HomeMy Public PortalAboutAppendix A_IS-NOP and Comment LettersNOTICE
OF
PREPARATION
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
NOP
-‐
PAGE
1
NOTICE
OF
PREPARATION
TO:
State
Clearinghouse
FROM:
Denyelle
Nishimori,
Associate
Planner
State
Responsible
Agencies
Town
of
Truckee,
Planning
Division
State
Trustee
Agencies
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Other
Public
Agencies
Truckee,
CA
96161
Interested
Organizations
(530)
582-‐2934
SUBJECT:
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-3)
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
of
a
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
The
Town
of
Truckee
hereby
releases
a
Notice
of
Preparation
for
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan.
An
Initial
Study
has
been
prepared
for
the
project
and
is
attached
to
this
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP).
The
Initial
Study
lists
those
issues
that
will
require
detailed
analysis
and
technical
studies
that
will
need
to
be
evaluated
and/or
prepared
as
part
of
the
Environmental
Impact
Report
(EIR).
The
Town
of
Truckee
will
be
the
Lead
Agency,
and
will
prepare
an
EIR
for
the
project.
The
details
of
the
project,
including
the
project
description,
are
included
in
the
attached
Initial
Study.
The
EIR
will
consider
all
potential
environmental
effects
of
the
proposed
project
to
determine
the
level
of
significance
of
the
environmental
effect,
and
will
analyze
these
potential
effects
to
the
detail
necessary
to
make
a
determination
on
the
level
of
significance.
Those
environmental
issues
that
have
been
determined
to
be
less
than
significant
will
have
a
discussion
that
is
limited
to
a
brief
explanation
of
why
those
effects
are
not
considered
potentially
significant.
In
addition,
the
EIR
may
also
consider
those
environmental
issues
which
are
raised
by
responsible
agencies,
trustee
agencies,
and
members
of
the
public
or
related
agencies
during
the
NOP
process.
We
need
to
know
the
views
of
your
agency
or
organization
as
to
the
scope
and
content
of
the
environmental
information
germane
to
your
agency’s
statutory
responsibilities
or
of
interest
to
your
organization
in
connection
with
the
proposed
project.
Specifically,
we
are
requesting
the
following:
1. If
you
are
a
public
agency,
state
if
your
agency
will
be
a
responsible
or
trustee
agency
for
the
project
and
list
the
permits
or
approvals
from
your
agency
that
will
be
required
for
the
project
and
its
future
actions;
May
2012
NOTICE
OF
PREPARATION
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
NOP
-‐
PAGE
2
2. Identify
significant
environmental
effects
and
mitigation
measures
that
you
believe
need
to
be
explored
in
the
EIR
with
supporting
discussion
of
why
you
believe
these
effects
may
be
significant;
3. Describe
special
studies
and
other
information
that
you
believe
are
necessary
for
the
Town
of
Truckee
to
analyze
the
significant
environmental
effects,
alternatives,
and
mitigation
measures
you
have
identified;
4. For
public
agencies
that
provide
infrastructure
and
public
services,
identify
any
facilities
that
must
be
provided
(both
on-‐
and
off-‐site)
to
provide
services
to
the
proposed
development;
5. Provide
the
name,
title,
and
telephone
number
of
the
contact
person
from
your
agency
or
organization
that
we
can
contact
regarding
your
comments;
Due
to
the
time
limits
mandated
by
State
law,
your
response
must
be
sent
and
received
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
by
the
following
deadlines:
• For
responsible
agencies,
not
later
than
30
days
after
you
receive
this
notice,
• For
all
other
agencies
and
organizations,
not
later
than
30
days
following
the
publication
of
this
Notice
of
Preparation.
The
30
day
review
period
ends
on
June
25,
2012.
If
we
do
not
receive
a
response
from
your
agency
or
organization,
we
will
presume
that
your
agency
or
organization
has
no
response
to
make.
A
responsible
agency,
trustee
agency,
or
other
public
agency
may
request
a
meeting
with
the
Town
of
Truckee
or
its
representatives
in
accordance
with
Section
15082(c)
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines.
A
public
scoping
meetings
will
be
held
during
the
NOP
public
review
period.
A
public
scoping
meeting
to
receive
comments
on
the
NOP
will
be
held
Wednesday,
June
6,
2012,
at
4:00
p.m.
for
public
agencies,
and
6:00
p.m.
for
members
of
the
public.
The
scoping
meeting
will
be
held
at
Council
Chambers,
Truckee
Town
Hall,
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road,
Truckee,
CA
96161.
Please
send
your
response
to
the
attention
of
Denyelle
Nishimori,
Associated
Planner
at
the
Town
of
Truckee,
Planning
Division,
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road,
Truckee,
CA
96161.
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
contact
me
at
(530)
582-‐2934.
To
download
a
copy
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan,
dated
March
2012,
please
use
the
following
link:
http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=468
Date:
_______________,
2012
____________________________________Denyelle
Nishimori,
Associate
Planner
I NITIAL
STUDY
FOR
THE
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
(PC-‐3)
PROJECT
SCH#
_______________________
MAY
2012
Prepared
for:
Town
of
Truckee
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Truckee,
CA
96161
Prepared
by:
De
Novo
Planning
Group
4630
Brand
Way
Sacramento,
CA
95819
(916)
949-‐3231
De
Novo
Planning
Group
A
Land
Use
Planning,
Design,
and
Environmental
Firm
INITIAL
STUDY
FOR
THE
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
(PC-‐3)
PROJECT
SCH#
___________
MAY
2012
Prepared
for:
Town
of
Truckee
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Truckee,
CA
96161
Prepared
by:
De
Novo
Planning
Group
4630
Brand
Way
Sacramento,
CA
95819
(916)
949-‐3231
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
1
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
INITIAL
STUDY
CHECKLIST..............................................................................................................................................................3
Project
Title ........................................................................................................................................................................................3
Lead
Agency
Name
and
Address ...............................................................................................................................................3
Contact
Person
and
Phone
Number .........................................................................................................................................3
Project
Sponsor’s
Name
and
Address .....................................................................................................................................3
Project
Location
and
Setting .......................................................................................................................................................3
General
Plan
and
Zoning
Designations ...................................................................................................................................4
Project
Description..........................................................................................................................................................................5
Other
Public
Agencies
Whose
Approval
is
Required
(e.g.,
permits,
etc.)...............................................................11
Environmental
Factors
Potentially
Affected:.....................................................................................................................27
Determination:................................................................................................................................................................................27
Evaluation
Instructions:...................................................................................................................................................................28
Evaluation
of
Environmental
Impacts:......................................................................................................................................29
Environmental
Checklist ..................................................................................................................................................................31
I.
AESTHETICS
...........................................................................................................................................................................31
II.
AGRICULTURE
RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................................................32
III.
AIR
QUALITY........................................................................................................................................................................35
IV.
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES...............................................................................................................................................37
V.
CULTURAL
RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................39
VI.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS .......................................................................................................................................................40
VII.
GREENHOUSE
GAS
EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................................40
VIII.
HAZARDS
AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS...........................................................................................................44
IX.
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY ........................................................................................................................47
X.
LAND
USE
AND
PLANNING .............................................................................................................................................49
XI.
MINERAL
RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................................................50
XII.
NOISE .....................................................................................................................................................................................51
XIII.
POPULATION
AND
HOUSING ....................................................................................................................................52
XIV.
PUBLIC
SERVICES ...........................................................................................................................................................53
XV.
RECREATION ......................................................................................................................................................................54
XVI.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
..................................................................................................................................55
XVII.
UTILITIES
AND
SERVICE
SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................56
XVIII.
MANDATORY
FINDINGS
OF
SIGNIFICANCE.....................................................................................................57
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
2
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
3
INITIAL
STUDY
CHECKLIST
PROJECT
TITLE
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
LEAD
AGENCY
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
Town
of
Truckee
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Truckee,
CA
96161
CONTACT
PERSON
AND
PHONE
NUMBER
Denyelle
Nishimori,
Associate
Planner
Town
of
Truckee
Planning
Division
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Truckee,
CA
96161
530-‐582-‐2934
PROJECT
SPONSOR’S
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
Dale
Creighton
SCO
Planning,
Engineering,
&
Surveying
140
Litton
Dr.
#240
Grass
Valley,
CA
95945
530-‐272-‐5841
PROJECT
LOCATION
AND
SETTING
P ROJECT
L OCATION
The
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Area,
also
referred
to
as
the
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
Area
(hereinafter
"Plan
Area"),
is
located
along
the
southern
boundary
of
the
Town
of
Truckee,
within
Nevada
County,
immediately
north
of
the
Placer
County
line.
The
Plan
Area
is
located
approximately
three
miles
south
of
downtown
Truckee,
and
immediately
west
of
the
Truckee-‐
Tahoe
Airport.
The
Plan
Area
is
located
on
approximately
66.61
acres
of
land
located
on
both
sides
of
State
Route
(SR)
267
and
on
both
sides
of
Brockway
Road
and
Soaring
Way
at
the
point
these
roads
intersect
with
SR
267.
The
Plan
Area
boundary
encompasses
four
parcels
(APNs
19-‐620-‐01,
19-‐620-‐02,
19-‐620-‐31,
and
19-‐620-‐04)
The
Plan
Area’s
regional
location
is
shown
in
Figure
1,
and
the
project
vicinity
is
shown
in
Figure
2.
EXISTING
SITE
CONDITIONS
The
Plan
Area
is
largely
undeveloped
and
is
dominated
by
an
open
meadow
on
a
relatively
level
valley
floor.
The
open
meadow
is
largely
comprised
of
Great
Basin
sagebrush
scrub.
Existing
stands
of
mature
Jeffery
pines
and
lodgepole
pines
that
reach
over
50-‐60
feet
in
height
are
clustered
in
the
southern
and
southeastern
portion
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
center
of
the
Plan
Area
is
marked
by
the
intersection
of
SR
267
and
Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way.
These
roads
bisect
the
Plan
Area
on
elevated
earth
berms,
reaching
a
high
point
at
their
intersection,
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
4
approximately
25
feet
above
the
valley
floor.
The
Plan
Area
contains
a
single
business
structure
(Truckee
River
Winery)
and
it's
associated
small
parking
lot
near
the
western
boundary.
There
is
also
an
existing
well
house
located
along
an
ephemeral
drainage
in
the
western
portion
of
the
Plan
Area.
Figure
3
shows
an
aerial
view
of
the
Plan
Area.
S URROUNDING
LAND
USES
The
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport,
a
general
aviation
facility,
is
the
major
land
use
east
of
the
Plan
area.
Areas
north,
west
and
south
of
the
Plan
Area
are
characterized
by
a
mix
of
low
and
medium
density
residential,
commercial
and
recreational
uses.
The
Ponderosa
Golf
Course
borders
a
portion
of
the
Plan
Area
directly
to
the
west.
Surrounding
land
uses
are
shown
in
greater
detail
in
Figure
4.
Other
land
uses
in
close
proximity,
but
not
adjacent
to
the
Plan
Area,
include
a
diverse,
and
distinctly
different
set
of
land
uses.
The
area
west
of
the
Plan
Area
is
dominated
by
single
and
multiple
family
residential
land
uses
on
both
sides
of
Brockway
Road,
known
within
the
Town
General
Plan
as
the
Brockway
Road
Corridor.
This
corridor
is
also
characterized
by
open
space
and
recreation
lands
as
well
as
a
variety
of
local-‐serving
commercial
uses
fronting
Brockway
Road.
The
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport
occupies
a
vast
majority
of
the
land
area
to
the
east
of
the
Plan
Area,
with
a
range
of
office,
commercial
(e.g.:
retail
and
service),
and
industrial
(e.g.:
warehousing
and
storage)
uses
along
the
east
end
of
Soaring
Way
and
Truckee
Airport
Road.
A
very
similar
land
use
pattern
exists
along
Business
Park
Drive,
a
local
connector
road
between
Truckee
Airport
Road
and
Soaring
Way.
An
established
single
family
residential
area
surrounding
the
Ponderosa
Golf
Course
lies
to
the
northwest
of
the
Plan
Area.
Interstate
80,
the
Truckee
River
and
the
Union
Pacific
railroad
are
located
approximately
one
half
mile
north
of
the
Plan
Area,
just
beyond
the
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport.
To
the
south,
the
nearby
area
is
characterized
by
residential
and
commercial
uses
on
either
side
of
SR
267
for
approximately
one-‐quarter
mile.
Further
south,
uses
along
SR
267
quickly
transition
to
the
open
space
of
the
Martis
Valley
beyond
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
Placer
County
boundary.
GENERAL
PLAN
AND
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS
The
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
designates
the
Plan
Area
as
Planned
Community
3
(PC-‐3).
The
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
contains
the
following
policies
to
guide
development
of
PC-‐3:
PC-‐3
Policy
1:
Development
allowed
on
the
site
will
be
a
range
of
commercial,
industrial
and
residential
uses.
Services
for
employees,
such
as
day
care
facilities
and
food
sales,
shall
be
encouraged.
