HomeMy Public PortalAboutFinal EIR_PC-3_Jan 13_2015
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
R EPORT
FOR
THE
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
SCH#
2012052073
JANUARY
2015
Prepared
for:
Town
of
Truckee
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Truckee,
CA
96161
Prepared
by:
De
Novo
Planning
Group
1020
Suncast
Lane,
Suite
106
El
Dorado
Hills,
CA
95762
(916)
949-‐3231
De
Novo
Planning
Group
A
Land
Use
Planning,
Design,
and
Environmental
Firm
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
FOR
THE
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
SCH#
2012052073
JANUARY
2015
Prepared
for:
Town
of
Truckee
10183
Truckee
Airport
Road
Truckee,
CA
96161
Prepared
by:
De
Novo
Planning
Group
1020
Suncast
Lane,
Suite
106
El
Dorado
Hills,
CA
95762
(916)
949-‐3231
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
TOC
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TOC-‐1
FINAL
EIR
Chapter
Page
Number
Executive
Summary ....................................................................................................................ES-‐1
1.0
Introduction ........................................................................................................................1.0-‐1
1.1
Purpose
and
Intended
Uses
of
the
EIR ...................................................................1.0-‐1
1.2
Environmental
Review
Process ..............................................................................1.0-‐2
1.3
Organization
of
the
Final
EIR ..................................................................................1.0-‐3
2.0
Comments
on
Draft
EIR
and
Responses ..............................................................................2.0-‐1
2.1
Introduction............................................................................................................2.0-‐1
2.2
List
of
Commenters ................................................................................................2.0-‐1
2.3
Comments
and
Responses .....................................................................................2.0-‐3
3.0
Errata ...................................................................................................................................3.0-‐1
3.1
Revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR .......................................................................................3.0-‐1
4.0
Final
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program ..........................................................4.0-‐1
4.1
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program .....................................................4.0-‐1
Tables
Page
Number
Table
ES-‐1:
Summary
of
Zoning,
Acreage
and
Development
Potential
(Revised
Project)..........ES-‐2
Table
2-‐1:
List
of
Commenters
on
Draft
EIR ..............................................................................2.0-‐1
Table
2-‐2:
Summary
of
Zoning,
Acreage
and
Development
Potential
(Original
Project
Analyzed
in
Draft
EIR)................................................................................................................2.0-‐5
Table
2-‐3:
Summary
of
Zoning,
Acreage
and
Development
Potential
(Revised
Project)..........2.0-‐5
Table
4.0-‐1:
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program ....................................................4.0-‐2
Figures
Page
Number
Figure
2-‐1:
Revised
Zoning
Districts
Map ..................................................................................2.0-‐7
TOC
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
TOC-‐2
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ES-‐1
INTRODUCTION
The
Town
of
Truckee
(Town)
has
determined
that
a
project-‐level
environmental
impact
report
(EIR)
is
required
for
the
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
(PC-‐3)
Specific
Plan
project
(proposed
project)
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA).
This
EIR
is
a
Project
EIR
as
defined
in
Section
15161
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines.
A
Project
EIR
is
an
EIR
which
examines
the
environmental
impacts
of
a
specific
development
project.
This
type
of
EIR
should
focus
primarily
on
the
changes
in
the
environment
that
would
result
from
the
development
project.
The
EIR
shall
examine
all
phases
of
the
project
including
planning,
construction
and
operation.
The
Project
EIR
approach
is
appropriate
for
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
because
it
allows
comprehensive
consideration
of
the
reasonably
anticipated
scope
of
the
project,
as
described
in
greater
detail
below.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
The
following
provides
a
brief
summary
and
overview
of
the
proposed
project.
Section
2.0
of
the
Draft
EIR
includes
a
detailed
description
of
the
proposed
project,
including
maps
and
graphics.
The
reader
is
referred
to
Section
2.0
of
the
Draft
EIR
for
a
more
complete
and
thorough
description
of
the
components
of
the
proposed
project.
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.
The
Specific
Plan
proposes
to
develop
six
separate
zoning
districts
dispersed
over
the
66.57
acre
Plan
Area,
each
with
specified
targeted
uses
and
site
development
standards.
The
six
zoning
districts
and
their
locations
are
depicted
in
Figure
2-‐1
of
this
Final
EIR.
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
10
individual
parcels
as
depicted
in
Figure
2-‐7
of
the
Draft
EIR.
This
is
intended
to
create
a
convenient
multi-‐use
development
and
to
stimulate
financing
opportunities
within
portions
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
zoning
districts,
acreages,
and
development
potential
within
each
zoning
district
are
shown
below
in
Table
ES-‐1.
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐2
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TABLE
ES-‐1:
SUMMARY
OF
ZONING,
ACREAGE
AND
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
(REVISED
PROJECT)
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
16.3
177,507
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
4.7
51,183
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Manufacturing/Industrial
(M1)
9.5
103,455
sf
(0.30
FAR)
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
11.2
121,968
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)
4.0
80
housing
units
Open
Space
(OS)
20.9
N/A
Total
66.57
454,113
Refer
to
Section
2.0,
Project
Description,
in
the
Draft
EIR
for
a
more
complete
description
of
the
details
of
the
proposed
project.
Following
review
of
the
public
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR
and
two
Planning
Commission
Specific
Plan
workshops,
the
project
applicant
and
Town
staff
met
with
members
of
the
public
to
discuss
and
further
refine
the
proposed
Zoning
Map
for
the
Plan
Area.
As
a
result
of
these
meetings,
the
Zoning
Map
has
been
revised
to
provide
for
additional
expanded
areas
of
Open
Space
within
the
Plan
Area,
and
corresponding
changes
to
development
intensity
are
proposed.
The
increases
in
development
intensity
provide
for
approximately
the
same
level
of
overall
development
within
the
Plan
Area,
but
allow
for
higher-‐intensity
development
within
the
areas
of
site
designated
for
commercial
and
industrial
uses,
while
providing
for
greater
areas
of
Open
Space.
The
revised
Zoning
Map
is
shown
in
Section
2.0
of
this
Final
EIR
(see
Figure
2-‐1).
Section
2.0
of
this
Final
EIR
includes
an
expanded
discussion
of
the
Project
revisions.
ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE
PROPOSED
P ROJECT
Section
15126.6
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
requires
an
EIR
to
describe
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
to
the
project
or
to
the
location
of
the
project
which
would
reduce
or
avoid
significant
impacts,
and
which
could
feasibly
accomplish
the
basic
objectives
of
the
proposed
project.
The
alternatives
analyzed
in
this
EIR
include
the
following
three
alternatives
in
addition
to
the
proposed
project.
• No
Project
(No
Build)
Alternative
• Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
• Industrial
Uses
Only
Alternative
These
alternatives
are
described
in
detail
in
Section
5.0,
Alternatives
to
the
Proposed
Project,
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
No
Project
(No
Build)
Alternative
is
the
environmentally
superior
alternative.
However,
as
required
by
CEQA,
when
the
No
Project
Alternative
is
the
environmentally
superior
alternative,
the
environmentally
superior
alternative
among
the
others
must
be
identified.
Therefore,
the
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES
ES-‐3
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
is
the
next
environmentally
superior
alternative
to
the
proposed
project.
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
The
Draft
EIR
addressed
environmental
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
project
that
are
known
to
the
Town,
were
raised
during
the
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
process,
or
raised
during
preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Draft
EIR
discussed
potentially
significant
impacts
associated
with
air
quality,
biological
resources,
cultural
resources,
geology
and
soils,
greenhouse
gases
and
climate
change,
hazards,
hydrology
and
water
quality,
land
use,
population
and
housing,
noise,
public
services,
transportation/circulation,
utilities,
and
visual
and
aesthetic
resources.
During
the
NOP
process,
several
comments
were
received
related
to
the
analysis
that
should
be
included
in
the
Draft
EIR.
These
comments
are
included
as
Appendix
A
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
were
considered
during
preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Town
of
Truckee
received
several
comment
letters
regarding
the
Draft
EIR
from
public
agencies
and
private
citizens.
These
comment
letters
on
the
Draft
EIR
are
identified
in
Table
2-‐1
of
this
Final
EIR.
The
comments
received
during
the
Draft
EIR
review
processes
are
addressed
within
this
Final
EIR.
ES
E XECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ES-‐4
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1.0-‐1
This
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
(FEIR)
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines
(Section
15132).
The
Town
of
Truckee
(Truckee,
or
Town)
is
the
lead
agency
for
the
environmental
review
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Project
(project)
and
has
the
principal
responsibility
for
approving
the
project.
This
FEIR
assesses
the
expected
environmental
impacts
resulting
from
approval
of
the
project
and
associated
impacts
from
subsequent
development
and
operation
of
the
project,
as
well
as
responds
to
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR
(DEIR).
1.1
PURPOSE
AND
I NTENDED
USES
OF
THE
EIR
CEQA
R EQUIREMENTS
FOR
A
F INAL
EIR
This
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
(FEIR)
for
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
project
has
been
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
State
CEQA
Guidelines.
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15132
requires
that
an
FEIR
consist
of
the
following:
• the
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
(Draft
EIR)
or
a
revision
of
the
draft;
• comments
and
recommendations
received
on
the
Draft
EIR,
either
verbatim
or
in
summary;
• a
list
of
persons,
organizations,
and
public
agencies
commenting
on
the
Draft
EIR;
• the
responses
of
the
lead
agency
to
significant
environmental
concerns
raised
in
the
review
and
consultation
process;
and
• any
other
information
added
by
the
lead
agency.
In
accordance
with
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15132(a),
the
Draft
EIR
is
incorporated
by
reference
into
this
Final
EIR.
An
EIR
must
disclose
the
expected
environmental
impacts,
including
impacts
that
cannot
be
avoided,
growth-‐inducing
effects,
impacts
found
not
to
be
significant,
and
significant
cumulative
impacts,
as
well
as
identify
mitigation
measures
and
alternatives
to
the
proposed
project
that
could
reduce
or
avoid
its
adverse
environmental
impacts.
CEQA
requires
government
agencies
to
consider
and,
where
feasible,
minimize
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
development,
and
an
obligation
to
balance
a
variety
of
public
objectives,
including
economic,
environmental,
and
social
factors.
P URPOSE
AND
U SE
The
Town
of
Truckee,
as
the
lead
agency,
has
prepared
this
Final
EIR
to
provide
the
public
and
responsible
and
trustee
agencies
with
an
objective
analysis
of
the
potential
environmental
impacts
resulting
from
approval,
construction,
and
operation
of
the
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
project.
Responsible
and
trustee
agencies
that
may
use
the
EIR
are
identified
in
Sections
1.0
and
2.0
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
environmental
review
process
enables
interested
parties
to
evaluate
the
proposed
project
in
terms
of
its
environmental
consequences,
to
examine
and
recommend
methods
to
eliminate
or
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0-‐2
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
reduce
potential
adverse
impacts,
and
to
consider
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
to
the
project.
While
CEQA
requires
that
consideration
be
given
to
avoiding
adverse
environmental
effects,
the
lead
agency
must
balance
adverse
environmental
effects
against
other
public
objectives,
including
the
economic
and
social
benefits
of
a
project,
in
determining
whether
a
project
should
be
approved.
This
EIR
will
be
used
as
the
primary
environmental
document
to
evaluate
all
aspects
of
construction
and
operation
of
the
proposed
project.
The
details
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
proposed
project
are
identified
in
Chapter
2.0,
Project
Description,
of
the
Draft
EIR
(September
2013).
1.2
E NVIRONMENTAL
R EVIEW
PROCESS
The
review
and
certification
process
for
the
EIR
has
involved,
or
will
involve,
the
following
general
procedural
steps:
N OTICE
OF
P REPARATION
The
Town
of
Truckee
circulated
a
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
of
an
EIR
for
the
proposed
project
and
an
Initial
Study
on
May
25,
2012
to
trustee
and
responsible
agencies,
the
State
Clearinghouse
(SCH#
2012052073),
and
the
public.
A
scoping
meeting
was
held
on
June
6,
2012
in
the
Town
of
Truckee.
Those
present
at
the
scoping
meeting
included
representatives
from
the
following:
the
Town
of
Truckee,
De
Novo
Planning
Group,
and
the
project
applicant
team.
The
NOP,
Initial
Study,
and
comments
received
during
the
NOP
comment
period
are
presented
in
Appendix
A
of
the
Draft
EIR.
N OTICE
OF
A VAILABILITY
AND
D RAFT
EIR
The
Town
of
Truckee
published
a
public
Notice
of
Availability
(NOA)
for
the
Draft
EIR
on
September
12,
2013
inviting
comment
from
the
general
public,
agencies,
organizations,
and
other
interested
parties.
The
NOA
was
filed
with
the
State
Clearinghouse
(SCH
#
2012052073)
and
the
County
Clerk,
and
was
published
in
a
local
newspaper
pursuant
to
the
public
noticing
requirements
of
CEQA.
The
Draft
EIR
was
available
for
public
review
and
comment
from
September
12,
2013
through
October
29,
2013.
The
Draft
EIR
contains
a
description
of
the
project,
description
of
the
environmental
setting,
identification
of
project
impacts,
and
mitigation
measures
for
impacts
found
to
be
significant,
as
well
as
an
analysis
of
project
alternatives,
identification
of
significant
irreversible
environmental
changes,
growth-‐inducing
impacts,
and
cumulative
impacts.
The
Draft
EIR
identifies
issues
determined
to
have
no
impact
or
a
less-‐than-‐significant
impact,
and
provides
detailed
analysis
of
potentially
significant
and
significant
impacts.
Comments
received
in
response
to
the
NOP
were
considered
in
preparing
the
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR.
R ESPONSE
TO
C OMMENTS/FINAL
EIR
The
Town
of
Truckee
received
several
comment
letters
regarding
the
Draft
EIR
from
public
agencies
and
private
citizens.
These
comment
letters
on
the
Draft
EIR
are
identified
in
Table
2-‐1,
and
are
found
in
Section
2.0
of
this
Final
EIR.
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
1.0-‐3
In
accordance
with
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088,
this
Final
EIR
responds
to
the
written
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR,
as
required
by
CEQA.
This
Final
EIR
also
contains
minor
edits
to
the
Draft
EIR,
which
are
included
in
Section
3.0,
Errata.
This
document,
as
well
as
the
Draft
EIR
as
amended
herein,
constitute
the
Final
EIR.
C ERTIFICATION
OF
THE
EIR/PROJECT
C ONSIDERATION
The
Town
of
Truckee
will
review
and
consider
the
Final
EIR.
If
the
Town
finds
that
the
Final
EIR
is
"adequate
and
complete,"
the
Truckee
Town
Council
may
certify
the
Final
EIR
in
accordance
with
CEQA
and
Town
of
Truckee
environmental
review
procedures
and
codes.
The
rule
of
adequacy
generally
holds
that
an
EIR
can
be
certified
if:
1) The
EIR
shows
a
good
faith
effort
at
full
disclosure
of
environmental
information;
and
2) The
EIR
provides
sufficient
analysis
to
allow
decisions
to
be
made
regarding
the
proposed
project
which
intelligently
take
account
of
environmental
consequences.
Upon
review
and
consideration
of
the
Final
EIR,
the
Truckee
Town
Council
may
take
action
to
approve,
revise,
or
reject
the
project.
A
decision
to
approve
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
project,
for
which
this
EIR
identifies
significant
environmental
effects,
must
be
accompanied
by
written
findings
in
accordance
with
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Sections
15091
and
15093.
A
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program,
as
described
below,
would
also
be
adopted
in
accordance
with
Public
Resources
Code
Section
21081.6(a)
and
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15097
for
mitigation
measures
that
have
been
incorporated
into
or
imposed
upon
the
project
to
reduce
or
avoid
significant
effects
on
the
environment.
This
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
has
been
designed
to
ensure
that
these
measures
are
carried
out
during
project
implementation,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
EIR.
1.3
ORGANIZATION
OF
THE
FINAL
EIR
This
Final
EIR
has
been
prepared
consistent
with
Section
15132
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines,
which
identifies
the
content
requirements
for
Final
EIRs.
This
Final
EIR
is
organized
in
the
following
manner:
S ECTION
1.0
–
I NTRODUCTION
Section
1.0
briefly
describes
the
purpose
of
the
environmental
evaluation,
identifies
the
lead,
agency,
summarizes
the
process
associated
with
preparation
and
certification
of
an
EIR,
and
identifies
the
content
requirements
and
organization
of
the
Final
EIR.
S ECTION
2.0
–
C OMMENTS
ON
THE
D RAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
Section
2.0
provides
a
list
of
commenters,
copies
of
written
comments
made
on
the
Draft
EIR
(coded
for
reference),
and
responses
to
those
written
comments.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0-‐4
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
C HAPTER
3.0
-‐
E RRATA
Chapter
3.0
consists
of
minor
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
in
response
to
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR,
as
well
as
minor
staff
edits.
C HAPTER
4.0
–
F INAL
MMRP
Chapter
4.0
consists
of
a
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
(MMRP).
The
MMRP
is
presented
in
a
tabular
format
that
presents
the
impacts,
mitigation
measure,
and
responsibility,
timing,
and
verification
of
monitoring.
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐1
2.1
INTRODUCTION
No
new
significant
environmental
impacts
or
issues,
beyond
those
already
covered
in
the
Draft
EIR
for
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Project,
were
raised
during
the
comment
period.
Responses
to
comments
received
during
the
comment
period
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
add
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5
states
that:
New
information
added
to
an
EIR
is
not
“significant”
unless
the
EIR
is
changed
in
a
way
that
deprives
the
public
of
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
comment
upon
a
substantial
adverse
environmental
effect
of
the
project
or
a
feasible
way
to
mitigate
or
avoid
such
an
effect
(including
a
feasible
project
alternative)
that
the
project’s
proponents
have
declined
to
implement.
Since
the
time
that
the
Draft
EIR
was
released
for
public
review,
the
proposed
Project
has
undergone
minor
revisions
to
address
concerns
from
the
public
regarding
the
amount
and
location
of
open
space
provided
within
the
Plan
Area.
As
described
in
greater
detail
below,
the
proposed
changes
to
the
Land
Use
Plan
would
not
result
in
any
new
environmental
impacts,
would
not
increase
the
severity
of
any
previously
identified
environmental
impacts,
and
does
not
constitute
significant
new
information.
Sections
2.0
and
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
include
information
that
has
been
added
to
the
EIR
since
the
close
of
the
public
review
period
in
the
form
of
responses
to
comments
and
errata.
2.2
LIST
OF
COMMENTERS
Table
2-‐1
lists
the
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
that
were
submitted
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
during
the
45-‐day
public
review
period
for
the
Draft
EIR.
The
assigned
comment
letter
or
number,
letter
date,
letter
author,
and
affiliation,
if
presented
in
the
comment
letter
or
if
representing
a
public
agency,
are
also
listed.
Letters
received
from
public
agencies
are
coded
with
letters
(A,
B,
C,
etc.),
while
letters
received
from
private
organizations
or
members
of
the
public
are
coded
with
numbers
(1,
2,
3,
etc.).
TABLE
2-‐1
LIST
OF
COMMENTERS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
RESPONSE
LETTER/
NUMBER
INDIVIDUAL
OR
SIGNATORY
AFFILIATION
DATE
A
David
R.
Van
Dyken
California
Department
of
Transportation
10-‐28-‐13
B
Ken
Chiang
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
10-‐15-‐13
C
Alan
Miller
Lahontan
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
10-‐23-‐13
D
Rob
Wood
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
10-‐14-‐13
E
Neil
Kaufman
Truckee
Donner
Public
Utility
District
10-‐3-‐13
F
Blake
Tresan
Truckee
Sanitary
District
10-‐7-‐13
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐2
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
RESPONSE
LETTER/
NUMBER
INDIVIDUAL
OR
SIGNATORY
AFFILIATION
DATE
G
Daniel
B.
Landon
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
10-‐24-‐13
H
Hardy
S.
Bullock
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
District
10-‐24-‐13
I
Jason
A.
Parker
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency
10-‐29-‐13
J
Samuel
F.
Longmire
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
11-‐1-‐13
1
Ann
Baldwin
Truckee
Resident
10-‐28-‐13
2
David
Beres
Truckee
Resident
10-‐28-‐13
3
Nick
R.
Green
Citizens
Advocating
Rational
Development
(CARD)
Undated
4
Dale
T.
Creighton
SCO
Planning
&
Engineering,
Inc.
10-‐29-‐13
5
Ellen
Hyatt
Truckee
Resident
10-‐28-‐13
6
Laurel
and
Tom
Lippert
Truckee
Residents
10-‐28-‐13
7
Dale
Munsterman
Truckee
Resident
10-‐25-‐13
8
Ann
Penfield
Truckee
Resident
10-‐28-‐13
9
Tori
Goux
Ponderosa
Palisades
Townhouses
Homeowners
Association
10-‐4-‐13
10
Ron
West
Ron
West
&
Associates
10-‐29-‐13
11
Karen
S.
Carey
Tahoe
Safe
Alliance
10-‐22-‐13
12
David
Stearn
Truckee
Resident
10-‐29-‐13
13
Pat
Davison
Contractors
Association
of
Truckee
Tahoe
(CATT)
10-‐29-‐13
14
Patty
Lomanto
Truckee
Resident
10-‐29-‐13
15
Lynn
Rogers
Truckee
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Church
10-‐27-‐13
16
Alexis
Ollar
Mountain
Area
Preservation
(MAP)
10-‐29-‐13
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐3
2.3
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
R EQUIREMENTS
FOR
R ESPONDING
TO
C OMMENTS
ON
A
D RAFT
EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088
requires
that
lead
agencies
evaluate
and
respond
to
all
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
that
regard
an
environmental
issue.
The
written
response
must
address
the
significant
environmental
issue
raised
and
provide
a
detailed
response,
especially
when
specific
comments
or
suggestions
(e.g.,
additional
mitigation
measures)
are
not
accepted.
In
addition,
the
written
response
must
be
a
good
faith
and
reasoned
analysis.
However,
lead
agencies
need
only
to
respond
to
significant
environmental
issues
associated
with
the
project
and
do
not
need
to
provide
all
the
information
requested
by
the
commenter,
as
long
as
a
good
faith
effort
at
full
disclosure
is
made
in
the
EIR
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15204).
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15204
recommends
that
commenters
provide
detailed
comments
that
focus
on
the
sufficiency
of
the
Draft
EIR
in
identifying
and
analyzing
the
possible
environmental
impacts
of
the
project
and
ways
to
avoid
or
mitigate
the
significant
effects
of
the
project,
and
that
commenters
provide
evidence
supporting
their
comments.
Pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15064,
an
effect
shall
not
be
considered
significant
in
the
absence
of
substantial
evidence.
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088
also
recommends
that
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
be
noted
as
a
revision
in
the
Draft
EIR
or
as
a
separate
section
of
the
Final
EIR.
Chapter
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
identifies
all
revisions
to
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Draft
EIR.
R ESPONSES
TO
COMMENT
LETTERS
Written
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
are
reproduced
on
the
following
pages,
along
with
responses
to
those
comments.
To
assist
in
referencing
comments
and
responses,
the
following
coding
system
is
used:
• Those
comments
received
from
government
agencies
are
represented
by
a
lettered
response
while
comments
received
by
individual
or
private
firms
are
represented
by
a
numbered
response.
• Each
letter
is
lettered
(i.e.,
Letter
A)
and
each
comment
within
each
letter
is
numbered
(i.e.,
comment
A-‐1,
comment
A-‐2).
Where
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
text
result
from
the
response
to
comments,
those
changes
are
included
in
the
response
and
identified
with
revision
marks
(underline
for
new
text,
strike
out
for
deleted
text).
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐4
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
CHANGES
TO
THE
PROJECT
D ESCRIPTION
Following
review
of
the
public
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR,
the
project
applicant
and
Town
staff
met
with
members
of
the
public
and
held
several
Planning
Commission
workshops
to
discuss
and
further
refine
the
proposed
Zoning
Map
for
the
Plan
Area.
As
a
result
of
these
meetings,
the
Zoning
Map
has
been
revised
to
provide
for
additional
expanded
areas
of
Open
Space
within
the
Plan
Area,
and
corresponding
changes
to
development
intensity
are
proposed.
The
increases
in
development
intensity
provide
for
approximately
the
same
level
of
overall
development
within
the
Plan
Area,
but
allow
for
higher-‐intensity
development
within
the
areas
of
site
designated
for
commercial
and
industrial
uses,
while
providing
for
greater
areas
of
Open
Space.
The
revised
Zoning
Map
is
shown
below
(see
Figure
2-‐
1).
The
following
provides
a
summary
of
the
proposed
changes
to
the
Project
that
were
made
between
the
April
2012
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(Draft)
used
in
preparing
the
Draft
EIR
and
the
January
2015
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(Draft):
o A
significant
portion
of
what
was
previously
identified
as
Parcel
6
(northwest
corner
of
Brockway
Road
and
Highway
267)
has
been
changed
from
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
to
Open
Space
(OS)
and
is
now
referenced
as
a
12.2-‐acre
OS-‐P
(Open
Space
Protected)
zoned
parcel.
o The
roundabout
at
Hope
Court
was
removed.
o The
previous
Parcel
4,
which
includes
the
existing
Winery
and
the
previous
Parcel
5
located
directly
south
of
Parcel
4
along
Brockway
Road,
have
been
combined
and
reduced
in
size
from
3.65
acres
to
approximately
2.0
acres.
o Multi-‐family
Residential
designation
(RM)
was
put
back
into
the
area
north
of
the
winery,
increased
in
size
from
3.47
acres
to
4.0
acres,
and
redefined
as
RMW-‐20
or
Workforce
Multi-‐
Family
Residential,
20
dwelling
units
per
acre
to
provide
a
designated
workforce
housing
site
.
o Martis
Drive
was
readjusted
to
follow
the
existing
roadway
and
“T”
into
Brockway
Road.
Due
to
right-‐of-‐way
constraints
and
road
alignment
approach,
a
roundabout
does
not
appear
to
work
at
that
location.
The
“T”
intersection
design
was
evaluated
in
the
EIR
and
is
consistent
with
the
proposal.
o The
Martis
Drive
Road
extension
to
a
roundabout
at
Hope
Court
through
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
SR
267/Brockway)
was
removed.
o The
pie
shaped
area
along
Hope
Court
(a
portion
of
Parcel
4)
is
now
shown
as
a
2.7
acre
Lifestyle
Commercial-‐1
(CL-‐1)
zoned
parcel
and
is
intended
to
be
donated
to
the
Contractor’s
Association
of
Truckee
Tahoe
(CATT)
for
a
community
building/non-‐profit
center
site.
o The
teardrop
parcel
between
Joerger
Drive
and
Highway
267
(previously
Parcel
8)
was
changed
to
8.7
acres
of
Open
Space.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐5
o Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
was
removed.
Parcel
10
was
changed
to
Manufacturing
(M1),
Parcel
9
was
changed
to
OS
and
the
portion
within
Parcel
14
was
changed
to
Regional
Commercial
(CR).
o Parcel
14,
south
of
Soaring
Way
was
revised
and
now
reflects
16.3
acres
of
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
and
4.4
acres
of
M1.
Table
2-‐2
shows
the
building
intensity
of
the
land
use
map
that
was
evaluated
in
the
EIR
and
assumed
20%
Floor
Area
Ratio
(FAR)
for
all
commercial
and
industrial
land
uses.
Table
2-‐3
shows
the
building
potential
using
a
25%
FAR
for
the
land
use
zones.
Although
this
new
concept
has
significantly
more
open
space
and
less
development
area,
the
development
potential
is
nearly
identical
by
increasing
the
allowed
percentage
of
FAR.
TABLE
2-‐2:
SUMMARY
OF
ZONING,
ACREAGE
AND
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
(ORIGINAL
PROJECT
ANALYZED
IN
DRAFT
EIR)*
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
(0.20
FAR)
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
11.69
101,843
sf
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
6.07
52,882
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
41
housing
units
Open
Space
(OS)
10.24
N/A
Total
66.61
460,778
sf
*The
original
Project
is
the
April
2012
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(Draft)
TABLE
2-‐3:
SUMMARY
OF
ZONING,
ACREAGE
AND
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
(REVISED
PROJECT)**
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
16.3
177,507
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
4.7
51,183
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Manufacturing/Industrial
(M1)
9.5
103,455
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
11.2
121,968
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)
4.0
80
housing
units
Open
Space
(OS)
20.9
N/A
Total
66.6
454,113
**The
Revised
Project
is
the
January
2015
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(Draft)
As
shown
in
the
tables
above,
the
overall
development
potential
of
the
originally
proposed
Project
was
460,778
square
feet
of
commercial
and
industrial
uses
and
41
multi-‐family
housing
units.
The
development
potential
of
the
Revised
Project
would
allow
for
454,113
square
feet
of
commercial
and
industrial
uses
and
80
multi-‐family
workforce
housing
units.
This
represents
a
1.5%
decrease
in
development
potential
for
the
Revised
Project
for
the
non-‐residentially-‐zoned
areas.
Although
the
RM
zoning
density
has
increased
from
12
units
per
acre
to
20
units
per
acre
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
80
housing
units
versus
the
previously
proposed
41
housing
units,
the
Original
Project
assumed
the
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐6
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
construction
of
97
total
workforce
housing
units
within
the
Specific
Plan
area.
This
included
the
41
housing
units
on
the
RM
parcel
and
the
disbursement
of
the
remaining
units
throughout
the
Specific
Plan.
With
the
Revised
Project,
all
of
the
workforce
housing
is
assumed
to
be
constructed
on
the
RMW-‐
20
zoned
parcel.
Also,
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
workforce
housing
requirement
in
the
Revised
Project,
the
area
encumbered
by
airport
restrictions,
where
housing
would
not
be
able
to
be
constructed,
has
been
removed.
The
revised
calculation
requires
the
construction
of
83.1
workforce
housing
units
(582/7
=
83.1).
Because
sufficient
land
is
being
created
to
ensure
housing
construction
on
the
RMW-‐20
site,
no
additional
workforce
housing
is
required.
The
Specific
Plan
is
consistent
with
General
Plan
affordable
housing
requirements
and
no
new
impacts
are
created
with
the
Revised
Project.
The
analysis
and
discussion
on
the
following
pages
demonstrates
that
the
proposed
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
impacts
that
were
not
previously
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
would
not
increase
the
severity
of
any
impacts
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
5.
1
A
C
*11.2 AC
2.
7
A
C
8.
7
A
C
16
.
3
A
C
*2.0 AC 12.2 AC
4.
4
A
C
M1
BIZ
OS
-
P
CR
OS-P
M1
CL
-
1
CL
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
,
2
0
1
5
PROPOSED ZONING STATISTICS16.3 AC.20.9 AC MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RMW-20)OPEN SPACE (OS-P)MANUFACTURING / INDUSTRIAL (M1)4.0 ACTOTAL:66.6 AC.9.5 AC REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL (CL)4.7 AC. BUSINESS INNOVATION ZONE (BIZ)11.2 AC
*M
a
r
t
i
s
D
r
i
v
e
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
l
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
i
n
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ma
r
t
i
s
D
r
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
i
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
s
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
:
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐9
A NALYSIS
OF
P ROJECT
R EVISIONS
Air
Quality
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
air
quality.
As
described
in
the
Draft
EIR,
air
quality
impacts
would
occur
primarily
from
mobile
source
emissions
attributable
to
increases
in
vehicle
trips
and
vehicle
miles
travelled
as
a
result
of
project
implementation.
The
revised
Project
would
generate
a
slightly
reduced
amount
of
vehicle
trips
compared
to
the
original
Project,
and
as
such,
would
generate
a
slightly
less
mobile
source
emissions.
Proposed
uses
within
the
revised
Project
would
be
similar
to
the
original
Project,
and
would
generate
similar
or
less
levels
of
stationary-‐source
emissions.
The
revised
Project
includes
expanded
areas
of
open
space,
particularly
along
SR
267,
which
would
place
future
land
uses
further
away
from
the
roadway
than
the
proposed
Project.
This
would
increase
the
distances
between
sensitive
receptors
and
mobile
source
emissions.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
air
quality
impacts
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
air
quality
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Biological
Resources
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
biological
resources.
The
Project
revisions
would
result
in
a
decreased
Project
footprint,
which
would
reduce
the
area
of
ground
disturbance,
and
reduce
the
potential
for
impacts
to
biological
resources.
Expanded
areas
of
open
space
proposed
by
the
revised
Project
would
provide
for
expanded
areas
of
habitat
connectivity,
and
would
reduce
impacts
to
special-‐status
species
and
sensitive
natural
resources.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
protect
biological
resources
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
biological
resources
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Cultural
Resources
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
cultural
resources.
The
Project
revisions
would
result
in
a
decreased
Project
footprint,
which
would
reduce
the
area
of
ground
disturbance,
and
reduce
the
potential
for
impacts
to
previously
undiscovered
cultural
and
historical
resources.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
protect
cultural
resources
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
cultural
resources
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Geology
and
Soils
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
geology
and
soils.
The
Project
revisions
would
result
in
a
decreased
Project
footprint,
which
would
reduce
the
area
of
ground
disturbance,
and
reduce
the
potential
for
impacts
associated
with
erosion
and
the
loss
of
topsoil.
As
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐10
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
described
in
the
Draft
EIR,
the
potential
for
impacts
related
to
seismic
hazards
and
unstable
soils
would
be
less
than
significant.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
erosion
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
geology
and
soils
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Greenhouse
Gases
and
Climate
Change
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
greenhouse
gases
and
climate
change.
As
described
in
the
Draft
EIR,
GHG
impacts
would
occur
primarily
from
mobile
source
emissions
attributable
to
increases
in
vehicle
trips
and
vehicle
miles
travelled
as
a
result
of
project
implementation.
The
revised
Project
would
generate
less
vehicle
trips
compared
to
the
original
Project,
and
as
such,
would
generate
a
lesser
level
of
mobile
source
GHG
emissions.
Proposed
uses
within
the
revised
Project
would
be
similar
to
the
original
Project,
and
would
generate
similar
levels
of
stationary-‐
source
GHG
emissions.
The
revised
Project
includes
expanded
areas
of
open
space,
particularly
along
SR
267,
while
still
allowing
for
a
comparable
level
of
development
on
the
project
site.
These
revisions
to
the
Plan
provide
for
a
more
compact
development
pattern
that
increases
the
amount
of
open
space
and
tree/vegetation
retention
on
the
project
site.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
GHG
impacts
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
GHG
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Hazards
and
Hazardous
Materials
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
hazards
and
hazardous
materials.
The
Project
revisions
would
result
in
a
decreased
Project
footprint,
which
would
reduce
the
area
of
ground
disturbance,
and
reduce
the
potential
for
impacts
associated
with
soil
hazards
and
contamination
from
previous
uses
on
the
site.
The
revised
Project
would
allow
for
a
similar
range
of
uses
and
business
as
the
original
Project,
and
future
businesses
on
the
site
would
be
required
to
implement
mitigation
measures
such
as
the
preparation
of
a
Hazardous
Materials
Business
Plan
if
hazardous
materials
are
proposed
for
use
or
storage
on-‐site.
The
non-‐residential
portion
of
the
revised
Project
is
still
located
in
airport
land
use
zones
B1,
B2,
and
D,
which
allow
the
commercial
and
industrial
uses
that
are
proposed.
According
to
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan,
the
proposed
land
uses
are
compatible
with
the
current
airport
land
use
plan.
The
increases
in
floor
area
ratio
(FAR)
associated
with
the
revised
Project
would
likely
result
in
taller
structures
than
those
that
would
have
been
constructed
under
the
original
project.
However,
structures
and
not
anticipated
to
be
taller
than
2-‐3
stories
in
height,
which
generally
equates
to
buildings
30-‐40
feet
or
shorter.
Object
height
limits
in
airport
zones
are
generally
100
feet
above
runway
elevation.
The
taller
structures
that
may
result
from
the
revised
Project
would
not
reach
or
exceed
the
applicable
structure
height
limits
in
the
airport
zones,
and
would
not
increase
the
risks
associated
with
the
adjacent
airport
operations.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐11
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
hydrology
and
water
quality.
The
Project
revisions
would
result
in
a
decreased
Project
footprint,
which
would
reduce
the
area
of
ground
disturbance,
and
reduce
the
amount
of
new
impervious
surface
area
on
the
site.
This
would
reduce
the
potential
for
surface
water
quality
impacts,
and
would
preserve
greater
areas
of
the
site
for
groundwater
recharge
and
naturalized
surface
water
filtration.
The
drainage
features
on
the
western
portion
of
the
site
would
be
protected
and
greater
setback
areas
from
surface
water
features
and
wetlands
would
be
achieved
under
the
revised
Project.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
hydrology
and
water
quality
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
hydrology
and
water
quality
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Land
Use,
Population,
and
Housing
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
land
use,
population,
and
housing.
The
revised
Project
proposes
slightly
less
residential
and
commercial/industrial
development
than
the
original
Project.
As
such,
there
are
no
increases
in
population
or
housing
impacts
beyond
those
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
revised
Project
complies
with
the
Town’s
workforce
housing
requirements.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
land
use,
population,
and
housing
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Noise
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
noise.
The
revised
Project
would
generate
slightly
less
traffic
and
include
similar
types
of
land
uses
and
business
types
as
the
original
Project.
Additionally,
there
are
increased
open
space
areas
and
setbacks
along
the
northwest
Plan
Area
boundary
adjacent
to
the
golf
course
and
existing
residences
to
further
reduce
potential
noise
impacts.
As
such,
the
potential
for
the
revised
Project
to
generate
increased
noise
would
be
comparable
to
the
analysis
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
proposed
multi-‐family
housing
represents
the
most
noise-‐sensitive
land
use
in
the
Plan
Area.
The
revised
Project
would
place
future
multi-‐family
housing
in
approximately
the
same
location
as
proposed
by
the
original
Project,
however,
potential
noise
impacts
to
the
multi-‐family
housing
units
may
be
reduced
under
the
revised
Project,
given
that
uses
to
the
east
of
the
MF
area
would
be
open
space
as
opposed
to
business
uses.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
noise
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Public
Services
and
Recreation
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
public
services
and
recreation.
The
revised
Project
proposes
a
slightly
reduced
level
of
residential
and
commercial/industrial
development
compared
to
the
original
Project.
As
such,
there
would
be
no
increase
in
overall
development
intensity
or
demand
for
public
services
beyond
those
addressed
in
the
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐12
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Draft
EIR.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
public
services
and
recreation
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
public
services
and
recreation
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Transportation
and
Circulation
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
transportation
and
circulation.
The
revised
Project
proposes
a
slightly
reduced
level
of
residential
and
commercial/industrial
development
compared
to
the
original
Project.
As
such,
there
would
be
no
increase
in
project
traffic
beyond
the
levels
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
transportation
and
circulation
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project,
although
minor
revisions
to
the
implementation
and
timing
of
the
mitigation
measures
is
required,
as
described
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.0.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
transportation
and
circulation
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Utilities
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
utilities.
The
revised
Project
proposes
slightly
reduced
levels
of
residential
and
commercial/industrial
development
compared
to
the
original
Project.
As
such,
there
would
be
no
increase
in
demand
for
water,
wastewater,
and
other
utilities
beyond
the
levels
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
the
provision
of
utility
services
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
utilities
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
Visual
and
Aesthetic
Resources
The
Project
revisions
would
not
result
in
any
new
or
increased
impacts
related
to
visual
resources
and
aesthetics.
The
Project
revisions
would
result
in
a
decreased
Project
footprint,
which
would
reduce
the
area
of
ground
disturbance,
and
reduce
the
potential
for
visual
impacts
associated
with
tree
and
natural
vegetation
removal
from
the
site.
The
revised
Project
would
allow
for
a
similar
range
of
uses
and
business
as
the
original
Project,
and
future
businesses
on
the
site
would
be
required
to
implement
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
light
and
glare,
and
would
be
required
to
adhere
to
all
applicable
design
criteria.
The
increases
in
floor
area
ratio
(FAR)
associated
with
the
revised
Project
would
likely
result
in
taller
structures
than
those
that
would
have
been
constructed
under
the
original
Project.
However,
structures
and
not
anticipated
to
be
taller
than
2-‐3
stories
in
height,
which
generally
equates
to
buildings
30-‐40
feet
or
shorter.
The
taller
structures
that
may
result
from
the
revised
Project
may
be
more
visually
prominent
from
area
roadways,
however,
this
increase
in
visual
prominence
would
be
offset
and
minimized
through
the
application
of
the
expanded
areas
of
open
space,
particularly
along
the
SR
267
corridor.
The
expanded
areas
of
open
space
would
provide
visual
relief
to
motorists
viewing
the
site
from
adjacent
roadways,
and
would
preserve
the
natural
beauty
of
a
larger
area
of
the
project
site
when
compared
to
the
original
Project.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
visual
resources
would
continue
to
be
required
under
the
revised
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐13
Project.
The
proposed
changes
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information
and
would
not
result
in
new
or
increased
visual
impacts.
No
further
analysis
is
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐14
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐15
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐16
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐17
Response
to
Letter
A:
David
Van
Dyken,
California
Department
of
Transportation
Response
A-‐1:
The
commenter
advises
that
no
net
increase
to
the
100-‐year
storm
event
peak
discharge
may
be
realized
within
the
State’s
highway
right
of
way
or
Caltrans
drainage
facilities
as
a
result
of
the
project.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
analysis
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.7
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
a
detailed
discussion
of
stormwater
improvements
that
would
occur
through
project
implementation.
As
a
condition
of
site
development,
surface
water
and
drainage
will
be
managed
through
a
combination
of
natural
and
constructed
features
to
retain
natural
hydrology.
Low
Impact
Development
(LID)
storm
water
management
strategies
will
be
used
to
maintain
the
natural
hydrologic
function
of
the
site
with
localized
small
scale
source
control
techniques
that
disperse
flows
and
manage
runoff
close
to
where
it
originates.
Storm
drainage
from
impervious
areas
(roads,
walks,
buildings,
etc.)
will
be
collected
and
routed
through
facilities
designed
to
reduce
the
rate
and
volume
of
runoff
to
pre-‐
project
conditions.
The
project
would
not
result
in
increases
in
stormwater
discharges
to
Caltrans
facilities
or
the
State’s
right
of
way.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
runoff
from
the
project
that
will
enter
the
State’s
right
of
way
or
Caltrans
drainage
facilities
must
meet
all
Lahontan
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
water
quality
standards
prior
to
entering
these
facilities.
The
commenter
is
directed
to
the
discussion
and
analysis
following
Impact
3.7-‐1
and
Impact
3.7-‐2
in
Section
3.7
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
implementation
of
Mitigation
Measures
3.7-‐1
through
3.7-‐3
would
ensure
that
all
runoff
from
the
site
during
construction
and
operation
meets
all
applicable
Lahontan
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
water
quality
requirements.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐3:
The
commenter
states
that
detailed
drainage
plans
and
calculations
showing
pre-‐
and
post-‐construction
coverage
quantities
were
not
received
with
the
DEIR,
and
recommends
that
these
documents
be
prepared
when
development
proposals
are
received
for
the
Plan
Area.
This
comment
is
noted.
Future
development
projects
within
the
Specific
Plan
Area
are
required
to
prepare
and
implement
detailed
site
specific
drainage
plans
and
calculations,
which
must
comply
with
all
applicable
mitigation
measures
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Response
A-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
improvements
to
SR
267
should
be
required
as
the
Plan
Area
develops.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR.
It
is
noted
that
Section
3.11
of
the
Draft
EIR
includes
several
mitigation
measures
that
would
require
improvements
to
intersections
located
along
the
SR
267
corridor.
Additionally,
the
Placer
County
Tahoe
Resorts
Benefit
District
traffic
impact
fee
program
includes
constructing
a
northbound
passing
lane
at
Brockway
Summit.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐18
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
According
to
the
Placer/Truckee
Regional
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Agreement,
payment
of
appropriate
fees
under
the
Truckee
impact
fee
program
is
considered
to
mitigate
impacts
on
roadway
improvements
included
in
the
improvements
list
for
Placer
County’s
Tahoe
Resorts
Benefit
District
impact
fee
program.
The
project
proponent
shall
pay
Town
of
Truckee
impact
fees
contributing
to
these
roadway
improvements,
as
required
by
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1I.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
the
concept
of
collecting
mitigation
fees
appears
appropriate
at
this
stage,
but
may
be
inadequate
to
mitigate
all
traffic
impacts
associated
with
the
Plan
Area.
The
commenter
suggests
that
if
significant
development
proposals
are
received,
further
traffic
analysis
should
be
required
to
identify
specific
highway
improvements
needed
to
mitigate
resulting
traffic
impacts.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Future
projects
shall
be
reviewed
for
consistency
with
the
development
assumptions,
land
use
intensities,
and
traffic
generation
factors
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
traffic
analysis,
and
shall
be
required
to
make
specific
roadway
or
intersections
improvements,
as
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR,
or
contribute
fair-‐share
payments
to
traffic
improvement
programs.
If
future
projects
would
generate
traffic
in
excess
of
the
levels
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
additional
mitigation
would
be
required.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐6:
The
commenter
states
that
the
construction
of
a
two-‐lane
roundabout
at
the
intersection
of
SR
267
and
Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
is
acceptable
to
consider
as
an
alternative,
but
further
analysis
will
be
required
prior
to
conceptual
approval.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
Town
of
Truckee
will
coordinate
with
Caltrans
prior
to
the
approval
or
construction
of
any
roadway
improvements
within
the
Caltrans
right-‐of-‐
way.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐7:
The
commenter
states
that
the
highway
bridge
structure
over
the
Truckee
River
may
need
to
be
widened
in
the
future.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
Draft
EIR
included
a
detailed
analysis
of
the
potential
for
project-‐generated
traffic
to
impact
the
segment
of
SR
267
that
crosses
the
Truckee
River,
and
concluded
that
this
would
be
a
less
than
significant
and
less
than
cumulatively
considerable
impact
under
existing
plus
project
and
cumulative
plus
project
conditions,
respectively.
It
is
acknowledged
that
while
the
highway
bridge
structure
could
ultimately
need
to
be
widened,
CEQA
only
requires
a
horizon
year
analysis
at
20
years
out.
As
described
above,
the
proposed
project
would
not
result
in
a
significant
or
cumulative
impact
to
this
facility,
and
no
additional
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐8:
The
commenter
notes
that
an
encroachment
permit
is
required
for
any
work
or
traffic
control
that
would
encroach
onto
State
right-‐of-‐way.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
Town
will
ensure
that
all
required
permits
are
correctly
obtained
before
any
work
or
traffic
control
occurs
within
a
State
right-‐of-‐way.
This
comment
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐19
Response
A-‐9:
The
commenter
states
that
traffic-‐related
mitigation
measures
should
be
incorporated
into
the
construction
plans
prior
to
the
encroachment
permit
process.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
A-‐8.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐10:
The
commenter
states
that
sign
plans
for
outdoor
advertising
should
be
provided
to
Caltrans
for
review,
and
depending
on
proposed
sign
location,
approval.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
Town
will
ensure
that
any
outdoor
signage
that
is
within
Caltrans
right
of
way,
or
subject
to
Caltrans
approval,
will
be
forwarded
to
Caltrans
as
appropriate.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
A-‐11:
The
commenter
requests
copies
of
any
further
actions
regarding
this
project.
