, the PM peak hour traffic volumes are identical to that of Options 2 and 3 at all study intersections, Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóíé ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ with the exception of the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection and the three intersections along internal site roadways. No graphic is provided for Option 4. Ð®±¶»½¬ Ò»¬ ×³°¿½¬ «²¼»® É»»µ»²¼ Ý±²¼·¬·±² An estimate of the proposed project’s net impact under weekend conditions to the I-80/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) ramp intersections was performed. Based on a comparison of trip generation rates between weekday and weekend rates, the weekday PM peak hour project net impact turning movement volumes were increased by 2 percent in order to reflect Saturday conditions. îðïð ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» É·¬¸ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ñ°¬·±² ï Table 4.2-13 presents existing (2010) intersection LOS when project traffic is added. Although average delays would increase at some intersections, implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan under this roadway option would not cause any additional intersections to exceed the LOS threshold. Options 2, 3, and 4 Existing (2010) intersection LOS with Options 2 or 3 project traffic volumes is shown in Table 4.2-13. In comparison with no project conditions, the addition of the project traffic would not cause any additional intersections to exceed the LOS threshold, with the exception of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection. The addition of project traffic would cause the off-ramp approach to degrade from LOS C to LOS F with more than four vehicle hours of delay, which exceeds the LOS threshold. Additionally, the intersections with unacceptable LOS have higher delays than under Option 1. Option 4 would result in LOS identical to Options 2 and 3, except the delays at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection and the three site access intersections (Coldstream Road/Site Access Road, Coldstream Road/East-West Road, Site Access Road/East West Road) would differ slightly. These four intersections would operate at acceptable LOS under Option 4. Consequently, there is no further need for evaluation of Option 4 for 2010 conditions. É»»µ»²¼ ÔÑÍ ¿¬ ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ É»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹» Under weekend conditions, no additional scenarios would exceed the LOS standard. As shown in the bottom portion of Table 4.2-13, the worst-approach LOS under 2010 scenarios at the intersection of Donner Pass Road and the I-80 westbound ramps operate at an acceptable LOS with Option 1 conditions, but under the remaining project options, the LOS at this intersection exceeds the Town standard. The Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road intersection exceeds the Town LOS standard with or without the proposed project under all options. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóíè T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ îðïð ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ É·¬¸ Ð®±¶»½¬ ÍÎ èç Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» As shown in Table 4.2-14, with the addition of project traffic from any of the project options in 2010, the southbound right-turn queue length is expected to increase by approximately 25 feet. The resulting total southbound queue length is about 275 feet, which like the no project condition would result in periods when the right-in/right-out-only gas station driveway is blocked during peak periods but is not considered to be a significant traffic problem. It would also not interfere with the upstream I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout. The eastbound dual left-turn lane queue is also estimated to increase by 25 feet (or one car), thereby increasing the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods in 2010 with project traffic. Note that there is no substantial difference in queuing conditions at this intersection in 2010 between Option 1 and the other options. ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ Although the traffic queue length on the westbound off-ramp is expected to increase with the addition of project traffic, the calculated queues are within the available storage lengths under existing (2010) weekday and Saturday conditions. Note that the westbound queues are substantially shorter with implementation of Option 1 in comparison with the other project options. ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ With implementation of any project alternatives, the northbound queue on Coldstream Road at its intersection with I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road exceeds the available storage length by about 30 to 100 feet, as shown in Table 4.2-14. Therefore, there is the potential for northbound queues along Coldstream Road to interfere with operations at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection during 2010 weekday and weekend peak periods with project traffic. Note that the traffic queues at the intersections along Coldstream Road in 2010 with project traffic were evaluated, and no operational problems were identified. îðïð Î±¿¼©¿§ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ É·¬¸ Ð®±¶»½¬ Concurrent with project implementation, Coldstream Road between the project site and Donner Pass Road is assumed to be improved from its current Local Roadway classification to Collector classification. As shown in Table 4.2-15, all study roadways are expected to continue to operate within the LOS threshold under all project options. îðïð Î¿³° Ó»®¹»ñÜ·ª»®¹» ¿¬ ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®²÷ ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹» É·¬¸ Ð®±¶»½¬ As shown in Table 4.2-16, under existing (2010) with all project options weekday and weekend conditions, the merge/diverge analyses performed for the eastbound and westbound ramps at the I-80/Donner Pass Road (western) interchange resulted in acceptable LOS for all movements. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóìé ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ îðïð Ð®±¶»½¬ ×³°¿½¬ ±² Ô±½¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Î±¿¼©¿§ According to the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circulation Element, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would meet the adopted standard for impact on a local residential roadway if the project does not increase traffic on a local road by more than 1,000 average daily trips (ADT), or the project increases traffic on a local road by more than 1,000 ADT but the increase in ADT is less than 50 percent and the provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met. In addition, Goal CIR-4 states, “Create new developments that are integrated into the circulation network and promote connectivity within and between community areas.” The increase in traffic on the local residential segment of Deerfield Drive as a result of the proposed project was evaluated against the General Plan goals and policies. The following summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with these standards. Ñ°¬·±² ï Option 1 was estimated to result in an increase of approximately 204 total two-way PM peak hour trips on Deerfield Drive east of the site. This increase in traffic volumes comprises both local trips and through trips. Trips having origins or destinations within the project site, the Deerfield Drive Neighborhood, and the Crossroads Center are considered to be local trips. Through trips have origins and destinations outside this area. Table 4.2-17 presents the differentiation in traffic volumes between local and through trips. Of the 204 additional PM peak hour trips resulting from the proposed project, approximately 193 are estimated to be local trips and 11 are through trips. Ììòîóïé ßÞÔÛ ×ÌÊÜÜøÑï÷ ÒÝÎÛßÍÛÍ ×Ò ÎßÚÚ×Ý ÑÔËÓÛÍ ÑÒ ÛÛÎÚ×ÛÔÜ Î×ÊÛ ÐÌ×ÑÒ ×²½®»¿» ·² É»»µ¼¿§ ÐÓ Ð»¿µ ×²½®»¿» Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º Ì±¬¿´ Ì®·° Ì§°» ï Ø±«® Ì©±óÉ¿§ Ì®¿ºº·½ ·² ßÜÌ ×²½®»¿» ·² ßÜÌ Ô±½¿´ Ì®·° ÐÝóï Ì®·° ïëï ïôéíð éìû Ü±²²»® Ô¿µ» ¬±ñº®±³ Ý®±®±¿¼ Ý»²¬»® ìî ìèð îðû Í«¾¬±¬¿´ Ô±½¿´ Ì®·° ïçí îôîïð çìû Ì¸®±«¹¸ øÒ±²óÔ±½¿´÷ Ì®·° ïï ïíð êû Ì±¬¿´ îðì îôíìð ïððû ï Ò±¬»æ Ì®¿ºº·½ ª±´«³» ·²½®»¿» ±² ¬¸» ´±½¿´ ®±¿¼©¿§ »¹³»²¬ ±º Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª»ò Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îðïï The corresponding increase in ADT along this roadway segment was estimated by applying a factor to the peak hour volume increase. An estimated ADT-to-peak hour factor of 11.45 was assumed for the project-generated traffic. This factor is consistent with the ADT factor applied in the Truckee General Plan Traffic Study for other roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Applying this factor to the PM peak hour trips yielded an increase of about 2,340 ADT. This increase is more than 1,000 ADT, and it is more than a 50 percent increase. Therefore, the proposed project under Option 1 would not be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element local residential roadway standard. However, Option 1 is consistent with Policy P2.4 and Goal CIR-4, as it would improve connectivity within and between community areas. The proposed project includes the re-designation of Deerfield Drive to a Minor Collector, rather than a Local Road. If the Town were to implement such an action, the threshold for a significant Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóëì ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ impact under the General Plan would be different. As shown in Table 4.2-8, a development can be allowed if collectors operating at existing acceptable levels of service will not degrade in LOS to unacceptable levels. As indicated in Table 4.2-15, the addition of the proposed project on existing traffic would not result in exceedance of the LOS threshold for Deerfield Drive. As such, the proposed project would be allowable under this option, as long as the roadway is re- designated by the Town. Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì Options 2, 3, and 4 do not provide general public access to Deerfield Drive to the east of the project site and would result in a negligible increase in traffic on the existing local roadway segment of Deerfield Drive. Therefore, with respect to the General Plan Circulation Element local road standards, Options 2, 3, and 4 are allowable development alternatives. However, these options are not consistent with Policy P2.4 and Goal CIR-4, as they would not improve connectivity to the adjacent street network. ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.2.1 Construction of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would temporarily increase traffic volumes that may exceed the LOS thresholds at study intersections. This is considered a potentially significant impact. As noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would be constructed over a number of phases distributing construction-related traffic over time. However, substantial transport of soil is anticipated over a relative short period of 15 days, resulting in approximately 50 truck trips per day. As construction off site is limited to paths and sidewalks, and as such features typically follow the natural contours of the land, soil impact/export for these features is not expected. Based on a likely travel route between the project site and I-80 along Coldstream Road, the intersection of I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road/Donner Pass (western interchange), which, as noted in Table 4.2-2, currently operates at LOS F, may be significantly impacted by the short-term addition of construction traffic. The Town’s threshold of a 5 percent or more increase in traffic volume to an unsatisfactory LOS under existing conditions would be triggered at this intersection with approximately 64 trips. While it is unlikely that 64 truck trips would be expected to utilize this intersection during the PM peak hour, this impact is considered potentially significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.2.1 The project applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan, prior to construction, in coordination with the Town of Truckee. At a minimum, the Construction Management Plan shall address the following: Traffic control plans and specifications for any temporary street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. Formally identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for earth hauling, export of demolition waste, and the delivery of construction materials and equipment. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóëë ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Require the project applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The project applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the Town Engineer (or representative of the Town Engineer), of any material that may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. Hauling or transport of oversize loads will be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the Town Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or federal holidays. Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, street, curb, and/or gutter along the haul route, the project applicant will be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. All constructed-related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on-site. Timing/Implementation: Prior to commencement of construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division Implementation of the above mitigation measure would ensure that temporary construction activities do not result in short-term traffic operational impacts or damage to roadway facilities. This mitigation measurewould reduce this impact to less than significant. Û¨½»»¼¿²½» ±º ÔÑÍ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ¿¬ Í¬«¼§ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ë²¼»® Ç»¿® îðïð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.2.2 Implementation of the proposed project would result or contribute to the exceedance of the Town’s LOS threshold at study intersections under year 2010 conditions. This is considered a significantimpact. Table 4.2-13 summarizes existing (2010) without project and 2010 with project intersection LOS. Under 2010 without project conditions, two intersections exceed the Town’s LOS threshold (SR 89/ Donner Pass Road and I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road/Donner Pass Road). With implementation of the proposed project, the following intersections would not meet Town LOS standards: SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road – LOS E for all options (though it should be noted that it would not exceed the 5 percent standard set forth in the Town’s Development Code Section 18.30.020) I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) – LOS F for options 2, 3, and 4 I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road – LOS F for all options Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóëê ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.2.2a One of two options shall be implemented for all project roadway alignment options to improve the LOS at the SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road/Frates Lane intersection: Signal Improvements: Either provision of an eastbound right-turn overlap phase or reconfiguration of the northbound approach to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane would improve the total intersection LOS to an acceptable LOS D in 2010, with or without the project. The level of traffic growth that can be accommodated in the short term before both of these improvements would be needed was evaluated. Based on the results, the total intersection PM peak hour traffic volumes can increase by about 7 percent before both improvements would be needed. In 2030, both improvements would be needed in order to achieve an acceptable LOS D, with or without the project. Or Roundabout: Constructing a two-lane roundabout with double-lane northbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches, and a single-lane southbound approach, would improve LOS at the intersection to a worst movement LOS E or better with the proposed project. This analysis assumes a 90-foot central island diameter for the no project alternative, as well as Options 2 through 4. For Option 1, a slightly larger roundabout (100- foot central island diameter) is necessary to attain LOS E on all approaches. While either option would provide acceptable LOS conditions, the roundabout would provide shorter queue lengths and less impact on traffic flow at nearby driveways and intersections. However, a detailed roundabout design will be required to evaluate right-of-way and utility relocation requirements. The signal improvements are considered short-range improvements, which are not included inthe Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program. The project applicant shall perform a detailedintersection analysis, at the applicant’s expense, to determine the combination of short-range improvements that will maximize intersection capacity at this location. The detailed analysismay identify other combinations of re-striping and/or signal phasing improvements beyond thoseidentified in this study which will maximize the short-range future capacity of this intersection within the existing roadway widths. The intersection improvements identified through the detailed intersection analysis will be determined during review of the improvement plans, and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to building permit issuance. Prior to temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy of any buildings, the project applicant shall implement the approved intersection improvements, at the applicant’s expense. The project applicant may request reimbursement of a fair-share portion of the short-range improvements from future discretionary Category 3 and 4 projects (as defined by General Plan Table CIR-6) that add traffic to the SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road/Frates Lane intersection. It is the intent of the Town to include language requiring such projects to reimburse this project for their fair-share cost of the short-range improvements as a part of the future land use conditions of approval; however, it will be the responsibility of Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóëé ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ this project applicant to request that such a condition be placed on applicable projects prior to project approval. Provision of a two-lane roundabout is considered a long-range improvement, and it is included in the Traffic Impact Fee Program. The proposed project’s payment of Traffic Impact Fees would mitigate LOS impacts to this intersection only for the roundabout option, not for the signal improvements option. It should be noted that the proposed project contributes the following percentages to total future growth in summer PM peak hour traffic at this intersection between 2010 and 2030: Option 1: 19% Options 2, 3, and 4: 21% Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division MM 4.2.2b One of two options shall be implemented to improve the LOS at the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection: Lane Improvements: Provision of an acceleration lane along Donner Pass Road for left turns made from the off-ramp would improve the worst movement LOS to an acceptable LOS D or better in 2030 with the project alternatives. At least 300 feet of acceleration lane length would need to be provided, plus a 180-foot taper. As the distance from the beginning of the acceleration lane to the existing overpass bridge is about 275 feet, the acceleration lane would extend along the overpass. The existing pavement width on the overpass is about 40 feet. As the existing overpass does not provide adequate pavement width to accommodate two travel lanes, the potential acceleration lane, and the existing Class II bike lane and sidewalk, this improvement may not be feasible. Or Roundabout: Constructing a single-lane roundabout would provide a worst movement LOS C or better at the intersection in 2030 with the project. A preliminary design and layout for this roundabout was prepared by LSC and is presented in Draft EIR Figure 4.2-7. An inscribed circulating diameter of 120 feet is assumed, with a circulating roadway width of 20 feet. The access leg to the Caltrans staging area will be configured in such a way that it discourages use by the general public but allows full access by authorized equipment and vehicles. Considering the shorter queue lengths that can be achieved by a roundabout at this location, as well as the disadvantages of the pavement widening required under the acceleration lane alternative, construction of a roundabout is the recommended mitigation measure. Furthermore, a roundabout would improve driver sight distance conditions by reducing traffic speeds along Donner Pass Road. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóëè ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Improvements to this intersection are included in the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program. The project contributes the following percentages in total future growth in summer PM peak hour traffic at this intersection between 2010 and 2030: Option 1: 51% Options 2, 3, and 4: 67% The details of intersection improvements will be determined during review of the improvement plans, and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to building permit issuance. Prior to temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy of any buildings, the project applicant shall implement the approved intersection improvements, at the project applicant’s expense. The project applicant shall be reimbursed a fair-share portion of the improvements pursuant to Town standards. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division MM 4.2.2c The Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road intersection shall be redesigned as a single-lane roundabout with a westbound right-turn slip lane (from westbound Donner Pass Road to the eastbound I-80 on-ramp) to provide a worst movement LOS C or better on weekdays and LOS E or better on weekends. A preliminary design of this roundabout is shown in Figure 4.2-8. An inscribed circulating diameter of 110 feet is assumed, with a circulating roadway width of 20 feet. Improvements to this intersection are included in the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program. The project contributes the following percentages in total future growth in summer PM peak hour traffic at this intersection between 2010 and 2030: Option 1: 65% Options 2, 3, and 4: 74% The details of intersection improvements will be determined during review of the improvement plans, and approved by the Town Engineer, prior to building permit issuance. Prior to temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy of any buildings, the project applicant shall implement the approved intersection improvements, at the project applicant’s expense. The project applicant shall be reimbursed a fair-share portion of the improvements pursuant to Town standards. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division Table 4.2-18 summarizes the intersection LOS after mitigation. Based on field review of these intersections, the following construction-related environmental effects of these improvements are anticipated. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóëç ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road – The land area surrounding this intersection has been largely developed. Improvement of this intersection would likely result in temporary traffic impacts during construction (which could be mitigated by traffic management measures), modification of parking areas and potential loss of parking spaces, and temporary noise, air quality, and stormwater quality impacts from construction. Mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR would mitigate these impacts. I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) – The land area immediately surrounding this intersection is undeveloped. Improvement of this intersection would likely result in alteration of existing drainage features along the I-80 westbound off-ramp, vegetation removal, and grading and associated stormwater quality issues associated with sediment. Mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR would mitigate these impacts. I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road – The land area immediately surrounding this intersection is undeveloped. Improvement of this intersection would likely result in removal of shrubs and a tree, as well as grading and associated stormwater quality issues associated with sediment. The existing bridge crossing of Donner Creek may need to be expanded, which would potentially involve the filling of wetland features. Mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR would mitigate these impacts. Ììòîóïè ßÞÔÛ îðïð×ÐÓÐØÔÑÍßÓ ÒÌÛÎÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÕ ÑËÎ ÚÌÛÎ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ Ñ°¬·±² ï Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì ×²¬»®»½¬·±² øÓ·¬·¹¿¬·±²÷ ïïï Ü»´¿§ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ÔÑÍ Ü»´¿§ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ÔÑÍ Ü»´¿§ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ÔÑÍ ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ïæ °®±ª·¼» ±ª»®´¿° °¸¿·²¹ º±® »¿¬¾±«²¼ ®·¹¸¬ ¬«®²÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ìîòé Ü ìëòì Ü ìëòí Ü ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² îæ ®»½±²º·¹«®» ²±®¬¸¾±«²¼ ¿°°®±¿½¸ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿² »¨½´«·ª» ´»º¬ó¬«®² ¿²¼ ¿ ¸¿®»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ó®·¹¸¬ ´¿²»÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ìíòé Ü ìêòí Ü ììòè Ü ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² íæ °®±ª·¼» ¼«¿´ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ íîòî Ü íèòì Û ìïòî Û ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø©»¬÷ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ïæ °®±ª·¼» ¿½½»´»®¿¬·±² ´¿²» º±® ²±®¬¸¾±«²¼ ´»º¬ ¬«®²÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ èòç ß çòï ß ïçòî Ý Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ÔÑÍ èòé ß çòé ß îìòï Ý ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø©»¬÷ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² îæ °®±ª·¼» ·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïëòë Ý ïéòî Ý îïòî Ý Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïìòì Þ ïëòç Ý ïçòï Ý ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ©·¬¸ ©»¬¾±«²¼ ®·¹¸¬ó¬«®² ´·° ´¿²»÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïìòì Þ ïçòí Ý îìòí Ý Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïëòð Þ ïçòì Ý ííòð Ü ï Ò±¬»æ ÔÑÍ · ®»°±®¬»¼ º±® ¬¸» ©±®¬ ³±ª»³»²¬ò Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îðïï Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure adequate LOS and would reduce this impact to less than significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóêð T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ Û¨½»»¼·²¹ Í¬±®¿¹» Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Impact 4.2.3 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in intersection queuing that exceeds existing storage capacity at study intersections. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Table 4.2-14 summarizes existing (2010) without project and 2010 with project intersection PM peak hour queuing analysis. Under 2010 without project conditions, the SR 89/Deerfield Drive intersection queues exceed existing storage capacity in the southbound and eastbound directions. With the addition of any project option, intersection queues at this intersection and the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road/Donner Pass Road intersection would exceed existing storage capacity. ÍÎ èçñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» The southbound traffic queue along SR 89 could potentially interfere with traffic operations at the gas station right-in/right-out-only driveway during peak periods but is not considered to be a significant traffic issue. As the queue is not expected to extend to the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout, no mitigation measures are necessary. On the eastbound approach, the dual left-turn lane queues are estimated to exceed the available storage length. Although the existing pavement width in the eastbound direction allows some additional left-turn storage to occur beyond the striped turn lanes, there is the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods without the proposed project. The eastbound left-turn lane storage lengths are constrained by the presence of a westbound left-turn pocket at the Crossroads Center driveway, as well as by the Crossroads Center driveway itself. The existing 122 feet of length between the existing back-to-back turn bays could potentially be reduced to a minimum of 50 feet, in order to expand storage capacity somewhat. Regardless, it should be noted that the left-turn queues at this intersection will be no longer than the provided storage length during peak periods. ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ With implementation of any of the project options, the northbound queue on Coldstream Road at its intersection with I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road is expected to exceed the available storage length during peak periods. Therefore, there is the potential for northbound queues to interfere with operations at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection during peak periods. A left-turn lane warrant analysis was performed for the southbound left-turn movement at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection. Based upon the Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes presented in the ITE 1990 Compendium of Technical Papers, a southbound left- turn lane is warranted based upon a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.2.3a The project applicant shall construct a 50-foot southbound left-turn lane at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection as well as provide pavement markings and signage indicating “Do Not Block.” Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóêë ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ MM 4.2.3b Should the Town Engineer determine it necessary, the project applicant shall fund the installation of pavement markings and signage indicating “Do Not Block” at the SR 89/Deerfield Drive intersection. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure that potential queuing impacts are mitigated to avoid any operational impacts to area intersections to a less than significant level. Û¨½»»¼¿²½» ±º ÔÑÍ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ¿¬ Í¬«¼§ Î±¿¼©¿§ Impact 4.2.4 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of the LOS threshold at study roadway segments. This is considered a less than significant impact. The 2010 roadway segments peak hour volume and LOS are summarized in Table 4.2-15. This table shows that all study roadways are operating within the Town of Truckee standards without the proposed project. As shown in this table, implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, including all project options, would not result in LOS threshold exceedance for any of the study roadways. This impact is therefore considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ù±¿´ ¿²¼ Ð±´·½·» Impact 4.2.5 Implementation of project would not result in a traffic condition that would conflict with General Plan Circulation Element Policy P2.2 and Policy P2.4. However, Options 2, 3, and 4 would create a development that is not integrated into the circulation network, as required by General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.4 and Goal CIR-4. This is considered a significant impact. Table 4.2-8 provides the Town’s threshold for impacts on local roads. As shown in that table, the Town’s threshold of significance would allow for development as long as the LOS does not worsen to an unacceptable level. As shown in Table 4.2-15, the proposed project plus existing conditions would not degrade the LOS of this roadway to unacceptable levels. As such, all roadway options, including the opening of Deerfield Drive and re-designation of that roadway, would result in a less than significant impact. While Option 1 would result in a development that is integrated into the existing circulation network, Options 2 through 4 would not provide open access between the project and adjoining neighborhoods. This would be inconsistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.4 and Goal CIR-4, which call for development of integrated roadway networks for new development. This impact would be significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» There is no feasible mitigation for the inconsistency identified for Options 2, 3, and 4 in regard to their connectivity to the existing roadway network, short of opening Deerfield Drive to through traffic (an aspect of Option 1). As such, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóêê ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ×²¿¼»¯«¿¬» Û³»®¹»²½§ ß½½» Impact 4.2.6 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would be consistent with the Town of Truckee emergency access standards. This is considered a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project (including all options) would improve emergency access to the project site by connecting Deerfield Drive. In accordance with Town of Truckee standards, the internal roadway system also limits the use of dead-end roadways. This impact is less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ×²¿¼»¯«¿¬» Ð¿®µ·²¹ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Impact 4.2.7 Implementation of the proposed project would provide adequate parking areas to support proposed land uses. This is considered a less than significant impact. As noted in Table 4.2-19, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide for a slightly modified parking requirement than would be required if the project was developed under Town of Truckee Development Code Chapter 18.48. Specifically, the proposed project would allow for a lower parking requirement for secondary residential units. By code, secondary residential units require two spaces per unit in addition to the primary single-family residential unit with which the secondary unit is associated. The proposed project would lower this parking requirement to one space per secondary unit. In addition, the proposed project would allow driveway and on-street parking to be counted as required parking, which is consistent with the General Plan’s desire to limit excess off-street parking (Circulation Element Policy P6.8). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóêé ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ììòîóïç ßÞÔÛ ÝÐÝÍÐÌÌ ÑÓÐßÎ×ÍÑÒ ÑÚ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ßÒÜ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÜÝÐÍ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÑÜÛ ßÎÕ×ÒÙ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ Ð®±°±»¼ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼»ô Æ±²» Ý±³°¿®·±² ï Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòìè äÏÐÙ ÔèÕÒÒÝ×ÙñÕÆÙÚÌ®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼»ô Í¿³»ò Ò± ¼·ºº»®»²½»ò Ë» Ý±³³»®½·¿´ Æ±²·²¹ Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòìè Ü·¬®·½¬ äÏÐÙ ÔèÕÒÒÝ×Ù÷ÌÙÙÐÌ©± ½±ª»®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¬¿´´ Ì©± °¿½» °»® »¿½¸ «²·¬ô Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Æ±²·²¹ °»® «²·¬ °´« ðòë ¹«»¬ ¬¿´´ ©·¬¸ ±²» °¿½» °»® «²·¬ ·² ¿ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ü·¬®·½¬ °»® «²·¬ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ º«´´§ »²½´±»¼ ¹¿®¿¹»ò Ù«»¬ ©±«´¼ ®»¯«·®» ±²» ´» ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» °¿®µ·²¹ îëû ±º ¬±¬¿´ ®»¯«·®»¼ °¿½» °»® »½±²¼¿®§ ±²» °¿½» ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸¿¬ °¿½»ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ¬¸¿² ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ¬¸» °®·³¿®§ «²·¬ ¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» ¬©± °¿½» Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ò ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸¿¬ ®»¯«·®»¼ Ý±¼»ò º±® ¬¸» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ò äÏÐÙÔèÕÒÒÝ×Ù÷ÌÙÙÐÌ©± ½±ª»®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¬¿´´ Ì©± °¿½» °»® »¿½¸ «²·¬ô Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Í³¿´´ Ô±¬ °»® «²·¬ °´« ðòë ¹«»¬ ¬¿´´ ©·¬¸ ±²» °¿½» °»® «²·¬ ·² ¿ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ©±«´¼ Æ±²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ °»® «²·¬ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ º«´´§ »²½´±»¼ ¹¿®¿¹»ò Ù«»¬ ®»¯«·®» ±²» ´» °¿½» °»® ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» °¿®µ·²¹ îëû ±º ¬±¬¿´ ®»¯«·®»¼ »½±²¼¿®§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ±²» °¿½» ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸¿¬ °¿½»ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¬¸¿² Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ¬¸» °®·³¿®§ «²·¬ ¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» ¬©± °¿½» Ý±¼»ò ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ò ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸¿¬ ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ¬¸» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ò äÏÐÙ Ì©± ½±ª»®»¼ ¬¿´´ °»® «²·¬ò Ì©± °¿½» °»® «²·¬ Í¿³»ò Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Æ±²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ äÏÐÙ ÔøÏÌÙËÊÌ©± ½±ª»®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¬¿´´ Ì©± °¿½» °»® »¿½¸ «²·¬ô Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Æ±²·²¹ °»® «²·¬ °´« ðòë ¹«»¬ ¬¿´´ ©·¬¸ ±²» °¿½» °»® «²·¬ ·² ¿ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ü·¬®·½¬ °»® «²·¬ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ º«´´§ »²½´±»¼ ¹¿®¿¹»ò Ù«»¬ ©±«´¼ ®»¯«·®» ±²» ´» ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» °¿®µ·²¹ îëû ±º ¬±¬¿´ ®»¯«·®»¼ °¿½» °»® »½±²¼¿®§ ±²» °¿½» ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸¿¬ °¿½»ò Í»½±²¼¿®§ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬ ¬¸¿² ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ¬¸» °®·³¿®§ «²·¬ ¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» ¬©± °¿½» Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ò ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¬¸¿¬ ®»¯«·®»¼ Ý±¼»ò º±® ¬¸» ·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼©»´´·²¹ò äÏÐÙÔìÙÛÌÙÝÊÕÏÐß ®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ì®«½µ»» Í¿³»ò Ò± ¼·ºº»®»²½»ò Æ±²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼»ô Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòìèò äÏÐÙÔïÎÙÐëÎÝÛÙÒ±¬ ¿°°´·½¿¾´»ò Í¿³»ò Ò± ¼·ºº»®»²½»ò Æ±²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ ï Ò±¬»æ Ð¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ©»®» »´»½¬»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» ¬± ³¿¬½¸ ¿ ½´±»´§ ¿ °±·¾´» ¬± ¬¸» ´¿²¼ «» ¿«³°¬·±² «»¼ ·² ¾±¬¸ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ¬«¼§ò Í±«®½»æ ÍÝÑ »¬ ¿´òô îððçå Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ô îððç Although the project would allow for a lower parking minimum than required by the Town of Truckee Development Code, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would likely provide adequate parking for the proposed land uses. The lowered parking requirement is specifically for the secondary residential units, which would be allowed and encouraged, but the exact number of secondary units that will be ultimately constructed is unknown at this time. As discussed herein, these secondary units are assumed to only be used seasonally or when the owner of the primary residential unit has guests. Additionally, almost half of all Truckee housing units are assumed to be either second homes or vacant. The likelihood that not all units would be occupied concurrently, Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóêè ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ plus the provision of guest parking, would tend to ensure that adequate parking would be available within the project site and not result in significant environmental effects (e.g., parking in designated open space areas containing sensitive habitat). The project site design would not conflict or result in parking issues with Donner Memorial State Park given the distance of proposed focused commercial and recreation uses from the park’s access points, and the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide parking in the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district consistent with Town Development Code parking requirements. This impact is considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ð»¼»¬®·¿²ñÞ·½§½´» Ý±²º´·½¬ ¿²¼ Ý±²·¬»²½§ ©·¬¸ Ì®¿·´ ¿²¼ Þ·µ»©¿§ Ó¿¬»® Ð´¿² Impact 4.2.8 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not result in substantial conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists and is consistent with the Town of Truckee’s Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. This is considered a less than significant impact. The design of roadways internal to the project site includes a physical separation between motor vehicles and pedestrian facilities. At pedestrian crossings, the proposed project calls for striping or stamped surfaces to slow vehicle traffic and advise drivers of possible pedestrian crossing. Consistent with the Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan(Town of Truckee, 2007), the plan includes a Class III bike route along Deerfield Drive (primary road), a recreational trail along the southern end of the project site, and a Class I bike trail along Cold Creek linking to the southern recreational trail, the Class III bike route, and the Truckee Legacy Trail. Additionally, the proposed project may include some off-site trails leading west and east from the project site and providing additional connections to the Legacy Trail. These project components would provide improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation in this portion of the town as well as to Donner Memorial State Park trails. The environmental effects of the construction and operation of these trails have been addressed in the technical sections of this Draft EIR. This impact is less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ Ì®¿²·¬ Ð±´·½·»ô Ð´¿²ô ±® Ð®±¹®¿³ Impact 4.2.9 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial conflicts with policies, plans, or programs for transit service. This impact is less than significant. Truckee Transit provides fixed-route bus service near the project site. The nearest stop to the site is located in front of the Holiday Inn Express on Coldstream Road. Although no plans are identified to provide transit service through the project site, consistent with Circulation Element Policy P11.1, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is designed to include areas to accommodate future transit shelters as deemed necessary and provide pedestrian facilities to access those shelters. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóêç ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Û¨¿½»®¾¿¬·±² ±º ¿² Û¨·¬·²¹ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¿º»¬§ Ü»º·½·»²½§ Impact 4.2.10 Implementation of the proposed project may exacerbate an existing traffic safety deficiency within the project site. This impact is considered potentially significant. The landscaping plans for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan should provide adequate driver sight distance along the proposed project roadways. The driver sight distance at the existing study intersections was reviewed as part of the traffic study, and only the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection was found to have a sight distance concern. The stopping sight distance at this intersection was found to be adequate. However, the corner sight distance is hindered by not only the horizontal and vertical curvature along Donner Pass Road, but also by the presence of signage, a light post, and vegetation, as well as an upgrade on the off-ramp approach. Furthermore, if Option 1 is selected, wherein Deerfield Drive is opened to through traffic, a site obstruction would occur where the Class-I legacy trail crosses this roadway in the vicinity of the existing Deerfield Drive (inside the project area). While traffic would increase along Deerfield Drive, potentially causing drivers exiting their properties along that roadway in the existing residential neighborhood to wait slightly longer before an opening is available in traffic, sight lines are currently adequate to prevent any safety impacts related to this additional traffic (LSC, 2011). In the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., potential hazards were identified along Deerfield Drive within the existing residential development east of the site. Through traffic on this portion of Deerfield Drive, in the absence of sidewalks, could pose a hazard to residents walking to the commercial uses to the east of those homes or any existing residents who wish to use the proposed Class I trails to be constructed as part of the proposed project. There are also potential concerns for pedestrian safety on the proposed off-site Class I trails approaching the intersection of Deerfield Drive and SR 89 along the Crossroads Shopping Center. According to the discussion above, sight line issues and pedestrian safety would represent a potentially significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.2.10a Existing brush along Donner Pass Roadin the southeast quadrant of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection shall be trimmed or removed in order to increase the sight distance from the off-ramplooking to addition, during the winter season, snow berms shall be removed the east. In from this area. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division MM 4.2.10b If Deerfield Drive is opened to through traffic into/out of the project site (Option 1), trees obstructing the sight of the Class I trail as it crosses Deerfield Drive immediately east of the current western terminus of Deerfield Drive, as it Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóéð ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ exists immediately east of the project site, shall be removed or trimmed to allow for adequate site distance. This includes any vegetation under those trees which would impede driver sight distance. Tree/vegetation removal shall be conducted to the extent that an unobstructed sight line exists for a distance of at least 275 feet. Timing/Implementation: Prior to grading approval for the construction of the Class I trail on site should Option 1 be selected Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division MM 4.2.10c If Deerfield Drive is opened to through traffic into/out of the project site (Option 1), a sidewalk shall be constructed along the existing portion of Deerfield Drive that exists within the project site in the east to the point at which the Class I trail passes between those homes and what is currently the First Baptist Church of Truckee (approximately 0.26 miles east of the project boundary at Deerfield Drive). Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of grading/improvement plans for the opening of Deerfield Drive to through traffic should Option 1 be selected Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division MM 4.2.10d Should off-site trail improvements along Deerfield Drive be developed, the trail shall be designed such that adequate transition and taper length is provided for the eastbound right-turn lane on Deerfield Drive at its intersection with SR 89. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of grading/improvement plans for off-site trail improvements along Deerfield Drive Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division Even with mitigation measure MM 4.2.10a, the corner sight distance in both directions along Donner Pass Road would be less than therecommended 440 feet corner sight distance, due to the horizontal and vertical curvature alongDonner Pass Road. Reducing the speed limit along Donner Pass Road would reduce the sightdistance requirements. However, according to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, whererestrictive conditions exist (such as excessive costs associated with roadway), the minimum value for corner sight distance at unsignalized modifying an existing equal to the stopping sight distance. In this case, the existing available corner intersections is to be sight distanceprovided is greater than the required stopping sight distance (300 feet). Therefore, the driversight distance is considered to meet Caltrans standards as long as the existing vegetation that interferes with the corner sight distance looking to the east is trimmed back or removed. In the case of mitigation measure MM 4.2.10b, removal of trees and vegetation as required would allow for adequate sight distance at this point to prevent any additional hazards for pedestrians and bicycles using the Class I trail. Removal of trees required by this measure has been accounted for in Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources, of this Draft EIR. Mitigation has been incorporated in that section to prevent any significant impact from the removal of these trees and/or vegetation. Likewise, the environmental impacts of installation of the sidewalk and trail improvements required by mitigation measuresMM 4.2.10c and MM 4.2.10d have been addressed in this DEIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóéï ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ With implementation of the above mitigation measures, adequate sight distances and facilities for pedestrian use would be provided, and this impact becomes less than significant. ìòîòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting associated with the traffic analysis is based on the Town of Truckee TransCAD traffic model, which provides forecasts of traffic conditions throughout the town as well as in the Martis Valley portion of Placer County. The model reflects buildout of the Town’s current General Plan, buildout of the approved land uses in Martis Valley, and growth in traffic passing through the area. Note that this TransCAD model was recently updated to reflect the approved land uses in the Martis Valley area. The reader is referred to Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR for a further description of anticipated cumulative setting conditions. Û¬·³¿¬·±² ±º îðíð Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» É·¬¸±«¬ Ð®±¶»½¬ The updated TransCAD model was used to evaluate future traffic conditions without the project in the following steps: 1)Model land uses were adjusted to reflect the existing land uses on the project site only, and the model was rerun. 2)Based upon a comparison of the 2003 and 2025 model-generated turning-movement volumes, an average annual growth rate was calculated for each study intersection turning movement. The resulting annual growth rates were applied to the corresponding year 2010 intersection turning movement volumes in order to estimate future 2025 volumes. As the year 2025 represents full buildout of the Truckee General Plan land uses, no additional growth in traffic volumes was assumed to occur from 2025 to 2030. 3)Next, the diversion of traffic away from downtown Truckee due to congestion delays and delays generated by factors such as queues blocking travel lanes was addressed. As a part of the Railyard EIR traffic study, the number of trips passing through the downtown area that are expected to divert to other routes was estimated. The diverted trips affecting the study intersections were manually assigned to the future turning movement volumes. 4)Finally, considering the limited access at the recently constructed Sierra College driveway along SR 89, the traffic volumes on the left-turn movement from Sierra College were reassigned to make a right-turn out and a U-turn at the roundabout. The resulting 2030 summer weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without the project are shown in Figure 4.2-9. Note that the model assumes that the Pioneer Trail Extension and Bridge Street Extension are both fully constructed, as identified in the General Plan. No traffic is assigned to the potential Deerfield Drive connector under 2030 no project conditions. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóéî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ îðíð É»»µ»²¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» ¿¬ ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the total growth in PM peak hour traffic volumes at the I- 80/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersections from 2010 to 2030 is the same on a Saturday as on a weekday. Therefore, the total growth in weekday volumes at the two ramp intersections was applied to the 2010 Saturday volumes in order to estimate the 2030 Saturday volumes. îðíð Ì®¿ºº·½ Ê±´«³» É·¬¸ Ð®±¶»½¬ Adding the project net impact on PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes to the 2030 no project volumes yields the 2030 with project volumes shown in Figure 4.2-10 (Option 1) andFigure 4.2-11 (Options 2 and 3). Note that under Option 4, the 2030 intersection volumes are identical to Options 2 and 3, with the exception of the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection and the three site access intersections (no map is provided for Option 4). îðíð ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ô»ª»´ ±º Í»®ª·½» Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ Table 4.2-20 summarizes the results for future 2030 conditions without the project. As indicated, the LOS is expected to degrade at some intersections in the future. However, no additional intersections would exceed the threshold, beyond the following two intersections that exceed the threshold under existing (2010) conditions: SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road (western interchange) Note that the SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road/Frates Lane intersection is expected to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E to LOS F in the future without implementation of the project. Ñ°¬·±² ï Intersection LOS was calculated for the analysis year 2030 with Option 1, as summarized in Table 4.2-20. As shown, implementation of Option 1 would not cause any additional intersections to exceed the LOS threshold, with the exception of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection. The addition of project traffic would cause the off-ramp approach to degrade from LOS C to LOS F with more than four vehicle hours of delay, which exceeds the LOS threshold. Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì Year 2030 intersection LOS with implementation of Options 2 or 3 is shown in Table 4.2-20. In comparison with no project conditions, implementation of the proposed project would not cause any additional intersections to exceed the LOS threshold, with the exception of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection. The addition of project traffic would cause the off-ramp approach to degrade from LOS C to LOS F with more than four vehicle hours of delay, which exceeds the LOS threshold. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóéë T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ In addition, the LOS at the SR 89/I-80 Eastbound Ramps roundabout would degrade one level in comparison to Option 1, although the intersection would operate within the threshold. Option 4 would result in LOS identical to Options 2 and 3, while the delays at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection and the three site access intersections would differ slightly. As these four intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Option 4, it can be concluded that there is no further need for evaluation of Option 4 for 2030 conditions. Ú«¬«®» É»»µ»²¼ ÔÑÍ ¿¬ ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ Under 2030 weekend conditions, no additional scenarios would exceed the LOS standard. That is, under 2030 no project traffic volumes, the intersection of Donner Pass Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps operates at an acceptable LOS. Under all of the with project options, the LOS at this intersection exceeds the Town standard. The Donner Pass Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road intersection exceeds the Town LOS standard in 2030 with or without the project. îðíð ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ îðíð ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ É·¬¸±«¬ Ð®±¶»½¬ ÍÎ èçñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» As shown in Table 4.2-21, the southbound right-turn queue on the SR 89/Deerfield Drive intersection is calculated to exceed the available storage length by approximately 150 feet in 2030 without the project. As a result, the southbound traffic queue could extend past the gas station right-in/right-out-only driveway at times during peak periods but is not considered to be a significant traffic problem. It would also not interfere with the upstream I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout. On the eastbound approach, the dual left-turn lane queues are estimated to exceed the available storage length. Although the existing pavement width in the eastbound direction allows some additional left-turn storage to occur beyond the striped turn lanes, there is the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations at times during peak periods in 2030 without the project. If drivers attempting to turn left into the Crossroads Center are blocked, this could affect the westbound traffic along Deerfield Drive. ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ As shown in Table 4.2-21, the calculated queues at this intersection are within the available storage lengths under 2030 weekday and Saturday conditions without the project. ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ As shown in Table 4.2-21, the calculated queues at this intersection are within the available storage lengths under 2030 weekday and Saturday conditions without the project. Note that the traffic queues at the intersections along Coldstream Road were evaluated, and no operational problems were identified. Ú«¬«®» ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ É·¬¸ Ð®±¶»½¬ The intersection queuing analysis under 2030 with project conditions is also shown in Table 4.2-21. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóèï ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÎ èç Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Ñ°¬·±² ï With implementation of Option 1 in 2030, the southbound right-turn queue length is expected to increase by approximately 50 feet compared to 2030 without project conditions. The resulting total southbound queue length is about 300 feet, which could interfere with traffic accessing the right-in/right-out-only gas station driveway during peak periods. However, it is not expected to interfere with the upstream I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout. The eastbound dual left-turn lane queue is estimated to increase by 50 feet (or from a queue of five cars without the project to six cars with the project), and the eastbound right-turn queue is calculated to increase by 25 feet (or from two cars without the project to three cars with the project). Therefore, implementation of Option 1 would increase the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods in 2030. Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì Implementation of Options 2, 3, or 4 would not affect the southbound right-turn queue length in 2030. Similar to 2030 no project conditions, the southbound traffic queue could extend past the gas station right-in/right-out-only driveway during peak periods. However, it is not expected to interfere with the upstream I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout. The eastbound dual left-turn lane queue is estimated to increase by 25 feet (one car), thereby increasing the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods. ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ Ñ°¬·±² ï Although the traffic queue length on the westbound off-ramp is expected to increase with implementation of Option 1 in 2030, the calculated queues are within the available storage lengths under weekday and Saturday conditions. Note that the westbound queues are substantially shorter with implementation of Option 1 in comparison with the other project options. Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì Implementation of the project options without full public access to the Deerfield Drive connector would result in queue lengths on the westbound off-ramp that could potentially interfere with the I-80 westbound mainline traffic during peak periods on weekdays or weekends in 2030. Note that the off-ramp approach on Donner Pass Road is flared such that a right-turn movement can be made while up to three vehicles are waiting to turn left. This assumption is applied in the queuing analysis. The calculated 95th-percentile queue lengths exceed the available storage length by about 45 to 120 feet. ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ With implementation of any of the project options, the northbound queue on Coldstream Road at its intersection with I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road exceeds the available storage length by about 45 to 130 feet. Therefore, there is the potential for northbound queues along Coldstream Road to interfere with operations at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection during 2030 weekday and weekend peak periods with the project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóèì ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Note that the traffic queues at the intersections along Coldstream Road in 2030 with the project were evaluated, and no operational problems were identified. îðíð Î±¿¼©¿§ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ Table 4.2-22 presents the comparison of 2030 peak hour traffic volumes with the pertinent standard. As shown, all study roadway segments are expected to operate within the LOS D threshold in 2030 without the project. The roadway with the highest proportion of capacity being utilized based on the pertinent standards is Donner Pass Road between Northwoods Boulevard and SR 89 South, where the PM peak hour peak direction volume is about 58 percent of the applicable capacity. Note that the traffic volumes on this segment are expected to decrease slightly in the future, due to implementation of the Pioneer Trail Extension. Ñ°¬·±² ï As shown in Table 4.2-22, all study roadways are expected to operate within the LOS threshold in 2030 with Option 1. The roadway with the highest proportion of capacity being utilized based on the pertinent standards is Donner Pass Road between Northwoods Boulevard and SR 89 South, where the PM peak hour peak direction volume is approximately 59 percent of the applicable capacity. Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì As shown in Table 4.2-22, all study roadways are expected to operate within the LOS threshold in 2030 under Options 2, 3, and 4. The roadway with the highest proportion of capacity being utilized based on the pertinent standards is Donner Pass Road between Northwoods Boulevard and SR 89 South, where the PM peak hour peak direction volume is about 60 percent of the applicable capacity. îðíð Î¿³° Ó»®¹»ñÜ·ª»®¹» ¿¬ ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ Merge/diverge analyses were performed for the eastbound and westbound ramps at the I-80/ Donner Pass Road western interchange. Note that although there are two westbound on-ramps at this interchange, only the western westbound on-ramp (the loop on-ramp) is included in this analysis. This analysis is based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.2-23. The forecast PM peak hour weekday and weekend through volumes along I-80 in the year 2030 were estimated by applying a 1.5 percent average annual growth rate to the 2010 volumes. This growth rate was recommended by Caltrans staff. As shown, under 2030 without and with all project options weekday and weekend conditions, the merge/diverge analyses performed for the eastbound and westbound ramps at the I-80/Donner Pass Road (western) interchange resulted in acceptable LOS for all movements. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóèë ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ îðíð Ð®±¶»½¬ ×³°¿½¬ ±² Ô±½¿´ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Î±¿¼©¿§ The increase in traffic on the local residential segment of Deerfield Drive as a result of the project is evaluated under future 2030 conditions. Ñ°¬·±² ï Option 1 is estimated to result in an increase of approximately 204 total two-way PM peak hour trips on the local roadway segment of Deerfield Drive in 2030 (same as in 2010). As discussed herein, the corresponding increase in ADT is about 2,340 under Option 1. This increase is more than 1,000 ADT and is more than a 50 percent increase. Therefore, the proposed project under Option 1 is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element local residential roadway standard. However, Option 1 includes re-designation of the roadway by the Town as a Minor Collector. As shown in Table 4.2-22, no negative impact to LOS would occur, and thus Option 1 would be consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Furthermore, Option 1 is consistent with Policy P2.4 and Goal CIR-4, as it would improve connectivity within and between community areas. Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì Implementation of Options 2, 3, or 4, which do not provide access to Deerfield Drive to the east, would result in a negligible increase in traffic on the existing local roadway segment of Deerfield Drive. Therefore, with respect to the General Plan Circulation Element local road standards, Options 2, 3, and 4 are allowable development alternatives. However, these options are not consistent with Policy P2.4 and Goal CIR-4, as they would not improve connectivity to the adjacent street network. This inconsistency is not a cumulative feature; rather, it is a project- specific impact of the proposed Options 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, it is discussed under Impact 4.2.5 above and not in the following cumulative analysis. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Û¨½»»¼¿²½» ±º ÔÑÍ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ¿¬ Í¬«¼§ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ë²¼»® Ç»¿® îðíð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.2.11 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in the exceedance of the LOS threshold at study intersections. This is considered a cumulatively considerable impact. Table 4.2-24 summarizes 2030 without project and 2030 with project intersection LOS. The following intersections would not meet Town LOS standards: SR 89 South/Donner Pass Road – LOS F for all options I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) – LOS F for all options I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road – LOS F for all options Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2.2a through MM 4.2.2c would mitigate the project’s contribution to these LOS impacts to less than cumulatively considerable (see Table 4.2-24). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóèç ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ììòîóîì ßÞÔÛ îðíð×ÐÓÐØÔÑÍßÓ ÒÌÛÎÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÕ ÑËÎ ÚÌÛÎ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ Ñ°¬·±² ï Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ü»´¿§ Ü»´¿§ Ü»´¿§ øÓ·¬·¹¿¬·±²÷ ïïï ÔÑÍ ÔÑÍ ÔÑÍ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ïæ °®±ª·¼» ±ª»®´¿° °¸¿·²¹ º±® »¿¬¾±«²¼ ®·¹¸¬ó¬«®² ¿²¼ ®»½±²º·¹«®» ²±®¬¸¾±«²¼ ¿°°®±¿½¸ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿² »¨½´«·ª» ´»º¬ó¬«®² ´¿²» ¿²¼ ¿ ¸¿®»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ó®·¹¸¬ ´¿²»÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ëîòè Ü ëïòî Ü ëìòê Ü î ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² îæ °®±ª·¼» ¼«¿´ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ìïòì Û ììòì Û ììòë Û ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø©»¬÷ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ïæ °®±ª·¼» ¿½½»´»®¿¬·±² ´¿²» º±® ²±®¬¸¾±«²¼ ´»º¬ ¬«®²÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ çòï ß çòì ß îîòð Ý Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ÔÑÍ çòê ß ïíòð Þ îéòî Ü ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø©»¬÷ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² îæ °®±ª·¼» ·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïëòì Ý ïéòð Ý îðòê Ý Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïìòì Þ ïëòè Ý ïèòé Ý ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ©·¬¸ ©»¬¾±«²¼ ®·¹¸¬ó¬«®² ´·° ´¿²»÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïìòê Þ ïèòë Ý îëòð Ý Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ÔÑÍ ïëòì Ý îðòë Ý íéòë Û Ò±¬»æ ï ÔÑÍ · ®»°±®¬»¼ º±® ¬¸» ©±®¬ ³±ª»³»²¬ò î Ì¸» ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ¼«¿´ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ¿²¿´§· ©¿ ½±²¼«½¬»¼ «·²¹ ¿ çðóº±±¬ ·²¬»®²¿´ ·´¿²¼ ¼·¿³»¬»®ô »¨½»°¬ º±® Ñ°¬·±² ïô º±® ©¸·½¸ ¿ ïððóº±±¬ ¼·¿³»¬»® ©¿ «»¼ò Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îðïï ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ Û¨½»»¼·²¹ Í¬±®¿¹» Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Ë²¼»® Ç»¿® îðíð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.2.12 Implementation of the proposed project would result in intersection queuing that exceeds existing storage capacity at study intersections. This is a cumulatively considerable impact. Table 4.2-25 summarizes 2030 without project and 2030 with project intersection PM peak hour queuing analysis. Under 2030 without project conditions, the SR 89/Deerfield Drive intersection queues exceed existing storage capacity in the southbound and eastbound directions. With the addition of any project option, intersection queues at this intersection and at the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Coldstream Road/Donner Pass Road intersection would exceed existing storage capacity. With the addition of project Options 2, 3, or 4 traffic, intersection queues at the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (western interchange) intersection would also exceed storage capacity. ÍÎ èçñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» The southbound traffic queue along SR 89 could potentially interfere with traffic operations at the gas station right-in/right-out-only driveway during peak periods but is not considered to be a Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóçð ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ significant traffic issue. As the queue is not expected to extend to the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout, no mitigation measures are necessary. On the eastbound approach, the dual left-turn lane queues are estimated to exceed the available storage length. Although the existing pavement width in the eastbound direction allows some additional left-turn storage to occur beyond the striped turn lanes, there is the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods without the project. The eastbound left-turn lane storage lengths are constrained by the presence of a westbound left-turn pocket at the Crossroads Center driveway, as well as by the Crossroads Center driveway itself. The existing 122 feet of length between the existing back-to- back turn bays could potentially be reduced to a minimum of 50 feet, in order to expand storage capacity somewhat. Regardless, it should be noted that the left-turn queues at this intersection will be no longer than the provided storage length during peak periods. ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ In 2030 with Options 2, 3, and 4, long traffic queues would form along the westbound off-ramp, potentially interfering with the I-80 mainline. However, implementation of the intersection LOS mitigation measures (either a left-turn acceleration lane on Donner Pass Road or a single-lane roundabout) would alleviate this potential problem. The traffic queue lengths estimated to occur after implementation of the intersection LOS mitigation measures in 2030 are shown in Table 4.2-25. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ With implementation of any of the project options, the northbound queue on Coldstream Road at its intersection with I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road is expected to exceed the available storage length during peak periods. Therefore, there is the potential for northbound queues to interfere with operations at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection during peak periods. A left-turn lane warrant analysis was performed for the southbound left-turn movement at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection. Based upon the Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes presented in the ITE 1990 Compendium of Technical Papers, a southbound left- turn lane is warranted based upon a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2.3a and MM 4.2.3b would ensure that queuing effects would not impact intersection operations and would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóçï ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Ììòîóîë ßÞÔÛ îðíð×ÏßÓ ÒÌÛÎÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ËÛË×ÒÙ ÚÌÛÎ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ï Ì®¿ºº·½ Ï«»«» Ô»²¹¬¸ øº»»¬÷ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ò±®¬¸¾±«²¼ Í±«¬¸¾±«²¼ Û¿¬¾±«²¼ É»¬¾±«²¼ øÓ·¬·¹¿¬·±²÷ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ É»»µ¼¿§ ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ïæ ²±®¬¸¾±«²¼ ´»º¬ó¬«®² ¿½½»´»®¿¬·±² ´¿²»÷ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô¿²» Í¬±®¿¹» î èëð Ô»²¹¬¸ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ íë íë Ñ°¬·±² ï ìð ìð Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì ïêí ïêí ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² îæ ·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô¿²» Í¬±®¿¹» îí èëð çíð îçð Ô»²¹¬¸ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ ïïð ïïð ð ð ïïí Ñ°¬·±² ï ïíê ïíê ð ð ïìí Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì îîè îîè ð ð îîê ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô¿²» Í¬±®¿¹» ìëí ïíð ëëð ïðð âëðð ïíð çíð Ô»²¹¬¸ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ éì èí ïìì ïìè îé Ñ°¬·±² ï ïèê ïìï îïé îéé îé Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì îíð ïçè îèð ëìê íð Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ïæ ²±®¬¸¾±«²¼ ´»º¬ó¬«®² ¿½½»´»®¿¬·±² ´¿²»÷ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô¿²» Í¬±®¿¹» î èëð Ô»²¹¬¸ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ íë íë Ñ°¬·±² ï êë êë Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì ïçð ïçð ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø°±¬»²¬·¿´ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² îæ ·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô¿²» Í¬±®¿¹» îí èëð çíð îçð Ô»²¹¬¸ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ çð çð ð ð ïíî Ñ°¬·±² ï ïïì ïïì ð ð ïéç Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì ïçë ïçë ð ð îèè Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóçî ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ï Ì®¿ºº·½ Ï«»«» Ô»²¹¬¸ øº»»¬÷ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ò±®¬¸¾±«²¼ Í±«¬¸¾±«²¼ Û¿¬¾±«²¼ É»¬¾±«²¼ øÓ·¬·¹¿¬·±²÷ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ Ô»º¬ Ì¸®« Î·¹¸¬ ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î¼ ø·²¹´»ó´¿²» ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬÷ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ô¿²» Í¬±®¿¹» ìëí ïíð ëëð ïðð âëðð ïíð çíð Ô»²¹¬¸ Ò± Ð®±¶»½¬ êé èð ïíê ïçë îì Ñ°¬·±² ï ïêç ïìê îïé íéì îì Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ¿²¼ ì îðé ïçç îèì èîì îé Ò±¬»æ Þ±´¼ ¬»¨¬ ·²¼·½¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¯«»«» ´»²¹¬¸ »¨½»»¼ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬±®¿¹»ò ï çë¬¸ó°»®½»²¬·´» ¯«»«» ¿®» ®»°±®¬»¼ò î Ü·¬¿²½» ¾»¬©»»² ×óèð ³¿·²´·²» ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ¿´±²¹ ¬¸» ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ ÑººóÎ¿³°ò í Ü·¬¿²½» ¾»¬©»»² ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³° ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³° ñ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ¿´±²¹ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ò ì Ü·¬¿²½» ¾»¬©»»² Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ø©»¬÷ ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ¿´±²¹ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ò ë Ü·¬¿²½» ¾»¬©»»² ×óèð ³¿·²´·²» ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ¿´±²¹ ¬¸» ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ ÑººóÎ¿³°ò Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îðïï Û¨½»»¼¿²½» ±º ÔÑÍ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ¿¬ Í¬«¼§ Î±¿¼©¿§ «²¼»® Ç»¿® îðíð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.2.13 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not result in the exceedance of the LOS threshold at study roadway segments. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. The 2030 roadway segments peak hour volume and LOS are summarized in Table 4.2-22. This table shows that all study roadways are operating within the Town of Truckee standards without the proposed project. As shown in this table, implementation of the proposed project, including all project options, would not result in LOS threshold exceedance for any of the study roadways. This impact is therefore considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòîóçí ìòîÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Amtrak. 2009. http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/may09/P05.pdf (accessed September 15, 2009). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 3. 2001. Interstate 80 Transportation Concept Report (TCR). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Greyhound Lines, Inc. 2009. http://www.greyhound.com (accessed September 15, 2009). Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1990. 1990 Compendium of Technical Papers. ———. 2004. ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. ———. 2008. ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Land Use Code 210: Single-Family Detached Housing; Land Use Code 220: Apartment Trip Rates. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (LSC). 2009. PC-1 Coldstream Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. ———. 2011. PC-1 Coldstream Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Analysis. Revised per changes to the project description. LSC#097120. Placer County, Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART). 2009. http://www.placer.ca.gov/ departments/works/transit/TART.aspx (accessed September 15, 2009). SCO Planning & Engineering, Kenkay Associations, and Ward-Young Architecture & Planning. 2009. Coldstream Specific Plan. Town of Truckee. 1999. Town of TruckeeTraffic Fee Program AB 1600. ———. 2003. Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Standards. Standard Drawing Number 28. ———. 2006. Town of Truckee General Plan 2025 – Circulation Element. ———. 2007. Trails & Bikeways Master Plan. ———. 2009. http://www.townoftruckee.com (accessed September 15, 2009). Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòîóçì ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) discusses the existing noise environment in the project vicinity and identifies potential noise impacts and mitigation measures related to development of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Specifically, this section analyzes potential noise impacts resulting from development of the proposed project relative to applicable noise criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. Impacts of existing noise sources such as Interstate 80 and the Union Pacific Railroad on the uses proposed in the Coldstream Specific Plan are also addressed. This section was prepared by j. c. brennan & associates, inc. (Brennan) (2009). ìòíòï ÛÍ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ï ßÌ ÝÑËÍÌ×ÝßÔ ÛÎÓ×ÒÑÔÑÙÇ Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz). Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective. Often, someone’s music is described as noise by another person. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted. The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (L), which corresponds eq ï Ú±® ¿² »¨°´¿²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸»» ¬»®³ô »» ß°°»²¼·¨ Üæ ß½±«¬·½¿´ Ì»®³·²±´±¹§ò Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóï ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ to a steady-state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The L is the foundation of the composite noise eq descriptor, L, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. dn The day/night average level (L) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with dn a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based on the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise Because L dn environment. Table 4.3-1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common noise sources. Appendix D provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report. Ììòíóï ßÞÔÛ ÌÓÒÔ ÇÐ×ÝßÔ ßÈ×ÓËÓ ÑÍÛ ÛÊÛÔÍ Ò±·» Ô»ª»´ Ý±³³±² Ñ«¬¼±±® ß½¬·ª·¬·» Ý±³³±² ×²¼±±® ß½¬·ª·¬·» ø¼Þß÷ óóïïðóó Î±½µ Þ¿²¼ Ö»¬ Ú´§ó±ª»® ¿¬ íðð ³ øïôððð º¬÷ óóïððóó Ù¿ Ô¿©² Ó±©»® ¿¬ ï ³ øí º¬÷ óóçðóó Ü·»»´ Ì®«½µ ¿¬ ïë ³ øëð º¬÷ô Ú±±¼ Þ´»²¼»® ¿¬ ï ³ øí º¬÷ óóèðóó ¿¬ èð µ³ñ¸® øëð ³°¸÷ Ù¿®¾¿¹» Ü·°±¿´ ¿¬ ï ³ øí º¬÷ Ò±·§ Ë®¾¿² ß®»¿ô Ü¿§¬·³» óóéðóó Ê¿½««³ Ý´»¿²»® ¿¬ í ³ øïð º¬÷ Ù¿ Ô¿©² Ó±©»®ô íð ³ øïðð º¬÷ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ ß®»¿ óóêðóó Ò±®³¿´ Í°»»½¸ ¿¬ ï ³ øí º¬÷ Ø»¿ª§ Ì®¿ºº·½ ¿¬ çð ³ øíðð º¬÷ Ô¿®¹» Þ«·²» Ñºº·½» Ï«·»¬ Ë®¾¿² Ü¿§¬·³» óóëðóó Ü·¸©¿¸»® ·² Ò»¨¬ Î±±³ Ì¸»¿¬»®ô Ô¿®¹» Ý±²º»®»²½» Î±±³ Ï«·»¬ Ë®¾¿² Ò·¹¸¬¬·³» óóìðóó øÞ¿½µ¹®±«²¼÷ Ï«·»¬ Í«¾«®¾¿² Ò·¹¸¬¬·³» óóíðóó Ô·¾®¿®§ Þ»¼®±±³ ¿¬ Ò·¹¸¬ô Ý±²½»®¬ Ø¿´´ Ï«·»¬ Î«®¿´ Ò·¹¸¬¬·³» óóîðóó øÞ¿½µ¹®±«²¼÷ óóïðóó Þ®±¿¼½¿¬ñÎ»½±®¼·²¹ Í¬«¼·± Ô±©»¬ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ±º Ø«³¿² Ø»¿®·²¹ óóðóó Ô±©»¬ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ±º Ø«³¿² Ø»¿®·²¹ Í±«®½»æ Ý¿´¬®¿²ô ïççè Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóî ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÒÐ ÚÚÛÝÌÍ ÑÚ Ñ×ÍÛ ÑÒ ÛÑÐÔÛ The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories: Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause an adverse response. Stationary point sources of noise — including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles — attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate. ÛÔËÐÊ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÍÛÍ ×Ò ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×Ý×Ò×ÌÇ The site is bordered by a variety of land uses. The northern edge of the project site abuts commercial and residential uses as well as Interstate 80 (I-80). Commercial related land uses are clustered along Coldstream Road adjacent to the I-80 freeway on/off-ramp. Residential land uses consist of single-family homes located on Deerfield Drive. Land uses along the southern property boundary include the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and light industrial property owned by the California Department of Parks and Recreation and a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) materials storage yard. To the east, the project site is bordered by the First Baptist Church and the Boulders, a single-family residential development. Coldstream Road and Donner Memorial State Park abut the western edge of the project site. The project site is primarily accessible from Donner Pass Road. Access would also be provided from Deerfield Drive. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóí ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÞÒÔ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ßÝÕÙÎÑËÒÜ Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÊÛÔÍ On May 26–28, 2009, Brennan conducted two sets of continuous 24-hour noise level measurements and two sets of short-term noise level measurements on the project site and in the vicinity of the project site. The results of the noise level measurements are shown in Table 4.3-2.Appendix D graphically shows the results of the continuous 24-hour noise level measurements. Since Caltrans was working on I-80, and the equipment and materials storage were along I-80 adjacent to the project site, the noise measurements previously conducted by Bollard Acoustical for the project site in 2007 were used to determine the background noise levels adjacent to I-80 (Bollard, 2007). Ììòíóî ßÞÔÛ ÛßÒÓÎ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÓÞ×ÛÒÌ Ñ×ÍÛ ÑÒ×ÌÑÎ×ÒÙ ÛÍËÔÌÍ ÝÍÐÔÌÌôÝ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ßÔ×ÚÑÎÒ×ß Ó Ô îððç ßÇ ßª»®¿¹» Ó»¿«®»¼ Ø±«®´§ Ò±·» Ô»ª»´ ø¼Þß÷ Ü¿§¬·³» Ò·¹¸¬¬·³» Í·¬» Ü¿¬» Ô±½¿¬·±² Ü«®¿¬·±² îìó¸® øéæðð ¿ò³ò ¬± ïðæðð °ò³ò÷ øïðæðð °ò³ò ¬± éæðð ¿ò³ò÷ Ô ¼² ÔÔ Ô Ô Ô Ô »¯ëð³¿¨»¯ëð³¿¨ Ý±²¬·²«±« îìóØ±«® Ò±·» Ó»¿«®»³»²¬ Í·¬» ëóîêóðç ëéòð ¼Þ ëìòé ìé êçòë ìçòí ìé êðòë Ý»²¬®¿´ ·¬» à íëð ß ëóîéóðç ëçòí ¼Þ ìêòð ìè êèòì ëîòê ìé êêòí îì ¸®ò º»»¬ º®±³ ËÐÎÎ ¬®¿½µ ëóîèóðç êðòð ¼Þ ëìòê ìé êçòè ëíòì ìé êíòé ëóîêóðç êïòð ¼Þ ëêòî ëë êëòì ëìòí ëí êíòí ïðð º»»¬ ±«¬¸ ±º Þ ëóîéóðç êïòî ¼Þ ëéòí ëë êëòî ëìòî ëí êìòï îì ¸®ò Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ëóîèóðç êïòê ¼Þ ëéòé ëê êéòë ëìòê ëí êìòé Ð®±¶»½¬ ·¬» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ Ý ß«¹«¬ îððî îì ¸®ò éð ¼Þ óó óó óó óó óó óó ¬± ×óèð ¢ ëëð º»»¬ º®±³ ×óèð ½»²¬»®´·²» Í¸±®¬óÌ»®³ Ò±·» Ó»¿«®»³»²¬ Í·¬» ß¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± Ü±²²»® íð ï ëóîèóðç ëêòî ëë êêòë à îæíð °ò³ò Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ ³·²«¬» ß¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± Ü±²²»® íð î ëóîèóðç ëëòï ëì êëòè à íæíð °ò³ò Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ ³·²«¬» Í±«®½»æ Þ®»²²¿²ô îððçå Þ±´´¿®¼ô îððé The intent of the noise level measurements was to determine the overall daily noise exposure on the project site and the distribution of noise levels during the 24-hour period. Figure 4.3-1 shows the location of the continuous and short-term noise measurement sites. Based upon the noise measurement results, the project site and surrounding area can be characterized as ranging from moderately loud to fairly quiet. Major noise sources included local roadway traffic, traffic on I-80, Donner Pass Road, aircraft overflights, and railroad activities on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line to the south. Equipment used for all noise level measurements included Larson-Davis-Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meter calibrated in the field using an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure accuracy. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóì ÓÐ êîæêíæí à çððîñíîñç ó ÜÈÓòÛÍ×ÑÒÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÎÌÒÔ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÑßÜÉßÇ ÎßÚÚ×Ý Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÊÛÔÍ One of the primary noise sources at the project site is traffic along I-80. The existing I-80 traffic noise on the project site can be quantified through the continuous noise measurements or through existing traffic volumes and truck mix percentages provided by Caltrans. Since construction activities and construction staging operations have occurred throughout the summer months adjacent to the project site, the preferred method of determining existing traffic noise levels on the project site is through modeling of the traffic volumes. Brennan utilized the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA RD77-108) Traffic Noise Prediction Model to determine the existing I-80 traffic noise levels on the project site. The FHWA model is the analytical method currently favored for highway traffic noise prediction by most state and local agencies, including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The FHWA model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly L values for free-flowing traffic conditions. eq To predict CNEL values, it is necessary to determine the day/night distribution of traffic and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and truck mix percentages for existing conditions were obtained from Caltrans. The effective day/night split was based on the measured hourly noise levels on the project site. The FHWA Model inputs are contained in Appendix D.Table 4.3-3 shows the predicted existing traffic noise levels at a reference distance of 550 feet from the roadway centerline of I-80. ìòíóí Ì ßÞÔÛ Û×óèðÌÒÔ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÎßÚÚ×Ý Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÊÛÔÍ Ü·¬¿²½» ¬± Ý±²¬±«® øº»»¬÷ö Î±¿¼©¿§ Ô±½¿¬·±² Ô¼²ñÝÒÛÔ éð ¼Þ ÝÒÛÔ êë ¼Þ ÝÒÛÔ êð ¼Þ ÝÒÛÔ ×óèð ß¬ ëëð º»»¬ º®±³ ÝÔ êí ¼Þ ïéí íéí èðê Í±«®½»æ ÚØÉßóÎÜóééóïðè ©·¬¸ ·²°«¬ º®±³ Ý¿´¬®¿² ¿²¼ ¶ò½ò ¾®»²²¿² ú ¿±½·¿¬»ô ·²½ò öÜ·¬¿²½» ¬± ¬®¿ºº·½ ²±·» ½±²¬±«® ¿®» ³»¿«®»¼ ·² º»»¬ º®±³ ¬¸» ½»²¬»®´·²» ±º ¬¸» ®±¿¼©¿§ò To determine the existing traffic noise levels on the local street system, Brennan once again utilized the FHWA model, with traffic volumes provided by the traffic consultant. Table 4.3-4 shows the predicted traffic noise levels along the existing roadway network. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóé ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Ììòíóì ßÞÔÛ ï îðïðÒÐÐÌÒÔ Ñ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÎÛÜ×ÝÌÛÜ ÎßÚÚ×Ý Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÊÛÔÍ Ü·¬¿²½» ¬± Ý±²¬±«® øº»»¬÷ Ü·¬¿²½» Î±¿¼©¿§ Í»¹³»²¬ ÝÒÛÔ øº»»¬÷ éð ¼Þß êë ¼Þß êð ¼Þß ÝÒÛÔ ÝÒÛÔ ÝÒÛÔ Éò ±º Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ éë êï ¼Þß îð ìî çï Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Ñª»® ×óèð éë êî ¼Þß îí ìç ïðê ×óèð ¬± Ò±®¬¸©±±¼ éë êî ¼Þß îî ìé ïðï Ü±²²»® Ð¿ ¬± Ü»»®º·»´¼ éë ëë ¼Þß è ïé íé Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ Ü»»®º·»´¼ ¬± Í·¬» ß½½» éë ìê ¼Þß î ì ç ÍÎ èç ¬± ïôððð º»»¬ ©»¬ éë ëè ¼Þß ïî îé ëé Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Ì± »²¼ ±º °¿ª»³»²¬ éë ìç ¼Þß í ê ïí Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îððçå Þ®»²²¿²ô îððç ï Ü·¬¿²½» ¬± ¬®¿ºº·½ ²±·» ´»ª»´ ¿®» º®±³ ¬¸» ®±¿¼©¿§ ½»²¬»®´·²»ò ËÐÎÒÔ Ò×ÑÒ ßÝ×Ú×Ý ß×ÔÎÑßÜ Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÊÛÔÍ To quantify railroad noise levels on the project site, Brennan conducted continuous noise level measurements at Site A (refer to Figure 4.3-1). The noise monitor was programmed to collect individual train pass-bys and report the noise sound exposure levels (SELs) associated with each train pass-by. During a three-day period, an average of 10 trains were identified along the UPRR track adjacent to the project site. The average SEL associated with the train operations was 91 dBA at a distance of 350 feet from the railroad track. Table 4.3-5 shows the results of the noise level measurements. Ììòíóë ßÞÔÛ ÓËÐÎÎÌÒÔ ÛßÍËÎÛÜ Îß×Ò Ñ×ÍÛ ÛÊÛÔÍ Ü·¬¿²½» ¬± ÝÒÛÔ Ý±²¬±«® Ò«³¾»® ±º Ü¿§ Ý¿´½«´¿¬»¼ ÝÒÛÔ Ñ¾»®ª»¼ Ì®¿·² êð ¼Þß êë ¼Þß Ó¿§ îê ïð ëëòì ¼Þß ïéî º»»¬ èð º»»¬ Ó¿§ îé ç ëèòê ¼Þß îèí º»»¬ ïíï º»»¬ Ó¿§ îè ïï ëéòè ¼Þß îëð º»»¬ ïïê º»»¬ Í±«®½»æ Þ®»²²¿²ô îððç The differences in the measured noise levels associated with train operations were due primarily to the number of train operations that occur during the nighttime period (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The CNEL calculations apply a 10 dBA penalty to noise events that occur during the nighttime period. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóè ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ìòíòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the proposed project. Í ÌßÌÛ The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations, establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings that house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior or CNEL in any habitable room. Title 24 also mandates that sources are not to exceed 45 dB L dn or CNEL exceeds 60 dB, for structures containing noise-sensitive uses to be located where the L dn an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² Ò±·» Û´»³»²¬ Ù±¿´ ¿²¼ Ð±´·½·» Appendix B analyzes the consistency of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan with applicable policies relating to noise in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. The Town of Truckee Noise Element guidelines which are applicable to the land uses located in the project vicinity are provided in Table 4.3-6. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóç ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Ììòíóê ßÞÔÛ ÒÝÙ Ñ×ÍÛ ÑÓÐßÌ×Þ×Ô×ÌÇ Ë×ÜÛÔ×ÒÛÍ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» The Town of Truckee Development Code essentially contains the Noise Ordinance referred to in the Town of Truckee Noise Element policies. Section 18.44.020 of the Development Code states that noise complaints associated with the types of commercial uses (loading docks, stationary noise sources, etc.) would be directed to the Community Development Department. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóïð ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Section 18.44.040 states that exterior noise levels, when measured at a noise-sensitive receiving land use, shall not exceed the noise level standards set forth in Table 4.3-6 (Table 3-8 in the code). In the event that the ambient noise environment exceeds the Table 4.3-6 standards, the applicable standards are adjusted to equal the ambient noise level. In addition, the Table 4.3-7 standards are reduced by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. Ììòíóé ßÞÔÛ ÒÍÎÔË Ñ×ÍÛ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÞÇ ÛÝÛ×Ê×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÍÛ ÌÌÜÝ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÑÜÛ Ü¿§¬·³» Ò·¹¸¬¬·³» Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ü«®¿¬·±² ±º ×²¬®«·ª» Í±«²¼ Ò±·» Ó»¬®·½ øé ¿ò³ò ¬± ïð °ò³ò÷ øïð °ò³ò ¬± é ¿ò³ò÷ Ø±°·¬¿´ô Ô·¾®¿®§ô Î»´·¹·±« ×²¬·¬«¬·±²ô Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ±® Í½¸±±´ Ë» Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º íð ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô ëë ëð ëð Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º ïë ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô êð ëë îë Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º ë ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô êë êð ðè Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º ï ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô éð êë ðî Ô»ª»´ ²±¬ ¬± ¾» »¨½»»¼»¼ º±® ¿²§ ¬·³» ¼«®·²¹ ¸±«® Ô éë éð ³¿¨ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ Ë» Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º íð ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô êë êð ëð Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º ïë ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô éð êë îë Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º ë ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô éë éð ðè Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» °»®·±¼ ±º ï ³·²«¬» °»® ¸±«® Ô èð éë ðî Ô»ª»´ ²±¬ ¬± ¾» »¨½»»¼»¼ º±® ¿²§ ¬·³» ¼«®·²¹ ¸±«® Ô èë èð ³¿¨ Ò±¬»æ Û¿½¸ ±º ¬¸» ²±·» ´·³·¬ °»½·º·»¼ ¿¾±ª» ¸¿´´ ¾» ®»¼«½»¼ ¾§ ë ¼Þß º±® ·³°«´·ª» ±® ·³°´» ¬±²» ²±·» ±® º±® ²±·» ½±²·¬·²¹ ±º °»»½¸ ±® ³«·½ò ×º ¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹ ¿³¾·»²¬ ²±·» ´»ª»´ »¨½»»¼ ¬¸¿¬ °»®³·¬¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» º·®¬ º±«® ²±·»ó´·³·¬ ½¿¬»¹±®·»ô ¬¸» ¿´´±©¿¾´» ´·³·¬ ¸¿´´ ¾» ·²½®»¿»¼ ¬± »²½±³°¿ ¬¸» ¿³¾·»²¬ò ëÏÉÌÛÙêÏÇÐÏØêÌÉÛÓÙÙêÕÊÒÙ ÔúÙÈÙÒÏÎÑÙÐÊûÏÚÙûÖÝÎÊÙÌ ß³»²¼»¼ Ó¿®½¸ êô îððçò Section 18.44.070 – Exceptions states that the provisions of the chapter do not apply to noise sources associated with non-single-family residential construction provided that the activities do not take place before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m. on any day except Sunday, or before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. on Sunday. The provisions of the chapter do not apply to noise sources associated with single-family residential construction on a single-family lot. Ð®±¶»½¬óÎ»´¿¬»¼ Ò±·» Ô»ª»´ ×²½®»¿» Ý®·¬»®·¿ In addition to the Town of Truckee Noise Element and Development Code standards, the significance of project-related noise level increases may be determined by comparison of no- project noise levels to the expected change in noise levels which would occur because of the proposed project. It is generally recognized that an increase of 3 dB is usually required before most people would perceive a change in noise levels and an increase of 5 dB is required before the change would be clearly noticeable. A common practice is to assume that a minimally perceptible increase of 3 dB represents a significant increase in ambient noise levels. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóïï ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Table 4.3-8 is based upon recommendations made in August 1992 by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these criteria have been applied to other sources of noise similarly described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the CNEL or L. This metric is generally applied to transportation dn noise sources and defines noise exposure in terms of average noise exposure during a 24-hour period with a penalty added to noise that occurs during the nighttime. According to Table 4.3-8, an increase in the traffic noise level of 3 dB or more would be significant where the ambient noise level is between 60 dB and 65 dB CNEL. Ììòíóè ßÞÔÛ ÍÝÝÒÛ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ ÑÚ ØßÒÙÛÍ ×Ò ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ Ñ×ÍÛ ÈÐÑÍËÎÛ ß³¾·»²¬ Ò±·» Ô»ª»´ É·¬¸±«¬ Ð®±¶»½¬ô ÝÒÛÔ ×³°¿½¬ äêð ¼Þ õëòð ¼Þ ±® ³±®» Ô ÚüÚüÏÌÑÏÌÙ âêë ¼Þ õïòë ¼Þ ±® ³±®» Í±«®½»æ Ú×ÝÑÒô ïççî ÊÍ ×ÞÎßÌ×ÑÒ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration would depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating. Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities. The Town of Truckee does not have specific policies pertaining to vibration levels. However, vibration levels associated with construction activities are discussed in this section. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Criteria have been developed by Caltrans showing the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (ppv) in inches per second (in/sec). The threshold for damage to structures ranges from 2 to 6 in/sec. One-half this minimum threshold, or 1 in/sec ppv, is considered a safe criterion that would protect against architectural or structural damage. The general threshold at which human annoyance could occur is noted as 0.1 in/sec ppv. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóïî ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ìòíòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the Town of Truckee General Plan Noise Element, and the Town of Truckee Development Code, implementation of the project would result in significant noise impacts if the project would result in any of the following: 1)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Town of Truckee General Plan Noise Element or the Town of Truckee Development Code. 2)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. 3)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The substantial increase in noise levels is defined as being 3 dB if the resulting total noise level would exceed that considered “normally acceptable” for a given land use category. 4)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. A substantial increase in noise levels is defined as being 3 dB if the resulting total noise level would exceed that considered “normally acceptable” for a given land use category. 5)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not be adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, where the project would expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. 6)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, where the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, this issue is not discussed further in the following analysis. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ Ì®¿ºº·½ Ò±·» Ð®»¼·½¬·±² Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD- 77-108) was used for the prediction of traffic noise levels. The model is based upon the Calveno noise emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. To determine the future traffic noise levels on the project site and in the project vicinity, and relative increases in traffic due to the project, Brennan used local roadway traffic information provided by the project traffic consultant. Appendix D shows the complete inputs to the FHWA Noise Prediction Model. The analysis also considered four land use and roadway options consistent with the traffic analysis as follows: Option 1 – Full Land Use with Deerfield Connector: Full access would be provided between the site and Deerfield Drive to the east. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóïí ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Option 2 – Full Land Use without Deerfield Connector: Vehicle access to Deerfield Drive would be limited to emergency vehicles only. Option 3 – Full Land Use without Deerfield Connector: Identical to Option 2, except an internal loop road would be provided. Option 4 – Full Land Use without Deerfield Connector: Identical to Option 2, except a new bridge over Donner Creek would provide site access to Coldstream Road via the western portion of Donner Pass Road. Tables 4.3-9 and 4.3-10 show the predicted 2010 no project and 2010 plus project scenarios traffic noise levels. Tables 4.3-11 and 4.3-12 show the predicted 2030 no project and 2030 plus project scenarios traffic noise levels. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóïì ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Table 4.3-9 shows the increase in existing traffic noise levels with the Deerfield connector (Option 1). The significant increases in traffic noise levels occur along Coldstream Road from Deerfield Drive to the project site access where a 10 dBA increase in the CNEL occurs, and along Deerfield Drive from 1,000 feet west of State Route (SR) 89 to the end of the pavement where the increase in traffic noise levels is 6 dBA CNEL. Table 4.3-10 shows the increase in existing traffic noise levels without the Deerfield connector (Options 2, 3, and 4). The significant increases in traffic noise levels occur along Coldstream Road from Donner Pass Road to Deerfield Drive and from Deerfield Drive to the project site access. The increases in traffic noise levels are 4 dBA and 11 dBA, respectively. Table 4.3-11 shows the increase in year 2030 traffic noise levels with the Deerfield connector (Option 1). The significant increases in traffic noise levels occur along Coldstream Road from Deerfield to the project site access where a 9 dBA increase in the CNEL occurs, and along Deerfield Drive from 1,000 feet west of SR 89 to the end of the pavement where the increase in traffic noise levels is 6 dBA CNEL. Table 4.3-12 shows the increase in year 2030 traffic noise levels without the Deerfield connector (Options 2, 3, and 4). The significant increases in traffic noise levels occur along Coldstream Road from Donner Pass Road to Deerfield Drive and from Deerfield Drive to the project site access. The increases in traffic noise levels are 4 dBA and 11 dBA, respectively. Î¿·´®±¿¼ Ñ°»®¿¬·±² Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ ß»³»²¬ Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ As a means of assessing the UPRR operations impacts on the project site, Brennan utilized the railroad noise measurement information collected on the project site. The information indicates that the railroad operations 60 dBA CNEL contour could extend up to 283 feet from the railroad track centerline. Ñ²óÍ·¬» Î»¬¿·´ñÝ±³³»®½·¿´ Ò±·» Í±«®½» ×³°¿½¬ ß»³»²¬ Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ The types of commercial uses that are expected to be included within the portion of the project site which is designated for mixed-use commercial and retail are expected to range between 5,000 and 8,000 square feet in size and do not include any large-box stores. The most significant noise-producing components of the proposed project, with respect to the potential effects on the proposed on-site residential uses and the adjacent Donner Memorial State Park to the west, are HVAC equipment and on-site truck traffic circulation and associated loading activities. Each of these noise sources was evaluated separately through a combination of noise level measurements and application of accepted noise prediction methodologies. Û¨¬»®·±® Ò±·» Ù»²»®¿¬»¼ ¾§ Ø»¿¬·²¹ô Ê»²¬·´¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ß·® Ø¿²¼´·²¹ Û¯«·°³»²¬ Most stores include rooftop packaged conditioning units and evaporative condensers and refrigeration coolers (cooling towers). The proposed center is expected to include packaged air conditioning and heating units for each of the stores. Brennan conducted noise level measurements of individual pieces of HVAC equipment at the Rock Creek Plaza in Auburn, California. The types of HVAC equipment included packaged air conditioning units, ventilation fans, and power ventilators. The results of the analysis indicated that typical rooftop mechanical equipment produces constant noise levels of approximately 50 dB to 55 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóïç ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Ð®»¼·½¬»¼ Û¨¬»®·±® Ò±·» Ô»ª»´ Ü«» ¬± Ñ²óÍ·¬» Ì®«½µ Ì®¿ºº·½ ¿²¼ Ô±¿¼·²¹ Ü±½µ ß½¬·ª·¬·» While all of the uses located within the commercial development would potentially generate on-site truck traffic, the greatest potential for that truck traffic to create excessive noise would occur along truck access and delivery routes. These routes generally occur along the back sides of commercial developments, although many small truck deliveries such as UPS deliveries can occur at the front facades. As described earlier, the typical tenants are expected to be small to medium-size commercial uses that have some loading dock facilities at the rear of the building, although it is expected that many of the daily truck deliveries would occur at the fronts of the buildings. Since it is not possible to determine the typical daily or peak hour number of trucks which may provide deliveries at this time, the typical truck activity for the center can be based on observations of other commercial uses. It is expected that peak hour activity would occur in the mornings and would consist of up to two tractor-trailer truck deliveries and up to four step-size vans per peak hour. Based on file data for these types of heavy truck passages and unloading activity noise level data, the sound exposure level (SEL) at a reference distance of 50 feet from a loading dock and 30 feet from the truck circulation route is approximately 85 dB, with a maximum noise level of 80 dB. Typical medium truck arrivals and departures and unloading are approximately 78 dB SEL and 73 dB L max at 50 feet. Based on the data described above, the following formula can be utilized to determine the hourly noise level due to the truck traffic pass-bys and loading dock activities: = 85 + 10 * (log N) - 35.6, dB where: L eqeq 85 is the mean sound exposure level (SEL) for a heavy truck arrival and departure (84 for medium trucks), and 10 * (log N) is 10 times the logarithm of the number of truck eq arrivals and departures during an hour, and 35.6 is 10 times the logarithm of the number seconds in an hour generated during the peak hour of truck activity with Based on the above formula, the hourly L eq two heavy truck arrivals/departures and unloading and four medium truck arrivals/departures and unloading would be approximately 56dB L and 80 dB L at a distance of 50 feet. eqmax Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ ß»³»²¬ Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ During the construction phases of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 4.3-13, ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóîð ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Ììòíóïí ßÞÔÛ ÝÛÒ ÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÏË×ÐÓÛÒÌ Ñ×ÍÛ Ì§°» ±º Û¯«·°³»²¬ Ó¿¨·³«³ Ô»ª»´ô ¼Þ ¿¬ ëð º»»¬ Þ¿½µ¸±» éè Ý±³°¿½¬±® èí Ý±³°®»±® ø¿·®÷ éè Ý±²½®»¬» Í¿© çð Ü±¦»® èî Ü«³° Ì®«½µ éê Û¨½¿ª¿¬±® èï Ù»²»®¿¬±® èï Ö¿½µ¸¿³³»® èç Ð²»«³¿¬·½ Ì±±´ èë Í±«®½»æ ÚØÉßô îððê Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase as a result of increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² Ê·¾®¿¬·±² ×³°¿½¬ Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can be either cosmetic or structural. Table 4.3-14 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment. Ììòíóïì ßÞÔÛ ÊÔÊÝÛ ×ÞÎßÌ×ÑÒ ÛÊÛÔÍ ÚÑÎ ßÎÇ×ÒÙ ÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÏË×ÐÓÛÒÌ ß°°®±¨·³¿¬» Ê»´±½·¬§ Ô»ª»´ øÊ¼Þ÷ Ì§°» ±º Û¯«·°³»²¬ Ð»¿µ Ð¿®¬·½´» Ê»´±½·¬§ à îë Ú»»¬ à îë Ú»»¬ Ô¿®¹» Þ«´´¼±¦»® ðòðèç ø·²½¸»ñ»½±²¼÷ èé øÊ¼Þ÷ Ô±¿¼»¼ Ì®«½µ ðòðéê ø·²½¸»ñ»½±²¼÷ èê øÊ¼Þ÷ Í³¿´´ Þ«´´¼±¦»® ðòððí ø·²½¸»ñ»½±²¼÷ ëè øÊ¼Þ÷ ß«¹»®ñÜ®·´´ Î·¹ ðòðèç ø·²½¸»ñ»½±²¼÷ èé øÊ¼Þ÷ Ö¿½µ¸¿³³»® ðòðíë ø·²½¸»ñ»½±²¼÷ éç øÊ¼Þ÷ Ê·¾®¿¬±®§ Ø¿³³»® ðòðéð ø·²½¸»ñ»½±²¼÷ èë øÊ¼Þ÷ Ê·¾®¿¬±®§ Ý±³°¿½¬±®ñÎ±´´»® ðòîïð ø·²½¸»ñ»½±²¼÷ çì øÊ¼Þ÷ Í±«®½»æ ÚÌßô îððê Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóîï ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.3.1 The operation of heavy equipment associated withconstruction of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would generate noise on the project site which could affect existing residents along Deerfield Drive. This impact is considered potentially significant. Activities associated with construction would result in elevated noise levels within the immediate vicinity of the project site, including some construction noise associated with the construction of possible off-site Class I trails along Donner Pass Road and portions of Deerfield Drive and a potential sidewalk along the south side of Deerfield Drive under Option 1. Activities involved in construction would typically generate maximum noise levels ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities could result in periods of elevated noise levels at existing residences located along Deerfield Drive as well as to campers at Donner Memorial State Park. Though construction would occur for a limited period of time and would result in temporary intermittent increases in noise, anticipated noise levels would exceed standards for residential uses. Since existing residents along Deerfield Drive as well as campers at Donner Memorial State Park could be exposed to construction noise in excess of standards, construction noise impacts are considered potentially significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.3.1a Construction activities shall adhere to the requirements of the Town of Truckee with respect to hours of operation, muffling of internal combustion engines, and other factors which affect construction noise generation and its impacts on noise-sensitive land uses as follows: Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise-generating equipment where appropriate technology exists. The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The project applicant shall also post a telephone number for excessive noise complaints in conspicuous locations in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project applicant shall send a notice to neighbors in the project vicinity with information on the construction schedule and the telephone number for noise complaints. Timing/Implementation: During construction for all phases of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóîî ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division MM 4.3.1b Construction activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays and holidays. Timing/Implementation: During construction for all phases of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3.1a and MM 4.3.1b would reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² Ê·¾®¿¬·±² ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.3.2 Vibration may occur on the project site during construction activities and may be felt in the immediate vicinity. Structures on adjacent properties would not be damaged. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Temporarily vibration may occur on the project site during construction. The presence of heavy equipment on the site and techniques used for soil compaction during site preparation could cause vibration on the site and may be detectible at distances within 50 feet. While vibrations may be felt, the vibration levels anticipated in association with construction are not expected to result in any type of structural damage to existing buildings in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, construction vibration impacts are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Û¨¬»®·±® Ì®¿ºº·½ Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» º±® ß´´ Ñ°¬·±² Impact 4.3.3 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would expose proposed residential uses on the project site to noise levels in excess of Town of Truckee noise standards. This impact is considered potentially significant. The main source of traffic noise near the project site is I-80 to the north. Based on the analysis shown in Table 4.3-3, the predicted future I-80 traffic noise levels could exceed acceptable levels for the proposed Forest Residential uses on the northern portion of the project site. Although the General Plan depicts the project site as being located with the 70 dBA contour, predicted noise levels, which account for intervening buildings and topography, are approximately 63 dBA to 64 dBA CNEL at a distance of 550 feet from the centerline of I-80. These noise levels would exceed Town standards for residential uses at this site. All other residential uses comply with Town standards for traffic noise levels. Therefore, exterior noise impacts on Forest Residential uses are considered potentially significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.3.3 A noise berm with a minimum height of 6 feet to 7 feet shall be constructed along the north lot lines of the Forest Residential portion of the site. The berm shall be landscaped in accordance with the Town’s landscaping standards. Final Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóîí ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ review and approval of the landscaped berm shall occur when a tentative map for the Forest Residential area of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan has been completed and will be incorporated into the design of the Coldstream Specific Plan Interstate 80 Buffer in order to blend with the adjacent environment. Timing/Implementation: Upon completion of tentative map for the Forest Residential area of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan/as a condition of approval Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3.3 would reduce noise impacts from I-80 to proposed residences on the project site to a less than significant level. ×²¬»®·±® Ì®¿ºº·½ Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ ±² ¬¸» Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» º±® ß´´ Ñ°¬·±² Impact 4.3.4 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in interior traffic noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL for all options. However, interior noise levels could exceed 45 dBA CNEL if doors and windows on residential uses are open. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. In addition to traffic from I-80, uses on the project site would also be exposed to noise generated by internal traffic on the project site. Typical construction practices, including building materials, dual-pane windows, and building orientation, will result in an exterior-to-interior reduction in traffic noise levels of 20 dB to 25 dB. Predicted traffic noise levels at proposed residential uses are not expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, interior noise levels are anticipated to comply with the 45 dBA CNEL standard, provided that windows and doors are in the closed position. However, if residents wish to leave windows and doors open, the interior noise levels may exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, this may be a potentially significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.3.4 Residential uses designated as Village Mixed Use Commercial and Forest Residential shall be designed to orient noise-sensitive sleeping areas and living areas away from I-80 to allow residents to open windows and achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. AND An acoustical analysis shall be provided to determine if interior noise levels can comply with an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL with the windows and/or doors in the open position. The acoustical analysis shall include recommendations for reducing any interior noise above 45 dbA. These recommendations shall be implemented. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of any building permits for Village Mixed Use Commercial and Forest Residential uses Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóîì ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3.4 would reduce interior noise levels for residential uses on the project site to a less than significant level. Ì®¿ºº·½ Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ ¿¬ Û¨·¬·²¹ Î»·¼»²½» Ü«» ¬± ×²½®»¿»¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ º®±³ ¬¸» Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» º±® Ñ°¬·±² ï Impact 4.3.5 Construction of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan associated with Option 1 with open access to Deerfield Drive would result in increased noise levels at existing residences along Deerfield Drive. This impact is considered potentially significant. Option 1 includes the Deerfield connector as a part of the project. Based on Table 4.3-9, a 10 dBA increase in the CNEL would occur along Coldstream Road from Deerfield Drive to the project site access, and 6 dBA CNEL increase would occur along Deerfield Drive from 1,000 feet west of SR 89 to the end of the pavement. No noise-sensitive uses are located along Coldstream Road. In addition, the traffic noise levels at a distance of 75 feet from the roadway centerline do not exceed the Town of Truckee 60 dBA CNEL noise level standard. Currently, there are existing residences located in close proximity to Deerfield Drive from 1,000 feet west of SR 89 to the existing roadway terminus. The increase in Deerfield Drive traffic noise levels is 6 dBA CNEL. Currently, residents along Deerfield Drive are exposed to traffic noise levels of approximately 61 dBA to 62 dBA CNEL due to I-80 traffic. The 6 dBA CNEL increase in traffic noise levels from Deerfield Drive is considered to be substantial and results in a potentially significant impact. One can expect a minimum of a 20 dBA exterior to interior traffic noise level reduction at the residences along Deerfield Drive with the windows in the closed position. This would result in interior traffic noise levels of approximately 40 dBA CNEL at residences along Deerfield Drive between SR 89 and approximately 1,000 feet west of SR 89. The interior traffic noise level would be approximately 34 dBA CNEL at residences along Deerfield Drive at a point 1,000 feet west of SR 89 to the end of the pavement. One can expect a minimum of a 10 to 12 dBA exterior to interior traffic noise level reduction at the residences along Deerfield Drive with the windows in the open position. This would result in interior traffic noise levels of approximately 50 dBA CNEL at residences along Deerfield Drive between SR 89 and approximately 1,000 feet west of SR 89. The interior traffic noise level would be approximately 44 dBA CNEL at residences along Deerfield Drive at a point 1,000 feet west of SR 89 to the end of the pavement. Although some residences along Deerfield Drive are currently exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of the Town’s generally accepted exterior noise level standard of 60 dBA CNEL, the traffic noise levels are dominated by and primarily due to I-80 traffic. The project is not expected to result in an increase in traffic noise along I-80. The project will not result in an exceedance of the traffic noise level standards along Deerfield Drive. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.3.5 Deerfield Drive shall be resurfaced with rubberized or open-gap asphalt to reduce overall traffic noise levels by approximately 4 dBA. Timing/Implementation: Prior to project occupancy of Phase I/as a condition of approval Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóîë ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3.5 would reduce traffic noise impacts to residents along Deerfield Drive associated with Option 1. Furthermore, implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3.3 and MM 4.3.4 would reduce traffic noise from I-80 through the construction of a landscaped berm and implementation of noise-reducing design features at the time of final design of future residential uses. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that the impact would be less than significant. Ì®¿ºº·½ Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ ¿¬ Û¨·¬·²¹ Î»·¼»²½» Ü«» ¬± ×²½®»¿»¼ Ì®¿ºº·½ º®±³ ¬¸» Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» º±® Ñ°¬·±² îô íô ì Impact 4.3.6 Construction of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan associated with Options 2, 3, or 4 would result in increased traffic volumes along Coldstream Road and Deerfield Drive. However, noise volumes associated with the traffic increases would not exceed the Town’s noise standard. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Options 2, 3, and 4 do not include the Deerfield connector as a part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. As a result, traffic would increase along portions of Coldstream Road and the existing segment of Deerfield Drive to the project site access. Based on Table 4.3-10, the significant increases in traffic noise levels occur along Coldstream Road from Donner Pass Road to Deerfield Drive (4 dBA ) and from Deerfield Drive to the project site access (11 dBA). No noise- sensitive uses are located along Coldstream Road, and the traffic noise levels at a distance of 75 feet from the centerline of Coldstream Road do not exceed the Town of Truckee 60 dBA CNEL noise level standard. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Û¨¬»®·±® Î¿·´®±¿¼ Ò±·» ×³°¿½¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» º±® ß´´ Ñ°¬·±² Impact 4.3.7 Noise measurements for railroad noise were found to be below 60 dBA CNEL. Therefore, impacts of railroad noise on development on the project site are considered less than significant. The UPRR has an existing track approximately 200 feet south of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s southern property line. Based on the analysis of railroad noise, the predicted UPRR train noise levels will not exceed the Town of Truckee noise level criteria at the nearest proposed Lakeside Residential uses, which are approximately 200 feet from the southern property line of the project site and approximately 400 feet from the UPRR track. As shown in Table 4.3-5, the predicted noise levels from the railroad ranged from 55.4 dBA CNEL to 57.8 dBA CNEL. All measured noise levels are less than the 60 dBA CNEL threshold. Therefore, exterior railroad noise impacts to uses proposed on the project site are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ñ²óÍ·¬» Î»¬¿·´ñÝ±³³»®½·¿´ Ò±·» Í±«®½» ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.3.8 On-site truck traffic, loading activities, and mechanical heating and cooling equipment could exceed the Town of Truckee Development Code hourly Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóîê ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ noise level criteria at the residences proposed on the project site and at Donner Memorial State Park. This is a potentially significant impact. The Village Mixed-Use Commercial component of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan located east of Coldstream Road on the western portion of the project site would involve truck deliveries to retail and commercial uses proposed for this portion of the proposed project. The peak hour of truck activity with two heavy truck arrivals/departures and unloading and four medium truck arrivals/departures and unloading would be approximately 56 dB L and 80 dB 50 at a distance of 50 feet. Typical rooftop mechanical equipment produces constant noise L max levels of approximately 50 dB to 55 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Based on the proximity of the Village Mixed-Use Commercial to adjacent Village Green Residential and Village Green Residential Small Lot uses, noise from trucks and rooftop mechanical equipment could present potential noise impacts to these residential uses as well as at Donner Memorial State Park. This impact is considered potentially significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.3.8a Loading docks and truck circulation routes shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from the residential uses and the boundaries of Donner Memorial State Park. If these activities are located closer than 100 feet when tentative maps are prepared, a qualified acoustical consultant shall determine appropriate mitigation measures, including barrier heights and configurations, enclosed loading docks, and depressed circulation routes and loading docks. Timing/Implementation: Included as a condition of tentative map approval for Phase I Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division MM 4.3.8b Loading dock activities shall not occur between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of tentative map approval for Phase I/ongoing during project operation Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division MM 4.3.8c Mechanical ventilation equipment shall be located at ground level and shielded by the building facades from the adjacent on-site residences and Donner Memorial State Park. If mechanical equipment is located on the rooftops, it shall be shielded by parapets or barriers so as not to exceed 45 dBA at the adjacent on-site residences or Donner Memorial State Park. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of improvement plan approval for Phase I Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3.8a, MM 4.3.8b, and MM 4.3.8c would reduce on- site retail/commercial noise impacts to a less than significant level. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóîé ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ ìòçòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The geographic extent of the cumulative setting for noise includes neighboring parcels, which includes Donner Memorial State Park to the west, commercial uses to the north, and single- family residences to the east, as well as roadways affected by the proposed development, including portions of Donner Pass Road, Coldstream Road, Deerfield Drive, and Interstate 80. Cumulative development conditions to which the proposed project would contribute would primarily result from increased vehicular traffic on area roadways, as well as from noise sources associated with the commercial portion of the project site. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×²½®»¿» ·² ß³¾·»²¬ Ò±·» Ô»ª»´ Impact 4.3.9 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, could result in significant traffic noise exposure for existing residents along Deerfield Drive east of the project site under Option 1 roadway design as well as expose future project residents to excessive noise levels under cumulative conditions. This would be a cumulatively considerable impact. The proposed project’s contribution to future cumulative noise levels would be primarily associated with potential increases in vehicle traffic noise along area roadways and stationary noise sources associated with the commercial component of the project. Area roadways primarily affected by the proposed project include portions of Donner Pass Road, Coldstream Road, and Deerfield Drive. While the proposed project may include off-site pedestrian/bicycle improvements to Donner Pass Road and Deerfield Drive, these improvements by their nature as pedestrian/bicycle facilities will generate little additional noise after construction is complete. Predicted future cumulative traffic noise levels with and without implementation of the proposed project are summarized in Tables 4.3-11 (Option 1) and Table 4.3-12 (Options 2, 3, and 4). As depicted, implementation of the proposed project alternatives would result in projected increases of less than 4 dBA along these primarily affected roadway segments, with the exception of Coldstream Road from Deerfield Drive to the project entrance, which would experience increases up to 11 dBA in exterior traffic noise due solely to traffic on Coldstream Road (Table 4.3-12). The one exception would occur in association with Option 1, which includes the Deerfield Drive connection. Coldstream Road from Deerfield Drive to the project entrance is currently a short “stub road” that serves the proposed residential development at the project site. With implementation of the proposed project, the increase in traffic noise along this roadway segment will not affect any existing noise-sensitive receivers, and the background exterior noise levels will continue to be dominated by traffic along I-80. As noted in the discussions for Impacts 4.3.5 and 4.3.6, the traffic noise generated on this roadway segment would not exceed any applicable Town of Truckee exterior noise level standards. Option 1 includes the Deerfield connector as a part of the project. Based on Tables 4.3-9 and 4.3-10, the significant increases in traffic noise levels occur along Deerfield Drive from 1,000 feet west of SR 89 to the end of the pavement where the modeled increase in Deerfield Drive exterior traffic noise levels is 6 dBA CNEL. The overall measured noise levels, shown in Table 4.3-2 for Site B, along this segment of Deerfield Drive are already between 61 dB CNEL and 62 dB CNEL due to I-80 traffic, as compared to the predicted Deerfield Drive Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóîè ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ noise levels of 54 dB CNEL with implementation of Option 1. Therefore, although the increase in traffic volumes along Deerfield Drive would result in changes to the Deerfield Drive exterior traffic noise levels, traffic along I-80 would continue to be the dominant noise source in this area. No noise-sensitive uses are located along Coldstream Road. In addition, the traffic noise levels at a distance of 75 feet from the roadway centerline do not exceed the Town of Truckee 60 dBA CNEL noise level standard as shown in Table 4.3-4. Currently, there are existing residences located in close proximity to Deerfield Drive from 1,000 feet west of SR 89 to the existing roadway terminus. For Option 1, which includes the Deerfield Drive connection, the increase in Deerfield Drive traffic noise levels is 6 dBA CNEL. Noise levels associated with the commercial portion of the project site would add to the future background noise environment. The potential for this impact is specific to Donner Memorial State Park located to the east of the project site. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3.3, MM 4.3.5 (Option 1 only), and MM 4.3.8a through MM 4.3.8c would mitigate project contributions and cumulative noise impact exposure to less than cumulatively considerable. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòíóîç ìòíÒ Ñ×ÍÛ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. 2007. Environmental Noise Assessment, Coldstream (PC-1) Property, Town of Truckee, California. Prepared for Teichert, Inc. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1985. Environmental Program Office of Environmental Engineering. California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELS). ———. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108 FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108. ———. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s FHWA-HEP-05-054. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. j.c. brennan & associates, inc. (Brennan) 2009. Environment Noise Assessment Coldstream (PC-1) EIR. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2009. PC-1 Coldstream Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. Town of Truckee. 2009. Title 18 – Development Code, Chapter 18.44 – Noise, Amended March 6, 2009. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòíóíð ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) includes a summary of applicable regulations, a description of existing air quality conditions, and an analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Mitigation measures are recommended, as necessary, to reduce significant air quality impacts. All technical analyses related to this section are contained in Appendix E. The analysis in this section was prepared by Ambient Air Quality & Noise Consulting. ìòìòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÝôÓôßÐÐ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ÛÌÛÑÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ×Î ÑÔÔËÌ×ÑÒ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔ The project site is located in the Town of Truckee, which is located in the eastern portion of Nevada County and in the Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB). The MCAB consists of nine counties or portions of counties stretching from Plumas County on the north to Mariposa County on the south. The Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) is the local agency for air quality planning with authority over air pollutant sources. Nevada County exhibits large variations in terrain and consequently exhibits large variations in climate, both of which affect air quality. The western portions of the county slope relatively gradually with deep river canyons running from southwest to northeast toward the crest of the Sierra Nevada range. East of the divide, the slope of the Sierra is steeper, but river canyons are relatively shallow. The warmest areas in Nevada County are found at the lower elevations along the west side of the county, while the coldest average temperatures are found at the highest elevations (NSAQMD, 2005). Based on historical data (1948 to 2006) obtained from the Truckee Ranger Station, average temperatures in the area of the proposed project range from a January low of approximately 14.9 degrees Fahrenheit to a July high of approximately 82.1 degrees Fahrenheit (WRCC, 2009). The prevailing wind direction over the county is westerly. However, the terrain of the area has a great influence on local winds, so that wide variability in wind direction can be expected. Afternoon winds are generally channeled up-canyon, while nighttime winds generally flow down-canyon. Winds are, in general, stronger in spring and summer and lower in fall and winter. Periods of calm winds and clear skies in fall and winter often result in strong, ground-based inversions forming in mountain valleys. These layers of very stable air restrict the dispersal of pollutants, trapping these pollutants near the ground, representing the worst conditions for local air pollution occurring in the county (NSAQMD, 2005). Regional airflow patterns have an effect on air quality patterns by directing pollutants downwind of sources. Localized meteorological conditions, such as light winds and shallow vertical mixing, as well as topographical features, such as surrounding mountain ranges, create areas of high pollutant concentrations by hindering dispersal. An inversion layer is produced when a layer of warm air traps cooler air close to the ground. Such temperature inversions hamper dispersion by stratifying contaminated air near the ground. ÛßÏ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ý®·¬»®·¿ ß·® Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ ß³¾·»²¬ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Pollutants subject to federal and state ambient standards are referred to as “criteria” pollutants because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) publishes criteria documents to justify Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóï ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ the choice of standards. These standards define the maximum amount of an air pollutant that can be present in ambient air without harming the public’s health. An ambient air quality standard is generally specified as a concentration averaged over a specific time period, such as 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours, or one year. The different averaging times and concentrations are meant to protect against different exposure effects. USEPA has established two types of ambient standards: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects. The State of California has also adopted ambient air quality standards. Table 4.4-1 summarizes federal and state ambient air quality standards. ìòìóï Ì ßÞÔÛ ÍßßÏÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÓÞ×ÛÒÌ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ ßª»®¿¹·²¹ Ì·³» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ ïî Ð®·³¿®§ Í»½±²¼¿®§ ÖÏÉÌÎÎÑÔ Ñ¦±²» øÑ÷ í èó¸±«® ðòðéð °°³ ðòðéë °°³ í ßßÓ îð k¹ñ³Ô Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® Í¿³» ¿ øÐÓ÷ °®·³¿®§ ïð íí îìó¸±«® ëð k¹ñ³ ïëð k¹ñ³ íí ßßÓ ïî k¹ñ³ ïë k¹ñ³ Ú·²» Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® øÐÓ÷ îòë í îìó¸±«® Ò± Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ íë k¹ñ³ ïó¸±«® îð °°³ íë °°³ Ý¿®¾±² Ó±²±¨·¼» øÝÑ÷ èó¸±«® ç °°³ ç °°³ Ò±²» ÖÏÉÌòÝÓÙêÝÖÏÙÎÎÑÔ ßßÓ ðòðíð °°³ ðòðëí °°³ Ò·¬®±¹»² Ü·±¨·¼» Í¿³» ¿ øÒÑ÷ °®·³¿®§ î ÖÏÉÌ ÎÎÑÔ ýýñÔÎÎÑÔ ÖÏÉÌ ÎÎÑ ÎÎÑÔ Í«´º«® Ü·±¨·¼» øÍÑ÷ î ÖÏÉÌÔÔ ÎÎÑ ÖÏÉÌ ÎÎÑÔÔ í íðó¼¿§ ¿ª»®¿¹» ïòë k¹ñ³ÔÔ Í¿³» ¿ í ûÝÒÙÐÚÝÌÍÉÝÌÊÙÌÔ ¦×Ñ Ô»¿¼ °®·³¿®§ Í¿³» ¿ í ìÏÒÒÕÐ×ÑÏÐÊÖÝÈÙÌÝ×ÙÔ ¦×Ñ °®·³¿®§ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóî ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ ßª»®¿¹·²¹ Ì·³» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ ïî Ð®·³¿®§ Í»½±²¼¿®§ í Í«´º¿¬» îìó¸±«® îë k¹ñ³ Ø§¼®±¹»² Í«´º·¼» ïó¸±«® ðòðí °°³ Ê·²§´ Ý¸´±®·¼» îìó¸±«® ðòðï °°³ Û¨¬·²½¬·±² ½±»ºº·½·»²¬ ±º ðòîí °»® µ·´±³»¬»® Ò± º»¼»®¿´ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ÓÈÕËÕÜÕÒÕÊÅÏØ ÑÕÒÙË ÏÌÑÏÌÙÓ Ê··¾·´·¬§óÎ»¼«½·²¹ èó¸±«® ³·´» ±® ³±®» º±® Ô¿µ» Ð¿®¬·½´» Ó¿¬¬»® Ì¿¸±»÷ ¼«» ¬± °¿®¬·½´» ©¸»² ¬¸» ®»´¿¬·ª» ¸«³·¼·¬§ · ´» ¬¸¿² éðûò Ò±¬»æ ï Ô»ª»´ ²»½»¿®§ ¬± °®±¬»½¬ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿´¬¸ î Ô»ª»´ ²»½»¿®§ ¬± °®±¬»½¬ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ©»´º¿®» º®±³ µ²±©² ±® ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¿¼ª»®» »ºº»½¬ ßßÓ ã ¿²²«¿´ ¿®·¬¸³»¬·½ ³»¿²å k¹ñ³í ã ³·½®±¹®¿³ °»® ½«¾·½ ³»¬»®å °°³ ã °¿®¬ °»® ³·´´·±² Í±«®½»æ ÝßÎÞô îððç¾ Ø»¿´¬¸ Ûºº»½¬ One of the most important reasons for air quality standards is the protection of those members of the population who are most sensitive to the adverse health effects of air pollution, termed sensitive receptors. The term sensitive receptors refers to specific population groups, as well as the land uses where individuals would reside for long periods. Commonly identified sensitive population groups are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. Commonly identified sensitive land uses would include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes or convalescent homes, hospitals, and clinics. Select criteria air pollutants, emission sources, and associated health and welfare effects are summarized in Table 4.4-2. Ììòìóî ßÞÔÛ ÍÍÝßÐÑÝÍÛ ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÛÔÛÝÌ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß ×Î ÑÔÔËÌßÒÌÍ ÑÓÓÑÒ ÑËÎÝÛÍ ßÒÜ ÚÚÛÝÌÍ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ Ó¿¶±® Ó¿²óÓ¿¼» Í±«®½» Ø«³¿² Ø»¿´¬¸ ú É»´º¿®» Ûºº»½¬ Ñ¦±²» øÑ÷ô ¿ ½±´±®´» ±® Ú±®³»¼ ¾§ ¿ ½¸»³·½¿´ ®»¿½¬·±² ¾»¬©»»² ×®®·¬¿¬» ¿²¼ ½¿«» ·²º´¿³³¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ³«½±« í ¾´«·¸ ¹¿ò ª±´¿¬·´» ±®¹¿²·½ ½±³°±«²¼ øÊÑÝ÷ ¿²¼ ³»³¾®¿²» ¿²¼ ´«²¹ ¿·®©¿§å ½¿«» ©¸»»¦·²¹ô ²·¬®±« ±¨·¼» øÒÑ÷ ·² ¬¸» °®»»²½» ±º ½±«¹¸·²¹ ¿²¼ °¿·² ©¸»² ·²¸¿´·²¹ ¼»»°´§å ¨ «²´·¹¸¬ò Ó±¬±® ª»¸·½´» »¨¸¿«¬ô ·²¼«¬®·¿´ ¼»½®»¿» ´«²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§å ¿¹¹®¿ª¿¬» ´«²¹ ¿²¼ »³··±²ô ¹¿±´·²» ¬±®¿¹» ¿²¼ ¬®¿²°±®¬ô ¸»¿®¬ °®±¾´»³ò Ü¿³¿¹» °´¿²¬å ®»¼«½» ½®±° ±´ª»²¬ô °¿·²¬ ¿²¼ ´¿²¼º·´´ò §·»´¼ò Ü¿³¿¹» ®«¾¾»®ô ±³» ¬»¨¬·´» ¿²¼ ¼§»ò Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® øÐÓ÷ô Ð±©»® °´¿²¬ô ¬»»´ ³·´´ô ½¸»³·½¿´ ×²½®»¿»¼ ®»°·®¿¬±®§ §³°¬±³ô «½¸ ¿ ·®®·¬¿¬·±² ¿·®¾±®²» ±´·¼ °¿®¬·½´» ¿²¼ °´¿²¬ô «²°¿ª»¼ ®±¿¼ ¿²¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬ô ±º ¬¸» ¿·®©¿§ô ½±«¹¸·²¹ô ±® ¼·ºº·½«´¬§ ¾®»¿¬¸·²¹å ´·¯«·¼ °¿®¬·½´»ò Ù®±«°»¼ ©±±¼ó¾«®²·²¹ ¬±ª» ¿²¼ º·®»°´¿½»ô ¿¹¹®¿ª¿¬»¼ ¿¬¸³¿å ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ½¸®±²·½ ·²¬± î ½¿¬»¹±®·»æ ÐÓ¿«¬±³±¾·´» ¿²¼ ±¬¸»®ò ¾®±²½¸·¬·å ·®®»¹«´¿® ¸»¿®¬¾»¿¬å ²±²º¿¬¿´ ¸»¿®¬ ïð ¿²¼ ÐÓò ¿¬¬¿½µå ¿²¼ °®»³¿¬«®» ¼»¿¬¸ ·² °»±°´» ©·¬¸ ¸»¿®¬ îòë ±® ´«²¹ ¼·»¿»ò ×³°¿·® ª··¾·´·¬§ ø¸¿¦»÷ò Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóí ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ Ó¿¶±® Ó¿²óÓ¿¼» Í±«®½» Ø«³¿² Ø»¿´¬¸ ú É»´º¿®» Ûºº»½¬ Ý¿®¾±² Ó±²±¨·¼» øÝÑ÷ô Ú±®³»¼ ©¸»² ½¿®¾±² ·² º«»´ · ²±¬ Î»¼«½» ¬¸» ¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¾´±±¼ ¬± ¼»´·ª»® ±¨§¹»² ¬± ¿² ±¼±®´»ô ½±´±®´» ¹¿ò ¾«®²»¼ ½±³°´»¬»´§å ¿ ½±³°±²»²¬ ±º ª·¬¿´ ¬·«»ô »ºº»½¬·²¹ ¬¸» ½¿®¼·±ª¿½«´¿® ¿²¼ ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» »¨¸¿«¬ò ²»®ª±« §¬»³ò ×³°¿·® ª··±²ô ½¿«» ¼·¦¦·²»ô ¿²¼ ½¿² ´»¿¼ ¬± «²½±²½·±«²» ±® ¼»¿¬¸ò Ò·¬®±¹»² Ü·±¨·¼» øÒÑ÷ô ¿ Ú«»´ ½±³¾«¬·±² ·² ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» ¿²¼ Î»°·®¿¬±®§ ·®®·¬¿²¬å ¿¹¹®¿ª¿¬» ´«²¹ ¿²¼ ¸»¿®¬ î ®»¼¼·¸ó¾®±©² ¹¿ò ·²¼«¬®·¿´ ±«®½»ò Ó±¬±® ª»¸·½´»å °®±¾´»³ò Ð®»½«®±® ¬± ±¦±²» ¿²¼ ¿½·¼ ®¿·²ò »´»½¬®·½ «¬·´·¬·»ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ±«®½» ¬¸¿¬ Ý±²¬®·¾«¬» ¬± ¹´±¾¿´ ©¿®³·²¹ô ¿²¼ ²«¬®·»²¬ ¾«®² º«»´ò ±ª»®´±¿¼·²¹ ©¸·½¸ ¼»¬»®·±®¿¬» ©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ò Ý¿«» ¾®±©² ¼·½±´±®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¿¬³±°¸»®»ò Í«´º«® Ü·±¨·¼» øÍÑ÷ô ¿ Ú±®³»¼ ©¸»² º«»´ ½±²¬¿·²·²¹ «´º«®ô Î»°·®¿¬±®§ ·®®·¬¿²¬ò ß¹¹®¿ª¿¬» ´«²¹ ¿²¼ ¸»¿®¬ î ½±´±®´»ô ²±²º´¿³³¿¾´» «½¸ ¿ ½±¿´ ¿²¼ ±·´ô · ¾«®²»¼å ©¸»² °®±¾´»³ò ×² ¬¸» °®»»²½» ±º ³±·¬«®» ¿²¼ ¹¿ò ¹¿±´·²» · »¨¬®¿½¬»¼ º®±³ ±·´å ±® ©¸»² ±¨§¹»²ô «´º«® ¼·±¨·¼» ½±²ª»®¬ ¬± «´º«®·½ ³»¬¿´ · »¨¬®¿½¬»¼ º®±³ ±®»ò Û¨¿³°´» ¿½·¼ ©¸·½¸ ½¿² ¼¿³¿¹» ³¿®¾´»ô ·®±² ¿²¼ ¿®» °»¬®±´»«³ ®»º·²»®·»ô ½»³»²¬ ³¿²«ó¬»»´å ¼¿³¿¹» ½®±° ¿²¼ ²¿¬«®¿´ ª»¹»¬¿¬·±²ò º¿½¬«®·²¹ô ³»¬¿´ °®±½»·²¹ º¿½·´·¬·»ô ×³°¿·® ª··¾·´·¬§ò Ð®»½«®±® ¬± ¿½·¼ ®¿·²ò ´±½±³±¬·ª»ô ´¿®¹» ¸·°ô ¿²¼ º«»´ ½±³ó ¾«¬·±² ·² ¼·»»´ »²¹·²»ò Ô»¿¼ô ¿ ³»¬¿´´·½ »´»³»²¬ò Ó»¬¿´ ®»º·²»®·»ô ³»´¬»®ô ¾¿¬¬»®§ ß²»³·¿ô ¸·¹¸ ¾´±±¼ °®»«®»ô ¾®¿·² ¿²¼ ³¿²«º¿½¬«®»®ô ·®±² ¿²¼ ¬»»´ µ·¼²»§ ¼¿³¿¹»ô ²»«®±´±¹·½¿´ ¼·±®¼»®ô °®±¼«½»®ô «» ±º ´»¿¼»¼ º«»´ ¾§ ®¿½·²¹ ½¿²½»®ô ´±©»®»¼ ×Ïò ßºº»½¬ ¿²·³¿´ô °´¿²¬ô ¿²¼ ¿·®½®¿º¬ ·²¼«¬®·»ò ¿²¼ ¿¯«¿¬·½ »½±§¬»³ò Í±«®½»æ ÝßÎÞô îððç¿å ÝßÐÝÑßô îððç With regard to human health, the air pollutants of primary concern in Nevada County include ozone and PM. The standards for CO, NO, SO, hydrogen sulfide, and lead are either 22 unclassified or are being met in the region. Pollutants of primary concern in Nevada County, ozone and PM, are discussed in more detail below. Ñ¦±²» Ozone (O) is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the urban 3 atmosphere. The creation of ozone is a result of complex chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not released directly into the atmosphere from any sources. The major sources of nitrogen oxides and reactive hydrocarbons, known as ozone precursors, are combustion sources such as factories and automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. The health effects of ozone are eye irritation and damage to lung tissues. Ozone also damages some materials, such as rubber, and may damage plants, crops, and marine life. The ozone problem in the MCAB is further aggravated by the transport of emissions from the metropolitan Sacramento area. Ozone is a seasonal problem, typically occurring during the months from May through October, when there is plenty of sunlight. Within the MCAB, the primary source of ozone precursors is motor vehicles. Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® Particulate matter consists of solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols, and other matter, which are small enough to remain suspended in the air for a long period of time. Particulate matter can be divided into several size fractions. Coarse particles (PM) are between 2.5 and 10 microns in 10 diameter, and arise primarily from natural processes, such as wind-blown dust or soil. Fine particles (PM) are less than 2.5 microns in diameter and are produced mostly from combustion, or burning 2.5 activities. A portion of the particulate matter in the air is due to natural sources such as wind-blown dust and pollen, which are associated with the aggravation of respiratory conditions. Man-made Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóì ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ sources include combustion, automobiles, field burning, factories, and road dust. A portion of the particulate matter in the atmosphere is also a result of photochemical processes. The effects of high concentrations on humans include aggravation of chronic disease and heart/lung disease symptoms. Non-health effects include reduced visibility and soiling of surfaces. Primary sources of PM emissions in the MCAB are mostly road traffic, construction, open 10 burning, and wildfires. The amount of particulate matter and PM generated is dependent on 10 the soil type and the soil moisture content. Traffic also generates particulate matter emissions through entrainment of dust and dirt particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. Burning of wood in residential wood stoves and fireplaces and open agricultural burning are other sources of PM. 10 Ó±²·¬±®·²¹ Í¬¿¬·±² Ü¿¬¿ The primary criteria air pollutants of concern in the project area include ozone and particulate matter (PM and PM). Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are typically low, 102.5 though localized concentrations, particularly near congested roadway intersections, are of potential local concern. Ambient air quality on the project site can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. In Nevada County, ambient air quality is currently monitored at stations located in the City of Grass Valley, in the Town of Truckee, and at one seasonal location in Nevada County known as White Cloud Mountain. The closest monitoring site to the project site is the Truckee Fire Station air quality monitoring station, which monitors concentrations at this location, as ambient concentrations of ozone and PM. Monitoring of PM 10 well as other locations in Nevada County, was suspended in 2006. Table 4.4-3 summarizes the last three years of published ambient air quality data obtained from this monitoring station. ìòìóí Ì ßÞÔÛ ÍßßßÏÜ ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÒÒËßÔ ÓÞ×ÛÒÌ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ ßÌß ß³¾·»²¬ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ü¿¬¿ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ îððê îððé îððè Ñ¦±²» øÑ÷ í Ó¿¨·³«³ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² øïó¸®ñèó¸® ¿ª¹ °°³÷ ðòðçîñðòðéç ðòðèïñðòðéì ðòðééñðòðêè Ò«³¾»® ±º ¼¿§ ïó¸® ¬¿¬»ñ²¿¬·±²¿´ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ »¨½»»¼»¼ ð ð ð Ò«³¾»® ±º ¼¿§ ²¿¬·±²¿´ èó¸® ¬¿²¼¿®¼ »¨½»»¼»¼ éñì ðñð ðñð Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® øÐÓ÷ ïð í Ó¿¨·³«³ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² øk¹ñ³÷ ïêé Òß Òß Ò«³¾»® ±º ¼¿§ ²¿¬·±²¿´ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ »¨½»»¼»¼ ø³»¿«®»¼÷ ï ð Òß Ú·²» Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® øÐÓ÷ îòë í Ó¿¨·³«³ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² øk¹ñ³÷ îèòð íîòè ïîéòí Ò«³¾»® ±º ¼¿§ ²¿¬·±²¿´ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ »¨½»»¼»¼ ø³»¿«®»¼÷ ð ð ë Ò±¬»æ ß³¾·»²¬ ±¦±²» ¿²¼ ÐÓ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² ©»®» ±¾¬¿·²»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» Ì®«½µ»»óÚ·®» Í¬¿¬·±² ³±²·¬±®·²¹ ¬¿¬·±²ò Ó»¿«®»¼ ¼¿§ ¿®» ¬¸±» ¼¿§ ¬¸¿¬ ¿² ¿½¬«¿´ ³»¿«®»³»²¬ ©¿ ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² ¬¸» ´»ª»´ ±º ¬¸» ¬¿¬» ¼¿·´§ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ±® ¬¸» ²¿¬·±²¿´ ¼¿·´§ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ò Ó»¿«®»³»²¬ ¿®» ¬§°·½¿´´§ ½±´´»½¬»¼ »ª»®§ ê ¼¿§ò Ì¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ¼¿§ ¿¾±ª» ¬¸» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ · ²±¬ ²»½»¿®·´§ ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ª·±´¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® ¬¸» §»¿®ò Òß ã ·²«ºº·½·»²¬ ¼¿¬¿ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º®±³ ÝßÎÞò Í±«®½»æ ÝßÎÞô îððç¾ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóë ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ñ¦±²» As depicted in Table 4.4-3, applicable 8-hour ambient air quality standards for ozone have been exceeded at the Truckee monitoring station during the last three years of available data. Ozone concentrations in Truckee are projected to increase slightly in future years as continued growth contributes to the local precursor levels. Wildfire smoke incursions, as well as transported pollutants from the Sacramento area or Reno, Nevada, also contribute to increased ozone concentrations. Potential violations of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards for ozone would be anticipated to continue to occur in future years. Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® The NSAQMD currently has only one monitor sampling particulate matter pollution in the Truckee air basin, located at the downtown fire station, which samples PM. There are no monitors 2.5 sampling PM air quality in Truckee. All PM monitors in the Truckee air basin were removed or 1010 converted to PM monitors in January 2007. It should be noted that a number of wildfires in 2007 2.5 and 2008 that plagued California contributed to the higher annual concentrations in 2007 and 2008. Nonetheless, based on data obtained from the NSAQMD, Truckee air quality has historically been considered “poor” but has generally improved since 2000. Concentrations of airborne particulate generally increase during the winter months. Considering projected population increases coupled with increasing local mitigation efforts, NSAQMD expects to see continued poor air quality in future years (NSAQMD, 2009). ß³¾·»²¬ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ ß¬¬¿·²³»²¬ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² Both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and USEPA use the above type of monitoring data to designate areas according to attainment status for criteria air pollutants established by the agencies. The purpose of these designations is to identify those areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvements. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting ambient air quality standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of the nonattainment designation, called nonattainment-transitional. The nonattainment-transitional designation is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The eastern portion of Nevada County, within which the proposed project is located, is currently designated nonattainment for state ozone and PM ambient air quality standards. Although the 10 western portion of Nevada County is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, the eastern portion of the county, including the Town of Truckee, remains in attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. Nevada County is designated attainment or unclassified for the remaining state and federal ambient air quality standards. Ì±¨·½ ß·® Ý±²¬¿³·²¿²¬ Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are not considered criteria pollutants in that TACs are not addressed through the setting of federal or state ambient air quality standards. Instead, USEPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with NSAQMD rules, they establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national levels, USEPA has established National Emission Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs), as required by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóê ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ At the state level, CARB has authority for the regulation of emissions from motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products. In 1998, CARB added diesel-exhaust particulate matter (DPM) to the list of TACs. DPM is the primary TACs of concern for mobile sources. Of all controlled TACs, emissions of DPM are estimated to be responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient TAC risk. CARB has made the reduction of the public’s exposure to DPM one of its highest priorities, with an aggressive plan to require cleaner diesel fuel and cleaner diesel engines and vehicles. Local air districts have authority over stationary or industrial sources. All projects that require air quality permits from NSAQMD are evaluated for TAC emissions. NSAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. NSAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources, based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. NSAQMD also requires a comprehensive health risk assessment for facilities that are classified in the significant-risk category, pursuant to AB 2588. Ô¿²¼ Ë» Ý±³°¿¬·¾·´·¬§ ©·¬¸ ÌßÝ Û³··±² Í±«®½» The location of a development project is a major factor in determining whether it will result in localized air quality impacts. The potential for adverse air quality impacts increases as the distance between the source of emissions and members of the public decreases. While impacts on all members of the population should be considered, impacts on sensitive receptors are of particular concern. Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, residential dwellings, and convalescent-care facilities are examples of sensitive receptors (CARB, 2005). In 2005, CARB released an informational guide entitled “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.” The purpose of this guide is to provide information to aid local jurisdictions in addressing issues and concerns related to the siting of sensitive land uses near major sources of air pollution. The handbook includes recommended separation distances for various land uses, which are summarized in Table 4.4-4. These recommendations were based on analyses that suggested that health risks associated with mobile sources, particularly DPM, increased within 300 feet of a major freeway, and that a 70 percent reduction in ambient particulate levels occurs at 500 feet from the source (CARB, 2005). Within urbanized areas, the CARB handbook currently recommends thatnew sensitive land uses not be located within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roadways with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. However, these recommendations are not site-specific and should not be interpreted as defined “buffer zones.” The recommendations of the handbook are advisory and need to be balanced with other state and local policies (CARB, 2005). The nearest major roadway in relation to the project site is Interstate 80 (I-80), which is located north of the project site. Based on estimates obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the adjacent segments of Interstate 80 currently average approximately 31,000 vehicles per day (Caltrans, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóé ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ììòìóì ßÞÔÛ ÎÍÒÍÔË ÛÝÑÓÓÛÒÜßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÒ ×Ì×ÒÙ ÛÉ ÛÒÍ×Ì×ÊÛ ßÒÜ ÍÛÍ ÒßÐÍ ÛßÎ ×Î ÑÔÔËÌßÒÌ ÑËÎÝÛÍ Í±«®½» Ý¿¬»¹±®§ ß¼ª·±®§ Î»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² Ú®»»©¿§ ¿²¼ Ø·¹¸óßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ©·¬¸·² ëðð º»»¬ ±º ¿ º®»»©¿§ô «®¾¿² ®±¿¼ ©·¬¸ ïððôððð Ì®¿ºº·½ Î±¿¼ ª»¸·½´» °»® ¼¿§ô ±® ®«®¿´ ®±¿¼ ©·¬¸ ëðôððð ª»¸·½´» °»® ¼¿§ò ßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ©·¬¸·² ïôððð º»»¬ ±º ¿ ¼·¬®·¾«¬·±² ½»²¬»® ø¬¸¿¬ ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬» ³±®» ¬¸¿² ïðð ¬®«½µ °»® ¼¿§ô ³±®» ¬¸¿² ìð ¬®«½µ ©·¬¸ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ¬®¿²°±®¬ ®»º®·¹»®¿¬·±² «²·¬ øÌÎË÷ °»® ¼¿§ô ±® ©¸»®» ÌÎË «²·¬ ±°»®¿¬·±² »¨½»»¼ íðð ¸±«® °»® ©»»µ÷ò Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² Ý»²¬»® Ì¿µ» ·²¬± ¿½½±«²¬ ¬¸» ½±²º·¹«®¿¬·±² ±º »¨·¬·²¹ ¼·¬®·¾«¬·±² ½»²¬»® ¿²¼ ¿ª±·¼ ´±½¿¬·²¹ ®»·¼»²½» ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ²»¿® »²¬®§ ¿²¼ »¨·¬ °±·²¬ò ßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ©·¬¸·² ïôððð º»»¬ ±º ¿ ³¿¶±® »®ª·½» ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ®¿·´ §¿®¼ò Î¿·´ Ç¿®¼ É·¬¸·² ±²» ³·´» ±º ¿ ®¿·´ §¿®¼ô ½±²·¼»® °±·¾´» ·¬·²¹ ´·³·¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ¿°°®±¿½¸»ò ßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ±º ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ ¼±©²©·²¼ ±º °±®¬ ·² ¬¸» ³±¬ ¸»¿ª·´§ ·³°¿½¬»¼ Ð±®¬ ¦±²»ò Ý±²«´¬ ´±½¿´ ¿·® ¼·¬®·½¬ ±® ÝßÎÞ ±² ¬¸» ¬¿¬« ±º °»²¼·²¹ ¿²¿´§» ±º ¸»¿´¬¸ ®·µò ßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ ¼±©²©·²¼ ±º °»¬®±´»«³ ®»º·²»®·»ò Ý±²«´¬ ©·¬¸ Î»º·²»®·» ´±½¿´ ¿·® ¼·¬®·½¬ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ´±½¿´ ¿¹»²½·» ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ¿² ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» »°¿®¿¬·±²ò Ý¸®±³» Ð´¿¬»® ßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ©·¬¸·² ïôððð º»»¬ ±º ¿ ½¸®±³» °´¿¬»®ò ßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ©·¬¸·² íðð º»»¬ ±º ¿²§ ¼®§ ½´»¿²·²¹ ±°»®¿¬·±²ò Ú±® ±°»®¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¬©± ±® ³±®» ³¿½¸·²»ô °®±ª·¼» ëðð º»»¬ò Ú±® ±°»®¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ í ±® ³±®» ³¿½¸·²»ô ½±²«´¬ Ü®§ Ý´»¿²»® Ë·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ´±½¿´ ¿·® ¼·¬®·½¬ò Ð»®½¸´±®±»¬¸§´»²» Ü± ²±¬ ·¬» ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ·² ¬¸» ¿³» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ©·¬¸ °»®½¸´±®±»¬¸§´»²» ¼®§ ½´»¿²·²¹ ±°»®¿¬·±²ò ßª±·¼ ·¬·²¹ ²»© »²·¬·ª» ´¿²¼ «» ©·¬¸·² íðð º»»¬ ±º ¿ ´¿®¹» ¹¿ ¬¿¬·±² ø¼»º·²»¼ ¿ ¿ º¿½·´·¬§ Ù¿±´·²» Ü·°»²·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¿ ¬¸®±«¹¸°«¬ ±º íòê ³·´´·±² ¹¿´´±² °»® §»¿® ±® ¹®»¿¬»®÷ò ß ëðóº±±¬ »°¿®¿¬·±² · Ú¿½·´·¬·» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ º±® ¬§°·½¿´ ¹¿ ¼·°»²·²¹ º¿½·´·¬·»ò Ò±¬»æ Î»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ¿®» ¿¼ª·±®§ô ¿®» ²±¬ ·¬»ó°»½·º·½ô ¿²¼ ³¿§ ²±¬ º«´´§ ¿½½±«²¬ º±® º«¬«®» ®»¼«½¬·±² ·² »³··±²ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸±» ®»«´¬·²¹ º®±³ ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ »¨·¬·²¹ñº«¬«®» ®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô «½¸ ¿ ®»¼«½¬·±² ·² ¼·»»´ó»¨¸¿«¬ »³··±² ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬± ÏÛÛÉÌÇÕÊÖÛÏÐÊÕÐÉÙÚÕÑÎÒÙÑÙÐÊÝÊÕÏÐÏØûýìüÑËúÕÙËÙÒìÕËÓìÙÚÉÛÊÕÏÐîÒÝÐ Í±«®½»æ ÝßÎÞô îððë Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ü·»»´óÎ·µ Î»¼«½¬·±² Ð´¿² In September 2000, CARB adopted the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP), which recommends many control measures to reduce the risks associated with diesel particulate matter (DPM) and achieve a goal of 75 percent DPM reduction by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. The DRRP incorporates measures to reduce emissions from diesel-fueled vehicles and stationary diesel- fueled engines. Ongoing efforts by CARB to reduce diesel-exhaust emissions from these sources include the development of specific statewide regulations, which are designed to further reduce DPM emissions. The goal of each regulation is to make diesel engines as clean as possible by establishing state-of-the-art technology requirements or emission standards to reduce DPM emissions. Since the initial adoption of the DRRP in September of 2000, CARB has adopted numerous rules related to the reduction of DPM from mobile sources, as well as the use of cleaner burning fuels. Transportation sources addressed by these rules include public transit buses, school buses, on- road heavy-duty trucks, and off-road heavy-duty equipment. Some of the more notable rules and programs recently adopted by CARB are discussed in more detail below. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóè ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® Ò»© ÑººóÎ±¿¼ Ü·»»´ Û²¹·²» CARB has worked closely with USEPA on developing new PM and NO standards for engines x used in off-road equipment such as backhoes, graders, and farm equipment. USEPA has proposed new standards that would reduce the emission from off-road engines to similar levels to the on-road engines discussed below by 2010 to 2012. These standards will reduce DPM emissions by over 90 percent from new off-road engines currently sold in California. Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® Ò»© Ñ²óÎ±¿¼ Ü·»»´ Û²¹·²» In 2001, CARB adopted new PM and NO emission standards to clean up large diesel engines x that power big-rig trucks, trash trucks, delivery vans, and other large vehicles. The new standard for PM took effect in 2007 and reduces emissions to 0.01 gram of PM per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr.) This is a 90 percent reduction from the pre-2007 PM standard. New engines will meet the 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM standard with the aid of diesel particulate filters that trap the PM before exhaust leaves the vehicle. Ñ¼±® Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors, including wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feedlots/dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. Because offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, no requirements for their control are included in state or federal air quality regulations. Any actions related to odors are based on citizen complaints to local governments and the NSAQMD. No major sources of odors were identified in the project area. ìòìòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Air quality within the project area is regulated by several jurisdictions including USEPA, CARB, NSAQMD, and the Town of Truckee. Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although USEPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent. Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ ËÍÛÐß ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ý´»¿² ß·® ß½¬ At the federal level, USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the CAA in 1977 and again in 1990. The CAA required USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non- health-related adverse effects. The CAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóç ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ determine conformance to the mandates of the CAAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated time frame may result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. Í ÌßÌÛ ÝßÎÞ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ý´»¿² ß·® ß½¬ CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act of 1988. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone, CO, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide by the earliest practical date. Plans for attaining CAAQS were to be submitted to CARB by June 30, 1991. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive three-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements. Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS (which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS), and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year and the type of vehicle, fuel, and engine used. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Û²»®¹§ Ûºº·½·»²½§ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. These standards are codified in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations and are generally referred to as Title 24 Standards. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The most recent update was adopted in 2003 and took effect as of October 1, 2005. California’s building efficiency standards (along with those for energy-efficient appliances) have saved more than $56 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since 1978. Estimates have put savings related to the standards at an additional $23 billion by 2013. By reducing the heating and cooling demands of buildings, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards result in decreased emissions associated with the use of natural-gas-fired appliances and electricity production. ýËËÙÑÜÒÅüÕÒÒË ÝÐÚ ÔýÕÌêÏÆÕÛË In California, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóïð ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures. ëÙÐÝÊÙüÕÒÒ ÔìÙÚÉÛÕÐ×îÝÌÊÕÛÉÒÝÊÙñÝÊÊÙÌÕÐûÝÒÕØÏÌÐÕÝ In 2003, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 656 to reduce public exposure to PM and PM. The 102.5 legislation requires CARB, in consultation with local air pollution control and air quality management districts, to adopt a list of the most readily available, feasible, and cost-effective control measures and PM. The legislation establishes a that could be implemented by air districts to reduce PM 102.5 process for achieving near-term reductions in PM throughout California ahead of federally required , and provides new direction on PM reductions in those areas not subject to deadlines for PM 2.5 federal requirements for particulate matter. Source categories addressed by SB 656 include measures to address residential wood combustion and outdoor green waste burning; fugitive dust sources such as paved and unpaved roads and construction; combustion sources such as boilers, heaters, and charbroiling; solvents and coatings; and product manufacturing. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ò±®¬¸»®² Í·»®®¿ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ Ü·¬®·½¬ The Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for ensuring that federal and state ambient air quality standards are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained. Responsibilities of NSAQMD include, but are not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution and responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the federal CAA and the CCAA. NSAQMD rules and regulations applicable to the proposed project include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following (Ambient, 2009): Rule 205, Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other material from any source which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons, or to the public, or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons, or the public or which cause to have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. Rule 226, Dust Control. This rule requires the submittal of a Dust Control Plan to the NSAQMD for approval prior to any surface disturbance, including clearing of vegetation. Rule 302, Prohibited Open Burning. In accordance with this rule, no person (except as otherwise authorized in Sections 41801–41805.6, 41807–41809, and 41811–41815 of the Health and Safety Code) shall use open outdoor fires for the purpose of disposal, processing, or burning of any flammable or combustible material as defined in Section 39020 of the Health and Safety Code; or unless issued a permit by NSAQMD and in accordance with other applicable NSAQMD Rules and Regulations, including, but not limited to, Rule 308, Land Development Clearing, and Rule 312, Burning Permits. Rule 308, Land Development Clearing. NSAQMD finds it more economically desirable to dispose of wood waste from trees, vines, and bushes on property being developed for commercial or residential purposes by burning instead of burial at a sanitary landfill. In such instances, disposal by burning shall comply with NSAQMD Rules, including but not limited to, Rule 312, Burning Permit Requirements; Rule 313, Burn Days; Rule 314, Minimum Drying Times; Rule 315, Burning Management; and Rule 316, Burn Plan Preparation. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóïï ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Rule 501, Permit Required. Before any source may be operated, a Permit to Operate shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Officer. No Permit to Operate shall be granted either by the Air Pollution Control Officer or the Hearing Board for any source constructed or modified without authorization or not in compliance with other NSAQMD rules and regulations, including those specified in NSAQMD Regulation IV. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town Council adopted the 2025 General Plan on November 16, 2006.The Conservation and Open Space Element of the Town General Plan addresses air quality issues in the Truckee air basin. The Conservation and Open Space Element includes various goals, objectives, and policies that are intended to protect sensitive land uses from exposure to hazardous pollutant concentrations and to promote compliance with regional, state, and federal air quality standards and planning efforts (Town of Truckee, 2006). AppendixB analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ð¿®¬·½«´¿¬» Ó¿¬¬»® ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ Ð´¿² The Truckee Town Council adopted the Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on July 15, 1999, by Council Resolution No. 99-39. The goal of the AQMP is to assist NSAQMD in achieving and maintaining compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards for PM and PM. The AQMP establishes annual emission goals for the Town and, on 102.5 an annual basis, requires the preparation of a report that analyzes local air quality monitoring data for particulate matter and the Town’s compliance with national and state ambient air quality standards. The Town Council annually reviews this report to determine the success of the plan’s control strategies in achieving the attainment goal of the plan, and if necessary takes appropriate steps, including reappraisal of control strategies, to ensure consistency with the plan’s goals and objectives. A key control strategy of the AQMP is to limit emissions from solid- fuel-burning appliances associated with residential development. Larger development projects are also required to fully offset predicted increases in emissions. The AQMP defines larger development projects as consisting of 100 or more single-family residential lots, 200 or more multi- family residential units, 40,000 square feet or more of office, commercial, and/or industrial floor space, or any equivalent combination thereof (Town of Truckee, 1999). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±¼» Title 7 of the Town of Truckee Municipal Code establishes emission limits for wood-burning devices (i.e., stoves and fireplaces). Accordingly, emissions from such devices should not exceed the emission requirements for a USEPA-certified Phase II woodstove. More than one wood-burning device can be installed if the total emissions do not exceed 7.5 grams per hour or an existing device is being replaced. A building permit from the Building & Safety Division must be obtained for the installation of any new wood-burning device. Title 18 of the Town’s Municipal Code includes requirements for preparation of a dust suppression plan for grading projects, restrictions on grading and earthmoving activities during windy periods, application of dust control measures, and restrictions pertaining to open burning and clearing of vegetation. Restrictions on construction equipment idling and required maintenance of construction equipment are also included in the Town’s Municipal Code. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóïî ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ ìòìòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an air quality impact is considered significant if project implementation would result in any of the following: 1)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. 2)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 4)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 5)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. NSAQMD thresholds have also been used to determine air quality impacts in this analysis. To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, NSAQMD has published a guidance document for the preparation of the air quality portions of environmental documents that includes thresholds of significance to be used in evaluating land use proposals. The NSAQMD-recommended thresholds are based on a tiered approach to significance levels, as identified in Table 4.4-5 below. Ììòìóë ßÞÔÛ ÒÍßÏÓÜóÎÍÌ ÛÝÑÓÓÛÒÜÛÜ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ ØÎÛÍØÑÔÜÍ Ð®±¶»½¬óÙ»²»®¿¬»¼ Û³··±² ø´¾ñ¼¿§÷ Í·¹²·º·½¿²½» Ô»ª»´ ÒÑÎÑÙ ÐÓ Èïð Ô»ª»´ ß äîì äîì äéç òÙÈÙÒü Ô Ô Ô Ô»ª»´ Ý âïíé âïíé âïíé Í±«®½»æ ÒÍßÏÓÜô îððé For evaluation of project-related air quality impacts, implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would: Exceed NSAQMD-recommended significance thresholds, as identified in Table 4.4-5. In accordance with NSAQMD-recommended thresholds of significance, project-generated short-term or long-term increases in emissions in excess of Level C thresholds for NO, X reactive organic gases (ROG), or PM would be considered significant. Emissions below 10 the Level C thresholds, but exceeding the Level A thresholds, would be considered potentially significant, subject to mitigation. NSAQMD has not adopted thresholds of significance for PM. However, because PMis a subset of PM, significant increases in 2.52.510 PMwould be considered to also result in significant increases in PM. 102.5 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóïí ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Exceed the NSAQMD health risk public notification thresholds set at 10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk, or a Hazard Index of greater than one (1.0) for non- cancer risk. Contribute to localized concentrations of air pollutants at nearby receptors that would exceed applicable ambient air quality standards. Result in the frequent exposure of sensitive land uses to odorous emissions. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ Í¸±®¬óÌ»®³ ×³°¿½¬ Short-term construction emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4) computer program, as recommended by NSAQMD. The URBEMIS2007 program is designed to model construction emissions for land use development projects and allows for the input of project-specific information. Modeling was based primarily on the default settings contained in the computer program for Nevada County and included emissions from off-highway mobile equipment, travel on unpaved surfaces, soil disturbance, and evaporative emissions from asphalt paving and architectural coating applications, as well as on-highway worker commute trips. Initial site preparation activities during Phase I of project construction include import of 60,000 cubic yards of soil and 104 round trips per day (hauling) with a round-trip distance of 5.2 miles, based on information provided by the project applicant. Modeling was conducted for each of the proposed project phases assuming an overall 12-month construction period for each phase. Modeled construction phases and associated proposed land uses are summarized in Table 4.4-6. Short-term construction emissions impacts are described under Impact 4.4.1. ìòìóê Ì ßÞÔÛ ÐÐÐ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ØßÍ×ÒÙ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ð¸¿» Æ±²» Ô¿²¼ Ë» Ï«¿²¬·¬§ Ý±²¼±óÌ±©²¸±«» çð ÜË äÏÐÙ è÷ìÔñÕÆÙÚìÙËÕÚÙÐÊÕÝÒ ß°¿®¬³»²¬ ìë ÜË × Í·²¹´»óÚ¿³·´§ Ü©»´´·²¹ ìð ÜË äÏÐÙèëòÔëÕÐ×ÒÙøÝÑÕÒÅöÏÑÙË ß°¿®¬³»²¬ îð ÜË Í·²¹´»óÚ¿³·´§ Ü©»´´·²¹ éð ÜË õõäÏÐÙ òìÔëÕÐ×ÒÙøÝÑÕÒÅìÙËÕÚÙÐÊÕÝÒ ß°¿®¬³»²¬ íë ÜË Ý±²¼±óÌ±©²¸±«» èï ÜË õõõäÏÐÙ øìÔñÕÆÙÚìÙËÕÚÙÐÊÕÝÒ ß°¿®¬³»²¬ ìï ÜË Ñºº·½» ïì ÕÍÚ õèäÏÐÙ ñéûÔñÕÆÙÚéËÙûÏÑÑÙÌÛÕÝÒÎ»¬¿·´ ëê ÕÍÚ ß°¿®¬³»²¬ êì ÜË èäÏÐÙÔìÙÛÌÙÝÊÕÏÐìÙÛÌÙÝÊÕÏÐÝÒûÏÑÑÉÐÕÊÅûÙÐÊÙÌ óëø Ò±¬»æ ÜË ã ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬å ÕÍÚãïôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ò Í±«®½»æ ß³¾·»²¬ô îððç Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóïì ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ô±²¹óÌ»®³ ×³°¿½¬ Regional area- and mobile-source emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4) computer program. Emissions were calculated for annual operational conditions based on the default parameters contained in the model for Nevada County. Default trip-generation rates contained in the model were amended to correspond with trip-generation rates identified in the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Modeling was conducted for weekday and annual operational conditions. Emissions associated with the use of hearth devices were based on the modeling default assumptions. Predicted maximum daily emissions for summer and winter conditions were calculated using USEPA AP-42 silt loading values of 0.2 and 0.6 grams per meter 2 (g/m), respectively. Annual emissions were calculated assuming an average silt-loading value 2 of 0.38 g/m (Town of Truckee, 1999). 2 The evaluation of local mobile-source CO concentrations was conducted using a screening procedure developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), approved for use by NSAQMD (Longmire, 2009). The BAAQMD screening procedure is based on the CALINE4 computer model, which was developed by the California Department of Transportation. Localized concentrations were quantitatively assessed for roadway intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E or worse), based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for the project (BAAQMD, 1999). Predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for near-term (year 2010) and future (year 2030) conditions were calculated. Ambient CO concentrations were based on the highest measured background concentrations measured at the nearest monitoring station for the last three years of available data. Emission factors were derived from the Emfac2007 computer model for Nevada County, for winter operational conditions. Eight-hour concentrations were calculated based on predicted 1-hour concentrations and assuming a persistence factor of 0.7. Exposure to localized concentrations of odors and TACs were qualitatively assessed based on the projects potential to result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to new or existing emission sources. ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Í¸±®¬óÌ»®³ Ý±²¬®«½¬·±²óÙ»²»®¿¬»¼ Û³··±² ±º Ý®·¬»®·¿ ß·® Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ Impact 4.4.1 Construction-generated emissions would exceed applicable significance thresholds and could result in a significant contribution to local and regional pollutant concentrations. This impact is potentially significant. Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern in Nevada County include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO) and PM. x10 Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but possess the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The construction and development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading and excavation, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities. , and PM The predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions of ROG, NO x10 associated with project construction are summarized in Table 4.4-7. Based on the modeling Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóïë ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ conducted, maximum unmitigated construction-generated emissions of NO and PM would x occur during the initial site preparation/grading of the project site. Emissions of ROG would largely occur during the building construction phase, associated with the application of architectural coatings. As indicated in Table 4.4-7, emissions would vary depending on the project phase and the specific land uses being constructed. Maximum daily emissions would total approximately 132 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG, 75 lbs/day of NO, 132 lbs/day of x , and approximately 31 lbs/day of PM. Actual daily emissions would vary from day to day PM 102.5 and would be dependent on the specific activities conducted. ìòìóé Ì ßÞÔÛ ÛÍóÌÛÝßÐÐÝÍÐ ÍÌ×ÓßÌÛÜ ØÑÎÌÛÎÓ Ó×ÍÍ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß ×Î ÑÔÔËÌßÒÌÍ ÚÑÎ ÌØÛ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ï Ë²½±²¬®±´´»¼ Û³··±² ø´¾ñ¼¿§÷ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ð¸¿» ÎÑÙ ÒÑ¨ ÐÓ ÐÓ ïðîòë î Ð¸¿» × øÆ±²» î ÊÙÎô Æ±²» í ÊÍÔ÷ êïòèë çðòêê îîëòðé ëðòéî Ð¸¿» ×× øÆ±²» ì ÔÎ÷ ìðòïí êçòïð ïíîòðì íðòêê Ð¸¿» ××× øÆ±²» ë ÚÎ÷ îéòèí ëëòìð ìïòëè ïïòïè Ð¸¿» ×Ê øÆ±²» ï ÓËÝ÷ ïíïòêð íðòêê íêòçç èòìí Ð¸¿» Ê øÆ±²» ê Î»½®»¿¬·±²÷ ïìòíí íëòéë ëòìê îòëç ÒÍßÏÓÜ Ô»ª»´ ßñÝ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ îìñïíé îìñïíé éçñïíé Ò±²» í ×²¼·ª·¼«¿´ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ð¸¿» Û¨½»»¼ ÒÍßÏÓÜ Ô»ª»´ ßñÝ Ì¸®»¸±´¼á Ç»ñÒ± Ç»ñÒ± Ç»ñÇ» Òß Ò±¬»æ ï Û³··±² ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ «·²¹ ¬¸» ËÎÞÛÓ×Íîððé ½±³°«¬»® °®±¹®¿³ò ß«³» ±²»ó¯«¿®¬»® ±º °®±¶»½¬ °¸¿» ¿®»¿ ¿½¬·ª»´§ ¼·¬«®¾»¼ ±² ¿²§ ¹·ª»² ¼¿§ ¿²¼ ¿² ±ª»®¿´´ »¬·³¿¬»¼ ïîó³±²¬¸ ½±²¬®«½¬·±² °»®·±¼ º±® »¿½¸ °®±¶»½¬ °¸¿»ô ©¸·½¸ ½±«´¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´´§ ±½½«® ±ª»® ³«´¬·°´» ½±²¬®«½¬·±² »¿±²ò î ×²½´«¼» ·³°±®¬ ±º êðôððð ½«¾·½ §¿®¼ ±·´ô ïðì ®±«²¼ ¬®·° °»® ¼¿§ ø¸¿«´·²¹÷ô ®±«²¼ó¬®·° ¼·¬¿²½» ±º ëòî ³·´»ò í ÒÍßÏÓÜ ½±²·¼»® »³··±² ·² »¨½» ±º Ô»ª»´ Ý ¬¸®»¸±´¼ ¬± ¸¿ª» ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¿·® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ò Û³··±² ¾»´±© Ô»ª»´ Ý ¬¸®»¸±´¼ ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´´§ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ò ÒÍßÏÓÜó®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ¿®» ¼»°»²¼»²¬ ±² ´»ª»´ ±º ·³°¿½¬ ·² ½±³°¿®·±² ¬± ÒÍßÏÓÜó®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ·¹²·º·½¿²½» ¬¸®»¸±´¼ò ß½½±®¼·²¹´§ô ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ±º ÒÍßÏÓÜó®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» «ºº·½·»²¬ ¬± ®»¼«½» »³··±² ¬± ´»ª»´ ¾»´±© ïíê ´¾ñ¼¿§ ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¬± ®»¼«½» ¿·® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¿ ´» ¬¸¿² ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ´»ª»´ò ÒÍßÏÓÜó®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¬¸®»¸±´¼ ¼»º·²»¼ ¿ Ô»ª»´ ßæ îì ´¾ñ¼¿§ ÎÑÙô îì ´¾ñ¼¿§ ÒÑ¨ô éç ´¾ñ¼¿§ô ¿²¼ ÐÓòÙÈÙÒü Ô ÒÜËÚÝÅìï÷ Ô ÒÜËÚÝÅðïÆÔ ÒÜËÚÝÅÝÐÚîñå Ô»ª»´ Ýæ ïíé ´¾ñ¼¿§ ÎÑÙô ÒÑ¨ ïðïð ¿²¼ ÐÓò ïð Í±«®½»æ ß³¾·»²¬ô îððç Based on the modeling conducted, estimated short-term daily emissions of ROG and NO x associated with the individual project phases would not exceed the NSAQMD-recommended Level C significance threshold of 137 lbs/day. However, emissions would exceed the NSAQMD- recommended Level C PM significance threshold of 137 lbs/day, as well as the Level A 10 significance threshold of 24 lbs/day for ROG and NO and 79 lbs/day for PM, depending on x10 construction phase implementation. As noted earlier in this report, the Truckee area is currently designated nonattainment for the state ozone and PM ambient air quality standard. Short-term 10 increases of ozone-precursor pollutants and PM could potentially contribute to existing PM 10 nonattainment conditions and potentially interfere with the region’s ability to maintain attainment of PM standards. As a result, short-term increases of ROG and airborne emissions 2.5 and PM, would be considered potentially significant. PM, including PM 102.5 Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóïê ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.4.1a The project applicant shall prepare a Dust Suppression Control Plan (DSCP), in accordance with NSAQMD Rule 226, Dust Control. The DSCP shall be submitted for approval by the Town of Truckee Planning Department and NSAQMD. The DSCP shall identify project phases and construction schedules to be implemented sufficient to ensure that mitigated construction- generated emissions would not exceed NSAQMD-recommended significance thresholds. The DSCP shall include, but is not limited to, the following NSAQMD- recommended and Town of Truckee Municipal Code measures for the control of fugitive dust emissions: Grading activities shall be scheduled to ensure that repeated grading will not be required and that implementation of the desired land use (e.g., construction, paving, or planting) would occur as soon as possible after grading. All land clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities on the project shall be suspended by the project applicant or prime contractor or as directed by NSAQMD when winds exceed 20 miles per hour. To reduce fugitive dust emissions associated with the equipment travel on unpaved surfaces, proposed on-site roadways shall be constructed as early in the construction process as practical. To the extent possible, porous materials shall be utilized. All areas (including unpaved roads) with vehicle traffic shall be watered or have dust palliatives applied, as necessary, for regular stabilization of dust emissions. Paved aprons onto town streets shall be required at all access encroachments onto town streets. The aprons shall be paved within one week of the commencement of grading on the site. The aprons and portions of the street adjacent to the apron shall be flushed and/or swept at least once daily. All inactive portions of the development site shall be covered, seeded, or watered until a suitable cover is established. Alternatively, the project applicant may apply other control measures, to be approved by the Town Planner/NSAQMD, such as nontoxic soil stabilizers. Nontoxic soil stabilizers shall be applied (according to manufacturers’ specifications) to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours) and in accordance with the local grading ordinance. Alternatives to open burning of vegetative material shall be used unless otherwise deemed infeasible by NSAQMD. Suitable alternatives include chipping, mulching, or conversion to biomass fuel. Adequate dust control measures shall be implemented in a timely and effective manner during all phases of project development and construction. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóïé ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded shall be sufficiently watered, treated, or covered to prevent fugitive dust from leaving property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air quality standard. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete site coverage, preferably in the mid-morning and after work is completed each day. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material on public streets shall be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114 and sufficiently watered to prevent a public nuisance. Temporary traffic control will be provided during all phases of the construction to improve traffic flow as deemed appropriate by local transportation agencies and/or Caltrans. Construction activities shall be scheduled to direct traffic flow to off-peak hours as much as practicable. Limit construction site vehicle speed to 15 miles per hour (mph) on unpaved areas. In the event that serpentine rock is found in the area, NSAQMD shall be notified and ground-disturbing activities at the project site shall be suspended. Studies shall be conducted to determine whether serpentine rock is in chrysotile or amphibole forms. In such instances, the project applicant or prime contractor shall comply with and shall implement additional mitigation measures, as deemed necessary by NSAQMD to ensure compliance with NSAQMD Regulation IX, Rule 904, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure Asbestos-Containing-Serpentine. Incorporate the use of nontoxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours) in accordance with the local grading ordinance. Timing/Implementation: The Dust Suppression Control Plan (DSCP) shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits for the first phase of construction. The DSCP shall be implemented during all phases of construction. Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division; NSAQMD MM 4.4.1b The project applicant shall submit to NSAQMD for approval an Off-Road Construction Equipment Emission Reduction Plan prior to groundbreaking demonstrating that the heavy-duty (greater than 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project-wide fleet-average 20 percent reduction and 40 percent particulate reduction compared to the most NO x recent CARB fleet average at time of construction. Acceptable options for Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóïè ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ reducing emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The plan shall include a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine production year, and projected hours of use or fuel throughput for each piece of equipment. The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide NSAQMD with the anticipated construction timeline including start date and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman. Construction contracts shall stipulate the following: Emissions from on-site construction equipment shall comply with NSAQMD Regulation II, Rule 202, Visible Emissions. The primary contractor shall be responsible to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes when not in use (as required by California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. Timing/Implementation: The Off-Road Construction Equipment Emission Reduction Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits for the first phase of construction. The plan shall be implemented during all phases of construction. Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division; NSAQMD The proposed mitigation measures would require preparation of a Dust Suppression Control Plan, in accordance with NSAQMD Rule 226, Dust Control, and an Off-Road Construction Equipment Emission Reduction Plan. The DSCP would be required to identify construction schedules and project phases to be implemented, which would ensure that multiple project phases or construction activities would not occur simultaneously and to the extent that NSAQMD-recommended significance thresholds would be exceeded. As the optional off-site trail improvements have not been designed in detail, the specific construction emissions of these features cannot be quantified. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóïç ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ However, as the overall project impact would remain potentially significant without mitigation, and as the above mitigation measures would apply to construction of those trails as well, the overall net result will be the same as that identified for activities within the project site. Based on the proposed project phasing schedules, and with implementation of the above mitigation measures, maximum predicted construction-generated emissions would be reduced to approximately 67 lbs/day of ROG, 72 lbs/day of NO, 35 lbs/day of PM, and 5 lbs/day of PM. x102.5 NSAQMD considers emissions of less than 137 lbs/day to have a less than significant impact, with incorporation of NSAQMD-recommended mitigation measures. The proposed mitigation measures include measures recommended by NSAQMD, as well as additional measures considered feasible for the reduction of short-term construction-generated emissions, which would be incorporated into the emissions-reduction plans to be prepared for this project. With implementation of proposed mitigation measures, this impact would be considered less than significant. Í¸±®¬óÌ»®³ Û¨°±«®» ±º Í»²·¬·ª» Î»½»°¬±® ¬± Ì±¨·½ ß·® Ý±²¬¿³·²¿²¬ Impact 4.4.2 Health risks associated with intermittent exposure to construction-generated diesel-exhaust emissions would not be anticipated to exceed applicable thresholds. As a result, short-term exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs would be considered less thansignificant. Potential sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with construction-related activities are primarily associated with the airborne entrainment of asbestos due to the disturbance of naturally occurring asbestos-containing soils, as well as emissions of DPM associated with the use of diesel-powered construction equipment. The proposed project is not located within an area designated by the State of California as likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos. As a result, construction-related activities would not be anticipated to result in increased exposure of sensitive land uses to asbestos. Construction of the proposed land uses would, however, result in construction-generated diesel-exhaust emissions. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel- fueled engines (DPM) were identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1998. Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. For residential land uses, the calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically based on a 70-year period of exposure. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. In addition, mitigation measures incorporated for the control of particulate emissions from on-site construction equipment would substantially reduce emissions of DPM by approximately 40 percent or more. For these reasons, DPM generated by project construction, in and of itself, would not be expected to create conditions where the probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in 1 million for nearby receptors. Long-term health risks associated with short-term construction activities would therefore be considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ô±²¹óÌ»®³ Û³··±² ±º Ý®·¬»®·¿ ß·® Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ Impact 4.4.3 Project-generated long-term operational emissions would exceed applicable significance thresholds and could contribute to regional nonattainment conditions. As a result, this impact is considered potentiallysignificant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóîð ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO) and PM. Long-term increases in area- and mobile-source emissions associated 10 x with the proposed land uses were estimated using the CARB-approved URBEMIS2007 computer program. Trip-generation rates assigned to the proposed land uses were based on those identified in the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Predicted maximum daily operational emissions were calculated for winter and summer conditions. Annual emissions, in tons per year, were also calculated. Predicted operational emissions are summarized in Table 4.4-8. During the summer months, buildout of the proposed project would result in maximum total daily emissions of approximately 82 lbs/day of ROG, 59 lbs/day of NO, and 167 lbs/day of PM. Maximum daily emissions from area and mobile x10 sources during the winter months would increase to approximately 219 lbs/day of ROG, 104 lbs/day of NO, and 361 lbs/day of PM. Estimated annual increases in emissions attributable to the proposed x10 project would total approximately 21 tons of ROG, 13 tons of NO, and 36 tons of PM. Based on the x10 modeling conducted, mobile sources resulted in the greatest predicted contribution to project-related emissions during the summer months. However, during the winter months, estimated daily emissions would increase due to the assumed use of wood-burning fireplaces and stoves within proposed residential dwelling units, as well as the re-entrainment of road dust due to the increased sanding of area roadways. Emissions from these two primary sources are discussed in more detail below. É±±¼óÞ«®²·²¹ Ü»ª·½» The calculation of emissions from wood-burning devices assumes that 35 percent of the residential dwellings would be equipped with wood-burning stoves and 10 percent would be equipped with wood-burning fireplaces, based on default modeling assumptions contained in the URBEMIS2007 computer model for Nevada County. Based on the modeling conducted and in comparison to summer emissions, wood-burning appliances (i.e., fireplaces and stoves) would , 137 result in increased daily emissions of approximately 135 lbs/day of ROG, 18 lb/day of NO x , and 132 lbs/day of PM. During the winter months, estimated emissions from lbs/day of PM 102.5 wood-burning hearth devices constituted a majority of the estimated project-generated ROG and NO emissions, resulting in increased emissions of these pollutants that would exceed X NSAQMD’s Level C significance thresholds. Î»ó»²¬®¿·²»¼ Î±¿¼©¿§ Ü«¬ The calculation of re-entrained road dust is dependent, in part, on various factors including roadway conditions, vehicle speed, vehicle weight, and what is referred to as silt loading. The term silt loading can be defined as the amount of particles less than 74 microns in diameter per unit area of surface. The default assumptions contained in the URBEMIS2007 model are largely based on an average silt-loading factor of 0.1 grams per meter, which may not accurately reflect site- 2 specific conditions where higher than average silt loading would be anticipated to occur. Such areas would include the mountainous areas of the state, such as the Town of Truckee, where the application of traction sand to roadways during the winter months can result in higher than average silt loading on area roadways and increased emissions of airborne PM. As a result, the default silt-loading factor contained in the URBEMIS model was adjusted to better predict maximum daily PM emissions from re-entrained road dust attributable to the proposed project. 10 Predicted maximum daily emissions for summer and winter conditions were calculated using USEPA AP-42 silt loading values of 0.2 and 0.6 grams per meter (g/m) respectively (USEPA, 2006). 22 (Town of Annual emissions were calculated assuming an average silt-loading value of 0.38 g/m 2 Truckee, 1999). Based on the modeling conducted and in comparison to summer emissions, re-entrainment of road dust during the winter months would result in an estimated increase of approximately 194 lbs/day of PM. Re-entrained road dust largely comprises coarse particulate 10 Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóîï ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ matter of greater than 2.5 microns in diameter and therefore would not be anticipated to contribute to substantial increases in PM concentrations. 2.5 Û¨°±«®» ¬± É±±¼ Í³±µ» º®±³ Ð®»½®·¾»¼ Þ«®² ¿¬ Ü±²²»® Ó»³±®·¿´ Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ While not an emission source attributed to the project, future project residents may be exposed to occasional wood smoke from prescribed fires by California Department of State Parks for areas of Donner Memorial State Park where removal and transport of excess vegetative fuels is not feasible. The occurrence of such events is expected to be infrequent and not an ambient air quality condition in the project area. ×³°¿½¬ Í«³³¿®§ During the summer months, estimated operational emissions of ROG and NO would not exceed x NSAQMD’s Level C significance threshold of 137 lbs/day. However, during the winter months, emissions of ROG would be projected to exceed the ROG Level C significance threshold of 137 lbs/day, predominantly associated with the use of wood-burning hearth devices. In addition, emissions of PMwould exceed NSAQMD’s Level C significance threshold of 137 lbs/day during 10 both the summer and winter months. As a result, increased emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO) and PM would contribute to existing nonattainment conditions 10 X and may also interfere with the region’s ability to maintain ambient air quality standards. This impact would be considered potentially significant. Ììòìóè ßÞÔÛ ÛÑÛÞÓ ÍÌ×ÓßÌÛÜ ÐÛÎßÌ×ÑÒßÔ Ó×ÍÍ×ÑÒÍ ßÌ Ë×ÔÜÑËÌ É×ÌØÑËÌ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ï Û¬·³¿¬»¼ Û³··±² Í«³³»® É·²¬»® ß²²«¿´ Í±«®½» ø´¾ñ¼¿§÷ ø´¾ñ¼¿§÷ ø¬±²ñ§»¿®÷ ÎÑÙ ÒÑ ÐÓ ÎÑÙ ÒÑ ÐÓ ÎÑÙ ÒÑ ÐÓ ÈïðÈïðÈïð ß®»¿ Í±«®½» íïòèê ëòêð ðòðê ïêìòðî îíòíï ïíéòîí ïïòðç ïòêé ëòêî Ó±¾·´» Í±«®½» ëðòêð ëíòëî ïïïòëî ëìòêð èðòíì îîíòèì çòìè ïïòìï íðòëë Ì±¬¿´ èîòîè ëçòïî ïêéòíé îïèòêî ïðíòêë íêïòðé îðòëé ïíòðè íêòïé ÒÍßÏÓÜ Ô»ª»´ ßñÝ îìñïíé îìñïíé éçñïíé îìñïíé îìñïíé éçñïíé Ò±²» Ò±²» Ò±²» Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ×²¼·ª·¼«¿´ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ð¸¿» Û¨½»»¼ ÒÍßÏÓÜ Ô»ª»´ Ç»ñÒ± Ç»ñÒ± Ç»ñÇ» Ç»ñÇ» Ç»ñÒ± Ç»ñÇ» Ò±²» Ò±²» Ò±²» î ßñÝ Ì¸®»¸±´¼á Ò±¬»æ ï Ñ°»®¿¬·±²¿´ »³··±² ©»®» ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ «·²¹ ¬¸» ËÎÞÛÓ×Íîððé øªçòîòì÷ ½±³°«¬»® °®±¹®¿³ô ¾¿»¼ ±² ¼»º¿«´¬ ª»¸·½´» º´»»¬ ¼·¬®·¾«¬·±²ô ¬®·° ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¬·½ô ¿²¼ »³··±² ¼¿¬¿ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ·² ¬¸» ³±¼»´ô »¨½»°¬ ¿ ²±¬»¼ò Ì®·°ó¹»²»®¿¬·±² ®¿¬» ¾¿»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¬®¿ºº·½ ¿²¿´§· °®»°¿®»¼ º±® ¬¸· °®±¶»½¬å ¸»¿®¬¸ ¼»ª·½» ¿«³» íëû ©±±¼ó¾«®²·²¹ ¬±ª»ô ïðû ©±±¼ó¾«®²·²¹ º·®»°´¿½»ô ¿²¼ ëëû ²¿¬«®¿´ ¹¿ îî º·®»°´¿½»å ·´¬ó´±¿¼·²¹ º¿½¬±® ±º ðòî ¿²¼ ðòê ¹ñ³ º±® «³³»® ¿²¼ ©·²¬»® ½±²¼·¬·±²ô ®»°»½¬·ª»´§ øËÍÛÐßô îððê÷ô ¿²¼ ðòíè ¹ñ³ º±® ¿²²«¿´ ½±²¼·¬·±² øÌ±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ô îððê÷ò î ÒÍßÏÓÜ ½±²·¼»® »³··±² ·² »¨½» ±º Ô»ª»´ Ý ¬¸®»¸±´¼ ¬± ¸¿ª» ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¿·® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ò Û³··±² ¾»´±© Ô»ª»´ Ý ¬¸®»¸±´¼ ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´´§ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ò ÒÍßÏÓÜ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» ¿®» ¼»°»²¼»²¬ ±² ´»ª»´ ±º ·³°¿½¬ ·² ½±³°¿®·±² ¬± ÒÍßÏÓÜó®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ·¹²·º·½¿²½» ¬¸®»¸±´¼ò ß½½±®¼·²¹´§ô ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ±º ÒÍßÏÓÜó®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ³·¬·¹¿¬·±² ³»¿«®» «ºº·½·»²¬ ¬± ®»¼«½» »³··±² ¬± ´»ª»´ ¾»´±© ïíê ´¾ñ¼¿§ ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¬± ®»¼«½» ¿·® ¯«¿´·¬§ ·³°¿½¬ ¬± ¿ ´» ¬¸¿² ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ´»ª»´ò ÒÍßÏÓÜó®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¬¸®»¸±´¼ ¼»º·²»¼ ¿ Ô»ª»´ ßæ îì ´¾ñ¼¿§ ÎÑÙô îì ´¾ñ¼¿§ ÒÑ¨ô éç ´¾ñ¼¿§ô ¿²¼ ÐÓå Ô»ª»´ Þæ ïð Ô ÒÜËÚÝÅìï÷ Ô ÒÜËÚÝÅðïÆÔ ÒÜËÚÝÅÝÐÚîñå Ô»ª»´ Ýæ ïíé ´¾ñ¼¿§ ÎÑÙô ÒÑ¨ ¿²¼ ÐÓò ïðïð Í±«®½»æ ß³¾·»²¬ô îððç Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóîî ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.4.3a The project applicant shall prepare an Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) to reduce long-term operational emissions. At a minimum, the ERP shall include applicable NSAQMD-recommended on-site Level A, Level B, and Level C mitigation measures. If adequate on-site mitigation of long-term air quality impacts cannot be achieved, NSAQMD may require incorporation of an off- site mitigation program. The ERP shall be submitted to and endorsed by NSAQMD prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation measures currently recommended by NSAQMD include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following (NSAQMD, 2009): Use of wood-burning stoves or fireplaces within interior and exterior areas of residential land uses shall be prohibited. Each residence shall be equipped with a non-wood-burning source of heat. Streets shall be designed to maximize pedestrian access to transit stops, where feasible. Contribute a proportionate share to the development and/or continuation of a regional transit system. Contributions could consist of dedicated right-of-way, capital improvements, easements, etc. The project shall provide for pedestrian access between bus service and major transportation points within the project where deemed feasible. The ERP shall quantitatively assess project-generated particulate matter emissions and reduction measures, sufficient to meet the requirements of the Town’s Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan. PM emissions calculation methodologies for vehicle tailpipe and re-entrained road dust shall be consistent with those identified in the Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan. PM emissions offset mitigation fees shall be calculated based on the fee established by the Town Council resolution and in effect at the time of building permit issuance or final map recordation and included in the ERP. At the present time, the Town’s emissions offset fees are calculated based on a rate of $7,366 per ton of emissions. Timing/Implementation: The Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits for the first phase of construction. The ERP shall be implemented during all phases of construction. Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division; NSAQMD MM 4.4.3b The project applicant shall provide disclosure to future project residents of potential exposure to wood smoke from prescribed burns at Donner Memorial State Park. Timing/Implementation: Evidence of disclosure shall be provided prior to issuance of building permits for residential units. Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóîí ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4.3a, as well as traffic improvements identified in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation, would require preparation of an emissions reduction plan to include NSAQMD-recommended mitigation measures. Implementation of NSAQMD- recommended mitigation measures would result in substantial reductions in project-generated emissions. For instance, prohibiting the use of wood-burning heating devices would reduce combined area-source winter emissions to a total of approximately 30 lbs/day of ROG, 9 lbs/day , and 0.3 lbs/day of PM. In total, project-generated winter emissions from both area and of NO x10 , and mobile sources would be reduced to approximately 84 lbs/day of ROG, 89 lbs/day of NO x 224 lbs/day of PM. Emissions offsets for project-generated emissions of PM would also be 1010 required, sufficient to meet the requirements of the Town’s Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, project-generated emissions would be reduced to below NSAQMD significance thresholds. Mitigation measure MM 4.4.3b would ensure that residents are informed of occasional wood smoke from prescribed fires at Donner Memorial State Park. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant. Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ò»¿®óÌ»®³ Ô±½¿´ Ó±¾·´»óÍ±«®½» ÝÑ Ý±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² Impact 4.4.4 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not contribute to localized concentrations of mobile-source CO that would exceed applicable standards. This impact would be considered less than significant. The primary mobile-source criteria pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide (CO). As noted earlier in this report, Nevada County is currently designated attainment for both state and national CO ambient air quality standards and the county typically experiences low background CO concentrations. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited; CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., schoolchildren, hospital patients, the elderly). Given the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or worse) during the peak commute hours. Modeling is therefore typically conducted for intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak commute hours. Based on the traffic analysis prepared for this project, the intersections of State Route 89 South and Donner Pass Road, as well as the intersections of Donner Pass Road with both the eastbound and westbound ramps of I-80, would be projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service under near-term and future cumulative conditions. Modeling was conducted based on PM peak hour traffic volumes, with and without the Deerfield Drive connector, for winter operating conditions. To ensure a conservative analysis, predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations were calculated assuming background CO concentrations of 3.4 and 2.6 ppm, respectively, based on data obtained from the nearest monitoring station. A persistence factor of 0.7 was used to convert predicted hourly concentrations to 8-hour concentrations. The predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for near-term and future cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 4.4-9 and Table 4.4-10, respectively. Under near-term plus project conditions, with implementation of the Deerfield Drive connector, predicted maximum 1-hour CO concentrations at modeled receptor locations would range Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóîì ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ from 5.0 to 5.7 ppm and predicted 8-hour CO concentrations would range from 3.2 to 3.6 ppm. Under near-term plus project conditions, with implementation of the Deerfield Drive connector, predicted CO concentrations would increase slightly (i.e., approximately 0.2 ppm or less) at some receptor locations. However, predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for either of the modeled scenarios would not exceed even the most stringent corresponding California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) of 20 and 9 ppm, respectively. As noted in Table 4.4-10, predicted CO concentrations for future years would be projected to decrease in comparison to near-term conditions. As with near-term plus project conditions, predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for either of the modeled scenarios would not exceed corresponding CAAQS. Because the project would not contribute to predicted localized concentrations of mobile- source CO that would exceed applicable ambient air quality standards, this impact would be considered less than significant. Ììòìóç ßÞÔÛ ÐÔÓÍÝÓÝ ÎÛÜ×ÝÌÛÜ ÑÝßÔ ÑÞ×ÔÛ ÑËÎÝÛ ßÎÞÑÒ ÑÒÑÈ×ÜÛ ÑÒÝÛÒÌÎßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÒóÌÐÐÝøÇîðïð÷ ÛßÎÛÎÓ ÔËÍ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ ÛßÎ Ð®»¼·½¬»¼ ÝÑ Ý±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² ø°°³÷ É·¬¸ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» É·¬¸±«¬ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹» Ý±²²»½¬±® Ý±²²»½¬±® ïó¸±«® èó¸±«® ïó¸±«® èó¸±«® Í¬¿¬» Î±«¬» çèñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ëòé íòê ëòè íòê ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ëòð íòî ëòî íòí ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ëòï íòí ëòí íòì Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ß³¾·»²¬ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ øÝßßÏÍ÷ îð ç îð ç Ð®»¼·½¬»¼ Ý±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² Û¨½»»¼ ÝßßÏÍá Ò± Ò± Ò± Ò± Ò±¬»æ Ð®»¼·½¬»¼ ÝÑ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² ¿®» ¬¸» «³ ±º ¿ ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ½±³°±²»²¬ô ©¸·½¸ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ½«³«´¿¬·ª» »ºº»½¬ ±º ¿´´ ÝÑ ±«®½» ·² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿®»¿ ª·½·²·¬§ô ¿²¼ ÊÖÙÎÌÏÎÏËÙÚÎÌÏÔÙÛÊÑËÛÏÐÊÌÕÜÉÊÕÏÐ Í±«®½»æ ß³¾·»²¬ô îððç Ììòìóïð ßÞÔÛ ÐÔÓÍÝÓÝ ÎÛÜ×ÝÌÛÜ ÑÝßÔ ÑÞ×ÔÛ ÑËÎÝÛ ßÎÞÑÒ ÑÒÑÈ×ÜÛ ÑÒÝÛÒÌÎßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÚÐÐÝøÇîðíð÷ ËÌËÎÛ ÔËÍ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ ÛßÎ Ð®»¼·½¬»¼ ÝÑ Ý±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² ø°°³÷ É·¬¸ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» É·¬¸±«¬ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹» Ý±²²»½¬±® Ý±²²»½¬±® ïó¸±«® èó¸±«® ïó¸±«® èó¸±«® Í¬¿¬» Î±«¬» çèñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ìòð îòè íòç îòè ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ íòè îòé íòè îòè ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ íòè îòè íòè îòè Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ß³¾·»²¬ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ øÝßßÏÍ÷ îð ç îð ç Ð®»¼·½¬»¼ Ý±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² Û¨½»»¼ ÝßßÏÍá Ò± Ò± Ò± Ò± Ò±¬»æ Ð®»¼·½¬»¼ ÝÑ ½±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² ¿®» ¬¸» «³ ±º ¿ ¾¿½µ¹®±«²¼ ½±³°±²»²¬ô ©¸·½¸ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ½«³«´¿¬·ª» »ºº»½¬ ±º ¿´´ ÝÑ ±«®½» ·² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿®»¿ ª·½·²·¬§ô ¿²¼ ÊÖÙÎÌÏÎÏËÙÚÎÌÏÔÙÛÊÑËÛÏÐÊÌÕÜÉÊÕÏÐ Í±«®½»æ ß³¾·»²¬ô îððç Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóîë ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Û¨°±«®» ±º Í»²·¬·ª» Î»½»°¬±® ¬± Ñ¼±®±« Û³··±² Impact 4.4.5 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to odorous emissions. As a result, potential exposure of sensitive receptors to odors would be considered less than significant. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. Land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of odorous emissions include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, chemical manufacturing plants, rendering plants, paint/coating operations, and agricultural feedlots and dairies. No major sources of odors were identified in the vicinity of the project site that could potentially affect proposed on-site residential land uses. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the development or long-term operation of any on-site sources of odors. As a result, exposure of sensitive receptors to odorous emissions would be considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ô±²¹óÌ»®³ Û¨°±«®» ±º Í»²·¬·ª» Î»½»°¬±® ¬± Ì±¨·½ ß·® Ý±²¬¿³·²¿²¬ Impact 4.4.6 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could result in increased exposure of planned residential land uses to mobile-source TACs. As a result, this impact is considered potentially significant. No major existing stationary sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) were identified within one- quarter mile of the project site (CARB, 2009c). However, the proposed project would result in the development of commercial land uses, which could generate emissions of TACs. Such sources of TACs would be subject to NSAQMD rules and regulations, including NSAQMD Regulation IV (Authority to Construct), Regulation V (Permit to Operate), and Regulation IX (Toxics Air Contaminants). All stationary sources that have the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from NSAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations. As part of NSAQMD’s permitting requirements, sources having the potential to emit TACs would be required to implement measures designed to ensure that potential health risks to nearby receptors would not exceed established standards. In addition to stationary sources of emissions, mobile sources of emissions may also contribute to localized concentrations of TACs that could adversely affect sensitive population groups. The project site is located adjacent to and south of Interstate 80 (I-80), which extends in an east-west direction along the northern boundary of the site. Diesel-powered trucks traveling along the adjacent segments of I-80 are a source of DPM, which could adversely affect proposed sensitive land uses. Most researchers believe that diesel exhaust particles contribute the majority of the Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóîê ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ risk (roughly 70 percent by some estimates) because the particles in the exhaust carry many harmful organics and metals. Based on information obtained from CARB, population-weighted statewide average DPM concentrations for year 2010 are estimated to result in approximately 450 excess cancer cases per million people over a 70-year exposure period. It is important to note that this estimated cancer risk is best interpreted as background cancer risk. Cancer risks would be greater in areas located near major transportation corridors and stationary sources. As noted previously, CARB released the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective in 2005. According to the handbook, sensitive land uses should generally not be located within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Existing traffic volumes along the adjacent segment of I-80 average approximately 31,000 vehicles per day (Caltrans, 2009). Existing I-80 traffic volumes do not exceed CARB’s handbook criteria of 50,000 vehicles per day for rural roads or 100,000 vehicles per day for urban roads. However, I-80 does experience relatively high volumes of truck traffic, which could adversely affect occupants of proposed on-site residential dwellings, the nearest of which would be located approximately 250 feet south of I-80. Given the lower overall traffic volumes on I-80 (i.e., approximately 31,000 vehicles per day) predicted incremental increases in cancer risk at the project site would not be anticipated to be as high as the estimated cancer risks identified in CARB’s handbook, which are estimated to range from approximately 300 to 1,700 in one million at approximately 500 feet. It is important to note that the risk calculations contained in CARB’s handbook are based on predicted exterior concentrations calculated over a 70-year exposure period. CARB’s predicted risks do not include adjustments for average residential occupancy rates or interior correction factors, which would typically be anticipated to result in overall reductions in predicted cancer risks. As noted in Table 4.4-4, CARB’s handbook also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance railyard and to consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches within one mile of a railyard. As the Truckee railyard is over a mile away from the project site, any health risks related to railyard operations is considered less than significant. This determination is supported by the finding in the Town of Truckee Railyard Master Plan EIR, which stated that the health risks for both long-term and short-term exposures to the rail operations would be less than significant at 100 feet from the rail yard (Town of Truckee, 2008). At the present time, neither CARB nor NSAQMD have adopted a cancer risk significance threshold for mobile sources. Although CARB’s handbook include screening distances for various land uses, these criteria are intended to provide general guidance and are not intended to be used as significance criteria with regard to CEQA analyses. Rather, the intent of CARB’s handbook is to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to major sources of TACs, based on a more “qualitative approach to developing distance based recommendations” (CARB, 2005). Given that neither CARB nor NSAQMD has developed quantitative significance thresholds for mobile-source health risks, determination of impact significance, with regard to increased exposure to mobile-source TACs, is based on a more qualitative approach, based on the recommendations contained in CARB’s handbook. Given the relatively close proximity of proposed residential land uses to I-80, it is acknowledged that occupants of proposed residential dwellings would be exposed to increased concentrations of DPM in excess of background concentrations. However, given the absence of a quantitative significance threshold, a determination of whether or not the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in exposure to mobile-source TACs cannot be made at this time. Nonetheless, given the relatively close proximity of proposed residential dwellings to I-80 and potential for increased exposure to mobile-source TACs, this impact would be considered potentially significant. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóîé ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.4.6 The proposed project shall incorporate features that would help to mitigate TACs: A tree planting plan shall be developed in consultation with a certified arborist and approved by the Town of Truckee. Tiered tree planting (multiple rows) of a variety of drought-tolerant, fine-needle evergreen trees (i.e., deodar cedar, redwood) shall be planted within the proposed I-80 project site buffer. The trees shall be planted at sufficient density to provide a visual barrier between I-80 and residential dwellings located within 500 feet of I-80, once the trees reach maturity. A certified arborist shall inspect the plantings to ensure that the specifications are carried out in accordance with the tree planting plan. Passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems or equivalent systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph), shall be used for proposed residential dwellings located within 500 feet of I-80. The location of exterior air intakes and vents shall not be located on north- facing building facades, or shall be baffled, for residential dwellings located within 500 feet of I-80. Timing/Implementation: Shown on improvement plans and required to be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits for all residential units within 500 feet of I-80 Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division; NSAQMD Based on recent laboratory studies, the use of vegetation has the potential to substantially reduce airborne concentrations of PM. For instance, one recent study measured the removal rates of particulate matter passing through leaves and needles of vegetation. In this study, particles were generated in a wind tunnel and a static chamber and passed through vegetative layers at low wind velocities. Redwood, deodar cedar, live oak, and oleander were tested. The results indicate that all forms of vegetation were able to remove 65 to 85 percent of very fine particles at wind velocities below 1.5 meters per second (roughly 3 miles per hour), with redwood and deodar cedar being the most effective. Even greater removal rates were predicted for ultra-fine particle less than 0.1 micron in diameter. Given that the majority of an individual resident’s time is within interior spaces, the use of HVAC filtering systems and relocation of exterior vents and air intakes would result in further reductions in mobile-source TAC exposure (SMAQMD, 2009). With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, this impact would be considered less than significant. ìòìòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for air quality includes Nevada County in its entirety and the Mountain Counties Air Basin. Nevada County is currently designated nonattainment for ozone and PM 10 standards. Cumulative growth in population, vehicle use, and industrial activity could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain the ambient air quality standards. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóîè ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ÝÑ ¿²¼ ÌßÝ Ý±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² Impact 4.4.7 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Mountain Counties Air Basin, would not contribute to localized concentrations of mobile-source CO that would exceed applicable ambient air quality standards. This impact would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. As noted in the discussion for Impact 4.4.4, the criteria mobile-source air pollutant of primary local concern is CO. However, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to contribute to localized concentrations of CO that would exceed applicable ambient air quality standards under near-term or future cumulative conditions. In addition, as noted in the discussion for Impact 4.4.6, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the long-term operation of any major stationary sources of toxic air contaminants, and no major stationary sources of TACs have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed project site. As a result, the project’s cumulative contribution to localized concentrations of criteria and hazardous air pollutants would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Î»¹·±²¿´ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.4.8 Long-term operation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Mountain Counties Air Basin, would contribute to cumulative increases in that could contribute to future emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants and PM 10 concentrations of ozone and PM, for which the region is currently designated 10 nonattainment. This impact would be considered cumulatively considerable. Due to the county’s nonattainment status for ozone and PM, if project-generated emissions of 10 either of the ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO) or PM would exceed NSAQMD- 10 X recommended significance thresholds, then the proposed project’s cumulative impacts would be considered significant. As discussed for Impacts 4.4.1 and 4.4.3, predicted short-term construction and long-term operational emissions of PM would exceed NSAQMD’s Level C 10 significance thresholds. Increased emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants and PM would contribute on a cumulative basis to existing and future nonattainment conditions. For this reason, this impact would be considered cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implementmitigation measureMM 4.4.3a and b. Prohibiting the use of wood-burning heating devices would reduce combined area-source winter emissions to a total of approximately 30 lbs/day of ROG, 9 lbs/day of NO, and 0.3 lbs/day X of PM. Total project-generated emissions during the winter months from both area and mobile 10 sources would be reduced to approximately 84 lbs/day of ROG, 89 lbs/day of NO, and 224 X . With implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4.3a and b, project- lbs/day of PM 10 generated emissions of ROG would be reduced to below NSAQMD significance thresholds. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóîç ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Minor improvements in local air quality could occur as a result of improved pedestrian/bicycle interconnectivity between existing and proposed neighborhoods and Donner Memorial State Park (improved pedestrian/bicycle access could result in incrementally fewer vehicle trips to the park). However, the effect of this improved interconnectivity is comparatively small. Emissions offsets for project-generated emissions of PM would also be required. However, 10 implementation of the proposed mitigation measure would not fully offset predicted increases of ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO) attributable to the proposed project. As a result, X increases in project-related emissions, though considered less than significant at the project level, could on a cumulative basis contribute to existing nonattainment conditions. As a result, this impact would be considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ß¬³±°¸»®·½ Ü»°±·¬·±² ±º Ò·¬®±¹»² ·² Ô¿µ» Ì¿¸±» Impact 4.4.9 Long-term operation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonable foreseeable development in the region, would contribute to atmospheric deposition of NO and other pollutants that contribute to elevated nitrogen levels that x affect the clarity and health of Lake Tahoe. This impact would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. , nitric acid, organic Through dry and wet deposition, atmospheric nitrogen oxides (e.g., NO x nitrates) contribute to increases in the nitrogen available as a nutrient in Lake Tahoe. Motor in this region. NO emissions vehicle emissions and wood burning are two major sources of NO xx increase algal growth that is altering the aquatic environment for marine life and affecting the clarity of Lake Tahoe. A 1994 report by the Tahoe Research Group suggested that atmospheric deposition provides most of the dissolved inorganic nitrogen and over half of the total nitrogen to the loading budget of Lake Tahoe, while contributing to phosphorus levels as well. Elevated phosphorus levels from stream discharge, urban runoff, groundwater, and shoreline erosion also affect the lake’s health and clarity. In response, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is updating its Regional Plan to include a Water Quality Sub-element that identifies a lake clarity threshold goal that focuses on a total maximum daily load management approach calling for phased reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and fine sediment loads. Recent studies show that the historic declines are emissions centers on reducing stabilizing clarity levels (TRPA and UC Davis, 2008). Addressing NO x vehicle emissions by encouraging smarter growth that reduces vehicle miles traveled. Because the proposed project is consistent with regional growth forecasts, the project’s impact on nitrogen deposition has been factored into the pending Regional Plan Water Quality Sub-element. As a result, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s cumulative impact on nitrogen deposition into Lake Tahoe is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóíð ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Ambient Air Quality & Noise Consulting. 2009. Air Quality Impact Assessment for Coldstream Specific Plan. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. California Air Resources Board (CARB), Aerometric Data Division. 1992. California Surface Wind Climatology. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. California Diesel-Risk Reduction Plan. www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/background.htm. ———. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. ———. 2009a. ARB Health-Related Fact Sheets. www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs.htm (accessed July 8, 2009). ———. 2009b. Ambient Air Quality Standards. www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (accessed March 10, 2009). ———. 2009c. Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS). www.arb.ca.gov/ch /chapis1.htm (accessed September 5, 2009). California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California-Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009. Traffic Volumes on California Highways. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/ (accessed March 9, 2009). Longmire, Samuel. 2009. Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District. Personal communications with Kurt Legleiter, Principal, AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting. Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD). 2005. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, Annual Report. www.myairdistrict.com/index.php/air-monitoring/2005-report. ———. 2007. Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts of Land Use Projects. ———. 2009. Website. http://www.myairdistrict.com/index.php/home (accessed September 1, 2009). Sacramento Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2009. Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses Adjacent to Major Roadways. http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/RoadwayProtocol.shtml. San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District. 2006. URBEMIS2002 Recommended Construction Fleet Worksheet. http://www.valleyair.org/General_info/ISRLoader.htm . Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center. 2008. News Release: New Analysis Shows Important Slowdown in Lake Tahoe Clarity Loss. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòìóíï ìòìßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Tahoe Research Group, Department of Environmental Studies & Policy. 1994. Contribution of Basin Watersheds and Atmospheric Deposition to Eutrophication at Lake Tahoe. John E. Reuter, Alan D. Jassby, Charles R. Goldman, and Alan C. Heyvaert. Town of Truckee. 1999. Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan. ———. 2006. Town of Truckee General Plan. ———. 2008. Truckee Railyard Draft Master Plan EIR. ———. 2009. Website. http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=63 (accessed August 22, 2009). United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13, Miscellaneous Sources. 13.2, Introduction to Fugitive Dust Sources. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2009. Grass Valley No. 2, California-Climate Summary. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?cagras+nca (accessed March 10, 2009). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòìóíî ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) describes the current geologic and soil conditions of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan project site and general vicinity and analyzes issues such as potential exposure of people and property to seismic and geologic hazards such as ground rupture, settlement, and landslides are addressed. The types of soils that have been identified on the project site and their properties as they relate to the proposed project are also discussed. Impacts associated with erosion during construction and operation of the proposed project are discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR. ìòëòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÌÙ ÑÐÑÙÎßÐØÇ ßÒÜ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ The project site is located in the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada within Nevada County. Existing elevations on the project site range from approximately 5,800 to 5,900 feet above mean sea level (amsl). As a result of past mining activities, the project site’s topography is defined by a number of ponds bothwest and east of Cold Creek and uneven, but relatively flat, topography. Various settling ponds as deep as 40 to 60 feet exist, or have existed, at the site (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Fill materials have also been placed throughout the project site during reclamation of the mined areas (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Several former ponds and low-lying areas have been previously filled with silty sands and sandy silts. The Geological Map of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada,prepared by the California Geological Survey (Saucedo, 2005) indicates the site is underlain by Holocene/Pleistocene alluvium consisting of unconsolidated, moderately to poorly sorted sand, silt, and gravel; by Pleistocene Tioga glacial outwash deposits consisting of unconsolidated, moderately to poorly sorted sand, silt, and gravel; and by Pleistocene Tioga glacial outwash deposits consisting of unconsolidated gravels containing boulders and cobbles, sand, and silt (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The origin of these materials is primarily glacial deposits (undivided glacial till, moraine, and outwash deposits including a large amount of gravels, cobbles, and boulders), and to a lesser extent, alluvium. The recent alluvium appears to be concentrated along Cold Creek. The strength characteristics of undisturbed glacial soils are generally good (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). As previously noted, the native geologic units have been replaced by non-engineered fill extensively throughout the project site. Non-engineered fill includes debris consisting of pieces of concrete up to 5 feet across, tree limbs, asphalt, and various amounts of construction debris. Portions of the property east of Cold Creek have been dredged to a maximum depth of 60 feet (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Cross sections of the subsurface conditions indicate that most of the property west of Cold Creek is underlain by fill less than 10 feet deep. These shallow fills exist above groundwater. Three former ponds in the area west of Cold Creek have been filled, with unknown fill depths. Portions of the areas east of Cold Creek are underlain by native soils and fills less than 10 feet deep that exist above groundwater (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). However much of the eastern portion of the property, as well as the northern portion, have not been explored. Site studies suggest that some of the eastern portion may be underlain with pond fill materials. The recreational area may be underlain by a 40-foot-thick pond, most of which is below groundwater. Figure 4.5-1 shows areas of known and suspected existing fills exceeding 10 feet in depth (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóï ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ ÍÓÎ Ñ×Ô ßÒÜ ×ÒÛÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ The following soil types were identified as part of the biological resources assessment conducted for the project site (CSCON, 2007): Aquolls and Borolls, Euer-Martis Variant, Martis Euer Variant, Waca-Meiss complex, and pits, borrow. The soils on the site are depicted in Figure 4.5-2 and described below. The site is not identified as containing important mineral resources, as determined in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR (Town of Truckee, 2006a). Aquolls and Borolls-AQB. Aquolls consist of shallow and moderately deep, very poorly drained soil occurring in drainage ways and on valley floors at elevations of 2,000 to 8,500 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent. The soil is formed in residuum weathered from mixed alluvium. No inclusions are identified. Borrolls consist of shallow and moderately deep, poorly drained soil at elevations of 5,000 to 8,000 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. The soil is formed in residuum weathered from mixed alluvium. No inclusions are identified. Euer-Martis Variant-EUB/Martis-Euer Variant-MEB. The Euer Variant soil, consisting of deep and very deep, well-drained soil, occurs on glacial terraces at elevations of 5,500 to 6,000 feet. This soil formed in deposits of glacial till and outwash of mainly volcanic origin. Slopes range from 2 to 5 percent. No inclusions are described. This soil is a fine-loamy, mixed, frigid Ultic Haploxeralf. The Martis Variant soil consists of deep, well-drained soil on outwash terraces at elevations of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. This soil formed on Donner glacial till and outwash of mainly volcanic origin. Slopes range from 2 to 30 percent. No inclusions are described. This soil is a loamy-skeletal, mixed, frigid Ultic Haploxeralf. Waca-Meiss Complex-WDF. The Waca soil consists of moderately deep, well-drained soil on mountain sides at elevations of 6,000 to 9,000 feet. This soil formed in residuum weathered from andesitic mudflows and rhyolitic tuff. Slopes range from 2 to 75 percent. No inclusions are described. This soil is a medial-skeletal, frigid Andic Xerumbrebt. The Meiss soil consists of shallow, somewhat excessively drained soil on mountainsides at elevations of 6,000 to 10,000 feet. This soil formed in residuum weathered from andesitic rock. Slopes range from 2 to 75 percent. No inclusions are described. This soil is a medial Lithic Cryumbrept. Pits, Borrow-Px. This soil map unit describes areas of mineral extraction. Water-W. This unit describes areas of open water. A field investigation was conducted during June of 2001 and included the excavation of 37 test pits and 15 borings (13 additional borings were attempted but met refusal on debris). The depth of the test pits ranged from approximately 5 to 12 feet while the depths of the borings ranged from 0.5 to 45 feet. Effective excavation refusal was encountered at various depths (Converse Consultants, 2001). Based on results of the soils borings and laboratory testing, the subsurface soils consist of loose silty sands/sandy silts within the infilled settling pond areas; gravelly sand/sandy gravel to silty sand with gravel fill soils overlying native materials consisting of gravelly sands/sandy gravels predominantly located west of Cold Creek, outside settling pond areas, and to a lesser extent in the proposed residential area. Native gravelly sand/sandy gravels were encountered primarily in the proposed residential area, although also exposed in localized areas west of Cold Creek. Native gravelly sand/sandy gravels are also believed to underlie the deep fill soils in the infilled settling pond areas (Converse Consultants, 2001). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòëóî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 ÌæÄÁÙ×ÍÄÒÛÊßÜßÁÝÑËÒÌÇÄÓÈÜÍÄÝÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓÁÍÐÛÝ×Ú×ÝÐÔßÒÄÍÑ×ÔÍòÓÈÜ ó éñîðñîððç à íæëèæìè ÐÓ ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ ÍØ Û×ÍÓ×Ý ßÆßÎÜÍ The California State Mining and Geology Board defines an “active fault” as one that has had subsurface displacement within the past 11,000 years (Holocene). Potentially active faults are defined as those that have ruptured between 11,000 and 1.6 million years before the present (Quaternary). Faults are generally considered inactive if there is no evidence of displacement during the Quaternary. Since numerous fault structures are present within the area that surrounds the project site, there is a high probability the region would experience a seismic event that could result in shaking of the ground surface (Converse Consultants, 2001; Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). In populated areas, the greatest potential for loss of life and property damage could come as a result of ground shaking from a nearby earthquake. The degree of damage depends on many interrelated factors. Among these are the Richter magnitude, focal depth, distance from the causative fault, source mechanism, duration of shaking, high rock accelerations, type of surficial deposits or bedrock, degree of consolidation of surficial deposits, presence of high groundwater, topography, and design, type, and quality of building construction. No known faults are shown on the current available geologic maps as crossing the project site. The project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas prepared by the California Geological Survey, the closest Quaternary faults to the site are unnamed Late Quaternary faults located 2.5 to 5 miles from the project site to the south and east of Truckee. Several unnamed Quaternary faults also are located near the northwest side Lake Tahoe approximately 9 miles from the project site. The nearest fault with historic activity is an unnamed fault located approximately 4 miles northeast of the project site that was the probable source of the 1966 Truckee earthquake. The Holocene North Tahoe Fault is located beneath Lake Tahoe approximately 13 miles southeast of the project site, and the West Tahoe Fault is located approximately 18 miles to the southeast along the western shore of Lake Tahoe (Figure 4.5-3) (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The Polaris Fault exists within Martis Valley in close proximity to Martis Creek Dam east of Truckee. Maps depicting the Polaris Fault indicate the mapped traces are south of Interstate 80 and east of State Route 89 and the Truckee River. Based on currently available information, the Polaris fault does not cross the Coldstream property. It has not been determined if the fault has been active within Holocene time (the last 11,000 years), which is the California Geological Survey definition of an active fault (Wallace Kuhl, 2009b). The California Geological Survey publication Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California indicates the project site is located near several faults that are capable of generating earthquake ground motions with moment magnitudes (M) of 6.5 or greater. The w nearest of these faults are the Mohawk Valley Fault approximately 20 miles northwest of the project site and the Genoa Fault located approximately 25 miles to the southeast. The Antelope Valley Fault is located approximately 46 miles from the project site, and several Holocene faults near Honey Lake are located approximately 50 miles from the project site (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The most intense earthquake ground shaking in the vicinity of the project site resulted from the magnitude 6.0 Truckee earthquake of September 12, 1966, with an epicenter located approximately 8 miles northeast of the site, and the two earthquakes on September 8, 1947, with epicenters approximately 2 miles from the site. These earthquakes resulted in estimated ground accelerations at the site between 0.13 g and 0.15 g. An epicenter map is included in Figure 4.5-4 (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Compared to the rest of California, the Town of Truckee has a relatively low risk of a seismic hazard occurrence, despite the town being surrounded by seismically active regions. On occasion, the Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóé ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ town has experienced earthquakes, as can be seen in Figure 4.5-1 of the Town’s 2025 General Plan EIR. This figure shows that there have been two seismic events greater than 6.5 on the Richter Magnitude Scale (Modified Mercalli Intensity [MMI] Scale greater than VIII) and six quakes between 4.5 and 6.4 Richter (MMI Scale IV and VII) between 1808 and 1987. The Town’s 2025 General Plan EIR states that there are no faults within the town’s boundary, but there are faults in close proximity to the boundary. The project site has experienced ground shaking equivalent to MMI Scale VIII (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The MMI Scale has a range of values from I to XII, with the lowest value representing the least intense amount of damage resulting from a seismic event. A seismic event generating an MMI value of XII represents total damage to man-made improvements and the ability to see seismic waves migrate over the ground surface. Table 4.5-1 outlines the generalized relationship between the Richter Magnitude and Modified Mercalli scales. Ììòëóï ßÞÔÛ ÓÓ×ÍÛ ÑÜ×Ú×ÛÜ ÛÎÝßÔÔ× ÒÌÛÒÍ×ÌÇ ÝßÔÛ ÚÑÎ ßÎÌØÏËßÕÛÍ Î·½¸¬»® Ó±¼·º·»¼ Ó¿¹²·¬«¼» Ó»®½¿´´· Ûºº»½¬ ±º ×²¬»²·¬§ Í½¿´» Í½¿´» Óãïõîñí ×± ÔõðÏÊØÙÒÊÙÆÛÙÎÊÜÅÝÈÙÌÅØÙÇ«²¼»® »°»½·¿´´§ º¿ª±®¿¾´» ½·®½«³¬¿²½»ò Ô õõøÙÒÊÜÅÏÐÒÅÝØÙÇÎÙÌËÏÐËÝÊÌÙ¬ô »°»½·¿´´§ ±² «°°»® º´±±® ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Ú»´¬ ¯«·¬» ²±¬·½»¿¾´§ ·² ¼±±®ô »°»½·¿´´§ ±² «°°»® º´±±® ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ô ¾«¬ ³¿²§ °»±°´» Ôõõõ¼± ²±¬ ®»½±¹²·¦» ·¬ ¿ ¿² »¿®¬¸¯«¿µ»ò Í¬¿²¼·²¹ ½¿® ³¿§ ®±½µ ´·¹¸¬´§ò Ê·¾®¿¬·±² ´·µ» °¿·²¹ ¿ ¬®«½µò Ü«®¿¬·±² »¬·³¿¬»¼ò Ü«®·²¹ ¬¸» ¼¿§ º»´¬ ·²¼±±® ¾§ ³¿²§ô ±«¬¼±±® ¾§ º»©ò ß¬ ²·¹¸¬ ±³» ¿©¿µ»²»¼ò Ü·¸»ô Ô ©·²¼±©ô ¼±±® ¼·¬«®¾»¼å ©¿´´ ³¿µ» ½®»¿µ·²¹ ±«²¼ò Í»²¿¬·±² ´·µ» ¸»¿ª§ ¬®«½µ ¬®·µ·²¹ ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Í¬¿²¼·²¹ ½¿® ®±½µ»¼ ²±¬·½»¿¾´§ò Ú»´¬ ¾§ ²»¿®´§ »ª»®§±²»å ³¿²§ ¿©¿µ»²»¼ò Í±³» ¼·¸»ô ©·²¼±© ¾®±µ»²ò Ë²¬¿¾´» Ô è ±¾¶»½¬ ±ª»®¬«®²»¼ò Ð»²¼«´«³ ½´±½µ ³¿§ ¬±°ò Ú»´¬ ¾§ ¿´´ô ³¿²§ º®·¹¸¬»²»¼ò Í±³» ¸»¿ª§ º«®²·¬«®» ³±ª»¼å ¿ º»© ·²¬¿²½» ±º º¿´´»² Ô èõ °´¿¬»®ò Ü¿³¿¹» ´·¹¸¬ò Ü¿³¿¹» ²»¹´·¹·¾´» ·² ¾«·´¼·²¹ ±º ¹±±¼ ¼»·¹² ¿²¼ ½±²¬®«½¬·±²å ´·¹¸¬ ¬± ³±¼»®¿¬» ·² Ô ©»´´ó¾«·´¬ ±®¼·²¿®§ ¬®«½¬«®»å ½±²·¼»®¿¾´» ¼¿³¿¹» ·² °±±®´§ ¾«·´¬ ±® ¾¿¼´§ ¼»·¹²»¼ ¬®«½¬«®»å ±³» ½¸·³²»§ ¾®±µ»²ò Ü¿³¿¹» ´·¹¸¬ ·² °»½·¿´´§ ¼»·¹²»¼ ¬®«½¬«®»å ½±²·¼»®¿¾´» ¼¿³¿¹» ·² ±®¼·²¿®§ Ôèõõõ«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ©·¬¸ °¿®¬·¿´ ½±´´¿°»ò Ü¿³¿¹» ¹®»¿¬ ·² °±±®´§ ¾«·´¬ ¬®«½¬«®»ò Ú¿´´ ±º ½¸·³²»§ô º¿½¬±®§ ¬¿½µô ½±´«³²ô ³±²«³»²¬ô ©¿´´ò Ø»¿ª§ º«®²·¬«®» ±ª»®¬«®²»¼ò Ü¿³¿¹» ½±²·¼»®¿¾´» ·² °»½·¿´´§ ¼»·¹²»¼ ¬®«½¬«®»å ©»´´ó¼»·¹²»¼ º®¿³» ¬®«½¬«®» Ô ¬¸®±©² ±«¬ ±º °´«³¾ò Ü¿³¿¹» ¹®»¿¬ ·² «¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ¾«·´¼·²¹ô ©·¬¸ °¿®¬·¿´ ½±´´¿°»ò Þ«·´¼·²¹ ¸·º¬»¼ ±ºº º±«²¼¿¬·±²ò Í±³» ©»´´ó¾«·´¬ ©±±¼»² ¬®«½¬«®» ¼»¬®±§»¼å ³±¬ ³¿±²®§ ¿²¼ º®¿³» ¬®«½¬«®» Ôæ ¼»¬®±§»¼ ©·¬¸ º±«²¼¿¬·±²ò Î¿·´ ¾»²¬ò Ô ³¿·² ¬¿²¼·²¹ò Þ®·¼¹» ¼»¬®±§»¼ò Î¿·´ ¾»²¬ ¹®»¿¬´§ò çòð øèòëõ÷ È×× Ü¿³¿¹» ¬±¬¿´ò Ô·²» ±º ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ ´»ª»´ ¿®» ¼·¬±®¬»¼ò Ñ¾¶»½¬ ¬¸®±©² ·²¬± ¬¸» ¿·®ò Ó ã Í«®º¿½» ©¿ª» ³¿¹²·¬«¼» × ã Û°·½»²¬®¿´ ·²¬»²·¬§ ± Í±«®½»æ ËÍÙÍô îððç¾ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòëóè éÛÙÊÛÏ×ÎÈÍ Legend Site ïÍØÓÖÓ×ØÖÊÍÏøÓÆÓÉÓÍÎÍÖïÓÎ×ÉÛÎØõ×ÍÐÍÕÃùøêíï øÓÕÓÈÛÐ Fault Types ØÛÈÛÚÛÉ×ÍÖÖÛÇÐÈÉÖÊÍÏÈÔ×öÛÇÐÈûÙÈÓÆÓÈÃïÛÌÍÖùÛÐÓÖÍÊÎÓÛÛÎØûØÒÛÙ×ÎÈûÊ×ÛÉ Historic ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈÓÍÎîûø ùÛÐÓÖÍÊÎÓÛéÈÛÈ×ìÐÛÎ×âÍÎ×óó Holocene Late Quaternary Quaternary PreQuaternary Source Wallace Kuhl, 2009: Figure 4.5-3 Faults in the Vicinity of the Project Site ÷ÌÓÙ×ÎÈ×ÊÉÖÊÍÏ÷ëé×ÛÊÙÔ ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈîûø ùÛÐÓÖÍÊÎÓÛéÈÛÈ×ìÐÛÎ×âÍÎ×óó Source: Wallace Kuhl, 2009 Figure 4.5-4 Epicenter Map ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ Ù ÎÑËÒÜÉßÌÛÎ Groundwater on the project site was encountered at various depths in test trenches and soil borings conducted as part of the field investigation (Converse Consultants, 2001). Influence from Cold Creek and on-site ponds is believed to contribute to the fluctuations in groundwater levels. Although groundwater elevations were generally encountered between depths of 5 and 10 feet, based on the previous reports, historic groundwater is considered to be located at an approximate depth of 5 feet below the existing ground elevation (Converse Consultants, 2001). Ô ßÒÜÍÔ×ÜÛÍ The project site is relatively flat. Therefore the potential for landsliding on the site is considered low. Outside of the development area, some instability of the walls of the existing ponds may exist. This is especially the case if the walls consist of loose infilled materials (Converse Consultants, 2001; Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Ô ×ÏËÛÚßÝÌ×ÑÒ There are generally three prerequisites for seismically induced liquefaction to occur. They are relatively loose granular soils, groundwater, and strong ground motion. The first two prerequisites are present on the project site, and it is possible that the site may experience strong ground motion. As a result, seismically induced liquefaction within the infilled pond areas could occur. These are areas where loose silty sands/sandy silty soils were previously placed. The existing native soils (glacial materials) are not considered to be prone to liquefaction because of their generally dense nature. The significant amount of gravel and cobble material would also help dissipate pore water pressures and lessen the likelihood of seismically induced liquefaction (Converse Consultants, 2001; Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). ßª¿´¿²½¸» The combination of steep slopes, abundant snow, cold weather, snowpack, and an impetus to cause movement could create an avalanching episode in the Town of Truckee. Avalanche hazards are most directly related to topographical conditions. Steep slopes are the main factor in the creation of a potential avalanche hazard. Other factors include exposure, snowpack composition, wind, temperature, and rate of snowfall. As shown in Figure SAF-3, Avalanche Hazard Areas, in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in an area with a high potential for risk of avalanche (Town of Truckee, 2006b). Î¿¼±² Radon gas is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that is invisible and odorless. It forms from the radioactive decay of small amounts of uranium and thorium naturally present in rocks and soils, so some radon exists in all rocks and soils. Certain rock types, such as black shales and certain igneous rocks, can have uranium and thorium in amounts higher than is typical for the earth’s crust. Increased amounts of radon would be generated in the subsurface at these locations. Because radon is a gas, it can easily move through soil and cracks in building slabs or basement walls and concentrate in a building’s indoor air. Areas with higher amounts of radon in the underlying rocks and soil are likely to have higher percentages of buildings with indoor radon levels in excess of recommended levels(USGS, 2009a). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóïí ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ Radon is identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the second leading cause of lung cancer (USEPA, 2008). The California Department of Public Health, along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommends that the concentration of indoor radon be maintained at a level of 4 picocuries per liter or less. Radon emissions are a potential environmental condition for the Sierra Nevada. Radon vapors emit from three primary sources inside buildings, which include soil beneath buildings, water used for showering and other indoor uses, and construction materials. In most cases, the amount of radon entering a building through water and building materials is small compared to the risk from soil vapor. Soil vapor enters a building as a result of ambient air pressure inside the building being lower than the air pressure in soil beneath the building. In California, decomposed granite is a potential source of radon. Special Report 211, Radon Potential in the Lake Tahoe Area, California, was consulted to determine preliminary information for radon potential at the project site. The report describes the alluvium at the site as having a low potential for radon and the glacial outwash deposits as having an unknown potential for radon (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). ìòëòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Í ÌßÌÛ ß´¯«·¬óÐ®·±´± Û¿®¬¸¯«¿µ» Ú¿«´¬ Æ±²·²¹ ß½¬ The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 (originally enacted as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994) and is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The main purpose of the law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning efforts. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. There are no Earthquake Fault Zones subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in the area of the project site (Converse Consulting, 2001). Í»·³·½ Ø¿¦¿®¼ Ó¿°°·²¹ ß½¬ The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses nonsurface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. Passed by the State Legislature in 1990, this law was codified in the California Public Resources Code as Division 2, Chapter 7.8A, and became operative in April 1991. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act resulted in a mapping program that is intended to reflect areas that have the potential for liquefaction, landslide, strong earth ground shaking, or other earthquake and geologic hazards. There are no areas in the project site subject to the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (CGS, 2009b). Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ý±¼» The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (CBSC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24]). The CBSC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout the United States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis) and has been modified for conditions in California. State regulations and engineering standards related to geology, soils, and seismic Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòëóïì ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ activity in the UBC are reflected in the CBSC requirements. Through the CBSC, the State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction. The CBSC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Truckee enforces the CBSC through its Municipal Code. The Town Building Code (Truckee Municipal Code, Title 15) incorporates the CBSC including recent changes (Town of Truckee, 2006a). Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ù»±´±¹·½¿´ Í«®ª»§ Special Report 211 prepared by the California Geological Survey, Radon Potential in the Lake Tahoe Area, California, provides preliminary information for radon potential based at a regional scale based on geological conditions (CGS, 2009a). In addition, the Radon Potential Zone Map for the Lake Tahoe Area, California, serves as a guide to prioritize areas for public education about radon, and for targeting additional indoor-radon testing activities. This map is informational, not regulatory. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes policies that call for the Town to ensure that planning of land uses and new development is compatible with the local geologic and soil resources. Appendix B includes applicable geology and soils policies and an evaluation of the consistency of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan with those policies. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòíê The Town of Truckee Development Code has adopted Chapter 18.36, which relates to hillside development in Truckee. Sections 18.36.020 and 18.36.040 address the applicability of this chapter and standards for hillside development, respectively. The Development Code requires that steep slopes (30 percent or greater) be permanently preserved as open space. In some circumstances, development may occur with approval of the Planning Commission or Town Council, but the development is limited to several areas of town, including some places along the Truckee River, the ridges and hillsides north and west of downtown, the ridges north of Gateway and north and west of Donner Lake, and areas around Alder Hill. The Planning Commission may authorize grading and structures on slopes exceeding 30 percent only if the Commission finds there is not sufficient area on the parcel with slopes less than 30 percent to accommodate a reasonable development and measures have been incorporated into the development to minimize disturbance of the terrain (e.g., use of stem walls, split foundations). These steep slope areas, particularly where they occur in conjunction with weak soils, may present a significant hazard in Truckee, although no detailed study has been completed for landslide hazard in Nevada County. ìòëòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a geology, soils, or mineral resources impact is considered significant if project implementation would result in any of the following: Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóïë ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ 1)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to California Geological Survey (formerly Division of Mines and Geology) Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking. iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv)Landslides. 2)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 3)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. 4)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. 5)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis in this section is based on review of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, the Town of Truckee General Plan EIR, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Converse Consultants, 2001), and the Geotechnical Investigation Review (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The purpose of the 2009 Geotechnical Investigation Review was to provide information regarding the nature and general engineering characteristics and geologic conditions at the project site and present findings and conclusions on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. Impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil are discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. The project would tie into the existing sewer system for the Truckee area, rather than use septic systems. Because septic systems are not being implemented, impacts associated with soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not impact the project site. Therefore, issue 5 from the above list of standards of significance will not be addressed in the Draft EIR. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ×³°¿½¬ ß±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ Ú¿«´¬ Î«°¬«®» ¿²¼ Í¬®±²¹ Í»·³·½ Ù®±«²¼ Í¸¿µ·²¹ Impact 4.5.1 The potential for the project site to be exposed to hazards associated with fault rupture or strong seismic ground shaking is considered unlikely. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòëóïê ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ As discussed in the Existing Setting section above, there are no known active faults in the vicinity of the project site nor are there any Alquist-Priolo Special Earthquake Study Zones on or near the site (Converse Consultants, 2001; Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The Polaris Fault is located in the Martis Valley but has not been determined to be active within the last 11,000 years (Wallace Kuhl, 2009b). As no known faults exist at the project site, the potential for ground rupture from a fault and associated strong seismic ground shaking is considered to be low. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with CBSC requirements that address structural seismic safety. Therefore, impacts associated with ground rupture of a known earthquake fault are considered less than significant. Impacts with regard to liquefaction and seismic settlement associated with seismic ground shaking are addressed in Impact 4.5.2, below. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Û¨°±«®» ¬± Í»·³·½óÎ»´¿¬»¼ Ù®±«²¼ Ú¿·´«®»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ Ô·¯«»º¿½¬·±² ¿²¼ Ë²¬¿¾´» Í±·´ Impact 4.5.2 The project site includes soils which may be subject to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslide. This impact is considered potentially significant. Liquefaction is generally determined by three factors: loose granular soils, groundwater, and strong ground motion. The first two prerequisites are present on the project site, and it is possible that the site may experience strong ground motion. Based on these factors, the potential exists for seismically induced liquefaction to occur in the pond areas infilled with non-engineered fill materials. These are areas where loose silty sands/sandy silty soils were previously placed. Subsurface conditions at the buried pond locations are characterized by low strength, non- engineered fill. Liquefaction of loose granular soils below the groundwater is likely to occur if ground shaking during seismic events is sufficient to initiate liquefaction. In contrast, existing native soils which consist of glacial materials are not considered to be prone to liquefaction because of their generally dense nature (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The significant amount of gravel and cobble material would also help dissipate pore water pressures and lessen the likelihood of seismically induced liquefaction (Converse Consultants, 2001). Similarly, liquefaction of properly compacted engineered fill at the project site is not anticipated (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Wallace Kuhl reviewed the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Converse Consultants (2001). Based on the latest review, Wallace Kuhl concluded that the non- engineered fill at the project site has a high risk of settlement associated with it. The risk is increased with greater depths of loose fill materials and decomposition of organics within the fill material. Seismically induced settlement of loose materials above groundwater is possible if the loose materials are not properly compacted during site development. Based on preliminary analysis of potential seismic ground motion at the project site, the potential for ground motion sufficient to cause liquefaction at the site is probable (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). A liquefaction analysis based on the results of additional field exploration is required to quantify the amount of seismic settlement at the project site due to liquefaction. Although additional field exploration would be necessary prior to formulating final engineering plans, Wallace Kuhl identified several approaches to addressing non-engineered fill to mitigate potential for liquefaction and settlement. In addition, as noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soils would be imported to the project site to prepare the Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóïé ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ site for construction. The soil is anticipated to be imported from Teichert’s Martis Valley Plant and would be engineered to support proposed development. Non-engineered fill above groundwater would require removal, and properly compacted engineered fill would be placed to bring the excavated areas to finish grade. The following additionalconventional earthwork methods are available to remove non-engineered fill and place engineered fill. Í«®½¸¿®¹» It may be possible to surcharge deeper fill areas with several feet of stockpiled on-site soils approximating future anticipated building loads before or after the non-engineered fill above groundwater is reworked. The feasibility of this alternative would require further evaluation of the nature and thickness of the soils in the deeper fill areas at the project site. Fine-grained soils (silt and clay) would not consolidate under surcharge loading as quickly as granular soils and may require many months or years for adequate consolidation to occur. Although this alternative may be appropriate for smaller existing fill areas at the site, it may not be appropriate for large areas or fills containing significant organics that could decompose. Typical mitigation measures standard for earthwork include dust control through the use of water trucks and avoidance of dust-producing activity during periods of high winds, as well as erosion control measures (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Ü»»° Ü§²¿³·½ Ý±³°¿½¬·±² Deep dynamic compaction may be used to improve the support characteristics and reduce the risk of settlement of existing fills below groundwater. This procedure typically involves a crane repeatedly dropping a heavy weight of 10 to 40 tons from a height of 50 to 130 feet to compact deep fill material in areas where conventional earthwork procedures would not be practical. The drop points are usually spaced 15 to 30 feet apart on a grid pattern across the area to be improved. Dynamic compaction would not eliminate the risk of settlement, particularly if the deep existing fills contain significant organics that could slowly decompose over time. However, dynamic compaction may improve the condition of deep fills to allow the design of structural foundation systems to tolerate anticipated settlement. Although this method has been successful at compacting deep debris fills and saturated granular soils below groundwater, it is generally not effective for saturated clayey (cohesive) soils. Monitoring of site vibrations and establishing setback distances from adjacent properties is required to reduce the impact of ground vibration on existing structures from dynamic compaction to a level that would be less than significant. Setback distances would be based on soil conditions determined during future site-specific geotechnical investigations and type and nature of adjacent structures (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Ê·¾®±ó¼»²·º·½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ê·¾®±º´±¬¿¬·±² Vibro-densification and vibroflotation involve driving a 16- to 30-inch-diameter probe or tubing through the soils to be improved. These methods are primarily used for relatively uniform granular soils with less than 20 percent fine-grained soils (silt and clay). These methods may be difficult to accomplish in ponds that have been filled with large rock and concrete that would impede the driving of the probe or tubing. Although these methods may only be effective for limited areas, monitoring for vibration and setback distances similar to the deep dynamic compaction method would be required. Densification of on-site soils through soil improvement would result in a lowering of the existing ground surface. Preparation of improvement plans would require consideration of soil densification on final site grades. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòëóïè ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.5.2a Specific geotechnical field investigation shall be performed prior to approval of improvement plans for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, including any off- site improvements. The field investigation shall include, but not be limited to: Test borings at the proposed bridge abutments and in proposed development areas not previously investigated shall be conducted to explore subsurface soil conditions and obtain soil samples for laboratory testing to determine the engineering characteristics of the materials; Borings shall be supplemented with test pits excavated with a backhoe in the northern and eastern portion of the project site and where rocky subsurface conditions are anticipated; and Test pits shall be excavated with a backhoe in the northern and eastern portions of the project site and where any rocky subsurface conditions are anticipated. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division MM 4.5.2b Laboratory testing and engineering analysis on the project site shall be completed by the project applicant’s geotechnical engineer prior to approval of improvement plans to classify the subsurface soil conditions of each individual building site. Site-specific seismic ground motion studies shall be performed and seismic response and design parameters shall be prepared as required by the CBSC. All findings, conclusions, and recommendations for design and construction of the project, including a quantification of the amount of seismic settlement at the site due to liquefaction and site-specific recommendations to mitigate potential settlement to levels less than significant through prudent engineering design (e.g., deep dynamic compaction) or by avoidance of areas where settlement risk cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant, shall be identified. Avoidance shall be implemented in areas underlain by non- engineered fill materials exceeding 10 feet in depth that are below groundwater where site-specific engineering design and methods cannot achieve suitable building foundation conditions that reduce the risk of settlement or instability. Site- specific seismic design parameters and recommendations for foundation design shall be provided consistent with the CBSC. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division Mitigation measures MM 4.5.2a and 4.5.2b would require additional site investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis to determine the full and exact extent of the potential for liquefaction, settlement, and slope instability. As identified in the discussion, the project engineer has indicated that potential impacts from settlement of buildings and other structures can be mitigated by soil improvements and construction of proposed improvements in accordance with current building codes as well as conventional earthwork methods. (Additional information regarding site preparation and building support, typical foundation, interior floor slab support, Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóïç ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ and bridge foundations is provided in the Geotechnical Investigation Review prepared by Wallace Kuhl (2009) included as Appendix F.) Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction, settlement, and slope instability would be reduced to less than significant. ×³°¿½¬ ß±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ Ô¿²¼´·¼» Impact 4.5.3 Areas surrounding the existing ponds on the project site may be prone to landslide. This impact is considered potentially significant. Walls of the existing ponds on the project site may be unstable, especially if the walls consist of loose infilled materials. Wallace Kuhl reviewed the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Converse Consultants, 2001) and noted that no analysis of stability was done of the existing or proposed slopes at the project site (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The slopes requiring analysis are along the perimeter of the existing ponds. Although the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation did not evaluate pond slope stability, the report did recommend that a setback be incorporated into the design if the proposed project encroaches on the existing ponds. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (Figure 3-5, Structural Setback from the 100-Year Floodplain of Cold and Donner Creeks, Figure 3-6, Structural Setback from the 100-Year Floodplain of Cold and Donner Creeks, and Figure 3-10, Lakeside Residential Section, on pages 3.5, 3.6, and 3.8) has incorporated setbacks including a minimum 25-foot buffer between the Lakeside Residential area and the 100-year floodplain of the enhanced pond areas, and a 50- foot buffer between proposed structures and the 100-year floodplain of Cold Creek and Donner Creek. A rear setback of 15 feet is proposed for structures in addition to the minimum 25-foot pond restoration buffer. Pond slopes would also be regraded to create final slopes no steeper than a three horizontal to one vertical (3:1) slope gradient. Wallace Kuhl (2009) concluded that measures identified in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (e.g., setbacks and regrading) would reduce the potential for slope instability impacting site structures for the static conditions. However, loose soils that may exist around the pond perimeters (particularly loose soils beneath groundwater) could lose shear strength and become unstable during seismic events if ground motion is strong enough to initiate liquefaction and lateral spreading of the loose soils. Impacts to buildings and other structures from slope instability during potential seismic events are potentially significant but would be mitigated through the reduction in slope gradients, building design, and setbacks (in addition to those include in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan), as recommended in site-specific studies identified as part of mitigation measures MM 4.5.2a and MM 4.5.2b. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implement mitigation measures MM 4.5.2a and MM 4.5.2b. Wallace Kuhl (2009) has indicated that engineering of the project slopes as recommended in a geotechnical report required as part of mitigation measures MM 4.5.2a and MM 4.5.2b, combined with setback distances and avoidance of areas of potential instability already identified on pages 3.6 and 3.23 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, would reduce the risk of structural damage and threat to public safety to a less than significant level. ×³°¿½¬ ß±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ Í¸¿´´±© Ù®±«²¼©¿¬»® Impact 4.5.4 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would create challenges during construction activities due to the shallow groundwater on the project site. This impact is considered potentially significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòëóîð ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ The project site is characterized by shallow groundwater elevations. During the field investigation of the project site, groundwater elevations were generally encountered between depths of 5 and 10 feet. Historically, groundwater is considered to be located at an approximate depth of 5 feet below existing ground elevation (Converse Consultants, 2001). Shallow groundwater would limit the depth of non-engineered fill removal and subsequent placement of engineered fill to elevations above groundwater. Depending on final grades and depth to groundwater, dewatering during underground utility construction may be necessary (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan indicates that all on-site utilities must be constructed underground. This includes electrical, gas, telephone, and cable TV services. Depending on final grades and depth to groundwater, impacts associated with shallow groundwater and construction of the proposed project could present a potentially significant impact. This impact is not expected to occur with the possible off-site Class I trails and the sidewalk along the south side of Deerfield Drive under Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 1 as those features would be limited to shallow drainage features and surface paving. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.5.4a To avoid dewatering, underground utilities shall be installed as shallow as possible. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities for all phases of the Coldstream Specific Plan Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division MM 4.5.4b If dewatering is determined to be required based on field inspection by the Town, permits shall be obtained from the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to discharge, including the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and water quality control measures set forth in mitigation measure MM 4.7.1a. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permit and during all project phases of the Coldstream Specific Plan Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Building Department; Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with shallow groundwater to less than significant. Î¿¼±² Ù¿ Impact 4.5.5 The California Geological Survey’sSpecial Report 211 indicated that geologic conditions at the project site do not have a high potential for radon. However, the full extent of radon at the site based on the existing soils is unknown. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. Special Report 211, Radon Potential in the Lake Tahoe Area, California, was consulted to determine preliminary information for radon potential at the project site. The report describes the alluvium at the site as having a low potential for radon and the glacial outwash deposits as having an unknown potential for radon. The map included as part of the report indicates that some portions of the site have a moderate potential for indoor radon levels above 4 picocuries per liter while the remainder of the site has an unknown potential for radon (Wallace Kuhl, 2009a). Since the full extent of radon at the site is not known, this impact is considered potentially significant. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóîï ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.5.5 Areas of the project site proposed for development shall be sampled by a California certified radon tester to determine if radon is present above 4 picocuries per liter. If parcels proposed for development are found to have radon levels above 4 picocuries per liter, the project engineer and architect shall design the structures to reduce or prevent intrusion of soil gas into the indoor air of the buildings. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Building Department Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.5.5 would reduce impacts associated radon exposure, if present on the project site, through incorporation of design features to a level of less than significant. ìòëòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Geotechnical impacts tend to be site-specific rather than cumulative in nature. For example, seismic events may damage or destroy a building on the project site, but the construction of a development project on one site would not cause any adjacent parcels to become more susceptible to seismic events, nor can a project affect local geology in such a manner as to increase risks regionally. Impacts regarding surficial deposits, namely erosion and sediment deposition, however, can be cumulative in nature within a watershed. See Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR for a discussion of cumulative water quality impacts from soil erosion. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Í±·´ Í¬¿¾·´·¬§ ¿²¼ Í»·³·½ ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.5.6 Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Town of Truckee and nearby areas of Nevada County and Placer County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and soils impacts. The proposed project’s incremental contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. Impacts associated with fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and unstable soils, landslides, shallow groundwater, and radon gas are based on site-specific conditions. These inherent conditions are an end result of natural historical events that occur through vast periods of geologic time and are not based on cumulative development. With proper evaluation of these conditions, compliance with existing codes and standards, and implementation of mitigation measures included in this section, the proposed project’s contribution to significant impacts related to the area’s geology would be less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòëóîî ìòëÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Brown & Caldwell. 2002. Cold Stream Property 100-Year Flood Evaluation. .Special Report 211. Radon Potential in the Lake California Geological Survey (CGS). 2009a Tahoe Area, California. ———. 2009b. Seismic Hazard Mapping Program. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs /shzp/Pages/Index.aspx (accessed September 28, 2009). Carter Schleicher Consulting (CSCON). 2007. Biological Resources Assessment. Coldstream Project. Town of Truckee, California. Converse Consultants. 2001. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed Teichert Development Truckee, California. Jennings, C. W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. California Division of Mines and Geology. 1:750,000. Saucedo, G. J. 2005. Geologic Map of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada. California Geological Survey. Regional Geologic Map Series Map No. 4. 1:100,000. Town of Truckee. 2006a. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2006b. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Event Planning Kit. http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/nram/event_planning_kit.pdf (accessed September 28, 2008. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2009a. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/minerals/ hazardous_minerals/radon/Pages/index.aspx (accessed September 25, 2009). ———. 2009b. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning /topics/mercalli.php (accessed September 28, 2009). Wallace Kuhl & Associates, Inc. 2009a. Geotechnical Investigation Review. ———. 2009b. Geotechnical Investigation Review Addendum. December 23, 2009. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòëóîí ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) addresses the potential presence of hazardous materials and conditions in the project area and analyzes the potential risk of such materials in proximity to proposed development and human activities. It also addresses the potential for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan project to be subject to natural hazards such as wildland fires and bears. ìòêòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ØÓÜ ßÆßÎÜÑËÍ ßÌÛÎ×ßÔÍ ÛÚ×ÒÛÜ Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term hazardous substance refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria. While hazardous substances are regulated by multiple agencies, as described below in subsection 4.6.2, Regulatory Framework, cleanup requirements of hazardous wastes are determined on a case-by- case basis according to the agency with lead jurisdiction over the project. Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are, or will be, used. It is necessary to differentiate between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material. Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility. Ð×ÛÍßÐ××ÍÍ ØßÍÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ×ÌÛ ÍÍÛÍÍÓÛÒÌ ßÒÜ ØßÍÛ Ñ×Ô ßÓÐÔ×ÒÙ A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project by Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) (2007) (Appendix G). The ESA notes that the project site was previously used for mining activities. Remnants of these activities remain on-site and include the operations area west of Cold Creek, several smaller mining ponds, a scale house, scale, and other operational equipment located near the western property boundary. During the period of gravel mining operations, underground storage tanks (USTs) were used for fuel storage, used oil storage, and asphalitic compounds. Three of the fuel USTs (one 8,000- and one 1,000-gallon gasoline and one 18,000-gallon diesel) were located east of the scale house (see Figure 4.6-1). A used-oil UST was located near the maintenance building currently leased by Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) (Figure 4.6-1). Six USTs were located near the southwest corner of the project site (NCE, 2007). In October 1985, the six asphalitic and 14,000-gallon diesel USTs were removed from the site. During removal activities, soil and groundwater impacted with asphalitic compounds and diesel were Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóï ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ detected. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 85-14 requiring Teichert to define the extent of impact and clean up the site. The two gasoline USTs, the diesel UST, and the used-oil UST were removed from the site in May of 1987. Impacted soil was detected beneath the diesel UST dispensing lines and within the UST excavations. With oversight by the Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, and as required under Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) No. 85-14, soils and groundwater impacts were required to be mitigated (NCE, 2009). Impacted soil was excavated, stockpiled, and covered with plastic sheeting and hay bales. Subsequent to the excavation of the soil, and with oversight from the RWQCB, ex situ bioremediation (i.e., use of biological organisms such as plants or microbes to aid in removing hazardous substances) of the stockpiled soil was utilized to reduce petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. At the conclusion of the bioremediation (as identified through sampling and testing of the bioremediated soils), soils were either placed back into the UST excavation or left on the ground surface. As part of the CAO, groundwater monitoring activities were also conducted at the site. In 1988, the RWQCB rescinded CAO No. 85-14 for the site. No sampling or analytical testing has taken place on-site since that time (NCE, 2009). In addition to potential sources of contamination that occurred on-site from former mining operations, the Phase I ESA also revealed evidence of a recognized environmental condition (REC) in connection with the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons near the northwest corner of the project site believed to have originated from the neighboring Chevron Station. Three groundwater monitoring wells (MW-8, MW-10, and MW-12) that were installed in association with groundwater investigation at the Chevron Station are located on the portion of the project site that extends north of the Chevron Station. The presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-d) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in the monitoring wells on the project site demonstrates that contamination of groundwater beneath the site in association with the Chevron Station has occurred (NCE, 2007). Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, a Phase II Investigation was conducted to evaluate the potential presence of residual petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and asphalt components in the shallow soils at the UST excavations and the bioremediation areas, and to evaluate for the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in vapor phase through (soil vapor extraction locations are shown in Figure 4.6-2), and if detected, compare the detected concentrations to published screening levels to assess if there is a potential concern for vapor intrusion into indoor air (NCE, 2009) (Appendix G). The findings of the Phase II Investigation are described in further in subsection 4.6.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in this section. Î»½±®¼ Î»ª·»© Ú·²¼·²¹ The Phase I ESA included a search of the regulatory database information contained in a Computerized Environmental Report (CER) provided by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The CER is a listing of sites identified on select federal and state standard source environmental databases within the approximate minimum search distance specified by ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments E 1527-05 and AAI. NCE reviewed each environmental database in the CER. The list of databases searched by EDR, along with their descriptions, is summarized in Table 4.6-1. The following table lists the number of sites found by specific regulatory databases within their prescribed minimum search distance as they appeared in the CER. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Hydrology T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Hydrology ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Ììòêóï ßÞÔÛ ÜÎ ßÌßÞßÍÛÍ ÛÊ×ÛÉÛÜ ß°°®±¨·³¿¬» Ò«³¾»® ±º Ü¿¬¿¾¿» Î»ª·»©»¼ Ó·²·³«³ Í»¿®½¸ Í·¬» ©·¬¸·² Ü·¬¿²½» øßÓÍÜ÷ ßÓÍÜ Û²ª·®±Í¬±® Ñ²» Ó·´» ï Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ý±®¬»» Ø¿¦¿®¼ É¿¬» ú Í«¾¬¿²½» Í·¬» Ô·¬ øÝ±®¬»»÷ Ñ²»ó¸¿´º Ó·´» é Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ô»¿µ·²¹ Ë²¼»®¹®±«²¼ Ú«»´ Ì¿²µ Î»°±®¬ øÔËÍÌ÷ Ñ²»ó¸¿´º Ó·´» é Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ú¿½·´·¬§ ×²ª»²¬±®§ Ü¿¬¿¾¿» øÝß Ú×Ü ËÍÌ÷ Ñ²»ó¯«¿®¬»® Ó·´» ì Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ë²¼»®¹®±«²¼ Í¬±®¿¹» Ì¿²µ øËÍÌ÷ Ñ²»ó¯«¿®¬»® Ó·´» î Ø·¬±®·½ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ë²¼»®¹®±«²¼ Í¬±®¿¹» Ì¿²µ øØ×ÍÌ ËÍÌ÷ Ñ²»ó¯«¿®¬»® Ó·´» î Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Í¬¿¬»©·¼» Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ûª¿´«¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Í§¬»³ øÍÉÛÛÐÍ ËÍÌ÷ Ñ²»ó¯«¿®¬»® Ó·´» ë Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ÍÔ×Ý Ñ²»ó¯«¿®¬»® Ó·´» ï Í±«®½»æ ÒÝÛô îððé The California Cortese Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List identified seven sites that are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal-Sites) (Table 4.6-2). This database identified public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with USTs having a reportable release, and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of contamination. Ììòêóî ßÞÔÛ ÝÝØÉúÍÍÔ ßÔ×ÚÑÎÒ×ß ÑÎÌÛÍÛ ßÆßÎÜÑËÍ ßÍÌÛ ËÞÍÌßÒÝÛÍ ×ÌÛÍ ×ÍÌ Ü·¬¿²½» ø·² ³·´» Ð®»«³»¼ Ð®±°»®¬§ Ò¿³»ñß¼¼®» «²´» ±¬¸»®©·» Ü·®»½¬·±² Ø§¼®±¹»±´±¹·½ °»½·º·»¼÷ Î»´¿¬·±²¸·° Ý¸»ª®±² Í¬¿¬·±² ýçîïíç ß¼¶¿½»²¬ É»¬ó²±®¬¸©»¬ Ë°ó¹®¿¼·»²¬ ïîííí Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®ò ôòøÏÏÚñÝÌÊôÝÛÓÑËëÖÙÒÒ ïôîðð º¬ò Ò±®¬¸ó²±®¬¸©»¬ Ý®±ó¹®¿¼·»²¬ ïîïðë Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Ì®«½µ»» Û´»³»²¬¿®§ Ô ðÏÌÊÖÐÏÌÊÖÙÝËÊûÌÏËË×ÌÝÚÕÙÐÊ ïïçïï Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Ì¿¸±» Ì®«½µ»» Ó¿·²¬»²¿²½» Ô ðÏÌÊÖÙÝËÊûÌÏËË×ÌÝÚÕÙÐÊ ïïèíç Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Ë²±½¿´ Í»®ª·½» Í¬¿¬·±² ýêíçï îðð º¬ò É»¬ó²±®¬¸©»¬ Ë°ó¹®¿¼·»²¬ ïîíéí Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Ì¿¸±» Ì®«½µ»» Ø·¹¸ Í½¸±±´ Ô ðÏÌÊÖÙÝËÊúÏÇÐ×ÌÝÚÕÙÐÊ ïïéîë Ü±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ úÏÐÐÙÌñÙÑÏÌÕÝÒëÊÝÊÙîÝÌÓ Ôðòë Ò±®¬¸©»¬ Ý®±ó¹®¿¼·»²¬ Í±«®½»æ ÒÝÛô îððé Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóé ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ The potential for any of these Cortese sites to cause environmental degradation is higher in the cases located up-gradient from the project site or very close to the site. This is true for the Chevron Station. The California Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) List is an inventory of reported spills and leaks, both active and inactive, which is maintained by the various California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. It includes stationary and non-stationary source spills reported to state and federal agencies, including remediated and contaminated LUST sites. Chevron Station #92139 located at 12333 Deerfield Drive, adjacent to the west-northwest of the project site, is listed in the LUST inventory. The presumed hydrogeologic direction of the site is up-gradient, and the regulatory status is pollution characterized. Based on the regulatory status, distance from the site, and analytical information obtained from sampling the groundwater monitoring wells on- site, the Chevron Station was been found to have impacted the site (NCE, 2009). This subject is discussed further in subsection 4.6.3, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of this section. Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ±º Ø¿¦¿®¼±« Ó¿¬»®·¿´ The transportation of hazardous materials within the State of California is subject to various federal, state, and local regulations. It is illegal to transport explosives or inhalation hazards on any public highway not designated for that purpose, unless the use of the highway is required to permit delivery or the loading of such materials (California Vehicle Code Sections 31602(b), 32104(a)). The California Highway Patrol (CHP) designates through routes to be used for the transportation of hazardous materials. Transportation of hazardous materials is restricted to these routes except in cases where additional travel is required from that route to deliver or receive hazardous materials to and from users. The proposed project would result in the limited transportation of hazardous materials during both construction and operational phases. Such materials would include small amounts of solvents, lubricants, paints, fertilizers, and other hazardous materials required for the construction and maintenance activities associated with the types of developments proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. As the proposed project will be commercial and residential in nature, it would not include the routine transport of other hazardous materials. Ø¿¦¿®¼ Î»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ì®«½µ»» Ì¿¸±» ß·®°±®¬ The Truckee Tahoe Airport, which is located outside of Truckee town limits on the boundary between Placer and Nevada counties, serves as a regional center for private and charter flights. The project site is located about 3 miles east of the Truckee Tahoe Airport. The easternmost portion of project site is located in Zone E, Other Airport Environs (Figure 4.6-3) as shown on the Truckee Tahoe Airport Compatibility Map. The Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan identifies no limits on residential dwelling units per acre, or people per acre, and no requirement for open space. Prohibited use include “Hazards to Flight” which include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Land use development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited (Foothill Airport Land Use Commission, 2004). The area of the project site located within Zone E is currently vacant and is designated Open Space as part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. While existing water features may attract birds, this represents a pre-existing condition. No new hazards to airport operations would be created in association with implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan based on the project site’s location and configuration. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóè T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ É·´¼º·®» Ø¿¦¿®¼ The Town of Truckee General Plan Safety Element states that the entire Truckee area is considered to be in a high fire hazard severity zone, as defined by the California Department of Forestry (CDF). Risks are more pronounced in certain parts of the community, particularly where homes are located within areas of dense vegetation and forestland, and where steep slopes and other similar conditions exist. Figure 4.6-4 shows areas of potential risk from wildland fire based on the proximity of population density to those areas most likely to be at risk due to prevailing physical and climatic conditions (Town of Truckee, 2006a). As shown, the project site is located in an area identified as having a very high community threat from wildfire. ßª¿´¿²½¸» Ø¿¦¿®¼ The degree of potential hazard from snow avalanche in Truckee is related to a number of localized conditions, including steepness of slope, exposure, snow pack composition, wind, temperature, rate of snowfall, and other interacting factors. Three avalanche hazard areas are mapped in Truckee as shown in the General Plan Safety Element. They include an area at the west end of Donner Lake and another south of the lake just west of Donner Memorial State Park, as well as a smaller area at the southeast edge of Tahoe Donner. The project site is not located in an avalanche hazard area. Þ»¿® The Town of Truckee is home to many types of native wildlife, including black bear. According to the Bear League, 2007 was a record year for bear deaths in the Truckee Tahoe region. A recorded 120 bears were hit by cars or destroyed for their continued annoyance and potential threat to the public (Town of Truckee, 2009). Unfortunately, human needs and activities like housing and commercial uses can be incompatible with wildlife needs and activities like hunting or foraging for food. In addition, habituated black bears can cause expensive damage to houses, cars, and garbage facilities when searching for food. The Town of Truckee publishes bear awareness information to educate visitors and residents about the potential to encounter bears when visiting and living in the area. ìòêòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies that oversee hazardous materials handling and a summary of significant hazardous waste management, including the statutes and regulations these agencies administer, are listed in Table 4.6-3 below. ìòêóí Ì ßÞÔÛ ÍØÓÎß ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ßÆßÎÜÑËÍ ßÌÛÎ×ßÔÍ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ËÌØÑÎ×ÌÇ Î»¹«´¿¬±®§ ß¹»²½§ ß«¬¸±®·¬§ Ú»¼»®¿´ ß¹»²½·» öÝÄÝÌÚÏÉËñÝÊÙÌÕÝÒËêÌÝÐËÎÏÌÊýÛÊÔûÏÚÙÏØøÙÚÙÌÝÒ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² øÜÑÌ÷ Î»¹«´¿¬·±² øÝÚÎ÷ ìç Ú»¼»®¿´ É¿¬»® Ð±´´«¬·±² Ý±²¬®±´ ß½¬ Ý´»¿² ß·® ß½¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ð®±¬»½¬·±² ß¹»²½§ øÛÐß÷ Ý´»¿² É¿¬»® ß½¬ Î»±«®½» Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Î»½±ª»®§ ß½¬ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóïï ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Î»¹«´¿¬±®§ ß¹»²½§ ß«¬¸±®·¬§ Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Î»°±²»ô Ý±³°»²¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ô·¿¾·´·¬§ ß½¬ øÝÛÎÝÔß÷ Í«°»®º«²¼ ß³»²¼³»²¬ ¿²¼ Î»¿«¬¸±®·¦¿¬·±² ß½¬ Ú»¼»®¿´ ×²»½¬·½·¼»ô Ú«²¹·½·¼» ¿²¼ Î±¼»²¬·½·¼» ß½¬ Ñ½½«°¿¬·±²¿´ Í¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ Ø»¿´¬¸ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² øÑÍØß÷ Ñ½½«°¿¬·±²¿´ Í¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ Ø»¿´¬¸ ß½¬ ¿²¼ ÝÚÎ îç Í¬¿¬» ß¹»²½·» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì±¨·½ Í«¾¬¿²½» Ý±²¬®±´ øÜÌÍÝ÷ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ý±¼» ±º Î»¹«´¿¬·±² Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º ×²¼«¬®·¿´ Î»´¿¬·±² øÝßÔóÑÍØß÷ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ñ½½«°¿¬·±²¿´ Í¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ Ø»¿´¬¸ ß½¬ô ÝÝÎ Ì·¬´» è Ð±®¬»®óÝ±´±¹²» É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ ß½¬ Í¬¿¬» É¿¬»® Î»±«®½» Ý±²¬®±´ Þ±¿®¼ ¿²¼ Î»¹·±²¿´ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ý±²¬®±´ Þ±¿®¼ Ë²¼»®¹®±«²¼ Í¬±®¿¹» Ì¿²µ Ô¿© Ø»¿´¬¸ ¿²¼ É»´º¿®» ß¹»²½§ Í¿º» Ü®·²µ·²¹ É¿¬»® ¿²¼ Ì±¨·½ Û²º±®½»³»²¬ ß½¬ ß·® Î»±«®½» Þ±¿®¼ ¿²¼ ß·® Ð±´´«¬·±² Ý±²¬®±´ Ü·¬®·½¬ ß·® Î»±«®½» ß½¬ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Û³»®¹»²½§ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß¹»²½§ øÝ¿´ ÛÓß÷ Ø¿¦¿®¼±« Ó¿¬»®·¿´ Î»´»¿» Î»°±²» Ð´¿²ñ×²ª»²¬±®§ Ô¿© Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ú±±¼ ¿²¼ ß¹®·½«´¬«®» Ú±±¼ ¿²¼ ß¹®·½«´¬«®» Ý±¼» Í¬¿¬» Ú·®» Ó¿®¸¿´ Ë²·º±®³ Ú·®» Ý±¼»ô ÝÎ Ì·¬´» ïç Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ ËòÍò Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ð®±¬»½¬·±² ß¹»²½§ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provides leadership in the nation’s environmental science, research, education, and assessment efforts. The USEPA works closely with other federal agencies, state, and local governments and Native American tribes to develop and enforce regulations under existing environmental laws. The USEPA is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs and delegates to states and tribes responsibility for issuing permits and monitoring and enforcing compliance. Prior to August 1992, the principal agency at the federal level regulating the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste was the USEPA, under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As of August 1, 1992, however, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) was authorized to implement the state’s hazardous waste management program for the USEPA. The USEPA continues to regulate hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Response Compensation and Liability Act. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóïî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Î»°±²»ô Ý±³°»²¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ Ô·¿¾·´·¬§ ß½¬ The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980 (U.S. Code, Title 42). This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The law authorizes two kinds of response actions: (1) short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and (2) long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life- threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the USEPA’s National Priorities List. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan, which provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986. CERCLA created the Superfund Program in order to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites and to respond to accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants. Section 101 of CERCLA defines a list of hazardous chemicals for which the USEPA must establish regulations. Releases of CERCLA hazardous substances in amounts greater than their “reportable quantity” must be reported to the National Response Center and to state and local government officials. Hazardous substances identified in CERCLA include all chemicals on the following regulatory lists: Clean Air Act list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), Clean Water Act list of hazardous substances and priority pollutants, Solid Waste Disposal Act list of hazardous wastes, and Toxic Substances Control Act list of imminent hazards. Û³°´±§»» Í¿º»¬§ øÚ»¼»®¿´÷ The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible at the federal level for ensuring worker safety. OSHA sets federal standards for implementation of workplace training, exposure limits, and safety procedures for the handling of hazardous substances (as well as other hazards). OSHA also establishes criteria by which each state can implement its own health and safety program. Ñ¬¸»® Ú»¼»®¿´ ß¹»²½·» Other federal agencies that regulate hazardous materials include the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Institute of Health (NIH). The following federal laws and guidelines govern hazardous materials. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Clean Air Act Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Guidelines for Carcinogens and Biohazards Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóïë ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Safe Drinking Water Act Toxic Substances Control Act Í ÌßÌÛ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ð®±¬»½¬·±² ß¹»²½§ The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board establish rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous waste. Applicable state and local laws include the following: Public Safety/Fire Regulations/Building Codes; Hazardous Waste Control Law; Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act; Air Toxics Hot Spots and Emissions Inventory Law; Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act; and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ì±¨·½ Í«¾¬¿²½» Ý±²¬®±´ Within Cal-EPA, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the state agency, for the management of hazardous materials and the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law. In addition, DTSC is frequently involved with the cleanup of abandoned mine sites. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ø·¹¸©¿§ Ð¿¬®±´ A valid Hazardous Materials Transportation License, issued by the CHP, is required by the laws and regulations of the State of California Vehicle Code Section 3200.5 for transportation of either: Hazardous materials shipments for which the display of placards is required by state regulations; or Hazardous materials shipments of more than 500 pounds, which would require placards if shipping in greater amounts in the same manner. Additional requirements on the transportation of explosives, inhalation hazards, and radioactive materials are enforced by CHP under the authority of the State Vehicle Code. Transportation of explosives generally requires consistency with additional rules and regulations for routing, safe stopping distances, and inspection stops (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Article 1, Sections 1150–1152.10). Inhalation hazards face similarly more restrictive rules and Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóïê ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ regulations (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Article 2.5, Sections 1157–1157.8). Radioactive materials are strictly restricted to specific safe routes for transportation of such materials. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Û³»®¹»²½§ Î»°±²» Ð´¿² California has developed an Emergency Response Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local government and private agencies. Response to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), which coordinates the responses of other agencies including Cal-EPA, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), RWQCB, Nevada County Sheriff’s Department, Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD), and Town of Truckee Police Department. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan identifies specific goals and policies regarding hazards and hazardous materials. Appendix B analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ Ú·®» Ð´¿² According to the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, the Truckee Fire Protection District participated in the development of the Nevada County Fire Plan, which was accepted by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in May 2005. The Fire Plan includes an extensive series of recommendations aimed at reducing wildland fire risk in the county, including fuel management and defensible space enforcement strategies, public education, infrastructure improvements to increase firefighting capacity, and coordination with local fire agencies to ensure consistent and effective wildland fire mitigation efforts. Ì®«½µ»» Û³»®¹»²½§ Ñ°»®¿¬·±² Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (February 2008) identifies the Town’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The EOP also addresses integration and coordination with other governmental levels when required. The EOP addresses how the Town will respond to extraordinary events or disasters, from preparation through recovery, and identifies the responsibility of each department based on each identified hazard or threat. Special districts serving the Town of Truckee are responsible for following this plan and developing procedures to fulfill their stated responsibilities. Ì®«½µ»» Ú·®» Ý±¼» The Town of Truckee has adopted the Uniform Fire Code with some amendments as part of its Building Code. The amendments are intended to address the specific conditions and fire risks in Truckee and to ensure that development occurs in a manner that reduces the threat of urban and wildland fire. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóïé ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ ìòêòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Based on criteria derived from Appendix G in the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in a significant impact to the environment or to human health and safety if the project would: 1)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. 2)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 3)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. 4)Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 5)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 6)For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 7)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 8)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas where residences are intermixed with wildlands. This section also discusses potential impacts associated with bear-human interactions. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, focusing on the impact of the potential presence of on-site contamination, exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires or hazards, and potential bear-human interactions. Based on the nature of the proposed project (commercial and residential), no impacts are associated with routine transport of hazardous materials. No uses are proposed as part of the project that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, there would be no impacts on schools located within one-quarter mile of the project site. A search of a Computerized Environmental Report (CER) provided by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. did not identify the project site on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by Government Code Section 65962.5. The project site is located outside of any designated safety zone and noise contours identified in the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Plan. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóïè ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area of the proposed project. These issues will not be discussed further in this analysis. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ º±® Î»´»¿» ±º Ø¿¦¿®¼±« ñÝÊÙÌÕÝÒËÔîÙÊÌÏÒÙÉÑöÅÚÌÏÛÝÌÜÏÐË Impact 4.6.1 Petroleum hydrocarbons previously located beneath the site have been removed and are no longer present in detectable levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site revealed evidence of a recognized environmental condition (REC) in connection with petroleum hydrocarbons (NCE, 2007). An REC refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous materials on the site under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous materials into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the site. Petroleum hydrocarbons were identified near the northwest corner of the project site north and northwest of the Chevron Station. This includes areas within or adjacent to the possible off-site Class I trail proposed to leave the site in the northwest corner and travel along Donner Pass Road to the entrance to Donner Memorial State Park. Three groundwater monitoring wells (MW-8, MW-10, and MW-12) that were installed in association with groundwater investigation at the Chevron Station are located on the portion of the project site that extends north of the Chevron Station (Figure 4.6-1) (NCE, 2007). The presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-d) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in the monitoring wells on the project site demonstrated that contamination of groundwater beneath the site had occurred in association with the nearby Chevron Station. While the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons beneath the site did not pose a significant concern under the existing land uses, the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) beneath the site could pose a concern for future residential or commercial purposes. A soil gas survey was performed as part of the Phase II Investigation prepared for the project site (NCE, 2009). On May 29, 2008, a total of eight soil vapor samples (SV-1 through SV-8) were obtained at the project site at depths of approximately 5 feet below ground surface. Five of the samples (SV-1 through SV-5) were obtained from the portion of the project site that is located west of Cold Creek. Three of the samples (SV-6 through SV-8) were obtained from the portion of the project site that is positioned hydrologically down-gradient from the Chevron Station located on Coldstream Road. Locations where soil vapor samples were taken are shown in Figure 4.6-2. Samples were analyzed on-site for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively BTEX), naphthalene, and oxygenates. Based on the analytical results of the soil gas survey, it does not appear that vapor intrusion associated with the hydrocarbon impacts at the Chevron Station is likely to impact future residential and commercial land uses, as no VOCs in vapor phase were detected during the soil gas survey conducted on May 29, 2008 (NCE, 2009). None of the constituents tested were reported above laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil vapor samples obtained from the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with petroleum hydrocarbons are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóïç ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ îÏÊÙÐÊÕÝÒØÏÌùÆÎÏËÉÌÙÊÏöÝÄÝÌÚÏÉËñÝÊÙÌÕÝÒËÔûÏÐÊÝÑÕÐÝÊÙÚëÏÕÒ Impact 4.6.2 Underground storage tanks (USTs) located on the project site resulted in soil contamination in the northern portion of the project site. The USTs have been removed and impacted soils have been remediated. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. The Phase I ESA conducted for the project site revealed that eleven underground storage tanks (USTs) were located on-site and used for fuel storage, used-oil storage, and asphaltic compound storage (NCE, 2007). The locations of the USTs are depicted in Figure 4.6-1. The tanks were removed between 1985 and 1987. However, during the removal activities, impacted soils were identified. With oversight by the RWQCB Lahontan Region, and as required under Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) No. 85-14, soils and groundwater impacts were required to be mitigated. To mitigate the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil, impacted soils were excavated and stockpiled in biocells. Subsequent to the excavation of the soil, and with oversight from the RWQCB, ex situ (i.e., off-site) bioremediation (e.g., use of biological organisms such as plants or microbes to aid in removing hazardous substances) of the stockpiled soil was utilized to reduce petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. At the conclusion of the bioremediation (as identified through sampling and testing of the bioremediated soils), soils were either placed back into the UST excavation or left on the ground surface. As part of the CAO, groundwater monitoring activities were also conducted at the project site. In 1988, the RWQCB rescinded CAO No. 85-14 for the project site. No sampling or analytical testing has taken place on-site since that time (NCE, 2009). NCE attempted to obtain records associated with the UST removal and bioremediation of the soil from the RWQCB and Teichert Aggregates, the former operator of the gravel mine. Because of the age of the project, records were not available. The only data that were found were the locations of the former tanks and the area where bioremediation activities were conducted (Figure 4.6-1). Because the analytical data was not available, it was not possible to determine whether all residual contamination had been removed, so further testing was conducted. A total of 13 backhoe test pits (TP-1 through TP-13) were excavated to approximately 8 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the locations show on Figure4.6-2. Samples were obtained during the excavation of each test pit at approximately 2, 4, and 8 feet bgs for those located in the former UST area and at approximately 1.5, 4, and 8 feet bgs for all remaining test pits located in the bioremediation areas. The soil samples were analyzed for fuels, metals, and asphalt-related compounds that include total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g), total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-d), total extractable hydrocarbons (TPH-e), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively BTEX), tert amyl-methyl ether (TAME), methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Based on the findings of the Phase II Investigation, it appeared that very low levels of motor oil were present at the site. Motor oil was the only constituent detected in all of the samples, ranging in concentration from 9.6 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg; TP13@1.5) to 480 mg/kg (TP6@1.5). Due to the lack of any additional petroleum constituents detected (BTEX, MTBE, napthalene), it would appear that the motor oil detected was residual in nature. The motor oil detections were compared to established environmental screening levels (ESLs). The detections were below the ESL (1,200 mg/kg) for residual hydrocarbons suggesting that, based on the ESLs, they are not a cause for concern. TPH-d, TPH-g, semi-volatile organic compounds, VOCs, BTEX, MTBE, and TAME were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples. Arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, and zinc were all detected above laboratory reporting limits in soil samples obtained from the project site. The analytical results for all Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóîð ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ metals were below their respective California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) with the exception of arsenic. Arsenic naturally occurs in soil and sediments in California and is frequently found at background concentrations that exceed the CHHSL. Additionally, naturally occurring arsenic is not found at one concentration; more typically it occurs as a range of concentrations. The arsenic detected at the project site ranges from 0.5 to 3 mg/kg and is above the CHHSL (0.07 mg/kg). However, screening levels do not account for background levels (2005) and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment acknowledges that naturally occurring background soil concentrations are a major issue in determining a screening level for arsenic (2005). Background concentrations for arsenic were evaluated using the procedures outlined in the California Department of Toxic Substances Control guidance document entitled “Determination of Arsenic Remediation, Development of Arsenic Clean-up Goals for Proposed and Existing School Site,” dated May 21, 2007. The results of the evaluation and statistical evidence supports the reported levels of arsenic as representing background concentrations. Where arsenic (or any natural occurring compound) is found, DTSC or other agencies generally do not require cleanup to below background concentrations (Leacox, 2009). Cleanup is only required if the arsenic is present at the site from some anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) source. The statistical evaluation performed on the data set from the project site was developed by DTSC. The results indicated that the range of arsenic reported in the samples represents one population with no data outliers, which is indicative of naturally occurring concentrations (Leacox, 2009). Therefore, cleanup is not required and no impact would occur with regard to soil contamination. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Û³»®¹»²½§ Î»°±²» Ð´¿² Impact 4.6.3 The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. The Safety Element of the Town of Truckee General Plan includes Policies P7.1 and P7.2 that call for identification of appropriate emergency access routes through the town when Interstate 80 is closed because of weather. These policies also support the Truckee Fire Protection District, Nevada County Office of Emergency Services, and other agencies in their efforts to educate the public about emergency preparedness and response. In addition, Safety Element Actions A7.1 and A7.2 are intended to ensure development of an Emergency Response Plan for Truckee and to create a Web page that includes a list of agencies and contacts for emergency situations, information about emergency preparedness, and links to useful resources. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes the requirement of an emergency access connection of the project site with Deerfield Drive (SCO et al., 2009, pp. 5.6 and 5.7). This connection will allow emergency access from Deerfield Drive through the project site to Donner Pass Road. Regardless of the connection option selected for Deerfield Drive among those identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this DEIR, the proposed project would establish, at the least, an emergency connection through this point. Reclassification of Deerfield Drive, a possible outcome under Option 1, would have no functional effect on emergency access through this connection. Taken together, proposed policies and actions would reduce potential impacts associated with an emergency response plan to less than significant levels. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóîï ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. É·´¼´¿²¼ Ú·®» Ø¿¦¿®¼ Ñ²óÍ·¬» ¿²¼ ·² ¬¸» Ê·½·²·¬§ Impact 4.6.4 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would place people and structures in an area defined as a very high fire hazard area by the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. This is a potentially significant impact. As shown in Figure 4.6-1 of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR (Town of Truckee, 2006b), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is located within an area designated as a very high fire hazard area (Figure 4.6-4). Heavily wooded areas on and surrounding the vicinity of the project site contain large amounts of flammable vegetation. In addition, steep slopes to the south of the project site allow fires going uphill to pre-heat fuels ahead of the fire, causing explosive burning conditions (CDF, 2009). These natural conditions create a high fire hazard for structures and people. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes both residential and commercial development and thus is not anticipated to increase the existing risk of wildland fire in the area. However, development of the project site as proposed by the Coldstream Specific Plan would place additional structures and residents in an area identified as a very high fire hazard area. This is a potentially significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.6.4 The project applicant shall submit a Fire Safe Plan to the Truckee Fire Protection District for review and approval. The Fire Safe Plan shall include the following components: Hydrants and Fire Flow Hydrants shall be spaced a maximum distance of 500 feet apart in residential areas, so that no point on any road is more than 250 feet from a hydrant. All hydrants shall be of the dry barrel type and be identified with an 8-foot snow stake. If necessary, hydrants shall be protected with bollards. A minimum fire flow of 1,500 gpm for a 2-hour duration with 20-psi residual shall be provided. Water system shall be installed and serviceable prior to any construction. Roads and Driveways All roads shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide with an all-weather surface capable of supporting a 40,000-pound vehicle. Approved turnouts and turnarounds shall be provided where required. Adequate snow storage areas shall be provided. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóîî ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Roads shall have a minimum 50-foot radius. Wildland Fire Protection All flammable vegetation which could pose a threat within 30 feet of all structures shall be removed. A 10-foot fuel modification zone shall be required on both sides of all roads and driveways. An approved fuel modification plan for the entire subdivision including shaded fuel break shall be required. Construction Construction shall comply with all current codes and local ordinances. The project shall comply with all requirements of the State Public Resources Code Section 4290 and 4291. Mitigation fees shall be applied to all building construction at the applicable rate. Full drawings shall be submitted to the Truckee Fire Protection District for review and approval prior to construction. No shakes or shingles of any kind will be allowed to be used for roofing materials. Timing/Implementation: The Fire Safe Plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Enforcement/Monitoring: Truckee Fire Protection District; Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of the above mitigation measure and mitigation measure MM 4.1.3, which provides for additional buffering from Donner Memorial State Park, would ensure that the proposed project meets Truckee Fire Protection District requirements regarding wildland fires. Compliance with the proposed Fuel Modification Plan would reduce the risk of fire to an acceptable level. This impact is therefore considered less than significant following mitigation. Impacts to fire protection services are discussed in Section 4.11, Community Services. ìòêòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for hazards associated with the proposed project generally consists of existing and future uses in the Town of Truckee and unincorporated portions of Nevada and Placer counties. In particular, the cumulative setting condition includes the proposed and approved projects identified in Tables 4.0-2 and 4.0-3, planned development under both the Town of Truckee General Plan Land Use Element, and planned and proposed land uses in Nevada County and Placer County communities near the town. Cumulative impacts associated Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóîí ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ with hazardous materials and human health risks from increased development may include, but are not limited to, impacts on transportation, air quality, hydrology and water quality, and biological resources. The cumulative impacts associated with these potentially affected resources are analyzed in the applicable sections of this Draft EIR. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Ø¿¦¿®¼±« Ó¿¬»®·¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.6.5 Implementation of the proposed project, in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and other reasonably foreseeable projects, may result in cumulative hazardous material and human health risk impacts. The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. The cumulative effect of ongoing development within the cumulative setting area could increase the number of residents within the Town of Truckee and surrounding areas, exposing individuals to existing hazards and hazardous materials identified in the impact discussions above. However, exposure to existing known hazardous materials is typically site-specific and not cumulative in nature. Development of the proposed project, for example, would not necessarily result in additional exposure to people elsewhere in the cumulative setting area, nor would development of the proposed project result in an increase in environmental hazards from pre-existing hazardous materials or operations on the project site. Some hazard impacts can be considered cumulative. Increased commercial development can create the potential for more transportation of hazardous materials through a given area. More businesses commonly result in additional storage, use, and the need for disposal of hazardous materials in the common course of business. While the proposed project includes commercial development, the increased storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be limited to small quantities associated with these uses as well as with the proposed residential uses. Construction of the proposed project would result in exposure of structures and people to potential for wildfire hazards. However, these impacts are largely site-specific, and mitigation incorporated in the impact discussion above would reduce those impacts to less than cumulatively considerable levels. While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as the area identified in the cumulative setting continues to develop, several regulations, policies, and laws are in place that will reduce the risk to people and structures in the region. Considering the protection granted by local, state, and federal agencies and their requirements for development and use of hazardous materials in the region, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. By the same token, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòêóîì ìòêØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ California Department of Forestry (CDF). 2009. California Forest Stewardship Program ( http://www.ceres.ca.gov/foreststeward/html/firehazard.htmlaccessed September 29, 2009). Foothill Airport Land Use Commission. 2004. Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Leacox, Mike. 2009. Nichols Consulting Engineers. E-mail to Mike Isle, Stonebridge Properties, LLC, regarding questions on Phase II, dated July 2, 2009. Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE), Chtd. 2007. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) 10342 Cold Stream Road, 12100, 12175, 12027, and 11955 Deerfield Drive, Nevada County APNs 018-560-10, -12, 018-740-22, -23, 018-760-11, -12, -13, -15 and Placer County APN 080-010-23 Truckee, California. ———. 2009. Summary Report, Phase II Investigation – Soil Sampling Assessors Parcel Number 018- 560-012, 018-760-011, -012, -013 and -015, 10342 Cold Stream Road, Truckee, California. SCO Planning & Engineering, Kenkay Associations, and Ward-Young Architecture & Planning. 2009. Coldstream Specific Plan. Town of Truckee. 2006a. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Update. Safety Element. ———. 2006b. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Update EIR. ———. 2008. Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). ———. 2009. Bear Awareness. http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=609 (accessed August 21, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòêóîë ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) describes surface water and groundwater features for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan area (project site) and relevant surrounding areas and addresses potential issues associated with storm drainage and flooding, stormwater quality, groundwater quality (as impacted by stormwater), and exposure of structures to flood hazards. Information provided in this section has been based on interpretations of regulations, available data, available reports and other information, information obtained from Town of Truckee staff and other governmental agencies, and field reconnaissance performed by Storm Water Consulting, Inc. Draft EIRSection 4.12, Utilities and Services Systems, discusses impacts related to water supplies and the provision of water service to residents and businesses. ìòéòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÍØ ËÎÚßÝÛ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ Ü®¿·²¿¹» Ú»¿¬«®» ¿²¼ Ì±°±¹®¿°¸§ Drainage features and topography that exist within the project site and nearby surrounding areas are depicted on Figure 4.7-1.The western portion of the project site is traversed from south to north by Cold Creek (Figure 4.7-2), a perennial stream that drains a local watershed of about 7,360 acres, or 11.5 square miles (Brown and Caldwell, 2002).Cold Creek is well defined as it extends through the site and joins Donner Creek on the south side of Interstate 80 (I-80) along the north boundary of the project site (Figure 4.7-3). Donner Creek is also a perennial stream and originates at Donner Lake Dam that regulates the level of Donner Lake. The dam is located approximately 1 mile upstream to the west of the confluence with Cold Creek in Donner Memorial State Park. Donner Creek extends easterly along the south side of I-80, crosses State Route (SR) 89, and then bends in a southeasterly direction, joining the Truckee River approximately 1½ miles downstream of the confluence with Cold Creek. Both Cold Creek and Donner Creek as they extend through or adjacent to the project site have historically been altered from their natural state. Changes to the natural conditions have included straightening channel alignments, vegetation removal, construction of bridge and culvert crossings, and placement of riprap, boulders, etc., along segments of stream banks for bank reinforcement. The streams have also been impacted by upstream land use activities and impoundment structures (such as Donner Lake Dam). The historical alterations to Cold Creek and Donner Creek have undoubtedly contributed to sediment discharges in these creeks and the Truckee River downstream of the project site over the years. However, these creeks have been trending toward becoming more stable in recent decades as erosion and sedimentation processes have adjusted to the prior alterations and vegetation has become reestablished along the creek corridors. Within the project site, there is an existing, single span bridge crossing over Cold Creek (Figure 4.7-4). The bridge is a steel girder bridge with a wood deck and concrete embankments and is approximately 40 feet in length. The low chord elevation of the structure resides approximately 15 feet above the flow line for Cold Creek, and the bridge has little impact on flow conditions in Cold Creek except during high flood stages. In addition to water features associated with the creeks, the project site contains several ponds as a result of past mining activities. The project site is defined by a number of ponds and uneven topography. A 2003 wetland delineation verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) identified approximately 53.57 acres of waters of the United States on the project site, including wetlands, with most of these waters occupied by the residual ponds, which are maintained through snow melt as well as shallow groundwater. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóï ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ý´·³¿¬» ¿²¼ Ð®»½·°·¬¿¬·±² Precipitation in the Truckee/Donner Lake area occurs as rainfall in the summer months and as a combination of rainfall and snowfall in the winter months. The majority of rainfall and snowfall occurs in the winter months. Due to the area’s relatively high elevations and its orientation along the east slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, temperatures range from cool and moderate in the summer to repetitively below freezing in the winter. For the area surrounding the project site, the following generalizations can be made based on records taken from the Donner Memorial State Park gauging site (#042467) (WRCC, 2007): Average maximum temperature is approximately 81.2 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (July); Average minimum temperature is approximately 14.0 degrees F (January); Average annual precipitation is approximately 39 inches; Average annual depth of snowfall is approximately 184 inches. The 100-year 24-hour return period depth of precipitation is approximately 6.5 inches, per National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOAA) Atlas 2, Volume XI (1993). ( Û¨·¬·²¹ Í«®º¿½» Ú´±© Ý±²¼·¬·±² The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) includes flood discharge rates for Donner Creek in their Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Nevada County, California (Unincorporated Areas) dated February 5, 1997. The hydrologic analysis upon which the discharges were based was performed by the USACE and based on statistical data from U.S. Geological Survey Stream Gauge No. 10338500, located on Donner Creek just downstream of Donner Lake Dam. The published hydrologic data from the FIS report is shown in Table 4.7-1 below. ìòéóï Ì ßÞÔÛ ÐÜÎÜÝÝÚÍø÷ÐÚÛÓß ÛßÕ ×ÍÝØßÎÙÛ ßÌÛÍ ÚÑÎ ÑÒÒÛÎ ÎÛÛÕ ×Ò ËÞ×Ý ÛÛÌ ÐÛÎ ÛÝÑÒÜ ÝÚÍ ËÞÔ×ÍØÛÜ ÞÇ Ü®¿·²¿¹» ß®»¿ ïðóÇ»¿® ëðóÇ»¿® ïððóÇ»¿® ëððóÇ»¿® Ô±½¿¬·±² ±² Ü±²²»® Ý®»»µ ø¯«¿®» ³·´»÷ Ü·½¸¿®¹» Ü·½¸¿®¹» Ü·½¸¿®¹» Ü·½¸¿®¹» ß¬ Ñ«¬´»¬ ±º Ü±²²»® Ô¿µ» ïìòè ìéð éçð ïôðîð ïôèèð ß¬ Ó±«¬¸ øÝ±²º´«»²½» ©·¬¸ íïòí ïôðéð îôíðð íôëðð êôïðð Ì®«½µ»» Î·ª»®÷ Í±«®½»æ ÚÛÓßô ïççé Flood discharges for Cold Creek are not published in the FIS report as Cold Creek was only evaluated at an approximate level of detail. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóî Óß èìæçðæïï à çððîñðíñç ó ÜÈÓòÑÐÑÌ ÜÒß ÛÙßÒ×ßÎÜÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Hydrology T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Hydrology T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Hydrology ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Brown and Caldwell (2002) evaluated Cold Creek in a 100-year flood evaluation report that was prepared on behalf of the project applicant and estimated a 100-year peak discharge of 2,480 cubic feet per second (cfs) for Cold Creek at its confluence with Donner Creek. The peak discharge estimate was based on a simple subtraction of the 100-year discharge values for Donner Creek published by FEMA (3,500 cfs to 1,020 cfs), noting that the majority of additional drainage contributions to Donner Creek between Donner Lake and the Truckee River would be attributable to Cold Creek. The Brown and Caldwell evaluation concludes that the Cold Creek discharge estimate is somewhat conservative as it neglects the contribution of runoff to Donner Creek from other portions of the Town of Truckee between Cold Creek and the Truckee River. Ú´±±¼·²¹ According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 528 and 529 published by FEMA for Nevada County, California (Incorporated Areas) dated February 3, 2010, the project site includes areas designated as Zone A, Zone AE, and Zone X. These flood zones are defined by FEMA as follows: Zone A – Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by the 100-year flood, determined by approximate methods; no base flood elevations shown or Flood Hazard Factors (FHFs) determined. Zone AE – Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by the 100-year flood; with base flood elevations shown, and zones subdivided according to FHFs. Zone X – Areas between the Special Flood Hazard Areas and the limits of the 500-year flood; areas that are protected from the 100- or 500-year floods by dike, levee, or other local water-control structure; areas subject to certain types of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are less than 1 foot; and areas subject to 100-year flooding from sources with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Figure 4.7-5 depicts the 100- and 500-year flood zones (Zones A, AE, and X) represented on the effective FIRMs within and adjacent to the project site. On behalf of the applicant, Brown and Caldwell (2002) performed a hydraulic analysis utilizing USACE’s HEC-RAS computer model to determine the boundaries of the 100-year floodplains for Donner Creek and Cold Creek in greater detail than the level of detail employed to develop the FIRMs. The analysis utilized updated and detailed topographic mapping (1-foot contour interval, which is of substantially greater detail than was used by FEMA) as a basis for modeling the passage of the 100-year discharge and for mapping the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain. In particular, the hydraulic analysis and mapping of the 100-year floodplain for Cold Creek was substantially more detailed than the analysis performed by FEMA. Brown and Caldwell utilized the 100-year discharges for Donner Creek published in the FEMA FIS and an estimated 100-year discharge magnitude of 2,480 cfs for Cold Creek as a basis for completing their hydraulic analysis. The flood boundaries determined per the Brown and Caldwell analysis are depicted on Figure 4.7-6, which consists of Plate 1 from the Brown and Caldwell analysis report. The flood boundaries resulting from this more detailed analysis utilizing updated topographic mapping were generally narrower and more confined to channel areas, particularly along Cold Creek, than the boundaries represented on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The Brown and Caldwell study also estimated 100-year floodplain boundaries and elevations for the various existing ponds within the project site, and these boundaries and elevations are also shown on Figure 4.7-6. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóïï ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ü¿³ Donner Lake Dam is located approximately 1 mile upstream to the west of the project site on Donner Creek (Figure 4.7-7). This dam is within the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Table 4.7-2 lists pertinent official information from DSOD regarding Donner Lake Dam. ìòéóî Ì ßÞÔÛ ÜËÐÝÍÐ ßÓÍ ÐÍÌÎÛßÓ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÑÔÜÍÌÎÛßÓ ÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÔßÒ ËÖÍÝ ÒÜÛÎ ËÎ×ÍÜ×ÝÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÌßÌÛ ÑÚ ßÔ×ÚÑÎÒ×ß Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Î»»®ª±·® ß®»¿ Ì§°» ±º Ò¿³» ±º Ü¿³ Í¬®»¿³ Ñ©²»® øß½®»óÚ»»¬÷ øß½®»÷ Í¬®«½¬«®» Í´¿¾ ¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ô¿µ» Ü±²²»® Ý®»»µ Ì®«½µ»» Ó»¿¼±© É¿¬»® ß«¬¸±®·¬§ ïðôíðð çêð Þ«¬¬®» Í±«®½»æ ÜÍÑÜô îððç The DSOD retains the power, authority, and responsibility for supervising the construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, and removal of dams and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the State of California. The DSOD inspects dams under state jurisdiction on a periodic basis. Donner Lake Dam was last inspected by DSOD on December 5, 2008, and the DSOD inspection report concluded that the “dam, reservoir, and the appurtenances are judged satisfactory for continued use”(DSOD, 2008). In determining whether or not a dam or reservoir constitutes a danger to life or property, DSOD takes into consideration the possibility that the dam or reservoir might be endangered by seepage, earth movement, or other conditions which exist or which might occur in any area in the vicinity of the dam or reservoir. Whenever DSOD deems that any such condition endangers a dam or reservoir, DSOD orders the owner to take such action as DSOD determines to be necessary to remove the resultant danger to life and property. The California Emergency Management Agency (formerly the Office of Emergency Services) retains dam failure inundation mapping that has been filed for many dams falling under DSOD jurisdiction. Figure 4.7-8 is a copy of the dam failure inundation map on file with the State of California for Donner Lake Dam. As shown, even in the event of a dam failure, it is projected that there would be little additional impact to the project site than would be present during a 100-year flood. The probability a failure of Donner Lake Dam is considered to be very remote and generally beyond the realm of reasonably foreseeable in the analysis of the impacts pertinent to the project site. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóïî Óß éìæïðæç à ïïðîñëïñí ó ÜÈÓòßÓÛÚÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Hydrology T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Hydrology ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ ÙÍ ÎÑËÒÜÉßÌÛÎ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ According to a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed project (Converse Consultants, 2001), groundwater elevations pertinent to the project site are likely to range between 5 and 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Cold Creek and adjacent on- and off-site ponds are considered contributory to fluctuations in groundwater levels across the project site. Soils are characterized as consisting of loose silty sands/sandy soils within the infilled settling pond areas and gravelly sand/sandy gravel to silty sand with gravel fill soils overlying native materials consisting of gravely sands/sandy gravels. These types of soils typically have high infiltration rates. Information published by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) only addresses general soil groups in the north central portion of the project site, with the remainder of the site being referenced as consisting of borrow pit areas that were not rated. The north central portion of the project site is represented as consisting of Hydrologic Soil Group D soils. The NRCS (1998) defines Hydrologic Soil Group D in the following manner: Group D: Soils having a veryslow infiltrationrate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink/swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Based on the information provided in the preliminary geotechnical investigation (Converse Consultants, 2001), it is likely that the NRCS classification of Hydrologic Soil Group D for a portion of the project site is based on the potentially high water table in the area. ÉÏ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has included the Truckee River (Calwater Watershed No. 63510010) downstream of the project site in the 2006 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments requiring total maximum daily loads (TMDL). A TMDL is a quantifiable assessment of potential water quality issues, contributing sources, and load reductions or control actions needed to restore or protect bodies of water. Table 4.7-3 provides pertinent information included in the Section 303(d) List. Ììòéóí ßÞÔÛ ÝÉßÔÍíðíø÷ÉÏÔÍÜÐÍ ×ÍÌÛÜ ÛÝÌ×ÑÒ Ü ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ ×Ó×ÌÛÜ ÛÙÓÛÒÌÍ ÑÉÒÍÌÎÛßÓ ÑÚ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ Ð®±°±»¼ ÌÓÜÔ É¿¬»® Þ±¼§ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ñÍ¬®»±® Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ Í±«®½» Ý±³°´»¬·±² Î¿²¹» Ù®¿¦·²¹óÎ·°¿®·¿² ¿²¼ñ±® Ë°´¿²¼ô Í·´ª·½«´¬«®»ô Ý±²¬®«½¬·±²ñÔ¿²¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ô Ø·¹¸©¿§ñÎ±¿¼ñÞ®·¼¹» Ý±²¬®«½¬·±²ô Í¬®»¿³¾¿²µ îððê Í»¼·³»²¬¿¬·±²ô Ì®«½µ»» Î·ª»® Ó±¼·º·½¿¬·±²ñÜ»¬¿¾·´·¦¿¬·±²ô Ý¸¿²²»´ Û®±·±²ô øß½¬«¿´ Ý±³°´»¬·±²æ Í·´¬¿¬·±² Û®±·±²ñÍ·´¬¿¬·±²ô Ò¿¬«®¿´ Í±«®½»ô Î»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ îððè÷ ¿²¼ Ì±«®·³ ß½¬·ª·¬·» ø²±²ó¾±¿¬·²¹÷ô Í²±© µ··²¹ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»ô Ò±²°±·²¬ Í±«®½» Í±«®½»æ ÍÉÎÝÞô îððé Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóïç ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Cold Creek discharges to Donner Creek in the northern portion of the project site, and Donner Creek discharges to the Truckee River approximately 1½ miles downstream to the east of the confluence with Cold Creek. In May 2008, the Lahontan RWQCB published an amendment to their Water Quality Control Plan (or Basin Plan) that establishes total maximum daily loads for the Middle Truckee River watershed (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008b). The watersheds for Donner Creek and Cold Creek (within which the project site is located) are tributary watersheds to the Middle Truckee River watershed and are governed by the recent amendment to the Basin Plan. The amendment to the Basin Plan establishes the following TMDL for the Truckee River measured at Farad, several miles downstream of the project site: Suspended sediment concentrations shall be reduced to a target value for the annual 90 percentile that is less than or equal to 25 th milligrams per liter within 20 years (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008b). The project site would also be classified as a “legacy site” according to the definitions provided in the Lahontan RWQCB’s staff report that supports the recent amendment to the Basin Plan (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008a). In the staff report, a legacy site is defined as a site where past land uses or development activities have resulted in residual significant and ongoing sediment sources being present. The past mining activities and the associated alteration of Cold Creek are activities that would likely fall within the intent of this definition. The amendment to the Basin Plan also establishes the following TMDL pertaining to legacy sites: Identified legacy sites are to be restored or BMPs implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation to surface waters (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008b). It is estimated that previous aggregate mining operations at the project site resulted in the discharge of approximately 25 tons of fine sediment a day during operation into Cold Creek (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008a). It is estimated that the Donner/Cold Creek watershed currently discharges approximately 2,253 tons per year of sediment, with 93 percent of this sediment occurring from non-urban areas (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008b). The targeted allocation for the Truckee River watershed sediment TMDL is 1,710 tons per year for the Donner/Cold Creek watershed, with 84 tons per year being allocated to urban areas and 1,626 tons per year being allocated to non-urban areas (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008b). ìòéòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ ÚÍ ÛÜÛÎßÔ ßÒÜ ÌßÌÛ Ý´»¿² É¿¬»® ß½¬ øÝÉß÷ The Clean Water Act (CWA), initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for implementing the CWA and issues NPDES permits to cities and counties through Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is located in a portion of the state that is regulated by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB). The SWRCB has issued a statewide General Permit (Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ) for construction activities within the state. The Construction General Permit (CGP) is implemented and enforced by the RWQCBs. The CGP applies to construction activity that disturbs one acre or more and requires the preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóîð ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ plan (SWPPP) that identifies best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutants from discharging from the construction site to the maximum extent practicable. On September 2, 2009, the SWRCB adopted a new CGP (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ) that superseded the existing CGP on July 1, 2010. A summary of the differences between the prior CGP and the current CGP follows (SWRCB, 2009): Rainfall Erosivity Waiver: This General Permit includes the option allowing a small construction site (>1 and <5 acres) to self-certify if the rainfall erosivity value (R value) for their site’s given location and time frame compute to be less than or equal to 5. Technology-Based Numeric Action Levels: This General Permit includes NALs [numeric action levels] for pH and turbidity. Technology-Based Numeric Effluent Limitations: This General Permit contains daily average NELs [numeric effluent limitations] for pH during any construction phase where there is a high risk of pH discharge and daily average NELs turbidity for all discharges in Risk Level 3. The daily average NEL for turbidity is set at 500 NTU [turbidity] to represent the minimum technology that sites need to employ (to meet the traditional Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standard) and the traditional, numeric receiving water limitations for turbidity. Risk-Based Permitting Approach: This General Permit establishes three levels of risk possible for a construction site. Risk is calculated in two parts: (1) Project Sediment Risk, and (2) Receiving Water Risk. Minimum Requirements Specified: This General Permit imposes more minimum BMPs and requirements that were previously only required as elements of the SWPPP or were suggested by guidance. Project Site Soil Characteristics Monitoring and Reporting: This General Permit provides the option for dischargers to monitor and report the soil characteristics at their project location. The primary purpose of this requirement is to provide better risk determination and eventually better program evaluation. Effluent Monitoring and Reporting: This General Permit requires effluent monitoring and reporting for pH and turbidity in storm water discharges. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine compliance with the NELs and evaluate whether NALs included in this General Permit are exceeded. Receiving Water Monitoring and Reporting: This General Permit requires some Risk Level 3 dischargers to monitor receiving waters and conduct bioassessments. Post-Construction Storm Water Performance Standards: This General Permit specifies runoff reduction requirements for all sites not covered by a Phase I or Phase II MS4 NPDES permit, to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate post-construction storm water runoff impacts. Rain Event Action Plan: This General Permit requires certain sites to develop and implement a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) that must be designed to protect all exposed portions of the site within 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóîï ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Annual Reporting: This General Permit requires all projects that are enrolled for more than one continuous three-month period to submit information and annually certify that their site is in compliance with these requirements. The primary purpose of this requirement is to provide information needed for overall program evaluation and pubic information. Certification/Training Requirements for Key Project Personnel: This General Permit requires that key personnel (e.g., SWPPP preparers, inspectors) have specific training or certifications to ensure their level of knowledge and skills are adequate to ensure their ability to design and evaluate project specifications that will comply with General Permit requirements. Linear Underground/Overhead Projects: This General Permit includes requirements for all Linear Underground/Overhead Projects (LUPs). The Lahontan RWQCB has also established project guidelines for erosion control that include specific BMPs that are required to be incorporated into construction projects and has established waste discharge prohibitions and exception criteria for projects within the Truckee River Hydrologic Unit. Certain actions during construction may also need to conform to a General Permit (Water Quality Order No. 5-00-175) that requires that a permit be acquired for dewatering and other low threat discharges to surface waters, provided that they do not contain significant quantities of pollutants and either (1) are four months or less in duration, or (2) the average dry weather discharge does not exceed 0.25 million gallons per day (mgd). Examples of activities that may require the acquisition of such a permit include well development water, construction dewatering, pump/well testing, pipeline/tank pressure testing, pipeline/tank flushing or dewatering, condensate discharges, water supply system discharges, and other miscellaneous dewatering/low threat discharges. However, the actions applicable to site development may already be covered under the CGP, and therefore a separate permit may not be required. On December 8, 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) circulated regulations requiring permits for stormwater discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System operators. Permits for small municipal storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally fall under the “Phase II” permits program, which regulate non-point source pollutants. In California, the NPDES Program is administered by the SWRCB. Federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual permits and general permits). The SWRCB elected to adopt a statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) for small MS4s covered under the CWA to efficiently regulate numerous stormwater discharges under a single permit. Permittees must meet the requirements in Provision D of the General Permit that require the development and implementation of a stormwater management plan (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA are administered through the Regulatory Program of the USACE and regulate the water quality of all discharges of fill or dredged material into waters of the United States including wetlands and intermittent stream channels. Section 401, Title 33, Section 1341 of the CWA sets forth water-quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” Work associated with the construction of a new of upgraded bridge crossing of Cold Creek within the project site and other construction activities will require the acquisition of a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and water quality certification from the Lahontan RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA. Section 404, Title 33, Section 1344 of the CWA in part authorizes the USACE to: Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóîî ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Set requirements and standards pertaining to such discharges: subparagraph (e); Issue permits “for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites:” subparagraph (a); Specify the disposal sites for such permits: subparagraph (b); Deny or restrict the use of specified disposal sites if “the discharge of such materials into such area would have an unacceptable, adverse effect on municipal water supplies and fishery areas:” subparagraph (c); Specify type of and conditions for non-prohibited discharges: subparagraph (f); Provide for individual state or interstate compact administration of general permit programs: subparagraphs (g), (h), and (j); Withdraw approval of such state or interstate permit programs: subparagraph (i); Ensure public availability of permits and permit applications: subparagraph (o); Exempt certain federal or state projects from regulation under this section: subparagraph (r); and Determine conditions and penalties for violation of permit conditions or limitations: subparagraph (s). Section 401 certification is required from the Lahontan RWQCB prior to final issuance of Section 404 permits by the USACE. Ì±¬¿´ Ó¿¨·³«³ Ü¿·´§ Ô±¿¼ Under CWA Section 303(d) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (discussed below), the State of California is required to establish beneficial uses of state waters and to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d) establishes the TMDL process to assist in guiding the application of state water quality standards, requiring the states to identify waters whose water quality is “impaired” (affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and to establish a TMDL or the maximum quantity of a particular contaminant that a water body can assimilate without experiencing adverse effects on the beneficial use identified. The establishment of TMDLs is generally a stakeholder-driven process that involves investigation of sources and their loading (pollution input), estimation of load allocations, and identification an implementation plan and schedule. Where stakeholder processes are not effective, total maximum daily loads can be established by the RWQCBs or the USEPA. Ð±®¬»®óÝ±´±¹²» É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ ß½¬ In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of the state’s water resources. The act established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) as the principal state agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California. Under the act, water quality policy is established, water quality standards are enforced for both surface water and groundwater, and the discharges of pollutants from point and non-point sources are regulated. The act authorizes the SWRCB to establish water Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóîí ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ quality principles and guidelines for long-range resource planning including groundwater and surface water management programs and control and use of recycled water. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Î»¹·±²¿´ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ý±²¬®±´ Þ±¿®¼ô Ô¿¸±²¬¿² Î»¹·±² É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ý±²¬®±´ Ð´¿² øÒ±®¬¸ ¿²¼ Í±«¬¸ Þ¿·²÷ Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires each RWQCB to formulate and adopt water quality control plans, or basin plans, for all areas within their region. The Porter- Cologne Act also requires each RWQCB to establish water quality objectives within the basin plans. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 131 requires each state to adopt water quality standards by designating water uses to be protected and adopting water quality criteria that protect the designated uses. In the State of California, the beneficial uses and water quality objectives are the state’s water quality standards. The project site is located within and is regulated by the Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Plan. The project site ultimately drains to the Truckee River via Donner Creek, and the Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Plan lists specific water quality objectives for the segment of the Truckee River below the confluence with Donner Creek. In addition, Chapter 4 of the Basin Plan prohibits the discharge or threatened discharge, attributable to human activities, of solid or liquid waste materials including soil, silt, clay, sand, and other organic and earthen materials to lands within the 100-year floodplain of the Truckee River or any tributary to the Truckee River. However, exemptions may be granted by the Lahontan RWQCB that fall within the following categories of new projects: (1)Projects solely intended to reduce or mitigate existing sources of erosion or water pollution, or to restore the functional value to previously disturbed floodplain areas; (2)Bridge abutments, approaches, or other essential transportation facilities identified in an approved general plan; (3)Projects necessary to protect public health or safety or to provide essential public services; (4)Projects necessary for public recreation; (5)Projects that will provide outdoor public recreation within portions of the 100-year floodplain that have been substantially altered by grading and/or filing activities which occurred prior to June 26, 1975. Ú»¼»®¿´ Û³»®¹»²½§ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß¹»²½§ The Town of Truckee is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted, as a desired level of protection, an expectation that development should be protected from floodwater damage produced by the Intermediate Regional Flood, defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year. The Town has adopted a floodplain management ordinance as a part of their Development Code that exceeds the minimum requirements established by FEMA. The Town is occasionally audited by the California Department of Water Resources to ensure that proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations is occurring. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóîì ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» The Town of Truckee Development Code includes several chapters that address conditions and requirements associated with storm drainage. Chapter 18.34 (Flood Plain Management) addresses development and permitting requirements and restrictions associated with building within the regulatory floodplain (including minimum requirements established by FEMA). Chapter 18.38 (Lake and River/Stream Corridor Development) addresses setback requirements along stream corridors. Chapter 18.30, Section 050 (Drainage and Storm Water Runoff) addresses requirements related to drainage and erosion control, runoff treatment, and maintenance. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ð«¾´·½ ×³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¿²¼ Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ øÓ¿§ îððí÷ Section 5 of these standards describes accepted methodologies for runoff calculations, design criteria and standards for drainage facilities and structures, and requirements for the preparation and submittal of drainage reports. Section 8 of these standards describes requirements for erosion and sediment control, including the requirements for the preparation of erosion and sediment control plans. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Û®±·±² Ð®»ª»²¬·±² Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ øß°®·´ îððé÷ The Town of Truckee requires that an erosion prevention plan be included as part of the submitted construction plan documents. The plan must show temporary and permanent BMPs or erosion prevention methods, infiltration or detention methods, and timelines within which erosion prevention measures will be made. Additional stormwater runoff created by new construction is required to be detained/retained on site. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Í¬±®³ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» øÖ¿²«¿®§ îððç÷ The Town of Truckee recently adopted a Storm Water Quality Ordinance (Article 11.01 of the Municipal Code) to enhance and protect the quality of waters of the State in Truckee by reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, control stormwater discharges to the storm drain system, and cause the use of best management practices by the Town and its citizens that will reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges to waters of the State. The ordinance seeks to promote these purposes by: Prohibiting illicit discharges to the storm drain system; Establishing authority to adopt requirements for stormwater management, including source control requirements to reduce pollution to the maximum extent practicable; Establishing authority to adopt requirements for municipal operations to reduce stormwater pollution and erosion to the maximum extent practicable; Establishing authority to adopt requirements for public and private development projects to reduce stormwater pollution and erosion both during construction and after the project is complete; and Establishing authority that will enable the Town to implement and enforce the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) adopted by the Town. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóîë ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ êÏÇÐÏØêÌÉÛÓÙÙëÊÏÌÑçÝÊÙÌñÝÐÝ×ÙÑÙÐÊîÌÏ×ÌÝÑ Ô úÙÛÙÑÜÙÌ The Lahontan RWQCB designated the Town of Truckee for coverage under the NPDES Phase II municipal permitting program in December 2006. The Town of Truckee published a SWMP on December 6, 2007, that addresses the required minimum measures and other stormwater quality concerns. The SWMP has been prepared based on the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and addresses requirements pertaining to the following six minimum control measures: Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts Public Involvement/Participation Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development Redevelopment and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations. The SWMP was submitted to the Lahontan RWQCB and was approved in March 2008. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» îðîë Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes goals and policies related to surface hydrology, storm drainage, flooding, erosion/sedimentation, and stormwater quality. Appendix B analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. ìòéòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ The impact analysis provided below is based on the application of the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance: 1)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 2)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). 3)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site or result in conflicts with sediment reduction measures and Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóîê ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ sediment allocations under the Truckee River TMDL (1,710 tons per year for the Donner/Cold Creek subwatershed). 4)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner would result in flooding on- or off-site. 5)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 6)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 7)Place housing 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. 8)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. 9)Expose people or property to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 10)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project site is located approximately 1 mile downstream of Donner Lake and in an area with relatively low levels of seismic activity. Though several small trace faults are located within the town limits, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones designated by the State of California in the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, or Placer County (DOC, 2009). Donner Creek and its associated floodplain only extend through areas designated for open space land use within the project site. The preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed project (Converse Consultants, 2001)indicates that during an earthquake, seismically induced waves in the ponds may breach existing dam structures between the ponds and may also cause soil erosion of the shoreline. However, the existing dam structures (berms) separating the ponds are to be removed as a part of the proposed project design for consolidation of the ponds. Also, page 3.23 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan calls for minimum setbacks of 25 feet from the 100-year floodplain elevation for the pond areas, and the extent of erosion along the shoreline that occurs from a seismic event is likely to be confined to setback areas from the pond, as the duration of a seismic event will be very short. Given these conditions, the potential for inundation on the project site due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not considered to be a significant impact and is not further discussed below. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The hydrology and water quality analysis has been based on a review of the following sources of information: The 100-year Flood Evaluation performed by Brown and Caldwell (2002) The Pond History Investigation performed by Brown and Caldwell (2001) The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project site by Converse Consultants (2001) Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóîé ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Town of Truckee Municipal Code, 2025 General Plan Update, Storm Water Management Program, Storm Water Quality Ordinance, Erosion Prevention Standards, and Public Improvement and Engineering Standards Letters from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pertaining to jurisdictional conditions for the project site NOAA Atlas 2, Volume XI precipitation frequency information National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils information FEMA FIRM panels and FIS report covering the project site Applicable State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality orders and listings Amended Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) and CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments for the Lahontan region State Division of Safety of Dams and Emergency Management Agency listing of dams falling within state jurisdiction and applicable dam failure inundation mapping State of California Water Code Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) climate data Field reconnaissance U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quad maps Aerial photographs ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.7.1 Slope and soil disturbance associated with construction activities, including movement of imported soils on the project site, could cause accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation or the release of other pollutants to adjacent waterways and wetlands. This impact is considered potentially significant. The greatest potential impact to water quality may exist during construction when earthmoving and vegetation removal occurs. The project site would be subject to new construction and grading, including new commercial buildings, residential units, roadways, trails, and utility placement. Within the construction site, many areas would be preserved as open space areas with native vegetation and water features. As identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, approximately 60,000 cubic yards of imported soils are proposed to be brought to the project site and used as fill. Excavations and grading would be necessary to construct the building pads, transportation improvements (including the construction of Cold Creek Bridge), and utilities associated with project development. In addition, grading is proposed to enhance existing pond slopes as well as the banks of Cold Creek and Donner Creek. (Note: Detailed design plans of creek enhancements are anticipated to be developed subsequent to approval of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan.) Some earthmoving would also be required during construction of off- Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóîè ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ site trails and the sidewalk on Deerfield Drive under Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 1, as these possible features are proposed to include not only the surface paved pathway but, in some locations, an approximately 4-foot-wide drainage swale to direct stormwater from the street and pathway surface into a common drainage path along the roadway. The presence of heavy equipment on the site presents the opportunity for spills of oil and fuel. Other materials such as paint and solvents used during construction could also accidentally be discharged to surface waters. All of these construction activities could lead to temporary impacts on surface water quality in Cold Creek, Donner Creek, and on-site wetlands and ponds due to the increase in sediments, the release of other pollutants, and/or increased soil erosion. As discussed in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils, the project site is characterized by shallow groundwater elevations with depths between 5 and 10 feet. Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, dewatering may be required during construction as noted in mitigation measures MM 4.5.4a and MM 4.5.4b. The State Water Resources Control Board is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and has issued a statewide General Permit (Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ) for construction activities within the state. The State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (CGP) is implemented and enforced by the RWQCBs. The CGP applies to construction activities that disturb one acre or more and requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that identifies BMPs to minimize pollutants from discharging from the construction site to the maximum extent practicable. The BMPs that must be implemented can be categorized into two major categories: (1) erosion and sediment control BMPs and (2) non-stormwater management and materials management BMPs. Erosion and sediment control BMPs fall into four main subcategories: Erosion controls Sediment controls Wind erosion controls Tracking controls Erosion controls include practices to stabilize soil, to protect the soil in its existing location, and to prevent soil particles from migration. Examples of erosion control BMPs are preserving existing vegetation, mulching, and hydroseeding. Sediment controls are practices to collect soil particles after they have migrated but before the sediment leaves the site. Examples of sediment control BMPs are street sweeping, fiber rolls, silt fencing, gravel bags, sand bags, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, and detention basins. Wind erosion controls prevent soil particles from leaving the site in the air. Examples of wind erosion control BMPs include applying water or other dust suppressants to exposed soils on the site. Tracking controls prevent sediment from being tracked off-site via vehicles leaving the site to the extent practicable. A stabilized construction entrance not only limits the access points to the construction site, but also functions to partially remove sediment from vehicles prior to leaving the site. Non-stormwater management and material management controls reduce non-sediment- related pollutants from potentially leaving the construction site to the extent practicable. The CGP prohibits the discharge of materials other than stormwater and authorized non-stormwater discharges (such as irrigation and pipe flushing and testing). Non-stormwater BMPs tend to be management practices with the purpose of preventing stormwater from coming into contact Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóîç ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ with potential pollutants. Examples of non-stormwater BMPs include preventing illicit discharges and implementing good practices for vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning and fueling operations, such as using drip pans under vehicles. Waste and materials management BMPs include implementing practices and procedures to prevent pollution from materials used on construction sites. Examples of materials management BMPs include: Good housekeeping activities such as storing of materials, covered and elevated off the ground, in a central location. Securely locating portable toilets away from the storm drainage system and performing routine maintenance. Providing a contained and impermeable location for concrete washout and performing routine maintenance. Providing several dumpsters and trash cans throughout the construction site for litter/floatable management. Covering and/or containing stockpiled materials and overall good housekeeping on the site. Prior to construction on any site exceeding one acre in size, a SWPPP must be developed that identifies the specific BMPs to be implemented and maintained on the site. The project improvement plans submitted to the Town of Truckee for review and approval shall contain an erosion control plan which includes the temporary and permanent BMP’s outlined in the SWPPP prepared for the project. The erosion control plan sheet(s) must include the assigned RWQCB number for the SWPPP. A Notice of Intent must also be filed with the RWQCB. The CGP also requires that construction sites be inspected before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. The purpose of the inspections is to identify maintenance requirements for the BMPs and to determine the effectiveness of the BMPs that are being implemented. The SWPPP is a “living document” and as such can be modified as construction activities progress. The Lahontan RWQCB has also established project guidelines for erosion control that shall be followed and incorporated into the project SWPPP. Impacts to water quality during construction are considered potentially significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.7.1a The project applicant shall prepare a site-specific and construction phase- specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in conformance with the California Stormwater Quality Association Construction Handbook (Construction Handbook), in compliance with the requirements of the State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (CGP), and in compliance with project guidelines for erosion control published by the Lahontan RWQCB, as well as demonstrate compliance with sediment reduction measures associated with the total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for sediment for the Middle Truckee River watershed. The SWPPP shall be prepared using current templates and formats provided by the California Stormwater Quality Association. The Construction Handbook provides general guidance for selecting and implementing best management practices (BMPs) that will eliminate the discharge of pollutants from construction sites, and the SWPPP Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóíð ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ will document the selection and implementation of BMPs for the particular construction projects on the site. The site-specific SWPPP must describe the site, as well as the proposed erosion and sediment controls (BMPs for water quality), the means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control measures of post-construction sediment and erosion, monitoring and maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Dewatering shall be done in a manner so as to prevent the discharge of pollutants, including earthen materials, from the site. The project applicant shall submit the SWPPP to the Lahontan RWQCB for review and approval. The project applicant shall require all construction contractors to retain a copy of the approved SWPPP on the construction site. BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall be utilized in all project site development activities. Implementation of appropriate, effective water quality controls will ensure that stormwater discharges that will result with implementation of the project are in compliance with all current requirements of the Lahontan RWQCB. Timing/Implementation: Prior to project construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division; Lahontan RWQCB MM 4.7.1b Grading activities shall be prohibited during the winter months (October 15 through May 1), unless approved by the Town and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Exposed graded areas shall be protected during the winter months using appropriate methods. Timing/Implementation: During construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division; Lahontan RWQCB MM 4.7.1c As part of the development of detailed enhancement and restoration plans for on-site ponds and Cold and Donner creeks, the following features shall be incorporated: Enhancement and restoration activities shall be designed consistent with the requirements of Chapter 4 of the Basin Plan regarding projects that are exempt from the prohibition of discharge or threatened discharge of materials to lands within the 100-year floodplain of the Truckee River or any tributary to the Truckee River. Recontouring and revegetation of water features shall consist of native vegetation and will provide improved flow and sediment conditions (as compared to existing conditions) consistent with the TMDL for sediment for the Middle Truckee River watershed. All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or earthen materials shall be protected in a reasonable manner to prevent discharge of pollutants. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized by appropriate erosion and/or sediment control measures by October 15 of each year. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóíï ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ All work performed between October 15 and May 1 of each year shall be conducted in such a manner that the project can be winterized within 48 hours. After completion of a construction project, all surplus or waste earthen material shall be removed from and deposited at a legal point of disposal. All sensitive areas near construction sites shall be protected by fencing or other means to prevent unnecessary encroachment outside the active construction zone. During construction, temporary erosion control facilities shall be used as necessary to prevent discharge of earthen materials from the site during periods of precipitation runoff. Control of run-on water from off-site areas shall be managed to prevent such water from degrading before it discharges from the site. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of enhancement and restoration plans for on-site ponds, Cold Creek, and Donner Creek Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division; Lahontan RWQCB Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce water quality impacts associated with construction to less than significant. Í¬±®³©¿¬»® Î«²±ºº Ù»²»®¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Í«®º¿½» É¿¬»® Ü®¿·²¿¹» Ð¿¬¬»®² Impact 4.7.2 Development of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes compared to existing conditions. This impact is considered potentially significant. When land is in a natural or undeveloped condition, soils, mulch, vegetation, and plant roots absorb rainwater. This absorption process is called infiltration or percolation. Much of the rainwater that falls on natural or undeveloped land slowly infiltrates into the soil and is stored either temporarily or permanently on the surface or in underground layers of soil. When the soil becomes completely saturated with water or the rate of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, the rainwater begins to flow over the surface of the land to low-lying areas, ditches, channels, streams, and rivers. Rainwater that flows off of a site is defined as stormwater runoff. The infiltration and runoff process is altered when a site is developed. Buildings, roads, and parking lots introduce asphalt, concrete, and roofing materials to the landscape. These materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. Grading associated with development also eliminates many of the low-lying areas that may have been providing a degree of surface storage, and underground storm drains, if present, provide for efficient conveyance of runoff to downstream locations of discharge. As impervious surfaces are added to the ground conditions and surface and underground drainage conveyance becomes more efficient and more concentrated, the natural infiltration and storage processes are reduced. As a result, the volume and flow rate of stormwater runoff increases. The effect of these increases in runoff rates and volumes would be more pronounced during storms of lower magnitude and higher frequency. This is due to reductions in initial abstraction (infiltration and Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóíî ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ surface storage) and time of concentration (travel times) that would be created by development. The increased volumes and flow rates of stormwater runoff may result in downstream flooding if not properly mitigated. New development associated with development of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could increase flow rates and volumes of runoff by introducing streets, buildings, parking areas, and other impervious surfaces and by providing improved facilities for drainage conveyance. As a condition of site development, surface water and drainage are proposed to be managed through a combination of system components that include detention, retention, bio-filtration, groundwater recharge, stormwater management, low impact development (LID), and erosion control. The project site would also be graded to drain to on-site detention and retention basins and would include vegetated drainage swales to capture and filter runoff. A new bridge crossing of Cold Creek is proposed to replace the existing bridge at the same location. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is intended to preserve and enhance existing wetland and creek features to enhance habitat and improve water quality as well as assist in sediment reductions for the Middle Truckee River watershed. Some of the existing pond areas would be reconfigured and/or consolidated to augment open space and habitat value. Nevertheless, water quality impacts from stormwater runoff generation and surface water drainage are considered potentially significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.7.2a Coldstream Specific Plan drainage improvements, including off-site improvements, will be required to provide detention/retention storage that will not increase total peak flow rates or exceed the capacity of downstream conditions along Donner Creek during storm events up to and including the 20-year 1-hour storm event. The design of detention/retention storage and other drainage facilities shall be supported by appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic evaluations as part of project grading and drainage plans, all of which will be prepared by a licensed professional. All facilities shall be designed in compliance with Town of Truckee standards. Timing/Implementation: A drainage report shall be submitted for review and approval with the project improvement plans. Construction to be completed prior to issuance of building permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions MM 4.7.2b Site development areas (excluding open space and recreation) that are located adjacent to existing or proposed on-site ponds within designated open space areas shall be designed and constructed to direct excess runoff to drain into ponds and shall not discharge directly to existing creeks. This requirement shall be incorporated into drainage improvements identified under mitigation measure MM 4.7.1a. Timing/Implementation: Design of drainage facilities shall be completed prior to approval of site grading and drainage plans. Construction to be completed prior to issuance of building permits. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóíí ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions Implementation of drainage improvements, designs, analyses, and provisions as described in the above mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant by ensuring that any potential increases in flows from development under the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan are attenuated consistent with Town standards. Ñ°»®¿¬·±²¿´ Í«®º¿½» É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Impact 4.7.3 Development of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would introduce sediments and constituent pollutants typically associated with urban development into stormwater runoff. These pollutants would have the potential of degrading downstream stormwater quality. This impact is considered potentially significant. Development of the proposed project would increase local runoff production and would introduce constituents into stormwater that are typically associated with urban runoff. These constituents include sediments, heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper), petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and fertilizers. As identified above, the project site is located within the Truckee River watershed, which is a Section 303(d) listed impaired waterway for sediment. A TMDL has been developed to address this impaired condition. The TMDL has established sediment load reductions for the Donner/Cold Creek subwatersheds of approximately 24 percent (546 tons per year) of existing conditions. The Water Quality Control Plan Amendment for the TMDL for the Middle Truckee River watershed has identified the restoration of legacy sites (such as the project site) as an implementation measure (Lahontan RWQCB, 2008b). The Town’s Public Improvement and Engineering Standards, Erosion Prevention Standards, and of the Town’s Chapter 18.30 (Section 18.30.050 – Drainage and Stormwater Runoff) Development Code include requirements for preparing plans and implementing procedures that provide for erosion and sediment control and requirements for other stormwater quality mitigation measures. The Lahontan RWQCB has also established project guidelines for erosion control that shall be followed and incorporated into the project SWPPP. Page 3.10 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan indicates that the plan minimizes potential water quality impacts by preserving watercourses in existing locations, limiting activities within the 100-year floodplain, establishing detention basins to contain and filter stormwater runoff, and working toward source reduction of potential contaminants. General guidelines for water quality identifying practices and design features are outlined on pages 3.10 and 3.11 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Surface water and drainage would be managed through a combination of natural and built features to conserve water quality, natural hydrology and habitat and preserve biodiversity through conservation of water bodies and wetlands. The Town of Truckee encourages the use of low impact development (LID) methods to prevent erosion and provide stormwater quality treatment both during construction and for the long term (after construction). LID is a stormwater management and land development strategy that emphasizes conservation and the use of on-site natural features that are integrated with engineered small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic natural hydrologic conditions. LID methods regulate runoff rates and volumes associated with development and include vegetated swales, infiltration trenches, bioretention areas, rain gardens, porous pavement, and other similar stormwater management approaches. LID stormwater management strategies are proposed to maintain the natural Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóíì ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ hydrologic function of the site with localized small-scale source control techniques that disperse flows and manage runoff close to where it originates. Storm drainage from impervious areas (roads, walks, roofs) is proposed to be collected and routed through water quality treatment facilities designed to reduce the rate of runoff, remove potential pollutants, and facilitate infiltration (SCO Planning & Engineering, 2009). A multiple treatment system is proposed to treat operational stormwater runoff. The system includes multiple best management practices (BMPs) in series prior to discharge of flow to receiving surface waters. The matrix below identifies the various treatment facilities proposed for the project. Û¿½¸ ¬±®³ ¼®¿·² ·²´»¬ ·²½´«¼» ¿ îóº±±¬ «³° ´±½¿¬»¼ ¾»´±© ¬¸» É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ð¿ª»³»²¬ ß®»¿ ¬±®³ ¼®¿·² ±«¬´»¬ ¬± ½¿°¬«®» ¿²¼ ¿²¼ »¼·³»²¬ ¿²¼ ·²½´«¼» ©»»° ×²´»¬ ¸±´» º±® ·²º·´¬®¿¬·±²ò Ì©±óº±±¬ó©·¼» ¹®¿ª»´ ¸±«´¼»® ¿²¼ ª»¹»¬¿¬»¼ ¾«ºº»® ¬®·° ©·¬¸ ¿³»²¼»¼ ¬±°±·´ ¿®» °®±°±»¼ ·² ´·»« ±º ½«®¾ñ¹«¬¬»® ¬± ¿½½»°¬ Ð¿ª»³»²¬ ß®»¿ô Þ«ºº»® Í¬®·° ¬±®³©¿¬»® ¸»»¬ º´±© º®±³ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ °¿ª»³»²¬ò Ì¸»» ¾«ºº»® ¬®·° É¿´µñÐ¿¬¸ ©±«´¼ °®±ª·¼» º·´¬®¿¬·±² ±º °±´´«¬¿²¬ ¿²¼ ¿´´±© ·²º·´¬®¿¬·±² ¬± «²¼»®´§·²¹ ±·´ò Ù®¿¼·²¹ ¼·¬«®¾¿²½» ©±«´¼ ¾» ³·²·³·¦»¼ ¾§ «» ±º ½±²¬®«½¬·±² º»²½·²¹ò ß´´ ¹®¿¼»¼ ¿®»¿ ®»½»·ª» ±·´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ·²½´«¼» «» Ð¿ª»³»²¬ ß®»¿ô Í±·´ ß³»²¼³»²¬ ±º ²¿¬«®¿´ ±®¹¿²·½ ³¿¬»®·¿´ «½¸ ¿ ©±±¼ ½¸·°ô ³«´½¸ô ¿²¼ ¬±°±·´ É¿´µñÐ¿¬¸ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ²«¬®·»²¬ ¿²¼ °®±¬»½¬·ª» ¹®±«²¼ ½±ª»® ¿²¼ »²¸¿²½» ±·´ °»®³»¿¾·´·¬§ò Û¿®¬¸»² Í©¿´» Í©¿´» ¿®» °®±°±»¼ ¬± ½±²ª»§ ®«²±ºº ¬± ·²º·´¬®¿¬·±² ¾¿·²ò Ò¿¬«®¿´ Ð¿ª»³»²¬ ß®»¿ô ¿²¼ Î±½µó´·²»¼ »»¼ ³·¨ ¿²¼ñ±® ¿²¹«´¿® ®±½µ ´·²·²¹ °®±ª·¼» º·´¬®¿¬·±²ô ¿´´±© É¿´µñÐ¿¬¸ Í©¿´» ·²º·´¬®¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ´±© ª»´±½·¬§ô ¬¸« ®»¼«½·²¹ °»¿µ ¼·½¸¿®¹»ò Þ·±©¿´» ©±«´¼ ¬®»¿¬ ®«²±ºº ¾§ º·´¬»®·²¹ ¿²¼ ¬®¿°°·²¹ »¼·³»²¬ ©·¬¸ Ð¿ª»³»²¬ ß®»¿ô ®±½µ ½¸»½µ ¼¿³ ¿²¼ ²¿¬«®¿´ ª»¹»¬¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» ½¸¿²²»´ ±® Þ·±©¿´» É¿´µñÐ¿¬¸ ¿²¼ ¼»°®»·±²ô º·´¬®¿¬·±² ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿ «¾±·´ ³¿¬®·¨ô ¿²¼ ·²º·´¬®¿¬·±² ·²¬± Î±±º ß®»¿ «²¼»®´§·²¹ ±·´ò ×²º·´¬®¿¬·±² ¾¿·² ½±²·¬ ±º ®±½µóº·´´»¼ ¬®»²½¸» ¬¸¿¬ °®±ª·¼» Ð¿ª»³»²¬ ß®»¿ô ·²º·´¬®¿¬·±² º±® ®»³±ª¿´ ±º º·²» »¼·³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿±½·¿¬»¼ °±´´«¬¿²¬ò Î±½µ ×²º·´¬®¿¬·±² É¿´µñÐ¿¬¸ ¿²¼ Ì¸»» º¿½·´·¬·» °®±ª·¼» ®»¬»²¬·±² ¬±®¿¹» ½¿°¿½·¬§ ©·¬¸ «» ±º ²¿¬«®¿´ Þ¿·² Î±±º ß®»¿ ±²·¬» ®±½µ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ¿²¼ ¬§°·½¿´´§ ·²½´«¼» ¿² ¿¾±ª»ó¹®±«²¼ ¼»°®»·±²ñ¾·±©¿´»ò Î»¬»²¬·±² ¾¿·² °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» º·²¿´ ¬¿¹» ±º ¬±®³©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ¬®»¿¬³»²¬ ¾§ ¿´´±©·²¹ »¬¬´·²¹ ±º «°»²¼»¼ ±´·¼ ¿²¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ Ð¿ª»³»²¬ ß®»¿ô º·´¬®¿¬·±² ¬¸®±«¹¸ ª»¹»¬¿¬·±²ò Ì¸· º¿½·´·¬§ ¬±®» ®«²±ºº «²¬·´ ·¬ Î»¬»²¬·±² Þ¿·² É¿´µñÐ¿¬¸ ¿²¼ ¹®¿¼«¿´´§ ·²º·´¬®¿¬» ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ¿³»²¼»¼ ¬±°±·´ ¿²¼ «²¼»®´§·²¹ ±·´ Î±±º ß®»¿ ¿²¼ ®±½µò Ì¸» ¿¬¬»²«¿¬·±² ±º °»¿µ º´±© ©±«´¼ ®»¼«½» ®«²±ºº ª±´«³» ¿²¼ ®¿¬» ±º ¼·½¸¿®¹» ¿²¼ ®»½¸¿®¹» ²¿¬«®¿´ ¹®±«²¼©¿¬»®ò Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ º±® »®±·±² º®±³ »¨·¬·²¹ ´±°» ©±«´¼ ¾» ³·²·³·¦»¼ ¾§ Í´±°» ùÆÕËÊÕÐ×ËÒÏÎÙËÔ ¹®¿¼·²¹ °»½·º·½ ¿®»¿ ¬± º´¿¬¬»² ´±°» ¿²¼ñ±® °®±ª·¼» ¬¿¾·´·¦¿¬·±² Í¬¿¾·´·¦¿¬·±² °®»ª·±«´§ ¹®¿¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬»®®¿½»ô ®»¬¿·²·²¹ ©¿´´ô ¿²¼ ®»ª»¹»¬¿¬·±²ò Í±«®½»æ ÍÝÑ Ð´¿²²·²¹ ú Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ô îððç Given the breadth of features proposed as part of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, the project design would be instrumental in reducing operational water quality impacts. Nevertheless, this impact is considered potentially significant. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóíë ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the impact of runoff generated by development of the proposed project on surface water quality: MM 4.7.3a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) consistent with the requirements of the Lahontan RWQCB. Following preparing of the SWPPP, the project applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent to the Lahontan RWQCB. The SWPPP shall be prepared according to the following requirements: The SWPPP shall include text addressing existing conditions, the effects of project improvements, all appropriate calculations, a watershed map, increases in downstream flows, proposed on- and off-site improvements and detention facilities, features to protect downstream uses, and property and drainage easements to accommodate downstream flows from the project. The SWPPP shall demonstrate that the project design(s) would result in drainage flow conditions below pre-project flow rates. The SWPPP shall include erosion protection and bank stabilization measures such as rock slope protection and revegetation shall be implemented. The SWPPP and the drainage report for the project shall address storm drainage management during construction and thereafter and shall include provisions for the application of best management practice (BMP) measures to reduce erosion, water quality degradation, etc. Stormwater drainage management, BMPs, and water quality control features shall be identified for construction staging areas, individual residential lots, recreational uses, multi- family residential building sites, and nonresidential building sites. Permanent water quality control features described in the report shall demonstrate (at minimum) that the water quality controls are adequate to prevent any increase in sediment or other pollutants in Cold Creek and Donner Creek over pre-development conditions. Stormwater discharges and placement of earth and materials into the 100-year floodplain (i.e., bridge crossing structures) shall be in compliance with all current requirements of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to the design of new detention/retention basins that will serve the project site, soil borings shall be taken at representative locations to analyze the subsurface soils that are present and the elevation of the subsurface water table. If these soil borings identify shallow groundwater within 2 feet of the proposed bottom elevation of these detention/ retention basins, a liner, filter fabric, or other remedial measures shall be incorporated into the design of the applicable stormwater facilities to prevent intrusion of development-related pollutants to groundwater. Snow storage areas shall be located outside of areas that drain directly into drainages and will include water quality control features, such as water treatment wetlands and detention basins. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóíê ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Storm drainage from on-site impervious surfaces shall be treated and infiltrated through buffers or be collected and routed through specially designed catchbasins, vaults, filters, etc. for entrapment of sediment debris and oils/greases. Maintenance responsibilities shall be borne by future private property owners and/or by a homeowners association and shall be in compliance with current stormwater regulations. All related underground and surface drainage systems must be addressed in order to ensure full integration of areas that will generate runoff. These areas will include rooftops, sidewalks, cut/fill slopes, patio areas, streets, parking lots, up-gradient off-site source areas, and impervious landscaping areas. Seepage from underground sources must also be addressed. All required approvals associated with construction-related stormwater permit requirements of the current federal Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and other associated permit approvals from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be obtained. The SWPPP shall include consideration of off-site trail improvements and their associated effects to runoff generation and water quality in those areas. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division; Lahontan RWQCB MM 4.7.3b The project will participate in regular water quality monitoring associated with the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan. This participation will include access points to Cold Creek and Donner Creek, installation of monitoring equipment, and other related items to the satisfaction of the Town of Truckee Engineering Division. Timing/Implementation: Participation will be determined upon review and approval of project improvement plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Engineering Division Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce operational water quality impacts to less than significant. Ù®±«²¼©¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ ¿²¼ Î»½¸¿®¹» Impact 4.7.4 On-site stormwater detention/retention would collect, store, and filter site runoff from new development areas. Site runoff would include pollutants normally associated with residential and commercial development. Local groundwater levels fluctuate throughout the year but are generally known to be shallow. The impacts to groundwater quality are considered to be potentially significant. Development of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would increase local runoff production and would introduce constituents into stormwater that are typically associated with urban runoff. These constituents include sediments, heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper), petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and fertilizers. Overall, the project development is relatively low-density Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóíé ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ and incorporates a significant amount of open space, and post-construction pollutant production would be limited to actual development areas. Detention/retention facilities would provide stormwater quality treatment and recharge for new development areas. Pollutants associated with storm runoff from the development areas are not likely to infiltrate past the first few inches or feet of soil in the detention/retention and LID facilities, as they would become attached to soil particles as water infiltrates into the soil. However, the facilities may interact with groundwater if there is little or no separation between the floor of the facilities and the water table. Project site development would include the introduction of additional impervious surfaces. However, storm runoff would be directed to detention/retention facilities and on-site ponds. As such, the proposed project’s impact on groundwater supplies and recharge is considered to be less than significant. However, if proper steps are not taken this runoff could affect groundwater quality through similar mechanisms discussed in Impact 4.7.3 above. This impact would be significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implement mitigation measures MM 4.7.3a and MM 4.7.3b. Following implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.7.3a and MM 4.7.3b, the impact of runoff generated from project development areas on groundwater quality would be reduced to less than significant. Û¨°±«®» ±º Í¬®«½¬«®» ¿²¼ Ú¿½·´·¬·» ¬± Ú´±±¼ Ø¿¦¿®¼ Impact 4.7.5 Structures are proposed to be placed in the Special Flood Hazard Area (100- year floodplain) shown on effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and within and adjacent to areas currently occupied by ponds associated with prior aggregate mining activities. Placement of structures in these areas is a potentially significant impact. Some of the proposed project site development areas are located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A) shown for Cold Creek on effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Brown and Caldwell (2002) performed a 100-year flood evaluation report that concludes that the floodplain boundaries for Cold Creek are narrower than shown on the FEMA maps. The Brown and Caldwell analysis was based on updated and detailed topographic mapping and is a considerably more detailed analysis than the approximate level study forming the basis for the Special Flood Hazard Area delineation for Cold Creek shown on the FEMA maps. The proposed development areas do not encroach into the 100-year floodplain for Cold Creek represented in the Brown and Caldwell analysis. However, the effective FEMA maps are the official regulatory maps that form the basis for applying the Town’s floodplain management regulations, and concurrence shall be obtained from FEMA regarding potential map revisions prior to development occurring within the Special Flood Hazard Area. A new bridge crossing of Cold Creek is also proposed to be constructed as a part of the proposed project improvements and to replace an existing bridge crossing at the same location. The new bridge crossing would need to be designed in a manner that does not result in an increase in the upstream 100-year water surface elevations for Cold Creek (due to backwater) and preferably in a manner that reduces the backwater associated with the existing bridge during major storm events. Concurrence should be obtained from FEMA regarding the 100-year floodplain limits resulting from the new bridge prior to construction. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóíè ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ The proposed project would also alter the size and configuration of several of the on-site ponds as a means of enhancing the value of habitat areas on site. The pond modifications include removing the berms separating the three ponds in the north central portion of the project site to create a single, larger pond in this area as described on page 3.8 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. The failure of Donner Lake Dam is statistically a highly unlikely event and is not considered reasonably foreseeable. Further, in the unlikely event of a dam failure, the flooding impacts along Donner Creek would be minimal with regard to the proposed project (see Figure 4.7-8). As such, the potential failure of Donner Lake Dam is considered to be a less than significant impact. The proposed project would place homes in an area not likely to experience flooding, as discussed above, but within the 100-year floodplain as indicated by FEMA. Also, new crossings would be constructed that have the potential to divert flows and cause localized flooding if not properly designed. As such, the impact is potentially significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact of potentially exposing structures and facilities to flood hazard and potential damageor exposure of people or property to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death by placing them in the Special Flood Hazard Area (100- year floodplain) shown on effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and within and adjacent to site areas currently occupied by residual ponds associated with prior aggregate mining activities: MM 4.7.5a Theproject applicant shall secure a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA indicating FEMA’s willingness to revise official FIRM panels to reflect confinement of the regulatory floodplain for Cold Creek to open space and recreation land use areas within the project site. The CLOMR shall also reflect and consider the projected effects of the removal of the existing bridge crossing of Cold Creek within the project site and its replacement with a new bridge structure. As a part of completing the CLOMR, 100-year floodplain limits and water surface elevations for Cold Creek will be determined. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map Enforcement/Monitoring: FEMA; Town of Truckee Public Works/ Engineering Department MM 4.7.5b The new bridge crossing of Cold Creek shall not obstruct or divert the flow of local runoff or flows in Cold Creek during storm events up to and including the 100-year event. The new bridge crossing of Cold Creek shall incorporate appropriate provision for freeboard to account for potential debris clogging. The design of the new bridge shall be supported by appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic evaluations and shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California. Timing/Implementation: Bridge design to be completed prior to approval of site improvement plans Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Public Works/Engineering Department Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóíç ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ MM 4.7.5c The project applicant shall provide a hydraulic analysis to determine 100-year water surface elevations that are applicable to each of the modified on-site ponds that will be located in open space and/or recreation land use areas. Final site design shall ensure that residential lots are located 25 feet outside of the 100-year water surface elevation of the modified ponds consistent with the provisions of the Coldstream Specific Plan. The hydraulic analysis shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California. Timing/Implementation: Hydraulic study to be completed prior to approval of any tentative maps for project phases Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Public Works/Engineering Department MM 4.7.5d All site development areas (excluding open space and recreation land use areas) shall be located at an elevation above the applicable adjacent 100- year water surface elevation for Donner Creek, Cold Creek, and on-site ponds. The elevation of the lowest floor (including basements, if applicable) for structures (buildings) shall be set a minimum of 1 foot above the applicable adjacent 100-year water surface elevation for Donner Creek, Cold Creek, and on-site ponds. Timing/Implementation: Elevation information shall be depicted on Tentative Maps prepared for project phases. Site elevations to be verified and certified prior to issuance of building permits. Lowest floor elevations for buildings to be verified and certified prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Public Works/Engineering Department Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce flooding impacts to less than significant. It should also be noted that safety factors have been built in to the proposed site design that would be adequate to address greater variability in flow regimes in Cold Creek that could occur in association with global warming. The 100-year discharge utilized for Cold Creek in the Cold Stream Property 100-Year Flood Evaluation (Brown and Caldwell, 2002) is referenced as being conservative (higher than would be supported by a more detailed hydrologic analysis), setbacks are required per Chapter 18.38 of the Town Development Code (50 feet from Cold Creek and Donner Creek), and buildings would all need to have their lowest floor elevated a minimum of 1 foot above applicable 100-year water surface elevations. These requirements in addition to the mitigation measures are adequate to address exposure of structures and facilities to flood hazards. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóìð ìÊÍÒ×ÙÈéÓÈ× Source: Stormwater Consulting, 2009 Figure 4.7-8 000 Donner Lake Dam - Dam Failure Inundation Map FEET ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ ìòéòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for hydrology and water quality is the overall watershed that drains to the Truckee River downstream of Lake Tahoe. It is an 1,190-square-mile watershed area often referred to as the Middle Truckee River Basin and is designated by the U.S. Geological Survey by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 16050102, Truckee. The watershed begins as the river exits Lake Tahoe and ends downstream of the cities of Reno and Sparks near Wadsworth, Nevada. It includes portions of Nevada, Placer, and Sierra counties in California and portions of Washoe, Storey, and Lyon counties and Carson City in Nevada. The California portion of the watershed includes the drainage areas surrounding the Truckee River between Lake Tahoe and the Town of Truckee, the Donner Lake drainage area to the west of Truckee, the Martis Creek drainage to the south and east of Truckee, the Prosser Creek and Little Truckee River drainage areas to the north and east of Truckee, and the upper Truckee Canyon below Hirschdale to the Nevada state line at Verdi. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Impact 4.7.6 The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Middle Truckee River Basin, would alter drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and water quality, which could result in potential flooding and stormwater quality impacts within the overall watershed. This is considered a cumulatively considerable impact. Development of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan has the potential to adversely impact the quantity and quality of stormwater, groundwater quality, the exposure of structures and facilities to flood hazards and potential damage, and the exposure of people or property to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding in the absence of appropriate mitigation. This is a cumulatively considerable impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implement mitigation measures MM 4.7.1a, MM 4.7.1b, MM 4.7.1c, MM 4.7.2a, MM 4.7.2b, MM 4.7.3a, MM 4.7.3b, MM 4.7.5a, MM 4.7.5b, MM 4.7.5c, and MM 4.7.5d. Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures identified above would effectively provide mitigation against project impacts and render the project non-contributory to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts. As such, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on the quantity and quality of stormwater, the quality of groundwater, the exposure of structures and facilities to flood hazards and potential damage, and exposure of people or property to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding is considered to beless than cumulatively considerable. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóìí ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Brown and Caldwell. 2001. Cold Stream Development Pond History Investigation. ———. 2002. Cold Stream Property 100-year Flood Evaluation. Converse Consultants. 2001. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Teichert Development, Truckee, California. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Flood Insurance Study, Nevada County, California (Unincorporated Areas). ———. 2010. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 528 and 529, Nevada County, California (Incorporated Areas). Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan RWQCB). 2005. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Lahontan Region, North and South Basins. ———. 2008a. Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment, Middle Truckee River Watershed Staff Report. ———. 2008b. Water Quality Control Plan Amendment, Total Maximum Daily Load for Sediment, Middle Truckee River Watershed. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1993. NOAA Atlas 2, Volume XI, Isopluvials of 100-yr 24-hr Precipitation for Northern Half of California in Tenths of an Inch. Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey, Tahoe National Forest Area, California. SCO Planning & Engineering. 2009. Memorandum from Bryan McAlister (SCO) to Mike Isle (Stonebridge) and Dale Creighton (SCO) RE: Comments on ADEIR project description – Utilities and Drainage, dated September 8, 2009. State of California. 2008. California Water Code, Division 3, Dams and Reservoirs. State of California, Department of Conservation (DOC). 2009. California Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. State of California, Department of Water Resources. Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). 2008. Inspection of Dam and Reservoir in Certified Status, Donner Lake Dam, December 5, 2008. ———. 2009. Website and Information Provided by DSOD Staff. Listing of Dams Within the Jurisdiction of the State of California and Inspection Reports for Donner Lake Dam. State of California, Emergency Management Agency, Preparedness & Training Division, Hazard Mitigation Branch. 2007. Dam Inundation, Registered Images and Boundary Files in ArcView Format (Donner Lake Dam). State of California, Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 1999. Water Quality Order No. 99- 08-DWQ pertaining to construction activities within the State. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòéóìì ìòéØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ ———. 2000. Water Quality Order No. 5-00-175 pertaining to dewatering and other low threat discharges to surface water. ———. 2003. Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ, pertaining to stormwater discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. ———. 2007. 2006 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs. ———. 2009. Construction General Permit Fact Sheet. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov /water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_factsheet.pdf (accessed October 5, 2009). Terraserver. 2005. AirPhoto USA Aerial Photography. Town of Truckee. 2003. Public Improvement and Engineering Standards. ———. 2006. Truckee 2025 General Plan Update. ———. 2007a. Town of Truckee Minimum Standards for Year-Round Erosion Prevention on One and Two Family Dwelling Construction Projects. ———. 2007b. Town of Truckee Storm Water Management Program, 2007–2012. ———. 2009a. Municipal Code Chapter 18.34 (Flood Plain Management), Chapter 18.38 (Lake and River/Stream Corridor Development), and Chapter 18.30.05 (Drainage and Storm Water Runoff). ———. 2009b. Town of Truckee Storm Water Quality Ordinance (2008-06). U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, Corps of Engineers. 2003. Letter Regarding Estimate of Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Letter Regarding Informal Consultation on the Cold Creek Development Project (PN 199200338, Nevada County, California). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1979. 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle Maps, Norden, CA. ———. 1994. 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle Maps, Truckee CA. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2007. Monthly Climate Summaries for Donner Memorial State Park, California (#042467). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòéóìë ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) describes the natural resources present on the project site and surrounding the proposed off-site bike trail alignments and includes a discussion of the special-status species and sensitive habitats potentially occurring in the area. This section analyzes impacts that could occur to biological resources due to project implementation and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce or avoid these impacts. The analysis of biological resources presented in this section is based on a review of the current project description, previous biological investigations, and reports prepared for the project site and proposed off-site trails, as well as maps and available literature from federal, state, and local agencies. Related discussions are found in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.1, Land Use. ìòèòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÐÝØÌ ÔßÒÌ ÑÓÓËÒ×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ßÞ×ÌßÌ ÇÐÛÍ As a result of past mining activities, the project site is defined by a number of ponds and uneven topography. The natural condition of the project site has been altered by the extensive aggregate mining and reclamation activities. Originally the project site contained extensive mixed conifer forest. Since 1987 after mining and reclamation activities ceased, the project site has been revegetated with species characteristic of open grasslands and freshwater ponds and marshes with scattered occurrences of mixed conifer forest and riparian habitats. Scattered strands of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana) and patches of grasslands, upland mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) plant communities have integrated into the landscape. The majority of the area surrounding the proposed bike trail alignments includes urban and ruderal habitats. Cold Creek, which crosses the project site in a southwest to northeast direction, and Donner Creek, which crosses the project site in a west to east direction along its northern boundary, are perennial creeks. Reclamation work related to previous mining was completed in 1987, including widening of the Cold Creek channel to improve passage of 100-year storm flows as well as regrading, recontouring, and revegetating of the old mined area (CSCON, 2007). Ten ponds remain from mining activities (Brown and Caldwell, 2002). Two wetland delineations identified approximately 53.6 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands, on the project site (CSCON, 2001, 2003). The wetland delineation was verified November 19, 2003, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and re-verified October 7, 2008 (USACE, 2008). Figure 4.8-1 shows the wetlands and other waters mapped within the project site.Table 4.8-1 lists the acreages of 1 the wetlands and waters of the U.S. delineated within the project site. Figure 4.8-1 includes both jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. are all navigable waters and 1 their tributaries, including all wetlands adjacent to those tributaries. Jurisdictional wetlands are wetlands that connect to waters of the U.S. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ììòèóï ßÞÔÛ ÉÑÉËòÍòÜÐÍ ÛÌÔßÒÜÍ ßÒÜ ÌØÛÎ ßÌÛÎÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÛÔ×ÒÛßÌÛÜ ÑÒ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ É»¬´¿²¼ ¿²¼ Ñ¬¸»® É¿¬»® ß®»¿ øß½®»÷ Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» Ý®»»µ íòè îû Ñ°»² É¿¬»® íëòï îðû É»¬´¿²¼ ïìòï èû Í»»°ñÍ°®·²¹ ðòê äïû Ì±¬¿´ ëíòê íðû Í±«®½»æ ÝÍÝÑÒô îððé The possible extensions of on-site Class I trails alignments (see Figure 3.0-16) are located adjacent to areas that contain potential jurisdictional features. PMC prepared a wetland delineation in February 2011 within an area surrounding the proposed off-site trail alignments (Appendix H). The area delineated is larger than the area proposed for the trail alignment referred to as the off-site trails project study area (PSA). The wetland delineation has not yet been verified by the USACE. Figure 4.8-2 shows the wetlands and other waters delineated within the off-site trails PSA. Table 4.8-2 lists the acreages of the wetlands and waters of the U.S. delineated within the off-site trails PSA. Ììòèóî ßÞÔÛ ÍÐÖÉÑóÌÐÍß ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔ ËÎ×ÍÜ×ÝÌ×ÑÒßÔ ßÌÛÎÍ É×ÌØ×Ò ÌØÛ ÚÚÍ×ÌÛ Îß×ÔÍ Ì§°» Ô»²¹¬¸ øº»»¬÷ ß®»¿ ø¿½®»÷ É»¬ Ó»¿¼±© Òñß ðòîì Ð»®»²²·¿´ Ý®»»µ íï ðòðï Î±¿¼·¼» Ü®¿·²¿¹» Ü·¬½¸ ìéð ðòðï Ì±¬¿´ ëðï ðòîê Ê»¹»¬¿¬·ª» Ý±³³«²·¬·» Plant communities are found where groups of plant species occur together in the same geographic area. These plant communities are organized into cover types that constitute categories of typical land covers. Specific wildlife habitats are created by these cover types. Wildlife habitats provide cover, food, and water, which is necessary in order to support a particular animal species or groups of species. Changes in these habitats, both significant and minor, can impact a species’ abundance, distribution, and diversity as well as interactions between different species. The communities or habitat types found on the project site include those listed in Table 4.8-3. The locations of these communities are depicted on Figure 4.8-3. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóî ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ììòèóí ßÞÔÛ ÝÌ×ÐÍ ÑÊÛÎ ÇÐÛÍ ÜÛÒÌ×Ú×ÛÜ ÑÒ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ Ý±ª»® Ì§°» ß®»¿ øß½®»÷ Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» ß²²«¿´ Ù®¿´¿²¼ ìéòé îêòéû Ý¸¿°¿®®¿´ íòé îòïû Ó·¨»¼ Ý±²·º»® Ú±®»¬ ïíòï éòíû Ô±¼¹»°±´» Ð·²» Ú±®»¬ ïèòî ïðòîû Ð±²¼ øÑ°»² É¿¬»®÷ íëòë ïçòçû Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Ó¿®¸ ïíòé éòéû É·´´±© Î·°¿®·¿² ïðòð ëòêû Ó·¨»¼ Î·°¿®·¿² îëòç ïìòëû Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Í»»° íòè îòïû Í»¿±²¿´ É»¬´¿²¼ ðòè ðòìû Î«¼»®¿´ øÜ·¬«®¾»¼÷ êòí íòëû Ì±¬¿´ ïéèòê ïððû Í±«®½»æ ÝÍÝÑÒô îððéå ÐÓÝ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ½±³³«²·¬·» º®±³ ¿»®·¿´ °¸±¬±¹®¿°¸§ ¼«®·²¹ «®ª»§ò The cover types listed in Table 4.8-3 and shown in Figure 4.8-3 are different from the verified wetland delineations because they only include what has been verified by the USACE as being jurisdictional features. The boundaries are representative of what was present at the time the verification was completed. The cover types listed in Table 4.8-3 and shown in Figure 4.8-3 are those present on the project site during the June 2009 surveys. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóí ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ This page intentionally left blank. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóì ÓÐ ëïæëíæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòÒÑ×ÌßÛÒ×ÔÛÜ ÜÒßÔÌÛÉÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ÓÐ ïîæçîæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòîóèòì Ù×ÚÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ÓÐ èìæêíæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòÍÛ×Ì×ÒËÓÓÑÝ ÛÊ×ÌßÌÛÙÛÊÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ During the November 18, 2010, reconnaissance-level survey conducted by PMC, the vegetative communities within the off-site trail PSA were identified. Upland vegetative communities and habitats within the off-site trail PSA include lodgepole pine forest, mixed riparian, riverine, wet meadow, and urban/ruderal. Vegetative communities and habitat associated with aquatic settings include a perennial creek (Donner Creek), roadside drainage ditch, and wet meadow. The vegetative community descriptions and nomenclature used for the off-site trails PSA generally correlate to wildlife habitat types in A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California or California Wildlife Habitats Relationships (CWHR) (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). Table 4.8-4 lists the vegetative communities within the off-site trails PSA. Figure 4.8-4A and 4.8-4B show the vegetative communities within the off-site trails PSA. Ììòèóì ßÞÔÛ ÊÝÑóÍÌÐÍß ÛÙÛÌßÌ×ÊÛ ÑÓÓËÒ×Ì×ÛÍ É×ÌØ×Ò ÌØÛ ÚÚ×ÌÛ Îß×ÔÍ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·ª» Ý±³³«²·¬§ ß®»¿ ø¿½®»÷ Ô±¼¹»°±´» Ð·²» Ú±®»¬ ðòëê Ó·¨»¼ Î·°¿®·¿²ö ðòðî É·´´±© Î·°¿®·¿² ðòðë É»¬ Ó»¿¼±© ðòîì Ë®¾¿²ñÎ«¼»®¿´ êòïê ÌÑÌßÔ éòðí öÌ¸» ðòðï ¿½®» ¼»´·²»¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² Ü±²²»® Ý®»»µ · ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² Ó·¨»¼ Î·°¿®·¿²ò The following discussion describes the cover types listed in Tables 4.8-3 and 4.8-4. Included in the discussion of each cover type is a description of the community or habitat and any pertinent information on the plant and wildlife species found within the cover type, where applicable. ß²²«¿´ Ù®¿´¿²¼ Annual grassland habitat consists of open grasslands composed primarily of introduced annual plant species. The western portion of the project site and scattered areas in the uplands surrounding the ponds are characterized by introduced grasses and forbs, with native naturalized plant species. A variety of grasses and forbs were seeded within the project boundaries during reclamation of the project site, and more native species have become established since reclamation. Dominants include pubescent wheatgrass (Elytrigia intermedia ssp. intermedia), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), smooth brome (Bromus inermus), California brome (Bromus carinatus), naked buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. nudum), Sierra Nevada cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis ssp. nevadense), madia (Madia glomerata), dwarf lupine (Lupinus lepidus), and cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer). Scattered willows (Salix spp.) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana) occur in some areas of the grassland habitat. Portions of the grassland areas provide suitable habitat for Donner Pass buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum), which was observed during the June 2009 rare plant surveys. Many wildlife species use annual grasslands for foraging, but some require special habitat features such as cliffs, caves, ponds, or habitats with woody plants for breeding, resting, and cover. Characteristic reptiles that breed in annual grasslands include the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis helleri). Mammals typically found in this habitat include the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), western harvest Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóïï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), California vole (Microtus californicus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and coyote (Canis latrans). This habitat also provides important foraging habitat for turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Ý¸¿°¿®®¿´ Montane chaparral varies markedly throughout California. The growth form of chaparral species can vary from tree-like (up to 9.9 feet) to prostrate (Risser and Fry, 1988). When mature, montane chaparral is often impenetrable to large mammals. Its structure is affected by site quality, history of disturbance (e.g., fire, erosion, logging) and the influence of browsing animals. Montane chaparral is characterized by evergreen species; however, deciduous or partially deciduous species may also be present. Understory vegetation in the mature chaparral is largely absent. Conifer and oak trees may occur in sparse stands or as scattered individuals within the chaparral type. Species composition changes with elevational and geographical range, soil type, and aspect. One or more of the following species usually characterize montane chaparral communities: whitethorn ceanothus (Ceanothus cordulatus), manzanita (Manzanita spp.), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), huckleberry oak (Quercus vacciniifolia), chinquapin (Chrysolepis spp.), Fremont’s silktassel (Garrya fremontii), Greene’s goldenweed (Ericameria greenei), birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus var. glaber), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), sumac (Rhus spp.) and California buckthorn (Frangula californica ssp. californica) (Risser and Fry, 1988). Montane chaparral provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. Numerous rodents inhabit chaparral. Deer and other herbivores often make extensive use of chaparral. Rabbits and hares eat twigs, evergreen leaves, and bark from chaparral. Shrubs are important to many mammals as shade during hot weather and moderate temperature and wind velocity in the winter. Many birds find a variety of habitat needs in the chaparral. It provides seeds, fruits, insects, and protection from predators and climate, as well as singing, roosting, and nesting sites (Risser and Fry, 1988). Ó·¨»¼ Ý±²·º»® Ú±®»¬ The mixed conifer habitat in the Sierra Nevada is an assemblage of conifer and hardwood species that form a multilayered forest. The mixed conifer habitat generally forms a vegetation band ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 feet in the north to 4,000 to 10,000 feet in the southern Sierra Nevada (Allen, 2005). When openings occur, shrubs are common in the understory. Five conifer and one hardwood typify the mixed conifer forest: white fir (Abies concolor), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) (Allen, 2005). Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) commonly replaces ponderosa pine at high elevation, on cold sites, or on ultramafic soils (Allen, 2005). Grasses and forbs associated with this type are similar to what is found in annual grassland habitats. The northeastern end and the southern boundary of the project site are dominated by mixed conifer habitat. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóïî ÓÐ îëæîëæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòìóèòì Ù×ÚÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ÓÐ èíæìëæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòÞìóèòì Ù×ÚÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Since the project site was used as an aggregate mining facility in the past, the mixed conifer habitat is young and consists mostly of short trees and shrubs. The understory is composed of shrubs, including mountain sagebrush (Artemisiatridentata ssp. vaseyana), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), green leaf manzanita (Arctostaphylospatula), tobacco brush (Ceanothus velutinus), and Nevada currant (Ribes nevadense). The overstory dominants occur in different associations in and around the project site and include Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), and white fir. Grass and forb species in the understory typically include squirreltail grass (Elymus elymoides), mule’s ears (Wyethia mollis), and Nevada lotus (Lotus nevadensis var. nevadensis). Sensitive species inhabiting mixed conifer habitat include spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), fisher (Martes pennanti), and American marten (Martes americana). Endangered species include bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Variety in plant species composition provides diversity in food and cover. Black oak acorns, berries from a variety of shrubs (e.g., deerbrush), and a great number of grasses and forbs provide the forage resource essential for wildlife (Allen, 2005). Ô±¼¹»°±´» Ð·²» Ú±®»¬ Lodgepole pine typically forms open stands of similarly sized specimens in association with few other species and with a sparse understory (Bartolome, 1988). Lodgepole pine overwhelmingly dominates the habitat. Occasional associates include aspen (Populus spp.) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). The understory may be virtually absent, consisting of scattered shrubs and herbs or a rich herbaceous layer at meadow margins (Bartolome, 1988). Many lodgepole stands are associated with meadow sedges and streams, where the understory consists of grasses, forbs, and sedges. Lodgepole pine habitats form an easily distinguishable subdivision of the mixed conifer forest. Well-developed lodgepole pine habitats are found above 5,900 feet in elevation in the northern Sierra (Bartolome, 1988). Lodgepole pine forest is sparsely distributed throughout the project site. This habitat type contains a different array of plant species in the understory than the mixed conifer forrest and varies in age, structure, and canopy cover. Herbaceous and shrub species in the understory vary with the degree of proximity to groundwater. Dense stands of sapling trees inhibit the establishment of herbaceous and shrub cover. Lodgepole pine stands have low structural diversity and are relatively low in animal species. Many species found in lodgepole pine stands are associated with the meadow edge or surrounding habitats. These species may include wolverine (Gulo gulo), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), bald eagle, and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) (Bartolome, 1988). Ð±²¼ øÑ°»² É¿¬»®÷ Pond or open water habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water. Typical open water habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, intermittent lakes and ponds. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not. As sedimentation and accumulation of organic matter increases toward the shore, floating rooted aquatics such as pondweed (Lemna spp.), water lilies (Nymphaea spp.), and smartweed (Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum) often appear (Grenfell, 1988). The ponds within the project site contain freshwater marsh habitat. The edges include mixed riparian or willow riparian habitats as well. Suspended organisms such as plankton are found in the open water of lacustrine habitats. Submerged plants such as algae and pondweeds serve as supports for smaller algae and as cover for swarms of minute aquatic animals. Floating plants offer food and support for numerous herbivorous animals that feed both on plankton and floating plants (Grenfell, 1988). The bald Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóïé ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ eagle feeds on fish and some birds taken from lakes. Fish species that occur within the ponds include speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Lahontan red side (Richardsonius egregious), and brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) (CSCON, 2007). Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Ó¿®¸ Fresh emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted herbaceous hydrophytes. Dominant vegetation is generally perennial monocots approximately 6.5 feet tall (Kramer, 1988). All emergent wetlands are flooded frequently, enough so that the roots of the vegetation prosper in an anaerobic environment (Kramer, 1988). On the upper margins of this habitat, saturated or periodically flooded soils support several moist soil plant species including big-leaf sedge (Carex amplifolia), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), redroot flatsedge (Cyperus erythrorhizos), nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus), and on more alkali sites, saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) (Kramer, 1988). On wetter sites, common cattail (Typha latifolia), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) and arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) are potential dominant species (Kramer, 1988). The edges of ponds and freshwater marshes within the project site support a diversity of wetland and emergent plant species, including common cattail, sedges (Carex spp.), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.), Nevada rush (Juncus nevadaensis), and water smartweed. The receding shorelines around the ponds are vegetated with common mullein (Vebascum thapsis), common American hedge hyssop (Gratiola neglecta), dense flower pygmy willowherb (Epilobium pygmaeum), low everlasting (Gnaphalium palustre), willow (Salix spp.), and western mountain aster (Aster occidentalis). Along the shores of some of the ponded areas, there is pronounced riparian habitat vegetated with willow and mixed riparian plant species. Emergent wetlands are among the most productive wildlife habitats in California (Kramer, 1988). Many wildlife species are dependent on wetland habitats for foraging, nesting, and cover. The bald eagle and peregrine falconuse emergent wetlands as feeding areas and roost sites. Slow- moving waters provide important resting and foraging habitats for migratory water birds such as mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus; a California species of special concern), green heron (Butorides virescens), seagulls (Larus sp.), and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Wetlands also provide habitat for the American coot (Fulica americana), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans). Ó·¨»¼ Î·°¿®·¿² Mixed riparian habitat occurs along Cold and Donner creeks and some ponds. Cold Creek was altered extensively during the aggregate mining activities. The creek edges and sand bars are becoming colonized by a diversity of overstory and understory plant species, including mountain alder (Alnus tenuifolia), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), creek dogwood (Cornus sericea ssp. sericea), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and numerous willow species. The herbaceous cover includes Solomon’s seal (Smilicina racemosa), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium ssp. circumvagum), fringed willowherb (E. ciliatum), glaucus willowherb (E. glaberrimum ssp. fastigiatum), western mugwort (Artemisia ludoviciana var. incompta), wooly sedge (Carex lanuginuosa), yellow monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), and ridge hedge nettle (Stachys ajugoides var. rigida) (CSCON, 2007). All riparian habitats have an exceptionally high value for many wildlife species by providing water, thermal cover, migration corridors, and diverse nesting and feeding opportunities. The shape of many riparian zones, particularly the linear nature of streams, maximizes the development of edge habitat, which is highly productive for wildlife. Common wildlife species Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóïè ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ include tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), Wilson’s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri), a California species of special concern, was observed within the riparian habitats throughout the project site. É·´´±© Î·°¿®·¿² Creeks, ponds, and marsh habitats within the project site support an abundance of willow. Many of the willow plants within the project site are young and rarely reach heights above 6 feet. Willow habitat has developed in and around all of the ponds and on uplands near the ponds. This habitat includes dense to sparse association of willow including narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Lemmon’s willow (S. lemmonii), shining willow (S. lucida ssp. lasiandra), and Scouler’s willow (S. scouleriana). The assortment of forbs and grasses in the understory varies with proximity to groundwater. Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Í»»° In the southwestern part of the project site, along the lower north-facing slope, a freshwater seep occurs. The seep saturates the soil year-round and supports a number of wetland plant species (hydrophytic), including daggerleaf rush (Juncus ensifolius), straight leaf rush (J. orthophyllus), and Parry’s rush (J. parryii), golden fruit sedge (Carex aurea), and primrose monkeyflower (Mimulusprimuloides). É»¬ Ó»¿¼±© Wet meadows at all elevations generally have a simple structure consisting of a layer of herbaceous plants. Shrub or tree layers are usually absent or very sparse; they may, however, be an important feature of the meadow edge. Some species reach heights of only a few centimeters while others may grow a meter or more tall. Wet meadows occur where water is at or near the surface most of the growing season, following spring runoff. The wet meadow in the PSA was dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and pale spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya). Common cattails were present in the center of the meadow, where some ponded water was present. Willows (Salix spp.) were observed along the edge of the wet meadow. Wet meadow habitat occurs south of Donner Pass Road in the western portion of the off-site trails PSA. Î«¼»®¿´ øÜ·¬«®¾»¼÷ Ruderal (roadside) communities occur in areas of disturbance such as along roadsides, trails, and parking lots. These communities are subjected to ongoing or past disturbances (e.g., vehicle activities, mountain bikes, mowing). Ruderal habitat in these disturbed areas supports a diverse weedy flora. Vascular plant species associated with these areas typically include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), yellow star-thistle, wild radish (Raphanus sativus), mustards (i.e., Brassica nigra), winter vetch (Vicia villosa), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Fallow fields support field bindweed, turkey mullein, wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis), and common mallow (Malva neglecta). Mediterranean hoary-mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and curly dock (Rumex crispus) are also typical of this area. Ruderal habitats, because of their disturbed nature, support a mixture of native and exotic plant and wildlife species. Exotic plant species may provide valuable habitat elements such as cover for nesting and roosting, as well as food sources such as nuts or berries. Native and introduced wildlife Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóïç ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ species that are tolerant of disturbances and/or human activities often thrive in ruderal habitats. Birds and mammals that occur in these areas typically include introduced species adapted to human habitation, including rock pigeon (Columba livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house mouse (Mus musculus) and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). Some native species persist in ruderal habitat, including western toad (Bufo boreas), western fence lizard, Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Ë®¾¿²ñÎ«¼»®¿´ Urban habitat is characterized by the presence of ornamental and ruderal vegetation such as grass lawns and native and non-native trees and hedges, as well as residential, commercial, and industrial areas that lack vegetation (McBride and Reid, 1988). Urban habitat within the PSA includes low-density residential, roads, and ruderal or disturbed habitat. Urban vegetation is composed of ornamental trees, shrubs, and grasses. Ruderal communities occur in areas of disturbances such as along roadsides, trails, parking lots, etc. These communities are subjected to ongoing or past disturbances (e.g., vehicle activities, pedestrian traffic, mowing). Ruderal habitat in these disturbed areas supports a diverse weedy flora. Vascular plant species associated with these areas typically include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), yellow star-thistle, wild radish (Raphanus sativus), mustards (i.e., Brassica nigra), winter vetch (Vicia villosa), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Urban/ruderal habitat is the dominant habitat in both the western and eastern portions of the off-site trails PSA. ÍØ ÛÒÍ×Ì×ÊÛ ßÞ×ÌßÌÍ Sensitive habitats include areas of special concern to resource agencies, areas protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), areas designated as sensitive natural communities by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), areas outlined in Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, areas regulated under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), areas protected under Section 402 of the CWA, and areas protected under local regulations and policies. Some of the cover types found on the project site are sensitive habitats protected by various agencies. The riverine and riparian habitats within the project site are sensitive habitats under the jurisdiction of the CDFG and the USACE. Freshwater emergent wetland and other wetland areas are potentially protected under the USACE and provide potential habitat for special-status species. Both special-status species and their habitat are described in more detail under the Special-status Species heading. Three sensitive habitat types are documented in the vicinity of the project site: Fen (S1.2 = Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the state/province because of extreme rarity [often 5 or fewer occurrences] or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province), Great Basin Cutthroat Trout/Paiute Sculpin Stream (SNR), and Great Basin Sucker/Dace/Redside Stream with Cutthroat Trout (SNR = Unranked—state/province conservation status not yet assessed) (CDFG, 2009a, 2009b). A fen is a wetland in which the wetland’s hydrology is dominated more or less completely by subsurface inflow and outflow. The freshwater seep is dominated by moss, lichen, and sedges. The freshwater seep on site corresponds to the CNDDB series of meadows and seeps not dominated by grasses (45.000.00); however, this habitat type may also be considered a fen since it receives its water from groundwater seepage and not rainwater. This association is likely a wetland and thus would be considered sensitive by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USACE, CDFG, and local jurisdictions. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóîð ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ CDFG considers Great Basin Cutthroat Trout/Paiute Sculpin Stream and Great Basin Sucker/Dace/Redside Stream with Cutthroat Trout sensitive habitats. Cold Creek and Donner Creek may contain sensitive fish species that may qualify these streams as sensitive habitats by CDFG. Donner Lake has some native Kokanee salmon, mackinaw, and planted rainbow trout (Sierra Anglers Guide Service, 2009). Cold Creek and Donner Creek are tributaries of the Truckee River, which was originally home to the Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) and the cui-ui lake sucker (Chasmistes cujus). During normal years, adult fish would ascend the Truckee and its tributaries (in the case of trout) to spawn. Although these sensitive habitat types were previously recorded in the region surrounding the project site, they do not occur within the project boundaries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) defines critical habitat as a specific area that is essential for the conservation of a federally listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. There are no designated critical habitat areas within or surrounding the project site based on critical habitat maps for federally listed species (USFWS, 2009b). The closest designated critical habitat area to the project site is approximately 40 miles west in Nevada County for California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (USFWS, 2009b). ÉÝ ×ÔÜÔ×ÚÛ ÑÎÎ×ÜÑÎÍ Wildlife corridors are established migration routes commonly used by resident and migratory species for passage from one geographic location to another. Corridors are present in a variety of habitats and link otherwise fragmented acres of undisturbed area. Maintaining the continuity of established wildlife corridors is important to sustain species with specific foraging requirements, preserve a species’ distribution potential, and retain diversity among many wildlife populations. Therefore, resource agencies consider wildlife corridors to be a sensitive resource. Irrigation channels and agricultural land may provide enough cover to function as a migratory corridor for some species. The riparian corridors along the waterways within the project site serve as an aquatic and terrestrial wildlife migration corridor for areas within and surrounding the site. The project site is adjacent to Donner Memorial State Park on its western border. Tahoe National Forest is to the south of the project site beyond the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Although there is development to the north, northeast, and east, the majority of the area surrounding the project site is natural or relatively undisturbed habitat and therefore may be used by resident and migratory wildlife species. Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote, beaver (Castor canadensis), and numerous birds and reptiles were observed within the project site. Other species expected to migrate through or otherwise use the habitat within the project site include black bears (Ursus americanus), bobcats (Felis rufus), bats, and porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum). The project site is located in summer deer habitat in Deer Hunt Zone X-7b (CDFG, 2009c). The deer population in Zone X-7b is considered stable to declining (CDFG, 2009c). The subspecies of deer inhabiting Zone X-7b is primarily the Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus), which is migratory (CDFG, 2009c). The deer around the Town of Truckee are included under the Verdi sub-unit of the Loyalton Truckee deer herd (Holm, 2009). Generally the herd migration corridors circumvent the Town of Truckee and the project site (CDFG, 1982). This herd migrates annually from Nevada along the Truckee River and disperses north and south of the Town of Truckee in the spring. The herd leaves the region in the fall, returning to Nevada (CDFG, 1982). The herd actively migrates between greater Truckee and Nevada near Martis Valley and the property between Highways 80 and 267. The Truckee region is the herd’s summer fawning range. There is very little transitional habitat available between summer and winter ranges, so the deer rely heavily on being able to move quickly between ranges (Holm, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóîï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« Í°»½·» The following discussion describes the plant and wildlife species that have been afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. Listed and other special-status species are of relatively limited distribution and may require specialized habitat conditions. They are defined as: Listed, proposed, or candidate for listing under the California and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts; Protected under other regulations (e.g., local policies, Migratory Bird Treaty Act); CDFG’s Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species; Designated as species of concern by California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (List 1A, 1B, or 2); or Otherwise receive consideration during environmental review. Special-status species were considered for this analysis based on previous biological investigations and reports, focused surveys for willow flycatcher and special-status plant species, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2009a, 2009b), a USFWS list for endangered, threatened, and candidate species occurring on the project site (USFWS, 2009a), and the CNPS electronic inventory of special-status plants (CNPS, 2009) (Appendix H). Database searches were conducted for the Truckee, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles (Independence Lake, Hobart Mills, Boca, Norden, Martis Peak, Granite Chief, Tahoe City, and Kings Beach). Figure 4.8-5 shows the location of previously recorded occurrences of special-status species within a one-mile radius of the project site. A complete consolidated list of special-status species from the database searches, including rationale for considering them in the impact analysis, is located in Appendix H. Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« Ð´¿²¬ Based upon database search results, the project site is within the range of a number of special- status plant species. Table 4.8-5 lists the special-status plant species according to the vegetative community in which they may occur on the project site and off-site trails PSA based on known range and suitability of habitat according to habitat type. Each special-status plant species that is considered in the impact analysis is discussed in more detail below. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóîî ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ììòèóë ßÞÔÛ ÍóÍÐÍÐÑÐÍÑóÍÌÐÍß ÐÛÝ×ßÔÌßÌËÍ ÔßÒÌ ÐÛÝ×ÛÍ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔÔÇ ÝÝËÎÎ×ÒÙ ÑÒ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ ßÒÜ ÚÚ×ÌÛ Îß×ÔÍ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·ª» Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« Ð´¿²¬ Í°»½·» ß®»¿ ø¿½®»÷ ß²²«¿´ Ù®¿´¿²¼ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ ¾«½µ©¸»¿¬ ìéòé Ý¸¿°¿®®¿´ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ ¾«½µ©¸»¿¬ íòé Ð´«³¿ ·ª»·¿ Í½¿´´±°»¼ ³±±²©±®¬ Ó·²¹¿² ³±±²©±®¬ çÙÜÜÙÌÑËÕÈÙËÕÝ Ó·¨»¼ Ý±²·º»® Ú±®»¬ üÏÒÝÐÚÙÌÑËÜÌÝÛÖÕÝÞ®±¿¼ó²»®ª»¼ ¸«³°ó³± ïíòï Ó«¼ ø¸±®»÷ »¼¹» ëÊÙÜÜÕÐËÑÎÖÝÛÙÒÕÝ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ¼¿·§ ß´¼»® ¾«½µ¬¸±®² Í½¿´´±°»¼ ³±±²©±®¬ Ð´«³¿ ·ª»·¿ Ó·²¹¿² ³±±²©±®¬ çÙÜÜÙÌÑËÕÈÙËÕÝ Ô±¼¹»°±´» Ð·²» Ú±®»¬ üÏÒÝÐÚÙÌÑËÜÌÝÛÖÕÝïèòè Þ®±¿¼ó²»®ª»¼ ¸«³°ó³± Ó«¼ ø¸±®»÷ »¼¹» ëÊÙÜÜÕÐËÑÎÖÝÛÙÒÕÝ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ¼¿·§ Í´»²¼»®ó´»¿ª»¼ °±²¼©»»¼ Ð±²¼ øÑ°»² É¿¬»®÷ ìÏÜÜÕÐËÑÎÏÐÚÇÙÙÚ É¸·¬»ó¬»³³»¼ °±²¼©»»¼ Í½¿´´±°»¼ ³±±²©±®¬ Í¿²¬¿ Ô«½·¿ ¼©¿®º ®«¸ Ó·²¹¿² ³±±²©±®¬ Í´»²¼»®ó´»¿ª»¼ °±²¼©»»¼ Ó«¼ ø¸±®»÷ »¼¹» Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Ó¿®¸ É¸·¬»ó¬»³³»¼ °±²¼©»»¼ ïíòé Û²¹´·¸ «²¼»© ìÏÜÜÕÐËÑÎÏÐÚÇÙÙÚ ß³»®·½¿² ³¿²²¿ ¹®¿ Ó¿®¸ µ«´´½¿° Ð´«³¿ ·ª»·¿ Ð´«³¿ ·ª»·¿ Í½¿´´±°»¼ ³±±²©±®¬ Ó·²¹¿² ³±±²©±®¬ çÙÜÜÙÌÑËÕÈÙËÕÝ üÏÒÝÐÚÙÌÑËÜÌÝÛÖÕÝÍ¿²¬¿ Ô«½·¿ ¼©¿®º ®«¸ Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Í»»° íòè Ó«¼ ø¸±®»÷ »¼¹» Þ®±¿¼ó²»®ª»¼ ¸«³°ó³± Û²¹´·¸ «²¼»© ëÊÙÜÜÕÐËÑÎÖÝÛÙÒÕÝ ß³»®·½¿² ³¿²²¿ ¹®¿ Ó¿®¸ µ«´´½¿° Í½¿´´±°»¼ ³±±²©±®¬ çÙÜÜÙÌÑËÕÈÙËÕÝ Ó·²¹¿² ³±±²©±®¬ Í¿²¬¿ Ô«½·¿ ¼©¿®º ®«¸ üÏÒÝÐÚÙÌÑËÜÌÝÛÖÕÝ Þ®±¿¼ó²»®ª»¼ ¸«³°ó³± É»¬ Ó»¿¼±© Ó«¼ ø¸±®»÷ »¼¹» ðòî ëÊÙÜÜÕÐËÑÎÖÝÛÙÒÕÝ Û²¹´·¸ «²¼»© ß´¼»® ¾«½µ¬¸±®² ß³»®·½¿² ³¿²²¿ ¹®¿ Ó¿®¸ µ«´´½¿° Ð´«³¿ ·ª»·¿ Í½¿´´±°»¼ ³±±²©±®¬ Ð´«³¿ ·ª»·¿ Ó·²¹¿² ³±±²©±®¬ çÙÜÜÙÌÑËÕÈÙËÕÝ üÏÒÝÐÚÙÌÑËÜÌÝÛÖÕÝÍ¿²¬¿ Ô«½·¿ ¼©¿®º ®«¸ Í»¿±²¿´ É»¬´¿²¼ ðòè Ó«¼ ø¸±®»÷ »¼¹» Þ®±¿¼ó²»®ª»¼ ¸«³°ó³± Û²¹´·¸ «²¼»© ëÊÙÜÜÕÐËÑÎÖÝÛÙÒÕÝ ß³»®·½¿² ³¿²²¿ ¹®¿ Ó¿®¸ µ«´´½¿° Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóîí ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·ª» Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« Ð´¿²¬ Í°»½·» ß®»¿ ø¿½®»÷ ß³»®·½¿² ³¿²²¿ ¹®¿ É·´´±© Î·°¿®·¿² ß´¼»® ¾«½µ¬¸±®² ïðòï Í¿²¬¿ Ô«½·¿ ¼©¿®º ®«¸ ß³»®·½¿² ³¿²²¿ ¹®¿ Ó·¨»¼ Î·°¿®·¿² ß´¼»® ¾«½µ¬¸±®² îëòç Í¿²¬¿ Ô«½·¿ ¼©¿®º ®«¸ Î«¼»®¿´ øÜ·¬«®¾»¼÷ Ü±²²»® Ð¿ ¾«½µ©¸»¿¬ êòí Ë®¾¿²ñÎ«¼»®¿´ Ò±²» êòî Ù®¿²¼ Ì±¬¿´ ïèëòé Although there were no rare plants identified during the June and July 2002 surveys (CSCON, 2007), one special-status plant species, Donner Pass buckwheat, was identified during the rare plant survey conducted by PMC in June of 2009. The off-site trails PSA was not included in the rare plant surveys. Figure 4.8-6 shows the locations of the rare plants found within the project site. Rare plant surveys are only valid for two years. If construction occurs after expiration of the 2009 rare plant survey, additional surveys will be required to determine whether rare plants have colonized the area. Scalloped moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) is designated as a CNPS list 2.2 species. This perennial rhizomatous fern is in the Adder’s tongue family (Ophioglossaceae). It is found near creeks and in bogs and fens, lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps (freshwater) at elevations between 4,160 and 10,761 feet. Its distribution is scattered but not common anywhere in California. This species blooms from June to September (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Mingan moonwort (Botrychium minganense) is designated as a CNPS List 2.2 species. This perennial rhizomatous fern is in the Adder’s tongue family (Ophioglossaceae). It is found in bogs and fens, lower and upper montane coniferous forest in mesic soil at elevations between 4,773 and 6,742 feet. This species blooms from July to September (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Bolander’s bruchia (Bruchia bolanderi) is designated as a CNPS List 2.2 species. This moss occurs in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps in damp soil at elevations between 5,577 and 9,186 feet (CNPS, 2009). This species has an ephemeral nature and takes advantage of disturbed sites (CDFG, 2009a). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Mud (shore) sedge (Carex limosa) is designated as a CNPS List 2.2 species. This perennial rhizomatous herb is found in bogs and fens, lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps at elevations between 3,837 and 8,858 feet. It is possibly more widespread in the Sierra Nevada. This species blooms from June to August (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. English sundew (Drosera anglica) is designated as a CNPS List 2.3 species. This perennial carnivorous herb is found in bogs and fens, meadows and seeps in mesic soil at elevations between 4,265 and 6,561 feet. This species blooms from June to September (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóîì ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Nevada daisy (Erigeron nevadincola) is designated as a CNPS List 2.3 species that is found in the Great Basin scrub habitat, lower montane coniferous forest, pinyon and juniper, and woodland rocky habitat from 4,595 to 9,515 feet in elevation. The flowering period occurs between May and July (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site. Donner Pass buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum) is designated as a CNPS List 1B.2 species that is endemic to the Tahoe National Forest. It occurs on dry gravelly or stony sites, exposed ridges, or steep slopes, often sparse cover, and often volcanic substrates in dry meadows and upper montane conifer forests, at 6,085 to 8,595 feet in elevation. The flowering period occurs between July and September (CNPS, 2009). Several documented occurrences are known between Squaw Valley and the Meadow Lakes areas (CSCON, 2007). This species was observed on the project site (Figure 4.8-6). American manna grass (Glyceria grandis) is designated as a CNPS List 2.3 species that prefers riparian habitat, streambanks, lake margins, bogs/fens, wet meadows, and edge habitats from 50 to 6,495 feet in elevation. The flowering period for this species occurs between June and August (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca) is designated as a CNPS List 1B.2 species that occurs in vernally mesic (or wet) areas, usually volcanic, alkaline flats and meadows in openings of Great Basin scrub and lower montane coniferous forest, meadows, and vernal pools, at elevations between 4,805 and 7,220 feet (CNPS, 2009). The flowering period occurs between May and September. Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Webber’s ivesia (Ivesia webberi) is designated as a CNPS List 1B.2 species. This perennial herb is found in Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools in vernally mesic, usually volcanic soils at elevations between 4,806 and 7,217 feet. This species blooms from May to September (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis) is designated as a CNPS List 1B.2 species. This uncommon annual occurs in wet, sandy soils of seeps, meadows, vernal pools, streamsides at elevations between 984 and 6,233 feet (CDFG, 2009a). It is found in the high Sierra Nevada, Outer South Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, and Peninsular Ranges. This species blooms from spring to early summer (CDFG, 2009a). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Broad-nerved hump-moss (Meesia uliginosa) is designated as a CNPS List 2.2 species. This moss occurs in bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, subalpine coniferous forest, upper montane coniferous forest in damp soil at elevations between 4,265 and 9,199 feet. This species blooms in October (CNPS, 2009). There are scattered occurrences in California, primarily in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range (CDFG, 2009a). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Stebbins’ phacelia (Phacelia stebbinsii) is designated as a CNPS List 1B.2 species. This annual herb in the water leaf family (Hydrophyllaceae) occurs in cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and meadows and seeps at elevations between 2,001 and 6,594 feet. This species blooming period is between June and July (CNPS, 2009). Although this species Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóîë ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Slender-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton filiformis) is designated as a CNPS List 2.2 species. This perennial aquatic rhizomatous herb occurs in assorted shallow freshwater habitats such as marshes, swamps, shallow lakes, and drainage channels at elevations between 984 and 7,053 feet. This species blooms from May and July (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. White-stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) is designated as a CNPS List 2.3 species. This rhizomatous aquatic herb in the pondweed family (Potamogetonaceae) occurs in marshes and swamps (deep water, lakes) at elevations between 5,905 and 9,842 feet. This species’ blooming period is between July and August. It is known in California from approximately five occurrences (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site. Robbins’ pondweed (Potamogeton robbinsii) is designated as a CNPS List 2.3 species. This perennial aquatic rhizomatous herb occurs in lakes, marshes and swamps in deep water at elevation between 5,019 and 10,826 feet. This species blooms from July to August (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site. Alder buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia) is designated as a CNPS List 2.2 species. This perennial deciduous shrub is found in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and riparian scrub at mesic sites at elevation between 4,494 and 6,988 feet. It is known in California from fewer than 20 occurrences. This species blooms from May to July (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Marsh skullcap (Scutellaria galericulata) is a CNPS List 2.2 species that is found in meadows and seeps within lower montane coniferous forests and in marshes and swamps from sea level to 6,890 feet in elevation. The flowering period occurs between June and September (CNPS, 2009). Although this species was not found during focused rare plant surveys, suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« É·´¼´·º» Based on a records search of the USFWS and CNDDB online databases for the Truckee 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles, the project site and off-site trails PSA are within the range of a number of special-status wildlife species that are of concern to the USFWS and/or the CDFG. The regulatory status, habitat, and potential for occurrence of these and other special- status animal species from the database searches are outlined in Appendix H.Table 4.8-6 lists the special-status wildlife species according to the vegetative community in which they may occur within the project site and off-site trails PSA based on the database searches, suitability of habitat, and professional expertise. The special-status species are sorted by vegetative community based on their preferred habitat type as described in their life history accounts. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóîê ÓÐ éëæîìæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòÞÜÜÒÝÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ÓÐ ìíæììæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòÍÌÒ×ÑÐÁÌÒßÔÐÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ììòèóê ßÞÔÛ ÍóÍÉÍÐÑÉÐÑóÍÌÐÍß ÐÛÝ×ßÔÌßÌËÍ ×ÔÜÔ×ÚÛ ÐÛÝ×ÛÍ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔÔÇ ÝÝËÎÎ×ÒÙ ×ÌØ×Ò ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Í×ÌÛ ßÒÜ ÚÚ×ÌÛ Îß×ÔÍ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·ª» Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« É·´¼´·º» Í°»½·» ß®»¿ ø¿½®»÷ ß²²«¿´ Ù®¿´¿²¼ É»¬»®² ©¸·¬»ó¬¿·´»¼ ¶¿½µ®¿¾¾·¬ ß³»®·½¿² ¾¿¼¹»® ìéòé Ý¸¿°¿®®¿´ É»¬»®² ©¸·¬»ó¬¿·´»¼ ¶¿½µ®¿¾¾·¬ ß³»®·½¿² ¾¿¼¹»® íòé Ò±®¬¸»®² ¹±¸¿©µ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ©±´ª»®·²» Ó·¨»¼ Ý±²·º»® Ú±®»¬ Þ¿´¼ »¿¹´» ïíòï Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ®»¼ º±¨ Ñ°®»§ Ò±®¬¸»®² ¹±¸¿©µ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ©±´ª»®·²» Ô±¼¹»°±´» Ð·²» Ú±®»¬ Þ¿´¼ »¿¹´» ïèòè Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ®»¼ º±¨ Ñ°®»§ Ó±«²¬¿·² §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ üÝÒÚÙÝ×ÒÙÔØÏÌÝ×ÕÐ× Ð±²¼ øÑ°»² É¿¬»®÷ Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ íëòë Ñ°®»§ ó º±®¿¹·²¹ ýÑÙÌÕÛÝÐÇÖÕÊÙÎÙÒÕÛÝÐÔØÏÌÝ×ÕÐ× Ó±«²¬¿·² §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Ó¿®¸ Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ³±«²¬¿·² ¾»¿ª»® ïíòé Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ Ú®»¸©¿¬»® Í»»° Ò±²» íòè É»¬ ³»¿¼±© Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ®»¼ º±¨ ðòî Í»¿±²¿´ É»¬´¿²¼ Ò±²» ðòè Ô¿¸±²¬±² ½«¬¬¸®±¿¬ ¬®±«¬ É·´´±© º´§½¿¬½¸»® Ó±«²¬¿·² §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ³±«²¬¿·² ¾»¿ª»® É·´´±© Î·°¿®·¿²ö Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ ïðòï Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ²±©¸±» ¸¿®» Ø¿®´»¯«·² ¼«½µ Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ®»¼ º±¨ Ç»´´±© ©¿®¾´»® Ô¿¸±²¬±² ½«¬¬¸®±¿¬ ¬®±«¬ É·´´±© º´§½¿¬½¸»® Ó±«²¬¿·² §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ³±«²¬¿·² ¾»¿ª»® Ó·¨»¼ Î·°¿®·¿²ö Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ §»´´±©ó´»¹¹»¼ º®±¹ îëòç Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ²±©¸±» ¸¿®» Ø¿®´»¯«·² ¼«½µ Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ ®»¼ º±¨ Ç»´´±© ©¿®¾´»® Î«¼»®¿´ øÜ·¬«®¾»¼÷ Ò±²» êòí Ë®¾¿²ñÎ«¼»®¿´ Í°»½·¿´ó¬¿¬« ¾¿¬ °»½·» êòî Ù®¿²¼ Ì±¬¿´ ïèëòé ö×²½´«¼» ®·ª»®·²» ¸¿¾·¬¿¬ò Í±«®½»æ ËÍÚÉÍô îððç¿å ÝÜÚÙô îððç¿ô îððç¾ Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« É·´¼´·º» Í°»½·» ©·¬¸ Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ ¬± Ñ½½«® The following is a brief description of the animal species identified as having potential to occur on the project site and off-site trails PSA, based on nearby occurrences, the presence of suitable habitat, surveys, and professional expertise. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóíï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ú·¸ Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) is federally listed as threatened. Lahontan cutthroat trout, like other trout species, are found in a wide variety of cold-water habitats including large terminal alkaline lakes (e.g., Pyramid and Walker lakes), alpine lakes (e.g., Lake Tahoe and Independence Lake), slow meandering rivers (e.g., Humboldt River), mountain rivers (e.g., Carson, Truckee, Walker, and Marys rivers), and small headwater tributary streams (e.g., Donner and Prosser creeks) (USFWS, 2007). Generally, Lahontan cutthroat trout occur in cool flowing water with available cover of well-vegetated and stable stream banks, in areas where there are stream velocity breaks, and in relatively silt-free, rocky riffle-run areas (USFWS, 2007). There is one previously recorded occurrence within a 5-mile radius and an additional four occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the site (CDFG, 2009a). The Lahontan cutthroat trout is known to occur in Martis Creek, approximately 4 miles southeast of the project site. Although Cold and Donner creeks represent suitable habitat for this species, surveys revealed that the project site does not support a population of this species (CSCON, 2007). Cold and Donner creeks contain brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta), none of which are considered special-status species (CSCON, 2007). In a 1986 report, CDFG determined that these two creeks did not contain Lahontan cutthroat trout (CSCON, 2007). If they currently exist in the creeks, the fish were released by fishermen. In 1986, CDFG identified Donner Creek as probable historic habitat for the Lahonton cutthroat trout (CSCON, 2007). The 1986 report did not identify Donner or Cold creeks as having endemic or non-endemic Lahontan cutthroat trout in the two creeks and did not designate either creek for establishment, substitute establishment, or marginally suitable sites (CSCON, 2007). In addition, trout spawning habitat is not available in the ponds (CSCON, 2007). Although suitable habitat is present within Cold and Donner creeks, evidence shows that this species is not present within these two creeks on the project site and off-site trails PSA. ß³°¸·¾·¿² The Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) is federally listed as endangered and a California species of special concern. Suitable breeding habitat is considered to be low gradient (up to 4 percent) perennial streams and lakes. These stream types generally have the potential for deep pools and undercut banks, which provide habitat for this frog. In the Sierra Nevada, this frog occurs at elevations from 4,500 to 12,000 feet (CSCON, 2007). The decline of mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada has been attributed to the introduction of trout during the last century. Because the adults overwinter underwater and the tadpoles take more than one season to undergo metamorphosis, they are vulnerable to predation by introduced fish. A historic sighting of this species was recorded in the Mount Rose area more than 40 years ago (CDFG, 2009a). In the Lake Tahoe Basin, this species has been detected only at two lentic (still water) sites in the Desolation Wilderness Area (CSCON, 2007). Opportunities for colonization of the project site and off-site trails PSA by mountain yellow- legged frogs are extremely low since the known populations for this amphibian occur more than 20 miles distant in the southeastern portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) is a candidate for federal listing and a California species of special concern. Yellow-legged frog populations now recognized as R. sierrae formerly were included in R. muscosa. Suitable habitat includes riparian/riverine corridors, wetlands, and wetland/upland mosaics in which wetland patches are separated by less than 0.6 mile of upland habitat; it also includes any upland habitat regularly used for feeding or wintering (e.g., mesic forest for wood frogs). This species occurs at elevations between 984 and 12,000 feet. There are five previously recorded occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). This species was observed in Independence Lake in 2008 approximately nine miles from the project site (CDFG, 2009a). Suitable habitat is located within Cold and Donner creeks Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóíî ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ and other wetland habitats on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Since known populations of this amphibian are within 10 miles and suitable habitat is present, this species may occur on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Þ·®¼ Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is a California species of special concern and protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Their breeding habitat is cold fast-moving streams in northwestern and northeastern North America, Greenland, Iceland, and western Russia. The nest is usually located in a well-concealed location on the ground near a stream. They are short- distance migrants and most winter near rocky shorelines on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. They are very rare vagrants to western Europe. These birds feed by swimming under water or diving. They also dabble. They eat mollusks, crustaceans, and insects. There are no previously recorded occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a); however this species may occur in the project site and off-site trails PSA. American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) is a Calfornia species of special concern. It was observed on the project site during June 2009 surveys. This species’ breeding range includes the project site and off-site trails PSA (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). White pelicans are colonial nesters and frequently nest on islands free from predators (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). Although there are small islands in some of the ponds on the project site, they do not seem to be large enough to support a large rookery. This species may occasionally nest on the project site. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a California species of special concern. The northern goshawk is found in montane coniferous forests from 4,500 feet to 9,000 feet in elevation. In the Sierra Nevada, this species breeds in mature stands of conifer forest. High tree canopy closure is characteristic of all goshawk nest stands, with optimal canopy closure of 60 percent to 100 percent for protection and thermal cover, and some open space allowing maneuverability below the canopy. Northern goshawks typically nest near water on north slopes, usually in red fir, lodgepole pine, Jeffrey pine, or aspen trees. Goshawks breed from mid-March to early September, with a peak from early May to mid-July. There are five previously recorded occurrences within a 5-mile radius and an additional six occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). Although this species may forage on the project site and off-site trails PSA, the site does not contain suitable nesting habitat for the northern goshawk. Although the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been federally delisted, it is still state- listed as endangered and protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and MBTA. The bald eagle nests near lake margins and rivers, usually within 1 mile of water. Bald eagles nest in large, old growth or dominant live trees with open branches. These birds roost communally in the winter. There is one previously recorded occurrence within a 5-mile radius and one additional occurrence within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). A pair of bald eagles was observed foraging on the project site during the June 2009 surveys. Although this species is unlikely to use the habitat within the project site and off-site trails PSA for nesting, it may nest adjacent to and use the site for foraging. Osprey (Pandion halieetus) is a California species of special concern. Osprey nest near freshwater lakes and larger streams. Large nests are usually built in treetops within 15 miles of good fish- producing bodies of water. During the June 2009 surveys, a juvenile osprey was observed foraging within the project site. Osprey were also seen foraging in the ponds during past surveys (CSCON, 2007). There is one previously recorded occurrence within a 5-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). Although this species is unlikely to use the habitat within the project site and off-site trails PSA for nesting, it may nest adjacent to and use the project site and off-site trails PSA for foraging. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóíí ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Î¿°¬±® ¿²¼ Ñ¬¸»® Ó·¹®¿¬±®§ Þ·®¼ Many bird species are migratory and fall under the jurisdiction of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Various migratory birds and raptor species, in addition to those described in detail above, have the potential to inhabit the project vicinity. Migratory birds forage and nest in multiple habitats. The habitats found within and in the vicinity of the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds. Several migratory birds and raptors including eagles, hawks, owls, and other birds may occur in the vicinity of the project site. The nests of all migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (which makes it illegal to destroy any active migratory bird nest) and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Some raptor species, such as Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), are not considered special-status species because they are not rare or protected under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Two American robin (Turdus migratorius) nests were incidentally observed during the June 2009 surveys. One juvenile osprey and a pair of bald eagles were observed foraging within the project site as well. Consequently, raptor and migratory bird species are likely to forage and nest on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) is a California species of special concern and its nests are protected under the MBTA. Riparian plant associations. Prefers willows, cottonwoods (Populus spp.), aspens (Populus tremuloides), sycamores (Platanus spp.), and alders (Alnus spp.) for nesting and foraging. Also nests in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. Breeds mid-April to early August. There is one previously recorded occurrence within a 5-mile radius and an additional two occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). The yellow warbler sighting was approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site located in Donner Memorial State Park (CDFG, 2009a). This species was identified on the project site during one of the willow flycatcher surveys performed by CSCON (CSCON, 2007). This species was observed throughout the project site on June 15 and 16, 2009. This species could potentially breed on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) is state-listed as endangered and its nests are protected under the MBTA. There are three subspecies in California. They inhabit wet meadow and riparian montane habitats, nesting in dense willow and riparian vegetation typically 2,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation. They make a cup nest in a vertical fork in a shrub or tree. Peak egg-laying occurs in June. These birds migrate to Mexico and Central America, often selecting winter habitat near water. There are three previously recorded occurrences within a 5-mile radius and an additional four occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). No willow flycatchers were detected during protocol-level surveys of the project site in 2002, 2003, and 2009. Figure 4.8-7 depicts the survey areas and station points of the 2009 protocol-level survey conducted by PMC (Appendix H). Although no willow flycatchers were detected during protocol-level surveys, this species may occupy the project site in the future since suitable habitat is present and sites where occurrences were previously recorded are located nearby. Protocol-level surveys were not conducted within the off-site trails PSA, but are unlikely to occur adjacent to the roadway. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóíì ÓÐ çîæíïæí à çððîñêñðï ó ÜÈÓòÌßÌ×ÞßØ ÜÒß ÇÛÊÎËÍ ÔÚ×ÉÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ó¿³³¿´ Sierra Nevada mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa californica), a California species of special concern, occurs in dense growths of small deciduous trees and shrubs with wet soil and an abundance of forbs in the Sierra Nevada and east slope. The Sierra Nevada mountain beaver’s preferred habitat is wet meadow areas adjacent to streams with deep soils allowing for easy burrowing. This species needs dense understory for food and cover and an abundant supply of water. They feed on vegetative parts of plants, mostly blackberry (Rubus spp.), dogwood (Cornus spp.), lupines (Lupinus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and grasses. The subspecies has been observed in Alpine, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Lassen, Mariposa, Mono, Placer, Tulare, and Tuolumne counties at elevations ranging from 3,904 feet to over 10,105 feet above mean sea level. Mountain beavers breed from December through March with a peak in February. There are five previously recorded occurrences within a 5-mile radius and an additional five occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). Evidence of beaver was observed on the project site in June 2009. They are unlikely to occur in the off-site trails PSA. California wolverine (Gulo gulo), which is state-listed as threatened, is a solitary and wide-ranging carnivore. Wolverines occur at relatively low population densities in alpine and arctic tundra, boreal and mountain forests (primarily coniferous). Wolverines are limited to mountains in the south, especially large wilderness areas, usually in areas with snow on the ground in winter. Riparian areas can provide important winter habitat for this species. When inactive, wolverines tend to den in caves, rock crevices, under fallen trees, in thickets, or similar sites. They are terrestrial and may climb trees. Young are born in a den among rocks or tree roots, in hollow logs, under fallen trees, or in dense vegetation, including sites under snow. This species breeds from April to October (but variable), usually in summer. One previously recorded occurrence of the wolverine was recorded within a 5-mile radius, with an additional three occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). The status of the wolverine in the Sierra Nevada range has been unclear for many years. In the early 1900s, their populations declined, largely due to trapping, and by 1933, no more than 30 animals were thought to occur in California. Occasional sightings are still reported (2008 through 2010), but the persistence of this species in the Sierra Nevada is questionable as there has been no documented evidence of wolverine presence for the last 50 years (USFS, 2004). The sighting of a wolverine in the Sierra Nevada was determined through DNA testing to be from a Rocky Mountain population (Moriarty, 2009). Therefore the likelihood of wolverines occurring within or near the project site and off-site trails PSA is extremely low. Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus tahoensis) is a California species of special concern. The Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare prefers boreal riparian forested areas within the Sierra Nevada and particularly riparian forest that includes willows or alders. Suitable habitat is present on the project site. There is one previously recorded occurrence within a 5-mile radius and one additional occurrence within a 10-mile radius of the project site. The greatest potential for presence of this species is located within the riparian and thick willow habitats, where there are large stands of trees near water. Western white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), a California species of special concern, is an uncommon to rare year-round resident of the crest and upper eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, primarily from the Oregon border south to Tulare and Inyo counties. Formerly widespread throughout this range, its population now is fragmented, and numbers apparently have declined drastically. Preferred habitats are sagebrush, subalpine conifer, juniper, alpine dwarf-shrub, and perennial grassland; however it also uses low sagebrush, wet meadow, and early successional stages of various conifer habitats. There is seasonal movement from higher to lower elevations in winter. They prefer open areas with scattered shrubs. Like other hares, this species takes cover in a shallow depression, usually in shrubby underbrush. They also use thickets of young conifers or low branches of stunted conifers for cover. Suitable habitat is present on the Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóíé ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ project site and off-site trails PSA. There are no previously recorded occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California species of special concern. The American badger is a stout-bodied, primarily solitary species that hunts for ground squirrels and other small mammal prey in open grassland, cropland, deserts, savanna, and shrubland communities. Badgers have large home ranges and spend inactive periods in underground burrows. Badgers typically mate in mid- to late summer and give birth between March and April. Although there are no previously recorded occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a) and no large dens were observed during the June 2009 surveys, suitable habitat is present and this species may den within the project site in the future. American badger is unlikely to occur in the off-site trails PSA due to the developed nature of the area and constant disturbance. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) is state-listed as threatened. Sierra Nevada populations may be found in a variety of habitats, including alpine dwarf-shrub, wet meadow, subalpine conifer, lodgepole pine, red fir, aspen, montane chaparral, montane riparian, mixed conifer, and ponderosa pine. Jeffrey pine, eastside pine, and montane hardwood-conifer also are used. Most sightings in Sierra Nevada are above 7,217 feet, but they may be found in elevations from 3,937 to 10,105 feet. This species uses dense vegetation and rocky areas for cover and den sites. In Sierra Nevada, prefers forests interspersed with meadows or alpine fell- fields. Open areas are used for hunting, while forested habitats are used for cover and reproduction. Edges are utilized extensively. There are two previously recorded occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2009a). This species may occur in the project site; however, it is unlikely to occur in the off-site trails PSA. Special-status bat species, including spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), small-footed bat (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared bat (M. evotis), fringed bat (M. thysanodes), long-legged bat (M. volans), yuma myotis (M. yumanensis), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), could inhabit the area in the vicinity of the project site. These species are widely distributed throughout California; however, many of these species are rare within these overall ranges. Habitat for bat species consists of foraging habitat, night roosting cover, day roosting sites, maternity roost sites, and winter hibernacula. These bat species may forage within a variety of habitats, including the habitats found on the project site. Suitable roosting sites include caves, rock crevices, cliffs, buildings, tree bark, and snags. Some or all of these bat species are likely to forage in the project vicinity, but there is a low likelihood that maternity roosts or hibernacula are located on the project site. Even still, tree bark, snags, and human structures within or adjacent to the project site could provide roosting habitat for special-status bat species. Although no signs of bat roosts were encountered during field surveys, day or maternity roosts may occur on the project site. Roosts are unlikely to occur in the off-site trails PSA. ìòèòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ This section lists specific environmental review and consultation requirements and identifies permits and approvals that must be obtained from local, state, and federal agencies before implementation of the proposed project. Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ Ú»¼»®¿´ Û²¼¿²¹»®»¼ Í°»½·» ß½¬ The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects threatened and endangered plants and animals and their critical habitat. Candidate species are those proposed for listing; these species Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóíè ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ are usually treated by resource agencies as if they were actually listed during the environmental review process. Procedures for addressing impacts to federally listed species follow two principal pathways, both of which require consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which administers the FESA for all terrestrial species. The first pathway, Section 10(a) incidental take permit, applies to situations where a non-federal government entity must resolve potential adverse impacts to species protected under the FESA. The second pathway, Section 7 consultation, applies to projects directly undertaken by a federal agency or private projects requiring a federal permit or approval. Ó·¹®¿¬±®§ Þ·®¼ Ì®»¿¬§ ß½¬ The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC). All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC], Section 703 et seq.) and California statute (FGC Section 3503.5). The golden eagle and bald eagle are also afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act, amended in 1973 (16 USC, Section 669 et seq.). Ý´»¿² É¿¬»® ß½¬ Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit that is conducting any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. The appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates Section 401 requirements. Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” without a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administer the act. In addition to streams with a defined bed and bank, the definition of waters of the U.S. includes wetland areas “that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 California Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3 7b). The lateral extent of non-tidal waters is determined by delineating the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) [33 C.F.R. Section 328.4(c)(1)]. If adjacent wetlands occur, the limits of jurisdiction extend beyond the ordinary high water mark to the outer edge of the wetlands. The presence and extent of wetland areas are normally determined by examination of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of a site. The majority of jurisdictional wetlands exhibit three wetland criteria, including hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. Substantial impacts to jurisdictional wetlands may require an individual permit. Small-scale projects may require a nationwide permit, which typically has an expedited process compared to the individual permit process. Mitigation of wetland impacts is required as a condition of the 404 permit and may include on-site preservation, restoration, or enhancement and/or off-site restoration or enhancement. The characteristics of the restored or enhanced wetlands must be equal to or better than those of the affected wetlands to achieve no net loss of wetlands. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóíç ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ùÆÙÛÉÊÕÈÙïÌÚÙÌ ÔõÐÈÝËÕÈÙëÎÙÛÕÙË Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species directs all federal agencies to refrain from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions or projects that may spread invasive species. The order further directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, control and monitor existing invasive species populations, restore native species to invaded ecosystems, research and develop prevention and control methods for invasive species, and promote public education on invasive species. As part of the proposed action, USFWS and USACE issue permits and are responsible for ensuring that the proposed action complies with Executive Order 13112 and does not contribute to the spread of invasive species. Í ÌßÌÛ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Û²¼¿²¹»®»¼ Í°»½·» ß½¬ Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has the responsibility for maintaining a list of endangered and threatened species (Fish and Game Code – FGC 2070). Sections 2050 through 2098 of the FGC outline the protection provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the FGC prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081 established an incidental take permit program for state-listed species. CDFG maintains a list of “candidate species,” which are species that CDFG formally notices as being under review for addition to the list of endangered or threatened species. Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the area and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, CDFG encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species. Project-related impacts to species on the CESA endangered or threatened list would be considered significant. State-listed species are fully protected under the mandates of the CESA. “Take” of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under FGC Section 206.591. Authorization from CDFG would be in the form of an Incidental Take Permit. Ò¿¬·ª» Ð´¿²¬ Ð®±¬»½¬·±² ß½¬ The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (FGC Section 1900 et seq.) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the state of any plants with a state designation of rare, threatened, or endangered (as defined by CDFG). An exception to this prohibition in the act allows landowners, under specified circumstances, to take listed plant species, provided that the owners first notify CDFG and give that state agency at least 10 days to come and retrieve (and presumably replant) the plants before they are plowed under or otherwise destroyed (FGC Section 1913 exempts from take prohibition “the removal of endangered or rare native plants from a canal, lateral ditch, building site, or road, or other right of way”). Project impacts to these species are not considered significant unless the species are known to have a high potential to occur within the area of disturbance associated with construction of the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóìð ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ú·¸ ¿²¼ Ù¿³» CDFG also maintains lists of “species of special concern,” which serve as species “watch lists.” The CDFG has also identified many species of special concern. Species with this status have limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that their populations may be threatened. Thus, their populations are monitored, and they may receive special attention during environmental review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA and thereby warrant specific protection measures. Sensitive species that would qualify for listing but are not currently listed are afforded protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) requires that a substantial reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species be considered a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (Rare or Endangered Species) provides for assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the California Native Plant Society’s Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 would typically be considered under CEQA. Sections 3500 to 5500 of the FGC outline protection for fully protected species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Species that are fully protected by these sections may not be taken or possessed at any time. The CDFG cannot issue permits or licenses that authorize the take of any fully protected species, except under certain circumstances such as scientific research and live capture and relocation of such species pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Under Section 3503.5 of the FGC it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders of Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. State and local public agencies are subject to Section 1602 of the FGC, which governs construction activities that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the CDFG. Under Section 1602, a discretionary Streambed Alteration Agreement permit from the CDFG must be issued by the CDFG to the project developer prior to the initiation of construction activities within lands under CDFG jurisdiction. As a general rule, this requirement applies to any work undertaken within the 100-year floodplain of a stream or river containing fish or wildlife resources. ÒóÙÑ ÑÒÑÊÛÎÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÎÙßÒ×ÆßÌ×ÑÒÍ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ò¿¬·ª» Ð´¿²¬ Í±½·»¬§ The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings: List 1A: Plants Believed Extinct List 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere List 2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóìï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ List 3: Plants about Which We Need More Information – A Review List List 4: Plants of Limited Distribution – A Watch List Plant species designated as List 3 and 4 will not be discussed in this Draft EIR since they are not considered special-status species. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» îðîë Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element includes goals and policies to preserve, protect, enhance, and promote the Town’s valuable natural, cultural, and scenic resources (Town of Truckee, 2006). Appendix B analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee would ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» The Town of Truckee Development Code provides guidance for protecting and preserving environmentally sensitive areas, the natural appearance of hillsides, and other important views and visual resources (Town of Truckee, 2004). Section 18.46.010 in the Development Code provides requirements for the preservation and maintenance of permanent open space in conjunction with the development of private property in order to preserve and to protect 100- year floodplains, environmentally sensitive areas, lakes and ponds, and slopes in excess of 30 percent (Town of Truckee, 2004). Cluster development is encouraged as a means of maintaining the open space(s) that contribute significantly to the character of the town, provide for the integrity and continuity of wildlife habitat, and protect and conserve forest and rangeland resources for their resource, recreational, aesthetic, and biological values (Town of Truckee, 2004). The Development Code definesenvironmentally sensitive areas as avalanche areas; deer fawning areas; deer migration/wildlife movement corridors; habitat for state and federally listed plant and animal species, including special-status and candidate species; high fire hazard areas; scenic vistas; large blocks of undeveloped forest; meadows; prominent slope exposures and ridge lines; riparian habitat and corridors; wetlands per Section 18.46.040; and unstable soils (Town of Truckee, 2004). ìòèòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ The impact analysis provided below is based on the application of the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. A project is considered to have significant impacts if implementation of the project will: Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóìî ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ 1)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. 2)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. 3)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 4)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 5)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 6)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 7)Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ Habitat Assessment: For areas within the project site, a habitat layer was created using GIS ArcView program based on aerial photograph interpretation and knowledge from reconnaissance-level surveys by PMC biologists (Figure 4.8-2). The area was previously surveyed and mapped by CSCON in 2004 (Appendix H; CSCON, 2007). A reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site was conducted in June and July 2009 for the project site by PMC biologists to assess habitat types and current site conditions. Although the biological communities map from CSCON was used as a base map, it was updated by PMC biologists to reflect what was at the site in 2009. On November 18, 2010, the off-site trails PSA was surveyed to identify and map the vegetative communities. Wetland Delineation: Two wetland delineations for the project site were conducted by CSCON on October 22, 2001, and May 30, 2003, using methodologies approved by the USACE. The wetland parameters were determined based on the guidelines outlined in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). Appendix H includes the wetland delineation reports by CSCON and the USACE verification letter (Corps ID#19920038). On November 18, 2010, the off-site trails PSA was delineated by PMC. Appendix H includes a copy of the preliminary wetland delineation report. Special-Status Species Assessment: The habitat mapping and field surveys were reviewed for potential habitat for the special-status species identified from the literature and database searches. A species was determined to have potential to occur on the project site and/or the off-site trails PSA if its documented geographic range from the literature and database searches includes the vicinity of the site and if suitable habitat for the species was identified within or near Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóìí ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ the project site. The CDFG’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried for a list of special-status wildlife, botanical, and fisheries resources with a potential to occur or known to occur on the project site and in the vicinity (CDFG, 2009a, 2009b). The database search was performed for special-status species within the Truckee, California, United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding quadrangles (Independence Lake, Hobart Mills, Boca, Norden, Martis Peak, Granite Chief, Tahoe City, and Kings Beach). Locations of special-status species occurrences as recorded in the CNDDB within a 1-mile radius of the project site are shown in Figure 4.8-5. The CNPS inventory was also searched for the quadrangles listed above for CNPS List 1A, List 1B, and List 2 special-status plants that may occur within the project site (CNPS, 2009). In addition, the USFWS list for the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles listed above was consulted for federally listed or candidate plant and wildlife species that could potentially be affected by the proposed project (USFWS, 2009a). Appendix H includes a copy of the database searches. When the USFWS lists a species as threatened or endangered under the FESA, areas of habitat considered essential to its conservation and survival may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special consideration and/or protection due to their ecological importance. Potential critical habitat designations in the general vicinity of the project site were checked using the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS, 2009b). Designated critical habitat is not located in the general vicinity of the project site. The closest critical habitat is located approximately 40 miles west in Nevada County for California red-legged frog (USFWS, 2009b). On June 15, 16, 29, and 30, 2009, PMC biologists Jeannette Owen and Angela Calderaro conducted willow flycatcher protocol-level surveys on the project site according to the Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California (Bombay et al., 2003). The area within and surrounding the off-site trails PSA was not surveyed for willow flycatcher. The potential suitable habitat for willow flycatcher was evaluated based on the previous willow flycatcher protocol-level surveys conducted by CSCON in 2002 and 2003 for the proposed project and the conditions at the site during the 2009 surveys. Suitable habitat included areas with mature, dense stands of willows or mixed riparian plant species. A Trimble Geo XT with submeter accuracy was used to record and space the station points in the field. PMC biologists conducted focused rare plant surveys concurrently with the willow flycatcher surveys on the project site in accordance with the Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (CDFG, 2000). Transects of the project site were systematically walked to detect presence of rare plant species in bloom. The off-site trails PSA was not systematically surveyed for rare plants. In addition, CSCON biologists conducted protocol-level surveys for willow flycatcher in June and July 2002 and again in June and July 2003, and for rare plants in June and July 2002. Appendix H includes the reports from CSCON and PMC outlining the methods for the surveys. Impact Analysis: The analysis of impacts to biological resources presented in this section is based on previous biological investigations and reports, as well as available literature and maps from federal, state, and local agencies, the project description (Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR), existing plans for the proposed project (i.e., Coldstream Restoration and Management Plan [Foothill Associates, 2004]), and the standards of significance described above. The assessment includes impacts within the project site and off-site trails PSA. The exact detail of all development and impacts associated with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is not known at this time. Although it is likely that some level of natural resources would be retained within future projects implemented under the proposed project, the location and extent of these resources cannot be determined. Therefore, the more conservative impact approach was taken to ensure that impacts Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóìì ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ are not underestimated. A basic assumption of this conservative approach is that all natural resources within the project site could be removed or otherwise negatively modified by activities allowed under the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. The impact analysis for the off-site trails assumes that the bike trail will be located inside the right-of-way, so impacts were estimated from the right-of-way boundary to the existing edge of pavement. Impacts to vegetative communities and jurisdictional features may be less once the design of the trails is finalized. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Û²¼¿²¹»®»¼ô Ì¸®»¿¬»²»¼ô ¿²¼ Ñ¬¸»® Ô·¬»¼ Í°»½·» Impact 4.8.1 Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect loss of habitat and individuals of endangered, threatened, rare, proposed, and candidate status, as well as plant species identified by the California Native Plant Society with a rating of List 1A or 1B (i.e., rare, threatened, or endangered plants). This would be a potentiallysignificant impact. Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would impact vegetative communities that may provide habitat for special-status species. Table 4.8-7 lists the acreage of vegetative communities that would be impacted within the project site and off-site trails PSA. Figure 4.8-8 shows the areas that would be impacted within the project site by implementation of the proposed project. Figure 4.8-9 shows the areas that would be impacted in the western portion of the off-site trails PSA. Since the eastern portion of the off-site trails project only includes an impact to 2.06 acres of urban/ruderal habitat, no graphic is shown. Urban and ruderal habitats are unlikely to support listed special-status species, whereas the other vegetative communities have the potential to support listed special-status species. The vegetative communities on-site provide potential breeding and foraging habitat for listed species; however, the large expanses of unbroken habitat to the east and south of the project site make it unlikely that loss of the habitat on-site would prove to be a detrimental factor in the success of the species in the area. î Ììòèóé ßÞÔÛ ×ÊÝÐÍ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ÌÑ ÛÙÛÌßÌ×ÊÛ ÑÓÓËÒ×Ì×ÛÍ É×ÌØ×Ò ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ ß®»¿ ±º ×³°¿½¬ øß½®»÷ ß®»¿ ±º ×³°¿½¬ øß½®»÷ ©·¬¸·² Ì±¬¿´ ß®»¿ ±º ×³°¿½¬ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·ª» Ý±³³«²·¬§ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» ¬¸» ÑººóÍ·¬» Ì®¿·´ ÐÍß øß½®»÷ ß²²«¿´ Ù®¿´¿²¼ íèòï ¢ íèòï Ý¸¿°¿®®¿´ îòé ¢ îòé Ô±¼¹»°±´» Ð·²» Ú±®»¬ ïëòì ðòïë ïëòë Ó·¨»¼ Ý±²·º»® Ú±®»¬ ïòê ¢ ïòê Ó·¨»¼ Î·°¿®·¿² êòç ðòðï êòç Ð±²¼ îòé ¢ îòé Î«¼»®¿´ ìòî ¢ ìòî 2 Revision Note: The prior version of the EIR included this table, minus the column quantifying Area of Impact within the Off-site Trails PSA. Furthermore, this table was originally shown under Impact 4.8.7 (below) but has been moved here to accommodate the discussion in this Impact. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóìë ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ß®»¿ ±º ×³°¿½¬ øß½®»÷ ß®»¿ ±º ×³°¿½¬ øß½®»÷ ©·¬¸·² Ì±¬¿´ ß®»¿ ±º ×³°¿½¬ Ê»¹»¬¿¬·ª» Ý±³³«²·¬§ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» ¬¸» ÑººóÍ·¬» Ì®¿·´ ÐÍß øß½®»÷ Ë®¾¿²ñÎ«¼»®¿´ ¢ íòðë íòð Í»¿±²¿´ É»¬´¿²¼ ðòé ¢ ðòé Í»»° ðòë ¢ ðòë É»¬ Ó»¿¼±© ¢ ðòðè ðòï É·´´±© Î·°¿®·¿² ìòè ðòðì ìòè Ù®¿²¼ Ì±¬¿´ ééòê íòíí èðòè Ô¿¸±²¬¿² Ý«¬¬¸®±¿¬ Ì®±«¬ Although unlikely to occur within the project site and off-site trails PSA, the Lahontan cutthroat trout, which is federally listed as threatened, occurs in the Truckee River and could potentially spawn in Cold and Donner creeks, which align through the project site and off-site trails PSA. The project proposes restoration/enhancement of the riparian area surrounding Cold Creek and recontouring of the creek channel. In addition, the proposed project includes replacement of the Cold Creek bridge on the project site and an extension of the bridge over Donner Creek at Coldstream Road. Lahontan cutthroat trout could be directly impacted by restoration within the creek channel or indirectly impacted from declines in water quality due to increases in stormwater from the proposed project (see Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, regarding water quality impacts). In a letter regarding informal consultation with the USFWS to Thomas Cavanaugh of the USACE in May of 2005, the USFWS states that the proposed project may affect but is unlikely to affect the Lahontan cutthroat trout (File #1-5-05-I-144; Appendix H; USFWS, 2005). This consultation assumed that there will be no re-grading or restoration of Cold Creek; however, according to the restoration plans (Figure 3.0-8), the project intends to restore a portion of Cold Creek. Î¿®» Ð´¿²¬ Several special-status plant species have the potential to occur on the project site and off-site trails PSA or to be impacted by the proposed project according to results of database searches, a habitat survey, and/or historic records. The focused survey for rare plants concluded that one species, Donner Pass buckwheat (CNPS List 1B.2), is present on the project site and will be removed with implementation of the proposed project. Rare plant surveys are only valid for two years; additional surveys may be required prior to construction if the two-year survey window has lapsed. In addition, the guidelines for rare plant surveys recommend that surveys be conducted twice during a species blooming period. Rare plant surveys were not conducted during the blooming period for all rare plants with the potential to occur in the project site and were not conducted within the off-site trails PSA. Other listed special-status species with the potential to occur in the project site and off-site trails PSA besides Donner Pass buckwheat include starved daisy (CNPS List 1B.3), Plumas ivesia (CNPS List 1B.1), Webber’s ivesia (candidate for federal listing and CNPS List 1B.1), Santa Lucia dwarf rush (CNPS List 1B.2), and Stebbins’ phacelia (CNPS list 1B.2). If special-status plant species are present within the impact area or temporary construction zone, they may be directly impacted by trampling, compaction, or removal. Since there is removal of potential habitat where special-status plant species are likely to occur, the loss of any of these plants would be an impact that is considered potentially significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóìê ÓÐ ëíæèìæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòÍÛ×Ì×ÒËÓÓÑÝ ÛÊ×ÌßÌÛÙÛÊ ÑÌ ÍÌÝßÐÓ×ÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ÓÐ éîæííæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòçóèòì Ù×ÚÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ç»´´±©óÔ»¹¹»¼ Ú®±¹ The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is a candidate for federal listing and a California species of special concern. Suitable habitat is present on the project site and off-site trails PSA. Suitable habitat includes riparian/riverine corridors, wetlands, and wetland/upland mosaics in which wetland patches are separated by less than 0.6 mile of upland habitat; it also includes any upland habitat regularly used for feeding or wintering (e.g., mesic forest for wood frogs). There are five previously recorded occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site. This species was observed in Independence Lake in 2008 approximately 9 miles from the project site (CDFG, 2009a). Although the closest previously recorded occurrence is 9 miles from the project site, suitable habitat is present and therefore this species may occur on the site. Although minimal direct impacts to the creeks would occur as a result of the proposed project, the construction of the proposed project could result in the release of sedimentation, debris, and urban runoff into downstream aquatic habitat. Construction activities may include the refueling of construction equipment on location. As a result, minor fuel and oil spills could occur which could affect downstream habitat. Without rapid containment and cleanup, these materials could be potentially toxic depending on the location of the spill in proximity to water features, including creeks, seasonal wetlands, or meadow habitat. Oils, fuels, and other contaminants could directly affect aquatic organisms, including special-status species that inhabit the creek inside and outside the project site and off-site trails PSA. Accidental spills within the project work sites and into Cold or Donner creeks could result in adverse impacts to the aquatic environment (see Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, regarding water quality impacts). Þ¿´¼ Û¿¹´» The bald eagle, although federally delisted, is still state-listed as endangered and protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the MBTA. Two adult bald eagles were observed foraging, but no large stick nests were observed, within the project site. Although this species is unlikely to use the habitat within the project site for nesting, it may nest adjacent to and use the project site for foraging. If a nest is located within 500 feet from construction activities, construction activities may adversely affect nesting behavior. Mortality, injury, or removal of occupied habitat is a potentially significantimpact. This analysis is consistent with the informal consultation from USFWS in May 2005 (USFWS, 2005; Appendix H). É·´´±© Ú´§½¿¬½¸»® The willow flycatcher is state-listed as endangered. Take of the species including mortality, injury, or removal of occupied habitat is significant. Protocol-level surveys for willow flycatcher were negative; the species was not found during protocol-level surveys of the project site. Currently the survey is designed to detect whether the species is occupying a site during the breeding season for that year. No willow flycatchers are currently nesting or breeding on the project site. Although unlikely, since protocol-level surveys in 2002, 2003, and 2009 were negative, this species may occupy suitable riparian habitat on the project site or off-site trails PSA in the future. If construction does not commence within two years of the last protocol-level survey, it is recommended that prior to initiation of construction activities (including vegetation clearing), additional surveys should be conducted to ensure that this species is not actively using the project site or off-site trails PSA. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ É±´ª»®·²» The California wolverine is state-listed as threatened. Although an individual of the Rocky Mountain population was recently observed in the Sierra Nevada, the native California Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóëï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ population of this rare and elusive carnivore has not been observed in the Sierra Nevada since the 1930s. It is unlikely that this species occurs within the project site or off-site trails PSA, and therefore this species is not expected to be impacted by the proposed project. Í·»®®¿ Ò»ª¿¼¿ Î»¼ Ú±¨ The Sierra Nevada red fox is state-listed as threatened. Preferred habitat for the Sierra Nevada red fox appears to be red fir and lodgepole pine forests in the subalpine zone and alpine fell- fields of the Sierra Nevada. Open areas are used for hunting, while forested habitats are used for cover and reproduction. There are two previously recorded occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the project site. Although very unlikely due to limited habitat requirements, this species may occupy the open and forested habitat within the project site or off-site trails PSA. Loss of occupied habitat is a potentially significant impact. ×²¼·®»½¬ ×³°¿½¬ ±º ¬¸» Ð®±°±»¼ Ð®±¶»½¬ Suitable habitat for listed plant and animal species exists within the project site or off-site trails PSA and could be indirectly impacted by development under the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Just as direct impacts would occur to habitat in which listed species are found, indirect impacts would occur as well. Indirect impacts occur for a number of reasons, though primarily through increased human/wildlife interactions, habitat fragmentation, encroachment by exotic weeds, and area-wide changes in surface water flows due to development of undeveloped areas. ×²½®»¿»¼ Ø«³¿²ñÉ·´¼´·º» ×²¬»®¿½¬·±² The transportation features identified in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in increased vehicular traffic (auto and pedestrian), increasing the amount and severity of indirect impacts to wildlife and habitat on the project site. Development of residential and nonresidential uses would result in increased human presence in areas formerly uninhabited by humans. Additionally, development of previously undeveloped land for residential uses can expose species to impacts from feral and unconfined pets. In the Truckee region, development could potentially increase human-bear conflicts by increasing unnatural bear foraging opportunities. Evidence of bears (i.e., scat and a den site) was observed within the project site. Development of the project site would displace these individuals and potentially lead to conflicts between humans and bears. Trash cans that are not bear-proof would attract foraging bears to the project site and vicinity. Chapter 4.0 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan requires that all development on the site design all trash and recycling receptacles to be bear-proof. Ø¿¾·¬¿¬ Ú®¿¹³»²¬¿¬·±² Much of the habitat within the project site is currently interconnected with large areas of open space and sparse development that has a minor impact on plant and wildlife species on the site. However, development of the project site could result in small pockets of conserved habitat that are no longer connected by streams and open space, resulting in indirect impacts to species diversity and movement within the project site. Habitat fragmentation may result in reduced home ranges and loss of foraging habitat that could decimate a population or reduce the fitness of an individual, resulting in indirect take of listed species. Although the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan incorporates habitat corridors into the design of the project site (see Figure 4.8-10), these corridors limit the type and size of species that would Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóëî ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ use them. The continued use of the existing riparian corridors within the project site by large mammals would be restricted following development of the site. During surveys, coyote and deer were observed using the riparian corridor along Donner Creek. Û²½®±¿½¸³»²¬ ¾§ Û¨±¬·½ É»»¼ Generally, landscaping installed as part of development in the region has relied heavily on exotic, non-native plant species for decoration. However, some of these species can spread to natural areas, causing native plant life to be replaced by exotic species. The introduction of non-native invasive species in this manner could adversely impact the natural areas surrounding the project site. In addition, construction activities, grading, and other ground- or vegetation- clearing disturbances can eliminate the native plant population and allow invasive non-native species to become established. As native plants are replaced by exotic species, indirect impacts to the habitat of listed species would occur such as modification or degradation of habitat. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes provisions in Chapter 4 that restrict the types of landscaping to be used on the project site (see Specific Plan Tables 4-2 and 4-3) and prohibits the placement of turf within buffers along project water features or along buffers adjoining habitat areas. Though these indirect impacts would contribute to the degradation of habitat which may be used by listed species, these impacts are expected to be minimal. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.8.1a If ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal are scheduled to occur with two years of the currently valid rare plant surveys (June 2011), no additional rare plant surveys are required. If the rare plant surveys are no longer valid due to a lapse in time of project construction commencement (including phasing), rare plant surveys are warranted as follows: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for each phase of development, focused rare plant surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence of special-status plant species with potential to occur in the impact areas. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (CDFG, 2000). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If special-status plant species are located within temporary impact areas, then additional mitigation is necessary (see below). If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided (such as the known locations of Donner Pass buckwheat), the Town shall consult with the USFWS and/or CDFG, as applicable, to determine appropriate avoidance and mitigation for special- status plants, which may include, but is not limited to the following measures: If special-status plants are identified and will not be directly impacted, protective fencing would be required to ensure that the plant or plants are not destroyed, crushed, or damaged during construction. A buffer zone will Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóëí ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ be established and the area will be fenced off. Signs will be posted to publicize the sensitive nature of the area. For special-status plants that will be directly impacted, efforts shall be made to salvage portions of the habitat or plant populations that will be lost as a result of implementation of the proposed project by transplanting the plants that would be adversely affected by the proposed project for planting in a new area in appropriate habitat. The transplantation area will be located in an area that would support that species and be preserved in perpetuity. A propagation program shall be developed for the salvage and transfer of rare, threatened, or endangered plant populations from the site before the initiation of construction activities. Permits may be required from the CDFG or USFWS, which will ensure that certified biologists are involved in the propagation and transport of rare, threatened, or endangered plant species. (Note: Propagation methods for the salvaged plant population must be developed on a case-by-case basis and must include the involvement of local conservation easements/preserves/open space, where applicable). The propagation and transfer of individual plant species must be performed at the correct time of year and successfully completed before the project’s construction activities eliminate or disturb the plants and habitats of concern. The viability of the plant population shall be maintained. Timing/Implementation: During the appropriate flowering period and prior to grading activities Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóëì ÌæÄÁÝÍÄÉ±®µÄÌ®«½µ»»ô Ý·¬§ ±ºÄÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ßÜ Û×Î îçóððíèóððï ÓÐ ïîæðëæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòÒÑ×ÌßÛÒ×ÔÛÜ ÜÒßÔÌÛÉ ÑÌ ÍÌÝßÐÓ×ÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ MM 4.8.1b The project applicant shall have a qualified biologist prepare a Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow-legged frog habitat suitability assessment on the Cold Creek bridge site and for any construction within a stream or open water habitat area. The assessment shall include a detailed analysis of the habitat conditions present on site and shall survey stream conditions 500 feet upstream and downstream from the proposed stream crossing. If the results of the habitat suitability survey indicate that potential habitat for this species is not present within 500 feet up- or downstream of the crossing, no further analysis is required; however, if potential habitat for this species is identified during the assessment, the project proponent shall perform the following: Conduct pre-construction surveys for the Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow-legged frogs during the breeding season by a qualified biologist. If frogs are identified in the construction area, the biologist shall contact CDFG and/or USFWS regarding the proper methods of moving the species to an appropriate off-site location prior to the onset of construction activities at the waterways. Monitor construction activities within waterways. Conduct training session for all construction personnel regarding the Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow-legged frogs. Provide a description of the species and its habitat as well as materials on the species in order to assist construction personnel in identifying the species in the field. Revegetate and recontour channels that would maintain habitat for the Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow-legged frogs. Timing/Implementation: During the breeding season for Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow-legged frogs and prior to construction activities surrounding project water features Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division MM 4.8.1c For trees that must be removed to construct each phase of the proposed project, the project applicant will target the removal of trees and other vegetation to occur outside the nesting season between September 1 and February 28. If trees cannot be removed outside the nesting season, pre- construction surveys will be conducted prior to vegetation removal to verify the absence of active raptor nests within 500 feet of construction activities. If construction or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local avian species (typically March 1 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 500 feet outside project boundaries, where possible) the project construction activities shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to each phase of development. Surveys shall include searches of all potential nest sites, including snags, shrubs, ground, buildings, and cliff faces. If no active nests are found, vegetation removal or construction activities may proceed. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóëç ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, USFWS and/or CDFG (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 500 feet around an active bald eagle or osprey nest, 250 feet around an active other raptor nest, and 100 feet around an active migratory bird nest) or alteration of the construction schedule. No action is necessary if no active nests are found or if construction will occur during the non-breeding season (generally September 1 through February 28). Timing/Implementation: Fourteen days prior to ground disturbance or tree removal for each phase of development Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division MM 4.8.1d If the willow flycatcher surveys are no longer valid due to a lapse in time of project construction commencement (including phasing), willow flycatcher surveys are warranted as follows: Willow flycatcher protocol surveys shall be conducted prior to each phase of construction in suitable habitat according to the Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California (Bombay et al., 2003). If no willow flycatchers are detected, no further mitigation is necessary. If willow flycatchers are detected, then the Town shall consult with the USFWS and/or CDFG, as applicable, to determine appropriate avoidance and mitigation for willow flycatcher, which may include, but is not limited to, the following measures: Construction activities will be limited to outside the nesting season (typically September 1 and February 28) so as to avoid impacts associated with nesting bird species. Impacts to suitable willow flycatcher habitat from the proposed project will be mitigated through mitigation measures MM 4.8.3a through 4.8.3c for riparian habitat. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division MM 4.8.1e A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active dens, lodges, or burrows no more than two weeks prior to any grading or ground- breaking activity. The survey will identify dens, lodges, or burrows for special- status mammals including Sierra Nevada red fox, California wolverine, Sierra Nevada mountain beaver, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, western white- tailed jackrabbit, and American badger. If active den/burrow sites for special-status mammals are identified, a mitigation plan shall be developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure no animals are killed and that den/burrow sites are properly addressed. Measures may include, but are not limited to, enforcement of buffer zones restricting construction activities near den sites, Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóêð ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ and capture and relocation of the species. If active dens/burrows are present, they shall be monitored by a qualified biologist(s)/monitor(s) throughout construction to ensure no additional losses. If no active dens/burrows are found, then no further mitigation is necessary. Timing/Implementation: Two weeks prior to construction and/or grading activities Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division MM 4.8.1f Project site trails shall include signage that requires bear-proof trash receptacles. Timing/Implementation: As part of project site trail development Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division MM 4.8.1g Project landscaping shall not include invasive species of the genus Cirsium. Timing/Implementation: As part of landscaping approval Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of the above mitigation measures, as well as mitigation measures MM 4.8.2b and 4.8.2c, would reduce potential impacts to special-status species to a level that is considered less than significant by requiring surveys to identify sensitive resources prior to construction activities, measures to avoid those resources, or measures to replace or mitigate for resources lost. ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Í°»½·» ±º Ý±²½»®²ô Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ú«´´§ Ð®±¬»½¬»¼ô ¿²¼ Ñ¬¸»® Ò±²óÔ·¬»¼ Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« Í°»½·» Impact 4.8.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could result in direct and indirect loss of habitat and individuals of animal and plant species of concern, listed as “fully protected” in the Fish and Game Code of California (Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515), migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other non-listed special-status species. This would be potentiallysignificant impact. Ó·¹®¿¬±®§ Þ·®¼ ¿²¼ Î¿°¬±® Project construction could result in loss of habitat that may be used as foraging or nesting habtiat for migratory birds and raptors. Project construction activities may result in the loss of young or eggs of migratory birds or raptors such as harlequin duck, American white pelican, northern goshawk, osprey, and yellow warbler due to direct removal of the nest or loss of foraging habitat. Construction activities that require the disturbance of trees and vegetation could cause direct impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, if birds are actively nesting during construction activities. Excessive noise, disturbance, and vibrations can cause nesting birds to abandon their nests. Construction could also result in noise, dust, increased human activity, and other indirect impacts to nesting raptor or migratory bird species in the project vicinity. Potential nest abandonment and mortality to eggs and chicks, as well as stress from loss Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóêï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ of foraging areas would also be considered potentially significant impacts. If nesting migratory birds or raptors are present during project construction, the proposed project may cause direct mortality to raptors or migratory birds by removal of vegetation that contains active nests. If construction occurs during the non-nesting season, no impacts are expected. However if construction activities were scheduled to occur during the nesting season, mitigation would be necessary to avoid potential impacts to migratory birds and their nests. The loss or disturbance of active nests or direct mortality is prohibited by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.8.1c, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« Þ¿¬ Í°»½·» Precautions must be taken to avoid the deliberate killing or injury of bats. The most common and effective method of avoiding these offenses is to carry out the work at an appropriate time of the year. The great majority of roosts are used only seasonally, so there is usually some period when bats are not present. Although there are differences between species, maternity sites are generally occupied between May and September and hibernation sites between October and March, depending on the weather. Suitable bat roosting habitat is present within the human structures and trees within the project site. Table 4.8-8 shows approximate time periods for construction activities if bat species are present within the project site or off-site trails PSA. Ììòèóè ßÞÔÛ ÞËÜÇ ßÌ ÍßÙÛ ËÎ×ÒÙ ÌØÛ ÛßÎ Ñ°¬·³«³ Ð»®·±¼ º±® Ý¿®®§·²¹ Ñ«¬ É±®µ Þ¿¬ Ë¿¹» ±º Í·¬» ø±³» ª¿®·¿¬·±² ¾»¬©»»² °»½·»÷ ñÝÊÙÌÐÕÊÅïÛÊÏÜÙÌ ÔñÝÅ ëÉÑÑÙÌÐÏÊÝÎÌÏÈÙÐÑÝÊÙÌÐÕÊÅËÕÊÙëÙÎÊÙÑÜÙÌ ÔñÝÅ öÕÜÙÌÐÝÊÕÏÐñÝÅ ÔïÛÊÏÜÙÌ ñÝÊÕÐ×ëÇÝÌÑÕÐ×ðÏÈÙÑÜÙÌ ÔýÉ×ÉËÊ Í±«®½»æ Õ»´´»¸»® ¿²¼ Ó¿®²»´´ô îððê If maternity roost sites are located within the project site or off-site trails PSA during construction activities, the proposed project has the potential to directly and indirectly impact special-status bat species. Bats are at their most vulnerable in buildings or other roost sites during the summer, when large numbers may be gathered together and young bats, unable to fly, may be present. Removal of maternity roost sites may cause direct mortality of numerous bats, which is potentially significant. Noise and dust from construction could indirectly impact bat species during construction. Ñ¬¸»® Í°»½·¿´óÍ¬¿¬« Ó¿³³¿´ Í°»½·» The Sierra Nevada mountain beaver, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, western white-tailed jackrabbit, and American badger are all California species of special concern. Implementation of the proposed project could remove habitat for this species. If this species is present during construction activities, the proposed project may result in mortality or injury to individuals. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.8.2b and MM 4.8.2c would reduce impacts to special-status species. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóêî ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.8.2a Prior to initiation of construction activity, a bat survey shall be performed by a wildlife biologist or other qualified professional between March 1 to July 31 in the year prior to the removal of any buildings or the Cold Creek bridge. If bat roosts are identified on site, the Town shall require that the bats be safely flushed from the sites where roosting habitat is planned to be removed prior to roosting season (typically May to August) of each construction phase and prior to the onset of construction activities. If maternity roosts are identified during the maternity roosting season (typically May to August), they must remain undisturbed until a qualified biologist has determined the young bats are no longer roosting. If roosting is found to occur on site, replacement roost habitat (e.g., bat boxes) shall be provided on site for roosting sites removed. If no bat roosts are detected, then no further action is required if the trees and buildings are removed prior to the next breeding season. If removal is delayed, then an additional pre-demolition survey shall be conducted 30 days prior to removal to ensure that a new colony has not established itself. If a female or maternity colony of bats are found within or adjacent to the project site or off-site trails PSA and the project can be constructed without the elimination or disturbance of the roosting colony (e.g., if the colony roosts in a large oak tree not planned for removal), a wildlife biologist shall determine what physical and timed buffer zones shall be employed to ensure the continued success of the colony. Such buffer zones may include a construction-free barrier of 200 feet from the roost and/or the timing of the construction activities outside of the maternity roost season (after July 31 and before March 1). If an active nursery roost is known to occur on site and the project cannot be conducted outside of the maternity roosting season, bats shall be excluded from the site after July 31 and before March 1 to prevent the formation of maternity colonies. Non-breeding bats shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a bat specialist. Timing/Implementation: Fourteen days prior to ground disturbance or tree removal Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division MM 4.8.2b A worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) shall be established and implemented prior to construction to educate the construction crew on special-status species and other sensitive biological resources with the potential to occur in the area. The program shall include, at a minimum, species identification, a description of suitable habitat for this species, and measures to implement in the event that this species is found during construction. The program shall be presented to all members of the construction crew. Timing/Implementation: Prior to any employee conducting work on the project site or off-site trails PSA Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóêí ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ MM 4.8.2c The following best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction to reduce impacts to special-status species and habitat: Limit construction equipment and associated activities to the project routes in areas that support sensitive resources. To eliminate an attraction to predators of special-status species, all food- related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps will be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed at the end of each working day from the entire construction site. Implement construction measures to avoid accidental transport and spread of invasive species including the cleaning of construction vehicles and equipment prior to entering the project site. Timing/Implementation: Fourteen days prior to ground disturbance Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to species of concern, California fully protected, and other non-listed special-status species to a level that is considered less than significant by requiring pre-construction surveys and avoidance of bat roosts, educating employees on the sensitive resources potentially occurring on the project site or off-site trails PSA and measures to avoid sensitive resources, and implementing best management practices during construction. ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Í»²·¬·ª» Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Ý±³³«²·¬·»ô ×²½´«¼·²¹ Î·°¿®·¿² Ø¿¾·¬¿¬ Impact 4.8.3 Implementation of the proposed project would result in disturbance, degradation, and/or removal of sensitive biological communities. This impact is considered potentially significant. Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could result in disturbance, degradation, and removal of riparian habitat. Riparian habitat is under the jurisdiction of the CDFG under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. CDFG regulates work that will substantially affect resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes in California, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1607. Any action from a project that substantially diverts or obstructs the natural flow or changes the bed, channel, or bank of any river or stream, or uses material from a streambed, must be previously authorized by CDFG in a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. This requirement may, in some cases, apply to any work undertaken within the 100-year floodplain of a body of water or its tributaries. As a general rule, however, it applies to any work done within the annual high-water mark of a river or stream that contains or once contained fish and wildlife or that supports or once supported riparian vegetation. Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could result in direct and indirect impacts to riparian conditions along Cold Creek and Donner Creek. Riparian habitat supports a high diversity of wildlife species and provides shade for streams and wetlands, maintaining stream temperatures and reducing stream evaporation. Buffers are not only important to the species they support but they also can reduce sediment and nutrient inputs into streams. The length of buffers is also important for stream functions. Riparian obligates (those species dependent on riparian habitat) require a minimum of a 100-foot setback (Ledwith, 1996; Wenger, 1999). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóêì ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Figures 4.8-8 and 4.8-9 identify where the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would encroach on or directly impact riparian habitat. A total of 11.7 acres of riparian habitat (willow riparian and mixed riparian) is expected to be impacted within the project site, and an additional 0.04 of mixed riparian is expected to be impacted within the off-site trails PSA. In addition to these impacts, future enhancement and restoration of project water features could result in additional riparian habitat impacts. Surrounding Cold Creek within the project site, approximately 4.0 acres of habitat is proposed for restoration activities (see Figure 3.0-8). The proposed project would retain and preserve substantial riparian areas along Cold and Donner creeks as well as along wetland features to be preserved. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan also includes a 50-foot buffer from the 100-year floodplain of the creeks and a 250- foot buffer from the pond 100-year floodplain. The interface between natural habitats and disturbed communities would greatly increase the chance for invasive species to be introduced to the area. Native plants provide food, shelter, and nest/den sites for native wildlife which have evolved with each other. Introduction of invasive or non-native species changes the wildlife value for native species and allows non- native or opportunistic species to colonize the area and crowd out native wildlife. Riparian habitat is considered to be a sensitive natural community under CEQA. Impacts to jurisdictional features are described under Impact 4.8.4. The proposed project designates the majority of land within the riparian corridor as open space. Disturbance and loss of riparian habitat is considered a potentially significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.8.3a Proposed Coldstream Specific Plan setback and landscape provisions shall be modified to require the retention of existing riparian habitat (except where restoration of riparian habitat is planned). Plantings within this setback area shall be limited to native species that either expand or complement existing riparian habitat. Timing/Implementation: As part of the approval of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division MM 4.8.3b Where impacts to riparian habitat are not avoidable and on-site preservation is not possible, then habitat compensation shall be required at a 1:1 impact preservation ratio. To mitigate for the permanent direct and indirect impacts from the proposed project, a mitigation and monitoring plan will be prepared for submittal to the USACE with the Section 404 permit application. The mitigation plan will identify impacts on all jurisdictional features and mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve the “no net loss” (i.e., the same amount of wetland resources lost to site development shall be replaced/created). This may include creation of wetland resources on the project site or off site as determined acceptable to the Town and USACE. To assist in the on-site revegetation, areas of existing vegetation with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 4 inches or less that do not require complete removal shall be cut at ground level with hand-operated power (i.e. saws, pruners, etc.). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóêë ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction-related disturbance to riparian habitat Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division MM 4.8.3c A 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for removal of or disturbance to riparian habitat and waters of the United States (i.e., stream, lake, or river) from CDFG would also be required for the proposed project. This agreement will include measures to minimize impacts to and restore riparian habitat. The 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would require the project applicantto prepare and implement a riparian vegetation mitigation and monitoring plan for the restoration of impacted riparian vegetation. Timing/Implementation: Prior to the start of construction activities that disturb riparian habitat Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division Implementation of the above mitigation measures and mitigation measure MM 4.8.2c would reduce impacts to riparian habitat to a less than significant level by preserving and/or enhancing the riparian habitat within the project site. ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ö«®·¼·½¬·±²¿´ É»¬´¿²¼ Impact 4.8.4 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would potentially result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, riverine, marsh, and seasonal wetland) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. This is a potentially significant impact. The loss or fill of jurisdictional wetlands is potentially significant under CEQA regardless of habitat quality, as the USACE has a no net loss policy. Implementation of the proposed project will result in direct fill of 0.75 acres of wetlands and 1.5 acres of open waters within the project site (see Figure 4.8-11). The creeks and ponds are waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Authorization for such fill would be secured from USACE via the Section 404 permitting process prior to project implementation. Because a Section 404 permit would be required from the USACE, a Section 401 permit would be also required from the RWQCB. The project proponent would obtain authorization from both the USACE and the RWQCB to fill/disturb these features prior to project implementation. The impacts will result from site grading and installation of infrastructure associated with the development of the proposed project. The proposed wetland impacts would occur from filling two seasonal wetlands (Areas 1 and 6) and filling the perimeter open water associated with the northern portion of the southwestern arm of Area 7 and the southern edge of Area 3 (Figure 4.8-11).Table 4.8-9 outlines the impacts from the proposed project and mitigation included in the proposed project. Impacts associated with the proposed off-site bike trails are discussed separately. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóêê ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ììòèóç ßÞÔÛ Í×ÓÖÚÐÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÚÑÎ ËÎ×ÍÜ×ÝÌ×ÑÒßÔ ÛßÌËÎÛÍ É×ÌØ×Ò ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ Ô±½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ü»½®·°¬·±² Ð®±°±»¼ ×³°¿½¬ Ý±³°»²¿¬±®§ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Î»«´¬·²¹ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Î¿¬·± ß®»¿ ï ¿²¼ ê ðòéë ¿½®» ïòïë ¿½®» ïòëíæï øÍ»¿±²¿´ É»¬´¿²¼÷ Í±«¬¸»®² Ð±®¬·±² ±º ß®»¿ í ðòî ¿½®» ðòî ¿½®» ïæï øÑ°»² É¿¬»®÷ Í±«¬¸©»¬»®² Ð±®¬·±² ±º ß®»¿ é ïòí ¿½®» ïòí ¿½®» ïæï øÑ°»² É¿¬»®÷ Í±«®½»æ Ú±±¬¸·´´ ß±½·¿¬»ô îððì The wetland impacts associated with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan will be mitigated by increasing some wetland areas surrounding the ponds by decreasing their slopes and constructing a wetland in the southwestern corner of the project site totaling approximately 0.65 acre (see Figure 3.0-8). The open water impacts will be mitigated by removing the portions of the berms between Areas 2, 3, and 4 to increase water surface area while creating habitat islands (Foothill Associates, 2004). Approximately 1.5 acres of waters of the U.S. will be created by connecting the ponds in the center portion of the project site to create islands that may be suitable for nesting migratory birds (Areas 1, 3, and 4 in Figure 4.8-11; see also Figure 3.0-8). ÑººóÍ·¬» Ì®¿·´ Although the engineering drawings have not been finalized for the bike trails, it is estimated that the off-site bike trails have the potential to impact approximately 0.089 acre of potentially jurisdictional features including 0.085 acre of wet meadow and 0.004 acre of perennial creek. The roadside drainage ditches are on the opposite side of the roadway and therefore will not be impacted. The estimate of impacts are based on an 8-foot bike path, installation of a retaining wall at the Coldstream Road bridge over Donner Creek, and proposed roadside swales separating the bike trail from the existing roadway described in preliminary exhibits for the off-site trail alignments (see Figure 3.0-16). The impacts were estimated based on the area between the right-of-way and existing edge of pavement. Since no jurisdictional features occur on the eastern portion of the off-site trails PSA along Deerfield Drive, impacts to potential jurisdictional features occur only in the western portion of the off-site trails PSA along Coldstream Road and Donner Pass Road. Figure 4.8-12 shows the impacts to potential jurisdictional features in the western portion of the off-site trails PSA. Í´±°» Í¬¿¾·´·¦¿¬·±² ¿²¼ É»¬´¿²¼ Ý®»¿¬·±² The slope stabilization and wetland creation mitigation measure as proposed in the Restoration Plan (Foothill Associates, 2004) will result in temporary impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation surrounding the ponds. Figure 3.0-8 in Section 3.0, Project Description, shows the impacts to and enhancement of the wetlands and other waters on the project site. A total of 8,900 feet of pond perimeter will be modified. The pond slope stabilization includes reducing the slope of the banks of the ponds as shown on Figure 3.0-8 to a maximum slope of 3:1 to enhance the habitat quality of the ponds. Impacts to waters of the U.S. (ponds) will occur to approximately 0.50 acre from slope stabilization. This includes depositing fill in the ponds which will make them shallower. Disturbance of the wetland and pond areas has the potential to introduce non-native invasive species and remove mature native trees and shrubs that have colonized the area since mining activities ceased on the project site. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóêé ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.8.4 The project applicant shall comply with the USACE “no net loss” policy for mitigation of wetlands under the jurisdiction of the USACE. The applicant must apply for a Section 404 permit, a Section 401 permit, and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. If wetland resources are proposed to be taken, the project applicant shall do the following: 1. If required, apply for a Section 404 permit from the USACE after verification of the wetland delineation by the USACE. Any waters of the U.S. that would be lost or disturbed shall be replaced or rehabilitated on a no net loss basis in accordance with the USACE mitigation guidelines. On- site creation of wetland habitat is preferred to off-site mitigation. Habitat restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement shall be at a location and by methods agreeable to the USACE. 2. Obtain a Section 401 water quality waiver of certification from the RWQCB. 3. A mitigation plan shall be implemented that includes one of the following: (a) Completion of an on-site Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (such as proposed by the Coldstream Specific Plan, see Draft EIR Table 4.8-9) that includes on-site creation/preservation of the wetlands. This will include measures to avoid impacts to wetlands and habitat to be preserved such as fencing, best management practices to protect water quality and other appropriate measures. (b) Credits may be obtained at an approved mitigation bank. The project applicant shall provide written evidence to the Town from the USACE and the RWQCB that this measure has been complied with prior to project approval. Timing/Implementation: Prior to the start of construction activities that would impact wetlands Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division and Engineering Division The USACE, along with the RWQCB and possible input from the USFWS, will require compensatory mitigation measures to effectively mitigate any potential loss of these resources. Implementation of the above mitigation measures and mitigation measure MM 4.8.3e, as well as construction and operational water quality control mitigation measures identified in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, would reduce potential impacts to water quality and aquatic resources to a level that is considered less than significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóêè ÓÐ ííæïïæï à ïïðîñèïñî ó ÜÈÓòîïóèòì Ù×ÚÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ×³°¿½¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ó±ª»³»²¬ ±º Ò¿¬·ª» Î»·¼»²¬ ±® Ó·¹®¿¬±®§ Ú·¸ ±® É·´¼´·º» Í°»½·» ±® ©·¬¸·² Û¬¿¾´·¸»¼ Ó·¹®¿¬±®§ Ý±®®·¼±® Impact 4.8.5 Implementation of the proposed project may interfere with the movement of special-status and common wildlife species; however the impact would be less than significant. Wildlife movement corridors are routes frequently utilized by wildlife that provide shelter and sufficient food supplies to support wildlife species during migration. Movement corridors generally consist of riparian, woodlands, or forested habitats that span contiguous acres of undisturbed habitat. Wildlife movement corridors are an important element of resident species home ranges. The project site is not within an established migratory route for deer. Although the creeks are used by common wildlife, the project includes buffers around the creeks and corridors connecting wetlands. Introduction of roads and urban development have the potential to fragment habitat for wildlife that depend on extensive, undisturbed tracts of open space. The proposed developments are clustered close to existing development, with open space and recreational areas on approximately 60 percent of the project site. Additionally, the project site is bounded to the north by existing residential and roadway development, which reduces the site’s viability as a migratory corridor. Streams such as Cold and Donner creeks offer movement corridors for wildlife species such as mule deer, coyote, and black bear, while the moist understory provides habitat and food for a series of wildlife. Although there is potential for impact, the proposed project is not likely to interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife species in terms of population; therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ð®±ª··±² ±º ¿² ß¼±°¬»¼ Ø¿¾·¬¿¬ Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±² Ð´¿²ô Ò¿¬«®¿´ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±² Ð´¿²ô ±® Ñ¬¸»® ß°°®±ª»¼ Ô±½¿´ô Î»¹·±²¿´ô ±® Í¬¿¬» Ø¿¾·¬¿¬ Ý±²»®ª¿¬·±² Ð´¿² Impact 4.8.6 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any adopted biological resources recovery or conservation plan of any federal or state agency. Thus, there would be no impact. Currently there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, nor any other conservation or recovery plan in effect for the project site, in whole or in part. There are no impacts. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ô± ±º Ì®»» Impact 4.8.7 Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of coniferous and black cottonwood trees. Although the Town of Truckee Development Code contains no tree preservation ordinance, the Development Code does require that the project applicant inventory and submit a list of all trees to be removed. This would be a potentiallysignificantimpact. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóéï ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Development of the proposed project will have impacts to approximately 38.1 acres of annual grassland habitat and 15.5 acres of lodgepole pine forest, among other habitat types listed in Table 4.8-7. Figures 4.8-8 and 4.8-9 show the impacts to vegetative communities from the proposed project. Open space and recreational areas are proposed on approximately 60 percent of the total project site. Trees within the project site include numerous large trees such as Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, white fir, lodgepole pine, and black cottonwood. All of these trees provide a dense canopy of shade and/or a source of wildlife habitat. Although native trees such as Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, white fir, and lodgepole pine and habitat types such as mixed coniferous forests are not afforded special protection under state or federal law, loss of these resources is a concern for the Town of Truckee, and the trees are offered protection by the Town of Truckee General Plan. The Community Character Element of the Truckee General Plan includes Policy 2.10, which states “Encourage the preservation of trees and native vegetation, including specimen trees, in development projects.” The project site is generally devoid of significant trees; however, the landscape program established as part of the Specific Plan preserves the existing tree stand along the western boundary of the project site and identifies a restoration and enhancement program from the planting of native and naturalized tree and plant species within the project site. Under Deerfield Drive Roadway Option 1, Deerfield Drive would be opened to through traffic. Upon analyzing the effects of such a change in the circulation plan of the proposed project, it was determined that a sightline issue would exist just inside the project boundary as the interior roadways connect to Deerfield Drive. If Deerfield is opened to through traffic, approximately seven to ten trees would be removed in order to provide adequate traffic safety at the interface of the project and the existing Deerfield Drive. If Deerfield Drive is not opened to through traffic, these trees would remain undisturbed. In addition to the impacts identified for Option 1 above, opening Deerfield Drive to through traffic would necessitate the installation of a sidewalk on the southern side of the roadway right- of-way east of the project boundary and west of the point at which the Class I trail would intersect with Deerfield Drive. While this sidewalk would be installed along the roadway, it would be located entirely within the existing roadway right-of-way. However, a number of trees exist in this area that would likely be removed as a part of installing the sidewalk. The Town of Truckee Development Code requires that the project applicant inventory and submit a list of all trees proposed for removal. In addition, for all timber harvests where logs are sold commercially, the project applicant is required to procure the services of a licensed professional forester to prepare a Timber Harvest Plan in coordination with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Additionally, construction of the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact the health and viability of trees on the project site that are proposed for retention and preservation. The removal of trees from the project site and the potential for construction activities to affect the health and viability of trees proposed for retention constitutes a potentially significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.8.7a If the trees removed from the project site are to be sold commercially, the project applicant shall submit a Timber Harvest Plan prepared by a licensed professional forester. If the trees to be removed will not be sold commercially, this measure does not apply. The Timber Harvest Plan shall identify measures to meet the following requirements: Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóéî ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Minimize the extent of the development and locate all construction so as to avoid impacts to existing trees over 36 inches in diameter. Cluster development as much as possible in order to retain continuous stands of trees in the non-developed portion. Prior to finalization, the Timber Harvest Plan shall be submitted concurrently with fuel-reducing measures to the Truckee Fire Protection District for approval. The Timber Harvest Plan shall address and mitigate for the removal of trees within the footprint of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division; Truckee Fire Protection District MM 4.8.7b The black cottonwood trees proposed for removal shall be replaced on site at a ratio of 2:1 utilizing 5-gallon-size black cottonwoods (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) or 4” X 14” tree pots. Placement of the plantings shall occur in an area designated as open space or a non-disturbance zone. Prior to construction, a revegetation plan is required by a qualified restoration specialist that identifies a planting area within the project site containing soil and moisture conditions suitable for cottonwood planting. This shall be included in the proposed project’s Restoration Plan. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division MM 4.8.7c The following protective measures shall be implemented to avoid damage during construction to trees proposed for preservation that are located within the actual construction zone: A circle with a radius measurement from the trunk of the tree to the tip of its longest limb shall constitute the dripline protection area of each tree. Limbs must not be cut back in order to change the dripline. The area beneath the dripline is a critical portion of the root zone and defines the minimum protected area of each tree. Removing limbs that make up the dripline does not change the protected area. Temporary protective fencing shall be installed at least 1 foot outside of the driplines of the protected trees prior to the start of construction work in order to avoid damage to the trees and their root systems. This fencing may be installed around the outermost dripline of clusters of trees proposed for protection, rather than individual trees. Fencing shall be shown on all project plans. No vehicles, construction equipment, mobile home/office, supplies, materials, or facilities shall be driven, parked, stockpiled, or located within the driplines of protected trees. A laminated sign indicating such shall be attached to fencing surrounding trees on site. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóéí ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ No grading (grade cuts or fills) shall be allowed within the driplines of protected trees. No trenching shall be allowed within the driplines of protected trees. If it is absolutely necessary to install underground utilities within the dripline of a protected tree, the utility line shall be bored and jacked under the supervision of a certified arborist. Timing/Implementation: Protected trees and associated dripline areas shall be shown on all improvement and grading plans Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to the existing trees to a less than significant level. ìòèòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting includes the project site and off-site trails PSA, as well as the area surrounding the town limits (Nevada and Placer counties), where the impacts of urbanization and threats to biological diversity and sensitive biological resources are considered most serious. The impacts on biological resources are primarily the result of urbanization of the area, habitat fragmentation, water pollution, and conversion of natural land to residential, commercial, and recreational use. The reader is referred to Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR for a further discussion of cumulative setting conditions. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.8.8 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, will result in the conversion of habitat and impact biological resources. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Development under the proposed project may result in direct and indirect impacts to plant and wildlife species and habitat conditions. Impacts to approximately 81 acres of vegetative communities contribute to the potentially significant cumulative effect of habitat loss within the region, particularly in the context of foreseeable future development and infrastructure projects in the region. Potential development within the Town of Truckee and the southern portion of Placer County would further increase impacts to biological resources and would increase indirect impacts on adjoining land areas. These impacts would contribute to cumulative impacts on biological resources in the region, including the loss of mixed coniferous habitat, increased urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and water pollution. The proposed project and other projects in the region could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to: Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóéì ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Trees and coniferous habitat, including large trees that provide important habitat for a wide variety and high diversity of wildlife; Habitat used by migratory birds and raptors; and Water quality. Adverse effects of habitat loss associated with the project have been minimized by locating the entrance, roads, and homes adjacent to existing development and disturbance, and preserving approximately 60 percent of the total project site. While the proposed project may result in site- specific impacts to listed special-status species as identified under Impact 4.8.1, to non-listed special-status species as identified under Impact 4.8.2, to aquatic resources as identified under Impact 4.8.3 and Impact 4.8.4; and trees as identified under Impact 4.8.7, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources within the region are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implement project-specific mitigation measures MM 4.8.1a through MM 4.8.1g, MM 4.8.2a through MM 4.8.2c, MM 4.8.3a through MM 4.8.3c, MM 4.8.4, and MM 4.8.7a through MM 4.8.7c, as well as mitigation measures listed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. The implementation of the mitigation measures listed above would reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources by addressing impacts at the project-specific level. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources within the region would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóéë ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Allen, Barbara H. 2005. Sierran Mixed Conifer. Updated by California Habitat Wildlife Relationship (CHWR) Staff. In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988. American Bird Conservancy. 2007. “Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife.” Cat Indoors: The Campaign for Safer Birds and Cats. http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/ policy/cats/materials/predation.pdf (accessed July 14, 2009). Bartolome, James W. 1988. Lodgepole Pine. In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988. Bombay, Helen L., Teresa M. Bensen, Brad E. Valentine, and Rosemary A. Stefani. 2003. A Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/wifl_2003_protocol.pdf. Brown and Caldwell. 2002. Coldstream Property 100-Year Flood Evaluation. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1982. Loyalton Truckee Deer Herd Management Plan. CDFG, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Prepared May 1982. ———. 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, California. ———. 2002. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) program version 8. ———. 2009a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB): QuickViewer. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/quick_viewer_launch.html (accessed June 12, 2009). ———. 2009b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 3 computer program, Version 3.1.1. Commercial version dated May 30, 2009. Data will expire November 30, 2009. CDFG, Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, CA. ———. 2009c. Deer Management Program 2009 Deer Zone Information, General Deer Hunting Information for Zone X-7b and Area-Specific Archery Hunt A-14. Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/ deer/docs/cazonemaps/x7bzoneinfo2009.pdf (accessed June 19, 2009). California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-09b 04-10-09). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. http://www.cnps.org/inventory (accessed April 22, 2009). Carter Schleicher Consulting (CSCON). 2001. Delineation of Waters of the United States, Cold Stream Site, Nevada and Placer Counties, California. Prepared for Taylor Hooper and Wiley. Carson City, Nevada. ———. 2003. Cold Stream Water of the United States Delineation Amendment, Truckee, California, Corps of Engineers Identification Number 199200338. Letter to Mike Isles (Teichert Aggregates) from Carter Schleicher (CSCON), dated June 27, 2003. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóéê ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ———. 2007. Biological Resources Assessment. Cold Stream Project. Town of Truckee, California. Cavanaugh, Thomas J. 2003. Acting Chief, Central California/Nevada Section. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Letter to Michael Isle, Teichert Aggregates, dated November 19, 2003. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version 04DEC98). Foothill Associates. 2004. Cold Stream Restoration and Management Plan, Teichert Land Co., Truckee, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan Region, and Teichert Land Co. Grenfell, William E., Jr. 1988. Lacustrine. In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988. Holm, Sara. 2009. Associate Wildlife Biologist (Nevada and Placer Co.), California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento Valley Central Sierra Region.Re Truckee Deer Management Plan. Personal communication (E-mail) to Angela Calderaro, PMC, dated June 30, 2009. Kelleher, C., and F. Marnell. 2006. Bat Mitigation Guidelines for Ireland, Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 25. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Kramer, Gary. 1988. Fresh Emergent Wetland. In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988. Ledwith, Tyler. 1996. The Effects of Buffer Strip Width on Air Temperature and Relative Humidity in a Stream Riparian Zone. Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA. http://watershed.org/ news/sum_96/buffer.html (accessed August 15, 2006). Mayer, Kenneth E., and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Miles, S. R., and C. B. Goudey. 1997. Ecological Subregions of California: Section and Subsection Descriptions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Publication R5-EM-TP-005. San Francisco, CA. Moriarty, Katie. 2009. Wolverine Confirmation in California After Nearly a Century. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society 2009 Annual Conference. Sheraton Hotel, Sacramento, California. PMC. 2011. Preliminary Wetland Delineation Report for the Coldstream Specific Plan Off-site Bike Trails Project. Rancho Cordova, CA. Risser, Roland J., and Michael E. Fry 1988. Montane Chaparral. In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988. Shuford, W. David, and Thomas Gardali, eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòèóéé ìòèÞÒÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ßÒÜ ßÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Sierra Anglers Guide Service. 2009. July 4, 2009, Fishing Report for Donner Lake. Ed. Keith Kerrigan. Truckee, California. http://www.sierraanglersfishing.com/fishing_report.htm (accessed July 13, 2009). Town of Truckee. 2004. Town of Truckee Municipal Code. ———. 2006. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. Truckee Donner Land Trust. 2006. Truckee River Corridor Project. Truckee, California. http://www.tdlandtrust.org/truckeeriver.html (accessed July 13, 2009). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Preliminary Guide to Wetlands of the West Coast States. U.S. Army Waterway Technical Report Y-78-4. As Cited in CDFG 2002. ———. 2003. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. Letter to Michael Isle, Teichert Aggregates, from Thomas J. Cavanaugh, USACE, dated November 19, 2003. Sacramento: USACE Sacramento District. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Informal Consultation on the Cold Creek Development Project. To Thomas Cavanaugh of the USACE from Robert Williams File #1-5-05-I-144, dated May 2005. Reno, NV: USFWS, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. ———. 2007. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Fact Sheet. http://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected%5Fspecies/fish/species/lct.html. ———. 2009a. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in Truckee, California topographical 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles (Independence Lake, Hobart Mills, Boca, Norden, Martis Peak, Granite Chief, Tahoe City, and Kings Beach). Document Number: 090422113204. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_list.htm (accessed April 22, 2009). ———. 2009b. Critical Habitat Data Portal. Electronic online mapping program. http://crithab.fws.gov/ (accessed June 12, 2009). U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. January 2004. R5-MB-046. USFS, Pacific Southwest Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/ (accessed October 6, 2009). Wenger, Seth. 1999. Review of Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation. For the Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/service/tools/buffers/buffer_lit_review.pdf (accessed September 30, 2009). Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2008. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Truckee Ranger Station, California (049043). Period of Record: 09/01/1904 to 12/31/2008. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?ca9043 (accessed June 12, 2009). Williams, Robert D., Field Supervisor. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter regarding Informal Consultation on the Cold Creek Development Project (PN 199200338), Nevada County, California, to Thomas J. Cavanaugh, Chief, Sacramento Valley U.S. Army Engineer District, dated May 27, 2005. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòèóéè ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ This section evaluates the potential impacts the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would have on historic and cultural resources. The Truckee area has had a particularly rich prehistory and history, and the town is one of the richest locations in California in terms of density and variety of historic and cultural resources (Town of Truckee, 1997, 2006). Consequently, projects in the Truckee area must be cognizant of potential impacts on sites of historic, cultural, or educational value. This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) is based on the Archaeological Inventory Survey prepared for the proposed project by Jensen & Associates (2002). For analysis purposes, cultural resources may be categorized into four groups: archaeological resources (prehistoric and historical); historic properties, buildings, and districts; areas of importance to Native Americans; and paleontological resources (fossilized remains of plants and animals). Cultural resource impacts include those to existing historic resources (i.e., historic districts, landmarks, etc.) and to archaeological and paleontological resources. ÝÌÛÝÎ ÑÒÝÛÐÌÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÓ×ÒÑÔÑÙÇ ÚÑÎ ÊßÔËßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ The following definitions are common terms used to discuss the regulatory requirements and treatment of cultural resources: Cultural resources is the term used to describe several different types of properties: prehistoric and historical archaeological sites; architectural properties such as buildings, bridges, and infrastructure; and resources of importance to Native Americans. Historic properties is a term defined by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property. Historical resources as described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts, each of which may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance, and is eligible for listing or is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or a local register of historical resources. The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Paleontological resource is defined as including fossilized remains of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms, fossil tracks and trackways, and plant fossils. A unique paleontological site would include a known area of fossil-bearing rock strata. ìòçòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Ð ÎÛØ×ÍÌÑÎÇ Past archaeological studies of the eastern Sierra Nevada have documented an archaeological chronology dating back almost 11,000 years, comprising four prehistoric phases. From most recent to earliest, these are termed the Washoe/Kings Beach, Martis, Spooner, and Tahoe reach prehistoric phases; each of these phases is characterized by collections of ground and flaked stone artifacts, including projectile points and stone tools. The Kings Beach phase is commonly divided into Early Kings Beach (AD 1250–650), and Late Kings Beach (1800–1250). Although not precisely aligned chronologically, this phase sequences into the Proto-Historic/Late Archaeologic period of California prehistory. The Martis Phase is divided into the Late (650 AD– 2050 BC) and Early (2050–4050 BC); approximately corresponding to the Late Archaic and Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçóï ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Middle Archaic Periods of California prehistory. The Spooner Prehistoric Phase (3050–6050 BC) corresponds approximately with the Early/Pre-archaic period of California prehistory. Artifacts from this period are relatively sparse, which has led to difficulties in establishing dates for those that have been found. The Tahoe Reach phase (6050–8050 BC) corresponds with the Late Pre- archaic phase of California prehistory; artifacts from this phase are sparser even than those from the Spooner Phase (Town of Truckee, 2006). Between 7,000 and 2,000 years ago, there was a large increase in the physical evidence of people in the Sierra Nevada area. Archaeological sites found from this period increase dramatically from those found from previous periods. During this time period, populations expanded into areas only minimally visited previously. The Late Archaic period began about 1,500 years ago and is considered to be the final time period of prehistoric occupation. More distinctive local cultures and adaptations occurred. In the project area, the overall Lake Tahoe area, and along the Truckee River, this time period is termed the Kings Beach Phase and represents the Washoe ethnographic pattern (Jensen, 2002). Û ÌØÒÑÙÎßÐØÇ The project site is in the center of historic Washoe territory, with primary use by the northern Washoe. Washoe territory encompassed the area between the Great Basin to the east and the Sierra Nevada range area to the west. Their community lived a mobile lifestyle due to the requirements of the seasons and increases and decreases of food sources. The Washoe often spent the winter months at residential base camps, with several known to be located along the Truckee River and Donner, Cold, and Martis creeks. During the spring season, younger members of the community moved from the base camps in the valleys, including the Truckee area, to Lake Tahoe to fish. By late spring and early summer, it is likely that all Washoe had gathered around Lake Tahoe (Jensen, 2002). The ethnographic record suggests that during the mild season, small groups traveled through high mountain valleys collecting edible and medicinal roots, seeds, and marsh plants. In the higher elevations, men hunted large game and trapped smaller mammals. The Truckee River and its tributaries were important fisheries year-round. Suitable toolstone was quarried at various locales. The Washoe have a tradition of making long treks across the Sierran passes for the purpose of hunting, trading, and gathering acorns. These aboriginal trek routes, patterned after game trails, were often the precursors of historic and modern road systems. Archaeological evidence of these century, the ancient subsistence activities are found along the mountain flanks. Even into the 20 th Washoe were not completely displaced from their traditional lands (PMC, 2000). Ø ×ÍÌÑÎÇ Euroamerican contact with Native American groups living in coastal areas and the Central Valley of California began during the last half of the 18 century. The Spanish period in California lasted th from about 1769 to 1821. This was a time when the Spanish missions dominated lives of both the Spanish and the Native Americans in those areas in California. However, the effect of the Spanish on the Washoe has not been documented. The Mexican Period (ca. 1821–1848) in California is an outgrowth of the Mexican Revolution, and its accompanying social and political views affected the mission system. Evidence exists to document that some of the Spanish and Mexican expeditions and early trapping attempts may have traveled through and made short stays along many of the major Sierra Nevada rivers. One of these expeditions was that of the Jedediah Strong Smith party, which crossed the Walker pass in 1825–1826. In the 1830s, Joseph Reddeford Walker led a party of trappers up the Truckee River from Nevada to California. Walker guided more immigrants through the pass to California in 1843, and in 1844, a larger incursion occurred by Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòçóî ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ members of the Stephens-Murphy-Townsend party. From the area of the Truckee River and Donner Creek, one group, the famous ill-fated Donner Party, attempted to take wagons up Donner Valley and cross the Sierra Nevada at Donner Summit during the winter of 1846–1847. This attempt at crossing Walker Pass is memorialized at Donner Memorial State Park and Visitor’s Center, which is located adjacent to the western side of the project site (Jensen, 2002). The history of the Truckee community began with the arrival of Joseph Gray, who built a stage station near the present-day downtown in 1863. Gray and George Schaffer constructed the area’s first lumber mill in 1864, and other inns and commercial buildings were constructed at Donner Lake’s east end. Gray was soon joined by a blacksmith named S. S. Coburn, and the fledgling settlement of Gray’s Toll Station was renamed Coburn’s Station. This tiny way station grew from two structures into a thriving town which accommodated emigrants, stagecoach travelers, and freight wagons en route westward to California’s gold fields and eastward to the Comstock Lode in Nevada. In 1868, Coburn’s Station was destroyed by fire and the name was changed to Truckee. In the same year, the Central Pacific Railroad was constructed across Donner Pass to the newly established Town of Truckee. The completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1868 gave rise to other developments in transportation, lumber, ice, agriculture, and tourism, which were to become the essential economic bases of Truckee. The right-of-way of this railroad (now the Union Pacific) is located adjacent to the project site (Jensen, 2002; PMC, 2000; Town of Truckee, 2006). Logging was first initiated in the Truckee-Donner area in 1859 and Truckee soon became one of the major lumbering centers of the area. Overton (subsequently known as Hobart Mills), located a few miles north of the project site, became the headquarters for the Sierra Nevada Wood and Lumber Company’s operations. Here, mills were reconstructed and, during 1896, a new standard gauge railroad was built between Hobart and Truckee to service the new facilities. Hobart Mills closed in 1936, and subsequently the mill was dismantled and all activity along the narrow gauge feeder lines and the standard gauge main line ceased (PMC, 2000). Charcoal production formed an important adjunct to the lumber industry and thrived during the latter part of the 19 century. With the completion of the railroad, Chinese immigrants began th working in the lumber industry, among other occupations. Such engagement forced immigrant Chinese into direct competition with Euroamericans and immigrant groups, and the subsequent anti-Chinese sentiment resulted in the expulsion of Chinese from Truckee in 1885. From 1860 to 1930, the dairy industry was successful in the Truckee Basin. The Joerger Ranch was one of the larger operations. It is still a prominent landmark in Martis Valley and is located about 3 miles east to southeast of the project site (Jensen, 2002; PMC, 2000; Town of Truckee, 2006). Throughout most of the 19 century, Truckee thrived on the related fields of lumber, railroading, th and ice harvesting. By the 1920s, this industrial economy and society had largely disappeared, due to the relocation of the train switching yard to Roseville, the depletion of local timber supplies, and the development of mechanical refrigeration. In its place, the community began to develop a recreation-based economy, boosted by the completion of a good state highway over Donner Summit. The 1960 Winter Olympics at nearby Squaw Valley secured Truckee’s position as a center point for year-round recreation. In 1993, Truckee was incorporated as a town. The name of the town is said to derive from a Paiute Indian guide who, in 1844, assisted thousands of emigrants migrating west across the Humboldt Sink. The Indian’s name was thought to sound like “Tro-kay” to the immigrants, who called him “Truckee” (PMC, 2000; Truckee-Donner Historical Society, 2009). ÜÓÍÐ ÑÒÒÛÎ ÛÓÑÎ×ßÔ ÌßÌÛ ßÎÕ Donner Memorial State Park is located adjacent to the western side of the project site. The park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is also National Historic Landmark Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçó 3 ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ #66000218. In addition, the park, along with the Donner (or Pioneer) Monument, is also listed on the California Register of Historical Resources as California Historical Landmark #134. The park memorializes the Donner Party’s 1846–1847 ill-fated attempt to travel over Walker Pass by wagon and the resulting suffering and loss of life. This parkoffers opportunities for camping, picnicking, boating, fishing, water-skiing, and hiking. In winter, visitors can cross-country ski and snowshoe on trails. The park includes the Emigrant Trail Museum and Pioneer Monument, built to commemorate those who emigrated to California from the east in the mid-1800s. Included in the museum are displays and information about the Donner Party. The park encompasses Scallenberger Ridge to the south of Donner Lake. The Pioneer Monument, Emigrant Museum, and historical Murphy Cabin are located approximately 600 feet to the west of the western boundary of the project site. A general plan and EIR was prepared for the Donner Memorial State Park in 2003. The park is described as follows in the general plan: Donner Memorial State Park is an extremely important park with national importance, for it contains the site of the Murphy and Breen-Keseberg cabins, which together represent one of three camps established by the Donner Party during the winter of 1846–1847. Due to its national significance, the area that includes the cabins and Donner Memorial/Pioneer Monument (thought to be on top of the Breen-Keseberg Cabin site) was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1966, known as Donner Camp Sites. The purpose of the park’s general plan is to “identify park-wide goals and guidelines to guide the future development, management, and protection of park resources and visitor facilities, as well as to determine the best location for a new museum/visitor center for the park and to alleviate existing traffic conflicts in the park’s entrance area.” One of the park-wide planning goals included in the general plan is regarding cultural resources and is to “ensure the highest level of appropriate protection, stabilization, preservation, and interpretation of the park’s significant cultural resources, focusing in areas of exceptional archaeological and historical significance.” In addition, a natural resources goal for the park relates to buffers. The plan states, “Buffers: Establish, maintain, and preserve buffers around existing significant park resources as protection against adverse environmental impacts” (State of California, 2003). Ð ÎÛÊ×ÑËÍ ÝËÔÌËÎßÔ ÎÛÍÑËÎÝÛ ÍËÎÊÛÇÍ ßÒÜ ÎÛÍËÔÌÍ A records search was completed at the North Central Information Center at California State University, Sacramento by Jensen and Associates (2002). As part of the Archaeological Inventory Survey, the following sources were also consulted: The National Register of Historic Places (1986, Supplements to 12/01); The California Inventory of Historic Resources (State of California 1976); The California Historical Landmarks (State of California, 1990); Historic General Land Office Plat maps; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, contacted 6/18/02; The Truckee Museum, Truckee (by Lindstrom 1998); Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòçóì ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ The Native American Heritage Commission regarding sacred land, 6/10/02; and Existing published and unpublished documents relevant to history, ethnography, and early historic developments in the vicinity. The records search revealed that no archaeological resources have been recorded on or immediately adjacent to the project site or in the immediate area. The records search resulted in a review of two archaeological surveys which had evaluated approximately 90 percent of the project site. The surveys and their findings are as follows: 1.Jones & Stokes 1992 Survey for the Cold Springs Project: This field survey included all of the project site using widely spaced transects, due to the extensive disturbance of the property which had been subjected to aggregate mining. The survey was modified to an intensive- level survey. No previously unidentified cultural resources were found during this survey. 2.Susan G. Lindstrom 1998 Survey for the Cold Creek Line: An intensive-level pedestrian survey was conducted along a linear corridor adjacent to the south side of Donner Creek, within the northern portion of the project site. The survey covered about one-half of the only undisturbed portion of the property and did not identify any prehistoric or early historic-period sites. An archaeological survey was conducted in 2002 by Jensen & Associates as part of the Archaeological Inventory Survey report prepared at that time. An intensive-level survey was completed within the northern portion of the project site, within lands previously undeveloped for gravel quarry and extraction and utilized primarily for residential use and construction of a segment of sewer trunk line. In addition, a general-level survey was undertaken within the remaining approximately 90 percent of the project site, which consisted of lands completely recontoured and subjected to wholesale disturbance in conjunction with past gravel mining activities. During the survey field work, it was noted that disturbance to the ground surface has been substantial throughout approximately 90 percent of the project site, due to the gravel mining operation which had been located there. Within the northern portion of the property, less substantial ground surface impacts occurred due to the construction in 1962 and 1984 of two residences and trenching for a sewer line. The Archaeological Inventory Survey identified evidence of prehistoric occupation at four locations within the northern portion of the project site. No additional evidence of prehistoric use or activities was identified; therefore, all were considered to be “isolates.” The Archaeological Inventory Survey identified Isolates as being categorically excluded as eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, since they do not minimally qualify as “historic properties.” No evidence of historic-period activities or sites was identified on the project site. Therefore, there are no known cultural resources found on the project site. ÒßÝ ßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÛÎ×ÝßÒ ÑÒÍËÔÌßÌ×ÑÒ As part of the 2002 Archaeological Inventory Survey completed by Jensen and Associates, a sacred lands search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The results of the sacred lands search were received on June 14, 2002, and did not identify any Native American sacred lands within the area of the project site. However, the NAHC noted that “the absence of specific site information in the sacred lands file does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area.” The Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada was sent a letter at that time requesting any information regarding Native American cultural resources associated with the project site. The 2002 Archaeological Inventory Survey indicated that none Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçó 5 ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ of the “individuals, groups, or agency sources supplied any information concerning known sacred lands, sites, features, or traditional use/collection areas within the project area.” The NAHC provided a letter to the Town of Truckee in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this DEIR. The letter indicated that the NAHC completed another search of its sacred lands records and did not locate any sites on the project site (NAHC, 2009). PMC staff, through written correspondence, contacted representatives of all tribes provided by the NAHC. To date, no responses have been received. ÐÍ ßÔÛÑÒÌÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Paleontology is defined as a science dealing with the life of past geological periods as known from fossil remains. Paleontological resources include fossil remains, as well as fossil localities and formations that have produced fossil material. Such locations and specimens are important nonrenewable resources. CEQA offers protection for these sensitive resources and requires that they be addressed during the environmental impact report process. A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology paleontological database conducted by PMC did not discover any previously identified paleontological resources on the project site. The Nevada County search revealed that 59 paleontological localities have been identified. Most of the project site has been mined for aggregate material and has been substantially disturbed. Therefore, there is a potential for the inadvertent discovery of unique archaeological resources during project-related ground-disturbing activities in the remaining undisturbed portion of the project site (University of California, Berkeley, 2009). ìòçòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Î»¹·¬»® ±º Ø·¬±®·½ Ð´¿½» The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Structures, sites, buildings, districts, and objects over 50 years of age can be listed in the NRHP as significant historic resources. However, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP. The criteria for listing in the NRHP include resources that: a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events); b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (persons); c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture); or d) Have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history (information potential). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòçóê ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ In addition to qualifying for listing under at least one of the National Register criteria, a property must have historic integrity. The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and hence, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.” The seven aspects of integrity are: Location, the place where the historic property was constructed. Design, the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property. Setting, the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Materials, the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship, the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling, the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association, the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Í ÌßÌÛ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Î»¹·¬»® ±º Ø·¬±®·½ Î»±«®½» The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Like the National Register, a property must be found significant within a historic context and retain sufficient historic integrity. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria: 1) Events: Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2) Persons: Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3) Architecture: Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. 4) Information Potential: Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçó 7 ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. The same seven aspects that define integrity for the National Register are applicable to the California Register. Í¬¿¬» ÝÛÏß Ù«·¼»´·²» Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources. “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC, Section 21084.1; determining significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources is described in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 [a], [b]). Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following: 1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1), including the following: a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòçóè ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. As noted above, CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact unique archaeological resources. Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), states that “ ‘unique archaeological resource’ means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.” ÌÌÙÐ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ The Town of Truckee General Plan contains goals and policies in the Community Character Element that are related to historic and cultural resource issues. Appendix B analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. While this DEIR analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this Draft EIR. ìòçòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Í ÍÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Following Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1, and Section 15064.5 and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, cultural resource impacts are considered to be significant if implementation of the project considered would result in any of the following: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, respectively. 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in PRC Sections 21083.2, 21084.1, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, respectively. 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçó 9 ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines “substantial adverse change” as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (b)(2), defines “materially impaired” for purposes of the definition of substantial adverse change as follows: The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: 1) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or 2) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or 3) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. CEQA requires that if a project would result in an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, or would cause significant effects on a unique archaeological resource, then alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered. Therefore, prior to assessing effects or developing mitigation measures, the significance of cultural resources must first be determined. The steps that are normally taken in a cultural resources investigation for CEQA compliance are as follows: Identify potential historical resources and unique archaeological resources; Evaluate the eligibility of historical resources; and Evaluate the effects of the project on eligible historical resources Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ Efforts to identify cultural resources which could be affected by the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan included review of the Archaeological Inventory Survey (Jensen, 2002) completed for the project and the records search completed for that report. In addition, a sacred lands file search was completed by the NAHC, and Native American representatives were mailed written correspondence requesting information regarding cultural resources on July 21, 2009. A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) collections database was also completed. The potential impacts of the proposed project on cultural resources were evaluated by considering both construction and operational impacts. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòçóïð ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ß¼ª»®» Ý¸¿²¹» ·² ¬¸» Í·¹²·º·½¿²½» ±º ¿ Ø·¬±®·½¿´ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.9.1 Theproposed Coldstream Specific Plan could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. This impact is considered less than significant. Theproposed project would not affect any historical buildings or sites located on the project site as no historical resources have been identified on-site. However, Donner Memorial State Park is located adjacent to the western boundary of the project site. The park is listed on both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. The proposed project includes potential off-site trails along the northern boundary of Donner Memorial State Park, along Donner Pass Road. Off-site trails along Donner Memorial State Park are not expected to result in any impact to the park, because the trails would be located within the existing right-of-way for Donner Pass Road and no resources were identified during field review of the trail alignment. The project would have no direct impacts on the park; thus, this impact would be less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ ß¼ª»®» Ý¸¿²¹» ·² ¬¸» Í·¹²·º·½¿²½» ±º ¿² ß®½¸¿»±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.9.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could potentially destroy or damage undiscovered prehistoric and historical cultural resources on the project site. This impact is considered potentially significant. No evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites has been identified for the project site. However, unanticipated archaeological resources could be encountered during construction, as a prehistoric site has been identified near the project site. The Archaeological Inventory Survey (Jensen, 2002) stated that “the present evaluation and recommendations are based on the findings of an inventory-level surface survey only. There is always the possibility that potentially significant unidentified cultural materials could be encountered on or below the surface during the course of future development or construction activities. In such a situation, archaeological consultation should be sought immediately.” This investigation did not identify any archaeological resources on the project site. However, there is a possibility of unanticipated and accidental archaeological discoveries during project-related ground-disturbing activities. Unanticipated and accidental archaeological discoveries during project implementation have the potential to affect significant archaeological resources, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.9.2 If, during the course of construction, cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, exotic rock [non-native], or unusual amounts of shell or bone, isolated artifacts, or other features) are discovered, work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery, the Town of Truckee Community Development Department shall be notified, and a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. Determination of Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçó 11 ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ impacts, significance, and mitigation shall be made by a qualified archaeologist (in consultation with recognized local Native American groups, if the resources are of Native American association). Prior to the commencement of project excavations, all construction personnel shall be informed of the potential to inadvertently uncover cultural resources and human remains and the procedures to follow subsequent to an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of project approval, and implemented during project construction for each phase Monitoring/Enforcement: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9.2 would reduce potential impacts associated with substantial adverse change in the significance of an undiscovered archaeological resource to less than significant. Ü»¬®±§ ¿ Ë²·¯«» Ð¿´»±²¬±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» ±® Ù»±´±¹·½¿´ Ú»¿¬«®» Impact 4.9.3 Approval of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan could result in the potential disturbance of paleontological resources (i.e., fossils and fossil formations) on the project site. This is considered a potentially significant impact. A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology paleontological database conducted by PMC did not identify any previously identified paleontological resources on the project site, but there is a potential for the inadvertent discovery of unique archaeological resources during ground-disturbing project activities. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.9.3 A note shall be placed on the improvement plans stipulating that if paleontological resources are discovered on-site, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to observe grading activities and salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered, which require temporarily halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer, and to the Town of Truckee Community Development Department. The paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of project approval, and implemented during project construction for each phase Monitoring/Enforcement: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9.3 would reduce impacts associated with destruction of a unique paleontological resource or geological feature to less than significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòçóïî ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ü·¬«®¾ Ø«³¿² Î»³¿·² Impact 4.9.4 No evidence of human remains has been identified for the project site. However, human remains could be encountered during construction. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Archaeological investigations completed for the project site are adequate to identify known prehistoric and historic resources in the area. No evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or human remains has been identified for the project site. However, construction could result in encountering human remains, as there is a possibility of unanticipated and accidental archaeological discoveries during project-related ground-disturbing activities. Unanticipated and accidental archaeological discoveries during project implementation have the potential to affect significant archaeological resources, including human remains, and result in a potentially significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.9.4 If human remains are discovered, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery, the Town of Truckee Community Development Department shall be notified, and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of project approval, and implemented during project construction for each phase Monitoring/Enforcement: Town of Truckee Planning Division Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9.4 would reduce impacts associated with potential disturbance of human remains to less than significant. ìòçòì Ýô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for cultural resources generally consists of past, present, and future development projects in the Town of Truckee and the region. In particular, this cumulative setting includes the proposed and approved projects identified in Table 4.0-2 and 4.0-3, planned development under both the Town of Truckee Land Use Element of the General Plan and planned and proposed land uses in Nevada County and Placer County communities near the town. Cumulative impacts associated with cultural resources would occur from increased development. Continued growth in the region would contribute to potential conflicts with cultural and paleontological resources. These resources include archaeological resources associated with Native American activities and historic resources associated with settlement and economic development. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçó 13 ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð®»¸·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ø·¬±®·½ Î»±«®½» ¿²¼ Ø«³¿² Î»³¿·² Impact 4.9.5 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with foreseeable development in the surrounding area, could result in the disturbance of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) and human remains. This impact is considered cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project may contribute to the cumulative loss of prehistoric resources, historic resources, and human remains in the region. This contribution is expected to be considerable, when combined with other past, present, and foreseeable development in the area. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9.2 and MM 4.9.4 would assist in reducing significant impacts to known and unknown prehistoric and historic resources and human remains. Therefore, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s contribution to impacts related to prehistoric and historic cultural resources and human remains would be less than cumulatively considerable. Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð¿´»±²¬±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.9.6 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, along with any foreseeable development in the surrounding area, could result in the potential disturbance of paleontological resources (i.e., fossils and fossil formations). This impact is considered cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project may contribute to the cumulative loss of paleontological resources in the region. This contribution is expected to be considerable, when combined with other past, present, and foreseeable development in the region. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9.3 would assist in reducing significant cumulative impacts to known and unknown paleontological resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòçóïì ìòçØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Jensen & Associates. 2002. Archaeological Inventory Survey, Cold Creek Residential and Commercial Development Project, c. 178 acres in West Truckee at Cold and Donner Creeks, Nevada County, California. June 28, 2002, Revised July 29, 2002. Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). 2009. Letter from Katy Sanchez to Jenna Endres, Town of Truckee, dated June 12, 2009. PMC. 2000. Planned Community-2 Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report. State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Donner Memorial State Park. General Plan. ———. 2009. http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=503 (accessed August 20, 2009). Town of Truckee. 1997. Downtown Truckee Specific Plan. ———. 2006. 2025 General Plan EIR. Truckee, CA. Truckee-Donner Historical Society. 2009. http://truckeehistory.org/historyArticles/history2.htm (accessed August 18, 2009). University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology. 2009. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ loc.html (accessed August 20, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòçó 15 ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) describes the existing visual resources in the vicinity of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan project site, summarizes the landscape characteristics of the surrounding area, and discusses the potential visual, aesthetic, and light/glare impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Visual impacts were evaluated using a combination of site reconnaissance, photo documentation, aerial photographs, and visual simulations created for the proposed project. The analysis focuses on the impacts to the views from nearby residential properties and recreational users of Donner Memorial State Park as a result of project implementation. ìòïðòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÊÝÎ ×ÍËßÔ ØßÎßÝÌÛÎ×ÍÌ×ÝÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÛÙ×ÑÒ The Town of Truckee is situated in a valley containing the Truckee River and is surrounded by prominent peaks and ridgelines of the Sierra Nevada range. Within Truckee itself, elevations range from 5,540 feet in the vicinity of the Boca Reservoir (northeast of the town) to nearly 7,500 feet in Tahoe Donner. Truckee has an abundance of undeveloped land and natural features including Donner Lake in the western part of the town and the Truckee River, which drains from Lake Tahoe to the south to Pyramid Lake in Nevada. The region surrounding the project site is filled with scenic features, including multiple recreational areas, state and regional parks, golf courses, ski resorts, and Donner Lake. Topographically, the area consists primarily of mountains, rolling hills, and valleys. ÊÝÐÍ ×ÍËßÔ ØßÎßÝÌÛÎ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×ÌÛ Figures 4.10-1a and 4.10-1b show recent photographs of the project site providing a general overview of the visual character of the site and its major features. As shown in these figures, the project site is relatively level, is naturally vegetated in some areas and has been cleared of vegetation in others, and features two creeks and several ponds. The natural condition of the site has been altered by extensive aggregate mining and reclamation activities. The natural landscape has been largely converted from a mixed conifer community to open grasslands and freshwater ponds and marshes; however, the northeastern end and the southern boundary of the project site are still dominated by mixed conifer (CSCON, 2007). The site contains numerous trees including Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, white fir, lodgepole pine, and black cottonwood. The reader is referred to Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources, for a complete discussion of the biological communities and resources on the project site. Cold Creek crosses the western portion of the site from north to south, while Donner Creek is located along the northern boundary of the project site. These creeks are perennials, or flow year round, and feature natural riparian vegetation along their banks. The ponds were created as part of reclaiming the site from historic mining activities and are now surrounded by native and introduced vegetation. ÊÝßÔË ×ÍËßÔ ØßÎßÝÌÛÎ ÑÚ ÜÖßÝÛÒÌ ßÒÜ ÍÛÍ Uses adjacent to the project site vary from undeveloped open space to urban uses (see Figures 3.0-3 and 4.10-2). On the north, Interstate 80 (I-80) borders the site but is shielded from view by substantial vegetation and stands of trees. There is some commercial development immediately northwest of the project site including two gas stations, a Holiday Inn, and another small motel. In addition, the Deerfield Drive and Boulders residential neighborhoods are located northeast and east of the project site, respectively. These neighborhoods are characterized by older suburban homes. South of the project site are undeveloped, naturally vegetated land and the Union Pacific railroad line. Donner Memorial State Park is located immediately west of the Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóï ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ project site and is densely vegetated, with scattered campsites. A small Caltrans materials storage yard is located immediately to the southwest of the project site. The yard is cleared of vegetation and graded and contains heavy construction equipment and storage buildings. ìòïðòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes policies that are intended to preserve the existing visual character of the natural environment, protect scenic views and the night sky, and ensure that new development maintains and enhances the town’s community character. Appendix B analyzes the consistency of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan with applicable policies relating to aesthetics and visual resources in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòíð Ù»²»®¿´ Ð®±°»®¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ Ë» Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ ÔùÆÊÙÌÕÏÌòÕ×ÖÊÕÐ× This section of the Town’s Development Code establishes guidelines for exterior lighting including requirements for architecture integration, direction and shielding, energy efficiency, and hours of use as well as restrictions on blinking, flashing, and high-intensity lighting, requirements for security lighting, and additional design criteria. ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ ÔöÙÕ×ÖÊñÙÝËÉÌÙÑÙÐÊÝÐÚöÙÕ×ÖÊòÕÑÕÊùÆÛÙÎÊÕÏÐË This section of the Town’s Development Code establishes maximum height standards for structures, provides guidance on how structure heights should be measured to determine compliance with the standards, and describes exceptions to the height standards. The maximum height standards established in this section are those contained in the applicable zoning district in Article II of the Development Code (Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses). ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ ÔîÌÏÎÙÌÊÅñÝÕÐÊÙÐÝÐÛÙ This section of the Town’s Development Code provides for the abatement of conditions which are offensive or annoying to the senses, detrimental to property values and community appearance, an obstruction to or interference with the comfortable enjoyment of adjoining property, or hazardous or injurious to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public in a manner which may constitute a nuisance. This section regulates abandoned materials and objects; alteration of land which results in erosion, subsidence, or drainage problems on adjoining properties; disposal of petroleum products; outdoor storage in excess of one week; on- site repairs; vehicles as temporary or permanent living space; storage of building materials; graffiti; and property maintenance including walls, fences, roofs, and trash/debris. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïðóî ÷ÔÖÈËØ Ü Û¨·¬·²¹ Ê·«¿´ Ý¸¿®¿½¬»® ÷ÔÖÈËØ Û Û¨·¬·²¹ Ê·«¿´ Ý¸¿®¿½¬»® ôÍÐÓØÛÃóÎÎõÛÉéÈÛÈÓÍÎÉ ø××ÊÖÓ×ÐØî×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØçÎÓÍÎìÛÙÓÖÓÙêÛÓÐÊÍÛØ Figure 4.10-2 Views of Surrounding Uses ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ ÔëÛÌÙÙÐÕÐ×ÝÐÚüÉØØÙÌ This section of the Town’s Development Code provides requirements and standards for screening and buffers in multi-family and nonresidential land uses including where nonresidential and residential land uses abut and where multi-family and single-family uses abut. The section specifies the type, height, materials, design, and location of walls and fencing to be used for screening as well as the minimum width of buffer areas to be provided. The section specifies that all landscaping shall comply with Chapter 18.40 of the Development Code, Landscape Standards. The section further provides screening requirements for equipment associated with multi-family and nonresidential uses. ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ ÔëÏÒÕÚçÝËÊÙìÙÛÅÛÒÝÜÒÙñÝÊÙÌÕÝÒËëÊÏÌÝ×Ù This section of the Town’s Development Code provides standards for the construction and operation of solid waste and recyclable material storage areas for multi-family and nonresidential uses as well as for large single-family residential subdivisions in compliance with state law (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act, Public Resources Code Sections 42900 through 42911). These standards include location, screening, and architectural compatibility with surrounding structures to reduce visual impacts. ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ ÔéÐÚÙÌ×ÌÏÉÐÚÕÐ×ÏØéÊÕÒÕÊÕÙË This section of the Town’s Development Code requires all proposed development to provide for the undergrounding of existing and proposed utility facilities with the exception of residential parcels larger than 3 acres and existing or proposed major electrical transmission lines. Utility facilities to be undergrounded include all electric, telecommunications, and cable television lines. In those cases where utilities are not installed underground, utility lines must be located to minimize visibility in scenic vista areas. Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòìð Ô¿²¼½¿°» Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ ÔòÝÐÚËÛÝÎÙîÒÝÐìÙÍÉÕÌÙÑÙÐÊË This section of the Town’s Development Code outlines the requirements for the preparation and submittal of landscaping plans for proposed development projects as well as the procedures for review and approval of such plans. These requirements apply to both landscaping and the ornamental use of water including ponds and fountains. ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ This section of the Town’s Development Code provides standards for the location and types of landscaping to be provided in various areas of proposed developments including setbacks, disturbed areas, parking areas, along streets, along property lines, and in buffer areas between incompatible uses. These standards also provide incentives for the preservation of native plants and trees. ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ This section of the Town’s Development Code provides standards for the design, installation, and maintenance of landscape areas and materials within development projects. These standards relate to overall design, pedestrian accessibility, protection, irrigation, plant materials including drought-tolerant and native species, equipment, runoff and overspray, water conservation, installation, and maintenance. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóç ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòìî Ô¿²¼½¿°» Ü»·¹² Ù«·¼»´·²» This chapter of the Town’s Development Code provides landscape design guidelines for landscaping along streets, at project entryways, and within pedestrian areas including the types (shrubs, annuals, vines, groundcover, etc.) and the locations of plants, specifications for paving treatments, and use and placement of identification signs. The chapter further provides standards for the installation of landscaping in these areas and information on recommended plant materials including a detailed list of specific species to be used. Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòìê Ñ°»² Í°¿½»ñÝ´«¬»® Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ This section of the Town’s Development Code encourages the clustering of proposed development to protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas, the natural appearance of hillsides, and other important views and visual resources. ëÙÛÊÕÏÐ This section of the Town’s Development Code provides specific development standards for major roadways identified by the General Plan where views should be preserved and the appearance of projects regulated within the viewshed of the roadway. The standards require development in these areas to use sensitivity and special attention in project design, including additional landscape screening, minimizing native vegetation removal, and minimizing disruption of hillside views, prominent slope exposures, ridgelines, scenic vistas, or other environmental features. These standards apply to the areas that extend 300 feet on each side of the I-80 right-of-way, including the area immediately north of the project site. Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòëð Ð¿®µ·²¹ Ü»·¹² Ù«·¼»´·²» This chapter of the Town’s Development Code provides standards for the design of parking lots including circulation hierarchy, provision of compact spaces, landscaping, drop-off points, pedestrian pathways, overall layout, and screening from adjacent uses. Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòëì Í·¹² This chapter of the Town’s Development Code outlines the requirements and process for the preparation, submittal, review and approval of sign plans which are required for any permanent or temporary signs that are erected, moved, altered, or reconstructed. This chapter further outlines the Town’s comprehensive sign program which is intended to integrate signs and structures into a unified architectural statement for new and existing development. In addition, this chapter provides a list of prohibited signs including abandoned and deteriorating signs; animated, moving, flashing, blinking, and revolving signs; banners and streamers; bench signs; electronic reader board signs, inflated signs and balloons, and others. This chapter provides general requirements for all signs and detailed requirements for each specific type of sign and for each zoning district including location, size, height, maintenance, landscaping, the process for measuring sign areas, illumination of signs, and sign copy or text. Finally, this chapter provides sign design guidelines related to color, materials, legibility, illumination, and placement. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïðóïð ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ ìòïðòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Based on criteria derived from Appendix G in the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact to aesthetic or visual resources if the project would: 1)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 3)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. 4)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The project site is not located within the corridor of a state scenic highway (Caltrans, 2008). Therefore, impacts to aesthetic and visual resources within a state scenic highway corridor are not addressed further in this section. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ This section analyzes the aesthetics and visual resources impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, focusing on impacts to scenic vistas, resources, and character and related to nighttime light and daytime glare. Preparation of this section was based on site visits, photographs of existing conditions, and visual simulations of the proposed project. Applicable planning documents were also reviewed to identify any designated ridges and other scenic resources that could occur on the project site or in the area. Analysis of impacts to visual character is subjective by nature, because the qualities that create an aesthetically pleasing setting will vary from person to person. For the purposes of this analysis, the project site and its vicinity have been visited in order to consider the existing community character and to determine the proposed project’s consistency with the surrounding area and with applicable General Plan policies. Site photographs presented in this section depict the existing visual character of the project site, while visual simulations prepared for this section depict the expected visual character of the project site once development has occurred. These photos and visual simulations have contributed to the visual analysis of the project. Ê·«¿´ Í·³«´¿¬·±² Ó»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ PMC took the existing conditions photographs on the morning of Tuesday, July 28, 2009. The photographs were taken with a Nikon D 200 Camera and a Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S lens. To accurately simulate the typical human eyes’ viewing angle of 45 degrees, the lens was adjusted to the focal length of 50 mm. The photographs were taken from a variety of locations on public property surrounding the project site that were deemed to be susceptible to visual impacts resulting from construction of the proposed development. This included locations along Coldstream Road between Donner Memorial State Park and the project site, from the Coldstream Road interchange with Interstate 80, from Richards Boulevard, and from the western end of the paved portion of Deerfield Drive where the road crosses the eastern boundary of the project site. To later verify these locations, a portable GPS unit was used to record the positions. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóïï ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ Following the site visit, PMC used the data collected from the GPS device to create a map showing the locations from which the existing conditions photographs were taken (see Figure 4.10-3). PMC presented this map and the existing conditions photographs to the Town of Truckee. The Town’s planning staff reviewed the images and the map and selected the four photographs to be simulated that would best illustrate the proposed project’s visual impacts. In August 2009, PMC obtained the most current version of the proposed project’s site plan from the applicant/engineer. This drawing, created in AutoCAD, was imported into SketchUp and used as a basis for the simulations’ 3D computer model. Construction of the model included the following steps: The site plan’s topography lines and spot elevation were used to create a triangulated irregular network (TIN) of the project site and the adjoining properties. To accurately portray constructed features on the site, including roadways, roadway striping, curbs, berms, sidewalks and pathways, planting areas, and other landscaped areas, the site plan’s line work associated with these features (i.e., edge of curb, sidewalk boundaries, etc.) was “draped” or affixed to the TIN in the correct location. Once these features were identified on the site model, portions of the model were extruded upwards or downwards to show the difference in height between various features. The most critical differences in height occurred along roadways. Curbs and sidewalks were extruded to heights of 6 inches above adjoining roadway surfaces, and berms were extruded to heights of 2 inches below adjoining roadway surfaces. After the features were extruded to their proper height, each feature was given an appropriate appearance (i.e., roadways took on the appearance of asphalt, sidewalks were portrayed using concrete, etc.). The site plan’s building footprints were extruded to the maximum height established by the Coldstream Specific Plan for the zoning district where each building is located (i.e., 50 feet or 3.5 stories, whichever is less, for the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district, etc.). Because the project’s architectural designs have not yet been finalized, buildings were only modeled to portray appropriate massing. This included articulating facades, constructing roof pitches, and selecting colors to comply with the Architectural Details section of Chapter 4 of the Coldstream Specific Plan. Because the buildings were modeled in massing form only, no windows, doors, or other openings were shown. Once the buildings were constructed, the site plan was referenced to correctly locate them on the surface of the site model. Vegetation appearing within the simulations was modeled to match the appearance of those species listed in Section 4.11 of the Specific Plan. Trees were placed on the site model to correspond with specific locations on the site plan. Where the placement of trees and other vegetation is not specifically designated on the site plan, the appropriate vegetation was placed on the site model to approximate the locations shown on the Coldstream Specific Plan’s illustrative site plan (first appearing on page 3.2 of the Specific Plan) and to fulfill the intent of Section 3.2 of the Specific Plan and/or the Landscaping Design Guidelines prescribed for the Specific Plan’s zoning districts. Vegetation was scaled to the species’ appropriate average size or to match the size of its counterpart appearing on the Specific Plan’s street sections, vignette sketches, and other illustrations expressing the vertical dimension. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïðóïî Óß ðîæëíæç à çððîñëñðï ó ÜÈÓòÌÒ×ÑÐÑÌÑØÐÄÒßÔÐÝ×Ú×ÝÛÐÍÁÓßÛÎÌÍÜÔÑÝÄÍÜÈÓÄÇÌÒËÑÝÁßÜßÊÛÒÄÍ×ÙÁÄæÌ ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ To accurately duplicate the locations used to take the existing conditions photographs on the site model, PMC imported the camera location data from ArcView into SketchUp. These locations were correctly positioned on the site model by referencing the project site boundary. Virtual Cameras within SketchUp were placed at each camera location and oriented to match the corresponding existing conditions photograph. To accurately simulate the typical human eyes viewing angle of 45 degrees and the focal length of the camera lens used to capture the existing conditions photographs, 50 mm, the virtual cameras viewing angle was adjusted to 45 degrees. Photorealistic renderings of the virtual camera views were produced using IRender nXt. This included simulating the shadows to match their appearance on the date and time that the existing conditions photographs were taken. PMC aligned the renderings and the corresponding existing conditions photographs in Adobe Illustrator. The resulting file was exported into Adobe Photoshop and edited to only show the portions of the image that would remain once the proposed development was in place. The resulting visual simulations are shown in Figures 4.10-4a through 4.10-4-d. ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Í«¾¬¿²¬·¿´ Ü»¹®¿¼¿¬·±² ±º Ê·«¿´ Ý¸¿®¿½¬»® ±® ×³°¿½¬ ¬± ¿ Í½»²·½ Ê·¬¿ Impact 4.10.1 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings and would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This is considered a less thansignificant impact. Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, including residential and nonresidential development and associated infrastructure on the currently undeveloped project site, would represent a substantial alteration of the existing visual character of the area. Although the project site is largely undeveloped and contains some unique visual features including two natural streams and several ponds, it is in a degraded natural state due to its historical use as a mining operation. The site is naturally vegetated in areas but also contains several large unvegetated, gravelly clearings, and a small abandoned industrial building (see Figures 4.10-1a and 4.10-1b). The visual character of nearly half the project site would be converted from its existing condition to urban development including residential uses at varying densities, commercial, retail and lodging uses, and associated roadways and other infrastructure. The remaining portions of the project site would be restored and enhanced to a more natural state, creating valuable natural and visual amenities within the site. In order to accommodate the proposed urban development, numerous trees would be removed. However, trees will be preserved wherever possible including within landscape buffers and areas designated Open Space and Recreation, which account for about 60 percent of the site. As discussed in Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources, the project applicant will be required to inventory and submit a list of all trees proposed for removal. Implementation of mitigation measures in Section 4.8 will require the replacement of all black cottonwood trees removed from the project site as well as the implementation of various measures to protect those trees that will be preserved on the site. In addition, numerous trees will be added to the project site within landscape areas and along roadways as described in Section 3.4 (Community Landscape Program) of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóïë ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ The maximum height of all proposed structures would be consistent with the standards contained in the Town’s Development Code. The applicable height standards for each zoning district within the project site are shown in Table 4.10-1 below. Ììòïðóï ßÞÔÛ ÓßÍØ ßÈ×ÓËÓ ÔÔÑÉßÞÔÛ ÌÎËÝÌËÎÛ Û×ÙØÌ Æ±²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ Ó¿¨·³«³ Ø»·¹¸¬ Ô·³·¬ ï Ê·´´¿¹» Ó·¨»¼óË» Ý±³³»®½·¿´ øÓËÝ÷ ëð º»»¬ ±® íòë ¬±®·»ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ´» ï Ê·´´¿¹» Ù®»»² Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ øÊÙÎ÷ îë º»»¬ ±® í ¬±®·»ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ´» ï Ê·´´¿¹» Ù®»»² Í³¿´´ Ô±¬ øÊÍÔ÷ íë º»»¬ ±® í ¬±®·»ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ´» ï Ô¿µ»·¼» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ øÔÎ÷ íë º»»¬ ±® î ¬±®·»ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ´» ï Ú±®»¬ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ øÚÎ÷ íë º»»¬ ±® í ¬±®·»ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ´» ï Î»½®»¿¬·±² øÎÛÝ÷ ëð º»»¬ ±® íòë ¬±®·»ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ´» Ñ°»² Í°¿½» øÑÍ÷ îì º»»¬ Í±«®½»æ ÍÝÑô »¬ ¿´òô îððç Ò±¬»æ ïò Ó»¿«®»¼ º®±³ ¸·¹¸»¬ °±·²¬ ±º ¬®«½¬«®» ¬± ¿ª»®¿¹»ô ²¿¬«®¿´ ¹®¿¼»ô ¿²¼ ²±¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ½¸·³²»§ ¸»·¹¸¬ò Í»» Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼»ô Ý¸¿°¬»® ïèòíðòðçðò Currently, the project site borders both residential and commercial development as well as undeveloped land, including a state park. Refer to the Visual Character of Adjacent Land Uses subsection, above, for a discussion of the location and character of the surrounding vicinity (see alsoFigure 4.10-2). The project site is relatively flat and does not contain any ridgelines or significant slopes. As such, views of the site from surrounding properties are limited and are further obscured by existing trees and vegetation. Figure 4.10-3 shows the locations from which site photos were taken. The visual simulations contained in Figures 4.10-4a through 4.10-4d, discussed below, correspond to the photo locations in Figure 4.10-3. Please refer to the Methodology discussion above for assumptions used in the visual simulations to determine visual impacts of the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïðóïê ÷ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕæÓ×Å ìÍÉÈìÊÍÒ×ÙÈæÓ×Å Figure 4.10-4a View of Project Site from North at Richards Blvd Residential Neighborhood ÷ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕæÓ×Å ìÍÉÈìÊÍÒ×ÙÈæÓ×Å Figure 4.10-4b View of Project Site from North at Coldstream Road Interchange Intersection ÷ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕæÓ×Å ìÍÉÈìÊÍÒ×ÙÈæÓ×Å Figure 4.10-4c View of Project Site from East at Deerfield Road Terminus ÷ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕæÓ×Å ìÍÉÈìÊÍÒ×ÙÈæÓ×Å Figure 4.10-4d View of Project Site from West at Donner Memorial State Park ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ Views of the project site from the north, including the I-80 corridor, are largely obscured by trees and natural vegetation including the Donner Creek corridor. As shown in Figures 4.10-4a and 4.10-4b, existing views from the residential neighborhood located northwest of the project site across I-80 and from north of the Coldstream Road/I-80 Interchange intersection are also obscured by trees, utility and light poles, and signs and structures associated with the existing commercial development in the area. However, there are partial long-range views of the project site and the mountainous area beyond from these locations. Figures 4.10-4a and 4.10-4b also provide visual simulations of the views from these locations with implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. As shown in the visual simulations (Figures 4.10-4a through 4.10-4d), the Coldstream Road/I-80 Interchange intersection would be modified to a roundabout configuration and new landscaping would be added, providing substantial additional screening of both the existing and proposed commercial uses. Beyond the intersection, several rooftops in the proposed Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district would be partially visible above the tree line. Long-range views of the project site beyond the proposed commercial uses would be obstructed. Views of the mountainous area beyond the project site would be largely unaffected. Although these anticipated alterations to the view from I-80 and the existing residential neighborhood beyond could be considered substantial, they would include the addition of street trees and vegetation that would provide screening of both the existing and planned commercial uses south of I-80 and would likely be considered by many to be a beneficial change to views from this location. Views of the project site from the adjacent Deerfield neighborhood and Boulders subdivision to the east and northeast are also largely obscured by trees and natural vegetation. As shown in Figures 4.10-2 and 4.10-4c, the paved portion of Deerfield Drive currently ends in a cul-de-sac and continues onto the project site as an unpaved roadway. The roadway is lined with dense vegetation and is relatively flat, offering no significant views of the project site. As shown in the visual simulation provided in Figure 4.10-4c, implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the extension of Deerfield Drive onto and through the project site as a paved minor roadway providing secondary access to the proposed residences. Views from the current terminus of Deerfield Drive would be slightly altered with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed roadway would be visible for several feet before curving behind proposed vegetation, and a few houses would be partially visible. These houses, located within the Forest Residential zoning district, would be a maximum of 35 feet in height (see Table 4.10-1) and are depicted as such in Figure 4.10-4c. It should be noted that the existing telephone poles and lines currently visible from this location would be undergrounded as part of the proposed project. There are a few residential properties within the Deerfield neighborhood that would be immediately adjacent to the proposed residential development in the Forest Residential and Lakeside Residential zoning districts. These existing homes range from one to two stories and are on larger lots with extensive natural vegetation and ornamental landscaping that obscure views of the project site. As depicted on Figure 4.10-4c, an existing naturally vegetated area would be preserved between the Deerfield neighborhood and the proposed residential lots in the Forest Residential zoning district to provide a buffer and visual screening. In addition, the proposed homes in the Lakeside Residential zoning district, which would back up to the Deerfield neighborhood, would be a maximum of 35 feet in height and would have minimum 15-foot rear setbacks providing additional visual screening. Finally, views from this neighborhood to the south would be completely screened by trees and other vegetation provided in the proposed Deerfield Neighborhood Buffer and the large open space area that would be provided beyond the buffer. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóîë ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ There are no existing residential uses to the south or west of the project site; however, there are recreational uses (campsites) west of the project site within Donner Memorial State Park. Although park property abuts the western project site boundary at Coldstream Road, the nearest campsites in the park are set back from this boundary and are at a substantially lower grade than Coldstream Road and the project site. Existing views from Coldstream Road and from the south are partially or totally obscured by dense trees and vegetation (see Figure 4.10-4d). The proposed land use plan provides for a minimum 20-foot buffer along the western boundary of the Village Green Residential Small Lot zoning district in order to maintain, to the extent possible, the existing tree stand and natural vegetation in this area. This buffer would feature a wall or fence and would be supplemented, as needed, with additional landscaping to maintain a visual screen between the project site and the park. In addition, the land use plan provides for a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer with wall or fence along the southern boundary of this zoning district to provide separation and visual screening between the project site and the Caltrans property to the south (see Figure 4.1-4 and Section 3.4.4 of the Coldstream Specific Plan). As shown in Figure 4.10-4d, the existing trees and vegetation and proposed landscape buffer would provide adequate screening at the project site’s western boundary, and the proposed homes within the Village Green Residential Small Lot zoning district would not be visible from Coldstream Road or the campsites beyond. The proposed project includes possible off-site Class I trails. However, similar to the project site, there are no homes which can view this portion of roadway, and uses within Donner Memorial State Park to the south are screened from the road by significant stands of trees. Furthermore, these off-site trails would be subject to the same mitigation measures identified in Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources, of this DEIR for actions required prior to removal of trees. In addition to the fact that the roadside paths would be located within the roadway right-of-way and would take the appearance of a typical detached sidewalk, the visual character impacts of such features are expected to be minor and less than significant. The existing commercial uses northwest of the project site would not be significantly buffered from the proposed commercial and retail development within the Village Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC) zoning district. The existing uses include two gas stations that are each one story and a Holiday Inn of two stories (see Figure 4.10-2). The maximum height of the proposed uses within the MUC zoning district would be 50 feet or 3.5 stories. Although the proposed uses could be taller than the existing uses, they would be similar in nature and would be compatible in terms of aesthetics. The Town of Truckee Development Code provides a number of measures to ensure protection of the existing visual character of a project site and to ensure that the proposed development meets the architectural standards of the Town. These regulations are described in the Regulatory Framework section above and include regulations on exterior lighting, structure height and scale, property maintenance, screening and buffers, solid waste and recyclable materials storage areas, above-ground utilities, landscaping, clustering of development and open space preservation, development within scenic corridors, parking lot design, and signage. All development within the project site would be consistent with these code provisions to ensure that it meets the high visual and architectural standards of the Town. Although implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in the development of about 40 percent of the project site with urban uses, it would also result in the restoration and enhancement of the natural features throughout the remainder of the site. While this represents a significant alteration to the visual character of the area, it does not necessarily represent a degradation of this visual character. Views of the project site from surrounding existing uses would be adequately screened by existing and proposed vegetation, walls and/or Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïðóîê ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ fences, naturally vegetated setbacks, and landscaped buffers. In addition, the proposed roadway improvements, landscaping, and undergrounding of existing telephone and utility poles could result in beneficial changes to existing views from the surrounding uses. Furthermore, the project site’s natural features would be restored and enhanced to create significant visual amenities throughout the site that better represent the surrounding natural environment of the region. Existing trees would be preserved where feasible and some would be replaced through implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.8.7b. Finally, implementation of the extensive design guidelines provided in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (see Chapters 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan) and the standards contained in the Town of Truckee Development Code would ensure that the proposed development would meet the Town’s high visual and architectural standards. Therefore, impacts to the visual character of the project site are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ò·¹¸¬¬·³» Ô·¹¸¬·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü¿§¬·³» Ù´¿®» Impact 4.10.2 The installation of street lighting and lighting associated with the proposed residential uses, as well as exterior and parking lot lighting associated with the proposed nonresidential uses, could change the night sky in the vicinity of the proposed project site and could adversely affect surrounding uses. In addition, the use of reflective materials in construction of the proposed project could result in increases in daytime glare. This impact is considered less than significant. Ò·¹¸¬¬·³» Ô·¹¸¬·²¹ Development of the project site would introduce new sources of artificial nighttime lighting to the area. New light sources would include, but would not be limited to, street lighting, exterior building and security lighting, indoor lighting escaping through windows and doors, parking lot lighting, automobile headlights, and illuminated signage. Stationary light sources have the potential to adversely affect existing residents through “spillover” into adjacent properties. Additionally, new light sources could result in a greater overall level of light at night, thus reducing night sky visibility and affecting the general character of the existing community. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan contains a detailed lighting program with lighting design standards for the proposed development (see Specific Plan Section 3.6) including the following: Lighting hierarchy (lighting intensity based on type of land use); Materials to be used for lighting fixtures and poles; Fixture housing styles and shielding requirements; Lighting levels; and Specific standards for lighted signage, street lighting, parking lot lighting, pedestrian walkway lighting, architecture feature lighting, and seasonal and event light. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóîé ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ The proposed lighting program was prepared based on applicable California state codes and the Town of Truckee Development Code as well as in consultation with the standards and recommendations of the International Dark Sky Association and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. These codes, standards, and recommendations were developed to minimize impacts of lighting on adjacent uses and the nighttime sky. Town of Truckee Development Code Section 18.92.130, Street Lighting (as written in the Public Improvements and Engineering Standards, Section 4.10) specifies the standards and requirements of street lighting. The ordinance states that lighting shall be installed “at locations where lighting is required to maintain the design speed sight distance on roadways.” This lighting is meant to direct light downward to the roadway surfaces as efficiently as possible. Additionally, Section 18.30.060 sets standards for exterior lighting. According to this section, all exterior lighting shall be directed downward, non-flashing, energy efficient, compatible with surrounding development, and of a minimum intensity. The existing Deerfield neighborhood and Boulders subdivision lay adjacent to the northeastern and eastern portions of the project site and therefore pose specific concerns in relation to potential lighting impacts from the proposed development. A minimum 20-foot landscape buffer would be provided between the Deerfield neighborhood and the project site to the south. In addition, the area beyond the buffer would be designated open space. A few new residential units would be developed immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the Deerfield neighborhood in both the Village Green Residential and Lakeside Residential zoning districts. These new residential units would comply with the lighting design standards contained in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan as well as with the Town’s Development Code sections related to lighting. As such, all exterior lighting associated with these new units would be directed downward with minimal intensity and located to be compatible with these existing surrounding uses. In addition, these proposed residences would be largely screened from view (see Figure 4.10-4c). Therefore, potential lighting spillover impacts on existing residences within the Deerfield neighborhood would be reduced to less than significant levels. The Boulders subdivision would be buffered from the proposed development by a large, naturally vegetated open space area with a pond providing visual screening and eliminating potential lighting spillover. The campsites located near Coldstream Road at the western boundary of the project site would be shielded from light associated with the proposed development by the planned Coldstream Road/Donner Memorial State Park Buffer (see Section 3.4.4 of the Coldstream Specific Plan) and because these campsites are located at a lower grade than project site. The buffer would be a minimum of 20 feet wide and a maximum of 100 feet (see Figure 4.1-5 in Section 4.1, Land Use, of this DEIR). This would allow for the preservation of the existing stand of trees and natural vegetation along the western boundary of the project site. Within the buffer, a wall or fence and supplemental plantings would be provided as needed to ensure an adequate visual screen between Donner Memorial State Park and the proposed project. The proposed project would also comply with the lighting design standards contained in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan as well as with the Town’s Development Code sections related to lighting. As such, all proposed exterior lighting would be directed downward with minimal intensity and would be located to be compatible with the adjacent recreational uses. The proposed landscape buffer, existing and proposed lighting standards, and existing grade change would reduce potential lighting impacts on Donner Memorial State Park property to a less than significant level. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïðóîè ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ Daytime Glare Sources of daytime glare include tall structures with reflective surfaces, vehicle windshields, and building and roofing materials with reflective surfaces. The architectural guidelines provided in Chapter 4 of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan allow for the use of metal siding on building exteriors which could create glare. However the use of metal siding is to be limited to accent treatments and should be allowed to patina over time, thereby reducing the material’s potential to reflect sunlight. In addition, the architectural guidelines state that roof overhangs should be provided over windows to provide shade and reduce potential for glare. The guidelines also prohibit the use of highly reflective glass and storefront window and/or door systems within the project site and require exterior equipment to be screened from view. Furthermore, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan provides for extensive landscaping (including hardscape such as walls, fences, and berms) throughout the development that would help block adjacent uses from daytime glare. All homes constructed on the proposed project site would include two-car garages. However, it is assumed that many vehicles will remain parked in driveways and along internal roadways. In addition, vehicles will be parked in open parking lots and along roadways within the Village Mixed-Use Commercial zoning district. The site plan is arranged so that all of the driveways and internal roadways in proximity to the adjacent existing residences would be buffered and shielded by the homes proposed for construction as well as the associated landscaping and rear yard setback requirements. Therefore, the presence of vehicle windshields within the project site would not result in a noticeable increase in daytime glare in the vicinity. This impact is considered to be less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïðòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for visual resources and light/glare includes the Town of Truckee and the unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer counties in the vicinity of the town. For the purposes of evaluating the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is considered in combination with other the pending and approved projects identified in Tables 4.0-2 and 4.0-3. Future growth under cumulative conditions may result in additional development in the project vicinity that would result in negative aesthetic impacts. Future growth would result in increased urbanization, loss of open space, the loss of trees and natural vegetation, decreased views of ridgelines and hillsides, and increased light and glare within the cumulative setting area. The cumulative impact analysis herein focuses on the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóîç ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ü»¹®¿¼¿¬·±² ±º Í½»²·½ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.10.3 Scenic resources may be degraded by implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan in combination with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the area. This impact is considered less thancumulatively considerable. Under cumulative conditions, visual impacts associated with increased urbanization, the loss of open space and trees, obstructions to views of ridgelines and hillsides, and increased light and glare would occur within the town and surrounding areas. The project site is in a location that is adjacent to existing residential, commercial, and recreational development and would have the potential to result in significant visual impacts upon its development. However, as discussed under Impact 4.10-1, implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include adequate buffering and screening to minimize impacts to surrounding views and would include significant restoration and enhancement of the natural features within the project site. In addition, as discussed under Impact 4.10.2, these buffers and setbacks as well as implementation of the lighting program provided in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would minimize the project’s potential light and glare impacts. As such, the proposed project would not result in significant visual impacts. As discussed in the Regulatory Framework section above, the Town has adopted numerous ordinances intended to minimize the potential visual effects of development projects. Regardless, the approved, planned, and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the region identified in Tables 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 would likely still result in significant cumulative impacts to the visual character of the cumulative setting area. However, the proposed project’s contribution to these cumulative visual impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïðóíð ìòïðÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2008. Scenic Highway Program: Eligible and Officially Designated Routes. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm (accessed October 2009). Carter Schleicher Consulting (CSCON). 2007. Biological Resources Assessment. Cold Stream Project. Town of Truckee, California. SCO Planning & Engineering, Kenkay Associations, and Ward-Young Architecture & Planning. 2009. Coldstream Specific Plan. Town of Truckee. 1996. Town of Truckee General Plan. ———. 2003. Town of Truckee Development Code. ———. 2006. Truckee 2025 General Plan Update and EIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïðóíï ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) discusses the public services that would serve the project site, including fire protection and emergency services, police protection, parks and recreation, and school facilities. Potential for wildland fire is discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Risk of Upset. ìòïïòï Ú×ÎÛ ÐÎÑÌÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÛÓÛÎÙÛÒÝÇ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the impacts on fire protection and emergency services as a result of the proposed project. The existing fire protection services provided by the Truckee Fire Protection District are discussed and the demand for increased services and accessibility are evaluated. This analysis is based on upon review of the proposed project and consultations with the Truckee Fire Protection District. ìòïïòïòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÌÚÐÜ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ×ÎÛ ÎÑÌÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌ The project site is located within the Truckee Fire Protection District’s (TFPD) service area. TFPD provides services in the areas of fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical care and/or transportation, assorted rescue services, and public education. TFPD consists of eight fire stations, four of which are staffed at all times. TFPD serves an area of approximately 125 square miles, including areas of Placer County, Nevada County, and the Town of Truckee. TFPD boundaries are roughly Donner Summit to the Nevada state line, State Route (SR) 89 north to the Sierra County line, SR 89 south to Cabin Creek, and SR 267 to Northstar Drive (Bena, 2009). The nearest staffed first response station is Station 92, located at 11473 Donner Pass Road, approximately 2 miles away from the project site. TFPD has 48 full-time employees, 10 fire engines, 1 water tender, 1 truck, and 8 medical units. In 2008, TFPD responded to approximately 2,600 calls and had a response time of eight minutes 70 percent of the time (Bena, 2009). An Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating is a collection of information on a community’s public fire protection, which is determined by using a Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). FSRS is the manual that the ISO uses in reviewing the firefighting capabilities of individual communities. The schedule measures the major elements of a community’s fire suppression system and develops a numerical grading called a Public Protection Classification (PPC). The FSRS determines a PPC from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents the best public protection, and Class 10 indicates less than the minimum recognized protection. By classifying a community’s ability to suppress fires, ISO helps the communities evaluate their public fire protection services. Currently, the majority of TFPD’s ISO rating is 5. However, there are some pocket areas, including Martis Peak Road, Prosser Dam Road, and Hobart Mills, that are ISO 8 and 9 due to access issues (Bena, 2009). None of these pocket areas are within the project site. Development on the project site will be subject to facility impact fees by the Town which were adopted to generate funding for additional services in response to the growth projected for Truckee. Beyond the imposition of facility fees, additional fire protection services over and above those currently provided by TFPD are not anticipated to be required as a result of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan (Bena, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóï ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ìòïïòïòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Ú·®» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² ß±½·¿¬·±² The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international nonprofit organization that provides consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education on fire prevention and public safety. The NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 consensus codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks (National Fire Protection Association, 2009). The NFPA publishes the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, which provides requirements to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection in new and existing buildings. Í ÌßÌÛ Ý·¬§ Û³»®¹»²½§ Î»°±²»ñÛª¿½«¿¬·±² Ð´¿² The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Noncompliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the noncomplying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ú·®» Ý±¼» ¿²¼ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ý±¼» The 2007 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure throughout the State of California (CBSC, 2008, p. 3). The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance-rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland-urban interface areas. The California Building Code also contains regulations to safeguard against fire hazards, including requirements for sprinkler systems, fire alarms, and fire resistant building materials. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ø»¿´¬¸ ¿²¼ Í¿º»¬§ Ý±¼» Additional state fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which include regulations for building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, high-rise building, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóî ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ñ½½«°¿¬·±²¿´ Í¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ Ø»¿´¬¸ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² In accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Sections 1270 “Fire Prevention” and 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Fighting Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire housing sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì®«½µ»» Ú·®» Ý±¼» The Town of Truckee has adopted the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) with some amendments as part of the Town’s Development Code. The amendments are intended to address the specific conditions and fire risks in Truckee and to ensure that development occurs in a manner that reduces the threat of urban and wildland fire. The UFC requires a minimum standard for fire flow, which is estimated to be between 2,000 and 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), with 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a three- to four-hour duration. Fire flow ratios may be decreased based on types of materials and individual sprinkler systems used for each building. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² Ù±¿´ ¿²¼ Ð±´·½·» The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Safety Element includes goals and policies related to fire protection and emergency services. Appendix B summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan Safety Element with regard to fire protection. The guiding principles of the General Plan Safety Element pertinent to fire services are as follows: Minimize the potential risk to life and property from natural and induced hazards in the Town of Truckee. Ensure that Truckee’s residents and emergency services providers are adequately prepared to respond to emergency situations. While this DEIR analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. ÌÚÐÜ Ð±´·½·» TFPD provides a series of requirements that must be met by the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan prior to approval of the first phase of development and each subsequent phase: Each phase of the project shall have fire hydrants installed 500 feet on center for residential areas and 250 feet on center in the commercial areas. Residential areas shall have a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gpm. Commercial areas shall have a minimum fire flow of 2,500 gpm plus the required flow for automatic fire sprinkler systems at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure. Fire flows will be for two- to four-hour durations. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóí ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Automatic fire sprinkler systems will be required in all commercial buildings and in any residential structures with five or more units in the same building. These requirements may change in the future to include all residential structures. Commercial buildings will require the installation of approved fire alarm systems. All construction shall meet the requirements of the latest codes and local ordinances. Minimum access around commercial structures and through parking areas shall be required. No shake or shingle roofs will be allowed, treated or otherwise. All roads shall be approved by the TFPD and have minimum requirements as far as width, vertical clearance, turning radius, supporting capability, gated access, surface, and dead-end lengths. Secondary access to Deerfield Drive shall be required. Minimum defensible space requirements shall be enforced around all structures and a shaded fuel break shall be required around the entire project. Fire department mitigation fees shall apply to all construction at applicable rates. A will-serve letter must be obtained from the TFPD prior to permit issuance or any construction. In order to receive a will-serve letter from TFPD, all development projects must provide, in a fashion acceptable to TFPD, revenue for fire services equivalent to $164 per new single-family home per year, $129 per new multi-family unit per year, and 7.8 cents per square foot of new nonresidential development per year, inflated, beginning July 1, 2010, at the rate of 2 percent per year. The manner and means of such payment shall be determined by the Fire Chief or his designee after consultation with the applicant. ìòïïòïòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services are considered significant if the project results in the following: 1)Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. 2)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóì ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis of fire protection impacts is based on review of the proposed project and consultations with TFPD. Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Assuming a rate of 2.53 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in a population of 1,230 people. However, using a full-time resident occupancy rate of 66 percent (as indicated in the General Plan Housing Element, page H-45), the proposed project would more likely result in a full-time resident population of approximately 812 people. For the purposes of this analysis, the worst-case scenario of 1,230 residents is assumed. Impacts associated with wildland fires are discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Risk of Upset. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ú·®» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² ¿²¼ Û³»®¹»²½§ Ó»¼·½¿´ Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.11.1.1 Development of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. This impact is considered potentially significant. The proposed project would result in the development of up to 486 residential units as well as up to 70,000 square feet of commercial and retail facilities. Using a worst-case scenario of 2.53 people per dwelling unit, project implementation would result in a population increase of approximately 1,230 residents (486 units x 2.53 persons per unit). Thus, the proposed project would contribute to the increased demand for fire protection and emergency services. The Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD) has fire protection requirements and standards for new development projects, which include specifications regarding fire hydrant spacing, fire flow, emergency access, and roadway requirements. The Town and TFPD must review and approve the proposed project prior to construction for compliance with state and local requirements. Additionally, property taxes and the payment of development mitigation fees generated by the proposed project would sufficiently pay for the increased demand on these services as well as help fund future facilities and equipment needed to serve growth in the district (Bena, 2009). The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes the requirement of an emergency access connection of the project site with Deerfield Drive, allowing emergency access from Deerfield Drive through the project site to Donner Pass Road. Nevertheless, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical service are considered potentially significant. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóë ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» The proposed project will be required to prepare a fuel modification plan to reduce potential for exposure to wildland fire, as shown in mitigation measure MM 4.6.4 in Section 4.6, Hazards and Risk of Upset, of this DEIR. These measures, along with compliance with the TFPD fire policies mentioned above in the Regulatory Framework section, would ensure that this impact is less than significant. ìòïïòïòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for fire and emergency medical services is the service area of TFPD. Existing, approved, and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for the TFPD. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Table 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ú·®» ¿²¼ Û³»®¹»²½§ Ó»¼·½¿´ Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.11.1.2 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the TFPD service area, would contribute to cumulative demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Physical facilities for providing increased fire protection and emergency services are currently available (Bena, 2009). However, over time, providing increased services to TFPD’s service area could require acquisition of service vehicles and increased staffing levels. The proposed project’s contribution to this impact has been identified and considered in the General Plan EIR, for which the Town of Truckee certified and adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings. The Statement of Facts and Findings indicates that growth accommodated by the General Plan would result in a less than significant increase in demand for public services. Additionally, projects such as the proposed project increase the revenue base through collection of development fees and increased property taxes that contribute to funding such services. The proposed project will also be required to prepare a fuel modification plan to reduce potential for exposure to wildland fire, as shown in mitigation measures MM 4.6.4in Section 4.6, Hazards and Risk of Upset, of this DEIR. Given that funding for services would increase as future projects are approved, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóê ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ìòïïòî ÐÑÔ×ÝÛ ÐÎÑÌÛÝÌ×ÑÒ This section of the Draft EIR evaluates the impacts on law enforcement services as a result of the proposed project. The existing law enforcement services provided by the Truckee Police Department are discussed and the demand for increased services and accessibility are evaluated. This analysis is based upon review of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and relevant documents and consultations with the Truckee Police Department. ìòïïòîòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÌÌÐÜ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÑÔ×ÝÛ ÛÐßÎÌÓÛÒÌ Police services for the project site would be provided by the Town of Truckee Police Department (TTPD). TTPD began providing police services for the Town in September 2001. TTPD provides police protection services from a 6,200-square-foot portion of Town Hall at 10183 Truckee Airport Road in Truckee. This facility does not include a jail or any level of holding cells for either adult or juvenile offenders (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.7). TTPD current staffing allocates 26 sworn patrol officers to cover assigned areas. The TTPD patrol area consists of the entire Town of Truckee. The Town of Truckee provides funding for TTPD’s law enforcement services through the General Fund. Development within the project site would be subject to facility fees by the Town, which were adopted to generate funding for additional services in response to the growth projected for Truckee. Additional police officers and resources outside of the scope of the facility fee funds are not anticipated to be required as a result of the proposed project (Sensley, 2009). Responses to calls for service by TTFD vary depending on how long it takes between when the call is made to when dispatch is sent to when the responding officer receives the call. TTPD averages response times between five and eight minutes during warmer months and five and ten or more minutes in winter months due to weather conditions. Snow or rain can increase travel time because of unsafe road conditions. The Town does not derive its police staffing and deployment entirely based on a ratio of one officer for every 1,000 population. Police resource strengths are determined based on capacity to respond to calls for service, the ability to resolve incidents and case demands, the perceived and measurable sense of public safety and crime deterrence based on the presence of police officers, the capacity to consistently achieve a reasonable minimal officer deployment at every hour of every day, and other staffing considerations (Sensley, 2009). TTPD has mutual assistance agreements with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which provides policy protection on all state and county roadways in Nevada County. The CHP and the Town of Truckee Police Department provide reciprocal backup protection as needed. ìòïïòîòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Í ÌßÌÛ Û³»®¹»²½§ Î»°±²»ñÛª¿½«¿¬·±² Ð´¿² Government Code Section 8607(a) directs the California Emergency Management Agency to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. The program is intended to Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóé ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ provide effective management of multi-agency and multijurisdictional emergencies in California. SEMS consists of five organizational levels, which are activated as necessary: Field Response Local Government Operational Area Regional State Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under state disaster assistance programs. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Land Use Element includes goals and policies related to police protection. Appendix B summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan Land Use Element with regard to police protection. The guiding principles of the Land Use Element pertinent to police services are as follows: Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastructure. While this DEIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. ìòïïòîòí ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance.Police protection impacts are considered significant if the project results in the following: 1)Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis of police protection impacts is based upon review of the proposed project and consultations with TTPD. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóè ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Assuming a rate of 2.53 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in a population of 1,230 people. However, using a full-time resident occupancy rate of 66 percent (as indicated in the General Plan Housing Element, page H-45), the proposed project would more likely result in a full-time resident population of approximately 812 people. For the purposes of this analysis, the worst-case scenario of 1,230 residents is assumed. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ð±´·½» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² Impact 4.11.2.1 Development of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for police protection services. However, increased property tax revenues associated with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would be adequate to fund increased demand for police services. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. A worst-case scenario assumes that the proposed project would have a resident population of 1,230. According to TTPD, this population would generate an additional demand for police protection services to the project site. Under 2025 General Plan conditions, the ratio of police officers per thousand population in the town is 1.63 (Town of Truckee, 2006). Assuming a similar ratio is maintained in the future, the additional 1,230 persons would require an increase in police staffing of approximately two officers for the proposed project. The increase of two additional officers would not require an additional patrol unit. The Town of Truckee provides funding for law enforcement through property tax revenues. As development occurs on the project site, it is assumed that increases in property tax revenues would offset increased costs associated with law enforcement. Because property taxes generated by the proposed project and agency funding would increase with development upon action by the Town of Truckee, impacts are considered to be less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïïòîòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for police services is the TTPD service area. Existing, approved, and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóç ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for TTPD. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Table 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð±´·½» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.11.2.2 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the TTPD service area, would contribute to cumulative demands for police protection services. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact. Physical facilities for providing increased police services are currently available (Sensley, 2009). In the long term, providing increased services to TTPD’s service area would require acquisition of service vehicles and increased staffing levels. The proposed project’s contribution to this impact has been identified and considered in the General Plan EIR, for which the Town of Truckee certified and adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings. The Statement of Facts and Findings indicates that growth accommodated by the General Plan would result in a less than significant increase in demand for public services. Additionally, projects such as the proposed project increase the revenue base that contributes to such services. Given that funding for services would increase as future projects are approved, cumulative impacts to police protection services are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïïòí ÐßÎÕÍ ßÒÜ ÎÛÝÎÛßÌ×ÑÒ This section of the Draft EIR identifies existing local park and recreation facilities and evaluates the demand upon these facilities, as well as the need for additional facilities, which would occur as a result of development on the project site. This analysis is based upon review of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and consultations with the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District. ìòïïòíòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÌÜÎÐÜ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÑÒÒÛÎ ÛÝÎÛßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ßÎÕ ×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌ Truckee has ten locally operated parks that make up approximately 120 acres of recreational area, plus four public recreation facilities. Park facilities in Truckee include neighborhood, district, and regional parks that range in size from under half an acre to over 60 acres. Most of Truckee’s parks are operated by the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD), and a few facilities are operated by the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD). In addition to the locally operated parks, Donner Memorial State Park (adjacent to the project site) and several privately owned and operated recreational facilities (golf courses, parks, and other amenities in the Tahoe Donner resort area) are also an important recreation resource for the community. The Town of Truckee General Plan includes the TDRPD’s goals for providing parks. However, the General Plan also recognizes that Truckee can only require new development to provide parkland or in-lieu fees at a ratio of up to 5 acres per 1,000 population, in accordance with the requirements of the Quimby Act (Town of Truckee, 2006). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóïð ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ The TDRPD has been in operation since 1962. The district is located in the eastern portion of Nevada and Placer counties. The boundaries generally include that portion of Nevada and Placer counties lying to the east of the Sierra Nevada crest and extending to the Nevada state line. The Sierra County line forms the northern boundary to the north, and the Placer County line forms the southern boundary. However, the boundaries extend across into Placer County at Donner Lake, Sierra Meadows, and Ponderosa Palisades. The entire TDRPD encompasses approximately 220 square miles. Less than one-tenth of this area has experienced significant development. This populated area is referred to as the urban corridor (Town of Truckee, 2002). The TDRPD provides a variety of recreational programs for youth and adults. These programs include youth programs such as preschool and afterschool programs, special classes, seasonal camps, sports, and field trips. Teen programs include an activity drop-in center, trips, special events, sports, special classes, and leadership. Adult programs include classes, sports, and clubs. Aquatics programs include classes, training, and recreational and lap swimming. TDRPD funding is provided through property taxes, fees and charges, special assessments, grants, and mitigation fees. The TDRPD has in place two mitigation funding mechanisms to address growth. The first type, which is applicable to the proposed project, is a Quimby Act fee, which subsidizes the TDRPD for each newly created parcel. The second fee type is the Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 fee, which is a building square footage fee for all new construction (Town of Truckee, 2002). Outdoor recreation in the project vicinity is diverse because of the natural setting of the area. Camping, hiking, skiing, mountain biking, hunting, and fishing opportunities abound on United States Forest Service (USFS) lands in the region. The Truckee River also offers water activities and more passive recreational opportunities. Forested lands surround the urban corridor, with the USFS being the primary landowner. The remaining portion of land is under private ownership. This surrounding open space, comprising 90 percent of the TDRPD, is natural forestland. The great majority of the population in the TDRPD resides in the immediate vicinity of the Town of Truckee and smaller residential areas in Nevada County at Donner Summit. Additionally, there are several small community areas outside the town limits in Nevada County that are within the TDRPD boundaries. The unincorporated areas of Nevada County that are within the TDRPD boundaries typically rely on the Town for most community services (Town of Truckee, 2006). ìòïïòíòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Í ÌßÌÛ Ì¸» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ð¿®µ´¿²¼ ß½¬ ±º ïçèð Although a recreation element is not mandated by law to be included in a General Plan, recreation resources are to be considered in the Open Space Element of a General Plan (Government Code Section 65560). The California Parklands Act of 1980 (Public Resources Code Section 5096.141–5096.143) identifies “the public interest for the state to acquire, develop, and restore areas for recreation…and to aid local governments of the state in acquiring, developing and restoring such areas…” The California Parklands Act also identifies the necessity of local agencies to exercise vigilance to see that the parks, recreation areas, and recreational facilities they now have are not lost to other uses. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóïï ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ï«·³¾§ ß½¬ The goal of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) was to have developers help mitigate the impacts of property improvements by requiring them to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements if required to do so by local governments. The Quimby Act gave authority for passage of land dedication ordinances only to cities and counties, thus requiring special districts to work with cities and/or counties to receive parkland dedication and/or in-lieu fees. The fees must be paid and land conveyed directly to the local public agencies that provide park and recreation services community-wide. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities (Westrup, 2002). Originally, the Quimby Act was designed to ensure “adequate” open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards (e.g., 3–5 acres per 1,000 residents). In some California communities, the acreage fee was very high where property values were high, and many local governments did not differentiate on their Quimby fees between infill projects and greenbelt developments. In 1982, the Quimby Act was substantially amended via AB 1600. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (nexus) to a project’s impacts as identified through studies required by CEQA. In other words, AB 1600 requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or parkland and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed (Westrup, 2002). Cities or counties with a high ratio of parkland to inhabitants can set a standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents for new development. Cities or counties with a lower ratio can only require the provision of up to 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The calculation of a city’s or county’s parkland-to-population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal census to the amount of city- or county-owned parkland. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element includes goals and policies related to parks and recreation. Appendix B summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element with regard to parks and recreation. The guiding principles of the Conservation and Open Space Element pertinent to parks and recreation are as follows: Provide or support a comprehensive, high quality system of parks and other recreational open space facilities in Truckee. Create a greenway or parkway that extends from Donner Lake, along Donner Creek and the Truckee River, to the eastern Town Limit. While this DEIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóïî ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ìòïïòíòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and Town of Truckee standards, impacts to parks and recreation are considered significant if the project results in the following: 1)Create demands for new or expanded parks and recreation facilities that would not comply with the Town’s standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. 2)Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for parks and recreational facilities. 3)Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 4)Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis of park and recreation impacts is based upon consultations with TDRPD. Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Assuming a rate of 2.53 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in a population of 1,230 people. However, using a full-time resident occupancy rate of 66 percent (as indicated in the General Plan Housing Element, page H-45), the proposed project would more likely result in a full-time resident population of approximately 812 people. For the purposes of this analysis, the worst-case scenario of 1,230 residents is assumed. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ð¿®µ ¿²¼ Î»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ Ú¿½·´·¬·» Impact 4.11.3.1 Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities.This impact is considered less than significant. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóïí ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan land use plan (Figure 3.0-6) has designated 7.0 acres as Recreation (which would accommodate lodging with transient and/or permanent units, a restaurant, a health/fitness center, sport courts, recreational fields, a community/meeting center, and/or similar uses) and 108.6 acres as Open Space (to provide large expanses of scenic and recreational areas which shall serve as the primary amenity within the project site) land uses, including hiking trails, bicycle trails, and a community building with associated recreational amenities such as a pool, fitness center, lodging, and sport courts. The proposed trails and bikeway facilities on the project site would allow for connections to off-site facilities, including the proposed off-site trails, as designated in the General Plan’s Open Space, Natural/Scenic Resources, and Trails Map and the Downtown Truckee Specific Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Map (Figure CIR-2 of the 2006 Truckee General Plan). Assuming a worst-case scenario, implementation of the proposed project, at full buildout, would result in a population increase of approximately 1,230 residents, thereby resulting in an increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. Although the proposed project provides 108.6 acres of open space and a bike and trails system, these facilities do not necessarily meet the requirement for new development to provide parkland at a ratio of up to 5 acres per 1,000 population, in accordance with the requirements of the Quimby Act (Town of Truckee, 2006). Based on this standard, up to 6.15 acres of parkland would be required for the proposed project [(5 acres/1,000 population) x 1,230 residents = 6.15 acres]. Alternatively, the Quimby Act allows payment of in-lieu fees for parkland at a ratio of up to 5 acres per 1,000 population. The proposed project would pay a recreation impact fee for each newly created parcel (including residential and nonresidential parcels) rather than dedicating parkland. Additionally, the TDRPD would receive property tax revenue from all types of development on the project site. The recreation impact fee program would help reduce impacts to TDPRD facilities. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ Ü±²²»® Ó»³±®·¿´ Í¬¿¬» Ð¿®µ Impact 4.11.3.2 Implementation of the proposed project would potentially increase the use of Donner Memorial State Park and result in recreation use impacts. This impact is considered potentially significant. The implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide a major link to the Truckee Legacy Trail that would ultimately connect to Donner Memorial State Park and Coldstream Canyon through the project site. The provision of this link would provide local and regional outdoor enthusiasts the opportunity to bicycle, hike, or walk from Glenshire to Donner Memorial State Park and Coldstream Canyon. It would provide improved and enhanced recreation opportunities in the project area. Donner Memorial State Park is located to the west, immediately adjacent to the project site. The California Department of Parks and Recreation has expressed concern with the close proximity of the project site to the park. Increased use of existing trail systems and potential impacts with trail connections could result in recreation use conflicts to the neighboring Donner Memorial State Park. This impact is potentially significant. As identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this DEIR, the proposed project includes possible extensions of on-site Class I trail that would extend west from the project boundary north to Donner Pass Road and then west along Donner Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóïì ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Pass Road to the entrance to Donner Memorial State Park as an option to address California Department of Parks and Recreation trail concerns. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.11.3.2 Prior to the finalization of exact trail alignments through the project site, the project applicant shall coordinate with California Department of Parks and Recreation staff and Town staff to ensure compatibility of trail alignment and compatibility of uses on the connected trails. If deemed necessary, trail alignments shall be modified in cooperation with the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Trail connection points to Donner Memorial State Park trails will include signage notifying trail users of their entrance to Donner Memorial State Park and the associated rules and regulations of the park. Timing/Implementation: Prior to finalization of project trail alignments Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division; California Department of Parks and Recreation Implementation of the above mitigation measure as well as mitigation measures MM 4.1.3 (increased buffering of the project site from Donner Memorial State Park) and MM 4.8.1f and MM 4.8.1g (biological protection measures for trail use and invasive species) would ensure that trail facilities are designed to address California Department of Parks and Recreation concerns. Impacts are considered less than significant. ìòïïòíòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for parks and recreational facilities is the Town of Truckee. Existing, approved, and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for parks and recreational facilities in the town. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Table 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð¿®µ ¿²¼ Î»½®»¿¬·±² Impact 4.11.3.3 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the surrounding area, would contribute to cumulative demands for park and recreation facilities. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include open space, hiking trails, and bicycle trails and would generate funds for the TDRPD, thereby providing recreational activities for current and future residents. Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan will ultimately provide further connectivity between the Truckee Legacy Trail and Donner Memorial State Park, as well as to Coldstream Canyon. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóïë ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Additionally, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on recreation facilities has been identified and considered in the General Plan EIR, for which the Town of Truckee certified and adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings. The Statement of Facts and Findings indicates that growth accommodated by the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to demands for public services. Furthermore, projects such as the proposed project increase the revenue base that contributes to such services. Given that funding for services would increase as future projects are approved and that the project proposes the dedication of open space and recreational land, cumulative impacts to parks and recreation are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïïòì Í ÝØÑÑÔÍ This section of the Draft EIR addresses provision of public school services as it relates to the proposed project, as well as changes in public school financing associated with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Government Code Sections 65995–65998). ìòïïòìòï Í ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÌÌËÍÜ ßØÑÛ ÎËÝÕÛÛ Ò×Ú×ÛÜ ÝØÑÑÔ ×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌ Û¨·¬·²¹ ¿²¼ Ð®±°±»¼ Í½¸±±´ Ú¿½·´·¬·» The Town of Truckee is served by the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD). The TTUSD encompasses over 720 square miles and serves students in Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado counties. The TTUSD boundaries stretch from the Sierra County line, 27 miles north of Truckee, to Emerald Bay, near South Lake Tahoe; from Cisco Grove, 20 miles to the west; and to the Nevada state line, 10 miles to the east. The TTUSD offices are located in Truckee. grade The TTUSD has a total student enrollment in Truckee of 2,679 in kindergarten through 12th (refer to Table 4.11.4-1). There are eleven school sites including four elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, and one continuation high school, a K–5 magnet school, and a 6–12 alternative school. In addition, the TTUSD maintains various programs, departments, and a preschool in the inactive school facility, Sierra Mountain, located in Truckee. The attendance areas of the active schools are divided between Truckee area and Lake Tahoe area schools. The Truckee area schools would serve the project site. The TTUSD does not utilize year-round education and operates on a traditional school calendar. Truckee area schools include Truckee High School and Alder Creek Middle School. The middle school is fed by three K–5 elementary schools including Donner Trail, Glenshire, and Truckee Elementary. Donner Trail is a magnet K–5 school that draws students from other attendance areas in addition to serving its own attendance area. The Lake Tahoe area schools include Kings Beach and Tahoe Lake elementary schools, both of which feed into the North Tahoe Middle School, with the middle school feeding into North Tahoe High School. The TTUSD also operates Sierra Continuation High School and the Coldstream Alternative Education Program, which do not have attendance boundaries, but rather serve all students within the TTUSD boundary. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóïê ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ The project site is within the attendance areas for Truckee Elementary School and Glenshire Elementary School, Alder Creek Middle School, and Truckee High School. Enrollment for 2007– 2008 and the existing capacity of these schools is shown in Table 4.11.4-1. Ììòïïòìóï ßÞÔÛ ÌÌËÍÜÛÛÝ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÒÎÑÔÔÓÛÒÌ ßÒÜ ßÐßÝ×ÌÇ Ô Û¨·¬·²¹ Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º Í½¸±±´ Û²®±´´³»²¬ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Ì®«½µ»» Û´»³»²¬¿®§ êëé êêì ççû Ù´»²¸·®» Û´»³»²¬¿®§ ëðé ëðð ïðïû Ü±²²»® Ì®¿·´ Û´»³»²¬¿®§ êé ìè ïìðû ß¼´»® Ý®»»µ Ó·¼¼´» Í½¸±±´ ëçè èðî éëû Ì®«½µ»» Ø·¹¸ éèî çðë èêû Í·»®®¿ Ý±²¬·²«¿¬·±² Ø·¹¸ êè êð ïïíû Ì±¬¿´ îôêéç Í±«®½»æ ÌÌËÍÜô îððé Ó»¿«®» Ý In March 1999, voters approved the issuance of a bond through Measure C that would provide for the construction of a new middle school. The purpose of this $35 million school bond would assist in alleviating the existing overcrowding situation in TTUSD elementary and middle schools as well as provide additional facilities, such as multipurpose buildings/gymnasiums. ìòïïòìòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Í ÌßÌÛ A school district’s authority to levy school impact fees is governed by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, also known as Senate Bill No. 50 (Stats. 1998, ch. 407). This comprehensive legislation, together with the $9.2 billion education bond act approved by the voters in November 1998 as Proposition 1A, reforms methods of school construction financing in California. Prior to the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Government Code Sections 65995– 65998), case law allowed cities to consider and impose conditions to mitigate impacts of new development on school facilities. This authority, commonly referred to as Mira authority, was suspended by the 1998 School Facilities Act. Government Code Section 65995, as amended by SB 50, establishes the dollar amount school districts may impose on new development. The statute provides that, with limited exceptions, the amount of any fees, charges, dedications, or other requirements may not exceed the following: (1) In the case of residential construction, two dollars and sixty-three cents ($2.63) per square foot of assessable space. (2) In the case of any commercial or industrial construction, forty-two cents ($0.42) per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space… (Government Code Section 65995, subd. (b)). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóïé ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ These amounts are adjusted for inflation every two years (Government Code Section, subd. (b)(3)). Under specified circumstances, school districts may impose alternative fees pursuant to Government Code Sections 65995.5 and 65995.7 (Level 2 and/or Level 3 fees, respectively). If state funding runs out at any time, school districts may impose up to 100 percent of the state average cost of school facilities on new development (alternative Level 3 fees). However, in 2006, if a state bond measure fails, Mira authority is partially restored to the extent that a city can then consider public school facilities in making a legislative decision; a city could deny an application but could not condition the project to pay fees above the fee set by the state. Government Code Section 65995(e) states that a city does not have the ability to condition any land use approval, whether legislative or adjudicative, on the need for school facilities. In addition, Government Code Section 65995(f) prohibits a city or county from imposing a requirement to participate in a Community Facilities District (CFD, also known as Mello-Roos district). Government Code Section 65995(g)(1) further states that a developer’s refusal to participate in a CFD cannot be a factor in considering a legislative or adjudicative act. However, Government Code Section 65995(g)(2) further states that a person can voluntarily elect to pay a fee through a CFD. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element includes goals and policies to preserve, protect, enhance, and promote the Town’s valuable natural, cultural, and scenic resources. Appendix B summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan Land Use Element with regard to schools. The guiding principles of the Land Use Element pertinent to school services are as follows: Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastructure. While this DEIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this Draft EIR. ìòïïòìòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌÍ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts to school facilities are considered significant if the project results in the following: 1)Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for schools. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóïè ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis of public school impacts is based upon consideration of the estimated number of students generated by the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and consultations with the TTUSD. Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Assuming a rate of 2.53 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in a population of 1,230 people. However, using a full-time resident occupancy rate of 66 percent (as indicated in the General Plan Housing Element, page H-45), the proposed project would more likely result in a full-time resident population of approximately 812 people. For the purposes of this analysis, the worst-case scenario of 1,230 residents is assumed. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ×³°¿½¬ ±² Í½¸±±´ Ú¿½·´·¬·» Impact 4.11.4.1 Implementation of the proposed project would increase student enrollment at the TTUSD schools. This impact is considered less than significant. The following are student generation rates for up to 345 dwelling units: 0.16 K–5th grade students per unit, 0.081 6th–8th grade students per unit, and 0.68 9th–12th grade students per unit. Assuming a worst-case total of 486 homes, buildout of the project site would generate approximately 448 new students at the K–12 grade levels. See Table 4.11.4-2 for a breakdown of students generated by grade. Under current conditions, students from the project site would attend Truckee and Glenshire elementary schools (K–5), Alder Creek Middle School (6–8), and Truckee High School (9–12). Glenshire Elementary School is currently operating at 101 percent capacity, and Truckee Elementary is operating at 99 percent capacity (see Table 4.11.4-1). Buildout of the proposed project would increase enrollment at the Glenshire and Truckee elementary schools, which are currently utilizing temporary classroom structures to accommodate excess enrollment. The proposed project would not exceed the student capacity of Alder Creek Middle School or Truckee High School. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóïç ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ììòïïòìóî ßÞÔÛ ÍÙÐÐ ÌËÜÛÒÌÍ ÛÒÛÎßÌÛÜ ÞÇ ÌØÛ ÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Í¬«¼»²¬ Ù»²»®¿¬»¼ Í¬«¼»²¬ Ù»²»®¿¬·±² Í½¸±±´ Ì§°» ¾§ ìèê Í·²¹´»ó Î¿¬» ø°»® «²·¬÷ Ú¿³·´§ Ø±³» ùÒÙÑÙÐÊÝÌÅóÔ ñÕÚÚÒÙÔ öÕ×ÖÔ Ì±¬¿´ ðòçîï ììè Í±«®½»æ ÌÌËÍÜô îððé The TTUSD is authorized by state law (Government Code Section 65995-6) to levy a school facility impact fee. The fee for new residential construction is $2.63 per square foot of residential construction. The fee for commercial construction is $0.42 per square foot. The fees are used for the purpose or funding the reconstruction or construction of new school facilities. The school facility impact fee schedule is based on current state law and Government Code 65996, which states that the “development impact fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be ‘full and complete school facilities mitigation’ for the impact caused by new development on school facilities.” This applies regardless of school capacity or overcrowding issues. SB 50 also indicates that developer fees are not intended to be the sole source of funding for new school facilities, but are intended to supplement state and local bond funding for school facilities. Thus, school impact fees would offset the potential impacts of increased student enrollment related to the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code, this impact would be considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïïòìòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for schools is the service area of the TTUSD. Existing, approved, and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for the TTUSD. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Table 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Í½¸±±´ Impact 4.11.4.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other proposed and approved development in the TTUSD service area, would increase the demand for school services provided by the TTUSD. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóîð ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Because of the TTUSD’s state of overcapacity in the Truckee area, any new development with a residential component could have a physical impact on the TTUSD. Anticipated population growth in the Town of Truckee would require improvement and expansion of public school facilities and services provided by the TTUSD. Overcrowding impacts can be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. Mitigation for public school impacts in the TTUSD consists of the state-mandated statutory school cap fee of $2.63 per square foot for residential projects and $0.42 per square foot of commercial. As previously stated in the discussion for Impact 4.11.4.1, the payment of impact fees is considered full and adequate mitigation for potential impacts on schools under state law. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to schools is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïïóîï ìòïïÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Bena, Bob, DCFM. 2009. Truckee Fire Protection District, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, July 8. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2008. California Fire Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9, California Building Standards Commission. Published July 2007; effective January 1, 2008. Sacramento, California. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2008. http://www.nfpa.org/ (accessed October 21, 2008). Randall, Steve. 2009. General Manager, Truckee Donner Recreation and Parks District, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated August 18, 2009. Sasaki, Tamara. 2009. Senior Environmental Scientist, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Truckee Community Development Department, Planning Division. Comments on Notice of Preparation for Coldstream Specific Plan, dated July 6. SCO Planning & Engineering, Kenkay Associations, and Ward-Young Architecture & Planning. 2009. Coldstream Specific Plan. Sensley, Nicholas A. 2009. Chief of Police, Truckee Police Department, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, August 14. Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD). 2007. Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Facility Master Plan. Town of Truckee. 2002. Old Greenwood Planned Development Draft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2006. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. Westrup, Laura. 2002. Planning Division, California Department of Parks and Recreation. Quimby Act 101: An Abbreviated Overview. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïïóîî ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) discusses the utilities and service systems that would serve the project site for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, including water services, wastewater services, solid waste services, and electric, natural gas, phone, and cable services. ìòïîòï ÉßÌÛÎ ÍËÐÐÔÇ ìòïîòïòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÌÎÑß ÎËÝÕÛÛ ×ÊÛÎ ÐÛÎßÌ×ÒÙ ÙÎÛÛÓÛÒÌ The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows approximately 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. Most of the inflow to the Truckee River originates in California’s Sierra Nevada. The Truckee River Basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries (Bureau of Reclamation, 2008). A portion of Truckee River water is stored in federal and non-federal reservoirs located in California. The federal reservoirs are Lake Tahoe and Prosser Creek, Boca, Stampede, and Martis Creek reservoirs. The non-federal reservoirs (natural lakes with some storage created by man-made dams) are Independence Lake (owned and operated by Sierra Pacific) and Donner Lake (owned and operated by Sierra Pacific and the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District). Collectively, these reservoirs are referred to as Truckee River reservoirs. Operation of the reservoirs allows distribution of water in the Truckee River system throughout the year (Bureau of Reclamation, 2008). Due to the Truckee River system’s location in two states, disputes over water rights began in the late 1800s and persist to this day. In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 101-618 (P.L. 101-618), which required the affected parties to negotiate an agreement for the future operation of the Truckee River system. The process of negotiating the agreement is ongoing, and details are not fully developed (Bureau of Reclamation, 2008). The Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) is a water management plan designed to make more effective and efficient use of existing Truckee River reservoirs and improve the timing and magnitude of seasonal river flows. It contains procedures intended to obtain the following primary benefits: Increasing the M&I drought water supply for Truckee Meadows and the Truckee River Basin in California. Enhancing spawning flows for endangered and threatened Pyramid Lake fishes. Enhancing in-stream flows and water quality. Maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. M&I water supply refers to municipal, domestic, sanitary, fire protection, lawn and residential garden irrigation, industrial, and/or all other similar water demands, but not for irrigation of farmlands. Under P.L. 101-618, the congressional allocations as to Lake Tahoe and the Truckee and Carson rivers would go into effect. With regard to the Truckee River Basin in California, the following water diversions would apply. Under the Interstate Allocation, California’s total Truckee River Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóï ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Basin water diversions could not exceed 32,000 acre-feet per year (both surface water and groundwater usage). California water purveyors could divert or place in storage up to 10,000 acre-feet of the California allocation directly from unregulated surface flow for any beneficial use in the California portion of the Truckee River Basin. The remaining 22,000 acre-feet would be developed from groundwater sources. ÌÜÐËÜ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÑÒÒÛÎ ËÞÔ×Ý Ì×Ô×ÌÇ ×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌ Water service to the project site would be provided by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD). TDPUD operates three water systems in Truckee: the Hirshdale System, the Truckee System, and the Lahontan System. The Lahontan System is owned by Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and is operated by TDPUD under contract with PCWA. In addition to the three systems operated by TDPUD, there are two other water systems within the Truckee, Glenshire, and Lake systems, which are owned and operated by other districts. Projects have been under way since 2005 to combine all of these systems into one single entity under TDPUD (TDPUD, 2004). TDPUD has prepared a Water Master Plan, which serves as a planning tool to assist TDPUD to identify existing deficiencies and budgeting for corrections of such deficiencies; anticipate areas where growth is likely to occur, consistent with the general plans of the Town, Nevada County, and Placer County, and identify system improvements necessary to serve such growth; and analyze TDPUD’s current facilities fees and set future fees. Í»®ª·½» ß®»¿ The Water Master Plan divides the Town of Truckee into several planning areas. The project site is located in the Deerfield Drive Planning Area, which encompasses the area south of the Tahoe Donner subdivision, west of the downtown area, and east of Donner Lake. TDPUD utilizes groundwater exclusively as its source of water supply. É¿¬»® Í±«®½» TDPUD acquires water from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin. This low-lying basin consists of approximately 57 square miles and is completely contained within the larger watershed of approximately 167 square miles. The Martis Valley Groundwater Basin has a total subsurface storage volume of 484,000 acre-feet and is made up of three aquifers composed of sediments and volcanic deposits nearly 1,000 feet thick (TDPUD, 2005). Infiltration from surface water and precipitation supplies the aquifer systems, which in turn feed the wetland areas. Annual groundwater recharge depends heavily on snowmelt in the late spring and early summer. The basin-wide annual recharge is estimated at 29,165 acre-feet per year (Town of Truckee, 2006). É¿¬»® Í«°°´§ Ú¿½·´·¬·» The TDPUD currently utilizes groundwater exclusively as its source of water supply. Historically, TDPUD used a series of springs for water, but due to water quality concerns, these springs are no longer in active service. TDPUD prepared a Ground Water Management Plan, which identifies the safe yield of the Martis Valley Aquifer, TDPUD’s primary source of groundwater. Given the occupancy and water use characteristics, TDPUD determined that the aquifer will provide adequate supply to meet the project’s demands through buildout (SCO et al., 2009, pg. 5.2). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóî ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ TDPUD also maintains 1,530 line valves, 870 fire hydrants, 130 air release valves, 100 blow-off valves, and 20 pressure-reducing stations (TDPUD, 2005). The water distribution system in the Town of Truckee includes pipes ranging in size from 14-inch mains down to 2-inch mains. The entire distribution system consists of approximately 195 miles of pipe. Single-family residential uses are charged a flat rate for monthly services. Unlike single-family units, multi-family units and commercial units are billed monthly based on individual meter readings. É»´´ Ú¿½·´·¬·» TDPUD has several wells in service, including the Prosser Heights Well, Prosser Annex Well, Glenshire Drive Well, and Sanders Well. TDPUD will determine which wells would be used for the proposed project upon construction. Ð«³°·²¹ Ú¿½·´·¬·» The water system includes a number of pumping facilities serving the various pressure zones throughout the TDPUD water supply boundaries. There are 27 pump stations with a total of 66 pumps including 12 well pumps, 40 booster pumps, and 14 hydro-pneumatic system pumps. Í¬±®¿¹» Ú¿½·´·¬·» There are 26 storage tanks in the TDPUD water system with a total capacity of ±6,235,000 gallons. All of the tanks, except one, are constructed of steel, either welded or bolted. In conjunction with these storage tanks, there are a number of pumping facilities serving the various pressure zones throughout TDPUD water supply boundaries. Ì®»¿¬³»²¬ Ú¿½·´·¬·» Because TDPUD relies solely on groundwater sources of generally very high quality, extensive treatment is not required. With one exception, the only treatment process used is chlorine disinfection. All but one of the chlorination installations uses liquid sodium hypochlorite solution, with one gas chlorine installation at Hirschdale. TDPUD is considering options for arsenic treatment systems in anticipation of reductions in state and federal maximum concentration levels for arsenic (SCO et al., 2009, pg. 5.2). Í«°»®ª·±®§ Ý±²¬®±´ ¿²¼ Ü¿¬¿ ß½¯«··¬·±² øÍÝßÜß÷ TDPUD’s water system includes a computerized Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to aid in system operation. The SCADA system allows operators to remotely check system status, collect and store important system data, and actually operate the system from computer workstations in the TDPUD office or in the field using portable computer equipment. The system uses radio communication between water system facilities and the SCADA control center. Virtually all water system facilities are connected to the SCADA system including wells, pumps, and storage tanks. Operators can access information in real time such as which wells and booster pumps are in operation and the water level in each of the tanks. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóí ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ÉÍÜ ßÌÛÎ ËÐÐÔÇ ÛÓßÒÜÍ ÌÜÐËÜ Í»®ª·½» ß®»¿ É¿¬»® Í«°°´§ Ü»³¿²¼ As part of the Water Master Plan, TDPUD predicted present and future water demands for its entire service area. For the purpose of the Master Plan, a maximum day demand of 900 gallons per day (gpd) per single-family residential unit was adopted. Equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) for both residential and commercial water uses were computed for present and buildout conditions for TDPUD. In 1997, TDPUD’s projected water system demand at buildout was 20,583 EDUs. TDPUD adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in November 2005 (TDPUD, 2005). The UWMP provides information on the current water supply and water use, as well as demand figures for the Town of Truckee, which is used in this Draft EIR. According to the 2005 UWMP, average annual water use in the Town of Truckee in 2005 was 6.64 million gallons per day (mgd), with a peak of 12.61 mgd. Town per capita water use has been trending upward for 20 years. Water demand increased at an average rate of 7.2 percent per year from 1997 through 2001. The demand greatly increased in 2001 and 2002 because the Donner Lake and Glenshire Water systems were acquired by TDPUD at that time. TDPUD gives the following average day water demand values utilized by the district for planning purposes: ìòïîòïóï Ì ßÞÔÛ ÐóÔÉÜ ÔßÒÒ×ÒÙÛÊÛÔ ßÌÛÎ ÛÓßÒÜÍ Ì§°» Ë²·¬ Ü»³¿²¼ Ø±¬»´ñÔ±¼¹·²¹ îíì ¹¿´ñ®±±³ñ¼¿§ Ý±³³»®½·¿´ñÎ»¬¿·´ ðòì ¹¿´ñÍÚñ¼¿§ Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ìëë ¹¿´ñ«²·¬ñ¼¿§ Í·²¹´»óÚ¿³·´§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ ëðë ¹¿´ñ«²·¬ñ¼¿§ Í±«®½»æ Õ¿«º³¿²ô îððç TDPUD has a current requirement for source of supply of ±4,731 gallons per minute (gpm) averaged over the maximum use day. TDPUD currently has source capacity of 7,879 gpm. However, due to limitations in pumping and transmission, only 5,824 gpm are available to the water system. At buildout, the source demand is estimated to be ±12,255 gpm. The Water Master Plan anticipated the construction of additional sources of supply for a total capacity of 13,974 gpm at buildout (SCO et al., 2009, pg. 5.1). Ð®±¶»½¬ Í·¬» É¿¬»® Í«°°´§ Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² Í§¬»³ Development of the project site has been anticipated as described in the 2004 Water Master Plan and the 2005 UWMP (Kaufman, 2009). Those documents projected an average day water demand of 170,300 gpd for the project site. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóì ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ìòïîòïòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ Í¿º» Ü®·²µ·²¹ É¿¬»® ß½¬ The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans’ drinking water. The SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water, known as the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations set enforceable maximum contaminant levels for particular contaminants in drinking water and required ways to treat water to remove contaminants. Each standard also includes requirements for water systems to test for contaminants in the water to make sure standards are achieved. In addition to setting these standards, the USEPA provides guidance, assistance, and public information about drinking water, collects drinking water data, and oversees state drinking water programs (USEPA, 2009). The USEPA oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement the standards. The SDWA applies to every public water system in the United States. Í ÌßÌÛ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Í¿º» Ü®·²µ·²¹ É¿¬»® ß½¬ The California Safe Drinking Water Act (CA SDWA) was passed to build on and strengthen the federal SDWA. The CA SDWA authorizes the California Department of Public Health to enforce both the federal and state SDWA and protect the public from contaminants in drinking water through regulation of public water systems (Scorecard, The Pollution Information Site, 2009). Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ð«¾´·½ Ø»¿´¬¸ Ü®·²µ·²¹ É¿¬»® Ð®±¹®¿³ The California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) Drinking Water Program (DWP) is within the Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management. The DWP regulates public drinking water systems and is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts and the regulatory oversight of 7,500 public water systems. CDPH Field Office Branch staff perform field inspections, issue operating permits, review plans and specifications for new facilities, take enforcement actions for noncompliance with laws and regulations, review water quality monitoring results, and support and promote water system security. In addition, Field Office Branch staff are involved in funding infrastructure improvements, conducting source water assessments, evaluating projects utilizing recycled treated wastewater, and promoting and assisting public water systems in drought preparation and water conservation (CDPH, 2009). The CDPH also establishes maximum contaminants levels (MCLs) that are at least as stringent as those developed by the USEPA, as required by the federal SDWA. The CDPH lists any contaminants that may have any adverse health effects, based on expert opinion, and may occur in public water systems, including all the substances for which federal MCLs exist (Scorecard, The Pollution Information Site, 2009). The CDPH works with the USEPA, the State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), and a wide variety of other parties interested in the protection of drinking water supplies (CDPH, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóë ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Ë®¾¿² É¿¬»® Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ Ð´¿²²·²¹ ß½¬ ¿²¼ ß³»²¼³»²¬ The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides urban water management planning services to local and regional urban water suppliers. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610–10656). The act states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The act requires that urban water suppliers develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies. The act describes the contents of the Urban Water Management Plans as well as how urban water suppliers should adopt and implement the plans (DWR, 2009). The adopted plan must be updated at least once every five years on or before December 31 in years ending in five and zero. An urban water supplier that does not prepare, adopt, and submit its Urban Water Management Plan to the DWR is ineligible to receive drought assistance from the State of California. Í»²¿¬» Þ·´´ êïð Senate Bill (SB) 610 makes changes to the Urban Water Management Planning Act to require additional information in Urban Water Management Plans if groundwater is identified as a source available to the supplier. The information required includes a copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the supplier, a copy of the adjudication order or decree for adjudicated basins, and if non-adjudicated, whether the basin has been identified as being overdrafted or projected to be overdrafted in the most current California Department of Water Resources publication on that basin. If the basin is in overdraft, that plan must include current efforts to eliminate any long-term overdraft. ß»³¾´§ Þ·´´ çðï Assembly Bill (AB) 901 requires Urban Water Management Plans to include information relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to an urban water supplier over given time periods and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply (DWR, 2009). Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and Safety Element include goals and policies related to water supply. Appendix B analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. The guiding principle of the Conservation and Open Space Element pertinent to water services is as follows: Protect water quality and quantity in creeks, lakes, natural drainages, and groundwater basins. The guiding principle of the Safety Element pertinent to water services is as follows: Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildland and urban fire. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóê ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ While this DEIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. ìòïîòïòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß The impact analysis provided below is based on the following State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. A water service impact is considered significant if implementation of the project would: 1)Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 2)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or if new or expanded entitlements are needed. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis of potential water supply impacts is based on information gathered from TDPUD, the Town of Truckee, and the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units, for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ É¿¬»® Ü»³¿²¼ñÉ¿¬»® Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² Ú¿½·´·¬·» Impact 4.12.1.1 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would increase demand for water service and would require the extension of water distribution facilities to serve the project site. This impact is considered less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would increase the demand for water service and would require the extension of water distribution facilities to serve the project site. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan details the infrastructure program, which is intended to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided to the project site. Section 3.0, Project Description, Figure 3.0-17 illustrates the Utility Plan, which conceptually depicts the location and Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóé ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ size of water storage and water lines for the project. As shown, proposed water lines and connections would be located within existing and proposed roadway rights-of-way. However, final approval of these improvements, including location and size, is the responsibility of TDPUD. Based on the demands shown in Table 4.12.1-1, and given that there will be up to 70,000 square feet of commercial/retail property and 345 single-family and 141 secondary units on the project site (see the Methodology subsection above), the average water demand for the proposed project would be approximately 273,430 gallons per day, assuming that there is zero water usage associated with the recreation and open space portions of the project (70,000 sf commercial x 0.4 gal/sf/day + 345 sfu x 505 gal/sfu/day + 141 units x 505 gal/sfu/day = 273,430 gal/day). The existing TDPUD water system extends in a long radial system. Development of the project site would provide the opportunity for TDPUD to loop TDPUD’s Deerfield Drive planning area (which includes the project site) system (SCO et al., 2009, pp. 5.1–5.2). Water service to the project site would be supplied from TDPUD’s well system. A new transmission line would need to be constructed from the well to the project site. The proposed location would require off-site improvements along the northern portion of the project site. As shown in Figure 3.0-17, connections to the existing 12-inch water lines occur in the northwestern portion of the project site, and a realignment connecting to the existing 8-inch water lines occurs along the northern portion of the project site. North Donner Pump Station Number 1a and a water line upgrade from the Donner Lake system would be located along the northwestern portion of the project site. Finally, the Deerfield Pump Station, which lies on the northeastern side of the project site, is planned to be replaced upon project implementation (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.4). Off-site improvements would occur within the existing roadways (Donner Pass Road, Coldstream Road, Deerfield Drive), would not result in any impacts to natural resources, and would be subject to construction mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR. The proposed project’s water distribution system would be designed in conformance with the provisions of the TDPUD Water Master Plan. The system would also be designed to be compatible with the future regional distribution facilities as identified in the Town of Truckee General Plan for the project site. Each portion of the overall water system would be constructed and installed during each phase of development within the project site. Wells and distribution lines of 6-, 8-, 10-, and 12-inch water mains would be required. These lines would be located within the roadway right-of-way. The final configuration of wells may vary depending upon water quantity requirements of development phasing. Fire flow requirements for the proposed project would be a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for residential uses and 1,500 gpm for commercial uses sustained over a two-hour period (Bena, 2009). One or more water storage tanks may be required to provide fire protection, pressure regulation, and diurnal supply (TDPUD, 2009). If these tanks are required, installation will be subject to separate environmental review. The proposed project’s water distribution system design would be required to meet TDPUD and Truckee Fire Protection District standards for fire flow. TDPUD has stated that the developer would be required to construct all on-site and off-site infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project, along with appropriate facilities such as pumping stations and alternative pipeline feeds, to ensure that sufficient redundancy exists to provide service under emergency conditions. Furthermore, the proposed project would be located within the Coldstream 6080 pressure zone. This pressure zone relies on storage located in the Donner Lake area. The project applicant would be required to construct additional water Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóè ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ storage in this area. As shown in Figure 3.0-17, a water line upgrade from the Donner Lake system is planned to be included in the northwestern portion of the project site (Kaufman, 2009). As stated previously, the water distribution system for the project site would be designed in conformance with the provisions of the TDPUD Water Master Plan, and the project applicant would be responsible for the construction of expanded facilities. The proposed project is consistent with the Planned Community (PC-1) land uses identified in the Town of Truckee General Plan, and TDPUD has indicated that enough water is available to serve the project site (Kaufman, 2009). This impact is less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïîòïòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ For the purposes of analyzing the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s cumulative demand for new or expanded water supply, storage, and distribution infrastructure, the cumulative setting is TDPUD’s service area and sphere of influence (SOI). Recently approved and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for water service impacts. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Tables 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± É¿¬»® Ü»³¿²¼ñÉ¿¬»® Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² Ú¿½·´·¬·» Impact 4.12.1.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with cumulative development under the Town of Truckee General Plan, would increase the current demand for water supply and distribution facilities. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project’s contribution to water supply impacts have been identified and considered within the Town of Truckee General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2004032092), for which the Town of Truckee certified and adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings. The Statement of Facts and Findings indicates that growth accommodated by the General Plan would result in a less than significant increase in demands for public services, including water service. Although implementation of the proposed project, in combination with town-wide and regional growth, would increase the overall demand for water supply services, as well as infrastructure and treatment resources, the necessary infrastructure and supply could be developed, extended, and provided to the project site. Additionally, the TDPUD Water Master Plan indicates that a sufficient water supply is and would be available at project buildout. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with water supply and distribution are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóç ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïîòî ÉßÍÌÛÉßÌÛÎ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ìòïîòîòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÌÍÜ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ßÒ×ÌßÎÇ ×ÍÌÎ×ÝÌ Í»®ª·½» ß®»¿ The Truckee Sanitary District (TSD) currently operates under the Sanitary District Act of 1923. TSD is the public agency responsible for the collection and conveyance of wastewater in the Truckee Basin, an area of approximately 38 square miles. Wastewater collected by TSD is conveyed to the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA) facilities located east of the Town of Truckee. TSD operates and maintains approximately 300 miles of gravity pipelines containing 2,700 manholes, 8 miles of pressure pipeline, 9 main lift stations, and 22 smaller lift stations. TSD is a public agency, governed by a five-member board of directors. Funding is accomplished in the following manner (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.4): Administrative costs are funded through tax revenues received from Nevada and Placer counties. Operation and maintenance costs are funded through the collection of user fees, which are collected semiannually. Capital improvement projects are funded through the collection of connection fees, which are collected at the time of connection to the sanitary sewer system. As illustrated in Figure 3.0-17, TSD presently has facilities within the project site. These facilities consist of a 12-inch line that extends from the Donner Lake area east to the North Donner Pump Station on Deerfield Drive. A 10-inch force main then continues east from the pump station along the north boundary of the project site and connects to a 12-inch gravity line near the northeast corner of the property. A separate Deerfield Pump Station is located west of the end of the paved section of Deerfield Drive. From the Deerfield Pump Station, a 6-inch force main extends east and connects to the 12-inch gravity line near the 10-inch force main connection. This 12-inch gravity line then continues east, intersects with another line north of Interstate 80, and continues along Donner Creek and West River Street, eventually crossing the Truckee River. TSD staff has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the existing wastewater collection infrastructure to serve the project site (Tresan, 2009). This statement is supported in a detailed Sewer Capacity Analysis of these facilities prepared by GW Consulting Engineers dated May 2002 (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.4). TSD staff has advised that once improvements are installed within the project site, the Deerfield Pump Station would be abandoned and the small number of lots currently served by that pump station would tie into the Coldstream sewer system by way of a new sewer line. The new sewage lift station proposed on-site would manage sewage generated by the proposed project and pump it to the 12-inch gravity line. Future sewer improvements within the project site are anticipated to be constructed as shown in Figure 3.0-17. These improvements include two connections to existing 8-inch sewer lines in the northwestern portion, a realignment and connection to an existing 10-inch sewer line in the northern portion, and a Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóïð ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ proposed sewer lift station in the northwestern portion of the project site, along with the proposed pump stations mentioned above. TSD uses a wastewater generation rate of 230 gallons per day (gpd) per single-family residential dwelling unit or single-family unit (SFU). Rates for commercial and other land uses are based on the number of fixture units installed. For the purposes of this document, a general commercial/retail generation rate of 0.08 gallon per days per square foot (gpd/sf) will be used. Peak flows are estimated using Chart A-6.2 on page 77 of the TSD Code. ÌóÌÍß ßØÑÛÎËÝÕÛÛ ßÒ×ÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÙÛÒÝÇ TTSA provides sewage collection services to Truckee and conveys sewage to the treatment facilities located at the eastern edge of the town. After treatment, the facilities discharge effluent to a land disposal area via a subsurface leach field system. The treated effluent then migrates through the soil northward ±1.0 miles where it eventually enters the Truckee River and the lower reaches of Martis Creek. The member agencies served by TTSA facilities include Tahoe City Public Utility District, North Tahoe Public Utility District, Alpine Springs County Water District, Squaw Valley Public Service District, and Truckee Sanitary District (TSD) (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.2). TTSA operates a 7.4 million gallon per day (mgd) treatment facility east of Truckee. TTSA’s water reclamation plant facilities provide tertiary-level treatment of wastewater. The mainstream treatment processes consist of raw sewage screening, grit removal, primary sedimentation, pure oxygen activated sludge, biological phosphorous removal, filtration, ion exchange ammonia removal, and chlorination. Organic sludges are anaerobically digested and then dewatered and transported to an existing landfill in Lockwood, Nevada. The TTSA water reclamation plant is sized primarily to treat the maximum sewage flows that occur during summer periods with the influx of seasonal residents and visitors. The plant is currently operating within its design capacity, based on the maximum 7-day average during summer months. A preliminary Utility Plan showing water and wastewater infrastructure is provided in Figure 3.0-17. TTSA uses a wastewater generation rate of 200 gallons per day (gpd) per single-family residential dwelling unit or single-family units (SFU). For the purposes of this document, the more conservative TSD rate of 230 gpd will be used. Rates for commercial and other land uses are based on equivalent SFUs. One SFU is equivalent to 10 business plumbing fixture units. Wastewater volumes produced by nonresidential land uses are calculated by multiplying the equivalent SFU by the gpd rate. TTSA’s service charges are based on the sewer flows and the flow of the sewage generated from the user categories (Beals, 2009). TTSA is funded by property tax revenue, service charges, and connection charges. Property tax revenue is used for administration and overhead expenses of TTSA. Service charges pay for operation and maintenance costs of the facility and connection charges pay for capital outlay and expansion costs. Currently, connection charges are approximately $4,000 per EDU and are paid as development occurs. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóïï ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ìòïîòîòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ Ý´»¿² É¿¬»® ß½¬ The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal legislation governing surface water quality protection. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” Pollutants regulated under the CWA include “priority” pollutants, including various toxic pollutants; “conventional” pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH; and “non-conventional” pollutants, including any pollutant not identified as either conventional or priority. The CWA regulates both direct and indirect discharges (USEPA, 2009). Ò¿¬·±²¿´ Ð±´´«¬¿²¬ Ü·½¸¿®¹» Û´·³·²¿¬·±² Í§¬»³ The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, Section 402 of the CWA, controls direct discharges into navigable waters. Direct discharges, or point source discharges, are from sources such as pipes and sewers. NPDES permits, issued by either the USEPA or an authorized state/tribe, contain industry-specific, technology-based and/or water-quality-based limits, and establish pollutant monitoring and reporting requirements. (The USEPA has authorized 40 states to administer the NPDES program.) A facility that intends to discharge into the nation’s waters must obtain a permit before initiating a discharge. A permit applicant must provide quantitative analytical data identifying the types of pollutants present in the facility's effluent and the permit will then set forth the conditions and effluent limitations under which a facility may make a discharge (USEPA, 2009). Ù»²»®¿´ Ð®»¬®»¿¬³»²¬ Î»¹«´¿¬·±² The National Pretreatment Program is the mechanism developed to regulate nondomestic users who discharge pollutants to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that could pass through or interfere with a treatment plant, threaten worker health and safety, or contaminate sludges (USEPA, 2004, p. 9-1). The three specific objectives cited in 40 CFR 403.2 of the General Pretreatment Regulations are to: Prevent the introduction of pollutants that would cause interference with the POTW or limit the use and disposal of its sludge; Prevent the introduction of pollutants that would pass through the treatment works or be otherwise incompatible; and Improve the opportunities to recycle or reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges. In addition, improved POTW worker health and safety and reduction of influent loadings to sewage treatment plants are further objectives of pretreatment. The General Pretreatment Regulations detail the procedures, responsibilities, and requirements of the USEPA, states, POTWs, and industries in achieving the objectives of the regulations (USEPA, 2004, p. 9-2). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóïî ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Í ÌßÌÛ Í¬¿¬» É¿¬»® Î»±«®½» Ý±²¬®±´ Þ±¿®¼ øÍÉÎÝÞ÷ É¿¬» Ü·½¸¿®¹» Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ Ð®±¹®¿³ In general, the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Program (sometimes also referred to as the Non Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDR Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. Several SWRCB programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs (SWRCB, 2009). Î»½§½´»¼ É¿¬»® Î»¹«´¿¬·±² The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) adopts regulations for recycled water and advises Regional Water Quality Control Boards on their permitting of water recycling projects (CDPH, 2009). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is currently developing a statewide general permit for landscape irrigation uses of recycled water (General Permit). Assembly Bill 1481 established California Water Code Section 13552.5, which, in part, requires the SWRCB to adopt the General Permit. The intent of the new law is to develop a uniform interpretation of state standards to ensure the safe, reliable use of recycled water for landscape irrigation uses, consistent with state and federal water quality law, and for which the CDPH has established uniform statewide standards. The new law is also intended to reduce costs to producers and users of recycled water by streamlining the permitting process for using recycled water for landscape irrigation (SWRCB, 2009). Í¿²·¬¿®§ Í»©»® Ñª»®º´±© Ð®±¹®¿³ A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is any overflow, spill, release, discharge, or diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. To provide a consistent, statewide regulatory approach to address SSOs, the SWRCB adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003 (Sanitary Sewer Order) on May 2, 2006. The Sanitary Sewer Order requires public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer system management plans and report all SSOs to the State Water Board’s online SSO database. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system that is comprised of more than one mile of pipes or sewer lines which conveys wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility must apply for coverage under the Sanitary Sewer Order (SWRCB, 2009). ß»³¾´§ Þ·´´ èèë Assembly Bill (AB) 885 was enacted in September of 2000 to address inconsistencies in the on-site wastewater system requirements of local jurisdictions and to provide uniform requirements related to minimum acceptable operation of on-site wastewater systems, including standards for the protection of beneficial uses of potentially affected water. AB 885 requires the State Water Resources Control Board to develop statewide requirements, including: Minimum operating requirements; Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóïí ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Requirements for on-site wastewater treatment systems adjacent to waters listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; Requirements authorizing local agency implementation; Corrective action requirements; Minimum monitoring requirements; Exemption criteria; and Requirements for determining when an existing onsite wastewater treatment system is subject to major repair. AB 885 also requires the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to incorporate the new statewide regulations into their basin plans. Neither the legislation nor the proposed regulations preempt the RWQCBs or any local agency from adopting or retaining performance requirements for on-site wastewater treatment systems that are more protective of public health or the environment than the new statewide regulations. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Land Use Element includes goals and policies regarding wastewater. Appendix B analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. The guiding principle of the General Plan Land Use Element pertinent to wastewater services is as follows: Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastructure. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. Ì®«½µ»» Í¿²·¬¿®§ Ü·¬®·½¬ Ý±¼» Standards for construction of sanitary sewer facilities are found in the TSD Code, Ordinance 1-98. The TSD Code outlines TSD policy, provisions and regulations, fees and charges, installation, inspection, and maintenance of sanitary sewer facilities. Typically, TSD requires large developments to design, fund, and install the sanitary sewer system necessary to service the proposed development in accordance with the TSD Code. If the installed sanitary sewer system meets TSD specifications, the developer may choose to dedicate the facilities to TSD, whereupon TSD takes over the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóïì ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ìòïîòîòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß The impact analysis provided below is based on State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. A wastewater service impact is considered significant if implementation of the project would: 1)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2)Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ The analysis of potential wastewater service impacts is based upon information provided by the project applicant, Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA), and Truckee Sanitary District (TSD). Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ É¿¬»©¿¬»® Ý±´´»½¬·±² Ú¿½·´·¬·» Impact 4.12.2.1 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would require the extension of wastewater infrastructure to the project site. This impact is considered less than significant. Development of the project site would result in the increased need for wastewater collection, conveyance, and disposal services in the TSD service area and treatment of the wastewater at the TTSA water reclamation plant. New development improvement plans must meet TTSA and TSD requirements and receive the approval of TTSA and TSD. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would require an extension of wastewater infrastructure into the site from Deerfield Drive. New lines within the project site would be a combination of Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóïë ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ gravity-fed and force sewer mains. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would require a 12- inch gravity line, a 10-inch force main, and a 6-inch force main located in the northern portion of the project site and within Deerfield Drive. The proposed wastewater system required for the project site is shown in Figure 3.0-17. The proposed off-site utility easement that is expected to convey the majority of sewage to the water reclamation plant is depicted in Figure 3.0-17. The project applicant is not required to obtain a guarantee of wastewater service for the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan until the final subdivision map and building permit stages. TTSA provides wastewater service to new consumers on a first-come, first-served basis. The owners of existing approved parcels that have wastewater service would not be adversely affected by TTSA providing service to the proposed project because the water reclamation plant capacity is already reserved for those parcels. Therefore, current users in the TTSA service area would not be affected by the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. This impact is less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. É¿¬»©¿¬»® Ì®»¿¬³»²¬ Ú¿½·´·¬·» Impact 4.12.2.2 Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional wastewater flows that would be treated at the TTSA water reclamation plant. This impact is considered less than significant. The project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units (see the Methodology subsection above). For residential domestic flow, the average unit contribution would be approximately 230 gallons per day per single-family and multi-family residential unit and would generate 0.11 million gallons per day (111,780 gallons per day) of effluent. Using a general commercial/retail generation rate of 0.08 gpd/sf for 70,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses, the proposed project would generate approximately 0.0056 million gallons per day (5,600 gallons per day) of effluent. The sewage capacity required to serve the project would be determined after examination of building plans (Beals, 2009). TTSA expanded capacity from 7.4 mgd to 9.6 mgd (Beals, 2009). The current connection charge per residential unit is approximately $4,000, and the current semiannual service charge per residential unit is approximately $72.00. As stated previously, TSD and TTSA have indicated that capacity is available to serve the project site, and based on available information, the effluent generated by the proposed project would not necessitate expansion of the water reclamation plant (Beals, 2009; Tresan, 2009). As explained above, TTSA provides wastewater service to new consumers on a first-come, first- served basis (Beals, 2009). This impact is considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóïê ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ìòïîòîòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for wastewater service is the service area of TTSA and TSD. Existing, approved, and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for wastewater service impacts. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Tables 4.0-2 and4.0-3in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± É¿¬»©¿¬»® Ý±´´»½¬·±² ¿²¼ Ì®»¿¬³»²¬ Impact 4.12.2.3 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other approved and planned development in the TTSA and TSD service areas, would increase the current demand for wastewater collection and treatment services.This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Although implementation of the proposed project, in combination with growth within the boundaries of the TTSA and TSD service areas, would increase the overall demand for wastewater collection and treatment services, the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project and future planned development could be extended and wastewater services could be provided by the water reclamation plant. Additionally, the proposed project’s contribution to this impact has been identified and considered within the General Plan EIR, for which the Town of Truckee certified and adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings. The Statement of Facts and Findings indicates that growth accommodated by the General Plan would result in less than significant increases in demand for public services, such as wastewater disposal. Therefore, cumulative impacts on wastewater services are anticipated to be less than cumulatively significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïîòí ÍÑÔ×Ü ÉßÍÌÛ Ü×ÍÐÑÍßÔ ìòïîòíòï Í ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÎÝ ÛÚËÍÛ ÑÔÔÛÝÌ×ÑÒ Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (TTSD) provides waste removal services for the Lake Tahoe area, including the Town of Truckee. TTSD’s service area is generally bordered by Emerald Bay, Crystal Bay, Colfax, Floriston, and Truckee. TTSD comprises two separate entities, Tahoe Truckee Disposal and Eastern Regional Landfill Material Recovery Facility (MRF) (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.6).Tahoe Truckee Disposal is responsible for collecting household waste and recyclables. The Eastern Regional Landfill MRF is located 2 miles south of Interstate 80 on Cabin Creek Road in Placer County between the Town of Truckee and Squaw Valley, west of the Truckee River. The MRF Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóïé ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ is a recycling center for household and construction materials. The facility, built in 1994–1995, handles household recyclables, including plastics, aluminum, tin, glass, cardboard, newspaper, carpet, and computers. Additionally, the facility recycles “white goods,” such as refrigerators and freezers, and waste wood (which includes dimensional wood construction remnants), lot clearing debris, and household and small business hazardous waste. The MRF accepts all the waste for processing. Residents may dispose of hazardous waste at the MRF on two Saturdays a month between March and November by appointment (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.6). The MRF also doubles as a transfer station for household waste. All incoming solid waste is recycled or transported to the Lockwood Regional Landfill in Storey County, Nevada. The Lockwood Regional Landfill comprises 1,535 acres and accepts municipal solid waste. The Lockwood Regional Landfill capacity in the current cell is 40 years, with an additional 200 years of permitted capacity at the site to accommodate the buildout projections for TTSD’s service area, which includes the project site. Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Company and Eastern Regional Landfill MRF have 76 years remaining on an 80-year contract with Lockwood Regional Landfill for disposal services (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.6). The collection arm of TTSD is Tahoe Truckee Disposal (TTD). TTD uses a combination of pickup trucks equipped with large rear-mounted bins and regular front-loader garbage trucks to collect waste within the service area. The pickup trucks are used mostly for single-family residences and low-density areas, while the front loaders are used in commercial and multi-family areas. Funding for solid waste collection comes from monthly collection fees. Residential fees are ±$13.00 per can per residence and $16.00 for two cans per residence (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.6). Currently the Town has a “blue-bag” recycling program. Residents can purchase a blue recycling bag from local grocery stores for recyclable materials and set the bag out during their regularly scheduled refuse collection day. There is no fee for this service. Additionally, the Truckee Citizen’s Waste Management Advisory Committee is active in promoting recycling programs and awareness as well as waste reduction. For example, the committee is currently working with downtown business merchants to implement a cardboard recycling program. In 2006, the Town diverted 82 percent of its solid waste from landfill facilities, which exceeds the 50 percent diversion requirement identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (CIWMB, 2009a). ØØÉ ÑËÍÛØÑÔÜ ßÆßÎÜÑËÍ ßÍÌÛ The Eastern Regional Landfill MRF provides disposal services for household and small business hazardous waste. Residents may dispose of hazardous waste at the MRF two Saturdays a month between March and November. This service is by appointment only, although it is free of charge. This service is also provided to small businesses twice a month by appointment only; however, a fee is charged to these users. ìòïîòíòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Í ÌßÌÛ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ ×²¬»¹®¿¬»¼ É¿¬» Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß½¬ To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties were required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóïè ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city or town’s AB 939 plan will be integrated with the county plan. They must promote (in order of priority): source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element provides guidance for a range issues that affect both the town and the wider General Plan Planning Area. Applicable Conservation and Open Space Element guiding principles are presented below: Make Truckee a leader in environmental conservation and sustainability, and strive to reduce the Town’s impact on the local and global environment. Put into action “low impact development” planning and design practices and technologies to simultaneously reduce infrastructure costs, conserve and protect natural resource systems, and reduce potential environmental impacts. The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element includes goals and policies related to solid waste. Appendix B analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with applicable Town of Truckee General Plan policies. The guiding principles of the Conservation and Open Space Element pertinent to solid waste services are as follows: Encourage conservation of energy and fuel resources, strive to reduce generation of solid waste, and promote environmental sustainability. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ý±¼» The Town of Truckee Development Code Title 18, Development Code, Section 18.30.150 subsections A through D detail the following requirements regarding solid waste services: 1)Required storage for multi-family projects. Multi-family residential projects with five or more dwelling units shall provide solid waste and recyclable material storage areas in the following manner: a)Individual unit storage requirements. Each dwelling unit shall include an area with a minimum of 6 cubic feet designed for the internal storage of solid waste and recyclable material. A minimum of 3 cubic feet shall be provided for the storage of solid waste and a minimum of 3 cubic feet shall be provided for the storage of recyclable material. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóïç ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ b)Common storage requirements. Table 3-3 (contained in the Draft Development Code, General Property Development Standards) establishes minimum requirements for common solid waste and recyclable material storage areas for multi-family developments, which may be located indoors or outdoors as long as they are readily accessible to all residents. These requirements apply to each individual structure. All required areas are measured in square feet. 2)Required storage for nonresidential structures and uses. Nonresidential structures and uses within all zoning districts shall provide solid waste and recyclable material storage areas in compliance with Table 3-4 (contained in the Draft Development Code, General Property Development Standards). These requirements apply to each individual structure. All required areas are measured in square feet. 3)Location requirements. Solid waste and recyclable materials storage areas shall be located in the following manner: a)Solid waste and recyclable material storage shall be adjacent/combined with one another. They may only be located inside a specially designated structure, on the outside of a structure in an approved fence/wall enclosure, a designated interior court or yard area with appropriate access, or in rear yards and interior side yards. Exterior storage area(s) shall not be located in a required front yard, street side yard, parking, landscaped or open space areas, or any area(s) required by the Development Code to be maintained as unencumbered. b)The storage area(s) shall be accessible to residents and employees. Storage areas within multi-family residential developments shall be located within 250 feet of an access doorway to the dwellings which they are intended to serve. c)Driveways or aisles shall provide unobstructed access for collection vehicles and personnel and provide at least the minimum clearance required by the collection methods and vehicles utilized by the designated collector. Where a parcel is served by an alley, exterior storage area(s) shall be directly accessible to the alley. 4)Design and construction. The design and construction of the storage area(s) shall: a)Be compatible with the project and surrounding structures and land uses; b)Be properly secured to prevent access by unauthorized persons, while allowing authorized persons access for disposal of materials; c)Provide a concrete pad within the fenced or walled area(s) and concrete apron which facilitates the handling of the individual bins or containers; d)Protect the areas and the individual bins or containers provided within from adverse environmental conditions which might render the collected materials unmarketable; and e)Be appropriately located and screened from view on at least three sides subject to the approval of the Director. The method of screening shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding structures. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóîð ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ìòïîòíòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts to solid waste are considered significant based on whether the project would: 1)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. 2)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ This analysis is based upon review of applicable plans and consultation with TTSD and TTD. Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the Code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Furthermore, while the proposed project is expected to include some multi-family residential units, calculation of solid waste generated by the project assumed all units would be single-family units in order to provide for the most conservative analysis of potential solid waste impacts. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Í±´·¼ É¿¬» Ü·°±¿´ Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.12.3.1 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not cause a substantial increase in demand for solid waste disposal services above that for which the affected agency or utility has planned. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Solid waste is generated at a rate of approximately 2.04 tons per single-family household per year and 1.17 tons per multi-family household per year (using CIWMB estimated solid waste generation rates). An estimate of .0024 tons per square foot per year was used to estimate waste generated by commercial/retail space (CIWMB, 2009b). Based on these waste generation factors and assuming the project would consist of 345 single-family and 141 secondary residential units (see the Methodology subsection above) and up to 70,000 square feet of commercial/retail property, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would generate approximately 1,160 tons of solid waste per year at buildout ([345 sfu x 2.04 tons per unit per year] + [141 sfu x 2.04 tons per unit per year] + [70,000 sf x .0024 tons per sf per year]). It is anticipated that TTSD would be able to accommodate the service demands of the proposed Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóîï ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ project (Achiro, 2009). In addition, landfill disposal capacity is available at the Lockwood Regional Landfill for the next 40 years. Additionally, Lockwood Regional Landfill has enough capacity to accept solid waste for an additional 200 years. Compliance with the Town of Truckee Development Code Title 18 requirements listed above would further assist Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal and the Eastern Regional Landfill Materials Recovery Facility in meeting the demands for disposal services. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste disposal are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Í±«®½» Î»¼«½¬·±² Ð®±¹®¿³ Impact 4.12.3.2 Implementation of the proposed project would not inhibit solid waste source reduction programs of the Town of Truckee. Therefore this impact is considered less than significant. Operation of the proposed project would add to the Town’s total waste generation production. It is anticipated that the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would generate approximately 1,160 tons of solid waste per year at buildout as described in the discussion for Impact 4.12.3.1 above. The Town was able to meet the 50 percent AB 939 reduction requirement established for 2000. As of 2006, the Town was diverting/recycling approximately 82 percent of its waste, far exceeding the 50 percent reduction requirement for the year 2000 (CIWMB, 2009a). Therefore, impacts to source reduction programs are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì»³°±®¿®§ Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² É¿¬» Impact 4.12.3.3 Implementation of the proposed project could result in a short-term increase in demand at the Eastern Regional Landfill MRF during project construction. This impact is considered less than significant. Local agencies, through their franchise agreements with solid waste collection service providers, are responsible for implementing source reduction measures designed to meet AB 939 mandated reduction goals. It is anticipated that during the construction of the various phases of the proposed project, construction waste would be placed in dumpsters and hauled to the Eastern Regional Landfill MRF prior to transport to the Lockwood Regional Landfill. The generation of construction waste is considered short term, and a long-term waste stream generated by individual households would replace the construction waste stream. As discussed in the discussion for Impact 4.12.3.1 above, impacts to solid waste disposal are anticipated to be less than significant. Although the receiving Eastern Regional Landfill MRF indicates that the facility could handle and sort the construction waste under current conditions, placing all construction waste in a single dumpster impedes the efficiency of the sorting process at the facility. Therefore, multiple dumpsters will be used to facilitate sorting at the facility. Additionally, it is anticipated that construction on the project site will occur in five phases, which will spread out the need for disposal of construction waste. Impacts associated with construction waste are considered less than significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóîî ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïîòíòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for solid waste is the service area for TTSD. Recently approved and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for solid waste service impacts. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Tables 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Í±´·¼ É¿¬» Ü·°±¿´ Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.12.3.4 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in TTSD’s service area, would contribute to cumulative demands for solid waste disposal services. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. The Eastern Regional Landfill MRF effectively reduces the total waste stream generated in Nevada County and the Town of Truckee, thereby reducing the long-term impacts of solid waste disposal. The Lockwood Regional Landfill, in Nevada, receives waste from the Eastern Regional Landfill MRF. The Lockwood Regional Landfill capacity in the current cell is 40 years, with an additional 200 years of permitted capacity at the site (SCO et al., 2009). Given the existing diversion facility and the available landfill capacity, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with solid waste disposal are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïîòì ÛÔÛÝÌÎ×ÝßÔô ÒßÌËÎßÔ ÙßÍô ÌÛÔÛÐØÑÒÛô ßÒÜ ÝßÞÔÛ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ìòïîòìòï Í ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÛÍ ÔÛÝÌÎ×Ý ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ Electric service in the area is currently provided by the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD), which receives its electricity from Idaho Power. Electricity would be supplied from TDPUD’s Truckee substation with a backup supply from the Martis Valley substation. TDPUD typically requires that applicants cover all costs associated with the design and installation of electrical infrastructure, including TDPUD materials and labor. TDPUD currently has overhead electrical transmission lines within the existing Deerfield Drive right- of-way, on the north end of the project site. There is another overhead tap line perpendicular to the Deerfield line that crosses Donner Creek and continues on to the north. TDPUD staff has Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóîí ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ indicated that the project site can be served from existing facilities. Additional electrical conductors may be required to serve the project site depending on the extent of commercial components ultimately constructed. All new commercial and large-scale residential development requires the installation of underground facilities (Schlosser, 2009). ÒÙ ßÌËÎßÔ ßÍ Southwest Gas Corporation provides gas service to the project site. Areas already served by Southwest Gas include two-thirds of the Tahoe-Donner area east of the project site, downtown Truckee, and the Glenshire subdivision. Natural gas is available to the project site and is located in Deerfield Drive. Southwest Gas representatives have verified that the project site can be served. Southwest Gas currently has a 6-inch polyethylene gas main located within the Deerfield Drive right-of-way that aligns west from the northeast corner of the project site to the end of the paved section of Deerfield Drive. Southwest Gas staff indicated this line is currently oversized and will be able to adequately serve the project site (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.8). Ì ÛÔÛÐØÑÒÛ The proposed project is located within AT&T’s service area. AT&T has indicated that telephone service can be extended to serve new development provided that sufficient lead time and details of development locations are provided to ensure that facilities are properly located in anticipation of pending development projects (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.9). AT&T has also indicated that in order to provide service, a 20-foot by 20-foot easement will be required within the project site to install aboveground cabinet facilities. Ý ßÞÔÛ Cable television service in the project site is currently provided by Suddenlink Communications and is available for connection in two primary locations. The first location is adjacent to the northwest corner of the project site. This connection currently serves the Holiday Inn from an existing overhead line and drop pole. This is the anticipated connection point to serve the project site west of Cold Creek. The second service connection location is at the northeast edge of the project site within Deerfield Drive. Initial discussions with Suddenlink Communications indicate that existing facilities within Deerfield Drive may require an upgrade to existing facilities down Deerfield Drive to the Boulders project (SCO et al., 2009, p. 5.9). ìòïîòìòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Í ÌßÌÛ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ð«¾´·½ Ë¬·´·¬·» Ý±³³··±² The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the state agency that regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies, in addition to authorizing video franchises. The CPUC grants operating authority, regulates service standards, sets rates, and monitors utility operations for safety, environmental stewardship, and public interest (CPUC, 2007, p. 10). Traditionally, general rate cases have been the major form of regulatory proceeding for the CPUC. General rate case applications may be filed every three years, and take about a year to complete. The utility bases its revenue request on its estimated operating costs and revenue Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóîì ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ needs for a particular future year. Customer rates will be based on the CPUC’s determination of how much revenue the utility reasonably requires to operate (CPUC, 2007, p. 10). Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Û²»®¹§ Ûºº·½·»²½§ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Energy Commission adopted the 2008 Standards on April 23, 2008, and the Building Standards Commission approved them for publication on September 11, 2008. The new standards went into effect on July 1, 2009 (CEC, 2009). Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Land Use Element includes goals and policies related to electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable services. Appendix B summarizes the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan Land Use Element with regard to electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable services. The guiding principle of the Land Use Element pertinent to electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable services is as follows: Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastructure. While this Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this Draft EIR. ìòïîòìòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÝ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts to electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable services are considered significant if the project results in the following: 1)Substantial increases in demand necessitating new or extended services in excess of service providers’ ability to provide service. 2)Furthermore, a public services or utilities impact is considered significant if implementation of the project would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy (based on State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F). Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ This analysis is based on review of facilities on the project site as identified in the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and consultations with service providers. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóîë ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Û´»½¬®·½¿´ô Ò¿¬«®¿´ Ù¿ô Ì»´»°¸±²»ô ¿²¼ Ý¿¾´» Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.12.4.1 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would increase the demand for electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable service.Service providers have indicated that infrastructure is available and can be extended to serve the project site. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. The proposed project would create an increase in demand for electrical power supplied by TDPUD, natural gas supplied by Southwest Gas, telephone service provided by AT&T, and cable service provided by Suddenlink Communications. Electrical, telephone, and cable distribution lines in the area would need to be extended and improved to TDPUD, AT&T, and Suddenlink standards and specifications to serve the project site. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to coordinate with TDPUD, AT&T, and Suddenlink regarding the proper extension of services to the project site. This information would be included in the proposed project’s improvement plans. All these services are currently within the Deerfield Drive right-of-way or easements and would be extended to the project site. Because all service providers indicated that they would be able to serve the project site (Flaten, 2009; Prince, 2009; Schlosser, 2009; SCO et al., 2009) and the extension of service would not impair TDPUD, Southwest Gas, AT&T, and Suddenlink’s ability to provide service, impacts are considered less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±²«³°¬·±² ±º Û²»®¹§ Impact 4.12.4.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would cause an increase in energy use. However, the proposed project is not designed to use energy in a wasteful manner. This impact is therefore considered less than significant. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan calls for the construction of 486 residential units (see the Methodology subsection above) and 70,000 acres of commercial development. This project would therefore consume a substantial amount of energy. However, the proposed project is a Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóîê ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ mixed-use development, which includes the development of housing and services within close proximity to each other that are anticipated to result in a slight reduction in the use of motorized transportation. Further, limited reductions in motorized transportation could also result if the off- site trails portion of the Project Description were selected, as a result of increased pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the Legacy Trail, including Donner Memorial State Park. Furthermore, the Coldstream Specific Plan Green Building Design Guidelines call for the following energy efficiency measures: The siting of buildings to take advantage of solar orientation and prevailing breezes; The use of astronomical time clocks and photosensors to reduce energy use; Encouraging the installation of Energy Star appliances, including dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and heating and cooling equipment; Specification of the appropriate lighting materials for the project site, including use of LEDs; and Encouraging the use of photovoltaic panels and solar water heating systems. As described in Impact 4.2.8 in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan includes a Class III bike route along Deerfield Drive (primary road), a recreational trail along the southern end of the project site, and a Class I bike trail along Cold Creek linking to the southern recreational trail, the Class III bike route, and the Truckee Legacy Trail. These project components would provide improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation in this portion of the town as well as to Donner Memorial State Park trails. The project also includes off-site connectors to the Legacy Trail and Donner Memorial State Park. The design guidelines and measures described above would ensure that this impact is less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. ìòïîòìòì ÝÍô×ôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The cumulative setting for electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television services is the service areas for those utilities. Existing, approved, and proposed projects, as well as any other reasonably foreseeable development envisioned by the Town of Truckee General Plan, comprise the cumulative setting for electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television impacts. A list of recently approved and proposed projects can be found in Tables 4.0-2 and 4.0-3 in Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóîé ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Û´»½¬®·½¿´ô Ò¿¬«®¿´ Ù¿ô Ì»´»°¸±²»ô ¿²¼ Ý¿¾´» Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.12.4.3 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the service areas of TDPUD, Southwest Gas, AT&T, and Suddenlink Communications, would contribute to cumulative demands for electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable service. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with town-wide and regional growth, would increase the overall demand for electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television services. Because the necessary infrastructure could be extended and provided to the project site and surrounding vicinity (Flaten, 2009; Prince, 2009; Schlosser, 2009; SCO et al., 2009), cumulative impacts on electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable services are anticipated to beless than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóîè ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Achiro, David. 2009. Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated July 3. Beals, Marcia A. 2009. General Manager/Treasurer, Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated July 1. Bena, Bob, DCFM. 2009. Truckee Fire Protection District, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated July 8. California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2008. http://ww2.cdph.ca.gov/ (accessed September 28, 2009). California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2008. http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/ (accessed September 28, 2009). California Energy Commission. 2009. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ (accessed September 28, 2009). California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2009a. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ LGTools/mars/JurDrDtl.asp?Flag=1&Ju=538&Yr=2006. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2009b. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ WasteChar/WasteGenRates/Commercial.htm. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2007. Annual Report 2007. Flaten, Davis. 2009. Manager/Engineering. Southwest Gas Corporation, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated July 15. Kaufman, Neil, P.E. 2009. Water System Engineer, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated July 28. Prince, Carol A. 2009. Public Works Manager, AT&T, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated July 24. Schlosser, Sanna, P.E. 2009. Electrical Engineer, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated August 28. SCO Planning & Engineering, Kenkay Associations, and Ward-Young Architecture & Planning. 2009. Coldstream Specific Plan. Scorecard, The Pollution Information Site. 2008. http://www.scorecard.org/ (accessed September 28, 2009). Town of Truckee. 2002. Old Greenwood Planned Development Draft Environmental Impact Report. ———. 2006. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïîóîç ìòïîËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ Tresan, Blake, P.E. 2009. District Engineer, Truckee Sanitary District, written correspondence with Josh Kinkade, PMC, dated July 20. Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD). 2004. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Water Master Plan. ———. 2005. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Urban Water Management Plan. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2008. Truckee River Operating Agreement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance Inspection Manual. Washington, D.C. ———. 2009. http://www.epa.gov/ (accessed September 28, 2009). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïîóíð ìòïíÐôØô ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ Í ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) discusses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan associated with population, housing, and socioeconomics. Current and projected population trends and demographics are provided in this section as well as characteristics and current conditions of the area’s housing stock (including affordable housing), labor force, and major industries. The analysis focuses on potential direct and indirect population inducement as well as potential displacement of housing and/or people. Information for this section was obtained primarily from agency contacts and public reports including U.S. Census data, California Department of Finance projections, the Town of Truckee’s Housing Element, and California Employment Development Department data as well as from the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. ìòïíòï ÛÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Ð ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Î»¹·±²¿´ Ð±°«´¿¬·±² Ì®»²¼ The Town of Truckee is located in southeastern Nevada County in the Sierra Nevada range. The county encompasses three incorporated communities: Nevada City, Grass Valley, and the Town of Truckee. The county’s January 2009 population was estimated at 98,718, with 67.5 percent residing in the unincorporated county and the remaining 32.5 percent residing in its incorporated communities (DOF, 2009a). Historical population growth in Nevada County is shown in Table 4.13-1 below. Ììòïíóï ßÞÔÛ ØÐÙÔÒÝ ×ÍÌÑÎ×ÝßÔ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÎÑÉÌØ ÛÊßÜß ÑËÒÌÇ Ç»¿® Ð±°«´¿¬·±² Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» Ô ïçèð ëïôêìë çêòðíû ïççð éèôëïð ëîòðîû îððð çîôëíî ïéòèêû îððë çèôìêì êòìïû îððê ççôîêð òèïû îððé ççôîêë ðû îððè çèôèéì ðû îððç çèôéïè ðû Í±«®½»æ ÜÑÚ ïçèðå ÜÑÚô îððé¿å ÜÑÚô îððç¾ As shown in this table, the county’s population steadily increased from 1970 until 2007, with the most significant growth occurring in the 1970s and 1980s. During the 1970s, the population increased by nearly 100 percent, and in the 1980s the population increased over 50 percent. From 1990 to 2000, the county’s population continued to grow but at a slower pace, increasing by about 17 percent over the 10-year period. More recently, population estimates for the county actually began to decrease in both 2008 and 2009 (DOF, 1980, 2007a, 2009b). As shown in Table 4.13-2, the county’s population is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.94 percent, reaching 136,113 by 2050 (DOF, 2007b). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóï ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ììòïíóî ßÞÔÛ ÝÐÐÔÒÍÝ ËÎÎÛÒÌ ßÒÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌÛÜ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÛÊßÜß ßÒÜ ËÎÎÑËÒÜ×ÒÙ ÑËÒÌ×ÛÍ Ð®±¶»½¬»¼ Ð±°«´¿¬·±² ßª»®¿¹» ß²²«¿´ îððð Ý±«²¬§ Ù®±©¬¸ Î¿¬» Ð±°«´¿¬·±² îðïð îðîð îðíð îðìð îðëð Ô Ò»ª¿¼¿ çîôëíî ïðîôêìç ïïìôìëï ïîíôçìð ïíðôìðì ïíêôïïí õðòçìû Ð´¿½»® îëîôîîí íìéôëìí ìîèôëíë ëïîôëðç êîëôçêì éëïôîðè õíòçêû Í·»®®¿ íôéðï íôêîè íôëðè íôîçð íôíëê íôëìé óðòðèû Í«¬¬»® éçôêíî ïðîôíîê ïìïôïëç ïèîôìðï îîçôêîð îèîôèçì õëòïïû Ç«¾¿ êðôëçè èðôìïï ïðçôîïê ïíéôíîî ïêèôðìð îðïôíîé õìòêëû Í±«®½»æ ÜÑÚô îððé¾ The growth projections for surrounding counties, as shown in Table 4.13-2, are significantly greater than for Nevada County, with the exception of Sierra County. This is likely due to the close proximity of Placer, Sutter, and Yuba counties to the Sacramento Metropolitan Region. Ô±½¿´ Ð±°«´¿¬·±² Ì®»²¼ According to the Town of Truckee’s current Housing Element, the unincorporated town of Truckee had a 1990 population of 8,928 and experienced rapid growth in the following decade. The town experienced a 36 percent population increase between 1990 and 2000, and a 16.3 percent increase between 2000 and 2009. Table 4.13-3 compares the population estimates for the period 1995 through 2009 for the Town of Truckee, Nevada County, and the State of California. According to Department of Finance population estimates, the town had a population of 16,113 in 2008 and 16,241 in 2009, a 0.8 percent increase. The town’s population has continued to grow over the past few years contrary to the county’s overall decrease in population in 2008 and 2009. Ììòïíóí ßÞÔÛ ÐÛ Ô ÔÌÌôÒÝôÍÝ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÌ×ÓßÌÛÍ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛÊßÜß ÑËÒÌÇ ÌßÌÛ ÑÚ ßÔ×ÚÑÎÒ×ß ßª»®¿¹» ß²²«¿´ ïççë îððð îððë îððê îððé îððè îððç Ù®±©¬¸ Î¿¬» Ì±©² ±º ïïôééë ïíôèêì ïëôëéè ïëôéèì ïëôçíç ïêôïïí ïêôîìï õîòëíû Ì®«½µ»» Ò»ª¿¼¿ èêôìîê çîôðíí çèôìêì ççôîêð ççôîêë çèôèéì çèôéïè õðòçëû Ý±«²¬§ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ íïôêïéôééð ííôèéíôðèê íêôêéêôçíï íéôðèêôïçïíéôìéîôðéìíéôèèíôççîíèôðìçôìêî õïòíêû Ò±¬»æ Ð±°«´¿¬·±² ¼¿¬¿ º±® ¬¸» Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» °®·±® ¬± ·¬ ·²½±®°±®¿¬·±² ·² ïççí · ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ½±«²¬§©·¼» ¼¿¬¿ °®±ª·¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ÏìÙ×ÕÏÐÝÒîÏÎÉÒÝÊÕÏÐêÌÙÐÚËÎËÙÛÊÕÏÐÝÜÏÈÙ Í±«®½»æ ÜÑÚô ïçèðô îððé¿ô îððç¾ The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan (2006) forecasts a population of 25,280 for Truckee in 2025. This forecast represents a nearly 56 percent increase from its current (2009) population of 16,241. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóî ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ø ÑËÍ×ÒÙ Ø±«·²¹ Ì®»²¼ Population projections are converted to numbers of households by using an average household size for the area. In 2009, the average household size for Truckee is larger than that of the county but less than that of the state as a whole (2.53 persons for the town, compared to 2.33 persons for the county and 2.94 for the state). As shown in Table 4.13-4 below, the town and county average household sizes have steadily fallen over the past decade, while the state’s has fluctuated from year to year (DOF, 2009c). Ììòïíóì ßÞÔÛ ßØÍøÐØ÷ ÊÛÎßÙÛ ÑËÍÛØÑÔÜ ×ÆÛ ÛÎÍÑÒÍ ÐÛÎ ÑËÍÛØÑÔÜ îðððîððçÌÌôÒÝôÍÝ ÌØÎÑËÙØ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ÛÊßÜß ÑËÒÌÇ ÌßÌÛ ÑÚ ßÔ×ÚÑÎÒ×ß îððð îððï îððî îððí îððì îððë îððê îððé îððè îððç ßª»®¿¹» Ì®«½µ»» îòêèë îòêçð îòêèê îòêéç îòêêì îòêìí îòêíï îòëçë îòëëí îòëîç îòêíê Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ îòìéï îòìéí îòìéð îòìêì îòìëï îòìîç îòìïç îòíèç îòíëð îòíîç îòìîë Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ îòèéí îòèçç îòçîð îòçíì îòçìí îòçìï îòçîç îòçîí îòçîê îòçìð îòçîí Í±«®½»æ ÜÑÚô îððç½ The town had a total of 9,757 housing units in 2000 and as of 2009 is estimated to have a total of 12,136 housing units, an increase of approximately 24 percent. Vacancy rates are an indicator of both housing supply and demand. Low vacancy rates indicate an undersupply of housing, and housing costs may be inflated and households may find it difficult to find housing with an affordable monthly payment. A high number of vacant units indicate an oversupply of housing. A 4 to 6 percent vacancy rate is considered “healthy” (Town of Truckee, 2009a). In both 2000 and 2009, the vacancy rate in Truckee was estimated to be approximately 47 percent (4,623 units were unoccupied in 2000 and 5,731 units were unoccupied in 2009) (DOF, 2009c). This number is high because it reflects the large number of units that are used for seasonal or occasional use. The number of units used seasonally or occasionally (4,382) is subtracted from the number of vacant housing units to determine a more accurate assessment of Truckee’s vacancy rate. By this measure, 2.5 percent of Truckee’s housing units were vacant in 2000 (Town of Truckee, 2009a). This relatively low vacancy rate indicates an undersupply of housing in the town. Of those units occupied in 2000, approximately 25 percent were renter-occupied and 61 percent were owner-occupied (US Census, 2000). Ø±«·²¹ Í¬±½µ As described above, the Town of Truckee had a total of 12,136 housing units in 2009, which was approximately 23.9 percent of all units in Nevada County. Approximately 82 percent of the housing units in the town were in the detached single-family unit category (see Table 4.13-5). Attached single-family units represented only 3.1 percent of the housing stock, while multi-family units represented approximately 12.6 percent and mobile homes represented approximately 2.5 percent of the housing stock (DOF, 2009c). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóí ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ììòïíóë ßÞÔÛ ØËÌÔÌÌ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ Ò×ÌÍ ÞÇ ÇÐÛ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ îððð îððç Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» Ø±«·²¹ Ë²·¬ Ì§°» Ý¸¿²¹» Ë²·¬ Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º Ì±¬¿´ Ë²·¬ Ð»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º Ì±¬¿´ Í·²¹´»óÚ¿³·´§ Ü»¬¿½¸»¼ èôíïç èëòí çôçîé èïòè ïçòí ß¬¬¿½¸»¼ îìî îòë íéç íòï ëêòê Ì±¬¿´ Í·²¹´»óÚ¿³·´§ èôëêï èéòé ïðôíðê èìòç îðòì Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ Ô éÐÕÊË ëõ Ë²·¬ ìðê ìòî êçð ëòé éðòð Ì±¬¿´ Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ èçç çòí ïôëíî ïîòê éðòì Ñ¬¸»® Ó±¾·´» Ø±³» îçé íòð îçè îòë ðòí Ì±¬¿´ Ø±«·²¹ Ë²·¬ çôéëé ïððòðð ïîôïíê ïððòðð îìòì Í±«®½»æ ÜÑÚô îððç½ ßºº±®¼¿¾´» Ø±«·²¹ Ø±«·²¹ Ý±¬ ¿²¼ Î»²¬ In 2000, the median value for all owner-occupied housing units in Truckee was $247,800. Since 2000, housing prices in Nevada County generally increased until 2006 when prices leveled. Since then, many areas in Nevada County and in California have experienced a decline in housing prices. The median sales price in Truckee was $469,500 in December 2008. This was a 17.2 percent decrease from the median sales price of $567,000 in 2007 (Town of Truckee, 2009a). Rental units in Truckee consist of conventional apartments, single-family homes, and condominiums with monthly rents ranging from $800 to $1,600 for one- to three-bedroom apartments and from $1,110 to $1,600 for one- to three-bedroom single-family homes and condominiums. The rental prices in Truckee have increased as the overall cost of housing has increased throughout the state (Town of Truckee, 2009a). Ø±«·²¹ ßºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ Housing affordability is generally defined as paying no more than 30 percent of the household income on housing expenses. Like many other jurisdictions, Truckee defines housing affordability for homeownership as paying no more than 35 percent of the household income on housing expenses. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, in 1999, 44.5 percent of renter households in Truckee spent 30 percent or more of their household income on rent and 14.3 percent spent 50 percent or more of their household income on rent. Table 4.13-6 summarizes affordable monthly rents and purchase prices by income categories based on the 2008 HUD median income of $65,100 for Nevada County. Affordable purchase price assumes a 5.5 percent interest rate, a 30-year mortgage, a 5 percent down payment, and other typical monthly housing costs such as property taxes and utilities. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóì ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ììòïíóê ßÞÔÛ ßÎÐÐ×ÝÔÒÝ ÚÚÑÎÜßÞÔÛ ÛÒÌ ßÒÜ ËÎÝØßÍÛ Î×ÝÛ ÞÇ ÒÝÑÓÛ ßÌÛÙÑÎÇ ÛÊßÜß ÑËÒÌÇ ßºº±®¼¿¾´» Ó±²¬¸´§ Î»²¬ Û¬·³¿¬»¼ ßºº±®¼¿¾´» Ð«®½¸¿» ï ×²½±³» Ý¿¬»¹±®·» ß²²«¿´ ×²½±³» î Ð¿§³»²¬ Ð®·½» ì Û¨¬®»³»´§ Ô±©ó×²½±³» íðû ÓÚ× üíèï üïîôððð èÙÌÅòÏÇõÐÛÏÑÙ Ô ñøõ Ô Ô òÏÇõÐÛÏÑÙ ÔñøõÔ Ô ñÏÚÙÌÝÊÙõÐÛÏÑÙ Ô ñøõ Ô Ô ß¾±ª» Ó±¼»®¿¬»ó×²½±³» âïîðû ÓÚ× â üïôèìê â üîëèôððð Í±«®½»æ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»»ô îððç Ò±¬»æ ï ó ×²½±³» ´·³·¬ »¬¿¾´·¸»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Í¬¿¬» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ø±«·²¹ ¿²¼ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ øØÝÜ÷ò ÔüÝËÙÚÏÐÎÙÌÛÙÐÊÏØÕÐÛÏÑÙ¿²¼ ³±²¬¸´§ «¬·´·¬§ ½±¬ ±º üïðéò ÔýËËÉÑÙË ÎÙÌÛÙÐÊÕÐ¬»®»¬ ®¿¬»ô íðó§»¿® ³±®¬¹¿¹»ô ë °»®½»²¬ ¼±©² °¿§³»²¬ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¸±«·²¹ ½±¬ ø°®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ô ÐÓ×ô «¬·´·¬·»ô ·²«®¿²½»ô ØÑß ¼«»÷ò ½±³» øüêëôïðð÷ º±® Ò»ª¿¼¿ Ý±«²¬§ò Î»²¬¿´ ßºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ As of April 2009, the monthly rent for apartments of any size in Truckee exceeds the affordable monthly rent payment for extremely low-income and very low-income households. Low-income households would be able to afford one- and two-bedroom apartments. The monthly rents for all apartment units found in Truckee would be affordable to moderate- and above moderate- income households (Town of Truckee, 2009a). Ñ©²»®¸·° ßºº±®¼¿¾·´·¬§ The median price of housing in Truckee, as shown in Table 4.13-6 above, exceeds the affordability range for all income categories except above moderate-income households. To be able to afford to purchase a home at the median sales price, a household would need to have an annual income of approximately $130,000 or 200 percent of the Nevada County median family income. This indicates that there is an affordability gap for ownership housing, even for above moderate-income households. Lower- and moderate-income households may have trouble finding housing that they can afford to purchase (Town of Truckee, 2009a). Ø±«·²¹ Ò»»¼ According to the Town’s Housing Element (2009a), the 2007–2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the Town of Truckee prepared by the Sierra Planning Organization determined that the Town must plan for the construction of 1,259 new housing units. Of these, 153 must be in the extremely low-income category, 152 must be in the very low-income category, and 230 must be in the low-income category (Town of Truckee, 2009a). In addition, the Town has a unique need for workforce housing to house seasonal workers primarily in the recreation and accommodation industries that require short-term, low-cost housing. To meet the ongoing need for additional affordable housing, the Town adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in May 2007 and a Workforce Housing Ordinance in February 2009 to implement policies contained in the Town’s Housing Element and to further promote the development of affordable housing. The ordinances are described in detail in the Regulatory Framework section below. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóë ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Í ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ô¿¾±® Ú±®½» The Town of Truckee’s total labor force was estimated at 8,441 in 2000 with over 96 percent employed. Nearly the entire labor force was in the civilian sector in 2000 with only about six workers in the armed forces. Table 4.13-7 below provides employment data for the town by occupation or type of job in 1990 and 2000. ìòïíóé Ì ßÞÔÛ ÔÚÑÔÌÌïççðîððð ßÞÑÎ ÑÎÝÛ ÞÇ ÝÝËÐßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ ßÒÜ Û³°´±§³»²¬ Û³°´±§³»²¬ ßª»®¿¹» ß²²«¿´ Û³°´±§³»²¬ ïççð îððð Ù®±©¬¸ Î¿¬» Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² øîððð÷ Ì±¬¿´ Û³°´±§»¼ Ý·ª·´·¿² É±®µº±®½» ïôçîî èôïïð õíîòîû ïððû Û¨»½«¬·ª»ô Ð®±º»·±²¿´ô Ó¿²¿¹»®·¿´ ììè îôëçé õìèòðû íîòðû Í»®ª·½» íçè ïôëëç õîçòîû ïçòîû Í¿´»ô ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª» Í«°°±®¬ô Ý´»®·½¿´ ìêç îôððê õíîòèû îìòéû Ú¿®³·²¹ô Ú±®»¬®§ ¿²¼ Ú·¸·²¹ ëê ìí óîòíû ðòêû Ý±²¬®«½¬·±²ô Û¨¬®¿½¬·±²ô Ó¿·²¬»²¿²½»ô ëç ïôíðë õîïïòîû ïêòïû Ô¿¾±®»®ô Ø»´°»® Ð®±¼«½¬·±²ô Î»°¿·®ô Ñ°»®¿¬±®ô ß»³¾´»®ô Ì»½¸²·½·¿²ô Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ìçî êðð õîòîû éòìû ¿²¼ Ó¿¬»®·¿´ Ó±ª·²¹ Í±«®½»æ ËÍ Ý»²«ô ïççðô îððð In 1990, the primary occupation types in Truckee were production, repair, assembly, and transportation positions (25.6%) followed by sales, administrative support, and clerical positions (24.4%) and executive, professional, and managerial positions (23.3%). In 2000, the top three occupation types remained the same. The only occupation group to decline between 1990 and 2000 was farming, forestry and fishing (US Census, 1990 and 2000). ×²¼«¬®·» ¿²¼ Û³°´±§»® The economy of Truckee is composed primarily of the recreation, accommodation and food services; construction; education, health and social services; and retail trade industries (see Table 4.13-8). The largest employer in Truckee, Sierra Community College District (SCCD), employed 1,095 persons in 2009. In addition to the SCCD, two other companies or agencies within Truckee employed 250 or more persons. Table 4.13-9 lists the major employers in the town and the approximate number of employees (Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce, 2009). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóê ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ììòïíóè ßÞÔÛ ×ÛÍÔÌÌ ÒÜËÍÌÎÇ ÓÐÔÑÇÓÛÒÌ ÌßÌËÍ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ Û³°´±§³»²¬ Û³°´±§³»²¬ ßª»®¿¹» ß²²«¿´ Û³°´±§³»²¬ ïççð îððð Ù®±©¬¸ Î¿¬» Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² øîððð÷ Ì±¬¿´ Û³°´±§»» Ý·ª·´·¿² É±®µº±®½» ïôçîî èôïïð õíîòîû ïððû ß¹®·½«´¬«®»ô Ú±®»¬®§ô êê ïîï õèòíû ïòëû Ú·¸»®·»ñØ«²¬·²¹ô ú Ó·²·²¹ Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² íìí ïôíêð õîçòéû ïêòèû ß´´ Ó¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ ïïï íïð õïéòçû íòèû É¸±´»¿´» Ì®¿¼» îî îðé õèìòïû îòêû Î»¬¿·´ Ì®¿¼» íðí çìð õîïòðû ïïòêû Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²ô ×²º±®³¿¬·±²ô ïðç ëðï õíêòðû êòîû Ý±³³«²·½¿¬·±² ú Ñ¬¸»® Ð«¾´·½ Ë¬·´·¬·» Ú·²¿²½»ô ×²«®¿²½»ô Î»¿´ Û¬¿¬»ô Î»²¬¿´ çí ëìê õìèòéû êòéû ¿²¼ Ô»¿·²¹ Û¼«½¿¬·±²ô Ø»¿´¬¸ ¿²¼ Í±½·¿´ Í»®ª·½» îëë ïôïêë õíëòéû ïìòìû ß®¬ô Û²¬»®¬¿·²³»²¬ô Î»½®»¿¬·±²ô îé ïôëêé õëéðòìû ïçòíû ß½½±³³±¼¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ Ú±±¼ Í»®ª·½» Ð®±º»·±²¿´ Í»®ª·½» øÞ«·²»ô îîè èðê õîëòìû çòçû Í½·»²¬·º·½ô ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª»÷ Ñ¬¸»® Í»®ª·½» îèì îëí óïòïû íòïû Ð«¾´·½ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² èï ííì õíïòîû ìòïû Í±«®½»æ ËÍ Ý»²«ô ïççðô îððð Ììòïíóç ßÞÔÛ ÓÛÔÌÌ ßÖÑÎ ÓÐÔÑÇÛÎÍ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ Ý±³°¿²§ñß¹»²½§ Ò«³¾»® ±º Û³°´±§»» øîððç÷ Í·»®®¿ Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ý±´´»¹» Ü·¬®·½¬ ïôðçë Ì¿¸±» Ú±®»¬ Ø±°·¬¿´ Ü·¬®·½¬ ëîð Ì¿¸±» Ü±²²»® ß±½·¿¬·±² îëð Ý´»¿® Ý¿°·¬¿´ ïêð Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» ïðð ßÝ Û´»½¬®·½ çê Ô¿¸±²¬¿² Ù±´º Ý´«¾ çð Ì®«½µ»»óÌ¿¸±» Ô«³¾»® Ý±³°¿²§ éð Ì®«½µ»» Ü±²²»® Ð«¾´·½ Ë¬·´·¬§ Ü·¬®·½¬ êê Û¿¬ É»¬ Ð¿®¬²»® êð îôëðé Í±«®½»æ Ì®«½µ»» Ü±²²»® Ý¸¿³¾»® ±º Ý±³³»®½»ô îððç Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóé ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ ×²½±³» In 2000, the average household income in the Town of Truckee was estimated to be approximately $58,848 while the per capita income was estimated at $26,786. In comparison, the average household income in Nevada County in 2000 was $45,864 while the average statewide household income was $47,493. The average income of households in Truckee was 28.3 percent higher than in the county and 23.9 percent higher than in the state as a whole. Of 3,670 families, 104 families (2.8 percent) in the town lived below the poverty level in 2000 (US Census, 2000). Ë²»³°´±§³»²¬ Nevada County is currently experiencing a high unemployment rate of approximately 11.4 percent due to the nationwide economic recession. As shown in Table 4.13-10 below, this rate is significantly higher than in previous years. ìòïíóïð Ì ßÞÔÛ ÝØËÎÔÒÝ ËÎÎÛÒÌ ßÒÜ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ÒÛÓÐÔÑÇÓÛÒÌ ßÌÛÍ ÛÊßÜß ÑËÒÌÇ Ö«²» ïççð Ö«²» îððð Ö«²» îððë Ö«²» îððê Ö«²» îððé Ö«²» îððè Ö«²» îððç Ì±¬¿´ Ô¿¾±® Ú±®½» íêôëïð ìëôçîð ìçôêèð ëðôìíð ëïôíëð ëïôêéð ëðôëéð Û³°´±§»¼ íìôçïð ìíôçíð ìéôîëð ìèôîðð ìçôððð ìèôíêð ììôèîð Ë²»³°´±§»¼ ïôêðð îôððð îôìíð îôîìð îôíëð íôíîð ëôéëð Ë²»³°´±§³»²¬ Î¿¬» ìòìû ìòíû ìòçû ìòìû ìòêû êòìû ïïòìû Í±«®½»æ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Û³°´±§³»²¬ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ô îððç Ö±¾ó¬±óØ±«·²¹ Þ¿´¿²½» Insufficient housing may impede economic growth by driving up the price of what housing is available, making it difficult for companies to attract new employees and forcing families seeking affordable housing to move farther away from the communities in which they work. Conversely, insufficient jobs may force residents to commute long distances to outside employment centers. These potential mismatches are referred to as a jobs-to-housing imbalance. It is generally considered ideal to have a jobs-to-housing balance of approximately one job per housing unit in a jurisdiction. In 2000, the ratio of employed workers to housing units in Truckee was 0.82, indicating that there was a greater number of housing units (9,787) in the town than jobs (8,116) (US Census, 2000). By contrast, the county as a whole had a nearly perfectly balanced jobs-to-housing ratio in 2000 of 0.99. Between 2005 and 2007, the county’s jobs-to-housing ratio was estimated by the US Census Bureau at 0.95, indicating a slightly greater number of housing units than jobs (US Census, 2009; California EDD, 2009). The recent increase in unemployment in the county may have contributed to this jobs-to-housing imbalance in recent years. The average travel time to work for Truckee residents was 23.1 minutes in 2000, while the average travel time to work for county residents was 16 minutes (US Census, 2000). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóè ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ ìòïíòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ Ë²·º±®³ Î»´±½¿¬·±² ß·¬¿²½» ¿²¼ Î»¿´ Ð®±°»®¬§ ß½¯«··¬·±² Ð±´·½·» ß½¬ ±º ïçéð øË²·º±®³ ß½¬÷ The Uniform Act, passed by Congress in 1970, is a federal law that establishes minimum standards for federally funded programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property (real estate) or displace persons from their homes, businesses, or farms. The Uniform Act’s protections and assistance apply to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federal or federally funded projects. The government-wide regulation that implements the act is 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 24. Ì·¬´» îì óó Ø±«·²¹ ¿²¼ Ë®¾¿² Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ð¿®¬ ìî Ü·°´¿½»³»²¬ô Î»´±½¿¬·±² ß·¬¿²½»ô ¿²¼ Î»¿´ Ð®±°»®¬§ ß½¯«··¬·±² º±® Ø±«·²¹ ¿²¼ Ë®¾¿² Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ øØËÜ÷ ¿²¼ ØËÜóß·¬»¼ Ð®±¹®¿³ Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act (HCD Act) provides minimum requirements for federally funded programs or projects when units that are part of a community’s low-income housing supply are demolished or converted to a use other than low- or moderate-income dwellings. Section 104(d) requirements include: Replacement, on a one-for-one basis, of all occupied and vacant occupiable low- or moderate-income dwelling units that are demolished or converted to a use other than low- or moderate-income housing in connection with an activity assisted under the HCD Act, and Provision of certain relocation assistance to any lower-income person displaced as a direct result of the following activities in connection with federal assistance: Demolition of any dwelling unit, or Conversion of a low- or moderate-income dwelling unit to a use other than a low- or moderate-income residence. Section 104(d) requirements are triggered by the use of HOME, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Section 108 Loan Guarantee, or Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) funding in a project involving the demolition or conversion of low- or moderate-income housing. Í ÌßÌÛ ûÝÒÕØÏÌÐÕÝìÙÒÏÛÝÊÕÏÐëÊÝÊÉÊÙÔÙ±ª»®²³»²¬ Ý±¼» Í»½¬·±² éîêð The California Relocation Statute is a California law that establishes minimum standards for state- funded programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property (real estate) or displace persons from their homes, businesses, or farms. The statute’s protections and assistance apply to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for state-funded projects. The statute is intended for the benefit of displaced persons, to ensure that such persons receive fair and equitable treatment and do not suffer disproportionate injuries as the result of programs Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóç ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. Title 25, Division 1, Chapter 6 of the California Code of Regulations provides the regulatory guidelines to enforce the statute. êÕÊÒÙ úÕÈÕËÕÏÐ ûÖÝÎÊÙÌëÉÜÛÖÝÎÊÙÌ ÔìÙÒÏ½¿¬·±² ß·¬¿²½» ¿²¼ Î»¿´ Ð®±°»®¬§ ß½¯«··¬·±² This section of Title 25 provides guidelines to assist public entities in the development of regulations and procedures implementing Government Code Section 7260. The guidelines are designed to carry out the following policies of Section 7260: 1)To ensure that uniform, fair, and equitable treatment is afforded persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms as a result of the actions of a public entity in order that such persons shall not suffer disproportionate injury as a result of action taken for the benefit of the public as a whole; and 2)In the acquisition of real property by a public entity, to ensure consistent and fair treatment for owners of real property to be acquired, to encourage and expedite acquisition by agreement with owners of such property in order to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in courts, and to promote confidence in public land acquisition. Ð®±°±·¬·±² ìê In November 2002, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 was passed by the voters of California. Prop. 46 created a trust fund to provide shelters for battered women, clean and safe housing for low-income senior citizens, emergency shelters for homeless families with children, housing with social services for homeless and mentally ill persons, repairs/accessibility improvements to apartments for families and handicapped citizens, veteran homeownership assistance, and security improvements/repairs to existing emergency shelters. Funded by a bond issue of $2.1 billion, Prop. 46 makes cities and counties eligible to receive specified funds and subjects expenditures to independent audit. Prop. 46 also appropriates money from the state general fund to repay bonds. Í¬¿¬» Ø±«·²¹ Ð±´·½·» State policies affecting land use regulations in cities throughout California are included in housing policies as established by the Housing Element of the Town of Truckee General Plan. The Housing Element is the primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population within a jurisdiction and is required by law. Accordingly, the Housing Element identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs and states goals toward providing sufficient housing. The element contains policies, quantified objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing in the Town of Truckee. State law sets out a process for determining each local jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing needs, called the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). As a first step in the process, the State Department of Housing and Community Development assigns each regional council of governments a needed number of new housing units for that region, including affordable housing. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóïð ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ô ÑÝßÔ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan was adopted in 2006 and serves as the overall guiding policy document for land use, development, and environmental quality for the Town. The Town is currently updating the Housing Element of the General Plan and recently released a public review version of the element. Appendix B analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan. While this DEIR analyzes the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s consistency with the Town of Truckee General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the Town of Truckee Town Council will ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this DEIR. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Æ±²·²¹ Î»¹«´¿¬·±² The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the Town of Truckee, found in the Town’s Development Code (Title 18), provide specific development and land use regulations for the Town of Truckee. The Zoning Ordinance is designed to implement the General Plan and promote, protect, and preserve the general public health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Truckee (Town of Truckee, 2009c). ßºº±®¼¿¾´» Ø±«·²¹ Ý±²¬®±´ The purpose of the Affordable Housing Controls adopted by the Town (Chapter 18.210 of the Town of Truckee Development Code) is to establish regulations and controls on affordable units required by the Town’s Inclusionary Housing and Workforce Housing Ordinances described below as well as affordable units which are provided in order to receive density bonuses, incentives, and/or concessions from the Town. This chapter is intended to regulate or control the rent and sales price of affordable units, occupancy, and preferences for locals, and to establish a procedure by which such regulations and controls are recorded on affordable units (Town of Truckee, 2009b). ×²½´«·±²¿®§ Ø±«·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» The Town of Truckee adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in May 2007 (Chapter 18.214 of the Town of Truckee Development Code). This ordinance requires all residential development projects, including land subdivisions that are planned, designed, or used for residential purposes, to include or provide inclusionary housing. Fifteen (15) percent of all new dwelling units in such development projects must be affordable units and can be either rental or for-sale units. Some specific exemptions are provided in the ordinance. For ownership projects, 100 percent of the affordable housing provided must be affordable to moderate-income households or one-third must be affordable to low-income households, one- third must be affordable to moderate-income households, and one-third must be affordable to above moderate-income households. For rental inclusionary units, 100 percent of the units must be affordable to low-income households, or one-third must be affordable to very low-income households, one-third must be affordable to low-income households, and one-third must be affordable to moderate-income households. For rental projects, the inclusionary units must be rental units at the same affordability levels stated above for rental units within ownership projects. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóïï ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ For the purposes of this ordinance, the following income category definitions are used: Very Low-Income Household – Household earning a gross income of no greater than 50 percent of the median income Low-Income or Lower-Income Household – Household earning a gross annual income of no greater than 80 percent of the median income Moderate-Income Household – Household earning a gross income of no greater than 120 percent of the median income Above Moderate-Income Household – Household earning a gross income of no greater than 160 percent of the median income A developer of a residential development project may propose to meet the inclusionary requirements through an alternative equivalent that is considered on a case-by-case basis (Town of Truckee, 2009a). É±®µº±®½» Ø±«·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» The Town adopted a Workforce Housing Ordinance in February 2009 (Chapter 18.216 of the Town of Truckee Development Code). This ordinance requires all commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, residential resort, and other nonresidential projects to include or provide workforce housing. Some specific exemptions are provided. The number of workforce housing units required can be calculated based on the number of full-time equivalent employees (FTEE) or based on the number of employees calculated by income levels. For the number of units required based on the number of FTEE, the required number is as follows: Less than 7 FTEE, the project is exempt. Seven or more but less than 20 FTEE, the project must pay a fraction of an in-lieu affordable housing fee equivalent to the number of FTEE divided by 28. Twenty (20) or more but less than 40 FTEE, the project must construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each 14 FTEE. Forty (40) or more FTEE, the project must construct and complete one workforce housing unit for each 7 FTEE. For the number of units required based on the number of employees calculated by income levels, the required number is as follows: Less than 3.5 very low-, low-, and moderate-income category employees, the project is exempt. Three and one half (3.5) or more but less than 10 very low-, low-, and moderate-income category employees, the project must pay a fraction of an in-lieu affordable housing fee equivalent to the number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income category employees divided by 14. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóïî ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ten (10) or more but less than 20 very low-, low-, and moderate-income category employees, the project must construct and complete one workforce housing unit for every seven very low-, low-, and moderate-income category employees. Twenty (20) or more very low-, low-, and moderate-income category employees, the project must construct and complete one workforce housing unit for every 3.5 very low-, low-, and moderate-income category employees. The workforce housing units can either be rental or for-sale units. For ownership units, 100 percent must be affordable to moderate-income households or one-third of the units must be affordable to low-income households, one-third must be affordable to moderate-income households, and one-third must be affordable to above moderate-income households. For rental units, 100 percent of the units must be affordable to low-income households, or one- third must be affordable to very low-income households, one-third must be affordable to low- income households, and one-third must be affordable to moderate-income households. Developers may propose an alternative equivalent or pay an in-lieu fee. Development projects constructing all of their workforce housing units on site and/or off site are eligible for various bonuses, incentives, and concessions (Town of Truckee, 2009a). ìòïíòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, impacts to population, housing, and socioeconomics are considered significant if implementation of the project would result in any of the following conditions: 1)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). 2)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ Evaluation of potential population, housing, and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan was based on data obtained from the US Census, the California Department of Finance, and the California Employment Development Department as well as the development potential within the project site as provided in Section 3.0, Project Description. The focus of this analysis is on the proposed project’s potential to directly and/or indirectly induce growth in the region or displace a substantial number of existing housing units or residents. In addition, the analysis considers the proposed project’s provision of adequate affordable housing and its compliance with local affordable housing regulations. Finally, the analysis examines the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s potential impact on the current jobs- to-housing ratio in the Town of Truckee and Nevada County. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóïí ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ ×ÓÓ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ù®±©¬¸ ×²¼«½»³»²¬ Impact 4.13.1 Development of the project site in accordance with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide housing for up to 1,230 persons as well as up to 70,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses and lodging, which would provide new employment opportunities. Therefore, the proposed project would directly induce growth in the town. However, this growth was anticipated in the Town’s General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is not considered a new adverse impact. This impact is less than significant. Buildout of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would include the development of up to 345 residential units, including mixed-use residential, attached triplex and duplex units, detached residential, and lakeside homes, and would include both market-rate and affordable housing (see Table 3.0-1). In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units will include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. Average household size within the Town of Truckee was estimated to be 2.53 in 2009 (see Table 4.13-4). Based on this average household size, the project site would provide housing for approximately 1,230 (486 units X 2.53 persons per household) persons at full buildout. Given the town’s current (2009) population of approximately 16,241, this would represent a 7 percent increase in the town’s population to approximately 17,471. This increase would be well within the year 2025 population forecasts (25,280) contained in the Town’s General Plan. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of up to 70,000 square feet of retail, commercial, and lodging uses. This development is well within the two million square feet of new commercial development projected in the Town’s General Plan. This development is projected to create approximately 140 permanent full-time equivalent jobs based on the Town’s Workforce Housing Ordinance (see the Regulatory Framework section above and Impact 4.13.3 below for a detailed calculation). Additional permanent jobs would also likely be created for the ongoing maintenance of open space, residential units, and common areas on the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project would create short-term employment related to design and construction. If workers were to move into the area to fill these positions, additional housing, public services, and utilities would be required to accommodate the new residents and environmental effects would result. However, given the high unemployment rate in the county (11.4 percent) and the low jobs-to-housing ratio (0.82) in the town, it can be assumed that these positions would likely be filled by local workers, resulting in a positive effect on the local economy and no additional environmental effects. The General Plan designated the project site as Planned Community, allowing for a mixture of medium-density, clustered residential units and commercial uses, including visitor lodging, among others. Therefore, the General Plan’s year 2025 population forecast accounted for the growth that could result from development of the project site. In addition, the EIR for the Town of Truckee General Plan addressed, at a programmatic level, the potential environmental effects Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóïì ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ of such growth. Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR provides further, project-level analysis of the potential environmental effects of this growth. These impacts could include increased traffic, air emissions, noise, and increased demand for public services and utilities, including water supply. Because the anticipated growth was planned for by the Town in its General Plan and was subsequently evaluated in the associated EIR, the proposed project would not result in substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred. As such, the proposed project’s potential to result in direct growth inducement is considered to be a less than significant impact. The Town has planned for development of the project site and adjacent areas as part of the overall long-range land use plans for the town and surrounding Sphere of Influence. Furthermore, the proposed project would provide comprehensive land use and circulation planning for the entire project site. As such, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not extend roads or other infrastructure into areas not currently planned for development or otherwise indirectly induce development or growth. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential to result in indirect growth inducement is considered to be a less than significant impact. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ü·°´¿½» Ø±«·²¹ ±® Ð»±°´» Impact 4.13.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would occur on a largely vacant piece of property and would not result in the displacement of a substantial number of housing or people. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact associated with displacement of housing or people. The project site has largely been used for mining in the past and does not contain a significant number of existing residential units. There are a few residential units located in the northern portion of the project site along the unpaved portion of Deerfield Drive, each of which is currently occupied. These units would be demolished as part of the proposed project, resulting in the displacement of their current occupants. However, the displacement of these units is not considered substantial, and the construction of replacement housing would not be needed elsewhere. While possible off-site trails to the east would be located adjacent to existing homes, installation of the trail would not necessitate the removal of any housing. In addition, there are some existing residential units located north of the project site along Deerfield Drive as well as an existing residential development (the Boulders) to the east. Development of the project site in accordance with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not result in the displacement of any of these adjacent residential units. There would be a less than significant impact associated with the substantial displacement of housing or people. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóïë ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ð®±ª·¼» ß¼»¯«¿¬» ßºº±®¼¿¾´» Ø±«·²¹ Impact 4.13.3 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide adequate affordable housing units within the project site in accordance with Town policy. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would be subject to the requirements of both the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the Workforce Housing Ordinance adopted by the Town of Truckee (Chapters 18.214 and 18.216 of the Town of Truckee Development Code), which are intended to ensure that development projects provide adequate affordable housing. Per the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15 percent of the residential units constructed as part of the project must be affordable housing units. The proposed project would provide for the development of up to 345 units; therefore, 52 of these units would be required to be affordable units to comply with this ordinance. According to the Town’s Workforce Housing Ordinance, the proposed project would also be required to provide workforce housing as the project includes the development of commercial, retail, and lodging uses. The exact number of full-time equivalent employees (FTEEs) to be employed on the project site at buildout is not yet known. However, the Workforce Housing Ordinance provides some general standards to estimate FTEEs by land use type. For commercial uses (which include retail, service, office, and restaurants but not lodging uses) it is estimated that there would be one FTEE for every 500 square feet of gross floor space. For visitor lodging uses, no standard FTEE rate is provided; instead, FTEEs should be estimated based on comparisons with similar business. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would allow for up to 70,000 square feet of retail, commercial, and lodging uses. Based on the standard of one FTEE for every 500 square feet of gross floor space, the proposed project would include about 140 FTEEs. The actual number of FTEEs for the purposes of determining needed workforce housing units will be determined when individual development projects are processed by the Town and specific uses and square footage information is available. However, based on the estimate of 140 FTEEs and the required rate of one workforce housing unit for each 7 FTEEs, it is anticipated that the proposed project would be required to construct a minimum of approximately 20 workforce housing units. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan acknowledges the Town’s requirements for affordable housing and workforce housing and plans for the inclusion of the required housing units as part of the proposed residential development. One of the proposed project’s stated objectives is to “increase and improve the community’s supply of affordable housing.” As the project proceeds and building permits are applied for, the Town will determine the exact number of affordable and workforce housing units required on the project site and will ensure that the Town’s affordable housing requirements are enforced. All affordable and workforce housing units would be regulated and controlled, including the necessary recordation, in accordance with Chapter 18.210 (Affordable Housing Controls) of the Town’s Development Code. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide adequate affordable housing and would comply with the Town’s adopted affordable housing requirements. This impact is less than significant. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóïê ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ ìòïíòì ÝôôÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÍÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ×ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ The setting for this cumulative analysis generally includes the Town of Truckee and surrounding region and all existing, proposed, approved, and planned projects within these areas. In particular, this cumulative setting condition includes the proposed and approved projects identified in Tables 4.0-2 and 4.0-3, planned development under the Town of Truckee General Plan Land Use Element, and planned and proposed land uses in the region and communities near the town. As shown in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2, the county as a whole was estimated to have a population of 98,718 in 2009 and is projected to have a population of 123,940 by 2030, a 25.6 percent increase. Development in the cumulative setting area would change the intensity of land uses in the region and would provide additional housing, employment, shopping, and recreational opportunities. This projected regional growth would result in significant environmental effects. The reader is referred to the other technical sections of this Draft EIR for a complete analysis of the anticipated cumulative environmental effects of anticipated regional growth in combination with the proposed project. Ý×ÓÓ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ù®±©¬¸ ×²¼«½»³»²¬ Impact 4.13.4 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Town of Truckee, could result in substantial growth inducement. However, this growth was anticipated in the Town’s General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is not considered a new adverse impact. This impact is less thancumulatively considerable. Cumulative development in the Town of Truckee would result in substantial, direct population growth through the construction of new housing units and the creation of new employment opportunities. In addition, such development could result in indirect growth through the extension of existing and the construction of new roadways and infrastructure. The anticipated development and growth, including that associated with the proposed project, was included in the Town’s 2025 General Plan and addressed in the General Plan EIR. According to the General Plan EIR, the 2025 General Plan includes policies to regulate future growth that would be allowed under the General Plan in an orderly and planned manner. As such, implementation of the General Plan would not result in substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred. Because the anticipated cumulative growth in the town was planned for in its General Plan and was subsequently evaluated in the associated EIR, there would be no new adverse impact associated with such growth. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable. Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» None required. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïíóïé ìòïíÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ California Department of Finance (DOF). 1980. Report 84 E-4 Population Estimates for California Counties and Cities: April 1, 1970, through January 1, 1980. ———. 2007a. E-4 Historical Population Estimates for City, County and the State, 1991–2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts. ———. 2007b. Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000–2050. ———. 2009a. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2008 and 2009. ———. 2009b. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001–2009, with 2000 Benchmark. ———. 2009c. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001– 2009, with 2000 Benchmark. California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2009. Nevada County Labor Market Profile. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/ localAreaProfileQSResults.asp?selectedarea=Nevada+County&selectedindex=29&menu Choice=localAreaPro&state=true&geogArea=0604000057&countyName= (accessed August 2009). Town of Truckee. 2006. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. ———. 2009a. Town of Truckee 2007–2014 Housing Element: Public Review Draft. ———. 2009b. Town of Truckee Development Code Chapter 18.210 Affordable Housing Controls. http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=187 (accessed August 5, 2009). ———. 2009c. Town of Truckee Development Code (Title 18). http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=125(accessed August 2009). Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce. 2009. Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce website. http://www.truckee.com/ (accessed July 2009). United States Census Bureau (US Census). 2000. 2000 Census Fact Sheet: Truckee Town, California. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïíóïè ìòïìÙÙ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍ ÝÝ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) provides a discussion of the proposed project’s effect on greenhouse gas emissions and the associated effects of climate change. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that lead agencies consider the reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects of projects they are considering for approval. The reader is referred to Section 4.4, Air Quality, for a discussion of project impacts associated with air quality. ìòïìòï ÛÍ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ ÛÝÍ È×ÍÌ×ÒÙ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ To fully understand global climate change it is important to recognize the naturally occurring greenhouse effect and to define the greenhouse gases that contribute to this phenomenon. Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs ), methane (CH), nitrous oxide contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 24 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF)). (N 26 For most nonindustrial development projects, motor vehicles make up the bulk of GHG emissions produced on an operational basis. The primary greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (CARB, 2004). Following are descriptions of the primary greenhouse gases attributed to global climate change, including a description of their physical properties, primary sources, and contribution to the greenhouse effect. Ý¿®¾±² Ü·±¨·¼» Carbon dioxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas. CO is emitted in a number of ways, both 22 emissions globally is the naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO 2 combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO is variable because it 22 is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere (USEPA, 2008a). Ó»¬¸¿²» Methane (CH) is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances. CH is 44 the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. Methane’s atmospheric lifetime is about 12 years (USEPA, 2006a). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóï ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Ò·¬®±« Ñ¨·¼» Nitrous oxide (NO) is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. NO is produced by both 22 O are agricultural soil natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N 2 management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. NO is also produced 2 naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of NO is approximately 120 years (USEPA, 2006b). 2 Ø§¼®±º´«±®±½¿®¾±² Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The only significant emissions of HFCs before 1990 were of the chemical HFC-23, which is generated as a byproduct of the production of HCFC-22 (or Freon 22, used in air conditioning applications). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC-152a to 260 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes less than 15 years (e.g., HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration, which has an atmospheric life of 14 years) (USEPA, 2006c). Ð»®º´«±®±½¿®¾±² Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic. There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF), perfluoroethane (CF), perfluoropropane (CF), 42638 perfluorobutane (CF), perfluorocyclobutane (CF), perfluoropentane (CF), perfluorohexane 41048512 F1). Natural geological emissions have been responsible for the PFCs that have (C 64 accumulated in the atmosphere in the past; however, the largest current source is aluminum production, which releases CFand CF as by-products. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for 426 CF and CF are 50,000 and 10,000 years, respectively (EFCTC, 2003; USEPA, 2006a). 426 Í«´º«® Ø»¨¿º´«±®·¼» Sulfur hexafluoride (SF) is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, and 6 generally nonflammable. SF is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage 6 produced worldwide. equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80 percent of all SF 6 Significant leaks occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. Sulfur hexafluoride has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years (USEPA, 2008b). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Gases with high global warming potential, , are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 , and NO absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than CO. heat per molecule than CO 222 Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (COe), which 2 weight each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and were being converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO 2 emitted. Table 4.14-1 shows the GWPs for different GHGs for a 100-year time horizon. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóî ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Ììòïìóï ßÞÔÛ ÙÉÐÙÙ ÔÑÞßÔ ßÎÓ×ÒÙ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔ ÚÑÎ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿ Ù´±¾¿´ É¿®³·²¹ Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ Ý¿®¾±² Ü·±¨·¼» øÝÑ÷ ï î Ó»¬¸¿²» øÝØ÷ îï ì Ò·¬®±« Ü·±¨·¼» øÒÑ÷ íïð î Ø§¼®±º´«±®±½¿®¾±² øØÚÝ÷ô Ð»®º´«±®±½¿®¾±² øÐÚÝ÷ êôëðð Í«´º«® Ø»¨¿º´«±®·¼» øÍÚ÷ îíôçðð ê Í±«®½»æ ÞßßÏÓÜô îððê As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively. California is the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO in the world and 2 produced 492 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2004 (CEC, 2006a). Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2004, accounting for 40.7 percent of total GHG emissions in the state (CEC, 2006a). This category was followed by the electric power sector (including both in-state and out- of-state sources) (22.2 percent) and the industrial sector (20.5 percent) (CEC, 2006a). ÛÙÝÝ ÚÚÛÝÌÍ ÑÚ ÔÑÞßÔ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ California can draw on substantial scientific research conducted by experts at various state universities and research institutions. With more than a decade of concerted research, scientists have established that the early signs of climate change are already evident in the state — as shown, for example, in increased average temperatures, changes in temperature extremes, reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, sea level rise, and ecological shifts. Many of these changes are accelerating — locally, across the country, and around the globe. As a result of emissions already released into the atmosphere, California will face intensifying climate changes in coming decades (CNRA, 2009). Generally, research indicates that California should expect overall hotter and drier conditions with a continued reduction in winter snow (with concurrent increases in winter rains), as well as increased average temperatures, and accelerating sea-level rise. In addition to changes in average temperatures, sea level, and precipitation patterns, the intensity of extreme weather events is also changing (CNRA, 2009). Climate change temperature projections identified in the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy suggest the following (CNRA, 2009): Average temperature increase is expected to be more pronounced in the summer than in the winter season. Inland areas are likely to experience more pronounced warming than coastal regions. Heat waves are expected to increase in frequency, with individual heat waves also showing a tendency toward becoming longer, and extending over a larger area, thus more likely to encompass multiple population centers in California at the same time. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóí ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ As GHGs remain in the atmosphere for decades, temperature changes over the next 30 to 40 years are already largely determined by past emissions. By 2050, temperatures are projected to increase by an additional 1.8 to 5.4°F (an increase one to three times as large as that which occurred over the entire 20th century). By 2100, the models project temperature increases between 3.6 to 9°F. Precipitation levels are expected to change over the 21st century, though models differ in determining where and how much rain and snowfall patterns will change (CNRA, 2009). Eleven out of 12 precipitation models run by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography suggest a small to significant (12–35 percent) overall decrease in precipitation levels by mid-century (CNRA, 2009). In addition, higher temperatures increase evaporation and make for a generally drier climate, as higher temperatures hasten snowmelt and increase evaporation and make for a generally drier climate. Moreover, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy concludes that more precipitation will fall as rain rather than as snow, with important implications for water management in the state. California communities have largely depended on runoff from yearly established snowpack to provide the water supplies during the warmer, drier months of late spring, summer, and early autumn. With rainfall and meltwater running off earlier in the year, the state will face increasing challenges of storing the water for the dry season while protecting Californians downstream from floodwaters during the wet season. Changes in average temperature and precipitation are significant. Yet gradual changes in average conditions are not all for which California must prepare. In the next few decades, it is likely that the state will face a growing number of climate change-related extreme events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods. Because communities, infrastructure, and other assets are at risk, such events can cause significant damages and are already responsible for a large fraction of near-term climate-related impacts every year (CNRA, 2009). Most climate projections developed to date, including those used in this report, produce gradual if sometimes substantial changes for a given climate variable. In the past, rapid climate changes have been observed and scientists are increasingly concerned about additional abrupt changes that could push natural systems past thresholds beyond which they could not recover. Such events have been recorded in paleoclimatological records but current global climate models cannot predict when they may occur again (CNRA, 2009). Such abrupt changes have been shown to occur over very short periods of time (a few years to decades) and thus represent the most challenging situations to which society and ecosystems would need to adapt (CNRA, 2009). Short of being able to predict such abrupt changes, scientists are focusing their attention on aspects of the climate and earth system called “tipping elements” that can rapidly bring about abrupt changes. Tipping elements refer to thresholds where increases in temperature cause a chain reaction of mutually reinforcing physical processes in the earth’s dynamic cycles. The most dangerous of these include the following (CNRA, 2009): A reduction in Arctic sea ice, which allows the (darker) polar oceans to absorb more sunlight, thereby increasing regional warming, accelerating sea ice melting even further, and enhancing Arctic warming over neighboring (currently frozen) land areas. The release of methane (a potent GHG), which is currently trapped in frozen ground (permafrost) in the Arctic tundra, will increase with regional warming and melting of the ground, leading to further and more rapid warming and resulting in increased permafrost melting. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóì ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Continued warming in the Amazon could cause significant rainfall loss and large scale dying of forest vegetation, which will further release CO. 2 The accelerated melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet observed in recent times, together with regional warming over land and in the oceans, involves mechanisms that can reinforce the loss of ice and increase the rate of global sea-level rise. According to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, the impacts of global warming in California have the potential to include, but are not limited to, the areas discussed below. Ð«¾´·½ Ø»¿´¬¸ Climate change is expected to lead to an increase in ambient (i.e., outdoor) average air temperature, with greater increases expected in summer than in winter months. Larger temperature increases are anticipated in inland communities as compared to the California coast. The potential health impacts from sustained and significantly higher than average temperatures include heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and the exacerbation of existing medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, diabetes, nervous system disorders, emphysema, and epilepsy. Numerous studies have indicated that there are generally more deaths during periods of sustained higher temperatures, and these are due to cardiovascular causes and other chronic diseases. The elderly, infants, and socially isolated people with pre- existing illnesses who lack access to air conditioning or cooling spaces are among the most at risk during heat waves (CNRA, 2009). Ú´±±¼ ¿²¼ Ü®±«¹¸¬ The impacts of flooding can be significant. Results may include population displacement, severe psychosocial stress with resulting mental health impacts, exacerbation of pre-existing chronic conditions, and infectious disease (CNRA, 2009). Additionally, impacts can include a loss of personal belongings, and the emotional ramifications from such loss, to direct injury and/or mortality. Drinking water contamination outbreaks in the U.S. are associated with extreme precipitation events (CNRA, 2009). Runoff from rainfall is also associated with coastal contamination that can lead to contamination of shellfish and contribute to food-borne illness. Floodwaters may contain household, industrial, and agricultural chemicals as well as sewage and animal waste. Flooding and heavy rainfall events can wash pathogens and chemicals from contaminated soils, farms, and streets into drinking water supplies (CNRA, 2009). Flooding may also overload storm and wastewater systems, or flood septic systems, also leading to possible contamination of drinking water systems (CNRA, 2009). Drought impacts develop more slowly over time. Risks to public health that Californians may face from drought include impacts on water supply and quality, food production (both agricultural and commercial fisheries), and risks of waterborne illness. As the amount of surface water supplies are reduced as a result of drought conditions, the amount of groundwater pumping is expected to increase to make up for the water shortfall. The increase in groundwater pumping has the potential to lower the water tables and cause land subsidence (CNRA, 2009). Communities that utilize well water will be adversely affected by drops in water tables or through changes in water quality. Groundwater supplies have higher levels of total dissolved solids compared to surface waters. This introduces a set of effects for consumers, such as repair and maintenance costs associated with mineral deposits in water heaters and other plumbing fixtures, and on public water system infrastructure designed for lower salinity surface water supplies. Drought may also lead to increased concentration of contaminants in drinking water supplies (CNRA, 2009). Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóë ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ É¿¬»® Î»±«®½» The state’s water supply system already faces challenges to provide water for California’s growing population. Climate change is expected to exacerbate these challenges through increased temperatures and possible changes in precipitation patterns. The trends of the last century — especially increases in hydrologic variability — will likely intensify in this century. We can expect to experience more frequent and larger floods and deeper droughts (CNRA, 2009). Rising sea level will threaten the Delta water conveyance system and increase salinity in near- coastal groundwater supplies (CNRA, 2009). Planning for and adapting to these simultaneous changes, particularly their impacts on public safety and long-term water supply reliability, will be among the most significant challenges facing water and flood managers this century. ß¹®·½«´¬«®» Increased GHG emissions could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry, reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25 percent of the water supply they need. California’s farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures could aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth. Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less than optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts. In addition, continued global climate change could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued global climate change could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates. Ú±®»¬ ¿²¼ Ô¿²¼½¿°» Global climate change has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, wildfire occurrence statewide could increase from 57 percent to 169 percent by 2085 (CNRA, 2009). However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the state. Î··²¹ Í»¿ Ô»ª»´ Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the state’s coastal regions. Over the 20th century, sea level has risen by about 7 inches along the California coast (CNRA, 2009). It is projected that sea level rise of up to 55 inches (1.4 meters) could occur by the end of this century (CNRA, 2009). This projection accounts for the global growth of dams and reservoirs and how they can affect surface runoff into the oceans, but it does not account for the possibility of substantial ice melting from Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would drive sea levels along the California coast even higher (CNRA, 2009). Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóê ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ ìòïìòî ÎÚ ÛÙËÔßÌÑÎÇ ÎßÓÛÉÑÎÕ Ú ÛÜÛÎßÔ Ú»¼»®¿´ Î»¹«´¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý´»¿² ß·® ß½¬ In the past, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Act because it asserted that the act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change and that such regulation would be unwise without an unequivocally established causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air temperatures. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the USEPA must consider regulation of motor vehicle GHG emissions. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., twelve states and cities, including California, together with several environmental organizations, sued to require the USEPA to regulate GHGs as pollutants under the Clean Air Act (127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)). The Court ruled that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act’s definition of a pollutant and that the USEPA did not have a valid rationale for not regulating GHGs. In response to this ruling, the USEPA has recently made an endangerment finding that GHGs pose a threat to the public health and welfare. This is the first step necessary for the establishment of federal GHG regulations under the Clean Air Act. Í ÌßÌÛ ß»³¾´§ Þ·´´ ïìçí Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) of 2002 (Health and Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for automobiles. These standards are also known as Pavley I. The California Legislature declared in AB 1493 that global warming is a matter of increasing concern for public health and the environment. It cites several risks that California faces from climate change, including a reduction in the state’s water supply, an increase in air pollution caused by higher temperatures, harm to agriculture, an increase in wildfires, damage to the coastline, and economic losses caused by higher food, water, energy, and insurance prices. The bill also states that technological solutions to reduce GHG emissions would stimulate California’s economy and provide jobs. In 2004, the State of California submitted a request for a waiver from federal clean air regulations, as the State is authorized to do . In late 2007, the USEPA under the CAA, to allow the State to require reduced tailpipe emissions of CO 2 denied California’s waiver request and declined to promulgate adequate federal regulations limiting GHG emissions. In early 2008, the State brought suit against the USEPA related to this denial. In January 2009, President Obama instructed the USEPA to reconsider the Bush Administration’s denial of California’s and 13 other states’ requests to implement global warming pollution standards for cars and trucks. In June 2009, the USEPA granted California’s waiver request enabling the State to enforce its GHG emissions standards for new motor vehicles beginning with the current model year. Also in 2009, President Obama announced a national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing GHG pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The new standards would cover model years 2012 to 2016 and would raise passenger vehicle fuel economy to a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2016. When the national program takes effect, California has committed to allowing automakers who show compliance with the national program to also be deemed in compliance with state requirements. California is committed to further strengthening these standards beginning in 2017 to obtain a 45 percent GHG reduction from the 2020 model year vehicles. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóé ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® Íóíóðë Executive Order S-3-05 (state of California) proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra’s snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total greenhouse gas emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050. The Executive Order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the target levels. The Secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and state legislature describing (1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets, (2) impacts of global warming on California’s resources, and (3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the Executive Order, the Secretary of Cal-EPA created a Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of members from various state agencies and commissions. CAT released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community actions, as well as through state incentive and regulatory programs. ß»³¾´§ Þ·´´ íîô ¬¸» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ù´±¾¿´ É¿®³·²¹ Í±´«¬·±² ß½¬ ±º îððê Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, etc. 1) requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The gases , CH, NO, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and that are regulated by AB 32 include CO 242 sulfur hexafluoride. The reduction to 1990 levels will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32, directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires that CARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap, institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» Í½±°·²¹ Ð´¿² In October of 2008, CARB published its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, which is the State’s plan to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32. The scoping plan contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of 169 million metric e, or approximately 30 percent from the state’s projected 2020 emission level tons (MMT) of CO 2 of 596 MMT of COe under a business-as-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMT COe, or 22 almost 10 percent, from 2002–2004 average emissions). The scoping plan also includes CARB- Assembly Bill 32 is codified at Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560, 38561–38565, 1 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592–38599 Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóè ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the state’s GHG inventory. The largest proposed GHG reduction recommendations are from improving emission standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT COe), implementation of the Low-Carbon 2 Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT COe), energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the 2 widespread development of combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT COe), and a 2 renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT COe). CARB has not yet 2 determined what amount of GHG reductions it recommends from local government operations; however, the proposed scoping plan does state that land use planning and urban growth decisions will play an important role in the state’s GHG reductions because local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how land is developed to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. (Meanwhile, CARB is also developing an additional protocol for community emissions.) CARB further acknowledges that decisions on how land is used will have large impacts on the GHG emissions that will result from the transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and natural gas emission sectors. The proposed scoping plan states that the ultimate GHG reduction assignment to local government operations is to be determined. With regard to land e will be achieved use planning, the proposed scoping plan expects approximately 5.0 MMT CO 2 associated with implementation of SB 375, which is discussed further below. The Climate Change Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008. Í»²¿¬» Þ·´´ ïíêè Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368) (codified at Public Utilities Code Chapter 3) is the companion bill of AB 32. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a greenhouse gas emission performance standard for baseload generation from investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The bill also required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish a similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards cannot exceed the greenhouse gas emission rate from a baseload combined-cycle natural-gas-fired plant. The legislation further requires that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet the standards set by CPUC and CEC. Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ý´·³¿¬» ß½¬·±² Î»¹·¬®§ The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) was established in 2000 by Senate Bill 1771 (codified at Health and Safety Code Article 6 and Public Resources Code Chapter 8.5) and modified in 2001 by Senate Bill 527 (codified at Health and Safety Code Sections 42400.4, 42801, ) as a nonprofit voluntary registry for GHG emissions. The purpose of CCAR is to 42810, 42821, etc. 2 help companies and organizations with operations in the state to establish GHG emissions baselines against which any future GHG emissions reduction requirements may be applied. CCAR has developed a general protocol and additional industry-specific protocols that provide guidance on how to inventory GHG emissions for participation in the registry. The California Climate Action Registry has now merged its GHG emissions registry with the climate registry and is primarily focused on offset projects and research. ëÙÐÝÊÙüÕÒÒ ÝÐÚ÷ÏÈÙÌÐÏÌÑËïÌÚÙÌë ´·º±®²·¿ Î»²»©¿¾´» Ð±®¬º±´·± Í¬¿²¼¿®¼÷ Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078) (Public Utilities Code Sections 387, 390.1, 399.25 and Article 16) addresses electricity supply and requires that retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned Senate Bill 527 is codified at Health and Safety Code Sections 42400.4, 42801, 42810, 42821–42824, 42840–42843, 42860, 2 42870, 43021, 42410, 42801.1, 43023. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóç ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ utilities and community choice aggregators, provide a minimum 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 1078 changed the target date of this bill’s implementation to 2010. This Senate Bill will affect statewide GHG emissions associated with electricity generation. In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which set the Renewable Portfolio Standard target to 33 percent by 2020. It directed state government agencies and retail sellers of electricity to take all appropriate actions to implement this target. While the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) is excluded from SB 1078 because it is not an investor-owned utility, it is the stated objective of the district to meet the intent of SB 1078 (TDPUD, 2007). Renewable resources are defined as non-fossil-fueled electric-generating resources, including hydroelectric. Í»²¿¬» Þ·´´ íéë Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) (codified at Government Code and Public Resources Code, signed in 3) September 2008, aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), which will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years, but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects would not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012. Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ñ®¼»® Íóïíóðèæ Ì¸» Ý´·³¿¬» ß¼¿°¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Í»¿ Ô»ª»´ Î·» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ü·®»½¬·ª» On November 14, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08 in order to reduce and assess California’s vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise. The Executive Order initiated four major actions: Initiate California’s first statewide climate change adaptation strategy that will assess the state’s expected climate change impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable and recommend climate adaptation policies by early 2009; Request the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea level rise impacts in California to inform state planning and development efforts; Issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal and floodplain areas for new projects; and Initiate a report on critical existing and planned infrastructure projects vulnerable to sea level rise. The Executive Order will provide consistency and clarify to state agencies on how to address sea level rise in current planning efforts. 3 Senate Bill 375 is codified at Government Code Sections 65080, 65400, 65583, 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.04, 65587, 65588, 14522.1, 14522.2, and 65080.01 as well as Public Resources Code Sections 21061.3, 21159.28, and Chapter 4.2. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóïð ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Û²»®¹§ Ûºº·½·»²½§ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On January 12, 2010, the California Building Standards Commission adopted CALGreen and became the first state in the United States to adopt a statewide green building standards code. CALGreen will require new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials. Ô ÑÝßÔ Ò±®¬¸»®² Í·»®®¿ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ Ü·¬®·½¬ The proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD), which regulates air quality according to the standards established in the Clean Air Act and amendments thereto. The NSAQMD comprises three contiguous, mountainous, rural counties in northeastern California (Nevada, Sierra, and Plumas counties) and regulates air quality through its permitting authority and through air quality related planning and review activities over most types of stationary emission sources. NSAQMD has not yet established significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions from project operations. ìòïìòí Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ÍÍ ÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ Per Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to climate change are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following: 1)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2)Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. To meet GHG emission targets of AB 32, California would need to generate less GHG emissions in the future than current levels. It is recognized, however, that for most projects there is no simple metric available to determine if a single project would substantially increase or decrease overall GHG emission levels or conflict with the goals of AB 32. Moreover, emitting COinto the 2 atmosphere is not itself an adverse environmental effect. It is the increased concentration of COin the atmosphere resulting in global climate change and the associated consequences of 2 climate change that results in adverse environmental effects (e.g., sea level rise, loss of snowpack, severe weather events). Although it is possible to generally estimate a project’s incremental contribution of CO into the atmosphere, it is typically not possible to determine 2 whether or how an individual project’s relatively small incremental contribution might translate into physical effects on the environment. Given the complex interactions between various global and regional-scale physical, chemical, atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic systems that Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóïï ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ result in the physical expressions of global climate change, it is impossible to discern whether the presence or absence of CO emitted by the project would result in any altered conditions. 2 However, the State of California has established GHG reduction targets and has determined that GHG emissions as they relate to global climate change are a source of adverse environmental impacts in California that should be addressed under CEQA. Although AB 32 did not amend CEQA, it identifies the myriad environmental problems in California caused by global warming (Health and Safety Code, Section 38501[a]). In response to the relative lack of guidance on addressing GHGs and climate change, SB 97 was passed in order to amend CEQA by directing the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines addressing the mitigation of GHGs or their consequences. These revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines went into effect in January 2010. In acknowledging that perhaps the most difficult part of the climate change analysis will be the determination of significance, AB 32 requires CARB, the State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to recommend a method for setting thresholds which will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. Thresholds of significance illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. Significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions resulting from residential and/or commercial projects have not been established in Truckee (as previously mentioned, NSAQMD has not yet established significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions from project operations). In January 2009, the State of California, through CARB, published though never adopted its recommended interim greenhouse gas threshold. Utilization of CARB’s recommended interim GHG threshold was considered reasonable and appropriate by NSAQMD staff (Longmire, 2010). For the purposes of evaluating the proposed project’s greenhouse gas impacts, emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project will be quantified and GHG emission reduction strategies will be identified and their emission reduction potential will be quantified and disclosed. The quantified emissions will then be compared with the CARB interim GHG threshold. CARB’s recommended interim greenhouse gas threshold for residential and commercial development, like that allowed under the proposed project, is a threshold based on performance standards. Under CARB’s current recommendations, if a proposed residential and/or commercial project were to emit more that 1,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCOe) per year, such a project would be required to achieve a series of 2 performance standards in order to be considered less than significant. These performance standards are intended to address the generation of GHG emissions from construction, energy use, waste generation, water conveyance, and vehicles. However, no specific performance standards have been identified by CARB for residential/commercial projects except for one energy use-related performance standard that is achieved when residential development exceeds traditional energy efficiency building standards by attaining the California Energy Commission’s Tier II Energy Efficiency goals. CARB has indicated the intention of publishing more specific performance standards in the future, but has yet to do so at the time of this analysis. e CARB’s interim GHG threshold for stationary and industrial land uses has been set at 7,000 MTCO 2 per year. In other words, stationary and industrial projects resulting in the generation of more than 7,000 MTCOe per year (though not accounting for mobile sources as such is not suggested by 2 CARB) would surpass the CARB interim GHG threshold and be considered a significant impact. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóïî ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ As previously stated, there are currently no adopted thresholds of significance established for the Truckee area. For the purposes of evaluating the proposed project’s greenhouse gas impacts, emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project will be quantified and the quantified emissions will then be compared with the CARB recommended interim GHG threshold for stationary and industrial uses, though accounting for transportation emissions. This adaption of CARB’s recommended interim GHG threshold is considered prudent due to the lack of specific and defined residential/commercial performance standards to apply to the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan. Although the proposed project would allow for the development of residential and commercial land uses, CARB’s recommended interim GHG threshold for industrial land uses provides a definitive emission threshold which would trigger a significant impact. Furthermore, the application of CARB’s interim GHG threshold for stationary and industrial lands though accounting for transportation sources of emissions provides a very conservative analysis. Ó ÛÌØÑÜÑÔÑÙÇ GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated for the GHGs that CARB finds are generated from indirect sources like the proposed project, such as carbon dioxide (CO), nitrous 2 oxide (NO), and methane (CH). Calculations of GHG emissions typically focus on CO because it is 242 the most commonly produced GHG in terms of number of sources and volume generated, and because it is among the easiest GHGs to measure. This analysis assesses NO and CH emissions for 24 other primary source categories of emissions (e.g., motor vehicles and energy use associated with long-term operation of the project). It is important to note that while other GHGs, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), have a higher global warming potential than CO, they emit negligible 2 emissions from land use developments like the proposed project under typical operations. Direct mobile source GHG emissions were quantified using EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 provides carbon dioxide and methane emissions according to the unique vehicle and speed composition of each county in California. The analysis includes emissions from vehicles classes provided in EMFAC2007, and the average emissions coefficient were calculated for each vehicle class and applied to the vehicle class vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Nitrous oxide (N0) 2 emissions were calculated using an off-model adjustment provided by CARB in the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Technical Appendices. (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/methods_v1 /ghg_inventory_technical_support_document.pdf). The off-model adjustment uses a linear O with nitrogen oxides (NOx). Weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) regression correlating N 2 and emissions are converted to annual figures using a conversion factor of 347 days per year to account for decreased travel on weekends, per the AB 32 Technical Appendix. Further allowance was given for the high percentage of homes in the project vicinity that are used as vacation homes. According to the 2005–2009 American Community Survey, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 41.9 percent of all housing in the Town represented vacation homes. Given the proposed project’s proximity to recreational resources, including Donner Lake, Donner Memorial State Park, and various ski resorts and other recreational resources, it can be assumed that housing units developed by the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan will likely exhibit similar vacancy characteristics. As such, approximately 41.9 percent of single-family dwelling units, or 204 dwelling units (486*0.419), were assumed to have no work-related vehicle emissions for nine months out of the year. For the purposes of keeping to a conservative estimate, it was assumed stationary sources remain the same (i.e., homes will remain heated even if the owners are not currently in residence). Also, while it is unlikely owners would work in Truckee while residing in these vacation homes, leaving three months of work- related traffic allows for a conservative consideration of actual trips generated. Lastly, multi- family dwelling uses to be developed by the proposed project were assumed to exhibit more Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóïí ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ average residency, as many of these units are to be priced such that local residents could purchase/lease them, greatly reducing the vacation use potential. The EMFAC post-processor tool was used to estimate emissions reductions resulting from the implementation of Pavley I and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Using the EMFAC2007 Pavley post-processor tool, emission reductions resulting from the two applicable state programs (Pavley I and LCFS) were calculated for only the first 4 of the 13 vehicle classes in EMFAC. Pavley I and LCFS only apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles (the first four vehicle classes in EMFAC). URBEMIS 2007 was utilized to estimate the proposed project’s CO emissions from construction 2 and area sources. NO and CH construction emissions were analyzed using the California 4 24 Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1 (January 2009). The General Reporting Protocol, produced by the California Registry and developed with recommendations and technical and policy guidance from the California Energy Commission, is a document , designed to support the accurate reporting of GHG emissions in a quantifiable manner. CO 2 NO, and CH emissions resulting from the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s projected 24 energy demand (electricity and natural gas) were analyzed using the California Energy Commission’s California Commercial End Use Survey (CEC, 2006b) as well as the Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (EIA, 2005). Ð×ÓÓ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ßÒÜ ×Ì×ÙßÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÍËÎÛÍ ßÞ íî Ý±³°´·¿²½» ¿²¼ ÙØÙ Û³··±² Impact 4.14.1 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan may result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would conflict with the goals of AB 32 or result in a significant impact on the environment. This impact is potentially significant. Subsequent development proposed under the Coldstream Specific Plan would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction and mobile sources. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build each phase of the proposed project is depicted in Table 4.14-2. The table indicates that CO would be the primary 2 GHG emitted. Methane (CH) and nitrous oxide (NO) would also be emitted, but these 42 emissions would be substantially less based on their emissions profile. URBEMIS is software that uses the URBEMIS land use emissions inventory model to estimate greenhouse gas and criteria 4 pollutant emissions under particular scenarios involving construction, area, and other sources. It has been designed specifically for California, though a 49-state version is in development, and uses California-specific road and construction emissions factors. The URBEMIS 2007 model uses the California Air Resources Board's EMFAC2007 model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model for off-road vehicle emissions. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóïì ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Ììòïìóî ßÞÔÛ ÝóÎÝÐÐÛ ÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒÛÔßÌÛÜ Î×ÌÛÎ×ß ÑÔÔËÌßÒÌ ßÒÜ ÎÛÝËÎÍÑÎ Ó×ÍÍ×ÑÒÍ øÐÜ÷ ÑËÒÜÍ ÐÛÎ ßÇ Ý¿®¾±² Ò·¬®±« Í«´º«® Ð®±¶»½¬ Ó»¬¸¿²» Ø§¼®±º´«±®±½¿®¾±² Ð»®º´«±®±½¿®¾±² Ü·±¨·¼» Ñ¨·¼» Ø»¨¿º´«±®·¼» ÝÑ» î Ð¸¿» øÝØ÷ øØÚÝ÷ øÐÚÝ÷ ì øÝÑ÷ øÒÑ÷ øÍÚ÷ îîê Ð¸¿» × íôïðî ðòïéé ðòðéç Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò íôïíð Ð¸¿» ×× îôìîî ðòïíè ðòðêî Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò îôììì Ð¸¿» ××× îôïìð ðòïîî ðòðëì Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò îôïëç Ð¸¿» ×Ê îôðçí ðòïïç ðòðëí Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò îôïïï Ð¸¿» Ê èéè ðòðëð ðòðîî Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò èèë ðÙ×ÒÔùÑÕËËÕÏÐËÏØÊÖÕË÷ö÷ÇÏÉÒÚÜÙ²»¹´·¹·¾´» º®±³ ¬¸· ±«®½» ½¿¬»¹±®§ ø´» ¬¸¿² ðòðï ³»¬®·½ ¬±² °»® §»¿®÷ò Í±«®½»æ Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ý´·³¿¬» ß½¬·±² Î»¹·¬®§ô îððçå ËÎÞÛÓ×Íô îððé øß°°»²¼·¨ Û÷ Table 4.14-2 illustrates the construction-related GHG emissions that would result from each construction phase of the proposed project. As shown in Table 4.14-2, GHG emissions are anticipated to decrease over the years of phased construction. As shown in Table 4.14-3, the long-term operations of the proposed project would produce 8,476 e annually, primarily from motor vehicles that travel to and from the site. For metric tons of CO 2 e per year are considered purposes of this analysis, the total emissions of 8,476 metric tons of CO 2 the business-as-usual (BAU) figure. Ììòïìóí ßÞÔÛ ÛÐÙÙÛÔÐÑ ÍÌ×ÓßÌÛÜ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍ Ó×ÍÍ×ÑÒÍ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÐÛÎßÌ×ÑÒ øÓÌÇ÷ ÛÌÎ×Ý ÑÒÍ ÐÛÎ ÛßÎ Ý¿®¾±² Ò·¬®±« Ø§¼®±óÐ»®óÍ«´º«® Ó»¬¸¿²» Û³··±² Í±«®½» Ü·±¨·¼» Ñ¨·¼» º´«±®±½¿®¾±² º´«±®±½¿®¾±² Ø»¨¿º´«±®·¼» ÝÑ» î øÝØ÷ ì øÝÑ÷ øÒÑ÷ øØÚÝ÷ øÐÚÝ÷ øÍÚ÷ îîê ï Ó±¾·´» Í±«®½» íôéèì íôêéí Ò»¹´ò ðòíê Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò øª»¸·½´»÷ ß®»¿ Í±«®½» ïôçèî Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò ïôçèî ø´¿²¼½¿°·²¹ô ¸»¿®¬¸÷ î Û´»½¬®·½·¬§ïôîëé ðòðê ðòðî Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò ïôîêì Í¬¿¬·±²¿®§ Ò¿¬«®¿´ ïôíïí Í±«®½» ïôîçë ðòîé ðòðì Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò î Ù¿ É¿¬»® Ý±²ª»§¿²½» ïíî ïíï ðòðï Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò ¿²¼ Ì®»¿¬³»²¬ Ì±¬¿´ Û³··±² èôííè ðòíí ðòìî Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò Ò»¹´ò èôìéê ðÙ×ÒÔùÑÕËËÕÏÐËÏØÊÖÕË÷ö÷ÇÏÉÒÚÜÙ²»¹´·¹·¾´» º®±³ ¬¸· ±«®½» ½¿¬»¹±®§ ø´» ¬¸¿² ðòðï ³»¬®·½ ¬±² °»® §»¿®÷ò Í±«®½»æ ®»º»® ¬± ß°°»²¼·¨ Û º±® ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ¿«³°¬·±² ¿²¼ ³±¼»´·²¹ ±«¬°«¬ º·´» º±® ß®»¿ Í±«®½» Û³··±²ô Ó±¾·´» Í±«®½»ô Í¬¿¬·±²¿®§ Í±«®½»ô ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ý±²ª»§¿²½» Û³··±²÷å Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ý´·³¿¬» ß½¬·±² Î»¹·¬®§ô îððç ï Í±«®½»æ ÛÓÚßÝ îððéò Û³··±² °®»»²¬»¼ ¿®» ÒÑÌ ¿¼¶«¬»¼ º±® º«¬«®» ·³°®±ª»¼ ÝßÚW ¬¿²¼¿®¼ øÐ¿ª´»§ ×÷ ¿²¼ Ô±© Ý¿®¾±² Ú«»´ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ò î Í±«®½»æ ÝÛÝô îððê¾ í Í±«®½»æ ÝÛÝô îððê½ Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóïë ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan contains Green Design Guidelines to encourage the use of sensitive environmental design and renewable resources to reduce the environmental impacts of development. These Green Design Guidelines include: The provision of a multi-use trail and bikeway system in order to help implement the goals of the Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The proposed trail network (Figure 3.0-15) will comprise an interconnected system of on-street sidewalks and an off- street system of multi-use trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. The system provides access and recreation throughout the entire project site and provides opportunities for connections within different Specific Plan districts, as well as to the greater Truckee community (i.e., the proposed trail network will connect to trails located in Donner Memorial State Park). The promotion of bicycling and transportation efficiency by linking development to the proposed comprehensive trail system within the project site. Bicycle parking spaces or storage for no less than 15 percent of the parking space capacity provided for cars for the project’s multi-family residential buildings. Continuous sidewalks and/or trails within the project site. The minimization of water use in buildings and landscape irrigation through the planting of native and naturalized plant materials. The Coldstream Specific Plan proposes a list of plants to provide biologists, landscape architects, designers, contractors, and developers with a palette of plant materials suitable for preservation, restoration, and enhancement activities within the project. Prior to specifying plant materials, research will be conducted to determine water requirements, soil needs, hardiness, and ultimate growth of the desired species. The provision of landscape elements within the Coldstream Specific Plan including street trees and common area plantings. The provision of enhanced energy efficiency by creating the optimum conditions for the use of passive and active solar strategies by siting buildings to take advantage of solar orientation and prevailing breezes. Proper building orientation facilitates the use of natural day lighting. South- and west-facing windows will have sun shading devices in most instances. Buildings that utilize shading devices and natural ventilation, along with ceiling fans, generally reduce both heating and cooling loads. Incorporation of energy-saving concepts into home designs such as the use deep window overhangs and/or trellises, primarily on south- and west-facing glass, to provide a balance between summer cooling and winter heating through solar gain. Use of deciduous trees to shade west-facing windows. Natural cooling reduces the need for air conditioning. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan also provides for affordable housing and workforce housing, both of which greatly increase the probability that commuters would be able to walk and bike to work. According to an emissions reduction estimate prepared for the proposed project (Appendix I), it is estimated that the features listed above would result in the reduction of 301 metric tons of eper year. CO 2 Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóïê ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ In addition to the above-listed features, there are other changes to regulations that will take effect in the near future and that will substantially reduce GHG emissions. Implementation of AB 1493 (Pavley) as well as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a fuel standard that requires a reduction of at least 10 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2020, will significantly reduce the amount of GHG emitted from passenger vehicles. According to CARB’s EMFAC2007 post-processor tool, CO emissions resulting from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium- 2 duty automobiles are projected to decrease by 537 metric tons in 2015. Other regulatory changes that affect BAU emissions include implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard and the update to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) effective January 1, 2011. These regulations are estimated to decrease energy emissions by 1,252 metric tons in 2015. These regulations by CARB and others will further reduce project GHG emissions as shown in Table 4.14-4. Ììòïìóì ßÞÔÛ ÙØÙÎßÒÎ ÛÜËÝÌ×ÑÒÍ ÚÎÑÓ ÐÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÛÉ ÛÙËÔßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÝÑ Û³··±² Î»¼«½¬·±² î Í»½¬±® Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Ô»¹·´¿¬·±² øÓ»¬®·½ Ì±²ñÇ»¿®÷ Ü·®»½¬ Í±«®½» ï Ó±¾·´» Í»½¬±® ßÞ ïìçí Ð¿ª´»§ ú ëíé Ô±© Ý¿®¾±² Ú«»´ Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ ×²¼·®»½¬ Í±«®½» Û´»½¬®·½·¬§ Ù»²»®¿¬·±² Î»²»©¿¾´» Ð±®¬º±´·± Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ íêë Û´»½¬®·½·¬§ Ý±²«³°¬·±² îðïð ÝßÔÙ®»»² Ý±¼» íëð Ì±¬¿´ Î»¹«´¿¬±®§ Î»¼«½¬·±² ïôîëî Í±«®½»æ ÝßÎÞ ÛÓÚßÝîððé ÞËÎÜÛÒ ³±¼»´ ø»» ß°°»²¼·¨ × º±® ¼»¬¿·´»¼ ¿«³°¬·±² ¿²¼ ³±¼»´·²¹ ±«¬°«¬ º·´»÷ò ï Ñ²´§ °¿»²¹»® ½¿®ô ´·¹¸¬ó¼«¬§ ¬®«½µô ¿²¼ ³»¼·«³ó¼«¬§ ª»¸·½´» ¿®» ¿½½±«²¬»¼ º±® ·² º«¬«®» ·³°®±ª»¼ ßÞ ïìçí Ð¿ª´»§ ®»¼«½¬·±²ò When the reductions from proposed project design features (a reduction of 301 metric tons of e per year) and GHG reduction regulations (a reduction of 1,252 metric tons of COeper CO 22 year), the amount of project GHG emissions is 6,923 metric tons of GHG emissions per year, which is just below the CARB interim significance threshold of 7,000 MTCOe per year. As 2 previously mentioned, one specific, energy use-related performance standard has been identified by CARB for residential/commercial projects. This performance standard is achieved by attaining the California Energy Commission’s Tier II Energy Efficiency goals. In light of the fact that CARB has yet to fully develop a GHG threshold or mitigating performance standards, it is considered prudent to require the following mitigation to reduce GHG emissions even further below the 7,000 MTCOe threshold. 2 Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» MM 4.14.1 The project applicant shall include the following energy-efficient building measure, to be applied to site development for each structure: Exceed California minimum energy efficiency standards (Title 24, Part 6) by 15 percent or more at the time of building permit issuance. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóïé ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Town of Truckee Planning Division According to an emissions reduction estimate prepared for the proposed project (Appendix I), it is estimated that mitigation measure MM 4.14.1 would result in the reduction of 159 metric tons of eper year. CO 2 Table 4.14-5 presents a summary of all GHG reductions associated with the proposed project. Ììòïìóë ßÞÔÛ ÍÐÙØÙÎ ËÓÓßÎÇ ÑÚ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÛÜËÝÌ×ÑÒÍ Û³··±² Î»¼«½¬·±² Í«³³¿®§ ÝÑ Û³··±² øÓ»¬®·½ Ì±² ÝÑ» Ç»¿®÷ îî Ì±¬¿´ Þ«·²»ó¿óË«¿´ øÞßË÷ Û³··±² èôìéê Ð®±¶»½¬óÎ»´¿¬»¼ ÝÑ Î»¼«½¬·±² íðï î Î»¹«´¿¬±®§ Î»¼«½¬·±² ïôîëî Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» ÓÓ ìòïìòï ïëç Ì±¬¿´ ÙØÙ Û³··±² Î»¼«½¬·±² ïôéïî Ð»®½»²¬ Î»¼«½¬·±² º®±³ Þ«·²» ¿ Ë«¿´ îðòîû Î»³¿·²·²¹ Û³··±² êôéêì ÝßÎÞ ×²¬»®·³ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ º±® Ô» ¬¸¿² Í·¹²·º·½¿²¬ Ü»¬»®³·²¿¬·±² éôððð ÓÌÝÑ» °»® §»¿® î In addition to the GHG emission reductions described above, it is important to note that the , CH, and NO emission estimates for vehicle trips associated with the proposed project are CO 242 likely much greater than the emissions that would actually occur. The analysis methodology used for the emissions estimate assumes that all emissions sources are new sources and that emissions from these sources are 100 percent additive to existing conditions. This is a standard conservative approach taken for GHG analyses. In many cases, such an assumption is appropriate because it is impossible to determine whether emissions sources associated with a project move from outside the air basin, and are in effect new emissions sources, or whether they are sources that were already in the air basin and just shifted to a new location. Because the effects of GHGs are global, a project that merely shifts the location of a GHG-emitting activity (e.g., where people live, where vehicles drive, or where companies conduct business) would result in no net change in global GHG emissions levels. For example, if a substantial portion of California’s population migrated from the South Coast Air Basin (managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District) to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (managed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District), this migration would likely result in decreased emissions in the South Coast Air Basin and increased emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, but little change in overall global GHG emissions. However, if a person moves from one location where the land use pattern requires substantial vehicle use for day-to-day activities (commuting, shopping, etc.) to a new development that promotes shorter and fewer vehicle trips, more walking, and overall less energy usage, then it could be argued that the new development would result in a potential net reduction in global GHG emissions. It is impossible to know at this time whether future residents of the proposed project would have longer or shorter trips relative to their homes and other destinations, whether they would walk, Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóïè ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ bike, and use public transportation more or less than under existing circumstances, and whether their overall driving habits would result in higher or lower vehicle miles traveled. Much of the vehicle-generated COe emissions attributed to the proposed project could simply be from 2 vehicles at an existing location moving to the project site and not from new vehicle emissions sources relative to global climate change. Therefore, although it is not possible to calculate the , CH, and NO emissions from the proposed project net contribution of vehicle-generated CO 242 (i.e., project-generated emissions minus current emissions from vehicles that would move to the project site), the net contribution would likely be much less than the estimated emissions. With the features discussed above, the GHG emissions from the proposed project have been reduced to 6,764 metric tons of COe per year, which is under the significance threshold of 7,000 2 MTCOe per year. Therefore, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan is consistent with the State 2 of California’s ability to meet its AB 32 goals. Thus, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions is considered less than significant. Environmental effects of climate change that could impact the project include the following: Increased flooding; Changes precipitation that alter water supplies; and Increased wildland fire hazards. These environmental issues are addressed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Risk of Upset,, Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.11, Community Services, of this Draft EIR. There are currently no technical studies or reports that identify specific changes to these environmental issue areas for the Truckee area associated with climate change. While climate change is anticipated to result in a change in the type of precipitation in the Sierra Nevada (e.g., more rain than snow in the future), there is no specific evidence that the total amount of precipitation for the Truckee area would alter groundwater resources. Thus, no adverse environmental impacts associated with climate change to the project are currently anticipated. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ìòïìóïç ìòïìÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ Î ÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÍ Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2006. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2004. Climate Change Emissions Control Regulations. ———. 2010. Pavley I and Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor Version 1.0. California Climate Action Registry. 2009. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006a. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 (CEC-600-2006-013). ———. 2006b. California Commercial End Use Survey. ———. 2006c. Redefining Estimates for Water-Related Energy Use. ———. 2008. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/. California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2005. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Energy Consumption and Expenditure Tables. European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee (EFCTC). 2003. Fluorocarbons and Sulphur Hexafluoride: Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Fact Sheet. http://www.fluorocarbons.org/en/info/ brochures/ fact_10.html. LSC Transportation Consultants. 2009. PC-1 Coldstream Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. Longmire, Sam. 2010. Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District. Personal communications with PMC staff. Rimpo and Associates. 2007. URBEMIS2007 v. 9.2.4: Environmental Management Software. Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD). 2007. Truckee Donner PUD Renewable Portfolio Standard. Underwood, Anne. 2007. “Mayors Take the Lead.” Newsweek, April 16: 68–73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006a. Methane. http://www.epa.gov/methane /index.html. ———. 2006b. Nitrous Oxide. http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/index.html ———. 2006c. High Global Warming Potential Gases. http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html ———. 2008a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide. ———. 2010. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2008. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ìòïìóîð ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) summarizes the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan that are identified in environmental issue areas in Section 4.0 of this DEIR. Cumulative impacts are the result of combining the potential effects of the proposed project with other planned developments as well as foreseeable development projects. The following discussion considers the cumulative impacts of the relevant environmental issue areas. ëòï × ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with the proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (as defined by Section 15130). As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, 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. A cumulative impact occurs from: …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. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. In addition, Section 15130(b) identifies that the following three elements are necessary for an adequate cumulative analysis: 1) Either: (A)A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (B)A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. 2) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and 3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects. Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not cumulatively considerable, a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. This Draft EIR utilizes both the “list” and the “general plan” approach in the cumulative analysis. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ëòðóï ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ëòî ÝÍ ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÌ×ÒÙ Each environmental issue area evaluated in the Draft EIR identifies its own cumulative setting. ëòí Ý×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌ ËÓÓßÎÇ Following is a compilation of the cumulative impacts that would result from the implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan and future development in the vicinity. As described above, cumulative impacts are two or more effects that, when combined, are considerable or compound other environmental effects. Each cumulative impact is determined to have one of the following levels of significance: significant and unavoidable, less than significant, cumulatively considerable, and less than cumulatively considerable. The specific cumulative impacts for each environmental issue area are identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this Draft EIR, including mitigation measures and level of significance after mitigation. ìòï ÔË ßÒÜ ÍÛ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ô¿²¼ Ë» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±²º´·½¬ Impact 4.1.5 The proposed project, in combination with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Town of Truckee and nearby areas of Nevada County and Placer County, could result in conflicts with applicable land use planning policies. This would be a less than cumulatively considerable impact. ìòî ÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ×ÎÝËÔßÌ×ÑÒ Û¨½»»¼¿²½» ±º ÔÑÍ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ¿¬ Í¬«¼§ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ë²¼»® Ç»¿® îðíð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.2.11 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in the exceedance of the LOS threshold at study intersections. This is considered a cumulatively considerable impact. ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ Û¨½»»¼·²¹ Í¬±®¿¹» Ý¿°¿½·¬§ Ë²¼»® Ç»¿® îðíð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.2.12 Implementation of the proposed project would result in intersection queuing that exceeds existing storage capacity at study intersections. This is a cumulatively considerable impact. Û¨½»»¼¿²½» ±º ÔÑÍ Ì¸®»¸±´¼ ¿¬ Í¬«¼§ Î±¿¼©¿§ «²¼»® Ç»¿® îðíð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.2.13 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would not result in the exceedance of the LOS threshold at study roadway segments. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. ìòí Ò Ñ×ÍÛ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×²½®»¿» ·² ß³¾·»²¬ Ò±·» Ô»ª»´ Impact 4.3.9 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, could result in significant traffic noise exposure for existing residents along Deerfield Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ëòðóî ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ Drive east of the project site under Option 1 roadway design as well as expose future project residents to excessive noise levels under cumulative conditions. This would be a cumulatively considerable impact. ìòì ßÏ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ÝÑ ¿²¼ ÌßÝ Ý±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² Impact 4.4.7 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Mountain Counties Air Basin, would not contribute to localized concentrations of mobile-source CO that would exceed applicable ambient air quality standards. This impact would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Î»¹·±²¿´ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.4.8 Long-term operation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Mountain Counties Air Basin, would contribute to cumulative increases in that could contribute to future emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants and PM 10 , for which the region is currently designated concentrations of ozone and PM 10 nonattainment. This impact would be considered cumulatively considerable. Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ß¬³±°¸»®·½ Ü»°±·¬·±² ±º Ò·¬®±¹»² ·² Ô¿µ» Ì¿¸±» Impact 4.4.9 Long-term operation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonable foreseeable development in the region, would contribute to atmospheric deposition of and other pollutants that contribute to elevated nitrogen levels that NO x affect the clarity and health of Lake Tahoe. This impact would be considered less than cumulatively considerable. ìòë ÙÍ ÛÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÔÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Í±·´ Í¬¿¾·´·¬§ ¿²¼ Í»·³·½ ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.5.6 Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Town of Truckee and nearby areas of Nevada County and Placer County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and soils impacts. The proposed project’s incremental contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. ìòê ØÎË ßÆßÎÜÍ ßÒÜ ×ÍÕ ÑÚ ÐÍÛÌ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Ø¿¦¿®¼±« Ó¿¬»®·¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Impact 4.6.5 Implementation of the proposed project, in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and other reasonably foreseeable projects, may result in cumulative hazardous material and human health risk impacts. The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ëòðóí ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ìòé ØÉÏ ÇÜÎÑÔÑÙÇ ßÒÜ ßÌÛÎ ËßÔ×ÌÇ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ Impact 4.7.6 The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Middle Truckee River Basin, would alter drainage conditions, rates, volumes, and water quality, which could result in potential flooding and stormwater quality impacts within the overall watershed. This is considered a cumulatively considerable impact. ìòè ÞÎ ×ÑÔÑÙ×ÝßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.8.8 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development, will result in the conversion of habitat and impact biological resources. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. ìòç ØÝÎ ×ÍÌÑÎ×Ý ßÒÜ ËÔÌËÎßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð®»¸·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ø·¬±®·½ Î»±«®½» ¿²¼ Ø«³¿² Î»³¿·² Impact 4.9.5 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with foreseeable development in the surrounding area, could result in the disturbance of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) and human remains. This impact is considered cumulatively considerable. Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð¿´»±²¬±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.9.6 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, along with any foreseeable development in the surrounding area, could result in the potential disturbance of paleontological resources (i.e., fossils and fossil formations). This impact is considered cumulatively considerable. ìòïð ÊÎñÔÙ ×ÍËßÔ ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ×ÙØÌ ßÒÜ ÔßÎÛ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ü»¹®¿¼¿¬·±² ±º Í½»²·½ Î»±«®½» Impact 4.10.3 Scenic resources may be degraded by implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan in combination with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the area. This impact is considered less thancumulatively considerable. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ëòðóì ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ìòïï ÝÍ ÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ú·®» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² ¿²¼ Û³»®¹»²½§ Ó»¼·½¿´ Í»®ª·½» Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ú·®» ¿²¼ Û³»®¹»²½§ Ó»¼·½¿´ Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.11.1.2 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the TFPD service area, would contribute to cumulative demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ð±´·½» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð±´·½» Ð®±¬»½¬·±² Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.11.2.2 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the TTPD service area, would contribute to cumulative demands for police protection services. This is a less than cumulatively considerable impact. Ð¿®µ ¿²¼ Î»½®»¿¬·±² Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Ð¿®µ ¿²¼ Î»½®»¿¬·±² Impact 4.11.3.3 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the Town of Truckee, would contribute to cumulative demands for park and recreation facilities. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Í½¸±±´ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Í½¸±±´ Impact 4.11.4.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other proposed and approved development in the TTUSD service area, would increase the demand for school services provided by the TTUSD. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. ìòïî ËÍÍ Ì×Ô×Ì×ÛÍ ßÒÜ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛ ÇÍÌÛÓÍ ÉÍ ßÌÛÎ ËÐÐÔÇ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± É¿¬»® Ü»³¿²¼ñÉ¿¬»® Ü·¬®·¾«¬·±² Ú¿½·´·¬·» Impact 4.12.1.2 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with cumulative development under the Town of Truckee General Plan, would increase the current demand for water supply and distribution facilities. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ ëòðóë ëòðÝ×Í ËÓËÔßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ËÓÓßÎÇ ÉÍ ßÍÌÛÉßÌÛÎ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± É¿¬»©¿¬»® Ý±´´»½¬·±² ¿²¼ Ì®»¿¬³»²¬ Impact 4.12.2.3 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other approved and planned development in the TTSA and TSD service areas, would increase the current demand for wastewater collection and treatment services.This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. ÍÉÜ ÑÔ×Ü ßÍÌÛ ×ÍÐÑÍßÔ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Í±´·¼ É¿¬» Ü·°±¿´ Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.12.3.4 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in TTSD’s service area, would contribute to cumulative demands for solid waste disposal services. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. ÛôÒÙôÌôÝÍ ÔÛÝÌÎ×ÝßÔßÌËÎßÔ ßÍ ÛÔÛÐØÑÒÛ ßÒÜ ßÞÔÛ ÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» ×³°¿½¬ ¬± Û´»½¬®·½¿´ô Ò¿¬«®¿´ Ù¿ô Ì»´»°¸±²»ô ¿²¼ Ý¿¾´» Í»®ª·½» Impact 4.12.4.3 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other planned and approved projects in the service areas of TDPUD, Southwest Gas, AT&T, and Suddenlink Communications, would contribute to cumulative demands for electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable service. This impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. ìòïí ÐôØôÍ ÑÐËÔßÌ×ÑÒ ÑËÍ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÑÝ×ÑÛÝÑÒÑÓ×ÝÍ Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Ù®±©¬¸ ×²¼«½»³»²¬ Impact 4.13.4 The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan, in combination with other existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Town of Truckee, could result in substantial growth inducement. However, this growth was anticipated in the Town’s General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is not considered a new adverse impact. This impact is less thancumulatively considerable. ìòïì ÙÙÝÝ ÎÛÛÒØÑËÍÛ ßÍÛÍ ßÒÜ Ô×ÓßÌÛ ØßÒÙÛ ßÞ íî Ý±³°´·¿²½» ¿²¼ ÙØÙ Û³··±² Impact 4.14.1 Implementation of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan may result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would conflict with the goals of AB 32 or result in a significant impact on the environment. This impact is potentially significant. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï ëòðóê êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ êòï × ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÙÝÛÏßÎ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÛÏË×ÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ CEQA GuidelinesSection 15126.6(a) states “an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the 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, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative, but rather consider a “reasonable range” of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). ßßÛ×Î ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÒßÔÇÆÛÜ ×Ò ÌØÛ Five alternatives to the proposed project are analyzed in this DEIR and are described below. Alternative 1A – No Project No Development Alternative. Under this alternative, no development of the project site would occur. The project site would remain in its current undeveloped state. This alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project, the Town of Truckee General Plan, or the Truckee Redevelopment Plan, but analysis of the No Project Alternative is required under CEQA GuidelinesSection 15126.6(e). Alternative 1B –No Project Consistent with General Plan Alternative. Under this alternative, the project site would be developed consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation for PC-1, which allows 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. Alternative 2 –Reduced Residential Development and Reconfigured Roadway Alternative. This alternative would reduce the number of residential units proposed on the project site by 50 dwelling units east of Cold Creek in the Forest Residential zoning district, resulting in 295 residential units. The roadway system would be modified to provide only emergency access to Deerfield Drive east of the project site (see Figure 6.0-1). All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative 3 –Wetland Impact Minimization Alternative. This alternative would retain the same overall site design; however, the site design would be modified to avoid wetland impacts in the southern portion and eastern portion of the site (see Figure 6.0-5). This would result in a reduction of 15 residential units for a total of 330 units. In addition, the roadway system would be modified to provide only emergency access to Deerfield Drive east of the project site. All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative 4 – Reduced Development Potential Alternative. This alternative would substantially redesign the project through the reduction in the number of residential units by 85 units for a total of 260 residential units, as well as the elimination of 70,000 square feet of commercial uses (see Figure 6.0-6). The roadway pattern for this alternative would be reconfigured to provide an emergency-only access to Deerfield Drive. This reduction in site development would minimize impacts to wetlands as well as avoid project traffic impacts to the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóï êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ For each project alternative, the significant environmental impacts are identified, as well as the impacts of the proposed project that would be avoided. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the proposed project, the significant effects of the alternative are discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)). The discussion for each alternative addresses potential impacts on each of the environmental issues presented in Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR. If a potential impact under an alternative is similar to that under the proposed project, the discussion will so note and no further analysis of the potential impact would be conducted. êòî ßÝÎ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÑÒÍ×ÜÛÎÛÜ ÞËÌ ÛÖÛÝÌÛÜ CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (1) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (2) infeasibility, or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The land use development alternative that was considered but rejected includes the following: Alternative Site – The possibility of placing the proposed project on an alternative site within the Town of Truckee was not feasible. No other sites are available in the town with the necessary characteristics to accommodate a development of the size and scale proposed by PC-1. Furthermore, development of another site would not fulfill the General Plan policies specific to PC-1 (e.g., policies regarding Cold Creek, Donner Creek, and Donner Memorial State Park). êòí ßïßÔÒÐÒÜß ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Ñ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ñ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Üß ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Under Alternative 1A (No Project No Development Alternative), the proposed project would not be implemented and the project site would remain in its existing condition, which is undeveloped. While the project site is currently designated as PC-1 in the Town of Truckee General Plan, this alternative assumes that no residential development would ever take place at the project site. Existing vegetation communities and ponds located on the project site would remain intact. No man-made alterations of the project site would occur and no connection to Deerfield Drive would be created. Ý× ÑÓÐßÎßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ The following analysis is based on the significant environmental impacts identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.14. Ô¿²¼ Ë» The proposed project would result in potential significant impacts to Donner Memorial State Park that would be mitigated with the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1.3. Under Alternative 1A, the proposed project site would remain in its current undeveloped state. No improvements would be made and no revisions to the General Plan would be required. Land use impacts would be considered better in association with Alternative 1A compared to the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóî êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² The following significant traffic impacts were identified for the proposed project: Construction Impacts (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2010 Conditions (significant but mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Existing Goals and Policies (significant and unavoidable for Options 2, 3 and 4) Exacerbation of an Existing Traffic Safety Deficiency (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Under Alternative 1A, the proposed project site would remain in its current undeveloped state. No increase in traffic levels would occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. Deerfield Drive would not be extended to form a connection with Coldstream Road and thus would conflict with General Plan Policy P2.4. Transportation and circulation impacts would be considered better in association with Alternative 1A compared to the proposed project. Ò±·» The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Project would result in the following significant noise impacts: Construction Noise Impacts (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at the Project Site for All Options (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at Existing Residences Due to Increased Traffic from the Project Site for Option 1 (significant but mitigable) On-Site Retail/Commercial Noise Source Impacts (significant but mitigable) Alternative 1A would result in the project site remaining in its current undeveloped state. Ambient noise levels would remain unchanged as no development would be introduced to the site. Therefore noise impacts associated with Alternative 1A would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant air quality impacts: Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóí êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Long-Term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (significant but mitigable) Contribution to Cumulative Regional Air Quality Conditions (cumulatively considerable/significant and unavoidable) Alternative 1A would result in the project site remaining in its current undeveloped state. No construction would occur and no commercial or residential uses would be constructed on the site. Therefore, no short-term construction air quality impacts or long-term operational air quality impacts resulting from increased traffic to the site would occur. Overall, Alternative 1A would result in lesser (better) impacts to air quality compared to the proposed project. Ù»±´±¹§ ¿²¼ Í±·´ The proposed project would result in the following significant geology and soils impacts: Exposure to Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Unstable Soils (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Landslides (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Shallow Groundwater (significant but mitigable) Radon Gas (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 1A would not involve any physical changes to the project site. No earth moving, soil import, or soil disturbance would occur and the existing configuration of the site would remain unchanged. No structures would be placed on the site, thereby avoiding issues associated with liquefaction, shallow groundwater, and radon. Therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be better in association with Alternative 1A compared to the proposed project. Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Î·µ ±º Ë°»¬ The proposed project would result in the following significant hazards and risk of upset impacts: Wildland Fire Hazards On-Site and in the Vicinity (significant but mitigable) Alternative 1A would not expose individuals to hazards or risk of upset as the site would not be disturbed or developed. Structures would not be placed on the site, thereby avoiding potential exposure to wildland fire. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards and risk of upset would be better in association with Alternative 1A compared to those of the proposed project. Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant hydrology and water quality impacts: Construction Water Quality Impacts (significant but mitigable) Stormwater Runoff Generation and Surface Water Drainage Patterns (significant but mitigable) Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóì êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Operational Surface Water Quality (significant but mitigable) Groundwater Quality and Recharge (significant but mitigable) Exposure of Structures and Facilities to Flood Hazards (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Alternative 1A would not alter the existing drainage or runoff patterns on the project site. No impervious surfaces or structures would be introduced to the site and the existing ponds would not be modified. As a result, no increases in runoff volumes would occur and no urban pollutants would be introduced to the project site that could affect water quality. Since no additional impervious surfaces would be added to the project site, groundwater recharge would not be affected. Therefore, impacts associated with Alternative 1A would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant biological resources impacts: Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and Other Listed Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Species of Concern, California Fully Protected, and Other Non-Listed Special- Status Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Sensitive Biological Communities, Including Riparian Habitat (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands (significant but mitigable) Loss of Trees (significant but mitigable) Alternative 1A would result in the project site remaining in its current condition with no construction or disturbance of existing on-site wetlands and habitat. As a result, impacts to endangered, threatened, and listed species, biological communities, wetlands, and trees would be avoided. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1A would result in better impacts to biological resources than the proposed project because the site would not be disturbed to accommodate development. Biological impacts associated with Alternative 1A would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant historic and cultural resources impacts: Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource (significant but mitigable) Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geological Feature (significant but mitigable) Disturb Human Remains (significant but mitigable) Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóë êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Cumulative Impacts to Prehistoric and Historic Resources and Human Remains (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Paleontological Resources (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Alternative 1A would result in the project site remaining in its current, undeveloped condition. No disturbance would take place in association with construction such as earthmoving or excavation. As a result, no impacts would occur to potential archaeological and paleontological resources that may be present on the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with Alternative 1A would be better compared to those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®» The proposed project would not result in any significant visual resources/light and glare impacts. Alternative 1A would result in the site remaining in its current undeveloped state. No development would be introduced to the site resulting in alteration of the existing character and natural landscape. No trees would be removed and no new sources of light or glare would be introduced to the site. Therefore, impacts associated with implementation of Alternative 1A would be better than those associated with the proposed project. Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í»®ª·½» The proposed project would result in the following significant community services impacts: Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 1A would have no change with regard to demand for community services including fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreation, and school facilities. The site would remain in its current undeveloped condition and would not generate the need for additional community services. Therefore, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreation, and school facilities would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ë¬·´·¬·» ¿²¼ Í»®ª·½» Í§¬»³ The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Implementation of Alternative 1A would have no change with regard to demand for utilities and services systems including water, wastewater, solid waste, electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable services.The site would remain in its current undeveloped condition and would not generate the demand for additional utilities and service systems. Therefore, impacts to water, wastewater, solid waste, electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable services would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ð±°«´¿¬·±²ô Ø±«·²¹ô ¿²¼ Í±½·±»½±²±³·½ The proposed project would not result in any significant population, housing, and socioeconomic impacts. Alternative 1A would result in the site remaining undeveloped, with no commercial development or residential uses. As a result, no new housing or commercial opportunities would be developed on the site. No change in the jobs-to-housing ratio would occur in association with Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóê êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ implementation of Alternative 1A. Therefore, impacts to population, housing, and socioeconomics would be better in association with Alternative 1A compared to the proposed project. Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿» ¿²¼ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» The proposed project would result in potentially significant climate change impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.14.1. Alternative 1A would result in the site remaining undeveloped, with no commercial development or residential uses. Therefore, impacts to climate change would be better in association with Alternative 1A compared to the proposed project. êòì ßïÞÔÒÐÝÙÐß ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Ñ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÑÒÍ×ÍÌÛÒÌ É×ÌØ ÛÒÛÎßÔ ÔßÒ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Üß ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Alternative 1B would allow the project site to be developed consist with the existing General Plan land use designation for PC-1, which allows 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses.Under this alternative, development would occur similar to the proposed project but at a slightly lower density. No connection to Deerfield Drive is proposed as part of Alternative 1B. Ýß ÑÓÐßÎßÌ×ÊÛ ÒßÔÇÍ×Í The following analysis is based on the significant environmental impacts identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.14. Ô¿²¼ Ë» The proposed project would result in potential significant impacts to Donner Memorial State Park that would be mitigated with the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1.3. Alternative 1B would result in development of the site consistent with the existing General Plan designation for PC-1. No rezone or General Plan Amendment would be required. A slightly lower number of residential units are proposed in association with Alternative 1B compared to the proposed project. The amount of commercial development would remain the same under Alternative 1B as the proposed project. Therefore, land use impacts would be the same under Alternative 1B and the proposed project. Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² The following significant traffic impacts were identified for the proposed project: Construction Impacts (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2010 Conditions (significant but mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Existing Goals and Policies (significant and unavoidable for Options 2, 3 and 4) Exacerbation of an Existing Traffic Safety Deficiency (significant but mitigable) Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóé êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Since the amount of development proposed as part of Alternative 1B would be slightly less with regard to residential units (300 versus 345) compared to the proposed project, traffic volumes would be reduced relative to residential trips. No connection to Deerfield Drive would occur as part of this project (which would conflict with General Plan Policy P2.4), thereby avoiding increased trips along the existing segment of Deerfield Drive. Overall, transportation and circulation impacts associated with Alternative 1B would be better than would occur in association with the proposed project. Ò±·» The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Project would result in the following significant noise impacts: Construction Noise Impacts (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at the Project Site for All Options (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at Existing Residences Due to Increased Traffic from the Project Site for Option 1 (significant but mitigable) On-Site Retail/Commercial Noise Source Impacts (significant but mitigable) Noise levels associated with implementation of Alternative 1B would be less than would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Less construction would be required because fewer residential units would be built on the site. Likewise, less operational noise would occur in association with Alternative 1B compared to the proposed project because there would be fewer residential trips and no connection of Deerfield Drive. Therefore, noise impacts associated with Alternative 1B would be less intense than would occur in association with the proposed project. ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant air quality impacts: Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (significant but mitigable) Contribution to Cumulative Regional Air Quality Conditions (cumulatively considerable/significant and unavoidable) Air quality impacts associated with construction would be less in association with Alternative 1B because up to 45 fewer residential units would be constructed. Likewise, fewer residential trips Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóè êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ would be generated during operation of the project. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with Alternative 1B would be better than would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ù»±´±¹§ ¿²¼ Í±·´ The proposed project would result in the following significant geology and soils impacts: Exposure to Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Unstable Soils (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Landslides (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Shallow Groundwater (significant but mitigable) Radon Gas (significant but mitigable) Alternative 1B would require earthmoving, soil import, or soil disturbance similar to what would be required for the proposed project. However, because of the reduced residential component (up to 45 fewer units), fewer structures and people would be exposed to issues associated with liquefaction, shallow groundwater, and radon. Therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be better in association with the Alternative 1B compared to the proposed project. Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Î·µ ±º Ë°»¬ The proposed project would result in the following significant hazards and risk of upset impacts: Wildland Fire Hazards On-Site and in the Vicinity (significant but mitigable) Alternative 1B would develop 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, potentially exposing residents to risk of wildfire. As fewer units would be placed on the site compared to the proposed project, hazards and risk of upset impacts would be better in association with Alternative 1B compared to the proposed project. Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant hydrology and water quality impacts: Construction Water Quality Impacts (significant but mitigable) Stormwater Runoff Generation and Surface Water Drainage Patterns (significant but mitigable) Operational Surface Water Quality (significant but mitigable) Groundwater Quality and Recharge (significant but mitigable) Exposure of Structures and Facilities to Flood Hazards (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 1B would alter existing drainage and runoff patterns on the project site by introducing 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. Runoff volumes and stormwater pollutants would increase in association with the introduction of Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóç êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ impervious surfaces and development, which could affect water quality. Groundwater recharge would also be affected through the addition of impervious surfaces. Less development is proposed in association with Alternative 1B than would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Up to 45 more units would be developed as part the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with Alternative 1B would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant biological resources impacts: Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and Other Listed Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Species of Concern, California Fully Protected, and Other Non-listed Special- Status Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Sensitive Biological Communities, Including Riparian Habitat (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands (significant but mitigable) Loss of Trees (significant but mitigable) Development associated with Alternative 1B would result in disturbance of the site and potential impacts to endangered, threatened, and listed species, biological communities, and trees. However, because fewer residential units would be proposed than would occur under the proposed project, areas containing wetlands could be avoided. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1B would result in better impacts to biological resources than the proposed project because the site would not be as extensively disturbed. Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant historic and cultural impacts: Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource (significant but mitigable) Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geological Feature (significant but mitigable) Disturb Human Remains (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Prehistoric and Historic Resources and Human Remains (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Paleontological Resources (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Alternative 1B would result in site disturbance associated with construction to accommodate development consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation for PC-1, which allows 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. As a result, potential impacts could occur to historic or archaeological resources that may be present on the project site. Since less of the site would be disturbed in association with Alternative 1B (to accommodate 300 units rather than up to 345) compared to the proposed project, impacts to paleontological and cultural resources would be better compared to those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóïð êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®» The proposed project would not result in any significant visual resources/light and glare impacts. Introduction of development to the site would result in alteration of the existing character and natural landscape. Trees would be removed and new sources of light or glare would be introduced to the site. However, the overall density of development on the site under Alternative 1B would be less than would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to visual resources/light and glare associated with implementation of Alternative 1B would be better than those associated with the proposed project. Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í»®ª·½» The proposed project would result in the following significant community services impacts: Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 1B would result in an increase in demand for community services including fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreation, and school facilities. The site would be developed consistent with the existing General Plan designation for PC-1, which would allow 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. However, the overall density of development on the site under Alternative 1B would be less than would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, parks and recreation, and school facilities would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ë¬·´·¬·» ¿²¼ Í»®ª·½» Í§¬»³ The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Implementation of Alternative 1B would result in an increase with regard to demand for utilities and services systems including water, wastewater, solid waste, electrical, natural gas, telephone, The site would be developed consistent with its current General Plan and cable services. designation, which would accommodate 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses and generate the demand for additional utilities and service systems. Therefore, impacts to water, wastewater, solid waste, electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable services would be better than those that would occur if the proposed project were implemented. Ð±°«´¿¬·±²ô Ø±«·²¹ô ¿²¼ Í±½·±»½±²±³·½ The proposed project would not result in any significant population, housing, and socioeconomic impacts. Alternative 1B would result in the site being developed with 300 residential units and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. Fewer housing opportunities would be generated in association with Alternative 1B compared to the proposed project, which would allow up to 345 units. The number of long-term job opportunities would be similar for Alternative 1B and the proposed project because the same amount of commercial uses is proposed for both. Therefore, impacts to population, housing, and socioeconomics would be worse in association with Alternative 1B compared to the proposed project, as less housing would be provided; however, the jobs-to-housing ratio would be better under this alternative than the proposed project. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóïï êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿» ¿²¼ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» The proposed project would result in potentially significant climate change impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.14.1. Climate change impacts would also be less based on the reduction in construction of units and vehicle trips generated by Alternative 1B compared to the proposed project. êòë ßîÔÎÎÜÎÎ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÜËÝÛÜ ÛÍ×ÜÛÒÌ×ßÔ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ßÒÜ ÛÝÑÒÚ×ÙËÎÛÜ ÑßÜÉßÇ ß ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Üß ÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ This alternative would reduce the number of residential units proposed on the project site by 50 dwelling units east of Cold Creek in the Forest Residential Zoning District, resulting in 295 residential units. The roadway system would be modified to provide only emergency access to Deerfield Drive east of the project site (see Figure 6.0-1). All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóïî T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ý× ÑÓÐßÎßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ The following analysis is based on the significant environmental impacts identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.14. Ô¿²¼ Ë» The proposed project would result in potential significant impacts to Donner Memorial State Park that would be mitigated with the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1.3. With a reduction in density of 50 residential units, land use impacts would also be less than significant under this alternative. Therefore, land use impacts would be the same under Alternative 2 and the proposed project. Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² The following significant traffic impacts were identified for the proposed project: Construction Impacts (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2010 Conditions (significant but mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Existing Goals and Policies (significant and unavoidable for Options 2, 3 and 4) Exacerbation of an Existing Traffic Safety Deficiency (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable mitigable) Ý±²¬®«½¬·±² ×³°¿½¬ Construction traffic impacts would be less severe in association with Alternative 2 as 50 fewer residential units would be constructed compared to the proposed project. Ì®·° Ù»²»®¿¬·±² Table 6.0-1 presents the trip generation analysis for Alternative 2. The only difference between Alternative 2 and the proposed project is that the number of dwelling units in Zone 5 (Forest Residential) is reduced by 50. In addition, the number of secondary units in this zone decreases, as secondary units are assumed to be included on 50 percent of the total residential lots in the zone. As shown in Table 6.0-1, with full buildout of Alternative 2, the number of site access one- including 468 PM peak hour trips (265 way vehicle trips is estimated to equal 4,972 per day, inbound plus 203 outbound). Compared with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in trip generation at the site access points that is 7.6 percent lower over the course of the day and 6.5 percent lower during the PM peak hour. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóïë êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ After adjusting for the diverted linked trips, the impact of Alternative 2 on traffic volumes on external roadways is estimated to equal approximately 4,789 per day, including 453 PM peak hour trips (258 inbound plus 195 outbound) (Table 6.0-1). Of total trip generation on external roadways at buildout, roughly 55 percent is generated by the residential uses and 45 percent by the commercial uses. This alternative would generate 7.9 percent fewer daily trips and 7.7 fewer peak hour trips than the generation associated with the proposed project. Figure 6.0-2 shows the project net impact on PM peak hour traffic volumes for Alternative 2. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóïê êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÔÑÍ Û¨½»»¼¿²½» Ë²¼»® Ç»¿® îðïð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Year 2010 intersection level of service (LOS) with implementation of Alternative 2 is shown in Table 6.0-2. In comparison with the proposed project, implementation of Alternative 2 would not cause any additional intersections to exceed the LOS threshold, with the exception of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (Western Interchange) intersection. The addition of traffic generated by Alternative 2 would cause the off-ramp approach to degrade from LOS C to LOS F with more than 4 vehicle-hours of delay, which exceeds the LOS threshold. In comparison with the proposed project, Alternative 2 does not provide a notable benefit from an LOS perspective. Therefore, impacts associated with exceedance of LOS thresholds at study intersections under year 2010 conditions would be similar for both Alternative 2 and the proposed project. Figure 6.0-3 shows the 2010 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes for Alternative 2. êòðóî Ì ßÞÔÛ ßîÔîðïð×ÐÓÐØÔÑÍ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ ÒÌÛÎÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ÛßÕ ÑËÎ Î»¼«½»¼ Ô¿²¼ Ë» ©·¬¸±«¬ Ð´« Ð®±¶»½¬ Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ð´« Ð®±¶»½¬ øÑ°¬·±² ï÷ øÑ°¬·±² îôíôì÷ Ý±²²»½¬±® ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ý±²¬®±´ Ì§°» ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» î Ü»´¿§ Ü»´¿§ Ü»´¿§ ÔÑÍ ÔÑÍ ÔÑÍ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ø»½ñª»¸÷ ø»½ñª»¸÷ É»»µ¼¿§ ï ÍÎ èçñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Í·¹²¿´ ïìòð Þ ïíòê Þ ïíòê Þ î ÍÎ èçñ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³° Î±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ïçòï Ý ïçòë Ý ïçòì Ý î ÍÎ èçñ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³° Î±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ïèòê Ý ïçòë Ý ïçòì Ý ï ÍÎ èç Í±«¬¸ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Í·¹²¿´ ëèòï Û ëêòè Û ëêòé Û Ò±®¬¸©±±¼ Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ñÜ±²²»® ï Í·¹²¿´ îðòé Ý îðòé Ý îðòé Ý Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® î íí Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ïèòè Ý ÑÊÚ Ú ïçíòë Ú Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ø©»¬÷ ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñ Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ î ííí ß´´óÉ¿§ Í¬±° èçòê Ú ïïéòì ÝÚ ïïéòð Ú Î±¿¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ î Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ïëòé Ý ïéòè Þ ïéòî Ý Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ñÍ·¬» ß½½» î Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ïïòê Þ ïîòé ß ïîòî Þ Î±¿¼ î Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ñÛ¿¬óÉ»¬ Î±¿¼ Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ çòð ß èòç ß èòç ß î Í·¬» ß½½» Î±¿¼ñÛ¿¬óÉ»¬ Î±¿¼ Î±«²¼¿¾±«¬ êòë ß êòì êòï ß Í¿¬«®¼¿§ ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® î íí Ë²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ îëòì Ü ÑÊÚ Ú ÑÊÚ Ú Ð¿ Î±¿¼ ø©»¬÷ ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñ î ííí ß´´óÉ¿§ Í¬±° ïíìòî Ú ïéðòç Ú ïêéòî Ú Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ Í±«®½»æ ÔÍÝô îððç ÞÑÔÜ ¬»¨¬ ·²¼·½¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ ÔÑÍ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¸¿ ¾»»² »¨½»»¼»¼ò Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóîï êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÑÊÚ ã Ñª»®º´±©ò Ñª»®º´±© ·²¼·½¿¬» ¿ ¼»´¿§ ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² îðð »½±²¼ °»® ª»¸·½´»ô ©¸·½¸ ½¿²²±¬ ¾» ¿½½«®¿¬»´§ ½¿´½«´¿¬»¼ «·²¹ ØÝÓ ³»¬¸±¼±´±¹§ò ÒÑÌÛ ïæ Ô»ª»´ ±º »®ª·½» º±® ·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² · ®»°±®¬»¼ º±® ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ·²¬»®»½¬·±²ò ÒÑÌÛ îæ Ô»ª»´ ±º »®ª·½» º±® ®±«²¼¿¾±«¬ ¿²¼ ¬±°ó½±²¬®±´´»¼ ·²¬»®»½¬·±² · ®»°±®¬»¼ º±® ¬¸» ©±®¬ ³±ª»³»²¬ò Ò±¬» íæ Ì¸»» ´±½¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ÔÑÍ Ú ¿´± »¨½»»¼ ¬¸» Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® «²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ¿°°®±¿½¸»ô ©¸·½¸ ¬¿¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¿² «²·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ³±ª»³»²¬ ¿¬ ÔÑÍ Ú ©·¬¸ ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² ì ¬±¬¿´ ª»¸·½´»ó¸±«® ±º ¼»´¿§ · «²¿½½»°¬¿¾´»ò ÒÑÌÛæ ß º«´´ ¿²¿´§· ±º Ñ°¬·±² ì · ²±¬ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸· ¬«¼§òïëØÏÌïÎÊÕÏÐ ·®¬ é ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ±² ¬¸· ¬¿¾´»ò Ì¸» ®»³¿·²·²¹ ì ·²¬»®»½¬·±² ±°»®¿¬» ¿¬ ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ÔÑÍ «²¼»® Ñ°¬·±² ìò Í»» ß°°»²¼·¨ Ü ±º ¬¸» ÔÍÝ Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¬«¼§ øß°°»²¼·¨ Ý ±º ¬¸· Û×Î÷ò Potential intersection LOS mitigation measures are evaluated for the study intersections exceeding the LOS thresholds. The intersection LOS mitigation summary is presented in Table 6.0-3. Note that the delay criteria for unsignalized intersections are applied in this analysis. If the signalized criteria were applied to the worst movement, the westbound right-turn slip lane would be necessary for Alternative 2. As improvements to this intersection are included in the Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project’s payment of Traffic Impact Fees would mitigate LOS impacts to this intersection. It should be noted that Alternative 2 contributes 72 percent to total future growth in summer PM peak hour traffic at this intersection between 2010 and 2030. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóîî êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ Û¨½»»¼·²¹ Í¬±®¿¹» Ý¿°¿½·¬§ A queue length analysis was conducted for pertinent intersections to identify the potential for operational problems. Queue lengths on the following intersection movements are forecast to exceed the existing storage capacity during the summer PM peak hour: Ð´« Ð®±¶»½¬ Ý±²¼·¬·±² 2010 Analysis Year for Alternative 2 SR 89/Deerfield Drive – southbound right-turn and eastbound dual left-turn I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road – northbound approach Traffic queues at a specific intersection that exceed the storage capacity of turn lanes or ramps, or that block turn movements at important nearby intersections, can cause operational problems beyond those identified in LOS analysis. A queue length analysis was conducted for pertinent intersections, and the results are summarized in Table 6.0-5. The 95th percentile queue length is reported for all intersections, except the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road intersection. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóîè êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ù±¿´ ¿²¼ Ð±´·½·» Implementation of Alternative 2, which does not provide access to Deerfield Drive to the east, would result in a negligible increase in traffic on the existing local roadway segment of Deerfield Drive. This alternative would not provide for improved residential neighborhood connectivity provided for under General Plan Policy P2.4. Ì®¿ºº·½ Í¿º»¬§ Ü»º·½·»²½§ Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would require adequate site distance at the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection. Corner sight distance at this intersection is hindered by the horizontal and vertical curvature along Donner Pass Road as well as by signage, a light post, vegetation, and an upgrade on the off-ramp approach. Impacts relative to exacerbation of an existing traffic safety deficiency would be similar for both Alternative 2 and the proposed project. ÔÑÍ Û¨½»»¼¿²½» «²¼»® Ç»¿® îðíð Ý±²¼·¬·±² Year 2030 intersection LOS with implementation of Alternative 2 is shown in Table 6.0-7. In comparison with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in overflow conditions at the intersection of I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road (west) on both weekday and Saturday. As shown, Alternative 2 does not provide a notable benefit to intersection LOS as compared to the proposed project. Therefore impacts associated with exceedance of LOS thresholds at study intersections under year 2030 conditions would be similar for both Alternative 2 and the proposed project (refer to Table 6.0-3 to see intersection delay and LOS following mitigation). Figure 6.0-4 shows the 2030 PM peak hour traffic volumes for Alternative 2. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóíî êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ Û¨½»»¼·²¹ Í¬±®¿¹» Ý¿°¿½·¬§ A queue length analysis was conducted for pertinent intersections to identify the potential for operational problems. Queue lengths on the following intersection movements are forecast to exceed the existing storage capacity during the summer PM peak hour: îðíð ß²¿´§· Ç»¿® º±® ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» î SR 89/Deerfield Drive – southbound right-turn and eastbound dual left-turn I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road – northbound left/right I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road – northbound approach Note that implementation of Alternative 2 does not provide a notable benefit regarding traffic queuing in comparison with the other alternatives. A summary of forecast year 2030 traffic queues at critical intersections is presented in Table 6.0-8. ÍÎ èç Ü»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» Implementation of Alternative 2 would not affect the southbound right-turn queue length in 2030. The southbound traffic queue could extend past the gas station right-in/right-out-only driveway during peak periods. However, it is not expected to interfere with the upstream I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout. The eastbound dual left-turn lane queue is estimated to increase by 25 feet (one car), thereby increasing the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods. ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ øÉ»¬»®² ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹»÷ Implementation of Alternative 2 without full public access to the Deerfield Drive connector would result in queue lengths on the westbound off-ramp that could potentially interfere with the I-80 westbound mainline traffic during peak periods on weekdays or weekends in 2030. Note that the off-ramp approach on Donner Pass Road is flared such that a right-turn movement can be made while up to three vehicles are waiting to turn left. This assumption is applied in the queuing analysis. The calculated 95th percentile queue lengths exceed the available storage length by about 45 to 120 feet. ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ With implementation of Alternative 2, the northbound queue on Coldstream Road at its intersection with I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road would exceed the available storage length by approximately 45 to 130 feet, as shown in Table 6.0-7. Therefore, there is the potential for northbound queues along Coldstream Road to interfere with operations at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection during 2030 weekday, and weekend peak periods with implementation of Alternative 2. Implementation of Alternative 2 does not provide a notable benefit in regard to intersection LOS or traffic queuing in comparison with the proposed project. Impacts relative to intersection queuing exceeding storage capacity under year 2030 conditions would be similar for both Alternative 2 and the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóíì T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×óèð Û¿¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ñÝ±´¼¬®»¿³ Î±¿¼ With implementation of the proposed project, the northbound queue on Coldstream Road at its intersection with I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road is expected to exceed the available storage length during peak periods. Therefore, there is the potential for northbound queues to interfere with operations at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection during peak periods. A left-turn lane warrant analysis was performed for the southbound left-turn movement at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection. Based on the “Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes” presented in the ITE 1990 Compendium of Technical Papers, a southbound left-turn lane is warranted based on a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. It is recommended that a southbound left- turn pocket be installed for turns made from Coldstream Road to Deerfield Drive. This will minimize the potential for southbound left-turning vehicles on Coldstream Road at Deerfield Drive to block southbound through movements and potentially interfere with operations at the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road/Coldstream Road intersection during peak periods. In addition, pavement markings indicating “Do Not Block” and associated signage should be provided at the Coldstream Road/Deerfield Drive intersection. The traffic queue lengths estimated to occur with implementation of a roundabout at this intersection in 2030 are shown in Table 6.0-9. ×²¬»®»½¬·±² Ï«»«·²¹ Ó·¬·¹¿¬·±² Ó»¿«®» ÍÎ èçñÜ»»®º·»´¼ Ü®·ª» The southbound traffic queue along SR 89 could potentially interfere with traffic operations at the gas station right-in/right-out only driveway during peak periods, which is not considered to be a significant traffic issue. As the queue is not expected to extend to the I-80 Eastbound Ramps/SR 89 South roundabout, no mitigation measures are necessary. On the eastbound approach, the dual left-turn lane queues are estimated to exceed the available storage length. Although the existing pavement width in the eastbound direction allows some additional left-turn storage to occur beyond the striped turn lanes, there is the potential for eastbound traffic queues to interfere with the Crossroads Center driveway operations during peak periods without the proposed project. The eastbound left-turn lane storage lengths are constrained by the presence of a westbound left-turn pocket at the Crossroads Center driveway, as well as by the Crossroads Center driveway itself. The existing 122 feet of length between the existing back-to-back turn bays could potentially be reduced to a minimum of 50 feet in order to expand storage capacity somewhat. Regardless, it should be noted that the left-turn queues at this intersection will be no longer than the provided storage length during peak periods. If this condition is determined by the Town of Truckee to be a concern, it is recommended that a “Do Not Block” box be painted in the intersection, accompanied by appropriate signage. A nearby example of this treatment is located on SR 89 South at the California Highway Patrol station just south of Donner Pass Road. ×óèð É»¬¾±«²¼ Î¿³°ñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ In 2030 with implementation of Alternative 2, long traffic queues would form along the westbound off-ramp, potentially interfering with the I-80 mainline. However, implementation of the intersection LOS mitigation measures (either a left-turn acceleration lane on Donner Pass Road or a single-lane roundabout) would alleviate this potential problem. The traffic queue lengths estimated to occur after implementation of the intersection LOS mitigation measures in 2010 and 2030 are shown in Table 6.0-9. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóíè êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ×óèðñÜ±²²»® Ð¿ Î±¿¼ É»¬ ×²¬»®½¸¿²¹» Î¿³° Ù»±³»¬®§ The following improvements would need to be implemented to bring the existing ramps at the I-80/Donner Pass Road Western Interchange up to current Caltrans standards: The acceleration length on the westbound on-ramp (the loop on-ramp) would need to be extended by about 570 feet. The acceleration length on the eastbound on-ramp would need to be extended by about 650 feet. An additional 70 feet of deceleration length would need to be provided on the westbound off-ramp, prior to the first curve beyond the exit nose. An additional 240 feet of deceleration length would need to be provided on the eastbound off-ramp, prior to the first curve beyond the exit nose. At least 175 feet of the additional length would need to be provided beyond the exit nose, in order to achieve the minimum requirement of 525 feet between the exit nose and the end of the ramp for a full stop at the end of the ramp. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in the same traffic impacts as compared to the proposed project, with the exception of construction impacts and goals and policy conflicts being slightly better under Alternative 2. Ò±·» The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan Project would result in the following significant noise impacts Construction Noise Impacts (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at the Project Site for All Options (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at Existing Residences Due to Increased Traffic from the Project Site for Option 1 (significant but mitigable) On-Site Retail/Commercial Noise Source Impacts (significant but mitigable) Alternative 2 would result in the similar construction noise impacts as the proposed project though potentially for a shorter duration because 50 fewer residential units would be constructed. Exterior traffic noise impacts would be the same for both Alternative 2 and the proposed project based on exposure to existing noise from I-80. Table 6.0-10 shows the increase in existing traffic noise levels for Alternative 2. The significant increases in traffic noise levels occur along Coldstream Road from Deerfield Drive to the Site Access where a 10 dBA increase in the CNEL occurs. No noise-sensitive uses are located along Coldstream Road. In addition, the traffic noise levels at a distance of 75 feet from the roadway centerline do not exceed the Town of Truckee 60 dBA CNEL noise level standard. This impact is considered less than significant. Therefore, traffic noise impacts at existing residences due to increased traffic from the project site would be less severe in association with Alternative 2 than for the proposed project. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóìï êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant air quality impacts: Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (significant but mitigable) Contribution to Cumulative Regional Air Quality Conditions (cumulatively considerable/ significant and unavoidable) Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with increases in criteria air pollutants under cumulative conditions. Alternative 2 would have reduced development (50 fewer residential units) as compared to the proposed project that would result in a reduction in stationary emissions. Nevertheless, Alternative 2 would still result in similar significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant impacts. Ù»±´±¹§ ¿²¼ Í±·´ The proposed project would result in the following significant geology and soils impacts: Exposure to Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Unstable Soils (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Landslides (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Shallow Groundwater (significant but mitigable) Radon Gas (significant but mitigable) Alternative 2 would result in similar significant impacts relative to geology and soils, but fewer residential units would be exposed to these impacts compared to the proposed project. Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Î·µ ±º Ë°»¬ The proposed project would result in the following significant hazards and risk of upset impacts: Wildland Fire Hazards On-Site and in the Vicinity (significant but mitigable) Alternative 2 would place 50 fewer residential units on the project site, which would reduce potential exposure of residents to a wildland fire. Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant hydrology and water quality impacts: Construction Water Quality Impacts (significant but mitigable) Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóìì êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Stormwater Runoff Generation and Surface Water Drainage Patterns (significant but mitigable) Operational Surface Water Quality (significant but mitigable) Groundwater Quality and Recharge (significant but mitigable) Exposure of Structures and Facilities to Flood Hazards (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in similar significant hydrology and water quality impacts as the proposed project, but impacts would be less severe based on a reduction in development. With 50 fewer residential units on the project site as proposed by Alternative 2, all impacts would be less severe and therefore result in better conditions relative to hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant biological resources impacts: Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and Other Listed Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Species of Concern, California Fully Protected, and Other Non-listed Special- Status Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Sensitive Biological Communities, Including Riparian Habitat (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands (significant but mitigable) Loss of Trees (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in similar significant impacts as the proposed project, but impacts would be less severe based on a reduction in development. Since 50 fewer homes are proposed as part of Alternative 2, less disturbance of the site would occur, resulting in preservation and avoidance of more areas of the site. As a result, better conditions for biological resources to be preserved would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project. Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant historic and cultural resources impacts: Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource (significant but mitigable) Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geological Feature (significant but mitigable) Disturb Human Remains (significant but mitigable) Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóìë êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Cumulative Impacts to Prehistoric and Historic Resources and Human Remains (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Paleontological Resources (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in similar significant impacts as the proposed project relative to cultural resources, but impacts would be less severe based on a reduction in development. Since 50 fewer homes are proposed as part of Alternative 2, less disturbance of the site would occur, resulting in preservation and avoidance of more areas of the site. As a result, better conditions for unknown cultural resources to be preserved would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project. Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®» The proposed project would not result in any significant visual resources/light and glare impacts. Alternative 2 proposes 50 fewer residential units compared to the proposed project and would be anticipated to result in even better visual resources/light and glare impacts compared to the proposed project. Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í»®ª·½» The proposed project would result in the following significant community services impacts: Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in similar significant impacts as the proposed project relative to conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park. However, since 50 fewer residential units are proposed, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services and parks and recreational facilities would be less severe based on a reduction in development. Since 50 fewer homes are proposed as part of Alternative 2, demand for fire protection, emergency medical services, and park and recreational facilities would occur. Therefore, better conditions for community services would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project. Ë¬·´·¬·» ¿²¼ Í»®ª·½» Í§¬»³ The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Alternative 2 would less severe impacts relative to utilities and service systems as less development would occur compared to the proposed project. Therefore, overall better conditions would occur relative to utilities and service systems compared to the proposed project. Ð±°«´¿¬·±²ô Ø±«·²¹ô ¿²¼ Í±½·±»½±²±³·½ The proposed project would not result in any significant population, housing, and socioeconomic impacts. While the same number of long-term jobs would be created relative to the commercial component, fewer short-term construction jobs would be created as well as fewer homes. The jobs-to-housing balance would be better under this alternative than the proposed project. However, overall Alternative 2 would result in worse impacts relative to housing as fewer units would be constructed and less housing stock would be created in the Town of Truckee as compared to the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóìê êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿» ¿²¼ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» The proposed project would result in potentially significant climate change impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.14.1. Climate change impacts would also be less based on the reduction in construction of units and vehicle trips generated by Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project. êòê ßíÔÉ×Óß ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÌÔßÒÜ ÓÐßÝÌ ×Ò×Ó×ÆßÌ×ÑÒ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Ý ØßÎßÝÌÛÎ×ÍÌ×ÝÍ This alternative would retain the same overall site design as the proposed project; however, the site design would be modified to avoid wetland impacts in the southern portion and eastern portion of the site (see Figure 6.0-5). In addition, the roadway system would be modified to provide only emergency access to Deerfield Drive east of the project site. All other aspects of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Ý× ÑÓÐßÎßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ Ô¿²¼ Ë» The proposed project would result in potential significant impacts to Donner Memorial State Park that would be mitigated with the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1.3. With avoidance of wetland areas, a slight reduction in residential units would occur. However, this alternative would have similar impacts to Donner Memorial State Park as the proposed project. Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² The following significant traffic impacts were identified for the proposed project: Construction Impacts (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2010 Conditions (significant but mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Existing Goals and Policies (significant and unavoidable for Options 2, 3 and 4) Exacerbation of an Existing Traffic Safety Deficiency (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable mitigable) Alternative 3 would result in less traffic along Deerfield Drive as emergency-only access would be allowed to Deerfield Drive east of the project site, but would conflict with General Plan Policy P2.4. Approximately 15 fewer homes would be constructed to accommodate the roadway realignment and wetland areas, which would result in less construction traffic impacts. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóìé êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Alternative 3 would result in similar intersection impacts as the proposed project. However, as discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation, of this DEIR, intersection impacts are expected to occur by 2030 whether the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan occurs or not. Level of service and traffic safety impacts would be similar between Alternative 3 and the proposed project. Therefore, overall impacts to traffic and circulation would be slightly better in association with Alternative 3 compared to the proposed project. Ò±·» The proposed project would result in the following significant noise impacts: Construction Noise Impacts (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at the Project Site for All Options (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at Existing Residences Due to Increased Traffic from the Project Site for Option 1 (significant but mitigable) On-Site Retail/Commercial Noise Source Impacts (significant but mitigable) Alternative 3 would result in similar construction noise impacts as the proposed project although 15 fewer residential units would be constructed. Exterior traffic noise impacts would be similar for both Alternative 3 and the proposed project based on exposure to existing noise from I-80. Traffic noise exposure for existing residents along Deerfield Drive would be less in association with Alternative 3 compared to the proposed project because only emergency access would be allowed along Deerfield Drive rather than full access. Retail and commercial noise source impacts would be similar for both Alternative 3 and the proposed project as both include 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. Therefore, overall, noise impacts would be similar for both Alternative 3 and the proposed project, with the exception that residents along Deerfield Drive would experience better noise conditions by limiting access to emergency only. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóìè T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001\Traffic Figures êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant air quality impacts: Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (significant but mitigable) Contribution to Cumulative Regional Air Quality Conditions (cumulatively considerable/ significant and unavoidable) Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with increases in criteria air pollutants under cumulative conditions. Alternative 3 would have slightly reduced development (approximately 15 fewer residential units) as compared to the proposed project that would result in a reduction in stationary emissions. Nevertheless, Alternative 3 would still result in similar significant criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant impacts. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in slightly better air quality impacts than the proposed project. Ù»±´±¹§ ¿²¼ Í±·´ The proposed project would result in the following significant geology and soils impacts: Exposure to Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Unstable Soils (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Landslides (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Shallow Groundwater (significant but mitigable) Radon Gas (significant but mitigable) Alternative 3 would result in similar significant impacts relative to geology and soils, but would be better based on a reduction of approximately 15 residential units on the site compared to the proposed project. Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Î·µ ±º Ë°»¬ The proposed project would result in the following significant hazards and risk of upset impacts: Wildland Fire Hazards On-Site and in the Vicinity (significant but mitigable) Alternative 3 would place approximately 15 fewer residential units on the project site than the proposed project, which would reduce potential exposure of residents to a wildland fire. Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant hydrology and water quality impacts: Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóëï êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Construction Water Quality Impacts (significant but mitigable) Stormwater Runoff Generation and Surface Water Drainage Patterns (significant but mitigable) Operational Surface Water Quality (significant but mitigable) Groundwater Quality and Recharge (significant but mitigable) Exposure of Structures and Facilities to Flood Hazards (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in similar significant impacts as the proposed project, but less severe based on a reduction in development. With approximately 15 fewer residential units on the project site as proposed by Alternative 3, all impacts would be less severe. Less construction activity would occur and wetland areas would not be disturbed or filled. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in better conditions relative to hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant biological resources impacts: Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and Other Listed Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Species of Concern, California Fully Protected, and Other Non-listed Special- Status Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Sensitive Biological Communities, Including Riparian Habitat (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands (significant but mitigable) Loss of Trees (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts as the proposed project, but less severe based on a slight reduction in residential development and modification to the design. Specifically, this modification of the site design would further avoid impacts to wetland resources by preserving these resources. As a result, better conditions relative to preservation of biological resources would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 3 compared to the proposed project. Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant historic and cultural resources impacts: Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource (significant but mitigable) Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóëî êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geological Feature (significant but mitigable) Disturb Human Remains (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Prehistoric and Historic Resources and Human Remains (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Paleontological Resources (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in similar significant impacts as the proposed project relative to cultural and paleontological resources, but less severe based on a reduction in development and therefore less site disturbance. Since approximately 15 fewer homes are proposed as part of Alternative 3, less disturbance of the site would occur, resulting in preservation and avoidance of more areas of the site. As a result, better conditions for unknown cultural resources to be preserved would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 3 compared to the proposed project. Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®» The proposed project would not result in any significant visual resources/light and glare impacts. Alternative 3 proposes approximately 15 fewer residential units compared to the proposed project and would eliminate additional traffic headlights along Deerfield Drive. As a result of these factors, Alternative 3 would be anticipated to result in even better visual resources/light and glare impacts compared to the proposed project. Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í»®ª·½» The proposed project would result in the following significant community services impacts: Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in similar significant impacts as the proposed project relative to conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park. However, since approximately 15 fewer residential units are associated with Alternative 3, impacts to fire protection, emergency medical services, and parks and recreational facilities would be less severe based on a reduction in development. Since 15 fewer homes are proposed as part of Alternative 3, less demand for fire protection, emergency medical services, and parks and recreational facilities would occur. Therefore, better conditions for community services would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 3 compared to the proposed project. Ë¬·´·¬·» ¿²¼ Í»®ª·½» Í§¬»³ The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Alternative 3 would less severe impacts relative to utilities and service systems as less development would occur compared to the proposed project. Therefore, overall better conditions would occur relative to utilities and service systems compared to the proposed project. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóëí êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ð±°«´¿¬·±²ô Ø±«·²¹ô ¿²¼ Í±½·±»½±²±³·½ The proposed project would not result in any significant population, housing, and socioeconomic impacts. While the same number of long-term jobs would be created relative to the commercial component, fewer short-term construction jobs would be created as well as fewer homes. The jobs-to-housing balance would be better under this alternative than the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in worse impacts relative to housing as fewer units would be constructed and less housing stock would be created in the Town of Truckee. Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿» ¿²¼ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» The proposed project would result in potentially significant climate change impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.14.1. Climate change impacts would also be less based on the reduction in construction of units and vehicle trips generated by Alternative 3 compared to the proposed project. êòé ßìÔÎÜÐß ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ ÛÜËÝÛÜ ÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÑÌÛÒÌ×ßÔ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Ý ØßÎßÝÌÛÎ×ÍÌ×ÝÍ This alternative would substantially redesign the project through the reduction in the number of residential units by 85 units (260 residential units), as well as the elimination of the commercial uses (70,000 square feet) (see Figure 6.0-6). The roadway pattern for this alternative would be reconfigured to provide an emergency-only access to Deerfield Drive. This reduction in site development would minimize impacts to wetlands as well as avoid project traffic impacts to the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection. Ý× ÑÓÐßÎßÌ×ÊÛ ÓÐßÝÌÍ Ô¿²¼ Ë» The proposed project would result in potential significant impacts to Donner Memorial State Park that would be mitigated with the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1.3.This alternative would result in a similar impact as the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóëì T:\_CS\Work\Truckee, City of\Coldstream Specific Plan AD EIR 29-0038-001 êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² The following significant traffic impacts were identified for the proposed project: Construction Impacts (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2010 Conditions (significant but mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Existing Goals and Policies (significant and unavoidable for Options 2, 3 and 4) Exacerbation of an Existing Traffic Safety Deficiency (significant but mitigable) Exceedance of LOS Thresholds at Study Intersections Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable mitigable) Intersection Queuing Exceeding Storage Capacity Under Year 2030 Conditions (cumulatively considerable mitigable) Alternative 4 would result in less severe impacts to transportation and circulation than the proposed project since the commercial component would be eliminated and the number of residential units would be reduced by 85 from 345 to 260. In addition, less traffic would be generated along Deerfield Drive as emergency-only access would be allowed to Deerfield Drive under Alternative 4 but would conflict with General Plan Policy P2.4. Alternative 4 would result in the same intersection impacts as the proposed project. However, as discussed in Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation, of this DEIR, intersection impacts are expected to occur by 2030 whether the Coldstream Specific Plan occurs or not. The reduction in site development would avoid project traffic impacts to the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Donner Pass Road intersection. Therefore, overall impacts to traffic and circulation would be better in association with Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project. Ò±·» The proposed project would result in the following significant noise impacts: Construction Noise Impacts (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at the Project Site for All Options (significant but mitigable) Traffic Noise Impacts at Existing Residences Due to Increased Traffic from the Project Site for Option 1 (significant but mitigable) On-Site Retail/Commercial Noise Source Impacts (significant but mitigable) Alternative 4 would result in less construction noise impacts compared to the proposed project because substantially less development is proposed (85 fewer homes and elimination of 70,000 square feet of commercial development). Exterior traffic noise impacts would be similar for both Alternative 4 and the proposed project based on exposure to existing noise from I-80. Traffic noise exposure for existing residents along Deerfield Drive would be less in association with Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóëé êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project because only emergency access would be allowed along Deerfield Drive rather than full access. Retail and commercial noise source impacts would also be eliminated for Alternative 4 as no commercial uses are proposed. Overall, noise impacts would be better in association with Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project based on the reduction in development. ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant air quality impacts: Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (significant but mitigable) Long-Term Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (significant but mitigable) Contribution to Cumulative Regional Air Quality Conditions (cumulatively considerable/significant and unavoidable) Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with increases in criteria air pollutants under cumulative conditions. Alternative 4 would substantially reduce development compared to the proposed project by removing the commercial component as well as 85 residential units. Elimination of commercial and reduction in residential uses would result in a reduction in stationary emissions as well as truck traffic associated with deliveries. Nevertheless, Alternative 4 would still result in significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant impacts. Ù»±´±¹§ ¿²¼ Í±·´ The proposed project would result in the following significant geology and soils impacts: Exposure to Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Unstable Soils (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Landslides (significant but mitigable) Impacts Associated with Shallow Groundwater (significant but mitigable) Radon Gas (significant but mitigable) Alternative 4 would result in similar significant impacts relative to geology and soils, but would be better based on a reduction of development potential, including 85 residential units and elimination of the commercial component. Thus, less development would be exposed to potential geology and soils impacts and overall impacts would be better in association with implementation of Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project. Ø¿¦¿®¼ ¿²¼ Î·µ ±º Ë°»¬ The proposed project would result in the following significant hazards and risk of upset impacts: Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóëè êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Wildland Fire Hazards On-Site and in the Vicinity (significant but mitigable) Alternative 4 would place 85 fewer residential units on the project site and remove 70,000 square feet of commercial, which would reduce potential exposure of residents to a wildland fire. Ø§¼®±´±¹§ ¿²¼ É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ The proposed project would result in the following significant hydrology and water quality impacts: Construction Water Quality Impacts (significant but mitigable) Stormwater Runoff Generation and Surface Water Drainage Patterns (significant but mitigable) Operational Surface Water Quality (significant but mitigable) Groundwater Quality and Recharge (significant but mitigable) Exposure of Structures and Facilities to Flood Hazards (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 4 would also result in hydrology and water quality impacts, but less severe than the proposed project based on a substantial reduction (85 units) in residential development and elimination of 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. Less construction activity would occur and less of the project site would be disturbed or covered with impervious surfaces. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in better conditions relative to hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. Þ·±´±¹·½¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant biological resources impacts: Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and Other Listed Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Species of Concern, California Fully Protected, and Other Non-listed Special- Status Species (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Sensitive Biological Communities, Including Riparian Habitat (significant but mitigable) Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands (significant but mitigable) Loss of Trees (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in less severe impacts to biological resources based on reduction in residential development and elimination of commercial development. Since 85 fewer homes and 70,000 square feet of commercial uses would be eliminated as part of Alternative 4, less disturbance of the site would occur, resulting in avoidance of wetland areas and retention of more open space. As a result, better conditions relative to preservation of biological resources would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóëç êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ø·¬±®·½ ¿²¼ Ý«´¬«®¿´ Î»±«®½» The proposed project would result in the following significant historic and cultural resources impacts: Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource (significant but mitigable) Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Geological Feature (significant but mitigable) Disturb Human Remains (significant but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Prehistoric and Historic Resources and Human Remains (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Cumulative Impacts to Paleontological Resources (cumulatively considerable but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in similar significant impacts as the proposed project relative to cultural and paleontological resources, but impacts would be less severe based on a reduction in development and therefore less site disturbance. Since substantially less development would take place in association with Alternative 4 place (85 fewer homes and 70,000 square feet of commercial eliminated entirely), less disturbance of the site would occur, resulting in preservation and avoidance of more areas of the site. As a result, better conditions for unknown cultural resources to be preserved would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project. Ê·«¿´ Î»±«®½»ñÔ·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ Ù´¿®» The proposed project would not result in any significant visual resources/light and glare impacts. Alternative 4 proposes substantially less development including 85 fewer homes and elimination of 70,000 square feet of commercial uses. Alternative 4 would also eliminate additional traffic headlights along Deerfield Drive. As a result of these factors, Alternative 4 would be anticipated to result in even better visual resources/light and glare impacts compared to the proposed project. Ý±³³«²·¬§ Í»®ª·½» The proposed project would result in the following significant community services impacts: Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (significant but mitigable) Conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park (significant but mitigable) Implementation of Alternative 4 would avoid significant impacts relative to conflicts with Donner Memorial State Park since the commercial component would be eliminated entirely. Likewise, since 85 fewer residential units are proposed, impacts to fire protection, emergency medical services, and parks and recreational facilities would be less severe based on a reduction in development. Therefore, better conditions for community services would occur in association with implementation of Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project. Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï êòðóêð êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Ë¬·´·¬·» ¿²¼ Í»®ª·½» Í§¬»³ The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Alternative 4 would result in less severe impacts relative to utilities and service systems as less development would occur compared to the proposed project. Therefore, overall better conditions would occur relative to utilities and service systems compared to the proposed project. Ð±°«´¿¬·±²ô Ø±«·²¹ô ¿²¼ Í±½·±»½±²±³·½ The proposed project would not result in any significant population, housing, and socioeconomic impacts. No long-term jobs would be created, as the commercial component of the project would be eliminated. Fewer short-term construction jobs would be created as well as fewer homes. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in worse impacts relative to jobs and housing since no commercial development would be included and 85 fewer housing units would be added to the Town’s housing stock. Ù®»»²¸±«» Ù¿» ¿²¼ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» The proposed project would result in potentially significant climate change impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.14.1. Climate change impacts would also be less based on the reduction in construction of units and vehicle trips generated by Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project. êòè ÛÍß ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔÔÇ ËÐÛÎ×ÑÎ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛ Table 6.0-12 (below) provides a summary of the potential impacts of the alternatives evaluated in this section, as compared with the potential impacts of the proposed project. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóêï êòðßÐ ÔÌÛÎÒßÌ×ÊÛÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ Based upon the evaluation described in this section, the No Project, No Build (Alternative 1A) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 1A was determined to have the fewest negative impacts on the physical environment. Alternative 1A would have less adverse environmental impacts than the proposed project. However, it should be noted that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project and would not fulfill the General Plan’s vision consistent with the PC-1 designation. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative must be identified. Alternative 2 (Reduced Residential Development and Reconfigured Roadway Alternative), Alternative 3 (Wetland Impact Minimization Alternative) and Alternative 4 (Reduced Development Potential Alternative) would meet most of the objectives of the proposed project. Alternative 4 would not, however, include a commercial component. Alternative 2 would result in some reduced impacts associated with construction traffic, conflicts with existing General Plan goals and policies related to transportation and circulation, and reduced traffic noise. Additionally, Alternative 2 would reduce some short- and long-term emissions, hydrology and water quality impacts, biological resources, hydrology/water quality, and community services impacts as a result of the reduced number of residential units and the reconfigured road. Alternative 3 would also result in a reduction of impacts to noise, short- and long-term emissions, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, specifically wetlands, and cultural resources. Alternative 4 would reduce impacts in virtually every issue area, including transportation and circulation (particularly related to the intersection of I-80 and Donner Pass). However, Alternative 4 would have 25% less residential units (260) and would completely eliminate the commercial component of the project. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not achieve the project objective of creating a mixed-use development. Therefore, Alternative 3 is considered the environmentally superior alternative, second to the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1a), as this option would meet the goals of the applicant (e.g. include both residential and commercial components to create a mixed-use development) and provide for some level of impact reduction, particularly with regard to wetlands. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ êòðóêë éòðÔóÌ× ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ð ÎÑÖÛÝÌ éòðÔóÌ×Ð ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ This section discusses the additional topics statutorily required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The topics discussed include significant irreversible environmental changes/irretrievable commitment of resources, significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, and growth-inducing impacts. éòï Í×ÛÝñ×Ý ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÌ ÎÎÛÊÛÎÍ×ÞÔÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ØßÒÙÛÍÎÎÛÌÎ×ÛÊßÞÔÛ ÑÓÓ×ÌÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ Î ÛÍÑËÎÝÛÍ ÔÝ ÛÙßÔ ÑÒÍ×ÜÛÎßÌ×ÑÒÍ CEQA Section 15126.2(c) and Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a) require that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Irreversible environmental effects are described as: The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to a previously remote area); The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy). Determining whether the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination as to whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. ß ÒßÔÇÍ×Í Implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of 178.6 acres of undeveloped land that has been reclaimed from mining activities. Approximately 60.8 percent of the 178.6-acre project site would be designated for open space preservation. Development of the proposed project would constitute a long-term commitment to commercial and residential land uses. It is unlikely that circumstances would arise that would justify the return of the land to its original condition. A variety of resources, including land, energy, water, construction materials, and human resources, would be irretrievably committed for the project’s construction, infrastructure installation and connection to existing utilities, and its continued maintenance. Construction of the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would require the commitment of a variety of other nonrenewable or slowly renewable natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals. Additionally, a variety of resources would be committed to the ongoing maintenance and life of the proposed project. An increase in the intensity of land use on the project site will result in an increase in regional energy consumption. Fossil fuels are the principal source of energy, and the project will increase consumption of available supplies, including propane gas and gasoline. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, lighting, heating and cooling of buildings, and the transport of people and goods. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ éòðóï éòðÔóÌ×Ð ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ éòî ÍËÛÛ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÌ ßÒÜ ÒßÊÑ×ÜßÞÔÛ ÒÊ×ÎÑÒÓÛÒÌßÔ ÚÚÛÝÌÍ CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. In addition, Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines allows the decision-making agency to determine that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of implementing the project. The Town of Truckee can approve a project with unavoidable adverse impacts if it prepares a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” setting forth the specific reasons for making such a judgment. The following significant and unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative) of the proposed project are specifically identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 and Section 5.0 of this Draft EIR. Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ Ý·®½«´¿¬·±² Ý±²º´·½¬ ©·¬¸ Û¨·¬·²¹ Ù±¿´ ¿²¼ Ð±´·½·» Impact 4.2.5 Implementation of project would not result in a traffic condition that would conflict with General Plan Circulation Element Policy P2.2 and Policy P2.4. However, Options 2, 3, and 4 would create a development that is not integrated into the circulation network, as required by General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.4 and Goal CIR-4. This is considered a significant impact. ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ý±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ý«³«´¿¬·ª» Î»¹·±²¿´ ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ Ý±²¼·¬·±² Impact 4.4.8 Long-term operation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Mountain Counties Air Basin, would contribute to cumulative increases in emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants and PM that could contribute to future 10 concentrations of ozone and PM, for which the region is currently designated 10 nonattainment. This impact would be considered cumulatively considerable. éòí Ùó×× ÎÑÉÌØÒÜËÝ×ÒÙ ÓÐßÝÌÍ ÔÝ ÛÙßÔ ÑÒÍ×ÜÛÎßÌ×ÑÒÍ CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action. A growth-inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as: The way in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth…It is not assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. A project can have direct and/or indirect growth inducement potential. Direct growth inducement would result if a project, for example, involved construction of new housing. A project would have indirect growth inducement potential if it established substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï éòðóî éòðÔóÌ×Ð ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ that would indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. Similarly, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. A project providing an increased water supply in an area where water service historically limited growth could be considered growth-inducing. The CEQA Guidelines further explain that the environmental effects of induced growth are considered indirect impacts of the proposed action. These indirect impacts or secondary effects of growth may result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Potential secondary effects of growth include increased demand on other community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of air and water quality, degradation or loss of plant and animal habitat, and conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service. A project that would induce “disorderly” growth (conflict with the local land use plans) could indirectly cause additional adverse environmental impacts and other public service impacts. Thus, to assess whether a growth-inducing project would result in adverse secondary effects, it is important to assess the degree to which the growth accommodated by a project would or would not be consistent with applicable land use plans. ß ÒßÔÇÍ×Í The project would result in the construction of up to 70,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses and up to 345 new residential dwelling units in the Town of Truckee. In addition, Truckee Development Code Section 18.58.230, Secondary Residential Units, and Section 18.08.040, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, allow for the construction of one secondary unit per single-family parcel developed with one main dwelling. While secondary units are allowed per the code, none are proposed as part of the Coldstream Specific Plan. However, consistent with the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, it is assumed that 50 percent of the proposed residential units would include secondary units for a total of 141 units (see Section 4.0, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis and Assumptions Used). As such, the project is assumed to include the development of up to 486 residential units. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of up to 70,000 square feet of retail, commercial, and lodging uses. This development is well within the two million square feet of new commercial development projected in the Town’s General Plan. The proposed project is generally consistent with the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan land use designation for Planned Community, PC-1, that allows for a mixture of medium-density, clustered residential units and commercial uses, including visitor lodging. While the proposed project includes additional development beyond the 300 units allowed for in the General Plan, the project area also includes additional property beyond the PC-1 area delineated by the General Plan. Additional units were accounted for in the development potential of this additional property. Therefore, the general scale and intensity of the proposed project was anticipated during long-term planning efforts undertaken by the Town of Truckee for the PC-1 area. Therefore, the year 2025 population forecast accounted for the growth that could result from development of the project site. In addition, the EIR for the General Plan addressed, at a Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ éòðóí éòðÔóÌ×Ð ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ programmatic level, the potential environmental effects of such growth, while this Draft EIR examines the impacts of the project at a project level. The project would have a direct growth- inducing effect by providing housing for up to 486 new residents in Truckee as well as new employment opportunities for the up to 70,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses. As evidenced in the General Plan, the Town has planned for development of the project site and adjacent areas as part of the overall long-range land use plans for the town. The proposed Coldstream Specific Plan would provide comprehensive land use and circulation planning for the entire project site. As such, the proposed project would not extend roads or other infrastructure into areas not currently planned for development or otherwise indirectly induce development or growth. The project would also result in indirect growth-inducing effects, as it would provide employment beyond the initial construction stage of development. However, the scale of the proposed project is not anticipated to generate construction employment opportunities of a magnitude that would require additional housing in Truckee to support persons employed during construction of the project. Population growth related to the proposed project is not anticipated to result in direct or indirect environmental impacts beyond those addressed in this DEIR. Because the anticipated growth was planned for by the Town in its General Plan and was subsequently evaluated in the associated General Plan EIR, as well as in this project-specific EIR, the proposed project would not result in substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred or for which environmental review has not been conducted. éòì ÓÚÍ ßÒÜßÌÑÎÇ ×ÒÜ×ÒÙÍ ÑÚ ×ÙÒ×Ú×ÝßÒÝÛ State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 identifies four mandatory findings of significance that must be considered as part of the environmental review process of a project. These findings are identified below with an analysis of the project’s relationship to these findings. 1)The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Section 4.8, Biological and Natural Resources, of this DEIR evaluates in detail the proposed project’s potential impacts to biological and natural resources. Mitigation measures are identified to reduce significant impacts to these resources. The project (as proposed) would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of biological and natural resources. No known cultural or historic resources were identified on the project site. However, mitigation measures were provided to reduce impacts to less than significant should any previously unknown resources be discovered during construction. 2)The project has potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The proposed project, as noted in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this Draft EIR, would result in several long-term impacts associated with traffic, noise, and air quality. Section 4.2, Transportation and Circulation, identified that implementation of project roadway alignment under Options 2, 3, and 4 would be inconsistent with General Plan requirements for Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ Ö«²» îðïï éòðóì éòðÔóÌ×Ð ÑÒÙÛÎÓ ÓÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÎÑÖÛÝÌ development to be interconnected with existing roadway networks. As a result, the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan under Options 2, 3, and 4 is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. The only feasible mitigation for this inconsistency is to open Deerfield Drive to through traffic, a key feature of Option 1. No other action could ameliorate this inconsistency. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Section 4.3, Noise, identified that the project would also result in significant long-term environmental effects regarding a significant increase in traffic noise levels along area roadways, including Interstate 80 and Deerfield Drive. Mitigation is provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 4.4., Air Quality, identified several air quality impacts associated with operation of the project including emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants, increased exposure of planned residential land uses to mobile-source TACs, and GHG emissions in the form of carbon dioxide ) from mobile sources and methane (CH) and nitrous oxide (NO) generated in association (CO 242 with electricity use and natural-gas consumption. The majority of operational air quality impacts could be reduced through mitigation. However, it would not be feasible to entirely mitigate cumulative impacts to regional air quality conditions (as discussed under item 3, below). 3)The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Section 5.0, Cumulative Impacts Summary, and Sections 4.1 through 4.14 evaluate cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and whether the project’s contribution is cumulatively considerable. Mitigation measures and project alternatives are identified to reduce the proposed Coldstream Specific Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts. However, the Draft EIR does specifically note that the project (as proposed) would result in one significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to long-term air quality (disadvantages to long- term air quality associated with ozone and PM). Section 4.4, Air Quality, identified that long-term 10 operation of the proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Mountain Counties Air Basin, would contribute to that could contribute to cumulative increases in emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants and PM 10 , for which the region is currently designated future concentrations of ozone and PM 10 nonattainment. While mitigation measures were identified to address impacts associated with air quality and greenhouse gases, these measures would not fully mitigate the impacts. 4)The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Sections 4.3, Noise, and 4.4, Air Quality, evaluate direct and indirect adverse effects on humans. Mitigation measures and project alternatives are identified to reduce identified significant impacts to these resource areas. However, the Draft EIR does specifically note that the project (as proposed) would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts even with the implementation of mitigation measures. Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ éòðóë èòðÎÐ ÛÐÑÎÌ ÎÛÐßÎÛÎÍ èòðÎÐ ÛÐÑÎÌ ÎÛÐßÎÛÎÍ ÌÌ ÑÉÒ ÑÚ ÎËÝÕÛÛ Associate Planner .................................................................................................................... Jenna Endres ÐÓÝ Project Manager ............................................................................. Pat Angell, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Assistant Project Manager ..................................................................................................... Kevin Freibott Environmental Planner ................................................................................................................. Seth Myers Environmental Planner ............................................................................................................... Kristin Faoro Environmental Planner ............................................................................................................. Josh Kinkade Environmental Planner ......................................................................................................... Hilary Anderson Environmental Planner .................................................................................................... Warren Whiteaker Senior Biologist .................................................................................................................... Jeannette Owen Associate Biologist ........................................................................................................... Angela Calderaro Visual Simulations ..........................................................................................................................Martti Ekert Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... Leann Taagapera Geologist ............................................................................................................................................ Kit Custis GIS Mapping ................................................................................................................................. Bob Noyes Graphics ......................................................................................................................................... Kyle Hagel Document Production .............................................................................................................. Jolene Miller ßÓÞ×ÛÒÌßÏÒÝ ×Î ËßÔ×ÌÇ ßÒÜ Ñ×ÍÛ ÑÒÍËÔÌ×ÒÙ Principal...................................................................................................................................... Kurt Legleiter ÔÍÝôÌÝô×òÔÌÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÒÍËÔÌßÒÌÍ ÒÝ ÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÒÍËÔÌßÒÌ Principal.................................................................................................................... Gordon Shaw, PE, AICP Project Manager .................................................................................................................. Sara Hawley, PE Engineer ............................................................................................................................... Jason Briedis, EIT ¶ò½ò ¾®»²²¿² ú ¿±½·¿¬»ÔÒÝ Ñ×ÍÛ ÑÒÍËÔÌßÒÌ Principal........................................................................................................................................Jim Brennan ÍÉÝô×òÔÍÝ ÌÑÎÓ ßÌÛÎ ÑÒÍËÔÌ×ÒÙ ÒÝ ÌÑÎÓÉßÌÛÎ ÑÒÍËÔÌßÒÌ Principal.......................................................................................................................... James H. Nelson, PE Ì±©² ±º Ì®«½µ»» Ý±´¼¬®»¿³ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² Ö«²» îðïï Ü®¿º¬ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ×³°¿½¬ Î»°±®¬ èòðóï