PC-‐3
Policy
2:
The
Specific
Plan
shall
include
design
standards
to
provide
for
architectural
consistency
of
development
on
the
site,
in
accordance
with
the
Town
of
Truckee
design
guidelines.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
5
PC-‐3
Policy
3:
Site
Design
shall
consider
appropriate
access
to
Highway
267,
via
Brockway
Road
and
Soaring
Way,
and
shall
minimize
visual
impacts
from
the
Highway
267
corridor.
PC-‐3
Policy
4:
The
Specific
Plan
shall
include
standards
for
the
design
of
retail
shopping
areas
which
avoid
"strip
commercial"
site
layout,
and
that
are
oriented
and
scaled
to
the
pedestrian
realm.
PC-‐3
Policy
5:
Specific
Plan
design
standards
shall
include
requirements
for
parking
areas
which
promote
attractive
streetscapes,
recognize
the
need
for
snow
storage
and
removal,
and
reduce
the
visual
impacts
of
large,
unscreened
parking
lots
through
distributed
landscaping,
landscaped
berms,
and
other
measures.
Parking
shall
be
provided
in
accordance
with
the
Town
of
Truckee
Design
Guidelines.
PC-‐4
Policy
6:
The
Specific
Plan
shall
include
provisions
for
supplying,
on-‐site,
the
required
housing
for
50
percent
of
the
very-‐low,
low-‐
and
moderate-‐income
workforce
associated
with
development
of
the
site.
If
land
use
or
noise
compatibility
requirements
of
the
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan
preclude
or
reduce
the
total
amount
of
housing
that
can
be
developed
on
PC-‐3,
required
workforce
housing
may
be
permitted
to
be
located
off-‐site.
PC-‐3
Policy
7:
All
development
on
PC-‐3
shall
support
community
character
goals
and
policies
for
the
Brockway
Road
Corridor.
PC-‐3
Policy
8:
Ensure
that
the
mix
of
land
uses
in
the
PC-‐3
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
the
need
for
four
lanes
on
Highway
267
between
Interstate
80
and
the
Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection.
Figure
5
depicts
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
land
use
designations
for
the
Plan
Area
and
the
surrounding
areas.
The
entire
Plan
Area
is
zoned
Planned
Community
(PC)
on
the
Town
of
Truckee
Zoning
Map.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
The
intent
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(hereinafter
(Specific
Plan),
and
the
individual
zoning
districts
within
the
Plan
Area,
is
to
create
land
use
opportunities
that
can
capture
certain
types
of
Commercial,
Retail,
Business
Park,
Light
Industrial,
Manufacturing,
and
Multi-‐Family
Residential
land
uses.
The
provisions
within
the
Specific
Plan
are
intended
to
establish
zoning,
design
standards
and
site
planning
techniques
that
would
allow
incremental
development
of
the
property
consistent
with
the
2025
Planning
Horizon
as
set
forth
in
the
Town
of
Truckee
General
Plan.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
6
The
Specific
Plan
proposes
to
develop
six
separate
zoning
districts
dispersed
over
the
66.61
acre
Plan
Area,
each
with
specified
targeted
uses
and
site
development
standards.
The
six
zoning
districts
and
their
locations
are
depicted
in
Figure
6.
In
addition
to
the
development
of
the
six
zoning
districts,
the
Specific
Plan
proposes
a
large
lot
tentative
map
that
subdivides
the
six
zoning
districts
into
14
individual
parcels.
This
is
intended
to
create
a
convenient
multi-‐use
development
and
to
stimulate
financing
opportunities
within
portions
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
proposed
Tentative
Subdivision
Map
is
shown
on
Figure
7.
The
specific
designations
for
the
proposed
zoning
districts
are
as
follows:
R EGIONAL
COMMERCIAL
(CR)
The
CR
zoning
district
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
Soaring
Way
and
is
approximately
11.7
acres
in
size.
The
targeted
land
uses
for
this
zoning
area
include
commercial
and
retail
services
that
emphasize
buildings
larger
than
5,000
S.F.
and
can
host
a
variety
of
retail
uses,
such
as
a
grocery
market;
general
merchandise
(large
floor
plate);
home
furnishings/appliances;
office
space
(large
floor
plate);
and
casual
dining
restaurants.
R EGIONAL
SUPPORT
COMMERCIAL
(CRS)
The
CG-‐2
zoning
district
consists
of
three
areas
totaling
approximately
6.1
acres
located
at
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection.
The
CRS
zoning
district
is
intended
to
attract
businesses
that
support
the
CR
zone
by
focusing
on
services
that
promote
the
small
town
outdoor
recreational
atmosphere
of
Truckee.
The
targeted
uses
for
the
CRS
zoning
district
include:
outdoor
recreational
equipment
sales;
bike
sales
and
rentals;
health
and
fitness
facilities;
casual
dining
restaurants;
and
recreational
vehicle
sales.
LIFESTYLE
COMMERCIAL
(CL)
The
CL
zoning
district
is
located
on
the
north
side
of
Brockway
Road
and
consists
of
approximately
7.6
acres.
The
CL
zoning
district
is
intended
for
businesses
that
promote
a
varied
mix
of
land
uses
that
currently
exist
within
the
Brockway
Road
corridor,
including
unique
and
locally
owned
retail,
service
and
recreation
uses
with
outdoor
display,
activity
and/or
dining
areas.
The
targeted
uses
for
the
CL
zoning
district
include:
home
furnishings
with
indoor
and
outdoor
displays;
wine
tasting
facilities
and
beverage
garden;
casual
dining
restaurants
with
outdoor
dining;
garden
supplies
and
nursery
sales.
MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL
(BUSINESS
PARK)
(M1)
The
M1
zoning
district
consists
of
three
areas
east
of
SR
267
totaling
approximately
13.6
acres.
The
M1
zone
is
designed
to
encourage
relocation
of
industrial
and
manufacturing
uses
from
the
Truckee
River
Corridor
and
to
allow
manufacturing/industrial
uses.
The
targeted
uses
for
the
M1
zoning
district
include:
fitness
center
and
indoor
sports
activities
and
training
facilities;
manufacturing
and
warehousing;
auto/recreational
dealerships;
repair
and
maintenance
centers;
specialty
food
and
spirit
production
facilities;
research
and
development
facilities;
and
transportation
centers.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
7
BUSINESS
INNOVATION
Z ONE
(BIZ)
The
BIZ
zoning
district
consists
of
two
areas
west
of
SR
267
totaling
approximately
14.0
acres.
The
BIZ
zoning
district
is
intended
to
provide
land
area
to
attract
new
innovative
manufacturing
and
research
&
development
businesses
to
the
Truckee
area
and
create
a
campus
style
business
environment
focusing
on
eco-‐friendly
and
emerging
green
industries.
The
targeted
uses
for
the
BIZ
zoning
district
include:
manufacturing
of
custom
furniture
and
household
products;
specialty
food
and
spirit
production
and
distribution;
research
and
development
facilities;
green
technology
including
material
production,
design,
and
research.
R ESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY
(RM)
The
multi-‐family
zoning
district
is
approximately
3.5
acres
in
size
and
located
west
of
proposed
Martis
Drive,
fronting
on
the
Ponderosa
Golf
Course.
The
RM
zone
is
intended
to
provide
a
variety
of
higher
density,
attached
and/or
detached
housing
opportunities
in
close
proximity,
for
both
employees
and
employers
of
the
various
commercial
and
industrial
land
uses
allowed
in
the
Specific
Plan.
OPEN
S PACE
(OS)
The
OS
zoning
district
is
primarily
intended
to
protect
natural
resources
in
the
Plan
Area
and
establish
a
buffer
zone
and
setbacks
from
SR
267.
The
Open
Space
parcel
at
the
Hope
Court
/
Brockway
Road
intersection
is
intended
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
a
trailhead
to
access
the
proposed
Northstar
trail
segment,
a
park
&
ride
lot,
public
art
and
a
portion
of
the
remaining
area
for
use
by
a
public
or
nonprofit
organization.
Parking
for
the
trailhead
and
park
&
ride
will
consist
of
8
-‐
12
parking
spaces.
Table
1
provides
a
summary
of
the
acreage
and
development
potential
for
each
of
the
zoning
districts
identified
above.
Table
1:
Summary
of
Zoning,
Acreage,
and
Development
Potential
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
11.69
101,843
sf
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
6.07
52,881
sf
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
7.59
66,124
sf
Manufacturing/Industrial
(M1)
13.57
118,222
sf
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
13.97
121,707
sf
Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)
3.48
42
housing
units
Open
Space
(OS)
10.24
N/A
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
8
Transportation
and
Circulation
Improvements
Roadway
Improvements
The
Plan
Area
requires
different
roadways
sections
to
respond
to
varying
circulation
needs
of
the
existing
traffic
patterns
and
uses
proposed
within
the
Plan
Area.
The
following
roadway
improvements
are
proposed
as
part
of
the
Specific
Plan.
Soaring
Way:
Soaring
Way,
east
of
Joerger
Drive,
would
be
improved
to
include
curb
and
gutters,
in
addition
to
a
five-‐foot
wide
pedestrian
sidewalk
on
each
side
of
the
roadway,
separated
by
landscaping
and
a
snow
storage
buffer.
The
proposed
roadway
section
of
Soaring
Way,
west
of
Joerger
Drive,
would
be
expanded
to
accommodate
a
westbound
lane,
a
through/left
turn
pocket
to
Joerger
Drive,
and
a
right
turn
pocket
into
the
proposed
CRS
zoning
district
south
of
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection.
This
section
would
also
include
two
five-‐foot
wide
Class
II
bike
lanes,
along
with
curb/gutter,
and
a
five-‐foot
wide
sidewalk.
Hope
Court:
Hope
Court
currently
consists
of
two
16-‐foot
wide
travel
lanes
with
aggregate
base
shoulders.
The
Specific
Plan
proposes
to
add
a
detached
10-‐foot
wide
Class
I
bike
trail
that
would
continue
to
the
easterly
limits
of
the
Plan
Area.
Martis
Drive:
Martis
Drive
would
consist
primarily
of
new
roadway
construction.
The
proposed
60-‐foot
wide
right-‐of-‐way
would
include
two
12-‐foot
wide
travel
lanes,
Type
“E”
curb
and
gutter,
and
a
five-‐foot
wide
sidewalk
along
the
easterly
side.
Additionally,
a
Class
I
bike
path
is
proposed
on
the
westerly
side,
and
would
continue
to
the
northerly
limits
of
the
Plan
Area.
Brockway
Road:
The
proposed
Brockway
Road
section
west
of
the
Hope
Court/Brockway
Road
intersection
would
include
the
addition
of
a
detached
Class
I
bike
path
on
the
northerly
side
of
Brockway
Road
from
Martis
Drive,
and
crossing
at
Hope
Court.
Brockway
Road,
east
of
the
Hope
Court
intersection,
would
transition
as
is
approaches
SR
267
to
accommodate
a
westbound
through
lane,
designated
left
turn
lane,
northbound
through
lane,
designated
right
turn
lane,
and
two
five-‐foot
wide
Class
II
bike
lanes.
Additionally,
curb
and
gutter
is
proposed
on
the
easterly
side
with
a
five-‐foot
wide
sidewalk.
Joerger
Drive:
Joerger
Drive
would
remain
relatively
unchanged
from
its
current
condition.
The
Specific
Plan
proposes
to
add
curb
and
gutter
and
a
five-‐foot
wide
sidewalk
on
the
westerly
side.
Intersection
Improvements
Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way/SR
267:
The
existing
intersection
at
Brockway
Road/
Soaring
Way
/
SR
267
is
currently
signalized
with
northbound
and
southbound
through
lanes
with
additional
left
turn
lanes
onto
Soaring
Way
from
the
north
and
onto
Brockway
Road
from
the
south.
Traffic
from
Brockway
Road
approaches
a
through/left
turn
lane
and
a
designated
right
turn
lane.
There
is
one
(1)
eastbound
through
lane
to
Soaring
Way
and
one
(1)
westbound
lane
approaching
from
Soaring
Way.
Improvements
to
this
intersection
have
been
identified
in
the
General
Plan
as
a
“future
community
need”
independent
of
the
traffic
impacts
resulting
from
the
Specific
Plan.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
9
On
the
Brockway
Road
side
of
the
intersection,
widening
of
the
roadway
is
proposed
in
order
to
shift
the
designated
right
turn
lane
to
the
south
and
accommodate
an
additional
lane.
This
additional
lane
would
allow
the
existing
through
/
left
turn
lane
to
be
separated
into
a
designated
left
turn
only
and
designated
through
lane.
Additionally,
Class
II
bike
lanes
are
proposed
in
both
easterly
and
westerly
directions.
Curb
&
gutter
and
a
5’
wide
concrete
sidewalk
is
proposed
on
the
south
side
of
Brockway
Road
to
facilitate
pedestrian
safety
up
to
the
signalized
intersection.
No
modifications
are
proposed
on
the
north
side
of
the
intersection.
On
the
Soaring
Way
side
of
the
intersection,
widening
is
proposed
to
allow
for
a
designated
right
turn
lane
with
a
through/left
and
eastbound
lane.