This
comment
is
noted.
Caltrans
will
be
notified
by
the
Town
of
any
further
relevant
actions
related
to
the
proposed
project.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐20
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐21
Response
to
Letter
B:
Ken
Chiang,
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
Response
B-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
the
project
area
includes
active
railroad
tracks,
and
recommends
that
any
future
development
adjacent
to
or
near
the
railroad
corridor
is
planned
with
safety
in
mind.
This
comment
is
noted.
There
are
no
railroad
tracks
in
the
immediate
project
vicinity.
The
Draft
EIR
traffic
analysis
included
a
detailed
analysis
of
potential
offsite
intersection
impacts,
and
there
are
no
significant
impacts
to
offsite
railroad
crossings
as
a
result
of
project
implementation.
Project-‐generated
traffic
would
not
result
in
an
unacceptable
level
of
service
at
an
existing
railroad
crossing,
and
the
project
would
not
significantly
increase
traffic
at
or
near
any
existing
railroad
crossings.
As
such,
implementation
of
the
proposed
project
would
not
result
in
railroad
safety
impacts.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐22
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐23
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐24
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
C:
Alan
Miller,
Lahontan
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
Response
C-‐1:
The
commenter
notes
some
section
numbering
errors
to
Section
3.2,
Biological
Resources,
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter
is
correct
regarding
the
section
and
impact
mis-‐numbering.
Corrections
are
shown
in
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR.
Response
C-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that,
in
general,
the
numbering
of
mitigation
measures
in
the
Draft
EIR
is
difficult
to
follow,
and
notes
that
mitigation
measure
numbering
does
not
directly
match
impact
numbering.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
the
Executive
Summary
of
the
Draft
EIR.
Table
ES-‐3
in
the
Executive
Summary
identifies
all
of
the
project
impacts,
and
identifies
which
mitigation
measures
are
applicable
to
each
impact.
The
numbering
of
mitigation
measures
in
each
Draft
EIR
section
is
sequential,
which
is
common
practice
in
the
preparation
of
EIRs.
The
commenter
also
notes
that
two
mitigation
measures
in
Section
3.6
were
labeled
as
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-‐1.
The
commenter
is
correct,
and
this
error
in
mitigation
numbering
has
been
corrected.
The
revised
mitigation
numbering
is
shown
in
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR.
Response
C-‐3:
The
commenter
references
text
from
Section
3.2
Biological
Resources
page
3.2-‐20
and
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
does
not
identify
or
discuss
the
specific
mitigation
measures
that
are
suggested
to
reduce
the
impact
resulting
from
the
removal
of
an
ephemeral
stream.
The
commenter
suggests
that
the
impact
is
potentially
significant
with
the
potential
to
violate
the
waste
discharge
prohibition
cited
on
pg.
3.7.12.
The
commenter
notes
that
there
will
need
to
be
a
verification
by
the
Water
Board
in
regard
to
the
ephemeral
stream
and
whether
it
is
indeed
isolated,
or
connected
to
the
Truckee
River
or
any
tributary
thereof.
The
commenter
notes
that
there
are
prohibitions
and
exceptions
that
exist
in
the
Water
Quality
Control
Plan
for
the
Lahontan
Region
that
applies
to
the
100-‐year
floodplain
of
the
Truckee
River
and
its
tributaries.
The
commenter
notes
that
removal
of
the
ephemeral
stream
is
generally
not
allowed
for
projects
of
this
type.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
an
analysis
of
the
wetland
features
that
is
based
on
Wetland
Delineation
for
the
±69-‐Acre
Joerger
Ranch
PC-‐3
Project
(North
Fork
Associates
2004).
This
wetland
delineation
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
1987
Army
Corps
Manual,
which
outlines
the
methodology
and
professional
standards
for
wetland
delineations.
Ultimately
concurrence
of
the
wetland
delineation
is
required
by
the
regulatory
agencies.
The
concurrence
comes
in
the
form
of
a
verification
and
determination
by
the
regulatory
agency.
The
Draft
EIR
explains
on
Page
3.2-‐20
that
the
wetland
delineation
would
need
to
be
verified
and
a
final
determination
would
need
to
be
provided
by
the
regulatory
agency.
Several
mitigation
measures
are
presented
to
mitigate
the
potentially
significant
impact
caused
by
the
proposed
fill
of
a
.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
if
future
traffic
analyses
identify
the
need
to
relocate
Martis
Drive
to
intersect
as
the
fourth
leg
to
the
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
intersection,
the
realigned
road
would
be
required
to
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐25
cross
the
0.22
acre
intermittent
stream.
If
this
occurs,
the
same
mitigation
measures
would
apply.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐4
outlines
the
requirement
to
first
get
a
determination
from
the
regulatory
agency,
and
if
jurisdiction
is
present,
authorization
for
fill
would
be
required.
The
regulatory
agency
has
established
performance
measures
that
are
required
of
all
projects
that
are
authorized
to
fill.
This
includes
compensation
for
the
fill
to
ensure
no
net
loss
of
wetlands,
and
minimization
and
conservation
measures
that
are
applied
as
determined
applicable
to
the
specific
set
of
circumstances.
These
performance
measures
established
by
the
regulatory
agency
through
the
permit
process
are
not
controlled
by
the
Town
of
Truckee.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐5
outlines
requirements
for
the
project
proponent
to
comply
with
Truckee
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.F,
which
requires
a
Minor
Use
Permit
to
be
obtained
prior
to
any
disturbance
within
200-‐feet
of
a
wetland.
This
is
a
Town
requirement
and
requires
compensation
that
is
above
the
federal
and
state
standards
for
wetland
compensation.
It
is
the
practice
of
the
Town
to
collaborate
with
regulatory
agencies
to
establish
the
compensation
for
a
fill.
This
requirement
is
separate
from
any
state
or
federal
requirements,
although
it
is
intended
to
fulfill
the
intent
of
protecting
wetlands
through
avoidance,
minimization,
and
compensation
as
applicable.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐6
warrants
text
revisions
to
clarify
that
the
project
would
require
compensation
for
the
fill
if
it
is
determined
to
be
a
regulated
wetland.
Revisions
from
Page
3.2-‐21
and
3.2-‐22
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐6:
Prior
to
any
activities
that
would
result
in
removal,
fill,
or
hydrologic
interruption
of
the
drainage/wetland
area,
the
project
proponent
shall
consult
with
the
RWQCB
and
CDFW
to
determine
if
the
activities
are
subject
to
permit
requirements
from
these
agencies
(i.e.
Waste
Discharge
Permit
for
fill
of
isolated
wetlands,
and
Streambed
Alternation
Agreement).
If
the
RWQCB
and/or
CDFW
determines
that
the
project
activities
are
subject
to
these
regulations,
the
project
proponent
shall
secure
an
authorization
of
the
activities
through
the
appropriate
permits,
provide
compensation
for
the
fill,
and
implement
the
minimization
and
conservation
measures
recommended
by
the
regulatory
agency
within
the
permit.
If
the
RWQCB
and/or
CDFW
determines
that
the
project
activities
are
not
subject
to
these
regulations,
the
project
proponent
shall
provide
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
a
letter
of
determination
from
the
RQQCB
and/or
CDFW.
(Note:
Implementation
of
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐9
would
require
preservation
of
the
0.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream,
thereby
eliminating
the
potential
for
disturbance
to
jurisdictional
areas
and
eliminating
the
potential
need
to
obtain
permits/authorizations).
The
text
revisions
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐26
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
Section
3.0
Errata
presents
all
text
changes
warranted
by
comments,
including
this
text
deletion.
Response
C-‐4:
The
commenter
identifies
that
the
NPDES
Phase
II
MS4
permit
(Order
2013-‐0001-‐
DWQ)
became
effective
on
July
1,
2013
and
that
the
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
is
no
longer
a
component
of
the
permit.
The
commenter
identifies
that
the
permit
has
a
guidance
document
that
supersedes
this
document.
This
comment
warrants
text
revisions
to
correct
the
references
to
the
existing
permit
and
to
delete
the
references
to
the
Town’s
storm
water
management
program
that
was
related
to
the
previous
permit.
Revisions
from
Page
3.7-‐8
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Municipal
Activities
-‐
Small
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Water
Systems
(MS4s)
The
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board’s
Municipal
Storm
Water
Permitting
Program
regulates
storm
water
discharges
from
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
(MS4s).
MS4
permits
were
issued
in
5-‐year
terms.
The
Phase
2
MS4
permits
required
the
discharger
to
develop
and
implement
a
Storm
Water
Management
Plan/Program
with
the
goal
of
reducing
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
(MEP).
The
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
fulfilled
the
first
term
requirement
under
the
Phase
2
MS4
permit.
On
July
1,
2013
the
Phase
II
Small
MS4
General
Permit
(Order
2013-‐0001-‐
DWQ)
became
effective.
The
former
permit
is
superseded
by
the
new
permit
and
the
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
is
no
longer
a
component
in
the
new
MS4
permit.
The
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
is
superseded
by
the
permit’s
Guidance
document.
Both
the
permit
and
the
guidance
document
can
be
found
at
the
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board
website
as
follows:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.sh
tml.
On
December
8,
1999,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(USEPA)
circulated
regulations
requiring
permits
for
storm
water
discharges
from
Small
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
System
operators.
Permits
for
small
municipal
storm
sewer
systems
(MS4s)
generally
fall
under
the
“Phase
II”
permits
program,
which
regulate
non-‐point
source
pollutants.
In
California,
the
NPDES
Program
is
administered
by
the
SWRCB.
Federal
regulations
allow
two
permitting
options
for
storm
water
discharges
(individual
permits
and
general
permits).
The
SWRCB
elected
to
adopt
a
statewide
general
permit
(Water
Quality
Order
No.
2003-‐0005-‐DWQ)
for
small
MS4s
covered
under
the
CWA
to
efficiently
regulate
numerous
storm
water
discharges
under
a
single
permit.
Permittees
must
meet
the
requirements
in
Provision
D
of
the
General
Permit
that
require
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
storm
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐27
water
management
plan
(SWMP)
with
the
goal
of
reducing
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable.
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
defined
as
a
small
MS4
under
the
existing
General
Permit.
The
Lahonton
RWQCB
designated
the
Town
of
Truckee
for
coverage
under
the
NPDES
Phase
II
municipal
permitting
program
in
December
2006.
The
Town
of
Truckee
published
a
SWMP
on
December
6,
2007
that
addresses
the
required
minimum
measures
and
other
storm
water
quality
concerns.
The
SWMP
was
submitted
to
the
Lahontan
RWQCB
and
was
approved
in
March
2008.
The
SWRCB
has
recently
issued
a
draft
Water
Quality
Order
to
replace
the
current
General
Permit
for
Small
MS4s.
In
the
draft
Order,
the
Town
of
Truckee
is
classified
as
a
Renewal
Traditional
Small
MS4
Permittee.
The
draft
Order
is
much
more
prescriptive
than
the
current
General
Permit
and
increases
the
number
of
program
categories.
The
draft
Order
is
targeted
for
adoption
in
the
near
future.
Revisions
from
Page
3.7-‐14
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
The
Lahontan
RWQCB
designated
the
Town
of
Truckee
for
coverage
under
the
NPDES
Phase
II
municipal
permitting
program
in
December
2006.
The
Town
of
Truckee
published
a
Storm
Water
Management
Program
(SWMP)
on
December
6,
2007,
that
addresses
the
required
minimum
measures
and
other
storm
water
quality
concerns.
The
SWMP
has
been
prepared
based
on
the
goal
of
reducing
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
and
addresses
requirements
pertaining
to
the
following
six
minimum
control
measures:
• Public
Education
and
Outreach
on
Storm
Water
Impacts
• Public
Involvement/Participation
• Illicit
Discharge
Detection
and
Elimination
• Construction
Site
Storm
Water
Runoff
Control
• Post-‐Construction
Storm
Water
Management
in
New
Development
• Redevelopment
and
Pollution
Prevention/Good
Housekeeping
for
Municipal
Operations.
The
SWMP
was
submitted
to
the
Lahontan
RWQCB
and
was
approved
in
March
2008.
Revisions
from
Page
3.7-‐20
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Post
construction
BMP’s
will
also
be
implemented
in
accordance
with
NPDES
Phase
II
Small
and
Town
of
Truckee
MS4
General
Permit
(Order
2013-‐0001-‐DWQ)
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐28
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
requirements,
which
became
effective
on
July
1,
2013.
Post
construction
BMP’s
include
runoff
control
measures,
water
quality
facilities,
operations
and
maintenance
programs,
employee
training,
recycling
and
waste
disposal
programs
and
public
education
(signage/brochures)
for
storm
water
quality
protection.
Permanent
water
quality
facilities
that
remain
in
place
upon
completion
of
the
project
such
as
bio-‐
swales,
retention
basins
and
water
quality
inlet
structures
remove
and
filter
potential
common
pollutants
such
as
oil
and
grease
from
roadways,
pesticides
from
lawns
and
landscaping,
sediment,
and
trash
prior
to
discharge
of
storm
water
to
natural
water
courses.
Revisions
from
Page
3.7-‐20
through
3.7-‐21
of
the
Draft
EIR:
MITIGATION
MEASURES
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-‐3:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
grading
permits,
the
project
applicant
shall
submit
and
obtain
approval
of
a
storm
water
management
plan
(SWMP)
consistent
with
the
Town’s
Municipal
Code
and
Storm
Water
Quality
Ordinance.
The
SWMP
shall,
at
a
minimum,
include
the
following:
• A
written
text
addressing
existing
conditions,
the
effects
of
project
improvements,
all
appropriate
calculations,
a
watershed
map,
proposed
on-‐
and
off-‐site
improvements
and
detention/retention
facilities,
and
other
features
to
protect
downslope
areas
from
degradation
of
storm
water
quality.
• Information
demonstrating
that
the
project
design
would
result
in
drainage
flow
conditions
below
pre-‐project
flow
rates
and
volumes.
• The
SWMP
and
subsequent
site
development
submittals
shall
address
storm
drainage
management
during
construction
and
thereafter
and
shall
include
provisions
for
the
application
of
best
management
practice
(BMP)
measures
to
reduce
erosion,
water
quality
degradation,
etc.
Storm
water
drainage
management,
BMPs,
and
water
quality
control
features
shall
be
identified
for
construction
staging
areas,
building
sites
and
site
improvements.
Permanent
water
quality
control
features,
including
LID
facilities,
described
in
the
report
shall
demonstrate
(at
minimum)
that
the
water
quality
controls
are
adequate
to
prevent
any
increase
in
sediment
or
other
pollutants
to
downslope
areas
over
pre-‐development
conditions.
• Prior
to
the
design
of
new
detention/retention
basins
that
will
serve
the
project
site,
soil
borings
shall
be
taken
at
representative
locations
to
analyze
the
subsurface
soils
that
are
present
and
the
elevation
of
the
subsurface
water
table.
If
these
soil
borings
identify
perched
groundwater
within
2
feet
of
the
proposed
bottom
elevation
of
these
detention/retention
basins,
a
liner,
filter
fabric,
or
other
remedial
measures
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
design
of
the
applicable
storm
water
facilities
to
prevent
intrusion
of
development-‐related
pollutants
to
groundwater.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐29
• Snow
storage
and
management
practices.
Snow
will
be
stored
on-‐site
in
landscape
areas
and
other
undeveloped
areas.
If
the
required
amount
of
snow
storage
cannot
be
handled
on-‐site,
the
applicant
shall
provide
a
long-‐term
snow-‐
hauling
plan
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.130.B.3.b
.
Storm
water
runoff
from
snow
storage
areas
will
be
routed
through
water
quality
treatment
facilities
prior
to
discharge.
Snow
removal
shall
be
further
described
in
a
Maintenance
Agreement
between
the
property
owner
and
the
Town
of
Truckee
as
required
by
Development
Code
Section
18.30.105.B.
• Storm
drainage
from
on-‐site
impervious
surfaces
shall
be
treated
and
infiltrated
through
buffers
or
be
collected
and
routed
through
specially
designed
catch
basins,
vaults,
filters,
etc.
for
entrapment
of
sediment
debris
and
oils/greases.
Maintenance
of
facilities
shall
be
identified.
• All
related
underground
and
surface
drainage
systems
must
be
addressed
in
order
to
ensure
full
integration
of
areas
that
will
generate
runoff.
These
areas
will
include
rooftops,
sidewalks,
cut/fill
slopes,
streets,
parking
lots,
up-‐gradient
off-‐site
source
areas,
and
impervious
landscaping
areas.
• All
required
approvals
associated
with
construction-‐related
storm
water
permit
requirements
of
the
current
federal
Clean
Water
Act
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
program
and
other
associated
permit
approvals
from
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
• All
required
approvals
associated
with
Phase
II
Small
MS4
General
Permit
(Order
2013-‐0001-‐DWQ)
requirements,
which
became
effective
on
July
1,
2013.
This
shall
include
consistency
with
the
Guidance
Document
for
the
permit
that
supersedes
the
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–
2012
(December
2007).
The
text
revisions
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
Section
3.0
Errata
presents
all
text
changes
warranted
by
comments,
including
these
text
additions
and
deletions.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐30
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐31
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐32
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐33
Response
to
Letter
D:
Rob
Wood,
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
Response
D-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-‐3
misidentifies
the
process
for
addressing
the
inadvertent
discovery
of
human
remains
and
should
be
revised.
As
a
result
of
this
comment,
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-‐3
has
been
revised
as
follows:
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-‐3:
If
human
remains
are
discovered
during
the
course
of
construction,
work
shall
be
halted
at
the
site
and
any
nearby
area
reasonably
suspected
to
overlie
adjacent
human
remains
until
the
County
Coroner
has
been
informed
and
has
determined
that
no
investigation
of
the
cause
of
death
is
required.
If
the
remains
are
of
Native
American
origin,
either
of
the
following
steps
will
be
taken:
• The
coroner
will
contact
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
in
order
to
ascertain
the
proper
descendants
from
the
deceased
individual.
The
coroner
will
make
a
recommendation
to
the
landowner
or
the
person
responsible
for
the
excavation
work,
for
means
of
treating
or
disposing
of,
with
appropriate
dignity,
the
human
remains
and
any
associated
grave
goods,
which
may
include
obtaining
a
qualified
archaeologist
or
team
of
archaeologists
to
properly
excavate
the
human
remains.
• The
landowner
shall
retain
a
Native
American
monitor,
and
an
archaeologist,
if
recommended
by
the
Native
American
monitor,
and
rebury
the
Native
American
human
remains
and
any
associated
grave
goods,
with
appropriate
dignity,
on
the
property
and
in
a
location
that
is
not
subject
to
further
subsurface
disturbance
when
any
of
the
following
conditions
occurs:
The
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
is
unable
to
identify
a
descendent.
The
descendant
identified
fails
to
make
a
recommendation.
The
Town
of
Truckee
or
its
authorized
representative
rejects
the
recommendation
of
the
descendant,
and
the
mediation
by
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
fails
to
provide
measures
acceptable
to
the
landowner.
If
human
remains
are
discovered,
all
work
shall
be
halted
immediately
within
50
meters
(165
feet)
of
the
discovery,
the
County
Coroner
must
be
notified,
according
to
Section
5097.98
of
the
State
Public
Resources
Code
and
Section
7050.5
of
California’s
Health
and
Safety
Code.
If
the
remains
are
determined
to
be
Native
American,
the
coroner
will
notify
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission,
and
the
procedures
outlined
in
CEQA
Section
15064.5(d)
and
(e)
shall
be
followed.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐34
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐35
Response
to
Letter
E:
Neil
Kaufman,
Truckee
Donner
Public
Utility
District
Response
E-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
page
5.5
incorrectly
states
that
the
District
operations
three
water
systems.
It
appears
that
the
commenter
is
referring
to
page
5.5
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan,
rather
than
information
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Page
3.12-‐7
in
the
Draft
EIR
correctly
identifies
the
two
water
systems
operated
by
the
District.
This
error
in
the
Specific
Plan
is
noted
by
the
Town.
However,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
document
are
required.
Response
E-‐2:
The
commenter
states
on-‐site
water
lines
are
not
indicated
on
Figure
5-‐4,
as
stated
on
page
5.6.
It
appears
that
the
commenter
is
referring
to
information
contained
in
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
document,
rather
than
the
Draft
EIR.
This
omission
in
the
Specific
Plan
is
noted
by
the
Town.
However,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
document
are
required.
Response
E-‐3:
The
commenter
states
that
the
District
will
require
the
dedication
of
appropriate
easements
to
encompass
all
District-‐owned
pipelines
and
appurtenances
not
located
within
Town
of
Truckee
right-‐of-‐ways.
This
comment
is
noted.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
E-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
the
District
may
also
require
the
dedication
of
lands
for
the
future
construction
of
water
supply
wells.
This
comment
is
noted.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
E-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
the
District’s
Electric
Department
may
have
additional
comments
on
the
proposed
project,
and
may
respond
is
a
separate
letter.
All
comment
letters
received
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
have
been
included
in
this
Final
EIR.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐36
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐37
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐38
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
F:
Blake
Tresan,
Truckee
Sanitary
District
Response
F-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
land
uses
to
the
north
of
the
project
site
along
Joerger
Drive
should
be
described
on
page
2.0-‐1
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
following
text
is
added
to
page
2.0-‐2
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Riverview
Sports
Park
is
located
north
of
the
Plan
Area,
immediately
north
of
Joerger
Drive.
The
Truckee
Sanitary
District
offices
are
located
north
of
the
Plan
Area,
immediately
east
of
Riverview
Sports
Park.
The
Tahoe
Truckee
Unified
School
District
Transportation
center
is
located
north
of
Joerger
Drive,
east
of
the
Truckee
Sanitation
District.
Response
F-‐2:
The
commenter
provides
additional
information
regarding
existing
wastewater
conveyance
in
the
project
vicinity.
The
following
text
is
added
to
page
2.0-‐8
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Wastewater
collected
from
adjacent
properties
to
the
north
and
east
of
the
Plan
Area
is
currently
conveyed
in
a
sewer
interceptor
pipeline
that
runs
in
an
easement
on
Tahoe
Truckee
Airport
District
property
before
crossing
Joerger
Drive,
SR
267,
and
Parcel
2
(now
the
BIZ
zone
of
Parcel
4)
of
the
proposed
project.
Response
F-‐3:
The
commenter
requests
additional
information
be
added
to
the
description
of
Joerger
Drive
on
page
3.11-‐3
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
following
text
is
added
to
page
3.11-‐3
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Joerger
Drive
is
a
two-‐lane
roadway
providing
access
from
Soaring
Way
to
the
Riverview
Sports
Park,
the
Truckee
Sanitation
District,
the
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency,
the
Tahoe
Truckee
Unified
School
District
Transportation
Center,
and
a
privately
operated
quarry.
Joerger
Drive
has
a
posted
speed
limit
of
40
miles
per
hour.
Response
F-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
peak
traffic
conditions
for
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection
should
consider
mid-‐week
traffic
during
the
school
year,
and
that
impacts
should
consider
school
bus
traffic
at
this
intersection.
According
to
the
TTUSD
Bus
Facility
Traffic
Analysis
(LSC
Transportation
Consultants,
Inc.,
2000),
the
largest
addition
of
TTUSD
Transportation
Center
traffic
on
Joerger
Drive
occurs
from
6
AM
to
7
AM,
when
58
vehicle
trips
(24
buses
and
34
passenger
cars)
are
added
to
the
roadway.
In
the
afternoon/evening,
the
peak
hour
of
traffic
generated
by
the
bus
facility
occurs
between
1
PM
and
2
PM,
with
a
total
of
up
to
55
vehicle
trips
(40
inbound
trips
including
9
buses,
and
15
outbound
trips
including
9
buses).
The
maximum
number
of
buses
estimated
to
use
Joerger
Drive
over
the
course
of
an
hour
is
28.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1H
requires
the
PC-‐3
project
proponent
to
construct
a
single-‐lane
roundabout
at
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection.
The
roundabout
will
be
designed
to
accommodate
buses.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐39
Intersection
operations
during
the
school
season
were
not
analyzed
as
a
part
of
the
DEIR,
as
Town
standards
require
analysis
of
summer
traffic
conditions.
However,
traffic
counts
were
conducted
on
Joerger
Drive
during
the
school
season
as
a
part
of
the
TDRPD
Sports
Field
Traffic
Analysis
(LSC
Transportation
Consultants,
Inc.,
2000).
The
PM
peak-‐hour
traffic
volumes
estimated
on
Joerger
Drive
for
that
analysis
(‘with
sports
field’
scenario)
are
higher
than
the
volumes
in
the
DEIR
(‘with
PC-‐3
project’
scenario).
Even
with
the
higher
traffic
volumes
included
in
the
Sports
Field
analysis
and
full
buildout
of
the
PC-‐3
project,
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection
would
operate
at
an
acceptable
LOS
with
a
single-‐lane
roundabout.
That
is,
traffic
conditions
during
the
school
season,
including
the
traffic
associated
with
the
TTUSD
Transportation
Center,
would
be
accommodated
with
implementation
of
the
roundabout
required
in
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1H.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
F-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
single-‐lane
roundabout
at
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection
should
be
designed
to
accommodate
large
truck-‐
trailer
configurations
that
are
commonplace
on
Joerger
Drive
coming
from
the
Quarry.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration.
While
the
roundabout
will
be
constructed
with
the
development
of
the
project,
the
design
of
the
roundabout
has
not
started
at
this
time.
This
comment
does
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
F-‐6:
The
commenter
questions
why
a
6”
sewer
line
would
be
installed
in
Hope
Court.
The
commenter
asks
what
the
purpose
of
this
sewer
line
is,
given
that
the
parcel
adjacent
to
Hope
Court
is
designated
Open
Space.
Earlier
iterations
of
the
proposed
Specific
Plan
included
housing
within
this
parcel,
which
is
now
designated
as
Lifestyle
Commercial
with
a
non-‐profit
center
as
the
targeted
land
use.
As
such,
the
6”
sewer
line
would
need
to
be
extended
to
this
area
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
final
infrastructure
plans
will
be
updated
to
reflect
this
change.
The
commenter
also
states
that
all
development
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267
would
connect
to
either
the
existing
8”
sewer
main
along
Soaring
Way
or
to
the
existing
21”
sewer
interceptor
that
crosses
Joerger
Drive.
The
following
change
is
made
to
page
3.12-‐6
of
the
Draft
EIR:
All
development
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267
would
connect
to
either
the
existing
8”
sewer
main
along
Soaring
Way
or
to
the
existing
21”
sewer
interceptor
that
crosses
Joerger
Drive.
line
in
Joerger
Drive
at
the
north
end
of
the
Plan
Area.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐40
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐41
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐42
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐43
Response
to
Letter
G:
Daniel
Landon,
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
Response
G-‐1:
The
commenter
has
provided
a
copy
of
the
compatibility
analysis
for
the
project
with
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan
(TTALUCP).
The
commenter
notes
that
it
is
staff’s
recommendation
that
the
proposed
project
be
found
conditionally
consistent
with
the
TTALUCP.
The
commenter
does
not
provide
and
specific
comments
related
to
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐44
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐45
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐46
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
H:
Hardy
Bullock,
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
District
Response
H-‐1:
The
commenter
states
support
for
the
findings
outlined
in
the
October
24,
2013
letter
from
Mr.
Landon,
Executive
Director,
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
(Letter
G,
above).
Response
H-‐2:
The
commenter
notes
that
the
Specific
Plan
identifies
multi-‐family
residential
uses
within
CLUP
zone
D,
and
notes
that
over
the
past
36
months,
25%
of
new
households
reporting
annoyance
are
located
within
CLUP
zone
D.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
their
review
of
the
project.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
H-‐3:
The
commenter
notes
that
the
multi-‐family
residential
area
of
the
Specific
Plan
will
routinely
encounter
single
event
type
noise
annoyance
with
flight
operations
in
the
Plan
Area.
The
Draft
EIR
correctly
addressed
the
project’s
consistency
with
the
noise
contours
for
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport,
and
determined
that
the
average
noise
exposure
would
be
below
the
applicable
threshold
of
significance.
The
potential
for
single
event
aircraft
noise
exposure
to
cause
annoyance
to
future
residents
of
the
proposed
multi-‐family
residential
area
shall
be
considered
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
during
their
review
and
consideration
of
the
project.
However,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
H-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
aircraft
departing
on
runway
29
may
appear
low
to
observers
on
the
ground,
and
that
locations
within
the
Plan
Area
will
be
subject
to
low
flying
aircraft
and
maneuvering
aircraft
during
all
weather
conditions
and
times
of
day.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
their
review
of
the
project.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
H-‐5:
The
commenter
notes
that
the
Plan
Area
may
be
subject
to
noise
exposure
from
nighttime
aircraft
operations,
including
medevac
and
snow
removal.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
their
review
of
the
project.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
H-‐6:
The
commenter
notes
that
runway
11
REILS
(runway
end
identifier
lights)
are
clearly
visible
and
very
bright
when
viewed
from
areas
on
or
near
the
Plan
Area.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
their
review
of
the
project.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐47
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐48
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐49
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐50
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐51
Response
to
Letter
I:
Jason
Parker,
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency
Response
I-‐1:
The
commenter
provides
an
overview
of
services
and
infrastructure
provided
by
the
Agency.
Response
I-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
there
may
be
conflicting
information
in
the
Draft
EIR
regarding
traffic
control
improvements
to
the
intersection
of
Soaring
Way
and
Joerger
Drive.
Draft
EIR
pages
ES-‐4
and
ES-‐5
describe
the
roadway
improvements
proposed
in
the
Specific
Plan.
The
Specific
Plan
does
not
include
a
roundabout
at
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection.
Rather,
the
roundabout
is
required
as
a
mitigation
measure
(reference
MM
3.11-‐1H).
The
roundabout
would
be
designed
to
accommodate
left
turns
made
from
eastbound
Soaring
Way
onto
Joerger
Drive.
The
roundabout
would
also
be
designed
to
accommodate
school
buses,
trucks,
and
heavy
equipment.
The
traffic
volumes
at
this
intersection
are
derived
from
traffic
counts
conducted
on
Wednesday,
August
19,
2009.
As
this
is
during
the
summer
season,
the
counts
would
not
have
included
much,
if
any,
traffic
associated
with
the
school
bus
facility.
However,
it
is
noted
that
traffic
volumes
in
Truckee
are
highest
during
the
summer,
which
is
why
the
summer
PM
peak
hour
traffic
volumes
were
used
in
the
EIR
analysis.
The
level
of
traffic
generated
by
the
other
“special
generators”
along
Joerger
Drive,
(such
as
the
TSD,
the
TTSA,
the
sports
park,
or
the
quarry)
during
the
count
period
is
not
known.
However,
a
conservative
growth
rate
(3.2
percent
per
year)
was
applied
to
the
2009
traffic
count
data
to
reflect
2012
conditions.
Beyond
this,
traffic
counts
conducted
on
Joerger
Drive
during
the
school
season
as
a
part
of
the
TDRPD
Sports
Field
Traffic
Analysis
(LSC
Transportation
Consultants,
Inc.,
2000)
were
reviewed.
The
PM
peak-‐hour
traffic
volumes
estimated
on
Joerger
Drive
for
that
analysis
(‘with
sports
field’
scenario)
are
higher
than
the
volumes
in
the
Draft
EIR
(‘with
PC-‐3
project’
scenario).
Even
with
the
higher
traffic
volumes
included
in
the
Sports
Field
analysis,
full
buildout
of
the
PC-‐3
project,
and
a
relatively
high
level
of
heavy
vehicle
traffic
using
Joerger
Drive,
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection
would
operate
at
an
acceptable
LOS
with
a
single-‐lane
roundabout.
Finally,
the
95th-‐percentile
traffic
queues
forming
along
Soaring
Way
during
peak
periods
under
this
scenario
were
reviewed,
and
they
are
not
expected
to
interfere
with
adjacent
intersections.
As
such,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
I-‐3:
The
commenter
states
that
future
development
within
the
Plan
Area
will
increase
wastewater
flows
and
that
more
detail
will
need
to
be
furnished
on
the
proposed
improvements
before
T-‐TSA
can
make
an
assessment
of
adequate
capacity.
The
proposed
project
is
a
planning
level
document,
and
no
specific
development
projects
are
proposed
at
this
time.
As
such,
details
regarding
future
flow
rates
and
number
of
sewer
fixtures
in
future
projects
within
the
Plan
Area
are
not
known
at
this
time.
As
noted
by
the
commenter,
Mitigation
Measure
3.12-‐1
requires
that
future
commercial
and
industrial
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
must
furnish
T-‐TSA
with
details
regarding
the
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐52
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
proposed
uses
and
the
potential
wastewater
generation
of
these
uses,
prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans.
Building
plans
for
future
development
within
the
Plan
Area
will
not
be
approved
until
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
adequate
sewer
conveyance
and
treatment
capacity
is
available
to
serve
future
proposed
projects
within
the
Plan
Area.
Response
I-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
T-‐TSA
does
not
issue
“Will
Serve”
letters,
and
clarifies
that
capacity
allocations
for
sewer
disposal
are
made
on
a
first-‐come,
first-‐serve
basis
for
all
projects
within
T-‐TSA’s
service
area.
In
light
of
this
comment,
Mitigation
Measure
3.12-‐1
has
been
revised
as
follows:
Mitigation
Measure
3.12-‐1:
Prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans
for
Commercial
and
Industrial
uses
within
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
proponent
and/or
business
owner
shall
provide
the
TSD
and
T-‐TSA
with
appropriate
details
of
the
uses
and
wastewater
generated
within
the
commercial
and/or
industrial
area.
Project
proponents
and/or
business
owners
shall
present
facility
layouts
with
tabulated
fixture
unit
counts
and
other
T-‐TSA
billing
factor
counts.
The
methodology
used
to
develop
these
fixture,
factor,
and
flowrates
shall
also
be
submitted.
Prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans,
the
project
proponent
and/or
business
owner
must
receive
verification
from
T-‐TSA
and
the
TSD
that
adequate
capacity
allocations
are
available
to
serve
the
proposed
project.
The
business
is
subject
to
receiving
a
“Will
Serve”
letter
for
the
specific
use/business.
Response
I-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
T-‐TSA
operates
on
a
first-‐come,
first-‐serve
basis,
and
that
once
proposed
wastewater
flow
data
have
been
developed
and
submitted
to
T-‐TSA,
a
capacity
evaluation
needs
to
be
performed
to
determine
whether
any
expansion
or
upgrade
of
the
conveyance,
treatment
and
disposal
facilities
will
be
required
to
serve
each
stage
of
the
Plan
Area
at
the
time
that
individual
development
projects
are
proposed.
As
noted
in
Response
I-‐4
above,
individual
projects
are
required
to
submit
detailed
sewer
information
to
T-‐TSA
and
receive
confirmation
of
adequate
capacity
before
building
permits
are
approved.
Buildout
of
the
PC-‐3
Plan
Area
was
anticipated
and
assumed
in
the
Truckee
General
Plan
EIR.
The
proposed
project
is
within
the
buildout
intensities
assumed
in
the
General
Plan
EIR,
and
is
accounted
for
in
the
2025
buildout
demands
of
the
T-‐TSA
service
area.
While
it
is
not
anticipated
that
buildout
of
the
Plan
Area
would
result
in
the
need
for
offsite
sewer
system
and
treatment
expansions
or
upgrades,
Mitigation
Measure
3.12-‐1
ensures
that
future
development
projects
within
the
Plan
Area
are
analyzed
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis
to
ensure
adequate
sewer
conveyance
and
treatment
capacity
is
in
place.
No
additional
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
I-‐6:
The
commenter
states
that
T-‐TSA
is
not
listed
as
a
“nearby
facility”
on
page
3.6-‐3
of
the
Draft
EIR,
nor
is
T-‐TSA
listed
as
a
user
of
Joerger
Drive
on
page
3.11-‐3
of
the
Draft
EIR.
Page
3.6-‐3
of
the
Draft
EIR
identifies
sites
listed
in
site
cleanup
and
hazardous
materials
regulatory
databases
within
2.5
miles
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
database
search
was
conducted
by
Environmental
Data
Resources,
Inc.
(EDR),
and
was
conducted
for
the
Phase
1
ESA
and
the
corresponding
peer
review
of
the
Phase
I
ESA.
The
T-‐TSA
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐53
facilities
located
approximately
2
miles
to
the
northeast
of
the
Plan
Area
are
not
included
in
the
list
of
hazardous
materials
or
site
cleanup
databases
used
in
the
screening
evaluation
completed
for
the
project’s
Phase
I
ESA,
and
as
such,
were
not
included
on
the
list
of
facilities
provided
on
page
3.6-‐3.
It
is
noted,
however,
that
the
T-‐TSA
site
was
considered
during
preparation
of
the
hazards
analysis
for
the
project’s
EIR,
and
no
significant
hazards
to
the
Plan
Area
would
result
from
T-‐TSA’s
existing
facilities
and
operations.
It
is
also
noted
that
while
the
T-‐TSA
facilities
located
on
Butterfield
Drive,
which
is
accessed
via
Joerger
Drive,
northeast
of
the
Plan
Area,
are
not
specifically
mentioned
on
page
3.11-‐3,
traffic
generated
by
this
facility
was
correctly
accounted
for
in
the
traffic
study
prepared
for
the
Draft
EIR.
As
described
on
page
3.11-‐3,
PM
peak-‐hour
traffic
counts
were
conducted
for
the
traffic
study
during
the
summer
of
2009,
which
included
the
intersection
of
Soaring
Way
and
Joerger
Drive.
The
intersection
of
Soaring
Way
and
Joerger
Drive
is
within
the
Plan
Area,
and
is
the
intersection
most
likely
to
be
impacted
by
traffic
generated
by
the
T-‐TSA
facility
located
to
the
northeast
of
the
Plan
Area.
All
traffic
counts
were
adjusted
to
reflect
10th-‐highest
summer
weekday
PM
peak
hour,
based
upon
hourly
directional
traffic
volumes
collected
along
Donner
Pass
Road
for
the
entire
summer
as
a
part
of
the
2009
Truckee
summer
count
program.
This
data
was
used
to
determine
the
appropriate
adjustment
factor
for
each
intersection
count.
It
was
necessary
to
adjust
the
2009
traffic
volumes
to
reflect
Year
2012
conditions.
Based
upon
a
review
of
historical
annual
count
data
provided
by
Caltrans
for
SR
267
at
various
locations
through
the
study
area,
the
average
annual
growth
rate
from
2009-‐
2011
(the
most
recent
years
for
which
data
is
available)
was
approximately
3.2
percent.
This
growth
rate
was
applied
to
the
2009
intersection
volumes,
in
order
to
convert
them
to
2012
conditions.
The
presence
of
the
existing
T-‐TSA
facilities,
located
approximately
2
miles
northeast
of
the
Plan
Area,
was
taken
into
account
during
preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
I-‐7:
The
commenter
clarifies
that
T-‐TSA
operates
under
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
(WDRs)
issued
by
the
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
rather
than
an
NPDES
permit,
and
further
clarifies
that
T-‐TSA
does
not
directly
discharge
treated
water
to
the
Truckee
River.
In
light
of
this
comment,
the
following
changes
are
made
to
pages
3.12-‐1
and
3.12-‐2
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Page
3.12-‐1:
Sanitary
wastewater
treatment
requirements
are
established
in
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
Permit
or
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
(WDRs)
issued
by
the
RWQCB.
The
permit
also
sets
out
a
framework
for
compliance
and
enforcement.
The
T-‐TSA
implements
and
enforces
a
pretreatment
program
for
effluent
discharged
into
the
WRP.
The
facility
is
currently
in
compliance
with
the
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐54
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
water
quality
requirements
of
the
WDRs
issued
by
the
RWQCB
for
the
protection
of
the
environmentally
sensitive
Lake
Tahoe
and
Truckee
River
Corridor.
Page
3.12-‐2:
Wastewater
discharge
is
regulated
under
the
NPDES
permit
program
for
direct
discharges
into
receiving
waters
and
by
the
National
Pretreatment
Program
for
indirect
discharges
to
a
sewage
treatment
plant.
The
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency
has
a
permit
to
discharge
treated
wastewater
into
the
Truckee
River
corridor.
However,
T-‐TSA
does
not
directly
discharge
treated
water
to
the
Truckee
River.
Instead,
plant
effluent
is
discharged
into
a
subsurface
disposal
field.
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
permitted
under
the
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
for
Small
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(MS4
permit
6A290712005,
Order
No.
2003-‐0005-‐
DWQ-‐02),
which
also
serves
as
a
NPDES
Permit
(No.
CAS000004)
under
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act.
Under
the
provisions
of
this
permit,
the
Town
is
required
to
implement
the
necessary
legal
authority
and
implement
appropriate
procedures,
to
regulate
the
entry
of
pollutants
and
non-‐stormwater
discharges
into
the
Town
stormwater
conveyance
system.
The
changes
identified
above
do
not
alter
or
change
the
analysis
or
conclusions
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Response
I-‐8:
The
commenter
states
that
the
project
may
result
in
cumulative
impacts
to
T-‐TSA
facilities.
The
Draft
EIR
provides
an
analysis
of
overall
cumulative
impacts
of
the
project
taken
together
with
other
past,
present,
and
probable
future
projects
producing
related
impacts,
as
required
by
Section
15130
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
Guidelines
(State
CEQA
Guidelines).
The
goal
of
this
analysis
is
two-‐fold:
first,
to
determine
whether
the
overall
long-‐term
impacts
of
all
such
projects
would
be
cumulatively
significant;
and
second,
to
determine
whether
the
project
itself
would
cause
a
“cumulatively
considerable”
incremental
contribution
to
any
such
cumulatively
significant
impacts.
(See
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Sections
15130[a]-‐[b],
Section
15355[b],
Section
15064[h],
Section
15065[c];
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment
v.
California
Resources
Agency
[2002]
103
Ca1.App.4th
98,
120.)
In
other
words,
the
required
analysis
intends
to
first
create
a
broad
context
in
which
to
assess
the
project’s
incremental
contribution
to
anticipated
cumulative
impacts,
viewed
on
a
geographic
scale
well
beyond
the
project
area
itself,
and
then
to
determine
whether
the
project’s
incremental
contribution
to
any
significant
cumulative
impacts
from
all
projects
is
itself
significant
(i.e.,
“cumulatively
considerable”
in
CEQA
parlance).
Pursuant
to
Section
15130(b)
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines,
“(t)he
discussion
of
cumulative
impacts
shall
reflect
the
severity
of
the
impacts
and
their
likelihood
of
occurrence,
but
the
discussion
need
not
provide
as
great
detail
as
is
provided
for
the
effects
attributable
to
the
project
alone.
The
discussion
should
be
guided
by
the
standards
of
practicality
and
reasonableness,
and
should
focus
on
the
cumulative
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐55
impacts
to
which
the
identified
other
projects
contribute
rather
than
the
attributes
of
other
projects
which
do
not
contribute
to
the
cumulative
impact.”
The
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15130(b)(1)
provides
two
approaches
to
analyzing
cumulative
impacts.
The
first
is
the
list
approach,
which
requires
a
listing
of
past,
present,
and
reasonably
anticipated
future
projects
producing
related
or
cumulative
impacts,
including,
if
necessary,
those
projects
outside
the
control
of
the
agency.
The
second
is
the
plan
approach,
wherein
the
relevant
projections
contained
in
an
adopted
general
plan
or
related
planning
document
that
is
designed
to
evaluate
regional
or
area-‐wide
conditions
contributing
to
the
cumulative
effect.
For
this
project’s
Draft
EIR,
the
plan
approach
has
been
used
to
analyze
cumulative
impacts.
The
cumulative
analysis
for
this
EIR
is
based
on
full
buildout
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan,
as
analyzed
in
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
EIR
(Town
of
Truckee,
2006).
As
described
on
page
4.13-‐12
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
EIR,
“with
the
implementation
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan,
additional
growth
would
occur
that
would
require
additional
wastewater
treatment
capacity.
Currently,
TTSA
is
upgrading
and
expanding
their
existing
facilities
to
increase
handling
capacity
to
be
adequate
to
meet
the
projected
buildout
demands
of
the
service
area
in
2025.1
Given
this,
less-‐
than-‐significant
impacts
related
to
wastewater
treatment
capacity
are
expected.”
As
further
described
on
page
4.13-‐13
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
EIR,
“Future
regional
growth
would
result
in
increased
demand
for
wastewater
services
in
the
Truckee
and
Lake
Tahoe
region.
However,
only
growth
within
the
TTSA
and
TSD
service
districts
would
contribute
to
a
potential
need
for
these
agencies
to
construct
additional
wastewater
facilities.
The
above
analysis
took
into
account
all
future
growth
within
the
TTSA
and
TSD
service
district
and
identified
less
than
significant
impacts.
Therefore,
the
Plan
would
not
contribute
to
a
significant
cumulative
impact
associated
with
wastewater
services.”
The
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
is
consistent
with
the
development
assumptions
for
the
PC-‐3
site
that
were
used
in
the
2025
General
Plan
EIR.
Specifically,
the
land
uses
proposed
by
the
project
are
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
land
use
designations
for
the
Project
site,
as
described
in
Section
3.8
of
the
Draft
EIR,
Land
Use,
and
the
project
would
be
consistent
with
the
cumulative
impacts
that
were
evaluated
in
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
EIR.
Section
15130(d)
and
(e)
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines
provides
the
following
guidance
regarding
analysis
of
cumulative
impacts
that
were
addressed
in
a
prior
EIR:
“(d)
Previously
approved
land
use
documents,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
general
plans,
specific
plans,
regional
transportation
plans,
plans
for
the
reduction
of
1
Tom
Rinne,
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency,
Personal
Communication
with
Shay
Boutillier,
March
22,
2006.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐56
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
and
local
coastal
plans
may
be
used
in
cumulative
impact
analysis.
A
pertinent
discussion
of
cumulative
impacts
contained
in
one
or
more
previously
certified
EIRs
may
be
incorporated
by
reference
pursuant
to
the
provisions
for
tiering
and
program
EIRs.
No
further
cumulative
impacts
analysis
is
required
when
a
project
is
consistent
with
a
general,
specific,
master
or
comparable
programmatic
plan
where
the
lead
agency
determines
that
the
regional
or
areawide
cumulative
impacts
of
the
proposed
project
have
already
been
adequately
addressed,
as
defined
in
section
15152(f),
in
a
certified
EIR
for
that
plan.”
“(e)
If
a
cumulative
impact
was
adequately
addressed
in
a
prior
EIR
for
a
community
plan,
zoning
action,
or
general
plan,
and
the
project
is
consistent
with
that
plan
or
action,
then
an
EIR
for
such
a
project
should
not
further
analyze
that
cumulative
impacts,
as
provided
in
Section
15183(j).”
Section
15168
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines
provides
the
following
guidance
regarding
the
use
of
a
Program
EIR
with
subsequent
environmental
documents:
“(d)
Use
with
Subsequent
EIRs
and
Negative
Declarations.
A
program
EIR
can
be
used
to
simplify
the
task
of
preparing
environmental
documents
on
later
parts
of
the
program.
The
program
EIR
can:
(1)
Provide
the
basis
in
an
Initial
Study
for
determining
whether
the
later
activity
may
have
any
significant
effects.
(2)
Be
incorporated
by
reference
to
deal
with
regional
influences,
secondary
effects,
cumulative
impacts,
broad
alternatives,
and
other
factors
that
apply
to
the
program
as
a
whole.
(3)
Focus
an
EIR
on
a
subsequent
project
to
permit
discussion
solely
of
new
effects
which
had
not
been
considered
before.”
The
Town’s
2025
General
Plan
was
adopted
by
the
Town
Council
on
November
16,
2006
and
reflects
periodic
amendments
through
2013.
An
Environmental
Impact
Report
was
prepared
to
analyze
and
disclose
the
environmental
impacts
associated
with
General
Plan
implementation.
The
General
Plan
land
use
designations
for
the
Project
site
are
consistent
with
the
proposed
project,
as
described
in
greater
detail
under
Impact
3.8-‐2
of
the
Draft
EIR.
Therefore,
the
Project
is
consistent
with
the
environmental
analysis
and
conclusions
of
the
2025
General
Plan
EIR.
The
2025
General
Plan
EIR
(Town
of
Truckee,
2006)
is
hereby
incorporated
by
reference,
consistent
with
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15150,
15168(d)(2).
The
General
Plan
EIR
is
available
for
review
at
the
Town’s
Planning
Department
and
on
the
Town’s
website.
The
General
Plan
EIR
evaluated
the
full
range
of
environmental
impacts
anticipated
with
buildout
of
the
General
Plan
land
uses.
The
proposed
project
would
not
result
in
any
cumulative
impacts
that
are
peculiar
to
the
project
site,
or
are
greater
than
those
cumulative
impacts
identified
in
the
2025
General
Plan
EIR.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐57
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
committed
to
continuing
to
work
collaboratively
with
T-‐TSA
to
ensure
adequate
and
reliable
sewer
conveyance,
treatment,
and
disposal
infrastructure
is
available
throughout
the
Town
and
the
Town’s
SOI.
Mitigation
Measure
3.12-‐1
ensures
that
all
future
development
within
the
Plan
Area
would
be
adequately
served
by
wastewater
infrastructure,
and
that
if
additional
treatment
or
conveyance
capacity
are
required
to
meet
future
growth,
such
improvements
would
be
made
before
building
permits
are
issued
within
the
Plan
Area.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
Response
I-‐9:
The
commenter
states
that
Draft
EIR
Figure
2-‐7
(which
corresponds
to
Specific
Plan
Figure
3-‐7)
shows
a
Class
I
bike
path
located
on
T-‐TSA
property
(Trail
#46),
and
a
recreational
trail
(Trail
#39)
that
may
or
may
not
be
located
on
T-‐TSA
property.
The
commenter
requests
that
these
trails
be
removed
from
future
versions
of
this
figure.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration.
The
Specific
Plan
has
been
revised
and
Figure
3-‐
7
in
the
revised
Specific
Plan
now
shows
the
Town’s
Trail
and
Bikeway
Network.
The
revised
figure
does
not
show
Trail
#46
or
Trail
#
39.
Figure
3-‐7
is
based
upon
the
current
Truckee
Trails
and
Bikeways
Master
Plan
that
was
in
effect
at
the
time
of
the
plan
development.
A
comprehensive
update
to
the
Truckee
Trails
and
Bikeways
Master
Plan
is
currently
underway.
The
new
plan
is
expected
to
be
adopted
in
2015
and
will
reassess
the
appropriateness
of
future
trail
connections,
such
as
Trail
#46
and
Trail
#39.
The
Town
and
the
project
applicant
are
aware
that
any
off-‐site
trail
alignments
may
require
the
acquisition
of
easements,
and
that
future
land
owners
must
be
contacted
and
coordinated
with
to
obtain
any
necessary
off-‐site
easements.
When
future
off-‐site
trail
alignments
are
refined,
the
Town
and
the
project
applicant
will
coordinate
with
T-‐TSA,
and
any
other
affected
parties,
to
determine
if
easements
can
be
granted,
or
if
alternative
trail
alignments
must
be
pursued.
The
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
would
not
result
in
the
implementation
of
either
Trail
#46
or
Trail
#39.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐58
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐59
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐60
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐61
Response
to
Letter
J:
Samuel
Longmire,
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
Response
J-‐1:
The
commenter
provides
an
introduction
to
the
comment
letter,
stating
that
his
agency
submitted
preliminary
comments
on
October
29,
2013,
but
that
those
comments
are
superseded
by
this
letter.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
preliminary
comments
were
completely
incorrect
regarding
model
output
reporting
and
greenhouse
gas
analysis.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
greenhouse
gas
section
of
the
EIR
is
well
done
and
the
model
output
reporting
is
fine.
The
comment
also
notes
that
the
Draft
EIR
as
a
whole
is
well
thought-‐out
and
well
written
with
regard
to
air
quality
issues.
The
commenter’s
agency
applauds
the
inclusion
of
sidewalks,
bike
lanes
and
numerous
traffic
improvement
measures
as
well
as
other
air
quality
mitigation.
This
comment
is
noted.
These
comments
serve
as
an
introduction
to
the
commenter’s
letter
and
do
not
warrant
a
response.
No
further
response
is
necessary.
Response
J-‐2:
The
commenter
indicates
that
some
aspects
of
the
project
are
likely
to
require
permitting
by
the
NSAQMD.
The
commenter
specifically
notes
that
an
Authority
to
Construct/Permit
to
Operate
will
be
required
for
any
gas
station,
and
may
be
required
for
other
sources
of
air
contaminants
such
as
standby
generators
and
spray
booths/coating
operations.
The
commenter
indicates
that
the
NSAQMD
should
be
consulted
for
permitting.
The
commenter
notes
that
required
approvals
from
the
NSAQMD
will
include
the
dust
control
plan
required
under
Rule
226:
Dust
Control.
Page
3.1-‐9
of
the
Draft
EIR
includes
a
discussion
of
the
NSAQMD’s
responsibility
for
compliance
with
both
the
federal
and
state
standards
and
for
ensuring
that
air
quality
conditions
are
maintained.
This
Draft
EIR
discussion
notes
that
the
NSAQMD
adopts
and
enforces
rules
and
regulations,
issues
permits
for
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution,
and
inspects
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution.
Page
3.1-‐9
of
the
Draft
EIR
includes
a
discussion
about
Rule
226:
Dust
Control,
and
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐7
requires
a
fugitive
dust
control
plan
in
accordance
with
Rule
226.
As
noted
by
the
commenter,
permits
for
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution
require
an
Authority
to
Construct/Permit
to
Operate.
The
proposed
project
is
a
specific
plan
and,
while
it
includes
land
uses
that
could
require
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution,
none
are
specifically
proposed
at
this
time.
The
Town
acknowledges
that
all
businesses
in
the
Town
of
Truckee
that
operate
a
stationary
source
are
required
to
have
the
proper
regulatory
permits
from
the
NSAQMD.
If
a
gas
station
or
another
business
with
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution
is
built
within
the
Plan
Area,
it
would
be
subject
to
all
regulatory
permits
needed
to
operate
the
business.
The
Town
of
Truckee
reviews
all
individual
building
plans
and
site
plans
for
proposed
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution
when
they
are
submitted.
Once
the
plans
are
submitted
the
Town
requires
the
applicant
to
obtain
the
proper
regulatory
permits
from
the
NSAQMD.
The
Town
notes
the
above
comments;
however,
this
comment
does
not
warrant
any
modifications
to
the
Draft
EIR
because
no
stationary
sources
are
specifically
proposed,
and
the
requirement
to
obtain
an
Authority
to
Construct/Permit
to
Operate
is
a
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐62
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
standard
regulatory
requirement
of
all
businesses
constructing
and
operating
a
stationary
source
in
the
Town.
No
further
response
is
necessary.
Response
J-‐3:
The
commenter
notes
that
the
project’s
net
calculated
air
quality
impacts
are
considerably
above
the
NSAQMD’s
thresholds
of
significance
and
deemed
unavoidable,
but
suggests
a
mitigation
that
could
be
incorporated
to
reduce
emissions.
The
commenter
specifically
recommends
the
installation
of
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
at
strategic
locations
within
the
project.
The
commenter
encourages
the
Town
to
work
with
the
project
proponent
to
identify
reasonable
offsite
mitigations,
noting
that
a
commitment
to
fully
mitigation
particulate
matter
emissions
will
likely
have
some
collateral
benefits
in
mitigating
other
pollutants.
The
commenter
provides
several
examples
of
offsite
mitigations
used
elsewhere
for
this
purpose.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐4
provides
a
requirement
to
eliminate
or
offset
100%
of
the
PM10
and
PM2.5
emissions
generated
by
the
project.
This
measure
is
consistent
with
these
regarding
particulate
matter
emissions
offsets.
The
comments
regarding
the
installation
of
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
at
strategic
locations
warrant
text
revisions
to
amplify
the
existing
mitigation
measure.
The
addition
of
this
measure
does
not;
however,
change
the
conclusion
from
significant
and
unavoidable.
Revisions
from
Page
3.1-‐15
and
3.1-‐16
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐3:
To
reduce
Mobile
Source
Emissions,
the
project
applicant
shall
implement
the
following:
• Street
shall
be
designed
to
maximize
pedestrian
access
to
transit
stops.
• Provide
for
on-‐site
road
and
off-‐site
bus
turnouts,
passenger
benches
and
shelters
as
demand
and
service
routes
warrant
subject
to
review
and
approval
by
local
transportation
planning
agencies.
• Install
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
at
strategic
locations
within
the
project.
The
number
and
locations
should
be
determined
in
coordination
with
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
the
NSAQMD.
• Safe
and
convenient
bicycle
and
pedestrian
paths/sidewalks
connecting
proposed
residential
uses
to
nearby
trails
and
commercial
land
uses.
• Encourage
telecommuting
and
alternative
work
schedules
(10%
employee
work
9/80)
• Ensure
that
the
final
design
includes:
o Residential
density
at
a
minimum
of
12
units/acre.
o A
walkable
design/improved
pedestrian
network
(i.e.
walkways,
paths,
sidewalks,
trails,
etc.).
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐63
o Destination
accessibility
(connectivity
to/from
project
amenities).
o Increase
transit
accessibility
(ensure
that
the
minimum
distance
to
a
transit/bus
facility
is
.25
miles).
The
text
revisions
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
Section
3.0
Errata
presents
all
text
changes
warranted
by
comments,
including
this
text
deletion.
Response
J-‐4:
The
commenter
indicates
that
the
emissions
analysis
and
the
mitigation
measures
are
not
in
concert.
Specifically,
the
commenter
notes
that
the
air
quality
calculations
take
credit
for
a
Low
VOC
coatings
(50
g/L
flat,
100
g/L
non-‐flat,
and
150
g/L
high
gloss)
and
indicates
that
the
mitigation
measure
in
the
Draft
EIR
require
Placer
County’s
Rule
218
as
a
standard
for
“low
VOC
paint
and
architectural
coatings.”
The
commenter
indicates
that
the
Placer
County
Rule
218
standards
are
100
g/L
flat,
150
g/L
non-‐flat,
and
250
g/L
high
gloss
and
that
these
are
more
stringent
than
the
NSAQMD’s
default
to
state
and
federal
standards,
but
less
stringent
than
50
g/L
flat,
100
g/L
non-‐flat,
and
150
g/L
high
gloss
standards
used
in
the
calculations.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
difference
is
not
substantial
enough
to
change
the
threshold
comparison
metric,
but
that
it
is
not
known
if
the
standard
from
the
mitigation
could
be
met
through
local
suppliers.
The
commenter
indicates
that
they
do
not
recommend
that
the
emissions
be
recalculated
to
adjust
the
VOC
limits
in
architectural
coatings.
The
commenter
notes
that
there
is
a
user
entered
comment
under
Sequestration
that
reads
“SCAQMD
mitigation
tables”
and
requests
that
a
brief
description
of
what
this
refers
to
would
be
helpful
in
understanding
the
meaning.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
SCAQMD
generally
has
more
stringent
controls
than
the
NSAQMD.
The
VOC
limit
for
architectural
coatings
were
established
based
on
the
Placer
County
Rule
218
VOC
standards.
Section
300
identifies
the
standards.
Section
301
presents
two
tables.
The
first
table
identifies
the
standards
that
are
effective
until
July
1,
2011.
These
identify
100
g/L
flat,
150
g/L
non-‐flat,
and
250
g/L
high
gloss.
These
standards
became
obsolete
on
July
2,
2011.
The
second
table
identifies
standards
that
became
effective
after
July
1,
2011.
These
standards
are
clearly
identified
as
50
g/L
flat,
100
g/L
non-‐flat,
and
150
g/L
high
gloss.2
These
are
the
standards
that
were
input
into
the
air
emissions
model.
The
availability
of
supplies
from
local
vendors
is
not
necessarily
a
legally
valid
reason
to
justify
that
these
low
VOC
architectural
coatings
are
not
feasible
and
should
not
be
used.
These
low
VOC
architectural
coatings
are
available
within
a
100-‐mile
radius
of
the
project
site,
which
is
justification
that
the
supplies
are
available
to
the
project.
While
the
incorporation
of
low
VOC
architectural
coatings
may
not
reduce
the
air
emissions
to
an
insignificant
level,
the
total
daily
and
annual
emissions
that
are
eliminated
by
the
use
of
low
VOC
architectural
coatings
is
substantial
and
2
http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/PLA/CURHTML/R218.PDF
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐64
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
should
be
incorporated
into
the
project
to
reduce
project
emissions
and
to
contribute
to
mitigating
cumulative
emissions.
The
reference
to
the
user
entered
comment
under
Sequestration
that
reads
“SCAQMD
mitigation
tables”
is
a
reference
to
mitigation
reduction
inputs
that
were
incorporated
into
the
model.
CALEEMD
was
developed
by
the
SCAQMD,
which
has
provided
a
significant
amount
of
documentation,
including
a
manual,
user
tips,
and
justifications
for
mitigation
that
can
be
incorporated
into
the
model.
The
user
entered
comment
in
the
model
is
a
note
indicating
that
the
mitigation
input,
including
the
percentage
reduction,
is
obtained
from
the
SCAQMD
mitigation
tables.
These
comments
do
not
warrant
any
modifications
to
the
Draft
EIR.
No
further
response
is
necessary.
Response
J-‐5:
The
commenter
presents
some
concerns
regarding
exposure
of
the
public
to
diesel
particulate
matter
(DPM,
a
listed
Toxic
Air
Contaminant)
and
other
toxics
(as
well
as
odors)
from
traffic
and
other
sources
near
the
intersection
of
Joerger
Drive
and
Soaring
Way,
particularly
under
atmospheric
inversion
conditions.
The
commenter
suggests
that
to
more
fully
inform
the
public
and
decision
makers,
this
should
be
addressed
in
the
Final
EIR.
The
commenter
cites
the
presence
of
seasonal
heavy
truck
traffic
associated
with
the
facilities
on
Joerger
Drive
(including
Teichert),
combined
with
benzene
and
other
toxics
from
the
proposed
gas
station,
automobile
exhaust
and
possible
emissions
from
manufacturing
and
other
facilities
yet
to
be
determined,
could
potentially
create
an
area
of
significant
toxic
risk
from
air
contaminants.
The
commenter
cites
the
traffic
report
and
states
that
the
percentage
estimates
of
heavy
vehicles
at
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Road
intersection
is
too
low
based
on
their
casual
daytime
observations,
but
that
even
with
the
2%
assumption
the
intersection
is
identified
as
exceeding
the
LOS
standard.
The
commenter
states
that
the
Tiechert
aggregate
and
asphalt
facility
on
Joerger
Drive
is
quite
large,
and
at
times
(subject
to
market
demand)
the
truck
traffic
to
and
from
Teichert
is
heavy.
The
commenter
states
that
these
times
don’t
necessarily
coincide
with
the
modeled/observed
peak
traffic
hour.
The
commenter
recommends
that
verification
or
“ground-‐truthing”
of
the
truck
traffic
assumptions
be
conducted
through
contacting
the
existing
businesses
and
other
entities
on
Joerger
Drive
regarding
the
number
and
frequency
of
trucks
passing
through
the
intersection.
The
commenter
states
that
if
additional
information
reveals
that
the
situation
at
the
intersection
is
untenable,
one
solution
may
be
to
include
another
access
point
from
Joerger
Drive
onto
northbound
267,
north
of
the
project
where
Joerger
is
close
to
267.
Absent
this,
the
commenter
supports
the
installation
of
a
roundabout
at
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Dr.
intersection.
To
clarify
the
project
description
for
the
commenter,
the
proposed
project
does
not
include
any
plans
for
a
proposed
gas
station.
While
a
gas
station
may
be
a
use
that
is
developed
within
the
specific
plan
area,
no
such
use
has
been
proposed.
The
specific
plan
includes
a
variety
of
allowed
uses
that
could
be
developed
and
it
is
speculative
to
specifically
identify
one
that
has
not
been
specifically
proposed
in
the
project
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐65
description.
Toxic
Air
Contaminants
are
discussed
in
the
Draft
EIR
on
pages
3.1-‐21
through
3.1-‐23.
Page
3.1-‐22
specifically
addresses
the
California
Air
Resources
Board’s
(CARB)
minimum
separation
recommendations
for
siting
gasoline
dispensing
facilities
near
sensitive
receptors.
Table
3.1-‐10
indicates
the
CARB
recommendation
as
follows:
Avoid
siting
new
sensitive
land
uses
within
300
feet
of
a
large
gas
station
(defined
as
a
facility
with
a
throughput
of
3.6
million
gallons
per
year
or
greater).
A
50
foot
separation
is
recommended
for
typical
gas
dispensing
facilities.
If
a
gas
station
is
proposed
at
some
point
in
the
future
within
the
specific
plan
area
it
will
require
an
evaluation
of
the
proposed
gas
station
relative
to
sensitive
land
uses.
The
evaluation
will
need
to
consider
the
size
of
the
gas
station
within
the
evaluation.
The
minimum
recommendation
is
clearly
presented
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
Table
3.1-‐10
and
serves
as
the
performance
standard
for
a
future
determination
as
defined
by
the
regulatory
agency.
If
a
gas
station
is
proposed
within
the
specific
plan
area
that
is
beyond
the
CARB
minimum
separation
recommendation
then
the
development
of
the
gas
station
would
have
a
less
than
significant
impact
related
to
this
issue.
CARB
provides
guidance
in
the
event
that
a
gasoline
dispensing
facility
is
located
within
the
minimum
separation
standard,
which
requires
a
more
detailed
analysis.
It
is
not
appropriate
at
this
time
to
provide
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
the
limitless
scenarios
of
businesses
that
could
be
located
within
the
specific
plan
area.
It
is
appropriate
to
identify
the
performance
standard
that
has
been
established
by
CARB
to
appropriately
site
future
business
such
that
impacts
are
less
than
significant.
In
the
event
that
they
are
not
sited
in
accordance
with
the
performance
standard
established
by
CARB
then
they
will
be
subject
to
further
environmental
review
pursuant
to
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act.
The
traffic
analysis
has
been
prepared
to
a
professional
standard
established
by
the
Institute
of
Traffic
Engineers
(ITE).
This
standard
includes
acceptable
methodologies
for
estimating
traffic
volumes,
daily
trips,
peak
hour
volumes,
and
levels
of
service.
The
traffic
analysis
is
consistent
with
this
professional
standard.
The
Town
acknowledges
that
the
commenter
has
provided
their
opinion
of
truck
traffic
based
on
their
casual
daytime
observation;
however,
casual
daytime
observations
are
not
an
established
methodology
established
by
the
ITE
for
estimating
traffic
volumes
and
it
is
not
an
appropriate
tool
to
use
for
estimating
traffic
volumes
for
this
project.
Likewise,
information
provided
by
local
businesses
relative
to
their
company’s
trips
is
not
source
of
information
that
can
be
found
legally
reliable
because
there
is
no
requirement
or
accountability
for
the
accuracy
of
the
information.
The
estimates
used
in
the
traffic
report
include
trip
counts
collected
from
the
field,
which
are
actual
real
time
trip
counts.
This
is
a
standard
convention
that
the
Town
uses
for
all
projects
that
are
proposed
within
their
jurisdiction.
The
traffic
volumes
at
this
intersection
are
derived
from
traffic
counts
conducted
on
Wednesday,
August
19,
2009.
As
this
is
during
the
summer
season,
the
counts
would
not
have
included
much,
if
any,
traffic
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐66
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
associated
with
the
school
bus
facility.
However,
it
is
noted
that
traffic
volumes
in
Truckee
are
highest
during
the
summer,
which
is
why
the
summer
PM
peak
hour
traffic
volumes
were
used
in
the
EIR
analysis.
The
level
of
traffic
generated
by
the
other
“special
generators”
along
Joerger
Drive,
(such
as
the
TSD,
the
TTSA,
the
sports
park,
or
the
quarry)
during
the
count
period
is
not
known.
However,
a
conservative
growth
rate
(3.2
percent
per
year)
was
applied
to
the
2009
traffic
count
data
to
reflect
2012
conditions.
Beyond
this,
traffic
counts
conducted
on
Joerger
Drive
during
the
school
season
as
a
part
of
the
TDRPD
Sports
Field
Traffic
Analysis
(LSC
Transportation
Consultants,
Inc.,
2000)
were
reviewed.
The
PM
peak-‐hour
traffic
volumes
estimated
on
Joerger
Drive
for
that
analysis
(‘with
sports
field’
scenario)
are
higher
than
the
volumes
in
the
Draft
EIR
(‘with
PC-‐3
project’
scenario).
Even
with
the
higher
traffic
volumes
included
in
the
Sports
Field
analysis,
full
buildout
of
the
PC-‐3
project,
and
a
relatively
high
level
of
heavy
vehicle
traffic
using
Joerger
Drive,
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
intersection
would
operate
at
an
acceptable
LOS
with
a
single-‐lane
roundabout.
Finally,
the
95th-‐percentile
traffic
queues
forming
along
Soaring
Way
during
peak
periods
under
this
scenario
were
reviewed,
and
they
are
not
expected
to
interfere
with
adjacent
intersections.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
a
discussion
of
mobile
source
air
toxics
(MSATs)
on
page
3.1-‐21.
The
Draft
EIR
discussion
identifies
that
the
EPA
has
assessed
an
expansive
list
of
toxics
and
identified
a
group
of
93
compounds
emitted
from
mobile
sources.
The
discussion
also
identifies
that
the
EPA
identified
seven
compounds
with
significant
contributions
from
mobile
sources
that
are
among
the
national
and
regional-‐scale
cancer
risk
drivers
from
their
1999
National
Air
Toxics
Assessment.
These
are
acrolein,
benzene,
1,3-‐
butidiene,
diesel
particulate
matter
plus
diesel
exhaust
organic
gases
(diesel
PM),
formaldehyde,
naphthalene,
and
polycyclic
organic
matter.
The
Draft
EIR
indicates
that
the
EPA
has
established
rules
that
require
controls
that
will
dramatically
decrease
Mobile
Source
Air
Toxics
(MSAT)
emissions
through
cleaner
fuels
and
cleaner
engines
and
that
according
to
an
FHWA
analysis
using
EPA’s
MOBILE6.2
model.
Even
if
vehicle
activity
(VMT)
increases
by
145
percent,
a
combined
reduction
of
72
percent
in
the
total
annual
emission
rate
for
the
priority
MSAT
is
projected
from
1999
to
2050.
The
Draft
EIR
also
indicates
that
California
maintains
stricter
standards
for
clean
fuels
and
emissions
compared
to
the
national
standards,
therefore
it
is
expected
that
MSAT
trends
in
California
will
decrease
consistent
with
or
more
than
the
U.S.
EPA's
national
projections.
The
Draft
EIR
indicates
that
air
toxics
are
of
concern
in
areas
with
major
transportation
routes
where
there
is
a
high
volume
of
large
diesel
truck
trips.
The
Draft
EIR
indicates
that
the
proposed
project
is
located
adjacent
to
State
Route
267,
which
is
not
considered
a
major
toxic
air
concern
because
it
functions
predominately
as
a
local
serving
and
tourism
serving
transportation
corridor
for
passenger
vehicles
from
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
I-‐80,
to
the
Tahoe
area.
The
Draft
EIR
also
indicates
that
some
large
diesel
truck
trips
occur
on
State
Route
267,
but
that
it
is
not
a
major
route
for
large
diesel
trucks.
This
is
supported
by
the
data
contained
in
the
traffic
analysis.
The
Draft
EIR
indicates
that
Interstate
80
is
a
major
transportation
corridor
for
large
diesel
trucks,
and
the
air
toxics
are
of
concern
along
this
corridor,
but
that
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐67
the
project
site
is
beyond
the
screening
distance
from
Interstate
80
and
is
not
considered
a
concern
for
the
proposed
project.
The
analysis
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR
regarding
mobile
source
toxic
air
contaminants
is
adequate.
There
is
no
data
or
other
evidence
that
SR
267
is
a
transportation
corridor
with
major
concern
for
mobile
source
air
toxics.
Likewise,
there
is
no
data
or
other
evidence
that
Joerger
Way
is
a
transportation
corridor
with
major
concern
for
mobile
source
air
toxics.
The
presence
of
Teichert
nearby,
or
the
use
of
a
roadway
by
a
heavy
truck,
does
not
trigger
a
warrant
of
major
concern
for
mobile
source
air
toxics.
Response
J-‐6:
The
commenter
references
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐6
and
states
that
the
measure
is
vague
and
that
there
are
problems
with
the
ability
to
enforce.
The
commenter
provides
alternative
language
that
is
intended
to
modify
and
amplify
the
language
such
that
it
is
clear
and
enforceable.
This
comment
warrants
revisions
to
the
text
as
suggested
by
the
commenter.
The
revisions
are
on
Page
3.1-‐20
of
the
Draft
EIR
as
follows:
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐6:
To
reduce
NOx
emissions
during
the
site
preparation
and
grading
phase
of
construction,
the
contractor
shall
be
required
to
implement
the
following
measures:
• All
off-‐road
construction
equipment
must
utilize
“Diesel
Oxidation
Catalyst”,
and
Tiered
Engine
that
are
certified
to
effectively
reduce
NOx
emissions
by
40%.
engines
must
either
be
CARB
certified
as
at
least
Tier
2
engines
or
be
equipped
with
either
a
Diesel
Oxication
Catalyst
or
a
Diesel
Particulate
Filter
that
is
in
good
repair
and
maintained
according
to
the
manufacturer’s
specifications
and
recommendations.
The
text
revisions
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
Section
3.0
Errata
presents
all
text
changes
warranted
by
comments,
including
this
text
deletion.
Response
J-‐7:
The
commenter
indicates
that
the
Draft
EIR
does
not
go
into
enough
detail
about
how
some
of
the
mitigation
measures
will
be
accomplished.
The
commenter
suggests
that
the
Final
EIR
and/or
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
(MMRP)
include
adequate
detail.
This
Final
EIR
includes
an
MMRP
that
presents
the
mitigation
measure,
timing,
agency
responsible
for
monitoring,
and
an
area
for
verification
that
the
measure
was
implemented.
The
MMRP
is
included
in
Section
4.0
of
this
Final
EIR.
This
comment
does
not
warrant
any
modifications
to
the
Draft
EIR.
No
further
response
is
necessary.
Response
J-‐8:
The
commenter
indicates
that
the
NSAQMD
approves
the
conditions
in
the
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐5
as
a
Dust
Control
Plan
for
the
project
pursuant
to
NSAQMD
Rule
226.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
dust
control
conditions
should
be
included
on
grading
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐68
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
and
improvement
plans
for
each
portion
of
the
project,
preferably
in
their
own
section.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐5
will
be
a
requirement
of
each
individual
project.
The
Town
will
review
individual
grading
and
improvement
plans
for
each
portion
of
the
project.
Each
portion
of
the
project
will
require
its
own
dust
control
plan.
The
dust
control
plan
itself
will
mitigate
the
impact,
regardless
of
whether
the
conditions
are
included
in
the
grading
or
improvement
plans,
and
regardless
of
whether
then
are
in
their
own
section.
The
Town
will,
however,
consider
this
recommendation
to
include
the
dust
control
conditions
on
the
grading
and
improvement
plans
as
a
convention
for
this
and
future
projects.
This
comment
does
not
warrant
any
modifications
to
the
Draft
EIR.
No
further
response
is
necessary.
Response
J-‐9:
The
commenter
requests
that
the
NSAQMD
be
included
on
the
distribution
list
for
the
FEIR
as
well
as
the
MMRP
if
it
is
separate
from
the
Final
EIR.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
Town
will
provide
the
MSAQMD
with
the
Final
EIR
as
well
as
the
MMRP.
This
comment
does
not
warrant
any
modifications
to
the
Draft
EIR.
No
further
response
is
necessary.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐69
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐70
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐71
Response
to
Letter
1:
Ann
Baldwin
Response
1-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
they
have
lived
on
Reynold
Way,
near
the
Plan
Area,
since
2008,
and
expresses
concern
that
a
large
commercial
development
nearby
could
result
in
negative
adverse
impacts.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
1-‐2:
The
commenter
expresses
concern
over
the
development
of
Parcels
1
and
2
(the
BIZ
zones
within
what
is
now
Parcel
4),
and
the
widening
of
Martis
Drive.
The
commenter
expresses
concerns
related
to
peace
and
quiet,
lighting,
traffic
and
pollution.
All
of
the
potential
adverse
impacts
listed
by
the
commenter
have
been
thoroughly
analyzed,
disclosed,
and
mitigated
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Draft
EIR
Section
3.13
for
an
analysis
and
the
mitigation
approach
to
exterior
lighting,
Section
3.9
for
an
analysis
and
the
mitigation
approach
to
noise,
Section
3.1
for
an
analysis
and
mitigation
approach
to
air
quality,
and
Section
3.11
for
an
analysis
and
the
mitigation
approach
to
traffic.
The
commenter
has
not
raised
any
issues
related
to
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
analysis.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
1-‐3:
The
commenter
states
that
the
idea
of
building
42
multi-‐family
residential
units
along
Martis
Road
doesn’t
make
sense,
and
that
these
units
would
have
major
environmental
effects.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
1-‐2,
which
identifies
where
in
the
Draft
EIR
impacts
associated
with
traffic
and
air
quality
are
addressed.
The
commenter’s
concerns
and
questions
regarding
the
location
of
the
required
workforce
housing
units
(multi-‐family
units)
are
noted.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
1-‐4:
The
commenter
notes
the
Plan
Area’s
proximity
to
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport,
and
expresses
concerns
over
safety,
given
past
aircraft
incidents
near
the
Plan
Area.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.6
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
an
analysis
of
the
project’s
consistency
with
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan.
The
commenter
is
also
referred
to
Letters
G
and
H
in
this
Final
EIR,
which
include
concurrence
from
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
District
and
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Commission
regarding
the
project’s
consistency
with
the
safety
requirements
contained
in
the
Truckee
Tahoe
Airport
Land
Use
Compatibility
Plan.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
additional
mitigation
is
required.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
1-‐5:
The
commenter
expresses
concerns
over
construction-‐related
air
quality,
noise,
and
traffic
impacts.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Impact
3.1-‐2
and
Mitigation
Measures
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐72
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐5
through
3.1-‐7
regarding
construction-‐related
air
quality
impacts.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Impact
3.9-‐2
and
Mitigation
Measures
3.9-‐1
and
3.9-‐1
regarding
construction-‐related
noise.
The
commenter
is
also
referred
to
Impact
3.11-‐
7
and
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐2.
All
of
the
construction-‐related
impacts
associated
with
the
project
have
been
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
all
construction-‐related
impacts
would
be
reduced
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
1-‐6:
The
commenter
states
a
desire
to
see
a
final
environmental
impact
report.
This
document
is
the
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report,
and
is
available
for
review
at
the
Truckee
Planning
Department
offices,
and
on
the
Town’s
website.
Response
1-‐7:
The
commenter
states
opposition
to
the
proposed
project.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐73
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐74
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
2:
David
Beres
Response
2-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
they
live
on
Reynold
Way,
in
close
proximity
to
the
Plan
Area,
and
expresses
opposition
to
the
project.
The
commenter
further
states
that
they,
and
neighbors,
may
be
negatively
impacted
by
the
project.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
1-‐2,
which
identifies
the
location
within
the
Draft
EIR
where
impacts
related
to
air
quality,
noise,
and
traffic
are
addressed.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
2-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Initial
Study
concluded
that
the
“Mandatory
Findings
of
Significance”
were
potentially
significant.
All
of
the
topics
listed
in
this
comment
have
been
thoroughly
and
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
mitigation
measures
have
been
incorporated,
as
appropriate
and
feasible.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
2-‐3:
The
commenter
states
a
preference
to
have
individual
homes
developed
west
of
SR
267,
and
industrial
development
kept
east
of
SR
267.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐75
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐76
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐77
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐78
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐79
Response
to
Letter
3:
Nick
Green,
Citizens
Advocating
Rational
Development
Response
3-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
does
not
discuss
any
energy
saving
techniques.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Impact
3.1-‐1,
which
includes
a
detailed
analysis
and
quantification
of
energy-‐related
air
quality
emissions
associated
with
project
operations.
Additionally,
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐2
includes
an
extensive
and
detailed
list
of
energy
conservation
measures
that
must
be
implemented
by
the
project.
Energy
consumption
is
also
addressed
under
Impact
3.5-‐1.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
and
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
Response
3-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
does
not
adequately
address
water
supplies.
Water
supplies
for
the
proposed
project
are
described
on
page
3.12-‐7
and
under
Impacts
3.12-‐3
and
3.12-‐4.
Impact
3.12-‐4
clearly
and
completely
analyzes
both
the
near-‐term
and
cumulative
conditions
related
to
water
supplies,
and
addresses
the
availability
of
water
supplies
to
meet
existing
and
projected
demand.
As
described
on
page
3.12-‐13
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
2011
UWMP
indicates
that
there
are
sufficient
water
supplies
available
to
serve
buildout
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan.
The
proposed
project
is
an
assumed
project
under
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
and
2011
UWMP.
As
such,
the
proposed
project
would
not
result
in
insufficient
water
supplies
available
to
serve
the
project
from
existing
entitlements
and
resources.
The
commenter
states
that
the
EIR
fails
to
determine
reasonably
foreseeable
development
scenarios
for
the
near-‐term
and
long-‐term.
The
near-‐term
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR
accounts
for
existing
development
at
the
time
the
NOP
was
released
for
public
review.
The
existing
environmental
setting
relative
to
each
environmental
topic
addressed
in
the
EIR
is
clearly
identified
in
each
EIR
chapter.
As
described
on
Page
4.0-‐2
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
cumulative
analysis
for
this
EIR
is
based
on
buildout
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan.
The
project
would
not
directly
result
in
the
need
to
develop
additional
water
supply
sources
are
water
supply
infrastructure.
The
commenter
further
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
does
not
discuss
the
effects
of
global
warming
on
water
supplies.
Section
3.5
of
the
Draft
EIR
discusses
regional
greenhouse
gas
(GHG)
emissions
and
climate
change
impacts
that
could
result
from
implementation
of
the
proposed
project.
This
section
provides
a
background
discussion
of
greenhouse
gases
and
climate
change
linkages
and
effects
of
global
climate
change.
This
section
is
organized
with
an
existing
setting,
regulatory
setting,
approach/methodology,
and
impact
analysis.
The
analysis
and
discussion
of
the
GHG
and
climate
change
impacts
in
this
section
focuses
on
the
proposed
project’s
consistency
with
local,
regional,
and
statewide
climate
change
planning
efforts
and
discusses
the
context
of
these
planning
efforts
as
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐80
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
they
relate
to
the
proposed
project,
consistent
with
the
guidance
provided
by
the
CEQA
Guidelines.
As
described
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.5,
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases
(GHGs)
have
the
potential
to
adversely
affect
the
environment
in
a
cumulative
context.
The
emissions
from
a
single
project
will
not
cause
global
climate
change,
however,
GHG
emissions
from
multiple
projects
throughout
the
world
could
result
in
a
cumulative
impact
with
respect
to
global
climate
change.
Therefore,
the
analysis
of
GHGs
and
climate
change
presented
in
this
section
is
presented
in
terms
of
the
proposed
project’s
contribution
to
cumulative
impacts
and
potential
to
result
in
cumulatively
considerable
impacts
related
to
GHGs
and
climate
change.
Cumulative
impacts
are
the
collective
impacts
of
one
or
more
past,
present,
and
future
projects
that,
when
combined,
result
in
adverse
changes
to
the
environment.
In
determining
the
significance
of
a
proposed
project’s
contribution
to
anticipated
adverse
future
conditions,
a
lead
agency
should
generally
undertake
a
two-‐step
analysis.
The
first
question
is
whether
the
combined
effects
from
both
the
proposed
project
and
other
projects
would
be
cumulatively
significant.
If
the
agency
answers
this
inquiry
in
the
affirmative,
the
second
question
is
whether
“the
proposed
project’s
incremental
effects
are
cumulatively
considerable”
and
thus
significant
in
and
of
themselves.
The
cumulative
project
list
for
this
issue
(climate
change)
comprises
anthropogenic
(i.e.,
human-‐made)
GHG
emissions
sources
across
the
globe
and
no
project
alone
would
reasonably
be
expected
to
contribute
to
a
noticeable
incremental
change
to
the
global
climate.
However,
legislation
and
executive
orders
on
the
subject
of
climate
change
in
California
have
established
a
statewide
context
and
process
for
developing
an
enforceable
statewide
cap
on
GHG
emissions.
Given
the
nature
of
environmental
consequences
from
GHGs
and
global
climate
change,
CEQA
requires
that
lead
agencies
consider
evaluating
the
cumulative
impacts
of
GHGs.
Small
contributions
to
this
cumulative
impact
(from
which
significant
effects
are
occurring
and
are
expected
to
worsen
over
time)
may
be
potentially
considerable
and,
therefore,
significant.
Pages
3.5-‐3
through
3.5-‐6
provide
a
discussion
of
the
potential
effects
of
global
climate
change,
including
potential
impacts
to
water
resources.
As
described
under
Impact
3.5-‐1,
the
proposed
project’s
contributions
to
global
climate
change
would
be
less
than
significant
and
less
than
cumulatively
considerable.
As
described
under
Impact
3.5-‐1,
the
proposed
project
is
consistent
with
local,
regional,
and
statewide
plans
to
reduce
GHG
levels.
Impact
3.12-‐4
addresses
the
adequacy
of
the
water
supply
for
the
proposed
project
under
existing
and
cumulative
conditions.
The
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
have
all
been
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
Response
3-‐3:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
does
not
provide
any
support
or
evidence
that
the
Guidelines
utilized
in
the
analysis
are
in
fact
supported
by
substantial
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐81
evidence.
The
thresholds
of
significance
and
the
methodologies
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
air
quality
analysis
are
clearly
described
in
Section
3.1
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
thresholds
of
significance
used
in
the
air
quality
analysis
are
based
on
the
thresholds
established
by
the
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District.
The
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
(NSAQMD)
is
the
local
agency
with
primary
responsibility
for
compliance
with
both
the
federal
and
state
standards
and
for
ensuring
that
air
quality
conditions
are
maintained.
They
do
this
through
a
comprehensive
program
of
planning,
regulation,
enforcement,
technical
innovation,
and
promotion
of
the
understanding
of
air
quality
issues.
Activities
of
the
NSAQMD
include
the
preparation
of
plans
for
the
attainment
of
ambient
air
quality
standards,
adoption
and
enforcement
of
rules
and
regulations
concerning
sources
of
air
pollution,
issuance
of
permits
for
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution,
inspection
of
stationary
sources
of
air
pollution
and
response
to
citizen
complaints,
monitoring
of
ambient
air
quality
and
meteorological
conditions,
and
implementation
of
programs
and
regulations
required
by
the
FCAA
and
CCAA.
This
topics
has
been
thoroughly
and
correctly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
With
respect
to
the
commenter’s
assertion
that
climate
change
and
cumulative
water
supply
issues
are
not
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
the
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
3-‐2.
Response
3-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
the
alternatives
analysis
fails
to
provide
a
discussion
of
the
effects
of
the
project,
or
the
absence
of
the
project
on
surrounding
land
uses,
and
the
potential
for
the
project
to
have
adverse
effects
on
surrounding
land
uses.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Sections
3.1
through
4.0,
which
include
detailed
discussions
and
analysis
of
the
potential
affects
of
the
proposed
project
to
surrounding
land
uses.
CEQA
requires
that
an
EIR
analyze
a
reasonable
range
of
feasible
alternatives
that
meet
most
or
all
project
objectives
while
reducing
or
avoiding
one
or
more
significant
environmental
effects
of
the
project.
The
range
of
alternatives
required
in
an
EIR
is
governed
by
a
“rule
of
reason”
that
requires
an
EIR
to
set
forth
only
those
alternatives
necessary
to
permit
a
reasoned
choice
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15126.6[f]).
Where
a
potential
alternative
was
examined
but
not
chosen
as
one
of
the
range
of
alternatives,
the
CEQA
Guidelines
require
that
the
EIR
briefly
discuss
the
reasons
the
alternative
was
dismissed.
Alternatives
that
are
evaluated
in
the
EIR
must
be
potentially
feasible
alternatives.
However,
not
all
possible
alternatives
need
to
be
analyzed.
An
EIR
must
“set
forth
only
those
alternatives
necessary
to
permit
a
reasoned
choice.”
(CEQA
Guidelines,
Section
15126.6(f).)
The
CEQA
Guidelines
provide
a
definition
for
a
“range
of
reasonable
alternatives”
and,
thus
limit
the
number
and
type
of
alternatives
that
need
to
be
evaluated
in
an
EIR.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐82
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
First
and
foremost,
alternatives
in
an
EIR
must
be
potentially
feasible.
In
the
context
of
CEQA,
“feasible”
is
defined
as:
…
capable
of
being
accomplished
in
a
successful
manner
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time,
taking
into
account
economic,
environmental,
legal,
social
and
technological
factors.
(CEQA
Guidelines
15364)
The
inclusion
of
an
alternative
in
an
EIR
is
not
evidence
that
it
is
feasible
as
a
matter
of
law,
but
rather
reflects
the
judgment
of
lead
agency
staff
that
the
alternative
is
potentially
feasible.
The
final
determination
of
feasibility
will
be
made
by
the
lead
agency
decision-‐making
body
through
the
adoption
of
CEQA
Findings
at
the
time
of
action
on
the
Project.
(Mira
Mar
Mobile
Community
v.
City
of
Oceanside
(2004)
119
Cal.App.4th
477,
489
see
also
CEQA
Guidelines,
§§
15091(a))
(3)(findings
requirement,
where
alternatives
can
be
rejected
as
infeasible);
15126.6
([an
EIR]
must
consider
a
reasonable
range
of
potentially
feasible
alternatives
that
will
foster
informed
decision
making
and
public
participation”).
The
following
factors
may
be
taken
into
consideration
in
the
assessment
of
the
feasibility
of
alternatives:
site
suitability,
economic
viability,
availability
of
infrastructure,
general
plan
consistency,
other
plan
or
regulatory
limitations,
jurisdictional
boundaries,
and
the
ability
of
the
proponent
to
attain
site
control
(Section
15126.6
(f)
(1)).
Equally
important
to
attaining
the
project
objectives
is
the
reduction
of
some
or
all
significant
impacts,
particularly
those
that
could
not
be
mitigated
to
a
less-‐than-‐
significant
level.
The
following
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
of
the
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
Project
are
discussed
in
Chapters
3.1
through
3.13
(project-‐level)
and
Chapter
4
(cumulative-‐level):
Impacts
3.1-‐1
and
4.1:
Project
operations
have
the
potential
to
cause
a
violation
of
an
air
quality
standard
or
contribute
substantially
to
an
existing
or
projected
air
quality
violation.
The
Draft
EIR
analysis
of
alternatives
focuses
on
significant
impacts,
including
both
those
that
can
be
mitigated
to
a
less
than
significant
level
and
those
that
would
remain
significant
even
if
mitigation
is
applied
or
for
which
no
feasible
mitigation
is
available.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐83
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐84
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐85
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐86
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐87
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐88
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐89
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐90
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐91
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐92
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
4:
Dale
Creighton,
SCO
Planning,
Engineering,
and
Surveying
(Project
Applicant
Representative)
Response
4-‐1:
The
commenter
requests
changes
to
the
workforce
housing
requirements
under
Mitigation
Measure
3.8-‐1.
The
Draft
EIR
identifies
the
Town’s
mandatory
workforce
housing
requirements,
which
shall
be
implemented
through
future
project
compliance
with
Chapter
18.216
(workforce
housing).
Following
the
completion
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
workforce
housing
program
was
clarified
in
the
Revised
Project
to
include
construction
of
workforce
housing
units
on
the
RMW-‐20
zoned
parcel.
The
RMW-‐20
parcel
is
zoned
with
a
minimum
density
of
18
units
per
acre
and
a
maximum
of
20
units
per
acre.
Workforce
Housing
Calculation
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
(within
Airport
Zones
B1
and
B2)
Acreage
(outside
of
Airport
Zones
B1
and
B2)
Development
Potential
(excluding
B1/B2
Airport
Zones
at
0.25
FAR)
Full
Time
Equivalent
Employees
Number
of
Required
Workforce
Housing
Units
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
0
16.3
177,507
sf
355.0
50.7
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
0
4.7
51,183
sf
102.4
14.6
Manufacturing/Industrial
(M1)
1.02
8.48
92,347
sf
92.3
13.2
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
8.75
2.45
26,680.5
sf
26.7
17.4
Total
45.7
443,005
sf
576.4
82.3
In
the
Revised
Project,
no
additional
workforce
housing
would
need
to
be
provided
by
future
projects
which
addresses
the
commenter’s
concerns.
Mitigation
Measure
3.8-‐1
has
been
modified
to
read
as:
Mitigation
Measure
3.8-‐1:
A
minimum
of
4.0
acres
shall
be
zoned
RMW-‐20
(Workforce
Multi-‐
Family,
20
units
per
acre)
with
a
minimum/maximum
density
of
18-‐20
dwelling
units
per
acre.
Prior
to
issuance
of
any
building
permits
for
development
on
the
west
side
of
Highway
267,
a
Parcel
or
Final
Map
shall
be
recorded
that
creates
the
4.0
acre
RMW-‐20
site
as
a
stand-‐alone
parcel
with
full
dedicated
public
access
from
Brockway
Road.
of
97
workforce
housing
units
shall
be
constructed
and
offered
for
sale
or
rent
within
the
Plan
Area,
in
accordance
with
the
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐93
requirements
of
Chapter
18.216.050
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code,
concurrently
with
or
prior
to
completion
of
the
development
project
or
phase
thereof.
As
used
in
Chapter
18.216,
“concurrently”
means
that
a
proportionate
share
of
workforce
housing
units,
including
a
proportionate
share
of
units
by
income
affordability,
must
be
substantially
completed
by
the
time
50%
of
the
development
project
is
occupied.
The
Town
of
Truckee,
at
its
own
discretion
may
approve
an
alternative
timing
plan
if
the
Town
finds
the
alternative
timing
plan
will
further
affordable
housing
opportunities
in
the
Town
to
an
equal
or
greater
extent
and
the
completion
of
the
workforce
housing
units
is
secured
by
a
performance
bond
or
other
similar
security.