On
the
Brockway
Road
side,
Class
II
bike
paths
would
be
provided
in
each
direction
and
curb,
gutter
and
sidewalk
are
proposed
on
the
south
side
to
convey
pedestrians
along
the
Brockway
Road
and
Soaring
Way
corridor.
The
south
side
of
the
intersection
is
proposed
to
include
a
right
turn
only
lane
to
minimize
delay
onto
Soaring
Way.
Signalization
upgrades
along
with
lane
widening
is
proposed
to
accomplish
these
intersection
upgrades.
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court:
The
existing
three-‐leg
“T”
intersection
at
Brockway
Road
and
Hope
Court
is
proposed
to
be
improved
to
a
four-‐leg
intersection,
adding
a
commercial
driveway
entrance
to
the
north
to
access
the
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
zoning
area.
Striping
and
minor
widening
will
create
two
(2)
left
turn
pockets
both
east
and
west
bound
on
Brockway
Road
into
the
Commercial
Lifestyle
(CL)
zoning
area
and
onto
Hope
Court.
Additionally,
this
intersection
has
two
pedestrian
and
bicycle
crossings
as
the
Class
1
bicycle
trail
crosses
the
commercial
driveway
approach
fronting
the
Commercial
Lifestyle
“CL”
zoning
area
and
then
crosses
Brockway
Road
to
the
northerly
side
of
Hope
Court.
A
solar
powered
push
button
activated
LED
Flashing
Pedestrian
Crosswalk
sign
is
proposed
on
each
side
of
Brockway
Road.
Additionally,
recessed
LED
in-‐pavement
lights
are
proposed
to
add
additional
visibility
and
safety
to
pedestrians
and
bicyclists
crossing
Brockway
Road.
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive:
This
intersection
currently
exists
and
no
widening
is
proposed.
Minor
striping
within
Brockway
Road
and
the
addition
of
curb
and
gutter
on
Martis
Drive
and
the
Class
1
bicycle
path
crossing
is
proposed
to
complete
this
intersection.
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive:
The
Soaring
Way
/
Joerger
Drive
intersection
would
be
improved
to
provide
additional
turn
pockets
and
an
additional
leg
to
the
south
to
access
the
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
and
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
zoning
areas.
Currently,
Soaring
Way
is
uncontrolled
with
both
an
eastbound
and
westbound
lane.
Vehicles
heading
south
from
Joerger
Drive
approach
the
intersection
and
existing
stop
sign.
The
intersection
is
proposed
to
be
a
four-‐way
intersection
with
stop
signs.
Motorists
on
the
westerly
side
of
the
intersection
on
Soaring
Way
would
have
a
through
/
left
turn
pocket
as
well
as
a
designated
right
turn
only
pocket
for
entering
the
“CRS”
zoning
area.
Some
minor
widening
on
Joerger
Drive
would
accommodate
the
addition
of
a
designated
right
turn
only
pocket
along
with
a
through
/
left
pocket
and
northbound
lane.
The
easterly
side
of
the
intersection
on
Soaring
Way
would
be
striped
to
include
a
designated
left
turn
and
through
/
right
pockets.
The
southerly
leg
of
the
intersection
would
have
a
southbound
lane
a
through
/
left
pocket
for
motorists
heading
up
Joerger
Drive,
or
left
on
Soaring
Way
and
a
designated
right
turn
pocket
as
well.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
10
BICYCLE
NETWORK
AND
DESIGN
A
10-‐foot
wide
separated
Class
1
bicycle
path
is
proposed
on
the
northerly
side
of
Brockway
Road
from
the
westerly
boundary
of
the
Plan
Area
running
easterly
and
crossing
Brockway
Road
and
along
the
northerly
side
of
Hope
Court
to
the
easterly
boundary
of
the
Plan
Area
and
in
conformance
with
the
Truckee
General
Plan.
This
would
provide
a
significant
link
to
connect
to
the
future
Martis
Valley
Trail
to
the
southeast
and
to
the
Truckee
Regional
Park
to
the
northwest.
A
Class
1
bicycle
path
is
also
proposed
to
be
constructed
on
the
westerly
side
of
Martis
Drive
to
the
northern
limits
of
the
Plan
Area,
which
would
allow
for
a
future
extension
to
connect
to
the
Legacy
Trail
to
the
north.
In
addition
to
the
Class
1
bicycle
trail
segments,
Class
II
bicycle
paths
are
integrated
into
the
various
roadway
sections,
including
each
side
of
Brockway
Road,
Soaring
Way
and
along
Joerger
Drive
fronting
the
Plan
Area.
Utility
Infrastructure
Wastewater
(Sewer)
Wastewater
collection
and
conveyance
would
be
provided
by
the
Truckee
Sanitary
District
(TSD).
Wastewater
treatment
would
be
provided
by
the
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitary
Agency
(T-‐
TSA).
Sewage
in
the
project
vicinity
is
currently
collected
primarily
by
gravity
flow
throughout
adjacent
developed
areas,
and
is
transported
in
a
sewer
main
line
at
Joerger
Drive
for
conveyance
to
the
treatment
plant
located
east
of
the
Town
of
Truckee.
The
project
would
connect
to
the
existing
sewer
main
line,
and
would
include
an
internal
network
of
conveyance
lines.
Water
Supply
Water
service
in
Truckee
is
provided
by
the
Truckee
Donner
Public
Utility
District
(TDPUD),
a
publicly
owned
utility
providing
electric
and
water
service
since
1927.
The
District
operates
three
water
systems
in
the
Truckee
area:
the
Hirshdale
System,
the
Truckee
System,
and
the
Donner
Lake
System.
The
Truckee
System
serves
the
Plan
Area.
Existing
transmission,
distribution
and
treated
water
storage
facilities
would
serve
both
existing
and
future
demand
from
the
planned
development.
This
basic
infrastructure
has
developed
by
TDPUD
in
accordance
with
the
Water
System
Master
Plan
and
the
2010
Urban
Water
Management
Plan.
Water
mainlines
are
located
within
the
adjacent
roadways
and
would
be
extended
throughout
the
Plan
Area
for
domestic
water
distribution
and
fire
suppression.
Electric
Service
The
Plan
Area
lies
within
the
service
area
of
the
TDPUD.
Existing
electrical
transmission
lines
and
service
distribution
lines
lie
adjacent
to
and
within
the
Plan
Area.
Electrical
service
facilities
would
be
extended
from
existing
TDPUD
infrastructure
and
would
be
upgraded
as
necessary
to
adequately
serve
the
Specific
Plan,
and
would
be
designed
to
accommodate
full
buildout
of
the
Plan
Area.
Natural
Gas
Natural
gas
service
is
provided
to
the
Truckee
area
by
Southwest
Gas
Corporation.
Existing
natural
gas
transmission
lines
and
service
distribution
lines
lie
adjacent
to
and
within
the
Plan
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
11
Area.
Natural
gas
facilities
would
be
extended
from
existing
Southwest
Gas
infrastructure
in
Martis
Drive,
and
would
be
upgraded
as
necessary
to
adequately
serve
the
Specific
Plan
at
full
buildout.
OTHER
PUBLIC
AGENCIES
WHOSE
APPROVAL
IS
REQUIRED
(E.G.,
PERMITS,
ETC.)
The
Town
of
Truckee
(Town)
will
be
the
Lead
Agency
for
the
proposed
project,
pursuant
to
the
State
Guidelines
for
Implementation
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA),
Section
15050.
Actions
that
would
be
required
from
the
Town
Council,
Planning
Commission,
and
Town
staff
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
the
following:
• Adoption
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan;
• Approval
of
tentative
and
final
maps;
• Certification
of
the
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
(EIR);
• Improvement
plans;
• Grading
plans;
• Building
permits;
and
Other
discretionary
approvals
that
may
be
required
by
other
governmental
agencies
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:
• Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
(RWQCB),
Lahontan
Region
Waste
Discharge
Permit,
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
permit,
SWPPP,
and
Water
Quality
Certification
or
waiver,
under
Sections
401
and
402
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA).
• California
Department
of
Transportation
(Caltrans),
encroachment
permits
for
improvements
within
the
SR
267
right-‐of-‐way
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
12
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
NN
EE
VV
AA
DD
AA
CC
AA
LL
II
FF
OO
RR
NN
II
AA
ProjectLocation
French MeadowsRes.
Donner Lake
El Dorado CountyEl Dorado County
Placer CountyPlacer County
Sierra CountySierra County
WashoeWashoeCountyCountyNevada CountyNevada County
DouglasDouglasCountyCounty
Alpine CountyAlpine County
Carson City CountyCarson City County
LyonLyonCountyCounty
StoreyStoreyCountyCounty
Carson City
Reno
Dayton
Truckee
Sparks
Spanish Springs
Kingsbury
Verdi-Mogul
Mesa Vista
Johnson Lane
Markleeville
Sun Valley
Foresthill
South Lake Tahoe
Indian Hills
Gardnerville Ranchos
Minden
Placerville Pollock Pines
Diamond Springs
Georgetown
Kirkwood
Kings Beach
Dollar Point
80
80
395
50
395
395
395
50
49
88
89
20
341
193
431
207
209
267
208
4 89
89
89
49
89
Lake Tahoe Nevada SP
Malakoff Diggings SP
Washoe Lake SP
DL Bliss SP
Sugar Pine Point SP
Emerald Bay SP
Donner Memorial SP
Grover Hot Springs State Park
Gold Bug Park
Mormon Station SP
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 1. Regional Location
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
Data source: California Spatial Information LibraryMap date: May 4, 2011.
LakeTahoeHell Hole Res.
Ice HouseRes.
Union ValleyRes.
Stampede Res.
Fallen Leaf Lake
Loon Lake
Washoe Lake
05102.5
Miles
1:650,000
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
14
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
Truckee-Tahoe AirportTruckee-Tahoe Airport
Truckee River267
267
Trout Creek
S c h a f f e r Mill R d
Ti
m
i
l
i
c
k
D
r
Alp i n e Meadow C a m p
Brockway Rd
Torr e y Pine Rd
Pon
d
e
r
o
sa Dr
Pine Cone DrThelin Dr
NN EE VV AA DD AA CC OO UU NN TT YY
PP LL AA CC EE RR CC OO UU NN TT YY
80
80
D o nner P a s s R d
Joerger Dr
Glenshire Dr
River St
M
a
r
t
i
s
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Highland Ave
E states D r
Jeffery P i ne R d
Soari
n
g
W
a
y
Ma
r
t
i
s
D
r
Sh a n e v a Rd
High St
M a r t i s V a lley R d
R e y n o l d W a y
R i v e r v i e w Dr
E
uer Valley Rd
G o l d e n Pine R d
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
R
d
Indian Jac k Rd
S i l ver Spur Dr
C olu m b i n e R d
Business Park Dr
Pin
e
l
a
n
d
R
d
R i d g e R d
River St
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 2. Vicinity Map
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: ArcGIS Online BING Aerials, ESRI Streetmap North America,Nevada County GIS. Placer County GIS. Map date: May 4, 2012
PC-3
1:28,000
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Truckee RiverRegional Park
PonderosaGolf Course
TruckeeCemetery
Martis Creek LakeRecreation Area
Martis Creek
MartisCreekLake
NN EE VV AA DD AA CC OO UU NN TT YY
PP LL AA CC EE RR CC OO UU NN TT YY
Project Boundary
Town of Truckee
County Boundary
Town of Truckee
To wn of Truckee
To Kings Beach
S o u t h e r n P a c ific R R
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
16
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
JOERGER DRIV
E
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
OMNI
W
A
Y
REYNOLD WA
Y
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
JEFFERY PINE ROAD
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 3. Aerial View of Project Site
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: ArcGIS Online BING Aerials, ESRI Streetmap North America,Nevada County GIS. Map date: May 14, 2012
PC-3
1:8,000
0 500250
Feet
267
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
18
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
267
J
O
E
R
GER R
A
N
C
H DR
Truckee-TahoeAirport
Hotel
FutureHangars
Airport Non-Aviation Use
Apartments
JOERG
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
OMNI
W
A
Y
REYNOLD WA
Y
ESTATES DRIVE
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
JEFFERY PINE ROAD
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
RIVER STR
E
E
T
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
Park andSports Fields
Single FamilyResidentialSeniorHousing
Townhomes
Mobile Home Park
Single FamilyResidential
Golf Course
NeighborhoodCommercial
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 4. Surrounding Land Uses
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: ArcGIS Online BING Aerials, ESRI Streetmap North America,Nevada County GIS. Map date: May 3, 2012
Church
Church
Townhomes
Hotel SelfStorage
Gas StationMini-Mart
TownHallCommercialOffice
1:12,000
0 1,000500
Feet
PC-3
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
20
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
267
J
O
E
RGER R
A
N
C
H DR
Placer C ounty
JOERGE
R
D
R
I
V
E
BRO
C
K
W
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SOA
R
I
N
G
W
A
Y
MA
R
T
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
OMNI
W
A
Y
REYNOLD WA
Y
ESTATES DRIVE
MARTI
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
JEFFERY PINE ROAD
PIN
E
L
A
N
D
R
O
A
D
CHAN
D
E
L
L
E
W
A
Y
TRU
C
K
E
E
-
T
A
H
O
E
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
O
A
D
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 5. General Plan Designations
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soures: Town of Truckee GIS, Nevada County GIS, Placer CountyGIS, ESRI Streetmap North America, Map date: May 14, 2012.1:12,000
0 1,000500
Feet
PC3
Town of Truckee
County Boundary
Town of Truckee Land Use Designations
Residential 1- 2 du/acre
High Density Residential 6 - 12 du/acre
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Planned Community
Plan Area
Open Space Recreation
Resource Conservation/Open Space
Placer County Land Use Designations
General Commercial
Low Density Residential 1 - 5 DU./Ac.