The
41
residential
multi-‐family
housing
units
proposed
with
the
RM
Zoning
District
shall
be
constructed
and
completed
prior
to
construction
and
occupation
of
42%
of
the
proposed
non-‐
residential
uses
(approximately
193,526
square
feet
of
non-‐residential
uses).
The
remaining
56
workforce
housing
units
shall
be
constructed
concurrent
with
the
development
of
the
remaining
58%
percent
of
the
non-‐residential
development
on
the
project
site.
As
future
applications
for
the
development
of
non-‐residential
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
are
received
by
the
Town,
the
Town
shall
require
project
applicants
to
construct
their
fair-‐share
of
workforce
housing
units
within
the
Plan
Area,
as
required
and
calculated
by
Chapter
18.216.040(B)
and
(C)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
No
project
within
the
Plan
Area
will
be
considered
exempt
from
the
workforce
housing
requirements
identified
in
this
measure.
All
workforce
housing
units
constructed
within
the
Plan
Area
shall
meet
the
affordability
requirements
specified
in
Chapter
18.216.040(D)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
Response
4-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
there
are
errors
in
Table
3.11-‐4
regarding
the
acreages
and
development
potential
for
a
number
of
parcels,
resulting
in
an
overestimation
of
building
square
footage
used
in
the
traffic
analysis
for
the
Draft
EIR.
Since
the
preparation
of
the
EIR,
the
proposed
project
land
uses
have
changed
and
this
comment
is
no
longer
relevant.
Refer
to
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
for
additional
information
regarding
the
traffic
analysis.
Response
4-‐3:
The
commenter
states
that
there
are
errors
in
Table
3.11-‐4
regarding
the
floor
area
ratios
for
the
CS
zone
on
Parcel
14
(now
Parcel
1),
resulting
in
an
overestimation
of
building
square
footage
used
in
the
traffic
analysis
for
the
Draft
EIR.
Since
the
preparation
of
the
EIR,
the
proposed
project
land
uses
have
changed
and
this
comment
is
no
longer
relevant.
Refer
to
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
for
additional
information
regarding
the
traffic
analysis.
Response
4-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
the
numerical
errors
identified
in
Comments
4-‐2
and
4-‐3
adversely
affected
the
traffic
analysis
and
the
corresponding
mitigation
requirements
of
the
project,
and
requests
that
these
errors
be
corrected.
Since
the
preparation
of
the
EIR,
the
proposed
project
land
uses
have
changed
and
this
comment
is
no
longer
relevant.
Refer
to
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
for
additional
information
regarding
the
traffic
analysis.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐94
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
4-‐5:
The
commenter
requests
that
the
public
parking
lot
described
on
page
3.11-‐12
of
the
Draft
EIR
be
removed
from
consideration,
and
states
that
traffic
generated
from
the
proposed
project
is
used
as
a
justification
for
a
variety
of
off-‐site
improvements
throughout
the
Town.
The
commenter
does
not
believe
that
there
is
a
nexus
to
require
such
improvements
based
on
the
traffic
assumptions
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
and
traffic
use
not
generated
by
the
project.
It
is
noted
that
the
land
use
assumptions,
such
as
the
public
parking
lot,
were
included
in
the
project
description
prepared
in
consultation
with
the
project
applicant.
In
addition,
the
traffic
generated
by
the
parking
generates
only
21
PM
peak-‐hour
trips
(less
than
2%
of
the
total
external
trip
generation
of
the
project).
It
is
also
noted
that
the
off-‐site
intersection
improvements
referred
to
in
this
comment
are
needed
under
existing
conditions
without
the
PC-‐3
project.
As
implementation
of
the
PC-‐3
project
would
add
traffic
to
these
intersections,
the
average
delays
on
the
worst
movements
would
increase,
thereby
exacerbating
existing
LOS
deficiencies.
Whether
or
not
the
public
parking
lot
is
assumed
in
PC-‐3
does
not
affect
the
two
mitigation
measures
referred
to
in
this
comment.
Finally,
as
these
intersection
improvements
are
needed
in
2012,
they
are
not
related
to
the
traffic
anticipated
in
the
General
Plan.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
no
additional
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted
in
light
of
this
comment.
Refer
to
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
for
additional
information
regarding
the
traffic
analysis.
Response
4-‐6:
The
commenter
questions
why
the
General
Plan
Land
Use
assumptions
for
the
project
site
differ
from
the
Town’s
current
TransCAD
model,
as
shown
in
Table
3.11-‐12,
and
questions
the
assumptions
used
for
intercepted
pass-‐by
trips.
The
General
Plan
land
use
assumptions
for
PC-‐3
were
generally
developed
by
applying
the
maximum
residential
densities
and
floor
area
ratios
(FAR)
allowed
under
each
General
Plan
designation
to
each
undeveloped
area.
Specifically,
the
first
step
was
to
assume
the
land
uses
allowed
for
the
PC-‐3
site
in
the
1996
General
Plan,
with
a
0.2
FAR.
In
the
next
step,
these
land
uses
were
reduced
by
roughly
25
percent
in
order
to
avoid
the
need
to
widen
SR
267
north
of
Brockway
Road.
The
General
Plan
land
use
assumptions
are
different
from
those
in
the
current
Truckee
TransCAD
model
because
the
TransCAD
model
assumptions
for
PC-‐3
are
based
on
the
January
2011
PC-‐3
Proposed
Zoning
Exhibit
plan
by
SCO
(the
commenter).
The
comparison
of
the
proposed
project-‐generated
traffic
to
the
PC-‐3
traffic
in
the
General
Plan
and
TransCAD
model
is
based
on
trip
generation
at
the
site
driveways
(as
opposed
to
net
trip
generation
on
the
external
roadway
network),
in
order
to
provide
an
“apples-‐to-‐
apples”
comparison.
Reductions
for
pass-‐by
and
intercepted
trips
are
not
applicable
to
the
movements
on
the
site
driveways.
However,
reductions
for
pass-‐by
and
intercepted
trips
are
indeed
included
in
the
traffic
volumes
utilized
in
the
operational
analysis,
and
the
mitigation
measures
are
based
on
traffic
volumes
reflecting
those
reductions.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐95
The
commenter
is
incorrect
that
the
off-‐site
improvements
are
based
on
the
premise
that
the
project
generates
more
traffic
than
anticipated
in
the
General
Plan.
Per
the
original
EIR
traffic
analysis,
improvements
at
the
Glenshire
Drive/Donner
Pass
Road
intersection
and
striping
requirements
at
the
West
River
Street/McIver
Crossing
intersection
are
needed
under
existing
conditions
without
the
PC-‐3
project.
Implementation
of
the
PC-‐3
project
would
exacerbate
the
existing
LOS
deficiencies.
As
these
intersection
improvements
are
needed
in
2012,
they
are
not
related
to
the
traffic
anticipated
in
the
General
Plan
or
in
the
TransCAD
model.
In
addition,
as
seen
in
Table
H
of
the
LSC
Memorandum
(Feb
10,
2014),
the
trip
generation
associated
with
the
proposed
project
as
the
site
access
points
is
actually
less
(by
40%)
than
that
assumed
in
the
General
Plan
and
11%
less
than
the
TransCAD
model.
Response
4-‐7:
The
commenter
questions
the
project’s
obligations
to
provide
improvements
to
the
intersection
of
Glenshire
Drive
and
Donner
Pass
Road,
and
requests
that
the
improvements
to
this
intersection
be
added
to
the
Town’s
Capital
Improvement
Program
(CIP).
Presumably,
the
commenter
is
requesting
that
the
improvement
be
added
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program
(in
addition
to
the
CIP).
The
purpose
of
the
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program
is
to
collect
traffic
impact
fees
from
development
to
use
towards
the
construction
of
long-‐term
traffic
capacity
improvements
required
at
build
out
of
the
General
Plan.
The
Fee
Program
does
not
identify
improvements
that
are
necessary
to
mitigate
project-‐generated,
interim
or
near-‐term
traffic
impacts.
To
mitigate
traffic
impacts
at
the
Donner
Pass
Road/Glenshire
Drive
intersection
at
General
Plan
Build
Out,
the
extension
of
Donner
Pass
Road
from
Bridge
Street
to
Glenshire
Drive
east
of
Donner
Pass
Road
is
included
in
the
existing
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program.
It
is
not
appropriate,
therefore,
to
add
interim
improvements
(provision
of
a
center
turn
lane)
to
the
Fee
Program.
In
addition,
the
extension
of
Donner
Pass
Road
is
a
project
that
is
likely
to
occur
with
the
development
of
the
Railyard
Master
Plan
and
not
as
a
Town-‐sponsored
project.
Therefore,
it
is
not
appropriate
to
include
the
extension
of
the
Donner
Pass
Road
in
the
3-‐year
CIP
at
this
time.
Implementation
of
any
phase
of
the
PC-‐3
project
before
construction
of
the
Donner
Pass
Road
extension
through
the
Railyard
Master
Plan
Area
will
exacerbate
the
LOS
deficiencies
at
the
Donner
Pass
Road/Glenshire
Drive
intersection.
The
two-‐stage
left-‐
turn
movement,
as
required
by
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1A,
is
an
interim
improvement
triggered
by
the
proposed
project’s
exacerbation
of
existing
LOS
deficiencies
at
the
Donner
Pass
Road/Glenshire
Drive
intersection.
This
interim
improvement
is
not
covered
under
the
adopted
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program,
which
means
that
it
is
not
eligible
for
reimbursement.
The
request
to
add
the
Donner
Pass
center
turn
lane
at
Glenshire
Drive
to
the
Town’s
CIP
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
EIR.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
Town
of
Truckee
recently
constructed
improvements
at
the
Donner
Pass
Road/Glenshire
Drive
intersection
to
allow
two-‐stage
left
turns
out
of
Glenshire
Drive.
As
such,
the
intersection
currently
operates
at
adequate
LOS
and
the
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐96
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
project
would
be
required
to
pay
its
fair
share
to
this
improvement
as
opposed
to
constructing
it.
In
light
of
this
comment,
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1A
has
been
revised
to
clarify
the
implementation
of
the
improvements
to
the
Donner
Pass
Road/Glenshire
Drive
intersection
as
follows:
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1A:
The
project
applicant
shall
construct
a
center
turn
lane
on
Donner
Pass
Road
to
allow
two-‐stage
left-‐turn
movements
to
be
made
from
Glenshire
Drive.
The
turn
lane
shall
be
constructed
during
Phase
I
of
project
construction
and
pay
their
fair
share
portion
of
the
constructed
center
turn
lane
improvements
at
the
Donner
Pass
Road/Glenshire
Drive
intersection.
Response
4-‐8:
The
commenter
questions
the
project’s
obligations
to
provide
improvements
to
the
McIver/West
River
Street
intersection,
and
requests
that
the
improvements
to
this
intersection
be
added
to
the
Town’s
Traffic
Mitigation
Fee
Program.
The
purpose
of
the
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program
is
to
collect
traffic
impact
fees
from
development
to
use
towards
the
construction
of
traffic
capacity
improvements
required
at
build
out
of
the
General
Plan.
The
Fee
Program
does
not
identify
improvements
that
are
needed
to
mitigate
project-‐generated,
interim
or
near-‐term
traffic
impacts.
To
mitigate
traffic
impacts
at
the
McIver/West
River
Street
intersection
at
General
Plan
build
out,
a
roundabout
is
included
in
the
existing
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program.
It
is
not
appropriate
to
add
interim
improvements
to
the
fee
program.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1D
requires
that
the
project
proponent
re-‐stripe
the
existing
westbound
left-‐turn
lane
on
West
River
Street
at
its
intersection
with
McIver
Crossing
as
a
two-‐way
left-‐turn
lane
(TWLTL).
This
is
an
interim
improvement
triggered
by
the
project’s
exacerbation
of
existing
LOS
deficiencies
at
this
intersection
and
ensures
adequate
LOS
in
2012.
This
interim
improvement
is
not
covered
under
the
adopted
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program,
which
means
that
it
is
not
eligible
for
reimbursement.
The
request
to
add
the
McIver
Crossing/West
River
Street
Intersection
re-‐striping
in
the
Town’s
CIP
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
EIR;
the
project
proponent
would
need
to
make
a
formal
request
to
the
Town
Council
for
consideration
of
this
action.
Construction
of
a
single-‐lane
roundabout
is
included
in
the
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program
and
construction
costs
of
this
improvement
are
eligible
for
reimbursement
under
the
CIP.
In
light
of
this
comment,
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1D
has
been
revised
to
clarify
the
implementation
timing
for
this
improvement.
As
shown
in
Section
3.0,
the
construction
of
this
improvement
may
occur
following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels
on
the
PC-‐3
site,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
of
the
site
and
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site.
Response
4-‐9:
The
commenter
cites
policies
from
the
General
Plan
related
to
intersection
improvements
and
roundabouts.
Additional
responses
related
to
points
raised
by
the
commenter
following
this
comment
are
provided
below.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐97
Response
4-‐10:
The
commenter
states
that
the
traffic
volumes
listed
in
Table
3.11-‐4
do
not
accurately
reflect
traffic
volumes
generated
by
the
PC-‐3
project,
and
questions
the
required
mitigation
measures
for
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection.
Since
the
preparation
of
the
EIR,
the
proposed
project
land
uses
have
changed
and
this
comment
is
no
longer
relevant.
Refer
to
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
for
additional
information
regarding
the
traffic
analysis.
Implementation
of
the
PC-‐3
project
would
cause
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
to
exceed
the
LOS
threshold
in
2012.
Removal
of
the
existing
traffic
signal
and
construction
of
a
multi-‐
lane
(two-‐lane)
roundabout
would
improve
the
LOS
to
an
acceptable
level.
Specifically,
a
dual-‐lane
roundabout
would
provide
an
acceptable
LOS
(LOS
C)
with
the
PC-‐3
project
in
2012.
In
2032,
the
LOS
standards
would
be
exceeded
with
a
dual-‐lane
roundabout
(even
with
auxiliary
lanes).
That
is,
a
multi-‐lane
roundabout
with
more
than
two
circulating
lanes
would
be
needed
in
2032.
A
roundabout
at
this
intersection
is
included
in
the
Town’s
traffic
impact
fee
program.
Provision
of
capacity-‐enhancing
improvements
to
the
existing
signalized
intersection
would
also
improve
the
LOS
to
an
acceptable
level.
Specifically,
the
following
improvements
would
be
needed
to
the
existing
intersection
to
provide
adequate
LOS
with
a
traffic
signal:
provision
of
separate
left-‐
and
right-‐turn
lanes
on
the
eastbound
and
westbound
approaches
in
2012
(no
widening
needed
on
SR
267),
and
in
addition
to
these
improvements
provide
two
through
lanes
on
the
northbound
and
southbound
approaches
in
2032.
Truckee
General
Plan
Policy
P7.1
includes
language
which
strives
to
replace
existing
traffic
signals
with
roundabouts,
including
traffic
signals
on
State
Highways.
General
Plan
Policy
P7.2
states,
“Install
roundabouts
instead
of
new
traffic
signals
or
capacity-‐
enhancing
improvements
to
existing
signalized
intersections,
when
roundabouts
will
achieve
the
same
or
better
Level
of
Service
as
a
traffic
signal,
where
it
is
physically
feasible
to
do
so,
and
when
installation
of
the
roundabout
will
not
be
substantially
costlier
than
a
signal.”
Note
that
the
roundabout
would
achieve
the
same
Level
of
Service
as
adding
lanes
to
the
existing
signalized
intersection
in
2012.
As
shown
in
Section
3.0,
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1E
has
been
revised
to
include
the
following
language:
The
construction
of
additional
through
and
turning
lanes
may
be
allowed
as
an
interim
improvement
if
the
project
proponent
can
demonstrate
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Town
that
the
additional
through
and
turning
lanes
would
be
substantially
less
costly
than
the
construction
of
a
roundabout,
and
would
achieve
an
acceptable
level
of
service
at
this
intersection.
Response
4-‐11:
The
commenter
states
that
an
analysis
of
roundabout
construction
feasibility
and
costs
has
not
been
completed
at
the
intersection
of
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way,
and
that
the
construction
of
a
roundabout
at
this
intersection
may
substantially
more
expensive
than
adding
additional
through
and
turning
lanes.
The
commenter
requests
the
text
on
page
3.11-‐45
be
revised
to
provide
a
range
of
options
for
providing
improvements
to
this
intersection.
As
the
construction
of
a
roundabout
is
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐98
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
included
in
the
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program,
payment
of
Traffic
Impact
Fees
will
contribute
towards
the
long
term
LOS
mitigation.
Because
of
the
higher
costs
associated
with
the
construction
of
a
roundabout,
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
the
provision
of
additional
turn
lanes
as
interim
improvements
as
an
alternative
mitigation.
However,
dual
left
turn
lanes
will
not
be
allowed.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
4-‐10,
which
identifies
changes
made
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1E.
Response
4-‐12:
The
commenter
states
that
the
intersection
of
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
will
need
to
be
improved
in
the
20-‐year
horizon,
and
the
owners
of
PC-‐3
will
not
be
responsible
to
bear
the
cost
of
these
improvements.
The
commenter
requests
that
this
intersection
improvement
be
studied
in
greater
detail,
and
added
to
the
Town’s
CIP,
which
would
allow
the
PC-‐3
project
to
pay
a
fair
share
contribution.
Future
development
within
the
Specific
Plan
Area
may
prepare
additional
analysis
of
this
intersection
to
determine
if
specific
projects
trigger
the
need
for
improvements
to
the
intersection.
If
LOS
thresholds
are
not
determined
to
be
exceeded
under
plus
project
conditions,
improvements
may
not
be
necessary.
If
LOS
thresholds
are
exceeded
the
specific
project
will
be
required
to
construct
improvement
to
provide
adequate
LOS.
All
four
quadrants
of
the
SR
267/Soaring
Way
intersection
are
included
in
the
Specific
Plan
area
and
it
is
appropriate
to
require
capacity
improvements
be
constructed
with
the
development
of
the
plan.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
4-‐10,
which
identifies
changes
made
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1E.
Response
4-‐13:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Pinyon
Creek
project
was
required
to
contribute
funds
for
future
intersection
improvements
at
Hope
Court,
and
that
these
funds
should
be
made
available
to
implement
the
improvements
identified
under
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F.
The
commenter
requests
that
this
mitigation
measure
be
amended
to
incorporate
a
reimbursement
agreement.
A
condition
of
approval
of
the
Pinyon
Creek
project
was
to
pay
traffic
impact
fees
towards
the
provision
of
a
left
turn
lane
at
the
intersection,
which
will
be
provided
by
the
Town
to
any
entity
that
constructs
a
left-‐
turn
lane
or
roundabout
at
this
intersection.
No
revisions
to
this
mitigation
measure
are
warranted.
Response
4-‐14:
The
commenter
states
that
land
adjacent
to
Soaring
Way,
which
is
owned
by
the
Truckee
Airport
District,
has
significant
development
potential,
and
requests
that
mitigation
measures
be
amended
to
incorporate
a
reimbursement
agreement
so
projects
that
contribute
to
and
benefit
from
this
improvement
pay
their
fair
share.
The
airport
is
not
within
the
Town’s
jurisdiction
and
the
Town
has
no
control
over
the
airport
or
their
land
use
decisions/actions.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
4-‐15:
The
commenter
requests
changes
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1A
that
would
require
the
applicant
to
make
a
fair-‐share
payment
towards
improvements
to
the
intersection
of
Donner
Pass
Road
and
Glenshire
Drive.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
4-‐
7.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐99
Response
4-‐16:
The
commenter
requests
changes
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1D
that
would
require
the
applicant
to
make
a
fair-‐share
payment
towards
improvements
to
the
intersection
of
West
River
Street
and
McIver
Crossing.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
4-‐8.
Response
4-‐17:
The
commenter
requests
changes
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F
that
would
require
a
reimbursement
agreement
for
improvements
made
to
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court/Site
Access.
In
light
of
this
comment,
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F
has
been
replaced
with
the
following:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
parcels
located
on
the
west
side
of
SR
267,
a
Brockway
Road
Corridor
Study
shall
be
completed.
The
study
shall
evaluate
two
potential
Martis
Drive
alignment
options.
One
option
would
align
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
near
the
existing
winery
access.
The
second
option
would
evaluate
the
alignment
of
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection.
Pursuant
of
the
Mountain
Home
Center
Planning
Commission
Resolution
2005-‐14,
improvements
to
Martis
Drive
should
consider
the
provision
of
a
shared
access
with
Mountain
Home
Center.
The
provision
of
a
shared
access
would
require
the
closure
of
the
Mountain
Home
Center
access
off
Brockway
Road.
The
following
should
be
evaluated,
at
a
minimum,
for
each
of
the
potential
Martis
Drive
alignments:
• Intersection
Level
of
Service
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road,
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court,
and
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
intersections
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
The
analysis
shall
identify
intersection
mitigation
measures
that
are
necessary
to
maintain
adequate
LOS.
Two-‐way
left-‐turn
lanes
may
be
appropriate
under
certain
conditions
along
Brockway
Road
they
shall
not
be
considered
a
valid
method
for
mitigation
LOS.
Two-‐way
left
turn
lanes
shall
only
be
considered
at
intersections
with
low
traffic
turning-‐movement
volumes.
• Turn
lane
warrants
shall
be
evaluated
to
determine
where
left
and
right-‐turn
lanes
are
required
for
reasons
beyond
meeting
Level
of
Service
thresholds.
• Location
and
extent
of
necessary
snow
storage
easements.
• Locations
of
Class
I
trails
connections
and
trail
crossings
on
the
west
side
of
SR
267,
as
well
as
the
evaluation
of
medians,
pedestrian
actuated
flashing
lights,
and
other
features
to
facilitate
those
crossings.
Appropriate
crosswalk
locations
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
intersection.
• 30
percent
design
of
SR
267/Brockway,
Brockway/Hope
Court,
and
Brockway/Martis
Drive
intersections
and
trails
with
adequate
detail
such
that
right
of
way
and
easement
requirements
can
be
accurately
identified.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐100
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• Evaluation
of
any
additional
utility
easements
(outside
road
right
of
way)
that
might
be
necessary.
The
improvements
that
are
required
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site
will
be
determined
by
the
Town
Engineer
based
upon
the
results
of
this
study.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
parcels
located
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267,
a
Brockway
Road
Corridor
Study
shall
be
completed
that
identifies,
at
a
minimum,
the
following:
• Intersection
Level
of
Service
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
and
Joerger
Drive/Soaring
Way
intersections
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
Intersection
Level
of
Service
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
The
analysis
shall
identify
intersection
mitigation
measures
that
are
necessary
to
maintain
adequate
LOS.
Two-‐way
left-‐turn
lanes
may
be
appropriate
under
certain
conditions
along
Brockway
Road
they
shall
not
be
considered
a
valid
method
for
mitigation
LOS.
Two-‐way
left
turn
lanes
shall
only
be
considered
at
intersections
with
low
traffic
turning-‐movement
volumes.
• Turn
lane
warrants
shall
be
evaluated
to
determine
where
left
and
right-‐turn
lanes
are
required
for
reasons
beyond
meeting
Level
of
Service
thresholds.
• Locations
of
Class
I
trails
connections
and
trail
crossings
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267,
as
well
as
the
evaluation
of
medians,
pedestrian
actuated
flashing
lights,
and
other
features
to
facilitate
those
crossings.
Appropriate
crosswalk
locations
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
intersection.
• 30
percent
design
of
SR
267/Brockway
and
Joerger
Drive/Soaring
Way
intersections
and
trails
with
adequate
detail
such
that
right
of
way
and
easement
requirements
can
be
accurately
identified.
Response
4-‐18:
The
commenter
requests
changes
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1G.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
4-‐19:
The
commenter
requests
changes
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1H.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
4-‐20:
The
commenter
requests
changes
to
Table
3.11-‐18
and
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1E
to
also
allow
consideration
of
through
and
turn
lanes.
The
mitigation
measures
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
were
revised
as
a
part
of
the
“follow-‐
up”
traffic
analysis
(reference
LSC
Memorandum
Feb
10,
2014).
The
extent
of
the
lane
improvements
required
to
provide
an
acceptable
LOS
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐101
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
was
reduced.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
4-‐10.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐102
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐103
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐104
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
5:
Ellen
Hyatt
Response
5-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
the
potential
for
light
industrial
uses,
large
box-‐type
buildings,
and
potential
auto
dealerships
within
the
Plan
Area
would
not
enhance
the
visual
character
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
commenter
expresses
concern
that
the
proposed
project
is
not
supportive
of
the
goals
established
in
the
Community
Character
Element
of
the
General
Plan.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.13
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
a
detailed
analysis
and
discussion
of
the
potential
visual
impacts
of
the
proposed
project,
including
an
analysis
of
the
project’s
consistency
with
applicable
General
Plan
policies,
and
visual
simulations
depicting
potential
future
site
conditions
following
the
construction
of
buildings.
The
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
includes
detailed
Design
Guidelines,
which
are
intended
to
ensure
that
future
development
within
the
Plan
Area
is
constructed
in
a
manner
that
would
be
visually
pleasing,
and
compatible
with
the
character
of
Truckee.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
potential
visual
impacts
of
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
5-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
distribution
buildings
and
centers
for
alcohol/spirits
do
not
appear
to
be
in
maintaining
Truckee’s
character,
and
expresses
general
concern
over
noise
impacts.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.9
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
a
detailed
and
quantified
analysis
of
potential
noise
generated
by
the
proposed
project,
include
traffic-‐related
noise
and
noise
from
operation
of
the
potential
future
land
uses
within
the
Plan
Area.
Mitigation
measures
have
been
included
to
reduce
noise
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
The
commenter’s
concerns
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
5-‐3:
The
commenter
questions
if
the
proposed
project
will
create
a
distinct
and
positive
sense
of
arrival
into
Truckee.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
5-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
the
crossing
at
the
intersection
of
Brockway
and
SR
267
is
dangerous
and
that
traffic
in
this
area
can
become
backed
up
during
winter
months
and
busy
summer
days.
The
commenter
expresses
concern
that
the
project
would
add
traffic
to
this
intersection
and
exacerbate
these
conditions.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.11
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
the
revised
and
updated
Traffic
Impact
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐105
memo
included
in
Section
3.0
in
this
Final
EIR.
The
intersection
of
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
was
addressed
in
detail
in
the
Draft
EIR
and
subsequent
traffic
analysis
memo.
As
described
in
the
revised
traffic
analysis
memo
in
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR,
implementation
of
the
proposed
project
would
cause
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
to
exceed
the
LOS
threshold
under
existing
plus
project
conditions.
Removal
of
the
existing
traffic
signal
and
construction
of
a
multi-‐
lane
roundabout
would
provide
an
acceptable
LOS
(LOS
C)
with
the
addition
of
project-‐generated
traffic
under
existing
(2012)
conditions.
A
roundabout
at
this
intersection
is
included
in
the
Town’s
traffic
impact
fee
program,
and
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1E
requires
the
project
to
construct
improvements
to
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection,
as
identified
in
General
Plan
Table
CIR-‐
5
(which
indicates
construction
of
a
roundabout
or
additional
through
and
turning
lanes).
The
implementation
of
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1E
would
reduce
existing
plus
project
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
However,
under
cumulative
(2032)
conditions,
the
LOS
standards
at
this
intersection
would
be
exceeded
with
a
dual-‐lane
roundabout
(even
with
auxiliary
lanes)
under
cumulative
no-‐project
conditions.
In
other
words,
a
multi-‐lane
roundabout
with
more
than
two
circulating
lands
would
be
needed
in
2032,
and
the
LOS
standard
for
this
intersection
would
be
exceeded
under
cumulative
conditions,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
the
project
was
constructed.
As
such,
the
project’s
contribution
to
this
cumulative
impact
is
less
than
cumulatively
considerable.
The
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
have
been
thoroughly
addressed
and
disclosed
in
the
Draft
EIR
and
the
subsequent
revised
traffic
analysis.
No
additional
changes
or
mitigation
measures
are
required.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
project
will
be
required
to
pay
Traffic
Impact
Fees
which
will
be
used
to
fund
a
number
of
capacity
improvements
along
the
SR
267
corridor,
including
widening
of
SR
267
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
and
intersection
improvements
at
Interstate
80
and
Airport
Road/Schaffer
Mill
Road.
Response
5-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
areas
of
the
Plan
Area
contain
tree
stands
and
vegetation,
which
should
be
preserved
to
provide
visual
and
noise
screening.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Impact
3.13-‐2,
which
provides
an
expanded
discussion
of
the
visual
screening
that
would
occur
following
implementation
of
the
project.
As
shown
in
Figures
2-‐6
and
2-‐7
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
Plan
Area
includes
a
buffer
strip
of
open
space
along
the
SR
267
corridor.
The
most
dense
and
concentrated
stands
of
pine
trees
are
located
within
the
buffer
strip,
and
the
existing
pine
trees
within
this
open
space
buffer
strip
would
be
retained
to
help
visually
screen
the
project
site
from
SR
267.
It
is
also
noted
that
the
proposed
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
includes
detailed
landscaping
standards,
which
would
require
addition
tree
plantings
and
new
vegetation
within
interior
areas
of
the
Plan
Area
to
enhance
the
visual
quality
of
the
site.
Also,
there
is
approximately
20
acres
of
open
space
in
the
Revised
Project
that
will
preserve
views
along
the
SR
267
corridor.
This
impact
has
been
thoroughly
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐106
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
5-‐6:
The
commenter
states
that
they
could
not
locate
an
archeological
study
in
the
EIR,
and
notes
the
potential
for
artifacts
to
be
located
in
the
project
area.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.3
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
a
detailed
description
of
potential
archaeological
and
cultural/historical
resources
potentially
present
in
the
project
vicinity.
As
described
in
Section
3.3
of
the
Draft
EIR,
a
cultural
resources
assessment
study
performed
by
Kautz
Environmental
Consultants
(KEC)
in
2002
entitled:
Cultural
Resources
Survey
of
the
Joerger
Project,
Truckee,
California.
The
study
was
peer
reviewed
by
Peak
&
Associates
in
October
2006
and
by
De
Novo
Planning
Group
in
August
2011.
As
described
in
Section
3.3,
under
Impact
3.3-‐1,
the
field
survey
on
the
project
site
found
two
historic-‐aged
archaeological
sites
that
were
recorded,
both
consisting
of
small
scatters
of
refuse.
A
brief
description
of
each
site
is
presented
in
Section
3.3
of
the
Draft
EIR.
In
addition,
four
historic-‐aged
isolated
finds
are
described
in
Section
3.3
of
the
Draft
EIR.
No
prehistoric
materials
of
any
kind
were
observed.
Both
sites
are
small
secondary
scatters
of
refuse.
Both
cultural
deposits
appear
to
be
confined
to
the
present-‐day
surface.
None
of
the
artifacts
are
unique
to
distinctive.
The
different
classes
of
artifacts
represented,
as
well
as
the
different
time
periods
indicated
by
the
manufacturing
details
of
the
cans,
glass
and
other
items,
strongly
suggest
that
the
sites
are
a
palimpsest
of
unrelated
artifact,
either
accumulated
in
multiple
episodes
of
trash
disposal,
or
collected
elsewhere
and
re-‐deposited
as
a
group
(i.e.
a
secondary
deposit).
These
two
sites
have
no
meaningful
relationship
to
any
of
the
historic
themes
identified
for
the
project
area:
transportation,
timber,
ice,
or
tourism.
The
sites
have
no
known
relationship
to
any
historically
significant
person
or
event.
The
integrity
of
the
sites
remains
uncertain;
i.e.,
the
assemblages
seem
to
be
composed
of
an
unrelated
mix
of
artifact
classes
and
time
periods.
The
sites
do
not
qualify
for
nomination
to
the
NRHP
under
any
of
its
four
criteria,
nor
do
the
sites
conform
to
any
of
the
CEQA
guidelines.
Consequently,
both
sites
are
recommended
as
non-‐significant,
and
no
further
measures
seem
necessary
to
avoid
or
conserve
them.
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-‐1
includes
measures
and
procedures
that
must
be
followed
in
the
event
that
a
cultural
resource
is
discovered
during
the
course
of
construction,
which
would
mitigate
any
impacts
to
a
cultural
or
archaeological
resource
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
This
topic
has
been
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐107
Response
5-‐7:
The
commenter
encourages
a
less
intense
development
of
the
project
site
in
order
to
retain
Truckee’s
unique
mountain
community
feel.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐108
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐109
Response
to
Letter
6:
Laurel
and
Tom
Lippert
Response
6-‐1:
The
commenter
expresses
opposition
to
the
project
and
concerns
that
the
project
may
adversely
impact
the
adjacent
neighborhood
near
Reynold
Way.
The
potential
for
the
proposed
project
to
result
in
significant
impacts
to
adjacent
land
uses
has
been
thoroughly
addressed
throughout
the
Draft
EIR.
The
General
Plan
has
identified
PC-‐3
as
an
appropriate
site
for
commercial
and
industrial
development
to
ensure
there
is
sufficient
land
available
for
General
Plan
buildout.
The
Specific
Plan
includes
buffer
areas
along
the
northwest
corner
of
the
Business
Innovation
(BIZ)
zone,
and
a
designated
building
envelope
with
a
35-‐footheight
limit,
nighttime
activity
restrictions,
and
parking/loading
limitations
to
address
potential
noise,
light/glare,
and
visual
impacts
to
adjacent
residences.
In
addition,
Martis
Valley
Drive
is
proposed
with
two
12-‐foot
wide
travel
lanes
for
a
total
of
24-‐feet
of
road
pavement.
Although
the
applicant
will
be
required
to
dedicate
60-‐feet
of
right-‐of-‐way
to
the
Town
to
accommodate
the
travel
lanes,
sidewalk,
shoulder,
10-‐foot
wide
Class
I
bicycle
path,
etc.,
the
road
itself
will
only
be
24-‐feet
wide
which
is
similar
to
other
Town
minor
arterial
roads.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐110
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐111
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐112
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
7:
Dale
Munsterman
Response
7-‐1:
The
commenter
states
that
the
supporting
map
documentation
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
is
out
of
date,
as
it
fails
to
show
the
Ponderosa
Meadows
subdivision,
which
is
located
immediately
west
of
the
Plan
Area.
It
is
assumed
that
the
commenter
is
referring
to
Figure
2-‐4
in
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
an
aerial
map
of
the
surrounding
areas.
The
commenter
is
correct
that
the
recently-‐constructed
Ponderosa
Meadows
subdivision
is
not
shown
on
the
map.
The
reference
map
(Figure
2-‐4)
was
created
concurrent
with
the
Notice
of
Preparation
for
the
project,
in
May
2012.
The
data
sources
for
the
map
are
ArcGIS
Online
BING
Aerials,
ESRI
Streetmap
North
America,
and
Nevada
County
GIS
data,
as
indicated
on
the
map.
It
is
common
for
these
industry-‐standard
data
sources
to
include
aerial
imagery
that
is
not
always
completely
current.
However,
the
existing
Ponderosa
Meadows
subdivision
to
the
west
of
the
Plan
Area
was
absolutely
considered
and
analyzed
during
preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR.
For
example,
surrounding
land
uses
are
described
on
pages
2.0-‐1
and
2.0-‐2
of
the
Draft
EIR.
As
noted
on
page
2.0-‐1,
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.
The
Ponderosa
Meadows
subdivision
is
within
the
Brockway
Road
corridor,
and
like
other
existing
subdivisions,
was
not
necessarily
identified
by
name
in
the
Draft
EIR
text.
Figure
2-‐4
in
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
has
been
updated
to
show
the
location
of
townhomes
to
the
west
of
the
Plan
Area.
It
is
also
noted
that
noise
measurements
and
monitoring
conducted
for
the
Draft
EIR
were
particularly
sensitive
to
the
existing
residential
uses
located
immediately
west
of
the
Plan
Area.
For
example,
as
shown
on
Figure
3.9-‐1,
a
Noise
Measurement
site
was
established
within
400
feet
of
the
Ponderosa
Meadows
subdivision
in
order
to
establish
baseline
noise
levels
and
to
calculate
predicted
future
noise
levels.
It
is
acknowledged
that
the
recently
constructed
subdivision
referenced
by
the
commenter
is
not
visible
on
Figure
2-‐4
in
the
Draft
EIR.
However,
the
Draft
EIR
has
correctly
and
completely
addressed
potential
adverse
off-‐site
impacts
associated
with
project
implementation,
including
potential
adverse
impacts
to
the
Ponderosa
Meadows
subdivision.
As
such,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
analysis
or
mitigation
measures
are
warranted.
Response
7-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
the
significant
air
quality
impacts
delineated
in
items
3.9-‐1
through
4
are
of
grave
concern,
and
questions
the
effectiveness
of
the
mitigation
measures
included
in
the
Draft
EIR.
It
is
assumed
that
the
commenter
is
referring
to
the
analysis
and
impact
discussions
in
Section
3.1,
rather
than
Section
3.9
(Section
3.9
addressed
noise,
while
Section
3.1
addresses
air
quality).
Impact
3.1-‐1
discloses
that
project
implementation
would
exceed
applicable
air
quality
standards,
and
notes
that
this
is
a
significant
and
unavoidable
impact.
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
3.1-‐4
reduce
these
impacts
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible,
but
not
to
a
less
than
significant
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐113
level,
as
acknowledged
and
disclosed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
methodology
used
in
the
air
quality
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR
is
consistent
with
the
methodology
established
by
the
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District.
Additionally,
the
thresholds
of
significance
and
mitigation
approach
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
is
consistent
with
the
guidance
provided
by
the
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Letter
J
in
this
Final
EIR,
which
was
submitted
by
the
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District.
In
this
letter,
the
District
notes
that
the
Draft
EIR
correctly
addressed
air
quality
impacts
and
provided
appropriate
mitigation
measures
(Comments
J-‐1
and
J-‐4).
The
District
did,
however,
provide
minor
recommendations
to
expand
the
mitigation
approach.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.0
of
this
Final
EIR
for
minor
changes
that
were
made
to
the
air
quality
mitigation
measures.
Impacts
related
to
air
quality
emissions
have
been
correctly
and
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter
provides
no
specific
examples
of
air
quality
mitigation
measures
in
the
Draft
EIR
that
are
deficient,
and
provides
no
suggested
alternative
or
expanded
mitigation
approach.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
no
additional
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
7-‐3:
The
commenter
states
that
noise
impacts
may
be
significant
from
his
rear
deck,
and
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
potentially
underestimates
noise
impacts
associated
with
project
operations.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Figure
3.9-‐1,
which
identifies
the
location
of
Noise
Measurement
Site
2.
This
noise
measurement
site
is
located
approximately
400
feet
from
the
Ponderosa
Meadows
subdivision.
Section
3.9
of
the
Draft
EIR
includes
a
detailed
quantification
of
potential
noise
increases
that
may
result
from
project
construction
and
project
operation.
Mitigation
Measures
are
included
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
reduce
potential
noise
impacts
below
the
established
thresholds
of
significance,
including
measures
that
require
loading
docks
to
be
located
a
minimum
of
160
feet
from
the
nearest
residences,
and
shielding
to
reduce
noise
from
loading
dock
activities.
Additionally,
Mitigation
Measure
3.9-‐4
requires
all
new
industrial
and
manufacturing
uses
to
be
designed
to
comply
with
the
Truckee
Development
Code
hourly
noise
level
criteria
standards.
The
commenter’s
concern
over
potential
future
project
noise
generation
is
noted.
However,
as
demonstrated
in
Section
3.9
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
proposed
project
would
not
exceed
any
applicable
noise
threshold
or
noise
standard
adopted
by
the
Town
of
Truckee,
and
mitigation
measures
have
been
incorporated
into
the
project
to
reduce
potential
noise
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
7-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
greenhouse
gas
impacts,
as
addressed
under
Impact
3.5-‐1
are
a
concern,
and
that
the
mitigation
measures
are
not
substantial
and
forward
thinking.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
the
analysis
under
Impact
3.5-‐1
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
a
detailed
quantification
of
potential
GHG
emissions
associated
with
Business
as
Usual
(BAU)
operations
of
the
project,
and
operational
GHG
emissions
following
the
implementation
of
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐114
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.1-‐4.
As
described
on
page
3.5-‐16,
the
incorporation
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
would
result
in
approximately
a
30.1
percent
reduction
in
annual
GHG
emissions
from
the
2010
BAU
level
by
2020
([29,871.67MTCO2e
–
20,860.70
MTCO2e]
/
29,871.67MTCO2e
x
100%
=
30.1%).
The
reduction
in
GHG
emissions
would
be
attributable
to
the
energy
and
water
mitigation
model
inputs
as
well
as
the
advancement
of
vehicle
and
equipment
efficiency,
and
more
stringent
standards
and
regulations
as
time
progresses,
such
as
State
regulation
emission
reductions
(e.g.,
Pavley,
Low
Carbon
Fuel
Standard,
and
Renewable
Portfolio
Standard).
Implementation
of
AB
1493
(Pavley)
as
well
as
the
Low
Carbon
Fuel
Standard,
a
fuel
standard
that
requires
a
reduction
of
at
least
10
percent
in
the
carbon
intensity
of
California’s
transportation
fuels
by
2020,
will
significant
reduce
the
amount
of
GHG
emitted
from
passenger
vehicles
associated
with
the
proposed
project.
It
should
be
noted
that
although
a
reduction
related
to
such
attributes
would
occur
for
every
development
project,
CalEEMod
takes
into
consideration
how
much
of
each
attribute
is
applied
for
each
specific
project
based
on
the
size
of
the
project
and
associated
land
uses.
In
addition,
as
stated
in
Section
3.5,
the
proposed
project
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
minimum
mandatory
measures
of
the
CalGreen
Code,
which
would
result
in
an
estimated
1.8
percent
reduction.
Furthermore,
reduction
of
cumulative
ROG
and
NOx
emissions
as
a
result
of
mitigation
measures
required
in
Section
3.1
(Air
Quality)
would
subsequently
result
in
an
associated
reduction
in
CO2
emissions.
For
example,
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐2
requires
the
following
energy
emissions
reductions
be
incorporated
into
the
project:
• Residential
dwellings
shall
be
designed
to
exceed
applicable
Title
24
energy
standards
by
15%.
• Non-‐residential
structures
shall
be
designed
and
constructed
to
achieve
LEED
certification
requirements,
or
an
equivalent
level
of
energy
efficiency.
• Install
high
efficiency
lighting
(indoor
and
outdoor)
• Install
high
efficiency
appliances
(refrigerator,
fans,
washers)
• Structures
shall
be
solar
oriented
(predominantly
north-‐south
facing
direction),
to
the
extent
practical,
and
plant
low-‐emitting
shade
tree
and
shrub
species
near
structures
in
such
an
arrangement
to
shade
and
cool
structures
during
warmer
seasons
yet
allow
for
solar
heating
and
wind
breaks
during
cooler
months.
• Landscape
with
native
drought-‐resistant
species
(plants,
trees,
and
shrubs)
to
reduce
the
demand
for
gas-‐powered
landscape
maintenance
equipment.
• Incorporate
passive
solar
space
heating
designs
and
solar
water
heaters
into
residential
units.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐115
• Install
energy-‐efficient
heating
and
other
appliances,
such
as
water
heaters,
cooking
equipment,
refrigerators,
furnaces,
and
boiler
units.
• Electrical
outlets
should
be
installed
on
the
exterior
walls
of
all
residential
and
commercial
buildings
to
promote
the
use
of
electric
or
battery
operated
yard
and
landscaping
equipment.
The
total
reduction
in
GHG
emissions
from
BAU
levels
will
exceed
the
Town’s
minimum
reduction
threshold
of
15
percent
per
the
2008
Scoping
Plan.
The
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
also
includes
a
wide
range
of
“Green
Design
Principals,”
which
are
included
in
Section
2.5
of
Chapter
3
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan.
Green
Design
concepts
are
encouraged
to
be
applied
to
all
site
plan,
building,
drainage
and
landscape
designs
used
within
each
zoning
district
in
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan.
Green
Design
Principals
contained
in
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
address
the
following
components:
• Bicycle
connectivity
• Open
community
and
walkable
streets
• Energy
efficiency
in
buildings
• Reduced
water
use
• Solar
orientation
• Reuse
and
recycling
• Minimize
site
disturbance
• Reduced
Power
Consumption
o Natural
cooling
o Passive
solar
heating
o Solar
water
systems
or
pre-‐plumbing
for
future
solar
water
heating
o Photovoltaic
(PV)
systems
o High-‐efficiency
appliances,
lighting
and
HVAC
systems
• Wood
Materials
o Reclaimed
wood
o Certified
Forest
Stewardship
Council
(FSC)
lumber
• Energy
Star
windows
• Insulation
upgrades
beyond
Title
24
requirements
• Recycled
and
energy
efficient
flooring
materials
• Permeable
paving
and
hardscape
materials
• Alternative
transportation
access
and
connectivity
The
Green
Design
Principals
outlined
above
are
included
in
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
as
recommendations.
As
such,
the
quantified
analysis
of
GHG
emissions
associated
with
project
implementation
did
not
rely
on
any
specific
and
quantifiable
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐116
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
reduction
in
GHG
emissions
that
may
result
from
the
implementation
of
these
Green
Design
Principals.
With
the
implementation
of
the
mitigation
measures
presented
in
Section
3.1
Air
Quality,
the
overall
annual
GHG
emissions
associated
with
the
project
would
be
reduced
by
over
30.1
percent
by
the
year
2020,
consistent
with
applicable
standards
and
thresholds
of
a
15
percent
reduction
used
in
this
analysis.
Because
the
project
would
meet
the
15
percent
minimum
reduction
threshold
per
the
2008
CARB
AB
32
Scoping
Plan,
the
proposed
project
would
not
hinder
the
State’s
ability
to
reach
the
GHG
reduction
target
nor
conflict
with
any
applicable
plan,
policy,
or
regulation
related
to
GHG
reduction,
and
impacts
related
to
GHG
emissions
and
global
climate
change
would
be
considered
less-‐than-‐significant.
This
issue
has
been
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
or
additional
mitigation
measures
are
warranted.
Response
7-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
a
development
of
this
size
should
not
be
approved
without
a
substantial
pay-‐back
to
the
community,
and
that
a
mini-‐park
should
be
included
as
a
project
component.
The
commenter’s
suggestions
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
7-‐6:
The
commenter
suggests
that
the
No
Build
project
alternative
be
focused
on
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter’s
suggestions
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐117
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐118
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐119
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐120
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
8:
Ann
Penfield
Response
8-‐1:
The
commenter
expresses
concern
over
the
size
of
the
proposed
project
and
expresses
support
for
the
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
8-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
the
project
may
increase
nighttime
lighting,
and
provides
references
from
the
Truckee
General
Plan.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
the
discussion
and
analysis
under
Impact
3.13-‐3
in
the
Draft
EIR,
which
addresses
the
potential
for
the
project
to
result
in
nighttime
lighting
impacts.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.13-‐1,
which
requires
the
preparation
of
a
lighting
plan,
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
Chapter
18.30.060
of
the
Town
of
Truckee
Development
Code.
It
is
also
noted
that
the
Town
of
Truckee
has
adopted
more
stringent
standards
for
night
sky
lighting
than
the
standards
that
were
in
place
at
the
time
the
NOP
was
prepared.
These
updated
standards
will
further
reduce
the
potential
impacts
to
nighttime
lighting.
Implementation
of
Mitigation
Measure
3.13-‐1
and
adherence
to
the
Town’s
recently
adopted
standards
would
reduce
potential
nighttime
lighting
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
or
additional
mitigation
measures
are
warranted
or
required.
Response
8-‐3:
The
commenter
reiterates
information
from
the
Biological
Resources
section
of
the
Draft
EIR
with
respect
to
potential
impacts
to
special-‐status
species.
The
commenter
states
that
the
project
site
is
a
special
area
and
should
not
become
like
other
intensive
strip
commercial
development.
The
commenter’s
concerns
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
a
detailed
analysis
of
potential
impacts
to
biological
resources,
and
mitigation
measures
have
been
incorporated
to
reduce
potential
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
Response
8-‐4:
The
commenter
notes
that
the
area
was
important
to
the
Indians,
and
states
that
they
have
not
seen
mention
of
an
archaeological
review
being
done
for
the
area.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
5-‐6
above.
This
issue
has
been
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
or
additional
mitigation
measures
are
required.
Response
8-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
the
project
should
be
reduced
by
50%
or
more.
The
commenter’s
suggestions
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐121
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
However,
the
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐122
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐123
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐124
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
9:
Tori
Goux,
Ponderosa
Palisades
Townhouses
Homeowners
Association
Response
9-‐1:
The
commenter
expresses
support
for
the
proposed
project.
The
commenter’s
input
regarding
the
project
is
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
9-‐2:
The
commenter
expresses
support
for
the
traffic
mitigation
plans
for
the
project.
The
commenter’s
input
regarding
the
project
is
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
questioned
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐125
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐126
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
10:
Ron
West
Response
10-‐1:
The
commenter
requests
that
the
Draft
EIR
traffic
study
address
potential
impacts
to
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road
and
South
River
Street.
The
commenter
has
not
provided
any
additional
information
as
to
why
this
particular
intersection
should
have
been
included
in
the
Draft
EIR
traffic
study,
nor
did
the
commenter
request
that
this
intersection
be
included
in
the
traffic
study
during
the
NOP
comment
period.
The
traffic
study
addressed
20
different
intersections
throughout
Truckee.
The
range
of
study
intersections
was
based
on
input
from
the
Town’s
Public
Works
staff,
an
analysis
of
trip
distribution
patterns
that
would
result
from
the
proposed
project
prepared
by
the
EIR
traffic
engineer,
and
key
intersections
identified
in
the
Town’s
traffic
model.
The
traffic
study
addressed
potential
impacts
to
the
Bridge
Street/West
River
Street
intersection,
which
is
located
in
close
proximity
to
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road
and
South
River
Street,
but
experiences
significantly
higher
traffic
volumes,
due
to
the
number
of
residences
and
businesses
located
on
West
River
Street,
and
the
potential
for
vehicles
to
utilize
West
River
Street
to
reach
SR
89
South
and
to
access
the
West
River
Street/McIver
Crossing
intersection.
The
inclusion
of
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road
and
South
River
Street
is
not
warranted
in
the
EIR,
given
that
South
River
Street
is
a
short,
dead-‐end
street
with
fewer
than
15
residential
units,
and
would
not
generate
measurable
traffic
volumes
travelling
to
or
from
the
project
site
even
with
envisioned
Downtown
Specific
Plan
buildout
for
the
Truckee
River
Master
Plan
Area.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration,
however,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐127
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐128
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
11:
Karen
Carey,
Tahoe
Safe
Alliance
Response
11-‐1:
The
commenter
expresses
support
for
the
proposed
project.
The
commenter’s
input
regarding
the
project
is
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐129
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐130
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
12:
David
Stearn
Response
12-‐1:
The
commenter
expresses
a
desire
to
have
the
project
incorporate
a
multi-‐use
trail
along
the
existing
Martis
Drive
right-‐of-‐way,
and
provides
a
summary
of
potential
benefits
of
such
a
trail.
The
commenter
has
expressed
a
design
and
component
preference
for
the
project,
but
has
not
commented
on
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter’s
suggestions
regarding
the
project
are
noted,
and
these
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐131
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐132
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐133
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐134
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐135
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐136
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐137
Response
to
Letter
13:
Pat
Davison,
Contractors
Association
of
Truckee
Tahoe
Response
13-‐1:
The
commenter
provides
introductory
remarks
and
background
information
regarding
the
Truckee
Community
Building
(TCB),
which
was
a
conceptual
proposal
for
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
in
Parcel
4)
to
house
multiple
non-‐profit
organizations
under
one
roof.
Response
13-‐2:
The
commenter
requests
that
the
allowable
uses
in
the
CL
Zoning
District,
as
shown
on
pages
2.0-‐4
and
3.9-‐3
in
the
Draft
EIR,
be
changed
to
allow
for
a
Truckee
Community
Building
and
associated
uses.
The
Draft
EIR
analyzed
the
potential
impacts
of
the
project,
as
proposed,
which
is
outlined
in
the
Draft
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan.
The
commenter’s
request
to
change
the
allowed
land
uses
in
the
CL
Zoning
District
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
It
is
noted,
however,
that
the
traffic
analysis
assumes
retail
and
restaurant
uses
on
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
in
Parcel
4).
As
retail
and
restaurant
trip
generation
rates
are
generally
equal
to
or
higher
than
the
trip
rates
associated
with
the
potential
non-‐profit
use
(including
food
&
beverage
distribution),
it
is
likely
that
adding
Food
Distribution
as
an
allowed
use
to
this
zoning
district
would
not
generate
new
impacts
for
purposes
of
the
DEIR,
if
such
a
change
is
so
directed
by
the
Town
Council.
At
the
time
of
preparation
of
this
Final
EIR,
no
changes
to
the
allowed
uses
in
the
CL
Zoning
District
have
been
made,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
13-‐3:
The
commenter
requests
that
the
procedure
describing
the
Cost
Analysis
Assessment,
described
on
page
2.0-‐9
of
the
Draft
EIR
be
amended
to
allow
the
public
an
opportunity
to
evaluate
the
land
use
intensity
chart,
traffic
use,
and
estimate
of
probably
costs
and
responsible
share
matrix.
The
commenter’s
request
to
change
the
Cost
Analysis
Assessment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
This
comment
does
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
warranted.
Response
13-‐4:
The
commenter
requests
clarification
regarding
the
nature
and
timing
to
improvements
at
the
Brockway
Rd/Hope
Court
intersection
and
states
that
improvements
should
be
linked
to
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
in
Parcel
4),
rather
than
Parcel
9
(now
part
of
Parcel
4).
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.0,
which
includes
revisions
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F
and
Response
4-‐17
above.
The
revisions
require
the
preparation
of
a
traffic
study
that
evaluates
intersection
and
trail
design
along
the
Brockway
Corridor
prior
to
further
subdivision,
grading
permit
issuance,
or
building
permit
issuance.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐138
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
13-‐5:
The
commenter
questions
whether
or
not
mitigation
measures
are
required
to
improve
traffic
conditions
at
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road
and
Hope
Court,
and
questions
the
traffic
generation
volumes
attributable
to
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
in
Parcel
4)
in
the
Plan
Area.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.0
and
Response
4-‐
17
above,
which
includes
revisions
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F.
The
revisions
require
the
preparation
of
a
traffic
study
that
evaluates
intersection
and
trail
design
along
the
Brockway
Corridor
prior
to
further
subdivision,
grading
permit
issuance,
or
building
permit
issuance.
Response
13-‐6:
The
commenter
requests
that
alternative
intersection
improvements
be
accommodated
to
improve
LOS
conditions
at
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road
and
Hope
Court.
The
commenter
cites
economic
reasons
for
the
consideration
of
alternatives
to
a
roundabout
at
this
intersection.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.0
and
Response
4-‐17
above,
which
includes
revisions
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F.
The
revisions
require
the
preparation
of
a
traffic
study
that
evaluates
intersection
and
trail
design
along
the
Brockway
Corridor
prior
to
further
subdivision,
grading
permit
issuance,
or
building
permit
issuance.
Response
13-‐7:
The
commenter
states
that
if
a
roundabout
is
determined
to
be
needed
at
the
intersection
of
Brockway
Road
and
Hope
Court,
then
a
cost
share
that
includes
other
contributors
should
be
considered.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.
Response
13-‐8:
The
commenter
requests
to
be
added
to
the
Town’s
contact
list
for
any
and
all
items
related
to
the
proposed
project.
This
is
noted,
and
the
commenter
will
be
added
to
the
Town’s
contact
list
for
this
project.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐139
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐140
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
to
Letter
14:
Patty
Lomanto
Response
14-‐1:
The
commenter
expresses
concern
that
the
project
may
result
in
impacts
to
community
character,
nighttime
lighting,
natural
beauty,
and
historic
resources.
The
commenter
has
not
provided
any
specific
examples
or
supporting
information
that
indicate
that
these
topics
have
not
been
adequately
and
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.13
in
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
an
analysis
of
impacts
to
visual
resources
and
nighttime
lighting,
and
includes
Mitigation
Measure
3.13-‐1,
which
would
reduce
nighttime
lighting
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
The
commenter
is
also
referred
to
Section
3.3
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
a
detailed
analysis
of
potential
impacts
to
cultural
and
historical
resources,
as
well
as
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
potential
impacts
to
cultural
and
historical
resources
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
These
topics
have
been
thoroughly
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
14-‐2:
The
commenter
states
that
the
project
is
too
much
and
too
big,
and
states
that
the
plan
fails
to
adequately
address
peak
traffic
from
Northstar
and
future
expansion
plans
at
Northstar
and
in
Placer
County.
The
commenter’s
input
regarding
the
scale
and
size
of
the
project
is
noted.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.13
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
an
analysis
of
summer
and
winter
peak-‐hour
traffic
conditions
at
key
study
area
intersections.
This
peak-‐hour
analysis
accounts
for
traffic
generated
by
visitors
at
the
Northstar
ski
resort
and
associated
Northstar
development,
as
well
as
other
regional
traffic
generated
throughout
Martis
Valley
and
the
Town
of
Truckee.
The
potential
for
future
development
at
Northstar
and
within
Placer
County
is
accounted
for
in
the
cumulative
traffic
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR.
As
described
on
page
3.11-‐51
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
cumulative
setting
associated
with
the
traffic
analysis
is
based
on
the
Town
of
Truckee’s
TransCAD
traffic
model,
which
provides
forecasts
of
traffic
conditions
throughout
the
Town
as
well
as
the
Martis
Valley
portion
of
Placer
County.
The
model
reflects
full
buildout
of
the
Town’s
General
Plan,
buildout
of
the
allowed
land
uses
in
the
Martis
Valley
areas,
and
growth
in
traffic
passing
through
the
area.
As
some
of
the
development
projects
in
the
Martis
Valley
area
have
recently
been
approved
for
development
levels
less
than
those
originally
allowed
under
the
Martis
Valley
Community
Plan,
the
land
uses
in
the
model
were
adjusted
downward
to
reflect
the
approved
Martis
Valley
projects.
In
the
Truckee
TransCAD
traffic
model,
build-‐out
of
the
Truckee
General
Plan
is
conservatively
assumed
to
occur
by
2025.
No
further
growth
in
traffic
is
assumed
between
2025
and
2032.
These
issues
have
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
These
concerns
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
review
and
consideration.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐141
Response
14-‐3:
The
commenter
expresses
support
for
a
reduced
intensity
project.
The
commenter’s
input
on
the
project
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐142
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐143
Response
to
Letter
15:
Lynn
Rogers,
Truckee
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Church
Response
15-‐1:
The
commenter
expresses
support
for
the
use
of
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
in
Parcel
4)
within
the
Plan
Area
as
a
shared
space
for
non-‐profits.
The
commenter’s
input
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
are
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐144
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐145
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐146
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐147
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐148
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐149
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐150
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐151
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐152
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐153
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐154
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐155
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐156
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐157
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐158
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐159
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐160
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐161
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐162
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐163
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐164
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐165
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐166
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐167
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐168
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐169
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐170
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐171
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐172
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐173
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐174
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐175
Response
to
Letter
16:
Alex
Ollar,
Mountain
Area
Preservation
Response
16-‐1:
The
commenter
provides
introductory
remarks
and
background
information
regarding
their
organization.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
16-‐2:
The
commenter
provides
additional
introductory
remarks
and
states
their
goal
of
commenting
on
the
project
is
to
support
the
Town’s
General
Plan
while
providing
heightened
mitigation
measures.
The
commenter
states
that
they
have
provided
a
new
mitigation
measure
for
consideration,
and
states
that
the
mitigation
measures
in
the
Draft
EIR
contain
deficiencies.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
commenter
provides
more
details
in
subsequent
sections
of
the
letter,
which
include
responses
below.
Response
16-‐3:
The
commenter
states
their
support
for
the
purpose
of
the
General
Plan
and
its
policies
for
PC-‐3.
This
comment
is
noted.
Response
16-‐4:
The
commenter
states
that
the
main
purpose
of
this
letter
is
to
recommend
inclusion
of
one
new
mitigation
measure,
which
may
resolve
General
Plan
inconsistencies
and
provide
mitigation
for
a
range
of
environmental
impacts.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
commenter
identifies
the
new
mitigation
measure
under
Comments
16-‐9a
through
16-‐9k.
Detailed
responses
are
provided
below.
Response
16-‐5:
The
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
new
mitigation
measure
would
locate
the
potential
future
Non-‐Profit
Center
Site
at
an
alternative
location.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
the
analysis
of
Project
revisions
provided
under
Section
2.3.
The
pie
shaped
area
along
Hope
Court
(part
of
Parcel
4)
is
now
shown
as
Lifestyle
Commercial
Parcel
1
(CL-‐1)
and
intended
to
be
donated
to
CATT
for
a
community
building
site.
Response
16-‐6:
The
commenter
expresses
appreciation
for
the
inclusion
of
the
Industrial
Alternative
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
expresses
support
for
the
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
Response
16-‐7:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Specific
Plan
and
Draft
EIR
exhibit
a
lack
of
specificity
and
feasible
mitigation
measures.
The
commenter
also
states
that
the
comment
period
for
the
Draft
EIR
was
extremely
short.
The
commenter
has
not
yet
identified
any
specific
deficiencies
with
the
Draft
EIR.
With
respect
to
the
length
of
the
comment
period,
the
comment
period
for
the
Draft
EIR
was
45
days,
which
is
consistent
with
the
requirements
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15105(a).
The
45-‐day
public
comment
period
for
the
Draft
EIR
extended
from
September
12,
2013
through
October
29,
2013,
and
the
comment
period
was
clearly
identified
on
the
first
page
of
the
Draft
EIR
Notice
of
Availability,
which
was
published
on
September
12,
2013.
The
Draft
EIR
and
Notice
of
Availability
were
properly
prepared
and
distributed,
and
the
Draft
EIR
was
properly
sent
through
the
State
Clearinghouse.
The
Notice
of
Availability
was
also
mailed
to
all
affected
property
owners
within
500
feet
of
the
Plan
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐176
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Area
boundaries,
and
to
all
interested
and
affected
agencies,
organizations,
and
special
districts.
The
commenter
was
also
sent
a
copy
of
the
Notice
of
Availability
directly.
Response
16-‐8:
The
commenter
states
that
the
project
fails
to
comply
with
numerous
General
Plan
goals,
policies,
and
actions,
and
that
the
Draft
EIR
fails
to
require
feasible
mitigation
measures
in
the
form
of
Specific
Plan
modifications.
The
commenter
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
fails
to
reduce
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
to
air
quality
to
a
less
than
significant
level,
and
defers
mitigation
for
biological
impacts.
The
commenter
further
states
that
the
proposed
Specific
Plan,
Zoning
and
Tentative
Map
do
not
provide
the
certainty
needed
to
meet
the
goal
and
policy
obligations
in
the
General
Plan
or
the
mitigation
measures
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter
has
not
provided
any
specific
examples
of
deficiencies
with
the
Draft
EIR,
nor
has
the
commenter
identified
which
General
Plan
policies
the
project
is
not
consistent
with.
With
respect
to
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
to
air
quality,
the
commenter
is
correct
that
the
Draft
EIR
identifies
Impact
3.1-‐1
as
being
a
significant
and
unavoidable
impact.
The
Draft
EIR
identifies
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
3.1-‐4,
which
would
reduce
operational
air
quality
emissions
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible.
These
mitigation
measures
would
reduce
operational
air
quality
emissions
associated
with
area
source
emissions,
energy
source
emissions,
mobile
source
emissions,
and
particulate
matter
emissions,
respectively.
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
3.1-‐4
are
consistent
with
requirements
established
by
the
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
(NSAQMD),
and
the
Town
of
Truckee
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan.
While
these
mitigation
measures
would
greatly
reduce
operational
emissions
from
the
proposed
project,
as
described
under
Impact
3.1-‐1,
they
would
not
reduce
emissions
to
a
less
than
significant
level,
as
disclosed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
commenter
has
not
provided
any
alternative
mitigation
suggestions
in
this
comment,
nor
has
the
commenter
specifically
identified
what
the
potential
deficiencies
of
these
mitigation
measures
may
be.
The
commenter’s
assertion
that
mitigation
measures
for
biological
impacts
are
deferred
is
not
supported
by
any
information
from
the
commenter.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
which
biological
mitigation
measures
are
deficient.
The
commenter
references
Impacts
3.4-‐4
and
3.4-‐5
as
having
deficient
mitigation
measures
(deferred
mitigation).
Impact
3.4-‐4
addresses
potential
impacts
to
special-‐status
plant
species.
Only
one
species
of
special-‐status
plant
has
the
potential
to
be
impacted
by
the
proposed
project
(Plumas
ivesia).
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐2
requires
the
project
applicant
to
modify
the
design
of
Parcel
6
(now
the
open
space
area
in
Parcel
4)
to
incorporate
all
documented
Plumas
ivesia
within
this
area
of
the
project
site
into
the
open
space
preservation
area
along
the
Brockway
Road
frontage.
This
mitigation
measure
specifies
the
timing
for
this
action
(prior
to
project
approval).
This
is
not
a
deferred
mitigation
measure.
It
is
further
noted
that
the
Revised
Project,
as
shown
on
Figure
2-‐1
of
this
Final
EIR,
now
designates
all
of
Parcel
9
as
Open
Space,
which
fulfills
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐177
the
requirements
of
this
mitigation
measure.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐3
requires
that
all
Plumas
ivesia
located
in
areas
of
the
site
proposed
for
ground
disturbance
be
hand
excavated
and
immediately
relocated
to
a
pre-‐determined
replanting
site.
The
replanting
site
will
contain
similar
suitable
habitat
conditions,
within
the
study
area
or
general
vicinity,
and
will
be
located
a
minimum
of
50
feet
from
proposed
construction
activities.
The
excavation,
and
replanting
will
be
performed
by
a
qualified
botanist
with
previous
Plumas
ivesia
experience.
The
re-‐planting
area
will
be
fenced
to
prevent
undesirable
entry
into
the
replanting
area.
To
ensure
long-‐term
protection,
signage
will
be
installed
on
the
fence
that
designates
this
area
as
a
sensitive
restoration
site
and
will
provide
standard
no
trespassing
language.
A
report
summarizing
the
findings
of
excavation,
and
replanting
efforts
will
be
prepared
and
submitted
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
CDFW.
The
replanting
area
will
be
monitored
for
three
years
to
determine
the
success
of
replanting
efforts.
Success
is
determined
by
the
number
of
relocated
plants
that
survive
and
transplantation.
If
the
success
rate
after
three
years
is
below
75%,
consultation
with
CDFW
will
be
required
to
develop
appropriate
remediation
plans.
Again,
this
is
not
a
deferred
mitigation
measure,
as
the
timing
is
clearly
specified
in
the
first
sentence
of
the
measures
(prior
to
construction)
and
a
clear
set
of
procedures
and
performance
measures
are
laid
out
in
the
mitigation
measure.
Impact
3.2-‐5
addresses
potential
impacts
to
wetlands.
Mitigation
Measures
3.2-‐4
through
3.2-‐7
include
clear,
enforceable
and
definitive
steps
that
must
be
taken
to
avoid
or
mitigate
and
potential
impacts
to
wetlands.
Each
mitigation
measure
specifies
the
timing
under
which
the
measure
must
be
implemented,
which,
in
most
cases
is
prior
to
any
grading
or
site
disturbing
activities
that
may
impact
wetlands.
Additionally,
each
measure
identifies
the
agency
or
party
responsible
for
enforcement,
and
identifies
the
performance
standards
to
measure
the
effectiveness
of
the
measure.
The
proposed
project
does
not
include
any
development
activity
at
this
time.
Rather,
the
project
establishes
zoning
districts,
and
specifies
allowed
uses,
densities,
and
design
criteria
within
each
zoning
district.
As
such,
building
footprints
are
not
known
at
this
time,
and
it
is
not
known
if
any
future
development
applications
within
the
Plan
Area
would
directly
result
in
impacts
to
wetlands.
As
such,
the
mitigation
measures
have
been
crafted
to
include
performance
standards
that
will
ensure
that
future
development
applications
do
not
result
in
significant
impacts
to
wetlands.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
an
analysis
of
the
wetland
features
that
is
based
on
Wetland
Delineation
for
the
±69-‐Acre
Joerger
Ranch
PC-‐3
Project
(North
Fork
Associates
2004).
This
wetland
delineation
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
1987
Army
Corps
Manual,
which
outlines
the
methodology
and
professional
standards
for
wetland
delineations.
Ultimately
concurrence
of
the
wetland
delineation
is
required
by
the
regulatory
agencies.
The
concurrence
comes
in
the
form
of
a
verification
and
determination
by
the
regulatory
agency.
The
Draft
EIR
explains
on
Page
3.2-‐20
that
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐178
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
the
wetland
delineation
would
need
to
be
verified
and
a
final
determination
would
need
to
be
provided
by
the
regulatory
agency.
Several
mitigation
measures
are
presented
to
mitigate
the
potentially
significant
impact
caused
by
the
proposed
fill
of
a
.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐4
outlines
the
requirement
to
first
get
a
determination
from
the
regulatory
agency,
and
if
jurisdiction
is
present,
authorization
for
fill
would
be
required.
The
regulatory
agency
has
established
performance
measures
that
are
required
of
all
projects
that
are
authorized
to
fill.
This
includes
compensation
for
the
fill
to
ensure
no
net
loss
of
wetlands,
and
minimization
and
conservation
measures
that
are
applied
as
determined
applicable
to
the
specific
set
of
circumstances.
These
performance
measures
established
by
the
regulatory
agency
through
the
permit
process
are
not
controlled
by
the
Town
of
Truckee.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐5
outlines
requirements
for
the
project
proponent
to
comply
with
Truckee
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.F,
which
requires
a
Minor
Use
Permit
to
be
obtained
prior
to
any
disturbance
within
200-‐feet
of
a
wetland.
This
is
a
Town
requirement
and
requires
compensation
that
is
above
the
federal
and
state
standards
for
wetland
compensation.
It
is
the
practice
of
the
Town
to
collaborate
with
regulatory
agencies
to
establish
the
compensation
for
a
fill.
This
requirement
is
separate
from
any
state
or
federal
requirements,
although
it
is
intended
to
fulfill
the
intent
of
protecting
wetlands
through
avoidance,
minimization,
and
compensation
as
applicable.
It
is
further
noted
that
the
proposed
changes
to
the
Zoning
Map
now
show
Open
Space
uses
in
the
vicinity
of
all
known
wetlands
on
the
Project
Site,
thereby
reducing
the
potential
for
future
development
to
impact
wetlands
and
riparian
habitat.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
or
mitigation
measures
are
required.
Response
16-‐9a:
The
commenter
presents
a
proposed
new
mitigation
measure,
and
provides
a
summary
of
the
purported
benefits
of
the
new
mitigation
measure.
The
new
mitigation
measure
proposed
by
the
commenter
is
actually
a
significant
proposed
change
to
the
project
description.
The
commenter
suggests
that
the
project
should
be
changed
to
reflect
the
general
elements
of
the
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
described
in
the
Draft
EIR.
In
general,
the
commenter
is
suggesting
that
the
non-‐
residential
development
area
of
the
Plan
Area
be
reduced
by
50%
and
that
the
range
of
allowed
land
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
be
limited
and
reduced.
What
is
proposed
by
the
commenter
is
not
actually
a
new
mitigation
measure,
but
rather,
a
complete
and
significant
change
to
the
proposed
project.
It
is
noted
that
the
development
of
the
alternatives
included
in
the
Draft
EIR
was
directly
based
on
input
provided
by
the
commenter
during
the
NOP
comment
period.
The
inclusion
of
the
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
and
the
Industrial
Only
Alternative
provides
the
Town
Council
with
a
range
of
feasible
alternatives
to
consider
that
would
reduce
potentially
significant
impacts
of
the
proposed
project.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
a
thorough
and
detailed
analysis
of
the
proposed
project.
The
project
description
represents
the
applicant’s
desire
to
make
full
beneficial
use
of
the
project
site.
The
Draft
EIR
has
fully
and
completely
analyzed
and
disclosed
the
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐179
potential
environmental
impacts
associated
with
buildout
of
the
project,
as
currently
proposed
and
described
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Draft
EIR
identifies,
analyzes
and
discloses
the
full
range
of
potential
impacts
associated
with
implementation
of
the
proposed
project,
and
provides
a
comprehensive
range
of
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
potential
environmental
impacts
to
the
greatest
degree
feasible.
The
Draft
EIR
identifies
two
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
(Impacts
3.1-‐1
and
4.1),
both
of
which
are
related
to
operational
air
quality
emissions.
Mitigation
measures
have
been
incorporated
to
reduce
operational
air
quality
impacts
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible,
and
the
Draft
EIR
discloses
that
these
impacts
would
remain
significant
and
unavoidable.
The
commenter’s
suggestions
regarding
potential
changes
to
the
proposed
project
are
noted.
These
comments
have
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
proposed
project.
The
Town
Council
may
decide
to
require
changes
to
the
proposed
project,
which
may
or
may
not
include
recommendations
presented
by
the
commenter,
or
the
Town
Council
may
choose
to
approve
the
project
without
requiring
changes
to
the
project
description.
CEQA
requires
the
Town
as
the
lead
agency
to:
1)
make
written
findings
when
it
approves
a
project
for
which
an
environmental
impact
report
(EIR)
was
certified,
and
2)
identify
overriding
considerations
for
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
identified
in
the
EIR.
The
Findings
and
Statement
of
Overriding
Considerations
will
be
presented
for
adoption
by
the
Town
Council,
and
will
serve
as
the
Town’s
findings
under
CEQA
(Public
Resources
Code,
Section
21000
et
seq.)
and
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines
(Cal.
Code
Regs.,
Title
14,
Section
15000
et
seq.)
relating
to
the
project.
The
Findings
will
provide
the
written
analysis
and
conclusions
of
the
Town
Council
regarding
the
project’s
environmental
impacts,
mitigation
measures,
alternatives
to
the
project,
and
the
overriding
considerations,
which
in
the
Town
Council’s
view,
may
justify
approval
of
the
project,
despite
its
environmental
effects.
Other
than
providing
an
alternative
project
description,
the
commenter
has
not
identified
any
specific
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
within
this
comment.
The
commenter’s
suggestions
are
noted.
However,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
It
is
further
noted
that
the
project
applicant
and
Town
staff
met
with
the
commenter
following
receipt
of
this
comment.
As
a
result
of
this
meeting,
the
Project’s
Zoning
Map
has
been
revised
to
include
a
significantly
expanded
area
of
Open
Space
within
the
Plan
Area.
The
commenter
has
verbally
indicated
the
acceptability
and
desirability
of
this
proposed
change.
Response
16-‐9b:
The
commenter
proposes
the
use
of
Specific
Plan
Mixed
Use
Overlay
Designations
for
Areas
A
and
B,
as
indicated
on
the
site
plan
provided
by
the
commenter.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐180
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Response
16-‐9c:
The
commenter
suggests
that
additional
economic
studies
be
performed
to
identify
anticipated
demand
for
retail,
office,
and
industrial
uses
that
may
be
served
by
the
PC-‐
3
site
without
adversely
impacting
Downtown.
The
commenter
has
not
suggested
that
the
proposed
project
would
adversely
impact
the
Downtown
area,
nor
does
the
commenter
suggest
that
the
Draft
EIR
was
deficient
in
this
regard.
The
CEQA
Guidelines
define
the
parameters
under
which
the
consideration
of
socioeconomic
impacts
is
included
in
an
environmental
evaluation.
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15131
states
that
“[e]conomic
or
social
information
may
be
included
in
an
EIR
or
may
be
presented
in
whatever
form
the
agency
desires.”
Further,
Section
15131(a)
of
the
Guidelines
states
that
“[e]conomic
or
social
effects
of
a
project
shall
not
be
treated
as
significant
effects
on
the
environment.
An
EIR
may
trace
a
chain
of
cause
and
effect
from
a
proposed
decision
on
a
project
through
anticipated
economic
or
social
changes
resulting
from
the
project
to
physical
changes
caused
in
turn
by
the
economic
or
social
changes
[emphasis
added].
The
intermediate
economic
or
social
changes
need
not
be
analyzed
in
any
detail
greater
than
necessary
to
trace
the
chain
of
cause
and
effect.
The
focus
of
the
analysis
shall
be
on
the
physical
changes.”
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15131(b)
also
provides
that
“[e]conomic
or
social
effects
of
a
project
may
be
used
to
determine
the
significance
of
physical
changes
caused
by
the
project.”
In
the
case
of
the
proposed
project,
concern
has
been
expressed
that
the
location
of
new
retail,
office,
and
industrial
establishments
could,
through
their
economic
effects,
result
in
secondary
environmental
impacts.
The
term
commonly
used
to
describe
the
physical
effects
that
can
result
when
new
retail
uses
cause
existing
business
closures
and
physical
deterioration
of
the
areas
in
which
such
businesses
are
located
is
“urban
decay.”
In
recent
years,
the
California
Courts
have
identified
the
term
“urban
decay”
as
the
physical
manifestation
of
a
project’s
potential
socioeconomic
impacts
and
have
specifically
identified
the
need
to
address
the
potential
for
urban
decay
in
environmental
documents
for
large
retail
projects.
The
leading
case
is
Bakersfield
Citizens
for
Local
Control
v.
City
of
Bakersfield
(2004)
124
Cal.App.4th
1184,
in
which
the
court
set
aside
two
environmental
impact
reports
for
two
proposed
Wal-‐Mart
projects
that
would
have
been
located
less
than
five
miles
from
each
other.
This
was
the
first
court
decision
to
use
the
term
“urban
decay,”
as
opposed
to
the
term
“blight.”
The
court
quoted
“experts
[who]
are
now
warning
about
land
use
decisions
that
cause
a
chain
reaction
of
store
closures
and
long-‐term
vacancies,
ultimately
destroying
existing
neighborhoods
and
leaving
decaying
shells
in
their
wake.”
(Id.
at
p.
1204.)
The
court
also
discussed
prior
case
law
that
addressed
the
potential
for
large
retail
projects
to
cause
“physical
deterioration
of
[a]
downtown
area”
or
“a
general
deterioration
of
[a]
downtown
area.”
(Id.
at
pp.
1206,
1207).
The
Bakersfield
court
also
described
the
circumstances
in
which
the
duty
to
address
urban
decay
issues
arise.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐181
Accordingly,
there
are
two
pertinent
questions
to
be
asked
with
regard
to
the
effects
of
the
proposed
project
in
terms
of
this
economic
impact
and
urban
decay
analysis:
1)
would
the
proposed
new
retail,
office
and
industrial
uses
use
result
in
sales
and
business
losses
that
are
sufficiently
large
at
existing
commercial,
office,
and
industrial
establishments
to
force
some
to
close;
and
2)
would
the
affected
closed
business
locations
stay
idle
long
enough
to
create
physical
changes
that
could
be
defined
as
urban
decay?
The
answer
to
both
questions
in
this
case
is
“no.”
While
the
measurement
of
urban
decay
is
not
strictly
defined
under
CEQA,
this
discussion
assumes
that
the
term
describes
significant
deterioration
of
existing
structures
and/or
their
surroundings.
This
is
based
upon
the
premise
that
such
deterioration
occurs
when
property
owners
reduce
property
maintenance
activities
below
that
required
to
keep
such
properties
in
good
condition.
It
assumes
that
property
owners
make
rational
economic
decisions
about
maintaining
their
property
and
are
likely
to
make
reductions
in
maintenance
activities
only
under
conditions
where
they
see
little
likelihood
of
future
positive
returns
from
such
expenditures.
Where
vacancy
rates
are
low
or
growth
rates
are
high,
property
owners
are
likely
to
see
the
prospect
of
keeping
properties
leased-‐up
at
favorable
rents.
Where
vacancy
rates
are
high
and
persistent,
and
growth
rates
are
low,
property
owners
are
more
likely
to
have
a
pessimistic
view
of
the
future
and
be
prone
to
reducing
property
maintenance
as
a
way
to
reduce
costs.
However,
whether
or
not
conditions
in
between
those
discussed
above
(i.e.
moderate
vacancy
levels
that
persist
for
a
few
years)
are
likely
to
lead
to
“urban
decay”
depends
on
many
factors
including
the
growth
prospects
of
the
market
area,
the
future
state
of
the
national
and
local
economy,
financial
strength
of
existing
tenants
and
landlords,
the
profitability
of
existing
stores,
and
the
potential
for
conversion
to
office,
residential
or
other
land
uses.
The
possibility
that
the
addition
of
454,113
square
feet
of
commercial,
retail,
manufacturing,
light
industrial,
and
business
innovation
uses
at
the
PC-‐3
site
would
result
in
significant
“urban
decay”
effects
at
other
commercial
industrial,
and
business
centers
in
the
Town
of
Truckee
appears
to
be
remote.
Consistent
with
the
requirements
of
General
Plan
Action
A6.1,
the
Town
of
Truckee
retained
Bay
Area
Economics
(BAE)
to
analyze
the
potential
economic
impacts
of
the
proposed
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
development
on
existing
development
and
other
planned
development
within
the
Town
of
Truckee.
This
report
was
published
on
August
6,
2010,
and
is
available
for
review
at
the
Planning
Department
at
the
Town
of
Truckee
offices.
The
BAE
report
represents
an
independent
economic
analysis
based
on
sound
market
research
and
thorough
economic
investigation.
The
PC-‐3
Economic
Evaluation
looked
at
taxable
retail
sales,
Truckee
retail
nodes,
an
assessment
of
Downtown
commercial
uses,
retail
demand
projections,
pending
commercial
projects,
remaining
development
capacity
in
master
planned
areas,
a
retail
gap
analysis,
potential
linkages
with
the
Truckee
Economic
Development
Strategy,
and
land
use
opportunities
within
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐182
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
PC-‐3.
The
proposed
zoning
districts,
and
the
allowed
uses
within
each
district,
were
established
by
the
Town
and
the
project
applicant
in
light
of
the
findings
presented
in
the
PC-‐3
Economic
Evaluation.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
proposed
land
uses
within
PC-‐3
would
result
in
urban
decay
in
other
areas
of
Truckee.
While
there
is
the
potential
for
new
onsite
commercial,
office,
and
industrial
uses
to
compete
with
existing
similar
uses
in
the
Town
of
Truckee,
there
is
no
market-‐based
evidence
that
the
project
would
result
in
blight
or
urban
decay
within
the
Town
of
Truckee
to
an
extent
that
it
would
result
in
a
physical
impact
to
the
environment,
as
described
above.
Additionally,
it
remains
the
case
that
the
Town
has
the
power
to
enforce
Municipal
Code
nuisance
provisions,
and
to
require
property
owners
to
perform
maintenance
on
their
properties
to
eliminate
conditions
that
foster
urban
decay
regardless
of
the
vacancy
rate.
In
the
Revised
Project,
additional
policy
language
has
been
included
under
JR
Goal
7
(Policy
P7.3)
that
requires
future
economic
analysis
for
any
single
retail
use
with
a
Gross
Floor
Area
of
15,000
sq.ft.
specifically
to
address
concerns
about
future
large
scale
retail
businesses.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
Response
16-‐9d:
The
commenter
proposes
the
use
of
a
community
based
design
process
to
refine
the
commenter’s
proposed
land
plan
and
range
of
allowed
uses.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
Response
16-‐9e:
The
commenter
proposes
the
creation
of
Codes,
Covenants,
and
Restrictions
(CCRs)
and
Reciprocal
Easements.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
Response
16-‐9f:
The
commenter
proposes
the
development
of
incentives
to
relocate
existing
uses
along
the
(Truckee)
River
to
the
Plan
Area.
The
Revised
Project
includes
incentives
in
the
M1
Manufacturing/industrial
zone.
Specifically,
relocation
development
standards
and
guidelines
to
encourage
Truckee
River
corridor
and
Downtown
in-‐fill
business
relocation.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐183
Response
16-‐9g:
The
commenter
provides
a
list
of
suggested
land
uses
within
the
commenter’s
proposed
Mixed
Use
Overlay
Designation,
as
well
as
a
list
of
proposed
prohibited
uses.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
Response
16-‐9h:
The
commenter
proposes
the
establishment
of
a
Specific
Highway
Scenic
Buffer
Overlay,
along
with
conditions
that
would
limit
development
in
this
proposed
area
until
a
range
of
conditions
are
met.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Section
3.13
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
includes
a
detailed
analysis
of
potential
visual
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
project
in
addition
to
policy
analysis
regarding
aesthetics.
Additionally,
visual
simulations
have
been
included
in
Section
3.13
to
further
assist
in
the
analysis
of
potential
visual
impacts.
As
described
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.13,
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
less
than
significant
visual
impacts,
and
no
mitigation
is
required.
The
commenter
has
not
addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
visual
impact
analysis
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a,
which
explains
the
changes
to
the
Zoning
Map
for
the
Plan
Area.
The
revised
Project
includes
a
significantly
expanded
area
of
open
space
along
the
SR
267
corridor.
Response
16-‐9i:
The
commenter
proposes
that
a
detailed
scenic
sensitive
analysis
be
completed
prior
to
development
being
permitted
within
the
commenter’s
proposed
Scenic
Buffer
Overlay.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a
and
Response
16-‐9h.
Response
16-‐9j:
The
commenter
states
that
a
wetland
delineation
should
be
completed
for
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
in
Parcel
4).
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
It
is
further
noted
that
a
wetland
delineation
has
been
completed
for
the
Plan
Area
which
includes
the
ephemeral
and
intermittent
steam
area
located
within
the
open
space
area
along
the
western
property
boundary
of
proposed
Parcel
6
(now
open
space
in
Parcel
4),
and
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐4
requires
the
project
applicant
to
submit
a
wetland
delineation
(either
the
one
already
prepared,
or
a
new
delineation)
to
the
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
for
verification
and
a
wetland
determination
prior
to
any
activities
that
would
result
in
removal,
fill,
or
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐184
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
hydrologic
interruption
of
the
drainage/wetland
area
of
the
Plan
Area.
To
clarify,
the
Draft
EIR
includes
an
analysis
of
the
wetland
features
that
is
based
on
Wetland
Delineation
for
the
±69-‐Acre
Joerger
Ranch
PC-‐3
Project
(North
Fork
Associates
2004).
This
wetland
delineation
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
1987
Army
Corps
Manual,
which
outlines
the
methodology
and
professional
standards
for
wetland
delineations.
Ultimately
concurrence
of
the
wetland
delineation
is
required
by
the
regulatory
agencies.
The
concurrence
comes
in
the
form
of
a
verification
and
determination
by
the
regulatory
agency.
The
Draft
EIR
explains
on
Page
3.2-‐20
that
the
wetland
delineation
would
need
to
be
verified
and
a
final
determination
would
need
to
be
provided
by
the
regulatory
agency.
Several
mitigation
measures
are
presented
to
mitigate
the
potentially
significant
impact
caused
by
the
proposed
fill
of
a
.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐4
outlines
the
requirement
to
first
get
a
determination
from
the
regulatory
agency,
and
if
jurisdiction
is
present,
authorization
for
fill
would
be
required.
The
regulatory
agency
has
established
performance
measures
that
are
required
of
all
projects
that
are
authorized
to
fill.
This
includes
compensation
for
the
fill
to
ensure
no
net
loss
of
wetlands,
and
minimization
and
conservation
measures
that
are
applied
as
determined
applicable
to
the
specific
set
of
circumstances.
These
performance
measures
established
by
the
regulatory
agency
through
the
permit
process
are
not
controlled
by
the
Town
of
Truckee.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐5
outlines
requirements
for
the
project
proponent
to
comply
with
Truckee
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.F,
which
requires
a
Minor
Use
Permit
to
be
obtained
prior
to
any
disturbance
within
200-‐feet
of
a
wetland.
This
is
a
Town
requirement
and
requires
compensation
that
is
above
the
federal
and
state
standards
for
wetland
compensation.
It
is
the
practice
of
the
Town
to
collaborate
with
regulatory
agencies
to
establish
the
compensation
for
a
fill.
This
requirement
is
separate
from
any
state
or
federal
requirements,
although
it
is
intended
to
fulfill
the
intent
of
protecting
wetlands
through
avoidance,
minimization,
and
compensation
as
applicable.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR
and
no
changes
are
required.
It
is
further
noted
that
Parcel
6
is
now
designated
as
Open
Space
within
Parcel
4,
thereby
reducing
potential
impacts
to
wetlands.
Response
16-‐9k:
The
commenter
proposes
that
the
parcels
in
the
Commenter’s
proposed
Highway
Scenic
Buffer
Overlay
remain
in
open
space
until
the
commenter’s
suggested
planning
steps
have
been
completed.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
Response
16-‐10:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Specific
Plan
lacks
detail
concerning
an
integrated
project
design,
and
that
there
are
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
(which
are
not
specified
in
this
comment).
This
comment
is
noted,
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐185
The
commenter
has
not
identified
any
deficiencies
in
the
Draft
EIR
in
this
comment,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
further
referred
to
Response
16-‐9a.
Response
16-‐11:
The
commenter
states
that
the
lack
of
specificity
in
the
Specific
Plan
make
it
impossible
to
determine
whether
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
significant
impacts
are
feasible
and
will
be
implemented.
The
commenter
states
that
specific
examples
are
provided
in
subsequent
comments.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR,
which
are
included,
as
revised
in
this
Final
EIR,
in
the
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
(see
Section
4.0
of
this
Final
EIR)
are
required
to
be
implemented
by
the
project
applicant
or
by
future
development
applicants
in
the
Plan
Area.
The
mitigation
measures
specify
the
timing
and
enforcement
responsibility
for
each
measure.
In
most
cases,
enforcement
responsibility
will
fall
to
the
Town
of
Truckee,
and
the
Town
will
ensure
that
all
measures
are
properly
implemented,
as
appropriate,
throughout
the
life
of
the
project.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐12:
The
commenter
states
that
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐2
and
3.1-‐3
require
the
applicant
to
implement
a
number
of
strategies
to
reduce
operational
air
quality
emissions,
including
walkable
design
and
improved
pedestrian
network
and
destination
accessibility.
The
commenter
asserts
that
these
measures
are
not
possible
to
implement
without
an
integrated
design
for
some
of
the
parcels
in
the
Plan
Area.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐2
targets
reductions
in
energy
source
emissions,
and
includes
a
range
of
requirements
related
to
energy
conservation
and
energy
efficiency.
The
concepts
of
pedestrian
design
and
connectivity
are
not
addressed
under
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐2.
However,
it
is
noted
that
the
measures
required
under
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐2
are
measurable.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐2
is
feasible,
and
can
and
will
be
implemented
throughout
the
life
of
the
project.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐3
includes
a
range
of
measures
to
reduce
mobile
source
emissions,
including
but
not
limited
to
providing
access
to
alternative
transportation,
improving
pedestrian
connectivity,
and
facilitating
bicycle
use
and
connectivity.
Most
of
these
measures
are
required
to
be
incorporated
into
the
final
design
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
Plan
Area’s
final
design
has
not
been
developed
at
this
point,
given
that
no
specific
development
or
construction
activities
are
currently
proposed.
The
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
is
a
planning
level
document,
and
as
such,
there
are
no
development
projects
currently
proposed
by
the
project
applicant.
In
the
future,
as
development
proposals
in
the
Plan
Area
are
received
and
reviewed
by
the
Town,
these
future
development
proposals
will
be
required
to
implement
and
incorporate
the
mobile
source
emissions
reductions
measures
specified
in
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐3.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐13:
The
commenter
states
that
Mitigation
Measures
3.2-‐4,
3.2-‐5,
3.2-‐8
and
3.2-‐9
are
collectively
required
to
reduce
potentially
significant
biological
impacts
to
a
less
than
significant
level,
and
asserts
that
the
wetland
delineations
are
not
complete
and
there
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐186
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
is
no
certainty
that
project
redesign
will
comply
with
these
measures.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐5,
which
requires
the
project
applicant
to
provide
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
a
wetland
determination
from
the
USACE
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits.
In
accordance
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.F,
a
Minor
Use
Permit
shall
be
obtained
prior
to
any
disturbance
within
200-‐feet
of
a
wetland.
No
wetland
disturbance
is
permitted
without
Minor
Use
Permit
approval
(Development
Code
Section
18.46.040.C).
After
obtaining
the
appropriate
Minor
Use
Permit
in
accordance
with
the
Truckee
Development
Code,
the
project
proponent
shall
compensate
for
the
disturbance
to
ensure
no
net
loss
of
habitat
functions
and
values.
The
compensation
shall
be
determined
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
through
the
Minor
Use
Permit
process,
and
shall
be
at
a
minimum
ratio
of
1.5:1
compensation.
Compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
mitigation
measure
would
reduce
potential
impacts
to
wetlands
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
No
additional
mitigation
is
required.
This
mitigation
measure
does
not
constitute
deferred
mitigation;
the
measure
specifies
the
timing
under
which
the
measure
must
be
implemented,
and
the
performance
standard
that
must
be
met
prior
to
any
grading
or
disturbance
within
200
feet
of
a
wetland
or
drainage
area.
Further,
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
is
a
planning
document
for
the
purpose
of
setting
future
development
parameters.
There
are
no
development
projects
proposed
in
conjunction
with
the
master
plan
and
any
future
development
project
applications
will
be
reviewed
for
consistency
with
the
mitigation
measures
set
forth
in
this
EIR.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
16-‐9j.
Response
16-‐14:
The
commenter
asserts
that
the
Draft
EIR
uses
deferred
methods
of
mitigation
which
precludes
the
public
and
decision
makers
from
reviewing
and
revisiting
how
resources
will
be
protected.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Responses
16-‐8,
16-‐9j,
and
16-‐13.
The
commenter
has
not
correctly
or
accurately
identified
any
deferred
mitigation
measures
in
the
Draft
EIR.
All
of
the
mitigation
measures
in
the
Draft
EIR
correctly
include
performance
measures,
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15126.4(a)(1)(B),
which
states,
“…Formulation
of
mitigation
measures
should
not
be
deferred
until
some
future
time.