Medium Density Residential 5 - 10 DU./Ac.
Open Space
Professional Office
Public/Quasi-Public
Nevada County Land Use Designations
Business Park
Community Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
Public
267
Nevada County
Town of Truckee
Town of Truckee
Town of Truckee
Placer County
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
22
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 6. Proposed Zoning Districts
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: SCO Planning Engineering & Surveying PC-3/Joerger RanchProposed Zoning Exhibit B, 5/13/2011. Map date: May 2, 2012.
0'
2 0 0'
N
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
24
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3)
Figure 7. Tentative Map
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental FirmData soure: SCO Planning Engineering & Surveying PC-3/Joerger RanchTentative Map Exhibit C, 5/13/2011. Map date: May 2, 2012.
0'
2 0 0'
N)
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
26
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
27
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS
POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED:
The
environmental
factors
checked
below
would
be
potentially
affected
by
this
project,
involving
at
least
one
impact
that
is
a
"Potentially
Significant
Impact"
as
indicated
by
the
checklist
on
the
following
pages.
X
Aesthetics
Agriculture
and
Forest
Resources
X
Air
Quality
X
Biological
Resources
X
Cultural
Resources
X
Geology/Soils
X
Greenhouse
Gasses
X
Hazards
and
Hazardous
Materials
X
Hydrology/Water
Quality
X
Land
Use/Planning
Mineral
Resources
X
Noise
X
Population/Housing
X
Public
Services
X
Recreation
X
Transportation/Traffic
X
Utilities/Service
Systems
X
Mandatory
Findings
of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On
the
basis
of
this
initial
evaluation:
I
find
that
the
proposed
project
COULD
NOT
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
and
a
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
will
be
prepared.
I
find
that
although
the
proposed
project
could
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
there
will
not
be
a
significant
effect
in
this
case
because
revisions
in
the
project
have
been
made
by
or
agreed
to
by
the
project
proponent.
A
MITIGATED
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
will
be
prepared.
X
I
find
that
the
proposed
project
MAY
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
and
an
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
is
required.
I
find
that
the
proposed
project
MAY
have
a
"potentially
significant
impact"
or
"potentially
significant
unless
mitigated"
impact
on
the
environment,
but
at
least
one
effect
1)
has
been
adequately
analyzed
in
an
earlier
document
pursuant
to
applicable
legal
standards,
and
2)
has
been
addressed
by
mitigation
measures
based
on
the
earlier
analysis
as
described
on
attached
sheets.
An
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
is
required,
but
it
must
analyze
only
the
effects
that
remain
to
be
addressed.
I
find
that
although
the
proposed
project
could
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment,
because
all
potentially
significant
effects
(a)
have
been
analyzed
adequately
in
an
earlier
EIR
or
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
pursuant
to
applicable
standards,
and
(b)
have
been
avoided
or
mitigated
pursuant
to
that
earlier
EIR
or
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION,
including
revisions
or
mitigation
measures
that
are
imposed
upon
the
proposed
project,
nothing
further
is
required.
Signature
Date
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
28
EVALUATION
INSTRUCTIONS:
1)
A
brief
explanation
is
required
for
all
answers
except
"No
Impact"
answers
that
are
adequately
supported
by
the
information
sources
a
lead
agency
cites
in
the
parentheses
following
each
question.
A
"No
Impact"
answer
is
adequately
supported
if
the
referenced
information
sources
show
that
the
impact
simply
does
not
apply
to
projects
like
the
one
involved
(e.g.,
the
project
falls
outside
a
fault
rupture
zone).
A
"No
Impact"
answer
should
be
explained
where
it
is
based
on
project-‐specific
factors
as
well
as
general
standards
(e.g.,
the
project
will
not
expose
sensitive
receptors
to
pollutants,
based
on
a
project-‐specific
screening
analysis).
2)
All
answers
must
take
account
of
the
whole
action
involved,
including
off-‐site
as
well
as
on-‐site,
cumulative
as
well
as
project-‐level,
indirect
as
well
as
direct,
and
construction
as
well
as
operational
impacts.
3)
Once
the
lead
agency
has
determined
that
a
particular
physical
impact
may
occur,
then
the
checklist
answers
must
indicate
whether
the
impact
is
potentially
significant,
less
than
significant
with
mitigation,
or
less
than
significant.
"Potentially
Significant
Impact"
is
appropriate
if
there
is
substantial
evidence
that
an
effect
may
be
significant.
If
there
are
one
or
more
"Potentially
Significant
Impact"
entries
when
the
determination
is
made,
an
EIR
is
required.
4)
"Negative
Declaration:
Less
Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated"
applies
where
the
incorporation
of
mitigation
measures
has
reduced
an
effect
from
"Potentially
Significant
Impact"
to
a
"Less
Than
Significant
Impact."
The
lead
agency
must
describe
the
mitigation
measures,
and
briefly
explain
how
they
reduce
the
effect
to
a
less
than
significant
level
(mitigation
measures
from
Section
XVII,
"Earlier
Analyses,"
may
be
cross-‐referenced).
5)
Earlier
analyses
may
be
used
where,
pursuant
to
the
tiering,
program
EIR,
or
other
CEQA
process,
an
effect
has
been
adequately
analyzed
in
an
earlier
EIR
or
negative
declaration.
Section
15063(c)(3)(D).
In
this
case,
a
brief
discussion
should
identify
the
following:
a)
Earlier
Analysis
Used.
Identify
and
state
where
they
are
available
for
review.
b)
Impacts
Adequately
Addressed.
Identify
which
effects
from
the
above
checklist
were
within
the
scope
of
and
adequately
analyzed
in
an
earlier
document
pursuant
to
applicable
legal
standards,
and
state
whether
such
effects
were
addressed
by
mitigation
measures
based
on
the
earlier
analysis.
c)
Mitigation
Measures.
For
effects
that
are
"Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Incorporated,"
describe
the
mitigation
measures
which
were
incorporated
or
refined
from
the
earlier
document
and
the
extent
to
which
they
address
site-‐specific
conditions
for
the
project.
6)
Lead
agencies
are
encouraged
to
incorporate
into
the
checklist
references
to
information
sources
for
potential
impacts
(e.g.,
general
plans,
zoning
ordinances).
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
29
Reference
to
a
previously
prepared
or
outside
document
should,
where
appropriate,
include
a
reference
to
the
page
or
pages
where
the
statement
is
substantiated.
7)
Supporting
Information
Sources:
A
source
list
should
be
attached,
and
other
sources
used
or
individuals
contacted
should
be
cited
in
the
discussion.
8)
This
is
only
a
suggested
form,
and
lead
agencies
are
free
to
use
different
formats;
however,
lead
agencies
should
normally
address
the
questions
from
this
checklist
that
are
relevant
to
a
project's
environmental
effects
in
whatever
format
is
selected.
9)
The
explanation
of
each
issue
should
identify:
a)
The
significance
criteria
or
threshold,
if
any,
used
to
evaluate
each
question;
and
b)
The
mitigation
measure
identified,
if
any,
to
reduce
the
impact
to
less
than
significance
EVALUATION
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS:
In
each
area
of
potential
impact
listed
in
this
section,
there
are
one
or
more
questions
which
assess
the
degree
of
potential
environmental
effect.
A
response
is
provided
to
each
question
using
one
of
the
four
impact
evaluation
criteria
described
below.
A
discussion
of
the
response
is
also
included.
• Potentially
Significant
Impact.
This
response
is
appropriate
when
there
is
substantial
evidence
that
an
effect
is
significant.
If
there
are
one
or
more
"Potentially
Significant
Impact"
entries,
upon
completion
of
the
Initial
Study,
an
EIR
is
required.
• Less
than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated.
This
response
applies
when
the
incorporation
of
mitigation
measures
has
reduced
an
effect
from
"Potentially
Significant
Impact"
to
a
"Less
Than
Significant
Impact".
The
Lead
Agency
must
describe
the
mitigation
measures
and
briefly
explain
how
they
reduce
the
effect
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
• Less
than
Significant
Impact.
A
less
than
significant
impact
is
one
which
is
deemed
to
have
little
or
no
adverse
effect
on
the
environment.
Mitigation
measures
are,
therefore,
not
necessary,
although
they
may
be
recommended
to
further
reduce
a
minor
impact.
• No
Impact.
These
issues
were
either
identified
as
having
no
impact
on
the
environment,
or
they
are
not
relevant
to
the
Project.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
30
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
31
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
This
section
of
the
Initial
Study
incorporates
the
most
current
Appendix
"G"
Environmental
Checklist
Form,
contained
in
the
CEQA
Guidelines.
Impact
questions
and
responses
are
included
in
both
tabular
and
narrative
formats
for
each
of
the
18
environmental
topic
areas.
I.
AESTHETICS
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
a
scenic
vista?
X
b)
Substantially
damage
scenic
resources,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
trees,
rock
outcroppings,
and
historic
buildings
within
a
state
scenic
highway?
X
c)
Substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
or
quality
of
the
site
and
its
surroundings?
X
d)
Create
a
new
source
of
substantial
light
or
glare
which
would
adversely
affect
day
or
nighttime
views
in
the
area?
X
The
Plan
Area
is
located
in
the
Martis
Valley,
a
large,
level
to
rolling
meadow
at
the
confluence
of
the
Truckee
River
and
Martis
Creek
floodplains,
east
of
I-‐80
and
the
Town
of
Truckee.
The
Plan
Area
consists
of
a
largely
level,
low-‐lying
portion
of
the
floodplain
of
tributaries
to
Martis
Creek.
The
valley-‐bottom
portions
of
the
Plan
Area
are
visually
open,
with
views
over
large
areas
of
open
meadow
interrupted
by
substantial
stands
of
Ponderosa
pine.
Views
from
the
valley
to
nearby
peaks
and
ridges
of
the
Sierra
Nevada
and
Carson
Ranges
are
visible
in
all
directions,
particularly
to
the
east.
The
typical
forest
type
of
the
region
is
mixed
conifer
forest.
Within
the
Martis
Valley
woodland
is
primarily
ponderosa
pine,
in
stands
amid
large
areas
of
open
grassland
meadow.
Viewsheds
in
the
region
are
conditioned
to
a
large
extent
by
the
characteristic
tall
forest
cover.
Based
on
the
topography
of
the
region,
the
viewshed
could
be
quite
extensive;
however,
provided
that
there
is
an
extensive
intervening
forest
canopy
in
the
region,
the
views
to
and
from
the
Plan
Area
are
largely
limited.
For
example,
I-‐80
located
approximately
one
mile
to
the
north
of
the
Plan
Area
is
not
visible
from
the
Plan
Area
due
to
the
forest
canopy
that
separates
these
areas.
This
high
‘visual
absorption
capacity’
of
the
Sierra
forest
(the
ability
to
visually
conceal
development
with
the
presence
of
tall,
dense
forest
cover)
is
a
characteristic
of
the
Sierran
landscape.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
32
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Response
a):
Potentially
Significant.
The
Plan
Area
is
highly
visible
from
SR
267
and
the
roadways
and
parcels,
including
the
Ponderosa
Golf
Course,
surrounding
the
Plan
Area.
SR
267
enters
the
Town
of
Truckee
from
the
east,
and
is
considered
a
major
gateway
into
the
Town.
SR
267
is
heavily
traveled
by
tourists
traveling
to
Truckee
from
North
Lake
Tahoe
and
the
Northstar
ski
area.
Development
of
the
proposed
project
would
significantly
alter
the
existing
visual
character
of
the
Plan
Area,
which
is
currently
undeveloped.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact.
The
EIR
will
include
a
full
detailed
discussion
of
the
visual
changes
to
the
Plan
Area
that
would
occur
as
a
result
of
project
implementation,
and
will
include
a
discussion
of
the
Specific
Plan’s
proposed
design
guidelines
and
other
feasible
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
visual
impacts
in
and
around
the
Plan
Area.
Response
b):
No
Impact.
There
are
no
State-‐designated
scenic
highways
that
run
through
Truckee.
Both
I-‐80
and
SR
89
are
eligible
to
be
State
Scenic
Highways
but
are
not
officially
designated
as
such.
The
2025
General
Plan
designates
two
scenic
corridors
in
Truckee.
One
encompasses
the
length
of
I-‐80
where
it
passes
through
the
Town
limits,
excluding
the
south
side
of
the
highway
in
the
Downtown
area;
and
SR
89
North,
between
Prosser
Dam
Road
and
the
northern
Town
limits
(Truckee
General
Plan
EIR,
2006).