However,
measure
may
specify
performance
standards
which
would
mitigate
the
significant
effect
of
the
project
and
which
may
be
accomplished
in
more
than
one
specified
way.”
In
the
case
of
Mitigation
Measures
3.2-‐4
and
3.2-‐5,
the
potential
project
impact
to
wetlands
would
be
reduced
to
a
less
than
significant
level
either
through
complete
avoidance,
or
by
providing
compensatory
mitigation
at
a
minimum
level
of
1.5:1,
and
ensure
no
loss
net
loss
of
habitat
functions
and
values.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐15:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
fails
to
identify
and
address
with
feasible
mitigation,
the
numerous
inconsistencies
between
the
proposed
project
and
the
General
Plan.
The
commenter
provides
specific
examples
in
the
subsequent
comments.
It
is
noted,
however,
that
the
requirements
under
CEQA
to
address
a
project’s
consistency
with
the
applicable
General
Plan
are
limited
to
those
General
Plan
policies
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
or
mitigating
an
environmental
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐187
effect.
Therefore,
the
Draft
EIR
need
not
analyze
the
project
for
consistency
with
General
Plan
policies
that
were
not
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
or
mitigating
an
environmental
effect.
Response
16-‐16:
The
commenter
cites
text
from
the
2025
General
Plan
related
to
reducing
dependence
on
the
automobile
by
fostering
compact
development
and
providing
for
alternative
modes
of
transportation.
The
commenter
is
citing
a
supporting
concept
established
to
guide
implementation
of
the
General
Plan
Vision
Statement,
contained
in
the
Introduction
chapter
of
the
General
Plan.
The
commenter
is
not
citing
a
General
Plan
policy
or
action
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
reducing,
avoiding
or
mitigating
an
environmental
effect.
It
is
further
noted
that
the
proposed
project
includes
numerous
provisions
that
would
support
alternative
modes
of
transportation,
including
transit
stops,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
connectivity,
and
air
quality
mitigation
measures
that
include
electric
vehicle
plug-‐in
stations
to
reduce
emissions.
The
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
will
exercise
their
independent
judgment
while
reviewing
the
project
to
determine
if
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
Truckee
General
Plan.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐17:
The
commenter
cites
Policy
3
from
page
2-‐30
of
the
General
Plan,
which
states
that
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.
The
commenter
asserts
that
the
Draft
EIR
fails
to
illustrate
how
the
proposed
project
will
mitigate
the
visual
impacts
of
development
along
the
Brockway/Highway
267
corridor.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Impact
3.13-‐2,
which
specifically
addresses
potential
visual
impacts
from
the
project
along
the
SR
267
corridor.
This
Draft
EIR
section
includes
several
visual
simulations
that
were
prepared
to
further
assist
the
Town’s
decision
makers
and
the
public
in
understanding
the
potential
visual
impacts
that
may
occur
from
project
implementation.
As
described
under
Impact
3.13-‐2,
visual
impacts,
including
visual
impacts
along
the
SR
267
corridor
would
be
less
than
significant.
As
such,
no
mitigation
is
required.
The
commenter
has
not
provided
examples
or
supporting
evidence
that
indicate
that
the
visual
impact
analysis
under
Impact
3.13-‐2
is
incorrect,
lacking
in
detail,
or
improperly
determined
that
this
is
a
less
than
significant
impact.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
It
is
further
noted
that
the
Project
revisions
incorporate
significant
areas
of
open
space
along
the
SR
267
corridor.
Response
16-‐18:
The
commenter
cites
Policy
4
from
page
2-‐30
of
the
General
Plan,
which
states
that
the
Specific
Plan
shall
include
standards
for
the
design
of
retail
shopping
areas
that
avoid
“strip
commercial”
site
layout,
and
that
are
oriented
and
scaled
to
the
pedestrian
realm.
This
comment
is
noted.
The
Draft
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
includes
detailed
design
criteria
that
will
ensure
a
quality
built
environment
and
avoids
“strip
commercial”
development.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
the
Draft
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
for
additional
details.
The
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐188
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐19:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
fails
to
analyze
and
mitigate
significant
visual
impacts
adjacent
to
the
SR
267
corridor.
The
commenter
is
referred
to
Response
16-‐
17.
The
potential
visual
impacts
of
the
proposed
project
have
been
adequately
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
It
is
further
noted
that
the
Draft
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
includes
extensive
detail
related
to
design
guidelines
that
will
dictate
the
future
form,
design,
and
massing
of
future
development
within
the
Plan
Area.
Chapter
3
of
the
Draft
Specific
Plan
include
standards
addressing
pedestrian
access
and
circulation,
plazas
and
paving,
architectural
design,
building
forms
and
massing,
building
scale,
entries,
building
materials,
windows,
roofs,
gutters
and
downspouts,
colors,
exterior
equipment,
and
photovoltaic
panels
and
shingles.
Future
development
proposals
within
the
Plan
Area
will
be
required
to
adhere
to
the
design
guidelines
and
standards
in
the
adopted
Specific
Plan.
This
issue
has
been
thoroughly
addressed,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐20:
The
commenter
states
that
the
Draft
EIR
fails
to
adequately
address
the
visual
impact
of
50-‐foot
high
structures
within
the
SR
267
corridor.
The
commenter
is
referred
the
Section
3.13,
which
describes
the
topographical
differences
between
the
SR
267
roadway
and
the
project
site,
as
well
as
Responses
16-‐17
through
16-‐19.
This
issue
has
been
adequately
addressed,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐21:
The
commenter
states
that
it
is
not
clear
if
future
uses
would
be
allowed
to
establish
signage
and
lighting
that
would
be
at
a
50-‐foot
height.
As
noted
in
Section
3.13
of
the
Draft
EIR,
signage,
landscaping
and
lighting
within
the
Plan
Area
would
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
Town
of
Truckee
Development
Code,
particularly
sections
18.54
(Sign
Standards),
18.56
(Sign
Design
Guidelines),
18.40
(Landscaping
Standards)
and
18.30.060
(Exterior
Lighting
and
Night
Sky).
Compliance
with
these
Development
Code
standards
would
ensure
that
potential
visual
impacts
related
to
signage
are
less
than
significant.
No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
Response
16-‐22:
The
commenter
states
that
it
is
not
clear
from
the
implementation
strategies
in
the
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
if
the
proposed
uses
are
supporting
and
will
not
compete
with
other
local
uses
nearby
and
within
the
Downtown,
and
suggests
that
the
Specific
Plan
should
outline
potential
incentives
for
industrial
relocation
to
the
Plan
Area.
This
comment
is
noted
and
has
been
forwarded
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
Town
Council
for
their
consideration
during
review
of
the
project.
This
comment
does
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
required.
The
commenter
is
also
referred
to
Response
16-‐9c
and
16-‐9f.
Response
16-‐23:
The
commenter
provides
closing
remarks,
and
reiterates
their
support
for
their
proposed
mitigation
measure.
The
commenter
also
notes
several
attachments
included
in
the
comment
letter.
This
comment
is
noted,
and
detailed
responses
to
issues
raised
by
the
commenter
have
been
provided
above.
The
additional
supporting
COMMENTS
ON
D RAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES
2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
2.0-‐189
information
provided
by
the
commenter
is
included
in
this
Final
EIR.
No
additional
response
is
required.
2.0
COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
R ESPONSES
2.0-‐190
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.
ERRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐1
This
section
includes
minor
edits
and
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR,
including
changes
to
the
Project
Description
that
have
occurred
since
preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR.
These
modifications
resulted
from
responses
to
comments
received
during
the
public
review
period
for
the
Draft
EIR,
as
well
as
Town
staff
and
project
proponent-‐initiated
edits
to
clarify
language
and
implementation
of
mitigation
measures.
Section
2.0
of
this
Final
EIR
includes
an
expanded
discussion
of
changes
to
the
Project
Description
that
have
occurred
since
the
Draft
EIR
was
prepared.
Revisions
herein
do
not
result
in
new
significant
environmental
impacts,
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information,
nor
do
they
alter
the
conclusions
of
the
environmental
analysis
that
would
warrant
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
Minor
changes
to
various
sections
of
the
Draft
EIR
are
shown
below.
These
changes
are
provided
in
revision
marks
with
underline
for
new
text
and
strike
out
for
deleted
text.
3.1
R EVISIONS
TO
THE
DRAFT
EIR
1.0
INTRODUCTION
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
1.0
of
the
DEIR.
2.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐1:
S URROUNDING
L AND
U SES
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
2-‐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),
industrial
(e.g.,
warehousing
and
storage)
and
public
(including
Truckee’s
Town
Hall)
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.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐2
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
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.
Riverview
Sports
Park
is
located
north
of
the
Plan
Area,
immediately
north
of
Joerger
Drive.
The
Truckee
Sanitary
District
offices
are
located
north
of
the
Plan
Area,
immediately
east
of
Riverview
Sports
Park.
The
Tahoe
Truckee
Unified
School
District
Transportation
center
is
located
north
of
Joerger
Drive,
east
of
the
Truckee
Sanitation
District.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐3
5.
Accommodate
the
possible
Encourage
and
incentivize
the
relocation
of
certain
existing
types
of
commercial
and
manufacturing,
industrial,
processing
and
repair/maintenance
uses
from
businesses
location
along
the
Truckee
River
corridor
and
Historic
Preservation
(-‐
HP)
overlay
in-‐fill
sites
to
the
manufacturing
(M1)
zone.
(JR
Goal
2)
7.
Develop
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
with
land
uses
that
promote
high-‐quality
economic
development.
(JR
Goal
1)
8.Extend
development
along
the
Brockway
Road
Corridor
in
keeping
wih
the
existing
unique
and
eclectic
character.
(JR
Goal
3)
9.
Provide
a
coordinated
pedestrian
and
bicycle
network
to
encourage
non-‐motorized
travel
from
surrounding
neighborhoods
and
within
the
Joerger
Ranch
Plan
Area.
(JR
Goal
4)
10.
Balance
open
space
preservation
with
economic
diversification.
(JR
Goal
5)
11.
Foster
economic
diversification
beyond
tourism
by
encouraging
high-‐tech
businesses
to
locate
in
the
Business
Innovation
(BIZ)
zone.
(JR
Goal
6)
12.
Encourage
the
development
of
new
regional-‐serving
uses
that
reflect
Truckee’s
unique
small
historic
mountain
town
character.
(JR
Goal
7)
13.
Ensure
the
construction
of
workforce
housing
consistent
with
the
intent
and
purpose
of
Development
Code
Chapter
18.216
(Workforce
Housing)
(JR
Goal
8).
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐4:
o Regional
Commercial
(CR)—acreage
is
now
16.3.
o Deleted
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
section.
The
CRS
zone
was
changed
to
open
space
for
the
teardrop-‐shaped
parcel
along
Joerger
Drive.
Manufacturing
(M1)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐3
for
the
parcel
located
at
the
northeast
intersection
of
Soaring
Way
and
Joerger
Drive,
and
Regional
Commercial
for
parcel
adjacent
to
the
CR
zone.
o Commercial
Lifestyle
(CL)—acreage
is
now
4.7
acres
with
the
triangle
piece
at
the
southwest
corner
of
the
Highway
267/Brockway
Road
intersection
designated
as
a
2.7
acre
CL-‐1
parcel
for
a
future
non-‐profit
center.
o Manufacturing
(M1)—acreage
is
now
9.6
acres.
Auto
dealerships
are
no
longer
a
target
land
use
and
the
zoning
district
has
been
re-‐described
to
encourage
the
relocation
of
Truckee
River
Corridor
and
Downtown
Truckee
infill
businesses
to
the
M1
zone.
o Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)—the
acreage
is
now
11.2
acres
and
one
parcel.
The
desired
land
uses
are
more
geared
toward
research
and
development,
culinary
and
other
uses
that
would
work
well
in
a
campus
setting
versus
traditional
manufacturing
uses.
o Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)—the
acreage
is
now
4.0
acres
and
the
zone
has
been
renamed
RMW-‐20
or
Workforce
Multi-‐Family
Residential,
20
dwelling
units
per
acre
to
clarify
that
the
intent
of
the
zoning
district
is
to
provide
workforce
housing
for
Joerger
Ranch.
o Open
Space
(OS):
the
acreage
is
now
20.9
acres
and
the
zone
has
been
renamed
OS-‐P
or
Open
Space
Protected
to
emphasis
the
intended
use
as
open
space
in
the
long
term.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
Table
2-‐1
on
page
2.0-‐5:
TABLE
2-‐1:
SUMMARY
OF
ZONING,
ACREAGE,
AND
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
Zoning
Designation
Acreage
Development
Potential
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
11.69
16.3
177,507
101,843
sf
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
6.07
52,881
sf
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
7.59
4.7
51,183
66,124
sf
Manufacturing/Industrial
(M1)
13.57
9.5
103,455
118,222
sf
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
13.97
11.2
121,968
121,707
sf
Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)
3.48
4.0
80
41
housing
units
Open
Space
(OS)
10.24
20.9
N/A
Total
66.6
454,113
sf/80
housing
units
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐4
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐6:
In
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
Chapter
18.216
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code,
the
project
includes
4.0-‐acres
of
multi-‐family
residential
zoning
for
the
purpose
of
constructing
workforce
housing
(RMW-‐20).The
zone
has
a
minimum/maximum
density
of
18-‐20
dwelling
units
which
equates
to
72-‐80
dwelling
units.
a
total
of
97
workforce
housing
units.
Forty-‐one
of
the
required
workforce
housing
units
would
be
constructed
within
the
3.48-‐acre
Multi-‐Family
Residential
Zone.
The
remaining
56
workforce
housing
units
would
be
built
throughout
the
remainder
of
the
proposed
zoning
districts,
and
integrated
into
future
commercial,
industrial,
and
business
park
structures.
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
and
8-‐foot
parallel
parking
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
CR
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,
a
six
-‐foot
wide
sidewalk
and
10-‐foot
wide
Class
I
bike
path.
Hope
Court:
Hope
Court
currently
consists
of
two
16-‐foot
wide
travel
lanes
with
aggregate
base
shoulders.
The
Specific
Plan
proposes
to
decrease
the
travel
lanes
to
12-‐foot
wide
lane
and
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
six-‐foot
wide
sidewalk
and
10-‐foot
wide
Class
I
bike
path
on
the
westerly
side
to
connect
to
the
Legacy
Trail.
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐5
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.
A
10-‐foot
wide
Class
I
bike
path
would
be
constructed
in
the
open
space
area
on
the
north
side
of
Joerger
Drive.
Internal
Connection
Bridge:
A
potential
internal
roadway
connection
may
be
made
between
the
12.2-‐acre
open
space
area
of
Parcel
4
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
Brockway
Road/Highway
267
intersection
and/or
the
CL,
RMW-‐20,
and
BIZ
zones
within
the
same
parcel,
which
would
allow
access
off
of
Brockway
Road
to
be
consolidated
to
the
proposed
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
roundabout.
In
order
to
provide
connectivity
between
the
RMW-‐20
and/or
BIZ
zones,
the
internal
roadway
would
need
to
span
the
ephemeral
drainage
channel
that
runs
north-‐south
between
SR
267
and
Brockway
Road,
along
the
eastern
edge
of
the
CL,
RMW-‐20
and
BIZ
zoning
districts.
If
this
connection
option
were
implemented,
it
would
eliminate
the
intersection
of
Martis
Drive
and
Brockway
Road,
as
currently
shown
on
Figure
2-‐7.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐7:
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court:
The
existing
three-‐leg
“T”
intersection
at
Brockway
Road
and
Hope
Court
is
proposed
to
remain.
Depending
on
future
development
and
level
of
service
at
the
site
access
this
configuration
may
stay
a
“T”
intersection
or
may
need
other
improvements.
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.
One
option
would
align
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
near
the
existing
winery
access.
The
second
option
would
evaluate
the
alignment
of
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection.
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
one
option
proposed
to
complete
for
this
intersection.
The
second
option
would
evaluate
the
alignment
of
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection.
Martis
Drive
is
proposed
as
two
12-‐foot
wide
travel
lanes
with
curb,
gutter,
six-‐foot
wide
sidewalk
and
10-‐foot
wide
Class
I
bike
path.
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive:
The
Soaring
Way
/
Joerger
Drive
intersection
would
be
improved
to
provide
a
single-‐lane
roundabout
additional
turn
pockets
and
an
additional
leg
to
the
south
to
access
the
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
and
Regional
Support
Commercial
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐6
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
(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.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐8:
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.
the
constructed
portion
of
the
Martis
Valley
trail.
This
would
provide
a
significant
link
to
connect
the
specific
plan
area
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.
And
a
Class
I
bicycle
path
is
proposed
within
the
teardrop
open
space
area
at
the
northwest
intersection
of
Joerger
Drive/Soaring
Way
to
the
Riverview
Sports
Park
and
along
the
westerly
property
boundary
of
the
CR
zone.
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.
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
project
area.
Wastewater
collected
from
adjacent
properties
to
the
north
and
east
of
the
Plan
Area
is
currently
conveyed
in
a
sewer
interceptor
pipeline
that
runs
in
an
easement
on
Tahoe
Truckee
Airport
District
property
before
crossing
Joerger
Drive,
SR
267,
and
the
easterly
open
space
area
of
Parcel
4
2
.
The
project
would
connect
to
the
existing
sewer
main
line,
and
would
include
an
internal
network
of
conveyance
lines.
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐7
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐9:
I NFRASTRUCTURE
P HASING
Development
within
Plan
Area
will
be
incremental
and
will
be
driven
by
market
demands.
With
market
uncertainties,
it
is
impossible
to
exactly
identify
the
phasing
order
of
project
development
within
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Area.
In
order
to
ensure
that
the
Plan
Area
is
adequately
served
by
common
infrastructure,
the
Specific
Plan
includes
an
Implementation
and
Phasing
Chapter
(Chapter
6
of
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan).
The
overall
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
has
common
infrastructure
improvements
that
benefit
all
properties
within
the
Plan
Area.
These
improvements
need
to
be
installed
if
major
portions
of
the
Plan
Area
develop
first.
However,
there
are
parcels
within
the
Plan
Area
that
may
not
trigger
major
improvements
or
may
only
require
portions
of
the
overall
improvements.
The
proposed
phasing
plan
in
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
recognizes
these
factors
and
allows
for
flexibility
in
the
program,
while
still
requiring
each
property
owner
who
will
benefit
from
the
overall
program
to
pay
their
fair
share
so
that
the
common
infrastructure
can
be
built
out
in
an
orderly
fashion.
The
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
has
established
a
format
that
allows
for
the
cost
and
timing
of
infrastructure
improvements
to
be
based
upon
the
intensity
and
percentage
of
usage.
In
order
to
determine
fair
share
costs
of
common
area
and
specific
area
improvements
prior
to
any
subdivision
map
recordation
or
specific
development
permit
approvals
for
individual
uses
with
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
sponsor
shall
prepare
a
Cost
Analysis
Assessment
(CAA)
consisting
of
civil
design
drawings
for
all
common
area
and
specific
area
improvements
identified
in
the
Specific
Plan
and
summarized
in
Table
2-‐3
below,
to
30%
level
design
and
provide
an
estimate
of
probable
construction
costs.
The
project
sponsor
shall
also
prepare
a
land
use
intensity
chart
based
on
allowed
uses
listed
in
the
Specific
Plan
and
anticipated
traffic
use
analyzed
in
this
Draft
EIR.
The
CAA
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Town
Engineering
Department
to
confirm
that
the
Design
Drawings
and
estimate
of
probable
construction
costs
follow
the
Town’s
Development
Standards.
Once
the
CAA
is
approved,
it
can
be
used
to
allocate
the
associated
common
and
specific
area
costs
to
the
various
zones
and
parcels
to
be
created.
Each
future
parcel
development
will
be
responsible
for
completing
the
improvements
for
the
length
of
that
parcels
frontage
as
set
forth
in
Chapter
7
4.2.2
of
the
Specific
Plan
(Roadway
&
Intersection
Design
Implementation
&
Phasing)
and
pay
a
fair
share
portion
of
the
Intersection,
Pedestrian,
Bicycle,
and
Public
Transportation
improvements
as
set
forth
in
Chapter
4
5
(Transportation)
and
7
(Implementation
&
Phasing)
of
the
Specific
Plan
and
required
by
the
mitigation
measures
contained
in
this
Draft
EIR.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐8
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
2.0-‐10:
Minor
projects
proposed
within
the
Plan
Area
that
can
demonstrate
that
traffic
they
generate
does
not
exceed
the
existing,
acceptable
operational
level
of
service
(LOS)
at
the
intersections
analyzed
in
Section
3.11
of
this
Draft
EIR
may
be
permitted
subject
to
construction
of
their
parcel’s
frontage
improvements
and
paying
their
fair
share
portion
of
the
Common
Infrastructure
Improvements
outlined
in
Table
2-‐3.
Projects
that
generate
traffic
that
exceed
the
existing,
acceptable
operational
LOS
at
the
Intersections
listed
in
Chapter
4
of
the
Specific
Plan
will
be
required
to
construct
those
Overall
Common
Area
Improvements
necessary
to
bring
the
operational
LOS
at
the
impacted
intersection
to
an
acceptable
level.
Additionally,
each
project
is
responsible
for
their
site-‐specific
frontage
improvements,
along
with
payment
of
whatever
remaining
fair
share
cost
of
the
common
infrastructure
improvements
as
allocated
by
the
CAA.
In
conjunction
with
allocating
costs
based
on
the
CAA
for
individual
parcel
owners’
construction,
the
project
sponsor
shall
establish
a
legal
entity
(i.e.
Owners
Association
or
similar)
that
has
the
authority
to
and
obligates
all
parcels
and
parcel
owners
to
fund
their
fair
share
portion
of
the
design,
construction,
and
permitting
fee
costs
of
the
Common
Area
Improvements
if
they
proceed
prior
to
construction
of
the
Common
Area
Improvements;
OR
pay
their
fair
share
of
reimbursement
funds
to
the
project
sponsor
who
installed
the
improvement(s)
if
they
develop
after
the
Common
Area
Improvements
are
installed.
A
Project
that
requires
the
construction
of
Overall
Common
Area
Improvements
will
be
responsible
for
completion
of
the
final
Civil
Design,
construction
permitting
and
completion
of
the
improvements.
The
remaining
properties
that
have
not
paid
their
fair
share
portion
of
the
Overall
Common
Area
Improvements
will
be
subject
to
reimbursement.
Tables
2-‐2
and
2-‐3
describe
the
initial
actions
and
common
area
and
specific
area
infrastructure
improvements
needed
to
develop
the
Plan
Area
and
how
each
parcel
/parcel
owner
is
responsible
for
their
fair
share.
TABLE
2-‐2:
SPECIFIC
PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
MEASURES
AND
ACTION
ITEMS
No.
Implementation
Measures
and
Action
Items
Timing
Responsible
Party
1
Specific
Plan
/
Tentative
Map
Approval
2
Overall
Specific
Plan
Traffic
Study:
Traffic
Study
to
analyze
overall
Specific
Plan
based
upon
delineated
uses
and
Prior
to
Specific
Plan
Approval.
Contained
within
Developer
/
Town
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐9
No.
Implementation
Measures
and
Action
Items
Timing
Responsible
Party
zoning
contained
therein
this
Draft
EIR
3
30%
Design:
Prepare
improvement
plans
for
all
common
infrastructure
to
30%
design
level,
including
and
engineers
estimate
and
matrix
for
pro-‐rata
responsible
share
for
the
14
parcels
represented
on
the
Phase
I
Final
Map.
Plans
shall
be
reviewed/approved
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
Engineering
Department.
Prior
to
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation
Developer
4
Create
a
managing
legal
entity
responsible
for
implementation
of
public
infrastructure,
including
final
design
drawings,
construction,
collection,
retention,
and
distribution
of
cost
assessments,
and
reimbursement
of
construction
costs.
Prior
to
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation
Developer
5
Create
an
Owners
Association
to
establish
specific
expectations
and
responsibilities
for
maintenance
(non-‐
public
entities),
affordable
housing,
shared
parking,
access,
snow
storage,
drainage,
landscaping,
etc.
Prior
to
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation
Developer
6
Phase
1
Final
Map
Recordation:
Recordation
of
Large
Lot
subdivision
for
4
14
parcels.
Prior
to
any
land
use
approval
or
building
permit
issuance
Developer
TABLE
2-‐3:
INTERSECTION/ROADWAY
FRONTAGE/CLASS
I
BIKE
TRAIL
IMPROVEMENTS
No.
Improvements
Timing
Responsible
Party
Required
prior
to
development
in
parcel
1
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
Intersection
and
associated
Brockway
Road
improvements
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
Intersection
Improvements
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
Intersection
Improvements:
• Construct
right
turn
lane,
Class
II
bicycle
lanes,
sidewalk
• Construct
northbound
right
turn
lane
• Construct
sidewalk,
Class
II
bicycle
lanes
and
Class
I
bicycle
paths
• Construct
crosswalks
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
and
recordation
of
any
Phase
II
Parcel
or
Final
Map.
Parcel
9
1,
2,4
(M1
or
CR
zone
only)
2
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
Intersection
and
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Parcels
1-‐5,
2
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐10
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
No.
Improvements
Timing
Responsible
Party
Required
prior
to
development
in
parcel
associated
Brockway
Road
improvements
Construct
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
Roundabout:
• Construct
Single
lane
roundabout
• Construct
sidewalk,
Class
II
bike
lanes
and
Class
I
bike
paths
• Install
utilities
Occupancy
of
first
building
and
recordation
of
any
Phase
II
Parcel
or
Final
Map.
3
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive
Intersection
Construct
all
necessary
improvements
along
Brockway
Road:
• Improvements
at
Hope
Court/Brockway
Road
• Improvements
at
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
• Construct
Martis
Drive
• Construct
sidewalk,
Class
II
bike
lanes
and
Class
I
bike
paths
• install
utilities
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
and
recordation
of
any
Phase
II
Parcel
or
Final
Map.
Parcels
8-‐14
Parcel
4
4
Highway
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
Intersection
(see
Note
#1)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy,
as
required
to
mitigate
impact
(see
Note
#1)
Parcels
1-‐6
&
8-‐
14
5
Class
I
Bike
Path
along
Brockway
Road
and
Hope
Court
(including
crosswalk)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building,
or
addition
Parcels
1-‐6
6
Martis
Drive
and
Class
I
Bike
Path
along
Martis
Drive
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building,
or
addition
(see
Note
#2)
Parcels
1-‐5
7
Joerger
Road
frontage
improvements
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcels
8-‐9
8
Soaring
Way
frontage
improvements
plus
sidewalk
and
landscaping
(south
side)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcel
14
9
Soaring
Way
frontage
improvements
plus
sidewalk
and
landscaping
(north
side)
Prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy
of
first
building
Parcels
10-‐12
10
Utilities
within
right-‐of-‐way
and
offsite
utilities
As
required
by
respective
utility
agency(s)
to
Parcels
1-‐6
&
8-‐
14
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐11
No.
Improvements
Timing
Responsible
Party
Required
prior
to
development
in
parcel
adequately
serve
each
proposed
project
11
Transit
Stop-‐
Brockway
Road
Upon
Construction
of
Martis
Drive
Parcels
1-‐6
Parcel
4
12
Transit
Stop-‐
Soaring
Way
Upon
Development
in
the
CR
zone
of
Parcel
1
of
Parcel
14
Parcels
8-‐14
CR
zone
of
Parcel
1
Note
#1:
Incremental
improvements
to
Highway
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
may
take
place
and
shall
be
based
upon
the
improvements
needed
to
properly
mitigate
the
traffic
impacts
associated
with
individual
development
projects
and
consistent
with
GP
Circulation
Policy
2.1.
Note
#2:
Parcels
1-‐5
are
required
to
construct
full
Martis
Drive
improvements
including
Class
I
Bike
Path
fronting
the
particular
parcel
and
to
the
south
to
Brockway
Road
prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy.
A
temporary
cul-‐de-‐sac
turnaround
may
be
utilized
for
Parcels
4
and
5
as
they
would
not
exceed
the
maximum
cul-‐de-‐sac
length
of
800
linear
feet.
Parcels
1-‐3
shall
be
required
to
construct
Martis
Drive
improvements
and
Class
I
Bike
Path
to
the
northerly
limits
of
the
Planning
Area.
Note
that
all
individual
applicants
shall
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Truckee
Fire
Protection
District
with
respect
to
approved
construction
access
and
available
fire
flow
from
an
existing
fire
hydrant
prior
to
commencing
vertical
building
construction.
Note
#1:
Incremental
improvements
to
Highway
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
may
take
place
and
shall
be
based
upon
the
improvements
needed
to
properly
mitigate
the
traffic
impacts
associated
with
individual
development
projects
and
consistent
with
GP
Circulation
Policy
2.1.
Note
#2:
Parcels
1-‐5
are
required
to
construct
full
Martis
Drive
improvements
including
Class
I
Bike
Path
fronting
the
particular
parcel
and
to
the
south
to
Brockway
Road
prior
to
Certificate
of
Occupancy.
A
temporary
cul-‐de-‐sac
turnaround
may
be
utilized
for
Parcels
4
and
5
as
they
would
not
exceed
the
maximum
cul-‐de-‐sac
length
of
800
linear
feet.
Parcels
1-‐3
shall
be
required
to
construct
Martis
Drive
improvements
and
Class
I
Bike
Path
to
the
northerly
limits
of
the
Planning
Area.
Note
that
all
individual
applicants
shall
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Truckee
Fire
Protection
District
with
respect
to
approved
construction
access
and
available
fire
flow
from
an
existing
fire
hydrant
prior
to
commencing
vertical
building
construction.
Note
#3:
Utilities
(on-‐
and
off-‐site)
shall
be
sized
and
installed
to
serve
the
overall
Joerger
Ranch
project
and
shall
be
installed
in
all
intersections,
or
roadway
improvement
areas
at
the
time
those
surface
improvements
are
installed
to
prevent
future
construction
within
completed
areas.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐12
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Figure
2-‐4
was
updated
to
include
labeling
for
townhomes
located
to
the
west
of
the
Plan
Area.
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐13
3.1
AIR
QUALITY
The
following
changes
were
made
to
pages
3.1-‐15
and
3.1-‐16
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐3:
To
reduce
Mobile
Source
Emissions,
the
project
applicant
shall
implement
the
following:
• Street
shall
be
designed
to
maximize
pedestrian
access
to
transit
stops.
• Provide
for
on-‐site
road
and
off-‐site
bus
turnouts,
passenger
benches
and
shelters
as
demand
and
service
routes
warrant
subject
to
review
and
approval
by
local
transportation
planning
agencies.
• Install
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
at
strategic
locations
within
the
project.
The
number
and
locations
should
be
determined
in
coordination
with
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
the
NSAQMD.
• Safe
and
convenient
bicycle
and
pedestrian
paths/sidewalks
connecting
proposed
residential
uses
to
nearby
trails
and
commercial
land
uses.
• Encourage
telecommuting
and
alternative
work
schedules
(10%
employee
work
9/80)
• Ensure
that
the
final
design
includes:
o Residential
density
at
a
minimum
of
12
units/acre.
o A
walkable
design/improved
pedestrian
network
(i.e.
walkways,
paths,
sidewalks,
trails,
etc.).
o Destination
accessibility
(connectivity
to/from
project
amenities).
o Increase
transit
accessibility
(ensure
that
the
minimum
distance
to
a
transit/bus
facility
is
.25
miles).
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.1-‐20
of
the
Draft
EIR
as
follows:
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-‐6:
To
reduce
NOx
emissions
during
the
site
preparation
and
grading
phase
of
construction,
the
contractor
shall
be
required
to
implement
the
following
measures:
• All
off-‐road
construction
equipment
must
utilize
“Diesel
Oxidation
Catalyst”,
and
Tiered
Engine
that
are
certified
to
effectively
reduce
NOx
emissions
by
40%.
engines
must
either
be
CARB
certified
as
at
least
Tier
2
engines
or
be
equipped
with
either
a
Diesel
Oxidation
Catalyst
or
a
Diesel
Particulate
Filter
that
is
in
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐14
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
good
repair
and
maintained
according
to
the
manufacturer’s
specifications
and
recommendations.
3.2
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
The
following
section
numbering
corrections
were
made
to
page
3.2-‐7:
3.4.2
3.2.2
REGULATORY
SETTING
The
following
revisions
are
made
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐2
on
page
3.2-‐20
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐2:
Prior
to
project
approval,
the
project
proponent
shall
incorporate
all
documented
Plumas
ivesia
located
along
the
Brockway
Road
frontage
into
the
Open
Space
preservation
area.
This
requires
a
slight
design
modification
of
Parcel
9,
which
is
designated
for
CG-‐2
uses.
The
net
effect
will
be
a
reduced
impact
to
this
species.
There
will
be
no
new
impact
created
by
this
design
modification.
The
following
revisions
are
made
to
page
3.2-‐19:
Plumas
ivesia
(ivesia
sericoleuca).
This
species
is
a
perennial
herb
of
the
Rosaceae
family.
Its
range
is
from
Lassen,
Nevada,
Placer,
Plumas,
and
Sierra
counties.
It
is
found
on
vernally
mesic,
usually
volcanic,
Great
Basin
scrub,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
meadows
and
seeps,
and
vernal
pools.
This
species
blooms
from
May
to
October.
(CNPS,
2011).
There
are
documented
occurrences
of
Plumas
ivesia
within
five
miles
of
the
project
site.
Field
surveys
performed
by
Foothill
Associates
on
August
21
and
22,
2006
revealed
the
presence
of
approximately
60
individual
plants
on
the
project
site.
This
species
was
observed
and
documented
in
five
locations
on
the
site,
as
shown
on
Figure
3.2-‐2.
One
of
the
areas
were
these
individual
plants
are
located
is
within
the
open
space
preservation
area
near
the
intersection
of
SR
267
and
Brockway
Road.
There
is
also
a
documented
occurrence
located
immediately
adjacent
to
the
open
space
area
along
the
Brockway
Road
frontage.
A
slight
design
modification
that
would
place
this
documented
occurrence
within
the
open
space
area
would
eliminate
a
potential
impact
to
this
species.
Development
within
the
M1
zone
of
Parcel
1
Parcel
16
would
require
disturbance
to
three
of
the
documented
occurrences
of
this
special
status
plants,
each
of
which
is
clustered
in
the
same
area.
Implementation
of
the
following
mitigation
measure
would
reduce
this
impact
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐2:
Prior
to
project
approval,
the
project
proponent
shall
incorporate
all
documented
Plumas
ivesia
located
along
the
Brockway
Road
frontage
into
the
Open
Space
preservation
area.
This
requires
a
slight
design
modification
of
Parcel
9,
which
is
designated
for
CG-‐2
uses.
The
net
effect
will
be
a
reduced
impact
to
this
species.
There
will
be
no
new
impact
created
by
this
design
modification.
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐15
The
following
revisions
are
made
to
page
3.2-‐20:
The
project
site
contains
two
wetlands
(streams)
as
identified
in
the
Wetland
Delineation
for
the
±69-‐Acre
Joerger
Ranch
PC-‐3
Project
(North
Fork
Associates
2004).
The
first
wetland
area
is
identified
as
a
0.22-‐acre
intermittent
stream
and
is
located
in
the
12.2-‐acre
4.31-‐
acre
area
designated
as
Open
Space
on
the
westside
of
SR
267.
The
second
wetland
area
is
a
0.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream
located
in
an
area
designated
for
Regional
Commercial
and
Regional
Support
Commercial
on
the
eastside
of
SR
267
just
south
of
Soaring
Way.
The
development
would
require
the
removal
of
the
.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream.
The
following
impact
numbering
corrections
were
made
to
page
3.2-‐20:
Impact
3.4-5
3.2-5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
wetlands
(Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation)
The
following
revisions
are
made
to
page
3.2-‐21:
The
0.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream
is
in
an
area
designated
for
Regional
Commercial
and
Regional
Support
Commercial.
Disturbance
to
the
0.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream
would
require
authorization
from
the
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
under
the
Porter-‐
Cologne
Water
Quality
Act
and
from
the
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
under
the
Fish
and
Game
Code.
In
addition,
a
verification
of
the
wetland
delineation
and
determination
by
the
USACE
would
ultimately
determine
whether
authorization
is
required
from
the
USACE
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
following
mitigation
measures
would
ensure
that
the
appropriate
regulatory
compliance
steps
are
taken
to
secure
State
and
federal
authorizations
for
disturbance
to
the
0.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream
prior
to
any
disturbance.
This
would
include
permits
and
compensatory
mitigation.
Implementation
of
the
following
mitigation
measures
would
ensure
that
the
impacts
to
wetlands
are
reduced
to
a
less
than
significant
level.
The
following
revisions
are
made
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐5
on
page
3.2-‐22
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐5:
The
project
proponent
shall
provide
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
a
wetland
determination
from
the
USACE
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
for
work
in
areas
that
may
impact
wetlands.
In
accordance
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.F,
a
Minor
Use
Permit
shall
be
obtained
prior
to
any
disturbance
within
200-‐feet
of
a
wetland.
No
wetland
disturbance
is
permitted
without
Minor
Use
Permit
approval
(Development
Code
Section
18.46.040.C).
After
obtaining
the
appropriate
Minor
Use
Permit
in
accordance
with
the
Truckee
Development
Code,
the
project
proponent
shall
compensate
for
the
disturbance
to
ensure
no
net
loss
of
habitat
functions
and
values.
The
compensation
shall
be
determined
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
through
the
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐16
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Minor
Use
Permit
process,
and
shall
be
at
a
minimum
ratio
of
1.5:1
compensation.
Compensation
methods
are
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
permitting
agency.
The
following
revisions
are
made
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐6
on
page
3.2-‐22
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐6:
Prior
to
any
activities
that
would
result
in
removal,
fill,
or
hydrologic
interruption
of
the
drainage/wetland
area,
the
project
proponent
shall
consult
with
the
RWQCB
and
CDFW
to
determine
if
the
activities
are
subject
to
permit
requirements
from
these
agencies
(i.e.
Waste
Discharge
Permit
for
fill
of
isolated
wetlands,
and
Streambed
Alternation
Agreement).
If
the
RWQCB
and/or
CDFW
determines
that
the
project
activities
are
subject
to
these
regulations,
the
project
proponent
shall
secure
an
authorization
of
the
activities
through
the
appropriate
permits,
provide
compensation
for
the
fill,
and
implement
the
minimization
and
conservation
measures
recommended
by
the
regulatory
agency
within
the
permit.
If
the
RWQCB
and/or
CDFW
determines
that
the
project
activities
are
not
subject
to
these
regulations,
the
project
proponent
shall
provide
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
a
letter
of
determination
from
the
RQQCB
and/or
CDFW.
(Note:
Implementation
of
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐9
would
require
preservation
of
the
0.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream,
thereby
eliminating
the
potential
for
disturbance
to
jurisdictional
areas
and
eliminating
the
potential
need
to
obtain
permits/authorizations).
The
following
revisions
are
made
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐9
on
page
3.2-‐26
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-‐9:
Prior
to
the
final
approval,
the
project
proponent
shall
redesign
the
project
to
ensure
that
the
0.11-‐acre
ephemeral
stream
is
preserved
and
development
is
prohibited
with
a
50-‐foot
buffer
area,
all
of
which
shall
be
designed
as
open
space.
This
redesign
would
be
required
to
ensure
consistency
with
this
Policy
4.4
and
4.5
of
the
Open
Space
and
Conservation
Element
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan.
3.3
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.3-‐18:
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-‐3:
If
human
remains
are
discovered
during
the
course
of
construction,
work
shall
be
halted
at
the
site
and
any
nearby
area
reasonably
suspected
to
overlie
adjacent
human
remains
until
the
County
Coroner
has
been
informed
and
has
determined
that
no
investigation
of
the
cause
of
death
is
required.
If
the
remains
are
of
Native
American
origin,
either
of
the
following
steps
will
be
taken:
• The
coroner
will
contact
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
in
order
to
ascertain
the
proper
descendants
from
the
deceased
individual.
The
coroner
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐17
will
make
a
recommendation
to
the
landowner
or
the
person
responsible
for
the
excavation
work,
for
means
of
treating
or
disposing
of,
with
appropriate
dignity,
the
human
remains
and
any
associated
grave
goods,
which
may
include
obtaining
a
qualified
archaeologist
or
team
of
archaeologists
to
properly
excavate
the
human
remains.
• The
landowner
shall
retain
a
Native
American
monitor,
and
an
archaeologist,
if
recommended
by
the
Native
American
monitor,
and
rebury
the
Native
American
human
remains
and
any
associated
grave
goods,
with
appropriate
dignity,
on
the
property
and
in
a
location
that
is
not
subject
to
further
subsurface
disturbance
when
any
of
the
following
conditions
occurs:
The
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
is
unable
to
identify
a
descendent.
The
descendant
identified
fails
to
make
a
recommendation.
The
Town
of
Truckee
or
its
authorized
representative
rejects
the
recommendation
of
the
descendant,
and
the
mediation
by
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
fails
to
provide
measures
acceptable
to
the
landowner.
If
human
remains
are
discovered,
all
work
shall
be
halted
immediately
within
50
meters
(165
feet)
of
the
discovery,
the
County
Coroner
must
be
notified,
according
to
Section
5097.98
of
the
State
Public
Resources
Code
and
Section
7050.5
of
California’s
Health
and
Safety
Code.
If
the
remains
are
determined
to
be
Native
American,
the
coroner
will
notify
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission,
and
the
procedures
outlined
in
CEQA
Section
15064.5(d)
and
(e)
shall
be
followed.
3.4
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.4
of
the
Draft
EIR.
3.5
GREENHOUSE
GASES
AND
CLIMATE
CHANGE
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.5
of
the
Draft
EIR.
3.6
HAZARDS
AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
The
following
numbering
changes
were
made
to
page
3.6-‐17:
MITIGATION
MEASURES
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-‐1
3.6-‐2:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
grading
permit,
the
project
proponent
shall
appropriately
dispose
of
all
materials
on
the
project
site
that
are
cited
within
the
Phase
I
ESA.
This
includes
drums/containers,
equipment,
parts,
metal
and
wood
debris,
and
other
refuse.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐18
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-‐2
3.6-‐3:
Prior
to
the
commencement
of
grading,
the
project
proponent
shall
abandon
the
existing
well
after
obtaining
the
appropriate
well
abandonment
permits.
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-‐3
3.6-‐4:
During
grading
activities,
if
there
is
any
evidence
of
soil
discoloring
or
odors
that
indicate
a
potential
contamination
anywhere
on
the
project
site
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
areas
around
the
pump
house
and
where
the
drums/contains
were
stored,
the
project
proponent
shall
perform
soil
testing
to
determine
the
type
and
extent
of
the
contamination.
In
addition,
the
project
proponent
will
be
responsible
for
the
cleanup
activities
necessary
to
remove
and
dispose
of
such
contamination
if
discovered.
3.7
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.7-‐8
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Municipal
Activities
-‐
Small
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Water
Systems
(MS4s)
The
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board’s
Municipal
Storm
Water
Permitting
Program
regulates
storm
water
discharges
from
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
(MS4s).
MS4
permits
were
issued
in
5-‐year
terms.
The
Phase
2
MS4
permits
required
the
discharger
to
develop
and
implement
a
Storm
Water
Management
Plan/Program
with
the
goal
of
reducing
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
(MEP).
The
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
fulfilled
the
first
term
requirement
under
the
Phase
2
MS4
permit.
On
July
1,
2013
the
Phase
II
Small
MS4
General
Permit
(Order
2013-‐0001-‐DWQ)
became
effective.
The
former
permit
is
superseded
by
the
new
permit
and
the
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
is
no
longer
a
component
in
the
new
MS4
permit.
The
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
is
superseded
by
the
permit’s
Guidance
document.
Both
the
permit
and
the
guidance
document
can
be
found
at
the
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board
website
as
follows:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml.
On
December
8,
1999,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(USEPA)
circulated
regulations
requiring
permits
for
storm
water
discharges
from
Small
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
System
operators.
Permits
for
small
municipal
storm
sewer
systems
(MS4s)
generally
fall
under
the
“Phase
II”
permits
program,
which
regulate
non-‐point
source
pollutants.
In
California,
the
NPDES
Program
is
administered
by
the
SWRCB.
Federal
regulations
allow
two
permitting
options
for
storm
water
discharges
(individual
permits
and
general
permits).
The
SWRCB
elected
to
adopt
a
statewide
general
permit
(Water
Quality
Order
No.
2003-‐0005-‐DWQ)
for
small
MS4s
covered
under
the
CWA
to
efficiently
regulate
numerous
storm
water
discharges
under
a
single
permit.
Permittees
must
meet
the
requirements
in
Provision
D
of
the
General
Permit
that
require
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
storm
water
management
plan
(SWMP)
with
the
goal
of
reducing
the
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐19
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable.
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
defined
as
a
small
MS4
under
the
existing
General
Permit.
The
Lahonton
RWQCB
designated
the
Town
of
Truckee
for
coverage
under
the
NPDES
Phase
II
municipal
permitting
program
in
December
2006.
The
Town
of
Truckee
published
a
SWMP
on
December
6,
2007
that
addresses
the
required
minimum
measures
and
other
storm
water
quality
concerns.
The
SWMP
was
submitted
to
the
Lahontan
RWQCB
and
was
approved
in
March
2008.
The
SWRCB
has
recently
issued
a
draft
Water
Quality
Order
to
replace
the
current
General
Permit
for
Small
MS4s.
In
the
draft
Order,
the
Town
of
Truckee
is
classified
as
a
Renewal
Traditional
Small
MS4
Permittee.
The
draft
Order
is
much
more
prescriptive
than
the
current
General
Permit
and
increases
the
number
of
program
categories.
The
draft
Order
is
targeted
for
adoption
in
the
near
future.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.7-‐14
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007)
The
Lahontan
RWQCB
designated
the
Town
of
Truckee
for
coverage
under
the
NPDES
Phase
II
municipal
permitting
program
in
December
2006.
The
Town
of
Truckee
published
a
Storm
Water
Management
Program
(SWMP)
on
December
6,
2007,
that
addresses
the
required
minimum
measures
and
other
storm
water
quality
concerns.
The
SWMP
has
been
prepared
based
on
the
goal
of
reducing
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
and
addresses
requirements
pertaining
to
the
following
six
minimum
control
measures:
• Public
Education
and
Outreach
on
Storm
Water
Impacts
• Public
Involvement/Participation
• Illicit
Discharge
Detection
and
Elimination
• Construction
Site
Storm
Water
Runoff
Control
• Post-‐Construction
Storm
Water
Management
in
New
Development
• Redevelopment
and
Pollution
Prevention/Good
Housekeeping
for
Municipal
Operations.
The
SWMP
was
submitted
to
the
Lahontan
RWQCB
and
was
approved
in
March
2008.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.7-‐20
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Post
construction
BMP’s
will
also
be
implemented
in
accordance
with
NPDES
Phase
II
Small
and
Town
of
Truckee
MS4
General
Permit
(Order
2013-‐0001-‐DWQ)
requirements,
which
became
effective
on
July
1,
2013.
Post
construction
BMP’s
include
runoff
control
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐20
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
measures,
water
quality
facilities,
operations
and
maintenance
programs,
employee
training,
recycling
and
waste
disposal
programs
and
public
education
(signage/brochures)
for
storm
water
quality
protection.