Since
the
Plan
Area
is
not
visible
from
a
State-‐designated
scenic
highway,
there
is
no
impact
related
to
this
environmental
topic.
This
issue
will
not
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
Response
c):
Potentially
Significant.
As
described
under
Response
a),
above,
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
the
development
of
a
previously
undeveloped
area
of
land
in
a
visually
prominent
gateway
to
the
Town
of
Truckee.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact,
and
will
be
addressed
in
further
detail
in
the
EIR.
Response
d):
Potentially
Significant.
Additional
sources
of
light
such
as
exterior
commercial
lighting,
security
lighting,
parking
lot
lighting,
street
lights
and
lighting
from
vehicles
entering
and
exiting
the
area
would
be
introduced
to
the
Plan
Area
as
a
result
of
implementation
of
the
Specific
Plan.
The
Specific
Plan
would
also
introduce
significant
new
development
into
a
previously
undisturbed
area,
which
could
include
reflective
surfaces
and
building
materials
that
may
result
in
daytime
glare.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact
and
will
be
addressed
in
greater
detail
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
33
II.
AGRICULTURE
AND
FOREST
RESOURCES:
W OULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Convert
Prime
Farmland,
Unique
Farmland,
or
Farmland
of
Statewide
Importance
(Farmland),
as
shown
on
the
maps
prepared
pursuant
to
the
Farmland
Mapping
and
Monitoring
Program
of
the
California
Resources
Agency,
to
non-‐agricultural
use?
X
b)
Conflict
with
existing
zoning
for
agricultural
use,
or
a
Williamson
Act
contract?
X
c)
Conflict
with
existing
zoning
for,
or
cause
rezoning
of,
forest
land
(as
defined
in
Public
Resources
Code
section
1222(g))
or
timberland
(as
defined
in
Public
Resources
Code
section
4526)?
X
d)
Result
in
the
loss
of
forest
land
or
conversion
of
forest
land
to
non-‐forest
use?
X
e)
Involve
other
changes
in
the
existing
environment
which,
due
to
their
location
or
nature,
could
result
in
conversion
of
Farmland,
to
non-‐
agricultural
use
or
conversion
of
forest
land
to
non-‐
forest
use?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Response
a):
No
Impact.
The
Plan
Area
does
not
include
any
Prime
Farmland,
Unique
Farmland,
or
Farmland
of
Statewide
Importance
as
identified
by
the
California
Department
of
Conservation,
Division
of
Land
Resource
Protection.
Additionally,
the
Plan
Area
is
not
currently
used
for
agricultural
purposes,
and
is
not
adjacent
to
existing
agricultural
operations.
The
Plan
Area
does
not
meet
any
of
the
criteria
for
such
a
designation;
therefore,
there
is
no
impact
and
this
issue
will
not
be
addressed
in
the
EIR.
Response
b):
No
Impact.
There
are
no
active
Williamson
Act
Contracts
in
place
on,
or
adjacent
to
the
Plan
Area.
The
Plan
Area
is
located
in
an
area
predominantly
consisting
of
residential,
commercial,
and
recreational
development.
There
are
no
parcels
of
land
under
Williamson
Act
Contract
within
the
Town
of
Truckee.
The
Plan
Area
is
zoned
Planned
Community
(PC),
and
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
designates
the
site
Planned
Community
3
(PC-‐3).
The
General
Plan
identifies
future
intended
uses
of
the
Plan
Area,
none
of
which
relate
to
agriculture
or
agricultural
operations.
The
proposed
project
would
have
no
impact
to
zoning
for
agricultural
uses
or
Williamson
Act
Contracts.
This
impact
will
not
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
Response
c)
and
d):
Less
than
Significant.
The
Plan
Area
is
zoned
Planned
Community
(PC)
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
Zoning
Map,
and
is
designated
PC-‐3
by
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan.
There
are
no
zoning
or
General
Plan
designations
related
to
forest
lands
applicable
to
the
Plan
Area.
While
there
are
existing
stands
of
trees
located
in
the
Plan
Area,
the
site
does
not
meet
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
34
the
definition
of
forest
land,
as
defined
in
Public
Resources
Code
section
1222(g),
or
timberland,
as
defined
in
Public
Resources
Code
section
4526.
The
majority
of
the
existing
trees
located
in
the
Plan
Area
will
be
preserved
and
retained
in
order
to
provide
visual
screening
of
the
site
from
the
surrounding
roadways
and
land
uses,
and
also
to
preserve
habitat
in
the
Plan
Area.
Impacts
related
to
forest
lands
are
considered
less
than
significant,
and
will
not
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
The
EIR
will,
however,
address
potential
impacts
related
to
tree
removal
in
the
context
of
visual
resource
impacts
and
biological
resource
impacts.
Response
e):
Less
than
Significant.
See
responses
a)
through
d)
above.
The
proposed
project
will
have
no
impact
on
agricultural
resources
and
lands
and
a
less
than
significant
impact
on
forest
lands
or
operations.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
35
III.
AIR
QUALITY
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Conflict
with
or
obstruct
implementation
of
the
applicable
air
quality
plan?
X
b)
Violate
any
air
quality
standard
or
contribute
substantially
to
an
existing
or
projected
air
quality
violation?
X
c)
Result
in
a
cumulatively
considerable
net
increase
of
any
criteria
pollutant
for
which
the
project
region
is
non-‐attainment
under
an
applicable
federal
or
state
ambient
air
quality
standard
(including
releasing
emissions
which
exceed
quantitative
thresholds
for
ozone
precursors)?
X
d)
Expose
sensitive
receptors
to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
X
e)
Create
objectionable
odors
affecting
a
substantial
number
of
people?
X
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
located
within
the
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin.
The
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin
is
comprised
of
seven
air
districts:
the
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
(AQMD),
which
includes
Plumas,
Sierra,
and
Nevada
Counties;
a
portion
of
the
Placer
County
Air
Pollution
Control
District
(APCD)
that
consists
of
the
central
portion
of
Placer
County;
a
portion
of
the
El
Dorado
County
AQMD,
which
consists
of
the
western
portion
of
El
Dorado
County;
the
Amador
County
APCD,
which
consists
of
Amador
County;
the
Calaveras
County
APCD,
which
consists
of
Calaveras
County;
the
Tuolumne
County
APCD,
which
consists
of
Tuolumne
County;
and
the
Mariposa
County
APCD,
which
consists
of
Mariposa
County.
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a),
b),
c):
Potentially
Significant.
The
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
(NSAQMD)
maintains
ambient
air
quality
stations
in
the
Truckee
area.
Ozone
and
Particulate
Matter
less
than
10
microns
(PM10)
are
measured
at
the
Truckee-‐Fire
Station
site.
PM10
is
also
monitored
in
the
Glenshire
subdivision.
The
Nevada
County
portion
of
the
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin
is
currently
designated
non-‐attainment
by
the
State
of
California
for
ozone
and
PM10.
Particulate
matter
emissions
have
been
an
on-‐going
issue
for
the
Truckee
area,
which
has
resulted
in
the
Town
adopting
a
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan.
Development
of
the
Plan
Area
may
contribute
to
air
pollutant
emissions
from
motor
vehicles,
stationary
sources
and
construction
activities.
Construction
and
operation
of
the
project
has
the
potential
to
conflict
with
or
obstruct
implementation
of
the
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan,
may
result
in
violations
of
an
applicable
air
quality
standard,
and
may
result
in
cumulatively
considerable
increases
of
criteria
pollutants.
These
are
considered
potentially
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
36
significant
impacts.
The
EIR
will
include
a
quantitative
analysis
of
the
potential
emissions
generated
during
construction
and
operation
of
the
proposed
project.
Response
d):
Potentially
Significant.
Sensitive
receptors
are
those
parts
of
the
population
that
can
be
severely
impacted
by
air
pollution.
Sensitive
receptors
include
children,
the
elderly,
and
the
infirm.
Areas
adjacent
to
the
Plan
Area
may
be
exposed
to
pollutant
concentrations
during
both
construction
and
operational
phases
of
the
proposed
project.
Construction
air
quality
impacts
are
generally
attributed
to
dust
generated
by
equipment
and
vehicles,
as
well
as
diesel
emissions
from
construction
and
earth-‐moving
equipment.
Additional
construction
emissions
would
be
generated
by
trucks
idling
in
the
Plan
Area
and
vehicles
traveling
to
and
from
the
Plan
Area.
Fugitive
dust
is
emitted
both
during
construction
activity
and
as
a
result
of
wind
erosion
over
exposed
earth
surfaces.
Soil
type
and
soil
moisture
are
also
factors
in
determining
dust
generation.
Construction
activities
would
involve
the
use
of
a
variety
of
gasoline
or
diesel
powered
equipment
that
emits
exhaust
fumes.
Some
residents
would
potentially
be
exposed
to
nuisance
dust
and
heavy
equipment
emission
odors
(e.g.
diesel
exhaust)
during
construction.
The
Plan
Area
is
located
near
to
existing
housing;
therefore,
sensitive
receptors
such
as
the
elderly
and
children
may
be
exposed
to
these
pollutants.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact.
Impacts
to
sensitive
receptors
from
construction
and
operation
of
the
project
will
be
addressed
in
the
EIR.
Response
e):
Potentially
Significant.
Refer
to
Response
d),
above.
Some
objectionable
odors
may
result
from
construction
activities
in
the
Plan
Area;
however
these
odors
would
be
temporary
in
nature.
The
proposed
residential
components
of
the
Specific
Plan
are
not
generally
associated
with
objectionable
odors;
however
objectionable
odors
could
be
generated
from
future
commercial
and
industrial
uses
in
the
Plan
Area.
This
is
considered
to
be
a
potentially
significant
impact.
The
EIR
will
include
a
discussion
of
the
project’s
potential
to
generate
objectionable
odors
during
both
construction
and
operation.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
37
IV.
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
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
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
or
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service?
X
b)
Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
any
riparian
habitat
or
other
sensitive
natural
community
identified
in
local
or
regional
plans,
policies,
regulations
or
by
the
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
or
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service?
X
c)
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,
etc.)
through
direct
removal,
filling,
hydrological
interruption,
or
other
means?
X
d)
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?
X
e)
Conflict
with
any
local
policies
or
ordinances
protecting
biological
resources,
such
as
a
tree
preservation
policy
or
ordinance?
X
f)
Conflict
with
the
provisions
of
an
adopted
Habitat
Conservation
Plan,
Natural
Community
Conservation
Plan,
or
other
approved
local,
regional,
or
state
habitat
conservation
plan?
X
The
majority
of
the
Plan
Area
is
composed
of
Great
Basin
sagebrush
scrub.
Dominant
shrub
species
include
big
sagebrush
(Artemisia
tridentata),
low
sagebrush
(A.
arbuscula),
antelope
brush
(Purshia
tridentata),
and
yellow
rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus
viscidiflorus).
Jeffrey
pine
(Pinus
jeffreyi)
and
lodgepole
pine
(P.
contorta)
occur
scattered
around
the
Plan
Area
and
in
clusters
on
the
southern
portion
of
the
property
on
either
side
of
State
Route
267.
According
to
a
search
of
the
California
Natural
Diversity
Database
(CNDDB),
eleven
listed
species
were
documented
within
a
five
mile
radius
of
the
Plan
Area.
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a-f):
Potentially
Significant.
Based
on
the
documented
special-‐status
species
and
other
biological
resources
in
the
project
vicinity,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
potential
impacts
on
biological
resources
caused
by
the
proposed
project
will
require
a
detailed
analysis
in
the
environmental
impact
report.
As
such,
the
EIR
will
examine
each
of
the
six
environmental
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
38
issues
listed
in
the
checklist
above
and
will
include
an
impact
determination
with
respect
to
biological
resources.
At
this
point
a
definitive
impact
conclusion
for
each
of
these
environmental
topics
will
not
be
made,
rather
all
are
considered
potentially
significant
until
a
detailed
analysis
is
prepared
in
the
EIR.
The
EIR
will
provide
a
biological
resources
analysis
including
the
methodology,
thresholds
of
significance,
and
a
summary
of
local
biological
resources,
including
descriptions
and
mapping
of
plant
communities,
the
associated
plant
and
wildlife
species,
and
sensitive
biological
resources
known
to
occur,
or
with
the
potential
to
occur
in
the
project
vicinity.
The
biological
resources
analysis
will
conclude
with
a
consistency
analysis,
cumulative
impact
analysis,
and
a
discussion
of
feasible
mitigation
measures
that
should
be
implemented
in
order
to
reduce
impacts
on
biological
resources
and
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
federal
and
state
regulations.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
39
V.
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
the
significance
of
a
historical
resource
as
defined
in
'15064.5?
X
b)
Cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
the
significance
of
an
archaeological
resource
pursuant
to
'15064.5?
X
c)
Directly
or
indirectly
destroy
a
unique
paleontological
resource
or
site
or
unique
geologic
feature?
X
d)
Disturb
any
human
remains,
including
those
interred
outside
of
formal
cemeteries?
X
The
Plan
Area
lies
within
the
eastern
watershed
of
the
hydrographic
Great
Basin.
This
region
is
known
as
the
Eastern
Sierra
Front,
and
comprises
the
eastern
margin
of
the
western
Great
Basin
aboriginal
culture
area.