Permanent
water
quality
facilities
that
remain
in
place
upon
completion
of
the
project
such
as
bio-‐swales,
retention
basins
and
water
quality
inlet
structures
remove
and
filter
potential
common
pollutants
such
as
oil
and
grease
from
roadways,
pesticides
from
lawns
and
landscaping,
sediment,
and
trash
prior
to
discharge
of
storm
water
to
natural
water
courses.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
pages
3.7-‐20
through
3.7-‐21
of
the
Draft
EIR:
MITIGATION
MEASURES
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-‐1:
The
project
applicant
shall
prepare
a
site-‐specific
and
construction
phase-‐specific
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plan
(SWPPP)
in
conformance
with
the
California
Stormwater
Quality
Association
Construction
Handbook
(Construction
Handbook),
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
State
General
Construction
Activity
Storm
Water
Permit
(CGP),
and
in
compliance
with
project
guidelines
for
erosion
control
published
by
the
Lahontan
RWQCB,
as
well
as
demonstrate
compliance
with
sediment
reduction
measures
associated
with
the
total
maximum
daily
loads
(TMDL)
for
Sediment
for
the
Middle
Truckee
River
watershed.
The
SWPPP
shall
be
prepared
using
current
templates
and
formats
provided
by
the
California
Stormwater
Quality
Association.
The
Construction
Handbook
provides
general
guidance
for
selecting
and
implementing
best
management
practices
(BMPs)
that
will
eliminate
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
construction
sites,
and
the
SWPPP
will
document
the
selection
and
implementation
of
BMPs
for
the
particular
construction
projects
on
the
site.
The
site-‐specific
SWPPP
must
describe
the
site,
as
well
as
the
proposed
erosion
and
sediment
controls
(BMPs
for
water
quality),
the
means
of
waste
disposal,
implementation
of
approved
local
plans,
control
measures
of
post-‐construction
sediment
and
erosion,
monitoring
and
maintenance
responsibilities,
and
non-‐stormwater
management
controls.
Dewatering,
if
needed,
shall
be
done
in
a
manner
so
as
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
pollutants,
including
earthen
materials,
from
the
site.
The
project
applicant
shall
submit
the
SWPPP
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
the
Lahontan
RWQCB
for
review
and
approval.
The
project
applicant
shall
require
all
construction
contractors
to
retain
a
copy
of
the
approved
SWPPP
on
the
construction
site.
BMPs
identified
in
the
SWPPP
shall
be
utilized
in
all
project
site
development
activities.
Implementation
of
appropriate,
effective
water
quality
controls
will
ensure
that
stormwater
discharges
that
will
result
with
implementation
of
the
project
are
in
compliance
with
all
current
requirements
of
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-‐2:
Grading
activities
shall
be
prohibited
during
the
winter
months,
unless
approved
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.C.4
and
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
Exposed
graded
areas
shall
be
protected
during
the
winter
months
using
appropriate
methods.
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐21
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-‐3:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
grading
permits,
the
project
applicant
shall
submit
and
obtain
approval
of
a
storm
water
management
plan
(SWMP)
consistent
with
the
Town’s
Municipal
Code
and
Storm
Water
Quality
Ordinance.
The
SWMP
shall,
at
a
minimum,
include
the
following:
• A
written
text
addressing
existing
conditions,
the
effects
of
project
improvements,
all
appropriate
calculations,
a
watershed
map,
proposed
on-‐
and
off-‐site
improvements
and
detention/retention
facilities,
and
other
features
to
protect
downslope
areas
from
degradation
of
storm
water
quality.
• Information
demonstrating
that
the
project
design
would
result
in
drainage
flow
conditions
below
pre-‐project
flow
rates
and
volumes.
• The
SWMP
and
subsequent
site
development
submittals
shall
address
storm
drainage
management
during
construction
and
thereafter
and
shall
include
provisions
for
the
application
of
best
management
practice
(BMP)
measures
to
reduce
erosion,
water
quality
degradation,
etc.
Storm
water
drainage
management,
BMPs,
and
water
quality
control
features
shall
be
identified
for
construction
staging
areas,
building
sites
and
site
improvements.
Permanent
water
quality
control
features,
including
LID
facilities,
described
in
the
report
shall
demonstrate
(at
minimum)
that
the
water
quality
controls
are
adequate
to
prevent
any
increase
in
sediment
or
other
pollutants
to
downslope
areas
over
pre-‐
development
conditions.
• Prior
to
the
design
of
new
detention/retention
basins
that
will
serve
the
project
site,
soil
borings
shall
be
taken
at
representative
locations
to
analyze
the
subsurface
soils
that
are
present
and
the
elevation
of
the
subsurface
water
table.
If
these
soil
borings
identify
perched
groundwater
within
2
feet
of
the
proposed
bottom
elevation
of
these
detention/retention
basins,
a
liner,
filter
fabric,
or
other
remedial
measures
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
design
of
the
applicable
storm
water
facilities
to
prevent
intrusion
of
development-‐related
pollutants
to
groundwater.
• Snow
storage
and
management
practices.
Snow
will
be
stored
on-‐site
in
landscape
areas
and
other
undeveloped
areas.
If
the
required
amount
of
snow
storage
cannot
be
handled
on-‐site,
the
applicant
shall
provide
a
long-‐term
snow-‐hauling
plan
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.130.B.3.b
.
Storm
water
runoff
from
snow
storage
areas
will
be
routed
through
water
quality
treatment
facilities
prior
to
discharge.
Snow
removal
shall
be
further
described
in
a
Maintenance
Agreement
between
the
property
owner
and
the
Town
of
Truckee
as
required
by
Development
Code
Section
18.30.105.B.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐22
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
• Storm
drainage
from
on-‐site
impervious
surfaces
shall
be
treated
and
infiltrated
through
buffers
or
be
collected
and
routed
through
specially
designed
catch
basins,
vaults,
filters,
etc.
for
entrapment
of
sediment
debris
and
oils/greases.
Maintenance
of
facilities
shall
be
identified.
• All
related
underground
and
surface
drainage
systems
must
be
addressed
in
order
to
ensure
full
integration
of
areas
that
will
generate
runoff.
These
areas
will
include
rooftops,
sidewalks,
cut/fill
slopes,
streets,
parking
lots,
up-‐gradient
off-‐site
source
areas,
and
impervious
landscaping
areas.
• All
required
approvals
associated
with
construction-‐related
storm
water
permit
requirements
of
the
current
federal
Clean
Water
Act
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
program
and
other
associated
permit
approvals
from
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
• All
required
approvals
associated
with
Phase
II
Small
MS4
General
Permit
(Order
2013-‐0001-‐DWQ)
requirements,
which
became
effective
on
July
1,
2013.
This
shall
include
consistency
with
the
Guidance
Document
for
the
permit
that
supersedes
the
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007).
3.8
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
The
following
changes
are
made
to
Mitigation
Measure
3.8-‐1:
Mitigation
Measure
3.8-‐1:
A
minimum
of
4.0
acres
shall
be
zoned
RMW-‐20
(Workforce
Multi-‐Family,
20
units
per
acre)
with
a
minimum/maximum
density
of
18-‐20
dwelling
units
per
acre.
Prior
to
issuance
of
any
building
permits
for
development
on
the
west
side
of
Highway
267,
a
Parcel
or
Final
Map
shall
be
recorded
that
creates
the
4.0
acre
RMW-‐20
site
as
a
stand-‐alone
parcel
with
full
dedicated
public
access
from
Brockway
Road.
of
97
workforce
housing
units
shall
be
constructed
and
offered
for
sale
or
rent
within
the
Plan
Area,
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
Chapter
18.216.050
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code,
concurrently
with
or
prior
to
completion
of
the
development
project
or
phase
thereof.
As
used
in
Chapter
18.216,
“concurrently”
means
that
a
proportionate
share
of
workforce
housing
units,
including
a
proportionate
share
of
units
by
income
affordability,
must
be
substantially
completed
by
the
time
50%
of
the
development
project
is
occupied.
The
Town
of
Truckee,
at
its
own
discretion
may
approve
an
alternative
timing
plan
if
the
Town
finds
the
alternative
timing
plan
will
further
affordable
housing
opportunities
in
the
Town
to
an
equal
or
greater
extent
and
the
completion
of
the
workforce
housing
units
is
secured
by
a
performance
bond
or
other
similar
security.
The
41
residential
multi-‐family
housing
units
proposed
with
the
RM
Zoning
District
shall
be
constructed
and
completed
prior
to
construction
and
occupation
of
42%
of
the
proposed
non-‐residential
uses
(approximately
193,526
square
feet
of
non-‐residential
uses).
The
remaining
56
workforce
housing
units
shall
be
constructed
concurrent
with
the
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐23
development
of
the
remaining
58%
percent
of
the
non-‐residential
development
on
the
project
site.
As
future
applications
for
the
development
of
non-‐residential
uses
within
the
Plan
Area
are
received
by
the
Town,
the
Town
shall
require
project
applicants
to
construct
their
fair-‐
share
of
workforce
housing
units
within
the
Plan
Area,
as
required
and
calculated
by
Chapter
18.216.040(B)
and
(C)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
No
project
within
the
Plan
Area
will
be
considered
exempt
from
the
workforce
housing
requirements
identified
in
this
measure.
All
workforce
housing
units
constructed
within
the
Plan
Area
shall
meet
the
affordability
requirements
specified
in
Chapter
18.216.040(D)
of
the
Truckee
Development
Code.
3.9
NOISE
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.9
of
the
Draft
EIR.
3.10
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
RECREATION
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.10
of
the
Draft
EIR.
3.11
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Following
public
review
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
Specific
Plan
land
uses
were
updated
as
summarized
in
the
table
below.
Zoning
Designation
Development
Potential
per
DEIR
Traffic
Analysis
Proposed
Development
Potential
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
203,69
sf
(0.4
FAR)
177,507
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
58,040
sf
(0.2
FAR)
0
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
132,240
sf
(0.2
FAR)
51,183
(0.25
FR)
Manufacturing/Industrial
(M1)
93,340
sf
(0.2
FAR)
103,455
sf
(0.30
FAR)
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
121,720
sf
(0.2
FAR)
121,968
sf
(0.25
FAR)
Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)
42
housing
units
80
housing
units
Open
Space
(OS)
N/A
N/A
Total
609,030
sf
454,113
sf
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐24
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Town
of
Truckee
determined
that
revisions
were
required
for
the
project
trip
generation
analysis
based
on
corrections
to
the
acreages
of
Parcels
4,
5,
and
6,
and
changes
to
the
floor
area
ratios
within
these
zones.
As
a
result
of
the
corrections
to
the
parcel
acreages
and
changes
to
the
floor
area
ratios,
LSC
Transportation
Consultants
has
prepared
a
Follow-‐Up
Traffic
Analysis,
which
is
included
in
its
entirety
on
the
following
pages.
While
the
land
uses
have
been
revised
since
the
preparation
of
the
revised
traffic
analysis
in
February,
the
new
land
uses
would
result
in
external
trip
generation
that
is
roughly
10%
higher
than
the
land
uses
analyzed
in
the
February
2014
analysis
and
25%
lower
than
those
analyzed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Town
has
elected
to
include
this
Follow-‐Up
Traffic
Analysis
in
the
Final
EIR
as
an
appendix
for
informational
purposes.
However,
it
has
been
determined
that
future
traffic
analysis
will
be
required
to
evaluate
LOS
at
the
project
site
accesses,
including
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
intersection
as
the
required
improvements
depend
on
the
ultimate
level
of
development
on
the
site
as
well
as
where
Martis
Drive
would
connect
with
Brockway
Road
(at
Hope
Court
or
at
the
existing
winery
access).
The
updated
trip
generation
analysis
provided
below
demonstrate
that
project-‐generated
traffic
would
be
less
than
what
was
shown
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
that
there
would
be
a
corresponding
decrease
in
traffic
on
study
area
roadways
and
intersections.
Using
the
February
2014
updated
traffic
analysis
as
a
guide,
it
can
be
assumed
that
with
the
reduced
trip
generation,
impacts
to
the
site
intersections
and
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
intersection
would
be
less,
but
impacts
to
intersections
outside
the
project
area
would
remain
the
same.
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐25
Zoning
Designation
Development
Potential
per
DEIR
Traffic
Analysis
Development
Potential
(Revised
Feb
2014
Traffic
Analysis)
External
PM
Peak
Hour
Trip
Gen
Per
DEIR
Effective
PM
Peak
Hour
External
Trip
Gen
Rate
per
KSF/DU
(trips
divided
by
land
use)
Proposed
Development
Potential
Estimated
External
Trip
Gen
Based
on
New
Land
Uses
Regional
Commercial
(CR)
203,69
sf
(0.4
FAR)
101,843
sf
(0.2
FAR)
579
2.84
177,507
sf
(0.25
FAR)
505
Regional
Support
Commercial
(CRS)
58,040
sf
(0.2
FAR)
52,882
sf
(0.2
FAR)
102
1.76
0
0
Lifestyle
Commercial
(CL)
132,240
sf
(0.2
FAR)
66,124
sf
(0.2
FAR)
214
1.62
51,183
(0.25
FR)
83
Manufacturing/
Industrial
(M1)
93,340
sf
(0.2
FAR)
118,222
sf
(0.2
FAR)
106
1.14
103,455
sf
(0.30
FAR)
117
Business
Innovation
Zone
(BIZ)
121,720
sf
(0.2
FAR)
121,707
sf
(0.2
FAR)
144
1.18
121,968
sf
(0.25
FAR)
144
Multi-‐Family
Residential
(RM)
42
housing
units
41
housing
units
20
0.48
80
housing
units
38
Open
Space
(OS)
N/A
N/A
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
609,030
sf
460,778
sf
1,186
-‐-‐
454,113
sf
887
External
Trip
Generation
Per
Revised
February
2014
LSC
Analysis
836
Revisions
herein
do
not
result
in
new
significant
environmental
impacts,
do
not
constitute
significant
new
information,
nor
do
they
alter
the
conclusions
of
the
environmental
analysis
that
would
warrant
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐26
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐27
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐28
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐29
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐30
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐31
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐32
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐33
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐34
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐35
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐36
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐37
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐38
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐39
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.11-‐3:
Joerger
Drive
is
a
two-‐lane
roadway
providing
access
from
Soaring
Way
to
the
Riverview
Sports
Park,
the
Truckee
Sanitation
District,
the
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency,
the
Tahoe
Truckee
Unified
School
District
Transportation
Center,
and
a
privately
operated
quarry.
Joerger
Drive
has
a
posted
speed
limit
of
40
miles
per
hour.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
the
mitigation
measures
on
page
3.11-‐47:
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1A:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
applicant
shall
pay
its
fair
share
towards
the
construction
of
construct
a
center
turn
lane
on
Donner
Pass
Road
to
allow
two-‐stage
left-‐turn
movements
to
be
made
from
Glenshire
Drive.
The
turn
lane
shall
be
constructed
during
Phase
1
of
project
construction
and
prior
to
any
Parcel
or
Final
Map
recordation.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1B:
Installation
of
a
traffic
signal
at
the
Bridge
Street/Donner
Pass
Road
intersection
is
included
in
the
Town’s
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program.
Payment
of
traffic
impact
fees
is
considered
to
be
an
adequate
mitigation
measure
for
this
intersection.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
pay
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fees
contributing
to
this
improvement
prior
to
building
permit
issuance.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1C:
Installation
of
a
traffic
signal
at
the
Bridge
Street/West
River
Street
intersection
is
included
in
the
Town’s
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
pay
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fees
contributing
to
this
improvement
prior
to
building
permit
issuance.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1D:
Re-‐striping
the
existing
westbound
left-‐turn
lane
on
West
River
Street
at
its
intersection
with
McIver
Crossing
as
a
two-‐way
left-‐turn
lane
(TWLTL)
would
improve
the
LOS
to
an
acceptable
level
(LOS
E
or
better)
in
2012,
as
it
would
allow
two-‐stage
left-‐turn
movements
from
McIver
Crossing
to
West
River
Street
eastbound.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
shall
restripe
the
existing
pavement
to
provide
a
TWLTL
on
West
River
Street
east
of
McIver
Crossing.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1E:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
construct
improvements
to
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
as
identified
in
General
Plan
Table
CIR-‐5
(which
indicates
construction
of
a
roundabout
or
additional
through
and
turning
lanes).
The
construction
of
additional
through
and
turning
lanes
may
be
allowed
as
an
interim
improvement
if
the
project
proponent
can
demonstrate
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Town
that
the
additional
through
and
turning
lanes
would
be
substantially
less
costly
than
the
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐40
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
construction
of
a
roundabout,
and
would
achieve
an
acceptable
level
of
service
at
this
intersection.
Dual
left-‐turn
lanes
will
not
be
allowed.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F:
The
project
proponent
shall
construct
a
single-lane
roundabout
with
single-lane
approaches
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court/Site
Access
intersection.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
parcels
located
on
the
west
side
of
SR
267,
a
Brockway
Road
Corridor
Study
shall
be
completed.
The
study
shall
evaluate
two
potential
Martis
Drive
alignment
options.
One
option
would
align
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
near
the
existing
winery
access.
The
second
option
would
evaluate
the
alignment
of
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection.
Pursuant
of
the
Mountain
Home
Center
Planning
Commission
Resolution
2005-‐14,
improvements
to
Martis
Drive
should
consider
the
provision
of
a
shared
access
with
Mountain
Home
Center.
The
provision
of
a
shared
access
would
require
the
closure
of
the
Mountain
Home
Center
access
off
Brockway
Road.
The
following
should
be
evaluated,
at
a
minimum,
for
each
of
the
potential
Martis
Drive
alignments:
• Intersection
Level
of
Service
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road,
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court,
and
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
intersections
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
The
analysis
shall
identify
intersection
mitigation
measures
that
are
necessary
to
maintain
adequate
LOS.
Two-‐way
left-‐turn
lanes
may
be
appropriate
under
certain
conditions
along
Brockway
Road
they
shall
not
be
considered
a
valid
method
for
mitigation
LOS.
Two-‐way
left
turn
lanes
shall
only
be
considered
at
intersections
with
low
traffic
turning-‐movement
volumes.
• Turn
lane
warrants
shall
be
evaluated
to
determine
where
left
and
right-‐turn
lanes
are
required
for
reasons
beyond
meeting
Level
of
Service
thresholds.
• Location
and
extent
of
necessary
snow
storage
easements.
• Locations
of
Class
I
trails
connections
and
trail
crossings
on
the
west
side
of
SR
267,
as
well
as
the
evaluation
of
medians,
pedestrian
actuated
flashing
lights,
and
other
features
to
facilitate
those
crossings.
Appropriate
crosswalk
locations
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
intersection.
• 30
percent
design
of
SR
267/Brockway,
Brockway/Hope
Court,
and
Brockway/Martis
Drive
intersections
and
trails
with
adequate
detail
such
that
right
of
way
and
easement
requirements
can
be
accurately
identified.
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐41
• Evaluation
of
any
additional
utility
easements
(outside
road
right
of
way)
that
might
be
necessary.
The
improvements
that
are
required
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site
will
be
determined
by
the
Town
Engineer
based
upon
the
results
of
this
study.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
parcels
located
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267,
a
Brockway
Road
Corridor
Study
shall
be
completed
that
identifies,
at
a
minimum,
the
following:
• Intersection
Level
of
Service
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
and
Joerger
Drive/Soaring
Way
intersections
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
Intersection
Level
of
Service
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
The
analysis
shall
identify
intersection
mitigation
measures
that
are
necessary
to
maintain
adequate
LOS.
Two-‐way
left-‐turn
lanes
may
be
appropriate
under
certain
conditions
along
Brockway
Road
they
shall
not
be
considered
a
valid
method
for
mitigation
LOS.
Two-‐way
left
turn
lanes
shall
only
be
considered
at
intersections
with
low
traffic
turning-‐movement
volumes.
• Turn
lane
warrants
shall
be
evaluated
to
determine
where
left
and
right-‐turn
lanes
are
required
for
reasons
beyond
meeting
Level
of
Service
thresholds.
• Locations
of
Class
I
trails
connections
and
trail
crossings
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267,
as
well
as
the
evaluation
of
medians,
pedestrian
actuated
flashing
lights,
and
other
features
to
facilitate
those
crossings.
Appropriate
crosswalk
locations
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
intersection.
• 30
percent
design
of
SR
267/Brockway
and
Joerger
Drive/Soaring
Way
intersections
and
trails
with
adequate
detail
such
that
right
of
way
and
easement
requirements
can
be
accurately
identified.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1G:
The
project
proponent
shall
provide
for
the
extension
of
the
existing
central
two-‐way
left-‐turn
lane
(TWLTL)
along
Brockway
Road
to
the
east
of
the
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
(Site
Access)
intersection.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1H:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
construct
a
single-‐lane
roundabout
with
single-‐lane
approaches
at
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive/Site
Access
intersection.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐42
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1I:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
building
permits
for
individual
development
projects
within
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
applicant(s)
shall
pay
the
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fee
to
cover
its
share
of
cost
to
perform
improvements
to
SR
267
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
prior
to
building
permit
issuance.
The
following
changes
are
made
to
Mitigation
Measures
on
page
3.11-‐65:
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐4A:
The
propose
proponent
shall
construct
separate
left-‐
and
right-‐
turn
lanes
on
the
southbound
Martis
Drive
approach
for
the
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
intersection.
The
timing
of
this
improvement
shall
be
determined
by
the
Town
of
Truckee.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐4B:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
building
permits
for
individual
development
projects
within
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
applicant(s)
shall
pay
the
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fee
to
cover
its
share
of
cost
to
perform
improvements
to
the:
• SR
89
North/Donner
Pass
Road
intersection,
• Donner
Pass
Road/I-‐80
Eastern
Interchange
Eastbound
Off-‐Ramp
intersection,
• Donner
Pass
Road/Pioneer
Trail
intersection,
• SR
267/Airport
Road/Schaffer
Mill
Road
intersection,
• SR
267/I-‐80
Interchange
Ramps
intersections,
and
• SR
267
-‐
widening
SR
267
to
four
travel
lanes
from
the
Town
Limit
to
south
of
Northstar
Drive,
extending
the
southbound
truck
climbing
lane
to
Brockway
Summit,
and
constructing
a
northbound
passing
lane
at
Brockway
Summit.
The
following
changes
are
made
on
page
3.11-‐67:
Impact
3.11-6:
The
project
may
conflict
with
existing
/
planned
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities,
and
would
provide
connections
to
existing
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities
(Less
than
Significant)
The
project
proposes
to
provide
a
Class
I
bike
path
through
the
project
site
that
would
connect
to
the
future
Truckee
Trail
System
as
well
as
the
proposed
Martis
Valley
Regional
Trail.
Specifically,
a
Class
I
trail
is
proposed
to
be
constructed
from
a
point
of
future
connection
to
the
Truckee
trail
system
on
the
northwest
corner
of
the
project
site
south
to
Brockway
Road
(another
point
of
future
connection
to
the
Truckee
Class
I
trail
system
to
the
west),
along
the
north
side
of
Brockway
Road
to
a
point
opposite
Hope
Court,
and
along
the
northerly
side
of
Hope
Court
to
the
Town
Boundary
to
a
point
of
future
connection
with
the
proposed
Martis
Valley
Regional
Trail).
A
detailed
design
of
the
Brockway
Road
trail
crossing
shall
be
addressed
and
designed
to
a
30%
level
as
a
part
of
the
Brockway
Road
Corridor
Study
required
in
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-‐1F.
A
primary
at-‐grade
crossing
is
proposed
to
be
provided
on
the
eastern
leg
of
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection,
accompanied
by
pedestrian
crossing
signs
with
solar-‐powered
pedestrian-‐activated
flashing
beacons,
as
well
as
recessed
in-‐pavement
flashing
lights.
At
grade
crossings
would
also
be
provided
on
the
two
site
access
drives
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐43
along
the
north
side
of
Brockway
Road.
The
presence
of
a
crosswalk
across
three
lanes
of
traffic
at
an
unsignalized
intersection
(the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection)
is
problematic.
For
instance,
when
the
first
car
stops
at
the
crosswalk,
the
driver
of
the
“second
car”
in
another
lane
may
not
see
the
person
using
the
crosswalk
because
the
first
car
is
blocking
the
line
of
sight.
It
is
recommended
that
either
the
crosswalk
be
relocated
to
a
mid-‐block
location
or
a
roundabout
be
provided
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection.
Note
that
a
roundabout
is
the
recommended
LOS
mitigation
measure
at
this
intersection.
It
is
assumed
that
the
roundabout
would
be
designed
to
safely
accommodate
bicycle
and
pedestrian
crossings.
In
addition,
a
Class
I
bike
path
would
be
constructed
across
SR
267
to
connect
the
east
and
west
portions
of
the
site.
This
Class
I
bike
path
would
continue
along
Soaring
Way
to
its
intersection
with
Joerger
Drive
and
then
roughly
parallel
to
Joerger
Drive
to
connect
to
the
Riverview
Sports
Park.
In
addition,
Class
II
bicycle
lanes
are
proposed
to
be
provided
adjacent
to
the
project
areas
along
Brockway
Road,
Soaring
Way,
and
Joerger
Drive
(in
both
directions).
The
Class
II
bike
lane
along
the
west
side
of
Joerger
Drive
would
connect
to
the
future
Truckee
Trail
System’s
Class
I
trail.
Sidewalks
and
pedestrian
paths
are
proposed
internally
within
all
the
project
plan
areas,
with
additional
sidewalks
provided
along
Brockway
Road,
Soaring
Way,
Joerger
Drive
and
Martis
Drive
wherever
Class
I
bike
paths
are
not
proposed.
Sidewalks
and
pedestrian
paths
are
proposed
internally
within
all
the
project
plan
areas,
with
additional
sidewalks
provided
along
the
south
side
of
Brockway
Road
between
Hope
Court
and
SR
267,
along
the
south
side
of
Soaring
Way
between
SR
267
and
Joerger
Drive,
along
both
sides
of
Soaring
Way
east
of
Joerger
Drive,
along
the
west
side
of
Joerger
Drive,
as
well
as
along
Martis
Drive
(internal
project
roadway).
The
proposed
plans
for
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
indicate
removal
of
three
of
the
four
existing
crosswalks,
with
only
one
crosswalk
remaining
(on
the
south
leg
of
the
intersection).
This
would
reduce
existing
pedestrian
access.
Also,
no
sidewalks
are
proposed
along
the
north
side
of
Brockway
Road
and
Soaring
Way
between
Hope
Court
and
Joerger
Drive.
It
is
recommended
that
either
sidewalks
be
provided
along
these
missing
links,
with
connectively
at
the
SR
267
intersection,
or
the
project
proponent
should
demonstrate
how
the
site
design
will
accommodate
pedestrians
without
unduly
affecting
site
access.
Note
that
a
roundabout
is
the
recommended
LOS
mitigation
measure
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection.
It
is
assumed
that
the
roundabout
would
be
designed
to
safely
accommodate
bicycle
and
pedestrian
crossings.
The
proposed
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities
appear
to
meet
current
Caltrans
and
Town
of
Truckee
design
standards.
Assuming
any
roundabouts
or
signalized
intersection
improvements
will
be
designed
to
safely
accommodate
bicycle
and
pedestrian
crossings,
the
proposed
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities
are
considered
to
be
adequate.
The
proposed
bicycle
and
pedestrian
plans
were
compared
against
the
Truckee
Trails
and
Bikeways
Master
Plan,
current
plans
for
the
Legacy
Trail
and
Truckee-‐Northstar
trail
connections,
as
well
as
related
goals
and
policies
in
the
Circulation
Element
of
the
Truckee
General
Plan.
No
inconsistencies
were
identified.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐44
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
The
proposed
project
would
not
interfere
with
any
existing
pedestrian/bicycle
facilities,
and
would
not
preclude
construction
of
any
future
facilities.
The
project
would
construct
improvements
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court/Site
Access
intersection
that
would
benefit
bicyclist
and
pedestrian
travel.
In
addition,
Class
II
bicycle
lanes
are
proposed
to
be
provided
adjacent
to
the
project
areas
along
Brockway
Road,
Soaring
Way,
and
Joerger
Drive
(in
both
directions).
The
Class
II
bike
lane
along
the
west
side
of
Joerger
Drive
would
connect
to
the
future
Truckee
Trail
System’s
Class
I
trail.
This
is
considered
a
less
than
significant
impact.
3.12
UTILITIES
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.12-‐1:
Sanitary
wastewater
treatment
requirements
are
established
in
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
Permit
or
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
(WDRs)
issued
by
the
RWQCB.
The
permit
also
sets
out
a
framework
for
compliance
and
enforcement.
The
T-‐TSA
implements
and
enforces
a
pretreatment
program
for
effluent
discharged
into
the
WRP.
The
facility
is
currently
in
compliance
with
the
water
quality
requirements
of
the
WDRs
issued
by
the
RWQCB
for
the
protection
of
the
environmentally
sensitive
Lake
Tahoe
and
Truckee
River
Corridor.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.12-‐2:
Wastewater
discharge
is
regulated
under
the
NPDES
permit
program
for
direct
discharges
into
receiving
waters
and
by
the
National
Pretreatment
Program
for
indirect
discharges
to
a
sewage
treatment
plant.
The
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency
has
a
permit
to
discharge
treated
wastewater
into
the
Truckee
River
corridor.
However,
T-‐TSA
does
not
directly
discharge
treated
water
to
the
Truckee
River.
Instead,
plant
effluent
is
discharged
into
a
subsurface
disposal
field.
The
Town
of
Truckee
is
permitted
under
the
Waste
Discharge
Requirements
for
Small
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(MS4
permit
6A290712005,
Order
No.
2003-‐0005-‐DWQ-‐02),
which
also
serves
as
a
NPDES
Permit
(No.
CAS000004)
under
the
Federal
Clean
Water
Act.
Under
the
provisions
of
this
permit,
the
Town
is
required
to
implement
the
necessary
legal
authority
and
implement
appropriate
procedures,
to
regulate
the
entry
of
pollutants
and
non-‐stormwater
discharges
into
the
Town
stormwater
conveyance
system.
The
following
changes
were
made
to
page
3.12-‐5
of
the
Draft
EIR:
Mitigation
Measure
3.12-‐1:
Prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans
for
Commercial
and
Industrial
uses
within
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
proponent
and/or
business
owner
shall
provide
the
TSD
and
T-‐TSA
with
appropriate
details
of
the
uses
and
wastewater
generated
within
the
commercial
and/or
industrial
area.
Project
proponents
and/or
business
owners
shall
present
facility
layouts
with
tabulated
fixture
unit
counts
and
other
T-‐TSA
billing
factor
counts.
The
methodology
used
to
develop
these
fixture,
factor,
and
flowrates
shall
also
be
submitted.
Prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans,
the
project
proponent
and/or
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐45
business
owner
must
receive
verification
from
T-‐TSA
and
the
TSD
that
adequate
capacity
allocations
are
available
to
serve
the
proposed
project.
The
business
is
subject
to
receiving
a
“Will
Serve”
letter
for
the
specific
use/business.
The
following
change
is
made
to
page
3.12-‐6
of
the
Draft
EIR:
All
development
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267
would
connect
to
either
the
existing
8”
sewer
main
along
Soaring
Way
or
to
the
existing
21”
sewer
interceptor
that
crosses
Joerger
Drive.
line
in
Joerger
Drive
at
the
north
end
of
the
Plan
Area.
3.13
VISUAL
RESOURCES
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
3.13
of
the
Draft
EIR.
4.0
OTHER
CEQA
SECTIONS
The
following
change
is
made
to
page
4.0-‐3
of
the
Draft
EIR.
Impact
4.1:
The
project
may
contribute
to
cumulative
impacts
on
the
region's
air
quality
(Cumulatively
Considerable
and
Significant
and
Unavoidable)
The
cumulative
setting
for
air
quality
impacts
is
the
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin.
Under
buildout
conditions
in
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan,
the
Mountain
Counties
Air
Basin
would
continue
to
experience
increases
in
criteria
pollutants
and
efforts
to
improve
air
quality
throughout
the
basin
would
be
hindered.
As
described
in
Section
3.1,
Nevada
County
has
a
state
designation
of
Nonattainment
for
Ozone,
and
PM10
and
is
either
Attainment
or
unclassified
for
all
other
criteria
pollutants.
Table
3.1-‐2
presents
the
state
and
nation
attainment
status
for
Nevada
County.
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15183
allows
a
streamlined
environmental
review
process
for
projects
that
are
consistent
with
the
densities
established
by
existing
zoning,
community
plan
or
general
plan
policies
for
which
an
EIR
was
certified.
As
discussed
throughout
the
Draft
EIR,
the
proposed
project
is
consistent
with
the
land
use
designation
and
densities
established
by
the
Truckee
General
Plan
for
PC-‐3,
for
which
an
EIR
was
certified.
Additionally,
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15152
includes
provisions
for
“tiering,”
wherein
lead
agencies
are
encouraged
to
use
the
analysis
contained
in
EIRs
for
broader
projects
(i.e.,
a
general
plan
EIR)
as
part
of
the
analysis
for
subsequent
projects.
Section
15152(e)
notes
that
tiering
must
be
limited
to
situations
where
is
project
is
consistent
with
the
general
plan
and
zoning,
which,
given
the
fact
that
the
proposed
project
is
consistent,
enables
application
of
tiering
provisions.
The
relevant
provisions
contained
in
Section
15183
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
are
presented
below.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐46
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
15183.
PROJECTS
CONSISTENT
WITH
A
COMMUNITY
PLAN
OR
ZONING
(a)
CEQA
mandates
that
projects
which
are
consistent
with
the
development
density
established
by
existing
zoning,
community
plan,
or
general
plan
policies
for
which
an
EIR
was
certified
shall
not
require
additional
environmental
review,
except
as
might
be
necessary
to
examine
whether
there
are
project-‐specific
significant
effects
which
are
peculiar
to
the
project
or
its
site.
This
streamlines
the
review
of
such
projects
and
reduces
the
need
to
prepare
repetitive
environmental
studies.
(b)
In
approving
a
project
meeting
the
requirements
of
this
section,
a
public
agency
shall
limit
its
examination
of
environmental
effects
to
those
which
the
agency
determines,
in
an
initial
study
or
other
analysis:
(1)
Are
peculiar
to
the
project
or
the
parcel
on
which
the
project
would
be
located,
(2)
Were
not
analyzed
as
significant
effects
in
a
prior
EIR
on
the
zoning
action,
general
plan,
or
community
plan,
with
which
the
project
is
consistent,
(3)
Are
potentially
significant
off-‐site
impacts
and
cumulative
impacts
which
were
not
discussed
in
the
prior
EIR
prepared
for
the
general
plan,
community
plan
or
zoning
action,
or
(4)
Are
previously
identified
significant
effects
which,
as
a
result
of
substantial
new
information
which
was
not
known
at
the
time
the
EIR
was
certified,
are
determined
to
have
a
more
severe
adverse
impact
than
discussed
in
the
prior
EIR.
The
Draft
EIR
includes
a
detailed
analysis
of
the
project-‐specific
air
quality
emissions
that
would
result
from
project
implementation.
As
discussed
under
Impact
3.1-‐1,
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
increased
emissions
primarily
from
vehicle
miles
travelled
associated
with
project
implementation.
The
Northern
Sierra
Air
Quality
Management
District
(NSAQMD)
has
developed
a
tiered
approach
to
significance
levels;
a
project
with
emissions
qualifying
it
for
Level
A
thresholds
will
require
the
most
basic
mitigations.
Projects
which
qualify
for
Level
B
will
require
more
extensive
mitigation,
and
subsequently,
those
projects
which
qualify
for
Level
C
will
require
the
most
extensive
application
of
mitigation.
Table
3.1-‐5
provides
the
project-‐level
operational
threshold
of
significance
for
ROG,
NOx,
and
PM10.
There
is
no
threshold
established
for
PM2.5.
As
shown
in
Table
3.1-‐6,
operational
ROG,
NOx
and
PM10
emissions
exceed
the
Level
C
threshold
of
significance.
The
NAAQMD
has
determined
that
projects
with
emissions
that
exceed
this
Level
C
threshold
will
have
a
significant
impact
and
require
mitigation
to
reduce
emissions
to
the
extent
possible.
Mitigation
Measures
3.1-‐1
through
3.1-‐3
include
requirements
that
the
project
must
implement
in
order
to
reduce
operational
emissions
associated
with
project
implementation.
However,
as
shown
in
Table
3.1-‐7,
while
emissions
are
reduced
with
the
implementation
of
mitigation
measures;
the
residual
level
is
not
below
the
Level
C
thresholds
of
significance.
As
such,
implementation
of
the
proposed
project
would
have
a
significant
and
unavoidable
project-‐level
impact
relative
to
E RRATA
3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐47
this
topic.
cumulatively
considerable
and
significant
and
unavoidable
impact
relative
to
this
topic.
Cumulative
air
quality
impacts
associated
with
buildout
of
the
Truckee
General
Plan
were
addressed
in
detail
in
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan
EIR.
The
General
Plan
EIR
determined
that
buildout
of
the
General
Plan
would
result
in
cumulatively
considerable
and
significant
and
unavoidable
air
quality
impacts.
Findings
of
Fact
and
a
Statement
of
Overriding
Considerations
were
adopted
as
part
of
the
certification
of
the
2025
General
Plan
Final
EIR.
The
proposed
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
is
consistent
with
the
development
density
and
intensity
for
the
PC-‐3
Plan
Area,
as
analyzed
in
the
General
Plan
EIR.
As
such,
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
project
would
not
exceed
the
levels
analyzed
and
disclosed
in
the
General
Plan
EIR.
Given
the
project’s
consistency
with
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan,
and
the
tiering
and
streamlining
provisions
provided
by
Sections
15152
and
15183
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines,
no
new
cumulative
impacts
that
have
not
been
previously
disclosed,
would
occur
as
a
result
of
project
implementation.
As
such,
this
impact
would
not
result
in
a
new
cumulatively
considerable
significant
impact.
The
following
change
is
made
to
page
4.0-‐17
of
the
Draft
EIR.
4.4
SIGNIFICANT
AND
UNAVOIDABLE
I MPACTS
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15126.2(b)
requires
an
EIR
to
discuss
unavoidable
significant
environmental
effects,
including
those
that
can
be
mitigated
but
not
reduced
to
a
level
of
insignificance.
The
following
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts
of
the
PC-‐3
Specific
Plan
Project
are
discussed
in
Chapters
3.1
through
3.13
(project-‐level)
and
previously
in
this
chapter
(cumulative-‐level).
• Impacts
3.1-‐1
and
4.1:
Project
operations
have
the
potential
to
cause
a
violation
of
an
air
quality
standard
or
contribute
substantially
to
an
existing
or
projected
air
quality
violation.
5.0
ALTERNATIVES
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
5.0
of
the
Draft
EIR.
6.0
REPORT
PREPARERS
No
changes
were
made
to
Section
6.0
of
the
DEIR.
3.0
E RRATA
3.0-‐48
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
PROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
4.0-‐1
This
document
is
the
Final
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
(FMMRP)
for
the
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
Project.
This
FMMRP
has
been
prepared
pursuant
to
Section
21081.6
of
the
California
Public
Resources
Code,
which
requires
public
agencies
to
“adopt
a
reporting
and
monitoring
program
for
the
changes
made
to
the
project
or
conditions
of
project
approval,
adopted
in
order
to
mitigate
or
avoid
significant
effects
on
the
environment.”
A
FMMRP
is
required
for
the
proposed
project
because
the
EIR
has
identified
significant
adverse
impacts,
and
measures
have
been
identified
to
mitigate
those
impacts.
The
numbering
of
the
individual
mitigation
measures
follows
the
numbering
sequence
as
found
in
the
Draft
EIR,
some
of
which
were
revised
after
the
Draft
EIR
were
prepared.
These
revisions
are
shown
in
Section
3.0
of
the
Final
EIR.
All
revisions
to
mitigation
measures
that
were
necessary
as
a
result
of
responding
to
public
comments
and
incorporating
staff-‐initiated
revisions
have
been
incorporated
into
this
FMMRP.
4.1
MITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
The
FMMRP,
as
outlined
in
the
following
table,
describes
mitigation
timing,
monitoring
responsibilities,
and
compliance
verification
responsibility
for
all
mitigation
measures
identified
in
this
Final
EIR.
The
Town
of
Truckee
will
be
the
primary
agency
responsible
for
implementing
the
mitigation
measures
and
will
continue
to
monitor
mitigation
measures
that
are
required
to
be
implemented
during
the
operation
of
the
project.
The
FMMRP
is
presented
in
tabular
form
on
the
following
pages.
The
components
of
the
FMMRP
are
described
briefly
below:
• Mitigation
Measures:
The
mitigation
measures
are
taken
from
the
Draft
EIR
in
the
same
order
that
they
appear
in
that
document.
• Mitigation
Timing:
Identifies
at
which
stage
of
the
project
mitigation
must
be
completed.
• Monitoring
Responsibility:
Identifies
the
agency
that
is
responsible
for
mitigation
monitoring.
• Compliance
Verification:
This
is
a
space
that
is
available
for
the
monitor
to
date
and
initial
when
the
monitoring
or
mitigation
implementation
took
place.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐2
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
TABLE
4.0-‐1:
MITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
AIR
QUALITY
Impact
3.1-‐1:
Project
operations
have
the
potential
to
cause
a
violation
of
an
air
quality
standard
or
contribute
substantially
to
an
existing
or
projected
air
quality
violation
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-1:
To
reduce
Area
Source
Emissions,
the
project
applicant
shall
implement
the
following:
• Only
natural
gas
burning
fireplaces/hearths
(i.e.
no
wood
burning
fireplaces/hearths
shall
be
allowed).
Wording
relating
to
this
restriction
shall
be
included
within
the
project’s
CC&R’s.
• Only
low
VOC
paint
and
architectural
coatings
(interior
and
exterior)
shall
be
used
on
the
project
site.
The
use
and
application
of
all
paints
and
architectural
coatings
shall
meet
the
requirements
of
Rule
218
of
the
Placer
County
Air
Pollution
Control
District.
Wording
relating
to
this
restriction
shall
be
included
within
the
project’s
CC&R’s.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-2:
To
reduce
Energy
Source
Emissions,
the
project
applicant
shall
implement
the
following:
• Residential
dwellings
shall
be
designed
to
exceed
applicable
Title
24
energy
standards
by
15%.
• Non-residential
structures
shall
be
designed
and
constructed
to
achieve
LEED
certification
requirements,
or
an
equivalent
level
of
energy
efficiency.
• Install
high
efficiency
lighting
(indoor
and
outdoor)
• Install
high
efficiency
appliances
(refrigerator,
fans,
washers)
• Structures
shall
be
solar
oriented
(predominantly
north-south
facing
direction),
to
the
extent
practical,
and
plant
low-emitting
shade
tree
and
shrub
species
near
structures
in
such
an
arrangement
to
shade
and
cool
structures
during
warmer
seasons
yet
allow
for
solar
heating
and
wind
breaks
during
cooler
months.
• Landscape
with
native
drought-resistant
species
(plants,
trees,
and
shrubs)
to
reduce
the
demand
for
gas-powered
landscape
maintenance
equipment.
• Incorporate
passive
solar
space
heating
designs
and
solar
water
heaters
into
residential
units.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
and
the
NSAQMD
Prior
to
issuance
of
building
permits,
and
throughout
project
operations.
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐3
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
• Install
energy-efficient
heating
and
other
appliances,
such
as
water
heaters,
cooking
equipment,
refrigerators,
furnaces,
and
boiler
units.
• Electrical
outlets
should
be
installed
on
the
exterior
walls
of
all
residential
and
commercial
buildings
to
promote
the
use
of
electric
or
battery
operated
yard
and
landscaping
equipment.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-3:
To
reduce
Mobile
Source
Emissions,
the
project
applicant
shall
implement
the
following:
• Street
shall
be
designed
to
maximize
pedestrian
access
to
transit
stops.
• Provide
for
on-site
road
and
off-site
bus
turnouts,
passenger
benches
and
shelters
as
demand
and
service
routes
warrant
subject
to
review
and
approval
by
local
transportation
planning
agencies.
• Install
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
at
strategic
locations
within
the
project.
The
number
and
locations
should
be
determined
in
coordination
with
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
the
NSAQMD.
• Safe
and
convenient
bicycle
and
pedestrian
paths/sidewalks
connecting
proposed
residential
uses
to
nearby
trails
and
commercial
land
uses.
• Encourage
telecommuting
and
alternative
work
schedules
(10%
employee
work
9/80)
• Ensure
that
the
final
design
includes:
o Residential
density
at
a
minimum
of
12
units/acre.
o A
walkable
design/improved
pedestrian
network
(i.e.
walkways,
paths,
sidewalks,
trails,
etc.).
o Destination
accessibility
(connectivity
to/from
project
amenities).
o Increase
transit
accessibility
(ensure
that
the
minimum
distance
to
a
transit/bus
facility
is
.25
miles).
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-4:
Consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Town
of
Truckee
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan,
the
proposed
project
must
eliminate
or
offset
100%
of
the
PM10
and
PM2.5
emissions
generated
by
the
project.
The
project
applicant
shall
prepare
a
Particulate
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐4
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Matter
Reduction
Plan
that
includes
all
feasible
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
particulate
matter
emissions
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible.
PM
emissions
calculation
methodologies
for
vehicle
tailpipe
and
re-entrained
road
dust
shall
be
consistent
with
those
identified
in
the
Particulate
Matter
Air
Quality
Management
Plan.
The
Particulate
Matter
Reduction
Plan
shall
be
submitted
to
the
NSAQMD
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
first
building
permits
for
the
project.
If
the
Particulate
Matter
Reduction
Plan
cannot
achieve
a
100%
reduction
in
PM
emissions
associated
with
project
operations,
the
project
applicant
shall
be
required
to
pay
an
in-lieu
mitigation
fee.
The
in-lieu
mitigation
fee
shall
be
calculated
based
on
the
fee
established
by
the
Town
Council
resolution
and
in
effect
at
the
time
of
building
permit
issuance
or
final
map
recordation.
Impact
3.1-‐2:
Project
construction
has
the
potential
to
cause
a
violation
of
an
air
quality
standard
or
contribute
substantially
to
an
existing
or
projected
air
quality
violation
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-5:
To
reduce
short-term
construction
related
emissions,
the
contractor
shall
be
required
to
implement
the
following
standard
NSAQMD
measures:
a) Alternatives
to
open
burning
of
vegetative
material
will
be
used
unless
otherwise
deemed
infeasible
by
the
District.
Among
suitable
alternatives
are:
chipping,
mulching,
or
conversion
to
biomass
fuel.
b) Adequate
dust
control
measures
will
be
implemented
in
a
timely
and
effective
manner
during
all
phases
of
project
development
and
construction.
c) All
material
excavated,
stockpiled,
or
graded
should
be
sufficiently
watered,
treated
or
covered,
to
prevent
fugitive
dust
from
leaving
property
boundaries
and
causing
a
public
nuisance
or
a
violation
of
an
ambient
air
standard.