The
Plan
Area
is
situated
within
the
geographic
range
of
the
ethnographic
Washoe.
The
location
of
the
Plan
Area
astride
a
major
transportation
route
through
the
Sierra
Nevada
Mountains
has
significantly
influenced
the
history
of
the
associated
Euroamerican
settlement
and
commercial
enterprises,
including
development
of
the
Town
of
Truckee.
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a-d):
Potentially
Significant.
Based
on
known
historical
resources
in
the
region,
and
the
potential
for
undocumented
underground
cultural
resources
in
the
region,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
potential
impacts
on
cultural
resources
caused
by
the
proposed
project
will
require
a
detailed
analysis
in
the
environmental
impact
report.
As
such,
the
Town
of
Truckee
will
examine
each
of
the
four
environmental
issues
listed
in
the
checklist
above
in
the
EIR
and
will
decide
whether
the
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
cultural
resources.
At
this
point
a
definitive
impact
conclusion
for
each
of
these
environmental
topics
will
not
be
made,
rather
all
are
considered
potentially
significant
until
a
detailed
analysis
is
prepared
in
the
EIR.
The
EIR
will
include
an
overview
of
the
prehistory
and
history
of
the
area,
the
potential
for
surface
and
subsurface
cultural
resources
to
be
found
in
the
area,
the
types
of
cultural
resources
that
may
be
expected
to
be
found,
a
review
of
existing
regulations
and
policies
that
protect
cultural
resources,
an
impact
analysis,
and
mitigation
that
should
be
implemented.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
40
VI.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
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
Division
of
Mines
and
Geology
Special
Publication
42.
X
ii)
Strong
seismic
ground
shaking?
X
iii)
Seismic-‐related
ground
failure,
including
liquefaction?
X
iv)
Landslides?
X
b)
Result
in
substantial
soil
erosion
or
the
loss
of
topsoil?
X
c)
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?
X
d)
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?
X
e)
Have
soils
incapable
of
adequately
supporting
the
use
of
septic
tanks
or
alternative
waste
water
disposal
systems
where
sewers
are
not
available
for
the
disposal
of
waste
water?
X
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
located
in
the
northern
portion
of
the
Sierra
geologic
province.
The
northern
Sierra
Nevada
mountain
range
is
subdivided
into
three
main
geologic
complexes
which
are
regions
of
distinct
rock
types,
topography,
and
structure
that
were
defined
by
the
primary
mountain
building
episodes
of
the
Sierra
Nevada
range.
The
Truckee
Basin,
in
which
the
Town
of
Truckee
is
located,
lies
within
the
eastern
most
complex
of
the
Sierra
Nevada
range.
The
basin
is
located
between
two
north-‐trending
mountain
ranges,
the
9,000-‐foot-‐high
Sierra
Nevada
on
the
west
and
the
10,000-‐
foot-‐high
Carson
Range
on
the
east.
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a.i),
a.ii):
Potentially
Significant. Faults
located
near
Truckee
include
the
Mohawk
Valley
Fault,
the
southern
section
of
which
lies
approximately
20
miles
northwest
of
Truckee
in
Sierra
County,
and
the
Dog
Valley
Fault,
which
extends
in
from
Dog
Valley
(approximately
20
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
41
miles
northeast
of
Truckee)
southwest
to
near
Donner
Lake.
Several
small
trace
faults
are
also
located
within
the
Town
limits.
None
of
these
faults
are
designated
as
Alquist-‐Priolo
Special
Study
Zones,
which
identify
fault
areas
considered
to
be
of
greatest
risk
in
the
state.
A
1986
study
by
the
California
Bureau
of
Reclamation
concluded
that
the
Mohawk
Valley
and
Dog
Valley
Faults
could
result
in
a
maximum
credible
earthquake
of
7.0
and
6.75
magnitude
respectively.
There
has
been
seismic
activity
in
Truckee
in
recent
years,
including
a
magnitude
6+
earthquake
in
1966,
a
magnitude
3.6
earthquake
in
1998,
and
a
magnitude
4.5
earthquake,
centered
six
miles
south
of
Truckee,
in
June,
2004.
While
Truckee
has
a
relatively
low
risk
of
seismic
hazard
when
compared
to
the
rest
of
California,
the
Town
is
surrounded
by
seismically
active
regions
and
will
on
occasion
experience
earthquakes.
The
risk
of
seismic
shaking
is
considered
potentially
significant
and
will
require
further
analysis
in
the
EIR.
Responses
a.iii),
c):
Potentially
Significant.
Seismic-‐related
ground
failure
is
caused
by
the
displacement
of
the
ground
surface
due
to
loss
of
strength
or
failure
of
underlying
earth
materials
during
earthquake
shaking.
Ground
failure
may
take
the
form
of
liquefaction,
differential
compaction,
lateral
spreading,
lurching,
or
landslides.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact.
The
EIR
will
include
a
geotechnical
evaluation
of
the
Plan
Area,
which
will
provide
further
analysis
and
recommendations
to
reduce
or
avoid
seismic-‐related
ground
failure
and
liquefaction
impacts.
Response
a.iv):
Less
than
Significant.
The
Plan
Area
is
relatively
flat,
and
therefore,
is
not
at
risk
of
landslides.
The
proposed
project
would
not
significantly
alter
the
existing
topography
of
the
Plan
Area,
and
development
of
the
proposed
project
would
not
result
in
an
increased
risk
of
landslides.
This
is
a
less
than
significant
impact,
and
this
issue
will
not
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
Response
b):
Potentially
Significant.
Grading
activities
associated
with
development
of
the
Plan
Area
would
increase
the
potential
for
erosion
during
construction.
The
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
will
require
a
project
specific
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(SWPPP)
to
be
prepared
prior
to
site
grading.
The
SWPPP
will
include
project
specific
best
management
measures
that
are
designed
to
control
drainage
and
erosion.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact,
and
will
be
addressed
in
greater
detail
in
the
EIR.
Response
d):
Potentially
Significant.
Expansive
soils
are
those
that
shrink
or
swell
with
the
change
in
moisture
content.
The
volume
of
change
is
influenced
by
the
quantity
of
moisture,
by
the
kind
and
amount
of
clay
in
the
soil,
and
by
the
original
porosity
of
the
soil.
Shrinking
and
swelling
can
damage
roads
and
other
structures
unless
special
engineering
design
is
incorporated
into
the
project
plans.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact,
and
will
be
addressed
in
greater
detail
in
the
EIR.
The
geotechnical
analysis
included
in
the
EIR
will
identify
the
specific
soil
conditions
that
may
contribute
to
soil
expansion
and
will
recommend
engineering
measures
that
may
be
necessary
to
reduce
the
risks
associated
with
soil
expansion.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
42
Response
e):
No
Impact.
The
proposed
project
would
connect
to
the
Truckee
Sanitary
District’s
municipal
wastewater
system.
Septic
tanks
are
not
proposed
as
part
of
the
Specific
Plan.
There
is
no
impact,
and
this
issue
will
not
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
43
XII.
GREENHOUSE
GAS
EMISSIONS
–
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Generate
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
either
directly
or
indirectly,
that
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
environment?
X
b)
Conflict
with
an
applicable
plan,
policy
or
regulation
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
the
emissions
of
greenhouse
gasses?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a)
and
b):
Potentially
Significant.
Implementation
of
the
proposed
project
could
generate
greenhouse
gases
(GHGs)
from
a
variety
of
sources,
including
but
not
limited
to
vehicle
trips,
electricity
consumption,
water
use,
and
solid
waste
generation.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact.
The
EIR
analysis
will
evaluate
whether
the
proposed
project
could
cause
a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution
to
climate
change
by
conflicting
with
the
implementation
of
GHG
reduction
measures
under
AB
32
or
other
State
or
local
regulations.
The
EIR
will
include
a
quantitative
assessment
of
GHG
emissions
associated
with
relevant
sources
related
to
the
Specific
Plan,
and
will
include
a
qualitative
discussion
of
how
global
climate
change
may
affect
the
project
in
the
future.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
44
VIII.
HAZARDS
AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Create
a
significant
hazard
to
the
public
or
the
environment
through
the
routine
transport,
use,
or
disposal
of
hazardous
materials?
X
b)
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?
X
c)
Emit
hazardous
emissions
or
handle
hazardous
or
acutely
hazardous
materials,
substances,
or
waste
within
one-‐quarter
mile
of
an
existing
or
proposed
school?
X
d)
Be
located
on
a
site
which
is
included
on
a
list
of
hazardous
materials
sites
compiled
pursuant
to
Government
Code
Section
65962.5
and,
as
a
result,
would
it
create
a
significant
hazard
to
the
public
or
the
environment?
X
e)
For
a
project
located
within
an
airport
land
use
plan
or,
where
such
a
plan
has
not
been
adopted,
within
two
miles
of
a
public
airport
or
public
use
airport,
would
the
project
result
in
a
safety
hazard
for
people
residing
or
working
in
the
project
area?
X
f)
For
a
project
within
the
vicinity
of
a
private
airstrip,
would
the
project
result
in
a
safety
hazard
for
people
residing
or
working
in
the
project
area?
X
g)
Impair
implementation
of
or
physically
interfere
with
an
adopted
emergency
response
plan
or
emergency
evacuation
plan?
X
h)
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?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a),
b):
Potentially
Significant.
A
“hazardous
material”
is
a
substance
or
combination
of
substances
that,
because
of
its
quantity,
concentration,
or
physical,
chemical,
or
infectious
characteristics,
may
pose
a
potential
hazard
to
human
health
or
the
environment
when
handled
improperly.
The
proposed
project
would
include
commercial
and
industrial
uses
that
may
utilize,
store
and
transport
potentially
hazardous
materials.
The
potential
use
and
storage
of
these
materials
at
the
Plan
Area
may
pose
a
low
to
moderate
risk
of
release.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact,
and
will
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
45
Response
c):
Less
than
Significant.
The
Plan
Area
is
not
located
within
¼
mile
of
an
existing
or
proposed
school,
and
would
therefore,
not
result
in
the
exposure
of
any
school
site
to
any
hazardous
materials
which
may
be
used
or
stored
in
the
Plan
Area.
The
nearest
schools
to
the
Plan
Area
are
the
Forest
Charter
School,
located
approximately
1.4
miles
to
the
northwest;
Alder
Creek
Middle
School,
located
approximately
1.6
miles
to
the
northwest;
Truckee
High
School,
located
approximately
3.0
miles
to
the
west;
Truckee
Elementary
School,
located
approximately
3.2
miles
to
the
west,
and
Glenshire
Elementary
School,
located
approximately
4.0
miles
to
the
northeast.
As
described
under
Response
a),
above,
the
EIR
will
include
an
analysis
of
the
potential
risks
to
on-‐site
users
and
surrounding
land
uses
from
any
use
or
storage
of
hazardous
materials
in
the
Plan
Area.
However,
since
there
are
no
schools
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
Plan
Area,
this
impact
is
considered
less
than
significant
and
will
not
be
addressed
in
the
EIR.
Response
d):
Potentially
Significant.
There
is
the
potential
for
underground
hazards,
such
as
leaking
fuel
tanks,
etc.
to
be
present
in
the
Plan
Area
or
the
surrounding
area.
The
Plan
Area
may
also
be
located
in
the
vicinity
of
a
site
which
is
included
on
a
list
of
hazardous
materials
sites
compiled
pursuant
to
Government
Code
Section
65962.5.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact,
and
will
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
Responses
e),
f):
Potentially
Significant.
The
Plan
Area
is
located
immediately
west
of
the
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport.
The
project’s
proximity
to
the
airport
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact.
The
EIR
will
include
a
detailed
analysis
of
this
topic,
including
a
discussion
of
the
proposed
project’s
consistency
with
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan
and
the
potential
hazards
associated
with
the
adjacent
airport
operations.
Response
g):
Potentially
Significant.
The
development
of
the
proposed
project
will
introduce
new
vehicle
trips
to
roadways
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Plan
Area.
Additional
vehicle
traffic
could
interfere
with
emergency
access
to
certain
areas.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact,
and
will
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
The
EIR
will
include
a
detailed
traffic
impact
analysis
that
will
address
potential
impacts
associated
with
emergency
response
plans.
Response
h):
Potentially
Significant.
The
entire
Truckee
area
is
considered
to
be
in
a
high
fire
hazard
severity
zone,
as
defined
by
the
California
Department
of
Forestry
(CDF),
although
risks
are
pronounced
in
certain
parts
of
the
community,
particularly
where
homes
are
located
within
areas
of
dense
vegetation
and
forest
land,
and
where
steep
slopes
and
other
similar
conditions
exist.
In
2001,
the
Martis
Fire
burned
approximately
15,000
acres
east
of
Truckee.
Calculation
of
threat
from
wildfire
hazard
is
based
on
a
number
of
combining
factors
including
fuel
loading
(vegetation),
topography,
and
climatic
conditions
such
as
winds,
humidity
and
temperature.
Figure
4.6-‐1
of
the
Truckee
General
Plan
Draft
EIR
(2006)
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.
The
Plan
Area
is
located
in
an
area
designated
for
High
Fire
Risk,
while
other
areas
in
Truckee
are
designated
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
46
Very
High
Fire
Risk.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact,
and
will
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
47
IX.
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Violate
any
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge
requirements?
X
b)
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
table
level
(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)?
X
c)
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
which
would
result
in
substantial
erosion
or
siltation
on-‐
or
off-‐site?
X
d)
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
which
would
result
in
flooding
on-‐
or
off-‐
site?
X
e)
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?
X
f)
Otherwise
substantially
degrade
water
quality?
X
g)
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?
X
h)
Place
within
a
100-‐year
flood
hazard
area
structures
which
would
impede
or
redirect
flood
flows?
X
i)
Expose
people
or
structures
to
a
significant
risk
of
loss,
injury
or
death
involving
flooding,
including
flooding
as
a
result
of
the
failure
of
a
levee
or
dam?
X
j)
Inundation
by
seiche,
tsunami,
or
mudflow?
X
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
48
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a),
b),
c),
d),
e),
f),
g),
h),
i):
Potentially
Significant.
Flood
hazards
can
result
from
intense
rain,
snowmelt,
cloudbursts,
or
a
combination
of
the
three,
or
from
failure
of
a
water
impoundment
structure,
such
as
a
dam.
Floods
from
rainstorms
generally
occur
between
November
and
April
and
are
characterized
by
high
peak
flows
of
moderate
duration.
Human
activities
have
an
effect
on
water
quality
when
chemicals,
heavy
metals,
hydrocarbons
(auto
emissions
and
car
crank
case
oil),
and
other
materials
are
transported
with
stormwater
into
drainage
systems.
Construction
activities
can
increase
sediment
runoff,
including
concrete
waste
and
other
pollutants.
Implementation
of
the
proposed
project
could
result
in
potentially
significant
impacts
to
flooding
and
water
quality.
This
issue
will
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
Responses
j):
Less
than
Significant.
There
are
no
significant
bodies
of
water
near
the
Plan
Area
that
could
result
in
the
occurrence
of
a
seiche
or
tsunami.
Additionally,
the
Plan
Area
and
the
surrounding
areas
are
generally
flat,
which
precludes
the
possibility
of
mudflows
occurring
in
the
Plan
Area.
This
issue
is
considered
less
than
significant
and
will
not
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
49
X.
LAND
USE
AND
PLANNING
-
Would
the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Physically
divide
an
established
community?
X
b)
Conflict
with
any
applicable
land
use
plan,
policy,
or
regulation
of
an
agency
with
jurisdiction
over
the
project
(including,
but
not
limited
to
the
general
plan,
specific
plan,
local
coastal
program,
or
zoning
ordinance)
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
or
mitigating
an
environmental
effect?
X
c)
Conflict
with
any
applicable
habitat
conservation
plan
or
natural
community
conservation
plan?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Response
a):
Less
than
Significant.
The
Plan
Area
is
adjacent
to
the
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport,
existing
residences,
the
Ponderosa
Golf
Course,
and
is
bisected
by
SR
267
and
Brockway
Road.
The
Town
of
Truckee
General
Plan
designates
the
Plan
Area
as
"Planned
Community-‐3",
which
is
anticipated
for
development.
Development
of
the
proposed
project
would
not
physically
divide
an
established
community,
as
the
surrounding
land
uses
include
a
variety
of
unconnected
land
uses
that
are
currently
separated
from
one
another
by
the
Plan
Area.
This
is
considered
a
less
than
significant
impact
and
will
not
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
Response
b):
Potentially
Significant.
The
proposed
Specific
Plan
was
developed
to
be
consistency
with
the
Town
of
Truckee
General
Plan.
However,
considering
that
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
development
in
a
previously
undeveloped
area,
and
that
new
zoning
designations
would
be
created
with
adoption
of
the
Specific
Plan,
this
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact.
The
EIR
will
include
an
analysis
of
the
project’s
consistency
with
all
applicable
plans
and
regulations,
including
but
not
limited
to
the
Truckee
General
Plan,
Zoning
Code,
and
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan.
Response
c):
No
Impact.
There
are
currently
no
locally-‐
or
State-‐established
habitat
or
natural
community
conservation
plans
applicable
to
the
Town
of
Truckee.
As
such,
no
conflicts
with
the
implementation
of
such
plans
would
occur
as
a
result
of
the
Specific
Plan.
There
is
no
impact,
and
this
issue
will
not
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
50
XI.
MINERAL
RESOURCES
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Result
in
the
loss
of
availability
of
a
known
mineral
resource
that
would
be
of
value
to
the
region
and
the
residents
of
the
state?
X
b)
Result
in
the
loss
of
availability
of
a
locally-‐
important
mineral
resource
recovery
site
delineated
on
a
local
general
plan,
specific
plan
or
other
land
use
plan?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a),
b):
Less
than
Significant.
A
number
of
important
mineral
resource
areas
(as
defined
by
the
State
of
California)
exist
in
Truckee;
their
locations
are
mapped
in
Figure
4.5-‐2
of
the
Town
of
Truckee
General
Plan
EIR
(2006).
As
shown
in
the
figure,
these
resources
are
generally
associated
with
alluvial
deposits
along
the
length
of
the
Truckee
River
Valley,
although
some
mineral
resources
are
associated
with
volcanic
features,
such
as
the
Hirschdale
cinder
cone.
Alluvial
aggregates
consist
of
gravel,
sand
and
broken
stone
that
are
used
in
production
of
concrete
and
asphalt;
cinders
are
also
used
for
building
and
road
construction
materials.
As
shown
in
the
above-‐referenced
figure,
the
Plan
Area
is
not
within
an
area
identified
as
containing
important
mineral
resources.
As
such,
Specific
Plan
implementation
would
not
result
in
the
loss
of
availability
of
a
known
mineral
resource.
This
is
a
less
than
significant
impact
and
will
not
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
51
XII.
NOISE
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT
RESULT
IN:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Exposure
of
persons
to
or
generation
of
noise
levels
in
excess
of
standards
established
in
the
local
general
plan
or
noise
ordinance,
or
applicable
standards
of
other
agencies?
X
b)
Exposure
of
persons
to
or
generation
of
excessive
groundborne
vibration
or
groundborne
noise
levels?
X
c)
A
substantial
permanent
increase
in
ambient
noise
levels
in
the
project
vicinity
above
levels
existing
without
the
project?
X
d)
A
substantial
temporary
or
periodic
increase
in
ambient
noise
levels
in
the
project
vicinity
above
levels
existing
without
the
project?
X
e)
For
a
project
located
within
an
airport
land
use
plan
or,
where
such
a
plan
has
not
been
adopted,
within
two
miles
of
a
public
airport
or
public
use
airport,
would
the
project
expose
people
residing
or
working
in
the
project
area
to
excessive
noise
levels?
X
f)
For
a
project
within
the
vicinity
of
a
private
airstrip,
would
the
project
expose
people
residing
or
working
in
the
project
area
to
excessive
noise
levels?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a)
–
f):
Potentially
Significant.
Generally,
a
project
may
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment
if
it
will
substantially
increase
the
ambient
noise
levels
for
adjoining
areas
or
expose
people
to
severe
noise
levels.
In
practice,
more
specific
professional
standards
have
been
developed.
These
standards
state
that
a
noise
impact
may
be
considered
significant
if
it
would
generate
noise
that
would
conflict
with
local
planning
criteria
or
ordinances,
or
substantially
increase
noise
levels
at
noise-‐sensitive
land
uses.
The
proposed
project
is
adjacent
to
the
Truckee-‐Tahoe
Airport,
which
may
expose
land
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
to
noise
associated
with
aircraft
operations.
The
Specific
Plan
would
result
in
increased
vehicle
traffic,
which
could
lead
to
increases
in
roadway
noise
in
the
Plan
Area.
Future
land
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
could
generate
noise
levels
that
may
expose
surrounding
land
uses
to
noise
levels
that
exceed
the
noise
criteria
established
in
the
Town
of
Truckee
General
Plan.
These
are
considered
potentially
significant
impacts.
A
noise
impact
assessment
will
be
prepared
for
the
project
and
these
issues
will
be
addressed
in
greater
detail
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
52
XIII.
POPULATION
AND
HOUSING
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
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)?
X
b)
Displace
substantial
numbers
of
existing
housing,
necessitating
the
construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere?
X
c)
Displace
substantial
numbers
of
people,
necessitating
the
construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Response
a):
Potentially
Significant.
The
proposed
project
would
result
in
the
construction
of
up
to
42
multi-‐family
residential
housing
units.
The
proposed
project
would
also
result
in
the
development
of
new
commercial
and
industrial
land
uses
that
would
provide
increased
employment
opportunities
in
the
Town
of
Truckee.
This
is
considered
potentially
significant
in
terms
of
the
potential
for
the
project
to
generate
population
growth,
and
this
issue
will
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
Responses
b)
and
c):
No
Impact.
There
are
no
homes
or
residences
located
in
the
Plan
Area.
As
such,
development
of
the
project
would
not
displace
any
existing
homes
or
residents.
There
is
no
impact
and
this
issue
will
not
be
addressed
further
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
53
XIV.
PUBLIC
SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Would
the
project
result
in
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
any
of
the
public
services:
i) Fire
protection?
X
ii) Police
protection?
X
iii) Schools?
X
iv) Parks?
X
v) Other
public
facilities?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
i),
ii),
iii),
iv),
v):
Potentially
Significant.
Implementation
of
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
increased
demand
for
police
and
fire
protection
in
the
Plan
Area.
The
project
may
also
increase
demand
for
local
schools,
park
and
other
public
facilities.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact
and
will
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
54
XV.
RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Would
the
project
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?
X
b)
Does
the
project
include
recreational
facilities
or
require
the
construction
or
expansion
of
recreational
facilities
which
might
have
an
adverse
physical
effect
on
the
environment?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Response
a):
Potentially
Significant.
Implementation
of
the
proposed
project
may
lead
to
population
growth,
and
may
increase
the
use
of
existing
recreational
facilities
in
the
Town
of
Truckee.
This
is
considered
a
potentially
significant
impact
and
will
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
Response
b):
Less
than
Significant.
The
proposed
project
does
not
include
any
proposed
recreational
facilities.
While
future
land
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
may
have
recreational
components
(e.g.
equipment
sales,
fitness
centers,
indoor
climbing
facilities,
etc.)
any
impacts
associated
with
the
development
of
these
potential
future
uses
would
be
addressed
in
the
appropriate
section
of
the
EIR
(e.g.
Traffic,
Water
Quality,
Noise,
etc.).
As
such,
impacts
directly
related
to
the
construction
or
expansion
of
recreational
facilities
are
considered
less
than
significant
and
will
not
be
further
addressed
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
55
XVI.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Cause
an
increase
in
traffic
which
is
substantial
in
relation
to
the
existing
traffic
load
and
capacity
of
the
street
system
(i.e.,
result
in
a
substantial
increase
in
either
the
number
of
vehicle
trips,
the
volume
to
capacity
ratio
on
roads,
or
congestion
at
intersections)?
X
b)
Exceed,
either
individually
or
cumulatively,
a
level
of
service
standard
established
by
the
county
congestion
management
agency
for
designated
roads
or
highways?
X
c)
Result
in
a
change
in
air
traffic
patterns,
including
either
an
increase
in
traffic
levels
or
a
change
in
location
that
results
in
substantial
safety
risks?
X
d)
Substantially
increase
hazards
due
to
a
design
feature
(e.g.,
sharp
curves
or
dangerous
intersections)
or
incompatible
uses
(e.g.,
farm
equipment)?
X
e)
Result
in
inadequate
emergency
access?
X
f)
Result
in
inadequate
parking
capacity?
X
g)
Conflict
with
adopted
policies,
plans,
or
programs
supporting
alternative
transportation
(e.g.,
bus
turnouts,
bicycle
racks)?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a),
b),
c),
d),
e),
f),
g):
Potentially
Significant.
Based
on
existing
and
projected
traffic
volume
levels
along
roadways,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
potential
traffic
impacts
caused
by
the
proposed
project
will
require
a
detailed
analysis
in
the
environmental
impact
report.
As
such,
the
Town
of
Truckee
will
examine
each
of
the
seven
environmental
issues
listed
in
the
checklist
above
in
the
EIR
and
will
determine
whether
the
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
a
significant
impact
from
traffic.
At
this
point
a
definitive
impact
conclusion
for
each
of
these
environmental
topics
will
not
be
made,
rather
all
are
considered
potentially
significant
until
a
detailed
analysis
is
conducted
in
the
EIR.
The
analysis
in
the
EIR
will
describe
existing
and
future
traffic
conditions
and
will
identify
the
trips
that
will
be
generated
by
the
project
and
the
projected
distribution
of
those
trips
on
the
roadway
system.
The
EIR
will
analyze
traffic
impacts
associated
with
the
project
under
existing
and
cumulative
conditions.
Potential
impacts
associated
with
site
access,
on-‐site
circulation,
and
parking
will
also
be
addressed
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
56
XVII.