Watering
should
occur
at
least
twice
daily
with
complete
site
coverage,
preferably
in
the
mid-morning
and
after
work
is
completed
each
day.
d) All
areas
(including
unpaved
roads)
with
vehicle
traffic
should
be
watered
or
have
dust
palliatives
applied
as
necessary
for
regular
stabilization
of
dust
emissions.
e) All
on-site
vehicles
should
be
limited
to
a
speed
of
15
mph
on
unpaved
roads.
f) All
land
clearing,
grading,
earth
moving
or
excavation
activities
on
a
project
will
be
suspended
as
necessary
when
winds
are
expected
to
exceed
20
mph.
g) All
material
transported
off-site
will
be
either
sufficiently
watered
or
securely
covered
to
prevent
a
public
nuisance.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
and
the
NSAQMD
During
construction
and
ground-‐
disturbing
activities.
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐5
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
h) If
serpentine
rock
is
found
in
the
area,
the
presence
of
asbestos,
in
the
chrysotile
or
amphibole
forms
must
be
determined.
Additional
mitigations
may
be
needed
on
a
site-specific
basis.
i) Temporary
traffic
control
will
be
provided
during
all
phases
of
the
construction
to
improve
traffic
flow
as
deemed
appropriate
by
local
transportation
agencies
and/or
Caltrans.
j) Construction
activities
should
be
scheduled
to
direct
traffic
flow
to
off-peak
hours
as
much
as
practicable.
k) All
inactive
portions
of
the
construction
site
should
be
covered,
seeded,
or
watered
until
a
suitable
cover
is
established.
l)
The
applicant
will
be
responsible
for
applying
Town-approved
non-
toxic
soil
stabilizers
(according
to
manufacturer's
specifications)
to
all
inactive
construction
areas
(previously
graded
areas
which
remain
inactive
for
96
hours)
in
accordance
with
the
local
grading
ordinance.
Acceptable
materials
that
may
be
used
for
chemical
stabilization
of
soils
include
petroleum
resins,
asphaltic
emulsions,
acrylics
and
adhesives
which
do
not
violate
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
or
California
Air
Resource
Board
standards.
m) During
initial
grading,
earth
moving,
or
site
preparation,
larger
projects
may
be
required
to
construct
a
paved
(or
dust
palliative
treated)
apron
at
least
100
feet
in
length
onto
the
paved
road(s).
n) Wheel
washers
will
be
installed
where
project
vehicles
and/or
equipment
enter
and/or
exit
onto
paved
streets
from
unpaved
roads
on
larger
projects.
Vehicles
and/or
equipment
will
be
washed
prior
to
each
trip,
if
necessary.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-6:
To
reduce
NOx
emissions
during
the
site
preparation
and
grading
phase
of
construction,
the
contractor
shall
be
required
to
implement
the
following
measures:
• All
offroad
construction
equipment
engines
must
either
be
CARB
certified
as
at
least
Tier
2
engines
or
be
equipped
with
either
a
Diesel
Oxidation
Catalyst
or
a
Diesel
Particulate
Filter
that
is
in
good
repair
and
maintained
according
to
the
manufacturer’s
specifications
and
recommendations.
Mitigation
Measure
3.1-7:
Prior
to
approval
of
Grading
or
Improvement
Plans,
(whichever
occurs
first),
the
applicant
shall
submit
a
fugitive
dust
control
plan
to
the
NSAQMD
in
accordance
with
Rule
226.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐6
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Impact
3.2-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
special-‐status
bird
species
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-1:
Thirty
days
prior
to
commencement
of
construction,
the
project
proponent
shall
retain
a
qualified
biologist
to
perform
a
preconstruction
survey
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
occupied
nests,
including
but
not
limited
to
raptors,
if
construction
occurs
during
the
nesting
season
(March
to
September).
If
it
is
determined
from
the
preconstruction
survey
that
there
are
occupied
nests,
then
the
project
proponent
shall
either
avoid
the
project
area
until
the
nesting
season
is
over,
or
seek
consultation
with
the
appropriate
regulatory
agency
(CDFW
or
USFWS)
for
the
appropriate
permits
and
mitigation
measures.
If
it
is
determined
that
the
project
site
does
not
contain
occupied
nests
then
no
additional
action
is
necessary.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Thirty
days
prior
to
start
of
construction
Impact
3.2-‐4:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
special-‐status
plant
species
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-3:
Prior
to
construction,
all
Plumas
ivesia
located
in
areas
of
the
site
proposed
for
ground
disturbance
will
be
hand
excavated
and
immediately
relocated
to
a
pre-determined
replanting
site.
The
replanting
site
will
contain
similar
suitable
habitat
conditions,
within
the
study
area
or
general
vicinity,
and
will
be
located
a
minimum
of
50
feet
from
proposed
construction
activities.
The
excavation,
and
replanting
will
be
performed
by
a
qualified
botanist
with
previous
Plumas
ivesia
experience.
The
re-planting
area
will
be
fenced
to
prevent
undesirable
entry
into
the
replanting
area.
To
ensure
long-term
protection,
signage
will
be
installed
on
the
fence
that
designates
this
area
as
a
sensitive
restoration
site
and
will
provide
standard
no
trespassing
language.
A
report
summarizing
the
findings
of
excavation,
and
replanting
efforts
will
be
prepared
and
submitted
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
and
CDFW.
The
replanting
area
will
be
monitored
for
three
years
to
determine
the
success
of
replanting
efforts.
Success
is
determined
by
the
number
of
relocated
plants
that
survive
and
transplantation.
If
the
success
rate
after
three
years
is
below
75%,
consultation
with
CDFW
will
be
required
to
develop
appropriate
remediation
plans.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Prior
to
start
of
construction
Impact
3.2-‐5:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
have
direct
or
indirect
effects
on
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-4:
Prior
to
any
activities
that
would
result
in
removal,
fill,
or
hydrologic
interruption
of
the
drainage/wetland
area,
the
project
proponent
shall
provide
a
wetland
delineation
to
the
USACE
for
verification
and
a
wetland
determination.
If
the
USACE
determines
that
the
Truckee
Community
Development
Prior
to
ground
disturbing
activities
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐7
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
wetlands
drainages
are
jurisdictional
and
that
the
project
activities
would
result
in
a
fill,
the
project
proponent
shall
secure
an
authorization
of
the
fill
through
the
Section
404
permit
process
and
Town
Minor
Use
Permit.
If
the
USACE
determines
that
the
drainages
are
not
jurisdictional
and
that
the
project
activities
would
not
result
in
a
fill,
no
permits
are
required.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-5:
The
project
proponent
shall
provide
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
a
wetland
determination
from
the
USACE
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
for
work
in
areas
that
may
impact
wetlands.
In
accordance
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.F,
a
Minor
Use
Permit
shall
be
obtained
prior
to
any
disturbance
within
200-feet
of
a
wetland.
No
wetland
disturbance
is
permitted
without
Minor
Use
Permit
approval
(Development
Code
Section
18.46.040.C).
After
obtaining
the
appropriate
Minor
Use
Permit
in
accordance
with
the
Truckee
Development
Code,
the
project
proponent
shall
compensate
for
the
disturbance
to
ensure
no
net
loss
of
habitat
functions
and
values.
The
compensation
shall
be
determined
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
through
the
Minor
Use
Permit
process,
and
shall
be
at
a
minimum
ratio
of
1.5:1
compensation.
Compensation
methods
are
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
permitting
agency.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-6:
Prior
to
any
activities
that
would
result
in
removal,
fill,
or
hydrologic
interruption
of
the
drainage/wetland
area,
the
project
proponent
shall
consult
with
the
RWQCB
and
CDFW
to
determine
if
the
activities
are
subject
to
permit
requirements
from
these
agencies
(i.e.
Waste
Discharge
Permit
for
fill
of
wetlands,
and
Streambed
Alternation
Agreement).
If
the
RWQCB
and/or
CDFW
determines
that
the
project
activities
are
subject
to
these
regulations,
the
project
proponent
shall
secure
an
authorization
of
the
activities
through
the
appropriate
permits,
provide
compensation
for
the
fill,
and
implement
the
minimization
and
conservation
measures
recommended
by
the
regulatory
agency
within
the
permit.
If
the
RWQCB
and/or
CDFW
determines
that
the
project
activities
are
not
subject
to
these
regulations,
the
project
proponent
shall
provide
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
a
letter
of
determination
from
the
RQQCB
and/or
CDFW.
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-7.
Prior
to
construction,
the
project
proponent
shall
install
orange
construction
barrier
fencing
to
identify
environmentally
sensitive
areas
around
all
delineated
and
verified
wetland(s)
(20'
from
edge).
The
location
of
the
fencing
shall
be
marked
in
the
field
with
stakes
and
Department
within
200
feet
of
wetlands
or
drainage
areas.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐8
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
flagging
and
shown
on
the
construction
drawings.
The
fencing
shall
be
installed
before
construction
activities
are
initiated
and
shall
be
maintained
throughout
the
construction
period.
The
following
paragraph
shall
be
included
in
the
construction
specifications:
The
Contractor’s
attention
is
directed
to
the
areas
designated
as
“environmentally
sensitive
areas.”
These
areas
are
protected,
and
no
entry
by
the
Contractor
for
any
purpose
will
be
allowed
unless
specifically
authorized
in
writing
by
the
Town
of
Truckee.
The
Contractor
will
take
measures
to
ensure
that
Contractor’s
forces
do
not
enter
or
disturb
these
areas,
including
giving
written
notice
to
employees
and
subcontractors.
Temporary
fences
around
the
environmentally
sensitive
areas
shall
be
installed
as
the
first
order
of
work.
Temporary
fences
shall
be
furnished,
constructed,
maintained,
and
removed
as
shown
on
the
plans,
as
specified
in
the
special
provisions,
and
as
directed
by
the
project
engineer.
The
fencing
shall
be
commercial-quality
woven
polypropylene,
orange
in
color,
and
at
least
4
feet
high
(Tensor
Polygrid
or
equivalent).
The
fencing
shall
be
tightly
strung
on
posts
with
a
maximum
10-foot
spacing.
Immediately
upon
completion
of
construction
activities
the
contractor
shall
stabilize
exposed
soil/slopes.
On
highly
erodible
soils/slopes,
use
a
nonvegetative
material
that
binds
the
soil
initially
and
breaks
down
within
a
few
years.
If
more
aggressive
erosion
control
treatments
are
needed,
geotextile
mats,
excelsior
blankets,
or
other
soil
stabilization
products
will
be
used.
All
stabilization
efforts
should
include
habitat
restoration
efforts.
Impact
3.2-‐7:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
introduce
or
spread
noxious
weeds
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-8:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
grading
permit,
the
project
proponent
shall
incorporate
the
following
measures
into
project
plans
and
specifications:
• Certified,
weed-free,
imported
erosion-control
materials
(or
rice
straw
in
upland
areas)
will
be
used.
• The
project
proponent
will
coordinate
with
the
county
agricultural
commissioner
and
land
management
agencies
to
ensure
that
the
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Prior
to
issuance
of
a
grading
permit.
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐9
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
appropriate
BMPs
are
implemented.
• Construction
supervisors
and
managers
will
be
educated
about
noxious
weed
identification
and
the
importance
of
controlling
and
preventing
their
spread.
Equipment
will
be
cleaned
at
designated
wash
stations.
Impact
3.2-‐8:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
conflict
with
an
adopted
habitat
conservation
plan,
natural
community
conservation
plan,
recovery
plan,
or
local
policies
or
ordinances
protecting
biological
resources
Mitigation
Measure
3.2-10:
Prior
to
the
final
approval,
the
project
proponent
shall
redesign
the
project
to
ensure
that
the
open
space
areas,
except
for
the
hydrologic
features,
include
an
appropriate
trail
linkage
to
adjacent
trail/recreation
facilities
(i.e.
Martis
Valley,
Sportspark/Legacy
Trail).
This
redesign
would
be
required
to
ensure
consistency
with
this
Policy
9.1
of
the
Open
Space
and
Conservation
Element
of
the
2025
Truckee
General
Plan.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Prior
to
final
map
approval.
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Impact
3.3-‐1:
Project
implementation
has
the
potential
to
cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
the
significance
of
a
historical
or
archaeological
resource
as
defined
in
CEQA
Guidelines
§15064.5
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-1:
If
cultural
resources
(i.e.,
prehistoric
sites,
historic
sites,
and
isolated
artifacts
and
features)
are
discovered
during
the
course
of
construction,
work
shall
be
halted
immediately
within
50
meters
(165
feet)
of
the
discovery,
the
Town
of
Truckee
shall
be
notified,
and
a
qualified
archaeologist
that
meets
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior’s
Professional
Qualifications
Standards
in
prehistoric
or
historical
archaeology
shall
be
retained
to
determine
the
significance
of
the
discovery.
The
Town
of
Truckee
shall
consider
mitigation
recommendations
presented
by
the
qualified
archaeologist
for
any
unanticipated
discoveries
and
shall
carry
out
the
measures
deemed
feasible
and
appropriate.
Such
measures
may
include
avoidance,
preservation
in
place,
excavation,
documentation,
curation,
data
recovery,
or
other
appropriate
measures.
The
project
proponent
shall
be
required
to
implement
any
mitigation
necessary
for
the
protection
of
cultural
resources.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
During
construction
activities.
Impact
3.3-‐2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
directly
or
indirectly
destroy
a
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-2:
If
paleontological
resources
are
discovered
during
the
course
of
construction,
work
shall
be
halted
immediately
within
50
meters
(165
feet)
of
the
discovery,
the
Town
of
Truckee
shall
be
notified,
and
a
qualified
paleontologist
shall
be
retained
to
determine
the
significance
Truckee
Community
Development
During
construction
activities.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐10
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
unique
paleontological
resource
of
the
discovery.
If
the
paleontological
resource
is
considered
significant,
it
should
be
excavated
by
a
qualified
paleontologist
and
given
to
a
local
agency,
State
University,
or
other
applicable
institution,
where
they
could
be
curated
and
displayed
for
public
education
purposes.
Department
Impact
3.3-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
disturb
human
remains,
including
those
interred
outside
of
formal
cemeteries
Mitigation
Measure
3.3-3:
If
human
remains
are
discovered,
all
work
shall
be
halted
immediately
within
50
meters
(165
feet)
of
the
discovery,
the
County
Coroner
must
be
notified,
according
to
Section
5097.98
of
the
State
Public
Resources
Code
and
Section
7050.5
of
California’s
Health
and
Safety
Code.
If
the
remains
are
determined
to
be
Native
American,
the
coroner
will
notify
the
Native
American
Heritage
Commission,
and
the
procedures
outlined
in
CEQA
Section
15064.5(d)
and
(e)
shall
be
followed.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
During
construction
activities.
GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS
Impact
3.4-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
result
in
substantial
soil
erosion
or
the
loss
of
topsoil
Mitigation
Measure
3.4-1:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
grading
permit,
the
project
proponent
shall
ensure
that
project
plans
adequately
address
grading,
erosion,
sediment,
and
pollution
control
requirements
of
the
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
(RWQCB).
If
one
acre
or
more
of
land
will
be
disturbed,
the
project
proponent
shall
submit
a
Notice
of
Intent
(N.O.I.)
with
appropriate
fees
and
a
Storm
Water
Pollution
Prevention
Plan
(SWPPP)
to
the
RWQCB.
The
SWPPP
shall
include
non-structural
and
structural
BMPs
such
as:
minimizing
disturbance,
preserving
natural
vegetation,
good
housekeeping
(i.e.
daily
clean-up),
mulch,
grass,
stockpile
covers,
silt
fences,
inlet
protection,
stabilized
construction
entrances,
and
sediment
traps.
Mitigation
Measure
3.4-2:
During
construction,
the
project
proponent
shall
ensure
that
control
measures
and
practices
are
implemented,
properly
installed,
and
maintained.
The
project
proponent
shall
develop
and
implement
record
keeping
and
data
management
procedures
for
evaluation
of
SWPPP
compliance
and
reporting.
The
Town
of
Truckee
shall
inspect
the
construction
site
to
verify
that
SWPPPs
are
being
implemented.
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
Grading
permits
and
during
construction
activities.
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐11
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
HAZARDS
AND
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Impact
3.6-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
create
a
significant
hazard
through
the
routine
transport,
use,
or
disposal
of
hazardous
materials
or
through
the
reasonably
foreseeable
upset
and
accident
conditions
involving
the
release
of
hazardous
materials
into
the
environment
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-1:
Prior
to
bringing
hazardous
material
onsite,
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
shall
submit
a
Hazardous
Materials
Business
Plan
(HMBP)
to
Nevada
County
Environmental
Health
Division
(CUPA)
for
review
and
approval.
If
the
inventory
of
reportable
hazardous
materials
include
fuels
stored
in
Aboveground
Storage
Tanks
(AST)
that
exceed
1,320
gallons
(in
containers
>55
gallons)
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
must
file
documents
required
by
the
California
Aboveground
Storage
Tank
Act
(APSA).
If
one
of
the
AST’s
is
larger
than
20,000
gallons
or
the
accumulative
storage
capacity
exceeds
100,000
gallons
a
Spill
Prevention
and
Countermeasures
Plan
(SPCC)
will
be
required.
If
during
the
construction
process
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
or
his
subcontractors
generates
hazardous
waste,
the
applicant
and/or
business
owner
must
register
with
the
CUPA
as
a
generator
of
hazardous
waste,
obtain
an
EPA
ID#
and
accumulate,
ship
and
dispose
of
the
hazardous
waste
per
Health
and
Safety
Code
Ch.
6.5.
(California
Hazardous
Waste
Control
Law).
Nevada
County
Environmental
Health
Division
Prior
to
bringing
hazardous
material
onsite
Impact
3.6-‐3:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
result
in
impacts
from
being
included
on
a
list
of
hazardous
materials
sites
compiled
pursuant
to
Government
Code
Section
65962.5
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-2:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
grading
permit,
the
project
proponent
shall
appropriately
dispose
of
all
materials
on
the
project
site
that
are
cited
within
the
Phase
I
ESA.
This
includes
drums/containers,
equipment,
parts,
metal
and
wood
debris,
and
other
refuse.
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-3:
Prior
to
the
commencement
of
grading,
the
project
proponent
shall
abandon
the
existing
well
after
obtaining
the
appropriate
well
abandonment
permits.
Mitigation
Measure
3.6-4:
During
grading
activities,
if
there
is
any
evidence
of
soil
discoloring
or
odors
that
indicate
a
potential
contamination
anywhere
on
the
project
site
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
areas
around
the
pump
house
and
where
the
drums/contains
were
stored,
the
project
proponent
shall
perform
soil
testing
to
determine
the
type
and
extent
of
the
contamination.
In
addition,
the
project
proponent
will
be
responsible
for
the
cleanup
activities
necessary
to
remove
and
dispose
of
such
contamination
if
discovered.
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
Grading
permits
and
during
grading
activities.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐12
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY
Impact
3.7-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
violate
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge
requirements
during
construction
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-1:
The
project
applicant
shall
prepare
a
site-
specific
and
construction
phase-specific
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plan
(SWPPP)
in
conformance
with
the
California
Stormwater
Quality
Association
Construction
Handbook
(Construction
Handbook),
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
State
General
Construction
Activity
Storm
Water
Permit
(CGP),
and
in
compliance
with
project
guidelines
for
erosion
control
published
by
the
Lahontan
RWQCB,
as
well
as
demonstrate
compliance
with
sediment
reduction
measures
associated
with
the
total
maximum
daily
loads
(TMDL)
for
Sediment
for
the
Middle
Truckee
River
watershed.
The
SWPPP
shall
be
prepared
using
current
templates
and
formats
provided
by
the
California
Stormwater
Quality
Association.
The
Construction
Handbook
provides
general
guidance
for
selecting
and
implementing
best
management
practices
(BMPs)
that
will
eliminate
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
construction
sites,
and
the
SWPPP
will
document
the
selection
and
implementation
of
BMPs
for
the
particular
construction
projects
on
the
site.
The
site-specific
SWPPP
must
describe
the
site,
as
well
as
the
proposed
erosion
and
sediment
controls
(BMPs
for
water
quality),
the
means
of
waste
disposal,
implementation
of
approved
local
plans,
control
measures
of
post-construction
sediment
and
erosion,
monitoring
and
maintenance
responsibilities,
and
non-stormwater
management
controls.
Dewatering,
if
needed,
shall
be
done
in
a
manner
so
as
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
pollutants,
including
earthen
materials,
from
the
site.
The
project
applicant
shall
submit
the
SWPPP
to
the
Town
of
Truckee
for
review
and
approval.
The
project
applicant
shall
require
all
construction
contractors
to
retain
a
copy
of
the
approved
SWPPP
on
the
construction
site.
BMPs
identified
in
the
SWPPP
shall
be
utilized
in
all
project
site
development
activities.
Implementation
of
appropriate,
effective
water
quality
controls
will
ensure
that
stormwater
discharges
that
will
result
with
implementation
of
the
project
are
in
compliance
with
all
current
requirements
of
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-2:
Grading
activities
shall
be
prohibited
during
the
winter
months,
unless
approved
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.050.C.4.
Exposed
graded
areas
shall
be
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
Grading
permits
and
during
grading
activities.
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐13
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
protected
during
the
winter
months
using
appropriate
methods.
Impact
3.7-‐2:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
violate
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge
requirements
during
operation
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-3:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
grading
permits,
the
project
applicant
shall
submit
and
obtain
approval
of
a
storm
water
management
plan
(SWMP)
consistent
with
the
Town’s
Municipal
Code
and
Storm
Water
Quality
Ordinance.
The
SWMP
shall,
at
a
minimum,
include
the
following:
• A
written
text
addressing
existing
conditions,
the
effects
of
project
improvements,
all
appropriate
calculations,
a
watershed
map,
proposed
on-
and
off-site
improvements
and
detention/retention
facilities,
and
other
features
to
protect
downslope
areas
from
degradation
of
storm
water
quality.
• Information
demonstrating
that
the
project
design
would
result
in
drainage
flow
conditions
below
pre-project
flow
rates
and
volumes.
• The
SWMP
and
subsequent
site
development
submittals
shall
address
storm
drainage
management
during
construction
and
thereafter
and
shall
include
provisions
for
the
application
of
best
management
practice
(BMP)
measures
to
reduce
erosion,
water
quality
degradation,
etc.
Storm
water
drainage
management,
BMPs,
and
water
quality
control
features
shall
be
identified
for
construction
staging
areas,
building
sites
and
site
improvements.
Permanent
water
quality
control
features,
including
LID
facilities,
described
in
the
report
shall
demonstrate
(at
minimum)
that
the
water
quality
controls
are
adequate
to
prevent
any
increase
in
sediment
or
other
pollutants
to
downslope
areas
over
pre-
development
conditions.
• Prior
to
the
design
of
new
detention/retention
basins
that
will
serve
the
project
site,
soil
borings
shall
be
taken
at
representative
locations
to
analyze
the
subsurface
soils
that
are
present
and
the
elevation
of
the
subsurface
water
table.
If
these
soil
borings
identify
perched
groundwater
within
2
feet
of
the
proposed
bottom
elevation
of
these
detention/retention
basins,
a
liner,
filter
fabric,
or
other
remedial
measures
shall
be
incorporated
into
the
design
of
the
applicable
storm
water
facilities
to
prevent
intrusion
of
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
Grading
permits
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐14
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
development-related
pollutants
to
groundwater.
• Snow
storage
and
management
practices.
Snow
will
be
stored
on-
site
in
landscape
areas
and
other
undeveloped
areas.
If
the
required
amount
of
snow
storage
cannot
be
handled
on-site,
the
applicant
shall
provide
a
long-term
snow-hauling
plan
consistent
with
Development
Code
Section
18.30.130.B.3.b
.
Storm
water
runoff
from
snow
storage
areas
will
be
routed
through
water
quality
treatment
facilities
prior
to
discharge.
Snow
removal
shall
be
further
described
in
a
Maintenance
Agreement
between
the
property
owner
and
the
Town
of
Truckee
as
required
by
Development
Code
Section
18.30.105.B.
• Storm
drainage
from
on-site
impervious
surfaces
shall
be
treated
and
infiltrated
through
buffers
or
be
collected
and
routed
through
specially
designed
catch
basins,
vaults,
filters,
etc.
for
entrapment
of
sediment
debris
and
oils/greases.
Maintenance
of
facilities
shall
be
identified.
• All
related
underground
and
surface
drainage
systems
must
be
addressed
in
order
to
ensure
full
integration
of
areas
that
will
generate
runoff.
These
areas
will
include
rooftops,
sidewalks,
cut/fill
slopes,
streets,
parking
lots,
up-gradient
off-site
source
areas,
and
impervious
landscaping
areas.
• All
required
approvals
associated
with
construction-related
storm
water
permit
requirements
of
the
current
federal
Clean
Water
Act
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
program
and
other
associated
permit
approvals
from
the
Lahontan
RWQCB.
• All
required
approvals
associated
with
Phase
II
Small
MS4
General
Permit
(Order
2013-0001-DWQ)
requirements,
which
became
effective
on
July
1,
2013.
This
shall
include
consistency
with
the
Guidance
Document
for
the
permit
that
supersedes
the
Town
of
Truckee
Storm
Water
Management
Program,
2007–2012
(December
2007).
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐15
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact
3.7-‐4:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
alter
the
existing
drainage
pattern
in
a
manner
which
would
result
in
substantial
erosion,
siltation,
flooding,
or
polluted
runoff
Mitigation
Measure
3.7-4:
Project
drainage
improvements
will
be
required
to
provide
detention/retention
storage
and
LID
measures
that
will
prevent
increases
in
storm
runoff
rates
and
volumes
during
storm
events
up
to
and
including
the
100-year
24-hour
storm
event.
Included
in
this
mitigation
measure
is
the
requirement
that
onsite
retention
shall
be
provided
for
the
20-
year
1-hour
storm
runoff
volume
from
impervious
areas.
The
design
of
detention/retention
storage,
LID
facilities
and
other
drainage
facilities
shall
be
supported
by
appropriate
hydrologic
and
hydraulic
evaluations
as
part
of
project
grading
and
drainage
plan
submittal
process,
all
of
which
will
be
prepared
by
a
registered
civil
engineer.
All
facilities
shall
be
designed
in
compliance
with
Town
of
Truckee
standards.
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
Grading
permits
LAND
USE,
POPULATION,
AND
HOUSING
Impact
3.8-‐4:
Implementation
of
the
proposed
project
may
induce
substantial
population
growth
and
may
confliect
with
the
requirements
of
the
Town’s
Workforce
Housing
standards
Mitigation
Measure
3.8-1:
A
minimum
of
4.0
acres
shall
be
zoned
RMW-‐20
(Workforce
Multi-‐Family,
20
units
per
acre)
with
a
minimum/maximum
density
of
18-‐20
dwelling
units
per
acre.
Prior
to
issuance
of
any
building
permits
for
development
on
the
west
side
of
Highway
267,
a
Parcel
or
Final
Map
shall
be
recorded
that
creates
the
4.0
acre
RMW-‐20
site
as
a
stand-‐alone
parcel
with
full
dedicated
public
access
from
Brockway
Road.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Concurrent
with
approval
of
future
development
within
the
Plan
Area.
NOISE
Impact
3.9-‐2:
Construction
of
the
project
may
generate
significant
noise
Mitigation
Measure
3.9-1:
Construction
activities
shall
adhere
to
the
requirements
of
the
Town
of
Truckee
with
respect
to
hours
of
operation,
muffling
of
internal
combustion
engines,
and
other
factors
which
affect
construction
noise
generation
and
its
effects
on
noise-sensitive
land
uses.
• Equip
all
internal
combustion
engine
driven
equipment
with
intake
and
exhaust
mufflers
that
are
in
good
condition
and
appropriate
for
the
equipment.
• Locate
stationary
noise
generating
equipment
as
far
as
possible
from
sensitive
receptors
when
sensitive
receptors
adjoin
or
are
near
a
construction
project
area.
• Utilize
“quiet”
air
compressors
and
other
stationary
noise-
generating
equipment
where
appropriate
technology
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
During
all
construction
activities.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐16
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
exists.
• The
project
sponsor
shall
designate
a
“disturbance
coordinator”
who
would
be
responsible
for
responding
to
any
local
complaints
about
construction
noise.
The
disturbance
coordinator
will
determine
the
cause
of
the
noise
complaint
and
will
require
that
reasonable
measures
warranted
to
correct
the
problem
be
implemented.
The
project
sponsor
shall
also
post
telephone
number
for
excessive
noise
complaints
in
conspicuous
locations
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Plan
Area.
Additionally,
the
project
sponsor
shall
send
a
notice
to
neighbors
in
the
project
vicinity
with
the
information
on
the
construction
schedule
and
the
telephone
number
for
noise
complaints.
Mitigation
Measure
3.9-2:
Construction
activities
shall
be
restricted
between
the
hours
of
7
a.m.
and
7
p.m.
Monday
through
Friday,
and
between
the
hours
of
8
a.m.
and
7
p.m.
on
Saturdays.
No
construction
activities
shall
occur
on
Sundays
and
holidays.
Impact
3.9-‐4:
The
project
will
result
in
on-‐site
stationary
noise
Mitigation
Measure
3.9-3:
Loading
docks
and
truck
circulation
routes
should
be
located
at
a
minimum
of
160
feet
from
future
onsite
residential
uses
to
the
greatest
extent
feasible.
If
these
activities
are
located
closer
than
160
feet
when
tentative
maps
are
prepared
and
individual
development
projects
are
proposed,
a
qualified
acoustical
consultant
shall
determine
appropriate
mitigation
measures
in
order
to
reduce
noise
exposure
to
residential
uses
to
the
levels
established
in
the
Town
of
Truckee
Development
Code.
Noise
reduction
measures
shall
be
determined
and
established
by
a
qualified
acoustical
consultant,
and
shall
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Town.
Noise
reduction
measures
may
include,
but
are
not
necessarily
limited
to:
shielding
loading
dock
areas
from
residential
areas
with
sound
walls,
landscape
berms
or
other
suitable
noise
attenuation
features;
locating
loading
docks
on
the
opposite
sides
of
the
buildings
from
the
residential
uses,
and/or
enclosed
loading
docks.
Mitigation
Measure
3.9-4:
New
proposed
uses
located
on
lots
zoned
for
industrial
and
manufacturing
shall
have
those
projects
designed
to
comply
with
the
Development
Code
hourly
noise
level
criteria.
The
projects
shall
be
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Prior
to
approval
of
subsequent
development
in
the
Plan
Area.
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐17
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
evaluated
by
a
qualified
acoustical
consultant
to
determine
compliance
and
if
required,
recommend
appropriate
mitigation
measures,
including
features
that
provide
for
noise
shielding
and
site
configuration
requirements
to
reduce
noise
exposure
to
nearby
noise-sensitive
land
uses.
Time
of
day
restrictions
may
also
be
required
for
loading
dock
and
delivery
activities.
PUBLIC
SERVICES
AND
RECREATION
Impact
3.10-‐1:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
increase
demands
for
fire
protection
services
or
require
the
construction
of
fire
department
facilities
which
may
cause
substantial
adverse
physical
environmental
impacts
Mitigation
Measure
3.10-1:
Prior
to
the
approval
of
improvement
plans,
the
project
proponent
shall
incorporate
the
following
requirements
into
improvement
plans/drawings:
Hydrants
and
Fire
Flow
1. Hydrants
shall
be
spaced
a
maximum
distance
of
500
feet
apart
in
residential
areas,
so
that
no
point
on
any
road
is
more
than
250
feet
from
a
hydrant.
2. Additional
hydrants
will
be
required
in
the
areas
with
commercial
development.
3. All
hydrants
shall
be
of
the
dry
barrel
type
and
be
identified
with
an
8'
snow
stake.
4. If
necessary
hydrants
shall
be
protected
with
bollards.
5. Provide
a
minimum
fire
flow
of
1500-gpm
for
a
2-duration
with
20-
psi
residual
in
residential
areas.
6. Fire
flow
in
commercial
areas
is
a
minimum
of
2000
gpm,
however
may
be
larger
depending
on
the
size
of
the
structures.
In
addition
the
demand
of
the
largest
fire
sprinkler
system
must
be
added
to
the
minimum
fire
flow.
These
requirements
are
for
a
2
to
4
hour
duration
(depending
on
size)
with
20
psi
residual.
7. Water
system
shall
be
installed
and
serviceable
prior
to
any
construction.
Roads
and
Driveways
1. All
roads
and
driveways
shall
be
a
minimum
of
24'
wide
with
an
all
weather
surface
capable
of
supporting
a
40,000-lb
vehicle.
This
shall
include
the
emergency
fire
access
roads.
2. Gated
access
shall
require
the
installation
of
a
Knox
box
system
for
fire
district
access
and
approved
radio
operation.
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Prior
to
approval
of
subsequent
development
in
the
Plan
Area.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐18
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
3. Roads
and
driveways
shall
have
a
minimum
unobstructed
height
of
13'6".
4. Roads
and
driveways
shall
have
a
minimum
50'
radius.
5. All
access
will
require
fire
department
approval.
Mitigation
Measure
3.10-2:
Prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans,
the
project
proponent
shall
incorporate
the
following
requirements
into
building
plans/drawings:
Automatic
Fire
Sprinkler
and
Fire
Alarm
Systems
1. The
installation
of
an
approved
fire
sprinkler
system
is
required
in
all
non-residential
structures
in
excess
of
3600
square
feet,
and
in
all
residential
structures.
2. Sprinkler
systems
shall
comply
with
NFPA
13
requirements
and
shall
be
approved
by
the
TFPD
prior
to
installation.
3. Approved
fire
alarm
systems
shall
be
installed
where
required.
Construction
1. Construction
shall
comply
with
all
current
codes
and
local
ordinances.
2. Project
shall
comply
with
all
requirements
of
the
State
Public
Resource
Code
Section
4290
&
4291.
3. Mitigation
fees
shall
be
applied
to
all
building
construction
at
the
applicable
rate.
4. Full
drawings
shall
be
submitted
to
the
TFPD
for
review
and
approval.
5. No
shakes
or
shingles
of
any
kind
will
be
allowed
to
be
used
for
roofing
materials.
6. The
development
project
must
provide,
in
some
fashion
acceptable
to
the
District,
mitigation
revenue
equivalent
in
accordance
with
their
current
rates
at
the
time
of
payment
for
new
residential
and
new
non-residential
development.
The
manner
and
means
of
such
payment
will
be
determined
by
the
Fire
Chief
or
his
designee
after
consultation
with
the
applicant.
Mitigation
Measure
3.10-3:
Prior
to
the
commencement
of
building
construction,
the
project
proponent
shall
implement
the
following:
Wildland
Fire
Protection
1. Remove
all
flammable
vegetation,
which
could
pose
a
threat
within
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐19
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
30'
of
all
structures.
2. A
15-foot
fuel
modification
zone
shall
be
required
on
both
sides
of
all
roads
and
driveways.
Impact
3.10-‐4:
The
proposed
project
has
the
potential
to
increase
demands
for
park
and
recreational
facilities
or
require
the
construction
of
park
and
recreational
facilities
which
may
cause
substantial
adverse
physical
environmental
impacts
Mitigation
Measure
3.10-4:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
first
certificate
of
occupancy,
the
project
proponent
shall
construct,
or
provide
adequate
funding
for
the
construction
of
the
following
offsite
trail
connections:
1. The
proposed
onsite
Class
I
bicycle
path
that
runs
north
along
the
western
edge
of
Martis
Drive
shall
be
extended
offsite
to
provide
connectivity
to
the
Truckee
River
Legacy
Trail.
The
alignment
and
design
parameters
of
this
offsite
trail
connection
shall
be
determined
through
consultation
with
Town
staff.
2. The
proposed
onsite
Class
II
bicycle
path
that
runs
north
along
Joerger
Drive
shall
be
extended
offsite
to
provide
connectivity
to
the
Riverview
Sports
Park.
The
alignment
and
design
parameters
of
this
offsite
trail
connection
shall
be
determined
through
consultation
with
Town
staff.
3. The
proposed
onsite
Class
I
bicycle
path
that
runs
southeasterly
along
Hope
Court
shall
be
extended
offsite
to
provide
connectivity
to
the
Martis
Valley
Trail
System.
The
alignment
and
design
parameters
of
this
offsite
trail
connection
shall
be
determined
through
consultation
with
Town
staff.
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Prior
to
issuance
of
the
first
certificate
of
occupancy.
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CIRCULATION
Impact
3.11-‐1:
Project
implementation
would
result
in
a
significant
impact
to
local
intersections
and
roadways
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1A:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
applicant
shall
pay
its
fair
share
towards
the
construction
of
a
center
turn
lane
on
Donner
Pass
Road
to
allow
two-stage
left-turn
movements
to
be
made
from
Glenshire
Drive.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1B:
Installation
of
a
traffic
signal
at
the
Bridge
Street/Donner
Pass
Road
intersection
is
included
in
the
Town’s
Traffic
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Timing
is
dictated
by
traffic
conditions
and
the
individual
mitigation
measures
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐20
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact
Fee
Program.
Payment
of
traffic
impact
fees
is
considered
to
be
an
adequate
mitigation
measure
for
this
intersection.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
pay
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fees
contributing
to
this
improvement
prior
to
building
permit
issuance.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1C:
Installation
of
a
traffic
signal
at
the
Bridge
Street/West
River
Street
intersection
is
included
in
the
Town’s
Traffic
Impact
Fee
Program.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
pay
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fees
contributing
to
this
improvement
prior
to
building
permit
issuance.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1D:
Re-striping
the
existing
westbound
left-turn
lane
on
West
River
Street
at
its
intersection
with
McIver
Crossing
as
a
two-
way
left-turn
lane
(TWLTL)
would
improve
the
LOS
to
an
acceptable
level
(LOS
E
or
better)
in
2012,
as
it
would
allow
two-stage
left-turn
movements
from
McIver
Crossing
to
West
River
Street
eastbound.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
shall
restripe
the
existing
pavement
to
provide
a
TWLTL
on
West
River
Street
east
of
McIver
Crossing.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1E:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
construct
improvements
to
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road/Soaring
Way
intersection
as
identified
in
General
Plan
Table
CIR-5
(which
indicates
construction
of
a
roundabout
or
additional
through
and
turning
lanes).
The
construction
of
additional
through
and
turning
lanes
may
be
allowed
as
an
interim
improvement
if
the
project
proponent
can
demonstrate
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Town
that
the
additional
through
and
turning
lanes
would
be
substantially
less
costly
than
the
construction
of
a
roundabout,
and
would
achieve
an
acceptable
level
of
service
at
this
intersection.
Dual
left-turn
lanes
will
not
be
allowed.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1F:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
parcels
located
on
the
west
side
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐21
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
of
SR
267,
a
Brockway
Road
Corridor
Study
shall
be
completed.
The
study
shall
evaluate
two
potential
Martis
Drive
alignment
options.
One
option
would
align
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
near
the
existing
winery
access.
The
second
option
would
evaluate
the
alignment
of
Martis
Drive
such
that
it
would
intersect
with
Brockway
Road
at
the
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court
intersection.
Pursuant
of
the
Mountain
Home
Center
Planning
Commission
Resolution
2005-‐14,
improvements
to
Martis
Drive
should
consider
the
provision
of
a
shared
access
with
Mountain
Home
Center.
The
provision
of
a
shared
access
would
require
the
closure
of
the
Mountain
Home
Center
access
off
Brockway
Road.
The
following
should
be
evaluated,
at
a
minimum,
for
each
of
the
potential
Martis
Drive
alignments:
• Intersection
Level
of
Service
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road,
Brockway
Road/Hope
Court,
and
Brockway
Road/Martis
Drive
intersections
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
The
analysis
shall
identify
intersection
mitigation
measures
that
are
necessary
to
maintain
adequate
LOS.
Two-‐way
left-‐turn
lanes
may
be
appropriate
under
certain
conditions
along
Brockway
Road
they
shall
not
be
considered
a
valid
method
for
mitigation
LOS.
Two-‐way
left
turn
lanes
shall
only
be
considered
at
intersections
with
low
traffic
turning-‐movement
volumes.
• Turn
lane
warrants
shall
be
evaluated
to
determine
where
left
and
right-‐turn
lanes
are
required
for
reasons
beyond
meeting
Level
of
Service
thresholds.
• Location
and
extent
of
necessary
snow
storage
easements.
• Locations
of
Class
I
trails
connections
and
trail
crossings
on
the
west
side
of
SR
267,
as
well
as
the
evaluation
of
medians,
pedestrian
actuated
flashing
lights,
and
other
features
to
facilitate
those
crossings.
Appropriate
crosswalk
locations
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
intersection.
• 30
percent
design
of
SR
267/Brockway,
Brockway/Hope
Court,
and
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐22
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Brockway/Martis
Drive
intersections
and
trails
with
adequate
detail
such
that
right
of
way
and
easement
requirements
can
be
accurately
identified.
• Evaluation
of
any
additional
utility
easements
(outside
road
right
of
way)
that
might
be
necessary.
The
improvements
that
are
required
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site
will
be
determined
by
the
Town
Engineer
based
upon
the
results
of
this
study.
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
parcels
located
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267,
a
Brockway
Road
Corridor
Study
shall
be
completed
that
identifies,
at
a
minimum,
the
following:
• Intersection
Level
of
Service
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
Road
and
Joerger
Drive/Soaring
Way
intersections
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
Intersection
Level
of
Service
assuming
existing,
existing
plus
project,
and
cumulative
plus
project
traffic
volumes.
The
analysis
shall
identify
intersection
mitigation
measures
that
are
necessary
to
maintain
adequate
LOS.
Two-‐way
left-‐turn
lanes
may
be
appropriate
under
certain
conditions
along
Brockway
Road
they
shall
not
be
considered
a
valid
method
for
mitigation
LOS.
Two-‐way
left
turn
lanes
shall
only
be
considered
at
intersections
with
low
traffic
turning-‐movement
volumes.
• Turn
lane
warrants
shall
be
evaluated
to
determine
where
left
and
right-‐turn
lanes
are
required
for
reasons
beyond
meeting
Level
of
Service
thresholds.
• Locations
of
Class
I
trails
connections
and
trail
crossings
on
the
east
side
of
SR
267,
as
well
as
the
evaluation
of
medians,
pedestrian
actuated
flashing
lights,
and
other
features
to
facilitate
those
crossings.
Appropriate
crosswalk
locations
at
the
SR
267/Brockway
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐23
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Road
intersection.
• 30
percent
design
of
SR
267/Brockway
and
Joerger
Drive/Soaring
Way
intersections
and
trails
with
adequate
detail
such
that
right
of
way
and
easement
requirements
can
be
accurately
identified.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1H:
Following
recordation
of
a
Phase
I
Map
totaling
four
or
fewer
parcels,
but
prior
to
any
further
parcel
subdivision
or
issuance
of
any
grading
or
building
permits
on
the
project
site,
the
project
proponent
shall
construct
a
single-lane
roundabout
with
single-lane
approaches
at
the
Soaring
Way/Joerger
Drive/Site
Access
intersection.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-1I:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
building
permits
for
individual
development
projects
within
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
applicant(s)
shall
pay
the
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fee
to
cover
its
share
of
cost
to
perform
improvements
to
SR
267
between
Brockway
Summit
and
SR
28
prior
to
building
permit
issuance.
Impact
3.11-‐4:
Under
cumulative
conditions,
project
implementation
would
worsen
already
unacceptable
levels
of
service
at
study
intersections
and
roadways.
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-4B:
Prior
to
the
issuance
of
building
permits
for
individual
development
projects
within
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
applicant(s)
shall
pay
the
Town
of
Truckee
traffic
impact
fee
to
cover
its
share
of
cost
to
perform
improvements
to
the:
• SR
89
North/Donner
Pass
Road
intersection,
• Donner
Pass
Road/I-80
Eastern
Interchange
Eastbound
Off-Ramp
intersection,
• Donner
Pass
Road/Pioneer
Trail
intersection,
• SR
267/Airport
Road/Schaffer
Mill
Road
intersection,
• SR
267/I-80
Interchange
Ramps
intersections,
and
• SR
267
-
widening
SR
267
to
four
travel
lanes
from
the
Town
Limit
to
south
of
Northstar
Drive,
extending
the
southbound
truck
climbing
lane
to
Brockway
Summit,
and
constructing
a
northbound
passing
lane
at
Brockway
Summit.
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Timing
is
dictated
by
traffic
conditions
and
the
individual
mitigation
measures
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐24
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact
3.11-‐7:
Project
implementation
may
result
in
traffic
impacts
during
construction
Mitigation
Measure
3.11-2:
The
project
proponent
shall
prepare
a
Construction
Traffic
Management
Plan
for
review
and
approval
by
Town
staff,
prior
to
construction.
Truckee
Engineering
Department
Prior
to
construction
activities.
UTILITIES
Impact
3.12-‐1:
Project
implementation
has
the
potential
to
exceed
wastewater
treatment
requirements
of
the
applicable
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Mitigation
Measure
3.12-1:
Prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans
for
Commercial
and
Industrial
uses
within
the
Plan
Area,
the
project
proponent
and/or
business
owner
shall
provide
the
TSD
and
T-TSA
with
appropriate
details
of
the
uses
and
wastewater
generated
within
the
commercial
and/or
industrial
area.
Project
proponents
and/or
business
owners
shall
present
facility
layouts
with
tabulated
fixture
unit
counts
and
other
T-TSA
billing
factor
counts.
The
methodology
used
to
develop
these
fixture,
factor,
and
flowrates
shall
also
be
submitted.
Prior
to
the
approval
of
building
plans,
the
project
proponent
and/or
business
owner
must
receive
verification
from
T-
TSA
and
the
TSD
that
adequate
capacity
allocations
are
available
to
serve
the
proposed
project.
Truckee
Sanitary
District
and
Tahoe-‐Truckee
Sanitation
Agency
Prior
to
approval
of
building
plans.
VISUAL
AND
AESTHETIC
RESOURCES
Impact
3.13-‐3:
Project
implementation
may
result
in
light
and
glare
impacts
Mitigation
Measure
3.13-1:
In
order
to
reduce
potential
for
nighttime
lighting
impacts,
future
development
applications
within
the
Plan
Area
shall
prepare
and
submit
an
exterior
lighting
plan
for
review
and
approval
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
Community
Development
Department.
The
lighting
plan
shall
include
standards
for
all
exterior
light
fixtures
proposed
in
public,
commercial,
industrial,
and
multi-family
areas
of
the
Plan
Area.
The
lighting
plan
shall
comply
with
Chapter
18.30.060
of
the
Town
of
Truckee
Development
Code.
The
lighting
plan
may
be
included
in
the
application’s
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
Prior
to
issuance
of
building
permits.
F INAL
M ITIGATION
MONITORING
AND
REPORTING
P ROGRAM
4.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
3.0-‐25
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
MITIGATION
MEASURE
MONITORING
RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING
VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
design
review
package,
or
may
be
submitted
as
a
stand-alone
document.
The
lighting
plan
shall
be
approved
by
the
Town
of
Truckee
Community
Development
Department
prior
to
issuance
of
building
permits.
4.0
FINAL
M ITIGATION
M ONITORING
AND
R EPORTING
PROGRAM
3.0-‐26
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
Joerger
Ranch
Specific
Plan
(PC-‐3)
This
page
left
intentionally
blank