UTILITIES
AND
SERVICE
SYSTEMS
--
WOULD
THE
PROJECT:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Exceed
wastewater
treatment
requirements
of
the
applicable
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board?
X
b)
Require
or
result
in
the
construction
of
new
water
or
wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
expansion
of
existing
facilities,
the
construction
of
which
could
cause
significant
environmental
effects?
X
c)
Require
or
result
in
the
construction
of
new
storm
water
drainage
facilities
or
expansion
of
existing
facilities,
the
construction
of
which
could
cause
significant
environmental
effects?
X
d)
Have
sufficient
water
supplies
available
to
serve
the
project
from
existing
entitlements
and
resources,
or
are
new
or
expanded
entitlements
needed?
X
e)
Result
in
a
determination
by
the
wastewater
treatment
provider
which
serves
or
may
serve
the
project
that
it
has
adequate
capacity
to
serve
the
projects
projected
demand
in
addition
to
the
providers
existing
commitments?
X
f)
Be
served
by
a
landfill
with
sufficient
permitted
capacity
to
accommodate
the
projects
solid
waste
disposal
needs?
X
g)
Comply
with
federal,
state,
and
local
statutes
and
regulations
related
to
solid
waste?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a),
b),
c),
d),
e),
f),
g):
Potentially
Significant.
Implementation
of
the
Specific
Plan
would
result
in
increased
demands
for
utilities
to
serve
the
project.
As
such,
the
Town
of
Truckee
will
examine
each
of
the
seven
environmental
issues
listed
in
the
checklist
above
in
the
environmental
impact
report
and
will
decide
whether
the
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
a
significant
impact
to
utility
systems.
At
this
point
a
definitive
impact
conclusion
for
each
of
these
environmental
topics
will
not
be
made,
rather
all
are
considered
potentially
significant
until
a
detailed
analysis
is
prepared
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
57
XVIII.
MANDATORY
FINDINGS
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
--
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less
Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)
Does
the
project
have
the
potential
to
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,
reduce
the
number
or
restrict
the
range
of
a
rare
or
endangered
plant
or
animal
or
eliminate
important
examples
of
the
major
periods
of
California
history
or
prehistory?
X
b)
Does
the
project
have
impacts
that
are
individually
limited,
but
cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable"
means
that
the
incremental
effects
of
a
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)?
X
c)
Does
the
project
have
environmental
effects
which
will
cause
substantial
adverse
effects
on
human
beings,
either
directly
or
indirectly?
X
R ESPONSES
TO
C HECKLIST
Q UESTIONS
Responses
a),
b),
c):
Potentially
Significant.
Based
on
the
documented
biological
resources,
and
cultural
resources,
and
based
on
the
existing
and
projected
air
quality,
noise
and
traffic
conditions,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
potential
for
the
proposed
project
to:
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;
reduce
the
number
or
restrict
the
range
of
a
rare
or
endangered
plant
or
animal;
eliminate
important
examples
of
the
major
periods
of
California
history
or
prehistory;
create
cumulatively
considerable
impacts;
or
adversely
affect
human
beings
will
require
more
detailed
analysis
in
an
environmental
impact
report.
As
such,
the
Town
of
Truckee
will
examine
each
of
these
environmental
issues
in
the
environmental
impact
report
and
will
decide
whether
the
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
these
environmental
issues.
At
this
point
a
definitive
impact
conclusion
for
each
of
these
environmental
topics
will
not
be
made,
rather
all
are
considered
potentially
significant
until
a
detailed
analysis
is
prepared
in
the
EIR.
INITIAL
STUDY
–
JOERGER
RANCH
SPECIFIC
PLAN
MAY
2012
TOWN
OF
TRUCKEE
PAGE
58
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
June
25,
2012
Dear Town of Truckee staff,
We are longtime Truckee residents and live on the Ponderosa Golf Course near the Joerger
Ranch PC-3 Business Innovation Zone (BIZ) district between the golf course and Highway 267.
As you analyze the project's environmental impacts, please consider the sensitivity of our lovely
neighborhood. If Parcels 1 and 2 of the project (BIZ zones) are allowed to be developed, we
believe that we and our neighbors will be severely affected by the noise, traffic and night lighting
generated from new construction and businesses.
The proposed 60-ft.-wide Martis Drive, which is now a one-lane dirt road connecting Brockway
Road with Reynold Way, would allow our streets to become a thoroughfare to and from Brockway
Road, which would endanger residents and change our neighborhood's character.
Our streets here are narrow and unlined. They pass small houses, connect walkers to the Legacy
Trail along the Truckee River, dissect the third fairway of the Ponderosa Golf Course, pass senior
citizens' housing, a kids' playground, and the busy skateboard park off Estates Drive.
To have nearly 122,000 sq. ft. of development potential, more than any other of the PC-3's zoning
designations, with manufacturing, production, distribution and R&D very near our peaceful
neighborhood would be devastating to those of us who live here, many of whom are already
impacted by the construction of the Highway 267 bypass.
Before moving to Reynold Way, we lived on Donner Pass Road in Brickelltown for 30 years, with
trains, downtown lights and the sounds of street and freeway traffic, so we are aware of the affect
of noise and night lighting on residents. We have seen Truckee change and grow in that time,
and we appreciate the importance of our community's economic health and vitality. But we also
believe in the inherent value of protecting Truckee's residential neighborhoods from its most
harmful impacts.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Laurel and Tom Lippert
10355 Reynold Way, Truckee
#587-2995
To: Denyelle Nishimori June 25, 2012
Town of Truckee Community Development
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
From: Alexis Ollar, Executive Director
Mountain Area Preservation Foundation
P.O. Box 25
Truckee, CA 96160
RE: Comments on The Scope of the of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Joerger Ranch (PC-3)
Dear Ms. Nishimori,
On behalf of the Board of Directors and members of Mountain Area Preservation Foundation, I
would like to submit the following scoping comments for the official record concerning Planned
Community- 3 at Joerger Ranch.
Land Use:
PC-3 is creating new zoning for the Joerger Ranch proposed development. The PC-3 EIR needs to define
a maximum build-out and allowable square footage per zoning area that would not yield undesirable
environmental impacts. Pertinent passages from the General Plan state: "Residential units are allowed at a
maximum density of 12 housing units per acre" (2-29). How many residential units will be allowed? "An
average FAR of 0.20 shall apply to commercial and industrial development" (2-29). Square footage of
commercial space and industrial space needs to be delineated in the EIR.
The PC-3 EIR should look at an alternative in which the development contains only Industrial and
Business Park uses, taking into consideration the findings of the economic analysis done for PC-1 and
PC-3.
Commercial & Residential Impacts:
Economic studies illustrate that Truckee has already has built or approved all the commercial
development needed for the near future. The EIR needs to determine if the amount of commercial
development proposed for PC-3 will produce blight at this or other locations. The economic thresholds
for the town of Truckee and commercial space need to be revisited, since the data is from four years ago.
The EIR should determine compatibility with the following sections of the General Plan:
Economic Development Element of the General Plan states Action 8.2; “Review all proposed
commercial projects outside of Downtown Truckee for their potential to draw retail sales revenue
away from the Downtown retail businesses and, if necessary, work with developers to re-
configure projects so that they are complementary to, not competitive with, Downtown
commercial activity. Establish a strategy to attract new retail establishments to Downtown
Truckee” (6-14).
The EIR must develop mitigations that would prevent blight downtown or elsewhere.
In Policy 6 for PC-3 it states "If land use or noise compatibility requirements of the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan preclude or reduce the total number of housing that can be developed on PC-3,
required workforce housing may be permitted to be located off-site"(2-31). The EIR needs to identify the
off-site location for affordable housing and evaluate the environmental thresholds of that site for
feasibility of workforce housing.
The PC-3 EIR should study affordable housing sites in alternative locations to be sure that the proposed
PC-3 development does not include services for sprawling commercial development solely for workforce
housing. The town of Truckee’s general plan states in the 'Land Use Guiding Principles', "Prevent
'commercial sprawl' in Truckee" (2-3).
Visual Resources:
The northwest parcel in PC-3 is critical to visual aesthetics along Hwy 267, Soaring Way and the
Brockway Corridor. In addition to studying the impact of the proposed development in this area, the EIR
should look at an alternative in which the wetland and everything south of it is retained as open space.
The northeast parcel is also highly visible from Hwy 267 and other roads in the area. The EIR should
provide information on how the visual effects of building in this quadrant will be mitigated.
PC-3 Policies to guide development states in policy-3 "Site design shall consider appropriate
access to Highway 267, via Brockway Road and Soaring Way, and shall minimize visual impacts
from Hwy 267 corridor" (2-30).
Goal of Community Character-14 "Enhance the character and the qualities of the Brockway
Road Corridor as a gateway to Truckee" (3-48).
On the proposed project site, trees and vegetative matter are a critical asset in minimizing visual impacts.
The EIR needs to determine how trees can be maintained to diminish visual impacts from the project.
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases:
The EIR should provide an onsite analysis analyzing and quantifying the removal of carbon from the
atmosphere due to tree and vegetation removal in the proposed CR, CRS, and BIZ parcels.
The EIR should thoroughly evaluate Greenhouse gas emissions, to demonstrate the impacts of vehicle
trips on and off site. "The General Plan will reduce the dependence on the automobile in Truckee by
fostering compact development and providing for alternate modes of transportation" (1-7).
Community Services:
The EIR needs to evaluate the connection of trails within the proposed development to further alternative
transportation and walk-ability along the Brockway Corridor, Hwy 267 and Soaring Way.
This development features a non-friendly pedestrian intersection dividing the 4 major parcels. The EIR
should determine a mitigation measure that would ensure and promote alternative transportation by
minimizing automobile trips within the project site.
A non-profit office building has been proposed in PC-3 as a community benefit. The EIR should study an
alternative in which the office building is located in the southwest parcel and the impacts of building an
office in the location.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Alexis Ollar, Executive Director
Mountain Area Preservation Foundation
June 9, 2012
From: Nancy Richards, POB 10362 Truckee, CA 96162 nancycrichards@yahoo.com
To: Denyelle Nishimori, Town of Truckee Community Development
RE: Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Joerger Ranch
Specific Plan (PC3)
Dear Denyelle,
As a resident of Truckee, I would like to submit the following comments for the official
record.
The Joerger Ranch EIR should evaluate the energy related impacts of the projects and
how the project will be designed to facilitate meeting the State’s zero-net-energy goals
for all new residential construction by year 2020 and for all commercial construction by
year 2030; and how the project will contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled
in the region and within the Town of Truckee.
Please include in the analysis how the project meets the requirements of the California
Solar Rights Act comprising the following California sections of law: California Civil
Code Sections 714 and 714.1, California Civil Code Section 801, California Civil Code
Section 801.5, California Government Code Section 65850.5, California Health and
Safety Code Section 17959.1, California Government Code Section 66475.3 and,
California Government Code Section 66473.1.
Please give particular attention to providing a detailed analysis of how the design of the
residential and commercial subdivision provides to the extent feasible for future passive
and natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision as required by
California Government Code Section 66473.1:
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66473.1
(a) The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required pursuant to
Section 66426 shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
(b) (1) Examples of passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design,
include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure in an
east-west alignment for southern exposure.
(2) Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design include
design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure to take
advantage of shade or prevailing breezes.
(c) In providing for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
design of a subdivision, consideration shall be given to local climate, to contour, to
configuration of the parcel to be divided, and to other design and improvement
requirements, and that provision shall not result in reducing allowable densities or the
percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under applicable
planning and zoning in effect at the time the tentative map is filed.
(d) The requirements of this section do not apply to condominium projects which
consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing building when no new structures
are added.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social and technological factors.
Also provide a detailed evaluation of how the subdivision will meet the Truckee General
Plan’s policies regarding energy efficiency, energy conservation and solar subdivision
design including the analysis of the solar potential of individual lots.
Also, The EIR should thoroughly evaluate greenhouse gas emissions on and off site
and provide an analysis of how the project will contribute to the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions in the Truckee jurisdiction. Please refer to the CEQA Guidelines
Amendments adopted Dec 30, 2009, effective March 18, 2010.
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/
The EIR should also provide an analysis of carbon sequestration impacts onsite
associated with tree and vegetation removal and long term management of retained
trees and vegetation.
June 22, 2012
Dear town staff, planning commission, town council,
In reading the Notice of preparation for Joerger Ranch, a couple of things the caught my
attention. In chapter 3 under Land use Standards and Guidelines it states that all buildings
must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The existing Truckee River Winery on that
parcel is not 5,000 sq feet and I am not sure I have the financial ability to increase to that
size.
Also in the same chapter (page 9 on table 1.1A) the permitted and not permitted uses are
listed. I personally think that if we would like to see a winery as a permitted use or even
if it should not be permitted in certain zoning areas then it would be okay to put winery
on the list. There are other things on the list that sort of resemble a winery such as
beverage production and wine tasting rooms and retail outlets, so should winery be a sub
category of those or should we call a winery by its name ? The definition of a winery is
clearly defined and regulated by both the state and federal governments whereas some of
the other uses in table 1.1A have much less definition and government over site.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING
RUSS JONES
TRUCKEE RIVER WINERY